Kings Canyon 43-101 Final C1

8/14/2019 Kings Canyon 43-101 Final C1

1/47

TECHNICAL REPORT FOR THE MAIN AREA AND

NEW BUTTE PROSPECT AT THE KINGS CANYON

EXPLORATION PROPERTY

INMILLARD COUNTY, UTAH, USA

Prepared For

PALLADON VENTURES LTD.1500 409 Granville Street

Vancouver, BC V6C 1T2

CANADA

Tel: 604-484-7088

Fax: 604-484-7044

BY

R. H. Russell, M.Sc., Licensed Geologist

April 22, 2005


2/47

TABLE OF CONTENTS

KINGS CANYON EXPLORATION PROPERTIES Page

SUMMARY-------------------------------------------------------------------- 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND TERMS OF REFERENCE----------------- 4

1.1 GENERAL---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 41.2 CURRENCY AND UNITS OF MEASUREMENT----------------------------- 4

2.0 DISCLAIMER---------------------------------------------------------------- 6

3.0 PROPERTY LOCATION, ACCESS AND DESCRIPTION-------- 73.1 MINERAL DISPOSITION--------------------------------------------------------- 7

3.2 LEGAL SURVEY-------------------------------------------------------------------- 8

3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL AND PERMITTING-------------------------------------- 8

4.0 PHYSIOGRAPHY, INFRASTRUCTURE AND CLIMATE-------- 10

5.0 HISTORY---------------------------------------------------------------------- 115.1 PREVIOUS WORK------------------------------------------------------------------ 11

6.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING---------------------------------------------------------- 126.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY------------------------------------------------------------ 13

6.2 STRATIGRAPHY------------------------------------------------------------------- 146.3 DEVONIAN ROCKS---------------------------------------------------------------- 14

6.3.1 Sevy Dolomite---------------------------------------------------------------------- 15

6.3.2 Simonson Dolomite---------------------------------------------------------------- 15

6.3.3 Lower Guilmette, Simonson And Sevy Equivalent, Undivided------------- 16

6.3.4 Guilmette Formation--------------------------------------------------------------- 16

6.4 DEVONIAN/MISSISSIPPIAN ROCKS------------------------------------------ 17

6.4.1 Pilot Shale--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17

6.5 MISSISSIPPIAN ROCKS---------------------------------------------------------- 18

6.5.1 Pilot Shale--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18

6.5.2 Joanna Limestone------------------------------------------------------------------ 18

6.5.3 Chainman Formation-------------------------------------------------------------- 19

6.6 INTRUSIVE ROCKS---------------------------------------------------------------- 196.7 COVER ROCKS--------------------------------------------------------------------- 19

6.8 STRUCTURE------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19

6.9 GEOLOGIC SETTING OF THE KINGS CANYON PROPERTY---------- 20

6.9.1 Geology---------------------------------------------------------------------- 20

6.9.2 Alteration-------------------------------------------------------------------- 21

6.9.3 Structure--------------------------------------------------------------------- 21

7.0 GEOPHYSICS---------------------------------------------------------------------- 22

8.0 GOLD MINERALIZATION AND GEOCHEMISTRY-------------- 238.1 GOLD MINERALIZATION------------------------------------------------------- 23

8.2 GEOCHEMISTRY------------------------------------------------------------------- 24

9.0 DRILLING RESULTS------------------------------------------------------ 25

10.0 ADJACENT PROPERTIES------------------------------------------------ 26

11.0 SAMPLING METHOD AND APPROACH---------------------------- 27

12.0 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSIS AND SECURITY-------- 28

13.0 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING 29

14.0 DATA VERIFICATION---------------------------------------------------- 30

15.0 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES---------------------------------- 31

16.0 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS--------------------------- 32

17.0 RECOMMENDATIONS---------------------------------------------------- 34

i


3/47

18.0 SOURCES OF INFORMATION------------------------------------------ 36

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHOR-------------------------------------------- After 38

TABLES

Table 3.1 MAIN AREA UTM COORDINATES---------------------------------- Page 7Table 3.2 NEW BUTTE UTM COORDINATES--------------------------------- Page 7

Table 3.3 KINGS CANYON LAND-------------------------------------------------- Page 8

Tab. 17.1 KINGS CANYON: RECOMMENDED PHASE I BUDGET------ Page 34

Tab. 17.2 KINGS CANYON: PROPOSED PHASE II BUDGET------------- Page 34

APPENDICES

Appd I ROCK SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS-------------------------

ii


4/47

Technical Report, Kings Canyon Exploration Property

Palladon Ventures Ltd April 22, 2005

____________________________________________________________

1

SUMMARY

Palladon Ventures Ltd. (Palladon) entered into an option agreement May 7, 2004(amended July 9, 2004) to acquire a 100% undivided interest from Genesis GoldCorporation (Genesis Gold) in five exploration properties, including the Kings Canyon

exploration properties, located in an unnamed mining district in western Millard County,Utah, U.S.A. Palladon is earning the undivided 100% interest in the properties, subject toa 2% Net Smelter Return (NSR) to Genesis Gold and a 1% NSR on encumberedproperty, by issuing 2 million common shares of Palladon stock to Genesis Gold overfour years.

The Kings Canyon properties cover an area totaling approximately 2,160 acres (8.74square kilometers or 847 hectares). The property is composed of a total of 76 unpatentedmining claims and one Utah State Trust Lands lease. In the Main area, 55 claims and theState lease (all of Section 16) are located along Highway 50 in Sections 8,9,10,15 16 and17, T20S, R16W (1740 acres or 704 hectares). Ten miles (16 kilometers) to the south-

southwest, 21 claims cover the New Butte prospect (420 acres or 170 hectares) inSections 31 and 32, T21S, R16W. The properties lie in the eastern Great Basin,approximately 150 miles (245 kilometers) southwest of the capital city of Utah, Salt LakeCity. The properties are reached by paved Highway US 50, either from Ely, Nevada, 90miles (145 kilometers) to the west, or Delta, Utah, 60 miles (100 kilometers) to thenortheast. From the highway, a network of unpaved roads provides excellent accessthroughout the property area. The physical setting is typical limestone-dominated desertphysiography with rocky hills and low-relief grass-covered plains. The climate is dry andwater is relatively scarce.

The exploration target at King Canyon is a Devonian dolomite-hosted disseminated,

sediment-hosted, Carlin-type gold deposit model. Based on the gold mineralizationknown to exist in this geologic setting, a potential deposit could contain 200,000 or moreounces of gold at a potential grade of 1.0 to 2.0 grams (0.032 to 0.064 oz/ton).

The area has not had an extensive history of exploration and has only recently beenexplored for precious metals. Several prospectors and mining companies explored thegeneral Kings Canyon area from about 1983 to approximately 1993. The mostsignificant of these was the Crown Resources/Centurion Mines joint venture (Crown)which discovered a mineralized zone, the Main Discovery, reportedly containing over200,000 of gold at a reported grade of 0.03 ounces per ton on property immediatelyadjacent to the Genesis Gold Main area. Battle Mountain Gold (Battle Mountain) also

explored in the area currently encompassing the Kings Canyon properties. The CrownResources historic resource estimate does not conform to current 43-101 standardsand will need to be confirmed and appropriate confirmation drilling completed.The author of this report mentions the historic resource estimate for historicalreference only and, because the author did not perform the resource estimate, doesnot infer or assert that the resource estimate was performed under current NI 43-101 guidelines, or that the historic resource estimate is reliable or accurate.


5/47



____________________________________________________________

2

The property is underlain by middle Paleozoic platform carbonate rocks with localpatches of Tertiary volcanics. The Paleozoic rocks consist of a thick dolomite sequenceoverlain by a thick limestone unit. The rocks are gently warped into broad folds andgenerally have shallow dips. The bedrock units are cut by numerous faults with generallysmall offsets, although on the western side of the property a major basin-bounding fault

with hundreds of feet of offset is inferred. These rocks are locally covered by quaternaryalluvium believed to be thin in most areas but likely much thicker to the west of theinferred basin-bounding fault.

From 1990 to 1993 Crown conducted a large program to explore numerous jasperoidoccurrences within a radius of several miles of the current property for the discovery ofsediment-hosted (Carlin-type) gold deposits. Several target areas were identifiedthrough outcrop prospecting and later drilled, generally with little success. The exceptionto this is the mineralized zone discovered by Crown adjacent to the Main area of theKings Canyon property position. Crown drilled the mineralized zone based on thepresence of a small jasperoid containing only 16 parts per billion (ppb) gold.

The top of the mineralized zone discovered by Crown varies between 50 to more than300 feet (15 to 91.5 meters) below the surface. The surface expression of thismineralized zone is very subtle, manifested by small and scattered jasperoids with lowgold values. The apparent feeder fault for the mineralized zone is well exposed in aportion of outcrop, and is characterized by a planar fracture in gray limestone with 1 to 2inches (2.5 to 5.0 centimeters) of white carbonate gouge/cement and scattered thinjasperoid scabs on the adjacent limestone.

A total of at least 145 drill holes have been completed on the Kings Canyon property andthe adjacent Crown claim block. One hundred (100) of these holes were drilled on the

Crown property by Crown, mainly within the gold mineralized zone and its immediatevicinity. Of the 45 holes on the Genesis Gold Kings Canyon property, 24 were drilled byCrown and 21 by Battle Mountain to test for the extension of the mineralized zone and totest other targets. Assay results are not available for the Battle Mountain drill holes, but aCrown report indicates that at least one of the Battle Mountain holes returned stronglyanomalous gold values. No follow-up drilling has been conducted around this drill hole.Crown also noted that Battle Mountain used wet drilling techniques that may haveresulted in lost gold in the fines.

It is significant to note that the previous explorers apparently failed to recognizeimportant controls of the gold mineralization. Carlin-type deposits are controlled by a

combination of structure and stratigraphy. Faults, commonly very steeply dipping, guideore-bearing fluids which react with favourable stratigraphy to form ore-bodies. Thefeeder faults themselves and their intersections with cross-faults commonly host highergrade gold mineralization. On the Crown property, and by inference on the KingsCanyon properties, the host stratigraphy is a 100-foot (30.5-meter) thick section of theSimonson Dolomite, the top of which is 100 feet (30.5 meters) below the contact with theoverlying Guilmette Limestone. The feeder fault is apparent in outcrop and strikesN63W and dips 80 to the northeast. While this fault was recognized by Crown, it


6/47



____________________________________________________________

3

appears that they made no attempt to target it in drilling for higher grades, nor did theyrecognize any cross-faults, although such faults likely exist. More importantly, Crowndid not appear to locate other faults identical to the feeder fault elsewhere on theproperty. Such faults are strongly indicated to exist based on the work of Genesis Goldgeologists. In many areas, these faults trend into locations where the target stratigraphy

is shallower than at the Main Discovery area.

Continued work on the Kings Canyon property is strongly recommended to further definegold targets, then to subsequently test these targets with drilling. A Phase I explorationprogram, requiring US$59,000 in expenditures, would involve additional geologicmapping, rock sampling, a soil program and Bulk Leach Extraction of Gold (BLEG)sampling to better define faults and stratigraphy and their geochemical expression.Targets would exist in those areas into which favorable structures can be defined orprojected and where the top of the Simonson Dolomite exists at reasonable depths,initially indicated by the known geologic setting to be less than 100 feet (30 meters). ThePhase I program would also involve the acquisition of a larger land position. An

exploration agreement should be made for the adjacent Crown property.

Dependent upon a successful outcome of the Phase I program, a Phase II program,requiring an expenditure of US$227,000, would involve drill testing of the targets definedduring Phase I. Approximately 10 targets would be drilled with approximately 4 reversecirculation holes each. The majority of the drill holes would average approximately 300feet (90 meters) in depth, with an occasional drill hole penetrating up to 800 feet (245meters) deep.


7/47



____________________________________________________________

4

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND TERMS OF REFERENCE

1.1 GENERAL

Mr. George S. Young, President and a Director of Palladon Ventures Ltd. (Palladon)

commissioned this report on the Kings Canyon exploration properties, Millard County,Utah, U.S.A. This report is written to the requirements and standards of disclosure formineral projects as stated in National Instrument 43-101. This report is based on acompilation of published and unpublished geologic and geophysical data, maps andreports compiled from private, academic and government sources by the author.

1.2 CURRENCY AND UNITS OF MEASUREMENT

Unless otherwise specifically stated, the U.S. system of measurements is used in thisreport. Precious metal values are reported in ounce (oz) per ton, unless stated otherwise.The US$ is utilized as the monetary unit except where otherwise indicated. Conversion

factors as well as common abbreviations used in this report are as follows:

Linear Measure

1 inch = 2.54 centimeters1 foot = 0.3048 meter1 yard = 0.9144 meter1 mile = 1.609 kilometers

Area Measure

1 acre = 0.4047 hectare1 hectare = 2.471 acres1 square mile = 640 acres or 259 hectares or 2.590 sq. km

Units of Weight

1 short ton = 2000 pounds or 0.893 long tonne1 long tonne = 2240 pounds or 1.12 short tons1 metric tonne = 2204.62 pounds or 1.10 short tons1 pound (16 oz) = 0.454 kilograms or 14.5833 troy ounces1 troy oz = 31.103486 grams

1 troy oz pershort ton = 34.2857 grams per metric ton

1 troy oz perlong ton = 30.6122 grams per metric ton


8/47



____________________________________________________________

5

Analytical percent grams per troy oz perValues metric tonne short ton

1% 1% 10,000 291.6671 gram/tonne 0.0001% 1 0.0291667

1 troy oz/short ton 0.003429% 34.2857 110 ppb 0.00029100 ppm 2.917

Temperature Conversion Formulas

Degrees Fahrenheit = (C x 1.8) + 32Degrees Celsius = (F 32) x 0.556

Frequently Used Abbreviations

AA atomic absorption spectrometryAg silverAs arsenicAu goldC degrees Celsius (centigrade)cm centimeterCu copperF fluorineF degrees Fahrenheitg gram(s)Hg mercury

kg kilogramkm kilometerm meter(s)Mn manganesemy million yearsNSR net smelter returnoz troy ounceoz/ton ounce per short tonoz/tonne ounce per metric tonnePb leadppb parts per billion

ppm parts per millionsq squareSb antimonyTl thalliumZn zinc


9/47



____________________________________________________________

6

2.0 DISCLAIMER

This technical report was prepared by Mr. R. H. Russell, M.Sc. Geology, LicensedGeologist in the State of Washington (#205), USA. Mr. John Zimmerman, M.Sc.Geology of Genesis Gold Corporation (Genesis Gold), prepared most of the

illustrations and provided geologic data and first-hand knowledge of the Kings Canyonproperties. This report was commissioned by Mr. George S. Young on behalf ofPalladon. Mr. Russell has over 36 years experience in the mining industry, includingmineral exploration, mine development, reserve estimation, economic evaluation andmodeling, and Mr. Russell has extensive exploration and development experience in theGreat Basin and Nevada. Mr. Zimmerman has a M.Sc. degree in geology from theUniversity of Arizona and over 25 years experience as a geologist, mostly in the field ofgold exploration in Nevada.

Mr. Russell visited the Kings Canyon properties on June 16, 2004, and is relying onknowledge obtained on that examination and the information provided to him by

Palladon and Genesis Gold, including a Crown report on their Kings Canyon Projectprepared by James R. Shannon and Micheal J. Drinkard (October 13, 1992). The Crownreport summarizes the results of their work program in a 120 square kilometer area thatincludes the Genesis Gold Kings Canyon properties. Additional descriptions andinterpretations of the geology and mineral deposits of the area are taken largely frompublished scientific papers, public records, studies prepared and written by qualifiedpersons, or by professional people employed by companies that performed the work priorto the time the designation of qualified person was in use. It is believed that theinformation and data contained herein are accurate and reliable.

It was not within the scope of this report to examine in detail or to independently verify

the legal status or ownership of the mineral property. Genesis Gold and Palladon haveprovided information concerning the status of the mineral property. The author reviewedthe relevant documents and has no reason to believe that ownership and status are otherthan as has been represented, but determination of secure mineral title is solely theresponsibility of Palladon, and a full mineral title audit is strongly recommended as anormal course of due diligence.


10/47



____________________________________________________________

7

3.0 PROPERTY LOCATION, ACCESS AND DESCRIPTION

Palladon entered into an option agreement May 7, 2004 (amended July 9, 2004) toacquire a 100% undivided interest from Genesis Gold in five exploration properties,including the Kings Canyon exploration properties, located in an unnamed mining district

in western Millard County, Utah, U.S.A. Palladon is earning the undivided 100% interestin the property, subject to a 2% Net Smelter Return (NSR) to Genesis Gold and a 1%NSR on encumbered property, by issuing 2 million common shares to Genesis Gold overfour years.

The Kings Canyon properties cover an area totaling approximately 2,160 acres (8.74square kilometers or 847 hectares). The property is composed of a total of 76 unpatentedmining claims and one Utah State Trust Lands lease, 55 claims and the State lease(Section 16) along Highway 50 in the Main Area in Sections 8,9,10,15 and 17, T20S,R16W (1740 acres or 704 hectares). Ten miles (16 kilometers) to the south-southwest, 21claims cover the New Butte prospect (420 acres or 170 hectares) in Sections 31 and 32,

T21S, R16W.

The property area is located in western Millard County in western Utah, approximately(152 miles (245 kilometers) southwest of the capital city of Utah, Salt Lake City (Figure1). The greater property boundaries are irregular and non-contiguous but areencompassed within an area with UTM coordinates (Zone 12N, NAD27) of:

TABLE 3.1Main Area UTM

Corner Y (meters) Easting X (meters) - NorthingNW 268800 4329213

NE 272555 4329213SW 268800 4326752SE 272555 4326752

TABLE 3.2New Butte UTM

Corner Y (meters) Easting X (meters) - NorthingNW 266800 4315000NE 268700 4315000SW 266800 4313600SE 268700 4313600

3.1 MINERAL DISPOSITION

The Kings Canyon project consists of one state of Utah State Trust Lands lease and 85unpatented mining claims, as follows:


11/47



____________________________________________________________

8

TABLE 3.3Kings Canyon Land

Property Name Identification Number

Claims KC 10 to KC 26 BLM # UMC 370813-370829Utah State Lease Metalliferous Minerals 48946

Claims KC 27 to KC 64 BLM # UMC 371804-371841Claims KCB 100-104, 200-205, 299-305,

399-401BLM # UMC 371842-371862

The town of Delta is located approximately 2 hours drive along highways from Salt LakeCity. From Delta, the property is a 1 hour drive west on Highway 50. Different parts ofthe property are accessible by a series of generally good roads and jeep trails.

The State of Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration manage the statemineral lease property tenure. An initial mineral lease is granted for a period of ten yearsand as long thereafter as leased substances (which include gold and silver) are produced.The mineral lease is subject to a 4% royalty less processing and refining costs. Annualrent is $1.00 per acre or $640.00 for the Genesis Gold lease. The initial ten year UtahState lease for the Kings Canyon property, granted to Genesis Gold, was approved by theSchool and Institutional Trust Lands Administration on June 19, 2002. The Utah StateLease is presented in Appendix II.

3.2 LEGAL SURVEY

The unpatented claims in the Main project area or the New Butte prospect have not beenlegally surveyed.

The staked property consists of 76 United States Federal unpatented mining claims. Eachindividual claim is 1,500 feet (457 meters) long by 600 feet (182 meters) wide with fourcorner posts and one location monument. All the claims are located by 2-inch x 2-inch(5.1 x 5.1-centimeter) wooden monuments about 4.5 feet (1.4 meters) high, properlymarked. The Kings Canyon claims were recorded as appropriate in Millard County,Utah, and were filed with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) along with thepayment of any appropriate fees. The claims are held by payment of annual rental fees tothe BLM before September 1 of each year and by the filing of a Notice of Intent to HoldMining Claims in Millard County, Utah. No legal land survey is required to hold theunpatented claims.

3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL AND PERMITTING

The Main project area and the New Butte prospect are not subject to any knownenvironmental liabilities. The Main area and the New Butte prospect are both adjacent toa Wilderness Study Area (WSA) established in 1986 (Figure 4). The final dispositionof the WSA is still pending; however, since the establishment of the WSA, mineralexploration has been ongoing, including the drilling of 145 reverse circulation drill holes


12/47


13/47



____________________________________________________________

10

4.0 PHYSIOGRAPHY, INFRASTRUCTURE AND CLIMATE

The Kings Canyon property is located in west-central Utah approximately 152 miles (245kilometers) southwest of the capital city of Salt Lake City in terrain typical of eastern,high-desert Basin and Range topography. The town of Delta is located approximately 2

hours drive along highways from Salt Lake City. From Delta, the property is a one hourdrive west on Highway 50. The center of the property is approximately 25 miles (40kilometers) east of the Nevada/Utah border. The property has approximately 25% overallbedrock exposure with most hillsides and ridge-tops consisting of 50% to 100%exposure. Vegetation consists of scattered juniper trees, sagebrush, and grasses.Previous drilling indicates the overburden thickness to range from zero to at least 495 feet(150 meters) on the west side of the range-bounding fault. An incomplete set of drill logsindicates maximum overburden thicknesses of 50 feet (15 meters) within the majority ofthe property. Several drainages transect the property, but are dry under almost allconditions. Elevations on the property range from 5,970 feet (1,820 meters) above sealevel at the valley bottoms to 6,822 feet (2,080 meters) above sea level along the

ridgeline on the northeast portion of the Main property area.

The center of the Main property is approximately 60 miles (100 kilometers) from Delta,Utah, a community of approximately 3,000 people with retail and service suppliers, asmall airport, golf course, hospital, police and other facilities. Train lines and a networkof interstate highways provide excellent transportation infrastructure throughout the state.Grid electrical power is not available on the property, but modern power transmissionlines service is available nearby at Stateline on the Nevada border.

The mean annual precipitation ranges from 2 to 8 inches (5 to 20 centimeters), most ofwhich falls in the form of snow between December and March, or rain from summer

thunderstorms. The seasonal temperatures range from 10F to 50F (-12C to 10C) inwinter months and from 50F to 100F (10C to 38C) in summer months. Exploration andmining can be conducted in the region on a year-round basis.


14/47



____________________________________________________________

11

5.0 HISTORY

The section of land held by Genesis Gold with the State of Utah (Section 16) waspreviously held by a Utah family of prospectors, the Steele family. Areas currently heldin Genesis unpatented claims were previously held by Crown or the Steele family.

Genesis Gold holds the Kings Canyon property as the sole and beneficial owner withgood and marketable title subject only to the paramount title of the United States ofAmerica, and has the authority and capacity to convey a 100% undivided interest in theproperty to Palladon. The number and location of claims that may have been presentprior to those held by Crown or the Steele family is not known. However, under the titlelaws of the United States of America, had there been any prior claimants, any mineral orsurface rights to the ground that prior claimants may have held, and is now held byGenesis Gold, are now null and void. As a result, the Kings Canyon property is believedto be unencumbered by any claim ownership prior to Genesis Gold.

5.1 PREVIOUS WORK

Known exploration in the Kings Canyon vicinity began in 1983 when Noranda exploredan area of jasperoids in the Confusion Range several miles south of the current Main areaof the Kings Canyon claim block. Others to explore this area include Echo Bay, GoldStar Exploration, and Crown Resources.

Records of exploration work on and around the property date to 1989 when BattleMountain Gold (Battle Mountain) leased the state section and several surroundingunpatented claims from the Steele family. Battle Mountain completed 18 holes in 7,700feet (2,348 meters) of drilling, collected 128 rock samples, 143 soil samples, and

conducted IP/Resistivity, VLF/Resistivity, and VLF/EM geophysical surveys. BattleMountain expended approximately $200,000 on the project and reported encouragingresults, but dropped the property in 1992, citing budgetary problems. None of the datafrom the Battle Mountain work are available to the author, and it is not certain how muchof their work was conducted on the current Genesis Gold/Palladon property.

Crown subsequently conducted a much larger program over a much larger area. Crownexpenditures on this larger project area exceeded $1,600,000. More than 3,000 rock, soiland stream sediment samples were collected and analyzed in their project area. Crowndrilled 156 holes as of September 24, 1992, for a total of 81,640 feet (24,890 meters) ofdrilling. Geophysical surveys, including magnetometer, VLF and Controlled Source

Audio-Frequency Magneto-Telluric (CSAMT) were conducted, totaling approximately131,600 linear feet (40 line kilometers) of survey work. Special studies that have beenconducted include extensive petrography, geochemical studies, orientation surveys,topographic fracture analyses and preliminary metallurgical leach tests (Shannon andDrinkard, 1992). None of the detailed data from these studies are available to the author;however, a summary report written by Shannon and Drinkard (1992) of Crown Resourcesis available. It is not known how much of this previous work has been conducted on theground now held by Genesis Gold/Palladon.


15/47


16/47



____________________________________________________________

13

displacement except in its southeastern sector between Kings Canyon and CrystalPeak (Hintze and Davis, 2003).

6.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY

The Kings Canyon Property lies in the central part of the Confusion Range. Immediatelyto the west is the Snake Range Metamorphic Core Complex, which has received muchattention in literature and related studies, particularly concerning structural featuresrelating to formation of the core complex. The Confusion Range lies on the easternhanging wall of the Snake Range metamorphic core complex, resulting in a profoundstructural difference when compared to that of surrounding ranges (Hose, 1977). Thisdifference is manifested by the north-south trending Confusion Range structural trough,or synclinorium of Hose (1966), which is nearly 60 miles long and up to eight miles wide(Figure 3). This difference is also likely related to the affects of the Kings Canyon Thrust(Figure 5), as defined by Hintze and Davis (2003).

Approximately 36,000 feet of generally conformable Upper Precambrian (not exposed)through Lower Triassic clastic and carbonate rocks underlie the Confusion Range. Brittledeformation typical in the upper plates of metamorphic core complexes has affectedrocks underlying the Confusion Range; however, little or no attenuation has occurred,leaving the section reasonably intact (Hose, 1977). Rocks of the Precambrian McCoyCreek Group, dated at approximately 1.4 billion years, crop out at 13,063 feet on the topof Wheeler Peak in the Snake Range. McCoy Creek Group rocks are more than 30,000feet beneath the present surface (Hose, 1977). To the east, rocks underlying the HouseRange are mainly Lower to Middle Cambrian in age and relatively unaffected bystructural deformation related to the Snake Range metamorphic core complex.

Prior to Crown's work in the area, no intrusive rocks were known to exist in theConfusion Range, although nearly all ranges in the surrounding vicinity do containsizable areas underlain by intrusive rocks of varying ages. On the west side of theConfusion Range, two small dikes and breccias containing clasts of altered intrusive rock,along with a large, weak magnetic anomaly in the eastern Ferguson Desert a little fartherto the west, indicate the possibility of a deeply buried intrusive, possibly the source ofmineralization on at least some parts of the Kings Canyon property. A correlationbetween gold and fluorite has been noted in mineralization associated with Mesozoicequigranular granodiorites present in the central Snake Range in lower plate rocks of thecore complex. A similar empirical correlation is noted in mineralized areas of the KingsCanyon property (Zimmerman, 2003).

Decollement style, younger-over-older, detachment faults are common in some parts ofthe Confusion Range. Although related to formation of the Snake Range metamorphiccore complex in a broad regional sense, Hose (1977) details their origin from relatedisoclinal and recumbent folds as resulting from large blocks sliding into the center of theConfusion Range structural trough. Some mapped thrust faults are of the older-over-younger type, and related to east-directed thrusting during the Laramide and SevierOrogenies. The Confusion Range is in the foreland of the Sevier thrust system and, as a


17/47



____________________________________________________________

14

result, many imbrications are present. An exploratory oil and gas well drilled near KingTop in the south-central portion of the range to a depth of 12,125 feet encountered aprobable duplication of the Silurian-Devonian part of the section in the upper 3,500 feetof the drill hole (Shannon and Drinkard, 1992).

Transition from a predominantly compressional structural regime to a predominantlyextensional regime, Basin and Range Orogeny, occurred sometime after the EarlyOligocene. Gently dipping tuffs of the Needles Range Group (36 to 29 my), eruptedfrom the Indian Peak/White Rock caldera complex to the southwest, unconformablyoverlie Paleozoic and Mesozoic carbonate rocks. These volcanic units are then cut byBasin and Range normal faults in parts of the Confusion Range and surrounding areas(Shannon and Drinkard, 1992).

Jasperoid-hosted gold mineralization in the vicinity of Kings Canyon is found over arelatively large area. Crown located and sampled anomalous jasperoid in anapproximately 60 square-mile of area (Shannon and Drinkard, 1992). The age of this

mineralization can be estimated as likely older or syntectonic with Basin and Rangefaulting, as clasts of jasperoid and altered intrusive rock are contained in a north-southtrending range front fault. The Notch Peak intrusive in the central House Range to theeast has been dated as Jurassic in age, and aeromagnetic data indicate that it may extendto the southwest beneath Tule Valley, toward Kings Canyon. Mineralization on theeastern and northeastern parts of the property may be related to this event or other as yetundetected, deeply buried intrusives (Shannon and Drinkard, 1992; Zimmerman, 2003).

6.2 STRATIGRAPHYThe primary host for the gold mineralization at Kings Canyon is the Devonian Simonson

Dolomite, a gray to brown dolomite, up to 700 feet thick (213 meters) in the ConfusionRange (Hintze and Davis, 2003). Gold mineralization occurs in the overlying GuilmetteFormation, and jasperoids with anomalous gold occur in the underlying Sevy Dolomite(Shannon and Drinkard, 1992). There may be other stratigraphic units, specifically theMississippian/Devonian section, which may have unrealized economic potential. Onlysubsequent regional exploration will determine this. The Devonian,Devonian/Mississippian and Mississippian stratigraphic sections are described in moredetail below.

6.3 DEVONIAN ROCKS

Devonian strata are widely exposed in western Millard County where they are morethan 5,000 feet (1,525 meters) thick. They are absent in central Millard County,having been removed by erosion during Late Mesozoic time from an uplifted areatermed the Sevier arch by Harris (1959; Hintze and Davis, 2003).

Except for the Sevy Dolomite, fossils are common in the Devonian rocks of westernMillard County. Stromatoporoids, indicating a biohermal or reef environment, areprobably the most readily identifiable fossils in the Simonson and Guilmette Forma-


18/47


19/47



____________________________________________________________

16

Hose (1966) summarized Simonson stratigraphy in the Confusion Range in MillardCounty and noted that the Simonson thins northward averaging about 660 feet (200meters) thick. Hose (1966) noted that the brown cliff-forming member averages about40 feet (12 meters) thick and contains abundant gastropods, cephalopods,stromatoporoids, and sparse brachiopods in its upper part. The upper alternating

member averages about 200 feet (61 meters) thick in the northern Confusion Range.The Simonson Dolomite is about 660 feet (200 meters) thick in the Burbank Hills,540 to 700 feet (165 to 213 metes) thick in the Confusion Range, and 185 feet (56meters) thick in the southern Pahvant Range (Hintze and Davis, 2003).

6.3.3 Lower Guilmette, Simonson And Sevy Equivalents, UndividedMillard (1983) reported a thickness of about 2,720 feet (830 meters) for a light-graysequence of Devonian dolomites, which he called "Sevy" on the northeast side of theCanyon Mountains. This thick sequence of Sevy-like dolomites probably includes thetemporal equivalents of the Sevy, Simonson, and lower Guilmette Formation, but the

sequence is unfossiliferous. The overlying 774 feet (236 meters) of brown sugarydolomite is probably equivalent to the upper part of the Guilmette Formation ofwestern Millard County (Hintze and Davis, 2003).

6.3.4 Guilmette Formation (Dg)The Guilmette Formation was named by Nolan in 1935 in the course of hisstratigraphic studies of the Deep Creek Range, and the name has since been widelyapplied to 2,000 to 3,000 feet (600 to 900 meters) of dolomite, limestone, and, in itsupper part, sandstone, in western Utah and eastern Nevada. Geologic mappers havesubdivided the Guilmette locally into informal members, some of which are thick

enough to show on the various geologic maps of Millard County. Because thesemembers are restricted in their occurrence, the subsequent discussion deals with themseparately (Hintze and Davis, 2003).

In the Confusion Range Hose (1966) recognized four unmapped units within theGuilmette near Little Mile-and-a-Half Canyon, in ascending order:

1. A basal 650 feet (198 meters) of dark-gray, fine-grained limestone that islocally a breccia formed by solution collapse at some point before or during thedeposition of the overlying Guilmette units.

2. A 700-foot (213-meter) thick, dark-gray, locally mottled and argillaceous,thin- to medium-bedded limestone that includes some dolomite beds.

3. An 800-foot (244-meter) thick sequence of fine- to medium-grained, medium-to dark-gray dolomite that weathers light olive gray to brownish black and includes afew beds of light-gray coarse-grained dolomite.


20/47



____________________________________________________________

17

4. 450 feet (137 meters) of mostly thin-bedded, medium-gray limestone thatincludes beds of dolomite and several beds of brown-weathering quartzite as much as 3feet (1 meter) thick.

The thickest accumulations of Guilmette Formation in Utah are in the Burbank Hills,

located approximately 20 miles (32 kilometers) southwest of the Main area of KingsCanyon property, where the formation has been divided into a lower breccia member,middle member, and West Range Limestone Member. The lower member of theGuilmette is a limestone breccia 330 to 660 feet (100 to 200 meters) thick and issimilar to the basal breccia described in the Confusion Range. The lowest 300 feet(91 meters) of the middle member include a basal 150 Feet (46 meters) of thick-bedded, dark-gray dolomite that contains sparse silicified brachiopods, overlain by150 feet (46 meters) of silty, red-weathering, thin-bedded, slope-forming dolomitethat includes a few ledges as much as 2 feet (0.6 meter) thick of dark-gray dolomite.The base of the Guilmette Formation is not exposed in the Mountain Home Range,and mapping in the Wah Wah Mountains has defined only two subdivisions of the

Guilmette Formation in this range, as well as the undivided Guilmette (Hintze andDavis, 2003).

6.4 DEVONIAN/MISSISSIPPIAN ROCKS

6.4.1 Pilot Shale

The Pilot Shale was named by Spencer in 1917 for exposures in the Ely (Robinson)district, Nevada, and the unit has subsequently been identified in many parts ofcentral and eastern Nevada and western Utah. In western Millard County, the PilotShale is found in the Mountain Home Range, Burbank Hills and the Confusion Range,

but does not extend into eastern Millard County. The Pilot Shale was depositedacross the Devonian/Mississippian time line and, in reality, only a small part of theformation is actually shale. Most of the unit consists of yellow- and orange-weathering, thin-bedded, silty limestone, with thin interbeds of shale, siltstone,sandstone, and limestone. It is less resistant than the Guilmette Formation beneath andthe Joana Limestone above, so it forms strike-valleys and covered slopes wherever itoccurs (Hintze and Davis, 2003). It should be noted that rocks at or near theDevonian/Mississippian age boundary are important ore hosts at the Rain Mine andBullion/Railroad district 18 to 25 miles (29 to 40 kilometers) south of the town ofCarlin, Nevada (Abbott, 2003; Abbott and Keith, 1999; Jackson and Ruetz, 1991;Mathewson, 2001; Mathewson and Beetler, 1998; Thoreson, 1991), and at the Green

Springs gold property (held by Genesis Gold/Palladon), approximately 40 miles (65kilometers) west of Ely, Nevada (Wilson, Cox and Lance, 1991).

Hose (1966) described Pilot Shale occurrences in the Confusion Range, where itranges from approximately 700 feet (215 meters) to as much as 830 feet (250 meters)thick and consists mostly of siltstone and dolomitic siltstone. Sandberg, Poole andGutschick (1980) listed conodont faunas and identified the unconformities within thePilot Shale, and Sandberg and others (1989) identified conodonts that show that the


21/47



____________________________________________________________

18

lower member of the Pilot Shale in the Coyote Knolls and the Confusion Range isequivalent to part of the upper Guilmette Formation, including its West RangeLimestone Member. In the Burbank Hills, southwest of the Kings Canyon property,the Pilot Shale is 511 feet (156 m) thick (Biller, 1976, plate 1) and is composedmostly of thin-bedded calcareous siltstone and shale in its lower two-thirds; its upper

one-third is thin-bedded silty limestone and limestone (Hintze and Davis, 2003). Itshould be noted that this type of stratigraphic confusion is applicable to thediscussion of the partially coeval and economically significant Webb Formation ofnorth-central Nevada as related to the differentiation of the autochthonous andallochthonous assemblages of the Roberts Mountains Thrust Fault (Abbott, 2003 and2004; Iverson, B.G., 1991 and 1992; Mathewson, 2001; Mathewson and Beetler, 1998;Thoreson, 1991; Russell., 2004).

6.5 MISSISSIPPIAN ROCKS

6.5.1 Pilot Shale

General features of the Pilot Shale were outlined in previously. Sandberg, et al.(1980) showed that the upper 174 to 197 feet (53 to 60 meters) of the Pilot Shale atLittle Mile-and-a-Half Canyon in the Confusion Range are Early Mississippian(Kinderhookian) in age on the basis of conodonts. Poole and Sandberg (1991)indicated that minor erosional unconformities bound the Mississippian portion of thePilot both above and below its upper member. The upper member of the Pilot Shaleis overlain by the Joana Limestone (Hintze and Davis, 2003).

6.5.2 Joana LimestoneThe Joana Limestone was named by Spencer (1917) after the Joana mine near Ely,Nevada. Usage of the name has spread throughout western Utah and eastern Nevadawhere the formation is a massive, resistant, ledge- and cliff-forming unit between theunderlying slope-forming Pilot Shale and the overlying valley-forming ChainmanFormation. The Joana is the partial equivalent of the Redwall Limestone of the GrandCanyon area in Arizona and the Monte Cristo Limestone of southern Nevada, andmay or may not be equivalent to part of the Redwall Limestone mapped in thesouthern Pahvant Range (Hintze and Davis, 2003).

The Joana Limestone was mapped in the Mountain Home Range by Hintze (1986) andHintze and Best (1987) where it is a massive bluish-gray, cliff-forming limestone 460

feet (140 meters) thick. The limestone contains 5 to 10 percent chert nodules thatoccur in some lower beds but are most common in the tipper part of the formation.Olive-gray dolomite is included as mottled zones in about 15 percent of the Joanabeds. About one-third of the Joana in the Mountain Home Range is coarse-grainedbioclastic limestone composed of sand-size fossil debris that includes horn corals andcolonial corals (Hintze and Davis, 2003).


22/47



____________________________________________________________

19

In the Burbank Hills, the Joana Limestone is 520 to 560 feet (160 to 170 meters) thick(Hintze, 1997). The basal Joana unit is a calcareous quartz sandstone as much as 16feet (5 meters) thick. Of the limestone that makes up most of the formation, thelowest one-fifth is a coarse-grained, bioclastic, massive, medium-gray limestone thatcontains as much as 10 percent nodular chert; crinoid, brachiopod, and other

invertebrate fossil debris makes up much of the rock, and both solitary and colonialwhole corals are scattered throughout. The remainder of the Joana, mostly exposedon the backslope of the Joana hogback, forms alternating ledges and slopes reflectingthe less massive, thick-bedded character of the limestone, and deposition of the Joanaas cyclic repetitions of coarse- and fine-grained clastic limestones (Hintze and Davis,2003).

6.5.3 Chainman Formation

The Chainman Shale was named by Spencer (1917) from the old Chainman mine, 2miles (3 kilometers) west of Ely, Nevada, and the name has subsequently been widely

used in eastern Nevada and western Utah. Sadlick (1965), in his study of theChainman in western Utah, recommended that, in Utah, because of the heterogeneityof its component rocks, it is more correct to call the unit a formation rather than ashale. Sadlick (1965) proposed names for five members of the Chainman Formationin western Utah, in ascending order: Needle Siltstone Member, Skunk SpringLimestone Member, Camp Canyon Member, Willow Gap Limestone Member, andJensen Member. He designated a type section and presented a detailed measuredsection for each member's type section (Hintze and Davis, 2003).

6.6 INTRUSIVE ROCKS

As noted in the Geologic Setting section, no large masses of intrusive rocks have to datebeen mapped or observed in the property area or the Confusion Range. On the west sideof the Confusion Range, two small dikes and breccias containing clasts of alteredintrusive rock, along with a large, weak magnetic anomaly in the eastern Ferguson Deserta little farther to the west, indicate the possibility of a deeply buried intrusive.

6.7 COVER ROCKS

Ash flow tuffs, conglomerates, lacustrine carbonates, eolian deposits and some basaltsand slide deposits fill the valleys, cover hills and are present at various locations in theConfusion Range. The thickness of these units may be several hundred feet to over 3,000

feet (915 meters) in some locations (Hintze and Davis, 2004).

6.8 STRUCTURE

Decollement style, younger-over-older, detachment faults are common in some parts ofthe Confusion Range. Although related to formation of the Snake Range metamorphiccore complex in a broad regional sense, Hose (1977) details their origin from relatedisoclinal and recumbent folds as resulting from large blocks sliding into the center of the


23/47



____________________________________________________________

20

Confusion Range structural trough. Some mapped thrust faults are of the older-over-younger type, and related to east-directed thrusting during the Laramide and SevierOrogenies. The Confusion Range is in the foreland of the Sevier thrust system and, as aresult, many imbrications are present (Hose 1977).

Structure is an important element in the localization of gold deposits in the Great Basin,especially in north-central Nevada (Teal and Jackson, 2002; J. Jory, 2002; Foo, Hays andMcCormack, 1996: and many others), and is potentially important in the localization ofhigher grade gold (greater than 1.5 grams or 0.05 oz/ton) at Kings Canyon. This conceptremains to be thoroughly tested and developed at the Kings Canyon property(Zimmerman, 2003).

6.9 GEOLOGIC SETTING OF THE KINGS CANYON PROPERTY6.9.1 Geology

The Kings Canyon property is within a region subjected to Sevier thrusting and laterBasin and Range faulting. Outcrops are dominated by Devonian and Silurian limestonesand dolomites, all of which are potential hosts to ore. A great variety of fractureorientations are observed in the area offering several potential conduits for mineralizingsolutions, though certain orientations appear to be more favorable than others (Shannonand Drinkard, 1992).

In Crowns Main Discovery area and the contiguous Genesis Gold/Palladon property(Figure 8 and Photograph 1), limestone of the Devonian Guilmette Formation occurs onthe surface and conformably overlies Devonian Simonson Dolomite. Depending upontopography, the Guilmette Formation is from approximately 100 feet to 300 feet (30 to

90 meters) thick over the Simonson Dolomite. Gold mineralization, reported by Crownto average 0.015 oz/ton (0.47 grams), occurs in both formations, but is much morecommon in the Simonson Dolomite. In the first 200 feet (31 meters) of the SimonsonDolomite, carbonaceous, often thin bedded and sometimes limey, horizons appear to bemost susceptible to mineralization. These horizons probably contain a fine clasticcomponent. Clay alteration in the center of the mineralized area complicatesobservations about the original nature of the host rock (Shannon and Drinkard, 1992).

Based on limited drill data from Crown, the mineralized body in the Main area has astratiform appearance and is relatively flat-lying. Crown reports that there appears to bea strong structural control to gold mineralization. The gold deposit trends in a west-

northwest direction and the south edge of the deposit is very sharp while, along thenorth edge, the mineralization boundary is more irregular and diffused. Trends of thegold mineralization in the Crown Main Discovery coincide with fracture sets found inoutcrop, which trend N500 to 600W and dip 600 to 850 towards the south (Shannon andDrinkard, 1992).


24/47


25/47



____________________________________________________________

22

7.0 GEOPHYSICS

Neither Genesis Gold nor Palladon have yet conducted any geophysics over theproperty. Shannon and Drinkard (1992) report that Crown Resources conducted a varietyof geophysical surveys over various land holdings, which may or may not include the

Genesis Gold/Palladon properties. The Crown geophysical data were not available tothe author.

The geophysical surveys reportedly conducted by Crown include VLF/magnetics,magnetics only and CSAMT. Crown reports that any value of the surveys has not yetbeen proven in locating jasperoid or other gold mineralization. The surveys do showstructure but, because of the abundance of a variety of structures, the tracing of selectedorientations is usually not possible without a close-spaced grid. Magnetometer surveysmay be useful in detecting magnetite bearing intrusions such as was reportedlyencountered in one drill hole (91-KC-21) in the area of Crowns gold mineralization.The CSAMT surveys were run in August and September, 1992, and no discernible

geophysical signature for mineralization was reported (Shannon and Drinkard, 1992).

Without having examined the geophysical data, that author cannot comment on theaccuracy or reliability of the surveys.


26/47



____________________________________________________________

23

8.0 GOLD MINERALIZATION AND GEOCHEMISTRY

8.1 GOLD MINERASLIZATION

Work to date has shown that the mineralization at Kings Canyon fits a disseminated,

sediment-hosted Carlin-type gold deposit model. Features at Kings Canyon that areconsistent with Carlin-type mineralization include: widespread gold-bearing jasperoids,gold hosted in Paleozoic carbonate-rich sediments, invisible or presumably micron-sizegold, lack of quartz veins, apparent fluid control by steep faults, anomalous As, Sb, Hg,and Ba values, weak to nil base metal values, low silver values, and dominantargillic/decalicification alteration in Crowns mineralized zone (Zimmerman, 2003).

Observations made by Crown in the Main project area show that mineralization/alterationeffects, even proximal to the gold deposit, are extremely subtle. Silicification occurs as jasperoid in the Guilmette Formation and Simonson Dolomite. The most common sitefor jasperoid formation in Crowns gold deposit is in the vicinity of the

Guilmette/Simonson contact. While jasperoid contains anomalous to higher gradeconcentrations of gold, it makes up only a small percentage of mineralization in thedeposit. The bulk of higher grade mineralization occurs with argillic alteration in theSimonson Dolomite 100 to 200 feet below its contact with the Guilmette Limestone. Thisalteration is marked often by yellow-orange and red clay development as veinlets andalteration of a clastic component. Jasperoid occurs locally peripheral to higher gradezones. Decalcification probably precedes gold-bearing events and is noted peripheral toand within the ore zone. Carbonate veining is ubiquitous in most of the Kings Canyonarea but is usually absent in the mineralized zone itself. On the surface, alteration in theGuilmette limestone over the Main Discovery is very subtle and consists of bleaching,decalcification and solution cavity formation, calcite veining and clay-filled fractures.

These features are also very common elsewhere in the area related to non-mineralizingevents. Jasperoid is rare in outcroppings over the deposit and occurs as fragments inbreccia and as thin scabs in and near faults. There is very little in the way of alterationthat distinguishes rocks over the Main Discovery from Guilmette outcrops elsewhere inthe area (Shannon and Drinkard, 1992).

In contrast to the rock alteration, mineralized faults and fractures are abundant andrelatively obvious at Kings Canyon. A fault, herein named the Main Fault, believed to beat least a major feeder if not the single major feeder fault at the Crowns gold deposit iswell displayed at the surface for a few hundred feet over the western portion of themineralized zone (dashed blue line traversing the southwest side of the mineralized zone

in Figure 4). It is displayed as a prominent fracture with one to two inches of whitecarbonate gouge/cement. Locally there are thin jasperoid scabs on the limestoneimmediately adjacent to the fault surface. Numerous fault surfaces similar in appearanceto the Main Fault have been identified by Genesis Gold on their property. These faultshave various strike orientations, some similar to the Main Fault and others at verydifferent strikes but all have steep dips. Most significantly, many of these faults host jasperoid and/or decalcification/argillization and thus appear to have also channeledhydrothermal fluids. Many of these faults occur or can be projected into areas where the


27/47



____________________________________________________________

24

favourable Simonson Dolomite horizon is at shallower depths than at the Crown golddeposit (Zimmerman, 2003).

8.2 GEOCHEMISTRY

Crown geologists report that in areas at Kings Canyon where mineralization in the formof jasperoid has surfaced, the geochemical anomalies are strong and obvious. But, wheremineralization targets are blind, the anomalies can be very subtle. Geochemicalanomalies are very subtle on the surface over Crowns gold deposit and it is essentially ablind target geochemically. Rock samples collected over the deposit rarely containdetectable gold. In blind target areas, anomalous element levels may include: Au > 10ppb, Hg > 50 to 100 ppb, Sb > 1 ppm, Mn > 100 ppm, Zn > 30 ppm, F > 04% and Ba >15% (Shannon and Drinkard, 1992; Zimmerman, 2003).

A moderate amount of rock chip sampling (87 total samples) has been recently conductedby Zimmerman in 2004 and 2005 within the project area. These results are compiled in

Appendix I.

Rock chip anomalies are generally weak in the Main area for all elements. The strongestgold anomalies all occur in one set of outcrops of abundant jasperoid in the west centralpart of the Genesis leased section with values of up 0.495 ppm gold. Elsewhere in theMain area, the highest values are less than 0.100 ppm gold. Arsenic, mercury, andantimony values are low and arsenic shows only one value greater than 100 ppm (313ppm), antimony is above 10 ppm in only 2 samples (maximum of 25 ppm), and mercuryis greater than 1 ppm in two samples (maximum 2 ppm). Silver has a maximum of 2ppm and is not shown on a figure for the Main area (Zimmerman, 2003). These lowgeochemical values do not detract from the potential for new discoveries within the Main

area at Kings Canyon. The gold resource was drilled in an area with extremely lowsurface geochemical values: the discovery drill hole was sited near a jasperoid containingonly 16 ppb gold (Shannon and Drinkard, 1992). In addition, the probable feeder faultfor the resource can be traced in outcrop for several hundred feet but shows little surfacealteration, only local scabby jasperoid development that is too sparse to be sampled. Itappears that the hydrothermal fluids in the Main area were generally depleted by the timethey penetrated above the Guilmette/Simonson contact zone.

Rock chip geochemistry is much more anomalous at New Butte. Gold is stronglyenriched, with 28 of 37 samples containing more than 0.100 ppm with a maximum of4.59 ppm gold. Antimony is also highly enriched, with 23 samples containing more than

10 ppm with a high of 1135 ppm, as well as silver with 27 samples carrying more than 2ppm with a high of 58 ppm. Arsenic values are subdued with a high of 46 ppm while 23of the samples contained at least 1 ppm mercury with a high of 6 ppm.


28/47



____________________________________________________________

25

9.0 DRILLING RESULTS

Genesis Gold and Palladon have not conducted any drilling on the Kings Canyonproperty.

Crown Resources has drilled 156 holes, all reverse circulation drill holes, as ofSeptember 24, 1992, for a total of 81,640 feet (24,890 meters). Additionally, EchoBay and Battle Mountain have drilled 39 holes for a total of approximately 16,150feet (4,923 meters). The detailed results of all of this drilling are not available to theauthor. Crown does report (Shannon and Drinkard, 1992) a historical resource in theirMain Discovery area. This resource was not defined using current 43-101 standards.


29/47



____________________________________________________________

26

10.0 ADJACENT PROPERTIES

Crowns Resources holds the adjacent property (Figure 6) and the information and dataavailable for that property have been discussed in previous sections of this report. Basedon information provided to the author by Genesis Gold and Palladon, the author is not

aware of other significant claimants in the immediate area of the Kings Canyonproperties.


30/47



____________________________________________________________

27

11.0 SAMPLING METHOD AND APPROACH

Genesis Gold collected a total of 87 surface rock samples from various points on theKings Canyon properties (Appendix I). Mr. John Zimmerman, geologist for GenesisGold, collected the samples and states that the samples were collected in accordance with

mining industry standards, placed in a standard cloth sample bag, and transported to Elko,Nevada, to the ALS-Chemex sample preparation facility. ALS Chemex prepared the rocksamples for analysis and shipped the pulps to either Reno, Nevada or Vancouver, BritishColumbia, Canada for analysis. Based on the authors knowledge of Mr. Zimmermansprofessional credentials and the reputation of ALS Chemex as a premier analyticallaboratory, the author believes that the samples were collected, prepared and analyzedaccording to industry standards and the analytical results are accurate and reliable.


31/47



____________________________________________________________

28

12.0 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSIS AND SECURITY

The 87 surface rock samples collected from the Kings Canyon properties were preparedfor analysis by ALS Chemex at their Elko, Nevada sample preparation facility and thepulps were shipped to either Reno, Nevada or Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada for

analysis. The samples were not out of Mr. Zimmermans possession prior to beingdropped off at the ALS Chemex sample preparation facility. Based on the authorspersonal knowledge of the professional methods which ALS Chemex employs to prepareand analyze samples, the author assumes all necessary security procedures andprecautions were taken to assure quality control and accuracy of the sample results.


32/47



____________________________________________________________

29

13.0 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING

Shannon and Drinkard (1992) report that Crown Resources conducted preliminarymetallurgical leach tests on gold-bearing material from their Main Discovery area.The results of the tests are not available. Genesis Gold and Palladon have not

conducted any metallurgical testing on any of the surface rock samples collected fromthe Main Area or New Butte prospect or any sample from Kings Canyon.


33/47



____________________________________________________________

30

14.0 DATA VERIFICATION

The data collected by companies that have previously explored in the Kings Canyon area,especially Crown Resources (part of their data are presented in this report) are assumed tobe accurate and reliable, based on the authors knowledge of those exploration

organizations. Other data for this report have been compiled by the author and providedto him by Genesis Gold, and includes a field visit to Kings Canyon and New Butteproperties. Mr. John Zimmerman provided data and expertise on behalf of Genesis Gold.Other data are from published sources. It is therefore the conclusion of the author that alldata pertaining to the Kings Canyon and New Butte properties are accurate and reliable.


34/47



____________________________________________________________

31

15.0 HISTORICAL MINERAL RESOURSE ESTIMATES

Crown Resources discovered a mineralized zone, the Main Discovery, reportedlycontaining over 200,000 of gold at 0.03 ounces per ton immediately adjacent to theGenesis Gold main Kings Canyon property. The Crown Resources historic gold

resource estimate does not conform to current 43-101 standards and will need to beconfirmed and appropriate confirmation drilling completed. The author of thisreport mentions the historic resource estimate for historical reference only and,because the author did not perform the resource estimate, does not infer or assertthat the resource estimate was performed under current NI 43-101 guidelines, orthat the historic resource estimate is reliable or accurate.


35/47



____________________________________________________________

32

16.0 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS

There is a very high potential to discover more gold deposits within the Kings Canyonproject area. Several factors point to this conclusion:

The known system, as represented by gold-bearing jasperoids, is extremelylarge, over 60 square miles. It seems very unlikely that a system this largedistributed over basically identical geologic conditions, contains only onesignificant gold deposit. It is likely that this mineralizing system hasproduced several more deposits that await discovery.

Permissive stratigraphy underlies most of the area encompassed by thejasperoid occurrences.

Previous efforts were conducted over a relatively short time span with limitedmanpower. Note that it took over 20 years of effort by numerous geologiststo begin to recognize the full potential of the Carlin Trend.

Most significantly of all, it appears that previous explorers largely failed torecognize the structural control in the system and therefore did not identifynumerous structural targets that have been recently been identified byGenesis Gold.

Previous workers did recognize some of the ore-controlling faults, most notably the N50to 60W Main Fault. This fault is the main control on the Crown gold deposit and can beidentified in outcrop. Even though Crown geologists recognized this fault, they failed tocapitalize on its significance, as no angle holes were drilled to target it, the most likely

area to intersect higher grades of gold.

Another fault was recognized to explain the gap between the large northwest extent andsmaller southeast pod of the Crown Gold deposit. The NW fault is apparently both a pre-mineral feeder, as indicated by the elongation of mineralization along its strike, and apost-mineral fault producing the gap in the mineralization. This is a significantobservation since it indicates that NW faults helped guide ore fluids and can be targetedwithin the Crown gold deposit and in permissive areas elsewhere on the property. OtherNW faults probably explain other apparent northward extensions of the mineralized zone(Figure 8).

Genesis Gold has identified numerous structures and photolinears, many of which appearto guide mineralization in the Main area and on the New Butte prospect. Most of thesewere first identified from air photos with 1-meter resolution. Many of these were fieldverified during reconnaissance mapping on the property (note the numerous orientationsymbols which were measured in the outcrop). Many of the faults display a similarappearance to the Main Fault: they are commonly narrow (1 to 2 inches or 2.5 to 5centimeters) planar features with minor and sporadic jasperoid development in and nearthem. Their physical similarity to the major ore-controlling fault indicates that they


36/47



____________________________________________________________

33

represent viable drill targets, especially at fault intersections and where SimonsonDolomite exists at relatively shallow depths.

The author believes that there is an outstanding chance to add significantly to the KingsCanyon gold resource by drilling these targets and others that will be identified with

additional work. These structures have been largely unrecognized and untested eventhough they appear to be as strongly mineralized as the Main Fault. While there are noavailable geochemical values from any of these faults, it is unlikely that they would beany less anomalous than the Main Fault. There are strongly anomalous to ore-gradevalues in drill holes and jasperoids on or immediately adjacent to the Main property andon the New Butte prospect. Further, the recognition of the importance of structuralintersections and the targeting of these intersections for drill testing may lead to successin subsequent exploration programs.

It is anticipated that continued exploration could result in the discovery of one or morenew gold deposits. Many of the target areas identified are in areas where the host rocks

are closer to the surface than at Crowns gold deposit area, which would enhance theeconomics with lower stripping ratios. In addition, targeting feeder structures may resultin higher overall grades. Should a program in the current project area meet with success,it is very likely that even more gold deposits could be discovered in one or more of theother known mineralized areas within the district.


37/47



____________________________________________________________

34

17.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

Continued work on the Kings Canyon property is strongly recommended to further definegold targets, then to subsequently test these targets with drilling. A Phase I explorationprogram, requiring US$59,000 in expenditures, would involve additional geologic

mapping, rock sampling, a soil program and Bulk Leach Extraction of Gold (BLEG)sampling to better define faults and stratigraphy and their geochemical expression.Targets would exist in those areas into which favorable structures can be defined orprojected and where the top of the Simonson Dolomite exists at reasonable depths,initially indicated by the known geologic setting to be less than 100 feet (30 meters). ThePhase I program would also involve the acquisition of a larger land position. Anexploration agreement should be made for the adjacent Crown property.

Dependent upon a successful outcome of the Phase I program, a Phase II program,requiring an expenditure of US$227,000, would involve drill testing of the targets definedduring Phase I. Approximately 10 targets would be drilled with approximately 4 reverse

circulation holes each. The majority of the drill holes would average approximately 300feet (90 meters) in depth, with an occasional drill hole penetrating up to 800 feet (245meters) deep. Details of the Phase I recommended budget and Phase II proposed budgetsare as follows:

Table 17.1Kings Canyon: Recommended Phase I Budget

Item Expense in US$

Geologic Mapping/Compilation: 1 Geo. @ US$365/ Day - 20 Days $7,300Land Acquisition/Holding Costs $12,000Permitting & Bonding $20,000

Assays Rock (30), Soils (380), BLEG (20) @ 35.00/samp $15,050Food, Lodging, Travel & Vehicle Expenses @ $160/Day 5 Days $800Misc. Supplies and Equipment $1,000Contingency 5.0% $2,850

Total $59,000

Table 17.2Kings Canyon: Proposed Phase II Budget

Item Expense in US$

Drill Supervision: 1 Geo. @ US$365/ Day - 40 Days $14,600Drill Roads 3000 Feet (915 meters) @ $3.00/Foot $9,000Drilling 13,400 Ft. (4085 meters) @ $10.00/Ft. $134,000Assays Drill (2500) @ $20.00/sample $50,000Food, Lodging, Travel and Vehicle Expenses @ $160/Day 40 Days $6,400Misc. Supplies and Equipment $3,000Contingency 5.0% $10,000

Total $227,000


38/47



____________________________________________________________

35

Dated this 22nd Day of April, 2005.

___________________________________Rick H. Russell, M.Sc.,

Licensed Geologist


39/47



____________________________________________________________

36

18.0 SOURCES OF INFORMATIONAbbott, E.W., 2003: Technical report on the Pony Creek property, Larrabee district,Elko County, Nevada, USA, for Mill City International Corporation, 93 p.

Abbott, E.W., and Keith, S.B., 1999: Preliminary geologic and structural analysis of theRailroad project, Pinyon Range, Elko County, Nevada: Kinross Gold Company internalreport, 52 p.

Armstrong, R. L., 1968: Sevier orogenic belt in Nevada and Utah: Geological Society ofAmerica Bulletin, v. 79 p. 429-458.

CIM, 2000: CIM Standards on mineral resources and reserves. Definitions andGuidelines. Prepared by the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum, 25pages.

Foo, S. T., Hays, Jr., R. C., McCormack, J. K., 1996a: Geology and mineralization ofthe Pipeline deposit, Lander County, Nevada, in Coyner, Alan R and Fahey, Patrick L.,eds., Geology and Ore Deposits of the American Cordillera Symposium Proceedings:Reno, Geological Society of Nevada, p. 95-109.

Hintze, L. F., and Davis, F. D., 2003: Geology of Millard County, Utah: UtahGeological Survey, Bulletin 133, 305 p.

Hintze, L. F., 1997: Interim Geologic map of the Big Jensen Pass Quadrangle, MillardCounty, Utah: Utah Geological Survey Open file Report 357, scale 1:24,000.

Hintze, L. F., and Best, M. G., 1987: Geologic Map of the Mountain Home Pass andMiller Wash quadrangles, Millard and Beaver Counties, Utah, and Lincoln CountyNevada: U. S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-1950, scale1:24,000.

Hintze, L. F., 1986: Geologic Map of the Mormon Gap and Tweedy Wash quadrangles,Millard County, Utah, and Lincoln County Nevada: U. S. Geological SurveyMiscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-1872, scale 1:24,000.

Hose, R. K., 1977: Structural geology of the Confusion Range, west-central Utah: U. S.Geological Survey Professional Paper 971.

Hose, R.K., and Blake, M.C., Jr., 1976: Geology, Part 1 in Geology and mineralresources of White Pine County, Nevada: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Bulletin85, p. 1-35.

Hose, R. K., 1966: Devonian stratigraphy of the Confusion Range, west-central Utah, inGeological Survey research 1966, Chapter B: U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper550-B.


40/47



____________________________________________________________

37

Iverson, B.G., 1991: Stratigraphy of Devonian-Mississippian rocks, northern PinyonRange, southwestern Elko County, Nevada: M.S. thesis, University of Nevada, Reno, 88pages.

Iverson, B.G., 1992: Stratigraphy of the northern Pinyon Range, southwestern Elko

County, Nevada, in Trexler, J.H., Jr., Flanigan, T.E., Flanigan, D.M.H., Hansen, M., andGarside, L.J., eds., Structural geology and petroleum potential of southwest Elko County,Nevada: Nevada Petroleum Society 1992 Field Trip Guidebook, Reno, Nevada, 96 p.

Jackson, P.R., and Ruetz, J.W., 1991: Geology of the Trout Creek disseminated goldDeposit, Elko County, Nevada, in Raines, G.L., Lisle, R.E., Schafer, R.W., andWilkinson, W.H., eds., Geology and ore deposits of the Great Basin Symposiumproceedings: Reno, Geological Society of Nevada, p. 729-738.

Jory, J., 2002: Stratigraphy and host rock controls of gold deposits of the northern Carlintrend in Thompson, T. B., Teal, L., Meeuwig, R.O., eds., Gold deposits of the Carlin

trend: Nevada Bur. of Mines and Geology Bulletin 111, p. 20-34.

Madrid, R. J., and Roberts, R. J., 1991: Origin of gold belts in north-central Nevada,Extended Abstract.

Mathewson, D.C., 2001: Tectono-stratigraphic setting for the Rain district gold deposits,Carlin Trend, Nevada, in Shaddrick, D.R., Zbinden, E., Mathewson, D.C., and Prenn, C.,2001, Regional tectonics and control of ore: The major gold trends of northern Nevada:Geological Society of Nevada, 2001 Spring Field Conference Proceedings and Field TripGuide, Special Publication No. 33, 448 p.

Mathewson, D.C., and Beetler, J., 1998: Discovery history and geology of the NW RainAnd Tess gold deposits, in Kizis, J.A., Jr., ed., Shallow Expressions of Deep, High-GradeGold Deposits Fall 1998 Field Trip Guidebook, Geological Society of Nevada SpecialPublication No. 28, p. 107-113.

Nolan, T. B., 1935: The Gold Hill mining district, Utah: U. S. Geological Surveyprofessional Paper 177, 172 p.

Osmond, J. C., 1954: Dolomites in Silurian and Devonian of east-central Nevada:American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin v. 38, no. 9, p. 1911-1959.

Poole, F. G., and Sandberg, C. A. 1991: Mississippian paleogeography and conodontbiostratigraphy of the western United States, in Cooper, J. D., and Stevens, C,. H.,editors, Paleozoic paleogeography of the western United States II: Los Angeles, PacificSection, Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, v. 1, p. 107-136.

Russell, R.H., 2004: Evaluation of the gold resource on the Pony Creek Property,Larrabee district, Elko County, Nevada, USA, for Mill City International Corporation, 75pages.


41/47



____________________________________________________________

38

Sadlick, Walter, 1965: Biostratigraphy of the Chainman Formation, eastern Nevada andwestern Utah: University of Utah Ph.D. dissertation, 227 p.

Sandberg, C. A., Poole, F. G., and Gutschick, R.C., 1980: Devonian and Mississippianstratigraphy and conodont zonation of Pilot and Chainman Shales, Confusion Range,

Utah, in Fouch, T. D, and Magathan, E. R., editors, Paleozoic paleogeography of the west-central United States: Denver, Rocky Mountain Section, Society of EconomicPaleontologists and Mineralogists, p. 71-79.

Shaddrick, D.R., Zbinden, E., Mathewson, D.C., and Prenn, C., 2001: Regionaltectonics and control of ore: The major gold trends of northern Nevada: GeologicalSociety of Nevada, 2001 Spring Field Conference Proceedings and Field Trip Guide,Special Publication No. 33, 448 p.

Shannon, J. R., and Drinkard, M. J., 1992: Kings Canyon project, Millard County,Utah: Crown Resources internal report, 51 p.

SME, 1999: A Guide for reporting exploration information, resources, and reserves.Report of working party #79, society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration, Inc., 17pages.

SME, 1992: A Guide for Reporting Exploration Information, Resources, and Reserves.Report of Working Party #79, Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration, Inc., 10pages.

Spenser, A. C., 1917: Geology and ore deposits of Ely, Nevada: U. S. GeologicalSurvey Professional Paper, 96, 189 p.

Teal, L., and Jackson, M., 2002: Geologic overview of the Carlin trend gold depositsinThompson, T. B., Teal, L., Meeuwig, R.O., eds., Gold deposits of the Carlin trend:Nevada Bur. of Mines and Geology Bulletin 111, p. 9-19.

Thoreson, R.F., 1991: Geology and gold deposits of the Rain subdistrict, Elko County,Nevada, in Raines, G.L., Lisle, R.E., Schafer, R.W., and Wilkinson, W.H., eds., Geologyand ore deposits of the Great Basin Symposium proceedings: Reno, Geological Societyof Nevada, p. 635-642.

Wilson, W. R., Cox, J. W., and Lance, D. L., 1991: Geology and geochemistry of the

Green Springs Gold Mine, White Pine County, Nevada: in Raines, G.L., Lisle, R.E.,Schafer, R.W., and Wilkinson, W.H., eds., Geology and ore deposits of the Great Basin Symposium proceedings: Reno, Geological Society of Nevada, p. 687-700.

Zimmerman, J. E., 2003: Exploration potential of the Kings Canyon project area: Apreliminary assessment: Genesis gold internal document, 9 p.


42/47

R. H. Russell

8674 South Littlecloud Road

Sandy, Utah USA 84093-1777

Telephone: 801-942-8609Fax: 801-453-0180

CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON

I, Rick H. Russell, Geologist, do hereby certify that:

1. I am currently retained as an Independent ConsultingGeologist by:

Palladon Ventures Ltd.

1500 409 Granville StreetVancouver, BC

Canada V6C 1T2

2. I graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in Geologyfrom Northern Illinois University, De Kalb, Illinois, in

1966. In addition, I obtained a Masters of Science degree

in Geology from Northern Illinois University in 1969.

3. I am a Licensed Geologist registered with the State ofWashington, No. 205, and a member of the Society ofEconomic Geologists and the Geological Society of

Nevada.

4. I have worked as a professional geologist continuously for36 years since graduating with a Masters of Science degree

from university. I have practiced my profession in theexploration for and the development of a variety ofprecious and base metal projects in Canada, the United

States, including Alaska, Eastern and Central Europe,

South America and Mexico.

5. I have read the definition of qualified person set out inNational Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101) and certify thatby reason of my education, work experience and affiliation

with a professional association (as defined in NI 43-101), I

fulfill the requirements to be a qualified person for the

purposes of NI 43-101.

6. I am either responsible for the preparation of or have editedand approved all sections of the technical report titledTechnical Report For The Main Area And New Butte

Prospect At The Kings Canyon Exploration Property In

Millard County, Utah, USA, For Palladon Ventures Ltd.and dated April 22, 2005 (the Technical Report) relating

to the Kings Canyon Property.


43/47

7. The date and duration of my most recent visit to the Main

Area at Kings Canyon is June 16, 2004 for 4.5 hours and to

the New Butte Prospect at Kings Canyon is June 16, 2004for 1.5 hours.

8. I am not aware of any material fact or material change withrespect to the subject matter of the Technical Report that isnot reflected in the Technical Report, the omission to

disclose which makes the Technical Report misleading.

9. I am independent of the issuer applying all of the tests inSection 1.5 of NI 43-101. I do not have, nor do I expect to

receive, directly or indirectly, any interest in the subjectproperty of the Technical Report or any other property

discussed in the Technical Report, or securities of Palladon

Ventures Ltd., or any affiliated companies.

10.I have read National Instrument 43-101 and Form 43-101F1, and the Technical Report has been prepared in

compliance with that instrument and form. The TechnicalReport has been prepared in conformity with generally

accepted Canadian mining industry practice.

11.I consent to the filing of the Technical Report with anystock exchange and other regulatory authority and anypublication by them, including electronic publication in the

public company files on their websites accessible by the

public.

Dated this 22nd Day of April, 2005.

___________________________________

Rick H. Russell, M.Sc.,Licensed Geologist


44/47

APPENDIX I

Rock Sample Analytical Results, Kings Canyon Properties


45/47

APPENDIX III

KINGS CANYON PROJECT, MILLARD COUNTY, UTAH

Surface Rock Samples Collected 2004 and 2005 by Genesis Gold (0.050 ppm Au or more)

Sample Au Ag As Hg Sb

Number ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm

Z04-1 0.400 20.30 12.0 1.00 12.00

Z04-2 0.066 6.00 7.0 1.00 13.00

Z04-3 0.207 10.10 8.0 1.00 16.00

Z04-4 0.391 58.20 11.0 1.00 31.00

Z04-5 0.091 18.40 21.0 1.00 41.00

Z04-6 0.042 5.90 6.0 1.00 8.00

Z04-7 0.206 2.40 19.0 2.00 42.00

Z04-8 0.197 14.00 4.0 2.00 15.00

Z04-9 0.422 44.80 18.0 6.00 27.00

Z04-10 0.532 5.10 6.0 -1.00 5.00

Z04-11 0.036 2.10 6.0 1.00 2.00

Z04-12 -0.005 -0.20 30.0 2.00 -2.00

Z04-13 0.059 -0.20 33.0 -1.00 -2.00

Z04-14 -0.005 -0.20 19.0 -1.00 -2.00

Z04-15 -0.005 -0.20 11.0 -1.00 -2.00

Z04-16 0.017 0.50 20.0 -1.00 -2.00

Z04-17 0.008 0.30 3.0 -1.00 3.00

Z04-18 -0.005 -0.20 14.0 2.00 -2.00

Z04-19 -0.005 -0.20 7.0 -1.00 -2.00

Z04-20 -0.005 -0.20 13.0 1.00 -2.00

Z04-21 0.059 0.40 16.0 -1.00 2.00

Z04-22 0.020 -0.20 2.0 1.00 -2.00

Z04-24 0.095 0.30 14.0 1.00 4.00

Z04-26 -0.005 -0.20 2.0 -1.00 -2.00

Z04-27 0.617 4.50 25.0 2.00 170.00

Z04-28 4.590 3.90 45.0 1.00 98.00

Z04-29 1.125 7.90 35.0 2.00 1135.00

Z04-30 0.687 5.40 31.0 1.00 337.00

Z04-31 0.915 7.10 17.0 1.00 93.00

Z04-32 0.509 2.30 21.0 1.00 18.00Z04-33 0.108 5.80 15.0 1.00 97.00

Z04-34 0.381 3.50 35.0 2.00 26.00

Z04-35 0.519 5.90 30.0 2.00 81.00

Z04-36 0.220 5.00 46.0 1.00 75.00

Z04-37 0.373 1.60 14.0 -1.00 9.00

Z04-38 0.444 9.40 6.0 -1.00 18.00

1 April 22, 2005


46/47

Surface Rock Samples Collected 2004 and 2005 by Genesis Gold (0.050 ppm Au or more)

Sample Au Ag As Hg Sb

Number ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm

Z04-39 0.259 3.00 17.0 1.00 19.00

Z04-40 -0.005 -0.20 -2.0 -1.00 -2.00

Z04-41 -0.005 -0.20 8.0 -1.00 2.00

Z04-42 -0.005 -0.20 -2.0 -1.00 -2.00

Z04-43 -0.005 -0.20 -2.0 -1.00 -2.00

Z04-44 -0.005 -0.20 2.0 -1.00 -2.00

Z04-45 1.565 3.70 5.0 1.00 2.00

Z04-46 0.191 1.90 8.0 -1.00 10.00

Z04-47 0.231 5.00 5.0 1.00 9.00

Date post:	30-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	russell-hartill
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Kings Canyon 43-101 Final C1

Documents