NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT - Tamarack...

NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

ON THE

CARIBOU LAKE PROPERTY

SUDBURY MINING DIVISION, NORTHEASTERN ONTARIO

FOR

TAMARACK GOLD RESOURCES, INC.

Prepared by:

Joerg Kleinboeck, P.Geo.

JMK Exploration Consulting

January 30th, 2015


Tamarack Gold Resources, Inc. – Caribou Lake Property NI 43-101 Technical Report – January 30th, 2015 Page 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... 4 2. INTRODUCTION AND TERMS OF REFERENCE ................................................................. 7

2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Terms of Reference .......................................................................................................... 7 2.3 Sources of Information ...................................................................................................... 7 2.4 Details of Personal Inspection of the Property .................................................................. 8 2.5 Units and Currency ........................................................................................................... 8

3. RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS ........................................................................................ 8 4. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION ......................................................................10

4.1 Location ...........................................................................................................................10 4.2 Mineral Dispositions .........................................................................................................10 4.3 Environmental Liabilities and Permitting ..........................................................................11

5. ACCESS, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND PHYSIOGRAPHY 11

5.1 Accessibility .....................................................................................................................11 5.2 Climate ............................................................................................................................11 5.3 Local Resources and Infrastructure .................................................................................12 5.4 Physiography ...................................................................................................................12

6. HISTORY ..............................................................................................................................14

6.1 Historical Mineral Exploration ..........................................................................................14

7. GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION ...............................................................17

7.2 Property Geology .............................................................................................................18 7.3 Mineralization ..................................................................................................................20

8. DEPOSIT TYPES..................................................................................................................20

8.1 Magmatic Ni-Cu-PGE Deposits........................................................................................20 8.2 Graphitic Gneiss-type Deposits........................................................................................21

9. EXPLORATION ....................................................................................................................23 10. DRILLING ...........................................................................................................................24

10.1 Historical Drilling ............................................................................................................24 10.2 Drilling ...........................................................................................................................24

11. SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES, AND SECURITY ..................................................25 12. DATA VERIFICATION.........................................................................................................25

12.1 Historical Data Verification .............................................................................................25 12.2 Recent Data Verification ................................................................................................25

13. MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING ............................................26 14. MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES ..................................................................................26 15. MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES .....................................................................................26 16. MINING METHODS ............................................................................................................26



17. RECOVERY METHODS .....................................................................................................26 18. PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE ..........................................................................................27 19. MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS .............................................................................27 20. ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING, AND SOCIAL OR COMMUNITY IMPACT ...27 21. CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS ..................................................................................27 22. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................27 23. ADJACENT PROPERTIES .................................................................................................27 24. OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION ...............................................................27 25. INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS ..........................................................................28 26. RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................28 27. DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGE .........................................................................................30 28. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................31

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: General Location of the Caribou Lake Property, Ontario.........………………….. ... 12 Figure 2: Regional Location of the Caribou Lake Property, Ontario…..………………………. 13 Figure 3: Tenure Map of the Caribou Lake Property………………….…….………………….. 17 Figure 4: Regional Geology…..…………………………………………………………………… 19 Figure 5: Property Geology………………………………………………………………………… 22 Figure 6: Total Magnetic Intensity showing magmatic layering……………………………….. 23

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Abbreviations…………………………………………………………………………….. 9 Table 2: Claim Details……………………………………………………………………………… 11 Table 3: Phase 1 Surface Exploration Budget..…..…………………..………………………… 29 Table 4: Phase 1 Diamond Drilling Budget………………………….…………………………… 29



1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At the request of Tamarack Gold Resources, Inc., (“Tamarack”), the author has completed a

geological review of the Caribou Lake Property (the “Property”) and prepared this technical

report (the “Technical Report”) in compliance with NI 43-101, Companion Policy NI43-101CP,

and Form 43-101F1. This Technical Report has been prepared voluntarily and not pursuant to

an obligation to prepare and file a technical report under NI 43-101. The author has prepared this report to provide a summary of scientific and technical data on the

Property, including historical exploration activities, and he has made recommendations

concerning future exploration and development of the Property. This Technical Report is based

on exploration and property information supplied by Tamarack to the author, as well as a review

of geological and exploration information available in the public domain. The author visited the

Property several times, the last time being on September 30th, 2014. The Property is situated approximately 85 km southeast of Sudbury, Ontario and approximately

10 km north-west of Port Loring, Ontario in McConkey Township, and is located within the

Southern Ontario Mining Division. The Property is bounded by UTM coordinates 567189E to

571328E, and 5086590N to 5090519N (NAD83, Z17N) and is covered by National Topographic

System (NTS) map sheet 41H/16. The Property consists of 8 unpatented mining claims totalling

70 units, and covers 1120 ha (Table 1, Figure 2). Tamarack acquired a 100% interest in the

claims through staking.

Excellent access to the Property is provided by travelling west of the town of Trout Creek along

Highway 522. Side Road 20, located west of Port Loring, provides access to a boat launching

site on the south shore of Big Caribou Lake, as well as access to a network of ATV trails.

The Property is located in the Britt Domain of the Central Gneiss Belt within the Grenville

Province of the Canadian Shield. The rocks of the Central Gneiss Belt are generally 1800-1600

million year old quartzo-feldspathic gneisses of igneous origin with subordinate paragneiss of

igneous and sedimentary origin. The units are highly deformed gneisses and migmatites of

supracrustal origin and igneous origin. The Britt Domain is part of a network of continuous

zones situated between the Grenville Front Tectonic Zone to the north and the Central

Metasedimentary Belt to the south. Along these zones predominantly northwest directed deep

crustal thrust faulting has occurred resulting in a thickened crust.



The Property covers a large portion of the Caribou Lake mafic complex, an 18 km2, northwest-

southeast trending elongated lobate funnel shaped body. At its thickest in the northwest it

measures 2.74 km wide narrowing to approximately 300 m wide in the southeastern part. Its

longest dimension is approximately 8.5 km. In 1899, government geologists mapped the Caribou Lake area and discovered significant

mineralization within the Caribou Lake intrusive including values of up to 1.55% copper,

1.2% nickel, and 8 g/t of platinum (Atkinson, 1991). This work led to the discovery of numerous

historical copper, nickel, and platinum showings on the Property.

In the 1950’s and 1960’s, several diamond drilling programs were completed on the current

claims testing electromagnetic, magnetic, and gravity anomalies. The diamond drilling was

generally shallow in nature.

In 1951, the Chubb Syndicate completed 1,795 ft (547.12 m) of diamond drilling in five holes.

The holes were completed in order to test several magnetic anomalies. Highlights from the

program include; 50 ft (15.24 m) containing 10% sulphides with corresponding low copper and

nickel values (0.22% copper and 0.151% nickel) in drill hole C-2, 11 ft (3.35 m) of intensely

talcose altered norite containing 15% sulphides in hole C-3, and 17 ft (5.18 m) of silicified norite

containing 10% sulphides in hole C-5 (Hanych, 2002). Drill hole C-4 targeted a magnetic and

gravity anomaly associated with a potential feeder dyke within the narrows of Caribou Lake.

The hole was lost to caving at a depth of 405 ft (123.44 m) and the anomaly was not explained.

Drill holes C-1, C-2, C-3, and C-5 were drilled outside of the current claim boundaries. C-1, C-2,

C-3 were drilled from the ice on Caribou Lake, and C-5 was drilled on patented claims

immediately east of the eastern boundary of unpatented claim 1500811. In 1955, Aumaque Gold Mines Ltd. completed 5,300 ft (1615.5 m) of diamond drilling in 11 drill

holes. This program tested the strongest anomalies generated by ground electromagnetic and

self-potential surveys generated in 1954 by Newkirk Mining Corp. The drilling intersected

graphite with minor amounts of pyrite, pyrrhotite, and chalcopyrite. No significant copper-nickel

values were reported. In 1968, Hudson Bay Exploration and Development Company Ltd. completed 4075 ft (1242 m)

of diamond drilling in 11 drill holes. The drill holes tested several conductive zones in the area

between Round Lake and Burnt Lake. The conductive zones were explained by the presence

of “light to heavy” graphite mineralization hosted within paragneiss. Two drill holes, M10 and



M11 tested a conductor and a historical copper-nickel showing located south of the current

claims held by Tamarack. In 2014, Tamarack completed a limited prospecting program on the Property. A total of 32

samples were submitted for analysis. The sampling was of a reconnaissance nature with

sample selection being based on lithology and mineralization content. Highlights of the program

include 18 ppb Pd, 24 ppb Pt, 308 ppm Cu, and 1240 ppm Ni in sample 999401, 763 ppm Ni in

sample 999404, 137 ppm Cu and 791 ppm Ni in Sample 999405, 234 ppm Cu in sample

999417, 284 ppm Cu in sample 999420, and 3.45% total C in sample 999435. The Caribou Lake Property holds potential for further discovery. Additional prospecting, including following up of the anomalous grab samples that were collected in 2014 is recommended. An airborne electromagnetic and magnetic survey is also recommended to identify any potential drill targets at along the basal contact. Using the Ni-Cu sulphide deposit model, the basal contact is the most attractive target area for Ni-Cu sulphide mineralization. Contingent upon favourable results from the additional prospecting and geophysical surveys, a drill program totalling 1,500 m is recommended. The aggregate expenditure of the work programs proposed is estimated at $309,320.



2. INTRODUCTION AND TERMS OF REFERENCE 2.1 Introduction At the request of Ivars Azis, President and CEO of Tamarack Gold Resources, Inc., the author

has prepared this Technical Report to provide a summary of scientific and technical data on the

Property. This Technical Report provides a summary and results from exploration work on the

Property carried out by previous operators, by the author, and from publicly available

information. 2.2 Terms of Reference The author was retained by Tamarack to carry out an independent technical review of the

Property. The review commenced September 30th, 2014, and continued to January 24th, 2015. The author’s assignment consisted of:

1) Reviewing and summarizing historical exploration data generated on the Property prior to

Tamarack’s acquisition of the Property;

2) Undertaking a site visit to confirm historical and current data;

3) Preparing a technical report on the Property; and

4) Making recommendations for future exploration activities on the Property. 2.3 Sources of Information The historical exploration information was mostly gathered from the Ontario government

databases and from documents provided by Tamarack. For geographical reference purposes, all UTM locations used in this Technical Report are using

NAD83 Zone 17N projection. Tenure information presented in this Technical Report was valid

on the MNDM website as of January 30th, 2015

(http://www.mci.mndm.gov.on.ca/claims/clm_mdvcl.cfm). Other online database sites providing

basic geographic information used for this Technical Report, such as topographic contours,

digital elevation models, drainage systems and roads, include: http://geogratis.cgdi.gc.ca/ and

http://www.geobase.ca/.

http://geogratis.cgdi.gc.ca/�

http://www.geobase.ca/�



2.4 Details of Personal Inspection of the Property The author visited the Property on September 30th, 2015. The site visit included reviewing the

geology of the Caribou Lake Property. 2.5 Units and Currency This Technical Report uses both the Imperial and Metric Systems (System International or “SI”)

as systems of measure and length. Conversions from the Metric System to the Imperial System

are provided below and quoted where practical. Many of the geologic publications and more

recent work assessment files now use the SI system but older work assessment files almost

exclusively refer to the Imperial System. Metal and mineral acronyms in this Technical Report

conform to mineral industry accepted usage. Conversion factors utilized in this Technical Report include: 1 inch = 2.54 centimetres (cm); 1

pound (lb.) = 0.454 kilograms (kg); 1 foot (ft) = 0.3048 metres (m); 1 mile (mi) = 1.609 kilometres

(km); 1 acre (ac) = 0.405 hectares (ha); and, 1 sq mile = 2.59 square kilometres. Table 1 lists the common abbreviations that are used in this Technical Report. Dollars are

expressed in Canadian currency ($) unless otherwise noted. Unless otherwise mentioned, all

coordinates in this Technical Report are provided as UTM datum NAD83, Zone 17N. 3. RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS The information, conclusions and recommendations contained herein are based on a review of

digital and hard copy data and information supplied to the author by Tamarack, various

geological reports, and reports available in the public domain, as well as a review of

assessment files located at the Resident Geologist’s Office in Sudbury, Ontario. Some relevant information on the Property presented in this Technical Report is based on data

derived from reports written by geologists and/or engineers who may or may not be “qualified

persons” (as defined in NI 43-101). The author has made every attempt to accurately convey

the content of those reports, but cannot guarantee either the accuracy, validity, or completeness

of the data contained within those files. However, it is believed that these reports were written

with the objective of presenting the results of the work performed, without any promotional or



misleading intent.

Table 1: Abbreviations

Abbreviation Unit or Term Au gold

ASL above sea level

Au gold

Ga billion years

C Carbon

°C degree Celsius

cm centimetre

CRM certified reference material

Cu copper

ft2 square foot

ft3 cubic feet

ddh diamond drill hole

ft foot (feet)

g gram

GIS Geographic Information System

g/t gram per tonne

ha hectare

Ir iridium

km kilometre

km2 square kilometres

M metre

mm millimetre

Ma million years

MNDM Ministry of Northern Development and Mines

NI 43-101 Canadian National Instrument 43-101

Ni nickel

Os osmium

oz ounce(s), Troy ounce(s)

% percent

PGE’s platinum group elements

ppb parts per billion

ppm parts per million

Pd palladium

Pt platinum

QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Rh rodium

Ru ruthenium

S sulphur

ton short ton (2,000 pounds)

T metric tonne (2,000 kg) (2,204.6 pounds)



4. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION 4.1 Location The Property is situated approximately 85 km southeast of Sudbury, Ontario and approximately

10 km north-west of Port Loring, Ontario in McConkey Township, Southern Ontario Mining

Division. The Property is bounded by UTM coordinates 567189E to 571328E, and 5086590N to

5090519N (NAD83, Z17N) and is covered by National Topographic System (NTS) map sheet

41H/16. The Property consists of 8 unpatented mining claims, comprised of 70 units covering

1120 ha in area (Table 1, Figure 2). Excellent access to the Property is provided by travelling west of the town of Trout Creek along

Highway 522. Side Road 20, located west of Port Loring, provides access to a boat launching

site on the south shore of Big Caribou Lake, as well as access to a network of ATV trails. A full range of equipment, supplies, services, and skilled labour that would be required for any exploration and mining work are available in the nearby cities of North Bay and Sudbury, Ontario. 4.2 Mineral Dispositions The Property consists of 8 unpatented mining claims, comprised of 70 units covering 1120 ha in

area (Table 1, Figure 2). Tamarack acquired the Property through staking from December, 2012

through to July, 2014. The author has not sought a formal legal opinion with regard to the ownership status of the

claims comprising the Property and has in all aspects of tenure relied on materials made

available on the MNDM’s website (http://www.mci.mndm.gov.on.ca/claims/clm_mdvcl.cfm) and

by Tamarack. JMK Exploration Consulting expresses no opinion as to the ownership status of

the Property. Mineral rights are attached to the unpatented claims that comprise the Property. The

unpatented claims are currently in good standing with due dates ranging from December 13th,

2015, through to July 24th, 2016.



Table 2: Claim Details

Township Claim Number

Recording Date

Claim Due Date

Work Required

Total Applied

Total Reserve

Claim Bank

MCCONKEY 1500546 2012-Dec-13 2015-Dec-13 $4,800 $4,800 $0 $0

MCCONKEY 1500547 2012-Dec-13 2015-Dec-13 $1,600 $1,600 $0 $0

MCCONKEY 1500548 2012-Dec-13 2015-Dec-13 $1,600 $1,600 $0 $0

MCCONKEY 1500811 2014-May-27 2016-May-27 $1,600 $0 $0 $0

MCCONKEY 1500869 2014-Jul-24 2016-Jul-24 $2,400 $0 $933 $0

MCCONKEY 4273405 2014-Jun-23 2016-Jun-23 $6,000 $0 $846 $0

MCCONKEY 4273406 2014-Jun-23 2016-Jun-23 $6,000 $0 $123 $0

MCCONKEY 4283299 2014-Jun-23 2016-Jun-23 $4,000 $0 $0 $0

4.3 Environmental Liabilities and Permitting There are no known environmental, physical hazards, or liabilities on the Property that

Tamarack is responsible for. On January 9th, 2015, the MNDM approved Tamarack’s application for an exploration plan and

permit on the Caribou Lake Property. The exploration plan will be valid for a period of two

years, and the exploration permit will be valid for a period of three years. 5. ACCESS, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND PHYSIOGRAPHY 5.1 Accessibility The Property is situated approximately 85 km southeast of the City of Sudbury, Ontario in

McConkey Township. Excellent access to the Property is provided by travelling west of the

town of Trout Creek along Highway 522. Side Road 20, located west of Port Loring, provides

access to a boat launching site on the south shore of Big Caribou Lake, as well as access to a

network of ATV trails. 5.2 Climate The Property is under the influence of a moist boreal climate. The mean January temperature is

-13.6oC; the mean July temperature is 19.0oC. Annual precipitation is approximately 829.4 mm



(http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca). The beginning of permanent snow cover varies from year to

year, usually between November to April.

Figure 1: General Location of the Caribou Lake Property, Ontario 5.3 Local Resources and Infrastructure Local resources on the Property consist of an abundance of fresh water, and mixed deciduous

and coniferous trees.

Most supplies and services can be found in Sudbury, Ontario, a City with a population of

approximately 160,274 (2011 Census).

5.4 Physiography The physiography is typical of the Precambrian Shield area in northeastern Ontario with general

rolling hills with occasional swamps, lakes, and streams. Typical vegetation on the Property



consists of a boreal forest with a mixture of coniferous and deciduous trees, including poplars,

birch, maple, pine, spruce, alders, and willows. The average elevation of the Property is

approximately 225 m above sea level and the maximum topographical relief is generally less

than 30 m.

Figure 2: Regional Location of the Caribou Lake Property, Ontario



6. HISTORY

6.1 Historical Mineral Exploration 1899: Government geologists completed mapping and field investigations in the Caribou Lake

area. The work described several pits sunk into rusty zones. The work program resulted in

reported values up to 1.55 % copper, 1.2 % nickel, and 9 grams platinum. This showing is

located in close proximity to the Property. 1900’s early: Several prospecting pits were excavated in the area during the early 1900’s

resulting in reported values up to 1.33% copper and 0.32% nickel. Small deposits of muscovite

related to granite pegmatite dykes were also discovered during this period. 1942: Minor work was carried out in the 1930’s and 1940’s. In 1942 the rocks in the Caribou

Lake area were identified as norite by J.Satterly in his report to the Ontario Department of

Mines. 1950-1951: Chubb Syndicate completed 1,795 ft (547 m) of diamond drilling in four holes. The

holes were completed in order to test several magnetic anomalies. Highlights from the program

include; 50 ft (15.24 m) containing 10% sulphides with corresponding low copper and nickel

values (0.22% copper and 0.15% nickel) in hole No. 2, 11 ft (3.35 m) of intensely talcose altered

norite containing 15% sulphides in hole No. 3, and 17 ft (5.18 m) of silicified norite containing

10% sulphides in hole No. 5. 1954: Newkirk Mining Corp. conducted an airborne electro-magnetic and magnetic survey over

the Caribou Lake intrusive. Additionally, Aumaque Gold Mines Ltd. completed ground electro-

magnetic and self-potential surveys, as well as soil sampling at the northwest end of Caribou

Lake. Seven anomalies were delineated and diamond drilling was recommended on two of the

anomalies; one located east of Round Lake, and the other just north of Deep Bay in Caribou

Lake. 1955: Aumaque Gold Mines Ltd. completed approximately 5,300 ft (1615.5 m) of diamond

drilling. This program tested the strongest anomalies generated by ground electromagnetic

And self-potential surveys generated in 1954 by Newkirk Mining Corp. The results of the drilling

indicated that the conductors were due to graphite with minor pyrite, pyrrhotite, and

chalcopyrite. No significant copper-nickel values were reported.



1957: G.M. Friedman published the results of his study of the Caribou Lake intrusive conducted

between the years of 1953-1955 in the Bulletin of Geological Society of America. 1959: A compilation report was completed for Twin Basin Nickel Ltd by W.C. Martin. Further

work was recommended and a $100,000 exploration program was outlined. 1963: Loring Syndicated completed a geophysical program on their claims on Caribou Lake.

The program included; induced polarization, resistivity, mag, and gravity surveys. Approximately

60% of the intrusive was gravity surveyed. The northwest portion west of Deep Bay was not

covered. 1968: Hudson Bay Exploration and Development Company Ltd. carried out an electro-magnetic

survey. Several strong conductive zones were delineated in the area between Round Lake and

Burnt Lake. A total of 4,075 ft (1242 m) was drilled in 11 diamond drill holes to test the

conductors. Drilling intersected disseminated sulphide mineralization as well as “light to heavy”

graphite mineralization. 1986: Platinova Resources Ltd. completed a limited rock sampling program consisting of 16

samples from various lithologies on the recently staked claims covering the Caribou Lake

intrusive. 1987: Dr. P. Whittaker completed an evaluation of the platinum potential of the Caribou Lake

intrusive for Noramco Explorations Inc. Twenty five samples were collected from known

showings and assayed for gold and platinum. Although no significant results were obtained, his

report states that the potential exists for significant platinum mineralization. A magnetometer

survey was also completed on the Property by Aerodat. 1991: J.R. Atkinson staked 18 claims totalling approximately 288 hectares prior to 1991. These

claims were centered on Deep Bay in the northwest end of Caribou Lake. These claims were

subsequently optioned to Tylox Resources Corp. which completed a limited field program

consisting of geological mapping, surface sampling, and soil sampling. A total of 136 b-horizon

soils samples and 18 rock chip samples were collected over 14.25 km of traverses. The

samples were analysed for gold, silver, cobalt, copper, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, lead,

zinc, and iron, however, they were not assayed for the platinum group elements.

1992: Tracer Petroleum Corp. acquired the claims from J.R. Atkinson and completed a program

of horizontal loop electromagnetic (HLEM) and total field magnetic surveying totalling 11.4 km.



A 500 m diamond drill program was recommended to follow up on the EM anomalies that were

generated by the survey. 1999: Diatreme Explorations Inc. completed a program of rock chip sampling under OPAP grant

OP99-402. A total of 93 samples were collected from which 7 areas of interest were delineated. 2002: Red Feather Resources Inc. completed a high sensitivity airborne magnetometer survey

covering 583 km. 2009: Atkinson Syndicate completed an airborne geophysical survey of the Property. A total of

503 line kilometres were flown in two directions, including 232 line kilometers over the Property.

High resolution magnetic and VLF-EM airborne surveys were completed. 2009: Double Crown Ventures completed a limited soil sampling program designed to cross two

previously identified mineralized zones. A total of 50 soil samples were taken in three lines, one

on the south west corner of Caribou Lake, and the other two parallel lines from the north shore

of Caribou Lake. 2011: JD Exploration Inc. completed a limited field program on the Property. This included

geological mapping, limited trenching, and 35 grab samples. Assay results for the grab samples

are not available.



Figure 3: Tenure Map of the Caribou Lake Property.

7. GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION

7.1 Regional Geology The Caribou Lake Intrusive is located in the Britt Domain of the Central Gneiss Belt of the

Grenville Province of the Canadian Shield. The rocks of the Central Gneiss Belt are generally

1800-1600 million year old quartzo-feldspathic gneisses of igneous origin with subordinate

paragneiss of igneous and sedimentary origin. The units are highly deformed gneisses and

migmatites of supracrustal origin and igneous origin. The Britt Domain is part of a network of continuous zones situated between the Grenville Front

Tectonic Zone to the north and the Central Metasedimentary Belt to the south. Along these

zones predominantly northwest directed deep crustal thrust faulting has occurred resulting in a



thickened crust. The Caribou Lake intrusive intruded these units at some later date (there is no known dating on

the intrusive rocks of the Caribou Complex). The contacts with the complex deform the regional

trends but it is not known if this is because the intrusive acted as a restive “kernel” during

deformation or if the intrusive intruded after the gneisses were formed and deformed the pre-

existing foliation

7.2 Property Geology

The following summarized property geology has been largely derived from Atkinson’s

assessment report on the Caribou Lake Property of JD Exploration Inc. completed in 2011 and

Atkinson’s assessment report on the Caribou Lake Property of tracer Petroleum Corp.

completed in 1992. The Caribou Lake intrusive is an 18 km2, northwest-southeast trending elongated lobate funnel

shaped body. At its thickest in the northwest it measures 2.74 km wide narrowing to

approximately 300 m wide in the southeastern part. Its longest dimension is approximately 8.5

km. The Caribou Lake intrusive is a layered mafic intrusive and is dominated by rocks of noritic

composition with minor pyroxenite. Inclusions of graphitic paragneiss occur locally within the

intrusive and range up to 150 m in length and 25 m in width. Airborne magnetic surveys

completed in 2002 and 2009 delineated a concentrically layered feature consisting of alternating

magnetic highs and lows, interpreted to reflect magmatic layering within the intrusive with an

interpreted narrow feeder dyke represented by the narrow part of the complex to the east

(Figure 6). The geophysical surveys also support earlier drill hole data that a roof pendant

consisting of paragneiss covers the central portion of the intrusion. East of Deep Bay, a 10-20 m thick, north-south trending dyke of pyroxenite cuts the norite. The

norite is weakly altered close to the pyroxenite, with patchy chlorite seen “clouding” the

plagioclase crystals. Fault zones are not evident on the Property but a large linear feature, the “Caribou Lake Fault,

does cross the central region of the Property. This fault seems to have only minor horizontal

displacement.



Figure 4: Regional Geology (after OGS MRD 216 Rev.).



7.3 Mineralization The known and reported mineralization in the area is associated with norite, pyroxenite dykes,

and graphitic paragneiss. Pyrrhotite, pyrite, chalcopyrite, and titaniferous magnetite occur as

disseminations and as stringers in the mafic and ultramafic units. The graphitic paragneiss

contains stringers of sulphide comprising pyrite, pyrrhotite, and chalcopyrite which show up in

geophysical surveys as strong electromagnetic anomalies while the disseminated and stringer

mineralization, which occurs in the norite and pyroxenite, have been traced using IP surveys.

Disseminated sulphides containing Cu-Ni mineralization and anomalous Pt have been reported

associated with the norite and pyroxenite units.

8. DEPOSIT TYPES The Caribou Lake Intrusive is a layered intrusion that has the potential to host magmatic Ni-Cu-

PGE deposits, and graphitic gneiss-type deposits. 8.1 Magmatic Ni-Cu-PGE Deposits Magma originated in the upper mantle and contained small amounts of nickel, copper, PGE,

and variable but minor amounts of S (Eckstrand & Hulbert, 2007). The magmas then ascend

through the crust and cool. If sulphur saturation is reached, either from the initial magma being

sufficient in S content, or if S is added from the assimilation of crustal wall rocks, a separate

sulphide liquid forms as droplets. Because the partition coefficients of Ni, Cu, and PGE’s favour

sulphide liquid over silicate liquid, these elements preferentially transfer into the sulphide

droplets in the surrounding magma. Due to their higher density, the sulphide droplets sink

towards the base of the magma and form sulphide concentrations along the lower margins or

base of the intrusion. Upon further cooling, the sulphide liquid crystallizes to form the ore

deposits that contain these metals (Eckstrand & Hulbert, 2007).

Two main types for magmatic Ni-Cu-PGE deposits exist, Ni-Cu deposits and PGE deposits.

Nickel is the main commodity of Ni-Cu deposits, with Cu being a co-product or by-product, and

Co, PGE’s, and Au as by-products. In PGE deposits, Pt and Pd are the main commodities,

followed by Ni, Cu, Au, Os, Ir, Ru, and Rh as by-products.



PGE deposits can occur as either magmatic breccia-type or reef type. Magmatic breccia-type

deposits are located within a basal breccia unit of a layered mafic/ultramafic intrusion.

Mineralization is characterized by a large zone of sparsely disseminated sulphides in a mafic

magmatic host that contains a high proportion of both cognate and exotic clasts. Reef-type

deposits typically occur higher up in the stratigraphy of the intrusion. Reef-type mineralization is

thought to have formed from the mixing of a residual magma remaining after partial

crystallization with a new pulse of magma emplaced above it (Campbell et al., 1983). The

mixing mechanism can induce sulphide saturation at the interface between the two magmas,

with the newly formed sulphide droplets scavenging PGE’s from the magma and settling on the

floor of the overlying magma to form a PGE-rich relatively thin layer (Eckstrand & Hulbert,

2007).

8.2 Graphitic Gneiss-type Deposits Graphitic gneiss-type deposits have a sedimentary origin. They occur as graphite rich

paragneiss where the original organic content accumulated during sedimentation is transformed

into graphitic carbon flakes during metamorphism. Northern Graphite Corp.’s Bissett Creek

deposit as well as Ontario Graphite`s Kearney Mine, both located within paragneiss of the

geologic Grenville Province, some 160 km east, and 85 km east-southeast respectively of the

Caribou Lake Property, are archetypal prime examples of this type of deposit.



Figure 5: Property Geology (after OGS MRD 216 Rev.).



Figure 6: Total Magnetic Intensity showing magmatic layering (after Barrie, 2009). . 9. EXPLORATION

9.1 Prospecting In the fall of 2014, Tamarack completed a limited prospecting program on the Caribou Lake

Property. A total of 32 samples were submitted for analysis. Highlights of the program include

18 ppb Pd, 24 ppb Pt, 308 ppm Cu, and 1240 ppm Ni in sample 999401, 763 ppm Ni in sample

999404, 137 ppm Cu and 791 ppm Ni in Sample 999405, 234 ppm Cu in sample 999417, 284

ppm Cu in sample 999420, and 3.45% total C in sample 999435.



10. DRILLING 10.1 Historical Drilling Records from the government assessment reports show a total of 27 drill holes being completed on the property. From 1950 through to 1951, the Chubb Syndicate completed 1,795 ft (547.12 m) of diamond

drilling in five holes. The holes were completed in order to test several magnetic anomalies.

Highlights from the program include; 50 ft (15.24 m) containing 10% sulphides with

corresponding low copper and nickel values (0.22% copper and 0.15% nickel) in drill hole C-2,

11 ft (3.35 m) of intensely talcose altered norite containing 15% sulphides in hole C-3, and 17 ft

(5.18 m) of silicified norite containing 10% sulphides in hole C-5 (Hanych, 2002). Drill hole C-4

targeted a magnetic and gravity anomaly associated with a potential feeder dyke within the

narrows of Caribou Lake. The hole was lost to caving at a depth of 405 ft (123.44 m) and the

anomaly was not explained. Drill holes C-1, C-2, C-3, and C-5 were drilled outside of the

current claim boundaries. C-1, C-2, C-3 were drilled from the ice on Caribou Lake, and C-5 was

drilled on patented claims immediately east of the eastern boundary of unpatented claim

1500811. In 1955, Aumaque Gold Mines Ltd. completed 5,300 ft (1615.5 m) of diamond drilling in 11 drill

holes. This program tested the strongest anomalies generated by ground electromagnetic and

self-potential surveys generated in 1954 by Newkirk Mining Corp. The drilling intersected

graphite with minor amounts of pyrite, pyrrhotite, and chalcopyrite. No significant copper-nickel

values were reported. In 1968, Hudson Bay Exploration and Development Company Ltd. completed 4075 ft (1242 m)

of diamond drilling in 11 drill holes. The drill holes tested several conductive zones in the area

between Round Lake and Burnt Lake. The conductive zones were explained by the presence

of “light to heavy” graphite mineralization hosted within paragneiss. Two drill holes, M10 and

M11 tested a conductor and a historical copper-nickel showing located off of the current

Tamarack claims.

10.2 Drilling No drilling has been completed by Tamarack on the Caribou Lake Property.



11. SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES, AND SECURITY Grab samples, usually less than 1 kg in size, were collected by Tamarack geologists during the

2014 prospecting program. Samples were collected from outcrop and hand-dug trenches. Samples were delivered by the author to Activation Laboratory’s facility in Sudbury, Ontario.

Activation Laboratories is accredited to ISO 17025 and/or certified to 9001: 2008. Analytical

packages chosen to test for precious and base metals, as well as graphite include 1E3 and 1C-

OES. A full description of the laboratory methods can be found on Activation Laboratory’s

website (www.actlabs.com). Activation Laboratories inserts its own standard and duplicate samples as part of its quality

control commitment. Verification by the authors deemed the inserted quality control samples to

be within acceptable limits. 12. DATA VERIFICATION 12.1 Historical Data Verification The author reviewed historical maps and reports located on the OGS digital online database.

The author believes this information is generally of sufficient accuracy to form the basis of an

exploration program on the Property. 12.2 Recent Data Verification The author was involved in Tamarack’s 2014 prospecting program which included assaying of

34 grab samples. Grab samples were submitted to Activation Laboratories, a laboratory

accredited to ISO 17025 and certified to 9001: 2008.

Activation Laboratories inserts its own standard and duplicate samples as part of its quality

control commitment. Verification by the authors deemed the inserted quality control samples to

be within acceptable limits. As part of any future channel sampling or diamond drilling programs, the use of certified

reference materials (“CRM’s”) should be included to determine the accuracy and precision of



results across a range of values. A pulp duplicate program should also be included to

determine the quality of sample pulverization and homogeneity. The author is of the opinion that sufficient data was verified for the scope of this report. 13. MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING The Property is at the exploration stage and no metallurgical testing has been carried out. 14. MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES There has not been sufficient work on the Property to undertake a mineral resource estimate. 15. MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES There has not been sufficient work on the Property to undertake a mineral reserve estimate. 16. MINING METHODS Not applicable. 17. RECOVERY METHODS Not applicable.



18. PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE Not applicable. 19. MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS Not applicable. 20. ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING, AND SOCIAL OR COMMUNITY IMPACT Not applicable. 21. CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS Not applicable. 22. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS Not applicable. 23. ADJACENT PROPERTIES There are no properties of significance adjacent to the Caribou Lake Property. 24. OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION There is no other relevant data or information.



25. INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS The Caribou Lake mafic complex has the potential to host “reef style” PGE and/or contact-type

Cu-Ni-(PGE) deposits. Potential also exists for graphite gneiss-type deposits within the

interpreted roof pendant. Field work completed by Tamarack in 2014 confirmed anomalous

nickel, copper, and graphite mineralization. Tamarack has also completed a compilation of all

geological, geophysical and historical information available online at Geology Ontario

(www.geologyontario.mndm.gov.on.ca).

26. RECOMMENDATIONS Subsequent to the research conducted for this Technical Report, and taking into consideration information provided by Tamarack, the author recommends the following program: Phase 1: 1) A review of the hard copy assessment files for McConkey Township is recommended. 2) A surface work program is recommended to locate the remaining historical showings, to

follow up on the mineralization that was sampled last year, and to continue further prospecting

efforts in areas not covered from the recent work completed by Tamarack. 3) An airborne magnetic and electromagnetic geophysical survey is recommended to define any

electromagnetic anomalies that may represent sulphide accumulations within the intrusive. 4) A historical magnetic and gravity anomaly that was identified within the narrows of Caribou

Lake should be reviewed. Historical drill hole C-4 targeted the anomaly but the hole was lost

due to caving at a depth of 405 ft (123.44m) and the anomaly was not explained. The

recommended airborne survey will help to evaluate any potential targets in this area. 5) Adjacent land to the east of the property should be obtained from the private land owners as

it covers the eastern contact of the intrusion where several historical showings and geophysical

anomalies (IP) are located. Also, the further staking is recommended over Caribou Lake to

cover the remaining parts of the intrusive.

6) A diamond drill program is recommended to test any geophysical targets derived from the



proposed geophysical work and from further surface work.

Table 3: Phase 1 Surface Exploration Budget

Personnel costs (geological mapping, prospecting)

Senior Geologist 15 days $650/day $9,750

Geological Technician 15 days $300/day $4,500

Fixed contract costs Unit Unit cost Sub-Total Airborne Geophysical Survey (EM+Mag) 200 km $225/km $45,000

Geophysical Interpretation 5 days $700/day $3,500

Other costs Unit Unit cost Sub-Total Meals and accommodation 30 days $85/day $2,550

Assays (grabs and soils) 200 $35/sample $7,000

Vehicle & ATV Rental 15 days $150/day $2,250

Supplies 1 $5,000 $5,000

Drafting, Report Writing 5 days $650/day $3,250

Total: $82,800

Table 4: Phase 1 Diamond Drilling Budget (1,500 m)

Personnel costs (diamond drilling) Unit Unit cost Sub-Total Senior Geologist 25 days $650/day $16,250 Geological Technician 25 days $300/day $ 7,500

Fixed contract costs Unit Unit cost Sub-Total Diamond Drilling (all inclusive) 1500 m $100/m $150,000

Other costs Unit Unit cost Sub-Total Meals and accommodation 50 days $85 $4,250

Assays 200 $35/sample $7,000

Diamond Saw Rental 1 mth $600/mth $600

Vehicle & ATV Rental 25 days $150/day $3,750

Core Shack Rental 1 mth $800/mth $800

Supplies 1 $5,000 $5,000

Drafting, Report Writing 5 days $650/day $3,250

Total: $ 198,400

Sub-Total: $281,200 Contingency (10%): $28,120

Total: $309,320



27. DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGE This report titled “NI 43-101 Technical Report on the Caribou Lake Property, Sudbury Mining

Division, Northeastern Ontario” for Tamarack Gold Resources, Inc. dated January 30th, 2015,

was prepared and signed by the following author: Signed by:

Joerg M. Kleinboeck, P.Geo.



28. REFERENCES Atkinson, J.R., 1991. Report of Work, Caribou Property: McConkey Township, Southern Ontario

Mining Division, Ontario, Canada. Tylox Resources Corp. 29p.

Atkinson, J.R., 1992. Report of work, Caribou Property: McConkey Township, Southern Ontario Mining Division, Ontario, Canada. Tracer Petroleum Corp. 28p.

Atkinson, J.R., 2009. Assessment Report on Airborne Geophysical Survey Completed on the Caribou Property: McConkey Township, Southern Ontario Mining Division, Ontario, Canada. JD Exploration Inc. 43p.

Atkinson, J.R., 2011. Report on Geological Investigations, Caribou Lake Property: McConkey Township, Southern Ontario Mining Division, Ontario, Canada. JD Exploration Inc. 26p.

Barrie, C., 2009. Report for Atkinson Syndicate, High Resolution Magnetic and VLF-EM Survey, Caribou Lake Project, Parry Sound Area, Report #B-296. 30 p.

Buckle, J., 2009. Geotechnical Report on Soil Sampling Surveys Conducted on the Antler Project, French River Area, Ontario: McConkey Township, Southern Ontario Mining Division, Ontario, Canada. Double Crown Ventures. 33p.

Campbell, I. H., Naldrett, A.J., and Barnes, S.J., 1983. A model for the origin of the platinum-rich sulfide horizons in the Bushveld and Stillwater complexes: Journal of Petrology, v. 24, p. 133-165.

Eckstrand, O.R., and Hulbert, L.J., 2007. Magmatic nickel-copper-platinum group element deposits, in Good fellow, W.D., ed., Mineral Deposits of Canada: A Synthesis of Major Deposit Types, District Metallogeny, the Evolution of Geological Provinces, and Exploration Methods: Geological Association of Canada, Mineral Deposits Division, Special Publication No. 5, p. 202-222.

Friedman, G.M., 1957. Structure and Petrology of the Caribou Lake Intrusive Body, Ontario, Canada; Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, Vol. 68, p 1531-1564.

Hanych, W., 2001. Report on the Caribou Lake Project: McConkey Township, Southern Ontario Mining Division, Ontario, Canada. Diatreme Explorations Inc. 41p.

Hanych, W., 2002. Airborne Magnetometer Survey Report, Caribou Lake Property: McConkey Township, Southern Ontario Mining Division, Ontario, Canada. Red Feather Resources Inc. and Diatreme Explorations Inc. 31p.

http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca http://www.mci.mndm.gov.on.ca/claims/clm_mdvcl.cfm Martin, W.C., 1959. Report on Twin Basin Nickel Limited: Caribou Lake, McConkey Township,

Southern Ontario Mining Division, Ontario, Canada. Twin Basin Nickel Limited. 7p.



Ministry of Northern Development and Mines; Geology of Ontario, Assessment File Research Information (AFRI) found at www.geologyontario.mndm.gov.on.ca

Ontario Geological Survey, 2006. 1:250,000 Scale Bedrock Geology of Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Release Data 126 revised. Whittaker, P.J., 1987. Caribou Lake Platinum Property, Platinova Resources Ltd: McConkey

Township, Southern Ontario Mining Division, Ontario, Canada. Platinova Resources Ltd. 21p



CERTIFICATE OF AUTHOR

I, Joerg M. Kleinboeck, of 147 Lakeside Dr., North Bay, Ontario do hereby certify that:

1. I am a Consulting Geologist offering geological exploration services to the mineral exploration industry.

2. I hold the following academic qualifications: B.Sc. Geology (2000) Laurentian University.

3. I am a member of the Association of Professional Geoscientists of Ontario (Member #1411).

4. I have worked as a geologist for over 14 years on a variety of exploration properties

targeting gold, Ni-Cu-PGE, base metals, diamonds, and industrial minerals.

5. At the effective date of the Technical Report, to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, the Technical Report, contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading.

6. In accordance with section 1.5 of NI 43-101, I am independent of Tamarack Gold Resources, Inc.

7. I have read National Instrument 43-101 and the Technical Report has been prepared in compliance with National Instrument 43-101.

8. I am responsible for all sections of the Technical Report titled “NI 43-101 Technical Report on the Caribou Lake Property, Sudbury Mining Division, Northeastern Ontario”, dated January 30th, 2015 and prepared for Tamarack Gold Resources, Inc.

9. I am a “qualified person” as defined in National Instrument 43-101.

10. I last visited the Caribou Lake Property on September 30th, 2014 for a period of 8 hours.

I have provided other geological services to Tamarack prior to the effective date of this report.

Dated this 30th Day of January, 2015

Joerg M. Kleinboeck, P.Geo.



Date post:	30-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	phamnguyet
View:	216 times
Download:	1 times

NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT - Tamarack...

Documents