---------------------------------

PRODUCTION
---------------------------------
 March 31-April 11 Production
March 31-April 6 April 7 - 11 Actual MTD Forecast MTD % Variance
Au Ag Au Ag Au Ag Au Ag Au Ag
Tons Milled Dry MT 9,385 9,385 5,588 5,588 14,973 14,973 17,590 17,590 -14.9 -14.9
Milling Rate tpd 1,341 1,341 1,117.67 1,118 1,248 1,248 1,466 1,466 -14.9 -14.9
Mill Head, Forward g/t 1.57 10.18 1.28 9.39 1.46 9.88 1.41 14.86 3.4 -33.5
Mill Head, Reconciled g/t 0.98 8.58 0.61 5.38 1.45 15.25
Plant Call Factor % 62.3 84.3 42 54
Solid Tails g/t 0.16 6.04 0.15 5.25 0.15 5.74 0.18 7.71 15.1 25.5
Solution Tails ppm 0.054 1.130 0.051 1.063 0.053 1.105 0.040 2.000 -32.6 44.7
Final Tails g/t 0.24 7.76 0.23 6.88 0.24 7.43 0.24 10.71 2.6 30.6
Gold Produced, Forward oz 402 729 189 451 591 1,180 663 2,344 -10.9 -49.7
Gold Produced, Recon oz 223 248
Gold Sold (Dore) oz 262 688
Forward Recovery % 84.7 23.7 82.2 26.7 83.9 24.8 82.9 27.9 1.2 -11.1
Reconciled Recovery % 75.5 9.6 61.7 - 38.2 #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
Plant Availability % 99.8 99.8 98.9 98.9 99.8 99.8 100.0 100.0 -0.2 -0.2
Plant Utilization % 69.2 69.2 69.0 69.0 69.2 69.2 96.0 96.0 -27.9 -27.9
 March 31-April 11 Production
*correction in April 3 Production
March 31-April 6 April 7 - 11 Actual MTD Forecast MTD % Variance
Au Ag Au Ag Au Ag Au Ag Au Ag
Tons Milled Dry MT 9,385 9,385 5,588 5,588 14,973 14,973 17,590 17,590 -14.9 -14.9
Milling Rate tpd 1,341 1,341 1,117.67 1,118 1,248 1,248 1,466 1,466 -14.9 -14.9
Mill Head, Forward g/t 1.14 10.18 1.28 9.39 1.19 9.88 1.41 14.86 -15.8 -33.5
Mill Head, Reconciled g/t 0.98 8.58 0.61 5.38 1.45 15.25
Plant Call Factor % 85.9 84.3 52 54
Solid Tails g/t 0.16 6.04 0.15 5.25 0.15 5.74 0.18 7.71 15.1 25.5
Solution Tails ppm 0.054 1.130 0.051 1.063 0.053 1.105 0.040 2.000 -32.6 44.7
Final Tails g/t 0.24 7.76 0.23 6.88 0.24 7.43 0.24 10.71 2.6 30.6
Gold Produced, Forward oz 272 729 189 451 460 1,180 663 2,344 -30.6 -49.7
Gold Produced, Recon oz 223 248
Gold Sold (Dore) oz 262 688
Forward Recovery % 78.9 23.7 82.2 26.7 80.2 24.8 82.9 27.9 -3.2 -11.1
Reconciled Recovery % 75.5 9.6 61.7 - 38.2 #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
Plant Availability % 99.8 99.8 98.9 98.9 99.8 99.8 100.0 100.0 -0.2 -0.2
Plant Utilization % 69.2 69.2 69.0 69.0 69.2 69.2 96.0 96.0 -27.9 -27.9
 91
Carbon Activity Trend
90

89

88

87

86

85

Acid Treated Carbon

84
Logarithmic (Acid Treated Carbon)

83
Nov-21 Jan-22 Feb-22 Mar-22 Apr-22

Remarks:
• High solution tails may be attributed to lower gold adsorption kinetic activity of activated carbon which is brought by fouling .
• CRK is currently inoperational due to high LPG consumption brought by the wrong refractory material used during rehabilitation.
QA/QC Result Duplicates

Feb Feb

March March

Remarks

• As seen on the graphs above, sampling and sample preparation have generally improved in
Feb March, in which AMPDs for Field, Coarse and Pulp Duplicates are within accepted limits. 
• Reduction of AMPDs for Field and Coarse Duplicates may be attributed to the incorporation
of sample blending prior to splitting and pulverization.

• While, improvement on the AMPDs of Pulp Duplicates may be due to the revision of sample
preparation procedure to reduce increment sampling and by utilizing the newly purchased low-
capacity splitters, thus, reducing errors/biases from increment sampling. Also, pulverization of
March
samples greater than 400g are done on two (2) batches to ensure sufficient pulverization and to
meet the required particle size for Fire Assaying.
 QA/QC Result Rotary Splitter

Remarks

• Samples in each splitter boxes of the high-capacity rotary splitter were assayed and it displayed a nugget effect in 1 splitter box with 87.88% AMPD with respect to the mean
grade of the 12 splitter boxes as shown in the Figure below. Still, even with the said nugget effect, splitting error is within accepted coarse splitting limit (20%) of 17.1% AMPD
only.
• Disregarding the characteristic nugget effect, would significantly lower AMPD to 1.13%, which implies that splitting using the high-capacity rotary splitter is highly efficient.
• Low-capacity Rotary Splitter also presents high splitting efficiency as results are generally within acceptable fine splitting limit (10% AMPD).
 Gold in solution effect in head grade
7
Heads, Au Reported Heads
6 Solution (Direct Aspiration)

0
1-Apr 2-Apr 3-Apr 4-Apr 5-Apr 6-Apr 7-Apr 8-Apr 9-Apr 10-Apr 11-Apr 12-Apr
Remarks:
• Solution samples were assayed via direct aspiration.
• Minimal difference on the reported heads vs the calculated head grade accounting the gold in solution
• Slime % solids are estimated to have 10% solids
• Starter sump solution have gold traces along with CN
0.7000

0.6000

0.5000
ppm CN ppm Au
0.4000
Starter Sump (recycled as process water)
ppm CN

ppm Au
0.3000
ppm CN, ppm Au
0.2000

0.1000

0.0000
01 1st 01 2nd 01 3rd 02 1st 02 2nd 03 1st 04 1st 04 3rd 05 1st 05 2nd 05 3rd 06 1st 06 2nd 06 3rd 07 1st 07 2nd 07 3rd 08 1st 08 2nd 08 3rd 09 2nd
Sample Cutter Issue last April 3

The primary cutter chain assembly was misaligned resulting to

wrong positioning of the cutter and not reaching the proximity
switch that would give command in accordance to the set
sequence. Because of this, the timing of the water spray did
not match with primary cutting, and thus an accumulation of
coarse gold in the lines happened somewhere between 5AM-
7AM of April 4, 2022. As the sampler noticed the irregularity
when he took the sample at 7AM, the issue was immediately
reported to the Maintenance Team
Sample Cutter Issue last April 3
Sampler manually sprays the sample
Misalignment of Chain Proximity Sensor not read Erratic Sequence of sampling cutter

GAP ANALYSIS
Sampling Effect of Proximity Sensor Normal Operation Gap
not read
Primary Cutter • Sample cutter cuts more than
one time
• Sample cutter did not return to
its home position after cutting
• No immediate spraying of
sample cutter

Secondary • Erratic movement of sample

Cutter cutter
• Possibility of cutting the
sprayed primary sample cutter
 Sample Cutter Issue last April 3
Non conformance (TRC)
    Systemic Root Cause

         
Why Why1 Why2 Why 3 Why T1
  Why S1
Unrepresntative No water spray and Sample cutter was not sensed by There was a misalignment of Cutter chain assembly was full No scheduled preventive
sampling brought unsynced primary and the proximity sensor the cutter chain assembly of accumulated debris/ dirt (not maintenance
by improper secondary sample properly maintain ed)
sampling cutters

Nbr Corrective Action

5.1
Include sample cutters in the list of equipments that undergoes PMS

Start Date : April 7 2022 Responsibility : Planning Team Status/Result : Open (for assessment)

5.2 Include in the Metallurgical Checklist the sequence of cutting

From: None
To: Once every shift by Metallurgical Technicians Microsoft Excel
Worksheet

Resp: Metallurgy Team Timing : April 4, 2022 Status: Done

 March 31 to April 11 Sand Production
Sand Recovered, MTD: 3219 MT
% Sand Recovery: 24.3 %
Cyclone Utilization: 68.3 %
Note: Low Cyclone Utilization since no Cyclone Feed on Ore Build-up shutdowns.

Sand Delivered, MTD: 2915.4 MT

% Sand Delivery: 22 %
Tram Utilization: 23.94 %