MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE BEARTRACK PROPERTY · 2018-11-07 · MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE BEARTRACK...

MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE

BEARTRACK PROPERTY

LEMHI COUNTY, IDAHO, UNITED STATES

Prepared for Revival Gold Inc.

145 King Street W. Suite 2870

Toronto, ON, M5H 1J8

Effective Date: April 18, 2018 Report Date: July 12, 2018

PREPARED BY:

Michael Lechner, P. Geo. - President Resource Modeling Inc.

Stites, Idaho

Graham Karklin, Mining Technologist – President Graham A. Karklin & Associates Inc.

Beartrack – Idaho, United States Technical Report

i July 12, 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 1 1.1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND OWNERSHIP .............................................. 1 1.2. HISTORY ............................................................................................................ 2

1.2.1. Historic Exploration and Production ............................................................ 2 1.3. GEOLOGY AND MINERALIZATION ................................................................. 3 1.4. STATUS OF EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT ....................................... 4 1.5. MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING ......................... 4

1.5.1. Historic Metallurgical Testing ....................................................................... 5 1.6. MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE ................................................................... 6 1.7. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................. 8 1.8. RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................... 10

2.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 12 2.1. TERMS OF REFERENCE AND PURPOSE OF THE REPORT ...................... 12 2.2. QUALIFICATIONS OF CONSULTANTS ......................................................... 12 2.3. SOURCES OF INFORMATION ........................................................................ 13 2.4. DETAILS OF INSPECTION ............................................................................. 13 2.5. EFFECTIVE DATE ........................................................................................... 13 2.6. UNITS OF MEASURE ...................................................................................... 14

3.0 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS .......................................................... 15

4.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION ........................................ 16 4.1. MINERAL TENURE .......................................................................................... 17

4.1.1. Obligations to Maintain the Property ......................................................... 19 4.1. AGREEMENTS AND PERMITS ....................................................................... 19

4.1.1. Agreements ............................................................................................... 19 4.1.2. Environmental and Permitting ................................................................... 20

4.1.2.1. Regulatory Authority ...................................................................................... 20 4.1.2.2. U.S. Forest Service ........................................................................................ 20 4.1.2.3. Idaho Department of Lands ........................................................................... 21 4.1.2.4. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality .................................................. 21 4.1.2.5. Idaho Department of Water Resources ......................................................... 21 4.1.2.6. Environmental Arena ..................................................................................... 21 4.1.2.7. Aquatic Resources and Water Quality ........................................................... 21 4.1.2.8. Wildlife ........................................................................................................... 22 4.1.2.9. Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) .................................................... 22 4.1.2.10. Political Environment ..................................................................................... 23

4.1.3. Permitting .................................................................................................. 23 4.1.3.1. Permitting Costs ............................................................................................ 24 4.1.3.2. Environmental Liability Disclosure ................................................................. 25

4.1.4. Significant Factors and Risks .................................................................... 25

5.0 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................... 26

6.0 HISTORY .................................................................................................. 28 6.1. DISTRICT HISTORY ........................................................................................ 28 6.2. BEARTRACK PROPERTY HISTORY ............................................................. 28

6.2.1. Canyon Resource Corporation .................................................................. 29


ii July 12, 2018

6.2.2. Meridian Gold Corporation ........................................................................ 29 6.2.2.1. Geophysics .................................................................................................... 29 6.2.2.2. Drilling ............................................................................................................ 29

6.2.3. Revival Gold Inc. ....................................................................................... 30 6.3. HISTORICAL RESOURCES AND RESERVES ............................................... 30 6.4. PAST PRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 30

7.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING AND MINERALIZATION ...................................... 32 7.1. REGIONAL GEOLOGY .................................................................................... 32 7.2. PROPERTY GEOLOGY ................................................................................... 32

7.2.1. Lithology .................................................................................................... 34 7.2.1.1. Mesoproterozoic Yellowjacket Formation ...................................................... 34 7.2.1.2. Proterozoic Igneous Rocks ............................................................................ 34 7.2.1.3. Quaternary Glacial Deposits .......................................................................... 34

7.2.2. Structure .................................................................................................... 35 7.3. MINERALIZATION ........................................................................................... 35

7.3.1. DEPOSIT MINERALIZATION AND DESCRIPTIONS ............................... 37 7.3.1.1. Alteration ........................................................................................................ 38 7.3.1.2. Oxidation ........................................................................................................ 39 7.3.1.3. Fluid Inclusions .............................................................................................. 39

7.3.2. South Deposit Mineralization ..................................................................... 39 7.3.3. North Deposit Mineralization ..................................................................... 40

7.4. EXPLORATION POTENTIAL .......................................................................... 42 7.4.1. Moose Area ............................................................................................... 42 7.4.2. Joss Area ................................................................................................... 42 7.4.3. Deep Sulphide Potential ............................................................................ 45 7.4.1. Rabbit Area ................................................................................................ 46

8.0 DEPOSIT TYPES ...................................................................................... 47

9.0 EXPLORATION ........................................................................................ 48

10.0 DRILLING .............................................................................................. 48 10.1. CANYON RESOURCES CORPORATION ................................................... 48 10.2. MERIDIAN GOLD CORPORATION ............................................................. 48

10.2.1. Meridian Study of Drilling Sampling Methods ........................................ 49 10.2.2. Meridian Reverse Circulation Sampling Methods .................................. 49 10.2.3. Meridian Core Sampling Methods .......................................................... 51 10.2.4. Conclusions of the Sampling Study ....................................................... 51

10.3. 2017 REVIVAL DRILLING PROGRAM ........................................................ 51 10.4. RESULTS OF 2017 REVIVAL DRILLING .................................................... 55 10.5. COMMENTS ABOUT DRILLING AND SAMLING ....................................... 57 10.6. RELEVANT SAMPLES ................................................................................ 57

11.0 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSIS AND SECURITY ..................... 58 11.1. 1990-2000 MERIDIAN GOLD SAMPLING ................................................... 58 11.2. 2012-2013 MERIDIAN GOLD SAMPLING ................................................... 58 11.3. 2017 REVIVAL GOLD SAMPLING .............................................................. 62

11.3.1. Core Logging, Splitting, Sampling and Sample Security ....................... 62 11.3.2. Sample Preparation and Analysis .......................................................... 62 11.3.3. Quality Assurance/Quality Control ......................................................... 63

11.3.3.1. 2017 Blanks ................................................................................................... 63 11.3.3.2. 2017 Standard Reference Materials .............................................................. 64 11.3.3.3. 2017 Field Duplicates .................................................................................... 66


iii July 12, 2018

11.3.3.4. 2017 Same Pulp Check Assays .................................................................... 68 11.3.3.5. Sample Preparation, Security, and Analytical Adequacy .............................. 69

12.0 DATA VERIFICATION ........................................................................... 70 12.1. DRILL HOLE COLLAR LOCATIONS .......................................................... 70 12.2. DOWN-HOLE SURVEYS ............................................................................. 70 12.3. ELECTRONIC ASSAY DATABASE ............................................................ 71 12.4. GRADE VS. CORE RECOVERY AND RQD ................................................ 75 12.5. GEOLOGIC DRILL LOGS ............................................................................ 76 12.6. QUALIFIED PERSONS OPINION ................................................................ 76

13.0 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING ............. 77 13.1. HAZEN RESEARCH, INC. ........................................................................... 77 13.2. MCCLELLAND LABORATORIES ............................................................... 79 13.3. COASTECH RESEARCH ............................................................................. 79 13.4. SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 79 13.5. QUALIFIED PERSONS STATEMENT ......................................................... 81

14.0 MINERAL RESOURCE AND MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES ........ 82 14.1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 82 14.2. DATA USED TO ESTIMATE THE RESOURCE .......................................... 82

14.2.1. Drill Hole Data ........................................................................................ 82 14.2.2. Topography ............................................................................................ 84 14.2.3. Geologic Interpretation ........................................................................... 84 14.2.4. Lithology ................................................................................................. 84 14.2.5. Mineralized Areas .................................................................................. 85 14.2.6. Gold Grade Envelopes ........................................................................... 85 14.2.7. Oxidation ................................................................................................ 85 14.2.8. Density Data .......................................................................................... 86

14.3. EXPLORATORY DATA ANALYSIS ............................................................. 86 14.3.1. Assay Statistics ...................................................................................... 86 14.3.2. High-grade Outliers ................................................................................ 95 14.3.3. Composite Statistics .............................................................................. 95 14.3.4. Variography ............................................................................................ 98

14.4. MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATION ....................................................... 101 14.4.1. Block Model Setup ............................................................................... 101 14.4.2. Grade Estimation Domains .................................................................. 102 14.4.3. Grade Estimation Parameters .............................................................. 103 14.4.4. Block Model Validation ......................................................................... 106 14.4.5. Reconciliation Comparisons ................................................................ 114 14.4.6. Resource Classification ....................................................................... 116 14.4.7. Mineral Resources ............................................................................... 117 14.4.8. General Discussion .............................................................................. 119

15.0 RESERVE ESTIMATES ...................................................................... 121

16.0 MINING METHODS ............................................................................. 121

17.0 RECOVERY METHODS ...................................................................... 121

18.0 PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE .......................................................... 121

19.0 MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS ............................................. 121


iv July 12, 2018

20.0 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING AND SOCIAL OR COMMUNITY IMPACT ..................................................................................... 121

21.0 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS ................................................. 121

22.0 ADJACENT PROPERTIES ................................................................. 121

23.0 OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION .............................. 121

24.0 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS ......................................... 122

25.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 124

26.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................... 130

27.0 APPENDIX 1 – CERTIFICATES OF QUALIFIED PERSONS ............. 132

28.0 APPENDIX 2 - RELEVANT BEARTRACK DRILL HOLE INTERSECTIONS ............................................................................................. 136


v July 12, 2018

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 4-1 LOCATION MAP ....................................................................................................... 16 FIGURE 4-2 BEARTRACK LAND MAP ........................................................................................ 18 FIGURE 7-1 GENERALIZED GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE LEESBURG AREA ............................. 32 FIGURE 7-2 KNOWN MINERALIZED AREAS ON THE BEARTRACK PROPERTY. .................. 36 FIGURE 7-3 GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE SOUTH PIT DEPOSIT .................................................. 40 FIGURE 7-4 CROSS-SECTION 7200S, SOUTH PIT ................................................................... 41 FIGURE 7-5 GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE NORTH PIT DEPOSIT .................................................. 43 FIGURE 7-6 CROSS-SECTION 1600S, NORTH PIT ................................................................... 44 FIGURE 10-1 BEARTRACK DRILL HOLE LOCATION MAP ....................................................... 50 FIGURE 10-2 BEARTRACK DRILL PLAN MAP - 2017 DRILLING .............................................. 54 FIGURE 11-1 2012-2013 GOLD BLANK PERFORMANCE ......................................................... 60 FIGURE 11-2 2012-2013 SRM CDN-GS-P7E PERFORMANCE ................................................. 61 FIGURE 11-3 2012-2013 SRM CDN-GS-1P5F PERFORMANCE ............................................... 61 FIGURE 11-4 2017 GOLD BLANK PERFORMANCE ................................................................... 64 FIGURE 11-5 2017 SRM DCN-GS-P5C PERFORMANCE .......................................................... 65 FIGURE 11-6 2017 SRM CDN-GS-1T PERFORMANCE ............................................................. 65 FIGURE 11-7 DUPLICATE SAMPLE QQ PLOT ........................................................................... 67 FIGURE 11-8 2017 CHECK ASSAY QQ PLOT ............................................................................ 68 FIGURE 12-1 OLDER AU DATA VS. 2017 DATA ........................................................................ 73 FIGURE 12-2 OLDER RC GOLD SAMPLES VS. CORE SAMPLES ........................................... 74 FIGURE 12-3 GOLD GRADE VS. CORE RECOVERY AND RQD .............................................. 75 FIGURE 14-1 DRILL HOLE PLAN MAP ....................................................................................... 83 FIGURE 14-2 SOUTH PIT GOLD BOX PLOT .............................................................................. 93 FIGURE 14-3 NORTH PIT GOLD BOX PLOT .............................................................................. 93 FIGURE 14-4 SOUTH PIT QUARTZITE-PCFZ AU CONTACT PLOT ......................................... 94 FIGURE 14-5 SOUTH PIT PCFZ-QUARTZ MONZONITE AU CONTACT PLOT ........................ 95 FIGURE 14-6 AU CUMULATIVE PROBABILITY PLOT - YELLOWJACKET QUARTZITE .......... 96 FIGURE 14-7 AU CUMULATIVE PROBABILITY PLOT - PCFZ ................................................... 96 FIGURE 14-8 AU CUMULATIVE PROBABILITY PLOT - QUARTZ MONZONITE ...................... 97 FIGURE 14-9 GOLD SAMPLE LENGTHS .................................................................................... 97 FIGURE 14-10 SOUTH PIT QUARTZITE AU CORRELOGRAM - MAJOR AXIS ........................ 98 FIGURE 14-11 SOUTH PIT QUARTZITE AU CORRELOGRAM - DOWN DIP............................ 99 FIGURE 14-12 SOUTH PIT QUARTZITE AU VARIOGRAM ELLIPSE ...................................... 100 FIGURE 14-13 PERSPECTIVE VIEW OF ESTIMATION DOMAINS ......................................... 103 FIGURE 14-14 SOUTH PIT BLOCK MODEL PLAN -6600 LEVEL ............................................ 107 FIGURE 14-15 SOUTH PIT BLOCK MODEL CROSS-SECTION A-A' ...................................... 108 FIGURE 14-16 NORTH PIT BLOCK MODEL PLAN MAP - 7000 LEVEL .................................. 109 FIGURE 14-17 NORTH PIT BLOCK MODEL CROSS-SECTION B-B' ...................................... 110 FIGURE 14-18 BLOCK MODEL AU SWATH PLOT - EASTINGS .............................................. 112 FIGURE 14-19 BLOCK MODEL AU SWATH PLOT - NORTHINGS .......................................... 113 FIGURE 14-20 BLOCK MODEL AU SWATH PLOT - ELEVATION ............................................ 114 FIGURE 14-21 PERSPECTIVE VIEW OF RESOURCE CATEGORIES .................................... 117

LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF GOLD RECOVERY BY MATERIAL TYPE .......................................... 6 TABLE 1-2 CONCEPTUAL MINERAL RESOURCE PIT PARAMETERS ...................................... 7 TABLE 1-3 BEARTRACK MINERAL RESOURCES ....................................................................... 8 TABLE 4-1 LAND OWNERSHIP ................................................................................................... 17 TABLE 4-2 EARN-IN TERMS FOR THE BEARTRACK PROPERTY ........................................... 20 TABLE 4-3 POTENTIAL COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING ....................................... 24 TABLE 6-1 HISTORICAL GOLD PRODUCTION .......................................................................... 31


vi July 12, 2018

TABLE 7-1 BEARTRACK MINE GEOCHEMISTRY ...................................................................... 38 TABLE 7-2 SELECTED DEEP SULPHIDE INTERSECTIONS1 ................................................... 45 TABLE 10-1 SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL DRILLING BY TYPE ................................................. 48 TABLE 10-2 SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL DRILLING BY COMPANY ........................................ 49 TABLE 10-3 DETAILS OF THE 2017 DRILLING PROGRAM ...................................................... 53 TABLE 10-4 RESULTS FROM THE 2017 DRILLING PROGRAM ............................................... 56 TABLE 11-1 2012-2013 MERIDIAN QA/QC SAMPLES SUBMITTED ......................................... 59 TABLE 11-2 2012-2013 SRM'S SUBMITTED ............................................................................... 60 TABLE 11-3 2017 REVIVAL QA/QC SAMPLES SUBMITTED ..................................................... 63 TABLE 11-4 2017 SRM'S SUBMITTED ........................................................................................ 64 TABLE 11-5 2017 DUPLICATE SAMPLE COMPARISON ........................................................... 66 TABLE 11-6 2017 CHECK ASSAY COMPARISON ...................................................................... 68 TABLE 12-1 DRILL HOLE ASSAY DATABASE CHECKS ........................................................... 71 TABLE 12-2 DRILL HOLE ASSAY REVIEW SUMMARY ............................................................. 72 TABLE 12-3 2017 REVIVAL GOLD ASSAYS VS. PRE-2012 DATA ............................................ 73 TABLE 12-4 CORE RECOVERY VS. GOLD GRADE .................................................................. 76 TABLE 13-1 SUMMARY OF GOLD RECOVERIES BY MATERIAL TYPE .................................. 80 TABLE 14-1 DRILL HOLE DATA USED TO ESTIMATE MINERAL RESOURCES ..................... 82 TABLE 14-2 BLOCK MODEL LITHOLOGIC CODES ................................................................... 84 TABLE 14-3 BLOCK MODEL BULK DENSITY VALUES .............................................................. 86 TABLE 14-4 GOLD FIRE ASSAY BY DRILLING METHOD ......................................................... 87 TABLE 14-5 GOLD FIRE ASSAY BY MINERALIZED AREA ....................................................... 88 TABLE 14-6 CYANIDE SOLUBLE GOLD ASSAYS BY MINERALIZED AREA ........................... 89 TABLE 14-7 SOUTH PIT GOLD FIRE ASSAYS BY MODELED LITHOLOGY ............................ 90 TABLE 14-8 SOUTH PIT CYANIDE SOLUBLE GOLD ASSAYS BY MODELED LITHOLOGY ... 90 TABLE 14-9 NORTH PIT GOLD FIRE ASSAYS BY MODELED LITHOLOGY ............................ 91 TABLE 14-10 NORTH PIT CYANIDE SOLUBLE GOLD ASSAYS BY MODELED LITHOLOGY. 92 TABLE 14-11 BLOCK MODEL EXTENTS .................................................................................. 102 TABLE 14-12 SEARCH ELLIPSE ORIENTATIONS BY DOMAIN .............................................. 102 TABLE 14-13 GOLD ESTIMATION PARAMETERS ................................................................... 105 TABLE 14-14 NEAREST NEIGHBOR GRADE COMPARISONS ............................................... 111 TABLE 14-15 CYANIDE SOLUBLE GOLD RECONCILIATION ................................................. 115 TABLE 14-16 FIRE ASSAY GOLD RECONCILIATION .............................................................. 116 TABLE 14-17 CONCEPTUAL RESOURCE PIT PARAMETERS ............................................... 118 TABLE 14-18 BEARTRACK MINERAL RESOURCES ............................................................... 118 TABLE 14-19 GRADE-TONNAGE SENSITIVITY BY CUTOFF GRADE .................................... 119 TABLE 19-1 PROPOSED 2018 DRILLING PROGRAM ............................................................. 126 TABLE 19-2 PROPOSED 2019 DRILLING PROGRAM ............................................................. 127 TABLE 19-3 PROPOSED PHASE I EXPLORATION BUDGET ................................................. 128 TABLE 19-4 PROPOSED 2019 EXPLORATION BUDGET ........................................................ 129


1 July 12, 2018

1.0 SUMMARY

This report was prepared as a Canadian National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101)

Technical Report for Revival Gold Inc. (Revival or the Company) by Resource Modeling Inc. (RMI) and Graham Karklin, Metallurgist, on the Mineral Resources of the Beartrack Property, located near Salmon, Idaho.

Mr. Graham Karklin reviewed all available metallurgical testwork data and serves

as the Qualified Person responsible for metallurgy. Mr. Michael Lechner serves as the Qualified Person for the Mineral Resources and all sections of this report other than Metallurgy.

1.1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND OWNERSHIP

The Beartrack Project is located in Lemhi County, Idaho in the northwestern United

States. The Project is situated approximately 11 miles west-northwest of the town of Salmon and approximately 150 miles northeast of Boise, the capital of Idaho. The Project consists of 305 unpatented claims totaling approximately 2,055.37 hectares (5,078.93 acres) and 14 patented claims totaling approximately 187.28 hectares (462.77 acres). Due to the superposition of unpatented lode claims over unpatented mill site and patented placer claims, the total footprint of the Beartrack claims is 1,414.74 hectares (3,495.90 acres). All 305 unpatented claims are in good standing until September 1, 2018 when the next filings and required maintenance fee payments to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) are due and Lemhi County are due, respectively. All Lemhi County property taxes are current for the 14 patented claims. Revival has entered into an earn-in agreement to purchase a 100% interest in the mineral rights for 305 unpatented claims and the 14 patented claims from Meridian Beartrack Co. (Meridian Beartrack).

An agreement between Meridian Minerals Co. and the Marvin Johnson family

covers certain patented and unpatented placer claims located largely south and west of the South Pit deposit. These placer claims are subject to a 25% of Net Return royalty calculated as the profits from sales of all placer gold mined from the claims. The Property is also subject to a 0.5% Net Profit Royalty to Mr. Raymond W. Threlkeld. The royalty is to be paid within 30 days of the end of each quarter in which gold is sold or produced. There are no other known third-party royalties, back-in rights, payments, or other agreements or encumbrances, except an annual payment on a per claim basis to the Federal government for unpatented claims, and Lemhi County property tax payments on patented claims and on physical facilities (buildings, etc.) at the Beartrack mine site. The total estimated financial obligation to maintain the claims and physical facilities that constitute the Property that is the subject of this Technical Report is $59,103 per year.

On August 31, 2017 Revival executed an earn-in and related stock purchase

agreement (the “Agreement”) with Meridian Gold Company (“Meridian”), a subsidiary of Yamana Gold Inc., by which Revival may acquire a 100% interest in Meridian Beartrack Co. (“Meridian Beartrack”), owner of the Beartrack Gold Project (“Beartrack” or, the “Project”).


2 July 12, 2018

Revival may acquire Meridian Beartrack by making a cash payment of US$250,000, delivering four million shares of Revival, spending US$10 million on exploration and funding certain remediation costs during a four-year earn-in period. The US$250,000 cash payment and one million shares of Revival stock were delivered to Meridian Beartrack in 2017. Upon completion of the acquisition Revival will assume future site remediation and closure obligations. Revival will also be required to provide a 1% NSR royalty and complete a mineral resource estimate prepared in accordance with NI 43-101 and make a cash payment equal to the greater of US$6 per ounce of gold in mineral resource or US$15 per ounce of gold in mineral reserve based on the mineral reserve and mineral resource estimate at the end of year seven which includes all mineral resources or mineral reserves discovered and determined during the four-year earn in period and a three-year period post earn-in. Meridian retains all asset retirement obligations (ARO) for the entire Earn-In Period, with Revival funding work related to the ARO after Year 2 of the Earn-In Period. Additionally, Meridian will maintain bonding on closure during the Earn-In Period with Revival funding applicable costs of bonding on closure following the second year of the Earn-In Period.

With respect to environmental and permitting issues, the Beartrack Project that is

the subject of this Technical Report is located at the site of the former producing open pit/heap leach Beartrack gold operation, on lands (patented and unpatented mining claims) within the Salmon National Forest which are administered by the United States Forest Service (USFS). The USFS and Idaho Department of Lands are the primary regulatory agencies that oversee the current project activities. Agencies of the State of Idaho that also regulate exploration and mining activities include the Idaho Department of Lands (IDL), Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), and Department of Water Resources (DWR). Meridian is currently completing planned reclamation of the former gold mine and certain associated facilities. Although Meridian was issued a Plan of Operations (POO) which the USFS approved in 2013 for exploration drilling of deeper targets beneath and along strike of the open pits, that drilling was never completed by Meridian. The POO authorizations are agency decisions and they do not necessarily terminate if planned activities do not take place. However, Meridian requested the bond be released since they had not implemented the approved activity (drilling). Reactivation of the POO was requested by Meridian in order to conduct exploration as originally approved in 2013. The reactivation of the 2013 POO was granted by the USFS and the POO was subsequently transferred into Revival’s name in late 2017. There are several non-government organizations (NGO’s) in Idaho that closely monitor public land activities, including the Idaho Conservation League and the Greater Yellowstone Coalition. Although these groups have historically proven to be adversarial to mining, it is not anticipated that there will be serious opposition to further exploration activities in the Beartrack Project area.

1.2. HISTORY

1.2.1. Historic Exploration and Production

Canyon Resources Corporation (Canyon) first recognized the potential for bulk tonnage gold mineralization on the Beartrack property in 1983. Between 1984 and 1986 Canyon conducted surface sampling over what is now known as the North deposit, and in 1987 drilled nine reverse circulation (RC) drill holes. The success of that drilling campaign lead to the acquisition of the Property in 1988 by Meridian Minerals, a Montana Corporation which at that time was a subsidiary of Burlington Northern Railroad. The


3 July 12, 2018

South deposit was discovered later that year, and continued exploration by Meridian Minerals resulted in a production decision in early 1990. In total, 898 core and RC holes were drilled totaling approximately 134,600 m.

During this time, the presence of water in the RC drill holes caused concern about

whether or not the samples that were being collected from the RC holes were representative of the gold mineralization in place. This concern was based on known sampling issues confirmed by other companies with gold exploration projects in the western US. In 1990 Meridian began a comparative study of sampling methods for reverse circulation and diamond drill holes. Two sampling methods for RC drilling were examined and compared to results from nearby diamond core holes. As a result of this study, over 208,000 feet (63,400 m) of reverse circulation drilling results collected between 1987 and 1989were excluded from estimating Mineral Resources that are the subject of this Technical Report.

Shortly after the production decision was made, FMC Gold Company (FGC)

acquired Meridian Minerals, including the Beartrack Project, in May of 1990. Mining commenced in late 1994. In 1996, FGC was spun out as Meridian Gold Corporation (Meridian Gold), and Meridian Gold’s interest in the site was later renamed Meridian Beartrack Co. Between 1995, when the first gold was poured, and 2002 when leaching stopped, the Beartrack mine produced 609,141 ounces of gold. The mine is now in remediation supervised by Yamana Gold Inc., which purchased Meridian Minerals and Meridian Beartrack Co. in October 2007.

The Beartrack Mine was an open pit heap leach mine that produced 13,600 tonnes

of ore and between 13,600 to 27,200 tonnes of waste to sub-grade material per day. Mining was conducted on 7.6-meter-high benches, and after blasting, feed material for the leach pads was transported to a two-stage crushing/screening plant that produced a minus-5 cm (2 inch) product. Non-mineralized material and sub-grade mineralization was hauled to the waste rock storage facility. After crushing and screening, leach pad feed material was directed to an 800-meter-long (approx.) conveyor line for transport to the heap leach pad. Pad feed was stacked in a semicircular fashion into panels where leach lines with emitters were placed on the material in a grid pattern for distribution of weak sodium cyanide solution. The life-of-mine (LOM) recovery (based on cyanide-soluble grades from oxide material during heap leaching operations) was 88%.

1.3. GEOLOGY AND MINERALIZATION

The Beartrack Project is located in the Great Falls Tectonic Zone (formerly known as the Trans-Challis Fault Zone in Idaho), a broad system of northeast-trending, subparallel, high-angle faults, grabens, eruptive centers and roughly aligned intrusive rocks of Tertiary age. The Beartrack mine, which produced approximately 609,000 ounces of gold, occurs along the Panther Creek fault system, which is one of many northeast-trending fault systems within the Great Falls Tectonic Zoned (GFTZ). In the Salmon area, the GFTZ is superimposed on a structurally complex package of metasedimentary rocks known as the Mesoproterozoic Belt Supergroup. Around 1,370 million years ago, Belt Supergroup rocks were buried, metamorphosed and intruded by granitic rocks, now occurring as the megacrystic granite and augen gneiss near the Mackinaw District. Later, in the Ordovician, alkalic plutons (including the Arnett Creek stock) were intruded in a northwest alignment suggesting that they were intruded along


4 July 12, 2018

pre‐existing structures of the northwest-trending Trans‐Rocky Mountain fault system. Felsic to intermediate volcanic rocks of the Eocene-age Challis volcanic group were deposited. Erosional remnants of Challis volcanics are present on the Property. The bedrock geology in the Beartrack Mine area is dominated by two Middle-Proterozoic rock units. The Proterozoic Yellowjacket Formation consists predominantly of a thick sequence of very fine-grained non-calcareous silty sandstone to sandy siltstone units which have been subjected to low, biotite-grade metamorphism. Sediments are locally highly contorted in a 15- to 35-meter zone along the Panther Creek Fault (PCF) hanging wall in the North Pit area. The Yellowjacket Formation has been intruded by Proterozoic quartz monzonite, which is located on the east, or footwall side of a four-kilometer section of the PCF in the mine area. The intrusive is medium- to coarse-grained, sub-equigranular to porphyritic, and is composed predominantly of potassium feldspar, plagioclase, quartz, and biotite. Mafic and intermediate dikes also intrude both the Yellowjacket Formation and the quartz monzonite, particularly near the PCF. Gold mineralization the Beartrack mine is partially controlled by these dikes. Most of the dikes in the South deposit are essentially barren, whereas a dike swarm near the south end of the North orebody is highly mineralized.

The area surrounding the Beartrack property has been extensively glaciated. Glaciers carved canyons up to 250 m deep and removed mineralized material from the upper portions of the mineral system. As glaciers receded, topographic lows were filled with an assemblage of moraine deposits, reworked intra-glacial tuffs, lake and stream deposits and even low-grade coal. Local landslide deposits containing mineralized Yellowjacket Formation have been mined from glacial deposits in paleo-glacial basins.

Gold mineralization on the Property is associated with a major gold-arsenic-bearing hydrothermal system where stockwork, vein and breccia-hosted mineralization has been identified in five areas over five kilometers of strike length. All mineralization is spatially related to, and controlled by, the PCF. The gold mineralization has been intersected thus far over a vertical range of up to 750 m with no indication of grade, mineral or metal zonation with depth. All areas drilled by Meridian display similarities in style of mineralization, alteration and geochemistry. Based on 40Ar/39Ar dating of sericite and potassium feldspar, mineralization from the Beartrack gold system is approximately 68 million years old.

1.4. STATUS OF EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT

In September 2017 Revival Gold announced the execution of an earn-in and

related stock purchase agreement with Meridian Gold and between September 23rd, 2017 and November 12th, 2017 Revival Gold completed 12 core holes totaling 3,024 m. This was part of a larger, 11,000 m program, which re-commenced in late May of 2018. That drilling program is still underway as of the date of this report.

1.5. MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING


5 July 12, 2018

The Company has not completed any mineral processing or metallurgical testing on the Property, but six composite samples were submitted to SGS Canada for initial testing in April 2018. Proposed testwork will consist of mineralogical characterization using QEMSCAN followed by flotation, ultra-fine grinding of flotation concentrates and bottle roll testing. The following information has been synthesized from various historic reports.

1.5.1. Historic Metallurgical Testing

Prior to commencement of production, the metallurgical testwork on all types of material from the deposit was conducted primarily by Hazen Research Inc. (Hazen), with McClelland Laboratories (McClelland) doing follow-up heap leach testing of oxide material, and Coastech Research Inc. (Coastech) performing later testing to investigate if bio-oxidation of sulphide ores would be economically feasible. Hazen began initial testing in early 1989, using 14 composite samples comprised of diamond drill core and reverse-circulation cuttings representing mineralization hosted by quartzite (QTZ) and quartz monzonite (QMP) rock types. Each of these major rock types was subdivided into oxide, mixed oxide-sulphide, or sulphide categories. The grades of these composites ranged from 1.30 grams of gold per metric tonne (g/t) to 5.24 g/t (0.038 ounces of gold per ton (opt) to 0.153 opt), respectively. These composites were tested using standard procedures which included batch cyanide leaching, column leaching of material crushed to ½-inch to simulate heap leaching. Flotation, and gravity separation were also tested. Bond work indices were also measured for specific QTZ composites. The Hazen batch cyanide leaching tests indicated the best gold dissolutions ranged from 71.1% to 87.7% for oxide QTZ material, and 88% for oxide QMP composites. Heap leach recovery results were confirmed by subsequent actual production, which averaged 88% of the cyanide soluble gold in the heap leach material. Hazen’s testing of mixed oxide-sulphide and sulphide composites were less straightforward. Batch cyanide leaching gold dissolution results for the mixed and sulphide QTZ composites were significantly lower, ranging from 58% to 64% for mixed oxide-sulphide composites and 22% to 24% for sulphide composites. Gold dissolution in the QMP sulphide composite was only 10%. Generally, recovery for the sulphide composite samples were not sensitive to grind size, at the sizes tested. Additional cyanide tests using a pre-oxidation step proved to be only slightly beneficial. Hazen’s gravity separation testwork achieved gold recoveries of only 76% in the sulphide composites. Flotation testing by Hazen revealed that the sulphide composites responded more positively than the mixed oxide-sulphide composites. Flotation recoveries from QTZ and QMP mixed oxide-sulphide composites were less than 50%, while flotation recoveries for sulphide composites ranged from 72% to 90%. Subsequent cyanidation of the float tailings for the sulphide and mixed oxide-sulphide composites proved to be beneficial with the combined sulphide rougher and tailings treatment produced overall gold recoveries of 86% to 92%, while whole ore leaching of the mixed oxide-sulphide and sulphide QTZ composites achieved recoveries of less than 60% and 30% respectively (Table 1-1). Hazen noted that achievement of the higher recoveries at a production scale likely will require either sale of the concentrates to a smelter or on-site processing of the concentrates, with preliminary results showing that some of the gold in the concentrates may require pre-treatment processes. Mineralogical test work of the rougher concentrates and tailings indicated that some of the sulphide minerals are locked within gangue minerals at extremely fine sizes, in some cases less than 10 microns. In addition, the gold is intimately associated with certain sulphides, which probably contributed to the lower


6 July 12, 2018

concentrate leach recoveries. Pre-treatment of sulphide concentrates could entail ultra-fine grinding of concentrate, bio-oxidation, roasting or other pre-treatment processes.

Table 1-1 Summary of Gold Recovery by Material Type

Mixed and Sulphide Material Process Options Gold Recovery

(%)1 QTZ-M32 QTZ-S42 QMP-S42

Whole Ore Mineralization Direct Cyanidation 67.7 25.4 8.1 Cyanidation after autoclave pre-oxidation 78.5 92.2 93.8 Cyanidation after roasting 89.7 81.3 87.7 Cyanidation after nitric acid pre-oxidation 77.3 90.9 74.3

Flotation Flotation & direct cyanidation of flotation products 66.5 22.7 NA Flotation, direct cyanidation of flotation tailings and cyanidation after autoclave pre-oxidation

75.8 84.1 85.6

Flotation, direct cyanidation of flotation tailings, and cyanidation of flotation concentrate after roasting

74.2 69.9 70.1 1Gold recoveries do not take into account any solution and/or carbon losses. 2QTZ-M3 is mixed oxide-sulphide composite from the quartzite, QTZ-S4 is sulphide composite from the quartzite

and QMP-S4 is a sulphide composite from the quartz monzonite.

The 1990 phase of Hazen testwork focused on mixed oxide-sulphide and sulphide composites in order to define a process that would maximize gold recovery in whole ore feed, as well as from concentrates generated by a pilot-scale plant. In summary, it was shown that cyanidation after autoclave pre-oxidation of the mixed oxide-sulphide and sulphide whole ore composites achieved gold dissolutions of 79% for the mixed composite and greater than 90% for the two sulphide composites. In comparison, recoveries by roasting of whole ore followed by cyanidation were 90% for the mixed oxide-sulphide composite and 81% to 88% for the sulphide composites. For the pre-oxidation of the pilot plant concentrates by autoclaving or roasting followed by cyanide leaching, recoveries compared to whole ore pre-treatment were lower. For the mixed oxide-sulphide composite, gold recoveries using autoclaving to pre-treat the concentrates prior to cyanide leaching were 76%, compared to 74% for roasting pre-treatment. For the sulphide composites, autoclave pre-oxidation treatment prior to cyanidation ranged from 55% to 78%, while roasting pre-treatment recoveries ranged from 46% to 66%.

Coastech Research conducted testing to investigate if bio-oxidation of sulphide ores would be economically feasible and to determine if it was better suited for whole ore pre-oxidation or concentrate pre-oxidation. The results indicated that after bio-oxidation, gold recovery for the whole ore composites ranged from 72% to 90%, and recovery in the concentrate samples ranged from 92% to 97%. Subsequent cost-benefit analyses by Coastech showed bio-oxidation of whole ore was not economically feasible, while bio-oxidation of concentrates warranted further study.

1.6. MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE

An estimate of mineral resources was completed using drilling information

collected by Meridian Gold and Revival. The underlying lithologic and gold grade interpretation was initially completed by Meridian Gold’s technical staff in the late 1990’s and was updated by Revival’s technical staff. The historical and recent data were


7 July 12, 2018

reviewed and verified by the Qualified Person responsible for Mineral Resources to be suitable for estimating mineral resources. Three grade estimation methods were undertaken (inverse distance, ordinary kriging, and nearest neighbor). After various comparisons, the inverse distance model was selected to be most representative. Two block gold grades (cyanide soluble and fire assay) were estimated and formed the basis for determining potential leach and mill resources. The Beartrack project was a successful heap leach operation that focused on cyanide soluble gold grades, but Meridian was fully aware that less soluble gold resources extended at depth below their open pits based on fire assay data.

The grade models were validated using visual and statistical methods. In addition,

significant fine tuning of the grade models was completed using historical production data and blast-holes in order to closely estimate mined tonnages and grade.

The interpolated block grades were classified into Indicated and Inferred Mineral

Resource categories based on drill hole spacing and mineralized continuity. In general, the Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources are based on drill hole spacings of about 30m and 60m, respectively.

Mineral resources were constrained by a conceptual pit that was based on a gold

price of $1,300 along with cost and recovery parameters for conceptual leach and mill scenarios as summarized in Table 1-2. Potential block net values were calculated for each block based on the estimated cyanide soluble (leach) and fire assay grades (mill). The conceptual pit was generated from the greater of the two conceptual block values. Mineral resources were tabulated by conceptual process method inside of the conceptual pit as shown in Table 1-2.

Table 1-2 Conceptual Mineral Resource Pit Parameters

Parameter Units Value

Au price US$/ounce $1,300

Leach recovery % of AuCN grade 1 85%

Mill recovery % of AuFA grade 2 84%

Mining cost US$/tonne mined $2.66

Leach processing US$/tonne processed $5.00

Mill processing cost US$/tonne processed $17.00

G&A cost US$/tonne processed $1.75

Pit slope angle Degrees 45 1 Estimated cyanide soluble gold grade. Leach recovery is estimated to be about 68% of fire assay grade.

2 Estimated fire assay gold grade.

Source: RMI, 2018


8 July 12, 2018

Table 1-3 Beartrack Mineral Resources

Resource Category ‐ Material Type Tonnes (000) Gold (g/t) Contained Au Ounces (000)

Indicated Leach 1 12,060 0.71 276

Indicated Mill 2 21,305 1.37 938

Total Indicated 33,365 1.13 1,214

Inferred Leach 1 2,091 0.81 54

Inferred Mill 2 14,812 1.49 710

Total Inferred 16,903 1.41 765 1 Heap leach material defined by cyanide soluble gold leaching characteristics. 2 Mill material defined by fire assay gold estimates.

Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. It is reasonably expected that the majority of Inferred Mineral Resources could be upgraded to Indicated Resources with continued exploration.

Rounding may result in apparent discrepancies between tonnes, grade and contained metal content.

The estimate of Mineral Resources may be materially affected by geology, environment, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-political, marketing or other relevant issues.

The effective date of the Mineral Resource is April 18, 2018.

Source: RMI, 2018

1.7. CONCLUSIONS

The Beartrack Property is a mesothermal gold prospect located near the town of

Salmon in Lemhi County, Idaho. The property was explored in the late 1980’s primarily by Meridian Gold who drilled a number of reverse circulation and core holes. Meridian went on to put the Property into production as an open pit heap leach operation that eventually shutdown in 2000 at a time when the price of gold dropped below US$300 per ounce.

Meridian completed a number of metallurgical studies with oxide and sulphide

mineralization in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, prior to construction of the Beartrack Mine. That metallurgical testwork showed that mixed oxide-sulphide and sulphide mineralization is not amenable to heap leaching. Metallurgical testing of mixed oxide-sulphide and sulphide mineralization by batch leaching, gravity separation and flotation with pre-oxidation indicate that some form of pretreatment of either whole ore or flotation concentrate will be required to obtain acceptable recoveries. Oxide mineralization at Beartrack responds well to cyanide heap leaching as demonstrated from past successful mining operations.

In addition to the leachable resource, a mill resource has been estimated based

on the extensive gold-bearing sulphide system identified along strike and beneath the leachable resource. Based on historical metallurgical testwork and a review of successfully scaled sulphide operations, Revival envisions an open pit operation in which select mixed oxide/sulphide and sulphide material is milled to produce a flotation


9 July 12, 2018

concentrate, which includes pre-treatment of the concentrates followed cyanidation of the concentrates and flotation tailings.

For the current resource, values for two process types, leaching and milling, were

calculated for each block. The highest value was then used to determine the destination of each block.

For the heap leach component of the mineral resource, the key metallurgical

assumptions were as follows:

A nominal throughput of 10,000 tonnes per day Two-stage crush to 80% passing two inches Cyanide 1 kg/t, lime at 2 kg/t Power costs $47.5/MW Heap leach processing cost of $5.00/tonne has been estimated using

historical records 85% recovery of gold from cyanide soluble gold grade

For the mill component of the mineral resource, the key metallurgical assumptions

were as follows:

Pressure oxidation used to pretreat sulphide concentrate Cyanidation of pressure oxidized sulphide concentrate and flotation tailings A nominal processing rate of 20,000 tonnes per day Power costs of $47.5/MW Mill processing cost of $17/tonne has been estimated by benchmarking for

the purposes of this report. 84% recovery from fire assay gold grade

An estimate of mineral resources was completed using drilling information

collected by Meridian Gold and Revival. The underlying lithologic and gold grade interpretation was initially completed by Meridian Gold’s technical staff in the late 1990’s and was updated by Revival’s technical staff. The historical and recent data were reviewed and verified by the Qualified Person responsible for Mineral Resources to be suitable for estimating resources. Three grade estimation methods were undertaken (inverse distance, ordinary kriging, and nearest neighbor). After various comparisons, the inverse distance model was selected to be most representative. Two block grades were estimated and formed the basis for determining potential leach and mill resources. The Beartrack project was a successful heap leach operation that focused on cyanide soluble gold grade, but Meridian was fully aware that less soluble gold resources extended at depth below their open pits based on fire assay data.






10 July 12, 2018

Mineral Resources were constrained by a conceptual pit that was based on a gold

price of US$1,300/ounce gold price, a 0.61 g/t gold mill cut-off and a 0.26 g/t cyanide soluble gold heap leach cut-off. Based on these parameters, the pit-constrained Beartrack Mineral Resource contains an Indicated Mineral Resource of 33.4 million tonnes at 1.13 g/t gold containing 1,214,000 ounces of gold; and, an Inferred Mineral Resource of 16.9 million tonnes at 1.41 g/t gold containing 765,000 ounces of gold.

1.8. RECOMMENDATIONS

The recommendations of the Qualified Person responsible for this Technical Report to Revival are as follows:

Complete Revival’s planned 2018 drilling program to further define mineral resources in the North and South pit areas, and to determine the scale of mineralization in the Joss area. The estimated cost for this recommendation is $2.0 million.

Continue to drill test mineralization in the Joss area as well as along strike from

known deposits in the North and South Pits. Further drilling in the North and South pit areas is contingent upon the results of the 2018 program. The estimated cost for this recommendation is $2.9 million.

Historic reverse circulation drilling encountered gold mineralization in the Moose

area north of the North Pit. This are should be tested by core drilling. Drilling in this area will be contingent on the approval of Revival’s POO by the USFS. The estimated cost for this recommendation is included in the second recommendation.

Test exploration targets in the Rabbit area south of Leesburg. Drilling in this area will be contingent on the approval of Revival’s POO by the USFS. The estimated cost for this recommendation is included in the second recommendation.

Update and refine the lithologic model by including results from the 2018 drilling

program. Sectional polygons should be reconciled to mid-bench elevations for final drill hole and block model coding. The estimated cost for this recommendation is US$10,000 to US$15,000.

Breakout mappable geologic units within the Panther Creek Fault Zone (PCFZ). The estimated cost for this recommendation is US$7,500 to US$10,000.

Refine the gold grade envelopes by re-examining the current cross-sectional interpretation which should be ultimately reconciled to mid-bench elevations for final drill hole and block model coding. The estimated cost for this recommendation is US$10,000 to US$15,000.

Where applicable, compare 2018 drill hole results with the block model that is the basis of the Mineral Resource that is the subject of this Technical Report. The estimated cost for this recommendation is US$1,000.

Obtain more bulk tonnage determinations from representative rock types. The estimated cost for this recommendation is US$5,000.


11 July 12, 2018

Purchase larger (100 gram) control sample standards to avoid having insufficient

sample for analysis. The cost for this recommendation is an incremental cost and should not significant.

The AuCN/AuFA (gold cyanide/gold fire assay) ratio should be monitored during drilling (when oxide is present) to support the designation of material types as well as to determine the heap leach recovery for remaining heap leachable feed. There is no additional cost associated with this recommendation.

Complete Revival’s 2018 metallurgical program to mineralogically characterize the mineralization and determine the baseline cyanidation recoveries using ultra fine grinding and standard cyanidation. The estimated cost for this recommendation is $150,000.

This first phase program should then be followed by a second phase of testing that will focus on improving recovery of gold from lithologies that may require oxidative pretreatment. Alternative pretreatment processes will be tested to determine if an alternative process can be identified as being more appropriate for this mineralization. The cost for this recommendation is estimated to be between $90,000 and $100,000.

Variability testing on representative samples of various material types from current exploration drilling is suggested and would be required to be done on any alternative oxidative process that is identified. The estimated cost for this recommendation is $50,000.

Complete a resource update for the Beartrack Project. This should include a more accurate estimate of processing costs to be determined from first principals. The estimated cost for this recommendation is $200,000.

Reinterpret airborne magnetic data collected by Meridian. The estimated cost for this recommendation is $35,000.

Complete structural geology study of the Beartrack mine area. The estimated cost for this recommendation is $34,000. The total estimate cost to complete the Phase I (2018) program is US$3,425,000

and the total estimated cost to complete the 2019 work program is US$4,356,000.


12 July 12, 2018

2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1. TERMS OF REFERENCE AND PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

This report was prepared as a Canadian National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101)

Technical Report for Revival Gold Inc. by Mr. Michael Lechner, President of Resource Modeling Inc. and Mr. Graham Karklin, President of Graham A. Karklin & Associates, Inc., collectively referred to as the Consultants, on the Beartrack Project located near Salmon, Idaho.

The quality of information, conclusions, and estimates contained herein are

consistent with the level of effort involved in the Consultant’s services, based on: i) information available at the time of preparation, ii) data supplied by Revival, and iii) the assumptions, conditions, and qualifications set forth in this report. This report is intended for use by Revival to be filed as a Technical Report with Canadian securities regulatory authorities pursuant to NI 43-101, Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects. Except for the purposes legislated under provincial securities law, any other uses of this report by any third party is at that party’s sole risk. The responsibility for this disclosure remains with Revival. The user of this document should ensure that this is the most recent Technical Report for the property as it is not valid if a new Technical Report has been issued.

This report provides Mineral Resource estimates, and a classification of resources

prepared in accordance with CIM Standards on Mineral Resources and Reserves: Definitions and Guidelines, May 10, 2014 (CIM, 2014).

2.2. QUALIFICATIONS OF CONSULTANTS

The Consultants preparing this Technical Report were Michael Lechner, P. Geo.

and Graham Karklin, Mining Technologist. Mr. Lechner’s primary contributions for this Technical Report included preparing the estimate of Mineral Resources while Mr. Karklin’s focus was on various aspects of metallurgy.

Neither of the Consultant’s employed in the preparation of this report has any

beneficial interest in Revival. The Consultants are not insiders, associates, or affiliates of Revival. The results of this Technical Report are not dependent upon any prior agreements concerning the conclusions to be reached, nor are there any undisclosed understandings concerning any future business dealings between Revival and the Consultants. The Consultants are being paid a fee for their work in accordance with normal professional consulting practice.

The Consultants, by virtue of their education, experience and professional

association, are considered to be Qualified Persons (QP’s) as defined in the NI 43-101 standards and are members in good standing of appropriate professional institutions. QP certificates for the two authors are provided in Appendix 1. The QP’s are responsible for specific sections as follows:


13 July 12, 2018

Michael Lechner, P. Geo, President of Resource Modeling Inc., is the QP responsible for Sections 2 through 12, 14 through 24 and portions of 1, 25, and 26.

Graham Karklin, Mining Technologist is the QP responsible for Section 13 and portions of 1, 25, and 26.

2.3. SOURCES OF INFORMATION

Data, reports, and other information used for the estimate of Mineral Resources,

which are the focus of this Technical Report, were obtained from former operators that conducted exploration and mining on the Property along with recent drilling results collected by Revival. The key data with respect to the estimate of Mineral Resources includes digital drill hole data, digital geologic interpretations, topographic surfaces, and historical metallurgical reports.

All references in this Technical Report to QP’s “opinion”, “belief”, “recommendation” or similar phrases specifically are those of either Michael Lechner, P. Geo. or Graham Karklin, Mining Technologist, the authors of this Technical Report, in their professional capacities as a “Qualified Person”.

2.4. DETAILS OF INSPECTION

Mr. Lechner has made several site visits over the past several years to the project

site. The most recent property site visit was on October 18, 2018. Mr. Lechner was accompanied by Mr. Steven T. Priesmeyer C.P.G, Vice President of Exploration for Revival. During that visit, Mr. Lechner observed two core drills in operation, reviewed drill core handling procedures including the transportation of core to the logging facility, drill core logging, core sampling, sample security and sample shipping procedures. Time was spent with a contract geologist, Mr. Larry Hillesland, who was hired by Revival to log the 2017 Revival drill core and re-log older core for updating the geologic interpretation. Mr. Hillesland provided Mr. Lechner with a review of various geologic interpretations and observations from cross sections and level plans.

Mr. Karklin made a visit to site on February 20, 2018. Mr. Steven T. Priesmeyer

C.P.G, Vice President of exploration for Revival Gold accompanied Mr. Karklin on the visit. The visit was aimed at reviewing drill core and drill logs in order to propose a metallurgical testing program. The time included examining diamond drill core to determine the metallurgical composite strategy. The proposed metallurgical composites were defined by key lithologic and alteration types within the Beartrack deposit. These composites have been prepared and shipped to SGS Canada for mineralogical and metallurgical testing.

2.5. EFFECTIVE DATE

The effective date of this report is April 18, 2018.


14 July 12, 2018

2.6. UNITS OF MEASURE

The Beartrack Project was initially setup by Meridian with a local mine grid

coordinate system. For this Technical Report, drill hole locations and digital topographic information used the historical Meridian mine grid system with linear measurement in Imperial feet. Most of the pre-2012 analytical data were reported in Imperial units (ounces per short ton). Those units were used to develop the geologic model and mineral resource model that are the subject of this Technical Report. Most of the drill hole assay statistics and variography are expressed in Imperial Units (feet and ounces per short ton).

Resource tonnages stated in this report were converted from Imperial units to

metric units (i.e. metric tonnes and grams per metric tonne). Ounces pertaining to gold metal content are expressed in troy ounces throughout this Technical Report. Monetary amounts are reported in US dollars.


15 July 12, 2018

3.0 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS

The Qualified Persons responsible for this Technical Report have relied on Revival’s technical/legal staff and other consultants regarding legal, political, environmental, cost and tax matters relevant to this Technical Report. In particular, Mr. Eric Klepfer, President of Klepfer Mining Services LLC provided Revival and the Consultant’s with an environmental assessment of the project including possible insights into future permitting and helped with a Plan of Operations for drilling programs.


16 July 12, 2018

4.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION

The Beartrack Project is located in Lemhi County, Idaho in the northwestern United States (Figure 4-1). The Project is situated approximately 11 miles west-northwest of the town of Salmon and approximately 150 miles northeast of Boise, the capital of Idaho. Approximate geographic coordinates for the center of the historic resource are 45°14’13”N and 114°6’12”W, at approximately 7,100 feet elevation.

Figure 4-1 Location Map

Source: Revival, 2017


17 July 12, 2018

4.1. MINERAL TENURE

Revival has entered into an earn-in agreement to purchase a 100% interest in the mineral rights for 305 unpatented claims totaling approximately 2,055.37 hectares (5,078.93 acres) and 14 patented claims totaling approximately 187.28 hectares (462.77 acres) from Meridian Beartrack Co. Due to the superposition of lode unpatented lode claims over unpatented mill site and patented placer claims, the total footprint of the Beartrack claims is 1,414.74 hectares (3,495.90 acres). The information presented in Table 4-1 shows the breakdown of claim by type and area and includes the estimated holding costs to maintain these claims. Figure 4-2 shows the land ownership situation on the Property. All 305 unpatented claims and 14 patented claims are in good standing until September 1, 2018 when the next filings and required maintenance fee payments to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Lemhi County are due, respectively.

Claim locations in the United States are described with respect to the Section, Township and Range system employed throughout the country. The claims that comprise the Beartrack land position are located, all or in part, in Sections 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 25, 29, 31, 32 and 33, Township 22 North, Range 20 East, Section 34, Township 23 North, Range 20 East, and Sections 6 and 12, Township 21 North, Range 20 East, Boise Meridian.

Table 4-1 Land Ownership

Claim type Number of

Claims Approximate Area

(acres)

Estimated Holding Cost

(US$)

Unpatented Lode 116 2,396.56 $17,980

Unpatented Mill site 143 715.00 $22,165

Unpatented Placer 46 1,967.37 $18,135

Patented Claims 14 462.77 $823

319 5,541.70 $59,103.00

Source: Revival, 2017 The Property is subject to a 0.5% Net Profit Royalty to Mr. Raymond W. Threlkeld.

The royalty is to be paid within 30 days of the end of each quarter in which gold is sold or produced. There are no historic payments due Mr. Threlkeld.

An agreement between Meridian Minerals Co. and the Marvin Johnson family

covers certain patented and unpatented placer claims located largely south and west of the South Pit. These placer claims are subject to a 25% of Net Return royalty calculated as the profits from sales of all placer gold mined from the claims. The royalty covers all “placer” gold, which is defined as gold occurring within 100 feet (30.5 m) of the surface. The agreement, signed October 3, 1989, allows for the return of the claims in question to the Johnsons, or the heirs of the Johnson family living at the time the agreement was signed, if they are deemed to not have value for exploration or mining.

There are no other known third-party royalties, back-in rights, payments, or other

agreements or encumbrances, except an annual payment on a per claim basis to the Federal government for unpatented claims, and Lemhi County tax payments on patented claims.


18 July 12, 2018

Figure 4-2 Beartrack Land Map



19 July 12, 2018

4.1.1. Obligations to Maintain the Property

The primary obligation to maintain unpatented mining claims in good standing is payment of an annual Maintenance Fee of $155 per lode or mill site claim on or before September 1 of each year. Placer claims over 20 acres must pay an additional $155 per 20 acres or portion thereof. Property taxes are also due for patented claims, as these are classified as real property. The total estimated financial obligation to maintain the claims that constitute the Property that is the subject of this Technical Report is $58,280 per year (Table 4-1). In addition to these property payments, there is a property tax on buildings at the Beartrack mine site. The amount paid for these taxes in 2017 was US$823. This amount is expected to increase incrementally over time, but the eventual total is not viewed as onerous.

4.1. AGREEMENTS AND PERMITS

4.1.1. Agreements

On August 31, 2017 Revival executed an earn-in and related stock purchase agreement (the “Agreement”) with Meridian Gold Company (“Meridian”), a subsidiary of Yamana Gold Inc., by which Revival may acquire a 100% interest in Meridian Beartrack Co. (“Meridian Beartrack”), owner of the Beartrack Gold Project (“Beartrack” or, the “Project”). The Agreement is subject to TSX-V regulatory approval.

Revival may acquire Meridian Beartrack by making a cash payment of

US$250,000, delivering four million shares of Revival, spending US$10 million on exploration and funding certain remediation costs during a four-year earn-in period. Upon completion of the acquisition Revival will assume future site remediation and closure obligations. Revival will also be required to provide a 1% NSR royalty and complete a mineral resource estimate prepared in accordance with NI 43-101 and make a cash payment equal to the greater of US$6 per ounce of gold in mineral resource or US$15 per ounce of gold in mineral reserve based on the mineral reserve and mineral resource estimate at the end of year seven which includes all mineral resources or mineral reserves discovered and determined during the four-year earn in period and a three-year period post earn-in (Table 4-2).

Meridian retains all asset retirement obligations (ARO) for the entire Earn-In

Period, with Revival funding work related to the ARO after Year 2 of the Earn-In Period. Additionally, Meridian will maintain bonding on closure during the Earn-In Period with Revival funding applicable costs of bonding on closure following Year 2 of the Earn-In Period.


20 July 12, 2018

Table 4-2 Earn-In Terms for the Beartrack Property

Year Payments

(US$) Work

Commitment Stock

(Common Shares) Closing $250,000 1,000,000

1 $2,000,000 1,000,000 2 $2,000,000 1,000,000 3 $3,000,000 1,000,000 4 $3,000,000

TOTAL $250,000 $10,000,000 4,000,000


4.1.2. Environmental and Permitting

The Beartrack Project is an exploration project located on the property of a former producing open pit, heap leach gold mine. The lands are located on patented and unpatented mining claims within the Salmon-Challis National Forest, which are administered by the United States Forest Service (USFS). More specifically, it is located within the Salmon-Cobalt Ranger District in all or portions of Sections 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 25, 29, 31, 32 and 33, Township 22 North, Range 20 East, Section 34, Township 23 North, Range 20 East, and Sections 6 and 12, Township 21 North, Range 20 East, Boise Meridian (Figure 4-2). The public lands are administered by the United States Forest Service (USFS) out of the Salmon-Challis National Forest Supervisor’s Office.

Meridian is currently completing planned reclamation on the operational portion of

the project. Meridian was issued a separate approval for their Plan of Operation (POO) to complete exploration for deeper targets, which the USFS approved in 2013 but never implemented by Meridian. The POO was reactivated by Meridian to conduct exploration as originally approved in 2013 and subsequently transferred the authorized POO into Revival’s name. Revival has posted the required bond with the USFS and now holds and controls the Beartrack Exploration POO.

4.1.2.1. Regulatory Authority

The USFS and Idaho Department of Lands are the primary regulatory agencies that oversee the current project activities. The project was fully permitted, and appropriate permits still remain in place that allow Meridian to continue closure activities. For exploration drilling activities, the USFS and the Idaho Department of Lands will be the primary contacts relating to any future permitting activities that may be undertaken by Revival, however IDL has limited regulations regarding exploration activities.

4.1.2.2. U.S. Forest Service

The USFS will be responsible for reviewing and approving any modifications or amendments to the Beartrack Exploration POO. As such, any subsequent changes will likely result in changes to the reclamation bond currently placed by Revival. Amendments and modifications to the Beartrack Exploration POO will be based on drill results from the previous year(s) drilling activities.

The USFS will also be required to complete an environmental evaluation of the

proposed modifications/amendments prior to approving these changes.


21 July 12, 2018

4.1.2.3. Idaho Department of Lands

Idaho Department of Lands (IDL) regulates surface mining activities under IDAPA 20.03.02 Rules Governing Exploration, Surface Mining and, along with the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Closure of Cyanidation Facilities. Specific to exploration activities, IDAPA 20.03.02.06 outlines the requirements for exploration operations and required reclamation. Motorized earth-moving equipment shall require notification to IDL within seven (7) days after beginning operations. This would include any activity that uses drilling equipment. Note that authorization by the USFS for any plan is also required.

There are two reclamation standards that an exploration project may be subject to,

and these include those which disturb less than two acres and those which disturb more than two acres. These standards outline the minimum requirements for reclamation. For purposes of permitting, the USFS requirements will be equal to or more stringent than the Idaho regulations, eliminating any conflict between the two regulatory agencies.

There are no other permits required by IDL to initiate exploration activities and it is

likely that this notification may not be required because the USFS is established as the lead agency.

4.1.2.4. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality

The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) typically issues permits relating to water and/or air quality issues. There are no specific permits required for exploration activities relating to air or water quality. Therefore, it is not envisioned that IDEQ will be involved with any regulatory authorizations for exploration activities. The EPA is currently working to transfer authority for storm water permitting to the IDEQ. The exploration program will occur on land already covered by a storm water permit held by Meridian for the Beartrack Project.

4.1.2.5. Idaho Department of Water Resources

The Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) is responsible for issuing water rights or temporary uses of water for projects. Meridian holds water rights for the project that allow use of water in and near the project. Revival will be allowed to use Meridian’s water sources to support drilling activities.

4.1.2.6. Environmental Arena

The project is located in a remote part of Idaho with a surrounding small rural community that depends on the multiple use concept of management of public lands for economic stability through natural resource development. There is a high level of support from the community for high paying mining jobs. The Beartrack Mine has an excellent track record of operational performance and environmental stewardship. The USFS has approved the Beartrack Exploration POO and it is reasonable to assume that incremental amendments/modifications could be approved as well.

4.1.2.7. Aquatic Resources and Water Quality

The State of Idaho recently completed a statewide review of water quality for specific drainages in the project area. The IDEQ classified/characterized each stream condition. There are several drainages in the project area that include Jefferson Creek,


22 July 12, 2018

Camp Creek, and Sharkey Creek which are all tributaries to Napias Creek. Napias Creek generally parallels the project. The following classifications were reported by IDEQ:

Jefferson Creek Perennial Stream Fully Supports all Beneficial Uses Camp Creek Perennial Stream Fully Supports all Beneficial Uses Sharkey Creek Perennial Stream Fully Supports all Beneficial Uses Napias Creek Perennial Stream Fully Supports all Beneficial Uses Napias Creek flows into Panther Creek, which ultimately flows into the Salmon

River. Bull Trout are present in Napias Creek. There is an anadromous fishery that exists lower in the drainage system fed by Napias Creek (Salmon River and Panther Creek). This fishery (chinook and steelhead) is the focus of continued efforts to maintain and improve fish populations. It should be noted that the area is open to controlled fishing for these species.

The presence of bull trout or other threatened or endangered (T&E) species is not

necessarily a major hindrance or a prohibition of exploration or mineral development. Currently, the USFS manages habitat for these species as a regular consideration when permitting projects on public lands. There are no specific restrictions or protection of habitat that will be involved with exploration activities.

4.1.2.8. Wildlife

The project area is outside of any established grizzly bear recovery areas. The introduction of wolves by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was done under a cooperative program with the State of Idaho as an experimental species and was not subject to the consultation process between the USFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service which is required for other threatened and endangered species (T&E). The USFS does manage habitat for all species.

There are other species of wildlife typically found in the area and these include elk,

deer, eagles, hawks, owls, and other typical species. There also are several T&E species that may have habitat in the area that could include the Canada Lynx and other species of interest or concern. The USFS takes measures to minimize impacts to these species while authorizing project activities.

This will not be an issue as Revival continues to explore under the Beartrack POO.

Moving forward, amendments to the plan may require some review concerning these species but because the activities are located on previously disturbed lands due to mining activities, these should be minimal issues to future permitting process.

4.1.2.9. Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)

There are several organizations in Idaho that follow public land activities. The Idaho Conservation League (ICL) and the Greater Yellowstone Coalition are active in the region, focusing on public lands (USFS and BLM). As with any mineral development project, NGOs will monitor the activities of the various regulatory agencies. Discussions with the Salmon-Cobalt Ranger District did not indicate any more than a casual observation by the environmental organizations. There is no information that either group has actively pursued the Beartrack Project. The low-profile element of the project is likely due to its current closure phase and the excellent track record on regulatory compliance established by Beartrack on the project. However, any company should be cognizant of


23 July 12, 2018

these organizations in approaching the development of a mineral property. For example, the Greater Yellowstone Coalition is focusing on the Yellowstone ecosystem which does not extend into the project area. This is not to say that the group would not support another NGO issue.

4.1.2.10. Political Environment

Idaho is a conservative state with a philosophy of smaller government and limiting the government’s reach. Rural communities, like Salmon, are strongly supportive of natural resource development. Mining and timber are main economic drivers for many of these communities. The current Governor of Idaho is a Republican and supports natural resource development. As a whole, the Idaho Legislature and the Governor’s Office under most political situations will be supportive of responsible mineral development. There is a demonstrated level of awareness of the importance of multiple use (mining, timber, agriculture, etc.) while being good stewards of the lands for the common good of the citizens.

4.1.3. Permitting

As discussed in previous sections, Meridian held an approved 2013 POO that allows for exploration activities. While the plan was approved, Meridian did not actively pursue the drilling approved by the USFS. As requested by Revival, the USFS reviewed and reactivated the original approval and transferred the authorization into Revival’s name (the Beartrack Exploration POO).

The Beartrack Exploration POO provides authorization is for surface exploration

at the project. The Beartrack Exploration POO s covers exploration in 2018 into 2019 and possibly beyond. Amendments to this POO are anticipated to modify approved drill locations, add additional drill sites, new roads and other activities that will be conducted in the future. Obtaining approval through the amendment process is straightforward and the same process required for the original POO approval by the USFS.

Modifications to this permit can be accomplished as required. The scope of

changes will determine the level of agency review and approval required. Small changes in drill site locations can likely be accomplished by a site visit and approval for the change. Deviations from the POO will require an amendment to the Beartrack Exploration POO for which the USFS will likely require completion of some level of NEPA analysis and authorization, possibly including an Environmental Assessment (EA). Planned properly, this can be accomplished in a manner that will permit subsequent drilling the following year. Using any of these methods requires concurrence by the USFS to support the process so it is streamlined. If the agency completes the EA, other priorities can be set that may defer the completion of the document to a lower priority and delay work. Starting the process earlier will ensure these types of issues have limited impact on the project schedule.

There may be some environmental studies and/or site-specific field clearances that

must be complete prior to completion of the EA. As the project increases in scope and scale, these studies or clearances can become a critical path element of the permitting effort Property.


24 July 12, 2018

All the above permitting discussions, except casual use, will require a simple notification to IDL within (7) days of initiating exploration activities.

One final area would normally require the filing of a Notice of Intent (NOI) to initiate

exploration and address the subject of a storm water program, however the project is covered under Meridian’s storm water permit.

4.1.3.1. Permitting Costs

Amendments to the plan are expected to only require some level of supplemental environmental assessment. However, it is unlikely to be a significant effort, as the project is located on historic mined areas where disturbance has occurred in the recent past. Costs to prepare both the amendment and a supplemental environmental assessment would likely be less than $35,000. The overall cost of environmental permitting is expected to range between $85,000 and $135,000 (Table 4-3). Amendments to the plan are expected to only require some level of supplemental environmental assessment. However, it is unlikely to be a significant effort, as the project is located on historic mined areas where disturbance has occurred in the recent past. Costs to prepare both the amendment and a supplemental environmental assessment would likely be less than $35,000.

As long as the Beartrack Exploration POO remains in place, the exploration

permitting process will be more straight-forward with much less uncertainty due to the exploration project’s location on the mine project area compared to permitting an exploration project outside of a mine project area.

Table 4-3 Potential Cost of Environmental Permitting

Area Cost Range (US$)

Comments

Amendments/Modifications $5,000 Environmental Assessment

$30,000 If required for an amendment

Reclamation Bond $50,000 Depends on scope of requested

amendments Environmental Studies $0-50,000 Dependent on Site Specific Issues

Total Cost Range $85,000-$135,000

Source: Revival, 2017 Time and specific environmental issues will dictate the effort and costs required

for any amendments to the POO. Allowing the agencies to do most of the work will reduce costs but raise the uncertainty as to when all required tasks will be completed. There is no regulatory timeframe imposed on the agency to complete and/or make a decision on an amendment/modification submittal. However, using a third party/in-house group to develop an EA does not fully eliminate the uncertainty of an agency decision, although it helps the process significantly. USFS staff are funded, in part, by other budgetary sources than the mineral budget (i.e. the fire program), and commitments to that program can impact the priority of staff and their availability to review the draft EA documents in a timely manner. Amendments and changes are common and will require additional funds when these occur. EA documents may be required for amendments; although, they can generally be tiered from the original EA. The USFS can, within the guidance of NEPA,


25 July 12, 2018

use the other mechanisms to assess amendments, which can significantly reduce permitting times when impacts are insignificant.

4.1.3.2. Environmental Liability Disclosure

Revival is proposing to drill exploration targets that may be present below the existing pits and mine disturbance for the Beartrack Project. There will be a reclamation liability to Revival to complete reclamation of any disturbance that occurs due to exploration activity. The direct cost of reclaiming exploration drill pads and roads, to plug drill holes and other requirements in the bond is approximately $29,000. The total reclamation bond is anticipated to be approximately $50,000 covering agency oversight/management and direct reclamation costs. The Bond will be released when all required reclamation activities are complete.

There is also a reclamation liability associated with the mine operations where

Meridian is actively completing reclamation. The agencies approved the reclamation plan which is the basis for closure activities that are underway. Meridian has completed a significant amount of the required reclamation on the project. This includes the closure of the three pits, reclamation of the overburden storage area, partial closure of the heap leach pad, and removal of a portion of the ancillary support facilities.

Final closure of the heap leach pad is currently underway and is the primary task

remaining for the full reclamation of the project. However, water management and treatment will continue for the project during the reclamation activities and beyond. Meridian will be obligated to complete reclamation as outlined in the reclamation plan during the vesting period by Revival.

During the Earn-In Period, Revival liability will be limited in nature and scope to the

exploration activity which they undertake. During the period that Revival will be drilling and assessing the resource potential of the Project, Meridian will continue to reduce the final reclamation obligation at the project. Meanwhile, Meridian retains the liability for the full asset retirement obligation (ARO) for the entire Earn-In Period with Revival funding work related to the ARO after year 2 of the Earn-In Period. Additionally, Meridian, either directly or indirectly, will supply all bonding during the Earn-In Period. Revival will refund any applicable costs of bonding following the second year of the Earn-In Period. Meridian retains the ARO liability for the entire Earn-In Period with Revival Gold accepting all liabilities upon earning its 100% of the Beartrack Shares with no indemnity from Meridian. As the Earn-In Period comes to a close for Revival Gold, Meridian’s reclamation efforts will continue to decrease from the current liabilities associated with the project. Revival Gold will also be actively assessing final reclamation liabilities associated with the project prior to the decision to become fully vested in the project.

4.1.4. Significant Factors and Risks

Significant factors and risks that may affect access, title, or the right or ability to perform work on the Property primarily revolve around the permitting process. The USFS is tasked with encouraging mineral development on public lands, so while it is unlikely that permits would not be granted, delays may occur during the permitting process.

Since all the lode claims that comprise the Project are unpatented or are owned

by Meridian, and all are currently in good standing, title is not an issue, provided that required payments and filings are maintained.


26 July 12, 2018

5.0 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY

The Project is located in eastern Idaho, approximately 11 miles west-northwest of the town of Salmon, the county seat of Lemhi County. Salmon can be reached by passenger vehicle over paved highways from Missoula, Montana (225 km), from Idaho Falls, Idaho (257 km) or from Boise, Idaho (547 km). Drive times are 3.0, 3.0 and 5.5 hours respectively. Missoula, Idaho Falls and Boise have daily air service to larger western airports such as Denver and Salt Lake City.

The Project consists of relatively gentle, forested terrain ranging in elevation from

1,951 m to about 2,256 m. Vegetation consists largely of coniferous trees (primarily Lodgepole pines with lesser Douglas fir and Engelmann spruce) with sage, mountain mahogany shrubs and grasses at lower elevations. Mule deer, elk, moose, black bear and mountain lions are present in the area.

The town nearest the Project is Salmon. Lemhi County had a 2016 population of 7,723 (https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/16059) while Salmon’s 2016 population was reported to be approximately 3,300 (http://www.cityofsalmon.com). Most basic services can be found in Salmon, Missoula, population 117,000 or Idaho Falls, population 56,800.

Salmon is located some 5.5 hours from Boise, the capital of Idaho, where many

State and Federal government agencies are located. Semi-skilled and unskilled labor can be sourced in locally, while a skilled labor force can be obtained regionally as mining is still active in Idaho and in Nevada to the south.

The climate of the region is dependent on the altitude. Salmon, the location nearest

the Project for which weather statistics are readily available, lies at 1,202 m elevation, while the elevation of the Project is nearly 2,195 m. Salmon is located within a valley of semi‐arid climate, with cold dry winters and hot, slightly wetter summers. Ascending the mountains to the west, the climate changes to a damper and cooler humid climate. At Salmon, the average monthly high temperature is 29oC in July and the average monthly low is -12oC in January. Winter minimum temperatures range from -14o to -9oC, while summer highs range from 10o to 24oC. The average annual precipitation is 24.2 cm, most of which occurs May through July. Average annual snowfall is 63.5 cm, with December and January being the snowiest months on average (http://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/salmon/idaho/united-states/usid0228).

Temperatures on the Property are substantially lower while annual precipitation

amounts are higher due to the higher elevation of the mine site (2,001 m for the mine versus 1,202 m for Salmon). Based on weather statistics provided by the Beartrack mine for the period 2011 through 2016 the average annual maximum and minimum temperatures are 10.7oC and -3.1oC with annual maximum and minimum temperatures of 30.9oC and -26.5oC. The maximum temperature generally occurs in July or August while the minimum temperature generally occurs between December and February.

The average precipitation for this period is 36.4 cm with maximum precipitation

generally occurring between April and June.


27 July 12, 2018

The operating season with respect to exploration fieldwork and drilling is generally from mid-June through the end of October. However, should the Company wish to do so, roads can be kept open and drilling operations can be conducted year-round, provided that the appropriate permits have been obtained from the USFS.

With respect to mining operations, Meridian operated the Beartrack open pit mine

and heap leach processing facility on a year-round basis, so climate should not present an impediment to mining.

A high-tension power line currently provides power to the Beartrack operation. The

reported capacity of the line is 69 kV. Some infrastructure remains at the property from the historic mining operation. To

the extent possible, it is believed that the availability of power, sources of water, mining personnel, potential tailings, waste, and processing plant sites should be sufficient if the project were to advance.


28 July 12, 2018

6.0 HISTORY

6.1. DISTRICT HISTORY

Placer gold was discovered in the Mackinaw Mining District in 1867 on Napias Creek less than one kilometer downstream from the Beartrack mine. The district subsequently became one of the largest placer mining districts in Idaho. The use of sluice boxes and shakers to mine placers in the late 1800's gave way to hydraulic mining in the 1920's and to dredges in the 1930's and 1940's. Total placer gold production from the district is estimated to be equivalent to 475,000 ounces of gold (Johnson et al, 1998) but could be as high as 600,000 ounces of gold.

All mining work in the District focused on alluvial gold until 1870 when the first lode

claim, the Shoo Fly, was located. The first lode mine in the Beartrack mine area, the Gold Flint, opened in 1880 followed by the Italian mine on Arnett Creek in 1892. Total production from these lode deposits is unknown but is thought to be limited.

The largest mining operation in the Mackinaw district was the Beartrack mine.

Between 1995, when the first gold was poured, and 2002 when leaching stopped, the Beartrack mine produced approximately 609,000 troy ounces of gold from 21,880,000 tonnes at an average cyanide-soluble gold grade of 0.98 grams gold/tonne (0.028 ounces gold/ton), based on an unpublished Meridian production summary.

6.2. BEARTRACK PROPERTY HISTORY

In 1983, representatives of Canyon Resources Corporation (Canyon) visited the property and recognized the potential for bulk tonnage mineralization in what became the North deposit. Canyon conducted sampling from 1984 to 1986 and in 1987 drilled nine reverse circulation (RC) drill holes. The success of that drilling campaign lead to the acquisition of the Property in 1988 by Meridian Minerals, a Montana Corporation and subsidiary of Burlington Northern. The South deposit was discovered later that year (Unpublished Meridian presentation). Continued exploration by Meridian Minerals resulted in a production decision in 1990.

FMC Gold Company purchased Meridian Minerals, including the Beartrack

Project, in May of 1990. Mining was initiated in late 1994. FMC Gold Company was spun out as Meridian Minerals (a Delaware Corporation) in 1996. Meridian Gold’s interest in the site was later renamed Meridian Beartrack Co. Between 1995, when the first gold was poured, and 2002 when leaching stopped, the Beartrack mine produced approximately 609,000 ounces of gold. The mine is now in remediation supervised by Yamana Gold Inc., which purchased Meridian Minerals and Meridian Beartrack Co. in October 2007.

In 2012, Meridian Beartrack initiated a three-year, $10 million exploration program

to evaluate the deep potential at Beartrack. In 2013, Meridian terminated the program having completed 21 core holes totaling approximately 10,728 m. Meridian conducted no further exploration work on the property.

In September 2017 Revival Gold announced the execution of an earn-in and

related stock purchase agreement with Meridian Gold and between September 23rd, 2018 and November 12th, 2018 Revival Gold completed 12 core holes totaling 3,024 m. This was the first phase of an 11,000 m drilling program. The remaining 8,000 m of core drilling began in late May of 2018.


29 July 12, 2018

6.2.1. Canyon Resource Corporation

In 1983, Bob Perry visited the Property on behalf of Canyon. On the basis of three samples collected in 1983 and follow-up sampling in 1984, Canyon staked 39 unpatented lode claims over the North deposit in 1984. At some point prior to the initiation of drilling, probably in late 1986 or early 1987, Mr. Raymond Threlkeld, a consultant acting on behalf of Meridian Minerals, examined the Property and recognized the bulk tonnage potential of the Property. On his recommendation Meridian provide limited funding for a nine-hole reverse-circulation drilling program in 1987 (Perry, 2003).

None of the Canyon Resources drilling data were used to estimate the Mineral

Resources that are the subject of this Technical Report.

6.2.2. Meridian Gold Corporation

Meridian’s exploration efforts understandably focused on the areas of the North and South deposits. Nonetheless, regional mapping and sampling programs were conducted in 1990 and 1991 to examine the remainder of the land position (Meyer, 1990 and Trujillo, 1991a and 1991b). Regional work focused on areas beyond the two known deposits and led to a much broader understanding of the geology of the area. The geologic map prepared by Trujillo (1991a) remains the most detailed geologic map of the area of the Beartrack deposits and targets.

6.2.2.1. Geophysics

Extensive regional geophysical surveys were completed by Meridian that included airborne magnetics, Very Low Frequency Electromagnetics (VLF) and Induced Polarization (IP). Of the techniques mentioned, IP yielded the most interesting results (Ellis and Hawksworth, 1998). IP and resistivity data were collected at the Beartrack property using the dipole-dipole (DPDP) and gradient arrays.

Induced polarization and resistivity anomalies were found to be associated with

the economic deposits along the Panther Creek Fault zone (PCF). Low amplitude and well-defined IP and resistivity anomalies were found to be directly associated with the gold mineralized zones at the Beartrack deposits. The IP anomalies are caused by pyrite in the quartz-sericite-pyrite alteration assemblage associated with gold mineralization. High resistivity anomalies caused by silicification in the alteration assemblage help distinguish IP anomalies associated with gold mineralization from anomalies caused by pyrite randomly distributed in the Yellowjacket and quartz monzonite. The consistent broad coverage of the gradient array survey has been important for identifying the lateral continuity of the IP anomalies associated with gold mineralization.

6.2.2.2. Drilling

Canyon and Meridian completed 886 drill holes for a total of 131,565.4 m. Canyon drilled the first holes on the Beartrack Property in 1987 when nine reverse circulation drill holes were completed in the North deposit for a total of 691.1 m. Meridian Minerals, a Montana Company, acquired the Property from Canyon and beginning in 1988 completed 130,874.3 m.


30 July 12, 2018

6.2.3. Revival Gold Inc.

In September 2017 Revival Gold announced the execution of an earn-in and related stock purchase agreement with Meridian Gold and between September 23rd, 2017 and November 12th, 2017 Revival Gold completed 12 core holes totaling 3,024 m as part of a larger program totaling 11,000 m, which began in May of 2018.

6.3. HISTORICAL RESOURCES AND RESERVES

The prior Beartrack Technical Report (August 31, 2017) discussed several

historical resource and reserve estimates that were made prior to, and after, mine operations ceased. Those estimates are no longer considered relevant or reliable and the Qualified Person’s responsible for this Technical Report have not done sufficient work to classify those historical estimates as Mineral Resources.

6.4. PAST PRODUCTION

The Beartrack Mine was an open pit heap leach mine that produced 13,600 tonnes

of ore and between 13,600 to 27,200 tonnes of non-mineralized material per day. Mining was conducted on 7.6-meter-high benches and, after blasting, ore was transported to the crusher and non-mineralized material to the rock storage facility using a fleet of eight 83-tonne haul trucks. The ore was dumped directly into the crusher by the trucks and subjected to a two-stage crushing and screening process to achieve a minus 5 cm (2 inch) product. Crushed ore was placed on an approximately 800-meter-long conveyor line for transport to the heap leach pad. Ore was stacked in a semicircular fashion into panels where leach lines with emitters were placed on the ore in a grid pattern for distribution of weak sodium cyanide solution. Life-of-mine recovery of 88% based on cyanide-soluble grade from oxide material during heap leaching operations. Table 6-1 summarizes tonnes, cyanide soluble gold grade, and gold ounces poured by year based on historical information obtained from Meridian Gold.


31 July 12, 2018

Table 6-1 Historical Gold Production

Year Tonnes Mined

(000) Cyanide Soluble Au Grade (g/t)

Au Ounces Poured

1994 735 1.25 0

1995 3,539 1.16 39,180

1996 4,130 0.90 108,708

1997 3,983 0.85 112,655

1998 4,023 0.82 105,039

1999 4,662 1.13 137,207

2000 808 1.04 72,137

2001 n/a n/a 18,338

2002 n/a n/a 8,678

2003‐2014 n/a n/a 7,199

Total 21,880 0.99 609,141

Note: Numbers may not add up due to conversion from Imperial

metric units and rounding.



32 July 12, 2018

7.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING AND MINERALIZATION

7.1. REGIONAL GEOLOGY

The Beartrack Project is located in the Great Falls Tectonic Zone (known as the Trans-Challis Fault Zone (TCFZ) in Idaho), a broad system of northeast-trending, subparallel, high-angle faults, grabens, eruptive centers and roughly-aligned intrusive rocks of Tertiary age. This broad structural/intrusive system has been traced from the Boise Basin in the southwest portion of Idaho to near the Canadian border in northern Montana. Faulting has been active within this structural corridor from Precambrian time to the Holocene (Kiilsgaard et al, 1989), with evidence of multiple stages of ductile to brittle deformation, and this corridor is host to a number of ore deposits.

In the Salmon area, the TCFZ is superimposed on a structurally complex package

of metasedimentary rocks known as the Mesoproterozoic Belt Supergroup (Figure 7-1). Around 1,370 million years ago, Belt Supergroup rocks were buried, metamorphosed and intruded by granitic rocks, now occurring as the megacrystic granitic rocks and augen gneiss in the Mackinaw District, in which the Beartrack Project is located. Contact metamorphic aureoles around the granitic rocks (including bleaching, and the local development of garnet and andalusite porphyroblasts) overprint the regional biotite‐grade metamorphic assemblage of the metasedimentary rocks near Salmon and Leesburg. Later, in the Ordovician, alkalic plutons (including the nearby Arnett Creek stock) were intruded along a northwest alignment, suggesting emplacement along pre‐existing structures of the northwest-trending Trans‐Rocky Mountain fault system.

During the Cretaceous Sevier orogeny (ca. 130‐60 Ma), the region underwent

folding, thrusting and plutonism resulting in a series of north-northwest-trending folds and northwest-striking thrust faults. The late Cretaceous Atlanta lobe of the Idaho batholith was also emplaced at this time.

Finally, felsic to intermediate volcanic rocks of the Eocene-age Challis volcanic

group were deposited. Erosional remnants of Challis volcanics are present in the Mackinaw District.

7.2. PROPERTY GEOLOGY

The bedrock geology in the Beartrack Mine area is dominated by two Middle-Proterozoic rock units (Figure 7-1). The Proterozoic Yellowjacket Formation consists predominantly of a thick sequence of very fine-grained non-calcareous silty sandstone to sandy siltstone units which have been subjected to low, biotite-grade metamorphism. Sediments are locally highly contorted in a 15- to 35-meter zone along the Panther Creek Fault Zone (PCFZ) hanging wall in the North Pit area. The Yellowjacket Formation has been intruded by Proterozoic quartz monzonite, which is located on the east, or footwall side of a four-kilometer section of the PCFZ in the mine area. The intrusive is medium- to coarse-grained, sub-equigranular to porphyritic, and is composed predominantly of potassium feldspar (locally as megaphenocrysts up to 6 cm in size displaying poikilitic textures), plagioclase, quartz, and biotite.

Figure 7-1 Generalized Geologic Map of the Leesburg Area


33 July 12, 2018



34 July 12, 2018

It should be noted that although metasediments in the Leesburg area have been mapped by the United States Geological Survey (Figure 7-1) as sandstones and siltites of the Swauger and Gunsight formations (Tysdale et al, 2003), all Meridian maps and reports refer to these lithologies as the Yellowjacket Formation. This Technical Report uses the Meridian nomenclature throughout. Descriptions of these units as mapped on the Property are provided below, as taken directly from Hawksworth et al (1998) with contributions from Meyer (1990) and Trujillo (1991), unless otherwise noted.

7.2.1. Lithology

7.2.1.1. Mesoproterozoic Yellowjacket Formation

The Yellowjacket Formation is confined primarily to the west of the Panther Creek Fault Zone (PCFZ) and consists of a thick sequence of very fine-grained, non-calcareous silty sandstone to sandy siltstone. Compositionally, the Yellowjacket consists of biotite, feldspar and quartz. Graded bedding ranges in thickness from 5 cm to 60 cm with most beds averaging 15 cm to 25 cm. Thin sandy argillite beds sometimes cap the graded beds. Parallel laminations and ripple cross-lamination are the most common sedimentary structures.

Bedding typically strikes 345o and dips 85o SW in the South Pit area and strikes

345o and dips 50o SW in the North Pit. Metasedimentary rocks of the Yellowjacket Formation are locally highly contorted in a zone measuring 15 m to 35 m in width in the hanging wall of the PCFZ in the North Pit of the Beartrack mine.

7.2.1.2. Proterozoic Igneous Rocks

The Yellowjacket Formation has been intruded by Proterozoic-age quartz monzonite, which occurs primarily to the east of the PCF. The intrusive is medium- to coarse-grained, sub-equigranular to porphyritic and is composed primarily of potassium feldspar (locally as megaphenocrysts up to 6 cm in length displaying poikilitic texture), plagioclase, quartz and biotite. Older deformation fabrics, ranging from mineral lineations to mylonite, are widely distributed throughout the quartz monzonite but are most prominent near the PCFZ. Prominent foliation trends include 030o to 050o and 300o.

Mafic and intermediate dikes intrude both the Yellowjacket Formation and the

quartz monzonite, particularly near the PCFZ. Dikes locally display foliation or mylonitic fabric, and strong sericitic or chloritic alteration makes identification difficult. At the Beartrack mine, mineralization is partially controlled by these dikes. Most of the dikes in the South deposit are essentially barren, whereas a dike swarm near the south end of the North orebody is highly mineralized.

7.2.1.3. Quaternary Glacial Deposits

The area surrounding the Beartrack property has been extensively glaciated. Glaciers carved canyons up to 250 m deep and removed mineralized material from the upper portions of the mineral system. As glaciers receded, topographic lows were filled with an assemblage of moraine deposits, reworked intra-glacial tuffs, lake and stream deposits and even low-grade coal. Local landslide deposits containing mineralized Yellowjacket Formation have been mined from glacial deposits in paleo-glacial basins.


35 July 12, 2018

7.2.2. Structure

The PCFZ forms part of the Trans-Challis Fault Zone making it a structure of regional significance as well as the primary control on mineralization at the Beartrack mine. On the Beartrack Property, the fault separates metasedimentary rocks of the Yellowjacket Formation on the west side of the fault from the quartz monzonite on the east side of the fault (Figure 7-2). The PCFZ is a deep-seated structure with multiple stages of movement ranging in age from the Proterozoic to the Holocene, as evidenced by fault gouge in glacial deposits (Hawksworth, personal communication).

The PCFZ generally strikes 025o but varies between 018o and 040o. The dip is

generally between 80o and 90o to the NW but the dip shallows to 50oNW in some areas. Deep diamond drilling completed in 2012 and 2013 suggests that the PCFZ rolls back to a steep southeasterly dip at the south end of the North deposit (Hawksworth, personal communication).

Variations in the character of brittle deformation along the PCF are indicative of a

pattern of alternating compressive and dilatant zones. In dilatant zones, such as in the South deposit and the south end of the North deposit at the Beartrack mine, the PCFZ has been the focus for the localization of a complex lithologic assemblage including 1) silicified tectonic breccias, locally containing sulphides; 2) massive bull quartz ± pyrite veins, and; 3) mafic to intermediate dikes. In compressive areas, the fault is typified by zones of gouge and cataclasite ranging from one to 100 m in width. Stockwork and breccia-hosted mineralized zones at the Beartrack mine are clearly cross-cut by post-mineral shears as indicated by gouge zones between one and 15 m in width. The amount and direction of post-mineral offset of mineralized zones at the Beartrack mine has not been determined but may be substantial.

7.3. MINERALIZATION

Gold mineralization on the Property is associated with a major gold-arsenic-bearing hydrothermal system where stockwork, vein and breccia-hosted mineralization has been identified in four areas over five kilometers of strike length (

Figure 7-2). All mineralization is spatially related to, and controlled by, the PCF. The gold mineralization has been intersected over a vertical range of up to 750 m with no indication of grade, mineral or metal zonation with depth. All areas drilled by Meridian display similarities in style of mineralization, alteration and geochemistry. The primary difference between areas drilled is host rock.

Based on 40Ar/39Ar dating of sericite and potassium feldspar, mineralization from

the Beartrack gold system is approximately 68 million years old, with additional thermal events at 74 million years and 58-60 million years.


36 July 12, 2018

Figure 7-2 Known Mineralized Areas on the Beartrack Property.



37 July 12, 2018

7.3.1. DEPOSIT MINERALIZATION AND DESCRIPTIONS

Main-stage gold mineralization occurs as quartz-pyrite-arsenopyrite stockwork vein zones, sheeted veins and tectonic breccias. Stockwork zones range in width from 5 m to 200 m, characterized generally by very continuous gold mineralization. Metallurgical studies show that gold occurs primarily as inclusions that are primarily less than one micron in size within arsenopyrite or in arsenic-rich growth rims within pyrite. This is confirmed by metallurgical flotation studies, which record gold grades of up to 122 ppm Au in arsenopyrite concentrates, and up to 12 ppm Au in pyrite concentrates.

In the Yellowjacket Formation, stockwork veinlets are predominantly 0.2 cm to 1.0

cm thick, with larger veins ranging up to 5 cm. Individual veins are filled with massive to crystalline milky to light gray quartz, containing fine-grained pyrite and arsenopyrite as disseminations or concentrations along vein margins. In the quartz monzonite, vein zones 0.5 cm to 10.0 cm thick have been emplaced into pre-existing irregular joint and fractures sets. Individual veins are generally very discontinuous along strike and are commonly offset by post-mineral shearing.

The highest-grade gold mineralization commonly occurs in association with nearly

vertical, tabular 1- to 25-meter-wide tectonic breccia zones along the PCFZ, and as 0.1 m to 2.0 m “breccia veins” within the Yellowjacket Formation. The breccia zones range from clast- to matrix-supported and contain 0.1 cm to 20 cm angular to sub-angular silicified clasts of both mylonitized quartz monzonite and Yellowjacket Formation siltite/quartzite. The matrix is commonly cemented with (and later cross cut by) at least two stages of quartz-pyrite-arsenopyrite mineralization. Sharp contacts with stockwork mineralization suggest that the breccia mineralization was at least in part related to a later, more restricted mineralizing pulse. Late-stage fractures in the breccia are most commonly cemented with barren, massive to drusy clear quartz, followed by brown to purplish gray chalcedonic quartz.

Multiple stages of mineralization have been recognized on the Beartrack Property,

but three contribute to the complex geochemistry observed in the Beartrack mine area. These stages of mineralization have been identified in the South Pit, and hydrothermal fluids appear to have used the PCF as a conduit at different times. Each stage of mineralization has its own distinct geochemical signature, resulting in a wide range of elemental concentrations. The three stages are outlined below:

Oldest: Quartz-galena±pyrite±sphalerite occurs mainly in mylonitized,

silicified quartz monzonite containing a quartz stockwork in the Proterozoic quartz monzonite to the east of, and within, the PCF. Silver mined from the South Pit is from this stage of mineralization. Elements associated with this phase of mineralization are Pb-Zn-Ag-As-Fe.

Middle: Quartz-pyrite-arsenopyrite stockwork and breccia-hosted gold

mineralization in the Yellowjacket Formation on the west side of the PCFZ. Higher grade mineralization east of the PCFZ may also be related to this phase of mineralization, but this has not been confirmed. Mineralization that was mined by Meridian from the Beartrack deposit formed at this time. Elements associated with this phase of mineralization are As-Fe-Au.


38 July 12, 2018

Youngest: Epithermal mineralization that occurs in the PCFZ and overprints quartz-base metal mineralization in the quartz monzonite. This mineralization is associated with intense acid leaching, resulting in numerous voids after sulphides. These voids are often lined with secondary minerals such as native sulfur, cinnabar, barite, selenite, cerrusite, anglesite, chalcedonic silica, drusy quartz and iron-manganese oxides. Elements associated with this phase of mineralization are Hg-Sb-Ba-S.

Complex geochemistry aside, the geochemical signature of the Beartrack North and South deposits is very similar (Table 7-1), although elevated mercury and antimony contents in the South Pit indicate a stronger, late-stage epithermal overprint in this area. The average Ag:Au ratio is slightly over 3:1. Arsenic is the only metal that shows a significant statistical correlation with gold, yielding a correlation coefficient of 0.6.

Table 7-1 Beartrack Mine Geochemistry

Element South Pit (ppm)

North Pit (ppm)

Au 1.4 1.3 Ag 4.4 4.3

Ag:Au 3:1 3:1 As 2,007 1,172 Bi 2.1 1.5 Hg 10.5 3.8 Sb 32.0 13.4 Cu 28 31 Pb 144 94 Zn 133 71 Mo 5.9 7.4 W 53.0 60.5


7.3.1.1. Alteration

Main stage gold mineralization is directly related to sericite±pyrite alteration that varies from 15 m to 200 m in width. Sericite replaces primary biotite in intrusive rocks and metamorphic biotite in metasedimentary rocks. Except for variations in intensity, alteration does not display any obvious lateral or vertical zonation. Sericitic alteration grades directly to unaltered rock with no associated propylitic or argillic alteration.

Silicification is most strongly associated with disseminated pyrite-arsenopyrite

mineralization in tabular tectonic breccia zones related to the PCFZ, or in local “breccia veins” in the Yellowjacket Formation. Outside brecciated zones, weaker silicification is locally present in wallrock adjacent to stockwork veins or structural intersections. Secondary potassium feldspar veining is widespread, but its association with gold mineralization is unclear.


39 July 12, 2018

7.3.1.2. Oxidation

The oxidation of pyrite and arsenopyrite formed iron oxides (goethite and hematite) and liberated micron-size gold into a form amenable to heap leach cyanide recovery. Oxidized mineralization was exploited by Meridian at the Beartrack mine from 1995 to 2002. During this time, approximately 600,000 ounces of gold were produced by heap leach cyanide recovery of oxidized mineralization.

The depth of oxidation is highly variable and is influenced by a combination of

structural, lithologic and alteration controls. The morphology of the oxide/sulphide boundary varies from simple to very complex and does not appear to correlate well with the current water table. Oxidation within the Yellowjacket Formation and along the PCFZ may extend to depths of more than 610 m below the surface in some areas. In comparison, oxidation within the quartz monzonite is confined to a near-surface environment and forms a flat-lying blanket less than 20 to 70 m in thickness.

7.3.1.3. Fluid Inclusions

Gangue quartz in the Beartrack hydrothermal system has contrasting fluid inclusion signatures. The earliest stages of quartz are similar to that found in greenstone-hosted lode-, or orogenic-, gold deposits. For example, liquid CO2 is common among millions of crisscrossing healed microfractures, yielding a wispy texture. While later, euhedral quartz displays primary, irregularly-shaped three phase liquid CO2-bearing inclusions defining growth zones in quartz. The later texture has not been reported for greenstone-hosted lode gold deposits.

Abundant pyrite and arsenopyrite are associated with an even later clear “mosaic”

quartz with few fluid inclusions. These inclusions exhibit inconsistent liquid to vapor ratios, which is suggestive of formation temperatures below ~220oC. This temperature is at, or just below, the lower end of the temperature range typical of greenstone-hosted lode gold deposits.

7.3.2. South Deposit Mineralization

The South deposit at the Beartrack mine is lens-shaped, measuring approximately 910 m in length and reaching a maximum width of 140 m while narrowing to less than 10 m at each end (Figure 7-3). Oxidation extends from between 30 m to over 300 m in depth.

Pyrite stockwork veinlets occur primarily in the metasedimentary rocks of the

Yellowjacket Formation, while the higher-grade silica-sulphide-flooded breccia zone is located on the western margin of the PCFZ, between metasedimentary rocks of the Yellowjacket Formation and silicified, mylonitized quartz monzonite on the eastern side of the PCFZ. The breccia zone is up to 500 m long and 25 m wide. It has been traced down dip for over 275 m and remains mineralized beyond that depth. (Figure 7-4).

East of the PCFZ, intrusive-hosted stockwork mineralization is restricted to a zone

that is up to 400 m long and ranges from 10 m to 60 m in width in the southern half of the pit. Oxidation in the quartz monzonite rarely extends below depths of 40 m. The marked contrast in alteration and mineralization across the fault is attributed to a lack of structural preparation within the quartz monzonite and significant post-mineral faulting.


40 July 12, 2018

7.3.3. North Deposit Mineralization

The oxide body in the North deposit is 1,600 m in length, 10 m to 200 m wide, and has been intersected by drilling to depths locally in excess of 250 m. Gold mineralization occurs primarily as a network of oxidized quartz-pyrite-arsenopyrite stockwork and sheeted veins, which commonly overprint older mylonitized zones in the quartz monzonite near the PCF (Figure 7-5).

Figure 7-3 Geologic Map of the South Pit Deposit

Source: Meridian, 2012


41 July 12, 2018

Figure 7-4 Cross-Section 7200S, South Pit



42 July 12, 2018

In the Ward’s Gulch area, significant mineralization also occurs within the Yellowjacket Formation. The highest-grade mineralization (up to 27 m drilled width @ 6.85 g/t Au) occurs in a dilatant zone containing a complex assemblage of silica-sulphide-flooded breccias, intermediate dikes, massive quartz-pyrite veins, and post-mineral cataclasite and gouge zones. Post-mineral shearing is prominent in the quartz monzonite, resulting in the formation of sheared gouge zones up 40 m wide along the PCFZ footwall (Figure 7-6).

The oxide boundary in most of the North deposit is shaped like a relatively flat-

lying blanket, ranging from 25 to 75 m in thickness. Oxidation is shallowest in the center of the North Pit, where the PCFZ dip rolls from 80NW to 50NW. The thick gouge zone along the fault served as a barrier to the downward migration of oxidizing fluids. By contrast, oxidation along the 85NW-dipping PCF in the Wards Gulch area locally extends on both sides of the fault to drilled depths in excess of 250 m.

7.4. EXPLORATION POTENTIAL

In addition to the areas described above, there are three other known targets on the Property. All three areas have been tested by some drilling and represent the opportunity to develop additional mineral resources both near surface and at depth.

7.4.1. Moose Area

This area is located north of the North deposit in the Allen Creek-Moose Creek drainages. The Allen target is 1,100 m in length, 15 m to 120 m wide, and extends to depths of at least 150 m. Gold mineralization occurs primarily in the footwall quartz monzonite as a series of quartz-pyrite-arsenopyrite stockwork veinlets. To the north end of the deposit, the mineralization diverges from the PCFZ-Yellowjacket contact, and is completely hosted by the quartz monzonite. Due to extensive glaciation, only 5 m to 20 m of oxide mineralization has been preserved in the Allen area.

Reverse-circulation drill hole AC-024 encountered a 65.5 m drilled thickness of

sulphide mineralization from 108.2 m to 173.7 m averaging 2.19 grams gold/tonne (0.044 ounces gold/ton) as determined by fire assay, indicating the potential of mineralization at depth.

7.4.2. Joss Area

The Joss area is located south of the South deposit on a paleo-bedrock ridge that is covered by 5 m to over 100 m of post-mineral Eocene volcanic and unconsolidated Quaternary glacial deposits. Quartz-pyrite-arsenopyrite stockwork and breccia-hosted gold mineralization in the Yellowjacket Formation is present over an area at least 250 m long, 100 m wide, and 225 m deep. Oxidation extends variably from 5 m to 40 m into bedrock. Additional drilling is required to delineate an open-pit mineable oxide gold deposit.


43 July 12, 2018

Figure 7-5 Geologic Map of the North Pit Deposit



44 July 12, 2018

Figure 7-6 Cross-Section 1600S, North Pit



45 July 12, 2018

The PCFZ has not been identified in near-surface exploration drilling due to the presence of a deep paleo-valley filled with glacial till on the west side of the PCFZ (glacial till has been intersected at least 300 m below the surface) but increasing Au-As grades suggest it is located west of the mineral resource area. Therefore, the Joss area is unique in having potential for Yellowjacket-hosted gold mineralization, which has been demonstrated to be a more productive host at the Beartrack mine, on both sides of the PCFZ.

Sulphide mineralization is also present in the Joss area at depth. Diamond drill hole

DD162 intersected a 4.58 m drilled thickness from 184.40 m to 199.98 m averaging 5.24 grams gold/tonne (0.15 ounces gold/ton), as determined by fire assay. This occurs in the Yellowjacket Formation.

7.4.3. Deep Sulphide Potential

Sulphide mineralization has been drill tested at depth beneath South Pit, the Ward’s Gulch area at the south end of the North Pit and in the Joss area. This mineralization has been tested on a limited basis but, given the nature of lode or orogenic gold deposits, there is no reason to believe that gold mineralization does not extend to depth beneath the other deposits also (See Section 8.0 of this Technical Report).

Deep sulphide mineralization is similar in nature to the shallower sulphide mineralization

encountered below oxidized ore in the North and South pit areas. Table 7-2 shows some of the deep sulphide intersections encountered by Meridian during its 2012 drilling campaign and demonstrates the potential of this mineralization. It is worth noting that, as is the case with near-surface oxide mineralization, most of these intersections are surrounded by broader intersections of low-grade mineralization. However, very wide-spaced offset drilling (60 m to 120 m) of these intersections in 2013 did not duplicate the high grades encountered in 2012 nor did offset mineralization conducted by Revival in 2017. Holes BT17-194DB and BT17-199D were drilled as offsets to hole BT12-175D. The structure was intersected as expected but the high grades were not duplicated. Nonetheless, given the nature of these intersections and the known continuity of lode or orogenic gold deposits to depth, additional drilling to test these areas, as well as untested areas beneath the North Pit is warranted.

Table 7-2 Selected Deep Sulphide Intersections1

Area Hole Number From (m)

To (m)

Drilled Width (m)

Grade (g/t)

Ward’s Gulch area

BT12-175D 503.99 513.74 9.75 70.90 BT12-184D 440.13 445.47 6.25 3.52 DD-131 133.50 159.11 25.60 7.62

including 137.16 151.18 13.72 12.84

South Pit BT12-176D 308.21 313.03 4.82 9.38 BT12-179AD 671.17 677.88 6.71 5.45

Joss Area DD-162 184.40 188.98 4.57 5.24 BT12-186D 358.90 370.03 12.80 3.91

including 366.98 368.96 2.29 5.57 1Original drill data is in Imperial units, which were converted to Metric units for this report.



46 July 12, 2018

7.4.1. Rabbit Area

The Rabbit area is located south of Leesburg in the Napias Creek drainage (Figure 4-2). The north-south-trending Coiner Fault has been inferred in this area under post-mineralization alluvial and volcanic cover. This structure, along with the projected structural intersection of the Coiner Fault with the PCFZ and structures inferred from the adjacent Arnett Creek property, are thought to be prospective. The target in this area is conceptual in nature.


47 July 12, 2018

8.0 DEPOSIT TYPES

Gold mineralization at Beartrack exhibits many of the characteristics of the class of gold deposits known as mesothermal, orogenic, or lode gold deposits. In mesothermal gold deposits, gold is deposited at crustal levels within and near the brittle-ductile transition zone at depths of 6-12 km at temperatures from 200o to 400oC. Deposits may have a vertical extent of up to 2 km, and lack pronounced zoning. Gold-bearing quartz veins and veinlets with minor sulphides crosscut a wide variety of host rocks and are localized along major regional faults and related splays (Robert, 2004). The wall rock is typically altered to silica, pyrite and muscovite within a broader carbonate alteration halo (Ash and Alldrick, 1996).

The primary sulphide minerals in mesothermal gold deposits are pyrite and arsenopyrite, but galena, sphalerite, chalcopyrite, pyrrhotite, tellurides, scheelite, bismuth, stibnite and molybdenite may also be present. Primary gangue minerals are quartz and carbonate (ferroan-dolomite, ankerite, ferroan-magnesite, calcite, siderite), with lesser albite, mariposite (fuchsite), sericite, muscovite, chlorite and tourmaline (Ash and Alldrick, 1996).

Mesothermal gold deposits may be enriched in many elements, including S, Cu, Mo, Sb,

Bi, W, Pb, Zn, Te, Hg, As, and Ag, but most mesothermal gold deposits are characterized by elevated Fe, S and As, with only minor enrichment in the other elements (Goldfarb and et al, 2005).

Mineralization at Beartrack consists of quartz-pyrite-arsenopyrite (Au-Fe-As-S) veins and

veinlets occurring in a broad halo of sericitic alteration related to the PCFZ. The PCFZ exhibits both brittle and ductile deformation and is interpreted to be a deep-seated regional structure that has been active from the Proterozoic to recent time (Hawksworth et al, 1998). Mineralization does not exhibit any zonation to currently drilled depths of over 610 m (2,000 feet) below the surface (Hawksworth, 2017, personal communication). All these characteristics are typical of mesothermal gold deposits.

In the case of gold mineralization at Beartrack, the characteristics and controls of

mineralization are reasonably well known. The primary control on mineralization is the regional, northeast-trending PCFZ and an important secondary control is the Proterozoic Yellowjacket Formation, which appears to be a more favorable host rock than the Proterozoic intrusive rock. These factors, along with the known characteristics of orogenic gold mineralization, will guide future exploration activity at Beartrack.


48 July 12, 2018

9.0 EXPLORATION

No exploration, other than drilling, has been conducted by the issuer.

10.0 DRILLING

Drilling began on the Beartrack Property in 1987 when Canyon Resources completed nine reverse circulation drill holes in what was became the North Ore Body. From 1987 through 2013, when Meridian ceased drilling activities on the Property, a total of 886 drill holes were completed for a total of 131,565.4 m. Historical drilling lead to a production decision and mining commenced in 1994 resulting in the production of approximately 609,000 ounces of gold. In 2017, Revival completed 12 core holes totaling 3,024.3 m. It should be noted that all drill data is in Imperial units, which were converted to metric units for this report.

10.1. CANYON RESOURCES CORPORATION

Canyon drilled the first holes at the Beartrack Property in 1987 when nine reverse circulation drill holes were completed in the North deposit for a total of 691.1 m. None of the Canyon Resource drilling data were used to estimate Mineral Resources that are the subject of this Technical Report

10.2. MERIDIAN GOLD CORPORATION

Canyon and Meridian completed 886 drill holes for a total of 131,565.4 m (Table 10-1, Table 10-2 and Figure 10-1). Canyon drilled the first holes on the Beartrack Property in 1987 when nine reverse circulation drill holes were completed in the North deposit for a total of 691.1 m. Meridian Minerals, a Montana Company, acquired the Property from Canyon and beginning in 1988 completed 130,874.3 m. This drilling lead to what was termed a Mineable Reserve of 24,533,900 tonnes (27,044,000 short tons) averaging 1.34 grams gold/tonne (0.039 ounces gold/ton) on a fire assay basis or 0.86 grams gold/tonne (0.025 ounces gold/ton) on a cyanide soluble basis containing 681,000 cyanide soluble ounces of gold (Kilborn Engineering, 1990). The Qualified Person responsible for this Technical Report stresses that this “mineable reserve” cannot be considered to have been compliant with subsequent NI 43-101 CIM and standards and NI 43-101 guidelines established in 2001. However, mining based on this non-compliant estimate resulted in the production of about 609,000 troy ounces of gold between 1995 to 2002 (Unpublished Meridian Beartrack Co. production summary).

Table 10-1 Summary of Historical Drilling by Type

Type Number Meterage1 Number of Samples

Reverse Circulation 700 93,237.1 57,487 Core 186 38,328.3 24,184 TOTAL 886 131,565.4 81,671

1Original drill data is in Imperial units, which were converted to Metric units for this report.



49 July 12, 2018

10.2.1. Meridian Study of Drilling Sampling Methods

In 1990 Meridian began a comparative study of sampling methods for reverse circulation and diamond drill holes (Meridian Gold Company, 1990). Two sampling methods for reverse circulation drilling were examined and compared to results from core holes.

Table 10-2 Summary of Historical Drilling by Company

Company Years Type Number of Holes

Hole Numbers Meterage1

Canyon Resource Corp.

1987 RC 9 CRC-001 to CRC-009 691.1

Meridian Minerals, FMC Gold Inc. and Meridian Gold Inc.

1988 to 1990 1995 to 1997

RC 691

88-001 to 88-126 89-127 to 89-417 90-406 to 90-408 90-418 to 90-554 95-560 to 95-589 96-590 to 96-681 97-686 to 97-688

L001 to L022

92,546.0

1988 & 89 1990 1995 to 1997 2012 & 2013

DDH 186 DD-001 to DD-172

BT12-174D to BT12-186D BT13-187D to BT13-193D

38,328.3

TOTAL 886 131,565.4 1 Original drill data is in Imperial units, which were converted to Metric units for this report.


10.2.2. Meridian Reverse Circulation Sampling Methods

When drilling above the water table under dry conditions, the samples whereas discharged from the sample return hose retained into a cyclone designed to slow down the rapidly moving mixture of air, rock chips and fines (dust). The sample was retained in the cyclone until the drilled interval was complete and then passed through a dry splitter and reduced into assay and metallurgical splits. Some loss of fines occurs during the process as unrecovered dust but the volume by weight was considered to be small and not significant.

When drilling under wet conditions, a sample slurry composed of air, water, rock chips

and suspended fines exited the cyclone continuously into one of two types of wet splitters: a cone splitter or a rotating vane splitter. For the study, the sample obtained from the wet splitter was further divided into two equal splits using a ‘Y’ splitter. One split, called a bucket sample, captured 100% of the sample slurry into as many five-gallon buckets as necessary to capture the entire portion of the sample split for each five-foot interval. The number of buckets used ranged from 0.5 to 31 buckets. The slurry was flocculated in the buckets, the clear liquid decanted, and the solid portion of all samples combined into one bucket.

The second split, called the pan sample, was collected in a steel pan capable of holding

approximately two gallons of sample slurry. If the sample volume exceeded the volume of the steel pan, the slurry was allowed to overflow the pan. Two samples, one for assay and one for metallurgical testing, were taken from the pan and placed into sample bags.


50 July 12, 2018

Figure 10-1 Beartrack Drill Hole Location Map



51 July 12, 2018

10.2.3. Meridian Core Sampling Methods

All core holes recovered HQ-diameter core measuring 63.5 mm (2.5 inches) in diameter.

Core recoveries up to the time the sampling study report was written in 1991 averaged over 84% with the poorest recovery in hydrothermal breccia, bull quartz and fault zones. All core samples were split longitudinally into two halves using a hydraulic core splitter, with one half (approximately 50% by volume) of the core placed in a sample sack for assay and the remaining half returned to the core box.

10.2.4. Conclusions of the Sampling Study

Meridian concluded that:

Core and dry reverse circulation drilling samples obtained from above the water table produce similar results and provide valid samples of the mineralization;

Core and careful reverse circulation bucket sampling (with 100% sample collection

and use of a flocculent to retain fines) produce similar results and provide valid samples of the mineralization;

Pan sampling of reverse circulation samples with water overflow resulted in

nominal to significant (up to 300%) upgrading of RC assays when compared to core. This is thought to be due to the loss of altered wall rock resulting in a concentration of gold-bearing vein fragments, and;

Although reverse circulation bucket sampling provided an indicator of

mineralization in areas of high groundwater flow, core provided the most representative grade.

As a result of this study, over 208,000 feet (63,400 m) of reverse circulation drilling results

were eliminated from resource/reserve model estimation. Most of this drilling took place between 1987 and 1989.

Additional insight resulting from the sampling study was also gained into the statistical

behavior of the deposit. Even though samples of the mineralization provided assays with a high degree of precision and accuracy and low nugget values, the deposit does not behave well over short distances, displaying significant degrees of gold grade variability. This is demonstrated by the high variance experienced in twin hole comparisons and is probably an indication of steeply dipping mineralization controls. Meridian believed that the frequency of these controls, and the overall structural/mineralized system, result in a deposit that is well-behaved over large areas (greater than the average drill hole spacing), but correlations over short distances are difficult.

10.3. 2017 REVIVAL DRILLING PROGRAM

In September of 2017, Revival contracted Timberline Drilling Inc. to complete a proposed 3,000 m drilling program. Two diamond drill rigs were employed in the 2017 drilling program. The first rig arrived on site on September 21st and the last rig departed the site on November 14th.


52 July 12, 2018

During that time, 3,024.3 m (9,924.4 feet) of drilling were completed. Drilling focused on the Ward’s Gulch and South Pit areas (Figure 10-2).

Drilling was conducted by a truck-mounted Boart Longyear LF90 rig and a modular Atlas Copco U8 underground rig. All holes were completed with an HQTT (Triple Tube) drill string with the exception of BT17-206D, which was reduced to NQTT at a depth of 143.1 m due to difficult drilling conditions. (For reference, HQTT core diameter is 61.1 mm (2.406 inches) and NQTT core diameter is 45.1 mm (1.775 inches)). In addition, holes BT17-194D and BT17-197D were abandoned due to unacceptable hole deviation. Those holes were not sampled but the unmineralized core obtained from these holes was used as blank material for the 2017 QAQC program. Drilling was generally conducted with a 10-foot core barrel but, as the Panther Creek Fault Zone was approached, drillers switched to a five-foot core barrel to enhance recovery. Collar details are presented in Table 10-3.

All holes were surveyed downhole using a Reflex multi-shot instrument and corrected for magnetic declination (13o east). Collar coordinates were surveyed using differential GPS. Holes are plugged according to USFS regulations; however, collars are not marked in the field as all pads are reclaimed according to the current POO that Revival has with the USFS.

Overall, core recovery averaged 87% but isolated intervals of poor, or no, core recovery occurred, particularly in the Panther Creek Fault Zone. A detailed discussion of core recovery as it relates to mineralization is presented in Section 12.4 of this report. Intervals with poor core recovery are noted as footnotes in, which summarizes significant results from the 2017 drilling program. Rock Quality Designation, or RQD, is generally good except in fault zones. The Panther Creek Fault Zone, which is the primary control on mineralization at Beartrack, is a major fault zone and RQD is often very poor within this unit.


53 July 12, 2018

Table 10-3 Details of the 2017 Drilling Program

Hole Number Target Area Cross-Section

Easting1 Northing1 Elevation2

(m) Azimuth

(deg.) Inclination

(deg.)

Total Depth2

(m)

Number of SamplesFire

Assay Cyanide-Soluble

Multi-Element

BT17-194D Ward’s Gulch 2450S 118997.00 121982.00 2,214.00 303 -57 14.9 0 0 0

BT17-194DB Ward’s Gulch 2450S 118997.40 121982.70 2,214.26 302 -57 553.2 245 12 233

BT17-195D Ward’s Gulch 3050S 118085.80 121805.60 2,166.38 303 -58 198.1 119 119 0

BT17-196D Ward’s Gulch 3100S 118091.00 121742.80 2,166.38 303 -62 201.3 112 112 0

BT17-197D Ward’s Gulch 2550S 118998.20 121896.10 2,212.23 302 -58 96.5 0 0 0

BT17-198D Ward’s Gulch 2950S 118162.90 121856.50 2,166.82 301 -66 228.0 146 146 0

BT17-199D Ward’s Gulch 2550S 118946.40 121900.10 2,212.26 302 -59 582.5 226 10 216

BT17-200D Ward’s Gulch 3100S 118162.90 121856.50 2,166.82 304 -51 160.2 118 118 0

BT17-201D Ward’s Gulch 3200S 118072.90 121629.20 2,171.07 302 -60 197.8 128 128 0

BT17-202D South Pit 8300S 115894.50 117006.00 2,076.33 303 -68 162.1 81 81 0

BT17-203D South Pit 8400S 115916.60 116890.70 2,073.39 300 -64 167.9 79 79 0

BT17-204D South Pit 8300S 115894.50 117006.00 2,076.33 303 -50 130.5 57 57 0

BT17-205D South Pit 8200S 115870.00 117151.60 2.079.93 303 -69 122.2 58 58 0

BT17-206D South Pit 8500S 115906.20 116781.40 2,068.56 303 -73 209.1 86 86 0

TOTALS 3,024.3 1,455 1,006 449 1Collar coordinates are stated in mine grid coordinates. 2Original drill data is in Imperial units, which were converted to Metric units for this report.



54 July 12, 2018

Figure 10-2 Beartrack Drill Plan Map - 2017 Drilling



55 July 12, 2018

10.4. RESULTS OF 2017 REVIVAL DRILLING

The intention of the 2017 drilling program was to confirm historic drilling and to test

deep mineralization intersected in the Ward’s Gulch area by Meridian in 2012. With that goal in mind, two deep holes and five shallow holes were drilled in the Ward’s Gulch area, while five shallow holes were drilled at the south end of the South Pit. The results of the drilling program are presented in Table 10-4.

Mineralization in the Ward’s Gulch and South Pit areas strikes to the northeast (030o) and is sub-vertical, dipping at a high angle to the east or to the west. The estimated true width of geologic units intersected in drill holes, including mineralization, is approximately half of the drilled width. Holes are drilled perpendicular to mineralization except in rare cases where splays from the main structure intersect the Panther Creek Fault Zone.

Core holes BT17-194DB and BT17-199 in the Ward’s Gulch area were drilled as offsets to hole BT12-175D, which intersected 71.0 g/t Au over 9.75 m drilled width (estimated true width of 4.88 m). While the 2017 holes intersected what is thought to be the same mineralized structure encountered by the Meridian drill hole, the grades and widths were substantially lower.

Core holes BT17-195D through BT17-198D, BT17-200D and BT17-201D were drilled to confirm shallower mineralization in the Ward’s Gulch area. All holes intersected mineralization as anticipated and confirmed the historical drilling (Table 10-4). A detailed discussion comparing the 2017 drilling to the historical drilling is presented in Section 12.0 of this report.

Core holes BT17-202D through BT17-206D were drilled to confirm mineralization at shallow to moderate depths immediately south of the South Pit. As with the Ward’s Gulch drilling, the 2017 drilling intersected mineralization as anticipated and confirmed the historical drill results.


56 July 12, 2018

Table 10-4 Results from the 2017 Drilling Program

Hole Number

Area Azimuth

(deg.) Inclination

(deg.) From (m)

To (m)

Drilled Width1

(m)

Fire Assay Au Grade

(g/t)

BT17-194BD Ward’s Gulch

302 -57 263.5 278.9 15.4 2.58

including 263.5 270.5 7.0 4.59

247.5 249.6 2.1 4.48

455.1 471.5 16.4 1.21

496.8 500.5 3.7 2.15

including 498.0 499.3 1.3 4.10

BT17-195D Ward’s Gulch

303 -58 43.9 51.8 7.9 1.55

74.2 139.3 65.12 1.94

including 74.2 77.6 3.4 4.31

including 86.9 107.3 20.4 3.21

including 116.4 127.1 10.7 2.20


303 -62 78.3 138.7 60.4 1.733,4

including 105.8 113.4 7.6 5.07

including 125.0 126.5 1.5 76.3

147.8 157.0 9.2 1.56


301 -66 104.8 107.9 3.1 3.25

115.8 130.4 14.6 1.15

144.5 181.7 37.2 1.39

including 144.5 151.5 7.0 2.45

214.9 218.5 3.6 4.60

including 217.3 218.5 1.2 9.96


302 -59 514.5 530.1 15.6 1.35

536.6 539.2 2.65 2.19

561.1 567.8 6.7 1.42


304 -51 18.3 57.9 39.6 1.50

99.1 128.3 29.26 1.73

137.4 143.0 5.6 1.06


302 -60 56.3 60.7 4.4 3.01

98.6 166.1 67.5 3.51

including 113.7 117.0 3.3 23.13

BT17-202D South Pit 303 -68 101.8 148.4 46.67 1.29

BT17-203D South Pit 300 -64 91.6 146.3 54.78 1.99

including 132.6 144.6 12.08 4.15

BT17-204D South Pit 303 -50 67.4 96.8 29.4 2.84

BT17-205D South Pit 303 -69 53.6 105.5 51.99 2.76

BT17-206D South Pit 303 -73 152.9 162.0 9.1 1.11

174.3 186.5 12.2 1.66

including 184.4 185.3 0.9 10.98 1 True width varies but is estimated to be approximately half of the drilled width. 2 Recovery for the interval 88.7 m to 93.6 m was 37.5%. 3 For the interval calculation, the value for the 76.3 g/t Au sample was cut to 7.3 g/t Au, the next highest value in the interval.


57 July 12, 2018

4 Recovery for the interval 80.6 m to 80.9 m was 0%. 5 Recovery for the interval 536.6 m to 536.9 m was 30%. 6 Recoveries for the intervals 104.3 m to 105.3 m and 107.0 m to 107.6 m were 45% and 44% respectively 7 Recoveries for the intervals 124.5 m to 125.6 m, 126.0 m to 126.5 m and 131.1 m to 131.7 m were 25%, 19% and 17%

respectively. 8 Recovery for the intervals 135.9 m to 136.6 m and 136.9 m to 137.5 m was 0%. These intervals were included at 0 g/t

Au. Recovery for the intervals 139.0 m to 139.6 m and 143.1 m and 143.7 m was 40%. 9 Recovery for the interval 57.0 m to 62.5 m was 35.6%. Four intervals ranging in width from 0.1 m to 0.9 m were included

at 0 g/t Au


10.5. COMMENTS ABOUT DRILLING AND SAMLING

A significant amount of the gold mineralization at the Beartrack Property is hosted

adjacent to or within the PCFZ. RQD’s in the mineralized zones tend to be low to moderate, reflecting the degree of structural preparation in these rocks. Comparisons between gold grade, core recovery, and RQD did not show any systematic bias that could materially impact the accuracy and reliability of the results (Section 12.4).

10.6. RELEVANT SAMPLES

Appendix 2 lists relevant drill hole samples that were used to estimate the Mineral

Resources which are the subject of this Technical Report. The list was generated for drill holes that intersect the conceptual Mineral Resource pit and are in excess of 25 feet long (7.62m) with continuous fire assay gold mineralization above 1 g/t.

Most of the gold mineralization at the Beartrack Property dips steeply to the east or west depending on location along the PCFZ. While the drill holes were drilled at angles to best intercept the steeply dipping mineralization with the most favorable angles (i.e. as close to perpendicular as possible), the true width of the mineralization is less than the intersected length. In general, given the orientation of mineralization versus the inclination of the drill holes, the true width of mineralization is typically about one half the intersected width.

In general, gold mineralization at the Beartrack Property within the mineralized PCFZ corridor is relatively robust. It is uncommon to see isolated high-grade intervals within a lower-grade section.


58 July 12, 2018

11.0 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSIS AND SECURITY

11.1. 1990-2000 MERIDIAN GOLD SAMPLING

Little information was recovered from the acquired Meridian drill hole database regarding detailed sampling protocols that were used for the 1990 to 2000 drill campaigns. Most of the original assay certificates for that drilling data (1990 to 2000) were recovered. Those records were found in the original drill hole folders that contain the geologic logs, assay certificates, and where applicable, down-hole survey results. Meridian used several of the larger commercial assay laboratories of that period with the majority of their samples assayed by Chemex Labs (later known as ALS Chemex and ALS Minerals).

The commercial laboratory certificates do contain quality assurance/quality control

(QA/QC) results for their own standards and blanks that they routinely insert for internal purposes. It is not known if Meridian routinely submitted standards, blanks or duplicates with their regular sample shipments. It does appear that Meridian did submit some field duplicates and did send some pulps from their primary lab to various secondary labs for check assay purposes.

In the absence of available QA/QC results associated with the 1990-2000 Meridian

drill hole data, the Qualified Person responsible for this section of this Technical Report made various comparisons of that data with 2012-2013 Meridian and 2017 Revival drill hole data all of which is backed by QA/QC results. Those comparisons are summarized in Section 12.3.

It is the opinion of the Qualified Person responsible for this section of this Technical

Report that sample preparation, security, and analytical procedures for the 1990-2000 Meridian drill hole data was adequate. This opinion is based on the similarity in gold grade distributions between the 1990-2000 Meridian data and spatially paired new drilling data and excellent life-of-mine production reconciliation that Meridian experienced while the Beartrack mine was in operation.

11.2. 2012-2013 MERIDIAN GOLD SAMPLING

Meridian Gold submitted samples from its 2012 and 2013 drilling programs to ALS Minerals in Elko, Nevada. ALS Minerals is an independent and ISO 17025 certified laboratory. Sample preparation procedures were PREP-31 as described below. Pulps were analyzed for gold by fire assay and atomic absorption analysis (FA-AA) using a 30-gram charge (Au-AA23) and for other metals by Inductively Coupled Plasma – Atomic Emission Spectroscopy (ICP-AES) for Ag, As, Cd, Co, Cu, Fe, Mn, Mo, Ni, Pb, S and Zn.

At the ALS Minerals Elko facility, the samples were subjected to standard sample

preparation (PREP-31), which includes the following methods.

Samples were logged in the tracking system (LOG-22) and weighed (WEI-21).

After weighing, the entire portion of each rock sample was subjected to

preliminary coarse crushing (CRU-21) followed by fine crushing to better than 70 % passing a 2-millimeter mm (Tyler 9 mesh) screen (CRU-31).


59 July 12, 2018

A split of up to 1,000 grams was taken using a riffle splitter (SPL-21) and then pulverized in a grinding mill with a low-chrome steel bowl to better than 85 % passing a 75-micron (Tyler 200 mesh) screen (PUL-31). Compressed air was used to clean the equipment between samples. Barren material was crushed between sample batches to clean the equipment.

ALS Minerals Elko then forwarded the sample pulps to the North Vancouver ALS

Minerals Laboratory for analysis. Pulps were analyzed for gold and silver by conventional fire assay and atomic absorption analysis for gold using a 30-gram charge (Au-AA25), followed by and ICP - AES using a four-acid digestion and ICP-AES (ME-ICP61) analysis for 33 elements.

Table 11-1 summarizes the type and quantity of QA/QC samples that Meridian submitted for their 2012-2013 drilling campaigns.

Table 11-1 2012-2013 Meridian QA/QC Samples Submitted

Source: RMI, 2018 Figure 11-1 shows the performance of the commercial blanks that Meridian

submitted to ALS Chemex with their 2012-2013 drill hole samples.

No. Submitted Frequency No. Submitted Frequency

Regular Samples 2,279 n/a 1,454 n/a

Blanks 80 1 per 28 51 1 per 29

Standards 136 1 per 17 96 1 per 15

Duplicates 31 1 per 74 6 1 per 242

2012 2013Sample Type


60 July 12, 2018

Figure 11-1 2012-2013 Gold Blank Performance

Source: RMI, 2018 Two blank samples were returned with assay values that suggest that the samples

were mis-labeled by Meridian’s geologic staff. The values compare very closely with one of Meridian’s standards (CDN-GS-4D).

Table 11-2 summarizes the expected grade of the four commercial standards that

Meridian submitted with their 2012-2013 drilling programs.

Table 11-2 2012-2013 SRM's Submitted

Source: RMI, 2018 Figure 11-1 and Figure 11-2 show the performance for two of Meridian’s 2012-

2013 SRM’s with respect to ±2 and ±3 standard deviation units.

0.0000

0.0100

0.0200

0.0300

0.0400

0.0500

1 7

13

19

25

31

37

43

49

55

61

67

73

79

85

91

97

103

109

115

121

127

Au (g/t)

Time

Mislabeled samples?Actually standard

CDN‐GS‐4D

Standard Name No. Submitted Expected Value (g/t) Std. Dev. (g/t)

CDN‐GS‐1P5F 70 1.400 0.060

CDN‐GS‐4D 44 3.810 0.125

CDN‐GS‐7E 27 7.400 0.285

CDN‐GS‐P7E 91 0.766 0.043

Grand Total 232 n/a n/a


61 July 12, 2018

Figure 11-2 2012-2013 SRM CDN-GS-P7E Performance

Source: RMI, 2018

Figure 11-3 2012-2013 SRM CDN-GS-1P5F Performance

Source: RMI, 2018

In the opinion of the Qualified Person responsible for this Technical Report, the 2012-2013 Meridian samples were prepared and analyzed by an independent and certified laboratory that employs industry-standard techniques, and the sample analytical procedures are considered to have been adequate and appropriate.

0.50

0.70

0.90

1.10

1.30

1.50

Au (g/t)

Time

Result +3 std dev ‐3 std dev

Expected +2 std dev ‐2 std dev

1.00

1.15

1.30

1.45

1.60

1.75

Au (g/t)

Time




62 July 12, 2018

11.3. 2017 REVIVAL GOLD SAMPLING

11.3.1. Core Logging, Splitting, Sampling and Sample Security

Drill core was placed in core boxes at the drill site by Timberline Drilling personnel and kept on the drill site until it was transported to the Beartrack core logging facility by Timberline personnel at the end of each drill shift. On occasion, core was picked up at the drill rig by Revival personnel.

Once in the logging facility, core was placed on the logging tables, reassembled to

the extent possible and the geology logged in detail by Revival geologists. Core recovery and RQD were measured and recorded at this time. Geologists marked intervals to be sampled and inserted standard reference materials, core blanks and duplicate samples into the sample stream. After logging and the insertion of control samples, the core was moved to the core splitting area where it was photographed prior to being split.

Core was split using a hydraulic core splitter. The decision to split rather than saw

the core, was based on the friable nature of the rock in the PCFZ. Core was split and placed in plastic sample bags along with individually numbered sample tags and sealed with a zip tie. Bags were placed on the floor in numerical order and inventoried prior to being placed in sacks and sealed for transport. Samples were stored in the secure core logging facility at the Beartrack mine site until they were transported directly to the ALS Minerals sample preparation laboratory in Elko, Nevada.

11.3.2. Sample Preparation and Analysis

Sampling was conducted by Revival geologists as described above. After pulps were prepared by ALS Minerals in Elko, they were sent by ALS Minerals to their laboratory in Reno, Nevada for gold fire assay or cyanide leach analysis and their laboratory Vancouver, British Columbia for multi-element geochemistry. ALS Minerals is an internationally known, independent, accredited testing laboratory and conforms with the requirements of ISO/IEC 17025:2005 and the conditions for accreditation established by Standards Council of Canada.

Sample preparation and analytical methods for fire assay and cyanide leach

samples are as follows: Samples were logged in the tracking system (LOG-22), and weighed (WEI-

21) Entire sample crushed to >70% - 6mm (CRU-21) Fine crushing to -70% < 2 mm (CRU-31) Split sample with riffle splitter (SPL-21) Pulverize split to 85% < 75 µm (PUL-31) Au by cyanide leach and AAS (Au-AA13) Ore Grade Au 30 g Fire Assay with AA finish (Au-AA25)

Sample preparation and analytical methods for fire assay and multi-element

geochemistry are as follows: Samples were logged in the tracking system (LOG-22), and weighed

(WEI-21)


63 July 12, 2018

Entire sample crushed to >70% - 19mm (CRU-22c) Fine crushing to -70% < 2 mm (CRU-31) Split sample with riffle splitter (SPL-21) Pulverize split to 85% < 75 µm (PUL-31) Ore Grade Au 30 g Fire Assay with AA finish (Au-AA25) Ore Grade Ag – four-acid (Ag-OG62) 48 element four acid ICP-MS (ME-MS61) Ore grade elements- four acid (ME-OG62)

As part of the Quality Assurance/Quality Control program, sample pulps were

submitted to Skyline Assayers & Laboratories in Tucson, Arizona. Skyline is accredited in accordance with the recognized International Standard ISO/IEC 17025:2005.

Sample preparation and analytical methods for fire assay and multi-element geochemistry are as follows:

Blending of pulp (SP-16) Fire Assay with AA finish (FA-01) Au Fire Assay with Gravimetric finish for over limits (FA-02)

11.3.3. Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Revival employed a standard quality (QA/QC program during its 2017 drilling program which consisted of regularly inserting control samples into the sample stream. A total of 159 QA/QC samples, or about 12% of the total of 1,292 samples submitted, were analyzed. QA/QC samples employed in the Revival program consisted of standards, core blanks and duplicate samples. Revival also submitted 107 sample pulps to a second accredited lab laboratory for analysis. Table 11-3 summarizes the type and number of control samples used for Revival’s 2017 drilling program.

Table 11-3 2017 Revival QA/QC Samples Submitted

Source: RMI, 2018

11.3.3.1. 2017 Blanks

In addition to standards of known value, core blanks were inserting into the sample stream. Core blanks were taken from barren core in the upper portion of holes that were abandoned due to hole deviation early in the 2017 drilling program. Figure 11-4 shows the performance of 60 blanks assayed by ALS Minerals.

Regular Samples 1,292 n/a

Blanks 60 1 per 22

Standards 53 1 per 24

Duplicates 46 1 per 28

Check Assays 97 1 per 13

Sample Type No. Submitted Frequency


64 July 12, 2018

Figure 11-4 2017 Gold Blank Performance

Source: RMI, 2018 Sixty drill core blanks were inserted into the sample stream. Blanks were

considered to have failed if they exceeded three times the detection limit (0.005 ppm Au). By this standard, three blanks failed during the program, none exceeding 0.05 ppm Au. Given that drill core blanks are from core peripheral to the mineralized gold system at Beartrack, these numbers are acceptable.

11.3.3.2. 2017 Standard Reference Materials

Revival purchased standards from well-known Canadian distributors CDN Resources Labs (CDN) in Vancouver, BC and Analytical Solutions Ltd (ASL) in Toronto, ON. CDN prepares their own standards in-house while ASL acts as the North American vendor for standards prepared by Ore Research & Exploration Pty Ltd (OREAS) located in Melbourne, Australia. All standards came in 60 g sealed envelopes. Standards prepared by both laboratories are widely employed in the industry.

Standards were chosen to cover a wide range of possible gold grades and are summarized in Table 11-2. About half of the standards used for the 2017 drilling campaign had expected gold grades near the possible resource cutoff grade and the other half represent high-grade standards. Standards were considered to have failed if two consecutive samples exceeded the mean plus two standard deviations or one sample exceeded the mean plus three standard deviations. Figure 11-5 and Figure 11-6 show the performance of two SRM’s used by Revival for their 2017 drilling program.

Table 11-4 2017 SRM's Submitted

0.000

0.010

0.020

0.030

0.040

0.050

Au (g/t)

Time


65 July 12, 2018

Source: RMI, 2018

Figure 11-5 2017 SRM DCN-GS-P5C Performance

Source: RMI, 2018

There were two samples that appear to be out of tolerance in Figure 11-5. One is marginally below 3 standard deviations from the expected value. The other sample was inadvertently labeled as CDN-GS-5PC but was actually control sample CDN-GS-1T, which is shown as the farthest sample on the right side of the plot in Figure 11-5.

Figure 11-6 2017 SRM CDN-GS-1T Performance

Standard Name No. Submitted Expected Value (g/t) Std. Dev. (g/t)

CDN‐GS‐10F 4 10.300 0.190

CDN‐GS‐1T 14 1.080 0.050

CDN‐GS‐5M 3 3.910 0.150

CDN‐GS‐7F 9 6.900 0.205

CDN‐GS‐P5C 18 0.571 0.024

OREA 250 5 0.309 0.013

Grand Total 53 n/a n/a

1.00

1.15

1.30

1.45

1.60

1.75

Au (g/t)

Time




66 July 12, 2018

Source: RMI, 2018

One standard, (sample 28771) was significantly higher than the mean plus

standard deviations but surrounding samples were all very low grade and the sample was quite deep and well outside of the resource, so no remedial action was taken. Another control sample was labeled as CDN-GS-1T but was mixed up with a blank control sample. Two other control sample failures failed by very low margins (e.g. about 0.00X g/t Au) so no remedial action was taken.

Seven standards returned values of not sufficient sample when the laboratory

attempted to re-analyze the sample for internal reasons. In addition, one assay bead was lost through what the laboratory indicated was a hole in a test tube, so no value was reported for that sample. In the future, 100 g standards should be used to eliminate this issue.

11.3.3.3. 2017 Field Duplicates

Duplicate samples were obtained by quartering drill core and submitting the quartered core as a duplicate analysis. Duplicates were the last samples submitted in each batch of samples from a given drill hole in order to make it less obvious to the laboratory which sample was being duplicated. A total of 46 duplicate samples were submitted for analysis. Table 11-5 summaries basic descriptive statistics for the 2017 field duplicates.

Table 11-5 2017 Duplicate Sample Comparison

0.80

0.90

1.00

1.10

1.20

1.30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Au (g/t)

Time

Result Expected ‐2 std dev

+2 std dev ‐3 std dev + 3 std dev


67 July 12, 2018

Source: RMI, 2018

The data in Table 11-5 shows that the mean grade of the original 1/2 core

sample is about 15% higher than the field duplicate, which was ¼ core. This statistic is somewhat misleading due to the limited number of samples and several high-grade outliers associated with the original sample.

Figure 11-7 is a quantile-quantile (QQ) plot that compares the original 1/2 sample

(X-axis) with the duplicate ¼ core sample (Y-axis).

Figure 11-7 Duplicate Sample QQ Plot

Source: RMI, 2018

Count 46 46

Min Au (g/t) 0.01 0.01

Q1 0.23 0.18

Median 0.54 0.58

Mean Au (g/t) 1.22 1.05

Q3 1.83 1.81

Max Au (g/t) 6.00 3.25

Std Dev 1.38 0.99

CV 1.13 0.94

Original 1/2 Core

Sample

Duplicate 1/4

Core SampleParameter

0.0

0.8

1.6

2.4

3.2

4.0

0.0 0.8 1.6 2.4 3.2 4.0

Duplicate Au (g/t)

Original Au (g/t)


68 July 12, 2018

11.3.3.4. 2017 Same Pulp Check Assays

Approximately 100 ALS Minerals pulps were sent to Skyline Labs located in

Tucson, AZ for check assay purposes. Table 11-6 summarizes basic descriptive statistics for these same pulp assays.

Table 11-6 2017 Check Assay Comparison

Parameter Original ALS Chemex

Result Skyline Same Pulp Assay

Results

Count 97 97

Min Au (g/t) 0.01 0.01

Q1 0.46 0.46

Median 1.39 1.32

Mean Au (g/t) 2.76 2.61

Q3 3.57 3.18

Max Au (g/t) 50.20 43.30

Std Dev 5.37 4.76

CV 1.95 1.82

Source: RMI, 2018

The data in Table 11-6 show that there is a reasonable comparison between the original ALS and Skyline assays. Figure 11-8 is a QQ plot that compares the original assay (X-axis) with the Skyline assay (Y-axis).

Figure 11-8 2017 Check Assay QQ Plot

Source: RMI, 2018

0.0

1.4

2.8

4.2

5.6

7.0

0.0 1.4 2.8 4.2 5.6 7.0

Skyline Au (g/t)

ALS Au (g/t)

96th percentile

50th percentile


69 July 12, 2018

11.3.3.5. Sample Preparation, Security, and Analytical Adequacy

Based on the 2012 to 2017 QA/QC results, grade distribution comparisons between older and newer data, and excellent historical mine reconciliation, the Qualified Person responsible for this section of this Technical Report believes that the Beartrack drill hole data are adequate and fairly represent the distribution of gold and are suitable to be used to estimate Mineral Resources.


70 July 12, 2018

12.0 DATA VERIFICATION

The Qualified Person responsible for this section of this Technical Report performed a number of reviews and checks of the drill hole data that were used to estimate Mineral Resources that are the subject of this report. Previous reviews of the pre-1990 RC drilling by the Qualified Person demonstrated that the gold grade for those samples was biased high. This problem was recognized by Meridian’s technical staff and in response, they changed sampling procedures to better handle wet samples. The pre-1990 RC data representing 433 holes totaling 59,244 meters of gold assays, was excluded from being used to estimate Mineral Resources. No data verification procedures were applied for those drill holes. The following sections describe the data verification procedures applied by the Qualified Person.

12.1. DRILL HOLE COLLAR LOCATIONS

Drill hole collar locations were compared against the original topographic surface. No material issues were observed as the drill holes fit the topographic surface reasonably well. The collar location of approximately 20 drill holes taken from drill hole logs were compared to the electronic database. No errors were observed however several coordinates were improperly rounded (2nd decimal place) and not considered to be material.

12.2. DOWN-HOLE SURVEYS

The Qualified Person checked approximately 1,650 down-hole survey records for 60 drill holes (one RC, the rest core) by comparing original source data against the electronic database entries. The source data included Sperry Sun film disks, NaviDrill film disks, single shot Reflex readings, and several down-hole survey contractor printouts.

Apparently, in the early 1990’s, Meridian’s technical staff modified some of the

down-hole survey data by averaging adjacent survey station data (bearing and inclination) and entering the location of the average data at a mid-point between the actual surveys. Most engineering software packages do something similar (e.g. creates intermediate stations using the tangential method) to smooth the trace of the drill hole instead of having it “deviate” at the actual recorded station. The Qualified Person and Revival Gold’s technical staff agreed to correct these entries so that the bearing and inclinations were entered at their actual survey station depth.

The Qualified Person compared the location of drill hole intercepts using the

manually derived down-hole survey locations against the location of the same intercept with the down-hole surveys entered at their correct depths but using the software’s de-surveying function. The locations varied but not materially. The location of only very deep intercepts may be suspect.

The Qualified Person recommends that Revival compare electronic down-hole

survey records for the remaining drill holes that were not checked and if warranted, correct the survey depths. The Qualified Person also recommends that Revival compare down hole deviations from their upcoming 2018 drilling program against nearby older drill holes to determine whether the older holes appear to have similar traces.


71 July 12, 2018

12.3. ELECTRONIC ASSAY DATABASE

The Qualified Person conducted a thorough review of the electronic database by

comparing assay certificates for 66 drill holes against the electronic database. Fire assay gold, cyanide soluble gold, and silver assays were compared. Table 12-1 summarizes the drill hole data that was examined.

Table 12-1 Drill Hole Assay Database Checks

Source: RMI, 2018 The apparent high error rate associated with the cyanide soluble assays is actually not material because most of those errors involve very low-grade material associated with rounding issues. Table 12-2 provides a breakdown of the various errors and irregularities that were discovered.

Number of drill holes checked 66 50 18Number of assay intervals checked 10,418 5,877 4,113Total assayed footage 190,954 174,531 16,110Total assayed meters 58,203 53,197 4,910Assayed footage checked 44,793 31,309 12,729Assayed meters checked 13,653 9,543 3,880Percent of data checked 23% 18% 79%Number of errors 12 151 6Error rate 0.1% 2.6% 0.1%

Gold Fire AssaysCyanide Soluble

Au AssaysSilver AssaysParameter


72 July 12, 2018

Table 12-2 Drill Hole Assay Review Summary

Source: RMI, 2018

Most of the pre-2012 drill hole data did not have quality assurance/quality control

(QA/QC) samples associated with the drill hole samples which are routinely submitted for “modern” assay programs. The commercial labs that did analyzed the pre-2012 drilling data inserted their own standards and blanks into the sample stream. Those QA/QC results were provided with the regular sample results.

In the absence of typical QA/QC data associated with the pre-2012 drilling programs which is used to help demonstrate how representative the samples are, the Qualified Person compared those samples with Revival’s 2017 core drilling program. The pre-2012 and 2017 drill hole samples were composited to uniform 5-foot-lengths and then spatially paired with one another. Table 12-3 compares basic statistics for the two sample sets at different separation distances.

No errors 8,531 No No errorsCertificate shows a value, database doesn't have a value 5 Yes Probably not an error but no support for database entryMore than round off - error 7 Yes ErrorLab detection limit was <0.0005, database had 0.000 214 No Inconsistent data entry for less than detection limitLab detection limit was <0.001, database had 0.000 363 No Inconsistent data entry for less than detection limitLab detection limit was <0.005, database had 0.000 1 No Inconsistent data entry for less than detection limitPoor core recovery - assays were combined/ignored 7 No Poor recovery - single assay applied to multiple intervalsAveraged 2 samples for combined interval 4 No Poor recovery - single assay applied to multiple intervalsRounding error - certificate was 0.001, database had 0.000 16 No Inconsistent round offRounding error: certificate was 0.0217, database had 0.023 1 No Inconsistent round offGrand Total 9,149 n/a n/a

No errors 4,135 No No errorsCertificate shows a value, database doesn't have a value 17 Yes Nearly all are very low grade values - not materialMore than round off - considered an error 134 Yes Errors - mostly low-grade and not materialLab detection <0.003 - database had 0.001 480 No Inconsistent data entry for less than detection limitNo certificate - database had 0 400 No Conservative approachLab detection <0.003 - database had 0.003 234 No Inconsistent data entry for less than detection limitRound off difference - certificate higher than database 206 No Inconsistent round offRound off difference - database higher than certificate 170 No Inconsistent round offLab detection <0.001 - database had 0.000 86 No Inconsistent round offPoor core recovery - intervals combined 7 No Poor recovery - single assay applied to multiple intervalsAveraged 2 samples for combined interval 4 No Poor recovery - single assay applied to multiple intervalsLab detection <0.001 - database had 0.001 3 No Inconsistent data entry for less than detection limitLab detection <0.003 - database had -1.000 1 No Inconsistent data entry for less than detection limitGrand Total 5,877 n/a n/a

None 4107 No No errorsCertificate shows a value, database doesn't have a value 1 Yes ErrorMore than round off - error 3 Yes ErrorMissing value 1 Yes ErrorQA/QC sample entered 1 Yes ErrorGrand Total 4,113 n/a n/a

Cyanide Soluble Gold Assay CommentsNo.

IntervalsError? Comments

Silver Fire Assay CommentsNo.

IntervalsError? Comments

No. Intervals

Error?Gold Fire Assay Comments Comments


73 July 12, 2018

Table 12-3 2017 Revival Gold Assays vs. Pre-2012 Data

Source: RMI, 2018 The data shown in Table 12-3 are graphically displayed in Figure 12-1.

Figure 12-1 Older Au Data vs. 2017 Data

Source: RMI, 2018

The data shown in Table 12-3 and Figure 12-1 show that in general, the older gold

data compare reasonably well with the newer, QA/QC supported data. The older data is shown to be higher than the 2017 data at the farthest separation distance of 100 feet which is not surprising for a gold deposit.

Pre-2012 RC drilling programs (1990, 1995, and 1996) were similarly compared

against all available core hole data to see if there are any significant biases between the two sample types. Figure 12-2 compares 1990, 1995, and 1996 Meridian RC gold samples with nearby diamond core hole assays. The mean gold grades at different spatial separation distances are shown in the three graphs on the left. Quantile-quantile (QQ) plots for the same data are shown on the right half of Figure 12-2.

2017 Old Data 2017 Old Data 2017 Old Data

0 to 20 27 17.1 116 131 0.033 0.041 0.99 1.19

0 to 40 207 29.7 971 1,026 0.045 0.039 0.86 1.03

0 to 60 362 38.0 1,718 1,800 0.050 0.045 1.63 1.38

0 to 80 481 45.7 2,303 2,396 0.045 0.045 1.64 1.39

0 to 100 630 56.1 3,017 3,140 0.043 0.064 2.51 4.11

Separation

Distance

(ft)

Number

of Pairs

Ave.

Separation

Dist (ft)

Drilling FootageMean Au Grade

(opt)

Coefficient of

Variation

0.000

0.013

0.025

0.038

0.050

0.063

0.075

0 to 20 0 to 40 0 to 60 0 to 80 0 to 100

Au Grade (opt)

Separation Distance (ft)

2017 Drilling Older Drilling


74 July 12, 2018

Figure 12-2 Older RC Gold Samples vs. Core Samples

Source: RMI, 2018

These graphs show that in general, the gold assays derived from the diamond core

holes are slightly higher than nearby RC gold samples. The large grade difference in grade (1990 and 1996 programs) is associated with the closest separation distance bin where there were a limited number of sample pairs which may not be representative.

0.0

0.050

0.10

0.150

0.20

0.250

0.0 0.050 0.10 0.150 0.20 0.250

DDH Au (opt)

RC Au (opt)

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10

DDH Au (opt)

RC Au (opt)

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10

DDH Au (opt)

RC Au (opt)

0.000

0.013

0.025

0.038

0.050

0.063

0.075

0 to 20 0 to 40 0 to 60 0 to 80 0 to 100

Au Grade (opt)


1990 RC Grade DDH Grade

0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

0 to 60 0 to 80 0 to 100

Au Grade (opt)



0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0 to 40 0 to 60 0 to 80 0 to 100

Au Grade (opt)




75 July 12, 2018

12.4. GRADE VS. CORE RECOVERY AND RQD

The majority of gold mineralization at Beartrack is intimately associated with the PCFZ, either within the shear zone itself, or in the adjacent Yellowjacket quartzite (South Pit) or quartz monzonite intrusive (North Pit). In general, the host rocks are quite broken resulting in low RQD’s and locally, low to moderate core recovery. The Qualified Person examined gold grade versus core recovery and RQD for 32 drill holes for which accurate RQD and core recovery data were available (2012-2017 drill holes). Approximately 6,600 intervals representing about 6,200 meters of core drilling were examined by logged lithology at several gold cutoff grades. The average core recovery for these samples at a zero gold cutoff grade was 92%. When a 1 g/t gold cutoff grade was applied, the average core recovery dropped to 89%. As expected, the poorer recoveries were typically associated with PCFZ lithologies. Figure 12-3 compares the average gold grade (red line) against core recovery (blue bars) at 10 RQD ranges (x-axis).

Figure 12-3 Gold Grade vs. Core Recovery and RQD

Source: RMI, 2018

The data in Figure 12-3 shows that the average gold grade increases when RQD’s

are in the range of 50 to 60%, yet gold recovery throughout that range is seen to be relatively constant (mid 90’s). The data associated with 40 to 50% RQD represent less than 1% of the data in this comparison. 76% of the data are associated with the 90 to 100% RQD bin. The results from Figure 12-3 suggest that better gold grades are associated with structural preparation. Gold grades are slightly elevated in the first RQD bin (0 to 10%) where core recovery is also seen to be in the mid 80’s but the data from that bin represent 0.3% of the data examined. Table 12-4 breaks down the data shown in Figure 12-3 by gold grade ranges showing average core recovery.

0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

0.030

0.035

0.040

75

80

85

90

95

100

Au (opt)

Core Recovery (%)

RQD (%)

Core Recovery Au Grade


76 July 12, 2018

Table 12-4 Core Recovery vs. Gold Grade

Source: RMI, 2018

The data in Table 12-4 shows there appears to be a reduction in core recovery for

the highest-grade gold ranges (e.g. 65% recovery of samples in the 3 to 6 opt) but there are only three samples in that grade range. It should be noted that the highest-grade assay (5.127 opt or about 181 g/t) was associated with 42% core recovery.

High-grade gold samples with low core recovery are somewhat limited and

probably do not represent a material issue but the Qualified Person recommends that Revival closely monitor all future drilling/sampling programs for potential issues associated with core recovery and gold grade.

12.5. GEOLOGIC DRILL LOGS

The Qualified Person examined representative drill logs for both diamond core and RC drill holes. In general, the lithologic, alteration, and mineralization data appear to be reasonable. Like many projects, much of the RC logging provides minimal information due to the difficulty in dealing with fine grain chips. Revival’s technical staff did find some database omissions and other lithologic coding errors during their geologic interpretation. The missing and erroneous data were corrected before the data were supplied to the Qualified Person.

12.6. QUALIFIED PERSONS OPINION

There were no limitations placed upon the Qualified Person. All requested data was provided to the Qualified Person by Revival’s technical staff. Based on data verification undertaken, it is the opinion of the Qualified Person responsible for this section of this Technical Report, the post 1989 RC and diamond drill hole data are adequate for the purposes of estimating Mineral Resources.

Au Grade (opt) Count Footage Recovery (%)

0.00 to 0.05 5,897 18,663 91

0.05 to 0.10 444 1,161 87

0.10 to 0.15 141 317 82

0.15 to 0.20 45 108 86

0.20 to 0.25 20 52 90

0.25 to 1.00 25 73 90

1.00 to 2.00 1 5 94

2.00 to 3.00 2 5 89

3.00 to 6.00 3 13 65


77 July 12, 2018

13.0 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING

The current operator has not completed any mineral processing or metallurgical testing on the Property. Six composites that represent the current mineralization have been prepared and shipped for testing. These six composite samples were submitted to SGS Canada for initial testing in April 2018. Proposed testwork will consist of mineralogical characterization using QEMSCAN followed by floatation, ultra-fine grinding of flotation concentrates and bottle roll testing. Metallurgical characterization of oxide, mixed oxide/sulphide and sulphide mineralization is needed to assist in future selection of treatment options for the different material types. Revival is undertaking this metallurgical program which includes significant mineralogical characterization using current technology to improve the understanding of the gold and sulfide grain size within known lithologies and alteration types.

The following is a synthesis of historical metallurgical testwork conducted by

Meridian. Meridian conducted metallurgical test work for Beartrack with Hazen Research Inc. (Hazen), McClelland Laboratories (McClelland), and Coastech Research Inc. (Coastech).

It should be noted that the locations of the samples used for the first part of Phase

1 of the Hazen Research metallurgical testwork (14 samples) are precisely known while the locations of samples employed in subsequent testwork are, at present, unknown. Even though the precise locations of some of the samples are not known, they are thought to be broadly representative of the mineralized material at Beartrack.

13.1. HAZEN RESEARCH, INC.

Hazen completed two phases of metallurgical testing in 1989. The first phase of

test work began in March 1989 (Hazen, 1989a) and was completed in June 1989 (Hazen, 1989b). A second phase of testwork was completed by Hazen in late 1989 (Hazen, 1990).

Phase 1 testing began with 14 composite samples representing mineralization

hosted by quartzite (QTZ) and quartz monzonite (QMP) rock types in the South and North orebodies respectively (Hazen, 1989a). Each of these major rock types was subdivided into oxide, mixed, or sulphide categories. The material that comprised the composites consisted of both reverse circulation cuttings and diamond drill core with grades ranging from 1.30 g/t to 5.24 g/t (0.038 ounces of gold per ton (opt) to 0.153 opt, respectively). In addition to gold, the composites contained minor amounts of silver and trace amounts of copper, lead and zinc. Sulphide sulfur contents in the composites ranged from 0.02% to 2.91%, while mercury amounts ranged from 1.3 parts per million (ppm) to 52.7 ppm, and arsenic content ranged from 453 ppm to 10,000 ppm (1%). These composites were tested using standard procedures which included flotation, batch cyanide leaching and column leaching of material crushed to ½-inch to simulate heap leaching. Bond work indices were also measured for certain of the QTZ composites.

During Phase 1, Hazen conducted batch cyanide leaching tests on all composites

for 72 hours at a cyanide concentration of two grams of NaCN/liter. Gold dissolutions for oxide mineralization ranged from 71.1% to 87.7% for QTZ and 87% for QMP composites.


78 July 12, 2018

For the QTZ unit, gold dissolution results for the mixed and sulphide composites for QTZ were significantly lower, ranging from 58% to 64% for mixed composites and 22% to 24% for sulphide composites. Gold dissolution in the QMP sulphide composite was only 10%. Generally, recovery for the sulphide composite samples were not sensitive to grind sizes tested.

Additional cyanide tests demonstrated the benefit of using a pre-oxidation step to

reduce cyanide consumption and, in the case of one composite, the use of carbon during leaching proved to be slightly beneficial.

Column leach test results completed during Phase 1 generally paralleled the batch

leach results for all mineralization types, and based on these results, Hazen concluded that cyanide heap leaching would be an effective method for recovery of gold from QTZ and QMP oxide mineralization. Subsequent production at Beartrack proved this to be correct.

Also, during Phase 1, Hazen completed gravity separation testwork on a nominal

65-mesh grind of sulphide composites. Hazen obtained gold recoveries of up to 76% into concentrates from the sulphide composites while less than 20% recovery into concentrate was obtained from oxide and mixed mineralization types (Hazen, 1989a). It is worth noting that the gravity cleaner concentrate gold recoveries were never higher than 5%, indicating the composite samples did not contain appreciable amounts of coarse free gold. Based on these results, Hazen concluded that gravity concentration was neither necessary or beneficial.

Flotation testing by Hazen revealed that the sulphide composites responded more

positively to flotation than the oxide or mixed composites. Flotation recoveries from QTZ and QMP oxide and mixed composites were less than 50%, while flotation recoveries for sulphide composites ranged from 72% to 90%. Subsequent cyanidation of the float tailings for the sulphide and mixed composites proved to be beneficial - the combined sulphide rougher and tailings treatment produced overall gold recoveries of 86% to 92%, while whole ore leaching of the mixed and sulphide QTZ composites achieved recoveries of less than 60% and 30% respectively.

Hazen’s investigation of on-site concentrate processing through intensive leaching

of the sulphide concentrates indicated that some of the gold in the concentrates may require pre-treatment. Mineralogical testwork of the rougher concentrates and tailings indicated that some of the sulphide minerals are locked within gangue minerals at extremely fine sizes, in some cases less than 10 microns. In addition, the gold is intimately associated with certain sulphides, which probably contributed to the lower concentrate leach recoveries. Achieving maximum flotation recoveries from the sulphide ores will require the use of fine grinding, possibly in stages, and intensive reagent conditions.

The second part of Phase 1 testing by Hazen focused on two additional QMP oxide

composites to determine their response to column and agitation cyanide leaching (Hazen, 1989b). These tests achieved gold dissolutions of 71.8% to 85%, essentially duplicating the earlier test results. Additional testing was also performed on three of the mixed and sulphide QTZ and QMP composites tested previously to determine their response to pressure oxidation in an autoclave, both as whole ore and as flotation rougher concentrates. Pressure oxidation, followed by cyanidation of both whole ore and rougher flotation concentrates from the QTZ mixed and sulphide samples and the QMP sulphide


79 July 12, 2018

sample, resulted in improved gold dissolutions when compared to previous results, where whole ore oxidation achieved gold dissolutions of 92% compared to previous dissolutions of less than 5% to 58%. It was concluded that high gold recoveries via cyanidation could only be achieved after pre-treatment using an oxidation process.

Phase 2 of Hazen testwork was performed on a mixed composite of QTZ and

sulphide composites of both QTZ and QMP with the intention of defining a process that would maximize gold recovery from whole ore and from concentrates generated by a pilot-scale plant (Hazen, 1990). Results indicated that pressure oxidation by autoclave followed by cyanidation of the mixed and sulphide whole ore composites achieved gold dissolutions of 78.5% for the mixed composite and greater than 90% for the two sulphide composites (Table 13-1). In comparison, pre-oxidation by roasting of whole ore followed by cyanidation were 90% for the mixed composite and 81% to 88% for the sulphide composites.

Recoveries from the pre-oxidation of the pilot plant concentrates by either

autoclaving or roasting followed by cyanide leaching were generally lower than for pre-oxidation of whole ore. For the mixed composite, gold recoveries using autoclaving to pre-treat the concentrates prior to cyanide leaching were 76%, compared to 74% for roasting pre-treatment. For the sulphide composites, autoclave pre-oxidation treatment prior to cyanidation resulted in recoveries ranging from 55% to 78%, while roasting pre-treatment recoveries ranged from 46% to 66%. Lower gold recoveries from the pilot plant testing were observed. Concentrates after autoclave pre-oxidation were subjected to cyanidation. When compared to autoclaved whole ore, the lower recovery was attributed to flotation losses. It is unclear as to why this variance occurred.

13.2. MCCLELLAND LABORATORIES

Additional metallurgical testwork was performed by McClelland Laboratories of

Reno, Nevada, to determine the appropriate crush size for feed to the leach pad for each of the QTZ and QMP material types (McClelland, 1990). Based on the test results, the indicated optimum heap leach feed size was 80% minus-2-inch.

13.3. COASTECH RESEARCH

Coastech Research (Coastech, 1990) was contracted by Meridian to investigate

the economic feasibility of bio-oxidation of sulphide ores and to determine whether bio-oxidation of whole ore or concentrate yielded better results. The results indicated that after bio-oxidation, gold recovery for the whole ore composites ranged from 72% to 90%, and recovery in the concentrate samples ranged from 92% to 97%. Subsequent cost-benefit analyses by Coastech showed bio-oxidation of whole ore was not economically feasible, while bio-oxidation of concentrates warranted further study. Bio-leached products indicated a pregnant solution robbing characteristic that remains un-explained.

13.4. SUMMARY


80 July 12, 2018

Oxide mineralization at Beartrack responds well to cyanide heap leaching as demonstrated from past mining operations. Metallurgical testwork indicates mixed oxide/sulfide and sulfide material has a cyanide soluble component that is leachable but with lower overall recovery, based on fire assay, than oxide material. A variety of process methods were tested on the mixed and sulfide ore including vat leaching, gravity separation, flotation, pressure oxidation, roasting, nitric acid oxidation and bio-oxidation. Testwork suggests acceptable recovery rates can be achieved with pressure oxidation of flotation concentrates. Advancements in processing technology since the original testwork was completed, such as ultra-fine grinding, as well as other oxidative processes will be investigated in future testwork.

A summary of gold recovery from the Meridian testwork on mixed oxide/sulfide and

sulfide material using various process options is presented in Table 13-1.

Table 13-1 Summary of Gold Recoveries by Material Type

Mixed and Sulphide Material Process Options Gold Recovery

(%)1 QTZ-M32 QTZ-S42 QMP-S42

Whole Ore Mineralization Direct Cyanidation 67.7 25.4 8.1 Cyanidation after autoclave pre-oxidation 78.5 92.2 93.8 Cyanidation after roasting 89.7 81.3 87.7 Cyanidation after nitric acid pre-oxidation 77.3 90.9 74.3

Flotation Flotation & direct cyanidation of flotation products 66.5 22.7 NA Flotation, direct cyanidation of flotation tailings and cyanidation after autoclave pre-oxidation

75.8 84.1 85.6

Flotation, direct cyanidation of flotation tailings, and cyanidation of flotation concentrate after roasting

74.2 69.9 46.1

70.1 1Gold recoveries do not take into account any solution and/or carbon losses. 2QTZ-M3 is mixed oxide-sulphide composite from the quartzite, QTZ-S4 is sulphide composite from the quartzite

and QMP-S4 is a sulphide composite from the quartz monzonite.

Source: Hazen 1990

As described in (Section 6.2.2), the Beartrack mine was previously operated as an open pit, heap leach operation. The current resource estimate at Beartrack includes a leachable component that offers the possibility of a start-up heap leach operation with additional leach ore potentially available from nearby sources.

In addition to the leachable resource, a mill resource has been estimated based on the extensive gold-bearing sulphide system identified along strike and beneath the leachable resource. Based on historical metallurgical testwork and a review of successfully scaled sulphide operations, Revival envisions an open pit operation in which select mixed oxide/sulphide and sulphide material is milled to produce a flotation concentrate followed by oxidative treatment and cyanidation of the concentrates and flotation tailings.




81 July 12, 2018

For the heap leach component of the mineral resource, the key metallurgical assumptions were as follows:




were as follows:



Values for two process types, leaching and milling, were calculated for each block.

The highest value was then used to determine the destination of each block. Developments over the past thirty years since the date of historic metallurgical testing at Beartrack are offering significantly lower capital and operating cost alternatives to pressure oxidation. Should a different process method be identified as a result of new testwork then the cut-off grade and processing coat assumptions utilized in this resource estimate may warrant revision.

13.5. QUALIFIED PERSONS STATEMENT

Mineralization at Beartrack contains both mercury and arsenic as mentioned

above. The proportion of gold at submicron sizes within sulphide minerals in various lithology and alteration types is currently not well defined. Gold occurrence in sulphide (mill) material has not been fully characterized and further metallurgical testwork will be required to further refine a processing method that will allow for the economic extraction of gold from mineralized rock at Beartrack.


82 July 12, 2018

14.0 MINERAL RESOURCE AND MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES

14.1. INTRODUCTION

Mineral Resources were estimated by Michael Lechner, P. Geo., President of Resource Modeling Inc. (RMI) who, as a result of experience and qualifications, is a Qualified Person as defined in National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (“NI 43-101”).

14.2. DATA USED TO ESTIMATE THE RESOURCE

14.2.1. Drill Hole Data

Mineral Resources were estimated for the Beartrack deposit using 458 core and RC drill holes totaling about 233,552 feet or about 72,000 meters. Table 14-1 summarizes the drilling by date, company, and type. Figure 14-1 is a plan map showing the drill holes that were used to estimate Mineral Resources with RC holes shown in red and diamond core holes shown in blue.

Table 14-1 Drill Hole Data Used to Estimate Mineral Resources

Source: RMI, 2018

Campaign Year Company Type Drill Hole ID's No. Holes Drilled Footage

2 1988 Meridian Core DD‐001 to DD‐009 10 4,658



7 1990 Meridian RC 90‐406 to 90‐554 136 53,445

9 1992 Meridian Core DD‐118 to DD‐121 2 495

10 1992 Meridian RC L010 to L022 4 786

11 1995 Meridian RC 96‐560 to 95‐589 29 11,360


13 1996 Meridian RC 96‐590 to 96‐681 87 30,450


15 1997 Meridian RC 97‐686 to 97‐688 3 1,900

16 2012 Yamana Core BT12‐174D to BT12‐1 14 21,971

17 2013 Yamana Core BT13‐187D to BT12‐1 7 13,226

18 2017 Revival Core BT17‐194DB to BT17‐ 13 9,864

Grand Total n/a n/a n/a n/a 458 233,552


83 July 12, 2018

Figure 14-1 Drill Hole Plan Map

Source: RMI, 2018

Joss area

South Pit area

Mason Dixon area

North Pit area

N

1000 ft

Core hole

RC hole


84 July 12, 2018

14.2.2. Topography

Two topographic surfaces were used in the development of the Mineral Resource estimate. A 2004 post mining surface and a more recent 2014 LiDAR surface were used to code the block model. Those two surfaces are essentially coincident except in the North Pit area where approximately 4 million tonnes of waste rock were dumped into the pit as backfill. This material is reflected in the block model as “fill” with a bulk density of 16.0 ft3/short ton with no estimated grades.

14.2.3. Geologic Interpretation

Revival acquired various digital geologic interpretations for the Beartrack property by virtue of their agreement with Yamana Gold. The geologic interpretation was originally constructed by various Meridian personnel during the late 1990’s while the property was in operation. The key digital data that were obtained and then updated by Revival/RMI included lithologic shapes and gold grade envelopes.

14.2.4. Lithology

Meridian developed 100-foot spaced NW-SE cross sectional interpretations that represent five principal rock types including glacial till, pit backfill, Yellowjacket quartzite, Panther Creek Fault Zone (PCFZ), and undifferentiated dikes. Quartz monzonite porphyry was considered the default lithologic unit and not modeled with digital polygons or 3D wireframes. The Meridian sectional lithology polygons were updated by Revival’s technical staff to accommodate the 2012-2017 drilling data. RMI generated wireframe solids from the sectional polygons which were then used to code drill holes and model blocks. Table 14-2 summarizes the two block model codes representing that represent property lithology prior to mining (MLITH) and post-mining (LITH). The MLITH codes allowed for block grades to be estimated for the entire deposit so that tonnage/grade comparisons could be against historic production data. The block model LITH code accounts for pit backfill in North Pit and was used for conceptual pit generation and resource tabulation.

Table 14-2 Block Model Lithologic Codes

Lithologic Description Block Model Codes

LITH MLITH

Glacial till 10 1

Quartz monzonite 50 3

PCFZ 40 4

Dikes 30 2

Yellowjacket quartzite 60 5

Pit backfill 70 n/a

Source: RMI, 2018


85 July 12, 2018

14.2.5. Mineralized Areas

The Beartrack property was sub-divided into five distinct mineralized areas

consisting of (1) Joss; (2) South Pit; (3) Mason-Dixon; (4) North Pit; and (5) Deep Zone. Historically, South, Pit, Mason-Dixon, and North Pit were mined by Meridian Gold. No Mineral Resources were estimated for the Joss and Deep Zone. The Mason-Dixon and North Pit zones have been combined in many of the comparisons in this report because they are spatially close to one another and are geologically similar.

14.2.6. Gold Grade Envelopes

During the operation of the Beartrack Mine, Meridian Gold’s technical staff

developed gold grade envelopes on NW-SE cross sections which were then reconciled in bench plan as digital polygons. The Meridian gold grade envelopes were developed using approximately a 0.010 opt (0.3 g/t) cutoff grade. Those same shapes were updated in section and reconciled at mid-bench elevation by Revival’s technical staff to account for drilling data obtained between 2012 and 2017 using the same fire assay cutoff grade (~ 0.3 g/t). The mid-bench shapes were used to code model blocks. RMI constructed a small 0.3 g/t gold grade envelope at the south end of the property in an area referred to as the Joss zone. A block model item named “AUZON” was coded with a 1 for blocks located inside of the gold grade envelope. All other blocks were coded with a value of 0.

14.2.7. Oxidation

Oxidation or “redox” is quite complex at the Beartrack property and not necessarily

a function of depth below the surface as high-angle structures associated with the PCFZ have allowed oxidation to locally persist at great depths. This complexity has hampered the development of 3D wireframes of the oxidation surface. RMI developed a redox model using a combination of cyanide solubility (ratio of cyanide soluble gold grade to fire assay grade) and logged drill hole redox codes. Drill holes with solubility ratios in excess of 70% were considered “oxide”, samples with 50-70% solubility ratios were deemed to be “mixed sulphide” or transitional, and all samples with less than 50% solubility were considered sulphide. Oxide, mixed, and sulphide codes were assigned to drill holes without cyanide soluble gold assays based on logged oxidation. The majority of the drill hole samples are 5-feet-long (1.52m) so the drill hole oxidation data were composited to that length. Three sets of 0/1 indicators were assigned to the composites based on whether the sample was oxide, mixed, or sulphide. These redox indicators were then used to interpolate the probability of a block being oxide, mixed, or sulphide using an inverse distance squared estimator. The indicators were estimated by a single 300’ x 300’ x 100’ (~ 90m x 90m x 30m) requiring at least 15 composites and a maximum of 40 samples. The blocks were then assigned oxide (1), mixed (2), and sulphide (3) codes based on which interpolated indicator was highest for the block.


86 July 12, 2018

14.2.8. Density Data

Bulk density values were assigned to the block model using the same values and logic that Meridian used during their final years of operating the Beartrack mine. According to historical documents, bulk density values were initially based on drill core determinations and were later modified by Meridian as mining progressed. Meridian determined that there was a basic distinction in density in each rock type based on whether the block was mineralized. Based on production data, Meridian determined that the mineralized host rocks (i.e. quartzite, quartz monzonite intrusive, and the PCFZ) ranged between 5 and 7 percent lighter than unmineralized material. Table 14-3 summarizes the bulk density values that were assigned to the block model.

Table 14-3 Block Model Bulk Density Values

Source: RMI, 2018

14.3. EXPLORATORY DATA ANALYSIS

The Qualified Person responsible for this section of this Technical Report performed various statistical and geostatistical analyses for gold fire assay and cyanide soluble gold assays. These methods include generating basic descriptive statistics by a variety of logged and modeled attributes, preparing histograms, box plots, contact plots, cumulative probability plots and various grade and indicator variograms. The following sections summarize key relationships that were used to develop the estimate of Mineral Resources.

14.3.1. Assay Statistics

Gold fire assay statistics are summarized in Table 14-4 by drilling method at four gold cutoff grades in Imperial units (ounces per short ton). The gold cutoff grades of 0.009, 0.018, and 0.029 ounces per ton approximate 0.3, 0.6, and 1.0 grams per metric tonne). The number of feet of assayed data above each cutoff grade, the incremental assayed footage, length weighted average gold grade, standard deviation, and coefficient of variation (CV) are summarized for uncapped intervals. In addition, grade times thickness (GxT) and incremental percent of GxT are shown at each cutoff grade. The right portion of Table 14-4 shows similar statistics but for data in which high-grade outliers values were capped (see Section 14.3.2).

< 0.17 ≥ 0.17

Glacial till 10 16.0 16.0

Quartz monzonite 50 13.1 13.7

PCFZ 30 12.2 13.0

Dikes 40 13.1 13.7

Yellowjacket quartzite 60 12.2 13.0

Pit backfill 70 16.0 16.0

Lith Block

CodeLithology

Block Au Grade (g/t)


87 July 12, 2018

Table 14-4 Gold Fire Assay by Drilling Method

Source: RMI, 2018

The data in Table 14-4 shows that there about a 50-50 split between diamond core

sampling and reverse circulation (RC) drilling at Beartrack. The average gold grade based on core drilling is significantly higher primarily because many of the core holes targeted the higher-grade portions of the mineralized areas.

Table 14-5 summarizes fire assay gold data by mineralized area and shows that the Joss area has the highest mean gold grade (0.035 opt) but only represents about 1% of all gold fire assay data. About 42% of the fire assay data was collected from the South Pit deposit and about 52% from the combined Mason-Dixon and North Pit areas. The average gold grade is much higher at the South Pit deposit than the Mason-Dixon and North Pit areas. Additionally, the uncapped CV from the South Pit assays is lower than either the Mason-Dixon or North Pit areas. The Deep Zone samples were defined to isolate several deep, high-grade intercepts that were drilled in 2012 and 2013 below the Mason-Dixon-North Pit areas. The Deep Zone assays represent about 5% of the samples and have the highest uncapped CV at 8.2.

Table 14-6 summarizes cyanide soluble gold assays by mineralized area at the

same four gold grade cutoffs used in Tables 14-4 and 14-5. The distribution of cyanide soluble gold assays is similar to the fire assay data (i.e. highest mean grade and lowest CV in South Pit). Very little cyanide soluble data was collected for the Joss area or Deep Zone.

0.000 190,954 51% 0.021 3,949 7% 0.054 2.63 0.020 3,863 7% 0.035 1.71

0.009 93,840 16% 0.039 3,692 10% 0.073 1.86 0.038 3,606 10% 0.042 1.09

0.018 62,994 11% 0.052 3,306 12% 0.086 1.64 0.051 3,221 12% 0.046 0.90

0.029 42,032 22% 0.067 2,835 72% 0.102 1.51 0.065 2,749 71% 0.051 0.78

0.000 94,975 40% 0.029 2,753 4% 0.072 2.48 0.028 2,673 4% 0.041 1.47

0.009 57,157 15% 0.046 2,649 7% 0.089 1.91 0.045 2,569 7% 0.046 1.03

0.018 42,592 13% 0.058 2,464 10% 0.100 1.73 0.056 2,384 10% 0.049 0.88

0.029 30,630 32% 0.072 2,193 80% 0.115 1.61 0.069 2,114 79% 0.052 0.76

0.000 95,979 62% 0.012 1,196 13% 0.025 2.01 0.012 1,190 13% 0.023 1.88

0.009 36,683 17% 0.028 1,043 17% 0.035 1.23 0.028 1,037 17% 0.032 1.12

0.018 20,402 9% 0.041 843 17% 0.043 1.03 0.041 837 17% 0.038 0.93

0.029 11,402 12% 0.056 642 54% 0.052 0.93 0.056 636 53% 0.046 0.82

Coeff. of

VariationTotal

(feet)

Inc.

Percent

Grd‐Thk

(ft‐opt)

Inc.

Percent

Grd‐Thk

(ft‐opt)

Inc.

Percent

All Data

Core

RC

Area

Au

Cutoff

(opt)

Uncapped Fire Assay Gold Data Capped Gold Fire Assays

Sampled Length Mean

Au

(opt)

Grade x ThicknessStd.

Dev.

Coeff. of

Variation

Mean

Au

(opt)


Dev.


88 July 12, 2018

Table 14-5 Gold Fire Assay by Mineralized Area

Source: RMI, 2018

0.000 190,954 51% 0.021 3,949 7% 0.054 2.63 0.020 3,863 7% 0.035 1.71

0.009 93,840 16% 0.039 3,692 10% 0.073 1.86 0.038 3,606 10% 0.042 1.09

0.018 62,994 11% 0.052 3,306 12% 0.086 1.64 0.051 3,221 12% 0.046 0.90

0.029 42,032 22% 0.067 2,835 72% 0.102 1.51 0.065 2,749 71% 0.051 0.78

0.000 1,097 41% 0.035 38 2% 0.048 1.40 0.035 38 2% 0.048 1.40

0.009 642 12% 0.058 37 4% 0.052 0.90 0.058 37 4% 0.052 0.90

0.018 515 7% 0.069 36 5% 0.052 0.75 0.069 36 5% 0.052 0.75

0.029 436 40% 0.077 34 89% 0.052 0.68 0.077 34 89% 0.052 0.68

0.000 80,847 45% 0.027 2,211 4% 0.043 1.57 0.027 2,205 4% 0.042 1.54

0.009 44,764 14% 0.047 2,116 6% 0.049 1.05 0.047 2,110 6% 0.048 1.02

0.018 33,574 11% 0.059 1,974 9% 0.052 0.89 0.059 1,968 9% 0.050 0.86

0.029 24,972 31% 0.071 1,781 81% 0.055 0.77 0.071 1,775 80% 0.053 0.74

0.000 30,988 64% 0.012 380 14% 0.042 3.40 0.012 365 14% 0.025 2.16

0.009 11,069 19% 0.030 329 19% 0.066 2.23 0.028 314 19% 0.037 1.30

0.018 5,219 8% 0.049 258 14% 0.093 1.87 0.047 243 14% 0.048 1.02

0.029 2,838 9% 0.072 205 54% 0.121 1.67 0.067 190 52% 0.057 0.85

0.000 68,998 52% 0.016 1,121 9% 0.028 1.74 0.016 1,112 9% 0.026 1.59

0.009 33,030 17% 0.031 1,025 13% 0.035 1.14 0.031 1,016 13% 0.031 1.00

0.018 21,135 12% 0.041 877 17% 0.041 0.98 0.041 868 17% 0.035 0.84

0.029 12,668 18% 0.054 686 61% 0.048 0.89 0.053 677 61% 0.040 0.75

0.000 9,024 52% 0.022 199 7% 0.181 8.20 0.016 143 10% 0.033 2.06

0.009 4,336 20% 0.043 185 12% 0.260 6.09 0.030 129 16% 0.043 1.45

0.018 2,551 16% 0.064 162 16% 0.337 5.31 0.041 106 22% 0.053 1.27

0.029 1,118 12% 0.116 130 65% 0.504 4.34 0.066 74 52% 0.073 1.10

Deep Zone

Total

(feet)

Inc.

Percent

Grd‐Thk

(ft‐opt)

All Data

Joss

South Pit

Mason‐

Dixon

North Pit

Uncapped Fire Assay Gold DataAu

Cutoff

(opt)

Area

Capped Gold Fire Assays

Mean Au

(opt)


Dev.

Coeff. of

VariationGrd‐Thk

(ft‐opt)

Inc.

Percent

Inc.

Percent

Sampled LengthMean Au

(opt)


Dev.

Coeff. of

Variation


89 July 12, 2018

Table 14-6 Cyanide Soluble Gold Assays by Mineralized Area

Source: RMI, 2018

Table 14-7 and Table 14-8 summarize fire assay and cyanide soluble gold assay

statistics for the South Pit deposit by modeled lithology, respectively. The statistics were tabulated at four gold cutoff grades. As described in Section 14.2.4, 3D wireframes were constructed for the key lithologic units and were used to code drill holes and model blocks.

The data in Table 14-7show that the preferential host rocks at the South deposit

are the PCFZ and Yellowjacket quartzite, which are much higher grade than the quartz monzonite intrusive. The uncapped and capped South Pit gold assays shows that the data are reasonably well behaved with relatively low CV’s for a gold deposit.

Table 14-9 and Table 14-10 summarize fire assay and cyanide soluble gold assay

statistics for the combined North Pit and Mason-Dixon deposits by modeled lithology, respectively. The statistics were tabulated at four gold cutoff grades. The highest mean gold grade is associated with thin dikes located along the eastern margin of the deposit however the dikes only represent about 1% of the North-Pit/Mason-Dixon assay data. The PCFZ is significantly higher grade than the volumetrically more important host (quartz monzonite). Unlike the South Pit area, the Yellowjacket quartzite is essentially unmineralized in the North Pit area.

0.000 174,531 70% 0.010 1,750 6% 0.023 2.33 0.010 1,748 6% 0.023 2.30

0.009 51,789 12% 0.032 1,642 15% 0.034 1.08 0.032 1,640 15% 0.033 1.06

0.018 30,659 6% 0.045 1,381 14% 0.039 0.87 0.045 1,379 14% 0.038 0.85

0.029 19,617 11% 0.058 1,132 65% 0.044 0.77 0.058 1,130 65% 0.043 0.74

0.000 452 97% 0.001 0 43% 0.003 3.34 0.001 0 43% 0.003 3.34

0.009 15 3% 0.014 0 44% 0.002 0.14 0.014 0 44% 0.002 0.14

0.018 3 1% 0.018 0 13% 0.000 0.00 0.018 0 13% 0.000 0.00

0.029 0 0% 0.000 0 0% 0.000 0.00 0.000 0 0% 0.000 0.00

0.000 80,854 67% 0.013 1,024 5% 0.027 2.12 0.013 1,023 5% 0.027 2.10

0.009 26,957 12% 0.036 976 11% 0.036 1.00 0.036 976 11% 0.036 0.99

0.018 17,569 6% 0.049 859 11% 0.039 0.81 0.049 859 11% 0.039 0.80

0.029 12,389 15% 0.060 742 72% 0.042 0.71 0.060 741 72% 0.042 0.70

0.000 30,288 72% 0.008 236 9% 0.019 2.49 0.008 235 9% 0.019 2.45

0.009 8,581 15% 0.025 214 24% 0.030 1.20 0.025 213 24% 0.029 1.18

0.018 3,934 6% 0.040 157 18% 0.039 0.98 0.040 157 18% 0.038 0.95

0.029 1,986 7% 0.058 115 49% 0.049 0.85 0.058 114 49% 0.047 0.82

0.000 62,651 74% 0.008 490 8% 0.020 2.56 0.008 489 8% 0.019 2.48

0.009 16,236 11% 0.028 452 18% 0.032 1.14 0.028 450 18% 0.030 1.08

0.018 9,153 6% 0.040 364 18% 0.038 0.95 0.040 363 18% 0.036 0.90

0.029 5,242 8% 0.053 275 56% 0.046 0.88 0.052 274 56% 0.043 0.82

0.000 286 100% 0.000 0 0% 0.000 0.00 0.000 0 0% 0.000 0.00

0.009 0 0% 0.000 0 0% 0.000 0.00 0.000 0 0% 0.000 0.00

0.018 0 0% 0.000 0 0% 0.000 0.00 0.000 0 0% 0.000 0.00

0.029 0 0% 0.000 0 0% 0.000 0.00 0.000 0 0% 0.000 0.00

Mean Au

(opt)


Dev.

Coeff. of

VariationTotal

(feet)

Inc.

Percent

Grd‐Thk

(ft‐opt)

Inc.

Percent

Grd‐Thk

(ft‐opt)

Inc.

Percent

Deep Zone

Au

Cutoff

(opt)

Uncapped Cyanide Soluble Gold Assay Data

North Pit

Area

All Data

Joss

South Pit

Mason‐

Dixon

Capped Cyanide Soluble Gold Assays

Sampled LengthMean Au

(opt)


Dev.

Coeff. of

Variation


90 July 12, 2018

Table 14-7 South Pit Gold Fire Assays by Modeled Lithology

Source: RMI, 2018

Table 14-8 South Pit Cyanide Soluble Gold Assays by Modeled Lithology

Source: RMI, 2018

0.000 80,847 45% 0.027 2,211 4% 0.043 1.57 0.027 2,205 4% 0.042 1.54

0.009 44,764 14% 0.047 2,116 6% 0.049 1.05 0.047 2,110 6% 0.048 1.02

0.018 33,574 11% 0.059 1,974 9% 0.052 0.89 0.059 1,968 9% 0.050 0.86

0.029 24,972 31% 0.071 1,781 81% 0.055 0.77 0.071 1,775 80% 0.053 0.74

0.000 1,579 97% 0.001 1 59% 0.002 2.65 0.001 1 59% 0.002 2.65

0.009 50 3% 0.011 1 41% 0.002 0.17 0.011 1 41% 0.002 0.17

0.018 0 0% 0.000 0 0% 0.000 0.00 0.000 0 0% 0.000 0.00

0.029 0 0% 0.000 0 0% 0.000 0.00 0.000 0 0% 0.000 0.00

0.000 8,502 63% 0.010 85 15% 0.016 1.63 0.010 85 15% 0.016 1.63

0.009 3,160 19% 0.023 72 24% 0.021 0.93 0.023 72 24% 0.021 0.93

0.018 1,564 11% 0.033 52 24% 0.026 0.79 0.033 52 24% 0.026 0.79

0.029 642 8% 0.049 31 37% 0.035 0.73 0.049 31 37% 0.035 0.73

0.000 13,100 39% 0.035 457 4% 0.048 1.38 0.035 456 4% 0.047 1.36

0.009 7,991 13% 0.055 440 5% 0.053 0.95 0.055 439 5% 0.051 0.94

0.018 6,279 10% 0.067 419 7% 0.054 0.81 0.067 418 7% 0.052 0.79

0.029 4,932 38% 0.079 388 85% 0.055 0.70 0.078 387 85% 0.053 0.68

0.000 57,667 42% 0.029 1,668 4% 0.044 1.52 0.029 1,663 4% 0.043 1.49

0.009 33,563 14% 0.048 1,603 6% 0.050 1.04 0.048 1,598 6% 0.048 1.01

0.018 25,731 11% 0.058 1,504 9% 0.052 0.90 0.058 1,499 9% 0.050 0.86

0.029 19,398 34% 0.070 1,361 82% 0.056 0.79 0.070 1,356 82% 0.053 0.76


Dev.

Coeff. of

VariationTotal

(feet)

Inc.

Percent

Grd‐Thk

(ft‐opt)

Inc.

Percent

Grd‐Thk

(ft‐opt)

Inc.

Percent

Mean

Au

(opt)


Dev.

Coeff. of

Variation

Mean

Au

(opt)

Modeled

Lithology

All Data

Glacial Till

Quartz

Monzonite

PCFZ

Yellowjacket

Quartzite

Au

Cutoff

(opt)

Uncapped Fire Assay Gold Data Capped Gold Fire Assays

Sampled Length

0.000 80,854 67% 0.013 1,024 5% 0.027 2.12 0.013 1,023 5% 0.027 2.10

0.009 26,957 12% 0.036 976 11% 0.036 1.00 0.036 976 11% 0.036 0.99

0.018 17,569 6% 0.049 859 11% 0.039 0.81 0.049 859 11% 0.039 0.80

0.029 12,389 15% 0.060 742 72% 0.042 0.71 0.060 741 72% 0.042 0.70

0.000 1,579 99% 0.000 0 45% 0.001 7.08 0.000 0 45% 0.001 7.08

0.009 14 1% 0.010 0 55% 0.002 0.18 0.010 0 55% 0.002 0.18

0.018 0 0% 0.000 0 0% 0.000 0.00 0.000 0 0% 0.000 0.00

0.029 0 0% 0.000 0 0% 0.000 0.00 0.000 0 0% 0.000 0.00

0.000 8,502 84% 0.004 31 14% 0.009 2.61 0.004 31 14% 0.009 2.61

0.009 1,387 10% 0.019 27 33% 0.016 0.82 0.019 27 33% 0.016 0.82

0.018 519 4% 0.032 16 22% 0.020 0.63 0.032 16 22% 0.020 0.63

0.029 212 2% 0.045 10 31% 0.026 0.57 0.045 10 31% 0.026 0.57

0.000 13,105 60% 0.016 211 4% 0.030 1.86 0.016 211 4% 0.030 1.86

0.009 5,202 15% 0.039 204 11% 0.037 0.95 0.039 204 11% 0.037 0.95

0.018 3,291 7% 0.055 180 10% 0.039 0.71 0.055 180 10% 0.039 0.71

0.029 2,359 18% 0.068 160 75% 0.039 0.58 0.068 160 75% 0.039 0.58

0.000 57,669 65% 0.014 782 5% 0.028 2.04 0.014 781 5% 0.028 2.03

0.009 20,355 11% 0.037 746 11% 0.037 1.00 0.037 745 11% 0.036 0.99

0.018 13,759 7% 0.048 662 11% 0.040 0.83 0.048 662 11% 0.039 0.81

0.029 9,818 17% 0.058 573 73% 0.043 0.74 0.058 572 73% 0.042 0.72

Inc.

Percent

Grd‐Thk

(ft‐opt)

Inc.

Percent

Grd‐Thk

(ft‐opt)

Inc.

Percent

Yellowjacket

Quartzite

Modeled

Lithology

Au

Cutoff

(opt)

Uncapped Cyanide Soluble Gold Assay Data Capped Cyanide Soluble Gold Assays

Sampled Length Mean

Au

(opt)


Dev.

Coeff. of

Variation

Mean

Au

(opt)


Dev.

Coeff. of

VariationTotal

(feet)

All Data

Glacial Till

Quartz

Monzonite

PCFZ


91 July 12, 2018

Table 14-9 North Pit Gold Fire Assays by Modeled Lithology

Source: RMI, 2018

0.000 99,986 56% 0.015 1,500 10% 0.033 2.21 0.015 1,477 10% 0.026 1.74

0.009 44,099 18% 0.031 1,354 15% 0.045 1.47 0.030 1,330 15% 0.033 1.08

0.018 26,353 11% 0.043 1,134 16% 0.055 1.28 0.042 1,111 16% 0.038 0.89

0.029 15,507 16% 0.057 891 59% 0.068 1.19 0.056 868 59% 0.044 0.78

0.000 250 100% 0.001 0 100% 0.002 2.87 0.001 0 100% 0.002 2.87

0.009 0 0% 0.000 0 0% 0.000 0.00 0.000 0 0% 0.000 0.00

0.018 0 0% 0.000 0 0% 0.000 0.00 0.000 0 0% 0.000 0.00

0.029 0 0% 0.000 0 0% 0.000 0.00 0.000 0 0% 0.000 0.00

0.000 539 7% 0.057 31 1% 0.038 0.66 0.057 31 1% 0.036 0.64

0.009 502 6% 0.061 31 1% 0.036 0.59 0.060 30 1% 0.034 0.57

0.018 471 12% 0.064 30 5% 0.035 0.55 0.064 30 5% 0.033 0.52

0.029 405 75% 0.071 29 93% 0.033 0.47 0.070 28 93% 0.031 0.44

0.000 62,993 51% 0.016 1,008 10% 0.027 1.66 0.016 1,001 10% 0.023 1.44

0.009 30,914 18% 0.029 911 14% 0.033 1.12 0.029 905 14% 0.027 0.92

0.018 19,391 13% 0.040 768 18% 0.038 0.96 0.039 761 18% 0.030 0.75

0.029 11,401 18% 0.052 587 58% 0.046 0.89 0.051 581 58% 0.034 0.66

0.000 4,718 17% 0.044 207 2% 0.091 2.07 0.041 195 2% 0.053 1.27

0.009 3,912 19% 0.052 203 5% 0.098 1.88 0.049 191 6% 0.055 1.12

0.018 3,027 19% 0.063 192 10% 0.108 1.71 0.060 180 11% 0.058 0.98

0.029 2,111 45% 0.081 171 83% 0.126 1.55 0.076 159 82% 0.063 0.84

0.000 31,486 72% 0.008 255 18% 0.025 3.03 0.008 250 18% 0.020 2.55

0.009 8,771 17% 0.024 208 25% 0.042 1.78 0.023 204 26% 0.034 1.44

0.018 3,464 6% 0.042 144 16% 0.063 1.52 0.040 140 16% 0.049 1.20

0.029 1,590 5% 0.065 103 41% 0.088 1.35 0.062 99 40% 0.065 1.05

Mean

Au

(opt)


Dev.

Coeff. of

VariationTotal

(feet)

Inc.

Percent

Grd‐Thk

(ft‐opt)

Inc.

Percent

Grd‐Thk

(ft‐opt)

Inc.

Percent

Modeled

Lithology

Au

Cutoff

(opt)

Uncapped Fire Assay Gold Data

Yellowjacket

Quartzite

All Data

Glacial Till

Dike

Quartz

Monzonite

PCFZ

Capped Gold Fire Assays

Sampled Length Mean

Au

(opt)


Dev.

Coeff. of

Variation


92 July 12, 2018

Table 14-10 North Pit Cyanide Soluble Gold Assays by Modeled Lithology

Source: RMI, 2018

Figure 14-2 and Figure 14-3 are gold box plots showing the distribution of fire assay gold by modeled lithology for the South Pit and North Pit deposits, respectively. These plots show the similarities and differences in grade distribution by lithologic units and helped to define the block model grade estimation strategy.

0.000 92,939 73% 0.008 726 8% 0.020 2.54 0.008 724 8% 0.019 2.47

0.009 24,817 13% 0.027 666 20% 0.031 1.16 0.027 664 20% 0.030 1.11

0.018 13,087 6% 0.040 522 18% 0.038 0.96 0.040 520 18% 0.036 0.91

0.029 7,229 8% 0.054 390 54% 0.047 0.87 0.054 388 54% 0.044 0.82

0.000 220 100% 0.000 0 0% 0.000 0.00 0.000 0 0% 0.000 0.00

0.009 0 0% 0.000 0 0% 0.000 0.00 0.000 0 0% 0.000 0.00

0.018 0 0% 0.000 0 0% 0.000 0.00 0.000 0 0% 0.000 0.00

0.029 0 0% 0.000 0 0% 0.000 0.00 0.000 0 0% 0.000 0.00

0.000 539 89% 0.003 2 52% 0.004 1.44 0.003 2 52% 0.004 1.44

0.009 57 10% 0.013 1 41% 0.004 0.33 0.013 1 41% 0.004 0.33

0.018 5 1% 0.024 0 8% 0.000 0.00 0.024 0 8% 0.000 0.00

0.029 0 0% 0.000 0 0% 0.000 0.00 0.000 0 0% 0.000 0.00

0.000 59,983 75% 0.007 442 8% 0.017 2.32 0.007 442 8% 0.017 2.32

0.009 15,248 11% 0.027 408 19% 0.025 0.94 0.027 408 19% 0.025 0.94

0.018 8,541 6% 0.038 326 19% 0.029 0.76 0.038 326 19% 0.029 0.76

0.029 4,851 8% 0.050 242 55% 0.034 0.68 0.050 242 55% 0.034 0.68

0.000 4,672 33% 0.024 114 4% 0.036 1.45 0.024 114 4% 0.034 1.41

0.009 3,134 21% 0.035 110 11% 0.039 1.12 0.035 109 11% 0.038 1.08

0.018 2,152 18% 0.045 97 17% 0.044 0.96 0.045 97 17% 0.042 0.93

0.029 1,300 28% 0.060 78 68% 0.051 0.84 0.060 78 68% 0.048 0.81

0.000 27,525 77% 0.006 168 12% 0.021 3.37 0.006 166 13% 0.019 3.14

0.009 6,379 14% 0.023 147 29% 0.038 1.64 0.023 145 29% 0.034 1.50

0.018 2,389 5% 0.041 99 17% 0.057 1.39 0.041 97 17% 0.051 1.26

0.029 1,078 4% 0.065 70 42% 0.079 1.21 0.064 69 41% 0.069 1.09

Grd‐Thk

(ft‐opt)

Inc.

Percent

Grd‐Thk

(ft‐opt)

Inc.

Percent

Modeled

Lithology

Au

Cutoff

(opt)

Uncapped Cyanide Soluble Gold Assay Data Capped Cyanide Soluble Gold Assays

Sampled Length Mean

Au

(opt)


Dev.

Coeff. of

Variation

Mean

Au

(opt)


Dev.

Coeff. of

VariationTotal

(feet)

Inc.

Percent

Yellowjacket

Quartzite

All Data

Glacial Till

Dike

Quartz

Monzonite

PCFZ


93 July 12, 2018

Figure 14-2 South Pit Gold Box Plot

Source: RMI, 2018

Figure 14-3 North Pit Gold Box Plot

Source: RMI, 2018

Gold grade contact plots were constructed for key lithologic units for each

mineralized area. Figure 14-4 shows the distribution of gold grade on either side of the Yellowjacket quartzite and the PCFZ for South Pit assays. In general, gold grades are seen to be somewhat “transitional” across the quartzite-PCFZ contact with gold grade increasing as distance from the contact is increased. For this reason, the quartzite-PCFZ contact was treated as a “soft contact” for block model grade estimation.


94 July 12, 2018

Figure 14-5 shows a similar gold contact plot for South Pit assays in hosted in

quartz monzonite and the PCFZ. Because gold grades drop off dramatically in the quartz monzonite intrusive that contact was treated as a “hard contact” for grade estimation. Contact plots generated for the primary host rocks in the North Pit deposit showed similar relationships except that the intrusive/PCFZ contact was treated as a soft contact while the quartzite/PCFZ contact was used as a hard contact.

Figure 14-4 South Pit Quartzite-PCFZ Au Contact Plot

Source: RMI, 2018

0.025

0.03

0.035

0.04

0.045

0.05

‐100 ‐75 ‐50 ‐25 0 25 50 75 100

Mean Au (opt)


Yellowjacket PCFZ


95 July 12, 2018

Figure 14-5 South Pit PCFZ-Quartz Monzonite Au Contact Plot

Source: RMI, 2018

14.3.2. High-grade Outliers

Many gold deposits are characterized by having a significant amount of metal contained in a limited number of samples. For example, it is not uncommon for some gold deposits to have more than 30% of the contained metal in the top 1% of the assays. High-grade outliers were identified for the Beartrack project using cumulative probability plots. Decile-percentile analysis showed that about 10% of gold metal based on grade times thickness drill hole accumulations is contained in the upper 1% of the data. The gold assays were transformed using the cumulative normal distribution theory and then plotted in log normal space. Figure 14-6, Figure 14-7, and Figure 14-8 represent gold cumulative probability plots for Yellowjacket quartzite, PCFZ, and quartz monzonite intrusive, respectively.

Based on a limited number of dike samples, high-grade outliers were capped at

0.15 opt. In addition to capping high-grade assays, outlier restriction (limiting the projection of high-grade composites during block grade estimation) was implemented and will be discussed in Section 14.4.3.

14.3.3. Composite Statistics

Approximately 56% of the original samples were collected on 5-foot (1.52m) intervals. About 15% of the samples were less than 5-feet in length (primarily core holes) and about 28% longer than 5-feet (mainly RC intervals in unmineralized zones). Figure 14-9 is a histogram showing the distribution of gold samples by length.

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

‐100 ‐50 0 50 100

Mean Au (opt)


QM PCFZ


96 July 12, 2018

Figure 14-6 Au Cumulative Probability Plot - Yellowjacket Quartzite

Source: RMI, 2018

Figure 14-7 Au Cumulative Probability Plot - PCFZ

Source: RMI, 2018

0.001

0.010

0.100

1.000

10.000

-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

Au

(g/t)

Cumulative Normal Distribution Function

Log Normal Approximation

Yellowjacket Fm.

0.5 opt (~17 g/t)

0.00

0.01

0.10

1.00

10.00

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

Au

(op

t)



PCFZ

0.4 opt (~13.7 g/t)


97 July 12, 2018

Figure 14-8 Au Cumulative Probability Plot - Quartz Monzonite

Source: RMI, 2018

Figure 14-9 Gold Sample Lengths

Source: RMI, 2018

The raw uncapped and capped assays were composited into 25-foot-long fixed length composites (7.62 m). This length was chosen in part to conform with the historic Meridian long-range block model and blast-hole production data. This length was also deemed to be reasonable given that the model blocks measure 25-feet per side.

0.001

0.010

0.100

1.000

10.000

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

Au

(opt

)



Quartz Monzonite

0.5 opt (~17 g/t)

0

25,000

50,000

75,000

100,000

125,000

Footage

Sample Length (feet)

Sample Length


98 July 12, 2018

The 25-foot-fixed length composites were controlled (start/stop) by the 0.3 g/t gold grade envelope. Two 25-foot-long drill hole composites were created, one set for gold fire assays and the other for cyanide soluble gold assays. This was done not all of the bore holes were assayed by cyanide soluble methods.

14.3.4. Variography

Sage2001, a commercial variogram modeling software package, was used to generate and model both gold grade and gold indicator variograms by area and rock type. In general, most of the variograms generated ellipses that were oriented parallel with the overall northeasterly strike of PCFZ and were steeply inclined within the plane of the regional shear zone.

Figure 14-10 is a gold grade correlogram looking along strike (N30°E) based on 25-foot-long Yellowjacket quartzite composites. This correlogram was modeled with a single spherical model yielding a nugget effect of 0.48. The range at 80% of the total variance (gamma) is approximately 250 feet (76.2 m).

Figure 14-11 is another gold grade correlogram from the same drill hole

composites as Figure 14-10 showing the down-dip (plunge) data. The down-dip correlogram produced a similar range (~280 feet or ~8.3 m) at 80% of the total sill. Perspective views of the South Pit quartzite variogram ellipse are shown in Figure 14-12.

Figure 14-10 South Pit Quartzite Au Correlogram - Major Axis

Source: RMI, 2018


99 July 12, 2018

Figure 14-11 South Pit Quartzite Au Correlogram - Down Dip

Source: RMI, 2018


100 July 12, 2018

Figure 14-12 South Pit Quartzite Au Variogram Ellipse

Source: RMI, 2018


101 July 12, 2018

14.4. MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATION

The Beartrack resource model was constructed by Michael Lechner, P. Geo, President of Resource Modeling Inc. who is acting as the Qualified Person responsible for this section of this Technical Report.

Beartrack is a past producing open pit mine that recovered gold by heap leaching

methods. Significant drilling data, geologic interpretations, and blast-hole production data were obtained from the previous operators. Revival’s technical staff evaluated the historical geologic interpretations and updated the sectional and level plan interpretations using the older data and drill data obtained after the mine shutdown in 2000. The newer data included information from 34 holes (13,740 m) drilled in 2012, 2013, and 2017.

The updated geologic interpretation (lithology and gold grade zones) completed by

Revival’s staff was reviewed by the Qualified Person. Some minor modifications were made by the Qualified Person to address continuity of lithologic units from sectional to level plan interpretations.

The Qualified Person developed the Mineral Resource estimate using all available

data (except pre-1990 RC drill holes). Significant weight was placed on validating the Mineral Resource estimate by making comparisons with historical blast-hole production by mining area. The estimated block grades were classified as Indicated or Inferred categories based on mineralized continuity and drill hole spacing. The Indicated portion of the deposit is located immediately below the existing mined surface where the drill hole spacing is sufficient to provide confidence in the estimate of tonnes and grade and historical blast-hole results demonstrate the existence and extent of mineralization in the last benches that were mined.

14.4.1. Block Model Setup

The Beartrack Mineral Resource was developed using MineSight® mine planning software (v. 12.60-1, build 74842-68). The historic Beartrack mine grid coordinate system was used for this estimate of Mineral Resources so facilitate comparisons with previous models and production data. The project was modeled using Imperial units for coordinates, distance, length, tonnage, and gold grades. Meridian Gold, operator of the historic mine, used a block size of 25 feet x 25 feet x 25 feet (7.62m). Given the drill hole spacing and the desire to compare estimates to historical data, that same block size was deemed to be appropriate. Future analysis might determine that another block size would be more optimal for a particular mining rate or equipment choice. Table 14-11 summarizes the extent of the Beartrack resource model.


102 July 12, 2018

Table 14-11 Block Model Extents

Source: RMI, 2018

14.4.2. Grade Estimation Domains

As described in Sections 7, 8, and 9 gold mineralization at the Beartrack project is intimately associated with the Panther Creek Fault Zone (PCFZ), a regional northeast-trending high-angle structure. Observations show that the strike and dip of the wide shear zone change from the south to north end of the project. Based on those observations, the deposit was sub-divided into six estimation domains that allowed for search ellipses to be oriented in the plane of the PCFZ by area. Table 14-12 summarizes the orientation of the search ellipse by estimation domain. Negative dips mean that the ellipse dips to the east, the opposite for positive dips. Figure 14-13 is a perspective view showing the location of the grade estimation domains.

Table 14-12 Search Ellipse Orientations by Domain

Source: RMI, 2018

Parameter Value

Xmin 113,500

Xmax 123,000

Ymin 112,500

Ymax 127,000

Zmin 4,500

Zmax 8,000

DX (ft) 25

DY (ft) 25

DZ (ft) 25

NX 380

NY 580

NZ 140

X Extents (ft) 9,500

Y Extent (ft) 14,500

Z Extent (ft) 3,500

Major Axis (Strike) Vertical Axis (Dip)

1 N25°E ‐90°

2 N30°E +80°

3 N30°E +85°

4 N30°E ‐80°

5 N30°E +80°

6 N30°E ‐85°

Estimation

Domain

Ellipse Orientation


103 July 12, 2018

Figure 14-13 Perspective View of Estimation Domains

Source: RMI, 2018

14.4.3. Grade Estimation Parameters

As previously mentioned, Meridian Gold operated the Beartrack property as a heap leach operation during the 1990’s, closing in 2000 due to low gold prices. The historic mining operation focused on cyanide soluble data, which provided a better indication of leach characteristics for determining ore/waste boundaries, a critical factor in a leach operation. While Meridian did examine several potential milling methods, low gold prices of that era discouraged any serious consideration of pursuing possible milling scenarios that might be based on fire assay data.

For this Mineral Resource estimate, two potential processing scenarios were

considered (heap leach and some form of pressure oxidation milling). For that reason, two distinct gold grade models were constructed. Based on Meridian’s experience, cyanide soluble assays were used to estimate potential leach blocks. For the conceptual mill case, conventional fire assays were used to estimate block grades. Gold grades were estimated by nearest neighbor, inverse distance, and ordinary kriging methods. The inverse distance model was selected as being the most representative primarily due to better reconciliation with historic production and a marginally better comparison with the nearest neighbor grades models. The ordinary krige model was generated so it could be compared with the inverse distance model and historical production. The nearest neighbor models were used for model validation.

The grade estimation process used three distinct constraints: modeled lithology

(MLITH), gold grade envelopes (AUZON), and estimation domains (DOMAN). Grades were estimated using 25-foot-long (7.62 m) fixed length drill hole composites that were


104 July 12, 2018

generated from capped assay intervals. For each domain, a three-pass estimation strategy was developed for each block model rock type (grades were not estimated for glacial till or pit backfill). Initially block grades were estimated both inside and outside of the 0.3 g/t gold envelope (AUZON). After detailed reconciliation comparisons, it was decided that grades would only be estimated inside of the gold grade envelopes to minimize the potential for over estimating tonnage. The first and second estimation passes required that the block be estimated by at least two drill holes. The third pass only required one drill hole but very little of the Mineral Resource is based on the third pass. In addition to capping high-grade outlier assays prior to compositing, outlier restriction was implemented during the inverse distance grade process. Drill hole composite grades in excess of 0.25 opt (8.6 g/t) were projected at their full value up to 25 feet (7.62 m) and then reduced to 0.25 opt for projection distances greater than 25 feet. A total of 60 separate interpolation runs were required to generate the inverse distance grade model. Table 14-13 summarizes the estimation parameters that were used for both the fire assay grade (AUF18/AUIDW) and cyanide soluble grade (AUC18/AUCN). The block items AUF18 and AUC18 were estimated for the entire model including the mined-out portion of the deposit to allow for reconciliation comparisons. The block items AUIDW and AUCN are the same as AUF18 and AUC18 only block grades in the mined-out area were set to 0 for conceptual pit optimization and resource tabulation.


105 July 12, 2018

Table 14-13 Gold Estimation Parameters

Source: RMI, 2018

Major Minor Vertical Z rot X rot Y rot Min Max Max/hole

1 3 3 175 175 60 30 0 ‐90 3 12 2

2 3 3 275 275 90 30 0 ‐90 3 12 2

3 3 3 275 275 90 30 0 ‐90 1 12 1

1 4 4 & 5 175 175 60 30 0 ‐90 3 12 2

2 4 4 & 5 275 275 90 30 0 ‐90 3 12 2

3 4 4 & 5 275 275 90 30 0 ‐90 1 12 1

1 5 4 & 5 175 175 60 30 0 ‐90 3 12 2

2 5 4 & 5 275 275 90 30 0 ‐90 3 12 2

3 5 4 & 5 275 275 90 30 0 ‐90 1 12 1

1 3 3 175 175 60 30 0 80 3 12 2

2 3 3 275 275 90 30 0 80 3 12 2

3 3 3 275 275 90 30 0 80 1 12 1

1 4 4 & 5 175 175 60 30 0 80 3 12 2

2 4 4 & 5 275 275 90 30 0 80 3 12 2

3 4 4 & 5 275 275 90 30 0 80 1 12 1

1 5 4 & 5 175 175 60 30 0 80 3 12 2

2 5 4 & 5 275 275 90 30 0 80 3 12 2

3 5 4 & 5 275 275 90 30 0 80 1 12 1

1 3 3 & 4 150 150 60 30 0 85 3 8 2

2 3 3 & 4 250 250 90 30 0 85 3 8 2

3 3 3 & 4 250 250 90 30 0 85 1 6 1

1 4 3 & 4 150 150 60 30 0 85 3 8 2

2 4 3 & 4 250 250 90 30 0 85 3 8 2

3 4 3 & 4 250 250 90 30 0 85 1 6 1

1 5 5 150 150 60 30 0 85 3 8 2

2 5 5 250 250 90 30 0 85 3 8 2

3 5 5 250 250 90 30 0 85 1 6 1

1 3 3 & 4 150 150 60 30 0 ‐80 3 8 2

2 3 3 & 4 250 250 90 30 0 ‐80 3 8 2

3 3 3 & 4 250 250 90 30 0 ‐80 1 6 1

1 4 3 & 4 150 150 60 30 0 ‐80 3 8 2

2 4 3 & 4 250 250 90 30 0 ‐80 3 8 2

3 4 3 & 4 250 250 90 30 0 ‐80 1 6 1

1 5 5 150 150 60 30 0 ‐80 3 8 2

2 5 5 250 250 90 30 0 ‐80 3 8 2

3 5 5 250 250 90 30 0 ‐80 1 6 1

1 2 2 & 3 150 150 60 30 0 80 3 8 2

2 2 2 & 3 250 250 90 30 0 80 3 8 2

3 2 2 & 3 250 250 90 30 0 80 1 6 1

1 3 3 & 4 150 150 60 30 0 80 3 8 2

2 3 3 & 4 250 250 90 30 0 80 3 8 2

3 3 3 & 4 250 250 90 30 0 80 1 6 1

1 4 3 & 4 150 150 60 30 0 80 3 8 2

2 4 3 & 4 250 250 90 30 0 80 3 8 2

3 4 3 & 4 250 250 90 30 0 80 1 6 1

1 5 5 150 150 60 30 0 80 3 8 2

2 5 5 250 250 90 30 0 80 3 8 2

3 5 5 250 250 90 30 0 80 1 6 1

1 2 2 & 3 150 150 60 30 0 ‐85 3 8 2

2 2 2 & 3 250 250 90 30 0 ‐85 3 8 2

3 2 2 & 3 250 250 90 30 0 ‐85 1 6 1

1 3 3 & 4 150 150 60 30 0 ‐85 3 8 2

2 3 3 & 4 250 250 90 30 0 ‐85 3 8 2

3 3 3 & 4 250 250 90 30 0 ‐85 1 6 1

1 4 3 & 4 150 150 60 30 0 ‐85 3 8 2

2 4 3 & 4 250 250 90 30 0 ‐85 3 8 2

3 4 3 & 4 250 250 90 30 0 ‐85 1 6 1

1 5 5 150 150 60 30 0 ‐85 3 8 2

2 5 5 250 250 90 30 0 ‐85 3 8 2

3 5 5 250 250 90 30 0 ‐85 1 6 1

3

4

5

6

No. Composites UsedDH MLITH

Codes

1

Estimation

Pass

Search Ellipse

Orientation (GSLIB)

2

Estimation

Domain

Block

MLITH

Code

Search Ellipse Dimensions (ft)


106 July 12, 2018

14.4.4. Block Model Validation

Block grades were validated by visual and statistical methods. Significant weight was placed on detailed reconciliation comparisons between various grade models and historic production data. Figure 14-14 is a block model level plan (6600 elevation) for the South Pit area showing estimated gold grades, lithologic contacts, gold grade envelope, and the $1300 Mineral Resource pit. Line A-A’ is a reference line for a block model cross section through the South Pit deposit (Figure 14-15). Figure 14-16 is a block model level plan map (7000 elevation) for the North Pit area showing estimated block grades and other attributes. Figure 14-17 is a block model cross section through the North Pit deposit.


107 July 12, 2018

Figure 14-14 South Pit Block Model Plan -6600 Level

Source: RMI, 2018


108 July 12, 2018

Figure 14-15 South Pit Block Model Cross-Section A-A'

Source: RMI, 2018


109 July 12, 2018

Figure 14-16 North Pit Block Model Plan Map - 7000 Level

Source: RMI, 2018


110 July 12, 2018

Figure 14-17 North Pit Block Model Cross-Section B-B'

Source: RMI, 2018

Two nearest neighbor models were constructed for comparison purposes to

ensure that the chosen grade model is globally unbiased at a zero cutoff grade. A global nearest neighbor was generated using a 275 ft x 275 ft x 90 ft (83.8 m x 83.8 m x 27.4 m) search oriented parallel with the PCFZ with no geologic constraints. The other nearest neighbor model was generated simultaneously with the inverse distance model using the same geologic constraints that were imposed on the inverse distance model (i.e. allowable composites based on block-drill hole rules). Table 14-14 compares the inverse distance fire assay and cyanide soluble block grades against the two nearest neighbor models by


111 July 12, 2018

mineralized area. The data in Table 14-14 are shown for all estimated blocks including those mined out and estimated blocks below the mined surface.

Table 14-14 Nearest Neighbor Grade Comparisons

Source: RMI, 2018

Block model swath plots were generated by columns/eastings (Figure 14-18),

rows/northings (Figure 14-19), and levels/elevations (Figure 14-20). These swath plots compare the conditional nearest neighbor gold grade with the inverse distance gold grade. The upper portion of Figure 14-18 through Figure 14-20 show swaths for the South Pit area and the lower portion shows swath plots for the combined Mason-Dixon and North Pit areas.

Inverse Distance

Fire Assay (opt)

Conditional NN Fire

Assay (opt)

Percent

Difference

Global NN Fire

Assay (opt)

Percent

Difference

South Pit 0.0296 0.0294 0.68% 0.0310 ‐4.52%

North Pit + Mason‐Dixon 0.0180 0.0179 0.56% 0.0184 ‐2.17%

Inverse Distance

Fire Assay (opt)

Conditional NN Fire

Assay (opt)

Percent

Difference

Global NN Fire

Assay (opt)

Percent

Difference

South Pit 0.0294 0.0292 0.68% 0.0310 ‐5.16%

North Pit + Mason‐Dixon 0.0166 0.0167 ‐0.60% 0.0173 ‐4.05%

Inverse Distance

AuCN (opt)

Conditional NN

AUCNN (opt)

Percent

Difference

South Pit 0.0114 0.0114 0.00%

North Pit + Mason‐Dixon 0.0080 0.0079 1.27%

Inverse Distance

AuCN (opt)

Conditional NN

AuCN (opt)

Percent

Difference

South Pit 0.0073 0.0073 0.00%

North Pit + Mason‐Dixon 0.0057 0.0055 3.64%

Mineralized Area

All Estimated CN Blocks Below Mined SurfaceMineralized Area

Mineralized AreaAll Estimated Fire Assay Blocks Below Original Topographic Surface

All Estimated Fire Assay Blocks Below Mined SurfaceMineralized Area

All Estimated CN Blocks Below Original Surface


112 July 12, 2018

Figure 14-18 Block Model Au Swath Plot - Eastings

Source: RMI, 2018

0

600

1200

1800

2400

3000

0.000

0.006

0.012

0.018

0.024

0.030

Nu

mb

er

of

Blo

cks

Me

an

Au

(o

pt)

Easting

AUNNC AUIDW No. Blks

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0.000

0.010

0.020

0.030

0.040

0.050

Nu

mb

er

of

Blo

cks

Me

an

Au

(o

pt)

Easting


South Pit

Mason‐Dixon‐North Pit


113 July 12, 2018

Figure 14-19 Block Model Au Swath Plot - Northings

Source: RMI, 2018

0

200

400

600

800

1000

0.000

0.010

0.020

0.030

0.040

0.050

Nu

mb

er

of

Blo

cks

Me

an

Au

(o

pt)

Northing


0

300

600

900

1200

1500

0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

Nu

mb

er

of

Blo

cks

Me

an

Au

(o

pt)

Northing


South Pit



114 July 12, 2018

Figure 14-20 Block Model Au Swath Plot - Elevation

Source: RMI, 2018

14.4.5. Reconciliation Comparisons

The Qualified Person compared the inverse distance grade model against Meridian’s historic mine production (1992 – 2000). Revival was able to obtain Meridian spreadsheets that summarized life-of-mine production of tons and grade by pit and bench. In addition, the Qualified Person constructed independent cyanide soluble gold and fire assay gold grade models using Meridian’s historic blast-hole data (“blast-block” models). The blast-block models were generated using approximately 74,000 cyanide soluble and 41,000 fire assay blast-holes. The blast-holes were drilled on approximately 16-foot (4.9 m) centers resulting in about three-four blast-holes piercing each resource model block.

0

400

800

1200

1600

2000

0.000

0.015

0.030

0.045

0.060

0.075

Nu

mb

er

of

Blo

cks

Me

an

Au

(op

t)

Elevation


0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

Nu

mb

er

of

Blo

cks

Me

an

Au

(op

t)

Elevation


South Pit



115 July 12, 2018

The blast-block models were generated by averaging the blast-holes that pierced each model block.

The inverse distance estimation parameters (e.g. number of composites used,

block-drill hole lithology matching strategy, etc.) were adjusted by area in order to fine tune the distribution of tons and grade in the resource model to more closely match historic production. Table 14-15 compares Meridian’s production data (green highlighted line), the independent blast-hole models (tan highlighted line), Meridian’s 1997 (last long-range model – yellow highlighted line) and the Qualified Person’s inverse distance grade model (light blue highlighted line) for cyanide soluble (heap leach) production by pit.

Table 14-15 Cyanide Soluble Gold Reconciliation

Source: RMI, 2018

Similar comparisons were made using fire assay grades, summarized in Table 14-16. The historic Beartrack Mine was a heap leach operation so less emphasis was placed on fire assay (“total gold”). For that reason, Meridian assayed fewer blast-holes by fire assay methods than they did using cyanide soluble methods (74,000 cyanide blast-holes versus 41,000 fire assay blast-holes). Meridian did not track tons and grade based on fire assay data so the shown in Table 14-16 are based on comparisons between the Qualified Person’s blast-block models and inverse distance and ordinary kriged models.

Production Spreadsheet 1 13,100 0.032 419 400 0.019 8 10,700 0.025 268

Blast Block CN Model 2

13,100 0.032 419 300 0.021 6 10,500 0.025 263

1997 CN Model 3

13,500 0.030 405 400 0.019 8 11,000 0.024 264

2018 IDW CN Model 4

13,000 0.031 403 300 0.017 5 10,700 0.025 268

'97 CN vs. Reported Production 3% ‐6% ‐3% 0% 0% 0% 3% ‐4% ‐1%

'97 CN vs. BB CN Model 3% ‐6% ‐3% 33% ‐10% 21% 5% ‐4% 1%

2018 IDW CN vs. Reported Produ ‐1% ‐3% ‐4% ‐25% ‐11% ‐33% 0% 0% 0%

2018 IDW CN vs. BB CN Model ‐1% ‐3% ‐4% 0% ‐19% ‐19% 2% 0% 2%

1 Cyanide soluble data taken from historic Meridian production reconciliation spreadsheet ("monthlyore.xls").2 Model created by RMI using historic cyanide soluble blastholes (~74,000 BH'S ‐ capped at 0.2 opt). 3 Cyanide soluble gold grade model created by Meridian in 1997 using ordinary kriging methods.4 Cyanide soluble grade model created by RMI (AUCN) using inverse distance weighting methods.

Tons

(000)Au (opt)

Au Ozs

(000)

Source of Estimate

South Pit Mason‐Dixon Pit North Pit

Tons

(000)Au (opt)

Au Ozs

(000)

Tons

(000)Au (opt)

Au Ozs

(000)


116 July 12, 2018

Table 14-16 Fire Assay Gold Reconciliation

Source: RMI, 2018

The final grade model that the Mineral Resource which is the subject of this Technical Report was finalized after visual inspections, comparisons against nearest neighbor models, and reconciliation comparisons with historic production.

14.4.6. Resource Classification

The estimated block grades were categorized into Indicated and Inferred categories using a combination of recognized mineralized continuity coupled with drill hole spacing. The deposits are not drilled on a true regularized grid but in general, the blocks defined as Indicated Resources are based on drilling data that are spaced roughly on 100-foot centers (about 30 m) and about 200-foot centers (about 60 m) for Inferred Resources. The average distance between the closest drill hole used to estimate the Indicated Mineral Resource blocks is about 22 m and about 49 m for Inferred Mineral Resource blocks.

Mineralized continuity, geology, and drill hole spacing was reviewed in cross

section and level plan to develop 3D wireframes that were used to code the block model. Figure 14-21 is a westerly looking perspective view showing Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource wireframes with respect to the mineralized areas, and drilling data.

Blast Block FA Model 1 13,200 0.049 647 300 0.033 10 9,400 0.034 320

1997 FA Model 2

13,600 0.043 585 400 0.022 9 10,600 0.032 339

2018 IDW FA Model 3

13,000 0.044 572 200 0.019 4 9,600 0.033 317

2018 OK FA Model 4

13,200 0.043 568 200 0.018 4 9,800 0.032 314

'97 FA Model vs. BB FA Model 3% ‐12% ‐10% 33% ‐33% ‐11% 13% ‐6% 6%

2018 IDW FA Model vs. BB FA Model ‐2% ‐10% ‐12% ‐33% ‐42% ‐62% 2% ‐3% ‐1%

2018 OK FA Model vs. BB FA Model 0% ‐12% ‐12% ‐33% ‐45% ‐64% 4% ‐6% ‐2%

1 Model created by RMI using historic fire assay blastholes by averaging BH's in block. (41,000 BH's ‐ capped at 0.2 opt).2 Fire assay model created by Meridian in 1997 using ordinary kriging methods (data from MAMA15.DAT block model file).3 Fire assay model created by RMI (AUIDW) using inverse distance weighting methods.4 Fire assay model created by RMI (AUOK) using ordinary kriging methods.

Tons

(000)Au (opt)

Au Ozs

(000)

Source of Estimate

South Pit Mason‐Dixon Pit North Pit

Tons

(000)Au (opt)

Au Ozs

(000)

Tons

(000)Au (opt)

Au Ozs

(000)


117 July 12, 2018

Figure 14-21 Perspective View of Resource Categories

Source: RMI, 2018

14.4.7. Mineral Resources

To demonstrate reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction, a conceptual pit was generated from the estimated Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource blocks. As previously described, Beartrack operated as an open pit heap leach operation until low gold prices forced the mine to close. Leachable material remains based on cyanide soluble grade estimates and is located immediately adjacent to, and below, where historic mining stopped. Preliminary metallurgical testwork (see Section 13) showed that Beartrack sulfide material may be amenable to pressure oxidation and subsequent cyanide treatment. Two net value calculations were made for model blocks based on their estimated cyanide soluble and fire assay gold grades two represent the two conceptual processing methods (i.e. heap leach or mill). The greater of the two calculated block revenues was used to generate the conceptual resource pit. An optimal destination code (1=leach, 2=mill, and 3=waste) was also stored in the blocks so the pit constrained resource could be tabulated by the two conceptual processing methods. The price, cost, and recovery parameters that were used to calculate leach and mill values are summarized in Table 14-17.


118 July 12, 2018

Table 14-17 Conceptual Resource Pit Parameters

Parameter Units Value

Au price US$/ounce $1,300

Leach recovery % of AuCN grade 1 85%

Mill recovery % of AuFA grade 2 84%

Mining cost US$/tonne mined $2.66

Leach processing US$/tonne processed $5.00

Mill processing cost US$/tonne processed $17.00

G&A cost US$/tonne processed $1.75

Pit slope angle Degrees 45 1 Estimated cyanide soluble gold grade. Leach recovery is estimated to be about 68% of fire assay grade. 2 Estimated fire assay gold grade.

Source: RMI, 2018

Mineral Resources are summarized in Table 14-18 by resource category and conceptual material type (leach or mill).

Table 14-18 Beartrack Mineral Resources

Source: RMI, 2018

Mineral Resources that are not Mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. It is reasonably expected that the majority of Inferred Mineral Resources could be upgraded to Indicted Mineral Resources with continued exploration.

Rounding may result in apparent discrepancies between tonnes, grade, and contained metal content.

Indicated Leach 1

12,060 0.71 276

Indicated Mill 2

21,305 1.37 938

Total Indicated 33,365 1.13 1,214

Inferred Leach 1

2,091 0.81 54

Inferred Mill 2

14,812 1.49 710

Total Inferred 16,903 1.41 765

1 Heap leach material defined by cyanide soluble gold leaching characteristics.2 Mill material defined by fire assay gold estimates.

Resource Cateogry ‐ Material Type Tonnes (000) Gold (g/t)Contained Au

Ounces (000)


119 July 12, 2018

The estimate of Mineral Resources may be materially affected by geology,

environment, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-political, marketing or other relevant issues.

The effective date of the Mineral Resource estimate, and this Technical Report, is April 18, 2018.

Four other conceptual resource pits were generated at different gold prices to

reflect different breakeven cutoff grades to provide some measure of grade-tonnage sensitivity to cutoff grade. Table 14-19 compares tonnes, grade, and contained gold ounces in various conceptual pits based on various breakeven gold cutoff grades based on the conceptual mill scenario.

Table 14-19 Grade-Tonnage Sensitivity by Cutoff Grade

Source: RMI, 2018

14.4.8. General Discussion

The Qualified Person responsible for this section of this Technical Report is not aware of any known relevant factors that would prevent this project from being advanced towards development and eventual operation. Additional exploration will be required to increase confidence in the known resource areas and potentially expand the resource. Much more metallurgical testwork with respect to milling options will be required to advance the project. In the opinion of the Qualified Person responsible for this section of this Technical Report, metallurgy, permitting, and gold price represent the most likely factors that could materially affect this Mineral Resource estimate.

0.4 Indicated 41,264 0.99 1,319

0.5 Indicated 37,473 1.06 1,281

0.6 Indicated 33,365 1.13 1,214

0.7 Indicated 29,057 1.20 1,121

0.8 Indicated 23,903 1.30 1,001

0.4 Inferred 33,592 1.06 1,148

0.5 Inferred 25,751 1.20 994

0.6 Inferred 16,903 1.41 765

0.7 Inferred 10,010 1.51 485

0.8 Inferred 5,614 1.61 291

1 Includes both leach and mill material

Mill Au Cutoff

Grade (g/t)Resource Category Tonnes (000)

1 Gold Grade

(g/t)

Contained

Au Ounces

(000)

Mill Au Cutoff

Grade (g/t)Resource Category Tonnes (000)

1 Gold Grade

(g/t)

Contained

Au Ounces

(000)


120 July 12, 2018


121 July 12, 2018

15.0 RESERVE ESTIMATES

There are no mineral reserve estimates for the Beartrack Project.

16.0 MINING METHODS

This section does not apply to the Beartrack Project.

17.0 RECOVERY METHODS


18.0 PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE


19.0 MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS


20.0 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING AND SOCIAL OR COMMUNITY IMPACT


21.0 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS


22.0 ADJACENT PROPERTIES

No properties adjacent to the Beartrack have active mining operations or significant exploration efforts underway as of the date of this Technical Report. The Arnett Creek Gold Property is located four kilometers to the southwest and is owned by Revival Gold Inc. Arnett Creek is a gold exploration project with potential to serve as a satellite to Beartrack.

23.0 OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION

No other data or information is relevant for the review of the Beartrack Project.


122 July 12, 2018

24.0 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS

The Beartrack Property is a mesothermal gold prospect located near the town of Salmon in Lemhi County, Idaho. Canyon and Meridian completed 886 drill holes for a total meterage of 131,565.4 m. Canyon drilled the first holes on the Beartrack Property in 1987 when nine reverse circulation drill holes were completed in the North deposit for a total of 691.1 m. Meridian acquired the Property from Canyon and beginning in 1988 completed 130,874.3 m. This drilling lead to the estimation in 1990 of what was termed at the time to be a “Geologic Mineable Reserve” of 24,533,900 tonnes (27,044,000 short tons) averaging 1.34 grams gold per tonne (0.039 opt) on a fire assay basis or 0.86 grams gold per tonne (0.025 opt) on a cyanide soluble basis containing 681,000 cyanide soluble ounces of gold (Kilborn Engineering, 1990). Meridian went on to put the Beartrack Property into production as an open pit heap leach operation which resulted in production of approximately 609,000 troy ounces of gold between 1995 to 2002 (Unpublished Meridian production summary). Life-of-mine recovery was 88% on a cyanide-soluble assay basis.

Oxide mineralization at Beartrack responds well to cyanide heap leaching as demonstrated from past mining operations. Metallurgical testwork indicates mixed oxide/sulfide and sulfide material has a cyanide soluble component that is leachable but with lower overall recovery, based on fire assay, than oxide material. A variety of process methods were tested on the mixed and sulfide ore including vat leaching, gravity separation, flotation, pressure oxidation, roasting, nitric acid oxidation and bio-oxidation. Test work suggests acceptable recovery rates can be achieved with pressure oxidation of flotation concentrates. Advancements in processing technology since the original testwork was completed, such as ultra-fine grinding, as well as other oxidative processes will be investigated in future testwork.

In addition to the leachable resource, a mill resource has been estimated based

on the extensive gold-bearing sulphide system identified along strike and beneath the leachable resource. Based on historical metallurgical testwork and a review of successfully scaled sulphide operations, Revival envisions an open pit operation in which select mixed oxide/sulphide and sulphide material is milled to produce a flotation concentrate, which includes pre-treatment of the concentrates followed cyanidation of the concentrates and flotation tailings.



For the heap leach component of the mineral resource, the key metallurgical

assumptions were as follows:




123 July 12, 2018


were as follows:



An estimate of Mineral Resources was completed using drilling information

collected by Meridian Gold and Revival. The underlying lithologic and gold grade interpretation was initially completed by Meridian Gold’s technical staff in the late 1990’s and was updated by Revival’s technical staff. The historical and recent data were reviewed and verified by the Qualified Person responsible for Mineral Resources to be suitable for estimating resources. Three grade estimation methods were undertaken (inverse distance, ordinary kriging, and nearest neighbor). After various comparisons, the inverse distance model was selected to be most representative. Two block grades were estimated and formed the basis for determining potential leach and mill resources. The Beartrack project was a successful heap leach operation that focused on cyanide soluble gold grade, but Meridian was fully aware that less soluble gold resources extended at depth below their open pits based on fire assay data.





Mineral Resources were constrained by a conceptual pit that was based on a gold

price of US$1,300/ounce gold price, a 0.61 g/t gold mill cut-off and a 0.26 g/t cyanide soluble gold heap leach cut-off. Based on these parameters, the pit-constrained Beartrack Mineral Resource contains an Indicated Mineral Resource of 33.4 million tonnes at 1.13 g/t gold containing 1,214,000 ounces of gold; and, an Inferred Mineral Resource of 16.9 million tonnes at 1.41 g/t gold containing 765,000 ounces of gold.


124 July 12, 2018

25.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

The Qualified Person’s responsible for this Technical Report have made recommendations to Revival as follows:

Complete Revival’s planned 2018 drilling program to further define mineral

resources in the North and South pit areas, and to determine the scale of mineralization in the Joss area. The estimated cost for this recommendation is $2.0 million.

Continue to drill test mineralization in the Joss area as well as along strike from

known deposits in the North and South Pits. Further drilling in the North and South pit areas is contingent upon the results of the 2018 program. The estimated cost for this recommendation is $2.9 million.

Historic reverse circulation drilling encountered gold mineralization in the Moose

area north of the North Pit. This are should be tested by core drilling. Drilling in this area will be contingent on the approval of Revival’s POO by the USFS. The estimated cost for this recommendation is included in the second recommendation.

Test exploration targets in the Rabbit area south of Leesburg. Drilling in this area will be contingent on the approval of Revival’s POO by the USFS. The estimated cost for this recommendation is included in the second recommendation.

Update and refine the lithologic model by including results from the 2018 drilling

program. Sectional polygons should be reconciled to mid-bench elevations for final drill hole and block model coding. The estimated cost for this recommendation is US$10,000 to US$15,000.

Breakout mappable geologic units within the Panther Creek Fault Zone (PCFZ). The estimated cost for this recommendation is US$7,500 to US$10,000.

Refine the gold grade envelopes by re-examining the current cross-sectional interpretation which should be ultimately reconciled to mid-bench elevations for final drill hole and block model coding. The estimated cost for this recommendation is US$10,000 to US$15,000.

Where applicable, compare 2018 drill hole results with the block model that is the basis of the Mineral Resource that is the subject of this Technical Report. The estimated cost for this recommendation is US$1,000.

Obtain more bulk tonnage determinations from representative rock types. The estimated cost for this recommendation is US$5,000.

Purchase larger (100 gram) control sample standards to avoid having insufficient sample for analysis. The cost for this recommendation is an incremental cost and should not significant.


125 July 12, 2018

The AuCN/AuFA (gold cyanide/gold fire assay) ratio should be monitored during drilling (when oxide is present) to support the designation of material types as well as to determine the heap leach recovery for remaining heap leachable feed. There is no additional cost associated with this recommendation.

Complete Revival’s 2018 metallurgical program to mineralogically characterize the mineralization and determine the baseline cyanidation recoveries using ultra fine grinding and standard cyanidation. The estimated cost for this recommendation is $150,000.

This first phase program should then be followed by a second phase of testing that will focus on improving recovery of gold from lithologies that may require oxidative pretreatment. Alternative pretreatment processes will be tested to determine if an alternative process can be identified as being more appropriate for this mineralization. The cost for this recommendation is estimated to be between $90,000 and $100,000.

Variability testing on representative samples of various material types from current exploration drilling is suggested and would be required to be done on any alternative oxidative process that is identified. The estimated cost for this recommendation is $50,000.

Complete a resource update for the Beartrack Project. This should include a more accurate estimate of processing costs to be determined from first principals. The estimated cost for this recommendation is $200,000.

Reinterpret airborne magnetic data collected by Meridian. The estimated cost for this recommendation is $35,000.

Complete structural geology study of the Beartrack mine area. The estimated cost for this recommendation is $34,000. A proposed drilling program to complete Phase I exploration is presented in Table

25-2 followed by a proposed budget for the recommended work in Table 25-3. The total estimate cost to complete Phase I is US$3,425,000.

A proposed drilling program to complete Phase 1 is presented in Table 25-2 and

the proposed budget to complete the recommended work is presented in Table 25-4. The total estimated cost to complete the 2019 work program is US$4,296,000.


126 July 12, 2018

Table 25-1 Proposed 2018 Drilling Program

Hole Number

Area Azimuth Inclination Proposed

Depth (m)

1 North Pit 300 -45 450 2 North Pit 300 -45 450 3 North Pit 300 -45 450 4 North Pit 300 -45 450 5 North Pit 300 -45 450 6 Ward’s Gulch 300 -60 500 7 Ward’s Gulch 300 -60 500 8 South Pit 300 -60 450 9 South Pit 300 -60 450

10 South Pit 300 -60 650 11 South Pit 300 -60 650 12 South Pit 300 -65 650 13 Joss 300 -60 500 14 Joss 300 -60 500 15 Joss 300 -60 450 16 Joss 300 -60 450

TOTAL 8,000


127 July 12, 2018

Table 25-2 Proposed 2019 Drilling Program

Hole Number

Area Azimuth Inclination Proposed

Depth (m)

1 North Pit 300o -50o 400 2 North Pit 300o -50o 400 3 North Pit 300o -50o 450 4 South Pit 300o -50o 450 5 South Pit 300o -50o 450 6 South Pit 300o -50o 450

7 Between Mason-Dixon & South pits

300o -50o 450


300o -50o 450


300o -50o 450


300o -50o 450

11 Between South Pit & Joss 300o -50o 450 12 Between South Pit & Joss 300o -50o 450 13 Joss 300o -50o 450 14 Joss 300o -50o 450 15 Joss 300o -50o 450 16 Joss 300o -50o 450 17 Joss 300o -60o 500 18 Moose 300o -60o 200 19 Moose 300o -60o 200 20 Moose 300o -60o 200 21 Moose 300o -60o 200 22 Moose 300o -60o 250 23 Moose 300o -60o 250 24 Moose 300o -60o 250 25 Moose 300o -60o 250 26 Rabbit 270o -60o 300 27 Rabbit 270o -60o 300

TOTAL 10,000


128 July 12, 2018

Table 25-3 Proposed Phase I Exploration Budget

Cost (US$)

Comments

Project Management $280,000 Geology & Core Logging

$365,000 3 Sr. geologists, 3 Jr. geologists, 2 core splitters

Drill Permitting $70,000 Drill Pad Preparation $45,000 Site Reclamation $10,000 Diamond Drilling $1,916,000

8,000 m, 2 rigs from mid-June to end of October

Analytical $230,000 Equipment & Supplies $30,000 Surveying $12,000 Vehicle Purchase-Maintenance

$93,000

Accommodations $60,000 House rental and hotel for overflow Office Rent $15,000 Travel $20,000 Metallurgical Testwork $150,000 Property Holding Costs $60,000 Structural Geology Study $34,000 Geophysics – Data Reprocessing

$35,000

$3,425,000


129 July 12, 2018

Table 25-4 Proposed 2019 Exploration Budget

Cost (US$)

Comments

Project Management $280,000 Geology & Core Logging $392,000 Drill Permitting $70,000 Drill Pad Preparation & Road Maintenance

$55,000

Site Reclamation $20,000 Diamond Drilling $2,490,000 10,000 m of drilling Analytical $425,000 Equipment & Supplies $10,000 Field & core shack Surveying $20,000 Vehicle Lease & Maintenance $55,000 Accommodations $32,000 Office Rent $12,000 Travel $20,000 Metallurgical Testwork $200,000 Resource Update $200,000 Property Holding Costs $60,000 Miscellaneous $15,000 Computer & office $4,356,000


130 July 12, 2018

26.0 REFERENCES

Ash, Chris and Alldrick, Dani, 1996, Au-quartz Veins, in Selected British Columbia Mineral

Deposit Profiles, Volume 2 – Metallic Deposits, Lefebure D.V. and Hõy, T. eds., British Columbia Ministry of Employment and Investment, Open File 1996-13, p. 53-56.

Blakeley, P.T., 2011, Scoping analysis for Beartrack Mine; Internal Company

Memorandum, Meridian Beartrack Co., 8 p. City of Salmon website, http://www.cityofsalmon.com. Coastech Research Inc., 1990, Batch Bio-Oxidation and Downstream Processing of

Beartrack Refractory Gold-Bearing Ore, Report 1, Project No. 94043; Unpublished consultant’s report prepared on Behalf of Meridian Gold Co.

Earnest, D. F., 2017, Beartrack Property, Lemhi County, Idaho, United States, Technical

Report, filed NI 43-101 Technical Report, 70 p. Ellis, R. and Hawksworth, M., 1998, Geophysics at the Beartrack Gold Deposits, Lemhi

County, Idaho: Evans, K.V. and Zartman, R.E., Early Paleozoic alkalic plutonism in east-central Idaho;

Geological Society of America Bulletin, v.100, p. 1981-1989. Goldfarb R.J., Baker T., Dube, B., Groves, D.I., Hart, C.J.R. and Gosselin, P., 2005,

Distribution, character, and genesis of gold deposits in metamorphic terranes, in Hedenquist J. W., Thompson, J. F. H., Goldfarb, R. J., Richards, J. P., eds., Economic Geology. 100th Anniversary Volume 1905–2005: Littleton, Colorado, Society of Economic Geologists, p. 407–450.

Hawksworth, M., Carpenter, D., and Sump, C., 2003, Gold mineralization associated with

the Panther Creek fault zone, Beartrack mine, Lemhi County, Idaho: Northwest Geology, v. 32, p. 93–102.

Hazen Research, Inc, 1989a, Metallurgical Testing of Bear Track Gold Ores, HRI Project

6985; Unpublished consultant’s report prepared on behalf of Meridian Minerals Inc. -----, 1989b, Metallurgical Testing of Bear Track Gold Ores, HRI Project 7101;

Unpublished consultant’s report prepared on behalf of Meridian Minerals Inc. -----, 1990, Metallurgical Testing of the Beartrack Ores, Phase 2, HRI Project 7184;

Unpublished consultant’s report prepared on behalf of Meridian Gold Company. Johnson, R., Close, T., and McHugh, E., 1998, Mineral Resource Appraisal of the Salmon

National Forest, Idaho: United States Geological Survey Open-File Report 98-478, 277 p.

National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects, 44 p.


131 July 12, 2018

Kiilsgaard, T.H., Fisher, F.S. and Bennett, E.H., 1989, Gold-Silver Deposits Associated with the Trans-Challis Fault System, Idaho: United States Geological Survey Bulletin 1957-B, B22-B44.

Kilborn Engineering (B.C.) Ltd., 1990, Meridian Gold Company, Beartrack Project,

Feasibility Study Executive Summary. MeClelland Laboratories, Inc., 1989, Report on Cyanidation Testwork – Beartrack Bulk

Ore and Core Composites, MLI Jobs 1364 and 1383; Unpublished consultant’s report prepared on behalf of Meridian Gold Company.

Meridian Gold Company, 1990, Progress Report on Sampling Study; internal company

report, 20 p. Meyer, P.E., 1990, Reconnaissance Geology and Exploration Targets of Beartrack

Property, unpublished report prepared on behalf of Meridian Gold Inc., Robert, F., 2004, Characteristics of lode gold deposits, in, greenstone belts, in, CODES

Special Publication 5, 24 ct, Au Workshop, eds., Cooke, D.R., Deyell, C. and Pongratz, J., p.1-12.

Trujillo, R, 1991a, 1990 Target Area Investigations on the Beartrack Property Lemhi

County, Idaho; unpublished report prepared on behalf of FMC Gold Company, 29 p.

Trujillo, R., 1991b, Summary Report on the 1991 Beartrack Exploration Season;

Intercompany memoranda to Ed Bartles dated September 24, 1991, 24 0. Tysdale, R.G., Lund, K.I. and Evans, K.V., 2003, Geologic map of the western part of the

Salmon National Forest, in, Evans, G. N. and Evans, K.V., 2003, Geologic Map of the Salmon National Forest and Vicinity, East-Central Idaho, United States Geological Survey Geologic Investigations Series, I-2765.

Umpleby, J.B., 1913, Geology and Ore Deposits of Lemhi county, Idaho: United States

Geological Survey, Bulletin 528, 182 p. United States Census Bureau, Data for Lemhi County, Idaho and Missoula, Montana:

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/.


132 July 12, 2018

27.0 APPENDIX 1 – CERTIFICATES OF QUALIFIED PERSONS


133 July 12, 2018

CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON

I, Michael J. Lechner, PGeo, do hereby certify that: 1. I am President of Resource Modeling Inc.

2. This certificate applies to the technical report titled “Mineral Resource Estimate,

Beartrack Property, Lemhi County Idaho, USA” with an Effective Date of April 18, 2018 (the “Technical Report”).

3. I graduated with a Bachelor of Art’s degree in Geology from the University of

Montana in 1979. I am a PGeo, registered in British Columbia, a CPG with the AIPG, and a Registered Member of SME. I have worked as a geologist for a total of 38 years since my graduation from university. My relevant experience includes 8 years as an exploration geologist, 10 years as a mine geologist and resource modeler, and 20 years as an independent consultant specializing in resource estimation.

4. I have read the definition of “qualified person” set out in National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101) and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (as defined in NI 43-101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a “qualified person” for the purposes of NI 43-101.

5. I visited the Beartrack property on October 18, 2017 for 1 day.

6. I am responsible for responsible for geology and Mineral Resources Sections 3 through 12, Section 14 and portions of Sections 1, 2, 25 and 26 summarized therefrom, of this Technical Report.

7. I am independent of the issuer applying all of the tests in section 1.5 of NI 43-101.

8. I have had prior involvement with the property that is the subject of the Technical Report. The nature of my prior involvement was to review 2012 and 2013 drilling results for Yamana Gold.

9. I have read NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1 and the sections of the Technical Report I am responsible for have been prepared in compliance with that instrument and form.

10. As of the aforementioned Effective Date, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the sections of the Technical Report I am responsible for contains all

R E S O U R C E M O D E L I N G I N C .


134 July 12, 2018

scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading.

Dated this 12th Day of July 2018. “signed and sealed”

Michael J. Lechner, PGeo President, Resource Modeling Inc.


135 July 12, 2018

CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON

I, Graham A. Karklin, Mining Technologist do hereby certify that: 1. I am President of Graham A. Karklin & Associates Inc.

2. This certificate applies to the technical report titled “Mineral Resource Estimate, Lemhi

County Idaho, USA” with an Effective Date of May 18, 2018 (the “Technical Report”).

3. I graduated as a Mining Technologist from Haileybury School of Mines in 1974. I am a Mineral Processing Metallurgist, registered with MMSA (Mining and Metallurgical Society of America QP # 01204) and a Member of SME and CIM. I have worked as a metallurgist for a total of 44 years since my graduation from School of Mines. My relevant experience includes 10 years as a Plant Process Metallurgist, 24 years as a Development Metallurgist, and 10 years as an Independent Consultant specializing in Mineral Processing.

4. I have read the definition of “qualified person” set out in National Instrument 43-101

(NI 43-101) and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (as defined in NI 43-101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a “qualified person” for the purposes of NI 43-101.

5. I visited the Beartrack property on February 20, 2018 for 2 days.

6. I am responsible for metallurgical Sections 13 and portions of Sections 1, 25 and 26

summarized therefrom, of this Technical Report.

7. I am independent of the issuer applying all of the tests in section 1.5 of NI 43-101.

8. I have had no prior involvement with the property that is the subject of the Technical Report.

9. I have read NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1 and the sections of the Technical Report I am responsible for have been prepared in compliance with that instrument and form.

10. As of the aforementioned Effective Date, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the sections of the Technical Report I am responsible for contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading.

Dated this 12th Day of July 2018. “signed and sealed”

Graham A. Karklin, President, Graham A. Karklin & Associates Inc.


136 July 12, 2018

28.0 APPENDIX 2 - RELEVANT BEARTRACK DRILL HOLE INTERSECTIONS


137 July 12, 2018

Appendix 2: Relevant Beartrack Drill Hole Intervals

Holes Intersecting Resource Pit with Intervals ≥ 25 feet (7.62m) Long With Continuous + 1 g/t Fire Assay Mineralization

Hole Number

Easting Northing Elevation

(ft)

Azimuth (degrees

)

Inclination

(degrees)

Depth (ft)

From (ft)

To (ft)

Length (ft)

Au (g/t)

90‐476 115872 117615 6901 301 ‐60 320 20.0 120.0 100.0 5.32

90‐476 115872 117615 6901 301 ‐60 320 130.0 210.0 80.0 2.46

90‐476 115872 117615 6901 301 ‐60 320 230.0 320.0 90.0 4.01

BT17‐201D 118073 121629 7123 302 ‐60 649 348.0 440.0 92.0 6.25

BT17‐201D 118073 121629 7123 302 ‐60 649 441.5 466.5 25.0 2.48

BT17‐201D 118073 121629 7123 302 ‐60 649 518.3 545.0 26.7 2.07

DD‐002 115901 118253 7041 120 ‐70 692 29.0 64.0 35.0 3.60

DD‐002 115901 118253 7041 120 ‐70 692 118.0 153.0 35.0 2.27

DD‐002 115901 118253 7041 120 ‐70 692 323.0 419.0 96.0 2.54

DD‐002 115901 118253 7041 120 ‐70 692 424.0 472.5 48.5 2.01

DD‐002 115901 118253 7041 120 ‐70 692 476.0 557.0 81.0 2.25

DD‐002 115901 118253 7041 120 ‐70 692 625.0 669.0 44.0 2.63

DD‐003 116170 118312 7060 0 ‐90 909 10.0 104.0 94.0 1.96

DD‐003 116170 118312 7060 0 ‐90 909 108.5 144.0 35.5 1.52

DD‐003 116170 118312 7060 0 ‐90 909 151.0 490.0 339.0 3.45

DD‐003 116170 118312 7060 0 ‐90 909 495.0 546.0 51.0 2.13

DD‐003 116170 118312 7060 0 ‐90 909 604.0 630.0 26.0 1.93

DD‐003 116170 118312 7060 0 ‐90 909 706.0 732.0 26.0 1.83

DD‐003 116170 118312 7060 0 ‐90 909 734.0 840.0 106.0 2.03

DD‐003 116170 118312 7060 0 ‐90 909 864.5 897.0 32.5 1.50

DD‐010 116015 118099 7020 0 ‐90 910 17.0 222.5 205.5 2.53

DD‐010 116015 118099 7020 0 ‐90 910 228.0 345.5 117.5 2.19


138 July 12, 2018

DD‐010 116015 118099 7020 0 ‐90 910 377.5 414.0 36.5 1.58

DD‐010 116015 118099 7020 0 ‐90 910 434.0 516.0 82.0 2.04

DD‐010 116015 118099 7020 0 ‐90 910 557.0 643.5 86.5 3.03

DD‐010 116015 118099 7020 0 ‐90 910 765.0 802.0 37.0 3.89

DD‐010 116015 118099 7020 0 ‐90 910 807.0 910.0 103.0 3.29

DD‐027 115874 117619 6901 0 ‐90 625 12.0 145.0 133.0 5.71

DD‐027 115874 117619 6901 0 ‐90 625 175.0 350.0 175.0 2.81

DD‐027 115874 117619 6901 0 ‐90 625 355.0 380.0 25.0 4.88

DD‐027 115874 117619 6901 0 ‐90 625 575.0 615.0 40.0 2.82

DD‐028 115941 117787 6952 0 ‐90 588 52.0 110.0 58.0 5.60

DD‐028 115941 117787 6952 0 ‐90 588 120.0 149.5 29.5 1.57

DD‐028 115941 117787 6952 0 ‐90 588 154.0 201.0 47.0 2.04

DD‐028 115941 117787 6952 0 ‐90 588 340.0 405.0 65.0 2.38

DD‐028 115941 117787 6952 0 ‐90 588 546.0 588.0 42.0 3.08

DD‐030 116247 118440 7067 0 ‐90 600 1.0 32.0 31.0 2.65

DD‐030 116247 118440 7067 0 ‐90 600 93.0 122.5 29.5 2.43

DD‐030 116247 118440 7067 0 ‐90 600 127.0 200.7 73.7 2.22

DD‐030 116247 118440 7067 0 ‐90 600 203.8 322.5 118.7 2.71

DD‐030 116247 118440 7067 0 ‐90 600 353.5 404.0 50.5 3.70

DD‐030 116247 118440 7067 0 ‐90 600 575.0 600.0 25.0 1.21

DD‐033 115984 117970 6982 0 ‐90 1318 3.5 81.0 77.5 2.36

DD‐033 115984 117970 6982 0 ‐90 1318 305.0 350.0 45.0 2.14

DD‐033 115984 117970 6982 0 ‐90 1318 418.0 533.0 115.0 3.98

DD‐033 115984 117970 6982 0 ‐90 1318 536.0 568.0 32.0 4.09

DD‐033 115984 117970 6982 0 ‐90 1318 573.0 598.0 25.0 2.48

DD‐033 115984 117970 6982 0 ‐90 1318 773.0 826.0 53.0 1.97

DD‐033 115984 117970 6982 0 ‐90 1318 841.0 879.0 38.0 2.15

DD‐033 115984 117970 6982 0 ‐90 1318 986.0 1033.0 47.0 3.95


139 July 12, 2018

DD‐033 115984 117970 6982 0 ‐90 1318 1098.0 1193.0 95.0 3.02

DD‐033 115984 117970 6982 0 ‐90 1318 1198.0 1233.0 35.0 7.69

DD‐051 116027 118581 7110 80 ‐52 600 183.0 208.0 25.0 2.43

DD‐051 116027 118581 7110 80 ‐52 600 221.5 281.5 60.0 2.61

DD‐051 116027 118581 7110 80 ‐52 600 300.0 419.0 119.0 2.33

DD‐051 116027 118581 7110 80 ‐52 600 429.0 494.0 65.0 2.81

DD‐055 115657 118062 6975 120 ‐70 1376 1070.0 1295.5 225.5 3.54

DD‐057 115773 118245 7026 120 ‐70 927 325.0 350.0 25.0 2.44

DD‐057 115773 118245 7026 120 ‐70 927 430.0 500.0 70.0 2.80

DD‐057 115773 118245 7026 120 ‐70 927 505.0 540.0 35.0 1.59

DD‐057 115773 118245 7026 120 ‐70 927 550.0 575.0 25.0 2.39

DD‐057 115773 118245 7026 120 ‐70 927 605.0 667.0 62.0 1.95

DD‐057 115773 118245 7026 120 ‐70 927 673.0 698.0 25.0 2.19

DD‐057 115773 118245 7026 120 ‐70 927 703.0 742.0 39.0 1.80

DD‐057 115773 118245 7026 120 ‐70 927 748.0 817.0 69.0 1.79

DD‐060 116271 118183 7029 300 ‐60 802 239.0 396.0 157.0 2.07

DD‐060 116271 118183 7029 300 ‐60 802 414.0 555.0 141.0 2.85

DD‐060 116271 118183 7029 300 ‐60 802 560.0 633.0 73.0 3.50

DD‐061 116372 118124 7029 300 ‐60 1056 415.0 551.0 136.0 2.04

DD‐061 116372 118124 7029 300 ‐60 1056 560.0 593.0 33.0 1.36

DD‐061 116372 118124 7029 300 ‐60 1056 599.0 635.0 36.0 2.13

DD‐061 116372 118124 7029 300 ‐60 1056 637.0 849.0 212.0 2.84

DD‐061 116372 118124 7029 300 ‐60 1056 877.0 903.0 26.0 3.89

DD‐065 116417 118435 7060 300 ‐60 1080 317.0 364.0 47.0 3.64

DD‐065 116417 118435 7060 300 ‐60 1080 392.0 417.0 25.0 1.71

DD‐065 116417 118435 7060 300 ‐60 1080 669.0 742.0 73.0 2.10

DD‐094 116358 118579 7079 300 ‐60 707 89.0 145.0 56.0 3.37

DD‐094 116358 118579 7079 300 ‐60 707 155.0 180.0 25.0 1.23


140 July 12, 2018

DD‐094 116358 118579 7079 300 ‐60 707 210.0 250.0 40.0 1.65

DD‐094 116358 118579 7079 300 ‐60 707 295.0 330.0 35.0 1.96

DD‐094 116358 118579 7079 300 ‐60 707 360.0 430.0 70.0 2.70

DD‐094 116358 118579 7079 300 ‐60 707 535.0 570.0 35.0 3.58

DD‐094 116358 118579 7079 300 ‐60 707 575.0 600.0 25.0 2.73

DD‐094 116358 118579 7079 300 ‐60 707 610.0 635.0 25.0 1.71

DD‐094 116358 118579 7079 300 ‐60 707 640.0 665.0 25.0 1.79

DD‐096 115970 118212 7041 120 ‐60 646 122.0 147.0 25.0 2.72

DD‐096 115970 118212 7041 120 ‐60 646 155.0 270.0 115.0 2.49

DD‐096 115970 118212 7041 120 ‐60 646 310.0 389.0 79.0 2.29

DD‐096 115970 118212 7041 120 ‐60 646 423.0 450.0 27.0 2.08

DD‐096 115970 118212 7041 120 ‐60 646 457.0 544.0 87.0 1.77

DD‐096 115970 118212 7041 120 ‐60 646 548.0 574.0 26.0 1.49

DD‐097 115813 118328 7046 120 ‐70 1295 459.0 497.0 38.0 2.11

DD‐097 115813 118328 7046 120 ‐70 1295 565.0 593.0 28.0 2.65

DD‐097 115813 118328 7046 120 ‐70 1295 654.0 694.0 40.0 3.20

DD‐097 115813 118328 7046 120 ‐70 1295 698.0 734.0 36.0 3.87

DD‐097 115813 118328 7046 120 ‐70 1295 775.0 820.0 45.0 2.01

DD‐097 115813 118328 7046 120 ‐70 1295 826.5 1141.0 314.5 2.75

DD‐097 115813 118328 7046 120 ‐70 1295 1153.0 1207.0 54.0 1.50

DD‐098 115926 118490 7089 120 ‐60 826.5 297.0 362.0 65.0 1.69

DD‐098 115926 118490 7089 120 ‐60 826.5 411.0 529.0 118.0 2.46

DD‐098 115926 118490 7089 120 ‐60 826.5 533.0 625.0 92.0 3.71

DD‐098 115926 118490 7089 120 ‐60 826.5 627.0 665.0 38.0 2.84

DD‐099 115815 118554 7090 120 ‐60 990 502.0 547.0 45.0 2.10

DD‐099 115815 118554 7090 120 ‐60 990 577.0 672.0 95.0 2.63

DD‐099 115815 118554 7090 120 ‐60 990 677.0 758.0 81.0 1.82

DD‐099 115815 118554 7090 120 ‐60 990 763.0 847.0 84.0 2.17


141 July 12, 2018

DD‐099 115815 118554 7090 120 ‐60 990 867.0 957.0 90.0 2.09

DD‐101 116353 118352 7050 301 ‐60 813 239.0 314.0 75.0 2.17

DD‐101 116353 118352 7050 301 ‐60 813 318.0 417.0 99.0 2.64

DD‐101 116353 118352 7050 301 ‐60 813 424.0 462.0 38.0 1.47

DD‐101 116353 118352 7050 301 ‐60 813 473.5 592.5 119.0 2.34

DD‐101 116353 118352 7050 301 ‐60 813 639.0 675.5 36.5 1.95

DD‐101 116353 118352 7050 301 ‐60 813 747.0 773.0 26.0 1.66

DD‐109 115542 117986 6940 120 ‐60 1151 939.0 1029.0 90.0 3.31

DD‐109 115542 117986 6940 120 ‐60 1151 1090.0 1134.0 44.0 1.68

DD‐169 115807 118087 6809 122 ‐60 687.4 222.2 267.0 44.8 5.36

DD‐169 115807 118087 6809 122 ‐60 687.4 272.1 385.3 113.2 4.68

DD‐169 115807 118087 6809 122 ‐60 687.4 447.6 513.8 66.2 2.41

Date post:	20-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE BEARTRACK PROPERTY · 2018-11-07 · MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE BEARTRACK...

Documents