Detour Lake Project Technical Report

Technical Report Feasibility Study
of the DETOUR LAKE PROJECT, Ontario for Detour Gold Corporation
43-101 Technical Report June 30, 2010

PREPARED BY: IN COOPERATION WITH:
Detour Gold Corporation NI 43-101Technical Report Feasibility Study of the Detour Lake Project
Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2. Property Description and Location .............................................................................................................. 1 1.3. Geology and Mineralization ........................................................................................................................ 2 1.4. Drilling and Quality Control ........................................................................................................................ 3 1.5. Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testwork ......................................................................................... 4 1.6. Mineral Resource and Reserve Estimates .................................................................................................... 5 1.7. Mineral Reserves and Mining ...................................................................................................................... 6 1.8. Mineral Processing ...................................................................................................................................... 7 1.9. Infrastructure and Power Line ..................................................................................................................... 8 1.10. Tailings Disposal ......................................................................................................................................... 8 1.11. Environmental and Aboriginal Matters ....................................................................................................... 9 1.12. Project Schedule .......................................................................................................................................... 9 1.13. Capital Cost Estimates ............................................................................................................................... 10 1.14. Operating Cost Estimates........................................................................................................................... 10 1.15. Financial Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 11 1.16. Conclusion and Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 12 2.0 INTRODUCTION AND TERMS OF REFERENCE ............................................................................... 15 2.1. General....................................................................................................................................................... 15 2.2. Terms of Reference.................................................................................................................................... 15 2.3. Source of Information ................................................................................................................................ 16 2.4. Units and Currency .................................................................................................................................... 17 2.5. Disclaimer .................................................................................................................................................. 18 3.0 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS ......................................................................................................... 19 3.1. Lead Author ............................................................................................................................................... 19 3.2. Others......................................................................................................................................................... 19 4.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION ..................................................................................... 20 4.1. Location and Access .................................................................................................................................. 20 4.2. Property Ownership and Agreements ........................................................................................................ 20 4.3. Summary of NSR Obligations ................................................................................................................... 22 4.4. Current Environmental Obligations ........................................................................................................... 23 4.5. Permits in Place ......................................................................................................................................... 23 4.6. Aboriginal Matters ..................................................................................................................................... 24 5.0 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPY ........................................................................................................................................................................ 25 5.1. Accessibility .............................................................................................................................................. 25 5.2. Climate and Physiography ......................................................................................................................... 25 5.3. Local Resource and Infrastructure ............................................................................................................. 25 6.0 HISTORY...................................................................................................................................................... 27 6.1. Ownership History ..................................................................................................................................... 27 6.2. Exploration History ................................................................................................................................... 28 6.3. Previous Mineral Resource and Reserve Estimates ................................................................................... 29 7.0 GEOLOGICAL SETTING.......................................................................................................................... 34 7.1. Regional Geology ...................................................................................................................................... 34 7.2. Geology of the Detour Lake Property ........................................................................................................ 36 7.2.1. Geological Interpretation ................................................................................................................... 36
S:\Detour Lake Project\Technical Reports\2010-04draft\Technical Report_v6.docx
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page ii
7.2.2. Lithologies ......................................................................................................................................... 40 7.2.3. Metamorphism and Alteration ........................................................................................................... 44 7.2.4. Structural Geology ............................................................................................................................ 44 8.0 DEPOSIT MODEL ...................................................................................................................................... 47 9.0 MINERALIZATION ................................................................................................................................... 48 9.1. General Characteristic of the Gold Mineralization .................................................................................... 48 9.1.1. Hangingwall Mineralization .............................................................................................................. 50 9.1.2. Footwall Mineralization (Talc Zone) ................................................................................................ 52 10.0 EXPLORATION AND DRILLING............................................................................................................ 53 10.1. Drilling Programs (2007-2009) ................................................................................................................. 53 10.1.1. Reconnaissance Drilling Program ..................................................................................................... 53 10.2. Drilling Program (2010) ............................................................................................................................ 53 10.3. Drill Hole Survey ....................................................................................................................................... 54 10.4. Drill Core Recovery ................................................................................................................................... 55 11.0 SAMPLING METHOD AND APPROACH .............................................................................................. 56 11.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 56 11.2. Core Sampling Procedures and Security.................................................................................................... 56 11.3. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................... 57 12.0 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY ................................................................... 58 12.1. Sample Preparation and Analyses .............................................................................................................. 58 12.2. Analytical Laboratories.............................................................................................................................. 58 12.3. Sample Preparation and Analytical Procedures ......................................................................................... 58 12.4. Gold Analysis ............................................................................................................................................ 59 12.5. Specific Gravity ......................................................................................................................................... 60 12.6. Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedure .................................................................................... 62 12.6.1. QA/QC Procedures prior to 2007 ...................................................................................................... 62 12.6.2. QA/QC Procedures from 2007-2009 ................................................................................................. 62 12.7. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................. 75 13.0 DATA VERIFICATION .............................................................................................................................. 76 13.1. Drill Hole Database Verifications.............................................................................................................. 76 13.1.1. Database Verifications of Historic and Detour Gold Drill Hole Data ............................................... 76 13.1.2. SGS Geostat 2009 Database Verification Program ........................................................................... 79 13.1.3. Verification of Potential Bias of CRL Holes ..................................................................................... 95 13.1.4. Finalized Drill Hole Database ........................................................................................................... 96 13.2. Summary and Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 97 14.0 ADJACENT PROPERTIES ...................................................................................................................... 100 14.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 100 14.2. Block A Property - 50/50 Joint Venture between Detour Gold and Trade Winds ................................... 100 14.3. Gowest Property ...................................................................................................................................... 100 14.4. Aurora and Sunday Lake Properties ........................................................................................................ 101 14.5. Atkinson Project (Lipton Claim Group) .................................................................................................. 101 15.0 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING ....................................................... 102 15.1. Sample Section and Preparation .............................................................................................................. 102 15.2. Comminution Testwork ........................................................................................................................... 102 15.3. Metallurgical Testwork ............................................................................................................................ 106 15.4. Confirmation Testwork 2009 ................................................................................................................... 108 15.5. Recovery Estimates ................................................................................................................................. 112 15.6. Estimated Recovery for the Life of Mine ................................................................................................ 114 15.7. Comparison CIP versus CIL .................................................................................................................... 115 15.8. Modelling Carbon-in-Pulp (CIP) ............................................................................................................. 116
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page iii
15.9. Thickening and Rheology ........................................................................................................................ 116 15.10. Cyanide Destruction ................................................................................................................................ 117 15.11. Reagents................................................................................................................................................... 117 15.12. Selected Process....................................................................................................................................... 118 15.13. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................. 119 16.0 MINERAL RESOURCE AND MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES .................................................. 120 16.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 120 16.2. Exploratory Data Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 121 16.2.1. Assay ............................................................................................................................................... 121 16.2.2. Capping ........................................................................................................................................... 122 16.2.3. Composites ...................................................................................................................................... 125 16.2.4. Rock Density ................................................................................................................................... 129 16.3. Geological Interpretation ......................................................................................................................... 129 16.4. Spatial Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 132 16.5. Resource Block Modeling ....................................................................................................................... 134 16.6. Grade Interpolation Plan .......................................................................................................................... 138 16.7. Mineral Resources Classification ............................................................................................................ 140 16.8. Global Mineral Resource Estimation ....................................................................................................... 144 16.9. In-Pit Mineral Resources ......................................................................................................................... 145 16.10. Block Model Validation .......................................................................................................................... 146 16.11. Block Grade Dilution ............................................................................................................................... 148 16.12. Global Comparison .................................................................................................................................. 148 16.13. Interpretation and Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 149 16.14. Recommendations.................................................................................................................................... 151 16.15. Reserve Block Model .............................................................................................................................. 151 16.16. Pit Optimization ....................................................................................................................................... 152 16.17. Pit Optimization Results .......................................................................................................................... 154 16.18. Engineered Pit Design ............................................................................................................................. 155 16.19. Mining Dilution ....................................................................................................................................... 157 16.20. Ore Recovery (Mining Loss) ................................................................................................................... 158 16.21. Mineral Reserves ..................................................................................................................................... 159 17.0 OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND VERIFICATIONS .......................................................................... 160 17.1. Mining ..................................................................................................................................................... 160 17.1.1. Mining Phases ................................................................................................................................. 160 17.1.2. Production Schedule ........................................................................................................................ 161 17.1.3. Cut-Off Grade Strategy (Using Net Present Value Simulations) .................................................... 161 17.1.4. Mining Schedule.............................................................................................................................. 161 17.1.5. Year-End Pit Plans .......................................................................................................................... 164 17.1.6. Waste Rock and Overburden Management ..................................................................................... 166 17.1.7. Low Grade Ore Stockpile ................................................................................................................ 168 17.1.8. Mining Operation ............................................................................................................................ 168 17.1.9. Drilling ............................................................................................................................................ 168 17.1.10. Blasting............................................................................................................................................ 168 17.1.11. Loading and Hauling ....................................................................................................................... 169 17.1.12. Mine Manpower Requirements ....................................................................................................... 173 17.2. Processing ................................................................................................................................................ 174 17.2.1. Process Design Criteria ................................................................................................................... 174 17.2.2. Crushing and Grinding .................................................................................................................... 175 17.2.3. Gravity ............................................................................................................................................. 176 17.2.4. Leach and CIP ................................................................................................................................. 176
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page iv
17.2.5. Plant Losses ..................................................................................................................................... 176 17.2.6. Stripping, Electrowinning, and Refining ......................................................................................... 177 17.2.7. Thickening ....................................................................................................................................... 177 17.2.8. Tailings ............................................................................................................................................ 177 17.2.9. Equipment Selection........................................................................................................................ 178 17.2.10. Flowsheets and Process Description................................................................................................ 180 17.2.11. Reagents and Services ..................................................................................................................... 184 17.2.12. Plant Site Layout ............................................................................................................................. 184 17.2.13. Electrical.......................................................................................................................................... 185 17.2.14. Production Schedule ........................................................................................................................ 186 17.3. Tailing and Water Management .............................................................................................................. 186 17.3.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 186 17.3.2. Site Investigation ............................................................................................................................. 187 17.3.3. TMA Design Criteria and Deposition Plan ..................................................................................... 188 17.3.4. Design of TMA Dams ..................................................................................................................... 190 17.3.5. TMA Water Management................................................................................................................ 192 17.3.6. Geotechnical Design of the Mine Rock and Overburden Stockpiles............................................... 193 17.3.7. Performance Monitoring ................................................................................................................. 194 17.3.8. Closure Concepts ............................................................................................................................. 194 17.4. Infrastructure and Services ...................................................................................................................... 194 17.4.1. Plant Site Preparation ...................................................................................................................... 194 17.4.2. Power Line and Main Substation..................................................................................................... 195 17.4.3. Site Infrastructure Electrical Distribution........................................................................................ 195 17.4.4. Communications.............................................................................................................................. 196 17.4.5. Site Roads........................................................................................................................................ 196 17.4.6. Utilities ............................................................................................................................................ 196 17.4.7. Buildings ......................................................................................................................................... 197 17.4.8. Fire Protection ................................................................................................................................. 199 17.5. Environmental and Permitting ................................................................................................................. 199 17.5.1. Background ..................................................................................................................................... 199 17.5.2. Existing Environmental Conditions................................................................................................. 200 17.5.3. Regulatory and Planning Context .................................................................................................... 200 17.5.4. Consultation and Aboriginal Accommodations............................................................................... 202 17.5.5. Environmental Impacts and Mitigating Measures ........................................................................... 203 17.6. Health and Safety ..................................................................................................................................... 207 17.6.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 207 17.6.2. Health, Hygience and Safety Programs ........................................................................................... 208 17.6.3. Site Security .................................................................................................................................... 208 17.6.4. Hazardous Material ......................................................................................................................... 208 17.6.5. Emergency Response ...................................................................................................................... 209 17.7. Project Schedule ...................................................................................................................................... 209 17.7.1. Construction Infrastructure .............................................................................................................. 210 17.7.2. Mining ............................................................................................................................................. 211 17.7.3. Site Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................ 211 17.7.4. Ore Processing................................................................................................................................. 211 17.7.5. Commissioning and Start-Up .......................................................................................................... 212 17.7.6. Tailings Management ...................................................................................................................... 213 17.8. Capital Costs ............................................................................................................................................ 213 17.9. Operating Costs ....................................................................................................................................... 214 17.9.1. Summary Operating Costs............................................................................................................... 214
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page v
17.9.2. Mine Operating Costs ...................................................................................................................... 215 17.9.3. Plant Operating Costs ...................................................................................................................... 215 17.9.4. General and Administration Costs ................................................................................................... 216 17.9.5. Infrastructure ................................................................................................................................... 217 17.10. Financial Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 218 17.10.1. Assumptions .................................................................................................................................... 218 17.10.2. Taxation ........................................................................................................................................... 219 17.10.3. Discount Rate .................................................................................................................................. 219 17.10.4. Assumptions .................................................................................................................................... 220 17.10.5. Mine Closure ................................................................................................................................... 220 17.10.6. Base Case Cash Flow ...................................................................................................................... 221 17.10.7. Sensitivity Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 224 18.0 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................... 226 18.1. Sampling Method and Approach ............................................................................................................. 226 18.2. Data Verification ..................................................................................................................................... 226 18.3. Mineral Resource Estimate ...................................................................................................................... 226 18.4. Sample Preparation, Analysis and Security ............................................................................................. 228 18.5. Mining Operations ................................................................................................................................... 228 18.6. Plant Operations (Metallurgy) ................................................................................................................. 229 18.7. Infrastructure and Services ...................................................................................................................... 229 18.8. Financial Analysis and Sensitivity ........................................................................................................... 230 18.9. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................. 230 19.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 231 19.1. Mineral Resources and Reserves ............................................................................................................. 231 19.1.1. Potential for Additional Mineral Resourcs ...................................................................................... 231 19.1.2. Data Verification ............................................................................................................................. 231 19.2. Infrastructure ........................................................................................................................................... 231 19.3. Mining Plan and Mining Operations........................................................................................................ 232 19.4. Processing Plant and Metallurgical Testing ............................................................................................. 232 20.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 233 21.0 CERTIFICATES ........................................................................................................................................ 238 22.0 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR TECHNICAL REPORTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROPERTIES AND PRODUCTION PROPERTIES ............................................................................ 239
List of Tables
Table 1-1: Detour Lake In-pit Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................ 6 Table 1-2: Detour Lake Mineral Reserves Estimate Using Cut-off Grade of 0.50 g/t Au ............................................ 6 Table 1-3: Summary Capital Cost Estimate (in Canadian Dollars) ............................................................................ 10 Table 1-4: Operating Cost over Life of Project (in Canadian Dollars) ....................................................................... 11 Table 2-1: Qualified Persons and their Respective Sections of Responsibility .......................................................... 16 Table 2-2: List of Abbreviations................................................................................................................................. 17 Table 4-1: Summary of Detour Lake Property (1) ....................................................................................................... 22 Table 4-2: NSR Obligations ....................................................................................................................................... 23 Table 6-1: September 2006 Mineral Resource Estimate (cut-off grade of 0.85 g/t Au) ............................................. 30 Table 6-2: December 2007 Mineral Resource Estimate (cut-off grade of 0.64 g/t Au) .............................................. 31 Table 6-3: July 2008 Mineral Resource Estimate (prior to detailed engineered pit design) (using US$700/oz gold price, cut-off grade of 0.50 g/t Au)................................................................................................................ 31 Table 6-4: July 2008 Detailed Engineered Pit Design Resource Estimate (Base Case using US$700/oz gold price) 32 Table 6-5: September 2009 Global Mineral Resource Estimate (cut-off grade of 0.60 g/t Au) (1, 2)........................... 32 Table 6-6: September 2009 Mineral Reserve at US$775/oz (cut-off grade of 0.60 g/t Au) ....................................... 33 Table 10-1: Drilling Conducted by Detour Gold (2007-2009) ................................................................................... 54
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page vi
Table 12-1: Detour Gold Analytical Methods from 2007 to 2009.............................................................................. 60 Table 12-2: Mine Rock Codes and Mean Density (t/m3)............................................................................................ 61 Table 12-3: Total Leaching Test Program SG Measurements .................................................................................... 61 Table 12-4: Twin Drill Hole DG-09-806 SG Measurements ..................................................................................... 62 Table 13-1: Results from the 2005 Independent Check Sampling Program by Kallio ............................................... 77 Table 13-2: Check Sampling Comparative Results for Holes PMDDH-101 and PMDDH-102 ................................ 81 Table 13-3: Check Sampling Comparative Results for Hold CRL-039...................................................................... 83 Table 13-4: Comparative Analytical Results from Twin Drill Holes Conducted by SGS Geostat............................. 87 Table 13-5: Results from the Total Gold Analysis of the Test Block Composites ..................................................... 91 Table 13-6: Descriptive Statistics of the Total Gold Analysis, Original and Capped Detour Gold Fire Assay Results ....................................................................................................................................................................... 92 Table 13-7: Comparative Results from the Students Test Paired Two Samples for Mean........................................ 93 Table 13-8: Mineral Resource Estimate (Unclassified) for the Test Block (using a 0.6 g/t Au cut-off grade)...........95 Table 13-9: Comparative Results of the Resource Estimation Test on Domain 2 ...................................................... 96 Table 13-10: Detour Lake Drilling Data Included in Final Drill Hole Database (1) .................................................... 97 Table 15-1: Comminution Test Statistics ................................................................................................................. 103 Table 15-2: Comparison Between Different Methodologies for Power (@ pinion) and Mill Sizing Calculations for a SABC Circuit .............................................................................................................................................. 105 Table 15-3: List of Optmized JKSimMet Simulations ............................................................................................. 105 Table 15-4: Process Design Basis ............................................................................................................................. 106 Table 15-5: Tail Versus Gold Head Grade (BBA Tail Model) ................................................................................. 113 Table 15-6: Updated Equations Used in PFS and FS Block Model and Mining Plan .............................................. 114 Table 15-7: Comparison Between BBA (Tail Model) and Previous Models ........................................................... 115 Table 15-8: Reagent Consumption Summary ........................................................................................................... 118 Table 16-1: Summary of Database ........................................................................................................................... 120 Table 16-2: Samples Corrections within the Resource Estimation Database ........................................................... 121 Table 16-3: Range of Gold Assay Data for Resource Estimation ............................................................................ 121 Table 16-4: Detailed Database Summary Table ....................................................................................................... 122 Table 16-5: Drill Hole Assay Intervals with Highest Gold Values .......................................................................... 123 Table 16-6: Proposed Capping Limits for GTs of Original Samples ...................................................................... 124 Table 16-7: Comparison of the Detour Gold and Historical Mean Composite Grades in the Same Block .............. 126 Table 16-8: Statistics of 5 metre Uncapped and Capped Composite Grades............................................................ 127 Table 16-9: Proposed Variogram Models of 5 metre Composites in the Mineralized Domains .............................. 132 Table 16-10: Summary of Wireframe Volumes of the Detour Lake Deposit ........................................................... 135 Table 16-11: Resource Block Model Parameters ..................................................................................................... 135 Table 16-12: Block Model Estimation Pass Parameters ........................................................................................... 139 Table 16-13: Statistics of Block Grade Estimates from the Various Interpolation Runs.......................................... 140 Table 16-14: Detour Lake Global Measured and Indicated Resources (1) ................................................................ 144 Table 16-15: Detour Lake Global Inferred Resources (1) .......................................................................................... 144 Table 16-16: Detour Lake Global Measured and Indicated Resources by Domain at 0.5 g/t Au Cut-off Grade (1) . 145 Table 16-17: Detour Lake Global Inferred Resources by Domains at 0.5 g/t Au Cut-off Grade (1) ......................... 145 Table 16-18: In-Pit Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources at Various Cut-off Grades (1) ............................... 146 Table 16-19: In-Pit Inferred Resources at Various Cut-off Grades (1) ...................................................................... 146 Table 16-20: Statistics of Comparison of Composite and Blocks with Composites................................................. 148 Table 16-21: In-pit Mineral Resources by Estimation Method at Zero Cut-off Grade ............................................. 149 Table 16-22: In-pit Resources by Estimation Method at 0.5 g/t Cut-off Grade........................................................ 149 Table 16-23: Global Mineral Resources at 0.5 g/t Au Cut-off Grade ....................................................................... 149 Table 16-24: In-pit Mineral Resources at 0.5 g/t Au Cut-off Grade ......................................................................... 150 Table 16-25: Cost Summary Used for Pit Optimization (in Canadian Dollars) ....................................................... 153 Table 16-26: Mill Cut-off Grade Calculation (in Canadian Dollars) ........................................................................ 154 Table 16-27: Mineral Reserves Estimate Using a Cut-off Grade of 0.50 g/t Au (Including 3.8% dilution at 0.40 g/t Au and 5% Ore Loss) .................................................................................................................................. 159 Table 17-1: Mining Schedule for the Project............................................................................................................ 162 Table 17-2: Production Blast Pattern Parameters ..................................................................................................... 169 Table 17-3: Blast Pattern Yields ............................................................................................................................... 169 Table 17-4: Loading Units Specifications ................................................................................................................ 170 Table 17-5: Net Productive Time: Loading and Hauling ........................................................................................ 170 Table 17-6: Complete Annual Equipment Fleet Requirements ................................................................................ 173
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page vii
Table 17-7: Plant Throughput ................................................................................................................................... 174 Table 17-8: Preliminary List of Required Federal Environmental Approvals .......................................................... 201 Table 17-9: Anticipated Provincial Environmental Approvals ................................................................................. 202 Table 17-10: Summary Capital Cost Estimate (in Canadian Dollars) ...................................................................... 213 Table 17-11: Pre-production Capital Cost Detailed Summary ................................................................................. 214 Table 17-12: Summary Operating Cost Estimate ..................................................................................................... 214 Table 17-13: LOM Unit Operating Costs by Activitiy ............................................................................................. 215 Table 17-14: Summary of Estimated Annual Operating Costs................................................................................. 216 Table 17-15: General Administration Costs by cost area ...................................................................................... 216 Table 17-16: General Administration Unit Cost Summary ................................................................................... 217 Table 17-17: Infrastructure Costs by Cost Area .................................................................................................... 217 Table 17-18: Infrastructure Unit Costs Summary .................................................................................................. 217 Table 17-19: Technical Assumptions ....................................................................................................................... 220 Table 17-20: Cash Flow (in Canadian Dollars) ........................................................................................................ 223 Table 17-21: Project Evaluation Summary ............................................................................................................... 224 Table 18-1: Global Mineral Resources at 0.5 g/t Au Cut-off Grade ......................................................................... 226 Table 18-2: In-pit Mineral Resources at 0.5 g/t Au Cut-off Grade ........................................................................... 227 Table 18-3: Detour Lake Mineral Reserves at $850/oz (cut-off grade of 0.5 g/t Au)............................................... 228
List of Figures
Figure 4-1: Detour Lake Property Location................................................................................................................ 20 Figure 4-2: Detour Lake Property Claim Location Map (1)......................................................................................... 22 Figure 7-1: Regional Geology Map of the Detour Lake Area .................................................................................... 34 Figure 7-2: Total Field Aeromagnetic Data of the Detour Lake Area ........................................................................ 35 Figure 7-3: Geology of the Detour Lake Mine District .............................................................................................. 37 Figure 7-4: Geological Section A-A View at 19,360 (looking west) ........................................................................ 38 Figure 7-5: Geological Section B-B View at 18,500E (looking west) ...................................................................... 39 Figure 7-6: Talc-Chlorite Altered Ultramafic Unit ..................................................................................................... 41 Figure 7-7: Potassically Altered Pillow Flow ............................................................................................................. 42 Figure 7-8: Quartz Veins within Massive Mafic Flow ............................................................................................... 43 Figure 7-9: Contoured Poles of Quartz Veins (Orientated Drill Core) ....................................................................... 46 Figure 9-1: Plan View of the Main Mineralized Envelopes ....................................................................................... 48 Figure 9-2: Typical Cross Section of the Detour Lake Deposit .................................................................................. 49 Figure 9-3: Fault-Fill Fault Quartz Veins ................................................................................................................... 50 Figure 9-4: 360 metre Level Plan Showing the Main Zone ........................................................................................ 51 Figure 9-5: Free Gold in Quartz Vein of the Main Zone ............................................................................................ 51 Figure 12-1: July 2009 to October 2009 Assays for Blanks ....................................................................................... 65 Figure 12-2: Percent of Expected for Gold Results for Reference Materials ............................................................. 66 Figure 12-3: Laboratory Pulp Duplicates Comparison Chart ..................................................................................... 66 Figure 12-4: Preparation Duplicates Comparison Chart ............................................................................................. 67 Figure 12-5: Drill Core Duplicates Comparison Chart ............................................................................................... 68 Figure 12-6: Check Assays Comparison Chart ........................................................................................................... 70 Figure 12-7: Assays for Blanks .................................................................................................................................. 71 Figure 12-8: Percent of Expected Gold RMs ............................................................................................................ 72 Figure 12-9: Laboratory Pulp Duplicates Comparison Chart ..................................................................................... 72 Figure 12-10: Preparation Duplicates Comparison Chart ........................................................................................... 73 Figure 12-11: Drill Core Duplicates Comparison Chart ............................................................................................. 74 Figure 12-12: Check Assays Comparison Chart ......................................................................................................... 75 Figure 13-1: Correlation Charts for Check Sampling Results of Hole PMDDH-101................................................. 82 Figure 13-2: Correlation Charts for Check Sampling Results of Hole PMDDH-102................................................. 82 Figure 13-3: Correlation Charts for Check Sampling Results of Hole CRL-039 ....................................................... 84 Figure 13-4: Schematic Section Showing Results for Hole DGG-09-806 (Twin of DG-08-567) .............................. 85 Figure 13-5: Schematic Section Showing Results for Hole DGG-09-809 (Twin of DG-07-259) .............................. 85 Figure 13-6: Schematic Section Showing Results for Hole DGG-09-815 (Twin of CRL-030) ................................. 86 Figure 13-7: Schematic Section Showing Results for Hole DGG-09-816 (Twin of 38-029) ..................................... 86 Figure 13-8: Schematic Section Showing Results for Hole DGG-09-818 (Twin of 00-0056) ................................... 87
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page viii
Figure 13-9: Plan View of the Test Block Showing the Individual Composites ........................................................ 89 Figure 13-10: Cross Section of the Test Block Showing the Individual Composite (Looking West) ........................ 90 Figure 13-11: 3D View of the Total Gold Analysis Test Block Showing the Individual Composites ....................... 90 Figure 13-12: Correlation Charts between the Calculated Head Grades versus the Original and Capped Fire Assays ....................................................................................................................................................................... 92 Figure 13-13: Block Model for the Test Block Using Total Gold Analysis Data....................................................... 93 Figure 13-14: Block Model for the Test Block Using Detour Gold Fire Assay Data ................................................. 94 Figure 13-15: Block Model for the Test Block Using Detour Gold Capped Fire Assay Data.................................... 94 Figure 15-1: Purpose Drilled DDH Level Plan for Comminution Testing ............................................................ 102 Figure 15-2: SABC with Secondary Crusher Circuit Configuration ........................................................................ 104 Figure 15-3: Gold in Tails (g/t) vs. P80 ..................................................................................................................... 108 Figure 15-4: Box and Whiskers Plots for the Confirmation Testwork ..................................................................... 110 Figure 15-5: Oxygen versus Air, Gold Leaching Kinetic Comparison..................................................................... 112 Figure 15-6: Tail Au vs. Head Grade to Gravity ...................................................................................................... 113 Figure 15-7: Comparison Betweeen CIL and CIP Tails ........................................................................................... 116 Figure 16-1: High-end Distribution of GT Products in the Mineralized Domains ................................................... 124 Figure 16-2: Long Section Showing Blocks with Composites from Both Detour Gold and Historical Holes ......... 127 Figure 16-3: Histograms of 5 metre Composite Grades in the Mineralized Domains .............................................. 128 Figure 16-4: Drill Holes and Limits of Domains in a Test Bench and a Few Test Sections .................................... 131 Figure 16-5: Correlograms of the Capped Grade of 5 metre Composites in Mineralized Domains ......................... 133 Figure 16-6: Test Benches with Blocks in Mineralized Domains ............................................................................ 136 Figure 16-7: Test Sections with Blocks in Mineralized Domains ............................................................................ 137 Figure 16-8: Automatic and Final Resource Classification on a Few Test Benches ................................................ 142 Figure 16-9: Test Sections Automatic and Final Classification of Blocks ............................................................... 143 Figure 16-10: Correlation of Composite and Block with Composite in Domain 1 ................................................... 147 Figure 16-11: Dimensional View of the Pit Optimization ........................................................................................ 155 Figure 16-12: Pit Slope Parameters .......................................................................................................................... 156 Figure 16-13: Typical Ramp Profile and Dimensions .............................................................................................. 157 Figure 16-14: Ultimate Pit Design 3D View ............................................................................................................ 159 Figure 16-15: Ultimate Pit Design Plan View .......................................................................................................... 159 Figure 17-1: Mining Phases in a 3-Dimensional View ............................................................................................. 160 Figure 17-2: Mining Phases Pit Design Longitudinal View at 20,002.50 E ............................................................. 161 Figure 17-3: Mill Head Grade per Year.................................................................................................................... 163 Figure 17-4: Stripping Ratio per Year ...................................................................................................................... 163 Figure 17-5: End of Pre-production Period of Production Schedule ........................................................................ 164 Figure 17-6: End of Year 2 of Production Schedule................................................................................................. 164 Figure 17-7: End of Year 7 of Production Schedule................................................................................................. 165 Figure 17-8: End of Year 10 of Production Schedule............................................................................................... 165 Figure 17-9: End of Year 16 of Production Schedule (Final Pit Limits) .................................................................. 165 Figure 17-10: Plan view for the Waste Rock and Overburden Piles at Final Stage.................................................. 167 Figure 17-11: Required Haul Truck Fleet................................................................................................................. 172 Figure 17-12: Grinding Circuit Design ..................................................................................................................... 182 Figure 17-13: Simplified Process Flowsheet ............................................................................................................ 183 Figure 17-14: Project Schedule ................................................................................................................................ 210 Figure 17-15: Average Gold Price (Real Terms) ...................................................................................................... 218 Figure 17-16: Estimated Reclamation Bond Contributions ...................................................................................... 221 Figure 17-17: LOM Cash Flow Projection ............................................................................................................... 222 Figure 17-18: Sensitivity Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 225
Appendices
Appendix A: List of Claims/Claim Map Appendix B: ASL Reports Appendix C: Site Layouts
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 1
1.0
1.1.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction The Detour Lake property (the Property) is located in the Sunday Lake area, some 185 kilometres northeast of Cochrane Ontario. The Property is comprised of 320 claims with an aggregate area of 37,592 hectares (ha) owned by Detour Gold Corporation (Detour Gold), except for 7 claims comprising 1,292 ha that are part of a 50/50 joint venture between Detour Gold and Trade Winds Ventures Inc. (Trade Winds). This Technical Report presents the updated mineral resource and reserve estimate and discusses the results of the Feasibility Study (FS) for the Detour Lake project (the Project). The effective date of the FS and the mineral resource and reserve estimate is May 25, 2010. As part of this study, Detour Gold retained the following companies, with BBA Inc. to lead the FS: BBA Inc., under the direction of Andr Allaire, Eng., Director Mining and Metals and Patrice Live, Eng., Mining Manager; SGS Canada Inc., under the direction of Michel Dagbert, Eng., Senior Geostatistician; and Andr Laferrire, Senior Geologist; and AMEC Earth & Environmental, a Division of AMEC Americas Limited, under the direction of Sheila Daniel, P.Geo., Head Environmental Management, Associate Geoscientist and Derek Li, P.Eng., Senior Geotechnical Engineer.
All costs in this report are expressed in Canadian Dollars unless specifically stated otherwise.
1.2.
Property Description and Location The Property is located mainly in northeastern Ontario, approximately 300 kilometres northeast of Timmins and 185 kilometres by road northeast of Cochrane. The Property is easily accessible by the Detour Lake mine road, an extension of Highway 652 north. The first 151 kilometres on Highway 652 is paved surface, followed by 34 kilometres of well maintained gravel surfaced road to the Project site. The site is also accessible via a 1,600 metres gravel airstrip that is in excellent condition. The Property is comprised of 320 claims totalling 37,592 hectares (ha), including a 50% interest in Block A (consisting of seven claims) located immediately west of the Project. The Property includes the site of the former Detour Lake mine (Mine Property), an open pit and underground mining operation, which produced gold between 1983 and 1999. It consists of 20 registered leasehold mining claims and 16 patented claims totalling 3,312 hectares. The critical deposit claims, the campsite and airstrip are held as patents. The approximate dimensions of the Mine Property are 11 kilometres east-west and 5 kilometres north-south.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 2
History In 1974, Amoco Canada Petroleum Company Ltd. (Amoco) commenced exploration activities on the Mine Property and achieved immediate success with the identification of a 2kilometre long Input anomaly with strong magnetic coincidence, which was originally named the Detour 38 Anomaly. In 1975, a major exploration drilling program was undertaken, including the completion of over 47,444 metres of surface drilling, construction of a decline to the 120-metre level and underground drilling and sampling along this level. The results of this work successfully confirmed the presence of a significant gold deposit. Between 1979 and 1982, Campbell Red Lake Mines (Campbell) completed additional surface and underground drilling for a total of 31,616 metres in 419 holes. In 1982, a decision was taken to commence open pit mining at a rate of 2,000 tonnes per day and gradually replacing this with underground production over a five-year time frame. In 1987, underground mining commenced, coinciding with a merger between Campbell, Dome Mines Ltd. and Placer Development to become Placer Dome Inc. (Placer). From 1987 to 1999, underground production is estimated at 9.1 Mt grading 4.98 g/t Au (1,464,431 contained ounces gold). The above total was attained through a combination of mining methods including longhole stoping, cut and fill stoping, shrinkage stoping and level development. Total gold production (open pit and underground) over the 17-year life of the Detour Lake mine is estimated at 1,764,986 ounces from the milling of just over 14.3 Mt tonnes of rock at an average head grade of 3.82 g/t and a mill recovery of 93.1%. Over that period (1987-1998), Placers Detour Mine Geology Department completed 435,002 metres in 4,219 holes from both underground and surface. After 1990, the bulk of the drilling tested the westerly extensions of the gold mineralization. Placers Exploration Department completed an additional 90,889 metres in 283 holes on the Mine Property and 62,147 metres in 133 holes on other parts of the Property. From 2004 to 2006, Pelangio Mines Inc. (Pelangio) drilled 127 holes (29,780 metres) directed towards a variety of exploration targets located mainly west of the former Campbell open pit mine, including the M Zone near the west boundary with Block A, and the area north of Walter Lake. The exploration program led to the completion of a resource estimate with the concept of a combined underground and open pit mining scenario mainly for the Project and the extreme east portion of Block A.
1.3.
Geology and Mineralization The Property is within the northwestern portion of the Abitibi Greenstone Belt (AGB) in the Superior Province of the Canadian Shield. At Detour Lake, supracrustal rocks are comprised of a thick sequence of mafic to ultramafic volcanic rocks, referred to as the Deloro Assemblage, in structural contact to the south with the younger Porcupine Sedimentary Assemblage. This contact is characterized by a regional scale thrust zone referred to as the Sunday Lake
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 3
Deformation Zone ("SLDZ"). Gold mineralization is spatially associated with the trace of the SLDZ. The gold mineralization at Detour Lake is relatively late and emplaced after tectonic juxtaposition of the Deloro Assemblage and Porcupine Sedimentary Assemblage (e.g. after 2685 Ma) and is not synvolcanic as it was interpreted by Marmont and Corfu (1989). Gold mineralization within the Detour Lake deposit is principally observed north of the SLDZ (hanging wall) over a strike length of 3 kilometres within a 200 metre wide (locally up to 350 metres) corridor. It forms a stockwork of auriferous quartz veins that splay from a flexure that coincides with the northern limb of a shallow west plunging antiform. There are two types of gold mineralization recognized at Detour Lake: 1) a wide and generally auriferous sulphide-poor quartz vein stockwork formed in the hanging wall of the SLDZ and, 2) a gold mineralization overprinting the early auriferous stockwork, principally in the hanging wall of the SLDZ, with lower contents of sulphides. The gold mineralization occurs in different rock types within broad sub-vertical mineralized envelopes and splits into several sub-vertical domains sub-parallel to the orientation of the SLDZ. It is principally contained in discrete fault-fill or shear- hosted, and extensional quartz vein networks, and broad lithologically controlled mineralized zones with a weaker vein association.
1.4.
Drilling and Quality Control After completing the acquisition of all Pelangio interests and titles for the Property, Detour Gold started drilling on the Property in January 2007. As of June 20, 2010, Detour Gold has completed approximately 400,647 metres in 1,004 holes of infill drilling on the Detour Lake deposit. An additional 12,054 metres of reconnaissance exploration drilling was completed in 2008, testing east of the former Campbell open pit and north of the Walter Lake area. The quality control data routinely submitted as part of Detour Golds exploration programs include certified standards and duplicate data. Analysis of the standards data sent to SGS Minerals Services (SGS Minerals) indicates that assaying is within industry acceptable limits of accuracy. The blank samples did not display evidence of significant contamination. In addition, internal laboratory standards and blanks provided by SGS Minerals were reviewed and also were within industry acceptable limits of accuracy. Check assay programs supervised by independent consultants also adequately reproduced the original assays. As a part of data qualification and validation program SGS Canada Inc. (SGS Geostat) concluded that Detour Gold has been operating up to industry standard and that data used for the resource estimate are quality sufficient. As part of the FS, SGS Geostat conducted different verification programs aimed at the validation of the historical analytical data and the analysis of the nugget effect observed in the Detour Lake deposit. The verification programs included: 1) comparison of mean gold grade in the same resource block of Detour Gold analytical data versus the historical analytical data within the different mineralized domain (refer to Section 16.2.3 Composites), 2) independent re-sampling of some historical core samples available at the Projects historical core archive, 3)
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 4
drilling of twin holes designed to validate recent and historical analytical drill data, and 4) total gold analysis of composite samples within a test block from the West Pit area of the deposit. The data verification program indicated discrepancy between the historical analytical data and Detour Gold analytical data. As a result a value of 0.01 g/t was inserted to missing gold values within the historical analytical data. The twin drilling campaign of five holes conducted as part of the independent verification program shows a fair to good correlation between the historical and Detour Gold assay data, except for one historical drill hole (CRL-30). In order to quantify the effect of a potential analytical bias toward some of the historical drill assays, SGS Geostat conducted a resource estimation exercise on the mineralized Domain 2 with the objective of quantifying the effect of the CRL hole series assays on the overall gold content of the mineralized domain (section 13.1.2). Based on these results, SGS Geostat considers the effect of removing the historical CRL series drill holes to be insignificant compare to overall gold content in the deposit. SGS Geostat conducted total gold analysis (using gravity concentration coupled with bulk cyanidation) over 24 recent drill sections contained within a test block located in the West Pit area. Overall, the results of the test block verification program demonstrated that the original fire assays used by Detour Gold in the test block area is a good approximation of the total gold content estimated from the gravity and cyanidation test work. As expected, the capped fire assays used for the resource estimation process are significantly underestimating the gold content in the test block, which means that a significant portion of the gold is contained in the coarse fraction of the mineralization. As a result, the resources estimate for the test block area based on the capped fire assays can be considered a conservative estimate of the gold contained in the West Pit Zone of the deposit.
1.5.
Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testwork A new metallurgical test program was developed and completed for the FS of the Project under the direction of BBA Inc. (BBA). The complementary program was a continuation of the PFS program under the direction of Melis Engineering Ltd. (Melis), at SGS - Lakefield Research Limited (SGS Lakefield) in Lakefield, Ontario. The PFS test program, initiated in October 2007, included mineralogical examination of test composites, comminution testwork, gold recovery testwork and environmental data generation. It was completed on test composites representing the different rock types across the deposit prepared from assay rejects of drill holes with assay data released prior to August 2007, and on separate drill core purpose drilled for comminution testing. The new FS test program used a LOM drill core composite sample that included the new drill hole information from 2008 and 2009 and focused on areas to optimize the project such as gold recovery versus grind size, use of oxygen in leach and crushing and grinding studies. Data from both tests programs were consistent and used for process design purposes as part of the Detour Lake FS.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 5
1.6.
Mineral Resource and Reserve Estimates SGS Geostat completed an update of the mineral resource estimate in early 2010 for the Project. The global mineral resource is estimated at 510 million tonnes grading 1.08 g/t gold (equivalent of 17.7 million ounces of gold) in the Measured and Indicated categories and 133.6 million tonnes grading 0.80 g/t gold (equivalent to 3.4 million ounces of gold) in the Inferred category, using a cut-off grade of 0.5 g/t gold. In the process of completing the resource estimate update, SGS Geostat validated and verified the database, interpretation and available data. The following is the conclusion: Verification of the drill hole database indicates that the information is reliable and is believed to be accurate. Measurements obtained from the density samples taken as a part of data verification program appear to be consistent with values used for the previous resource estimates; The geological interpretation of the mineralization was completed by Detour Gold and provided to SGS Geostat as DXF format. The interpretation was based on an approximate cut-off gold of 0.2 g/t Au and correlated with lithological formations; The block size dimensions chosen for the model (10 x 5 x 10 metres) were based on the existing drilling pattern, spatial distribution and mine planning consideration; The resource estimate was interpolated by nearest neighbour (NN), inverse distance cubed (ID) and ordinary kriging (OK) methodologies. No significant discrepancies exist between the methods, and values obtained from ordinary kriging have been used for the resource tabulation; In order to estimate the mineral reserves, BBA transferred the block model into Medsystem and an economic model equivalent to a NSR model for a multi-element deposit in preparation for the pit optimization. The pit optimization uses the LerchsGrossman 3D algorithm; Various economic parameters such as mining and milling costs, minimum profit payment, geotechnical parameters as well as mining and milling recovery were used in the definition of the optimized pit shell. Once this pit was defined, the ultimate pit design was performed using practical geometry required in an operational mine; The ordinary kriging (OK) block model was exported to the MineSight software for pit optimization, based on Lerchs-Grossman 3D algorithm. The optimized pit shell was generated by BBA on Measured and Indicated resources only. The Base Case pit optimization parameters include a maximum 50o slope angle, ore milling cost of $10.72/t milled (based on cut-off grade 0.50 g/t Au), mining cost of $1.54/t and gold recoveries at grade of 91.5%. The gold price used is US$850/oz with an exchange rate of C$1.10/ US$. These costs are estimates from BBA; and Using a 0.5 cut-off Au grade pit shell, the estimated in-pit resources for the Detour Lake deposit is presented in the Table 1-1.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 6
Table 1-1: Detour Lake In-pit Mineral Resources Cut-off Au Tonnes Category Au (g/t) Gold (Oz) (g/t) (000s) Measured (M) 0.5 77,930 1.37 3,441,000 Indicated (I) Total M+I Inferred 0.5 0.5 0.5 284,200 362,140 6,340 0.96 1.05 0.83 8,796,000 12,237,000 170,000
Detour Gold completed an extensive exploration drilling to define the extent and continuity of the Detour Lake deposit. A significant resource has been delineated and the most recent drilling included in this report outline the potential of the deposit to the west.
1.7.
Mineral Reserves and Mining The pit optimization uses the Lerchs-Grossman 3D (LG 3D) algorithm in MineSight. The general overall pit slope used in the pit optimization was 50o in the hanging wall (north wall) and 48o for the footwall (south wall). The mineral reserve was estimated through an open pit optimization exercise (Section 1.6) using the Measured and Indicated categories resources in the block model, followed by detailed engineered design to include all aspects of the final pit (main haul road, geotechnical berms, etc.) . The open pit was optimized using a cut-off grade of 0.50 g/t Au. The mineral reserve inside the engineered pit design is estimated using a cut-off grade of 0.5 g/t Au. The Proven and Probable reserves total 347 million tonnes at 1.02 g/t Au, containing 11.39 million ounces of gold. Total waste including Inferred material, backfilled stopes, overburden and waste rock is 1.15 billion tonnes for a waste to ore strip ratio of 3.32 to 1. No additional dilution was added during the pit shell optimization routine since an inherent grade dilution of 13.5% is included in the ordinary kriging (OK) block model. Mineral reserve estimate inside the detailed engineered pit design has included an additional mining dilution estimated at 3.8% at an average grade of 0.40 g/t Au, resulting in a global dilution of 17.3%. The ore losses are estimated at 5%.
Table 1-2: Detour Lake Mineral Reserves Estimate Using Cut-off Grade of 0.50 g/t Au Tonnage Grade E Total Recovery Contained Ounces Recov. Ounces Category (000s t) (g/t Au) (kW-h) (%) (000s Au) (000s Au) Proven Probable Total Inferred Fill (Old UG) Overburden Rock Total Waste 81,449 266,012 347,461 9,163 6,736 66,056 1,070,866 1,152,822 1.28 0.94 1.02 0.81 18.41 18.84 18.74 12.74 91.50 91.06 91.16 90.87 3,359 8,030 11,389 237 3,073 7,312 10,383 216
Strip Ratio 3.32

June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 7
The development of the Project is based on shovels and truck operation. A total of three mining phases each representing 3 to 5 years were developed with a high-grading strategy to ensure the maximization of the cash flow and return on investment. The life of mine is estimated at 16 years based on mining rate of 22.3 Mt per annum ROM after reaching full mill throughput capacity. Total gold production is estimated to be 10.4 million ounces, averaging 649,000 ounces per year (plus 200,000 ounces of silver). Mining equipment selection includes thirty-six 290-tonne trucks, two 34.4m cable shovels, three 28m electric hydraulic shovels, six track-mounted blasthole drills through the life of the mine along with a fleet of support equipment, including track- and rubber-tire dozers, motor graders, auxiliary excavators, as well as other miscellaneous maintenance support equipment.
1.8.
Mineral Processing The plant capacity has been established at 55,000 tpd based on an ore processing rate of 20,075,000 tpy and an overall plant availability of 92%. In Year 4 of operation, the capacity will be gradually increased to 61,000 tpd (22.3 Mt per annum) with an overall availability of 94%. This availability has been selected based on benchmarking with existing operations with similar comminution circuits. The crushing and grinding circuits were designed based on the throughput and ore hardness. The results of comminution tests indicate that the Detour Lake ore is very competent. The crushing configuration consists of a first stage open circuit primary gyratory crusher followed by a second stage of cone crushers to provide increased throughput in the SAG mill. The grinding circuit configuration consists of two lines of SAG Mills closed with pebble crushers followed by ball mills closed with hydrocyclones. The gravity circuit is fed by a proportion of ball mill discharge, which is pumped to the gravity recovery circuit. A batch high intensity cyanidation system will be used to process the gravity concentrate. The pregnant solution will be pumped to a tank in the gold room followed by electrowinning in a dedicated cell. Cyclone overflow is thickened and leached with cyanide for approximately 29 hours in four rows of agitated leach tanks. The leach tank discharge overflows to a Carbon in Pulp ("CIP") circuit, which uses a carrousel type system (pump cell). The loaded carbon is transferred to a 20 t acid wash/stripping circuit (High Pressure Zadra). Gold recovery from the pregnant solution is accomplished by electrowinning working in line with the stripping circuit. The electrowinning sludge is filtered, dried and mixed with fluxes before being smelted in induction furnaces. The refinery was designed to handle the gold sludge from the stripping and gravity circuits. The tailings from the CIP circuit will be sent to a tailings thickener to recover cyanide and to produce a 64% solids under flow. The slurry will then be re-diluted to 55% solid prior to treatment in a SO2/Air cyanide destruction circuit. Final tails from cyanide destruction will be pumped at 55% solids in two parallel lines to the tailings pond.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 8
1.9.
Infrastructure and Power Line The infrastructure includes design and construction of: A 230 kV single circuit, over head power line installed from the Detour Lake site to Pinard via Island Falls; Various mine site buildings (garage, powder magazine, explosive plant); Site lodging for permanent operations staff; New roads connecting infrastructure buildings; capping of heavy haul roads connecting the pit exit to the maintenance truck shop building; Electrical distribution from substation transformer 13.8 kV to the infrastructure facilities and the mine loop; and Communication (telephone, internet) connections (cables) between the infrastructure buildings.
The site layout proposes to place required mine-related facilities in close proximity to the open pit, on lands principally held by Detour Gold. Preference has been given to utilizing previously developed lands where site locations are otherwise equivalent. The re-development of a transmission line to site (at 230 kV) from Pinard is similarly proposed to be located along the existing right-of-way (ROW) to Island Falls and on the historic transmission line ROW from Island Falls to the Project site. There is considerable environmental information currently available regarding the existing ROW along the previous operation transmission line route. This information has been updated as appropriate to support engineering design and an environmental approval process during the FS. As a result of Detour Gold exercising its option to acquire the Mine Property in October 2008 from Goldcorp Canada Ltd. (Goldcorp) (successor to Placer Dome (CLA) Limited), Detour Gold posted a letter of credit with the Ontario Ministry of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry (MNDMF) in the amount of $6.6 million to secure its obligations under an amended mine closure plan for the Detour Lake mine site. The mine site includes the existing tailing management facility for which Detour Gold has been issued a permit.
1.10.
Tailings Disposal The selected site of the Tailings Management Area (TMA) is located in the east part of the Project site. The TMA development plan to accommodate the future tailings production consists of augmenting the storage capacity of the existing TMA (referred to as Cell 1) and create new cells (Cell 2 and Cell 3) immediately north and south of Cell 1, respectively. Cells 1 and 2 are to be used in an interconnected way for tailings and water management. Cell 3 will be developed in the later stage of mine life when the storage capacities of Cells 1 and 2 are nearing capacity.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 9
The TMA is designed for a total storage capacity of approximately 260 Mm3 (363 Mt) with potential for additional raises and/or expansion to accommodate additional capacity as required. The TMA will also serve as the central water management facility for local runoff, tailings slurry water and the open pit water, with water reclaimed for mill operation.
1.11.
Environmental and Aboriginal Matters Environmental aspects have figured prominently in the development of the site layout and feasibility designs for the Project. Environmental considerations were critical to the selection of the preferred alternative for several key project components, including the TMA and other mineral waste storage locations. The potential implications of Project alternatives were fully considered from an environmental approvals perspective during the design process. The permitting process is well advanced with the compilation and submission of three major Environmental Assessment documents for the Transmission Line, temporary power (5 MW) and the mine development to comply with the Provincial regulatory process. Public consultation sessions have been held in local communities and others are planned as part of this process. Additional information is being assembled in a format that will allow compliance with Federal requirements when they are more completely defined. The major provincial permit applications are being prepared and submitted in parallel with the environmental assessment process. There is active communication with all regulatory agencies to add clarity to the submitted environmental assessment documents and to facilitate the review process. Detour Gold has established and is working to maintain cooperative relationships with the local Aboriginal communities. Detour Gold has initiated consultations with the Moose Cree First Nation, the Taykwa Tagamou Nation, the Wahgoshig First Nation and the local Mtis groups and has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with each of the Moose Cree First Nation and the Taykwa Tagamou Nation. In May 2010, the Company and Wahgoshig First Nation signed an Agreement in Principle regarding the finalization of an Impact and Benefit Agreement. The Company is currently negotiating Impact and Benefit Agreements for each of the Moose Cree First Nation and Taykwa Tagamou Nation.
1.12.
Project Schedule The project implementation schedule covers all areas of the project and includes the design, procurement, construction and commissioning of the facilities including the power line and main substation, the ore processing installations and the site infrastructure required for the Project. Pre-production mining and related activities, as well as construction of tailings management facilities are also part of the project implementation schedule. The schedule assumes detail engineering starts in the first quarter of 2010 and that Procurement, and Construction Management (PCM) contract will be awarded at the end of the second quarter of 2010 leading to a commissioning start in the fourth quarter of 2012.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 10
The procurement of long lead equipment such as gyratory crusher, SAG mills and ball mills was completed during the FS. The project schedule was also based on detailed engineering of early work infrastructures started early in the first quarter of 2010. The schedule is based on the assumption that all required permits such as environmental, construction, etc. are received prior to on-site construction activities.
1.13.
Capital Cost Estimates The capital cost estimate includes estimated capital costs for the pre-production period (initial capital) and sustaining capital during the life of the operation. The overall capital costs accuracy level is estimated to be 15% with a base date of first quarter 2010. The estimate was based on budgetary prices obtained from respective suppliers for large equipment and database for minor equipment. The pre-production capital costs are estimated at $1,091.7 million and exclude approximately $91.6 million in 2010 sunk costs that will be funded from existing cash resources. Sustaining capital expenditures over the operations mine life is estimated at $637.5 million, of which nearly 65% is in the first four years (mainly for mining fleet and tailings expansion). The summary of the capital cost estimate of the Project is presented in Table 1-3.
Table 1-3: Summary Capital Cost Estimate (in Canadian Dollars) Pre-Production Cost Sustaining Capital Area ($ M) ($ M) Direct Costs Mining 161.6 301.3 Ore Processing 437.7 29.5 Tailings Disposal 41.7 296.7 Site Preparation and Infrastructure 146.6 10.0 (includes transmission line) Off-site (Cochrane) 3.1 Sub-Total 790.7 637.5 Indirect Costs Project Development Owners Costs 45.1 EPCM 60.8 Site Owners Costs 106.9 Contingency 88.1 Sub-Total 301.0 TOTAL 1091.7 637.5 Closure Costs 11.4 50.8
1.14.
Operating Cost Estimates The operating cost estimate of the Detour Lake operation covers mining, ore processing, tailings and water management, general and administration as well as infrastructure and services.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 11
Operating cash costs over the life of the Project are projected to average $481/oz (after silver credit). Total operating costs (after royalty and silver credits) are anticipated to average $500/oz. Table 1-4 presents the average operating costs for the life of mine.
Table 1-4: Operating Cost over Life of Project (in Canadian Dollars) $/t milled $/t mined $/oz Average mining costs 7.50 1.74 251 Processing cost 5.73 193 General and administration (1) 1.23 41 Refining charges 0.04 1 Silver credit (0.17) (4) Operating costs (LOM) Royalty (2%) Total operating costs (LOM)
(1) Includes infrastructure and services.
14.33 -
481 19 500
1.15.
Financial Analysis In the development of the financial analysis, the following parameters were used for the Base Case for the economic evaluation of the project: A constant US Dollar gold price of $850/oz in real 2010 terms, providing a degree of conservatism over the three-year trailing average; An exchange rate of C$1.10/US$, slightly below the 10-year historical average expressed in real 2010 terms; No inflation differential was provided for, as the cash flow projection uses constant money terms throughout; A residual non-crown royalty (NSR) of two percent (2%) of the net value of gold production was allowed for in the cash flow projection, after assuming the purchase of the Goldcorp 1% NSR for $1 million; and An annual discount rate of 5%, as well as the undiscounted cash flow and at alternative annual discount rates of 7.5% and 10%.
Capital expenditures of $91.6 million forecast to occur during 2010 are treated as a sunk cost and hence are not reflected in the discounted cash flow projection. Under these conditions, the Project is forecast to provide an internal rate of return (IRR) of 14.4% before tax and 12.4% after tax. At the Base Case discount rate, net present value (NPV) 5% is $1,128 million and $760 million before and after tax respectively. In US Dollars, these are equivalent to $1,025 million and $691.3 million, respectively. The project shows a maximum cash outflow at the end of 2013 of approximately $1,121 million (equivalent to US$1,019 million). Undiscounted, payback occurs during the second quarter of 2019, a payback period of 5.9 years. At a discount rate of 5%, payback is seen at 8.5 years, leaving a reserve tail of more than 7 years production.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 12
A sensitivity analysis was also performed and as is typical for most mining projects, the drivers of revenue have the greatest impact on project returns. In this case, an adverse change of 20% from the Base Case (to a gold price of US$680/oz) is required before the NPV 5% is shown to be negative. The Project is almost as sensitive to changes in the exchange rate, since these directly affect Canadian Dollar receipts but have little impact on estimated operating costs or on the Canadian-denominated portion of the capital cost. The Project is shown to be only moderately sensitive to overall capital costs, and has little sensitivity to changes in fuel or power costs within the range tested.
1.16.
Conclusion and Recommendations Sampling and Approach SGS Geostat validated the core sampling procedures used by Detour Gold as part of an independent verification program. SGS Geostat concluded that the drill core handling, logging and sampling protocols used by Detour Gold for the Project meet conventional industry standard and conform to generally accepted best practices. SGS Geostat is confident that the system is appropriate for the collection of data suitable for the estimation of a NI 43-101 compliant mineral resource estimate. Data Verification It is SGS Geostat opinion that final database dated January 2010 is valid and acceptable for use in mineral resource estimation studies. SGS Geostat recommends to conduct additional verification of historical records, especially pertaining to the Campbell drill series, and to locate the original assay certificates if possible. Mineral Resource and Estimate Detour Gold has been conducting drilling programs on the Detour Lake gold deposit since January 2007, which have defined a large gold mineralized system. SGS Geostat also completed a NI 43-101 compliant mineral resource estimate for the PFS in 2009 (Met-Chem). Additional statistical analysis would be beneficial in the capping levels determination. Increasing the level of confidence in the capping values will improve the grade control determination and future production reconciliation. The reported in-pit Measured and Indicated resources are expected to be mined with the certain level of external dilution. Internal dilution was included in the grade interpolation methodology. In conclusion, SGS Geostat believes that the current resource block model and its classification represent the high grade gold values and the local gold grade variations, which exist in the Detour Lake deposit. Mining Plan and Mining Operations The mining section of the FS was based on the 3D Block Model provided by SGS Geostat. The pit optimization, using Lerchs-Grossman 3D Algorithm, was based on a mill cut-off grade of 0.50 g/t Au in order to improve the project economics.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 13
The mining will be carried out by open-pit mining methods using conventional drill, truck and shovel operation method on the basis of two twelve-hour shift per day, seven days per week and 365 days per year. BBA recommends the following work to be completed: To review the pit slope as more data is collected and available, e.g. potential steeper pit angle in the talc chlorite areas of the footwall; To advance the pit dewatering; To confirm more accurately the level of mining dilution and ore losses; To complete the trade-off study on mining fleet size and selection; and To carry out a study on the possibility of increasing the bench height greater than the current 10 metres as a function of equipment efficiency versus mining selectivity and dilution.
Processing Plant and Metallurgical Testing As part of the review of the testwork, BBA re-evaluated the overall gold recovery models developed for the PFS. BBA confirms that the models used are valid and the overall gold recovery estimations over the life of mine are estimated to remain close to 91.2% for the design case. The results confirm that a gravity/cyanidation/CIP gold recovery circuit is the process of choice for the Project. It is the opinion of BBA that the metallurgical testwork conducted on the Detour Lake deposit is of sufficient quantity and quality to support a FS. Power Line and Substation The capital costs for the main substation at the Detour Lake site were estimated based on similar installations. The power unit rate used in the FS estimates is 6.1 /kWh based on projected market conditions at the time of writing this report. Permanent Camp The camp is located at the sites western extremity and will house the site labour force for the mine and process plant operations, including support staff such as catering and housekeeping. The camp comprises reception, kitchen, recreational, laundry and dormitory facilities. All buildings are pre-fabricated wood-frame buildings. Total camp capacity for this configuration is for 401 people. Fuel Storage Diesel storage will consist of 10 X 100 m3 tanks providing, up to an average seven day storage capacity based on 24 h/day operation for the life of mine. Financial Analysis and Sensitivity The Project is forecast to provide an IRR of 14.4% before tax and 12.4% after tax. At the Base Case discount rate, NPV 5% is $1,128 million and $760 million before and after tax
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 14
respectively. In US Dollars, these are equivalent to $1,026 million and $691 million, respectively. The Project shows a maximum cash outflow at the end of 2013 of approximately $1,121 million (equivalent to US$1,019 million). Undiscounted, payback occurs during the second quarter of 2019, a payback period of 5.9 years. At a discount rate of 5%, payback is seen at 8.5 years, leaving a reserve tail of more than 7 years production. The Project is almost as sensitive to changes in the exchange rate as the gold price, since these directly affect Canadian Dollar receipts but have little impact on estimated operating costs or on the Canadian Dollar denominated portion of the capital cost. Furthermore, the Project is shown to be only moderately sensitive to overall capital costs, and has little sensitivity to changes in fuel or power costs within the range tested.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 15
2.0
2.1.
INTRODUCTION AND TERMS OF REFERENCE

General Following the acquisition of the Property in January 2007, Detour Gold completed several drilling programs and studies. On the basis of the first drilling program completed in 2007, a new block model mineral resource estimate and Lerchs-Grossman pit optimization was reported in an internal report to Detour Gold titled: "Detour Lake Project Resource Model, November 2007". This was followed in January 2008 by a NI 43-101 Technical Report completed by Watts, Griffis and McOuat Limited (WGM) titled: Technical Report And Mineral Resource Estimate For The Detour Lake Mine Option Property, Ontario For Detour Gold Corporation dated January 28, 2008 available on SEDAR. In August 2008, WGM completed a NI 43-101 for the Project titled: Technical Report And Mineral Resource Estimate Update For The Detour Lake Mine Option Property, Ontario For Detour Gold Corporation dated August 18, 2008 available on SEDAR, incorporating the results of an additional 73,469 metres of drilling by Detour Gold. In October 2009, Met-Chem Canada Inc. ("Met-Chem") completed a NI 43-101 technical report for the Project titled: Pre-Feasibility Study of the Detour Lake Project, Ontario for Detour Gold Corporation" dated October 19, 2009 available on SEDAR. This report presented an updated mineral resource and reserve estimate and summarized the results of the PFS for the Project. Detour Gold mandated BBA, in collaboration with other experts, to prepare a FS at a production rate in the range of 55,000 to 60,000 tpd while maintaining the two grinding line configurations selected during the PFS. The study is using the technical data developed from 2007 to 2010 in the fields of geology, mine development, metallurgy, geotechnical and environmental. In addition to these technical aspects, an economic evaluation of the Project has been completed based on estimated capital and operating expenditures covering the various elements of the proposed mine operation. This Technical Report summarizes the findings of the FS.
2.2.
Terms of Reference This Technical Report presents the updated mineral resource and reserve estimate and summarizes the results of the FS for the Project. The effective date of the FS and the mineral resources and reserve estimate is May 25, 2010. As part of that study, BBA was commissioned by Detour Gold to compile a NI 43-101 compliant Technical Report with the participation of specialized consultants, which are listed in Table 2-1.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 16
This Technical Report was prepared according to the guidelines set out under Form 43-101F1 Technical Report of National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects adopted pursuant to Section 143 of the Securities Act (Ontario). The respective certificates for people listed as Qualified Persons can be found in Section 21.0. Table 2-1 provides a detailed list of qualified persons and their respective sections of responsibility.
Table 2-1: Qualified Persons and their Respective Sections of Responsibility Section 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.1-16.14 16.15-16.21 17.1 17.2 17.3 17.4 17.5 17.6 17.7 17.8 17.9 17.10 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 22.0 Title of Section Executive Summary Introduction and Terms of Reference Reliance on Other Experts Property Description and Location Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography History Geological Setting Deposit Model Mineralization Exploration and Drilling Sampling Method and Approach Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security Data Verification Adjacent Properties Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Estimates Mining Ore Processing Tailings and Water Management Infrastructure and Services Environmental and Permitting Health and Safety Project Schedule Capital Costs Operating Costs Financial Analysis Interpretation and Conclusions Recommendations References Certificates Additional Requirements for Technical Reports on Development Properties and Production Properties Qualified Person Andr Allaire, BBA Inc. Andr Allaire, BBA Inc. Andr Allaire, BBA Inc. Andr Allaire, BBA Inc. Andr Allaire, BBA Inc. Andr Allaire, BBA Inc. Andr Laferrire, SGS Canada Inc. Andr Laferrire, SGS Canada Inc. Andr Laferrire, SGS Canada Inc. Andr Laferrire, SGS Canada Inc. Andr Laferrire, SGS Canada Inc. Andr Laferrire, SGS Canada Inc. Andr Laferrire, SGS Canada Inc. Andr Allaire, BBA Inc. Andr Allaire, BBA Inc. Michel Dagbert, SGS Canada Inc. Patrice Live, BBA Inc. Patrice Live, BBA Inc. Andr Allaire, BBA Inc. Derek Li, AMEC Earth & Environmental Andr Allaire, BBA Inc. Sheila Daniel, AMEC Earth & Environmental Andr Allaire, BBA Inc. Andr Allaire, BBA Inc. Andr Allaire, BBA Inc. Andr Allaire, BBA Inc. Andr Allaire, BBA Inc. Andr Allaire, BBA Inc. Andr Allaire, BBA Inc. N/A N/A Andr Allaire, BBA Inc.
2.3.
Source of Information The information presented in this Technical Report has been derived from parts of the FS Report titled: Feasibility Study of the Detour Lake Project, Ontario for Detour Gold Corporation, Ontario, to be completed in July, 2010. The FS report compiled various studies and fieldwork
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 17
done by Detour Gold and its consultants for the development of a new gold operation at Detour Lake.
2.4.
Units and Currency In this report, all currency amounts are Canadian Dollars (C$) unless otherwise stated, with commodity prices typically expressed in US Dollars (US$). Quantities are generally stated in Systme International dUnits (SI) metric units, the standard Canadian and international practice, including metric tons (tonnes, t) for weight, and kilometres (km) or metres (m) for distance. Abbreviations used in this report are listed in Table 2-2.
$ % /kWh C 3D AI Au BWI CIL CIP CWI D2 D3 D4 DDH DWI DWT DXF E g g/t h Ha HP HQ IRR kV kW kWh
Table 2-2: List of Abbreviations unit currency m/h metres/hour percent sign MPa megapascal cents per kilowatt hour Ma million years 3 degree Mm million cubic metres degree Celsius MOE Ontario Ministry of the Environment three dimensions MNR Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources abrasion index Mt million tonnes gold MW megawatt bond ball mill work index N north carbon in leach Nb number carbon in pulp NQ drill core size (4.8 cm diameter) crusher work index NPV net present value second generation of deformation oz ounce third generation of deformation oz/t ounce per tonne fourth generation of deformation ppb part per billion diamond drill hole ppm part per million drop weight index R Correlation coefficient drop weight test RWI bond rod mill work index drawing interchange format SAG semi-autogenous grinding east SG specific gravity grams SMC SAG mill comminution grams per tonne S south hour UTM Universal Transverse Mercator hectare tpy tonnes per year Horsepower W west drill core size (6.4 cm diameter) XRD x-ray diffraction Internal rate of return X X coordinate (E-W) kilovolt m microns kilowatt w/w weight/weight kilowatt-hour Y Y coordinate (N-S) Z Z coordinate (depth or elevation)
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 18
2.5.
Disclaimer It should be understood that the mineral resources and reserves presented in this Technical Report are estimates of the size and grade of the deposits base on a certain number of drilling and sampling and on assumptions and parameters currently available. The level of confidence in the estimates depends upon a number of uncertainties. These uncertainties include, but are not limited to, future changes in metal prices and/or production costs, differences in size and grade and recovery rates from those expected, and changes in project parameters. In addition, there is no assurance that the Project implementation will be realized. The comments in this Technical Report reflect BBAs best judgement in light of the information available at the time of preparation. BBA reserves the right, but will not be obligated, to revise this Technical Report and conclusions if additional information becomes known to BBA subsequent to the date of this Technical Report.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 19
3.0
3.1.
RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS

Lead Author The lead author of this Technical Report, Mr. Andr Allaire, Eng., is not qualified to comment on issues related to mining and exploration titles and land tenure, royalties, permitting and legal and environmental matters. The lead author has, accordingly, relied upon the representations of experts employed by the issuer, Detour Gold, for sections 1.2 and 4.0 of this Technical Report and has not verified the information presented in those sections.
3.2.
Others The data provided to SGS Geostat is comprised of electronic files, which included drill logs, survey, collar data, lithology and assay results for the complete dataset that was used in the mineral resource estimate. Two site visits were conducted by Andr Laferriere, P.Geo., of SGS Geostat from October 29 to November 9, 2009 and from November 24 to December 2, 2009.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 20
4.0
4.1.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION

Location and Access The Property is located mainly in northeastern Ontario with a very small eastern part extending into Qubec. It is situated approximately 300 kilometres northeast of Timmins and 185 kilometres by road northeast of Cochrane (Figure 4-1) .The centre of the Property is situated at about 5 540 000N, 590 000E, Zone 17, NAD 83 Datum. The Property is located within NTS areas 32E13. The property is easily accessible by the Detour Lake mine road, an extension of Highway 652 north. The first 151 kilometres on Highway 652 is paved surface, followed by 34 kilometres of well maintained gravel surfaced road to the project site. The site is also accessible via a 1,600 metres gravel airstrip that is in excellent condition. The past producing Detour Lake mine used this airstrip prior to 1991 to fly-in and fly-out its employees.
Figure 4-1: Detour Lake Property Location
4.2.
Property Ownership and Agreements Detour Gold was incorporated on July 19, 2006 to acquire the Property and on August 21, 2006, the Company executed a Purchase Agreement with Pelangio, whereby Detour
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 21
Gold agreed to acquire the assets constituting the Property from Pelangio, subject to satisfaction of certain conditions set out in the Purchase Agreement. All conditions set out in the Purchase Agreement, including the completion of the Initial Public Offering, were fulfilled on January 31, 2007 and all the titles held by Pelangio to the Property were transferred to Detour Gold. The 376 square kilometre property forms one contiguous group in the District of Cochrane, with a small group of claims located in Massicotte Township, Qubec. The Detour Lake Property includes the Mine Property and certain exploration properties (the Detour Exploration Lands) that surround the Mine Property. The Detour Lake Project, the focus of the Companys exploration activities, is located on the Mine Property. The Detour Exploration Lands include Blocks A, B, C, D and E, claims that were purchased (Purchased Claims) and staked (Pelangio Staked Claims) by the previous owner, Pelangio. Block A is a 50/50 joint venture between Detour Gold and Trade Winds. Detour Gold staked a group of 16 claims (located north of the Mine Property) in June 2008, and staked 53 claims (located west and north of the Mine Property) in March and April of 2010 (Detour Gold Staked Claim) (Table 4-1 and Figure 4-2). In April 2010, Detour Gold signed a letter of agreement (LOA) with Conquest Resources Limited (Conquest) pursuant to which Detour Gold will purchase Conquests interest in the Aurora and Tie-In claim blocks (the Aurora Property) and will have the option to acquire a 50% interest in Conquests interest in the Sunday Lake claim block (the Sunday Lake Property) located immediately south and east of the Companys Project, respectively. As of the date of this report, the transaction has not yet been closed. A list of the mining titles held by Detour Gold on the Property with their location, area, expiry date and royalties, along with a map, is provided under Appendix A. The Mine Property is located approximately 12 kilometres west of the Ontario-Qubec border. The site is centred at a latitude and longitude of approximately 50o00 North and 79o40 East (National Topographic System, Map Sheet 32L/4). The Mine Property includes the site of the former Detour Lake mine, an open pit and underground mining operation, which produced gold between 1983 and 1999. It consists of 20 registered leasehold mining claims and 16 patented claims totalling 3,312 hectares. The critical deposit claims, the campsite and airstrip are held as patents. The approximate dimensions of the Mine Property are 11 kilometres east-west and 5 kilometres north-south. The outer boundaries are surveyed and marked by a series of survey points located along the outer perimeter. The option on the Mine Property was exercised on October 30, 2008, where Detour Gold became the sole owner of all related surface rights, titles and permits that were transferred from Goldcorp (successor to Placer).
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 22
Description Purchased Claims Block A (50% Detour Gold)
Table 4-1: Summary of Detour Lake Property (1) Staked Leased Patent 10 3 4 95 53 69 231 73 16 50 20 16
Total 10 3 4 145 36 53 69 320
Area (ha) 1,744 940 352 6,626 3,312 9,680 14,938 37,592
Block A North (50% Detour Gold) Blocks B through E Mine Property Pelangio Staked Claims Detour Gold Staked Claims Total
(1) Excludes the transaction with Conquest.
Figure 4-2: Detour Lake Property Claim Location Map (1)
(1) Map shows the properties subject to the transaction with Conquest: Sunday Lake Property (Detour Gold will have the option to earn a 50% interest in the Sunday Lake claim block) and Aurora Property (Detour Gold to buy the Aurora and Tie-In claim blocks).
4.3.
Summary of NSR Obligations To summarize, the Property is subject to the following NSR obligations presented in Table 4-2.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 23
Table 4-2: NSR Obligations NSR Property NSR Holder Amount Blocks A through E except Block A North 1% Goldcorp Blocks A through E 2% Franco-Nevada Mine Property 1% Goldcorp Mine Property 2% Franco-Nevada Purchased Claims 2% Individual Prospector
Note: Detour Gold has a 50% interest in Block A.
Buy-out Option $1,000,000 none $1,000,000 none none
4.4.
Current Environmental Obligations In January 1995, Placer filed a mine closure plan (the Mine Closure Plan) with MNDMF. The former Detour Lake mine ceased operations in July 1999 and the underground workings and open pit were allowed to flood. All of the major buildings and infrastructure, including power lines, were removed during the period from 1999 to 2003. Physical reclamation of the mine site was substantially complete when Detour Gold acquired the Property. The primary focus of ongoing reclamation is the environmental and physical stability monitoring, and revegetation of the tailings beach. With Detour Gold exercising its option to purchase the Mine Property in October 2008, it became the proponent under the Mine Closure Plan (dated January 31, 1995) as amended by the Detour Lake Mine 2008 Closure Plan Amendment dated June 6, 2008 (the 2008 Mine Closure Plan) and submitted financial assurance to MNDMF in the amount of $6.6 million in support of its obligations under the 2008 Mine Closure Plan. Detour Gold has assumed all liabilities and obligations of any nature directly or indirectly relating to, arising from or connected with, the ownership, possession or control of and all former activities located on, in or under the Mine Property and certain of the Detour Exploration Lands. Currently, Detour Gold management estimates the cost to complete the reclamation of the existing mine site to be approximately $13.6 million. As it is the intention of Detour Gold to develop the Project, the Company will not complete the planned tailings beach reclamation obligations as the existing tailings area will be used as a start-up facility for the Project. Detour Gold expects to file a new closure plan in the summer of 2010 to reflect the scope of the new mine proposed in the FS. Although there are no major known environmental issues that would prohibit start up of a new mining project in the future, there are no guarantees that all necessary permits would be attainable by Detour Gold.
4.5.
Permits in Place Work activities on the Project are at the advanced exploration stage, and as such the Company has all necessary permits required for such purposes. The majority of the drilling activities have been located on the Mine Property (within the existing mine lease area). There are a number of permits issued in the name of Detour Gold, including a certificate of approval for the tailings, a land use permit for road access (approximately 34 kilometres
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 24
beyond Highway 652), a waste disposal permit (tailings facility), a landfill permit, and borrow and gravel pits permits.
4.6.
Aboriginal Matters Detour Gold has established and is working to maintain cooperative relationships with the local Aboriginal communities. This relationship recognizes the unique cultural, land use, employment and training needs and environmental interests of northern Aboriginal communities. Detour Gold has initiated consultations with the Moose Cree First Nation (MCFN), the Taykwa Tagamou Nation (TTN), the Wahgoshig First Nation (WFN) and the local Mtis groups. Furthermore, Detour Gold has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with each of the MCFN and the TTN. In May 2010, the Company and WFN signed an Agreement in Principle (AIP) regarding the finalization of an Impact and Benefit Agreement (IBA). The AIP will become an IBA after legal review and community ratification. The Company is currently negotiating an IBA with MCFN and TTN. The MOUs and AIP, and the eventual IBAs, will guide how the parties will work together as the Project advances through the environmental assessment, permitting processes, and during mine construction and operation. Detour Gold is in the process of finalizing an MOU with the Mtis Nation of Ontario (MNO).
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 25
5.0
ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPY

Accessibility The Property is easily accessible by the Detour Lake mine road, the northern extension of Highway 652. Highway 652 has paved surface and the 34 kilometre mine road is a well maintained gravel surfaced road to the project site. The site is also accessible via a 1,600 metre gravel airstrip that is in excellent condition. Placer used this airstrip prior to 1991 to fly-in and fly-out camp.
5.1.
5.2.
Climate and Physiography The climatological information on temperature and precipitation for the Property were taken from the average historical measurements from the two Environment Canada meteorological stations located at Kapuskasing, Ontario and Matagami, Qubec. Based on the data from these two stations, the mean annual temperature is estimated at 0.3C, with average daily temperature ranging from -18.8C in January to 16.6C in July. The average total annual precipitation is estimated at 851 millimetres with the greatest precipitation contribution occurring as rain during June through October. Prominent winds in the area are generally from the west throughout the year. A significant percentage of the winds in summer and fall come from the southwest. Winds from the west and northwest are prevalent in winter and spring. The mean annual wind speed is approximately 12.6 kilometres per hour. The topography of the site is subdued with maximum local relief of about 30 metres. The elevation ranges from approximately 260 to 288 metres above sea level. There is a pronounced north/south fluting of the landscape consistent with the general direction of the most recent glaciations in this area. Areas of higher relief are sparsely wooded with black and white spruce, balsam fir, trembling aspen and white birch. Areas that are slightly lower in relief are poorly drained and characterized by muskeg. There is very little bedrock outcrop and large areas of the property are overlain by thick accumulations of glacial material that includes till and glaciofluvial material (poorly sorted sand with lenses of gravel). The Property is cut by numerous small streams linking elliptical lakes and ponds, generally oriented parallel to the pattern of glacial fluting. Numerous small and shallow lakes occur on the Property, the largest being Sunday Lake, with a surface area of approximately 2.8 square kilometres.
5.3.
Local Resource and Infrastructure The current infrastructure consists of an exploration camp located near Sagimeo Lake, the site of the original camp from the past producing mine. The camp is capable of accommodating up to 95 people. A diesel generator supplies power for current work and fresh water is available in three bored wells. Skilled labour and suppliers are readily available in the nearby towns of Cochrane, Iroquois Falls, Timmins and Kirkland Lake.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 26
Mining-related activities ceased in 1999 when the Detour Lake mine closed. The tailings pond, located approximately 2 kilometres east-northeast of the former open pit, is currently holding approximately 10 million tonnes of tailings from the former mining operation. The ultimate capacity of the existing tailings facility is approximately 22 million tonnes. Also located at the site are two stockpiles containing approximately 13 million tonnes of waste rock generated from past mining activities and two additional stockpiles containing approximately 3.8 million tonnes of overburden till.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 27
6.0
6.1.
HISTORY
Ownership History In 1974, Amoco commenced geophysical surveys on the Mine Property and identified an anomaly and subsequent drilling confirmed the presence of a significant gold deposit. In 1978, Amoco signed a joint venture agreement with Campbell and Dome Mines Ltd. (Dome). By 1982, Campbell, with additional drilling and a new resource estimate, made the decision to commence open pit mining and initiate underground development. The open pit mining started in 1983 followed by underground mining in 1987. In 1987, Campbell, Dome and Placer Development merged to become Placer Dome Inc. (Placer). Less than a year later, Placer acquired the remaining 50% of the property that was still owned by Amoco. In December 1998, Pelangio-Larder Mines Limited (Pelangio-Larder) and Franco-Nevada Mining Company Limited (Franco) (the Detour Lake Joint Venture) acquired the Mine Property from Placer Dome (CLA) Ltd. (Placer) (now Goldcorp) pursuant to an option and access agreement between the Detour Lake Joint Venture and Placer dated December 10, 1998 (the Option and Access Agreement). The Detour Lake Joint Venture also acquired certain parts of the Detour Exploration Lands surrounding the Mine Property pursuant to an assignment of the letter agreement dated as of September 28, 1998 between Pelangio-Larder and Placer. In May 2000, by way of statutory plan of arrangement, Marl Resources Corp. (predecessor to Pelangio) acquired substantially all of the assets of Pelangio-Larder. Those assets included Pelangio-Larders interest in the Detour Lake Joint Venture dated December 10, 1998 with Franco, predecessor in title to Newmont Mining Corporation of Canada Limited (Newmont). Pursuant to a purchase and sale agreement dated May 15, 2002 between Newmont and Pelangio, Pelangio completed the purchase of all of Newmonts interest in the Detour Lake Joint Venture, subject to the retention of a 2% NSR by Newmont on the Mine Property and on certain claims staked by Pelangio (Blocks A to E). Newmont subsequently transferred its 2% interest to Franco-Nevada Corporation. Included in the property interest purchased were the rights to purchase, each for $1 million, Goldcorps 1% NSR on the Mine Property and Goldcorps 1% NSR on certain parts of the Detour Exploration Lands. In June 2002, Pelangio purchased the Purchased Claims from a prospector subject to the retention of a 2% NSR by the selling prospector. In September 2003, Pelangio granted Trade Winds an option to acquire a 50% interest in Block A, located immediately west of the Mine Property. Trade Winds fulfilled all the requirements to earn a 50% interest in Block A on December 31, 2006. On January 31, 2007, Detour Gold completed the purchase agreement with Pelangio and acquired all the Detour Lake assets, including Block A. A comprehensive Joint Venture agreement with Trade Winds was signed on April 8, 2009. On October 30, 2008, the Company exercised its option to purchase the Mine Property, which had previously been granted by Goldcorp pursuant to the Option and Access Agreement (as
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 28
defined above), and acquired the Mine Property from Goldcorp pursuant to a purchase agreement dated April 14, 2008. In connection with the purchase of the Mine Property, Goldcorp holds a 1% NSR on the Mine Property, which Detour Gold has the right to purchase for $1 million. On April 12, 2010, Detour Gold entered into a LOA with Conquest pursuant to which Detour Gold will purchase Conquests interest in the Aurora and Tie-In claim blocks and will have the option to acquire a 50% interest in Conquests interest in the Sunday Lake claim block located immediately south and east of the Project, respectively. As of the date of this report, the transaction with Conquest has not yet been closed.
6.2.
Exploration History In 1974, Amoco commenced exploration activities on the Mine Property with regional airborne geophysical surveys, as well as ground CEM (Crone electromagnetic), Radem and magnetometre surveys. These surveys achieved immediate success with the identification of a 2-kilometre long Input anomaly with strong magnetic coincidence, which was originally named the Detour 38 Anomaly. In October 1974, Amoco drilled the first hole into the central portion of the Detour 38 Anomaly and intersected several interesting zones, including a 9-metre section containing 10-15% pyrrhotite and up to 1% chalcopyrite within a quartz vein system that would eventually be called the Main Zone. In 1975, a major exploration drilling program was undertaken, including the completion of over 47,444 metres of surface drilling, construction of a decline to the 120-metre level and underground drilling and sampling along this level. A winter road was also built from La Sarre, Qubec. The results of this work successfully confirmed the presence of a significant gold deposit, which was estimated by Amoco to host 9.5 million ton at 0.207 oz/ton (cut to 1 oz/ton), or 0.265 oz/ton (uncut), to a depth of 545 metres (1). Despite this, a feasibility study carried out by Lummus Company of Canada Limited between 1976 and 1978 indicated negative results that prompted the joint venturing of the property to Campbell and Dome. Campbell and Dome would each become 25% stakeholders in the property and Campbell would be the operator. Prior to 1979, drilling programs were mainly coordinated by Amoco and totalled 57,339 metres in 335 holes directed on targets located on the Mine Property, and 986 metres in six holes on Block A. Most of the drill holes completed on the Mine Property were from surface and focused in the area of the Main Zone where the Campbell pit was developed. Between 1979 and 1982, Campbell completed additional surface and underground drilling for a total of 31,616 metres in 419 holes, and channel and grab sampling. As with Amoco, most of the drilling focused on the Main Zone but a substantial amount was directed towards quartz zones to the west. In 1982, a new resource estimate indicated a combined underground and open pit operation of 27.7 Mt grading 3.88 g/t Au (1). A decision was taken to commence open pit mining at a rate of 2,000 tpd and gradually replacing this with underground production over a five-year time frame.
These resource figures were not prepared under NI 43-101 and should not be relied upon to conform to current standards and definitions. As such, the data should be interpreted as unclassified historical resource estimates.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 29
In 1983, open pit mining started but no reports, plans or production data related to the sampling, reserve and resource estimates or open pit mining have been located to date. From 1983 to 1987, open pit production totalled 3.0 Mt grading 3.25 g/t Au (313,070 ounces). Approximately 1.6 Mt grading 1.40 g/t Au (70,652 ounces) were blended with underground ore between 1986 and 1998. The information in this paragraph is partially derived from the NI 43101 technical report prepared by Eric Kallio, P.Geo. (Kallio), dated September 21, 2006. In 1987, underground mining commenced, coinciding with a merger between Campbell, Dome and Placer Development to become Placer Dome Inc. Less than a year later, Placer acquired the remaining 50% of the property, which was still owned by Amoco. From 1987 to 1999, underground production is estimated at 9.1 Mt grading 4.98 g/t Au (1,464,431 contained ounces gold). The above total was attained through a combination of mining methods including longhole stoping, cut and fill stoping, shrinkage stoping and level development. In 1995, a new zone referred to as the QK Zone was discovered. The operation was expanded to 3,750 tpd, but detailed engineering studies proved negative. The mine started experiencing significant production and grade problems. In 1998, the open pit mining resumed for a short time, extracting 644,000 tonnes grading 2.20 g/t Au. In July 1999, due to low gold prices and declining economics, Placer halted mining at Detour Lake and reclamation of the Mine Property was initiated. Since that time, most of the underground workings have become filled with water. Total production (open pit and underground) over the 17-year life of the Detour Lake mine is estimated at 1,764,986 ounces of gold from the milling of just over 14.3 million tonnes of rock at an average head grade of 3.82 g/t Au and a mill recovery of 93.1%. Over that period (1987-1998), Placers Detour Mine Geology Department completed 435,002 metres in 4,219 holes from both underground and surface. After 1990, the bulk of the drilling tested the westerly extensions of the gold mineralization. Placers Exploration Department completed an additional 90,889 metres in 283 holes on the Mine Property and 62,147 metres in 133 holes on other parts of the property. From 2004 to 2006, Pelangio drilled 127 holes (29,780 metres) directed towards a variety of exploration targets located mainly west of the former open pit mine, including the M Zone near the west boundary with Block A, and the area north of Walter Lake. The exploration program led to the completion of a resource estimate with the concept of a combined underground and open pit mining scenario mainly for the Project and the extreme east portion of Block A.
6.3.
Previous Mineral Resource and Reserve Estimates On May 24, 2005, Pelangio released an NI 43-101 compliant mineral resource estimated by Kallio, P.Geo., with the Technical Report filed on SEDAR the same day. The cut-off grade used for the potential open pit resources was 0.65 g/t Au, for wide underground zones was 2.50 g/t Au and for medium width underground zones was 4.5 g/t Au. The assumed gold price was US$425/oz with an exchange rate of US$0.80/C$ (equivalent to C$530/oz) and mill recovery of 93.5%. In the mineral resource estimate, the final holes of Pelangios 2005 drilling program were not included. Results of the estimate were a near-surface Indicated resource of 2.48 Mt
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 30
grading 2.00 g/t Au for a total of 159,797 ounces of gold and an Inferred resource of 15.29 Mt grading 1.73 g/t Au for 849,449 ounces of gold. The deep Inferred resource was estimated at 8.10 Mt at 3.37 g/t Au for 878,593 ounces of gold. The near-surface resource was located in two main areas including the West Pit and Calcite Zone, which are located west of the former open pit. The underground resources were located within eight zones between surface and 800 metres below surface. On September 22, 2006, subsequent to the Purchase Agreement with Detour Gold, Pelangio released an updated NI 43-101 mineral resource estimate with the Technical Report filed on SEDAR on September 22, 2006. The updated mineral resource focused on near-surface areas and incorporated an additional 18,000 metres of drilling from Pelangio. Thon Consulting, under the supervision of Kallio, carried out new modeling and resource estimation. Micon International, U.K. conducted verification of pit optimizations. This resource estimate was based on the concept of a large-scale open pit mining scenario utilizing smaller scale blasts and mining equipment in at least some areas to allow the best ore selectivity possible. The estimation was conducted using Inverse Distance Cubed (ID3) technique using a capping grade of 20 g/t Au. For the optimization, assumed costs were $9.17/t for milling, $1.52/t for ore mining costs, $1.26/t for waste mining costs and $2.93/t for general and administration (G&A). Pit walls were projected at 45 and the assumed mill recovery was 94%. The gold price and exchange rate used for constructing the pit shells were US$450/oz and 1.18, respectively. The optimization produced two separate pits, with one centred on the West Pit and one on the Calcite Zone. The open pit mineral resource is shown in Table 6-1.
Table 6-1: September 2006 Mineral Resource Estimate (cut-off grade of 0.85 g/t Au) Resource Tonnes Grade Capped Gold Ounces Pit Name (capped) (000s) Category (millions) at 20 g/t Au (g/t Au) West Calcite Total Total Indicated Inferred Inferred Indicated Inferred 20.0 30.6 4.8 20.0 35.4 2.14 1.82 1.60 2.14 1.80 1,380 1,788 248 1,380 2,036
Subsequently, after nearly 50,000 metres of drilling completed by Detour Gold in the first half of 2007, an NI 43-101 compliant mineral resource was released by Detour Gold on December 11, 2007 with the Technical Report filed on SEDAR on January 28, 2008. The mineral resource estimate was prepared by Thon Consulting and audited by WGM of Toronto, Canada. The mineral resource estimate was based on the concept of a large-scale open pit operating at a rate of approximately 20,000 tpd. The estimation was conducted using ID3 technique using a capping grade of 20 g/t Au. All mineral resources were contained within a LG optimized pit shell using the following mine cost parameters to establish the cut-off grade: $8.25/t for milling, $1.75/t for ore mining, $1.50/t for waste mining and $2.00/t for G&A, with mill recoveries of 91%. The gold price and exchange rate used for constructing the pit shells were
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 31
US$575/oz and 1.12, respectively. Pit walls were projected at 50. Projection of the strip ratio was 6.1:1. The open pit mineral resource estimate is shown in Table 6-2.
Table 6-2: December 2007 Mineral Resource Estimate (cut-off grade of 0.64 g/t Au) Resource Category Measured Indicated Total (M&I) Inferred Tonnes (millions) 19.7 70.2 89.9 63.3 Grade Capped at 20 g/t Au (g/t Au) 1.93 1.60 1.67 1.49 Gold Ounces (capped) (000s) 1,221 3,610 4,831 3,025
On July 2, 2008, Detour Gold released an updated mineral resource based on a detailed engineered pit design, which included an additional 73,469 metres of diamond drilling results. The block model was prepared by Thon Consulting followed by an audit by WGM and subsequently validated by BBA before proceeding with the engineered pit design. The mineral resources were estimated within a LG optimized pit shell based on the concept of a large-scale open pit with the following pit parameters to establish the cut-off grade: gold price of US$700/oz, $5.50/t for milling, $1.58/t for ore and waste mining and $1.00/t for G&A, gold recoveries of 92%, US$ exchange rate of 1.10, and pit slopes of 55. Pit parameters were provided by BBA. Gold assays were capped at 20 g/t as per the historic capping at the former mine and the December 2007 mineral resource estimate. The mineral resource estimate within the US$700 LG pit shell is presented in Table 6-3. The overall waste to ore stripping ratio is 5.7.
Table 6-3: July 2008 Mineral Resource Estimate (prior to detailed engineered pit design) (using US$700/oz gold price, cut-off grade of 0.50 g/t Au) Resource Category Measured (M) Indicated (I) Total (M&I) Inferred Tonnes (millions) 19.7 217.2 261.7 70.7 Grade Capped at 20 g/t Au (g/t Au) 1.93 1.33 1.40 1.22 Gold Ounces (capped) (000s) 1,221 9,309 11,755 2,764
An engineered pit design was then completed by BBA following a US$700/oz LG pit optimization algorithm based on the block model provided by Thon Consulting and design parameters listed above. The detailed pit design included an operational ramp, proper pit benching and pit slopes recommended by Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) following geotechnical site investigations and studies. The in-pit resources contained in the engineered pit design was calculated using a cut-off grade of 0.50 g/t Au and are presented in Table 6-4. The overall waste to ore ratio is 6.29.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 32
Table 6-4: July 2008 Detailed Engineered Pit Design Resource Estimate (Base Case using US$700/oz gold price) Resource Category Measured (M) Indicated (I) Total (M&I) Inferred Tonnes (millions) 38.8 204.1 242.9 63.9 Grade Capped at 20 g/t Au (g/t Au) 1.68 1.32 1.38 1.19 Gold Ounces (capped) (000s) 2,099 8,664 10,763 2,452
Simulations on pit optimizations were also carried to test the sensitivity of the pit on gold prices at US$575/oz and US$825/oz. Results showed that at a gold price of US$825/oz, the Measured and Indicated resources (before gold recovery) contained in the engineered pit amounted to 11.8 million ounces based on a cut-off grade of 0.40 g/t Au. A preliminary mining schedule was prepared for the development of the Project. The mining schedule was based on a mining rate of 30,000 tpd for Year 1 and Year 2, followed by an increase to 60,000 tpd for subsequent mining years until the end of the mine life. The schedule was created using five (5) mining phases, about 3 to 4 years per phase including a starter pit to allow for a higher average grade and a lower stripping ratio to maximize the return on the investment. A cut-off grade of 0.50 g/t Au was used and the mining schedule included all mineral resource categories (e.g. Measured, Indicated and Inferred). In September 2009, Detour Gold released the results of the PFS for the Project and in October 2009 filed a NI 43-101 compliant Technical Report. The block model and the resource estimation, based on the information provided by Detour Gold, were completed by SGS Geostat. Grade interpolation was completed using ordinary kriging utilizing different capping levels for each mineralized domain. The global mineral resource of the Detour Lake gold is shown in Table 6-5.
Table 6-5: September 2009 Global Mineral Resource Estimate (cut-off grade of 0.60 g/t Au) (1, 2) Resource Category Measured (M) Indicated (I) Total (M&I) Inferred Tonnes (millions) 102.1 343.8 445.9 151.4 Grade (g/t Au) 1.48 1.12 1.20 1.07 Gold Ounces (000s) 4,846 12,417 17,263 5,189
(1) Mineral reserves are included within the mineral resources reported. (2) Capping grade estimated by domains and varies from 20 g/t to 50 g/t.
The open pit mineral reserve was estimated by BBA and is shown in Table 6-6. The optimized pit shell was generated using LG pit optimizer algorithm using the cost and economics parameters described in the PFS. The life of mine waste to ore ratio was estimated at 3.8 to 1.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 33
Table 6-6: September 2009 Mineral Reserve at US$775/oz (cut-off grade of 0.60 g/t Au) Reserve Tonnes Grade Gold Ounces Category (millions) (g/t Au) (000s) Proven Probable Total (P&P) 61.2 177.4 238.6 1.40 1.06 1.15 2,751 6,062 8,813
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 34
7.0
7.1.
GEOLOGICAL SETTING
Regional Geology The Property is located within the northwestern portion of the AGB. The AGB lies in the eastern part of the Wawa-Abitibi subprovince in the southern Superior Province of the Canadian Shield craton. The AGB is defined of multiple east-west trending synclines dominated by volcanic assemblages with intervening domes of synvolcanic and/or syntectonic plutons. Supracrustal rocks within the Detour Lake area comprise a thick 2.72 Ga sequence of mafic to ultramafic lithologies, mostly volcanics, referred to as the Deloro Assemblage (DA). This Assemblage is in structural contact to the south with the younger sediments of the 2.69 Ga Porcupine Assemblages (PA) (Oliver et al., in preparation). The supracrustal rocks are bounded to the north, east and west by large, weakly foliated granodioritic to tonalitic intrusions and intersected by regional diabase dykes and numerous local felsic to mafic dykes and sills. The contact between the DA and the PA is characterized by a regional scale thrust zone, referred to as the SLDZ, which can be traced over a distance of more than 20 kilometres (Figure 7-1).The reconnaissance scale aero-magnetic data (OGS Geophysical Data Set 1008b) clearly defines a linear feature that positions of the SLDZ at the northern contact of the PA sediment (Figure 7-2).The structures of the SLDZ are spatially related to most of the gold mineralization observed in the Detour Lake area.
Figure 7-1: Regional Geology Map of the Detour Lake Area
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 35
Figure 7-2: Total Field Aeromagnetic Data of the Detour Lake Area
Based on new geochronological evidences gathered at Detour Lake by Oliver et al. (in preparation), the DA is sub-divided into the Upper Detour Lake Formation (UDLF), a dominant tholeiitic basaltic volcanic assemblage (mainly massive and pillowed flows), and the Lower Detour Lake Formation (LDLF), an ultramafic dominant komatiitic volcanic and intrusive assemblage. The LDLF komatiitic lithologies in contact with the UDLF tholeiitic sequence are highly deformed and altered into talc-chlorite schist. The contact is highly strained, mineralized and silicified and hosts a deformed felsic to intermediate dyke known as the Chert Marker Horizon (CMH). The CMH is a mineralized stratigraphic marker in the Detour Lake area and was the focus of the historic gold production. The supracrustal rocks of the DA occur within regional synclinal-anticlinal folds traced for over 25 kilometres. These early east-west trending tight folds are deformed by younger broad open folds whose axial traces plunge 10 to 35 toward 145. The youngest structures, identified at the regional scale, are 120 to 145 azimuth trending faults, which are locally intruded by Proterozoic diabase dykes with offsets that are typically less than 10s of metres. Gold mineralization within the Detour Lake deposit is principally observed in the hangingwall of the SLDZ within a stockwork of veins that splay from a flexure coinciding with the northern limb of the west plunging antiform.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 36
All lithological units, except the Proterozoic dykes, have been regionally metamorphosed to upper greenschist to lower amphibolite metamorphic facies.
7.2. 7.2.1.
Geology of the Detour Lake Property Geological Interpretation Limited outcrops are observed on the Property, which is covered mainly by glacial till with local historic mining materials (waste rocks and tailings) and marshes and wet lands in the western part of the Property. While the original mapping was done in 1975 by Amoco, Detour Gold carried out regional mapping to the north and east of the Mine Property. Due to poor outcrop exposure, the geological re-interpretation is principally based on the relogging of 30,000 metres of historical and Detour Gold drill holes on seven north-south stratigraphic sections regularly spaced and covering 3.5 kilometres of stratigraphy, west of the former Campbell pit. In addition, the interpretation uses 12,000 metres of exploration drilling completed by Detour Gold in early 2008 in the northern and eastern part of the Property. Based on historical mining and geological criteria, the supracrustal lithologies observed at Detour Lake are grouped into four main units (Figure 7-1, Figure 7-2, Figure 7-3, Figure 7-4, and Figure 7-5). a) Deloro Assemblage (DA) volcanics: i. Lower Detour Lake Formation (LDLF) (Footwall) ii. Upper Detour Lake Formation (UDLF) (Hangingwall) b) Porcupine Assemblage (PA) sediments c) Intrusives rocks d) Tonalitic complex The UDLF is a thick sequence of tholeiitic basaltic massive and pillowed flows while the LDLF, the base of the assemblage, is dominated by komatiitic flows and synvolcanic intrusives, mafic flows and lesser tuffaceous-volcaniclastic horizons. The contact between the two formations of the DA is deeply mylonitized, mineralized and silicified. A felsic to intermediate intrusive unit, referred to as the CMH (the historical term used by Placer at the Detour Lake mine), is intimately associated with this deformation zone. In the footwall of the CMH, the mafic flows and ultramafic sills are deeply altered, ranging from chlorite schist to talc-chlorite rich schist further away from the CMH. In the flexure zone (at the former Campbell open pit), the base of the footwall is also highly strained and associated with a silicified intermediate dyke, showing some similarities with the CMH. The flexure zone is usually in contact with unaltered mafic volcanic flows and a narrow volcaniclastic unit. The PA sediments are usually imbricate with mafic volcanic, but west of the former pit the sediments (mostly quartz wackes) are in direct contact with the hangingwall volcanics. Both volcanic formations within the antiform are truncated by a regional scale thrust fault, referred to as the SLDZ. All these rock units, including the younger sediments, are intruded by a variety of crosscutting felsic, intermediate and mafic dykes. The volcanic flows have a general east-west strike, from east-northeast in the eastern part to west-northwest at the western end of the Detour Lake deposit. All rock units generally dip steeply to the north (75 to 90). The UDLF is
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 37
within an overturned isoclinal synform while the LDLF occupies the core of an antiform, both truncated by the late SLDZ. Gold mineralization is mainly concentrated within a 200 metre wide (locally up to 350 metres) east-west oriented corridor associated with the SLDZ. Gold is observed within swarms of quartz veins splaying off in the UDLF from a flexure located in the deeper part of the main mylonitized unit (CMH). The auriferous zones are associated with high strain zones and mostly concentrated at the contacts of units showing rheological contrasts: pillow flow and massive flow, hyaloclastite and massive flow, and talc-chlorite schist and intrusive. The vein systems have a spatial relationship to east-west trending and sub-vertical dipping brittle-ductile deformation corridors. Gold is only rarely observed in the younger sediments.
Figure 7-3: Geology of the Detour Lake Mine District
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 38
Figure 7-4: Geological Section A-A View at 19,360 (looking west)
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 39
Figure 7-5: Geological Section B-B View at 18,500E (looking west)
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 40
7.2.2.
Lithologies a) Lower Detour Lake Formation (Deloro Assemblage) The LDLF is a thick sequence of mafic and ultramafic flows, sills, and dykes form the base of the DA. This sequence forms the core of a wide anticlinal structure partly truncated to the west by the SLDZ but reappearing west of section 17,500E of the mine grid. The ultramafic units of the LDLF include komatiitic flows showing very rarely preserved spinifex textures and pyroxenites, which form thick sills. Abundant fine grained gabbroic units and mafic volcanic are also observed in the LDLF. The upper contact of this sequence is characterized by a highly strain mineralized zone (CMH), and is deeply talc-chlorite altered. Major rock types in the LDLF include: Chert Marker Horizon (CMH): The CMH is associated to a silicified intermediate dyke occurring within a highly strained, silicified and mineralized zone at the contact between the overlying massive basaltic volcanic sequence (usually altered pillow flow right at the contact) and the underlying deeply altered mafic/ultramafic sequence. Placers geologists and coworkers interpreted this unit as either a highly strained cream to buff felsic intrusion or as a true chert horizon. An age determination of 2725.1 1.4 Ma indicates the CMH is a stratigraphic unit at or near the contact between the LDLF and the UDLF. The CMH is clearly calc-alkaline in geochemical composition with accessory zircon and apatite (up to 73% SiO2 and 130 ppm Zr) and commonly ranges between 0.5 and 2.0 metres in thickness. Gold values and sulphide contents are significantly enhanced within this unit. The CMH was one of the principal sources of gold produced at the Detour Lake mine between 1983 and 1999. Mafic Flow Contact Unit (Chloritic schist): This thin 5 to 20 metres thick flow unit is commonly observed in the immediate hangingwall of the underlying ultramafic assemblages. It is fine grained, light to dark green black and lacks significant matrix feldspar. It is generally foliated with chloritic alteration and locally potassic alteration. It does not generally contain sulphides. Ultramafic Flows and Sills: This unit is comprised of a thick sequence of ultramafic flows with locally preserved spinifex textures, and coarse grained pyroxenite and finer grained ultramafic sills. The intrusive units have conformable contact relations to the other volcanic units. The sills are generally strongly altered in a fine to medium-grained massive talc-chlorite schist characterized by a distinct greasy feel (Figure 7-6).Occasionally, it has flow-like and/or breccia texture with various sizes of rock fragments set in a dark matrix. Fault zones are commonly present in this unit. Most of the gold mineralization hosted in this unit is in the dilatational jog or flexure zone in the area of the former Campbell open pit. It is intruded by numerous quartz feldspar porphyry felsic dykes.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 41
Figure 7-6: Talc-Chlorite Altered Ultramafic Unit
Mafic volcanic: This flow unit is to the south of the talc-chlorite alteration zone. It is generally dense green-black, lacking significant matrix feldspar, and is generally reported to have major and trace elements chemistry diagnostic of least fractionated, magnesium-rich basalt. Generally foliated, mafic minerals can be coarse to very coarse-grained forming a porphyritic texture. Various degrees of potassic (biotite) alteration can be locally present. Some short intervals of this unit show laminations. It contains very little gold mineralization. Megacryptic diorite: This unit has coarse to very coarse feldspar phenocrysts set in a dark, finegrained matrix, and locally may show foliation. In the LDLF, it is always associated with the mafic volcanic unit. Historically, it was described as part of the volcanic assemblage but recent work by Oliver et al. (in preparation) shows that it is a mega cryptic diorite sill. Mafic sills and dykes: These sills and dykes are represented by abundant mafic (gabbroic) intrusions, finer grained flows and dykes. Mafic intrusions may be strongly magnetic, containing 10 to 15% disseminated magnetite grains forming strong airborne magnetic signatures. The gabbroic dykes are mainly observed in the LDLF. Felsic volcaniclastics: This unit is not observed in the Detour Lake deposit area. In fact, it has been intersected only in one drill hole in the far-east part of the Property. It is a highly foliated, pale yellow-cream tuffaceous rock, locally containing sub-angular lithic or volcanic clasts. This unit is present near the southern contact of the mafic-ultramafic complex, close to the contact with the UDLF. Its stratigraphic position is uncertain. This horizon does contain gold mineralization (Hole DGE-08-319 returned 1.46 g/t over 8 metres from 224 to 232 metres). b) Upper Detour Lake Formation (Detour Assemblage) The UDLF volcanic rocks have the chemical affinities of arc-related tholeiites (iron to magnesium-rich tholeiites). The sequence is dominated by mafic lithologies. No felsic supracrustal rocks are identified within this sequence. In the mineralized corridor, the rock types are part of the hangingwall mineralized zone. The major rock types include: Pillow Flows: These are common throughout the Detour Lake deposit area and are locally highly strained in the hangingwall rocks. This unit is characterized by pillow and pillow selvages, the formation of hyaloclastite, and vesicles filled by calcite. It is fine to mediumS:\Detour Lake Project\Technical Reports\2010-04draft\Technical Report_v6.docx
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 42
grained and usually shows foliation. Based on the intensity of potassic alteration, this unit can be subdivided into the weakly potassically altered pillow flow or the potassically altered pillow flow. Pillow cusps and margins are preferentially altered with secondary biotite (Figure 7-7) and albite, and pyrite-pyrrhotite-quartz assemblage (with local minor chalcopyrite) exhibiting an increase in intensity proximal to mineralized strained zones.
Figure 7-7: Potassically Altered Pillow Flow
Mafic hyaloclastites are present in the Calcite Zone area, west of section 18,800E, where they commonly have a brecciated texture. This rock unit contains abundant shardy centrimetric scale fragments frequently embedded within calcite with lesser iron carbonate-rich matrix infill. Chlorite alteration was observed in hyaloclastite fragments, along pillow margins and around calcite-filled vesicles. In rare instances, these units are weakly stratified. These hyaloclastites appear to be a favourable host to the gold mineralization. Massive Flows: These units are generally grey in color, fine to medium grained with local porphyritic texture, and usually weak to moderate foliated. Local gradational changes in crystal size are common. Several very massive iron to magnesium (Fe-Mg) -rich tholeiitic flow sequences are present in the hangingwall rocks of the Detour Lake gold deposit. Massive flows typically contain 12-15% matrix plagioclase with 85% recrystallized mafic minerals (actinolitehornblende), commonly occurring as 2-4 millimetres elongate interlocking recrystallized lathes. Coarser grained flows, representative of facies changes, are observed regularly in this massive sequence. Pillow-structure, hyaloclastite and vesicles filled by calcite may be present locally. Calcite aggregates along foliation trends and calcite veinlets parallel/subparallel to foliation are quite common, usually with chloritic and/or biotite alteration haloes around the veins/veinlets. In the massive flows, gold occurs as free gold and is generally associated with 5 millimetres to 1 metre quartz veins/veinlets (Figure 7-8). Pyrite and pyrrhotite (<3%) as well as trace chalcopyrite are generally present (and increase in content) approaching the flexure in the sequence.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 43
Figure 7-8: Quartz Veins within Massive Mafic Flow
c) Porcupine Assemblage Sediments The PA sediments are characterized by a well laminated sequence of argillaceous siltites, quartz wackes, banded amphibolites and volcaniclastics and lesser mafic tuffaceous rocks. The western portion of this basin (close to the Detour Lake deposit area) contains an increased percentage of imbricated and re-worked mafic volcaniclastic rocks while the eastern portion of the basin (in the Sunday Lake area) is dominated by cleaner well bedded quartz wackes, lithic wackes and argillaceous siltites. There is no significant gold mineralization associated with this unit. d) Intrusive Rocks The deposit area is intruded by numerous narrow felsic to intermediate dykes. The dykes can have a variety of colours and textures ranging from light to dark coloured and aphanitic to feldspar porphyritic. Intermediate dykes are less common and are predominantly fine grained and locally porphyritic. Most dykes within the deposit area have east-west trends, parallel to sub-parallel to foliation. The dykes appear to be more numerous in the hangingwall rocks; however, they are also found in the footwall, especially in the flexure area. The timing and exact relationship of these dykes is uncertain, although a feldspar-phyric felsic dike cutting mafic volcanics in the main pit yielded an age of 2722 +3/-2 Ma (Marmont & Corfu, 1989). This age indicates that the UDLF units are intruded by Stoughton-Roquemaure assemblageaged magmatism, suggesting that the UDLF and LDLF are part of the DA (2730-2724 Ma). Except for the CMH, the dykes are generally not foliated and are associated with the same structural control as the quartz veins. According to Barklay (1993), some of the felsic dykes pre-date the mineralization. Breccia zones have also been identified within the former Detour Lake mine. These dyke-like structures are seen to crosscut the major volcanic lithologies, consisting of fragments of quartz, gneiss, granitic, and metavolcanic rocks in a fine grained mafic matrix. The matrix foliation of these units indicates late deformation
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 44
e) Tonalitic Complex A large tonalitic to granodiorite intrusion is mapped at the eastern end of the Property. The rock mass strikes at approximately 140 and cuts both the PA sediments and rocks of the DA. The intrusive is weakly foliated and distinctly tonalitic in composition, near its supracrustal contact, containing approximately 10% free quartz, 30% plagioclase, and 45-50% mafic minerals (biotite-hornblende). The intrusion shifts to a more granodioritic composition within 300 metres of its contact. An epidote-albite-andradite-pyrite-pyrrhotite contact aureole is locally well developed at the contact with supracrustal rocks and extends for approximately 200 metres into the enclosing supracrustal rocks. The contact aureole is locally associated with discontinuous gold and copper mineralization (Hole DGE-08-317 returned 0.4 g/t Au and 0.47% Cu over 4 metres). 7.2.3. Metamorphism and Alteration All lithological units on the Property have undergone upper greenschist to lower amphibolite facies regional metamorphism and are hydrothermally altered proximal to the SLDZ. The principal forms of alteration include (i) the development of strong secondary biotite in mafic rocks; and (ii) the formation of talc-actinolite chlorite assemblages in ultramafic sills next to the CMH. These alteration assemblages are commonly associated with the principal gold mineralizing event at Detour Lake. Qualitatively, secondary minerals related to auriferous hydrothermal processes are generally fine grained (biotite and actinolite) and may be co-planar or randomly orientated. The textural data suggests that these minerals have formed either synchronously or slightly post-date the early regional metamorphic assemblages and are generally coarser grained and nearly always aligned parallel to the dominant penetrative fabric. The footwall komatiitic rocks show alteration to schistose rocks with a mineral assemblage of chlorite-talc-calcite-tremolite/actinolite-biotite. The pillow flows show generally potassic enrichment with minor silicification and sericitization. Potassic alteration results principally in the development of a bronze to purplish coloured biotite and recrystallized potassic feldspar. Silicification may overprint the biotite alteration or occur as an intense pinkish halo with associated potassic feldspar flooding. In the Calcite Zone area, the pillow flow sequence has the same alteration mineral assemblage overall, although carbonate alteration is more prevalent with silicification and biotite development somewhat reduced. 7.2.4. Structural Geology Regional Structures The major structural control at the Detour Lake mine area is an east-striking, north-dipping deformation corridor, referred to as the SLDZ. It occurs at the northern contact of the PA sediments (2690-2685 Ma) with the overlying and older 2730-2724 Ma DA volcanics. This deformation zone extends for 10s of kilometres in length and several 100 metres in width. The strain intensity increases adjacent to the SLDZ, where talc-schist and other metavolcanic units are strongly foliated whereas, the felsic to mafic intrusives are preferentially deformed on their margins and relatively undeformed in the core of the thicker intrusions.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 45
Two east-trending synform-antiform pairs are observed in the volcanic assemblage: the North Walter Lake Synform (UDLF) and the Airstrip Antiform (LDLF). These D2 folds are noted as upright, tight and slightly overturned and south facing, like the thrusts which form the SLDZ. The aeromagnetic data (Figure 7-2) and the geology (Figure 7-3) clearly show the development of late regional scale D3 folds. These are broad open folds whose axial traces strike at approximately 145, plunging 10-35 to the northwest. The interlimb distances of these folds are approximately 8 to 12 kilometres. In the Detour Lake Belt, these folds lack well defined S fabric surfaces. The D3 folds are interpreted to post-date east-trending tight D2 folds, these older folds being deformed by the south-southeast trending traces. On a regional scale, the youngest structures (D4) are a series of 120 to 145 trending faults, which are locally intruded by Proterozoic diabase dykes. These structures are never gold mineralized and post-date the mineralization at Detour Lake. Controls of Mineralization The gold mineralization at Detour Lake was formed during the episode of SLDZ ductile deformation and its coeval hydrothermal activity. SLDZ is a tabular corridor of closely spaced high strain zones, 10 to 50 metres in width, defined by an increase in strain. Furthermore, a greater abundance of foliated felsic and intermediate dikes as well as early barren, auriferous and late barren veins is noted in the SLDZ. Veins vary from under formed to strongly boudinaged, folded and transposed. The CMH occurs at the contact between the Upper and Lower Detour Lake Formations and defines a west plunging flexure east of Section 19,700E. Several subordinate high strain zones occur in the UDLF in the hanging wall of the SLDZ. They are characterized by narrow discontinuous zones of biotite schist, 0.2 to 4.0 metres in width that locally develop along lithological contacts. The main strain zone can be observed along the contact between the lower pillowed and massive flow basalt. There are two types of gold mineralization recognized at Detour Lake: 1) a wide and generally auriferous sulphide-poor quartz vein stockwork formed in the hanging wall of the SLDZ and, 2) a gold mineralization overprinting the early auriferous stockwork, principally in the hanging wall of the SLDZ, with lower contents of sulphides. The sulphide-poor quartz vein stockworks observed in the hanging wall have sub-vertical north or south dips and are parallel to a series of east-west trending high strain zones. These veins, forming a weak stockwork, are boudinaged and folded throughout the deposit. Fold axes of the veins plunge shallowly to moderately relative to a dominant axial planar foliation. Kinematic indicators observed include asymmetric objects (quartz vein boudins and feldspar phenocrysts), asymmetric pressure shadows around feldspar phenocrysts, and numerous flatlying extensional quartz and sulphide veins that commonly cross-cut (boudinaged) quartz veins oriented sub-parallel to foliation. These indicators confirm sinistral-reverse north over south motion along the SLDZ. Quartz vein boudin necks and axes of folded veins and intrusions consistently plunge shallowly, varying between 20 east and west. This is in agreement with dominant dip-slip motion, where the plunge of folded and boudinaged objects is generally orthogonal to the stretching lineation orientation. The quartz vein stockworks are also cross-cut
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 46
by chlorite-carbonate-sulphide and pyrrhotite-chalcopyrite-pyrite extensional veins forming perpendicular to the foliation and quartz vein contacts. Sulphide-rich gold mineralization predominantly fill structural sites in deformed quartz veins, fractures and veins crosscutting the foliation fabric but also in pillow breccias and selvages. The distribution of sulphide-rich mineralization is strongly controlled by the geometry of kinematic orientation. Pyrite and pyrrhotite concentrations have a shallow westerly plunge similar to the plunge of the main flexure zone in the SLDZ at an angle of about 40 (in the area of the former open pit) and shallowing to approximately 10 further to the west. The data from 242 quartz veins obtained from orientated drill core in the hanging wall area are compiled on Figure 7-9 . The dominant pole cluster is formed from a vein system orientated at 93/84N; most of these are related to the dominant steeply dipping shear or fault fill veins. The other poles would be associated to extensional veins.
Figure 7-9: Contoured Poles of Quartz Veins (Orientated Drill Core)

Equal Area (Schmidt) N
+16S +14S +12S +10S +8S
+6S +4S +2S E
Axial
N = 242
The gold mineralization is associated to the SLDZ, a major ductile deformation corridor located along the contact between the Detour Lake Formation and the PA with the following signature: Narrow subsidiary high strain zones occur in the hangingwall of the SLDZ; The CMH branches off the SLDZ and represents a distinct structural feature. The SLDZ is the main structural feature controlling the location and distribution of the gold mineralization; Kinematic indicators confirm reverse north over south motion along the SLDZ; Low-sulphide quartz veins, forming a weak stockwork, are boudinaged and folded throughout the deposit but more intensely adjacent to and within the SLDZ; these quartz veins are principally sub-parallel to the foliation and dip steeply to the south; the intersection of these vein sets plunges shallowly to the west, parallel to the plunge of vein boudins and vein fold axes; and Sulphide-rich gold mineralization predominantly fill structural sites in deformed quartz veins, fractures and veins cross-cutting the foliation fabric but also in pillow breccia and selvages.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 47
8.0
DEPOSIT MODEL
The gold mineralization identified to date in the Detour Lake area occurs as Orogenic greenstone-hosted hydrothermal lode gold deposits typical of the AGB and in particular like the gold deposits found along the Destor-Porcupine Fault Zone from Timmins, Ontario through to Destor, Qubec. These deposit types are found in greenstone belts around the world and are responsible for a large proportion of past world gold production, including most of the Canadian gold production. The majority of Archean Orogenic greenstone-hosted lode gold deposits occur within volcanoplutonic domains, which are typically distributed along crustal-scale fault zones occurring along or in close proximity to terrane or subprovince boundaries (Card et al, 1989). These domains are typically dominated by elongate belts of metavolcanic and some metasedimentary rocks containing subsidiary amounts of ultramafic to felsic intrusive rocks. The intrusive rocks will have typically been emplaced in multiple pulses throughout the geologic evolution of the area. Metamorphism within the belts is generally greenschist to lower amphibolite facies. The structure of the gold districts is characterized by the presence of multiple generations of structural fabrics indicating the presence of several periods of deformation. The Detour Lake deposit is defined as a shear-hosted gold deposit typical of Archean Orogenic greenstone-hosted type deposits. The gold mineralization is associated with a wide deformation zone (SLDZ) that straddles the north contact of DA and PA. The upper contact of the SLDZ is characterized by high sulphide content with minor copper. In the main flexure of the SLDZ, swarms of structurally controlled quartz veins splay off into the mafic massive and pillowed flows where the percentage of sulphides and copper diminishes drastically. The gold occurs largely in a free state. In the massive flows, the gold mineralization is generally localized on the margins of narrow sheeted quartz veins, which vary from a few millimetres to less than one metre thick. The vast majority of the gold mineralization is associated with the mafic pillow flow where it forms broader, lithologically controlled mineralized zones.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 48
9.0
9.1.
MINERALIZATION
General Characteristic of the Gold Mineralization The gold mineralization at Detour Lake is relatively late and emplaced after tectonic juxtaposition of the DA and PA (e.g. after 2685 Ma) and is not synvolcanic as was interpreted by Marmont and Corfu (1989). The east- west mineralized corridor has been drill tested over the strike length of 3 kilometres over a width of several 100s metres. All the gold mineralization is found north of the SLDZ (Figure 9-1). The gold mineralization occurs in different rock types within broad sub-vertical mineralized envelopes and splits into several sub-vertical domains sub-parallel to the orientation of the SLDZ (Figure 9-2). It is associated with a strong biotite proximal alteration north of the CMH. It is principally contained in discrete fault-fill or shear- hosted (Figure 9-3), and extensional quartz vein networks, and broad lithologically controlled mineralized zones with a weaker vein association. The gold mineralization is characterized into two main zones: hangingwall mineralization and footwall mineralization.
Figure 9-1: Plan View of the Main Mineralized Envelopes
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 49
Figure 9-2: Typical Cross Section of the Detour Lake Deposit
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 50
Figure 9-3: Fault-Fill Fault Quartz Veins
9.1.1.
Hangingwall Mineralization The mineralization forms a 200 metre wide (locally up to 350 metres) corridor within a broad assemblage of mafic volcanics with an overall east-west trend. To date, Detour Gold has drill tested this mineralized corridor for a distance of approximately 3 kilometres, west of the former Campbell open pit. The bulk of the mineralization within this corridor is concentrated along a highly strained zone showing a strong potassic alteration envelope at the contact between the lower massive and pillowed mafic flows (Domain 2). At the eastern end of the deposit, Domain 2 is referred to as the Main Zone at the former Detour Lake mine. The Main Zone was the largest gold-bearing mineralized zone and consists of gold mineralization occurring in the CMH or in vein systems splaying from the SLDZ (Figure 9-4). Placers Quartz Zones Q50, Q70, Q100 and Q120 zones are typical quartz veins arrays splaying off the SLDZ into the hangingwall. The former Campbell pit is located at the shallowest zone developed along the contact between mafic (tholeiitic) volcanic and ultramafic (komatiitic) rocks. This system extends along strike to the west as part of Domain 2. In general, the quartz veins are part of a series of sub-vertically dipping east-west trending highly strained zones. These quartz veins are typically less than one metre in width. Gold occurs generally as free gold with these veins (Figure 9-5). The quartz veins commonly occur with a frequency of greater than one vein per metre. In plan view, these veins are commonly noted as a series of sheeted sub-parallel veins, which meet or intersect the SLDZ at 30 to 35 angles. These veins are commonly boudinaged and may locally post-date and cut folded foliation surfaces near the CMH (Pressacco, 1999). Textural features suggest the quartz veins and related auriferous zones have evolved late in the deformational history of the Detour Lake deposit.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 51
Figure 9-4: 360 metre Level Plan Showing the Main Zone
Figure 9-5: Free Gold in Quartz Vein of the Main Zone
West of section 19,620E, the mineralization mainly straddles the lower massive-pillow flow contact and is commonly associated with increased biotite alteration, shearing, narrow quartz veining and minor pyrite or pyrrhotite. Local zones of strong brecciation with sulphide infilling have also been recognized along with minor chalcopyrite, telluride minerals and visible gold. Visible gold is usually found as specks, clusters or fracture coatings. The gold mineralization is associated with a series of sub-vertical to arcuate deformation zones characterized by enhanced strained fabrics, well defined open-space breccias, and to a lesser degree sheeted shear-hosted veins and extensional veins. Within these structures, pillow selvages and vesicles are
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 52
preferentially sulphidized with visible gold. Although mineralization is generally well distributed within this sequence, lithological changes to coarser and massive facies may affect locally continuity of the mineralization. The lower contact of the hangingwall mineralization is known as the CMH and lies at the upper contact of the SLDZ. From 18,000E to section 18,650E, broader, lithological controlled mineralized zones are found within carbonate altered pillow flow sequence. The gold mineralization is often associated with carbonate and quartz-carbonate veins and veinlets. Mineralization appears to be closely associated with the pillow selvages and with pods of volcanic breccia. Local sulphides and visible gold also occur within the veins and veinlets. The most recent assay results confirm that this zone remains open to the west of section 18,000E. Within the upper portion of the zone, closer to surface, the mineralization is more associated with the upper pillow flow. More at depth, the mineralization is still concentrated at the lower massive-pillow flow contact. From sections 16,160E to 17,160E, Placer intersected the QK Zone along the lower massivepillow flow contact between 600 metres and 750 metres below surface. Mineralization is associated with narrow parallel to subparallel quartz veins, quartz boudins and sulphide rich veins/breccias with adjacent silicification and potassic alteration envelopes. Gold is directly associated with sulphides.
9.1.2.
Footwall Mineralization (Talc Zone) The Talc Zone is principally located between sections 19,700E and 20,540E (eastern end of the deposit). It is hosted in highly altered ultramafic flows with mineralization concentrated at both the upper contact (CMH), and lower contact of the SLDZ, next to barren volcaniclastics and mafic volcanics. The gold mineralization at the lower contact of the Talc Zone shows an increase in sulphide content. Locally, the mineralization is cut by felsic to intermediate intrusive dykes (ranging in width from 0.3 to 25 metres). The Talc Zone varies in width from 4 to 15 metres and tends to be less continuous along strike. The footwall mineralization commonly contains boudins of quartz veins and felsic as well as intermediate dyke slivers. It is generally intensely sheared, especially in the area adjacent to the contact with the volcanoclastic sediments. Gold in the Talc Zone occurs dominantly within pyrite-pyrrhotite and minor chalcopyrite along foliation planes, narrow discrete shears or strain zones and in irregular lenses (Barclay, 1993). The zones also contain short deformed lenses or boudinaged quartz veins. In some cases, it appears that the mineralization is controlled by strong fault structures containing several centimetres of gouge material. Increase in sulphide content clearly demonstrates that gold mineralization is developing near the contacts of felsic to intermediate dykes with the adjacent talc-chlorite units but not internal to the felsic dykes. This relationship appears relatively common at the Detour Lake deposit and has also been well documented in the Timmins Camp with strong gold mineralization developing at or near the contacts of the Paymaster and Pearl Lake Porphyries with much weaker mineralization internal to these intrusions (Longley and Lazier, 1948).
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 53
10.0
10.1.
EXPLORATION AND DRILLING

Drilling Programs (2007-2009) From January 2007 to December 2009, Detour Gold completed 333,213 metres in 868 holes on the Detour Lake deposit. Along with the delineation drilling, 12,054 metres were drilled in 38 holes on a reconnaissance exploration program in 2008. All holes are NQ holes. In addition, 4,729 metres of drilling was completed for geotechnical work, 8,474 metres of drilling was completed for metallurgy and comminution testwork. A complete summary of the drilling completed by Detour Gold is shown in Table 10-1. For all the Detour Gold drilling programs the true width is estimated to be 65% to 75% of the drilled length, except for holes drilled to the north (i.e. sections 19,480E to 20,440E) where the true width is estimated at 60% to 65% of the drilled length. As of December 31, 2009, the Detour Lake deposit has been tested on 40 x 40 metre drill spacing from section 18,100E to 20,540E from surface to a depth of approximately 600 metres. In addition, a detailed drilling program of 8,101 metres in 53 holes on 20 x 20 metre spacing was completed in the eastern portion of the deposit to verify the continuity of the mineralization. The test block extended along strike for 80 metres east-west (19,420E to 19,500E) by 370 metres (north-south) from surface to a depth of 160 metres. For the FS, the cut-off assay results was set at January 18, 2010 and included up to drill hole DG 09-820.
10.1.1.
Reconnaissance Drilling Program
The 2008 reconnaissance drilling program targeted the sediment-volcanic contact over a distance of 6 kilometres to the east of the former Campbell open pit and tested the potential eastern extensions of the North Walter Lake deformation zone and the M Zone. The program totalled 12,054 metres in 38 drill holes and was conducted between January and March 2008. In 2008, Detour Gold started a comprehensive compilation program of the geological and structural characteristics of the gold mineralization at the Detour Lake deposit.
10.2.
Drilling Program (2010) The 2010 drilling program of 90,000 metres started on January 4, 2010 with six drill rigs. The program is focusing on the western extension of the Detour Lake open pit deposit between section 17,540E and 18,000E on a 40 x 40 metre drill spacing. As of June 20, 2010, Detour Gold had completed 67,434 metres in 136 holes. Assay results from the 2010 drilling program are not incorporated in the FS. In addition, Detour Gold completed a condemnation drilling program of 18 holes totalling 3,973 metres at the location of the proposed processing and tailing facilities. Another 12 holes totalling 210.5 metres were completed for geotechnical studies and 40 holes totalling 2,815 metres for grade control (as of June 20, 2010).
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 54
Table 10-1: Drilling Conducted by Detour Gold (2007-2009) Metreage Completed Drilling Programs Phase I Phase II Phase III 2009 20 x 20 m infill Twinning drilling Total Delineation Reconnaissance Geotech (Pit slope) Geotech (Hydrogeology) Met + Comminution Total 13 326 4,092 116,579 403 134,575 8 2,889 49 1,014 83 10 340 826 4,382 107,316 305 109,598 316 38 121,507 12,054 53 8,101 6 247 1,034 102,109 2007 Holes 134 171 Metres 49,320 60,278 191 72 81,079 32,327 241 101,075 Holes 2008 Metres Holes 2009 Metres Holes 134 362 72 241 53 6 868 38
Total Metres 49,320 141,357 32,327 101,075 8,101 1,034 333,214 12,054 2,889 1,840 8,474 358,469
8 132 23 1,069
10.3.
Drill Hole Survey The hole collars including foresights and backsights for the Detour Golds drilling completed from 2007 were laid out by Talbot Surveys Ltd. ("Talbot"), Ontario using the differential GPS (DGPS) Topcon GR3 with a Nikon total station. The Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM), 1983 North American Datum (NAD83) system was used to record position data. Survey data was converted to Mine Grid for compatibility with the historical data. Occasionally, when Talbot was not available, hand-held GPS units or compass and chain methods were used to locate collar pickets, which were inadvertently moved or destroyed. Once the drill rig was positioned on the planned location it was lined up using the backsight and foresight pickets with final alignment using a compass. When the rig was setup near former mine buildings, where buried metal affect the compass bearings, pickets and tape measures were used, utilizing the position of the fore- or back sights. After a hole was completed and the rig moved off drill site, the casing was covered with a steel cap and a wooden marker was placed next to the casing with the hole collar identification. Talbot returned to site every second week and surveyed the casing locations, as well as the azimuth and inclination of the holes drilled during this period. Measurements were done at the top of the casing (usually sticking out 15 centimetres above ground). The downhole surveying was done at 30 or 60 metres intervals by the drill company using a Reflex EZ shot, which recorded azimuths and inclinations. Although this instrument was affected by magnetic minerals, it was for the most part adequate in determining the deviation of the drill hole while it was in progress. Immediately after the drill hole was completed, surveys of the direction and dip changes were carried out using a Reflex Maxibor II instrument. The instrument is based on optical measurements of direction changes and gravimetric measurements of dip changes. After setting the starting azimuth, the instrument was lowered
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 55
down the hole and readings taken every 3 metres on the way back up. Once the casing had been surveyed by Talbot, the correct azimuth and inclination were entered into the Maxibor data to adjust the downhole readings. Maxibor readings are missing for several holes, either because the equipment was in for repair or the rods were sufficiently bent or bowed to prevent the instrument going down the hole.
10.4.
Drill Core Recovery Core recovery exceeds 95% with losses generally occurring within the first metres of bedrock or when going through a fault zone. Rock Quality Designation (RQD) measurements indicate that the hangingwall rock units (mafic volcanics) are very competent. The footwall units, occurring as they do in an active structural zone, have varied RQD measurements ranging from poor to good.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 56
11.0
11.1.
SAMPLING METHOD AND APPROACH

Introduction This section is updated from Met-Chems Technical Report Pre-Feasibility of the Detour Lake Project, Ontario section 12, dated October 19, 2009 and includes observations made during the independent verification program by SGS Geostat at the Project site from October 29 to November 9, 2009 and from November 24 to December 2, 2009. As Detour Lake is located in a wetland, very little rock outcrops are observed on the Property. The evaluation of the geological setting and gold mineralization on the Property relied essentially on the observation and sampling of diamond drill core from the various drilling programs. The drill core logging and sampling was conducted at the Project site and all samples collected during the course of the drilling program were sent to SGS Minerals preparation laboratory in Garson, Ontario and then shipped to their analytical laboratory in Don Mills, Ontario. The remaining drill core is stored on site.
11.2.
Core Sampling Procedures and Security All the drill core handling is done on site with the logging and sampling processes conducted by employees and contractors of Detour Gold. The observations of lithology, alteration, structure, mineralization, vein widths and orientation, geotechnical data, sample number and location are recorded by the geologist and geotechnician. All the information is collected using a Microsoft Access (MS Access) database software developed for Detour Gold, except for the first 19 drill holes of 2007 which were logged using MS Excel. All lithologies logged are named and coded to match the historical logging on the Property, which was necessary in order to have any meaningful relationship with the previous data. Early in the Projects life, a MS Access database was set up to manage the historical data, which was checked for recording errors and then integrated into the main database. Drill core is placed in wooden core boxes sealed with fencing wire and delivered by the drill contractors twice a day (at shift change) to the assigned Detour Gold core shacks. The technicians first checked that the core is aligned correctly before starting the measurement of core recovery. The technician marks the core every metre and at the end of each box the fromto is noted on the box. The recovery measurements are followed by the RQD measurements. Once the technicians are finished with the verification and the measurements, the geologists log the core and determine the sampling intervals. Following that step, the core is sampled, photographed wet and dry before taken to the core racks outside of the core shack facility. Aluminum tags with the hole ID and metreage are then stapled at the box end. At the end of each day, all core boxes in which samples are collected are placed in steel core racks at the Detour Gold core storage facility located approximately 400 metres away from the core shack facility. The core storage facility is not guarded. In addition, the geologist synchronizes his duplicate version of the database to the main database. At the end of each hole, the geologist prints a detailed log of the hole for field archives and updates the geology along the trace of the hole in the field geological sections. A summarized geological description is also sent to the
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 57
project manager and assistant. Once a week, the field database is sent to the database manager (Thon Consulting) in Smithers, B.C. Sample intervals are determined by the geologist on site and the core is marked and tagged using observations of rock type and mineralization, or potential for mineralization. Most routine sampling was done on 1.0 metre lengths of core, but narrowed to 0.5 metre lengths when gold mineralization was observed or suspected. The samples are never less than 0.5 metre or more than 1.0 metre in length, but the occasional sample exceeded these boundaries. Prior to logging, the core is rotated to ensure that the vein systems would have an unbiased sample, that is, half the vein would be sampled and half would remain for reference. When a vein with a different orientation occurred in the core, the geologist marks a cutting line on the core for that specific sample. Samples are collected by a technician by sawing the core in half and placing the top half of the core in new plastic sample bags along with a sample tag; the second half of the core is replaced in the tray. A second tag is stapled to the box at the end of the sample interval while a third tag is catalogued on site. Each group of ten samples is placed in larger rice bags and each shipment of samples is comprised of 80 rice bags. The sample shipment forms are prepared by the technicians and the forms of each shipment are inserted in one of the bags identified with red paint or handed to the driver. All the bags are shrink-wrapped on pallets and covered with a tarpaulin next to the Detour Gold core shack facility. The rice bags are shipped directly from the site to SGS Minerals preparation laboratory in Garson, Ontario. A flat bed truck transports approximately seven shipments (approximately 5,500 samples). A hard copy of the sample list is given to the driver and the digital shipment paperwork is emailed to the laboratory responsible person and to Detour Golds database manager. At the Garson laboratory, SGS Minerals verifies all samples in the bags and emails the Project site to confirm that all samples on the list were received in good order. Once the sample preparation is completed, pulps and rejects are sent to SGS Minerals analytical laboratory in Don Mills. At the end of the analysis, both the pulps and rejects are stored at the Don Mills storage warehouse for a period of one month and then moved to Storage Stadium, a private warehouse contracted by Detour Gold. Regarding the archived Pelangios pulp and rejects, they are stored at the Detour Lake site in locked steel containers, next to the Detour Gold core storage facility. Detour Gold has compiled a complete inventory of the historical core on site. Much of the historic drill core is in deteriorating condition due to the rotting of the core trays.
11.3.
Conclusions SGS Geostat validated the core sampling procedures used by Detour Gold as part of an independent verification program. SGS Geostat concluded that the drill core handling, logging and sampling protocols used by Detour Gold for the Project are at conventional industry standard and conform to generally accepted best practices. SGS Geostat is confident that the system is appropriate for the collection of data suitable for the estimation of a NI 43-101 compliant mineral resource estimate.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 58
12.0
12.1.
SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY

Sample Preparation and Analyses Sample preparation and analyses varied considerably since the start of the exploration work in the late 1970s. Kallio (2006) completed an in-depth review of the sample preparation, analytical, and quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures for the drilling period prior to 2004 and for the 2004 to 2006 period by Pelangio. WGM (2008a and 2008b) reviewed the 2007-2008 sample preparation and analytical procedures while Met-Chem (2009) described the sample preparation and analyses conducted for part of 2009. The QA/QC procedures for the 2007 to 2009 period were managed by Thon Consulting on a daily basis. Lynda Bloom from Analytical Solutions Ltd (ASL) was responsible for the complete review of the 2007 to 2009 QA/QC programs. This section summarizes information on sample preparation, analyses and QA/QC reported by Kallio (2006), WGM (2008a and 2008b), Met-Chem (2009) and ASL (Lynda Bloom, 2009a, 2009b; and 2009c and 2010 in Appendix B). Please refer to the above mentioned reports for a detailed description of the sample preparation, analytical and QA/QC procedures for the Project. SGS Geostat has not conducted an independent verification of Detour Gold sample preparation, analytical and QA/QC procedures and relies on the work conducted by Thon Consulting and ASL.
12.2.
Analytical Laboratories For the drilling programs completed prior to 2007, assaying was completed at a variety of commercial laboratories but also at other laboratories such as the Dome Mine in Timmins, Ontario and during the Detour Lake mining operation at the Detour Lake Mine assay laboratory. The commercial laboratories include: Assayers Limited and X-Ral Laboratories in Rouyn, Qubec; Swastika Laboratories Ltd. in Swastika, Ontario; Bondar Clegg in Ottawa, Ontario; Chemex Laboratories in Mississauga, Ontario; and Accurassay Laboratories in Thunder Bay, Ontario. Since 2007, all the samples collected by Detour Gold were prepared by SGS Minerals at its laboratory facilities in Garson and Don Mills, Ontario, and analyzed at its laboratory in Don Mills, Ontario. Check assays were also sent on a regular basis to ALS Chemex in Vancouver, B.C. Both the SGS Minerals and ALS Chemex laboratory facilities are well recognized and ISO-accredited.
12.3.
Sample Preparation and Analytical Procedures During the pre-2007, sample preparation and assay methods have varied considerably over time and are summarized by Kallio (2006). Crushing, pulverization and size of assay charge varied from half assay ton (equivalent to 15 grams) to 50 grams. Several programs included pulp and metallic sieve assaying for certain samples that were observed to contain visible gold, or for samples, which initially returned high grade values. For the Pelangio drill programs conducted between 2004 and 2006, sample preparation and assaying varied depending on the commercial Laboratory used for the process. From January to
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 59
September 2004, the samples were processed by ALS Chemex of Mississauga, Ontario and the protocol used included dry crushing of samples to > 70% passing 10 mesh (2 mm), riffle splitting and pulverization of 250 grams sub-samples to > 85% passing 75 m then fire assaying of one assay ton sub-samples (30 grams). Between October 2004 and May 2005, samples were sent to the Accurassay Laboratories of Thunder Bay, Ontario and the protocol used included crushing to 90% passing 10 mesh then splitting of a 30 grams sub-sample pulverized to -150 mesh (106 m). Analysis was usually done with the fire assay technique except for interval containing free gold or elevated values on initial analysis, which were conducted by pulp and metallic screen procedure using 1 kg split for 2004 then total pulverization during 2005. For the 2006 program, samples were processed at Swastika Laboratories in Swastika, Ontario using dry crushing to > 90% passing -10 mesh, riffle splitting and pulverization of 350 grams sub-samples. The analysis was conducted using fire assay of one assay ton (30 grams) sub-samples then using pulp and metallic screen procedure for sample with visible gold. From 2007 onwards, Detour Gold contracted SGS Minerals for their analytical needs. The routine sample preparation (SGS Code CRU25) included crushing the entire half-core sample received at the lab to 90% passing -10 mesh (2 mm) and subsequent riffle splitting to obtain a 500 grams subsample. Each 500 grams subsample was then pulverized in a chromium steel mill to 90% passing 200 mesh (75 m) and sub-sampled again to obtain a 50 grams pulp (SGS Code PUL46) for assaying.
12.4.
Gold Analysis Analytical methods used for gold in the programs prior to 2007 are summarized in the section above. Starting in 2007, routine gold analysis was done using fire assaying with atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS) finish (SGS Code FAA515) then later inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy (ICP-AES) finish (SGS Code FAI505 and FAI525). Where the gold assays exceeded 10 g/t Au, the fire assay was repeated with a gravimetric finish (SGS Code FAG505). All samples with visible gold identified during the field logging procedure went directly to the metallic screen procedures (SGS Code FAS30K and FAS31K) using a nominal 500 grams split of the original -10 mesh sample (2 mm). All routine assayed samples (fire assay atomic absorption or fire assay-gravimetric) returning values of 5 g/t Au or greater on the first analysis were re-analyzed using the metallic screen procedure. For the metallic screen procedure, the sub-samples were screened at -150 mesh (106 m), and then both the coarse and fine fractions (duplicate and often triplicate assays on the fine fraction) were completed using fire assaying with an inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectrometric (ICP-OES) finish. Selected samples were also analyzed for copper using sodium peroxide fusion and ICP-OES finish. The different analytical procedures used from 2007 to 2009 are summarized in Table 12-1 .
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 60
Table 12-1: Detour Gold Analytical Methods from 2007 to 2009 January 2007 to July 2007 August 2007 to June 2008 July 2008 to October 2009 SGS Code Description 50 gm fire assay with AAS finish (5 ppb to 10 ppm) 50 gm fire assay with gravimetric finish for Au > 10,000 ppb Gold by Screen Metallics Fire Assay on 500 gm screened at 75 m SGS Code Description 50 gm fire assay with ICPAES finish (1 to 10,000 ppb) SGS Code Description 50 gm fire assay with ICPAES finish (5 to 100,000 ppb)
FAA515
FAI505
FAI525
FAG505
FAG505
50 gm fire with gravimetric finish (for Au > 10 ppm) Gold by Screen Metallics Fire Assay on 500 gm screened at 106 m (for Au > 5 g/t) a second pulp is prepared from the reject
FAG505
50 gm fire with gravimetric finish (for Au > 100 ppm) Gold by Screen Metallics Fire Assay on 500 gm screened at 106 m (for Au > 5 g/t) a second pulp is prepared from the reject
FAS31K
FAS30K
FAS31K
If a screen metallic assay was completed, this assay was used in the calculations (Au-Final). Gravimetric fire assays had precedence over ICP-OES finished assays. No averages were used to compute the Au-Final.
12.5.
Specific Gravity Prior to late 2009, no systematic specific gravity ("SG") measurements were taken during the Detour Gold drilling programs. The values used for the tonnage calculation relied mainly on historical data. During the life of the mine, the operator used a SG of 2.9 t/m3. That number was used by Detour Gold as the average SG for all rock types. In 2008, SG measurements, completed by Melis as part of the comminution testwork, yielded an average of 2.9 t/m3 for the overall mineralization in the deposit. Details of the results, along with SG determination by Kallio (2006) are described in the Met-Chem (2009). From October 2009 to March 2010, as a part of the core logging and QA/QC program, Detour Gold conducted SG measurements on 1,263 samples (13 holes) using inert gas picnometer. The measurement is conducted on the pulp fraction of every 40th sample with the objective of comparing, for future reference, the SG values of the half core versus the SG values of the pulp fraction. The average SG value obtained from this program is 2.94 t/m3. The program is ongoing. Table 12-2 shows average density values per rock type, which have been defined from surface drilling. The table shows the density values currently used together with the number of samples used to generate the average for each rock type. Only codes with nine samples or more have been reported.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 61
Table 12-2: Mine Rock Codes and Mean Density (t/m3) Total TC II KPF PF FMV KMF MF Mean Count Minimum Maximum 2.94 1,263 2.29 3.28 2.96 90 2.86 3.16 2.82 31 2.30 3.20 2.91 281 2.73 3.16 2.93 183 2.29 3.22 2.94 11 2.83 3.14 2.94 9 2.86 2.94 2.98 483 2.71 3.32
WKMF 2.93 72 2.18 3.01
WKPF 2.92 59 2.50 3.06
TC: Talc-chlorite schist II: Intermediate intrusive KPF: Potassic pillow mafic flow PF: Pillow mafic flow FMV: Footwall mafic volcanic
KMF: Potassic massive mafic flow MF: Massive mafic flow WKMF: Weak potassic massive mafic flow WKPF: Weak potassic pillow mafic flow
Also in 2009, SGS Geostat, as part of the data verification program, conducted independent SG measurements on 211 samples from twin drilled hole DG-09-806 and on 312 samples from compositing 24 drill holes (total leaching test) (refer to Section 13.1.2, p.89), all located within the West Pit area of the deposit. The measurements were performed using the water displacement method on representative half core pieces weighing between 0.7 and 1.8 kg in total (average of 1.3 kg) and by inert gas picnometer for both the twin drill hole data and the 24 drill hole composites. Results from the total leaching test and twin drill hole samples retrieved an average SG of 2.9 t/m3 (Table 12-3 and Table 12-4).
Table 12-3: Total Leaching Test Program SG Measurements

Total Leaching Samples - SG Measurements (t/m ) Total Mean Count Standard Deviation Rel Std Deviation (%) Minimum Median Maximum 2.90 312 0.07 2.25 2.64 2.91 3.06 PPII 2.71 5 0.05 1.92 2.64 2.72 2.76 II 2.81 7 0.10 3.54 2.71 2.77 2.96 KPF 2.88 106 0.06 1.92 2.72 2.88 3.05 PF 2.90 32 0.05 1.83 2.83 2.90 3.05 WKPF 2.91 41 0.05 1.89 2.81 2.90 3.06 KMF 2.93 18 0.08 2.74 2.66 2.95 3.02 MF (PPMI) 2.94 103 0.04 1.36 2.84 2.94 3.04
3
PPII: Plagioclase porphyry intermediate intrusive II: Intermediate intrusive KPF: Potassic pillow flow PF: Pillow flow
WKPF: Weakly potassic pillow flow KMF: Potassic massive flow MF: Massive flow PPMI: Plagioclase porphyry mafic intrusive
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 62
Table 12-4: Twin Drill Hole DG-09-806 SG Measurements

Twin Hole DG-09-806 - SG Measurements (t/m ) PPII Core Mean Count Standard Deviation Rel Std Deviation (%) Minimum Median Maximum 2.78 7 0.09 3.08 2.68 2.77 2.94 KPF Core 2.84 35 0.06 2.08 2.66 2.85 2.98 MF Core 2.91 158 0.06 2.13 2.66 2.92 3.09 PF Core 2.92 11 0.05 1.66 2.84 2.92 3.03 Total Core 2.90 211 0.07 2.43 2.66 2.90 3.09 Total Pulp 3.00 211 0.07 2.38 2.77 3.00 3.20 Total Pulp (-0.1 SG) 2.90 211 0.07 2.46 2.67 2.90 3.10
3
PPII: Plagioclase porphyry intermediate intrusive MF: Massive flow
KPF: Potassic pillow flow PF: Pillow flow
The independent verification program conducted by SGS Geostat on core samples collected from the West Pit area of the deposit returned similar results with the previous verification done by Kallio (2006) and Melis (2008). Massive weakly altered mafic volcanic units generally show higher SG values (2.9-3.0 t/m3) than the more altered pillowed mafic volcanic units (2.82.9 t/m3). The more felsic lithologies observed in the West Pit area of deposit, typically as intermediate intrusive units, return SG values in the 2.7-2.8 t/m3 range. The range of SG values observed for the different lithologies generally reflects the variation in geochemical composition (including the intensity of alteration) and the natural porosity of the rock units. The average SG value calculated from both data set supports the assumed historical SG value of 2.9 t/m3 currently used in all studies by Detour Gold.
12.6.
Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedure QA/QC Procedures prior to 2007
12.6.1.
QA/QC procedures during the periods prior to 2007 have varied significantly with time and were dependant on procedures developed by the project operators. Kallio (2006) described in details the different QA/QC protocols completed during that period including a verification program conducted by Pelangio of the analytical results from the 1990 to 1992 period through re-assaying of original and new pulps. QA/QC procedures for the 2004 to 2006 programs by Pelangio are also reviewed in details by Kallio (2006) but typically include the insertion in the sample stream of a reference material (RM), a blank and a drill core duplicate at every 20 samples. A review of the results can be found in Kallio (2006). 12.6.2. QA/QC Procedures from 2007-2009
The assay quality control program established by Detour Gold, following the recommendations by ASL, consisted of: a) Insertion of a coarse blank for one in every 40 samples; b) Insertion of a RM for one in every 40 samples;
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 63
c) Insertion of a preparation duplicate sample for one in every 30 samples; d) Insertion of a duplicate drill core sample for one in every 40 samples; and e) Routine duplicate assays of pulps as part of laboratory QC protocols. This section summarizes reports on assay quality control by ASL (Lynda Bloom, 2009a, 2009b; and 2009c, 2010 in Appendix B). QA/QC Procedures from January 2007 to January 2009 Between January 2007 and January 2009, approximately 220,000 samples (not including QC samples and drill core duplicates) from 604 drill holes (DG-07-01 through approximately DG08-604) have been collected and assayed for the Project drill programs. Blanks were submitted a total of 5,741 times with samples. There is no evidence of systematic gold contamination based on the blanks that were inserted with samples. Ninety-eight percent (98%) of the blanks assayed less than 0.025 g/t, which is five times the detection limit of 0.005 g/t or within the acceptable precision range. RMs were inserted 6,052 times with samples. The weighted average of the gold results is low by 1.2% of the expected gold value for the six RMs which is within acceptable limits. The failure rate was 1.8% which is within the expected range for fire assay. A total of 7,559 preparation duplicates were prepared routinely by SGS Minerals. Forty-four percent (44%) of the preparation duplicates reproduce within 20% relative to 74% within 20% for routine laboratory pulp duplicates which is expected as the finer grain sizes provide more reproducible sub-samples. Duplicate assays reported by SGS Minerals are within an expected range. Based on these data, the reproducibility of the pulps is typical of projects where there is particulate gold. Drill core duplicates were inserted 5,619 times. There is no bias evident between original and duplicate halves of the drill core. The low percentage of agreement between the two halves of the core is expected based on review of reproducibility for preparation duplicates, the range of gold assays for samples with the same number of visible gold specks and other measurements, i.e. the evidence for the presence of free gold particles. It is therefore assumed that there has been no bias introduced by preferentially submitting the more mineralized half of the core for assay. A total of 1,170 sample pulps (< 0.5% of the samples) were submitted to ALS-Chemex, Vancouver for check assays as three separate batches. A total of 56 RMs (spread over three submittals) were inserted with the samples for check assays sent to ALS-Chemex. ALSChemex gold assays are low on average by less than 1% relative to expected values on all seven RMs which is an acceptable result, although there was also a QC failure rate of 12% which is higher than expected. There should be a near equal number of cases where SGS Minerals assays are higher than ALSChemex, and vice versa. For the 1,143 samples with gold concentrations greater than five times detection limit, there are 635 cases where SGS Minerals assays are higher than ALSChemex assays and 501 cases where ALS-Chemex assays are higher than SGS Minerals assays. The median Relative Percent Difference (RPD) was +3%, suggesting that SGS
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 64
Minerals assays are biased slightly higher than ASL-Chemex assays on the suite of samples selected for check assay. QA/QC Procedures from February 2009 to June 2009 Approximately 23,300 samples from 71 drill holes totalling 28,741.8 metres (DG-08-605 through approximately DG-09-656) were collected and assayed from February to June 2009. Blanks were submitted a total of 620 times with samples. There was no evidence of systematic gold contamination based on the blanks that were inserted with samples. There were no quality control failures for blanks. RMs were inserted 645 times with samples. There were two cases where it is suspected that the RM code was recorded incorrectly and there were 16 quality control failures; these assays were not included in the summary calculations or graphs. The weighted average gold results are biased slightly low by 1-2% of the expected gold values for the four RMs. The failure rate is technically ~2.5%, although repeats were requested in only three cases where the failures were situated within mineralized zones. Detour Gold has taken the necessary corrective actions and tracked any cases where repeats assays have replaced original assays. A total of 804 preparation duplicates were prepared routinely by SGS Minerals. Fifty percent (50%) of the preparation duplicates reproduce within 20% relative to 64% within 20% for laboratory pulp duplicates. Duplicates assays reported by SGS Minerals are within an expected range. Based on these data, the reproducibility of the pulps is typical of projects where there is particulate gold. Drill core duplicates were inserted 593 times. There were a total of 15 cases where the difference between the drill core duplicates were greater than 100% and average assays were greater than 0.5 g/t Au. There is no bias evident between the original and second halves of the drill core. It is therefore assumed that there has been no preferential selection of half drill core sent for assay. These variations are typical of core duplicates for gold projects and no changes in procedures are recommended at this time. QA/QC Procedures from July 2009 to October 2009 Approximately 43,000 samples from 102 drill holes totalling 46,351 metres (DG-09-645 through approximately DG-09-737) have been collected and assayed from June to October 2009. There were a total of 1,175 blanks submitted with the samples for analysis. Ninety-nine percent (99%) of the blanks assayed less than 0.025 g/t Au, which is five times the detection limit of 0.005 g/t Au. There were six quality control failures based on blanks (<1% of the samples submitted for blanks), which were investigated and followed up by Thon Consulting. Repeat assays were requested for all the failures and were set to supersede original assays where appropriate. Two of the six failures were categorized as contamination issues. No further action is required. There is no evidence of systematic gold contamination based on the blanks that were inserted with samples. Results for blanks are shown in Figure 12-1.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 65
Figure 12-1: July 2009 to October 2009 Assays for Blanks
Four different RMs were submitted (purchased from OREAS, Australia). These were submitted a total of 1,215 times with samples sent to SGS Mineral. Seventy-four percent (74%) of the RM gold assays fall within 2 standard deviations demonstrating an overall acceptable accuracy based on the assessment of RMs. The average gold result for the four RMs was within <1% of the expected gold values and does not demonstrate a bias. There were technically seven quality control failures and repeat assays were requested in all seven cases; the failure rate was acceptable for fire assay. SGS Minerals gold assays on average are within 1.2% relative to expected values on all four RMs which is an acceptable result. The results were plotted and are shown in Figure 12-2. Quality control failures and mislabels are excluded from the graphs. The dashed red lines represent boundaries of +7% which is the expected tolerance limits for the fire assay method. A total of 1,165 RMs (96%) reported within +10% of the expected value.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 66
Figure 12-2: Percent of Expected for Gold Results for Reference Materials
There were a total of 4,142 laboratory duplicate gold assays provided to ASL. The reproducibility of 65% of these assays was within 20%. The original and duplicate assays are plotted in Figure 12-3. Duplicate assays reported by SGS Minerals are within the expected range and similar to previous periods. Based on these data, the pulps are reasonably homogeneous with respect to gold for a deposit with free gold.
Figure 12-3: Laboratory Pulp Duplicates Comparison Chart
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 67
A total of 1,343 preparation duplicates were prepared routinely by SGS Mineral. The reproducibility of 55% of these assays was within 20%. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the preparation duplicates reproduce within 20% relative to 65% within 20% for laboratory pulp duplicates which is expected as the finer grain sizes provide more reproducible sub-samples. The original and duplicate assays are shown in Figure 12-4. In general, the reproducibility for the duplicates in the current period is 5% better than previous periods and within expected ranges.
Figure 12-4: Preparation Duplicates Comparison Chart
As part of the drill core duplicates verification program, a total of 1,177 pairs were submitted, out of which there are 639 cases where the mean of the two values is greater than 0.025 g/t (five times detection limit), which are considered for statistical analysis. There are 552 cases where the assays for the original sample are higher than duplicate sample and 465 cases where the opposite is true. The gold assays for the original and duplicate samples are compared in Figure 12-5. RPD was calculated (original core assay less duplicate core assay relative to the average) and 9% of the duplicate pairs agree within 5%, 18% within 10% and 33% within 20%. There were 26 cases where the differences between drill core duplicates were greater than 100% and average assays were greater than 0.5 g/t Au. There is no bias evident between original and duplicate halves of the drill core. The low percentage of agreement between the two halves of the core is expected based on review of reproducibility for preparation duplicates, the range of gold assays for samples with the same number of visible gold specks and other measurements, i.e. the evidence for the presence of free gold particles. It is therefore assumed that there has been no bias introduced by preferentially submitting the more mineralized half of the core for assay. These variations are
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 68
typical of core duplicates for gold projects and no changes in procedures are recommended at this time.
Figure 12-5: Drill Core Duplicates Comparison Chart
Samples were selected on the basis of visible gold and original Fire Assay Au reporting >5 g/t and assayed for gold by Screen Metallics (FA-MET) at SGS Minerals and were then compared with the original gold value by Fire Assay. A total of 110 samples were selected on the basis of visible gold and assayed for gold by FA-MET at SGS Minerals and were then compared with the original gold value by Fire Assay. Additionally, a total of 298 samples were selected on the basis of the original fire assay Au reporting > 5 g/t Au and assayed for gold by FA-MET at SGS Minerals and were then compared with the original gold value by Fire Assay. The subset of samples selected on the basis of original 50 g fire assay determinations agree well with the FA-MET re-analyses for the current period, particularly in the grade range of 5 to 10 g/t Au which represents the majority of samples. In comparison, the subset of samples selected on the basis of the presence of visible gold show good general correspondence but are biased higher by FA-MET, particularly for those samples with greater than 10 g/t Au by the 50 grams fire assay method. These patterns of agreement and bias are variable for different periods of time and have not been explained. As part of the check assay program, a total of 510 sample pulps (~0.8% of the samples) were submitted to ALS-Chemex, Vancouver (original samples were assayed at SGS Minerals) for the period February to June 2009. Note that these check assays are relevant to the previous QC reporting period. Check assays are done on the same pulp that was assayed originally is submitted to a different laboratory for the same analytical procedures primarily to augment the assessment of bias based on the RMs and in-house control samples submitted to the original
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 69
laboratory. Reference materials are also inserted with samples submitted to the secondary laboratory to measure whether the secondary laboratory is potentially biased. The selection of samples for check assays was based on gold grades with a low proportion of less than detection limit samples submitted. Approximately 5% of samples with grades between 0.6 to 10 g/t Au were submitted for check assay and 0.3% of samples with lower grades. For this batch of check assays, a total of 20 RMs were inserted with the samples for check assays sent to ALS-Chemex. ALS-Chemex gold assays are low on average by 5% relative to expected values on all five RMs. There were two failures, and these failed QC samples were not included in the assessment of the average response for RMs. There should be a near equal number of cases where one laboratory reports higher than the other, and vice versa. For the 485 samples with gold concentrations greater than five times detection limit, there are 247 cases where SGS Minerals assays are higher than ALS-Chemex assays and 232 cases where ALS-Chemex assays are higher than SGS Minerals assays (Figure 12-6). There were nine samples (representing 2% of the samples submitted for check assays) that had assays reported that were different by more than 100%. This is expected based on comparison of results within the same laboratory and also for free gold-bearing deposits such as Detour Lake. Results show that on average the reproducibility of the pulps assayed at the same laboratory (SGS Minerals) is better than when the pulp is resubmitted to a second laboratory (ALSChemex). It should be noted that SGS Mineral implements quality control systems that set tolerances for pulp duplicates according to analytical method and the lower detection limit. Pulp duplicates are required to fall within these tolerances independent of whether pulps are homogeneous with respect to gold; particulate gold creates inhomogeneity not anticipated by the quality control systems. ALS-Chemex does not know the original assay value and therefore does not force these restrictions on reported gold assays.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 70
Figure 12-6: Check Assays Comparison Chart
QA/QC Procedures from October 2009 to January 2010 Approximately 31,000 samples from 78 drill holes totalling 33,829.8 metres (DG-09-753 through DG-09-820) have been collected and assayed from October 20, 2009 to January 15, 2010. There were a total of 909 blanks submitted with the samples for analysis. A hundred percent (905 out of 909 samples) of the blanks assayed less than 0.025 g/t Au, which is five times the detection limit of 0.005 g/t Au. There were two quality control failures based on blanks (<1% of the samples submitted for blanks) which were investigated and followed up by Thon Consulting. There is no evidence of systematic gold contamination based on the blanks that were inserted with samples. Results for blanks are shown in Figure 12-7.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 71
Figure 12-7: Assays for Blanks
Four different RMs were submitted purchased from OREAS (Australia). These were submitted a total of 961 times with samples sent to SGS Minerals. Seventy-seven percent (77%) of the RM gold assays fall within 2 standard deviations of their expected value demonstrating an overall acceptable accuracy based on the assessment of RMs. There were a total of seven QC failures (~0.7% of the total number of RMs submitted). All QC failures were investigated and followed up by Thon Consulting. SGS Minerals gold assays on average are biased low by 1.6% relative to expected values for the four RMs which is an acceptable result. The failure rate is less than 1% which is similar for previous QC reports and within normal practice for commercial laboratories. The results were plotted and are shown in Figure 12-8. Quality control failures and mislabels are excluded from the graph. The dashed red lines represent boundaries of +7% which is the expected tolerance limits for the fire assay method. A total of 907 RMs (94%) reported within +10% of the expected value.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 72
Figure 12-8: Percent of Expected Gold RMs
There were a total of 3,539 laboratory duplicate gold assays provided to ASL. The reproducibility of 60% of these assays was within 20%. The original and duplicate assays are plotted in Figure 12-9. Duplicate assays reported by SGS Minerals are within the expected range and similar to previous periods. Based on these data, the pulps are reasonably homogeneous with respect to gold for a deposit with free gold.
Figure 12-9: Laboratory Pulp Duplicates Comparison Chart
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 73
A total of 1,072 preparation duplicates were prepared routinely by SGS Minerals. The reproducibility of 52% of these assays was within 20%. Fifty-two percent (52%) of the preparation duplicates reproduce within 20% relative to 60% within 20% for laboratory pulp duplicates which is expected as the finer grain sizes provide more reproducible sub-samples. The original and duplicate assays are shown in Figure 12-10. In general, the reproducibility for the duplicates in the current period is similar to previous periods and within expected ranges.
Figure 12-10: Preparation Duplicates Comparison Chart
As part of the drill core duplicates verification program, a total of 919 pairs were submitted, out of which there are 500 cases where the mean of the two values is greater than 0.025 g/t Au (five times detection limit) which are considered for statistical analysis. There are 400 cases where the assays for the original sample are higher than duplicate sample and 367 cases where the opposite is true. The gold assays for the original and duplicate samples are compared in Figure 12-11. RPD was calculated (original core assay less duplicate core assay relative to the average). Eleven percent (11%) of the duplicate pairs agree within 5%, 18% within 10% and 30% within 20%. There were 23 cases where the differences between drill core duplicates were greater than 100% and average assays were greater than 0.5 g/t Au. There is no bias evident between original and duplicate halves of the drill core. The low percentage of agreement between the two halves of the core is expected based on review of reproducibility for preparation duplicates, the range of gold assays for samples with the same number of visible gold specks and other measurements, i.e. the evidence for the presence of free gold particles. It is therefore assumed that there has been no bias introduced by preferentially submitting the more mineralized half of the core for assay. These variations are typical of core duplicates for gold projects and no changes in procedures are recommended at this time.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 74
Figure 12-11: Drill Core Duplicates Comparison Chart
Samples were selected on the basis of visible gold and original Fire Assay Au reporting >5 g/t Au and assayed for gold by FA-MET at SGS Minerals and were then compared with the original gold value by Fire Assay. A total of 150 samples were selected on the basis of visible gold and assayed for gold by FA-MET at SGS Minerals and were then compared with the original gold value by Fire Assay. Additionally, a total of 360 samples were selected on the basis of the original fire assay Au reporting > 5 g/t and assayed for gold by FA-MET at SGS Minerals and were then compared with the original gold value by Fire Assay. The subset of samples selected on the basis of original 50 g fire assay determinations agree well with the FA-MET re-analyses for the current period, particularly in the grade range of 5 to 10 g/t Au which represents the majority of samples. In comparison, the subset of samples selected on the basis of the presence of visible gold, show good general correspondence but are biased higher by FA-MET, particularly for those samples with greater than 10 g/t Au by the 50 g fire assay method. These patterns of agreement and bias are variable for different periods of time and have not been explained. As part of the check assay program, a total of 535 sample pulps (~2% of the samples) were submitted to ALS-Chemex, Vancouver for check assays (original samples were assayed at SGS Minerals) for the period October 2009 to January 2010. Note that these check assays are relevant to the previous QC reporting period. Check assays are done on the same pulp that was assayed originally is submitted to a different laboratory for the same analytical procedures primarily to augment the assessment of bias based on the RMs and in-house control samples submitted to the original laboratory. RMs are also inserted with samples submitted to the secondary laboratory to measure whether the secondary laboratory is potentially biased. For this batch of check assays, a total of 21 RMs were inserted with the samples for check assays sent to ALS-Chemex. ALS-Chemex gold assays are low on average by 5% relative to expected values on all five RMs. There were no failures.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 75
There should be a near equal number of cases where one laboratory reports higher than the other, and vice versa. For the 521 samples with Au concentrations greater than five times detection limit, there are 259 cases where SGS Minerals assays are higher than ALS-Chemex assays, 259 cases where ALS-Chemex assays are higher than SGS Minerals assays three cases returning equal results (Figure 12-12). There were eight samples (representing 2% of the samples submitted for check assays) that had assays reported that were different by more than 100%. This is expected based on comparison of results within the same laboratory and also for free gold-bearing deposits such as Detour Lake.
Figure 12-12: Check Assays Comparison Chart
12.7.
Conclusion It is of SGS Geostats opinion that Detour Gold is operating according to an industry standard QA/QC program for the insertion of control samples into the stream of samples for the Project. The data are of quality sufficient to be used for mineral resource estimation.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 76
13.0
13.1.
DATA VERIFICATION
Drill Hole Database Verifications In 2005 and 2006, Kallio completed an initial verification program of the historic drill hole database and conducted some independent check sampling of the pre-2004 and Pelangio assay data. In 2008, WGM conducted some independent check sampling of the Detour Gold assay data with no significant database verification. Further database verification work was conducted in early 2009 by Scott Wilson Roscoe Postle Associate Inc. (Scott Wilson RPA) with no independent check sampling. Details of the 2005 and 2006 data verification programs are documented in Kallio (2006) and details of the verification work conducted by Scott Wilson RPA in early 2009 are documented in the PFS (Met-Chem 2009). As part of the FS, SGS Geostat conducted an extensive statistical review and data verification work in late 2009. The data verification program included: 1) verification of the drill hole database versus historical records, 2) independent check sampling of some historical assay data, 3) drilling of five independent holes designed to twin recent Detour Gold and historical holes, and 4) total gold analysis of 24 composites located with a test block using gravity concentration and cyanide leaching. This section summarizes the historical data verification program and details the verification programs conducted by SGS Geostat as part of the FS study.
13.1.1.
Database Verifications of Historic and Detour Gold Drill Hole Data a) Kallio 2005-06 Verification Program
Very little verification work was documented prior to 2005. Data verification in 2005 done by Kallio included field and database checks of collar locations (6 drill holes in the field and 200 drill holes in the database), survey data (Sperry Sun negatives from 6 holes), lithologies (relogging of 16 holes and database verification of 80 holes), assays (100 assays from the database) and specific gravity (6 core measurements). The 2005 verification also included the independent check sampling of 96 historical drill core intervals to determine the repeatability of previous assays. The validation of the database information versus the historical records did not returned any significant errors. Only minor discrepancies related to data entry errors, inconsistent coding, rounding errors or missing data were identified. Specific gravity measurements returned values ranging from 3.0 to 3.15 t/m3. A total of 96 samples covering four different drilling periods were independently re-sampled using the exact same interval as the original sample. The remaining half core was sampled and re-assayed with pulp and metallics method. The results indicated poor correspondence of grades between historic and new assays, high variability between duplicates and tendencies for most new assays to be lower than the original (Table 13-1).
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 77
Table 13-1: Results from the 2005 Independent Check Sampling Program by Kallio Number with % Total Samples Samples Grade (g/t) Drill Samples Differences Increasing in < 5 g/t increasing Program Original New >40% in grade grade 38 15 4.01 3.23 13 5 of 15 3 of 10 CRL 15 7.01 5.25 8 5 of 15 2 of 9 00 14 5.18 1.45 10 3 of 14 3 of 9 464 27 9.02 7.98 9 6 of 27 4 of 11 38 CRL 00 4 13 8 6.45 4.91 6.52 4.21 4.86 6.04 1 7 5 2 of 4 7 of 13 3 of 8 1 of 2 6 of 8 2 of 6
Additional data verification work was conducted in 2006 by Kallio on drilling completed by Pelangio involving a review of sampling, assay, specific gravity data and the digital database. Again, inconsistencies and minor errors were located in the database, some were corrected. Check assays of core, pulps and rejects were also conducted. Results from the check assays showed a significant variability between comparative assays with higher values returned from the check assays. Kallio also conducted some comparison of assays results from different drill programs located within a test block and comparisons between paired Pelangio and historic holes in close proximity to each other. Comparison results indicated significant variation in average grades between each drill programs at different cut-off grades with Pelangio holes having the highest average grade. Reasons for these differences were not identified however it was suggested that the unknown quality of historic assay procedures, inconsistent determination of historic capping levels, small core size and historic assay averaging may have contributed to these discrepancies. Kallio recommended additional verification of the historical assays. b) Scott Wilson RPA 2009 Database Verification Program Historical Drill Hole Database Scott Wilson RPA conducted the 2009 database verification program consisting of a review of the digital database against all available data including original logs, survey documents, assay certificates, underground void wireframes, topography and plotted maps. Collar coordinates, downhole surveys, geology and assays were checked from a random selection of drill holes from each historic drilling campaign. Additional checks were completed on specific holes that could have a significant effect on local high grade block estimates and holes that were questionable due to location or inconsistent data. A subset of 629 holes (13%) out of 4,963 historic drill holes within the project area had questionable or missing collar locations against the void model and from historical records. Although preliminary void models have been generated with larger volumes to cover the areas of known missing voids, subsequent review of original hard copy maps and logs identified additional voids that confirmed underground collar locations as well as missing collar information. Scott Wilson RPA recommended additional work to revise some existing models and to complete outstanding void models.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 78
A total of 401 historic holes (8%) were checked against original records for downhole survey, geology and assay data. Less than 1% errors were identified which were subsequently corrected. If original data could not provide support for identified discrepancies, complete holes were removed from the final validated database. Scott Wilson RPA concluded that the historic drill hole database contained no significant errors based on validation with original data, topography and underground workings. Scott Wilson RPA recommended continuing historic data verification checks of underground drill hole collar locations with final void models and local areas of underground high grade assays adjacent to final void models. Detour Gold Drill Hole Database Scott Wilson RPA checked a selection of DGC (Detour Gold) collar, down hole survey, lithology, and assay data against drill core photographs, original survey sheets, assay certificates and topography on plotted sections and visually in 3D. Additional validation was conducted through discussion with Detour Gold site project geologists and Thon Consulting regarding logging, sampling, lithology, downhole surveying, data management and QA/QC procedures. As DGC drill hole data and underground voids were captured independently of each other, an additional validation comparing their relative locations was conducted. Although the distances between drill hole breakthroughs and voids vary, most breakthroughs can be explained by the presence of a modeled void in the vicinity. Scott Wilson RPA conducted checks on duplicate pulps, preparation samples and core samples. Results indicated that precision of all samples, including pulp duplicates, is extremely variable even at low grades. Assay precision will influence the selection of appropriate grade interpolation parameters and method for resource estimation. Scott Wilson RPA concluded that the drilling, data collection and QA/QC procedures undertaken by Detour Gold correspond to industry standard practices and are considered to be acceptable. Comparison of Historic and Detour Gold Assays Scott Wilson RPA conducted studies to assess drill hole data reliability for use in resource estimation. Comparisons were run between DGC holes and all other previously drilled holes within separate domains and test blocks. Results indicated that over large domains, average grades showed reasonable to poor correlation; however, similar distinct trends exist locally between the datasets. Historic holes generally contain local higher average gold grades compared to DGC holes and reflect local trends dependent on hole locations. DGC assays are distributed at relatively equal spacing throughout the domains and may be more representative of the overall gold grades. Scott Wilson RPA recommended additional studies to assess the validity of historic underground holes especially in the area below the current influence of DGC surface holes (5,900 metre elevation) involving reconciliation of historic assays with underground production (after final stope models have been generated) and additional data collection at depth.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 79
Drill Hole Database Validation Scott Wilson RPA did not find any significant problems during a check of the drill hole database although a small number of minor discrepancies were identified in the collar, geology and assay tables. Scott Wilson RPA was of the opinion that the database finalized in June 2009 was valid and acceptable for use in resource estimation work. 13.1.2. SGS Geostat 2009 Database Verification Program
Drill Hole Database Verification As part of the independent verification program, SGS Geostat conducted data verification of historical records and compared them to the data from Detour Gold master database. The historical records archived at the Project site consist of hard copy reports, logs (hand-written and computerized), deviation test, assays certificates, compilation index, and maps. The historical records consulted by SGS Geostat during the verification are mainly the logs, deviation test, and assays certificates, when available. The verification was made by comparing the information from the original logs and assays certificates to the information stored in the master database. The data verification was mainly focused on the collar (easting, northing, elevation, length, azimuth, dip, and used grid), deviations (depth, azimuth, dip, and type of deviation test), assays (from-to, sample number, blanks and duplicates) and lithology (from-to, description, and code). The majority of the historical logs from the drilling campaigns conducted by Amoco, Campbell, Detour Mine Group, Placer and Pelangio were available but only the original assay certificates from the Pelangio period were found in the archives (except one certificate for the Placer series). The proportion of historical logs verified by SGS Geostat represents approximately 5% of the holes for each drilling campaign except for the Detour Mine Group 03 to 15 series which only 2% of the logs were checked due to the excessive amount of drill holes in the Project. The selection of the historical logs was mostly based on holes containing high assays values. The Amoco campaign (pre-1979) which contains the 36, 38, 38W, and 38U series totals 302 surface and underground holes. From those, 16 holes logs were verified by SGS Geostat and no assay certificate were found in the archives. The data verification reveals that the assays were probably converted from troy ounces/short ton to g/t. After conversion of high gold values in the master database back to the original unit, some minor discrepancies were noted but two significant errors were observed. Also, a systematic conversion of original values noted as trace or nil to recent values of 0.1 g/t Au was outlined. The Campbell campaign (1979-1987), which contains the CRL, 100, 120 and 206 series, totals 402 holes. From these series, 30 holes were verified which represent 10% of the CRL series and 5% of the other series (100, 120 and 206). For these series, only the historical logs were available; the assays certificates and deviations were not found in the archives. The data verification from the Campbell series reveals some minor discrepancies between the original logs and the master database including three significant transcription errors. The issue observed with the previous Amoco data where a value of 0.1 g/t was systematically noted in the Detour Gold database was also observed in the Campbell series. Some of those 0.1 g/t values are replacing original values noted as trace, nil or values below 0.1 g/t (potentially rounding
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 80
errors). The repetition of certain values (0.07, 0.34, 0.69, 1.03) observed in the original logs is also suspect, potentially related to conversion from imperial to metric units. The Detour Mine Group campaign (1987-1999), which contains the 00, 03 to 15 and 56L to 66L series, totals 4,151 drill holes. From these series, 2 % of the original logs for the 03 to 15 series (3,677 underground holes) were verified and 5% of the holes from the other series were verified. A total of 18 significant errors all related to the 03 to 15 series where noted during the verification. Some minor discrepancies where also observed. The Placer campaign (1987-1999), which contains the 464/R464 and DPH series, totals 34 holes. Only the historical logs from the 464 series were available (partially). The R464 and DPH logs were not found in the archives. Only one hole of the 464 series was validated (original log, deviation tests and assays certificates were available) and no discrepancies were outlined. The Pelangio campaign (2004-2006), which contains the PM series, totals 79 surface holes. From that series, 5% of the holes were verified. The hand-written logs, computerized logs, and assays certificates were available and four significant discrepancies were noted during the verification. It is SGS Geostats recommendation that all errors observed during the historical data verification be corrected and updated in the master database with the appropriate values. SGS Geostat also recommends investigating in detail the systematic errors related the large amount of values at 0.1 g/t Au highlighted during the verification. This systematic error potentially resulted from rounding of numbers during transcription. In addition, SGS Geostat recommends to conduct additional verification of historical records and to locate the original assay certificates if possible. SGS Geostat conducted a validation of 71 drill hole collar locations from the West Pit and Calcite areas as part of the independent verification program. The verification involved locating the casing left in the field and measuring their co-ordinates taken from the Detour Gold database using a handheld GPS device. From the 71 drill hole collars selected for verification, 53 are from Detour Gold 2007-2008 drilling period, 3 are from the Pelangio drilling period and 15 are historical drill hole collars from the pre-2005 drilling periods. SGS Geostat successfully located all the Pelangio and Detour Gold drill holes casing except one, DG-07-034, where the expected location is near a recent drill road, probably buried or damaged. The verification of the Detour Gold and Pelangio collars in the field indicate a very close correspondence with the database co-ordinates. None of the historical casing (pre-2005) was located during the verification. Independent Check Sampling of Historical Core SGS Geostat conducted an independent check sampling program on three historical drill holes. A total of 32 samples were collected from holes PMDDH-101 and PMDDH-102 and 49 samples were taken from hole CRL-039. The check sampling procedure consisted of the sampling of the complete remaining half core following the original sampling interval and assaying for gold using a similar analytical package used by Detour Gold, which is 50 g fire assay with gravimetric finish (FAG) and a re-analysis using 500 g screen metallics fire assay for any FAG results returning above 1 g/t Au when enough remaining sample material was
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 81
available. RMs (blanks and certified standards) where inserted at every 20 samples (following the Detour Gold RM procedure) and all the analyses were conducted at SGS Minerals. Comparative assay results for holes PMDDH-101 and PMDDH-102 are shown in Table 13-2, Figure 13-1 and Figure 13-2. Overall, the assay results of the duplicates samples from holes PMDDH-101 and PMDDH-102 show a good correlation with the original assays. Depending on the grade interval, between 47% and 62% of the duplicate assays returned a higher gold values than the original assays, which can be considered a fair correlation. A significant variability between the original and the duplicate assays is observed (between 23% and 50% of the assay results show a relative percentage difference greater than 50%) but this is expected for this kind of comparative study due to the significant nugget effect observed at the Detour Lake deposit and is in line with Detour Golds QA/QC results for half core duplicates collected since 2007.
Table 13-2: Check Sampling Comparative Results for Holes PMDDH-101 and PMDDH-102
Criteria Allsamples >0.15g/t >0.15g/t&<=1g/t >1g/t&<=5g/t >5g/t N 32 22 13 4 5 PMDDH101andPMDDH102 Original>Duplicate Original<Duplicate 17 15 53% 47% 9 13 41% 59% 5 8 38% 62% 2 2 50% 50% 2 3 40% 60% Original=Duplicate 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
>50% 16 50% 7 32% 3 23% 2 50% 2 40%
TotalNFallingWithinRelativePercentDifference(RPD)forPMDDH101andPMDDH102 N 10% 25% 50% 2 9 16 Allsamples 32 6% 28% 50% 2 9 15 >0.15g/t 22 9% 41% 68% 1 6 10 >0.15g/t&<=1g/t 13 8% 46% 77% 1 2 2 >1g/t&<=5g/t 4 25% 50% 50% 0 1 3 >5g/t 5 0% 20% 60% Criteria
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 82
Figure 13-1: Correlation Charts for Check Sampling Results of Hole PMDDH-101
PMDDH101
25 4 3 20 2 1 15
PMDDH101
FAAuOriginal (g/t)
LnFAAuOriginal
0 5 10 15 20 25
0 1 2
10
3 4
5 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4
FAAuDupplicate (g/t)
LnFAAuDupplicate
Figure 13-2: Correlation Charts for Check Sampling Results of Hole PMDDH-102
PMDDH102
9 8 7
FAAuOriginal (g/t)
PMDDH102
3 2 1
LnFAAuOriginal
6 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 5 4 3 2 1 0
LnFAAuDupplicate
Comparative assay results for holes CRL-039 are shown in Table 13-3 and Figure 13-3. Depending on the grade interval, between 71% and 100% of the original assays returned higher gold values than the duplicate assays, which can be considered a poor correlation. The variability observed between the original and the duplicate assays is very high (between 63% and 100% of the assay results show a relative percent difference greater than 50%). Although a high variability is expected for this kind of comparative study due to the significant nugget effect observed at the Detour Lake deposit, the assays variability for hole CRL-039 is significantly higher than the average variability outlined by Detour Golds QA/QC results for half core duplicates. The comparative analytical results observed for hole CRL-039 do not confirm but highlight a potential analytical bias toward the historical assays of the CRL series.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 83
The holes of the CRL series were surface holes drilled by Campbell between 1979 and 1987. It is important to note that other underground holes were drilled during this period (100, 120 and 206 series) by the same operator and could also be affected by this potential bias. In order to validate the potential bias observed herein, SGS Geostat strongly recommends conducting additional check assays on samples collected during the Campbell period where the other half core is still available. The additional check assays must be conducted on drill holes representative of the different mineralized domains and focused on the samples with significant gold values.
Table 13-3: Check Sampling Comparative Results for Hold CRL-039

Criteria Allsamples >0.15g/t >0.15g/t&<=1g/t >1g/t&<=5g/t >5g/t N 49 32 23 8 1 CRL039 Original>Duplicate 35 71% 25 78% 18 78% 6 75% 1 100% Original<Duplicate 12 24% 5 16% 4 17% 1 13% 0 0% Original=Duplicate 2 4% 2 6% 1 4% 1 13% 0 0%
Criteria Allsamples >0.15g/t >0.15g/t&<=1g/t >1g/t&<=5g/t >5g/t
N 49 32 23 8 1
TotalNFallingWithinRelativePercentDifference(RPD)forCRL039 10% 25% 50% 4 8 14 8% 16% 29% 4 8 9 13% 25% 28% 2 5 6 9% 22% 26% 2 3 3 25% 38% 38% 0 0 0 0% 0% 0%
>50% 35 71% 23 72% 17 74% 5 63% 1 100%
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 84
Figure 13-3: Correlation Charts for Check Sampling Results of Hole CRL-039
CRL039
13 12 11 10 9
FAAuOriginal (g/t)
CRL039
3 2 1
LnFAAuOriginal
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
0 1 2 3 4 5 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3
LnFAAuDupplicate
SGS Geostat Drilling of Twin Holes to Check Historical and Recent Analytical Data As part of the independent verification program, SGS Geostat drilled five (5) independent holes designed to twin historical analytical results. The drill holes selected for this twin drilling program were DG-08-567, DG-07-259, CRL-030, 38-029 and 00-0056. The twin holes were drilled using a similar azimuth/dip and are located between 2 and 6 metres below the original holes. The sampling and analytical procedures used for the twin drilling program are identical to the procedures currently used by Detour Gold. Comparative results of the twin drilling program, for different mineralized intervals, are shown on schematic sections in Figure 13-4, Figure 13-5, Figure 13-6, Figure 13-7, Figure 13-8 and compiled in Table 13-4.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 85
Figure 13-4: Schematic Section Showing Results for Hole DGG-09-806 (Twin of DG-08-567)
0
8.70 g/t over 25.0m (3.65 g/t capped) (from 52 to 77m) 5

0
1.55 g/t over 180.0m (0.85 g/t capped) (from 12 to 192m)
10 0
1.28 g/t over 40.0m (from 126 to 166m)

15 0
50
10 0
DG-08-567 192m
15 0

0 12.5
20 0
Scale for Au histogram (g/t)
0.83 g/t over 40.0m (from 125 to 165m)

(Schematic section, not to scale)
DGG-09-806 221m
Figure 13-5: Schematic Section Showing Results for Hole DGG-09-809 (Twin of DG-07-259)
0
1.41 g/t over 55.0m (from 40 to 95m) 1.19 g/t over 138.0m (1.09 g/t capped) (from 18 to 156m)
50
10 0
50
15 0
10 0
DG-07-259 339m
20 0
0.95 g/t over 55.0m (from 40 to 95m)
DGG-09-809 156m
15 0

25
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 86
Figure 13-6: Schematic Section Showing Results for Hole DGG-09-815 (Twin of CRL-030)
0
0.97 g/t over 109.1m (from 40.5 to 149.6m)
1.03 g/t over 30.0m (from 52.5 to 82.5m)

50
1.88 g/t over 38.6m (from 111.0 to 149.6m)
0 10
50
CRL-030 149.6m
0.31 g/t over 30.0m (from 51.0 to 81.0m)
0 10
Sca le for Au his togra m (g/t)
0.25 g/t over 109.0m (from 44.0 to 153.0m) 0.43 g/t over 39.0m (from 114.0 to 153.0m) (Schematic section, not to scale)
0 15
0
DG G-09-815 162m
Figure 13-7: Schematic Section Showing Results for Hole DGG-09-816 (Twin of 38-029)
0.43 g/t over 138.95m (from 53.65 to 192.60m)
50
0
0 10
50
0.89 g/t over 51.81m (from 128.63 to 180.44m)

0 15
10 0
38-029 192.6m
15 0
5
20 0
0.31 g/t over 139.0m (from 70.0 to 209.0m) 0.58 g/t over 51.0m (from 142.0 to 193.0m)
DGG-09-816 210m
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 87
Figure 13-8: Schematic Section Showing Results for Hole DGG-09-818 (Twin of 00-0056)
0
0.91 g/t over 144.0m (from 53 to 197m)

50
1.74 g/t over 50.0m (from 101 to 151m)
0 10
50
0 15
10 0
00-0056 200m
15 0
1.15 g/t over 144.0m (from 57 to 201m)

0 10
20 0
1.54 g/t over 50.0m (from 104 to 154m)

DGG-09-818 201m
Table 13-4: Comparative Analytical Results from Twin Drill Holes Conducted by SGS Geostat
From(m) 13.0 58.0 125.0 12.0 52.0 126.0 From(m) 18.0 40.0 18.0 40.0 From(m) 44.0 51.0 114.0 40.5 52.5 111.0 From(m) 70.0 142.0 53.65 128.63 From(m) 57.0 104.0 53.0 101.0 To(m) 193.0 83.0 165.0 192.0 77.0 166.0 To(m) 156.0 95.0 156.0 95.0 To(m) 153.0 81.0 153.0 149.6 82.5 149.6 To(m) 209.0 193.0 192.6 180.44 To(m) 201.0 154.0 197.0 151.0 Interval(m) 180.0 25.0 40.0 180.0 25.0 40.0 Interval(m) 138.0 55.0 138.0 55.0 Interval(m) 109.0 30.0 39.0 109.1 30.0 38.6 Interval(m) 139.0 51.0 138.95 51.81 Interval(m) 144.0 50.0 144.0 50.0 Weightedaverage(g/t) DG09806 2.49 16.06 0.83 DG08567 1.55 8.70 1.28 Weightedaverage(g/t) DG09809 0.85 0.95 DG07259 1.19 1.41 Weightedaverage(g/t) DG09815 0.25 0.31 0.43 CRL030 0.97 1.03 1.88 Weightedaverage(g/t) DG09816 0.31 0.58 38029 0.43 0.89 Weightedaverage(g/t) DG09818 1.15 1.54 000056 0.91 1.74 Weightedaverage(capped)(g/t) 0.61 2.58 na 0.85 3.65 na Weightedaverage(capped)(g/t) 0.80 na 1.09 na Weightedaverage(capped)(g/t) na na na na na na Weightedaverage(capped)(g/t) na na na na Weightedaverage(capped)(g/t) na na na na
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 88
Results for twin drill hole DGG-09-806 returned an average grade 2.49 g/t Au over a core length of 180 metres compare to 1.55 g/t Au over 180 metres for hole DG-08-567. By capping the high values for each assay datasets, SGS Geostat observed the opposite relation: the average grade is 0.61 g/t Au for the twin hole compare to 0.85 g/t Au for the original hole over the same interval. The gold grade differences of +60% (uncapped) and -28% (capped) for the twin hole versus the original hole can be considered acceptable considering the high nugget effect observed at the Detour Lake deposit. Results for twin drill hole DGG-09-809 returned an average grade 0.85 g/t Au over a core length of 138 metres compare to 1.19 g/t Au over 138 metres for hole DG-07-259. By capping the high values for each assay datasets, SGS Geostat observed a slight diminution of the grade difference where the average grade is 0.80 g/t Au for the twin hole compare to 1.09 g/t Au for the original hole over the same interval. The gold grade differences of -29% (uncapped) and 27% (capped) for the twin hole compared to the original hole can be considered acceptable considering the high nugget effect observed in the Detour Lake deposit. Capping levels for each domain is described in detailed in Section 16.2.2. Results for twin drill hole DGG-09-815 returned an average grade 0.25 g/t Au over a core length of 109 metres compare to 0.97 g/t Au over 109.1 metres for hole CRL-030. Capping does not affect the results as no individual assays are above the capping threshold. Calculated average gold grade for a smaller interval located in the first part of the holes returns 0.31 g/t Au over 30 metres for the twin hole versus 1.03 g/t Au for the original hole, a difference of -70%. Another smaller interval located in the lower part of the holes return average grade of 0.43 g/t Au over 39 metres for the twin hole compare to 1.88 g/t Au over 38.6 metres for the original hole, a -77% grade difference. The gold grade difference of -74% over 109 metres for the twin hole compared to the original hole (which is supported by average grade difference of -70% and -77% for smaller sub-intervals) can be considered significant in this case. It is important to note that this trend in the assay values between a historical hole from the CRL series and recent assays for similar mineralized material seems to support the potential bias observed in the check sampling exercise conducted on a section of hole CRL-039. Results for twin drill hole DGG-09-816 return an average grade 0.31 g/t Au over a core length of 139 metres compare to 0.43 g/t Au for hole 38-029 over a similar interval. Capping does not affect the results as no individual assays are above the capping threshold. The gold grade differences of -28% for the twin hole compared to the original hole can be considered acceptable. Results for twin drill hole DGG-09-818 return an average grade 1.15 g/t Au over a core length of 144 metres compare to 0.91 g/t Au for hole 00-0056 over the same interval. Capping does not affect the results as no individual assays are above the capping threshold. The gold grade differences of +26% for the twin hole compared to the original hole can be considered acceptable. In conclusion, the twin drilling campaign conducted as part of the independent verification program shows a fair to good correlation between the historical and Detour Gold assay data versus the assay data collected from the twin drill holes except for hole CRL-030 where the difference can be considered significant. In the light of these results, SGS Geostat strongly
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 89
recommends to conduct additional verification of the historical analytical data of the Campbell drilling period, in particular the assay data from the CRL series. Total Gold Analysis of Composite Samples Within a Test Block The variability in the gold analytical results at Detour Lake is very significant and can be explained for the most part by the coarse nature of the gold mineralization in the deposit. This characteristic, commonly named the nugget effect, generates extreme individual gold assays that are not always representative of the average gold grade and makes the gold content in the deposit difficult to evaluate. In order to address the nugget effect and validate the gold content of the mineralization, SGS Geostat designed a 210 metres by 110 metres by 10 metres test block located in the West Pit area and conducted total gold analysis over 24 recent Detour Gold drill holes selected from all the drill holes contained within the block. The test block is centered at 20,010 N on section 19,425 E and located at the 6,235 metres elevation. The 24 drill hole composites are measuring 13 metres each (Figure 13-9, Figure 13-10, and Figure 13-11).
Figure 13-9: Plan View of the Test Block Showing the Individual Composites
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 90
Figure 13-10: Cross Section of the Test Block Showing the Individual Composite (Looking West)
Figure 13-11: 3D View of the Total Gold Analysis Test Block Showing the Individual Composites
For each drill hole selected, a complete 13 metre-long half core section was sampled resulting in a total of 24 composite samples for the test block. These samples were sent to SGS Minerals in Lakefield, Ontario (SGS Lakefield) with the objective of determining the head grades of the composites using total gold analysis. The methodology used at SGS Lakefield is gravity separation followed by bulk cyanidation. Each composite was first crushed to a 10 mesh particle size (2 mm) and riffled into 10 kg batches. The batches were send to the gravity separation where they were ground to a K80 size of approximately 75 m using a rod mill then processed with a 3-inch Knelson concentrator. The resulting concentrate was cleaned using a Mozley mineral separator and completely analyzed for gold by fire assay. The Knelson and Mozley gravity tailings were combined and submitted for a 48-hours cyanide leaching cycle under optimum conditions developed for the Detour Lake deposit. The resulting pregnant leach
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 91
solution was collected and submitted for gold assay. From the leached pulp, six 1 kg pulp samples were analyzed for gold. For each 1 kg leached pulp samples, two duplicate 30 g aliquots were processed by fire assay with the two combined beads analyzed using AA finish giving a total of six assay results per composite leaching tail. Finally, an overall gravity + cyanidation gold metallurgical balance was performed to calculate the head grade for each composite. Total gold analysis results for each composite are presented in Table 13-5 with the original and capped Detour Gold composite fire assays compiled for the other half core samples. Table 13-6 shows descriptive statistics of the normal and log transformed datasets.
Table 13-5: Results from the Total Gold Analysis of the Test Block Composites
Drill Hole Composite Hole ID From To (m) (m) DG-07-026 54 67 DG-07-027 52 65 DG-07-112 53 66 DG-07-118 53 66 DG-07-121 54 67 DG-07-135 54 67 DG-07-140 58 71 DG-07-158 55 68 DG-07-164 53 66 DG-08-530 52 65 DG-08-534 53 66 DG-08-536 58 71 DG-08-554 53 66 DG-08-564 54 67 DG-08-566 53 66 DG-08-567 53 66 DG-08-568 53 66 DG-08-587 54 67 DG-08-588 DG-08-589 DG-08-590 DG-08-598 DG-08-600 DG-08-602 Averages 54 55 54 58 55 54 67 68 67 71 68 67 Recovery (%) 13.0 53.6 57.4 79.5 86.2 14.4 3.3 16.8 26.5 97.3 20.2 53.4 35.6 34.8 42.4 89.0 68.4 30.1 32.2 34.9 41.4 63.1 48.8 52.7 45.6 Gravity Process Cyanidation Process Conc. Conc. Grade Recovery CN Grade Wt (%) (%) Au (g/t) Au (g/t) 0.04 31 70.6 0.09 0.04 351 75.2 0.12 0.06 233 72.5 0.10 0.04 12019 72.7 1.30 0.05 1018 81.6 0.07 0.05 178 87.4 0.54 0.07 24 96.5 0.47 0.04 61 85.2 0.13 0.07 60 83.6 0.11 0.05 6301 80.7 0.09 0.07 512 86.0 1.32 0.06 231 88.9 0.12 0.08 59 84.1 0.09 0.08 292 88.6 0.46 0.08 161 90.7 0.18 0.08 20177 93.9 1.89 0.06 893 93.9 0.24 0.05 175 87.8 0.22 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.07 104 55 413 6625 1178 621 74.7 78.5 83.9 96.4 93.7 92.9 85.0 0.12 0.06 0.33 2.29 0.64 0.41 Total Head Calc. Overall Recovery Total Grade Au (g/t) (%) 0.10 74.4 0.26 88.5 0.24 88.3 6.34 94.4 0.53 97.5 0.63 89.2 0.49 96.6 0.16 87.7 0.15 87.9 3.51 99.5 1.65 88.8 0.25 94.8 0.14 89.8 0.71 92.6 0.31 94.6 17.10 99.3 0.76 98.1 0.31 91.5 82.8 86.0 90.6 98.7 96.8 96.6 91.9 0.18 0.09 0.56 6.20 1.25 0.87 1.78 Detour Gold - FA data FA-Au FA-Au Capped (g/t) (g/t) 0.14 0.14 0.31 0.31 0.20 0.20 11.81 2.35 0.19 0.19 0.57 0.57 0.06 0.06 0.19 0.19 0.24 0.25 0.09 0.09 0.98 0.98 0.27 0.27 0.09 0.09 0.47 0.47 0.19 0.19 14.53 7.12 0.62 0.62 0.24 0.24 0.18 0.08 0.50 7.22 1.16 0.08 1.68 0.18 0.08 0.50 2.44 1.16 0.08 0.78
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 92
Table 13-6: Descriptive Statistics of the Total Gold Analysis, Original and Capped Detour Gold Fire Assay Results
Mean Standard Error Standard Deviation Rel. Standard Deviation Sample Variance Kurtosis 2x Std Error Kurtosis (sek) Skewness 2x Std Error Skewness (ses) Range Minimum Median Maximum Count Au Head Calc. 1.78 0.76 3.70 208 13.69 13.41 2.00 3.49 1.00 17.01 0.09 0.51 17.10 24 FA-Au 1.68 0.78 3.84 228 14.72 6.66 2.00 2.74 1.00 14.47 0.06 0.24 14.53 24 FA-Au Capped 0.78 0.31 1.50 191 2.24 14.92 2.00 3.67 1.00 7.06 0.06 0.25 7.12 24 Ln Au Head -0.55 0.28 1.39 -251 1.93 0.27 2.00 0.90 1.00 5.27 -2.43 -0.67 2.84 24 Ln FA-Au -0.98 0.31 1.52 -155 2.30 1.19 2.00 1.31 1.00 5.50 -2.82 -1.43 2.68 24 Ln FA-Au Capped -1.12 0.25 1.21 -108 1.47 0.45 2.00 0.88 1.00 4.78 -2.81 -1.41 1.96 24
Using the 24 drill hole composites, the calculated head grade for the entire test block averages 1.78 g/t Au compare to averages of 1.68 g/t Au for the original fire assays and 0.78 g/t Au for the capped fire assays. A correlation analysis between the head grades results and the original fire assays results using the log transformed data shows a relatively good correlation except for three data points (Figure 13-12). The three data points located outside the correlation trend are actually low value original fire assays that returned significant head grade values (DG-07-140, DG-08-530 and DG-08-602). Although the number of samples is relatively small, the t-Test for paired two samples for means (Table 13-7) conducted between the head grades data and the original fire assays data highlighted a slight positive bias toward the head grades. This small bias is amplified by the capping process as seen in the t-Test results of the head grades versus the capped fire assays.
Figure 13-12: Correlation Charts between the Calculated Head Grades versus the Original and Capped Fire Assays
4 4
LnFAAucapped (composite)
LnFAAu(composite)
3 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4
3 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4
LnAuhead(leach)
LnAuhead(leach)
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 93
Table 13-7: Comparative Results from the Students Test Paired Two Samples for Mean
t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means Mean Variance Observations Pearson Correlation Hypothesized Mean Difference df t Stat P(T<=t) one-tail t Critical one-tail P(T<=t) two-tail t Critical two-tail Ln Au head -0.55 1.93 24 0.777 0 23 2.138 0.022 1.714 0.043 2.069 Ln FA-Au -0.98 2.30 24 Ln Au head -0.55 1.93 24 0.739 0 23 2.905 0.004 1.714 0.008 2.069 Ln FA-Au Capped -1.12 1.47 24
Using the different analytical datasets, three block models were interpolated using the square of the inverse distance method based on similar parameters used for the resource estimate of the entire deposit (Figure 13-13, Figure 13-14 and Figure 13-15)
Figure 13-13: Block Model for the Test Block Using Total Gold Analysis Data
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 94
Figure 13-14: Block Model for the Test Block Using Detour Gold Fire Assay Data
Figure 13-15: Block Model for the Test Block Using Detour Gold Capped Fire Assay Data
Using the individual block models, unclassified resource estimate using a 0.6 g/t cut-off grade was calculated for each analytical dataset (Table 13-8).
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 95
Table 13-8: Mineral Resource Estimate (Unclassified) for the Test Block (using a 0.6 g/t Au cut-off grade) Au-head Au-FA Au-FA Capped 130,500 101,500 95,500 Volume (m3) 2.90 2.90 2.90 SG 378,450 294,350 276,950 Tonnage 2.91 3.91 1.54 Au grade (g/t) 35,456 36,965 13,751 Au (oz)
Based on the test block comparative results, the average composite grade for the total gold analysis (Au-head 1.78 g/t) is 5.9% higher than the average composite grade of the fire assays (Au-FA 1.68 g/t). This small difference in average composite grades can be explained by the three mineralized composites missed by the fire assay methodology but accounted for in the total gold average composite grade (DG-07-140, DG-08-530 and DG-08-602). The resource estimate calculated from the block models returned 4.3% more gold contained in the test block using the fire assays data (36,965 oz) compare to the total gold analysis (35,456 oz). The slightly high gold content using the fire assays data can be explained by the weighting effect of individual composites during the interpolation process. Overall, the results of the test block verification program demonstrated that the original fire assays used by Detour Gold in the test block area is a good approximation of the total gold content estimated from the gravity and cyanidation testwork, although the fire assay method has a tendency to miss some mineralized samples consequently slightly underestimating the average gold grade. As expected, the capped fire assays are significantly underestimating the gold content in the test block, which means that a significant portion of the gold is contained in the coarse fraction of the mineralization. As a result, the resources estimate for the test block area based on the capped fire assays can be considered a conservative estimate of the gold contained in the West Pit area of the deposit. It is important to note that the relationship between the total gold and the fire assay datasets has been characterized for the mineralization observed in the test block area only and cannot be extrapolated to other areas of the deposit without further testing. SGS Geostat recommended conducting similar total gold analysis test program on others areas in the deposit with the objective of validating, in different type of mineralization observed elsewhere in the Project, the total gold-fire assay relationship outlined herein. In April 2010, Detour Gold started the sampling program on three additional test blocks located in the central area (Gap Zone), western part (Calcite Zone) and to the north (Hangingwall zone). The program will follow the same procedures as the one completed by SGS Geostat. The total number of drill holes/composites within each of the blocks is 26, 27 and 23, respectively. This program is expected to take three months to complete. 13.1.3. Verification of Potential Bias of CRL Holes
Due to the potential analytical bias outlined with the assay data of some drill holes from the CRL series, SGS Geostat conducted a resource estimation test on the mineralized Domain 2 with the objective of quantifying the effect of the CRL series assays on the overall gold content of the mineralized domain. Using identical resource calculation methodology, the total
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 96
resources for the mineralized Domain 2 were estimated without the drill holes from the CRL series and compared with the total resources estimated with the drill holes from the CRL series. Table 13-9 shows the comparative results of the original and test resource estimates. Note that Pit11E represents the optimized pit based on the PFS resource estimate. The FS optimized pit design was not finalized at the time of the data verification was carried out.
Table 13-9: Comparative Results of the Resource Estimation Test on Domain 2

Estimate Cut-off grade Categories Tonnes Au Grade (g/t) Au Metal (oz) Resource estimate including drill holes from the CRL series 0.60 Meas 41,264,749 1.13 1,500,024 0.60 Ind 134,300,418 1.07 4,636,742 All 0.60 M+I 175,565,167 1.09 6,136,766 0.60 Inf 10,432,022 0.90 302,688 0.60 Meas 26,979,080 1.12 973,599 0.60 Ind 82,883,000 1.06 2,837,524 Pit11E 0.60 M+I 109,862,080 1.08 3,811,122 0.60 Inf 754,394 0.97 23,529 Resource estimate excluding drill holes from the CRL series 0.60 Meas 39,956,645 1.13 1,457,344 0.60 Ind 134,739,699 1.07 4,651,200 All 0.60 M+I 174,696,344 1.09 6,108,545 0.60 Inf 10,508,502 0.90 304,564 0.60 Meas 25,672,426 1.13 930,958 0.60 Ind 83,317,988 1.06 2,851,890 Pit11E 0.60 M+I 108,990,415 1.08 3,782,848 0.60 Inf 830,875 0.95 25,405
Difference vs Resources including CRL Holes Au Metal (oz) % -42,680 -2.93% 14,458 0.31% -28,221 -0.46% 1,876 0.62% -42,641 -4.58% 14,366 0.50% -28,274 -0.75% 1,876 7.38%
The results of the resource estimate test shows that without including the drill data from the CRL series holes, the total gold contained in the Measured and Indicated categories is reduced by 28,221 oz (0.46%) for the global resource and 28,274 oz (0.75%) for the in-pit resource. As expected due to the removal of 189 drill holes, the gold contained in the Indicated category increase to the expense of the Measured category. Based on these results, SGS Geostat considers the effect of removing the historical CRL series drill holes to be insignificant compare to overall gold content in the Detour Lake deposit. Although there might be a potential analytical bias with the drilling data of the CRL series, SGS Geostat is in the opinion that the effect of the potential bias is not significant (compare to other deliberate analytical bias like the capping of the high Au values) and that the historical drilling data from the Campbell period can be included in the final drill hole database used for the final resource estimate work. 13.1.4. Finalized Drill Hole Database
The final drill hole database includes a total of 5,877 drill holes including 863 holes drilled by Detour Gold. The database contains all assays received from the analytical laboratory by the cut-off date of January 18, 2010. Table 13-10 lists all the data of the drill holes included in the final drill hole database. Twin holes drilled by SGS Geostat (DGC-09 series) and holes drilled in 2010 by Detour Gold were not considered in the resource estimation process. It is SGS Geostat opinion that final database dated January 2010 is valid and acceptable for use in mineral resource estimation studies.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 97
Table 13-10: Detour Lake Drilling Data Included in Final Drill Hole Database (1)
Period Operator Drill Hole Series 36, 38, 38W 38U CRL 100, 120, 206 00 03 to 15 56L to 66L 464/R464 DPH PM DG-07 DG-08 DG-09 DGG-09 DG-10 Location Surface Underground Surface Underground Surface Underground Underground Surface Underground Surface Surface Surface Surface Surface Surface Number of Holes 126 176 189 213 162 3,692 317 34 2 79 306 316 241 6 18 1,477 4,400 5,877 Metres Drilled 38,100 11,524 18,638 11,712 24,252 398,120 6,516 17,527 603 19,546 113,520 119,987 103,251 1,034 5,189 461,045 428,475 889,520 Number of Number of Number of % Survey Lithology Assay Assayed Records Records Records Metres 791 493 440 446 600 11,552 634 492 21 1,029 33,369 35,630 27,499 182 124 100,156 13,146 113,302 2,231 1,124 1,626 919 3,797 58,680 1,173 1,450 41 2,556 7,356 6,311 4,544 41 179 30,091 61,937 92,028 16,664 7,468 11,504 8,518 17,426 361,406 6,516 9,593 521 12,384 108,377 114,689 93,640 832 385,109 384,429 769,538 70 98 92 100 72 91 100 52 90 59 94 94 89 79 -
Pre-1979 1979-1987
Amoco Campbell Detour Mine Group PDX
1987-1999
2004 to 2006
Pelangio
2007 to 2009
DGC
Total Surface Total Underground Total All
(1) Assays of DGG-09 twin drill holes and DG-10 series were not available for the mineral resource estimation.
13.2.
Summary and Recommendations In the PFS of the Project, Scott Wilson RPA made a number of recommendations as part of their data verification program. Detour Gold has carried out a number of those recommendations with some still in progress. SGS Geostat did not conduct any verification of the underground infrastructures and void models as part of the current data verification program. However, Detour Gold has followed up on Scott Wilson RPA recommendations with the validation and completion of the stopes model based on the breakthrough information from the ongoing drilling program and existing historical data available to Detour Gold. Additional verification of the void models is also in progress with the review of historical stopes survey data. As part of the FS, SGS Geostat conducted different verification programs aimed at the validation of the historical analytical data and the analysis of the nugget effect observed in the Detour Lake deposit. The verification programs included: 1) comparison of mean gold grade in the same resource block of Detour Gold analytical data versus the historical analytical data within the different mineralized domain (refer to Section 16.2.3 Composites), 2) independent re-sampling of some historical core samples available at the Projects historical core archive, 3) drilling of twin holes designed to validate recent and historical analytical drill data, and 4) total gold analysis of composite samples within a test block from the West Pit area of the deposit. The comparison of the mean gold grade in the same resource block between the Detour Gold analytical data and the historical analytical data within the different mineralized domain (Table 16-7) shows a mean grade systematically higher for the historical analytical data compared to Detour Gold analytical data.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 98
Comparative analytical results of independent check assays selected on historical core highlighted a potential positive bias for the historical assays from hole CRL-039. Although a high variability is expected for this kind of comparative study due to the high nugget effect observed in the Detour Lake deposit, the assays variability for hole CRL-039 is significantly higher than the average variability outlined by Detour Golds QA/QC results for half core duplicates. The twin drilling campaign conducted as part of the independent verification program shows a fair to good correlation between the historical and Detour Gold assay data versus the assay data collected from the twin drill holes. From the total of five holes completed for this test, hole CRL-030 was the only hole showing poor correlation with the original data. In order to quantify the effect of a potential analytical bias toward some of the historical drill assays, SGS Geostat conducted a resource estimation exercise on the mineralized Domain 2 with the objective of quantifying the effect of the CRL series assays on the overall gold content of the mineralized domain (Section 13.1.2). Based on these results, SGS Geostat considers the effect of removing the historical CRL series drill holes to be insignificant compare to overall gold content in the deposit. Although there might be a potential analytical bias with the drilling data of the CRL series, SGS Geostat is of the opinion that the effect of the potential bias is not significant (compared to other deliberate analytical biases such as the capping of the high gold values). Based on the results of the different verification programs suggesting a potential bias toward some historical analytical data, SGS Geostat recommends conducting additional verification of the historical analytical data with an emphasis on the analytical data pertaining to the Campbell drilling series. SGS Geostat conducted total gold analysis (using gravity concentration coupled with bulk cyanidation) over 24 recent drill sections contained within a test block located in the West Pit area. The objective was to characterize the nugget effect for a localized area of the Detour Lake deposit. The results of the test block program show a good relationship between the calculated head grade from the total gold analysis data and the fire assay data used by Detour Gold on the project. Overall, the results of the test block verification program demonstrated that the original fire assays used by Detour Gold in the test block area is a good approximation of the total gold content estimated from the gravity and cyanidation testwork. As expected, the capped fire assays used for the resource estimation process are significantly underestimating the gold content in the test block, meaning that a significant portion of the gold is contained in the coarse fraction of the mineralization. As a result, the resource estimate for the test block area based on the capped fire assays can be considered a conservative estimate of the gold contained in the West Pit Zone of the deposit. SGS Geostat recommends conducting a similar total gold analysis test program in others areas in the deposit with the objective of validating, in different types of mineralization observed elsewhere in the Project, the total gold-fire assay relationship outlined in this study. As part of the independent verification program, SGS Geostat conducted data verification of historical records and compared them to the data from Detour Gold master database. The validation of the Detour Gold master database highlighted significant large amount of values and data population at 0.1 g/t Au, potentially resulting from rounding of numbers during
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 99
transcription. Due to the high number of these values observed during this verification program, SGS Geostat recommends to conduct additional verification of historical records and to locate the original assay certificates if possible. In assembling the database for the mineral resource estimate, SGS Geostat corrected the samples with the errors as summarized in Section 16.1.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 100
14.0
14.1.
ADJACENT PROPERTIES
Introduction Five properties are directly adjacent to the Mine Property or within the Detour Lake property boundaries. These include Block A (part of the Detour Lake property, 50% JV between Detour Gold and Trade Winds), Gowest owned by Trade Winds, Aurora and Sunday Lake, owned by Conquest. In April 2010, Detour Gold signed a LOA with Conquest pursuant to which Detour Gold will purchase Conquests interest in the Aurora Property and will have the option to acquire a 50% interest in Conquests joint venture interest in the Sunday Lake claim block. Due diligence is currently in process prior to closing the transaction. Detour Gold has not verified the information on the adjacent properties and that the information is not necessarily indicative of the mineralization on the Property that is the subject of this Technical Report.
14.2.
Block A Property - 50/50 Joint Venture between Detour Gold and Trade Winds A comprehensive Join Venture Agreement between Trade Winds and Detour Gold was signed on April 8, 2009. The M Zone deposit, which has an interpreted strike length of greater than 4.6 kilometres, has been the primary exploration focus on the Block A property. Block A has been continuously explored since early 1976, with most of the exploration activity carried out by Placer from 1983 to 1997. Trade Winds conducted exploration drilling programs from 2003 to 2007. The westerly trending M Zone system lies approximately 400 metres to 500 metres north of the CMH unit. In the Technical Report prepared by WGM, dated July 9, 2009, entitled Technical Report and Mineral Resource Estimate on the Block A Property, Ontario, Canada, Trade Winds and Detour Gold reported an in-pit resource of 36.4 Mt grading 1.02 g/t in the Indicated category and 8.3 Mt grading 1.04 g/t in the Inferred category based on a cut-off grade of 0.5 g/t gold. This mineral resource is contained within two pit shells (M Zone and North Walter Lake pits). From January to April 2010, Trade Winds and Detour Gold completed 30 holes totalling 11,591 metres. Trade Winds released the results from the first 15 holes in April and June 2010.
14.3.
Gowest Property The Gowest property is 100% owned by Trade Winds and located directly west of Block A on the extension of the auriferous structural corridor M Zone. From 1993 to 1997, Placer carried out much of the exploration activity on the Block A and Gowest properties. Trade Winds have completed approximately 14,000 metres of diamond drilling in 15 holes on the Gowest property. Based on the Technical Report dated April 28, 2009, the Gowest property hosts an Indicated resource of 2.34 Mt grading 1.16 g/t containing 87,400 ounces of gold and an
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 101
Inferred resource of 4.04 Mt grading 1.16 g/t containing 150,600 ounces of gold based on a cutoff grade of 0.55 g/t gold.
14.4.
Aurora and Sunday Lake Properties Conquest Aurora property is located directly south of Detour Golds Mine Property with the Sunday Lake property east of Detour Golds Block D. Detour Gold signed a LOA with Conquest in April 2010 (refer to 4.2 and 14.1). Conquest has concentrated its effort on the Aurora property, evaluating its potential for precious and poly-metallic volcanogenic mineralization. During the winter of 2003, Conquest completed eight diamond drill holes for a total of 1,532 metres along two major structural breaks known as the Golden Borealis Zone (or GB Zone), and the Sagimeo Lake Shear. The GB Zone has been traced over a strike length of at least 1.8 kilometres with at least three lenses of high-grade gold mineralization encountered by Conquest and Placer drill programs. The drilling on the Sagimeo Lake Shear encountered a gold-bearing zone associated with zinc sulphide rich quartz veins.
14.5.
Atkinson Project (Lipton Claim Group) The Lipton claim group consists of 3,000 hectares located approximately 15 kilometres south of the former Detour Lake mine and south of Conquests Aurora property. During 2006, Dentonia Resources completed a total of 3,024 metres of diamond drilling that identified at least two zones with anomalous gold concentrations, including 13 metres at 7.5 g/t Au and 7.7 metres at 14.2 g/t Au, at depths of less than 100 metres. The highest gold values have been intersected at the contact between the chemical sediments and the felsic tuffs. The contact zone appears to be structurally controlled, dipping to the north and west at approximately 20 (sub parallel to the geology) and ranging from 1.0 metre to approximately 10.0 metres in thickness. Since May 2009, the property is under optioned from Atocha Resources Inc. In 2010, a 1,207 metre fly-drilling program was carried out on the Lipton-Atkinson Lake project. Results of this program were released on June 17, 2010.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 102
15.0
MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING

The metallurgical testwork completed to support the previous studies on the Detour Lake deposit was reviewed by BBA and additional testwork required to support a FS was conducted at SGS Lakefield under the direction of BBA. Previous testwork supporting the PFS was under the direction of Melis.
15.1.
Sample Section and Preparation The sample selection approach used for metallurgical testing to support the FS plant design criteria provided a sufficiently large number of metallurgical test composites of varying gold grade and varying rock type and mineralization. All samples selected were from diamond drill holes (DDH) for which assays were available as of August 2009. Assay rejects (typically inch) were used in the selection process to prepare the composites by rock type.
15.2.
Comminution Testwork Background and Sample Selection and Preparation Comminution testwork was conducted between 2007 (Phase 1) and 2009 (Phase 2). In addition to sample selection and preparation for metallurgical testing, HQ drill bit sizing was drilled to provide whole core samples of the eight identified rock types for comminution testing. The location of the additional drilling is shown in Figure 15-1. Eighty-three (83) samples representing the major lithologies of the deposit were provided from Phase 1 and an additional forty-nine (49) from Phase 2.
Figure 15-1: Purpose Drilled DDH Level Plan for Comminution Testing
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 103
Analysis A detailed review of the comminution testwork was conducted by BBA in the summer 2009. Based on analysis of the results, BBA decided to analyse the data from Phase 1 and 2 as a single set of results. Testwork includes the determination of the specific gravity (SG), the overall hardness (using SMC Test A x b), the crushing work index (CWI), the bond rod mill work index ( RWI), the bond ball mill work index (BWI) and the abrasion index (AI). Table 15-1 presents the results of the whole set of data for Phases 1 and 2.
Table 15-1: Comminution Test Statistics Statistic Wax Average Minimum 10th Percentile 25th Percentile Median 75th Percentile 90th Percentile Maximum 2.89 2.49 2.74 2.82 2.90 2.98 3.01 3.19 SG (g/cm3) Pyc 2.89 2.67 2.81 2.84 2.90 2.93 2.98 3.09 SMC 2.92 2.72 2.80 2.88 2.94 2.98 3.01 3.10 SMC Test Axb 26.0 53.1 30.2 27.5 25.7 24.3 23.4 22.5 CWI kWh/t 14.2 5.2 9.9 11.9 14.8 16.9 19.7 25.6 RWI kWh/t 18.0 12.0 15.9 17.2 18.0 18.9 19.9 22.7 BWI @ 150M kWh/t 14.3 9.1 11.2 12.7 14.3 15.5 16.5 20.1 AI g 0.421 0.08 0.238 0.365 0.484 0.54 0.544 0.548
Circuit Simulations The grindability results from the comminution testing were used to conduct JKSimMet simulations of different SAG mill circuit configurations and operational variables (circulating load, P80, etc). A total of four (4) series of simulations were conducted: series A and B consisted of a dual grinding line circuit, series C was a single line circuit, and series D was the optimization of series B. BBAs selected grinding circuit configuration for the Project is shown in Figure 15-2. Note that the feed to the SAG mill is subjected to primary and secondary crushing to reduce the feed size to the SAG mill. Results In order to validate the accuracy of the JKSimMet simulations, the results were compared to the original Detour Lake plant data and to other mill sizing methodologies, specifically with Ausenco (Braun, 2009) and SAG Design (Starkey, 2009). The Ausenco analysis was based on the same comminution data set used in the JKSimMet, while the SAG Design was based on a new set of tests conducted on the 2009 samples. Those comparisons can be found in Table 15-3.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 104
Figure 15-2: SABC with Secondary Crusher Circuit Configuration
Further optimizations to the simulations were conducted. Some of the most relevant results are presented in Table 15-3. Analysis of Results The historical data available from the previous Detour Lake operation was reviewed by BBA. The former historical average operating work index reported in the literature was in the order of 28.4 to 29.4 kWh/t (Rollwage D. et al., 1987). It should be noted that the former circuit was not as efficient as modern circuits, which more properly use screening and crushing. Ausenco and SAG Design were requested to give an opinion and review the grinding circuit design basis. Table 15-2 and Table 15-3 show that the total power (@ pinion) estimated in simulation A4++ has a good fit with the power estimated by Ausenco (Braun, 2009) for grinding circuit sizing. On the other hand, SAG Design (Starkey, 2009) estimated the highest total power. The SAG and ball mills selected by SAG Design are the same as the ones selected by JKSimMet simulations. It is recognized that there will be periods of operation when the pre-crusher will not be available and the SAG mill circuit will operate without pre-crushing. JKSimMet simulations predict that there is a potential 33% loss in capacity in the case that the pre-crusher is down. (Table 15-3, Example D1+ versus D2 or D3++ versus D8). The leaching testwork indicated that a final P80 of 95 m was optimal at 55,000 tpd. The latter result was used to run a final simulation of the grinding circuit: simulation D12 (Table 15-3). The study process design criteria are based on simulation D12 using the 75th percentile of the grindability results. Table 15-3 shows that it is possible to increase the tonnage from 55,000 to 61,000 tpd by allowing for a coarser grind (P80) from 95 to 105 m (reference simulations D12 and D17). Basis for Process Criteria Analysis of the simulation results provided the basis for the process criteria of the grinding circuit equipments. The main characteristics can be found in Table 15-4.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 105
Table 15-2: Comparison Between Different Methodologies for Power (@ pinion) and Mill Sizing Calculations for a SABC Circuit SAG Ball Mills kWh/t Mill size Mill Size Description t/h kWh/t kWh/t Total (SAG) Ball (@ pinion) (@ pinion) (@ pinion) BBA/SGS-JK 2,132 36' X 17.25 11.06 25 X 38.5 13.05 24.11 simulations 2,038 36X 22 13.3 26 X 38 12.2 Ausenco 25.5 2,038 36' X 17.25' 11.75 25' X 38.5' 15.34 SAG Design 27.09
Table 15-3: List of Optmized JKSimMet Simulations
*Complete dataset ** Dataset from Phase 2 SGS Lakefield testwork. ^ % solids in SAG = 66. In the case of the other simulations it was used 72% solids. ^^ Simulations conducted with no primary screening.
Color Percentile 75th 50th
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 106
Reference Item General operation data Total operating utilization Grinding circuit type Throughput rate with pre-crushing Pre-Crusher (# of units) Pre-crusher motor power Product size - passing (P80)
Table 15-4: Process Design Basis Units Criteria Average % t/h 92 SABC + pre-crushing 1,245 1 1,000 60 1 36 x 17.25 1,700 28 9.9 1 1,000 13 1 25 x 38.5 95 250 10.6
Criteria Design 92 SABC + pre-crushing 1,285 1 1,000 60 1 36 x 17.25 1,700 35 9.9 1 1,000 13 1 25 x 38.5 95 250 10.6
HP mm
SAG Mill (# of units - dimension) Transfer size - passing (T80) Pebble recirculating load Estimated power consumption (motor input) Pebble Crusher (# of units) Pebble-crusher motor power Average crusher product size (P80) Ball Mill (# of units - dimension) Product size - passing (P80) Proportion circulating load in Ball Mills Estimated power consumption (motor input)
micron % kWh/t
HP mm
micron % kWh/t
15.3.
Metallurgical Testwork The process design criteria for the Detour Lake process has evolved over time and the metallurgical testwork conducted on the Project reflected the criteria at the time. This section demonstrates the evolution of the metallurgical testwork program with the correlations and corrections required to reflect the ongoing study of the design criteria. Background The PFS metallurgical test program was conducted on eight overall composites and included the following: Mineralogical examination; Gravity recovery tests including Gravity Recoverable Gold (GRG) tests; Cyanide leach tests on gravity tailings; Grade variability testing; Barren solution recycle testing; Cyanide destruction tests; Preparation of tailings for chemical and physical characterization and environmental testing; and Environmental testwork.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 107
Composites The PFS testwork was conducted with composites representative of the Detour Lake deposit. The composites were prepared as follows: Composite 1: Blend of Major (MF, KMF, PF, KPF), and minor (CH, TC, CBPF, CG) rock types Composite 2: Blend of MF and KMF rock types Composite 3: Blend of PF and KPF rock types Composite 4: Blend of Major rock types Composite 5, 6 and 7: Blend of Major and Minor (TC and CG) rock types
Gravity Recovery Gravity gold recovery testing showed that the average recovery for the weighted rock blend representing 96.4% of the deposit was calculated at 45.4% for a calculated head grade of 1.51 g/t Au. The nugget effect observed in the Detour Lake mineralization, and the results of the gravity recovery tests, confirm that gravity recovery will be a key component of the milling process at Detour Lake. Cyanidation Cyanide testwork on gravity tails was conducted to generate process design criteria and optimal conditions for gold extraction. The optimization testwork included: Grinding size (P80) versus gold recovery Leach time; and Reagent consumption (lead nitrate).
A rock blend composite of Major/Minor rock types, Composite 1, was used for grind-leach extraction related testwork. Duplicate leach tests on gravity tails using target grinds (P80) of 69, 77, 82, 90 and 102 m were performed. The testwork conditions included 0.1 kg/t lead nitrate addition and cyanide levels of 0.5 g NaCN/l. The leach time was 48 hours with sampling of solution at 8, 24, 32 and 48 hours. The gravity gold recovery result for this composite at a grind P80 of 146 m was approximately 25.3%. Grinding Size & Leach Time Results from the duplicate bottle leach test were used to study the relation between the leach time and recovery. The analysis was performed on gold tails due to the high variability of the PFS results and accuracy of the tails assays. Figure 15-3 shows the relationship between gold in tails versus the leach feed grind at different leach times.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 108
Figure 15-3: Gold in Tails (g/t) vs. P80
It can be observed that in Figure 15-3: The gold tail shows similar results at 24 and 32 hours, but at 48 hours shows lower grade (i.e. higher recovery); Around 110 m, an inflexion in the recovery versus grind relationship occurs; and A comparison between the curves at 24-32 hours with 48 hours indicates that the difference in gold losses is in the range of 0.02 g/t Au and is fairly constant along the particle size studied (from 70 to 110 m). If an average head of 1.37 g/t Au is assumed (the average head grade at the time of the testwork), the loss in recovery is in the order of 1.8% between leaching at 24 and 48 hours.
15.4.
Confirmation Testwork 2009 Confirmation testwork was conducted in 2009. The metallurgical test program was developed and supervised by BBA. The samples were selected by Detour Gold geologists and BBA engineers. The different lithologies present in the ore body were used to prepare a master composite representative of the mill ore feed (Resource block model, August 2009). The target average feed grade (at the time of testwork) of the master composite was 1.15 g/t Au. Approximately 980 kg was sent to SGS Lakefield to prepare the master composite.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 109
Gravity Testwork The results of the GRG testwork were compared to the previous results (refer to Gravity Recovery in Section 15.3. The test data of the confirmation testwork (Knelson - Fullam M., March 2010) was forwarded to Knelson Research & Technology Centre for modeling and interpretation of gravity recovery circuits. Taking all the gravity results, regardless of head grade, it was found that recoveries vary between 30% to 45% (between the 25th and 75th percentile), essentially in agreement with the metallurgical test results. Furthermore, it was found that the GRG number (53.9%) from the 2009 confirmation testwork is in the lower range of the GRG results (from 51.9% to 71.2%) previously presented. The latter could be explained by the higher gold head grade blend used in the previous testwork. Cyanidation Cyanidation tests were conducted to validate process design variables such as leaching time, feed particle size and lead nitrate addition. A design of experiment program was developed by BBA. A statistical analysis of the previous test results was conducted to estimate the minimum number of repeats that would be required. It was determined that two sets of tests with 20 repeats each were required to distinguish a difference of one percent (1%) of gold recovery. Analysis of the cyanidation results are shown in Figure 15-4.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 110
Figure 15-4: Box and Whiskers Plots for the Confirmation Testwork
Notes to read box and whiskers plot: Box: represents 25 to 75 percentile. Inside line represents 50 percentile (median) Whiskers 10 to 90 percentile Dots: Min and Max values + represents the average
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 111
Observations regarding Figure 15-4 are: There is no improvement in gold recovery by the addition of lead nitrate as the performance of gold leaching is not affected by the use of lead nitrate. In conclusion lead nitrate is not required for the Project; Each set of data shows different dispersion, but average gold tail grades are in the same order; At 75 m, it was found that the tails are similar for 24 hours and 48 hours. This indicates that the leaching time at 75 m is sufficient at 24 hours; and At 105 m, there is a 1.2% gain in gold recovery between 24 hours and 48 hours.
Copper Dissolution The Detour Lake deposit contains small concentrations of copper varying from 0.025% Cu to 0.08% Cu with copper dissolution in leach varying from 5% to 15%. Metallurgical test results showed that these extraction rates provided leach solution grades normally varying from 20 to 60 mg Cu/L in copper content (there were outliers in the 80 to 280 mg Cu/L in Grade Variation tests when gold grades varied from 2.0 g/t Au to 9.0 g/t Au). Oxygen Versus Air Testwork A series of individual kinetic tests were conducted to compare the gold leaching performance with oxygen versus air. Figure 15-5 shows the kinetic results of individual leaching tests using oxygen versus air. Figure 15-5 shows that: It is possible to reduce leaching retention time (remove leach tanks) and keep the same gold recovery by using oxygen instead of air; and In Year 4, when tonnage is increased from 55,000 to 61,000 tpd, leaching retention time would be reduced from 29 to 26.5 hours, resulting in a residual tails increase within 0.01 g/t Au. However, the plan is to add leach tanks (1 per row) and bring leach time to 31 hours with no effect to residual tailing grades.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 112
Figure 15-5: Oxygen versus Air, Gold Leaching Kinetic Comparison
15.5.
Recovery Estimates Background Potential improvements with the former models for gold recovery were identified early during the FS. The former models were developed using an earlier process design criteria and resource block model. The following were noted: The range of gold feed grade ranged from 0 to 30 g/t Au; and The former models needed to be adjusted to the latest process design criteria (leaching 29 hours and P80=95 m) and block model (August 2009).
BBA reviewed the former models that were developed and presented a new tail based model representative of the new process design criteria that includes plant losses. Recovery Model Raw data (Section 15.3) was used to determine the (overall) gold recovery versus gold head grade relationship. The results are presented in Figure 15-6 and Table 15-5, showing the relationship between gold in tails versus gold feed.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 113
Model for Gold Tail versus Gold Head Grade An overall tail model was developed from a weighted average of the three major lithologies. Table 15-5 shows the overall tail model. The overall recovery can be estimated from the following equation: Overall recovery = (1-tail/head grade)*100% - plant losses - normalization factor
Figure 15-6: Tail Au vs. Head Grade to Gravity
Lithology MF PF KPF Overall
Table 15-5: Tail Versus Gold Head Grade (BBA Tail Model) BBA R2 Range Reference Equation Tail = 0.0445 (Au) + 0.4231 Over a range of 0.4 to 1.6 g/t Au Figure 15-6 0.0271 Tail = 0.0644 (Au) + 0.8814 Over a range of 0.4 to 1.6 g/t Au Figure 15-6 0.0009 Tail = 0.0592 (Au) + 0.6956 Over a range of 0.4 to 1.6 g/t Au Figure 15-6 0.0362 Tail = 0.054 (Au) + Derived equation based on N.A. 0.019 weight averages
Note: Au represents head grade. The leaching testwork was conducted at an average P80 of 80 m. Leaching time = 48 hours.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 114
Former Recovery Model (PFS Model) The updated equations used in PFS and FS block model and mining plan are presented in Table 15-6.
Table 15-6: Updated Equations Used in PFS and FS Block Model and Mining Plan Lithology MF PF KPF Overall Model Equation Recovery = 1.6289LN(Au)+92.533-0.98-0.46 Recovery = 0.6458LN(Au)+93.482-0.98-0.46 Recovery = 2.546LN(Au)+89.932-0.98-0.46 Recovery = 1.8687LN(Au)+92.578-0.98-0.46 R2 0.4922 0.1523 0.8444 N.A. Range Over a range of 0 to 30 g/t Au Over a range of 0 to 10 g/t Au Over a range of 0 to 30 g/t Reference Table 8, Melis Report 6 Table 8, Melis Report 6 Table 8, Melis Report 6 Table 4, Melis Report 9
Observations regarding Table 15-6: The equations were adjusted by including gold losses (bold numbers in Table 15-6); PFS models were developed for a nominal P80 of 75 m (average 80 m) and 48 hours leaching for gold head grades from 0 to 30 g/t; and Plant gold losses were estimated as 0.46% Au and gold losses due to reduction of leaching time from 48 to 29 hours (process criteria of leaching at the time when the memo was issued) were estimated as 0.98%.
15.6.
Estimated Recovery for the Life of Mine As discussed above, the models presented in Table 15-6 were used during the PFS and FS by the mining group at BBA to estimate the overall gold recovery over the LOM. It can be observed in Table 15-7 that a good agreement exists between BBAs verification model (tail model) and the PFS model where a small positive increment in recovery for the BBA new model (0.19%) can be observed. However, to be conservative, the LOM recovery estimated by using the PFS models should not be changed based on the average gold head grade over the mine life where the recoveries calculated from both models differ less than 0.19%. The equations used in the block model remain valid, but it is recommended by BBA to use the verification model for future financial analysis. The models were reviewed by the process group at BBA to confirm the overall gold recovery results predicted by the previous models. The data was normalized to P80 = 95 m and the leaching time was corrected to 29 hours. The former and newly estimated recoveries are presented in Table 15-7. The total gold losses were estimated by BBA as 0.18% (based on solution losses) + 0.1% (based on fine carbon) = 0.28 % Au. Historically, losses of 0.5 to 0.6 % are reported for 1986-1987 (Kresin, 2007). The Kemixs pump cell CIP system with less
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 115
carbon handling and consequently less carbon attrition justifies the estimated reduction in carbon losses.
Table 15-7: Comparison Between BBA (Tail Model) and Previous Models Year Pre-Prod Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 AVG Head grade, Au g/t 1.09 1.14 1.23 1.21 0.97 0.90 0.97 1.00 0.91 0.85 0.89 0.95 1.05 1.11 1.15 1.24 1.33 1.06 Recovery (%) using equation in block model (PFS and FS) 91.6 91.4 91.5 91.5 90.8 91.0 91.0 91.1 91.0 91.0 91.0 91.2 91.3 91.2 91.3 91.4 91.5 91.2 Recovery (%) using BBA Tails Model 91.5 91.6 91.7 91.7 91.3 91.1 91.3 91.3 91.1 91.0 91.1 91.2 91.4 91.5 91.6 91.7 91.8 91.4 Difference, (%) -0.09 0.18 0.23 0.22 0.49 0.15 0.22 0.21 0.15 0.06 0.03 0.05 0.17 0.31 0.33 0.33 0.30 0.19
15.7.
Comparison CIP versus CIL Testwork was conducted to compare the performance of a carbon-in-leach (CIL) system versus a carbon-in-pulp (CIP). An approach similar to the confirmation testwork was adopted to compare both processes. Twenty (20) repeats for each process were conducted using material from the master composite prepared for the confirmation testwork. Comparisons between CIL and CIP are as follows: The average gold tail for both methods is similar (Figure 15-7). Tail values for CIP are spaced closer to each other since the range from 25th to 75th percentile is narrower. However, the overall gold tail range (minimum to maximum value) for the CIP is greater than CIL. An industrial CIL circuit requires higher carbon inventories and more carbon handling, resulting in greater carbon losses due to attrition. Also, due to the lower carbon concentration, the tank sizes are bigger than a conventional CIP tank resulting
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 116
in the placement of tanks outside and the associated with operations and maintenance issues. In conclusion, CIP remains the choice for the carbon adsorption process because CIL does not show a significant improvement in lowering gold tail grades (or improvement in recovery).
Figure 15-7: Comparison Betweeen CIL and CIP Tails
15.8.
Modelling Carbon-in-Pulp (CIP) Modelling of a conventional CIP plant was conducted during PFS. The actual CIP system recommended by BBA for the Project is the Kemix pump cell. Further analysis of the modelling indicates that the mass transfer coefficient was penalized due to the intensity of agitation of the laboratory unit (180 W/m3) versus the industrial scale CIP tank (30 W/m3). It was found that the level of agitation of an industrial pump cell (KEMIX, 330 W is 50-60 W/m3) and that is higher than the conventional CIP system. Therefore, the mass transfer coefficient should be higher. It was recommended to repeat the modelling using a configuration that is similar to a carrousel system (pump cell). At the time of preparation of this report, further testwork was being conducted to increase the accuracy of loading of gold in carbon for a carrousel system (Kemix) at the laboratory scale. Kemix historical data from similar operations indicate that higher carbon gold loadings and lower carbon attrition can be achieved.
15.9.
Thickening and Rheology A settling testwork program was conducted for confirmation of thickener sizing and flocculant consumption. The samples for settling tests (130 kg) were collected from the master composite.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 117
Samples were ground to 75 and 105 m and were sent to the following thickener suppliers laboratories: Delkor (De Guzman, March 2010), Outotec (Carfagnini, March 2010), Westec (Chambers, March 2010) and FLSmidth (Herrera & Braun, March 2010). Flocculant screening was conducted prior settling testwork. SNF 905 VHM flocculant gave the best performance (Outotec and FLSmidth) and the estimated consumption was 25 g/t and 18 g/t for 75 and 105 m respectively. The four suppliers gave similar settling test results, with thickeners in the range of 52 to 58 metres diameter. Thickeners of a 55 metre diameter were selected, and a flocculant dosage of 18 g/t per thickener was used for design..
15.10. Cyanide Destruction Laboratory testwork was conducted at SGS Lakefield to investigate the detoxification of cyanide slurries (cyanide destruction) from leaching samples for the Project. For this cyanide destruction testwork, SO2/air method was the selected process. Testwork was performed in four (4) different phases and under two detoxification conditions, either in a batch process or in a continuous process. Phase 1 was carried out on a batch basis on Composite 1 to 4. Phases 2 to 4 were carried out using a continuous cyanide destruction process on Composite 4, 5, and 7. Extensive detoxification testwork conducted on slurry from leaching of Composites 5 and 7 indicates that it was generally possible to achieve residual cyanide level below 1 ppm in the laboratory in a single stage one hour retention time process. The reagent requirements per grams of CNWAD in the feed, for treating a slurry at 50% w/w density, were 3.5 to 4.2 g equivalent SO2 (added as sodium metabisulphate), 2 to 2.5 g hydrated lime and 0.11 g Cu (added as copper sulphate pentahydrate). The detoxification results were transmitted to Cyanco (Cyanco - Steir, 2009), who provided an independent review of the results, and reported the following treatment criteria: CNT (discharge): SO2 dosage: Cu dosage: < 5 ppm 5 g/g CNWAD of liquid SO2 0.14 g/g CNWAD
Lime dosage (CaO): 2.5 g/g CNWAD (when using sodium metabisulfite) 4.8 g/g CNWAD (when using liquid SO2) Retention time: Reactors: 1.5 hours 2 x 1900 m3
15.11. Reagents Metallurgical testing confirmed that gravity gold recovery, cyanide leach extraction and CIP gold recovery followed by cyanide destruction would be the process of choice for the Detour
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 118
Lake deposit. Reagent use associated with cyanidation (sodium cyanide, lime and lead nitrate) and cyanide destruction (SO2 equivalent, lime and copper) was recorded in all testing. A summary from the complete dataset of reagent consumption including flocculant, sodium cyanide (total cyanide without recycle) and lime for the proposed recovery circuit is presented in (Table 15-8). Also included is an estimation of reagent consumption including sulphur dioxide, lime and copper (to be added as copper sulphate) for the cyanide destruction circuit.
Table 15-8: Reagent Consumption Summary Reagent Pre-leach (g/t) Pre detox-leach (g/t) Flocculant (SNF 905 VHM) 18 (range 7 to 25) 18 (range 7 to 20) Cyanidation Reagent Mean (kg/t) Range (kg/t) Cyanide (NaCN) 0.33 0.04 to 2.65 Lime (CaO) 0.48 0.23 to 1.27 Cyanide Destruction Mean (g/g CNWAD)* Range (g/g CNWAD)** Reagent Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) Lime (CaO) Copper (Cu++) 5.0 4.8 0.14 3.5 to 4.2 2.0 to 2.5 -
* Based on Cyanco recommendation ** Based on SGS Lakefield testwork - Project 11743-002
15.12. Selected Process Both the mineralogy and gravity gold recovery testing indicated a significantly high component of liberated gold that was very amenable for recovery by gravity concentration, generally yielding gold recoveries in the 30 % to 45 % range depending on head grade. The nugget effect observed in the Detour Lake mineralization and the results of the gravity recovery tests confirmed that gravity recovery will be a key component of the milling process. Cyanidation tests on gravity tailings included testing of the grind-recovery relationship, the use of oxygen for leaching and carbon in leach CIL to optimize leach conditions. Based on the assessment of test results, cyanidation testing of gravity tailings confirmed that the leach extraction circuit for the project, following gravity gold recovery, would consist of direct whole-ore leaching to achieve maximum gold recovery. Optimized leach conditions identified included a grind (P80) of 95 m, leaching with 0.5 g NaCN/l cyanide solution strength and 29 hours leach retention time for an estimated average gold head grade of 1.06 g/t Au and overall gold extraction of 91.2 % over the LOM. A CIP (pump cell) is the choice for carbon absorption. Cyanide destruction uses an SO2 based circuit with two reactor tanks and a 1.5 hours retention time with a design discharge at 5 ppm CN Total.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 119
15.13. Conclusions As part of the review of the testwork, BBA re-evaluated the overall gold recovery models developed for the PFS. The models remain valid and the overall gold recovery estimates for the LOM should not be changed. Results from the BBA testwork program did not show any benefits in gold leaching from tests conducted with lead nitrate. However, it was found that lead nitrate catalyzed the copper leaching, thus lead nitrate is not included in the leaching circuit. It is possible to reduce leaching retention time by removing leach tanks and retaining the same gold recovery by using oxygen instead of air in the leaching tanks. The grinding circuit design at 55,000 tpd with P80 at 95 m is flexible enough to allow expansion at 61,000 tpd with P80 at 105 microns. In Year 4, when tonnage will be increased from 55,000 to 61,000 tpd, the leaching kinetics will require an adjustment to compensate for the increased rate and the courser feed. This compensation will come from additional leach tanks (planned in Year 3 sustaining capital). All test results confirm that a gravity/cyanidation/CIP gold recovery circuit is the process of choice for the Project. It is the opinion of BBA that the metallurgical testwork conducted on the Detour Lake deposit is of sufficient quantity and quality to support a FS.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 120
16.0
16.1.
MINERAL RESOURCE AND MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES

Introduction SGS Geostat conducted a mineral resource estimate of the Detour Lake gold deposit using the data from both the historic drilling and Detour Golds drilling from 2007 to 2009. A database was compiled using data from 5,853 core holes, with collar, survey, geological and assay information. Table 16-1 summarizes the records in the database used for the FS and PFS.
Table 16-1: Summary of Database Number of drill holes Length (m) Survey Lithology Surface Underground Total Records FS Records PFS Delta 1,453 1,239 214 4,400 4,373 27 5,853 5,612 241 880,991 791,188 89,803 112,996 88,472 24,524 91,808 87,613 4,195
Assay 768,786 674,079 94,707
Included DH DG-09-820 DG-09-656
In assembling the database for the mineral resource estimate, a systematic approach was used to select assay data for the core drill samples. Intervals noted in the drill logs as being subject to any discrepancy with the assay certificates were investigated and corrected or removed from the resource estimate database. A total of 14 sample intervals from nine historical drill holes were corrected for the resource estimation database. In all cases, the corrected values were lower from the original values. Table 16-2 summarizes the samples corrected within the database by drill hole and intervals. The mineral resource estimate is derived from a computerized resource block model. The construction of that model starts with drill hole data, which serve as the basis for the definition of 3D mineralized envelopes with resources limited to the material inside those envelopes. The next step is the selection of drill hole data within the mineralized envelopes in the form of fixed length composites. This is used to interpolate the grade of blocks on a regular grid and fill in these mineralized envelopes from the grade of composites within the same envelopes. After eliminating all block material contained within old mined-out stopes, all the interpolated blocks below the overburden/bedrock contact or pit bottom surface comprise the mineral resources and are then classified based on their proximity to composites and the corresponding precision/confidence level. The block model and the mineral resources estimation were done by SGS Geostat based on information provided by Detour Gold.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 121
Drill Hole 03-0036 03-0041 09-0064 09-0070 09-0070 09-0070 09-0070 09-0070 09-0193 38-105A 38U-524 CRL-009 CRL-026 CRL-026
Table 16-2: Samples Corrections within the Resource Estimation Database Length Old g/t New g/t From To X Y Z (m) Au Au 120 121 1 19,518 20,015 6112 170.9 17.9 97 98 1 19,488 20,019 6123 340.5 34.5 29 30 1 19,483 20,030 5,843 2.6 0.6 6 7 1 19,459 20,033 5,817 33.0 3.0 8 9 1 19,459 20,031 5,816 1.8 0.8 12 13 1 19,460 20,028 5,814 1.9 0.9 20 21 1 19,462 20,022 5,809 1.8 0.8 23 24 1 19,463 20,020 5,808 1.8 0.8 2 3 1 19,344 19,944 5,860 62.6 6.6 111.25 112.78 1.53 19,576 20,073 6,175 4.0 0.1 25.91 27.43 1.52 20,030 20,092 6,156 171.4 0.17 160 161.5 1.5 19,845 19,974 6,161 69.0 0.69 92.7 94.2 1.5 20,059 20,012 6,206 1.0 0.04 95.7 97.2 1.5 20,059 20,010 6,204 2.0 0.23
Domain 11 11 11 2 11 11 11 11 2 3 6 1 7 7
16.2.
Exploratory Data Analysis Exploratory data analysis was completed on raw assay and composite drill data within the interpreted zones of gold mineralization.
16.2.1.
Assay
There were 768,786 assay intervals in the database used for the current mineral resource estimate. Intervals with no assay values in the historical drill holes were replaced with values of 0.01 g/t gold. This was done to diminish the possible bias in the historical holes gold values. Table 16-3 displays the range of gold values from the selected assay data.
Table 16-3: Range of Gold Assay Data for Resource Estimation Au g/t Length (m) Resource Estimate 0.01 - 80.9 Records 768,786 Minimum 0.0005 Maximum 1,814 Mean 0.86
The sample data received from Detour Gold, used in the construction of the mineral resource model, was dated January 18, 2010 (Table 16-4). As illustrated in Figure 16-4, the majority of the Detour Gold surface holes are generally inclined 50o to the south on N-S cross-sections at 40 metres spacing and 40 metres vertical spacing on the same section. In a few specific sectors, the horizontal/vertical spacing is reduced to 20 metres.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 122
Period Pre-1979 1979-87 1987-99
Table 16-4: Detailed Database Summary Table No.of Length No. of Operation DH series Location DH (m) Assays 126 38,100 16,664 36,38,38W Surface Amoco 38U UG 176 11,524 7,468 189 18,638 11,504 Surface Campbell CRL UG 213 11,712 8,518 00 Surface 162 24,252 17,426 Detour 03-15 UG 3,692 398,120 361,406 Mine 56L-66L UG 317 6,516 6,516 464,R464 Surface 34 17,527 9,593 PDX DPH UG 2 603 521 Pelangio Detour Gold PM DG-07 DG-08 DG-09 Surface Surface Surface Surface Surface Surface UG ALL 79 306 316 241 590 1,453 4,400 5,853 863 19,546 113,520 119,858 101,074 118,064 454,693 428,476 880,991 334,452 12,384 108,377 114,689 93,720 67,571 384,347 384,429 768,786 316,786
Length (m) 26,724 11,323 17,223 11,693 17,407 361,016 6514 9,123 545 11,583 106,217 112,526 92,259 82,060 393,062 391,091 784,153 311,022
Assayed (%) 70.1 98.3 92.4 99.8 71.8 90.7 100 52.1 90.3 59.3 93.6 93.6 91.3 69.2 85.1 91.3 88.2 93.0
2004-06 2007-09 Historic ALL Historic=All ALL ALL
Detour Gold
16.2.2.
Capping
Most of the gold assay values in more than 700,000 drill hole assay intervals are low grade, but there are some results that return extremely high gold values that need to be capped before they are used for block grade interpolation. A standard approach to capping high grade gold values consists of developing the probability plots and examining the distribution to search for any natural gap in those distributions. As illustrated in Table 16-5, those very high grade intervals might have different lengths (from 0.30 metre to 1.52 metres for the 37 intervals with a grade above 300 g/t Au). To accurately compare the anomalous high gold assay values (a high gold grade is more likely to occur in a short interval), it is best to look at distributions of grade multiplied by the sample interval length (GT Products). Distributions of GT Products for original assay intervals have been examined in each of the mineralized domains. As shown in previous studies (SGS Geostat 2008a, 2008c, 2009a; and Met-Chem 2009), GT Products distributions are limited to drill hole assay intervals with a GT Product over 0.3 m.g/t (0.3 g/t over 1 metre), which is close to the limit for mineralized samples. Sensitivity analysis shows that the shape of cumulative frequency plots for high GT Product data change very little when the lower limit varies from 0.2 to 0.5 m.g/t. The cumulative frequency plots are shown in Figure 16-1. Consistent with previous work, in almost all cases, the cumulative frequency plots for high GT Products on a log scale do not show any obvious abrupt change of slope, which, if present, would correspond to a natural gap in the data. As a result, it can be concluded that the selected cap limits are fairly subjective and
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 123
are chosen to correspond to the same percentage of lost gold in each of the mineralized domains. The capping levels used in this mineral resource estimate are about the same as those of the mineral resource estimate of September 2009 (PFS). Table 16-6 displays the capping limitations and the global statistics of gold values. The overall gold lost in this calculation was 9%, which remained at the same level as the PFS mineral resource estimation.
Hole 11-0540 DG-08-473B DG-07-118 38U-063 11-0052 DG-07-117 DG-07-234 DG-07-018 11-0794 DG-07-077 DG-08-353 15-0761 38-003 DG-08-302 DG-07-117 DG-07-270 PMDDH-080 DG-08-351 DG-08-530 07-0035 11-0974 DG-08-606A DG-07-016 15-0715 PMDDH-077 DG-09-618 DG-08-369 DG-07-108 PMDDH-104 38-046 07-0585 DG-08-540 DG-07-140 DG-08-351 DG-07-044 38-046
Table 16-5: Drill Hole Assay Intervals with Highest Gold Values From To Length (m) g/t Au Drill HoleType Operator 103.00 104.00 1.00 300.00 UG PD 249.00 249.50 0.50 305.66 SF DG 64.00 64.50 0.50 305.98 SF DG 13.72 15.24 1.52 308.60 UG PD 143.00 144.00 1.00 312.50 UG PD 260.00 260.50 0.50 313.92 SF DG 306.20 306.70 0.50 320.51 SF DG 327.50 328.00 0.50 322.09 SF DG 11.00 12.00 1.00 324.00 UG PD 278.70 279.20 0.50 334.86 SF DG 586.00 586.50 0.50 338.02 SF DG 13.00 14.00 1.00 350.50 UG PD 98.15 98.45 0.30 366.20 SF PD 96.50 97.00 0.50 376.38 SF DG 259.50 260.00 0.50 377.71 SF DG 188.00 189.00 1.00 385.44 SF DG 43.80 44.30 0.50 389.95 SF PM 177.00 178.00 1.00 397.28 SF DG 113.00 113.50 0.50 411.51 SF DG 103.00 104.00 1.00 412.50 UG PD 192.00 193.00 1.00 427.00 UG PD 623.00 624.00 1.00 449.51 SF DG 296.80 297.30 0.50 461.64 SF DG 2.00 3.00 1.00 481.23 UG PD 207.40 207.90 0.50 488.66 SF PM 146.50 147.00 0.50 536.06 SF DG 459.00 459.50 0.50 565.55 SF DG 56.50 57.00 0.50 572.15 SF DG 112.50 113.00 0.50 574.15 SF PM 221.84 222.14 0.30 591.80 SF PD 161.00 162.00 1.00 680.40 UG PD 470.60 471.10 0.50 704.80 SF DG 135.90 136.40 0.50 782.84 SF DG 378.00 379.00 1.00 848.95 SF DG 224.50 225.00 0.50 1433.76 SF DG 238.97 239.27 0.30 1814.00 SF PD
Domain 2 3 2 2 11 3 8 2 11 2 2 1 2 3 3 2 11 3 2 7 2 2 11 1 2 3 2 2 99 2 2 2 11 2 8 2
The 37 assay intervals with a reported gold grade above 300 g/t are shown. Type: SF = surface hole, UG = underground hole. Operator: PD = Placer Dome, PM = Pelangio Mines, DG = Detour Gold.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 124
Domain 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 11 99 All
Table 16-6: Proposed Capping Limits for GTs of Original Samples Avg. GT Capping Avg. GTC Nb. GT NB Capped %capped g/t g/t g/t 38,838 264,346 66,033 14,642 21,361 5,870 42,874 63,071 63442 150190 730,667 2.295 0.849 0.627 0.377 0.435 1.375 1.537 0.885 2.125 0.213 0.912 50 30 25 20 20 40 40 30 45 15 134 679 144 11 34 16 118 179 267 160 1,742 0.35% 0.26% 0.22% 0.08% 0.16% 0.27% 0.28% 0.28% 0.42% 0.11% 0.24% 2.167 0.754 0.560 0.359 0.389 1.292 1.464 0.802 1.972 0.195 0.834
% GT Lost 5.6% 11.2% 10.7% 4.8% 10.6% 6.0% 4.7% 9.4% 7.2% 8.5% 8.6%
Figure 16-1: High-end Distribution of GT Products in the Mineralized Domains
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 125
16.2.3.
Composites
The analysis of the spatial continuity of gold grade in each specific mineralized domain is done on the capped grade of the 5 metre down-hole composites. This composite size is selected to match the 5 metre N-S thickness of the 10 x 5 x 10 metre resource blocks to be interpolated. By selecting a composite with a length similar to the mineralized block intercepts, there is some warranty that the grade dilution originating from the block size will be included in the grade of samples used to interpolate the grade of blocks. Table 16-8 lists some statistics of the computed grade of the 5 metre composites. A composite is kept if its computed grade is derived from assay data over at least 2.5 metres length and compositing starts at the overburden-bedrock contact. Composite grades are derived after capping individual assay intervals to limits shown in Section 16.2.2. Comparison of the composited grades within the Detour Gold holes vs. historical drill holes showed relevant discrepancies. These discrepancies were diminished by assigning a default grade of 0.01 g/t Au to all missing assay values within the historical drill holes (referred to as padding). The routine of padding with "dummy intervals" of near zero grade values was implemented before the compositing was done.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 126
The validation of the two different data sets was completed comparing the composites within the same block (10 x 5 x 10 metres) of the resource estimate model. The centre point coordinates of each block was used as the point to which at least one composite from each data set was assigned. Prior to the padding, a total of 1,554 of the blocks were selected and classified containing both sets of data composites. After the padding was applied, a total of 1,663 blocks was obtained. After the removal of the blocks within the historically mined stopes and development workings, the number of the blocks was updated, diminishing possible bias since the high grade material was removed. The updated number of blocks containing both sets of data with at least one composite was 1,514 and 1,592, respectively (Table 16-7 and Figure 16-2). As a result of padding, the difference of average capped and uncapped composited grades from two datasets (Detour Gold and historical holes) was significantly reduced (Table 16-8).
Table 16-7: Comparison of the Detour Gold and Historical Mean Composite Grades in the Same Block No padding of Historical Holes Padding of Historical Holes Domain Nb Nb AuDG AuCDG AuHI AuCHI AuDG AuCDG AuHI AuCHI blocks blocks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 11 99 999
(1)
49 766 190 20 30 8 37 96 178 136 4 1,514
0.92 0.81 0.49 0.30 0.32 0.13 0.71 0.60 1.34 0.17 0.02 0.74
0.92 0.71 0.42 0.30 0.32 0.13 0.69 0.60 1.25 0.15 0.02 0.67
1.24 0.88 0.61 0.59 0.53 0.28 0.90 0.84 1.79 0.28 0.10 0.90 18.70%
1.20 0.79 0.59 0.51 0.53 0.28 0.90 0.83 1.75 0.28 0.10 0.84 22.10%
53 813 205 22 31 8 37 104 152 162 5 1,592
0.94 0.79 0.51 0.27 0.31 0.13 0.71 0.59 1.27 0.16 0.01 0.70
0.94 0.70 0.43 0.27 0.31 0.13 0.69 0.58 1.17 0.14 0.01 0.63
1.15 0.83 0.55 0.54 0.51 0.28 0.88 0.75 1.55 0.26 0.08 0.80 13%
1.11 0.74 0.54 0.46 0.51 0.28 0.88 0.75 1.53 0.25 0.08 0.74 16.10%
All Delta
AuDG - DG drill holes uncapped composite grade; AuCDG - DG drill holes capped composite grade. AuHI - Historical drill holes capped composite grade; AuCHI - Historical drill holes capped composite grade. (1) Represents a few blocks outside the defined domains.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 127
Figure 16-2: Long Section Showing Blocks with Composites from Both Detour Gold and Historical Holes
Table 16-8: Statistics of 5 metre Uncapped and Capped Composite Grades Domain 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 11 99 All* Number Composites 8,600 55,962 13,871 3,177 4,415 1,586 9,013 14,640 13,526 35,340 160,130 Minimum (g/tAu) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Median (g/tAu) 0.92 0.26 0.20 0.12 0.16 0.37 0.56 0.22 0.98 0.06 0.22 Maximum Uncut (g/tAu) 97.47 169.84 102.98 21.23 57.43 30.80 91.40 143.47 78.78 58.12 169.84 Maximum Cut (g/tAu) 40.09 32.42 22.48 6.62 10.50 13.76 26.81 22.55 27.12 19.62 40.09 Average Uncut (g/tAu) 2.07 0.80 0.59 0.35 0.42 1.06 1.46 0.76 2.02 0.18 0.83 Average Cut (g/tAu) 1.94 0.71 0.53 0.33 0.37 1.0 1.39 0.69 1.88 0.17 0.76 Coeff. Var. Uncut (%) 174 302 318 233 319 208 194 284 172 391 281 Coeff. Var. Cut (%) 141 180 186 174 174 178 164 187 131 251 203
*Includes about 2,000 composites not listed above e.g. outside the resource model box.
Developed histograms of composited grades for each domain (Figure 16-3) show a peak at 0.1 g/t, which corresponds to the default values of low grade intervals within historical holes. In addition, another peak is distinctive at 0.01 g/t Au, which reflects the padded value. The population of the composites with values between 0.01 and 0.1 g/t Au is greater within the lower grade domains (4, 5 and 99) than the higher grade domains (1, 11). A negative skewness of values above the default is observed within the higher grade domains while a positive skewness of the identical data is observed in the lower grade domains.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 128
Figure 16-3: Histograms of 5 metre Composite Grades in the Mineralized Domains
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 129
Note: The logarithmic scale for grades (from 0.01 to 35 g/t Au) and the peaks corresponding to the 0.01 g/t Au and 0.1 g/t Au default value in old drill holes.
16.2.4.
Rock Density
Section 13.5 summarizes the specific gravity determination in full details. The most recent results have confirmed the SG value of 2.9 t/m3.
16.3.
Geological Interpretation Existing wireframe models used for the September 2009 mineral resource estimate were updated by the Detour Gold geology department using Datamine modeling software, based on the complete drilling database. Updated wireframes together with the outer shell, topo and overburden surfaces were received as DXF files from Detour Gold on January 26, 2010. A wireframe solid of the mineralization, above the 0.2 g/t Au, was created by digitizing polylines on south-north sections at 40 metre intervals through the deposit. The interpretation of the mineralized solids was correlated with the lithological interpretation as well. Polyline interpretation was verified in west looking sections and horizontal view for consistency. These polylines were linked and triangulated to create three-dimensional wireframe solids. Figure 16-4 displays the interpreted mineralization.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 130
A specific name was assigned to each of the solids in the sequence starting with Domain 1 to Domain 8 and Domain 99 (which represents the outer shell). In addition, a solid of Domain 11 remained unchanged from the original interpretation and is situated inside Domain 2, representing the higher grade gold mineralized zone. The same DXF file received from Detour Gold for the 2009 mineral resource estimate (PFS), representing lithological solids (TC, PF, MF, CMF, FV UI) as well as mined out stopes and underground workings, was used for this mineral resource estimate. The only exception is the interpretation of the Pillow Flows (PF), which was updated based on additional drill hole data. One of these mineralized domains (Domain 1) corresponds to the CMH, which crosses the Property from east to west with a well defined flexure on its east side. All the other mineralized domains are built around Domain 1. Figure 16-4 shows that the mineralized solid domains and drill hole samples are within the 3.6 kilometres x 1.7 kilometres area from 17,500E/19,300N to 20,600E/20,600N of the resource block model. The bottom elevation of this area is Z=5,390 metres while the topographic surface rarely exceeds Z=6,300 metres (a 910 metre vertical span). These domains correspond to broad zones that indicate a higher than usual concentration of samples with potentially economic gold grades. The geometry of the domains fit previously defined lithological interpretations and tend to be sub-vertical with an E-W elongation.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 131
Figure 16-4: Drill Holes and Limits of Domains in a Test Bench and a Few Test Sections
Left: holes and limits in the 10m bench centered at Z=6,195 m (Drill holes samples within the 10m slice as +). Right: N-S cross-sections at 18,200E, 18,800E and 19,400E with drill hole traces and limits within 40m wide corridors.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 132
16.4.
Spatial Analysis The spatial continuity of the grade of composites in each mineralized domain is assessed through correlograms (the calculated correlation coefficient of grades from pairs of composites separated by a given distance in a given direction). These experimental correlograms are presented as variograms (Figure 16-5). Directions investigated are the E-W horizontal average strike, the vertical average dip and the horizontal N-S across average strike and dip as well as two intermediate directions in E-W vertical planes (e.g. a dip of 45o to west and a dip of 45o to east). In each case, in addition to the principal directions, an average correlogram along drill holes is calculated to better assess the magnitude of the nugget effect. In most domains, the spatial continuity of the grade of composites is characterized by: (1) significant relative nugget effects from 50% to 70%, and (2) generally well defined anisotropies with best continuity (lowest curve) along the average E-W horizontal strike or the dip to west, worst continuity (highest curve) across dip and strike and intermediate continuity along the average vertical dip or the dip to east (Figure 16-5 and Table 16-9).
Table 16-9: Proposed Variogram Models of 5 metre Composites in the Mineralized Domains Domain Nugget 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 11 99 0.70 0.65 0.65 0.60 0.70 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.70 0.70 C1 0.10 0.10 0.35 0.40 0.30 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.30 0.30 AEW1 (m) 45 45 90 150 120 75 180 180 90 150 AZ1 (m) 30 45 60 60 75 35 30 90 45 150 ANS1 (m) 20 30 30 15 20 30 30 35 15 45 C2 0.20 0.25 AEW2 (m) 240 300 AZ2 (m) 90 120 ANS2 (m) 20 30 Az (o) 260 270 270 270 270 255 260 270 260 270 Dip (o) -40 -30 -20 0 0 -40 -40 -10 -30 -10 Spin (o) 80 90 80 70 70 70 70 90 90 90
Each model is the sum of a nugget effect and up to two exponential component functions. C is the sill of the exponential function. A is the range (in metres) of the function along the principal directions. Az/Dip is the azimuth (positive from north) and dip (negative downward) of the direction with the longest range. For example, in Domain 2, the long range is along a direction dipping 30o to west. Spin is the third rotation angle around the direction of the longest range (Az/Dip) to put the direction of the short range into place. For example, in Domain 2 the 90o spin results in the short range direction along the horizontal NS.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 133
Figure 16-5: Correlograms of the Capped Grade of 5 metre Composites in Mineralized Domains
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 134
Note: Correlograms are presented as variograms (graph is 1-correlogram). They are computed along E-W (red), N-S (green), vertical (blue), dip 45o to west (beige) and dip 45o to east (brown). In each of those directions, there is an experimental graph and a fitted model. An average correlogram (black) is also presented. Note that the vertical scale is generally from 0.5 (not zero) to 1.2. Calculation parameters for each direction and the equation of the fitted model are given in the legend box at the bottom of each plot.
16.5.
Resource Block Modeling Drill hole spacing across the deposit is generally on the order of 40 metres in the north-south and east-west direction. A block size of 10 x 5 x 10 metre was selected to accommodate the drill hole spacing and width of the mineralization. Table 16-10 shows the details of the assignment of blocks to the mineralized domains with the corresponding volume and tonnage after excluding the block portion in the Campbell pit and old stope volumes.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 135
Table 16-10: Summary of Wireframe Volumes of the Detour Lake Deposit Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Nb blocks Domain below ovbd below ovbd+pit in pit Stope left below ovbd (m3) (m3) (m3) (m3) (m3) 1 68,273 33,980,729 33,370,812 609,917 1,649,206 31,721,606 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 All above Shell (99) All above 29,687 347,147 207,407 28,302 80,590 5,651 45,104 114,975 927,136 1,435,313 2,362,449 14,801,446 172,518,764 102,936,579 13,852,480 39,703,224 2,768,081 22,463,424 57,128,537 460,153,264 713,751,793 1,173,905,057 14,306,539 170,633,476 102,779,883 13,851,846 39,703,224 1,997,116 22,319,265 57,128,413 456,090,574 711,830,676 1,167,921,250 494,907 1,885,288 156,696 634 0 770,965 144,159 124 4,062,690 1,921,117 5,983,807 2,196,866 965,055 61,533 14,483 3,818 24,515 489,606 182,025 5,587,107 317,051 5,904,158 12,109,673 169,668,421 102,718,350 13,837,363 39,699,406 1,972,601 21,829,659 56,946,388 450,503,467 711,513,625 1,162,017,092
Table 16-11 summarizes the block limit co-ordinates for the Detour Lake block model.
Coordinate Easting Northing Elevation
Table 16-11: Resource Block Model Parameters Number of Blocks Minimum Maximum 310 260 92 17,502.5 19,302.5 5,390 20,602.5 20,602.5 6,310
The material within the resource model limit is represented with blocks sized 10 (E-W) x 5 (NS) x 10 metres (vertical) (Figure 16-7 and Figure 16-7). The 10 metre vertical side corresponds to an approximation for the bench height of the future open pit mine operation. The 10 metre EW dimension corresponds to about half the minimum spacing between the current Detour Gold surface holes. The 5 metre N-S dimension accounts for the perceived greater grade variability trending in this direction. With the estimated 2.9 t/m3 fixed density, each full block of 10 x 5 x 10 metres represents about 1,500 tonnes and is a reasonable assumption for the selection mining unit (SMU) or minimum sized block that can be selectively extracted as ore or waste in the future open pit mine operation.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 136
Figure 16-6: Test Benches with Blocks in Mineralized Domains
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 137
Note: Blocks in the 10 m bench are coloured according to mineralized domains. Limits of the LG pit in the same bench are also shown.
Figure 16-7: Test Sections with Blocks in Mineralized Domains
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 138
Note: Blocks in the 10m section are coloured according to mineralized domain. Limits of the LG pit in the same section are also shown.
16.6.
Grade Interpolation Plan The interpolation plan of the Detour Lake resource model was completed using ordinary kriging (OK) methodology. Search volume dimensions are defined from the variogram models. Limits are set for the minimum and maximum number of samples used per estimate and as a restriction on the maximum number of samples used from each hole. The estimation was designed as a three pass system as outlined in Table 16-12. In the first pass, the search ellipse distance was generally 50 m X x 10 m Y x 30 m Z, a minimum of seven composites was required and a total of 20 composites were allowed, with a maximum of three composites from any one hole, which implies a minimum of three holes required in order to estimate a block. The search distance in the second pass was two times the search distance of the first pass. For the third pass, the search distance was four times that of the first pass. However, a minimum of ten composites from four different drill holes for the second pass and thirteen composites for the third pass from five different drill holes were required. A fourth pass was used in the area west of 18,000E in order to capture areas with missing blocks for the inferred resources. The search distance used for this pass was the same as the third pass but with a minimum of four composites from at least two different holes. Statistics for each interpolation pass is summarized in Table 16-3. The most blocks are interpolated in the first run with the more constrained search conditions with the exception of Domain 99, which represents the background of the model. The estimation of block grades is illustrated on a few test benches (Figure 16-9) and test sections (Figure 16-8).
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 139
Domain
Run 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 3 4
6 7
8 11
99
Table 16-12: Block Model Estimation Pass Parameters RMA RINT RMIN Az Plunge Dip Min. Comp (m) X (m) Z (m) Y (deg) (deg) (deg) 50 30 30 260 -30 80 5 100 70 70 260 -30 80 7 200 150 150 260 -30 80 9 200 150 150 260 -30 80 3 50 30 10 270 -30 90 7 100 70 25 270 -30 90 10 200 150 60 270 -30 90 13 200 150 60 270 -30 90 4 50 30 10 270 -20 80 7 100 70 25 270 -20 80 10 200 150 60 270 -20 80 13 200 150 60 270 -20 80 4 50 30 10 270 0 70 7 100 70 25 270 0 70 10 200 150 60 270 0 70 13 50 30 10 270 0 70 7 100 70 25 270 0 70 10 200 150 60 270 0 70 13 200 150 60 270 0 70 4 50 30 15 255 -40 70 7 100 70 40 255 -40 70 10 50 20 10 260 -40 70 7 100 50 25 260 -40 70 10 200 120 60 260 -40 70 13 50 30 10 270 -10 90 7 100 70 25 270 -10 90 10 200 150 60 270 -10 90 13 50 30 10 260 -30 90 7 100 70 25 260 -30 90 10 50 30 10 270 -20 90 7 100 70 25 270 -20 90 10 200 150 60 270 -20 90 13 200 150 60 270 -20 90 4
Max. /Hole 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Max. Comp 15 25 35 35 20 30 40 40 20 30 40 40 20 30 40 20 30 40 40 20 30 20 30 40 20 30 40 20 30 20 30 40 40
Note: RMAX, RINT, RMIN long, intermediate and short radii of ellipsoid; Az = asimuth (postitive from north) of direction with long radius; Dip = dip (negative from horizontal) of the direction of the long radius; Spin = third rotation angle around the direction of the longest range (Ax/Dip) to put the direction of the short range into place. For example in Domain 2, the 50 m long search radius of run 1 is along a direction dipping 60o to east and the 10 m short search radius is along the horizontal N-S direction; Min. Comp. = minimum number of composites retained in search ellipsoid for kriging of block to proceed; Max Comp./Hole = maximum composites retained int he same hole; Max. Comp. = maximum number of composites retained in ellipsoid and Run 4 in domains 1, 2, 3, 5, 8 and 99 is limited to block west of 18,000E.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 140
Domain
11
99
All
Table 16-13: Statistics of Block Grade Estimates from the Various Interpolation Runs Estimate Total Total Min. Max. Mean Run d Blocks Composites g/t Au g/t Au g/t Au Blocks 1 34,807 0.00 9.01 1.64 2 12,083 0.00 5.39 0.83 68,273 8,600 3 8,986 0.01 2.84 0.65 4 979 0.06 0.97 0.35 All 56,855 0.00 9.01 1.29 1 249,815 0.00 8.13 0.67 2 77,407 0.01 7.46 0.51 347,147 55,962 3 16,281 0.06 4.21 0.36 4 3,616 0.02 1.21 0.26 All 347,119 0.00 8.13 0.61 1 77,091 0.00 5.11 0.54 2 47,006 0.01 3.63 0.54 207,407 13,871 3 66,734 0.04 2.65 0.46 4 9,852 0.03 1.90 0.37 All 200,683 0.00 5.11 0.51 1 21,460 0.00 2.19 0.33 2 6,807 0.01 1.64 0.29 28,302 3,177 3 35 0.12 0.21 0.15 All 28,302 0.00 2.19 0.32 1 31,215 0.01 2.48 0.39 2 17,438 0.03 1.83 0.39 80,590 4,415 3 11,559 0.06 0.78 0.30 4 15,894 0.01 1.43 0.25 All 76,106 0.01 2.48 0.34 1 5,049 0.03 5.86 0.87 5,651 1,586 2 602 0.09 2.85 0.90 All 5,651 0.03 5.86 0.88 1 26,712 0.00 8.27 1.27 2 17,771 0.01 7.81 0.83 45,104 9,013 3 621 0.17 2.58 0.83 All 45,104 0.00 8.27 1.09 1 68,313 0.01 4.76 0.67 2 32,814 0.01 2.90 0.59 114,975 14,640 3 12,595 0.02 2.36 0.41 4 1,253 0.02 0.93 0.11 All 114,975 0.01 4.76 0.61 1 29,382 0.17 7.22 1.80 29,687 13,526 2 305 0.39 4.50 1.61 All 29,687 0.17 7.22 1.80 1 150,580 0.00 4.32 0.17 2 328,709 0.00 3.74 0.16 1,435,313 35,340 3 420,174 0.00 2.46 0.18 4 41,805 0.00 2.00 0.21 All 941,268 0.00 4.32 0.18 1,845,7 2,352,707 All 0.00 9.01 0.42
%CV 78.0 71.9 75.6 64.5 88.8 82.5 84.8 65.6 77.6 84.9 79.7 69.3 53.2 62.5 70.9 83.8 68.6 18.3 81.3 71.9 57.9 33.4 72.4 68.1 75.5 62.1 74.1 83.6 78.3 48.3 86.2 81.9 68.9 97.0 95.4 82.0 51.1 41.4 51.1 109.7 99.8 82.3 91.2 92.8 111.0
16.7.
Mineral Resources Classification Several factors were used in the determination of the mineral resource classification as follows: CIM requirements and guidelines; Experience with similar deposits; and
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 141
Spatial continuity of the mineralization.
The automatic classification of estimated resources in each block uses minimum search conditions for composites around the block. Those conditions are set up as follows: 1) Blocks recognized by adjacent holes on a nominal 20 x 20 metre grid (or less) on E-W long sections can have their resources in the Measured category; 2) Blocks recognized by adjacent holes on a nominal 40 x 40 metre grid (or less) on E-W long sections can have their resources in the Indicated category; and 3) All the other estimated blocks are in the Inferred category. Search conditions that allow classifying blocks based on these criteria are: 4) All composites are used, not just those in the same mineralized domain as that of the block (this is to avoid border effect problems); 5) E-W vertical flat ellipsoids with a 25 metre long radius for Measured and a 50 metre long radius for the Indicated category. N-S short radius is 5 metres for the Measured category and 10 metres for the Indicated category; 6) Maximum of one composite from the same hole; 7) Minimum number of 4 composites for the Measured category and 3 composites for the Indicated category; and 8) For the Measured category, composites in at least 4 different octants around the block to ensure a good spatial distribution of composites around the block in the ellipsoid. The automatic classification has its drawbacks, which is illustrated by a few benches on Figure 16-8 and a few sections on Figure 16-9 i.e. a swiss cheese or spotted dog pattern with patches of Measured (in red) alternating with patches of Indicated (in green) or Inferred (in blue). The final classification uses smoother limits drawn around groups of blocks automatically classified as Measured or Indicated in each bench (Figure 16-9). Also these limits do not change abruptly from one bench to the next, thus defining solids of Measured and Indicated resources with a simple 3D shape. During the editing exercise it is important to identify the differences between automatic and final resources classification in the Indicated and Measured categories of each bench and ensure that it does not exceed a few percent. Figure 16-8 compares the automatic and final classification on a few representative test sections.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 142
Figure 16-8: Automatic and Final Resource Classification on a Few Test Benches
Blocks in the 10m bench are coloured according to automatic classification (red=Measured, green = Indicated, blue=Inferred). Limits of final classification and LG pit in the same bench are also shown.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 143
Figure 16-9: Test Sections Automatic and Final Classification of Blocks
Blocks in the 10m section are coloured (red=Measured, green = Indicated, blue=Inferred) according to automatic classification (left) and final classification (right). Limits of LG pit in the same section are also shown.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 144
16.8.
Global Mineral Resource Estimation The mineral resource estimation for Detour Lake is tabulated in Table 16-14 and Table 16-15 for the Measured, Indicated and Inferred resources. This was done to provide a more detailed view of the grade distribution, particularly in the lower grade ranges.
Table 16-14: Detour Lake Global Measured and Indicated Resources (1) Measured Indicated Measured + Indicated Cut-off Grade Au (g/t) 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 Tonnes (000s) 131,790 119,840 108,250 97,480 88,050 79,070 71,060 63,890 Grade Contained Tonnes Gold Au (g/t) (000 oz) (000s) 1.21 1.30 1.39 1.48 1.57 1.67 1.76 1.85 5,141 5,007 4,840 4,650 4,454 4,237 4,019 3,800 634,300 503,010 401,780 322,990 261,140 211,090 171,420 140,050 Grade Contained Gold Au (g/t) (000 oz) 0.77 0.88 0.99 1.10 1.21 1.32 1.43 1.54 15,753 14,286 12,830 11,443 10,154 8,951 7,870 6,915 Tonnes (000s) 766,090 622,860 510,020 420,470 349,190 290,160 242,480 203,940 Grade Au (g/t) 0.85 0.96 1.08 1.19 1.30 1.41 1.52 1.63
Contained Gold (000 oz)
20,894 19,293 17,670 16,093 14,608 13,189 11,889 10,714
(1) Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
Table 16-15: Detour Lake Global Inferred Resources (1) Inferred Resources Cut-off Grade Tonnes Grade Contained Gold Au (g/t) (000s) Au (g/t) (000 oz) 0.3 312,650 0.56 5,621 0.4 197,030 0.68 4,338 0.5 133,620 0.80 3,430 0.6 92,990 0.91 2,716 0.7 65,300 1.02 2,141 0.8 46,590 1.13 1,693 0.9 34,340 1.23 1,359 1.0 26,080 1.32 1,108
The mineral resource estimation by mineralized domains for Detour Lake is tabulated in Table 16-16 for the Measured and Indicated categories and in Table 16-17 for the Inferred category at 0.5 g/t Au cut-off grade. This was done to provide a more detailed view of the grade distribution between mineralized envelopes. The resource estimation was calculated below the overburden excluding resources from mined out stopes and development workings. In respect of the metal contents Domain 2 contains 39% of the total resources.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 145
Table 16-16: Detour Lake Global Measured and Indicated Resources by Domain at 0.5 g/t Au Cut-off Grade (1) Measured Indicated Measured + Indicated Contained Contained Contained Domain Tonnes Grade Tonnes Grade Tonnes Grade Gold Gold Gold (000s) Au (g/t) (000s) Au (g/t) (000s) Au (g/t) (000s oz) (000s oz) (000s oz) 41,430 1.55 2,071 1 9,900 2.27 721 31,530 1.33 1,350 214,260 0.99 6,831 2 43,940 1.05 1,485 170,320 0.98 5,346 61,940 0.89 1,766 3 3,090 0.89 88 58,850 0.89 1,678 7,240 0.76 176 4 380 0.84 10 6,860 0.75 166 15,120 0.75 364 5 60 0.66 1 15,060 0.75 363 3,850 1.11 137 6 1,710 1.13 62 2,140 1.09 75 42,410 1.34 1,824 7 12,190 1.58 619 30,220 1.24 1,205 67,010 1.00 2,148 8 10,900 1.24 435 56,100 0.95 1,713 33,940 1.68 1,832 11 25,130 1.73 1,395 8,810 1.54 437 22,810 0.71 521 99 940 0.76 23 21,870 0.71 498 510,020 1.08 17,670 ALL 108,250 1.39 4,840 401,780 0.99 12,830
Table 16-17: Detour Lake Global Inferred Resources by Domains at 0.5 g/t Au Cut-off Grade (1) Inferred Resources Domain Tonnes Grade Contained Gold (000s) Au (g/t) (000s oz) 1 13,340 1.02 439 2 12,830 0.80 332 3 54,100 0.77 1,334 4 70 0.74 2 5 4,610 0.70 104 6 10 1.65 0 7 2,680 1.11 96 8 12,710 0.97 396 11 0 0.00 0 99 33,270 0.68 728 ALL 133,620 0.80 3,430
16.9.
In-Pit Mineral Resources The OK block model was exported to the MineSight optimization software, where a pit was generated on Measured and Indicated resources only. The pit optimization uses the LG 3D algorithm. Base case pit parameters include a maximum 50 degree slope angle, ore milling cost of $10.72/t milled, mining cost of $1.54/t and gold recoveries of 91.5%. The gold price used was US$850/oz with an exchange rate of C$1.10/US$. Table 16-18 presents the mineral resource estimation at different cut-off grades for the OK model within the pit shell generated. The 0.5 g/t Au cut-off grade LG pit was initially run on the block model and the ultimate pit design from the shape generated and does not represent the detailed engineering pit. Subsequently, the LG pit was run on the block model with internal dilution included. The external dilution will be implemented in the final engineering pit, which will be used for the mineral reserve calculation.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 146
Table 16-18: In-Pit Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources at Various Cut-off Grades (1) Cut-off Grade Tonnes Grade Contained Gold Category Au (g/t) (000s) Au (g/t) (000s oz) M 93,130 1.21 3,637 I 451,080 0.75 10,900 0.3 M+I 544,210 0.83 14,537 M 85,650 1.29 3,553 I 358,310 0.86 9,862 0.4 M+I 443,970 0.94 13,415 M 77,930 1.37 3,441 I 284,200 0.96 8,796 0.5 M+I 362,140 1.05 12,237 M 70,410 1.46 3,309 I 226,600 1.07 7,782 0.6 M+I 297,010 1.16 11,090 M 63,630 1.55 3,167 I 181,030 1.17 6,832 0.7 M+I 244,660 1.27 10,000 M 57,100 1.64 3,010 I 144,490 1.28 5,955 0.8 M+I 201,600 1.38 8,965 M 51,270 1.73 2,851 I 115,620 1.39 5,168 0.9 M+I 166,880 1.49 8,018 M 45,970 1.82 2,689 I 93,360 1.50 4,490 1.0 M+I 139,330 1.60 7,179
Table 16-19: In-Pit Inferred Resources at Various Cut-off Grades (1) Cut-off Grade Tonnes Grade Contained Gold Category Au (g/t) (000s) Au (g/t) (000s oz) 0.3 17,390 0.54 302 0.4 9,720 0.70 218 0.5 6,340 0.83 170 0.6 4,550 0.94 138 Inferred 0.7 3,430 1.04 115 0.8 2,690 1.12 97 0.9 2,030 1.21 79 1.0 1,530 1.30 64
16.10. Block Model Validation The Detour Lake mineral resource estimation grade model was validated by the following methods: Visual comparison of colour-coded block grades and drill hole composites values. This validation was completed by vertical sections and horizontal plan views. Some sections might show a significant difference in the grade values caused by the high nugget effect of the composite grades.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 147
Comparison of the block estimate and composite grade values for all blocks with a composite inside is shown in Figure 16-10 (example of Domain 1) with comprehensive statistics in Table 16-20. There is not a strong correlation of the estimated grade within the block and composited grade (R approximately 0.60), however there is an excellent similarity of the mean block and composite gold grades in each domain.
Figure 16-10: Correlation of Composite and Block with Composite in Domain 1
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 148
Table 16-20: Statistics of Comparison of Composite and Blocks with Composites Number Mean g/t Au Mean g/t Au Domain Correlation of blocks Composite Block 1 8,570 1.95 1.98 0.62 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 11 99 All 55,913 13,767 3,177 4,394 1,581 9,011 14613 13,519 34,889 159,434 0.71 0.54 0.33 0.37 1.00 1.39 0.69 1.88 0.17 0.77 0.71 0.55 0.33 0.37 0.99 1.40 0.69 1.87 0.17 0.77 0.62 0.63 0.72 0.61 0.64 0.62 0.61 0.55 0.62 0.66
16.11. Block Grade Dilution In Section 16-10, the consistency of the block grade estimates and composite grades within the same cell were tested. In addition to this variability, the estimated blocks were tested above the cut-off grade to estimate the percent of dilution within the estimated blocks. The comparison of kriged block grade variability with a theoretical block grade variability derived from variogram models and the impact of this comparison on the estimated resources above various cut-off grades applied to kriged block estimates was reported extensively in the PFS (Met-Chem 2009). There were no additional tests done in this mineral resource update since the variogram models were identical in comparison to the PFS of 2009. The main impact to block grade variability is over-smoothing of 10 x 5 x 10 metre block grades in all domains, mostly as a result of the block grade interpolation being used (i.e. kriging with variograms showing a significant relative nugget effect). In the case of Detour Lake, the Indirect Lognormal correction (ILC) method was chosen to account for change support between declusterized composites or nearest neighbour (NN) model and a 10 x 5 x 10 metre block size (SMU). At a 0.5 g/t Au cut-off grade, 37.1% of the SMUs are predicted to be above cut-off at an average grade of 1.33 g/t Au. At the same cut-off grade, the kriged block model estimates show 43.8% above the cut-off grade at an average grade of 1.15 g/t Au. The conclusion from this is the kriged estimates have incorporated an additional 13.5% grade dilution.
16.12. Global Comparison The in-pit resource estimation for the OK method was compared to the global mineral resource estimation at zero cut-off grade and with 0.5 g/t Au cut-off grade of the NN and ID3 model values. Table 16-21 and Table 16-22 show the comparisons of the three estimation methods using all the blocks. In general, there is a reasonable agreement between all the methods, with
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 149
OK having the lowest gold grade and NN having the highest gold grade. There is a degree of smoothing apparent in the OK interpolation, which is a consequence of the estimation method.
Category
Table 16-21: In-pit Mineral Resources by Estimation Method at Zero Cut-off Grade Ordinary Kriging Inverse Distance Nearest Neighbour (base case) Tonnes Oz Tonnes Au Oz Delta Tonnes Au Delta Au g/t Oz ('000s) ('000s) ('000s) g/t ('000s) Oz ('000) g/t Oz 104,483 844,537 949,020 1.10 0.47 0.54 3,710 12,715 16,425 104,483 844,537 949,020 1.11 0.47 0.54 3,724 12,718 16,442 0.4% 0.0% 0.1% 104,482 844,538 949,020 1.09 0.46 0.53 3,661 12,585 16,246 -1.3% -1.0% -1.1%
Measured Indicated M+I
Category
Measured Indicated M+I
Table 16-22: In-pit Resources by Estimation Method at 0.5 g/t Cut-off Grade OK (base case) Inverse Distance Nearest Neighbour Tonnes Oz Tonnes Au Oz Delta Tonnes Au Oz Au g/t ('000s) (000s) ('000s) g/t (000s) Oz ('000s) g/t (000s) 2.0 77,931 1.37 3,441 75,547 1.42 3,438 -0.1% 49,591 7 3,293 1.5 284,204 0.96 8,796 267,307 1.03 8,855 0.7% 191,711 8 9,727 1.6 362,135 1.05 12,237 342,854 1.12 12,293 0.5% 241,302 8 13,020
Delta Oz -4.3% 10.6% 6.4%
16.13. Interpretation and Conclusion Detour Gold has been conducting drilling programs on the Detour Lake gold deposit since January 2007, which have defined a large gold mineralized system. SGS Geostat completed a NI 43-101compliant mineral resource estimate for the PFS in 2009 (Met-Chem). In January 2010, Detour Gold completed the 40 x 40 metre definition drilling on a large part of the Detour Lake deposit. Subsequently, SGS Geostat also completed a revised mineral resource estimate for the FS based on additional drilling results. The global mineral resource estimates are presented in Table 16-23.
Table 16-23: Global Mineral Resources at 0.5 g/t Au Cut-off Grade Category Measured Indicated Total M+I Inferred Tonnes (000s) 108,250 401,780 510,020 133,620 Grade (g/t Au) 1.39 0.99 1.08 0.80 Contained Gold (000s oz) 4,840 12,830 17,670 3,430
The Detour Lake in-pit Measured and Indicated resource, based on a cut-off grade of 0.5 g/t Au, is shown in Table 16-24.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 150
Table 16-24: In-pit Mineral Resources at 0.5 g/t Au Cut-off Grade Category Measured Indicated Total M+I Inferred Tonnes (000s) 77,930 284,200 362,140 6390 Grade (g/t Au) 1.37 0.96 1.05 0.83 Contained Gold (000s oz) 3,441 8,796 12,237 170
The block grade is estimated using over 160,000 capped gold values from up to 5-metre drill holes composites. Interpolation was performed using OK utilizing only composites belonging to the same mineralized domain as the block. Search ellipsoids varied for each domain and are related with the anisotropy of variograms of the specific domain. Search ellipsoids generally start with a 50 x 30 x 15 metre range. A minimum of seven composites from three different holes, within the ellipsoid, were required to assign a value to any specific block. Otherwise, a larger ellipsoid with an increasing minimum number of composites and holes was used. Resource categorization was completed using a two-step approach starting with an automatic classification of each block followed by a manual smoothing. Within the 5-metre composites used, there is a relatively weak spatial continuity of grade in all domains with significant nugget effects averaging 60%. However, owing to the large number of composites in most domains, the anisotropy structure and ranges of the structured part of the variograms are generally well defined with long ranges from 45 to 150 metres in an E-W direction (plunging to west) and short ranges from 15 to 30 metres in a N-S direction. Gold grades of original drill hole assay intervals were capped before compositing, which led to elimination of approximately 9% of the gold from in the original assay values. A total of 13 mineralized domains (with corresponding solids) were considered. Gold mineralization occurs in conjunction with sub-parallel extensional quartz veins. The mineral resource was based on composited gold assay data derived from core and was estimated on the basis of interpreted mineralized envelopes with a nominal cut-off of approximately 0.20 g/t Au. The resource was estimated by three interpolation methods: NN, ID3 and OK. No significant discrepancies exist between the methods and OK was used for the resource tabulation. The Detour Lake deposit has been drilled in the vast majority by south dipping holes. Quartz veins are reported to strike 270 to 285 and subvertical dip to the north or lesser to the south. Variography of the samples indicates that the direction of greatest continuity is indeed eastwest, along the strike of the deposit, with dips slightly to the north. Data verification of the drill hole database suggests that the information is reliable and is believed to be accurate. The bulk density samples taken from the recent surface drilling appear to be consistent with expected values within different rock types. Additional statistical analysis would be beneficial in the capping levels determination. Increasing the level of confidence in the capping values will improve the grade control determination and future production reconciliation.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 151
The reported in-pit Measured and Indicated resources are expected to be mined with the certain level of external dilution. Internal dilution was included in the grade interpolation methodology. In conclusion, SGS Geostat believes that the current resource block model and its classification is representing the high grade gold values and the local gold grade variations, which exist in the Detour Lake deposit.
16.14. Recommendations Based on the completed analyses, interpolation and model resource estimates by SGS Geostat, the following are recommendations for the further development of the Detour Lake deposit: 1) A comprehensive program of total leach bench testing across the deposit to obtain a good spatial variance of the head grade and validate the capping levels used for the estimate; 2) Reconciliation of the head grade obtained from the recommended test bench with the existing fire assays and capped fire assays; 3) Grade control testing with inclined reverse circulation holes on a 10 metre grid if an opportunity arises for such exercise; 4) Additional drilling to determine the extension of the mineralization along strike to the west and at depth; and 5) Additional work to improve the local grade estimation within the block model estimation, possibly by remodelling the current domain interpretation and reconciliation within the selective mining units (10 x 5 X 10 metres).
16.15. Reserve Block Model The mining engineering work related to pit optimization, ultimate pit design, mineral reserve estimation and mine planning for the FS is based on the resource block model prepared by SGS Geostat. The model was transferred into the MineSight software package used by BBA for mining studies. The model was rigorously checked, including a review of the block grades and domains on plans and sections to ensure the integrity of the transfer. The block size used in the model was 10 x 5 x 10 metres. The following data were provided by SGS Geostat in the block model: Lithological rock codes; Geology codes; Zones and domains; Gold grade; E-Total values (grindability in kWh); Ore categories (Measured, Indicated and Inferred); Density; Material volumes (rock, overburden, fill material in previous underground workings and stopes); and
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 152
Other data including the number of samples and trend surface domains.
16.16. Pit Optimization The development of the engineered ultimate pit design for the Project was carried out in two consecutive steps as follows: Step 1: Determination of the economic pit shell using the LG 3D true pit optimizer based on operating costs and revenue data along with pit slope requirements; Step 2: Preparation of the smoothed engineered pit design by incorporating in the pit shell the final ramp and proper pit slope as well as the benching arrangement.
The pit optimization uses the LG 3D algorithm in MineSight and is considered as the standard routine in the industry. The LG 3D is a true pit optimizer, which uses the dynamic programming of the graph theory to generate an optimal economic pit shell from a 3D block model. The basic optimization principle of the algorithm operates on a net value calculation for the ore block in the model, i.e. revenue from sales less total operating cost. An economic model, equivalent to a NSR model for a multi-element deposit, was produced in preparation for the pit optimization. The block model includes all block grades classified as mineral resources in the Measured, Indicated and Inferred categories. In accordance with the guidelines of the National Instruments NI 43-101 on Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects and the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves adopted on August 20, 2000, only those ore blocks classified in the Measured and Indicated categories are allowed to drive the pit optimizer for a FS. Inferred resource blocks, regardless of grade and recovery, bear no economic value and are not used in the pit optimization process. The following sections describe the economic parameters and other input data used for the pit optimization. Grade Data The gold grade data was provided in the resource block model and is the main item used for pit optimization and mineral reserve estimate. General Pit Slope The pit slope angles are based on data provided by Golder (2008). The general overall pit slope used in the pit optimization was 50o in the hangingwall (north wall) and 48o for the footwall (south wall). Since the pit optimization program does not produce an ultimate pit design with final ramp, geotechnical berms and proper benching arrangement, angles are taken to be slightly shallower than the design pit slopes presented in Section 16.18 to ensure that the final mine design would be optimized.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 153
Mining Dilution No additional dilution was added during the pit shell optimization routine since an inherent grade dilution of 13.5% is included in the OK block model. More details on inherent dilution are presented in Section 16.11. However, the mineral reserve estimate inside the detailed engineered pit design has included an additional mining dilution estimated at 3.8% at an average grade of 0.40 g/t Au, resulting in a global dilution of 17.3% when including the inherent block model dilution. Details on mining dilution estimate can be found in Section 16.8. Costs and Gold Price The base case for the engineered pit design for the FS is based on an optimized pit shell using a gold price of US$850/oz of gold and an exchange rate of C$1.10/US$. Other pit optimization data are taken from the PFS and are summarized in Table 16-25.
Table 16-25: Cost Summary Used for Pit Optimization (in Canadian Dollars) Costs ($/t) (2) Waste Ore Mining ($/t mined) 1.54 1.54 OB Mining ($/t mined) 1.80 Milling ($/t milled) 7.15 G&A ($/t milled) 1.50 Incremental Cost ($/t/bench) 0.018
Mill Recovery The gold recovery was calculated for each ore block in the 3D model. The estimated gold recovery curves were obtained from metallurgical testwork conducted at a 48 hour leach time and adjusted to a leach time of 28 hours for the base case. The test results provided a derivation of five recovery equations to be applied to the major rock types as follows: For the rock type MF: y = 1.6289 Ln(Au) + 91.09; For the rock type PF: y = 0.6458 Ln (Au) +92.04; For the rock type KMF: y = 1.6868 Ln(Au) + 90.91; For the rock type KPF: y = 2.546 Ln(Au) + 88.49; For other rock types, the average was used: y = 1.8687 Ln(Au) + 91.14
Where y = recovery (%) and Au = grade of gold to the mill in g/t The gold recovery values are calculated for all ore blocks in the Measured and Indicated categories in the block model. The mill recovery details are presented next.
Operating costs used to derive the economic pit shell

June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 154
Mill Cut-off Grade The mill cut-off grade (CoG) was calculated using the cost parameters and gold price presented in the above sections. It also includes a 2% royalty payment, a refining and freight cost of $5/oz Au and a minimum profit payment of 5%, equivalent to $1.38/g for capital recovery. The pit optimization is based on a mill cut-off grade of 0.50 g/t Au in order to improve the project economics. This was carried out by using an arbitrary elevated milling cost of $10.72/t milled. The cost parameters used for the pit optimization are summarized in Table 16-26.
Table 16-26: Mill Cut-off Grade Calculation (in Canadian Dollars) Items Value Unit Gold Price 850 $US/oz Exchange Rate 1.10 C$/US$ Milling Cost (3) $10.72 /t milled (3) General and Administration $1.50 /t milled Total Operating Cost $12.22 /t milled Gold Price Gold Price Recovery Gold Gross Value Royalty (2%) Refining Gold payment Minimum Profit (5%) Net gold value Cut-off grade Cut-off grade (incl. 3.8% dilution) $935 30.06 91.5 27.51 0.55 0.161 99.935 1.38 25.40 0.48 0.50 $/oz $/g % $/g $/g $/g % $/g $/g g/t g/t
16.17. Pit Optimization Results Using the LG 3D pit algorithm, the base case optimized pit shell was generated for a cut-off grade of 0.50 g/t Au using the parameters listed above. Figure 16-11 shows the economic outline of the optimized LG pit.
Operating costs used to derived the operating pit shell

June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 155
Figure 16-11: Dimensional View of the Pit Optimization
The size of the optimized pit shell is approximately 2.8 kilometres long by 1 kilometre wide and 550 metres deep. As can be seen in Figure 16-11, the pit shell does not have operational features for an operating mine, e.g. final ramp, benching arrangement and proper pit slopes. These issues will be addressed in Section 16.18. 16.18. Engineered Pit Design The engineered mine design was carried out using the optimum pit shell created by the LG pit optimization as a guide. This ultimate pit design will include practical geometry that will be required in an operational mine including the haul road to access all the benches, proper pit slopes, bench configuration and smoothed pit walls and geotechnical berms. The following sections provide the details required for the detailed engineered mine design. Geotechnical Considerations and Bench Configuration The geotechnical considerations and bench configuration details were provided by Golder (2008). The inter ramp and bench face angles were provided by sectors and are schematically presented in Figure 16-12. The bench face angles vary from 65o to 75o and the inter ramp angles vary between 49o to 56o. The standard berm width created by the slope configuration in each sector is 8 metres wide.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 156
Figure 16-12: Pit Slope Parameters
The final pit was designed using a double benching configuration, with an 8 metre berm at every 20 metres of vertical height in the bedrock. The pit design was expanded at every 10 metres to match the height of the blocks in the resource model. In addition to the bench geometry and configuration, Golder also provided additional design requirements, including an overburden zone, a transitional Zone and geotechnical berms for the complete pit design as follows: The Overburden Zone is characterized as the material directly above the bedrock and is coded separately in the block model. This zone ranges from 6,260 metre EL to the surface and is to be designed with the following details: 5 metres bench heights; Bench face angle of 55; Inter ramp angle of 70; A 5 metre berm at every 5metre bench; and A 10 metre berm at 6,260 metre EL (contact between bedrock and overburden).
The Transition Zone (weathered zone), as detailed by Golder, is generally located between 20 metres to 50 metres below the overburden zone (from 6,230 m EL to 6,260 m EL). This section in the pit design should have the following design parameters: 10 metres bench heights; Bench face angle of 65; Inter ramp angle of 49; and A 4 metre berm at every 10 metres bench.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 157
Provisions for geotechnical berms of 15 metres are to be included at every 120 metres of vertical separation instead of the standard 8 metres berm. For the footwall, the geotechnical berm was added by increasing the width of the berm at every 120 metres from the standard 8 metres berm to the 15 metres berm and allowing a 90 face angle in the hangingwall. Final Ramp Design The final ramp was designed with a width of 35 metres to support a two-way uninterrupted haulage cycle. This is based on the industry standard for the width of a haul road to be generally three times the width of the largest equipment, which uses a 300-tonne class truck, with additional allocation for the drainage ditch and safety berms. For the last segment of the ramp near the pit bottom, the haul road is narrowed down to a single lane traffic of 20 metres in order to reduce the amount of stripping. A crossing area between the one-way and two-way haul roads was included in the design. Figure 16-13 displays a typical profile of the haulage ramp with the dimensions. The ramp gradient was 10% for the straight portions and was decreased to 6-8% for curved sections of the ramp. The ramp design also included a 2% cross slope to facilitate drainage.
Figure 16-13: Typical Ramp Profile and Dimensions
16.19. Mining Dilution The block model was prepared using the OK and mining dilution is an inherent part of this grade interpolation technique. The kriged block grades include an average dilution rate of 13.5% as outlined in Section 16.11. BBA has carried out preliminary work on mining dilution using a cut-off grade of 0.60 g/t Au. The mining dilution encountered during the mining operation is generally defined as the amount of material below the cut-off grade that would be delivered to the mill due to overmining at the ore/waste contacts and orphan ore blocks below cut-off grade inside the mineralized zones. Two methods have been used to estimate the mining dilution. The first method is based on an engineered manually intensive estimate by drawing mining polygons on
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 158
a series of equally-spaced bench plans inside the mine design area. The second method is based on a computerized algorithm in MineSight software to estimate the mining dilution by counting the number of waste contact edges around the ore blocks. This second method was considered to be a verification of the more accurate manual method for the mining dilution work. Method 1: Mining Dilution Using Polygon Method The polygon method for dilution estimation simulates the possible mining configuration by digitizing a series of polygons around the ore blocks that would be delivered to the mill. This method is based on a series of guidelines to ensure that the dilution estimate is consistent and systematic throughout the selected benches. The mining dilution estimations were performed on five benches: 5,800 metres, 5,900 metres, 6,000 metres, 6,100 metres and 6,200 metres elevations. The results of each bench were applied to their respective area of influence in order to estimate the weighted average dilution rate and grade. The mining dilution in the model was estimated at 3.8% with an average grade of 0.40 g/t Au. Method 2: Contact Block Algorithm The contact block method for estimating the mining dilution uses the MineSight routine called Compute Dilution Edges gndiln.dat. This routine calculates the number of contact edges each ore block has with waste blocks, e.g. blocks below cut-off grade. This routine verifies the contacts of a block in all directions, e.g. east, west, north and south, but it does not take elevation into consideration. The number of waste contacts is used to calculate the dilution by assuming waste is being added to each waste contact edge to account for blasting and the shovel dig. When a block has four waste contact edges, meaning an orphan block; it is not considered as ore and therefore considered as mining loss. The mining dilution in the model was estimated at 4.1% using the contact edge method. The dilution factor calculated using the manual method was 3.8% at a grade of 0.40 g/t Au and 4.1% using the contact edge method, indicating that the mining dilution is comparable in both cases at a cut-off grade of 0.60 g/t Au. For the FS, the mining dilution used is 3.8% at an average grade of 0.40 g/t Au, in addition to the 13.5% inherent block grade dilution in the OK.
16.20. Ore Recovery (Mining Loss) Similar to the procedures used for the mining dilution, the mining loss or ore recovery was estimated using a cut-off grade of 0.60 g/t Au on five benches at elevations 6,200 metres, 6,100 metres, 6,000 metres and 5,900 metres and 5,800 metres using an ID3 model. The results of each of the benches were applied to their zone of influence to determine the overall mining recovery. The calculated ore recovery was 93.7%. For the FS, it is assumed that the ore recovery would be 95% (i.e. a mining loss of 5%), taking into account the more uniform grade distribution of the OK model, the use of a milling cut-off grade of 0.50 g/t Au, the application of adapted mining methods and proper grade control measures such as reverse circulation drilling to probe the mineralized zones prior to extraction.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 159
16.21. Mineral Reserves The ultimate pit design was completed using the design parameters described in the above sections and the pit expansion tool in MineSight. The pit design contains all the details required for an operating mine. A 3D view and plan view of the pit design are displayed in Figure 16-14 and Figure 16-15, respectively.
Figure 16-14: Ultimate Pit Design 3D View
Figure 16-15: Ultimate Pit Design Plan View
The mineral reserves inside the ultimate pit design amount to 347.5 Mt of ore at an average grade of 1.02 g/t Au using a cut-off grade of 0.50 g/t Au, containing 11.4 million ounces of gold and 10.4 million ounces plant recoverable gold. Total waste is estimated at 1,152.8 Mt including inferred material, backfilled stopes, overburden and waste rock for an overall waste to ore stripping ratio of 3.32. The mineral reserve estimate includes a mining dilution of 3.8% at an average grade of 0.40 g/t Au and a mining loss of 5%. The details of the mineral reserve estimate are presented in Table 16-27.
Table 16-27: Mineral Reserves Estimate Using a Cut-off Grade of 0.50 g/t Au (Including 3.8% dilution at 0.40 g/t Au and 5% Ore Loss) Tonnage Grade E Total Recovery Contained Ounces Recov. Ounces Category (000s t) (g/t Au) (kW-h) (%) (000s Au) (000s Au) Proven Probable Total Inferred Fill (Old UG) Overburden Rock Total Waste 81,449 266,012 347,461 9,163 6,736 66,056 1,070,866 1,152,822 1.28 0.94 1.02 0.81 18.41 18.84 18.74 12.74 91.50 91.06 91.16 90.87 3,359 8,030 11,389 237 3,073 7,312 10,383 216
Strip Ratio 3.32
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 160
17.0
17.1.
OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND VERIFICATIONS

Mining This Section presents the mine scheduling and mine costing for the project.
17.1.1.
Mining Phases
The mining phases were designed with the objective to mine higher grade material in the early years and to delay the waste stripping in order to maximize the net present value. Based on a sequence of nested LD 3D optimized pit shell simulations, the Detour Lake final pit was subdivided into three major phases, each phase representing 3 to 5 years mining life. There is and additional phase between Phase 1 and Phase 2, used as an intermediate phase to serve as guide during mine scheduling. The phase width targeted to be a minimum of 80 metres to 100 metres and used the same design parameters as the final pit design. The results of the mining phases were used as a guideline for the various push-backs in the production schedule. Detailed phases with haul roads were designed with mining starting near the former Campbell open pit with higher grade material and moving towards the west, as well as deeper. Figure 17-1 shows the three major mining phases and the intermediate phase in a 3D position and Figure 17-2 shows the mining phases in a longitudinal view at 20,002.50E north. The figure is shown along with the former Campbell open pit (in orange).
Figure 17-1: Mining Phases in a 3-Dimensional View
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 161
Figure 17-2: Mining Phases Pit Design Longitudinal View at 20,002.50 E
17.1.2.
Production Schedule
The mining production schedule is based on the mining phases presented in Section 17.1.1. Between each mining phase, there will be a transitional period where the stripping of the next phase will be started before the end of the previous phase in order to maintain a constant supply of ore material to the mill. The operating stripping ratio is generally slightly higher than the phase designs due to the low grade ore stockpiling in the early years of operation and the transition periods between phases. 17.1.3. Cut-Off Grade Strategy (Using Net Present Value Simulations)
A series of mining scenarios using several cut-off grade strategies have been evaluated in an attempt to maximize the Project economics. The method used consists of an elevated milling grade in the early years by stockpiling lower grade material and reclaiming the stockpiled ore during the LOM on an as needed basis. Results of economic iterations show that the final cut-off grade selected to provide the highest NPV is 0.70 g/t Au from Year 1 to Year 3. The material between the cut-off grade of 0.50 g/t Au and 0.70 g/t Au will be stockpiled during Year 1 to Year 3 and for the subsequent years the cut-off grade will remain at 0.50 g/t Au. 17.1.4. Mining Schedule
The mining schedule is presented in Table 17-1.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 162
Table 17-1: Mining Schedule for the Project Period Years 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Total
(1)
Mill Cut-off (g/t Au) 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 -
Ore Mined (000t) 4,618(1) 17,672 30,065 30,528 20,046 20,007 20,064 20,111 20,094 20,162 20,042 20,116 20,093 20,111 20,065 20,142 20,070 3,456 347,461
Ore Milled (000t) 14,018 20,096 20,293 22,336 22,336 22,336 22,336 22,336 22,336 22,336 22,336 22,336 22,336 22,336 22,336 21,561 3,456 347,461
Head Grade (g/t) 1.13 1.23 1.20 0.93 0.86 0.93 0.96 0.88 0.83 0.86 0.92 1.00 1.06 1.09 1.18 1.28 1.39 1.02
Production (oz) 467,538 729,822 716,687 608,160 564,444 606,810 628,783 572,703 539,601 560,609 599,328 656,036 692,909 716,006 771,320 812,270 141,696 10,384,721
Waste (000t) 13,587 55,399 58,865 85,783 92,579 92,201 99,772 94,105 100,663 95,152 83,686 72,437 59,626 34,269 24,189 15,359 8,433 661 1,086,766
Overburden (000t) 15,570 10,648 10,928 10,490 10,214 8,206
Strip Ratio 6.31 3.74 2.32 3.15 5.13 5.02 4.97 4.68 5.01 4.72 4.18 3.60 2.97 1.70 1.21 0.76 0.42 0.19 3.32
66,056
Includes 2.65 Mt at > 0.70 g/t Au.
A total of 4.62 Mt of ore will be mined during the pre-production period. The material above 0.70 g/t Au, which equates to 2.65 Mt, will be stockpiled close to the primary crusher area and will be reclaimed during the mill start-up in Year 1. The remaining material between 0.50 g/t Au and 0.70 g/t Au, which equates to 1.97 Mt, will be stockpiled in the low grade ore stockpile. The total amount of lower grade ore between 0.50 g/t and 0.70 g/t Au stockpiled between preproduction and Year 3 is approximately 28.8 Mt. Starting in Year 4, an average of 2.2 Mt will be taken from the lower grade stockpile and milled to account for the increased mill throughput of 22.3 Mt per annum. The effect of this stockpiling strategy is illustrated on Figure 17-3 where the mill head grade, shown in blue, is higher in the early years due to the mill cut-off grade at 0.70 g/t Au as compared to the average mill head grade over the life of the mine, shown in green.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 163
Figure 17-3: Mill Head Grade per Year

Mill Head Grade
1.60
1.40
1.20
Head Grade (g/t Au)
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
Mill Head Grade LOM Average Grade
0.20
0.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Period (Year)
Figure 17-4 presents the stripping ratio for the life of the mine. The transition towards the subsequent mining phase may be seen around Year 4 and Year 8, where there is a slight increase in waste production to allow for a continuous ore production.
Figure 17-4: Stripping Ratio per Year

Stripping Ratio
6.00
5.00
4.00
Stripping Ratio
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Period (Year)
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 164
17.1.5.
Year-End Pit Plans
Selected LOM year-end pit plans are displayed in Figure 17-5, Figure 17-6, Figure 17-7, Figure 17-8 and Figure 17-9 to illustrate the production schedule. The end of the pre-production period, Year 2, Year 7, Year 10 and Year 16 are shown on annual end-of-period plans (Note: Year 16 and 17 combined together since Year 17 is a partial year only).
Figure 17-5: End of Pre-production Period of Production Schedule
Figure 17-6: End of Year 2 of Production Schedule
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 165
Figure 17-9: End of Year 16 of Production Schedule (Final Pit Limits)
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 166
17.1.6.
Waste Rock and Overburden Management
The design parameters for the rock and overburden piles were provided by AMEC (Section 17.3). The placements for the piles, as well as the crusher location and the final pit design are shown in Figure 17-10. The major design parameters and specifications to the construction methodology of the waste and overburden piles are summarized as follows: Rock pile swell factor (net): 30%; Overburden pile swell factor (net): 20%; Overall waste rock pile slope of final pile: 2H: 1V. This is equivalent to 27o; Individual final lift slopes will follow a slope equivalent to the angle of repose of the material. This is 1.3H: 1V, which is equivalent to 34o; The assumed subsurface condition of the North and South waste rock piles is a soft clay foundation; For waste rock piles over a foundation containing clay, an initial lift of 3 metres (parallel to topography), followed by a 6 metre lift is required; and Minimum setbacks must be respected for tributaries/water bodies, tailings dams, landfills, roads and infrastructure, and from the perimeter of the open pit. Respectively, 120 metres, 100 metres, 100metres, 50 metres and 200 metres.
The final heights and capacities for the waste rock piles and overburden piles are as follows: North Pile: 79 metres (286 Mt); South Pile: 109 metres (800 Mt); Overburden Pile #1: 46 metres (56 Mt); and Overburden Pile #2: 10 metres (5 Mt).
The design capacity of the overburden piles is based on the estimate in the mine plan, less 4.5 Mm of overburden material, which will be used directly for the tailings dam construction.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 167
Figure 17-10: Plan view for the Waste Rock and Overburden Piles at Final Stage
The North Rock Pile continues with construction until it reaches design capacity. The open pit ramp exits to the north until the end of Year 3 at which point an access is created to the South Rock Pile as well. After part-way through Year 4, all waste rock material is transported to the South Rock Pile due to limitations of space in the North Rock Pile. One important design aspect is the area reserved for Potential Acid Generating (PAG) material coming from the open pit mine. Starting in the first year of production, a separate ramp access becomes available for the PAG section, which is reserved in the south-most region of the North Pile. The area reserved will accommodate 10% of the total waste volume exiting the mine. The placement of the PAG is chosen based on the watersheds and south-bound flow of all tributaries in the area. As well, a section of the south side of the North Rock Pile will also be reserved for low grade stockpile material.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 168
17.1.7.
Low Grade Ore Stockpile
From pre-production to Year 3, the ore material that is being mined, and which falls between a range of 0.5 g/t and 0.7 g/t, is placed in a low grade stockpile (the average grade of the low grade stockpile is approximately 0.58 g/t Au). The ore is reclaimed starting in Year 4, and is reclaimed steadily throughout the mine life. The total amount of low grade ore material being placed in the stockpile is approximately 28.8 Mt. 17.1.8. Mining Operation
The production schedule was based on the expected milling rate (Table 17-1) and was used as the basis for mining equipment selection and fleet requirement. The mine will operate 360 days per year, 2 x 12-hour shifts per day, 7 days per week with 4 crews rotating on a 1 week in, 1 week out schedule. The selection of the primary fleet is based on cycle time estimations, mechanical availability and utility factors, as well as average yearly haulage profiles. The primary fleet consists of drill rigs, cable and hydraulic mining shovels, wheel loaders, and haul trucks. The main support equipment selected includes track-type dozers, motor graders, rubber-tire dozers, auxiliary excavators, as well as other miscellaneous maintenance support equipment. 17.1.9. Drilling
Drill rig requirements were established from the yield per metre drilled (from the pattern), the pure penetration rates and the actual drilling time described by an overall drilling factor. The instantaneous penetration rate is a function of a bit size and the rock mass unconfined compressive strength. An average rock mass value of 175 MPa was assumed to estimate the instantaneous penetration rates, resulting in an overall penetration rate of 28 metres/h. The drilling cycle includes the time for drilling the hole, retracting the drill steel, ramming and levelling between holes. Other factors affect drilling efficiency such as waiting on patterns to be laid out, moving between patterns, bit changes, walk around inspections, moving in and out for blasting and drill relocation. Ore and waste patterns will be drilled in single pass using a diesel powered, self-contained crawler mounted drilling rig that has flexibility in steel length, hole diameter and angle drilling capability for the pre-split holes. A re-drill factor of 5% has been assumed in estimating the number of drill holes and total metres to be drilled. This re-drill percentage is deemed adequate given the good ground conditions described by geotechnical investigation. 17.1.10. Blasting
Drill pattern design has been decided by the need to minimize dilution and damage on pit walls, control fragmentation and material movement along the contacts and reduce the costs of blasting. To do so, two different blast patters will be designed: one in ore to achieve a P80 of 0.545 metre and one in waste. The blast pattern parameters are presented in Table 17-2.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 169
Table 17-2: Production Blast Pattern Parameters Pattern Design Units Ore Waste Bench height m 10.0 10.0 Subdrill m 1.5 1.5 Blasthole length m 11.5 11.5 Hole diameter inch 8 1/2 8 1/2 Spacing m 7.5 8.0 Burden m 6.5 8.0 Stemming m 3.0 3.0 Loaded length m 8.5 8.5 Insitu bulk density t/m3 2.9 2.9 Explosive type emulsion emulsion Explosive Density gm/cc 1.25 1.25 Powder factor kg/t 0.275 0.210
The blast pattern designs and explosives column height results in a powder factor of 0.275 kg/t in ore and 0.210 kg/t in waste. The overall weighted average powder factor is 0.226 kg/t. The blast patterns yields based on an average rock density of 2.90 t/m3 are presented in Table 17-3.
Table 17-3: Blast Pattern Yields Blast Pattern Units Ore Rock density t/m3 2.90 Yield per hole t/hole 1,414 Yield per metre drilled t/m drilled 141
Waste 2.90 1,856 186
17.1.11.
Loading and Hauling
Loading and hauling will be conducted using a fleet of 290 tonne (320-ton) capacity trucks (for both ore and waste). Two types of shovels will be used: electric hydraulic shovels with a capacity of 28 m3 in ore and electric cable shovels with a capacity of 34.4 m3 in waste. A 24 m3 capacity wheel loader will also be used to complement the rope shovels in an effort to maximize the flexibility of the operation. The wheel loader will be used to load haul trucks with reclaimed ore from the stockpile. Table 17-4 shows more details regarding production capacity of the equipment.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 170
Category Loading Tool
Table 17-4: Loading Units Specifications Loading Specifications Ore/Waste Ore/Waste Overburden Hydraulic Hydraulic Cable Shovel Shovel Shovel 28 95% 2.90 30% 2.23 59.3 290 0.67 4.89 5.00 3.33 0.17 3.50 9.5 163 296.7 105% 102% 46% 48,318 34.4 95% 2.90 30% 2.23 72.9 290 0.67 3.98 4.00 2.67 0.17 2.83 9.5 201 291.6 101% 45% 58,664 28 95% 1.80 20% 1.50 39.9 290 0.67 7.27 7.00 4.67 0.17 4.83 9.5 118 279.3 96% 64% 32,938
Units
Bucket Size Fill Factor Insitu Bulk Density Swell Factor Loose Density Tonnes per bucket Truck Capacity Time/pass Passes/truck Rounded Loading Time (Full Pass #) Truck Spot Time Total Time Per Truck NOH/Shift Truck Loads Per Shift Tonnes Per trip Max Tonnage % % of Max Payload (Mass) % of Max Payload (Volume) Shift Production Capacity
m3 % t/m3 % t/m3 tonnes tonnes min passes passes min min min/truck hours/shift loads/shift t/trip % % t/shift
Net Productive Time The productivities have been established based on a net productive time per 12-hour shift of 9.5 hours (570 minutes). This time incorporates a total scheduled non-productive time of 75 minutes per shift to account for shift change, routine inspection, coffee break and lunch break. These parameters are summarized in Table 17-5.
Table 17-5: Net Productive Time: Loading and Hauling Time/Shift Category (minutes) Scheduled time per shift 720 Scheduled delays Shift change 15 Inspection 15 Coffee break 15 Lunch 30 Net scheduled time 645 Job efficiency post scheduled breaks (88.4%) 75 Operating minutes per shift 570 Operating hours per shift 9.5
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 171
Loading Parameters The primary loading tools will consist of electric rope and electric hydraulic excavators, with a wheel loader added as a secondary loading tool. The electric rope shovel model selected has an operating weight of 1,202 t and is fitted with a 34.4m3 (72.9 t) heavy-duty rock bucket. The electric hydraulic excavator model selected has an operating weight of 567 t and is fitted with a 28.0m3 (62.5 t) heavy-duty rock bucket. A front-end wheel loader (FEL) will complement the primary loading fleet with bucket capacity of 23.7m3 (50.2 t). Should ore feed from the pit be interrupted, the mill will be fed solely from stockpile ore on the ROM pad by a FEL. A fleet of trucks with a 290 t payload has been selected to provide a good pass match with the loading units. On average the cable shovels will require 4 passes and the hydraulic shovels will require 5 passes to load the truck which is dependent on the bucket fill and material swell factor. Hauling Parameters Average annual haul profiles were created based on the annual mine plan. Haul routes were traced in MineSight software according to the mining centroid for each year, and for each respective haul route (e.g. ore, waste and overburden). Haul truck travel speeds were based on the manufactures estimates and were used to determine the average annual cycle times. These cycle times were then used to determine the annual haulage fleet size. Equipment Availability Availability profiles for shovels and trucks were based on general manufacturer benchmarks and an age-based maintenance plan. Newer units can expect highest availabilities due to the age of fleet and potential manufacturer guaranteed rates. For the truck fleet, a minimum availability of 87% was assumed as the fleet ages. The annual forecast for the availability of the truck fleet is based on the number of units at each age and reflects adding new units (or retiring old units in the fleet). Major Mine Equipment Annual Fleet Requirements Based on the haul distance, loading productivity/drilling productivity data, as well as the equipment availability, the annual fleet requirements for the major mine equipment (drills, shovels, loaders and trucks) has been determined. For stockpile reclamation, the 23.7 m3 capacity wheel loader will be used in conjunction with 290 t haul trucks. Stockpile reclamation will take place throughout the mine life (specifically from Years 3 to 16). The truck fleet is demonstrated graphically below in Figure 17-11. A maximum of 36 trucks is reached by year 2020, and remains so until 2023.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 172
Figure 17-11: Required Haul Truck Fleet

Adjusted Haul Truck Fleet
40
35
30
25 Fleet Size
20
15
10
0 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Year 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Auxiliary Support Equipment The quantity of support equipment required was based on operational factors, such as the quantity of loading units to service and quantity of waste dumps, stockpiles and roads to maintain. The auxiliary equipment includes (at a maximum fleet of) 6 track dozers, 2 wheel dozers, 3 motor graders, 3 water trucks, and additional equipment such as 3 fuel/lube trucks, 1 wheel loader, 1 RC drill, etc. The detailed list of all the required equipment fleets is presented in Table 17-6.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 173
Table 17-6: Complete Annual Equipment Fleet Requirements Mine Equipment Equipment Type Shovel (Ore/Waste/OB) Shovel (Waste) Wheel Loader Haul Truck Blasthole Drill Wheel Dozer Track Dozer (Type 1) Track Dozer (Type 2) Motor Grader Water Truck Total Primary Fleet Hydraulic Crane (truck mounted 75 t) Air Track Drill (200 HP 80 to 100mm) RC Drill Wheel Loader Articulated Dumper Boom Truck Excavator Fuel/ Lube Truck Prime Mover For Low Bed Service Truck ( 250 HP 22,000 GVW) Tire Changer (attachment for 99H) Mini Bus (12 passenger ) Pick Up Truck (4x4 crew cab) Pick Up Truck (4x4 single cab) Light Plant (1000 w. diesel generator) Dewatering Pump (250 HP electric submersible) Mobile Pump (125 HP diesel) Aggregate Plant Total Auxiliary Equipment Total Mine Equipment Maximum Fleet Required 3 2 1 36 6 2 2 4 3 3 62 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 4 1 3 12 8 7 2 4 1 53 115
17.1.12.
Mine Manpower Requirements
The manpower requirement is divided into the hourly operations and salaried personnel. Within the hourly operations there are the main operators for all major equipment and the required maintenance personnel. Most of the operators for the major mine equipment are based on four crews in rotation. The maximum amount of hourly personnel (mine operations and mobile equipment maintenance) reaches a peak at Year 8 with 372 personnel. The weighted average ratio of hourly maintenance personnel to hourly operators is 0.61.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 174
The salaried personnel list includes such employees as mine superintendent, engineers, planners, foremen and geologists. The number of salaried personnel reaches a maximum at year 1 with 66 people and then decreases to 58 for the rest of the mine life.
17.2.
Processing Process Design Criteria
17.2.1.
Table 17-7 below shows the availability and throughput ramp up planned for the Project. The plant capacity for Years 1 and 2 has been established at 55,000 tpd, resulting in an annual ore processing rate of 20,075,000 tpa and an overall plant availability of 92%.
Table 17-7: Plant Throughput Year 1 Year 2 Concentrator availability Hourly Tonnage Daily Tonnage Yearly Tonnage 92% 2,491 55,000 20,075,000 92% 2,491 55,000 20,075,000
Year 3 93% 2,491 55,598 20,293,207
Year 4 94% 2,713 61,196 22,336,413
It is assumed that, through better maintenance practices and operator experience, the concentrator availability will increase over the LOM, for example, in Year 3 the availability was increased to 92% to 93%, resulting in an average throughput of 55,600 tpd. From Year 4 to the end of LOM, it is expected that the learning process continues and the concentrator availability will increase from 93% to 94%, but it is considered to increase the grind size from 95 m to 105 m, resulting in an average throughput of 61,000 tpd with no loss of gold recovery. The project optimization on Year 4 (debottlenecking) is based on maintaining gold recovery by compensating for the loss in leaching residence time (29 to 26 hours) due to the increase in tonnage by the addition of four leach tanks. The additional leach tanks will allow for increasing residence time close to the design value (from 26 to 31 hours). Other elements to support the project optimization include the use of oxygen instead of air in leaching (refer to Section 15.4), allocation of sustaining capital to increase pumping capacity throughout the plant (where necessary) and initial safety factors such as excess capacity from the initial purchases (i.e. larger gyratory crusher). However, the plant design criteria remain at 55,000 tpd even though a debottlenecking and improvement project is planned to be in operation by Year 4.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 175
17.2.2.
Crushing and Grinding
The crushing and grinding areas are designed based on the throughput capacity and ore hardness. The Project ore is considered very competent according to characterization tests, as reported in Section 15. The throughput of these circuits is designed to be 55,000 tpd on average at a grind size of 95 m. The primary crushing system selected is a single stage open circuit primary (60 X 113) gyratory crusher. This system has a proven track record for hard ores with high tonnages. The crusher selection is based on a feed top size of 1,200 mm and a product P80 of 165 mm with an availability of 65% at 61,000 tpd. The live capacity of the feed and discharge hoppers of the gyratory crusher is designed for 2.0 truck loads each, assuming a nominal payload of 300 tonnes. The crushed ore storage pile is designed for a live capacity corresponding to approximately 12 hours of crushing or 30,000 t and an overall capacity (live plus dead) of 100,000 t. Ore reclaim from the stockpile is fed from two reclaim tunnels, one for each grinding line. Each reclaim tunnel is equipped with two apron feeders that feed a secondary cone crusher installed in an open circuit. The secondary crusher is fed with the gyratory product P80 of 165 mm and crushed to a P80 of 60 mm. The secondary crusher product is conveyed directly to the SAG mill. The secondary crusher is equipped with a bypass chute to maintain high concentrator availability. During maintenance of the secondary crusher, a bypass is in place to feed the SAG mill directly from the pile. A lower throughput (40% per line) is expected when the secondary crusher is off line, which is expected to be approximately 7% of the time (92% concentrator availability 85% crusher availability). The type of grinding circuit selected is a SABC circuit. The SAG mill operates in closed circuit mode with a pebble crusher while the ball mill operates in closed circuit with hydrocyclones. Using the JK ore characterization values (refer to Section 15), the required SAG mill power was estimated at 9.4 kWh/t while the ball mill power was estimated at 10.0 kWh/t for a combined total of 19.4 kWh/t at pinion, excluding the pebble crushing power. The grinding circuit product used to design the mill power is a P80 of 95 m. The total power required to grind from primary crush to final ball mill product is 25kWh/t. The design circulating load from the cyclones to the ball mill is 250% of the SAG mill new feed. This excludes the portion of the ball mill overflow sent directly to the gold gravity recovery circuit. The pebble crushing circuit processes the equivalent of up to 35% of the new SAG mill feed with a discharge P80 of 13 mm. The grinding circuit is the system mainly controlling the plant operating time as it has the highest wear and requires the most maintenance. Based on similar operations, the SABC grinding system is designed for an average of 92% availability, not including the commissioning and start up period. However, large SABC circuits can attain >94% availability with good maintenance practices and operator experience.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 176
17.2.3.
Gravity
The gravity circuit is fed by a proportion of ball mill overflow, which is pumped to the gravity recovery circuit. The design criterion uses 34% of the ball mill overflow to be pumped to the gravity circuit. Based on GRG testwork completed on the metallurgical samples (refer to Section 15.4) and simulations conducted by Knelson Gravity Solutions, the design gold recovery of the gravity circuit is estimated to be 40% for an average feed blend. A batch intensive cyanidation system will be used to process the gravity concentrate. The extraction performance of gold from the gravity concentrate by the intensive cyanidation system is designed at 99%. The pregnant solution will be pumped to a tank in the gold room followed by electrowinning in a dedicated cell. 17.2.4. Leach and CIP
As reported in Section 15, the type of gold recovery circuit selected is a leach followed by a CIP circuit. This is based on comparative testing of different circuit variants that included the CIL (Carbon in Leach) and pre-aeration; also considering the previous Detour Lake operation (refer to Section 15). The designed retention time is 29 hours based on optimization testing reported in Section 15. The leach feed size at P80 of 95 m was selected from a comparison of the impact of grind fineness on the plant gold recovery and leaching retention time as discussed in Section 15. The metallurgical testwork also showed that there is no benefit with a pre-aeration stage. The selected CIP design uses a carrousel type system. This type of CIP system is more efficient than the conventional CIP (counter current system). The average design carbon loading is 2,285 g/t using 1.0 strip per day (stripping of 20.0 tonnes of carbon per day). If there is a need to strip the carbon more frequently, the stripping circuit has been designed to handle 1.0 batch of 20 tonnes of carbon per day. An average retention time of 80 minutes will be provided in the circuit. The carbon handling systems are designed to manipulate 20 tonnes of carbon per batch. All the carbon transfers will be done by recessed impeller pumps to prevent carbon abrasion as much as possible. 17.2.5. Plant Losses
Plant losses are made of two components: the final solution gold content (portion not adsorbed on carbon) and the gold contained on the carbon abraded in the CIP circuit that is then lost to tailings. The gold residue in the solids is not considered as part of plant losses as this is accounted for in the gold extraction estimates. From Kemix latest simulation (2 days cycle carbon transfer model), using a CIP carrousel system (the pump cell), gold loss due to solution losses was estimated at 0.005 mg/L Au. The solution gold losses are estimated at 0.18%. Gold losses due to fine carbon losses are due mainly to carbon handling. A good estimate of yearly carbon consumption is 200% of the inventory. The inventory of carbon based on the current CIP circuit for the Project is estimated at 300 t. Therefore the carbon consumption is 600 t/year or 1.6 t/d.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 177
The gold losses based on carbon losses are 0.1% Au based on a carbon loading of 55 g Au/t carbon. The total gold losses are estimated at 0.18% + 0.1% = 0.28% Au. 17.2.6. Stripping, Electrowinning, and Refining
The stripping system will use the high Pressure Zadra process to recover the gold from the loaded carbon. Based on the upgrading ratio expected in the CIP circuit at the provided operating conditions, one (1) strip every 2 days per CIP line is required (2 CIP lines), which corresponds to one strip per day in total. A dual stripping system was recommended by the stripping system supplier. The circuit is designed to handle up to 1.0 batch of 20 tonnes of carbon per day. It incorporates an acid wash stage and carbon regeneration kilns to process the same carbon capacities to ensure 100% regeneration of the carbon. The electrowinning is done in-line with the stripping circuit. This allows a smaller barren tank size and the elimination of the pregnant solution tank. The flow of pregnant solution is split between six (6) electrowinning cells to have the proper velocity. The refining equipment is designed to handle the gold from the stripping circuit and from the gravity recovery system. The electrowinning sludge is filtered, dried and mixed with fluxes before being smelted in induction furnaces. 17.2.7. Thickening
Two thickeners are considered for the Project: Pre-Leach and Pre-Detox. The leach circuit will be operated at 50% solids by weight. The leach feed density is controlled with one high rate thickener prior to the leach circuit. The pre-detox thickener will be used to thicken the tails slurry to 64% and the overflow will be recycled to the process water tank. This design criteria is used to recover 60% of the CIP discharge solution and recycle it into the process water. This is achieved by using the reclaim water to dilute the pre-detox thickener feed. The specific design capacity of the thickener was estimated through high rate dynamic testing at from 0.96 to 1.19 tph/m2 for the pre-leach and from 0.78 to 1.19 tph/m2 for the pre-detox thickener. 17.2.8. Tailings
The underflow of the pre-detox thickener is diluted from 64% to 55% using reclaimed water to dilute the slurry prior to cyanide detoxification. The selected cyanide destruction process is the Inco SO2/air process. The system allows for ease of installation and lower initial cost for start up. However, during the first year of operation, a sulphur burner plant will be built to lower operating costs. The SO2 required for the cyanide destruction in the testwork was evaluated at 3.4 g/g Cyanide Weak Acid Dissociable (CNWAD). Cyanide destruction was designed with 1.5 hour of retention time over two (2) stages. The tailings slurry will be at 55% solids by weight coming out of the cyanide destruction unit. It will then be pumped into the tailings storage area via two parallel pipelines each with a design capacity of 1,850 m3/h.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 178
17.2.9.
Equipment Selection
Based on the design criteria developed for the process plant and on the proposed flowsheet, a mass balance for 55,000 tpd has been calculated. A mechanical equipment list was prepared and equipment was sized according to the design criteria and mass balance. Design Factors The mass balance of the plant was calculated to provide tonnages and flowrates to the different sections and equipment in the plant. However, the throughput will vary depending on ore characteristics. Typically, the instantaneous throughput of an SABC grinding circuit varies by 15%. This additional capacity has been included as a requirement when selecting the size of equipment in the downstream process. In some cases, the solids density can be adjusted to a certain limit to compensate for this variation. For pumps, a design factor of 10% on the calculated flowrate and 5% on the total calculated dynamic head has been applied to select the pump for the duty. The thickener size incorporates a design factor of 15% to compensate for throughput variations. The leaching circuit is designed for a 29 hour retention time at the average feed rate with no design factor added for the circuit volume. At Year 4, the leach time is increased to 31 hours for the LOM. The daily throughput variation will be lower than the instantaneous variation and small variations can be allowed in the leach circuit feed density to compensate for some of the variations. The number of tanks selected and their size results in a 10% design factor, including the CIP residence time. Crushing and Grinding The primary crusher availability has been estimated to be 65% at 61,000 tpd. The primary crusher operation is influenced by many factors. Examples include large rocks that may block the crusher and prevent trucks from dumping, ore production from the mine may not be sufficient at times to provide maximum throughput. Additionally, large crushers require major maintenance and cleanup. To provide sufficient capacity at the design feed and product size at 65% availability, a single 60" x 113" size gyratory crusher or equivalent is the adequate size. The ore is reclaimed in two separate reclaim tunnels, one per grinding circuit. The grinding circuits are configured to operate independently from one another such that they can be maintained independently. The stockpile reclaim feeders have been selected so that a minimum of two feeders will be in operation at all times to provide feed blending for the SAG mill. However, each feeder will have the capacity to feed one grinding line. This allows for maintenance of feeders during operation. From the reclaim tunnel, the ore is conveyed to the secondary crusher installed in open circuit. Each circuit is equipped with a 740 kW crusher to reduce the feed size to the SAG mill from 165 mm to 60 mm. Since a cone crusher requires liner changes every 3 to 4 weeks (availability of between 85% to 90%), a bypass conveyor and chute is provided to be able to operate the SABC circuit independently of the secondary crusher during liner changes or other maintenance activities.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 179
The grinding design criteria for the mills has been estimated at 75th percentile of the grindability parameters (Axb, BWI and CWI). At this level, the power required at the pinion of the SAG mill is 9.4 kWh/t. The design also includes a 5% drive loss. At 55,000 tpd (2,569 tph, considering plant availability of 92%), the design power draw would reach 25.5 MW. To match this requirement, two parallel SAG mills were initially selected, each with 14 MW drives. The resulting design power draw is 91% and the average power draw would reach 86%. In discussion with suppliers, Detour Gold decided to increase the drives to 15 MW for interchangeability of spare parts with the ball mills. The power required to the shell of the ball mill is 10.0 kWh/t. With a 5% drive loss and 90% power draw, at 55,000 tpd (2,569 tph), the total resulting installed power required for ball milling is 30 MW; therefore, two 15 MW drive systems were selected for this duty. Dual pinion drives equipped with variable speed were selected for a number of reasons including initial cost, risk profile and permitability in Ontario. A drive study was completed showing the options and recommending variable speed drives for the SAG and synchronous motors for the SAG and ball mills. The pebble crusher sizing is based on the maximum design circulating load. To ensure proper crushing of these pebbles, two 740 kW crusher are selected. The pebble crushers will balance the grinding load between the SAG mills and ball mills. Gravity Circuit From the design criteria, the calculated tonnage going to the gravity circuits is approximately 2,100 tph from which the equipment is sized. Six gravity concentrators (48 in. bowls) have been selected (3 per grinding line). A minimum of three (3) is required per line to have at least two (2) concentrators in operation while the other is discharging or being maintained. Therefore, each gravity concentrator is independent of one another. On the other hand, the gravity tailings pump box (one per line) is common to all concentrators, which allow bypassing one concentrator while maintaining gravity recovery. This ensures plant recovery performance is optimal for a 29 hours retention time in leaching. Based on an estimated 45 to 60 minute cycle time and a concentrate mass of 45 kg/cycle/concentrator, when all concentrators are operating, 7.8 tonnes of gravity concentrate can be recovered per day. An intensive cyanidation system was selected in accordance to process all the gravity concentrate in one batch per day. Leach and CIP The number of leach tanks and sizes are selected to have 10 tanks per leach train. Based on the circuit volume required for the design retention time of 29 hours, the effective volume of each tank is calculated in an iterative way by changing the number of tanks and calculating the resultant mean size. With a maximum practical diameter size limit of 18 metres, 2 leach trains of 10 tanks each were selected to provide the required retention time. The first tank will have a height of 22 metres. A drop of 0.7 metres per tank is expected and the final tank is 19.2 metres. For the tank effective volume, a one (1) metre freeboard is included in the calculations. Each tank includes an agitator of 150 kW of varying lengths, depending on the tank sequencing. A carousel type CIP circuit was selected by BBA. Design operating conditions were supplied to Kemix to size the circuit. A proposed design of seven (7) tanks of 330 m3 per leach train, each tank containing 20 tonnes of carbon, was recommended. The proposal includes the expected
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 180
gold in carbon loading based on similar operations and the estimated size of the carbon stripping circuit. Stripping, Electrowinning and Refining The stripping, electrowinning and refining circuit equipment was sized on the basis of the CIP circuit selection and requirement for carbon stripping. The design information returned by Kemix (Pty) Ltd. of South Africa (Kemix) for the CIP circuit was forwarded to Summit Valley Equipment and Engineering (SVEE) who provided the sizing of carbon handling equipment, carbon stripping and regeneration as well as electrowinning of the gold and refining. The systems are sized to accommodate 1.0 batch of 20 tonnes per day. Thickening The thickener sizing was calculated using the specific design capacity obtained in the testwork performed by various suppliers. Both thickeners (pre-leach and pre-detox) gave the same performance and requirement for flocculant. The required thickener diameter was estimated at 55 metres. Cyanide Destruction The cyanide destruction system is sized to incorporate two stages, each providing 50 minutes of retention time. The tank sizes are 14.0 metres in diameter by 17.0 metres high. 17.2.10. Flowsheets and Process Description
Summary process flowsheets are presented in Figure 17-12 and Figure 17-13. The comminution process is based on two parallel SABC lines, each fed from an individual reclaim tunnel. The ore is first dumped from trucks into the primary crusher (gyratory crusher), which is located approximately 450 metres northeast of the open pit mining operation. The crushed ore is conveyed to a stockpile of 12 hour live capacity (36 hours total). The stockpiled ore is reclaimed in two tunnels, one per grinding line, each having two apron feeders capable of delivering the full throughput. For each line, the ore is conveyed to a secondary crusher installed in open circuit and equipped with a bypass. The secondary crusher product is transported to the SAG mills to be ground in closed circuit with single deck screens. The screen oversize is recycled to pebble crushers and returned to the SAG mills feed. The SAG screen undersize, together with the ball mill discharge and rejects from the gravity circuits, are pumped into cyclone packs (one per grinding line). A portion of the ball mill product is pumped into dedicated gravity concentration circuits consisting of sizing screens and centrifugal gravity concentrators. The gravity concentrate of both lines is treated in an intensive cyanidation leach reactor to recover the liberated native gold. The gold from the gravity circuits is recovered in a dedicated electrowinning circuit. Cyclone overflow is directed to the pre-leach thickener where the thickener underflow is distributed to two parallel leach trains of 10 tanks each. Each leach train provides 29 hours of retention time for gold leaching. After leaching, the gold in solution is recovered in a carousel CIP circuit (one for each parallel leach train). The loaded carbon from each CIP circuit is stripped as required and the gold recovered is poured in dor bars at regular intervals. The stripped carbon is regenerated and returned to the CIP circuits.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 181
Tails from each CIP circuit are sent to a pre-detox thickener to recover as much cyanide solution as economically practical before being fed to a cyanide destruction system. The detoxified residue is sent to a tailings pond for settling and retention. The excess water from the tailings pond is reclaimed and recycled back to the processing plant.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 182
Figure 17-12: Grinding Circuit Design
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 183
Figure 17-13: Simplified Process Flowsheet
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 184
17.2.11.
Reagents and Services
Several reagent systems were incorporated into the plant design to provide the requirements for the different process areas such as: Leaching, Intensive Cyanidation, CIP, Stripping and Refining, Thickening and Cyanide Destruction. Based on the reagent quantities required, preparation and distribution systems were specified. The following reagent systems provided are: a) Cyanide; b) Lime; c) Caustic Soda; d) Oxygen; e) Hydrochloric acid; f) Flocculants (polymers); g) SO2 and Copper Sulphate; and h) Water Distribution. Utility service systems were designed based on the process requirements. They are: Process Water, Fresh Water, Reclaim Water, Low Pressure Air System, and High Pressure Air System (including instrumentation). 17.2.12. Plant Site Layout
The Plant Layout drawing can be found in Appendix C. Crushing and Processing Plant The process plant comprises three main buildings (the primary crushing building, the secondary and pebble crushing building and the main process plant building) and other process facilities located outside these buildings. The primary crushing building is located approximately 450 metres to the northeast of the eastern pit limit. A large pad will be built and the primary crusher will be installed to the northwest end of this pad. To the southeast, there will be a ROM stockpile area for ore storage in the case of crusher down time. The dimensions of the pad are 250 by 165 metres, large enough to allow for a proper area for mine truck circulation and turning. The crusher building will house the gyratory crusher and the tail end of both stockpile feed conveyors. The crushed ore stockpile has an 85 metre diameter footprint and a height of 33 metres with a live capacity of 30,000 Mt. Under the stockpile, two reclaim tunnels are installed to recover the stored material. The reclaim tunnel is constructed of multi plate corrugated galvanised steel. Each conveyor will reclaim crushed ore from the stockpile to a secondary crusher located in the crusher building. In this crusher building, a conveyor collects both secondary and pebble secondary crusher undersize to convey the ore to the SAG mill. Both secondary crushers and
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 185
pebble crushers are equipped with shuttle conveyors and bypass chutes to be able to maintain crushers without stopping a grinding line. SAG and ball mills grinding media handling will be provided from two ball loading stations (ball pits). A ball bucket will be used to feed balls to the SAG mills or the ball mills. The main processing building houses the grinding, CIP, gravity & intensive cyanidation, reagents, stripping, electrowinning, refining areas, compressors as well as tailings pumps. Six electrical rooms are planned to supply power to the grinding mills and other various areas. On the other hand, the pre-leach thickener, the leach tanks, the pre-detox thickener and the cyanide destruction tanks are all located outside. The leach tanks are located northwest of the main process building, between both thickeners. The tanks are arranged in two sets of 10 tanks (4 rows of 5 tanks) on concrete supporting pads. Tailings and Reclaim Water Pipelines Two parallel 24" tailings pipelines will transport the plant rejects to the TMA located approximately 1.5 kilometres northeast of the process plant. A barge, located in each of the two tailings cells, will reclaim water from the cells to the process plant for water make up. Office and Laboratory Facilities The process staff offices are located within the ore processing building above the refinery. This office complex also houses a conference room, lunch room, change rooms, washrooms, documentation room and a metallurgical laboratory. The assay laboratory facility will be located in Cochrane where daily mill assay samples, exploration and grade control samples are to be performed. Change rooms, one for men and one for women, are located in the process staff office complex within the main processing building. The plant maintenance shops are located on the ground floor of the main processing building, in the grinding area, between SAG Mill #1 and the plant warehouse. 17.2.13. Electrical
The power demand for the 55,000 tpd ore processing facilities has been calculated at 71.6 MW assuming load factors of 80% for all loads except for the grinding mills (Section 17.2.9). The peak power demand for the SAG and ball mills have been estimated at 93 and 96%, respectively. An efficiency factor of 92% has been used as a general average. The total load for grinding mills (53.4 MW) represents 75% of the plant power demand. The power demand was also recalculated for the 61,000 tpd throughput at Year 4. The total general power requirement for the Project installation is estimated at 78.9 MW including 3.0 MW for the open pit area and 4.3 MW for the site infrastructure. The Project site will be fed at 230 kV by a new transmission line. The main substation of the site will be located on the south side of the ore processing plant. Three 230 kV / 13.8 kV transformers will be installed at site.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 186
An emergency power system will be installed for the purpose of supplying the critical installations (loads) when the main power is lost. The critical process loads are: all area sump pumps, leach tank agitators, CIP tanks pumps screen, tailings pumps, reclaim water pumps, cyanide tank agitator and the emergency compressor. The emergency operation of the leach tank agitators and cyanide destruction tank agitators is based on alternating agitation. 17.2.14. Production Schedule
The gyratory crushing, secondary crushing and main process plant will operate 24 hours per day 7 days per week. The operating teams will work on a schedule of two 12 hour shifts. The main process plant will be stopped periodically to perform preventive maintenance on equipment for which there is no standby unit. The process plant is designed to operate with an availability of 92% of the time on average in the first two years, ramping up to 94% by Year 4. The mine is scheduled to deliver 55,000 tpd of ore to the primary crusher and process plant for 365 days per year (61,000 tpd from Year 4 onwards). The process plant operating personnel includes the staff required to do the work planning (for operation, mechanical maintenance and electrical/instrumentation maintenance), as well as the process plant operating personnel. The work schedule is based on a 7 days in 7 days out rotation where people are transported to site at the start of their rotation and live in a camp for the duration of the rotation. The total required manpower is 94 employees.
17.3.
Tailing and Water Management Introduction
17.3.1.
A FS level geotechnical and hydrologic design for the handling and storage of the tailings, mine rock stockpiles, overburden stockpiles and associated water management facilities were completed (AMEC 2010a). The information considers pertinent site setting information (e.g. geology, seismicity, hydrologic conditions, etc.), data relevant to the design work (e.g. geochemistry, summarized findings from previously completed geotechnical investigations, and the quantities of the various waste materials), and the results of various analyses carried out in support of the proposed designs. A site selection study was carried out with the primary intent of identifying an on-land tailings impoundment site (AMEC 2009b). Four on-land tailings impoundment sites were identified for further evaluations potential using 1:20,000 scale topographic maps and aerial photographs. The Option 3 Site was selected in consultation with Detour Gold as the preferred site and remains applicable for the FS. The preferred site of the TMA is located in the east part of the Project site. The TMA development plan to accommodate the future tailings production consists of augmenting the storage capacity of the existing TMA (referred to as Cell 1) and create new cells (Cell 2 and Cell 3) immediately north and south of Cell 1, respectively. Cells 1 and 2 are to be used in an interconnected way for tailings and water management. Cell 3 will be developed in the later stage of the mine life when the storage capacities of Cells 1 and 2 are nearing capacity.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 187
It should be noted that tailings production rate used for the FS was initially set at 55,000 tpd and later increased to 61,000 tpd after Year 4. The designs for the tailings facility presented herein were completed prior to the final revision of the rate to 61,000 tpd. In consideration to the relatively minor impact (see below) of this change to the design and operation of the TMA, it was agreed with Detour Gold to keep the design basis for the tailings facility at the 55,000 tpd production rate and to carry out the update at the future detailed design stage. The general impacts on the current design due to an increased production rate are expected to include: faster deposition rate for the same total tonnage of tailings resulting in a shortened operation by approximately two (2) years and shortened period between dam stage raises; an increase in porewater capture volume in the new tailings deposit; an increase in reclaim rate, assuming freshwater make-up remains the same; a net decrease in volume and/or duration of discharge to environment; and a change in water management strategy to accommodate water supply adequate for mill reclaim under dry year scenario.
Apart from tailings, other mineral wastes that require management at the site include mine rock and overburden. 17.3.2. Site Investigation
The detailed results of geotechnical field investigations conducted by AMEC for the Project are presented in the report 2008 Geotechnical Investigation, Detour Lake, Ontario (AMEC, 2009a). The investigations conducted to date are appropriate for FS level design purposes for Cells 1 and Cell 2. During the course of the FS, after the geotechnical field investigations had been completed, the deposit and therefore the quantity of tailings increased. Cell 3 was identified as the preferred alternative to accommodate these additional tailings. The geotechnical data are not as extensive within the footprint of Cell 3 as compared to Cells 1 and 2. There is sufficient understanding on the geology of the project site that would not preclude the construction of Cell 3 dam on this area. Therefore, there is a slightly higher risk that the current dam design for Cell 3 may have to be modified at future design stages when additional geotechnical investigations are carried out and its data become available. This risk is considered reasonable at this stage of design for a facility that will be constructed during operations approximately 12 years in the future. The geotechnical subsurface data are not extensive within the footprints of the stockpiles as well. Thus, additional geotechnical investigations will be required along dam alignments of Cells 1, 2 and 3, and waste stockpile areas for detail design purposes. The following successive strata were generally encountered at the TMA and stockpile areas: Surficial peat; Clayey silt to silty clay stratum; Silty sand to sandy silt till; and
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 188
Bedrock.
The distribution of the above strata across the sites is variable. The information obtained from boreholes and monitoring wells previously installed primarily at the Cell 1 site were also used to infer the soil conditions. The groundwater table was encountered at or near surface in the low areas. In the high ground areas, the groundwater table was within 0.5 to 4 metres below surface. 17.3.3. TMA Design Criteria and Deposition Plan
The following are basic assumptions underlying the designs of the TMA: No long-term geochemical impacts to groundwater or surface waters are expected (refer to Section 17.5); The process (tailings slurry) water quality is expected to be better than the Metal Mining Effluent Regulation (MMER) discharge limits; A cyanide destruction plant will be operated at the plant site to treat tailings slurry. The residual cyanide levels in the tailings pond (after the cyanide destruction in the slurry prior to tailings discharge) are expected to be below the MMER. Adequate retention time will be provided to support natural destruction of any residual cyanide in the tailings pond; Runoff and seepage inflow water from the open pit will be collected and discharged into the TMA. This water may contain elevated concentrations of ammonia generated from blasting operation at the open pit. The TMA will provide adequate retention time for the natural destruction of this ammonia; Sub-aerial method of deposition is considered suitable for this Project in view of the expected characteristics of the tailings; and The conventional slurry disposal method proposed is operationally simple with low maintenance, resulting in low operating costs.
The following design operational parameters apply: Approximately 347 Mt of tailings will be produced during the life of the mine; The tailings will be produced at a rate of 55,000 tpd during the estimated 17.6 year operational life of the mine. The designs for the TMA presented herein were completed prior the final revision of the production rate for the FS and therefore, in order to meet the project schedule, it was agreed by Detour Gold to keep the TMA designs at the 55,000 tpd production rate and to carry out the update at the detailed design stage; The tailings will be transported from the plant site through a surface pipeline to the TMA. The tailings will be pumped as slurry at an assumed 55% solids content by weight; The tailings will be deposited mainly by end discharge with occasional spigotting to form smooth tailings beaches;
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 189
Deposit slopes of 1% for sub-aerial and 4% for sub-aqueous conditions based on AMECs experience with similar gold tailings deposits; and Average settled dry density of tailings is 1.4 t/m3 based on results of geotechnical testing of the tailings and AMECs experience with similar gold tailings deposits.
The total tailings storage requirement is approximately 248 Mm3 (347 Mt). The TMA is designed for a total storage capacity of approximately 260 Mm3 (363 Mt) with potential for additional raises and/or expansion to accommodate additional capacity as required. Given this flexibility for storage expansion, a small contingency volume (5% of required volume) has been included in the design to account for potentially: Lower settled deposit densities; Loss of volume due to ice lenses; and/or Steeper sub-aerial and sub-aqueous slopes of deposited tailings.
Potential opportunities for additional tailings storage capacity include: Tailings deposition on the interior of the basin using an upstream raise technique with strategically placed tailing berms to form a 'dry' pile of limited height above the perimeter dams and eliminate the internal tailings pond in the cells. This could provide approximately 20 to 40 Mm3 (or 28 to 56 Mt assuming 1.4 t/m3 settled deposit dry density) of additional storage if implemented in Cell 2; and Raising the height of the perimeter dams using centerline or downstream raise technique.
The locations of dams were selected based on the following criteria: Minimize the quantity of materials required for construction; and Maximize the tailings storage volume while minimizing the dam height.
The dams are considered to be high hazard structures because of the large size and height of the planned tailings deposit. As a consequence of hypothetical dam failure, high environmental impacts to the receiving terrestrial and aquatic environments would occur. Based on this consideration, the dams are designed for the most severe flood and earthquake criteria, being the probable maximum flood (PMF) and the maximum credible earthquake (MCE) in accordance with the Ontario Dam Safety Guidelines (ODSG; MNR 1999). The design principles of the dams were developed based on the following considerations: The dam will be structurally stable and will be designed to the standards consistent with the hazard classification category and modern dam engineering practice; The dams will have a low permeability element to provide for efficient water management and minimize seepage rates; Minimizing new disturbance to the environment, including quarry development. The dams will be designed to maximize the use of waste mineral materials, including mine rock and stripped overburden from open pit; and
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 190
The dams will be raised in stages to reduce the initial material requirements and capital cost outlay, and to utilize the abundant mine rock produced during operations (and thereby minimizing stockpiling requirements).
The objectives of the deposition plan are to: Manage two cell operations for the majority of the mine life with deposition occurring in a single active cell and switching between cells as the storage of the active cell is nearing capacity. This approach simplifies pond water management and balances the dam construction schedule to improve cost control. A third cell will be added in the later part of the operations (approximately in Year 12) when the initial two cells are nearing capacity; Tailings slurry will be discharged from the perimeter dams to develop a tailings beach against the dam and form an internal decant pond within each cell. The minimum tailings beach width is approximately 100 metres at the normal pond level. This arrangement will reduce the seepage losses through the dam foundation and will also accommodate easy access to the pump barge system; and In the final stage of Cell 2 operation (Stage 8), the deposition will occur on a semiclosed perimeter dam to form a 'dry' pile and eliminate the internal tailings pond of Cell 2. This will improve stability, and reduce maintenance and monitoring of the tailings impoundment after closure.
17.3.4.
Design of TMA Dams
The design features of the Stage 1 Cell 1 dam are: Comprised entirely of low permeable till fill to utilize the available overburden stripped from the proposed open pit development and facilitate the integration of the existing historical tailing dams; An 8 metre dam crest width to provide sufficient space for operating the tailings slurry pipeline and ease of construction, as well as to minimize fill quantity and therefore reduce capital costs; 2H:1V upstream and downstream slopes for stability and to minimize slope erosion; A riprap erosion protection on the upstream slope comprising till to protect against erosion from precipitation runoff and wave action by tailings pond residing temporarily against the embankment during the early deposition period; and An erosion protection (riprap or geocomposite erosion control blanket) on the downstream slope comprising till to protect against erosion from precipitation runoff as the slope will be remain exposed to erosion (if unprotected) for about 4 years until the subsequent downstream raise is constructed. Prior to the construction of the downstream raise, the erosion protection will be removed to allow for placement of proper filter transition zones against the till.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 191
The design features of dams at intermediate stages and end of operation configuration are: 1.5H:1V to 2H:1V temporary downstream slope and 2H:1V upstream slope during intermediate stages (i.e., Stages 2 to 9) for stability and optimize tailings storage and dam fill requirement; A 2H:1V downstream slope for all final exterior slope of the dams to maintain long term stability; A 20 metre dam crest width to provide sufficient space for operating the tailings slurry pipeline and ease of construction with larger equipment; The downstream shell of the dam constructed of inert mine rock blasted from the open pit development; Decreased thicknesses of the low permeability element and associated transition zones above elevations 300 metres for Cells 1 and 2, and 290 metres for Cell 3 (where the seepage conditions are expected to be minimal) to reduce the requirements for processed construction materials and related construction costs; A riprap erosion protection on the upstream slope comprising till to protect against erosion from precipitation runoff; and The specified rockfill zone (Zone 4 and Zone 5) of the downstream shell may be constructed by mine operations to reduce construction costs and optimize scheduling.
Stability analyses were carried out for critical sections of the dams along the perimeter of Cells 1, 2 and 3. Assuming the foundation of the dam was prepared (i.e., stripped of organics and soft clay deposits), the calculated factors of safety for short term, long term and pseudo-static analyses satisfy the minimum factor of safety requirements of 1.3, 1.5 and 1.1, respectively. Seepage analyses were carried out for selected sections of the dams for Cell 1 and Cell 2. The estimated total seepage quantities for the TMA dams ranged from 530 m3/day during Stage 1 to 3,970 m3/day during Stage 10. The dam will be raised in stages, alternating between the Cell 1 and Cell 2. The dam for Cell 3 will be constructed and raised after about Year 12 once the Cells 1 and 2 have reached capacity. The following assumptions were considered in the development of the construction schedule: The stage raise is to be completed a minimum of 6 months prior to nearing the capacity of the previous stage; Construction will generally occur in the warmer months, between May and October; Each raise is assumed to be completed within a 4 to 6 month construction period. However, the Zone 5 rockfill could be done with longer construction duration; and Starter Dams in Stage 2 Cell 1 and Stage 9 Cell 3 should be built to provide adequate runoff accumulation period to develop a start-up pond volume in respective cell.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 192
17.3.5.
TMA Water Management
The TMA will serve as the central water management facility for local runoff, tailings slurry water and the open pit water, with water reclaimed for mill operation. The objectives of the water management are to: Provide adequate retention time for control of total suspended solids, and allow for natural destruction of residual cyanide and ammonia; Maximize reclaim water volume for mill operations; and Handle upset conditions and/or runoff generated from major storm events.
Water will be reclaimed back to the plant site continuously for processing needs using a barge with pumping facilities located on the tailings pond. The mill water reclaim rate from the TMA will be about 92% of the tailings slurry discharge water volume (about 42,000 m3/day at full production rate). Potential sources of make-up water for mill operations are the existing flooded open pit (available during the initial two years) and East Lake. Elevated suspended solids in the tailings pond are expected where active tailings deposition is occurring within the cell. A means of controlling suspended solids such as partitioning the pond with rockfill berm and/or silt curtain may be required to provide water quality of less than 2 mg/L total suspended solids that is suitable for reclaim to milling operations. Water balance models have been developed for the average, wet and dry runoff conditions. The start-up pond volume in Cell 1 was assumed to be about 1.4 Mm3 before Stage 1 operation. The water will be obtained from the existing flooded open pit dewatering and surface runoff accumulation in Cell 1. During Stages 1 and 8, the TMA will be operated with a single tailings pond. The pond is estimated to have an average volume of approximately 3.8 Mm3 in Stage 1, and 2.5 Mm3 in Stage 8, which will provide retention time of approximately 90 days and 60 days, respectively. During other operational stages when two cells are operated, a two-pond water management system may be operated if there is inadequate retention time for cyanide and ammonia destruction. The two-pond water management system comprises: Active deposition cell for the deposition and primary settlement of suspended solids; and Water management cell for additional retention capacity to allow natural degradation of ammonia and cyanide. Water will be reclaimed from this pond for mill operations.
During Stage 1, there will be no water released from the TMA under normal climatic conditions. The excess water in the water management cell will be pumped to the East Lake from September 1 to December 31 at a nominal rate of 16,000 to 30,000 m3/day from Stage 2 to end of operation. The TMA will be designed to contain runoff resulting from an Environmental Design Flood (EDF). The EDF is selected as the 1:100 year January 1 to August 31 maximum runoff, the runoff accumulation period with no discharge to the environment. The TMA is designed for no-spill under this condition.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 193
Following an EDF event, the elevated water ponds in the TMA will need to be returned to normal operating levels by means of discharge more water to the environment if water quality is acceptable for release. The internal water transfer pump capacity was estimated at approximately 50,000 m3/day. With the design capacity of 30,000 m3/day, discharge of excess pond water could potentially occur following a spring freshet if the effluent meets the discharge requirement. Under a drought condition of two historical consecutive dry years, the TMA will have sufficient water to supply the continuous mill reclaim requirement. The seasonal discharge to the environment will be reduced. The TMA will have sufficient freeboard to safely pass the runoff resulting from the Inflow Design Flood ("IDF") through the emergency spillway. The IDF is the 24-hour PMF event. The discharge from the spillways will be directed to towards the watershed of East Lake. In the two-cell system of deposition and dam raises, one cell will be lower than the other cell. In the event of an IDF, overflow can occur from the higher cell into the lower cell via the swale (i.e. internal spillway) at the narrows of the TMA. Thus, a minimum of one exterior emergency spillway at Cell 1 will be provided to handle storm events from both Cells 1 and 2 at every stage of operation. A second exterior emergency spillway will be constructed specifically for Cell 3 when it is in operation. The spillways will be raised in stages and at strategic locations. Seepage from the dam will be monitored and, if necessary, returned to TMA by way of collection ditches and sump pumps. 17.3.6. Geotechnical Design of the Mine Rock and Overburden Stockpiles
The development of the proposed open pit will generate stripped overburden and blasted mine rock, while a portion of these material will be used for the construction of the tailings dams and plant site facilities. The net quantity of overburden and mine rock will be stored in on-land stockpiles. The configuration of the stockpiles is described in Section 17.1. The geochemistry of the mine rock and the water management of the stockpiles are described in Section 17.5. The stockpile boundaries are constrained principally by: A minimum setback of 120 metres from any tributaries, creeks and water bodies; A setback of 100 metres from the final toe of the proposed tailings dams; A setback of 100 metres from northeast extent of the existing domestic landfill to allow for potential future expansion of the facility and to avoid undermining of the stability of the future mine rock stockpile; A setback of 50 metres from mine roads and infrastructure; and A minimum setback of 200 metres from the open pit perimeter was assumed in the present study. Assessment of the pit slope stability relative to the stockpile will need to be carried out for detailed design and may require a small adjustment to the stockpile toe location.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 194
Mine Rock Stockpiles The final exterior slopes will have an overall 2H:1V slope and will require the construction of a shear key in the areas present of soft clay deposits to satisfy the minimum factor of safety requirements of 1.5 and 1.1 for stability under long term and pseudo-static loading conditions, respectively. The shear key size requirement and the construction methodology of the mine stockpiles are detailed in the Tailings, Mine Rock and Overburden Management Feasibility Design Update Report (AMEC 2010a) to manage stability of the stockpile constructed over soft clay foundations. Overburden Stockpiles Stability analyses were carried out for a 45 metre high stockpile section with an overall slope of 5H:1V. The calculated factors of safety for long term and pseudo-static analyses satisfy the minimum factor of safety requirements of 1.5 and 1.1, respectively. Depending on the performance of the wet and soft overburden materials during placement, flatter slopes may be expected. If the silty clay material is too soft and tends to flow, it may be necessary to contain it within the coarser silt-sand or till dumps. 17.3.7. Performance Monitoring
Inspection and monitoring will be performed during construction and operation of the dams and waste stockpiles to assess their performance and safety; and to verify that actual conditions are consistent with the design assumptions and intentions. Inspection and monitoring will also optimize maintenance and repair costs, provide warning of potential impending risks and provide sufficient time to implement remedial measures, if required. 17.3.8. Closure Concepts
Closure of the Project including the TMA and stockpiles are considered in Section 17.5.5. Opportunities to progressively reclaim the site will be exploited and progressive rehabilitation efforts will be maximized over the life of the operation, where appropriate.
17.4.
Infrastructure and Services This section covers all of the infrastructures required for the proper implementation of the Project (reference to site layout drawing in Appendix C).
17.4.1.
Plant Site Preparation
All quantities and costs for the plant site preparation were reviewed and estimated for the FS. Based on results from the detailed geotechnical site investigation programs conducted for this study, a thorough understanding was obtained for the in-situ till and rock profiles. Quantities and costs for the general site preparation were derived for the building and equipment sub-foundation requirements for the process plant, main substation, pre-crushing, crushing and circulation areas. These include:
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 195
17.4.2.
Clearing and grubbing surfaces for process pads; Excavation of organic material (peat) to competent till material; Mass excavation of till to underside of foundations, or to sub-foundation levels required for circulation areas; Mass rock excavation to underside of foundations, or to sub-foundation levels required for circulation areas; and Mass backfill to finished platform elevations.
Power Line and Main Substation
A 230 kV over head power line (OHL) will be installed in the existing ROW, from the Detour Lake plant site to former Island Falls tie point and in a new ROW from Island Falls to Pinard. The total OHL length will be 180 kilometres; 142 kilometres from the Detour Lake plant site to Island Falls and 38 kilometres from Island Falls to Pinard. The Pinard substation requires the addition of one 230 kV breaker, extension of the 230 kV ring bus and the required hardware and structures for one outgoing circuit. The construction of the 230 kV OHL will be achieved in two phases. The first phase will require construction of the transmission line from the Project site to Island Falls and a temporary 115 kV tie-point and metering substation at Island Falls. This transmission line will then be connected to an existing 115 kV circuit via the temporary substation. The second phase will include construction of a 230 kV transmission line between Island Falls and the Pinard Terminal Station. After completion of the second phase, the temporary Substation will be decommissioned. The new 230 kV single circuit OHL will be constructed using wooden H frame double pole structures. A 230-13.8 kV substation will be constructed at the Project site from which electric power will be distributed to all areas of the plant site. The station will have three transformers and two prefabricated electrical rooms each containing a 13.8 kV switchgear. 17.4.3. Site Infrastructure Electrical Distribution
Power from the low voltage terminals of the main substation is delivered at 13.8 kV by overhead line to the permanent camp located approximately 3.1 kilometres away. At the accommodation complex, a transformer and switchboard provide power to the higher consuming equipment such as, kitchen, laundry, high mast lighting etc. Another transformer will be located in the same area to feed lower voltage items within the accommodation complex. A building, located at the plant site utilities area, houses a transformer and switchboard to feed the maintenance truck shop, washbay, and utility plants. An additional transformer is placed at the administration building to provide the correct voltage to the office and medical complex.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 196
17.4.4.
Communications
In addition to the process area, a fibre optic link shall be extended to permanent camp, mine garage and administrative building. Also, the Cochrane office shall be connected to the Project Network through internet. 17.4.5. Site Roads
The project site is serviced by an existing access road from Cochrane (Highway 652) that connects to the network of existing property roads. New road work will be completed to service new buildings and haul routes from the pit to the maintenance truck shop as required. Access between the accommodation complex and the process plant will be made up of 4.5 kilometres of existing road, connected to a new 750 metre road network that accesses the accommodation complex, sewage treatment plant and potable water plant. At the plant site, a 700 metre road runs northwest from the truck service area, connecting to the road network around the process plant and site services. 17.4.6. Utilities
Plant Underground Services Equipment for fire protection in the process plant area are included in the process area estimates, and includes main pump, jockey pump, diesel pump and main fireloops to crusher and truckshop areas. Firewater is assumed to be supplied from and tie into the process plant fresh water source. It is assumed that firewater will be supplied by a fresh water tank. Fire water for the truck garage and administrative building/emergency services area is tied into the process plant fire water ring main and fire water pumps, all located within the processing plant. The fire water piping is buried below the frost line and then routed through heated buildings to hydrant stations at the truck shop, warehouse, washbay and administrative building. A fire suppression system has been accounted for in the oil storage building, the warehouse and at the maintenance truck shop. Firewater for the permanent camp will be supplied from Little Hopper Lake and will be independent from process area. Plant Sewage Treatment Plant A skid mounted sewage treatment plant is included for the plant. It will be located near the process plant, adjacent to the administration building, and handles the process plant, administration building and truck shop sewage. The sewage treatment plant will utilize a modified Rotating Biological Contactor (RBC) process. The clear water outflow from the process plant treatment plant will be added to the tailing pumpbox and sent to the TMA. Sludge from the sewage treatment plant is collected and disposed of via a vacuum truck and transported off site for proper disposal.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 197
Plant Potable Water Treatment Plant A skid mounted potable water treatment plant is included for the plant. It will be located near the process plant and will supply water to the administration building, process plant and truck shop. The treatment process consists of filtration, chlorination and UV sterilization units to produce potable quality water. Potable water is stored in closed tanks at the process plant area and is then pumped to washing facilities, toilets, kitchens and drinking fountains. Permanent Camp Site Preparation The permanent camp has been designed to optimize foundation work and as a result has a minimal footprint. The general site preparation requirements for the permanent camp site were reviewed and estimated for the FS and include: Clearing and grubbing surfaces for camp and parking pads; Excavation of organic material (peat) to competent till material; and Mass backfill to finished platform elevations.
Permanent Camp Roads The Project site is serviced by an existing access road from Cochrane (Highway 652) that connects to the network of existing property roads. Access between the accommodation complex and the process plant will be made up of 4.5 kilometres of existing road. New access roads to the permanent camp, sewage treatment plant and fresh water pump station at Little Hopper Lake are included, in addition, there is a provision for circulation and parking areas. Permanent Camp Services Firewater for the permanent camp will be supplied from Little Hopper Lake and will be independent from the process area. A skid mounted sewage treatment plant has been located on the south side of the site access road, approximately 500 metres east of Little Hopper Lake. A skid mounted potable water treatment plant is located near the fresh water pump station at Little Hopper Lake and will supply water to the permanent camp. The treatment process consists of filtration, chlorination and UV sterilization units to produce potable quality water. Potable water is stored in closed tanks at the permanent camp and is then pumped to washing facilities, toilets, kitchens and drinking fountains. Truck Shop Services Firewater for the Truck shop will be supplied from the process plant, whereas the sewage will be pumped to the plant sewage treatment plant. 17.4.7. Buildings
Mine Truck Shop The mine truck shop is situated approximately 500 metres southeast of the primary crusher and is a pre-engineered, steel frame construction, with galvanized cold rolled sections for purlins and girts, and galvalume or colorbond steel cladding and roofing, with vinyl-back insulation. Bay allocation is as follows: one light vehicle bay, one light mine equipment (eg. dozers,
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 198
graters) bay, one ore truck tire bay, four ore truck maintenance bays and two preventative maintenance (oil change) bays. Two 60 tonne cranes and two 20 tonne cranes will facilitate the maintenance of the machinery in this building. The configuration of the truckshop area at startup has been minimized to include only two truck maintenance bays. An expansion is planned for during Year 2 of operations to service the full fleet of mine mobile equipment, and includes four truck maintenance bays with additional service facilities. The building also contains a workshop, warehouse/storage, office area, lunch room, and change room. An oil storage area, located against the outside wall of the office and warehouse section of the building is easily accessed by lubrication tanker trucks. Truck Wash Facility The truck wash facility is a pre-engineered building, with similar construction to the maintenance shop. It is located at the entrance to the truck service area such that vehicles are cleaned on route to the maintenance shop. Six water cannons are equally spaced around the bay, two cannons on raised platforms. A steam generator is provided to facilitate localized cleaning using high pressure hot water with steam option. Assay Laboratory The laboratory facility for geological and plant testing will be located in Cochrane. Plant Fuel Storage and Dispensing A diesel storage and distribution facility is located 300 metres southeast of the mine truck shop facility. Diesel storage will consist of 10 X 100 m3 tanks providing, up to an average seven day storage capacity based on 24 h/day operation for the life of mine. The tanks are double wall self contained with leak detectors. They are also pre-purchased for the construction activities for diesel distribution, electrical generation and winter heating (cement batch plant and foundation pouring). Permanent Camp A permanent camp is required for the Project. This camp is located at the sites western extremity and will house the site labour force for the mine and process plant operations, including support staff such as catering and housekeeping. The camp comprises reception, kitchen, recreational, laundry and dormitory facilities. All buildings are pre-fabricated woodframe buildings. Total camp capacity for this configuration is for 401 people. The recreation complex includes a concession shop, computer internet stations and common rooms with pool and ping pong tables, television area, gymnasium and gym. The laundry complex includes a linen storage area, commercial washers and dryers, and waiting and folding area. The permanent camp reception area includes washrooms, offices, reception and waiting area. Site Security and Main Control Gate Site access will be through a guard/security house located at the entrance to the site on the main access road. The guard house will be a modular, pre-fabricated wood-frame building, with separate entrance and exit doors, potable water cooler (bottled) and a small toilet and sink connected to a holding tank. Visitor car and truck parking bays are provided adjacent to the
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 199
guard house. The security gate is equipped with a weigh scale to monitor reagent delivery and is manned full time. Administrative Building The administration building is a modular, pre-fabricated wood-frame building on wood crib foundations. It will house the majority of offices for senior staff, including health/safety, environmental, accounting, managerial and technical staff (excluding process plant personal). It includes the facilities required to support the staff in their daily work, such as lunch rooms, toilets, print rooms, conference rooms etc. All workstations are provided with basic furnishings, internet and telephone connections. Power outlets are provided in all rooms. Emergency Services Attached to the administration building is the Emergency Services building. It contains two offices, an examination room, a treatment room and a waiting room. Within the same complex, there will be a covered garage to house the ambulance and fire truck. 17.4.8. Fire Protection
Fire water for the truck services area and accommodation complex is tied into the process plant fire water ring main and fire water pumps, all located within the processing plant. The fire water piping is buried below the frost line and then routed through heated buildings to hydrant stations at the maintenance truck shop, warehouse, washbay and accommodation complex. A fire suppression system has been accounted for in the oil storage building at the maintenance truck shop. Fire hydrants have been included at the accommodation complex. Supplementary hand-held fire extinguishers, each suitable for its specific area, will be mounted throughout all buildings.
17.5.
Environmental and Permitting Background
17.5.1.
The Project is a proposed redevelopment of a brownfield site. Past mining and exploration activities are represented at site by: A flooded open pit having a surface expression of 20 ha; Underground workings and a number of openings to underground; A tailings management area covering approximately 225 ha; and Mine rock and other stockpiles of approximately 55 ha area.
Site access roads and a gravel airstrip that were used to service the former mining operation are also still present and fully functional. All other facilities related to the previous mine were removed when the site was reclaimed. Environmental aspects have figured prominently in the development of the site layout and FS designs for the Project. Environmental considerations were critical to the selection of the preferred alternative for several key project components, including the proposed tailings management area and other mineral waste storage locations. The potential implications of
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 200
Project alternatives were fully considered from an environmental effects and approvals perspective during the design process. 17.5.2. Existing Environmental Conditions
The Project site is located on the northern edge of the Canadian Shield in the Boreal Forest Region of northeastern Ontario close to the Ontario-Qubec border. The area experiences cold winters and warm summers. The natural topography of the site is relatively subdued with maximum local relief of about 30 metres. Local site area watersheds tend to be of modest size, generally in the order of 20 to 50 km2, with the principal drainage south to the Detour River, which in turn drains to the Turgeon and Harricanaw Rivers and into James Bay. Vegetation communities comprise a mix of deciduous and coniferous forests and open and treed muskeg, with extensive evidence of forestry operations (by others) in the surrounding terrain. Fish and wildlife species in the area are generally typical of those inhabiting the broader boreal forests of northeastern Ontario. There are no known commercial or recreational fisheries or fishing areas proximal to the Project site. There are a few Federal and Provincial Species at Risk that are known to occur within the Project site area or that have a moderate to high probability of occurring on the Project site area. These Species at Risk include: Woodland Caribou, Bald Eagle, Rusty Blackbird, Oliveside Flycatcher, Common Nighthawk and Monarch Butterfly. The most notable of these Species at Risk is the Woodland Caribou, a species known to occur, at least periodically, in relatively high densities in and around the general vicinity of the mine site area, and is the only Species at Risk known or expected to be present that is afforded protected status. Other Species at Risk including Short-eared Owl, Peregrine Falcon and Canada Warbler all have reasonable probabilities of occurrence within the Project though they were not detected during baseline inventories. 17.5.3. Regulatory and Planning Context
Current Environmental Approval Status A number of environmental approvals remain in place from when the site was operated by the previous owner and were received to support advanced exploration activities. Some of these are applicable to the current or future site operations. Environmental Approval Requirements for Proposed Operations Most mining projects in Canada are reviewed under one or more environmental assessment (EA) processes. The Federal EA process for Canadian mines is detailed in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). Consultation with the various Federal government agencies has been initiated in association with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and the Major Projects Management Office, in order that they may determine whether the CEAA is applicable. Based on our knowledge of the applicability of the CEAA and the current project design, it is anticipated that a Federal EA will be triggered due to: A requirement for an Explosives Factory License under the Explosives Act for a project-dedicated explosives manufacturing factory; and
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 201
The need for one or more Authorization(s) for Harmful Alteration Disruption or Destruction of Fish Habitat according to the Fisheries Act.
The Project Description was filed with the Federal government in July 2009 and updated in January 2010. The Federal Authorities are currently in the process of determining the scope of the EA. The environmental approvals schedule has been prepared in anticipation of the proposed timing of Project activities, such that approval is obtained in advance of the need to start construction. A small number of Federal environmental approvals are anticipated to be required or are potentially required for the construction and operation of the Project as listed in Table 17-8.
Table 17-8: Preliminary List of Required Federal Environmental Approvals Agency Description Approval / Licence Responsible Natural Construction and operation of an Licence for a Explosives Factory (and Resources explosives factory and magazine(s). Magazine) Explosives Act Canada Disruption to creeks and ponds Authorization(s) for Harmful Alteration Fisheries and supporting fish populations; approval for Disruption or Destruction of Fish Oceans Canada groundwater dewatering effects. Habitat Fisheries Act
In addition to Federal Approvals listed in Table 17-8, there is an anticipated requirement for Schedule 2 listings for one small pond, and potentially a small number of intermittent creek drainages, in accordance with Section 5 requirements of the Metal Mining Effluent Regulation. These small water bodies are associated with planned development of the TMA. All Schedule 2 listings require a legislative change. In regards to the Provincial regulatory processes, three Provincial EAs are currently in progress for the Project: Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) Class EA for Electricity Projects, for the diesel power generation required to support the construction phase (AMEC 2010a); Ontario MOE Individual EA for Electricity Projects, for construction of a transmission line (AMEC 2010b); and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) Class EA for Resource Stewardship and Facility Development Projects, for the construction of facilities off-lease, and for such aspects as on-lease aggregate operations or in-water works (AMEC 2010c).
Although not strictly an EA process, there is also a requirement for a Declaration Order under the Mining Act from the MNDMF for the disposition of mining lands. Table 17-9 summarizes the provincial approvals anticipated to be required or likely to be required for the construction and operation of the Project. This list is based on other similar projects as well as pre-consultation with government agencies.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 202
Table 17-9: Anticipated Provincial Environmental Approvals Agency Permit/License/Assessment Description Responsible Comprehensive Certificate of Approvals Approval to discharge air emissions Air and Noise MOE and noise Environmental Protection Act Amendment to Certificate of Approval Approval to treat and discharge Industrial Sewage Works MOE effluent (such as for: mine / pit water, Ontario Water Resources Act TMA) Certificates of Approval Approval to treat and discharge Industrial Sewage Works MOE effluent (such as for: sewage treatment, Ontario Water Resources Act landfill leachate, oil water separator) Provisional Certificate of Approval Operation of a landfill and/or waste Waste Disposal Site MOE transfer site Environmental Protection Act Water taking from surface or ground Permits to Take Water water (open pit and other sources; MOE Ontario Water Resources Act Detour River, multiple permits expected to be required) Work Permits Work / construction on Crown land Public Lands Act / Lakes and Rivers MNR (multiple permits expected to be Improvement Act required) Aggregate Permits Approval to develop and operate MNR Aggregate Resources Act aggregate pits and quarries Forest Resource Licenses (Cutting Permit) Clearing of Crown merchantable MNR Crown Forest Sustainability Act timber Plans and Specifications Approval Dams and dikes including those MNR Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act associated with the TMA Land Use Permits Tenure for permanent facilities on MNR Public Lands Act Crown land (transmission line) Closure Plan For mine construction / production MNDMF Mining Act Leave to Construct Approval to construct a transmission OEB Ontario Energy Board Act line
17.5.4.
Consultation and Aboriginal Accommodations
Detour Gold has developed a policy statement on consultation and a specific consultation plan related to the EA and permitting process. The consultation plan has included input from the local municipalities and potentially impacted communities, and federal and provincial government representatives. Government agencies require that meaningful consultation occurs with the public, First Nations and the MNO (Aboriginal communities) prior to issuing environmental approvals. Detour Gold is working diligently to establish and maintain cooperative relationships with the local Aboriginal communities. The first phase of the consultation program is complete as consultation has occurred with local municipalities, business and community-based organizations to introduce the Project and to support the preparation of baseline environmental study reports. This first phase also had a priority and focus given to developing relationships with Aboriginal leadership through negotiation of agreements. The second phase of consultation is well underway, with consultation specific to the overall Project, various EA and the approach to closure.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 203
The Project area is within the traditional Treaty land area of the MCFN, TTN and WFN. The lands are covered by Treaty 9. To formalize the Detour Gold-Aboriginal community relationship agreements such as MOU and letters of intent have been finalized. These agreements indicate a plan to ensure the Aboriginal groups are involved in the environmental assessment process and are involved in creating training plans and promoting local employment and business opportunities. Each of the three Aboriginal groups has experience with mining and resource development and has signed both MOUs and IBAs with local companies. The Mtis has also asserted aboriginal interest in the area. An agreement on consultation, engagement and opportunities arising from the development will also be developed. The Mtis have local organizations: Northern Lights Mtis and MNO-Timmins are supported by an administrative group of the MNO. The MNO support a Consultation Committee made up of the local Mtis organizations. 17.5.5. Environmental Impacts and Mitigating Measures
Air Quality and Noise The Project site is remote from off-property human receptors (permanent and seasonal residences and commercial establishments); hence there are no restrictions on air and noise emissions relative human receptors. Air quality standards, point of impingement guidelines, and ambient air quality criteria specified in O.Reg. 419/05, are, however, applicable to industrial settings including mine sites irrespective of the presence of off-property human receptors. These standards are anticipated to be met by the proposed design and no significant air quality or noise impacts are expected. Geology and Geochemistry Terrain and surficial geology related environmental impacts are confined principally to aspects relating to vegetation and wildlife habitat protection and to viewscape considerations during operation and closure, and are discussed with those aspects below. Geochemical testing was conducted on mine rock samples and samples of simulated tailings to assess the metal leaching and ARD potential of mine wastes generated by the Project. Static and kinetic testing was completed on these materials. These tests are currently ongoing. The trends illustrated to date are summarized as follows: The new tailing has neutralization potential ratios (NPR) that are in the range where there is a very low chance of acid drainage developing (NPR > 2). This is due to the relatively low sulphide levels in the tailing and a significant excess of neutralization material. The original tailing had the potential to generate acid due to higher sulphide levels, but the closure strategy of covering the final exposed surface with a layer of desulphidized tailing for some areas and a water cover for the remainder has been successful as acid drainage is not occurring after 10 years of post closure. As these tailing will be covered by a large quantity of new tailing there is a very low risk of acid drainage from any new or old tailings.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 204
The waste rock testing indicated that approximately 80% of the waste rock has a low potential to generate acid due to NPR values that exceed 2. Approximately 20% of the waste rock has the potential to generate acid (potentially acid generating - PAG) as the NPR is less than 2. Approximately 9% of the rock has an NPR < 1 and hence has the highest potential to generate acid. In order to ensure that any ARD can be managed effectively if it occurs, a segregation plan is proposed to locate all PAG rock in an area of one stockpile for easy observation and for collection and treatment if needed.
The observations of the historic waste rock stockpiles which were developed in the early phases of the original mine indicated that ARD had not commenced after 16 years of operation. Further observations over the 10 years of the post closure time period has also shown that these stockpiles have not become reactive and have not produced ARD. Notably sulphide contents and the proportion of PAG rock in the historic stockpiles are generally greater than the proposed waste rock. Groundwater Hydrogeological investigations and related groundwater modeling indicate that groundwater inflows to the open pit are likely to be in the order of 4,200 to 5,000 m3/d (excluding direct surface runoff) after about Year 2 of open pit development and continuing into later mine life. This volume is relatively modest and compares well with previous rates of underground mine dewatering at the former Detour Lake mine and to other Timmins area open pits. The hydrogeological model is currently being revised to reflect the updated pit design, however, appreciable changes are not expected, although the cone of influence is expected to expand as the pit is larger than used in the previous model. There are no local groundwater users in the immediate area that could potentially be affected by groundwater depletion directly linked to open pit development. No significant environmental impacts are currently expected, after implementation of proposed mitigation measures. Surface Water Surface water systems have the potential to be affected by point source mine effluent discharges and mine site area runoff; as well as through groundwater system depletion linked to open pit dewatering, where surface water and groundwater systems are coupled. The principal point source effluents will be mine water discharge from the open pit and the mill tailings slurry (both discharged to the TMA) and from the domestic sewage treatment systems. The current design uses best management practices as well as industry standard treatment technologies to ensure effluent quality. This includes pre-treatment of tailings using the SO2/air process to destroy cyanide to levels that are generally less than 1 mg/L before deposition in the tailing ponds. As a result, environmental impacts to surface water are not expected to be significant. Vegetation and Wildlife Potential impacts to vegetation and wildlife are linked as the principal mine-related impacts to wildlife typically involve habitat alterations. Recommendations to minimize adverse effects to
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 205
area plants and wildlife include: developing a compact Project footprint; maintaining a minimum 120 metres vegetated buffer around watercourses; avoidance of unnecessary disturbance to wetlands; and avoidance of tree clearing during the bird nesting period. In addition, there are a number of habitat and wildlife constraints linked to Species at Risk and most notably, Woodland Caribou. Recommendations for the protection of Woodland Caribou include as reasonable: minimizing the overall Project development footprint; avoidance of critical over-wintering habitat; minimization of disturbance to mature upland Black Spruce Jack Pine forests supporting a high abundance of terrestrial and arboreal lichens (its preferred food source); and minimizing the potential for caribou / vehicular traffic interaction. Protection of Woodland Caribou and Woodland Caribou habitat will be a principal focus of government regulators, non-governmental organizations and Aboriginal groups. By implementing these measures and other similar measures, the predicted effects to vegetation and wildlife are not considered significant. Aquatic Resources Development of the Project site has the potential to adversely affect fisheries and other aquatic resources through the discharge of contaminants and through the displacement or alteration of fish habitat. Direct displacement of fish habitat could occur as a result of development of facilities such as the TMA, mine rock and overburden stockpiles, and open pit development. Alteration of fish habitat could potentially occur as a consequence of mine dewatering effects on nearby surface water systems, or through actions that could otherwise block or limit fish movement. Mitigation measures are proposing to limit the potential effects on aquatic resources. After mitigation, the environmental effects are not considered significant. Socio-Economic Environment Socio-economic impacts associated with local communities are expected to be overwhelmingly positive. Strong support has been expressed by the local communities for the Project, and particularly by the Town of Cochrane representatives. Overall effects are considered significant and positive. Three local Aboriginal communities have traditional lands which overlap with elements of the Project site and/or its associated supporting infrastructure: the MCFN; TTN and WFN. In addition, the MNO also have used and continue to use lands that may be impacted by the Project. Detour Gold is currently in discussion with these groups to assess potential impacts on traditional lands and resources. Cultural and Heritage Resources Archaeological investigations were carried out previously for the mine access road associated with the previous operation and more recently as part of baseline investigations. Updated studies remain in progress. Neither Woodland Heritage Services nor White Spruce Archaeology have identified archaeological sites to date that are proximal to proposed developments or likely to be affected by the Project in any foreseeable manner. The overall potential for encountering cultural heritage or archaeological sites that would conflict with the proposed mine development plan is considered to be low.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 206
Closure and Reclamation Planning As the Project site is an advanced exploration site, there is already a filed closure plan. Mine closure of the Project at the end of site operations will be carried out in accordance with O.Reg. 240/00. Prior to commencing construction, a new closure plan and financial assurance are required to be filed with the MNDMF. The proposed Project design, construction and operating methods have been developed to minimize the environmental footprint. Progressive reclamation of lands and ongoing disposal of surplus materials will be used as possible to manage the site and reduce eventual closure costs. The experience obtained from the previous mine operations of 16 years and the closure period of 10 years has been used to develop the closure plan. To date, the site has not experienced acid rock drainage from the existing mine rock materials although there are minor seeps with elevated contaminants that have minimal detectable impact on the local water systems. As these stockpiles contain rock with much higher levels of sulphide minerals which have not become reactive in the 26 years operational / closure history there are strong indications that the strategy proposed for segregation of mine rock will allow a similar passive system to be established. Once mining ceases, the open pit will be allowed to flood, eventually forming a lake. During the post-closure period, the flooding open pit will provide a water management function to manage site ARD (if any). During pit filling, any contaminated drainage will enter the open pit and would be fully contained. Once the pit fills to the point of overflow, pit drainage would flow by gravity into the adjacent Karel Creek and would have to be managed. Several effective technologies are currently available to manage ARD, if it occurs. Low grade ore materials will be deposited within the southern portion of Mine Rock Stockpile #1, adjacent to PAG materials. As such, if not processed at the end of mine operations, drainage from this area would report to the open pit, along with drainage from the concentrated PAG materials. Drainage from other portions of the two mine rock stockpiles would be allowed to flow passively to the environment, as it is expected that this drainage will not contain deleterious substances as defined by the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations. At final closure, islands of overburden cover will be placed to establish a base for stockpile revegetation. Revegetation of the stockpiles will be undertaken using a combination of hydroseeding, seeding and hand planting of shrub/tree seedlings. Experience with several other mine sites has shown that native plant species (herbs, shrubs and trees) will readily invade mine rock stockpiles even if there is no overburden cover, similar to the manner in which plants naturally invade bedrock terrain; but the use of overburden islands will accelerate this process. At closure the TMA will consist of three large cells. The predictions from the geochemistry assessments have yielded the conclusion that the sulphide content of the tailing will be very low and adequate buffering materials will be present to result in a very low potential for ARD to occur. At closure, overburden will be spread over the exposed tailings and will be seeded to provide erosion/dust control, improved aesthetics and wildlife habitat. The ponds will then be seeded / planted with emergent plant species around their perimeters to minimize erosion and to provide useful wildlife habitat. Dam structures containing the TMA will be designed with
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 207
adequate factors of safety to provide for overall long-term safety and stability and no additional work is proposed at closure, apart from ongoing inspection and maintenance. Aside from the TMA dams, the only other existing or proposed dam for the Project is the outlet control structure on East Lake. At closure, the weir structures will be sealed or removed and an emergency spillway will be established. To restore fish passage through the East Creek system, the outlet from East Lake will be reconfigured at closure to provide an extended graduated artificial creek bed. Once buildings, machinery, equipment and general infrastructure have been removed, saving those aspects required to complete, or monitor, mine closure activities, the general mine site area will be rehabilitated through a process of scarification of heavily compacted areas, regrading, application of an overburden cover as needed, and revegetation. Salvageable machinery, equipment and other materials will be dismantled and taken off site for sale or reuse if economically feasible, or disposed of in a licensed facility onsite or offsite. All local site access roads required for post-closure monitoring, or other access, would be maintained in an operational state until such time as they were no longer needed. Local site roads not required for site access would be scarified and allowed to revegetate naturally. The 230 kV transmission line would be left intact, until such time as it could be demonstrated that this power source was no longer required. At that time, the transmission line segment from the Project site to Island Falls would be dismantled, unless another user takes over responsibility for operation and maintenance of the line. That portion of the 230 kV line between Island Falls and Pinard is assumed to be left in place as part of the regional grid, subject to Hydro One concurrence. Once a decision has been made to permanently close the Project site, it is anticipated that the major closure activities would be completed within a period of two years, if not already completed progressively. The ongoing monitoring and management of ARD (if any) is expected to be required until such time as it can be demonstrated that site drainage no longer poses a threat to downstream receiving waters. Monitoring of various site aspects such as water quality, revegetation and TMA dam stability is expected to continue over an extended period of time.
17.6.
Health and Safety Introduction
17.6.1.
Detour Gold is committed to the health and safety of its employees and for all who are involved with this Project. Protection of employees from injury or occupational disease is a major continuing objective to reach the goal No One Gets Hurt. To achieve this, procedural and physical mechanisms will be put in place to maintain a safe and healthy workplace environment in accordance with industry standards and legislative requirements.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 208
17.6.2.
Health, Hygience and Safety Programs
Programs will be developed for each phase of the Project (construction, operation and closure) to ensure that the occupational health and safety objectives of Detour Gold are met. These programs will address the following elements: Workplace inspection, Hazard recognition, Evaluation and Control (risk assessment and management); Investigation of accidents and other incidents; Development of safe work procedures executed through worker awareness programs, effective training and availability of adequate instruction; Implement health and safety processes to ensure employee and contractor commitment (safety meeting, job task observations, tool box meetings, etc.); Provide visible safety leadership; and Implement new hire orientation and continual training programs;
Appropriate resources will be dedicated to include a loss control department staffed with health and safety professionals to coordinate programs and provide ongoing instruction. These resources will support the joint health and safety committee with the objective to promote accident prevention and ensure a full commitment and participation of all employees and contractors. 17.6.3. Site Security
Site Access The security at site will be provided with access control using a security gate office manned 24 hours per day. Security personnel will control entrance and exit at the site and appropriate safety induction training will be provided to all people accessing the Property. 17.6.4. Hazardous Material
Storage and Handling Various hazardous products required for daily operations will be present on site. These hazardous materials will be stored and handled safely, including appropriate employee training, according the product and/or suppliers recommendations. Examples such as petroleum products (diesel, oil, lube products, propane) and chemical reagents for plant operation will be used. These products will be stored inside appropriate tanks or containers as defined by their respective codes. For petroleum liquid products, appropriate containment infrastructure will be constructed for containment of any spillage that has potential to occur. Explosives used in the mine in appropriate powder magazines located remotely from other site infrastructure. All hazardous products will be properly identified according to the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS). People handling those products will be properly trained and certified to perform these tasks.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 209
17.6.5.
Emergency Response
Emergency Response Plan and Team Emergency response and preparedness plans that include a trained emergency response team will be developed to manage situations on site, including serious vehicle accidents, injured person(s), fire, explosion, dike failure, spillage, flooding and other unexpected events interrupting operations. Emergency Equipment and Facilities A medical facility with appropriate equipment and personnel will be established on site to provide first aid and remedial treatment. In the event transportation is required an ambulance will be available on site. A helicopter pad will be established on site. Fire Protection A water pumping system for fire control including water pumps and fire hydrants will be installed around the main site infrastructure including the plant, the maintenance truck shop and the campsite. In addition, a fire suppression system (sprinkler) has been accounted for in the oil storage building at the maintenance truck shop. Appropriate detection for smoke and carbon monoxide will be installed where appropriate. A fire truck will be available on site and a fire brigade will be trained to fight fires. Fire extinguishers will be available inside buildings, vehicles and elsewhere at critical locations.
17.7.
Project Schedule The project implementation schedule covers all the areas of the Project and includes the design, procurement, construction and commissioning of the facilities including the power line and main substation, the ore processing installations and the site infrastructure. Pre-production mining and related activities, as well as construction of the first phase of the tailings management facilities, are also part of the project implementation schedule. The implementation of the ore processing facilities is the most important element in terms of scope and magnitude of the project. As a result, the overall schedule is governed by the engineering, equipment delivery, construction, commissioning and other activities related to the start up of the ore processing facilities. The schedule assumes the FS of the Project is to be completed in the second quarter of 2010 leading to commissioning and start-up in the fourth quarter of 2012. The schedule also assumes that the environmental permits required to start construction work at the site are received by November 1, 2010. To achieve the above start up date, the procurement of long lead equipment such as gyratory crusher, SAG mills and ball mills have been completed in parallel with the FS. Furthermore, detail engineering of the early works and site infrastructure required for construction has also been progressing in parallel with the FS. Figure 17-14 presents a summary of the Project Schedule.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 210
Figure 17-14: Project Schedule
17.7.1.
Construction Infrastructure
Site construction activities will start with the establishment of temporary construction camp facilities. Required site earthworks will start shortly following the first phase of camp construction in preparation for main construction activities, which are due to start on November 1, 2010. The construction camp will be constructed in phases to accommodate the number of workers on site (up to 1,200 workers) and it will be upgraded as required during construction. The power line will be constructed in two phases. The first phase from Island Falls to Detour Lake will be constructed during the 2010-2011 winter months will provide power to the construction site from a temporary 115 kV connection near Island Falls. The second phase of the power line from Island Falls to Pinard substation at Fraser Dale will be built the following winter with commissioning of the 230 kV line planned to coincide with commissioning of mechanical equipment. The main substation facilities located at Detour Lake site will be constructed during the snow free months.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 211
17.7.2.
Mining
In 2010, initial orders for mining equipment are expected to be placed and first deliveries will be made for pre-production mining in the fourth quarter 2011. Pre-production will have started six to nine months prior to the Contractors equipment. Deliveries will extend up until the start up date and the logistics for on-site assembly plans will be made to ensure that all equipment will be operational in time to perform the mine production tonnages corresponding to the mine planning requirements. Electrical installations required for the mining operation will be constructed during the third and fourth quarter of 2011. 17.7.3. Site Infrastructure
Detailed engineering related to infrastructure is scheduled to coincide with the PCM award. Related procurement activities are to follow three months later. Construction of site facilities and infrastructure such as permanent camp accommodations, change house, offices, maintenance facilities etc, is expected to be completed within 12 months. The construction camp will be installed at the same location as the exploration camp. The construction camp will be completed first and when the permanent camp becomes available; both camps will be used for construction personnel. 17.7.4. Ore Processing
Processing Plant Implementation Action Plan The processing plant implementation plan takes into account that detailed engineering is required to start within the FS time period for some specific areas. The implementation plan covers the period from the SAG mills and ball mills specification preparation up to the end of the processing plant commissioning. The schedule is derived from major equipment delivery information obtained from suppliers. Engineering In order to achieve a proposed plant commissioning and start up in the fourth quarter of 2012, specific areas of detailed engineering are taking place in parallel with the FS execution. Due to the estimated delivery time for gyratory crusher and grinding mills, the processing plant implementation plan, which includes the specifications and bidding process, must be completed during the FS work. In order for the mill building to be enclosed by the end of 2011 so that mechanical, piping and electrical trades can work inside, the ore processing building layouts shall be completed by the third quarter of 2010. Early review during detail engineering planning needs to be completed to prepare drawings for a structural steel tender document. It is considered that design built suppliers/contractors will be invited to bid to accelerate the structural steel design of the building. The detailed engineering for the processing plant is estimated at 18 months and will include the gyratory crushing, the secondary crushing and the process plant.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 212
Procurement Plan As mentioned, the SAG mills, ball mills, gyratory crusher have been procured. In order to maintain the engineering schedule, certified drawings are required. For this reason, efforts will be made to purchase all other equipment in advance to complete the certified drawings. This also has the advantage of securing fabrication slots early in the project, hence, reducing the risk of potential commitment conflicts from suppliers. Items will be procured via Request for Quotations that will be created and maintained as part of a procurement plan. The procurement of equipment will include the preparation of comprehensive engineering and tender documents. Long Lead Items As part of the FS, prices have been requested for the major equipment. The equipment fabrication time for the gyratory crusher and the grinding mills are the longest at approximately 16 to 19 months followed by the leach tank agitators with a fabrication time of up to 12 months. For planning purposes, the delivery to site for long lead equipment was estimated at one month. The implementation schedule allows for 20 months for the crusher and grinding mills to be delivered on site. Construction The first priority activity will start with site preparation and construction camp installation. During that time, the concrete batch plant will be installed prior to the first concrete pour. Construction activities will start with concrete foundations for the grinding mills and main process building. The structural steel work of the main process building will follow, starting from the grinding area moving northeast along the plant site. The building roofing and siding will follow to complete building closure that will allow workers to work in an enclosed area. The internal steel of the main process building along with grinding mills installation, mechanical, piping and electrical work will be achieved. The commissioning will follow. All the other areas that are not on the critical path will be completed when resources become available. 17.7.5. Commissioning and Start-Up
The commissioning activities will be performed by a team comprised of construction managers, contractors, engineers, and operation personnel in order to be efficient. A six (6) month commissioning period has been scheduled. During the last quarter of 2012 and first quarter of 2013, the first line will be started, followed by the second line. The dry commissioning will start while the construction is still on-going. A detailed commissioning schedule will identify process systems that can be commissioned in advance and turn over to Operations to reduce the last minute turnover procedure. Commissioning will start with individual equipment evaluation followed by a dry run for a short period. Systems will then be flushed and run with water, where possible, to check functionality of controls and equipment, and fix potential deficiencies or leaks.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 213
Equipment and systems will then be turned over to the production personnel to start normal operation. 17.7.6. Tailings Management
Detailed engineering for tailings management facilities will be initiated in the fall of 2010. Actual earthworks and dam construction required for the start up of operations will be carried out between both the summer and fall of 2011 and 2012.
17.8.
Capital Costs The capital cost estimate includes estimated capital costs for the pre-production period (initial capital) and sustaining capital during the life of the operation. Excluded are approximately $91.6 million in 2010 sunk costs that will be funded from existing cash resources. For the purpose of this report, the pre-production period extends from the beginning of 2011 to second quarter 2013, while the sustaining capital period covers the life of the operation plus the mine closure. The overall capital costs accuracy level is estimated to be -10% to +15% with a base date of first quarter 2010. The estimate was based on budgetary prices obtained from respective suppliers for large equipment and database for minor equipment. The summary of the capital cost estimate of the project is presented in Table 17-10.
Table 17-10: Summary Capital Cost Estimate (in Canadian Dollars) Pre-Production Cost Sustaining Capital Area ($ M) ($ M) Direct Costs Mining 161.6 301.3 Ore Processing 437.7 29.5 Tailings Disposal 41.7 296.7 Site Preparation and Infrastructure 146.6 10.0 (includes transmission line) Off-site (Cochrane) 3.1 Sub-Total 790.7 637.5 Indirect Costs Project Development Owners Costs 45.1 EPCM 60.8 Site Owners Costs 106.9 Contingency 88.1 Sub-Total 301.0 TOTAL 1091.7 637.5 Closure Costs 11.4 50.8
Pre-production Capital The pre-production capital costs have been estimated at $1,091.7 million of which $790.7 million are direct costs and $301.0 million are indirect costs. Indirect Costs include engineering, procurement, construction management, owners costs and contingencies. A detailed summary of the pre-production capital cost is provided in Table 17-11.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 214
Table 17-11: Pre-production Capital Cost Detailed Summary Pre-Production Area Capital (M$) Mine Site 33.0 Pre-Production 51.4 Mine Equipment 77.2 Site Preparation/Utilities 144.9 Gyratory Crusher 41.6 Material Handling and Pre-Crusher 69.6 Concentrator Foundation/Structural 103.7 Mechanical 160.5 Electrical/Piping 62.3 Tailings Disposal 41.7 Pre-Construction Infrastructure 1.8 Off Site Infrastructure 3.1 Owners Costs 45.1 Other Indirect 106.9 EPCM 60.8 Contingency 88.1 Total 1091.7
17.9.
Operating Costs The operating costs for specific areas were compiled by BBA. The operating cost of the Detour Lake operation covers mining, ore processing, tailings and water management, general and administration as well as infrastructure and services.
17.9.1.
Summary Operating Costs
Table 17-12 presents the summary of the operating costs during the four (4) year ramp-up and optimization process. The mining cost was calculated over the average mine life of ore processed (close to an average of 19 Mt); whereas the remaining areas were calculated based on the increasing throughput of the concentrator.
Table 17-12: Summary Operating Cost Estimate Area Mining (LOM) Ore Processing Tailings & Water Management General & Administration Infrastructure & Services TOTAL 6.34 Year 1 ($/t)* Year 2 ($/t)* 7.50 6.01 5.79 5.67 Year 3 ($/t)** Year 4 ($/t)***
Included in Ore Processing 0.79 0.55 15.18 0.69 0.56 14.76 0.69 0.57 14.55 0.63 0.56 14.36
* Considering an annual nominal tonnage of 20,075,000 milled ** Considering an anuual nominal tonnage of 20,293,200 tonnes milled *** Considering an annual nominal tonnage of 22,336,400 tonnes milled
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 215
17.9.2.
Mine Operating Costs
Operating costs for the mining operations are developed based on Owners operated and maintained mining equipment fleet and are generally defined as the production costs incurred after plant commissioning only. The mine operating costs were estimated on the basis of the list of equipment and on workforce requirement for operating and maintaining the major and support equipment presented in Section 17.1.11. Average salaries and fringe benefits were based on recent operational surveys. Equipment unit operating and maintenance costs were developed in collaboration with the major equipment suppliers, benchmarked to similar operations and cross-referenced to BBA internal database. The average unit operating cost for the mine is $1.35 tonne mined for the first 5 years and $1.74 per tonne mined over the life of the mine, including the pre-production cost. The unit costs in $/tonne are shown in Table 17-13.
Table 17-13: LOM Unit Operating Costs by Activitiy Total ($/t Ore and Waste) Production Drilling Equipment 0.06 Explosives and Blasting (incl. Fuel) 0.18 Load and Haul Equipment 0.92 Ancillary Open Pit Equipment 0.19 Operating/ Maintenance Labour 0.31 Salaried Personnel 0.07 All Other 0.02 TOTAL 1.74
17.9.3.
Plant Operating Costs

The estimated annual operating costs for the process plant are summarized in
Table 17-14, scheduled to be a four (4) year ramp-up and optimization process. The processing costs over the life of mine are projected to average $5.73/t. These costs are derived from project specific process engineering, supplier information, BBAs database and benchmarked to similar operations.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 216
Cost Area Manpower Electrical Power Propane Mill and Crusher Liners Grinding Media Cyanide Elemental Sulphur And Liquid SO2 Flocculant Lime Other Reagents Maintenance Parts Total Operating Cost
Table 17-14: Summary of Estimated Annual Operating Costs Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 000'$/yr 9,517 38,275 2,754 7,810 25,902 16,743 6,601 2,529 3,662 5,975 7,570 127,338 $/t 0.47 1.91 0.14 0.39 1.29 0.83 0.33 0.13 0.18 0.30 0.38 6.34 000'$/yr 9,831 38,275 2,754 7,810 25,902 15,385 954 2,529 3,662 6,037 7,570 120,709 $/t 0.49 1.91 0.14 0.39 1.29 0.77 0.05 0.13 0.18 0.30 0.38 6.01 000'$/yr 9,831 38,691 2,754 7,895 26,184 12,219 981 2,557 3,702 5,109 7,576 117,499 $/t 0.48 1.91 0.14 0.39 1.29 0.60 0.05 0.13 0.18 0.25 0.37 5.79
Year 4* 000'$/yr 9,831 42,586 2,754 8,690 28,820 13,450 976 2,814 4,075 5,179 7,638 126,812 $/t 0.44 1.91 0.12 0.39 1.29 0.60 0.04 0.13 0.18 0.23 0.34 5.67
* Using Year 4 as representative year.
17.9.4.
General and Administration Costs
The G&A costs for the project are summarized in Table 17-15. The G&A cost over the life of mine are estimated to average $0.66/t.
Table 17-15: General Administration Costs by cost area Annual Manpower Annual Materials and Cost Area Cost (000'$)* Services Cost (000'$)* Cochrane Laboratory 957 319 Medical Clinic Environment Administration / Finance / Management Cochrane office HSE - Health & Safety HR - Human Resources Asset Management IT Information Technology Land/Legal/Permitting Taxes Telecommunications Transportation Engineering and Testwork, Pre-Operations and Commissioning TOTAL
*Using Year 4 as representative year.
333 682 2,085 0 762 964 0 371 0 0 0 178 0 6,332
110 1,240 256 154 129 711 3,000 630 40 7 45 991 50 7,682
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 217
The G&A costs expressed as costs per tonne are presented in Table 17-16 for the first 4 years of the operation, after which the operating costs and milling rate are expected to become stable.
Table 17-16: General Administration Unit Cost Summary Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Description Unit Cost Unit Cost Unit Cost Unit Cost ($/t) ($/t) ($/t) ($/t)* Administration0.32 0.32 0.31 0.28 Manpower AdministrationMaterial & 0.47 0.38 0.38 0.34 Services TOTAL 0.79 0.69 0.69 0.63
17.9.5.
Infrastructure
The estimated expenses for infrastructure and related services are summarized in Table 17-17. The infrastructure costs over the life of mine are estimated to average $0.57/t.
Table 17-17: Infrastructure Costs by Cost Area Annual Manpower Annual Materials and Cost Area Cost (000'$)* Services Cost (000'$)* Camp, Catering & Security 1,101 4,896 Housing Infrastructure Power Infrastructure Maintenance Total
0 0 1,872 2,973
25 2,282 2,444 9,647
The infrastructure costs expressed as costs per tonne are presented in Table 17-18 for the first 4 years of the operation, after which the operating costs and milling rate are expected to become stable.
Table 17-18: Infrastructure Unit Costs Summary Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Description Unit Cost Unit Cost Unit Cost Unit Cost ($/t) ($/t) ($/t) ($/t)* Infrastructure0.14 0.15 0.15 0.13 Manpower InfrastructureMaterial & 0.40 0.42 0.42 0.43 Services Total 0.55 0.56 0.57 0.56
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 218
17.10. Financial Analysis 17.10.1. Assumptions
The three-year trailing average spot price for gold has risen from an average of less than US$300/oz in September 2002 to almost US$900/oz at the end of April 2010. Over the same period, the monthly average exchange rate of Canadian Dollars to US Dollars declined from more than C$1.50/US$ to a three-year trailing average of C$1.08/US$ by April 2010. In order to remove the impact of inflation, the gold price data were adjusted using the US and Canadian Consumer Price Indices (CPI) and are presented in Figure 17-15 in real terms for each currency. The results show that, when weighted by the gold price, the real average exchange rate over the 10 years to April 2010 was C$1.11/US$.
Figure 17-15: Average Gold Price (Real Terms)

MonthlyAverageGold Price10yrstoApr2010(Realterms) (Source:www.kitco.com)
1,300 USD/oz 1,200 CAD/oz 1,100 36per.Mov.Avg.(USD/oz) 1,000 36per.Mov.Avg.(CAD/oz)
$/ozAu
900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200

Oct01 Oct02 Oct03 Oct04 Oct05 Oct06 Oct07 Oct08 Oct09 Apr00 Apr01 Apr02 Apr03 Apr04 Apr05 Apr06 Apr07 Apr08 Apr09 Apr10 Oct00
Taking the above into account, it was decided to set the parameters of the Base Case for the economic evaluation of the project as follows: A constant US dollar gold price of US$850/oz in real 2010 terms, providing a degree of conservatism over the three-year trailing average; and An exchange rate of C$1.10/US$, slightly below the weighted historical average expressed in real 2010 terms. No inflation differential was provided for, as the cash flow projection uses constant money terms throughout.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 219
A residual non-crown royalty (NSR) of two percent (2%) of the net value of gold production was allowed for in the cash flow projection, after assuming the purchase of the Goldcorp 1% NSR for $1 million.
17.10.2.
Taxation
Federal and Provincial Canadian Federal and Ontario Provincial income taxes were computed using tax rates expected during years when the Project is forecast to be taxable (with a combined Federal and Provincial rate of 25%). The Projects past Canadian Exploration Expenses (CEE) and Canadian Development Expenditures (CDE) and losses carried forward (LCF) were taken into account as follows: CEE of $97.7 million, CDE of $10.3 million and LCF of $6.5 million. The Project has no material Capital Cost Allowance pools to utilize. The development expenditures have been assumed to fall into the following categories for purposes of claiming the subsequent tax deductions:
Pre-production expenditures Sustaining capital expenditures
CEE and Class 41(a) Class 41(b)
100% 25%
Over the life of the mine Federal and Provincial income taxes have been estimated at $527.3 million. Mining Tax The Ontario mining tax rate is 10%. The mining tax taxable income basis, prior to calculating the processing allowance, is similar to that for Federal and Provincial tax purposes. The additional processing allowance deduction available is equivalent to the lesser of: 8% of the cumulative processing capital costs or 65% of the mining tax taxable income. Over the life of the mine, mining taxes have been estimated at $236.7 million. 17.10.3. Discount Rate
The discount rate applied to the cash flow to arrive at a NPV for the Project is intended to represent the weighted average cost of capital ("WACC") to the Project. The Project has been evaluated on an all-equity basis, so in this case WACC is equal to the cost of equity. Historically, the risk premium for equity has been estimated at close to 5%. Over the past 10 years, real risk-free interest rates have ranged from near zero to around 5%. The real return on Canadian long bonds since January, 2000 has averaged close to 2.5%. Consequently, it was decided to apply discount rates of 5%, 7.5% and 10% in the Base Case. In accordance with MNDMF policy, a discount rate of 3% was applied to all future closure cost allowances according to the assumed schedule for the work.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 220
17.10.4.
Assumptions
Principal technical assumptions utilized in the Base Case are given in Table 17-19.
Waste rock mined Total ore milled (LOM) Ore grade to mill Gold content
Table 17-19: Technical Assumptions 000 tonnes 000 tonnes g/t Au 000 oz tpd % days 000 oz 000 oz % $/oz $ 000 $ 000 $ 000 $/t milled $/t milled $/t milled $/t milled $/t milled $/t milled
1,152,822 347,461 1.02 11,388 61,000 91.2 15 10,385 3,322 99.9 0.50 1,091,732 637,473 62,214 7.50 5.77 1.23 0.68 (0.17) 15.01
Processing rate (steady state) Gold recovery (avg.) Gold inventory (lock-up) Gold sales Silver sales Gold payability (refined) Gold refining charges Pre-production capital cost Sustaining capital Closure funding Average mining cost (LOM) Processing, refining & delivery cost average (LOM) G & A cost average (LOM) Royalty average (LOM) Silver credit (LOM) Total operating costs (LOM)
17.10.5.
Mine Closure
The estimated costs of mine closure and ongoing monitoring were discounted to their present value at 3% per year. It has been assumed that the growth of this future liability over the operational life of the mine will be matched by funds contributed each year. The resulting fundings, totalling $62.2 million (undiscounted), are shown in Figure 17-16, and are accounted for in the cash flow projection.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 221
Figure 17-16: Estimated Reclamation Bond Contributions
Annualbondcontributions
12,000,000 10,000,000 8,000,000
CAD
6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
17.10.6.
Base Case Cash Flow
The cash flow projection takes as its basis the mine production plan, which was prepared on a quarterly basis for the period to the end of 2014, by which time steady state operation is forecast to have been achieved, and annually thereafter. From the production plan, gold production and revenues are derived using the assumptions given above, and operating cost and working capital requirements are calculated for each period. The timing of capital expenditure is based on construction and equipment replacement schedules. Capital expenditures of $91.6 million forecast to occur during 2010 are treated as a sunk cost and hence are not reflected in the discounted cash flow projection. Based on the above production, operating and capital expenditure plans, royalty and tax computations were prepared, and the pre- and after-tax cash flows were then discounted to derive their NPV. The main components of the Project cash flow are shown in Figure 17-17 and Table 17-20.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 222
Figure 17-17: LOM Cash Flow Projection

1,000,000 750,000 500,000 250,000
CAD000
(250,000) (500,000) (750,000) (1,000,000) (1,250,000)

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
Capitalexpenditure NetSales Revenue
Totalcashoperatingcosts CumulativeDCF(5 %/y)
Taxationpayable Cumulativecashflow
Netcashflow aftertax
Table 17-20 shows the key results of the cash flow projection, evaluated at the base case annual discount rate of 5% as well as the undiscounted cash flow and at alternative annual discount rates of 7.5% and 10%. It can be seen that the Project is forecast to provide an IRR of 14.4% before tax and 12.4% after tax. At the Base Case discount rate, NPV 5% is $1,128 million and $760 million before and after tax respectively. In US Dollars, these are equivalent to $1,026 million and $691 million, respectively. The Project shows a maximum cash outflow at the end of 2013 of approximately $1,121 million (equivalent to US$1,019 million). Undiscounted, payback occurs during the second quarter of 2019, a payback period of 5.9 years. At a discount rate of 5%, payback is seen at 8.5 years, leaving a reserve tail of more than 7 years production. Life of mine average cash operating costs, net of silver credits, are estimated to be $481/oz gold (US$437/oz), and total cash costs are $500/oz (US$454/oz) including royalties.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 223
Table 17-20: Cash Flow (in Canadian Dollars)

CAPEX Waste Mined W/O Ratio Ore milled Average Ore Grade Payable Metal Gross Revenue (US$850 gold) Operating Expenses Mining Processing G&A On Site Cash Operating Exp. Treatment & Transport Total Cash Operating Exp. Royalties Total Operating Expenses Operating Profit Capital Costs Initial and Expan. Capital Sustaining capital Closure and reclamation Working capital Total Capital Costs Pre-tax Cash Flow Income and Mineral Taxes After-tax Cash Flow 000's 000's 000's 000's Year Unit t 000's t 000's g/t Au oz Au 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 2011 540,102 540,102 (540,102) (540,102) 2012 29,157 470,012 11,393 6,550 487,955 (487,955) (487,955) 2013 66,047 4.7 14,018 1.13 448,057 420,523 104,916 88,859 26,762 220,537 550 221,087 8,398 229,485 191,038 81,618 174,807 9,553 17,700 283,678 (92,640) (92,640) 2014 69,793 3.5 20,096 1.23 718,894 674,626 132,779 120,748 25,459 278,986 851 279,836 13,473 293,310 381,316 2015 96,273 4.7 20,293 1.20 717,235 673,094 164,057 117,412 25,627 307,096 849 307,945 13,443 321,388 351,706 2016 102,793 4.6 22,336 0.93 612,682 575,255 178,079 126,716 26,633 331,428 748 332,177 11,488 343,665 231,590 2017 100,407 4.5 22,336 0.86 566,266 531,771 176,812 126,716 26,657 330,186 703 330,889 10,619 341,509 190,263 2018 99,772 4.5 22,336 0.93 605,045 568,101 185,356 126,716 26,645 338,718 741 339,459 11,345 350,804 217,297 2019 94,105 4.2 22,336 0.96 627,868 589,482 187,966 126,716 26,629 341,312 763 342,074 11,772 353,847 235,635 2020 100,663 4.5 22,336 0.88 575,040 539,991 206,173 126,716 26,727 359,616 712 360,328 10,784 371,112 168,879 2021 95,152 4.3 22,336 0.83 540,980 508,083 207,614 126,716 26,727 361,056 679 361,735 10,146 371,882 136,202 2022 83,686 3.7 22,336 0.86 559,734 525,651 198,688 126,716 26,727 352,131 697 352,828 10,497 363,325 162,325 2023 72,437 3.2 22,336 0.92 597,715 561,232 201,808 126,716 26,690 355,215 734 355,949 11,208 367,156 194,075 2024 59,626 2.7 22,336 1.00 653,674 613,657 185,071 126,716 26,574 338,362 788 339,150 12,255 351,405 262,252 2025 34,269 1.5 22,336 1.06 691,373 648,979 141,015 126,716 26,142 293,874 824 294,698 12,961 307,659 341,320 2026 24,189 1.1 22,336 1.09 715,044 671,156 125,596 126,716 25,960 278,272 847 279,119 13,404 292,523 378,633 2027 15,359 0.7 22,336 1.18 769,016 721,722 109,573 126,716 25,890 262,180 899 263,079 14,414 277,494 444,229 2028 8,433 0.4 21,561 1.28 810,564 760,610 86,606 122,317 25,771 234,693 939 235,633 15,191 250,824 509,787 2029 661 0.2 3,456 1.39 175,540 164,706 14,571 19,603 5,000 39,175 326 39,500 3,287 42,787 121,918 TOTAL 1,152,822 3.3 347,461 1.02 10,384,727 9,748,639 2,606,681 1,989,534 426,621 5,022,836 12,650 5,035,486 194,687 5,230,173 4,518,465 1,091,732 637,473 62,214 0 1,791,418 2,727,047 (764,048) 1,962,999
93,108 9,982 8,899 111,989 269,327 269,327
82,218 8,763 (1,276) 89,705 262,001 262,001
57,565 6,884 (4,597) 59,851 171,739 171,739
2,775 5,040 (2,411) 5,404 184,859 184,859
30,835 3,529 1,055 35,419 181,877 181,877
18,196 2,403 742 21,341 214,295 (26,644) 187,651
22,258 1,607 (2,934) 20,931 147,948 (42,170) 105,778
17,343 1,063 (1,373) 17,032 119,169 (30,657) 88,512
20,065 698 1,163 21,925 140,400 (39,110) 101,290
3,457 456 1,297 5,210 188,865 (50,112) 138,753
20,355 298 2,981 23,633 238,619 (72,063) 166,556
59,587 194 3,665 63,446 277,874 (94,890) 182,984
12,887 126 (2,575) 10,438 368,195 (105,294) 262,900
22,018 82 (1,830) 20,270 423,959 (126,036) 297,923
144 (2,006) (1,862) 511,649 (147,607) 364,042
(25,049 ) (25,049 ) 146,968 (29,465 ) 117,503
S:\Detour Lake Project\Technical Reports\2010-04draft\Technical Report
_v6.docx
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 224
Table 17-21: Project Evaluation Summary

LOM TOTAL Undisc. 9,749 2,607 1,990 5 7 427 5,035 195 5,230 4,518 1,092 637 62 0 2,727 14.4% 764 1,963 12.4% 5.9 C$ 000 NPV NPV disc at disc at 5.0% 7.5% 5,862 4,676 1,608 1,207 3 4 261 3,083 117 3,200 2,662 1,011 461 49 13 1,128 368 760 8.5 1,292 965 2 4 210 2,472 93 2,566 2,110 975 400 44 15 676 260 416 10.7 NPV disc. at 10.0% 3,793 1,052 783 2 3 171 2,012 76 2,088 1,705 941 351 40 16 358 186 172 13.2 LOM TOTAL Undisc. 8,862 2,370 1,809 5 7 388 4,578 177 4,755 4,108 992 580 57 0 2,479 695 1,785 US$ 000 NPV NPV disc at disc at 5.0% 7.5% 5,329 4,251 1,461 1,097 3 4 237 2,803 106 2,909 2,420 919 419 45 12 1,026 334 691 1,174 877 2 3 191 2,248 85 2,332 1,918 886 364 40 14 615 236 379 NPV disc. at 10.0% 3,448 957 712 2 3 156 1,829 69 1,898 1,550 855 319 36 15 325 169 156
Gross sales revenue Cash operating costs Mining costs Processing costs Refining charges Bullion delivery G&A costs Operating cash cost Royalty Total cash costs Net cash operating margin (EBITDA) Capital expenditure Initial/expansion capital Sustaining capital Closure provision Change in working capital Net cash flow before tax Internal rate of return (pre-tax) Taxation payable Net cash flow after tax Internal Rate of Return (after tax) Payback period (years)
17.10.7.
Sensitivity Analysis
Taking the Base Case described above as a starting point, the sensitivity of the project pre-tax NPV 5% to changes in revenue drivers (such as gold price, grade and recovery), exchange rate, capital and operating costs, and unit costs for fuel and electrical power was tested. Figure 17-18 presents the results of this analysis, expressed in US Dollars. It can be seen that, as is typical for most mining projects, the drivers of revenue have the greatest impact on project returns. In this case, an adverse change of 20% from the Base Case (to a gold price of US$680/oz) is required before the NPV 5% is shown to be negative. The Project is almost as sensitive to changes in the exchange rate, since these directly affect Canadian Dollar receipts but have little impact on estimated operating costs or on the Canadian Dollar denominated portion of the capital cost. The Project is shown to be only moderately sensitive to overall capital costs, and has little sensitivity to changes in fuel or power costs within the range tested.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 225
Figure 17-18: Sensitivity Analysis

2,500.0
NPV(USDmillions2009 terms)
2,000.0 1,500.0 1,000.0 500.0 .0 (500.0)
80% (17.6) 1,584.7 1,302.1 1,317.8 1,097.3 1,106.1 (20.5)
85% 243.2 1,444.9 1,232.9 1,244.7 1,079.3 1,086.0 287.1
90% 503.9 1,305.1 1,163.8 1,171.7 1,061.4 1,065.8 560.6
95% 764.7 1,165.3 1,094.6 1,098.6 1,043.5 1,045.7 805.3
100% 1,025.5 1,025.5 1,025.5 1,025.5 1,025.5 1,025.5 1,025.5
105% 1,286.3 885.7 956.4 952.4 1,007.6 1,005.4 1,224.8
110% 1,547.1 745.9 887.2 879.4 989.6 985.2 1,405.9
115% 1,807.9 606.1 818.1 806.3 971.7 965.0 1,571.3
120% 2,068.7 466.4 749.0 733.2 953.7 944.9 1,722.9
Revenue drivers Operatingcosts Capitalcosts Miningcost FuelPrice Power Exchange Rate
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 226
18.0
18.1.
INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS

Sampling Method and Approach SGS Geostat validated the core sampling procedures used by Detour Gold as part of an independent verification program. SGS Geostat concluded that the drill core handling, logging and sampling protocols used by Detour Gold for the Project are at conventional industry standard and conform to generally accepted best practices. SGS Geostat is confident that the system is appropriate for the collection of data suitable for the estimation of a NI 43-101 compliant mineral resource estimate.
18.2.
Data Verification It is in SGS Geostats opinion that the final database, dated January 2010, is valid and acceptable for use in mineral resource estimation studies.
18.3.
Mineral Resource Estimate Detour Gold has been conducting drilling programs on the Detour Lake gold deposit since January 2007, which have defined a large gold mineralized system. SGS Geostat also completed a NI 43-101 compliant mineral resource estimate for the PFS in 2009 (Met-Chem). In January 2010, Detour Gold completed 40 x 40 metre definition drilling on a large part of the Detour Lake deposit. Subsequently, SGS Geostat completed a revised mineral resource estimate for the FS based on additional drilling results. The global mineral resource estimates are presented in Table 18-1.
Table 18-1: Global Mineral Resources at 0.5 g/t Au Cut-off Grade Category Measured Indicated Total M+I Inferred Tonnes (000s) 108,250 401,780 510,020 133,620 Grade (g/t Au) 1.39 0.99 1.08 0.80 Contained Gold (000s oz) 4,840 12,830 17,670 3,430
The Detour Lake in-pit mineral resource, based on a cut-off grade of 0.5 g/t Au, is shown in Table 18-2.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 227
Table 18-2: In-pit Mineral Resources at 0.5 g/t Au Cut-off Grade Category Measured Indicated Total M+I Inferred Tonnes (000s) 77,930 284,200 362,140 6390 Grade (g/t Au) 1.37 0.96 1.05 0.83 Contained Gold (000s oz) 3,441 8,796 12,237 170
The block grade is estimated using over 160,000 capped gold values from up to 5-metre drill hole composites. Interpolation was performed using OK, utilizing only composites belonging to the same mineralized domain as the block. Search ellipsoids varied for each domain and are related with the anisotropy of variograms of the specific domain. Search ellipsoids generally start with a 50 x 30 x 15 metre range. A minimum of seven composites from three different holes, within the ellipsoid, were required to assign a value to any specific block. Otherwise, a larger ellipsoid with an increasing minimum number of composites and holes was used. Resource categorization was completed using a two-step approach, starting with an automatic classification of each block followed by a manual smoothing. Within the 5-metre composites used, there is a relatively weak spatial continuity of grade in all domains, with significant nugget effects averaging 60%. However, owing to the large number of composites in most domains, the anisotropic structure and ranges of the structured part of the variograms are generally well defined with long ranges from 45 to 150 metres in an E-W direction (plunging to west) and short range from 15 to 30 metres in a N-S direction. Gold grades of original drill hole assay intervals were capped before compositing, which led to elimination of approximately 9% of the gold from the original assay values. A total of 13 mineralized domains (with corresponding solids) were considered. Gold mineralization occurs in conjunction with sub-parallel extensional quartz veins. The mineral resource was based on composited gold assay data derived from core and was estimated on the basis of interpreted mineralized envelopes with a nominal cut-off of approximately 0.20 g/t Au. The mineral resource was estimated by three interpolation methods: NN, ID3 and OK. No significant discrepancies exist between the methods and OK was used for the resource tabulation. The Detour Lake deposit has been drilled, in the vast majority, by south dipping holes. Quartz veins are reported to strike 270 to 285 with subvertical dips to the north and lesser to the south. Variography of the samples indicates that the direction of greatest continuity is eastwest along the strike of the deposit, dipping slightly to the north. Data verification of the drill hole database suggests that the information is reliable and is believed to be accurate. The bulk density samples taken from the recent surface drilling appear to be consistent with expected values within different rock types.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 228
Additional statistical analysis would be beneficial to determining the capping level. Increasing the level of confidence in the capping values will improve the grade control determination and future production reconciliation. The reported in-pit Measured and Indicated resources are expected to be mined with a level of external dilution. Internal dilution was included in the grade interpolation methodology. In conclusion, SGS Geostat believes that the current resource block model and its classification represents the high grade gold values and the local gold grade variations which exist in the Detour Lake deposit.
18.4.
Sample Preparation, Analysis and Security It is of SGS Geostats opinion that Detour Gold is operating according to an industry standard QA/QC program for the insertion of control samples into the stream of samples for the Project. The data is of quality sufficient to be used for mineral resource estimation.
18.5.
Mining Operations The mining section of the FS was based on the 3D block model provided by SGS Geostat. The pit optimization, using LD 3D algorithm, was based on a mill cut-off grade of 0.50 g/t Au in order to improve the project economics. The detailed engineered pit design, using the optimized pit shell as a guide, includes a haulage road, required pit slopes, smoothed pit walls, proper bench configurations and geotechnical berms. The Detour Lake mineral reserves, based on a cut-off grade of 0.5 g/t Au, is shown in Table 18-3. Total waste including inferred material, backfilled stopes, overburden and waste rock is 1,152.8 Mt for a waste to ore strip ratio of 3.32 to 1. Total gold production over a 16 year mine life is estimated to be 10.4 million ounces, averaging 649,000 ounces per year (plus 200,000 ounce of silver).
Table 18-3: Detour Lake Mineral Reserves at $850/oz (cut-off grade of 0.5 g/t Au) Reserve Tonnes Grade Gold Ounces (millions) (g/t Au) (000s) Category Proven Probable Total (P&P) 81.5 266.0 347.5 1.28 0.94 1.02 3,359 8,030 11,389
The mining will be carried out by open-pit mining methods using a conventional drill, truck and shovel operation method on the basis of two twelve-hour shifts per day, seven days per week and 365 days per year. The major mining fleet will consists of 36 290-tonne trucks, two 34.4 m cable shovels, three 28 m electric hydraulic shovels, six track-mounted blasthole drills through the life of the mine along with a fleet of support equipment, including track- and
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 229
rubber-tire dozers, motor graders, auxiliary excavators, as well as other miscellaneous maintenance support equipment.
18.6.
Plant Operations (Metallurgy) As part of the review of the testwork, BBA re-evaluated the overall gold recovery models developed for the PFS. The models are valid and the overall gold recovery estimations over the life of mine are estimated to be 91.2% gold recovery for the design case (55,000 tpd). Results from the BBA testwork program did not show any benefits to gold leaching in tests conducted with lead nitrate. Thus, lead nitrate is not included in the leaching circuit design. It is possible to reduce leaching retention time (by removing leach tanks) and retaining the same gold recovery, by using oxygen instead of air. The grinding circuit design at 55,000 tpd with P80 at 95 microns is flexible enough to allow expansion to 61,000 tpd with P80 at 105 microns. In Year 4, when tonnage will be increased from 55,000 to 61,000 tpd, the leaching kinetics will require an adjustment to compensate for the increased rate and the courser feed. This compensation will come from: Using Oxygen (see note above) instead of air and/or Additional leach tanks (planned in Year 3 sustaining capital).
The results confirm that a gravity/cyanidation/CIP gold recovery circuit is the process of choice for the Project. It is the opinion of BBA that the metallurgical test work conducted on the Detour Lake deposit is of sufficient quantity and quality to support a FS.
18.7.
Infrastructure and Services Power Line and Substation The capital costs for the main substation at the Detour Lake site were estimated based on similar installations. The power unit rate used in the FS estimates is 6.1 /kWh based on projected market conditions at the time of writing this report. Permanent Camp A permanent camp is required for the Project. This camp is located at the sites western extremity and will house the site labour force for the mine and process plant operations, including support staff such as catering and housekeeping. The camp comprises reception, kitchen, recreational, laundry and dormitory facilities. Fuel Storage A diesel storage and distribution facility is located 300 metres southeast of the mine truck shop facility. Diesel storage will consist of 10 X 100 m3 tanks providing up to an average seven day storage capacity based on 24 h/day operation for the life of mine.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 230
Truckshop The mine truck shop is situated approximately 500 metres southeast of the primary crusher and is a pre-engineered, steel frame construction.
18.8.
Financial Analysis and Sensitivity The Project is forecast to provide an IRR of 14.4% before tax and 12.4% after tax. At the Base Case discount rate, NPV 5% is $1,128 million and $760 million before and after tax respectively. In US Dollars, these are equivalent to $1,026 million and $691 million, respectively. The project shows a maximum cash outflow at the end of 2013 of approximately $1,121 million (equivalent to US$1,019 million). Undiscounted, payback occurs during the second quarter of 2019, a payback period of 5.9 years. At a discount rate of 5%, payback is seen at 8.5 years, leaving a reserve tail of more than 7 years production. The Project is almost as sensitive to changes in the exchange rate as the gold price, since these directly affect Canadian Dollar receipts but have little impact on estimated operating costs or on the Canadian Dollar denominated portion of the capital cost. Furthermore, the Project is shown to be only moderately sensitive to overall capital costs, and has little sensitivity to changes in fuel or power costs within the range tested.
18.9.
Conclusions In BBAs opinion, the Project is sufficiently robust to warrant proceeding to the next stage of development, being detail engineering and construction of the project.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 231
19.0
RECOMMENDATIONS
During the completion of the FS, a large amount of work has been completed to bring the various aspects of the Project to its current stage (June 2010). In continuation with work completed to date, some elements will need to be examined in more detail prior to the start up of operation.
19.1.
Mineral Resources and Reserves Potential for Additional Mineral Resourcs
19.1.1.
Based on the completed analyses, interpolation and model resource estimates by SGS Geostat, the following are recommendations for further development of the Detour Lake deposit: (1) A comprehensive program of total leach bench testing across the deposit to obtain a good spatial variance of the head grade and validate the capping levels used for the estimate. (2) Reconciliation of the head grade obtained from the recommended test bench with the existing fire assays and capped fire assays. (3) Grade control testing with inclined reverse circulation holes on a 10 metre grid if an opportunity arises for such exercise. (4) Additional drilling to determine the extension of the mineralization along strike to the west and at depth. (5) Additional work to improve the local grade estimation within the block model estimation, possibly by remodelling the current domain interpretation and reconciliation within the selective mining units (10 x 5 x 10 metres). 19.1.2. Data Verification
SGS Geostat recommends to conduct additional verification of historical records and to locate the original assay certificates with an emphasis on the data pertaining to the Campbell drilling series. Furthermore, SGS Geostat recommends conducting similar total gold analysis test programs in others areas of the deposit with the objective of validating, in different types of mineralization observed elsewhere in the Project, the total gold-fire assay relationship outlined in this study.
19.2.
Infrastructure The site road designs and aggregate usage assumptions are recommended to be revisited prior to construction start-up, for instance, increased usage of the available mine waste. Sources for aggregates and construction materials will be a key focus for the optimization of the Project.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 232
19.3.
Mining Plan and Mining Operations The mining aspects of the FS, including the mine design, the mine planning optimization process, mining dilution and fleet selection have been carried out according to industry standards and all risks and concerns have been identified and addressed. BBA recommends the following work: To review the pit slope as more data is collected and available, e.g. potential steeper pit angle in the talc chlorite area of the footwall; To advance the pit dewatering; To confirm more accurately the level of mining dilution and ore losses; To complete the trade-off study on mining fleet size and selection; and To carry out a study on the possibility of increasing the bench height greater than the current 10 metres as a function of equipment efficiency versus mining selectivity and dilution.
19.4.
Processing Plant and Metallurgical Testing Further testwork is recommended to optimize some sections of the plant design prior to operations. For instance, BBA recommends oxygen uptake testwork to be completed prior to for the detail engineering stage.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 233
20.0
REFERENCES
Geological Setting Barclay, W., 1993, Aspect of Structural Geology at the Detour Lake Mine, Ongoing Studies for Placer Dome Inc. Card et al, 1989, The Archean Superior Province of the Canadian Shield and Its Lode Gold Deposits, Economic Geological Survey of Canada, Contribution Series 38788 Geology Monograph vol. 6, 1989, p. 11-28. Marmont, S. and Corfu, F. 1989, Timining of gold mineralization in the late Archean tectonic framework of the Canadian Shield; evidence from U-Pb zircon geochronology of the Abitibi sub-province, in the The Geology of Gold Deposits; the perspective in 1988, (ed) R.R. Keays, W.R.H. Ramsey and D.I. Groves; Economic Geology, Monograph 6, p. 101-111. Longley, C.S. and Lazier, T.A., 1948, Paymaster Mine, in the Structural Geology of Canadian Ore Deposits A Symposium: Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Special Volume 1, p. 520-528. Oliver et al., in preparation, Structural, Chronologic, Lithologic and Alteration Characteristics of Gold Mineralization: The Detour Lake Gold Deposit, Ontario, Canada. Pressacco, R., 1999, Economic Geology and Mineralization at the Detour Lake Mine, Ontario Geological Survey Open File Report 5985, p. 52-76. Exploration and Drilling Watts, Griffis and McOuat Limited, 2008, Technical Report and Mineral Resource Estimate for the Detour Lake Mine Option Property, Ontario for Detour Gold Corporation. January 25, 2008. Watts, Griffis and McOuat Limited, 2008, Technical Report and Mineral Resource Estimate Update for the Detour Lake Mine Option Property, Ontario, for Detour Gold Corporation. August 18, 2008. Sampling Method and Approach Met-Chem Canada Inc., Technical Report Pre-feasibility of the Detour Lake Project, Ontario, for Detour Gold Corporation. October 19, 2009. Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security Bloom, L., 2009a, Overview of the Detour Lake Project (Ontario) Assay Quality Control Program (January 2007-January 2009), Internal report prepared by Analytical Solutions Ltd. for Detour Gold Corporation. February 2009. Bloom, L., 2009b, Review of the Detour Lake Project (Ontario) February June 2009 Assay Quality Control Program, Internal report prepared by Analytical Solutions Ltd. for Detour Gold Corporation. June 2009. Bloom, L., 2009c, Review of the Detour Lake Project (Ontario) June - October 2009 Assay Quality Control Program, Internal report prepared by Analytical Solutions Ltd. for Detour Gold Corporation. November 2009. Refer to Appendix B.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 234
Bloom, L., 2010, Review of the Detour Lake Project (Ontario) October 2009 January 2010 Assay Quality Control Program, Internal report prepared by Analytical Solutions Ltd. for Detour Gold Corporation. February 2010. Refer to Appendix B. Data Verification Kallio, Eric A., 2006, Technical Report for the Detour Lake Mine Option Property, Ontario for Detour Gold Corporation. September 21, 2006. Nakai-Lajoie, P., 2009, Detour Gold Data Verification, Independent report prepared by Scott Wilson RPA for Detour Gold Corporation. September 25, 2009. Estimation of Mineral Resources Geostat, 2008a, Capping of gold values. Detour Lake project. Second part : capping on original samples, Memo of Robert de lEtoile to Patrice Live dated April 22, 2008, 49 p. Geostat, 2008b, Variography of the Detour Gold project. Memo of Robert de lEtoile to Patrice Live dated May 16, 2008, 6 p. Geostat, 2008c, Capping of gold values, Detour Gold project. Memo of Michel Dagbert to Patrice Live dated September 23, 2008, 14 p. Geostat, 2009a, Statistical and geostatistical analysis of gold grade sample data from the Detour Lake gold deposit, dated April 02, 2009, 29 p. Met-Chem Canada Inc., Technical Report. Pre-feasibility Study of the Detour Lake Project, Ontario, for Detour Gold Corporation, October 19, 2009. Infrastructure Ausenco Canada Inc., Detour Lake Site Infrastructure Pre-Feasibility Study Report. August 10, 2010. Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing Ausenco, Desktop Study on Comminution Options, Project 1880RP0007 Revision C. March 2009. Cyanco. SO2/Air Cyanide Destruction Design Engineering Review. August 27, 2009. Delkor Thickener Selection Detour Lake Project, Test Report TW 0426 TH. March 11, 2010. FLSmidth, Sedimentation and Pheology on Detour Gold Project PreLeach and PreDetox Thickneers. March 18, 2010. Knelson Research & Technology Centre, Gravity Modelling Report, Project No. KRTS 2021-8. March 3, 2010. Kresin, P., Gold Ore Processing Summary Detour Lake Mine. August 28, 2007. Melis Engineering Ltd. Memorandum, Detour Gold Project - Metallurgical Composite Selection and Preparation Rev. 3. June 24, 2008. Melis Engineering Ltd. Memorandum, Copper-Gold Loading in a CIP Circuit. November 6, 2008.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 235
Melis Engineering Ltd. Memorandum, Gravity Gold Recovery. November 19, 2008. Melis Engineering Ltd. Memorandum, Leach Retention Time Analysis. November 19, 2008. Melis Engineering Ltd. Memorandum, Carbon-in-Leach vs. Conventional Carbon-in-Pulp. December 5, 2008. Melis Engineering Ltd. Memorandum, Update on Lead Nitrate Use & Leach Retention Time. February 2, 2009. Melis Engineering Ltd. Memorandum, Further Update on Lead Nitrate Use & Leach Retention Time. February 10, 2009. Melis Engineering Ltd. Memorandum, Grind/Recovery Relationship. March 4, 2009. Melis Engineering Ltd. Memorandum, Plant Gold Loss Estimate. March 5, 2009. Melis Engineering Ltd. Memorandum, Requirement for Further Comminution Testwork. March 11, 2009. Melis Engineering Ltd. Memorandum, Detour Lake Project HQ Comminution Core Preparation with Discussion on Sample Selection for Gold Analysis. May 8, 2009. Melis Engineering Ltd. Memorandum, Detour Lake Project Cyanidation Kinetic Testing. May 26, 2009. Melis Engineering Ltd. Memorandum, Detour Lake Project Grind Variation Cyanidation Testing. June 11, 2009. Melis Engineering Ltd. Letter Status Report No. 1. February 1, 2008. Melis Engineering Ltd. Letter Status Report No. 2. March 3, 2008. Melis Engineering Ltd. Letter Status Report No. 3. March 24, 2008. Melis Engineering Ltd. Letter Status Report No. 4. May 2, 2008. Melis Engineering Ltd. Letter Status Report No. 5. July 3, 2008. Melis Engineering Ltd. Letter Status Report No. 6. September 15, 2008. Melis Engineering Ltd. Letter Status Report No. 7. December 17, 2008. Melis Engineering Ltd. Letter Status Report No. 8. February 20, 2009. Melis Engineering Ltd. Letter Status Report No. 9. June 30, 2009. Melis Engineering Ltd., Detour Gold Project Summary of Metallurgy, Melis Project No. 478. March 30, 2009. Melis Engineering Ltd., Detour Gold Project Summary of Metallurgy Rev 1, Melis Project No. 478. May 19, 2009. Outotec Canada Ltd., Test Report TH-0433, Detour Gold Corporation CIP/CND 110 mm Bench-scale High Rate Thickener Test Report. April 28, 2008 May 9, 2008. Outotec Canada Ltd., Test Report TH-0434, Detour Gold 110 mm Bench-scale High Rate Thickener Test Report. June 12, 2008.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 236
Outotec Canada Ltd., Test Report TH-0492, Detour Gold - 100mm Bench-scale High Rate Thickener Test Report, March 16, 2010. Outotec Canada Ltd., Supaflo Thickener Test Report TH-0471, Detour Lake 100, 100 mm Diameter Supaflo High Rate Thickener Test Report. June 2009. Polysius AG Research Centre, High Pressure Grinding & Grindability Tests on Gold Ore for Detour Lake. December 19, 2008. Rollwagen D. et al., Gold Recovery at Detour Lake Mine. Proceedings of the International Symposium of Gold Metallurgy. August 23-26, 1987. SGS Lakefield Research Limited, The Recovery of Gold from the Detour Lake Project, Report 11743-001/003. July 9, 2009. SGS Lakefield Research Limited, A Deportment Study of Gold in Eight Composite Samples from the Detour Gold Project, Project No. 11801-001. April 15, 2008. SGS Lakefield Research Limited, Proposed Grinding System Design for the Detour Lake Project Based on Small-Scale Data, Project No. 11805-001 Final Report. December 15, 2008. SGS Lakefield Research Limited letter report Continuance/Decommissioning of CND-3, CND4 and CND-5 Humidity Cell Tests Detour Lake Project, SGS Reference No. 11743-002. December 15, 2008. SGS Lakefield Research Limited, The Variability Characteristics of samples from the Detour Lake Project based on Small-Scale Data, Project 11805-002-Final Report. July 03, 2009. SGS Lakefield Research Limited, An investigation in the Recovery of Gold from the Detour Lake Project, Project No. 11743-001. July 9, 2009. SGS Lakefield Research Limited, The Detoxification of Cyanide Pulps from Leaching of Samples from the Detour Lake Project, Project 11743-002 Final Report. September 11, 2009. SGS Lakefield Research Limited, The Variability Characteristics of Samples from the Detour Lake Project based on Small-Scale Data. No. 11805-002. October 2009. SGS Lakefield Research Limited, Additional JKSIMMET simulations for the Detour Lake Grinding Circuit, Project 11805-003 - Final Report Rev 1. December 22, 2009. SGS Lakefield Research Limited, Detour Rowe Cell and Hydraulic Conductivity Test Report, Project 12282-001. May 20, 2010. SGS South Africa (PTY) Ltd, Process Simulation Modelling to Evaluate the Metallurgical Response and Carbon-in-Pulp Plant Operating Strategy Proposed for Detour Gold. July 4, 2008. Starkey, J., Detour Lake Report Mill sizing. October, 2009. Westech, Detour Lake Gold Gravity Sedimentaton Studies, Westech Proposal 091518/110226 Rev.1. March 18, 2010.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 237
Mining and Mineral Reserves AMEC, Construction Methodology for the Mine Rock Stockpiles. Detour Lake Project Feasibility Study. TC81510-305, March 15, 2010. Golder Associates, Detour Lake Project, Preliminary Pit Slope Design. July 2008. Met-Chem Canada Inc., Technical Report Pre-Feasibility Study of the Detour Lake Project, Ontario, for Detour Gold Corporation, October 19, 2009. Tailings and Waste Management AMEC 2009a. Detour Lake Project, 2008 Geotechnical Investigation, Detour Lake, Ontario. AMEC 2009b. Detour Lake Project, Tailings, Mine Rock and Overburden Management Feasibility Design Report. AMEC 2010a. Tailings, Mine Rock and Overburden Management Feasibility Design Update Report. Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) 1999. Ontario Dam Safety Guidelines (Draft). Environmental and Permitting AMEC 2010a. Detour Lake Temporary Power Project, Environmental Review Report AMEC 2010 b. Detour Lake Power Project, Individual Environmental Assessment 230 kV Transmission Line Power Supply. AMEC 2010 c. Detour Lake Project, Draft Environmental Study Report, MNR Class EA.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Page 238
21.0
CERTIFICATES
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
630, Ren-Lvesque Blvd. West Suite 2500 Montral (Qubec) H3B 1S6 CANADA T +1 514.866.2111 F +1 514.866.2116
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHOR To Accompany the Report entitled: Technical Report Feasibility Study of the Detour Lake Project, Ontario for Detour Gold Corporation dated June 30, 2010
I, Andr Allaire, Eng., do hereby certify that: 1) I am Director, Mining and Metals with BBA with an office at 630, Ren-Lvesque West, Suite 2500, Montral, Qubec, H3A 1S6; 2) I graduated from McGill University in Montral with a B. Eng. in Metallurgy in 1982 and a Ph.D. in 1991; 3) I am a registered member of the Order of Engineers of Qubec (#38480); 4) I have worked as a process engineer continuously since my graduation from university; 5) I have read the definition of qualified person set out in the National Instrument 43-101 and certify that, by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be an independent qualified person for the purposes of NI 43101; 6) I am responsible for the coordination of the complete Technical Report and for the preparation of Sections 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, 14.0, 15.0, 17.2, 17.4, 17.6, 17.7, 17.8, 17.9, 17.10, 18.0, 19.0 and 22.0 of the present Technical Report; 7) I have had prior involvement with the properties that are the subject of the Technical Report. In 2009, I was a co-author of the, "Technical Report Pre-Feasibility of the Detour Lake Project, Ontario for Detour Gold Corporation" dated October 19, 2009; 8) I have visited the site on March 25th, 2010; 9) I have no personal knowledge as of the date of this certificate of any material fact or change, which is not reflected in this report; 10) Neither I, nor any affiliated entity of mine, is at present under an agreement, arrangement or understanding or expects to become an insider, associate, affiliated entity or employee of Detour Gold Corporation, or any associated or affiliated entities; 11) Neither I, nor any affiliated entity of mine, own directly or indirectly nor expect to receive, any interest in the properties or securities of Detour gold Corporation or any associated or affiliated companies; 12) Neither I, nor any affiliated entity of mine, have earned the majority or our income during the preceding three from Detour Gold Corporation or any associated or affiliated companies;
Page 2
13) I have read NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1 and have prepared the technical report in compliance with NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1; and have prepared the report in conformity with the generally accepted Canadian Mining Industry practice and, as of the date of the certificate, 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. This 30th day of June 2010.
-ORIGINAL SIGNED AND SEALED______________________________ Andr ALLAIRE, Eng., M. Eng., PhD. Director, Mining and Metals BBA Inc.
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHOR Michel Dagbert
To Accompany the Report entitled Technical Report Feasibility Study of the Detour Lake Project, Ontario for Detour Gold Corporation dated June 30, 2010
I, Michel Dagbert, Eng., do hereby certify that: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) I am senior geostatistician with SGS Canada Inc. - Geostat with an office at 10 Blvd Seigneurie East, Suite 203, Blainville, Quebec, Canada, J7C 3V5; I am a graduate from Paris School of Mines in 1971 and McGill University in 1972. I am a registered member of the Professional Engineers of Quebec; I have worked as a geostatistician continuously since my graduation from university; I have read the definition of qualified person set out in the National Instrument 43-101 and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association and past relevant work experience, I fulfil the requirements to be an independent qualified person for the purposes of NI 43-101; I have participated in the preparation of sections 16.1 to 16.14 of this Technical Report; I have not visited the site; I have had prior involvement with the property that is the subject of the Technical Report. In 2009, I was a co-author of the report: Technical Report Pre-Feasibility of the Detour Lake Project, Ontario for Detour Gold Corporation dated October 19, 2009; I have no personal knowledge as of the date of this certificate of any material fact or change, which is not reflected in this report; Neither I, nor any affiliated entity of mine, is at present, under an agreement, arrangement or understanding or expects to become, an insider, associate, affiliated entity or employee of Detour Gold Corporation, or any associated or affiliated entities; Neither I, nor any affiliated entity of mine, own, directly or indirectly, nor expect to receive, any interest in the properties or securities of Detour Gold Corporation, or any associated or affiliated companies;
6) 7) 8)
9) 10)
11)
Geostat
SGS Canada Inc. 10 boul. de la Seigneurie Est, Suite 203, Blainville, Qubec Canada J7C 3V5 t (450) 433-1050 f (450) 433-1048 www.geostat.com www.met.sgs.com Membre du Groupe SGS (SGS SA)
12)
Neither I, nor any affiliated entity of mine, have earned the majority of our income during the preceding three years from Detour Gold Corporation, or any associated or affiliated companies I have read NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1 and have prepared the technical report in compliance with NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1; and have prepared the report in conformity with generally accepted Canadian mining industry practice, and as of the date of the certificate, 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.
13)
This 30th day of June, 2010

-ORIGINAL SIGNED-
_______________________________ Michel Dagbert, Eng., Senior geostatistician SGS Canada Inc. - Geostat
Geostat
CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON Sheila Ellen Daniel, P.Geo. AMEC Americas Limited 160 Traders Blvd East, Suite 110 Mississauga Ontario Canada, L4Z 3K7 Tel: (905) 568-2929 Fax: (905) 568-1686 sheila.daniel@amec.com I, Sheila E. Daniel. P.Geo., am employed as Head, Environmental Management / Associate Geoscientist with AMEC Americas Limited. This certificate applies to the technical report entitled Technical Report Feasibility Study of the Detour Lake Project, Ontario for Detour Gold Corporation dated June 30, 2010. I am a member of Professional Geoscientist in the Province of Ontario (Reg. # 0151). I graduated from McMaster University in 1990 with a M.Sc. and University of Western Ontario with a B.Sc. (Honours). I have practiced my profession for twenty years. I have been directly involved in environmental consulting related to mining covering all phases of mineral development. A significant portion of this has related to environmental support for the engineering and construction of mining projects including baseline studies, environmental approvals and reclamation costing. 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 for this report. I visited the Detour Lake Property on July 13, 2008 and September 15, 2009. I am responsible for the preparation of sections 17.5 of the technical report entitled Technical Report Feasibility Study of the Detour Lake Project, Ontario for Detour Gold Corporation dated June 30, 2010. I have had prior involvement with the property that is the subject of the Technical Report. In 2009, I was a co-author of the report "Technical Report Pre-Feasibility of the Detour Lake Project, Ontario for Detour Gold Corporation" dated October 19, 2009." I am independent of Detour Lake Corporation as independence is described by Section 1.4 of NI 43 101. I have read NI 43101 and this report has been prepared in compliance with that Instrument. As of the date of this certificate, 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.
-ORIGINAL SIGNED AND SEALED-
__________________________________ Sheila E. Daniel. P.Geo. Head Environmental Management Associate Geoscientist Dated June 30, 2010
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHOR Andr Laferrire
To Accompany the Report entitled Technical Report Feasibility Study of the Detour Lake Project, Ontario for Detour Gold Corporation dated June 30, 2010
I, Andr Laferrire, M.Sc. P.Geo., do hereby certify that: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) I am senior geologist with SGS Canada Inc. - Geostat with an office at 10 Blvd Seigneurie East, Suite 203, Blainville, Quebec, Canada, J7C 3V5; I am a graduate from Universit de Montral in 1995 and 1999; I am a registered member of the Ordre Gologue du Quebec (#557); I have worked as a geologist continuously since my graduation from university; I have read the definition of qualified person set out in the National Instrument 43-101 and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association and past relevant work experience, I fulfil the requirements to be an independent qualified person for the purposes of NI 43-101; I have participated in the preparation of sections 7.0 to 13.0 of this technical report; I have visited the site on two occasions from October 29 to November 9, 2009 and from November 24 to December 2, 2009; I have no personal knowledge as of the date of this certificate of any material fact or change, which is not reflected in this report; Neither I, nor any affiliated entity of mine, is at present, under an agreement, arrangement or understanding or expects to become, an insider, associate, affiliated entity or employee of Detour Gold Corporation, or any associated or affiliated entities; Neither I, nor any affiliated entity of mine, own, directly or indirectly, nor expect to receive, any interest in the properties or securities of Detour Gold Corporation, or any associated or affiliated companies; Neither I, nor any affiliated entity of mine, have earned the majority of our income during the preceding three years from Detour Gold Corporation, or any associated or affiliated companies
6) 7) 8) 9)
10)
11)
Geostat
12)
I have read NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1 and have prepared the technical report in compliance with NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1; and have prepared the report in conformity with generally accepted Canadian mining industry practice, and as of the date of the certificate, 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.
This 30th day of June 2010

_______________________________ Andr Laferrire, M.Sc. P.Geo, Senior geologist SGS Canada Inc. - Geostat
Geostat
CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON Derek Li, P.Eng. AMEC Americas Limited 160 Traders Blvd East, Suite 110 Mississauga Ontario Canada, L4Z 3K7 Tel: (905) 568-2929 Fax: (905) 568-1686 derek.li@amec.com I, Derek Li, P.Eng., am employed as Senior Geotechnical Engineer with AMEC Americas Limited. This certificate applies to the technical report entitled Technical Report Feasibility Study of the Detour Lake Project, Ontario for Detour Gold Corporation dated June 30, 2010. I am a member of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (Reg. #90462037). I graduated from University of Toronto in 1997 with a M.A.Sc. in Geotechnical Engineering. I have practiced my profession for thirteen years. I have been directly involved in geotechnical consulting related to mining covering all phases of mineral development. I have read the definition of qualified person set out in National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43101) 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 for this report. I visited the Detour Lake Property periodically between May 21, 2008 and June 22, 2008. I am responsible for the preparation of section 17.3 of the technical report entitled Technical Report Feasibility Study of the Detour Lake Project, Ontario for Detour Gold Corporation dated June 30, 2010. I have had prior involvement with the property that is the subject of the Technical Report. In 2009, I was a co-author of the report "Technical Report Pre-Feasibility of the Detour Lake Project, Ontario for Detour Gold Corporation" dated October 19, 2009. I am independent of Detour Gold Corporation as independence is described by Section 1.4 of NI 43101. I have read NI 43101 and this report has been prepared in compliance with that Instrument. As of the date of this certificate, 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.
-ORIGINAL SIGNED AND SEALED_____________________________ Derek Li, P.Eng. Senior Geotechnical Engineer Dated June 30, 2010
630, Ren-Lvesque Blvd. West Suite 2500 Montral (Qubec) H3B 1S6 CANADA T +1 514.866.2111 F +1 514.866.2116
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHOR To Accompany the Report entitled: Technical Report Feasibility Study of the Detour Lake Project, Ontario for Detour Gold Corporation dated June 30, 2010
I, Patrice Live, Eng., do hereby certify that: 1) I am Manager, Mining with BBA with an office at 630, Ren-Lvesque West, Suite 2500, Montral, Qubec, H3A 1S6; 2) I graduated from Laval University in 1976; 3) I am a registered member of the Order of Engineers of Qubec (#38991); 4) I have worked as a mining engineer continuously since my graduation from university; 5) I have read the definition of qualified person set out in the National Instrument, 43-101 and certify that, by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be an independent qualified person for the purposes of NI 43101; 6) I am responsible for the coordination of the complete Technical Report and for the preparation of Sections 16.15 to 17.1; 7) I have had prior involvement with the properties that are the subject of the Technical Report. In 2009, I was a co-author of the "Technical Report Pre-Feasibility of the Detour Lake Project, Ontario for Detour Gold Corporation" dated October 19, 2009 and, in 2008, I was co-author of the "Technical Report and Mineral Resource Estimate Update for the Detour Lake Mine Option Property, Ontario for Detour Gold Corporation" dated August 18, 2008; 8) I have visited the site on September 19th, 2007; 9) I have no personal knowledge as of the date of this certificate of any material fact or change, which is not reflected in this report; 10) Neither I, nor any affiliated entity of mine, is at present under an agreement, arrangement or understanding or expects to become an insider, associate, affiliated entity or employee of Detour Gold Corporation, or any associated or affiliated entities; 11) Neither I, nor any affiliated entity of mine, own directly or indirectly nor expect to receive, any interest in the properties or securities of Detour gold Corporation or any associated or affiliated companies; 12) Neither I, nor any affiliated entity of mine, have earned the majority or our income during the preceding three from Detour Gold Corporation or any associated or affiliated companies;
Page 2
13) I have read NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1 and have prepared the technical report in compliance with NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1; and have prepared the report in conformity with the generally accepted Canadian Mining Industry practice and, as of the date of the certificate, 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. This 30th day of June 2010.
______________________________ Patrice LIVE, Eng. Manager - Mining BBA Inc.
Page 239
22.0
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR TECHNICAL REPORTS DEVELOPMENT PROPERTIES AND PRODUCTION PROPERTIES
ON
The aspects that will be developed to bring the property to a further development stage have been covered in the previous Sections of the Technical Report.
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Appendix A: List of Claims/Claim Map
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
Claim Number/ Lease/ Patent 1133200 1133201 1133202 1133203 1133204 1133205 1133206 1133207 1133208 1133209 1154536 1154537 1154538 1154539 1154540 1154541 1154542 1154543 1154544 1154545 1154546 1154547 1154548 1154550 1154725 1154726 1154727 1154728
Ownership
Township/Area
Recorded Date
Due Date/Expiry
Hectares
NSR 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp.
DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC
Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake West of Sunday Lake Sunday Lake Sunday Lake Sunday Lake Sunday Lake
August 21, 1990 August 21, 1990 August 21, 1990 August 21, 1990 August 21, 1990 August 21, 1990 August 21, 1990 August 21, 1990 August 21, 1990 August 21, 1990 May 28, 1990 May 28, 1990 May 28, 1990 May 28, 1990 May 28, 1990 May 28, 1990 May 28, 1990 May 28, 1990 May 28, 1990 May 28, 1990 May 28, 1990 May 28, 1990 May 28, 1990 May 28, 1990 July 12, 1994 July 12, 1994 July 12, 1994 July 12, 1994
August 21, 2011 August 21, 2011 August 21, 2011 August 21, 2011 August 21, 2011 August 21, 2011 August 21, 2011 August 21, 2011 August 21, 2011 August 21, 2011 May 28, 2011 May 28, 2011 May 28, 2011 May 28, 2011 May 28, 2011 May 28, 2011 May 28, 2011 May 28, 2011 May 28, 2011 May 28, 2011 May 28, 2011 May 28, 2011 May 28, 2011 May 28, 2011 July 12, 2011 July 12, 2011 July 12, 2011 July 12, 2011
16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 32 192 64 256
1154729 1154730 1155035 1155036 1155038 1155039 1155040 1155041 1155042 1155043 1155045 1155046 1155047 1155048 1155049 1155050 1155051 1155052 1155053 1155054 1155055 1155056 1155057 1155058 1155059 1155060 1155061 1155062 1155063 1155064
DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC
Sunday Lake Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake Hopper Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake
July 12, 1994 July 12, 1994 May 28, 1990 May 28, 1990 May 28, 1990 May 28, 1990 May 28, 1990 May 28, 1990 May 28, 1990 May 28, 1990 May 28, 1990 May 28, 1990 May 28, 1990 May 28, 1990 May 28, 1990 May 28, 1990 May 28, 1990 May 28, 1990 May 28, 1990 May 28, 1990 May 28, 1990 May 28, 1990 May 28, 1990 May 28, 1990 May 28, 1990 May 28, 1990 May 28, 1990 May 28, 1990 May 28, 1990 May 28, 1990
July 12, 2011 July 12, 2011 May 28, 2011 May 28, 2011 May 28, 2011 May 28, 2011 May 28, 2011 May 28, 2011 May 28, 2011 May 28, 2011 May 28, 2011 May 28, 2011 May 28, 2011 May 28, 2011 May 28, 2011 May 28, 2011 May 28, 2011 May 28, 2011 May 28, 2011 May 28, 2011 May 28, 2011 May 28, 2011 May 28, 2011 May 28, 2011 May 28, 2011 May 28, 2011 May 28, 2011 May 28, 2011 May 28, 2011 May 28, 2011
128 160 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16
2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp.
1155065 1155066 1158819 1158820 1160141 1160142 1160143 1160144 1160145 1160146 1160147 1160148 1160149 1160150 1160151 1160200 1189624 1189626 1189627 1189628 1189629 1189630 1189631 1189904 1189905 1189906 1189908 1190901 1190902 1190903
West of Sunday Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake Hopper Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake
May 28, 1990 May 28, 1990 August 21, 1990 August 21, 1990 March 15, 1994 March 15, 1994 March 15, 1994 March 15, 1994 March 15, 1994 March 15, 1994 March 15, 1994 March 15, 1994 March 15, 1994 March 15, 1994 March 15, 1994 March 2, 1994 April 13, 1992 April 13, 1992 April 13, 1992 April 13, 1992 April 13, 1992 April 13, 1992 April 13, 1992 April 13, 1992 April 13, 1992 April 13, 1992 April 13, 1992 September 18, 1992 September 18, 1992 September 18, 1992
May 28, 2011 May 28, 2011 August 21, 2011 August 21, 2011 March 15, 2011 March 15, 2011 March 15, 2011 March 15, 2011 March 15, 2011 March 15, 2011 March 15, 2011 March 15, 2011 March 15, 2011 March 15, 2011 March 15, 2011 March 2, 2011 April 13, 2011 April 13, 2011 April 13, 2011 April 13, 2011 April 13, 2011 April 13, 2011 April 13, 2011 April 13, 2011 April 13, 2011 April 13, 2011 April 13, 2011 September 18, 2011 September 18, 2011 September 18, 2011
16 16 16 16 16 64 64 32 48 16 32 64 64 64 64 16 256 32 96 192 16 16 96 192 32 32 16 96 32 16
2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp.
1192482 1192483 1208318
DGC DGC DGC
Sunday Lake Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake
June 11, 2008 June 11, 2008 June 27, 1995
June 11, 2011 June 11, 2011 June 27, 2011
256 256 32 Trade Winds Ventures retains right to earn 50% subject to 2% NSR to NMC & 1% to PDI Trade Winds Ventures retains right to earn 50% subject to 2% NSR to NMC & 1% to PDI Trade Winds Ventures retains right to earn 50% subject to 2% NSR to NMC & 1% to PDI Trade Winds Ventures retains right to earn 50% subject to 2% NSR to NMC & 1% to PDI 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp.
1208321
DGC
West of Sunday Lake
June 27, 1995
June 27, 2011
96
1212940
DGC
West of Sunday Lake
January 22, 1997
January 22, 2011
128
1212941
DGC
West of Sunday Lake Lower Detour Lake West of Sunday Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake West of Sunday Lake Sunday Lake Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake Lower Detour Lake Lower Detour Lake Lower Detour Lake Lower Detour Lake
January 22, 1997
January 22, 2011
96
1213438 1218759 1241030 1241031 1241032 1241033 1244069 1244070 1244071 1244190 1244191 1244192 1244193 1244194 1244195 1244196 1244197 1244198 1244199 1244200 1248598 1248599 1248600
DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC
April 29, 1996 August 8, 1996 May 8, 2002 May 8, 2002 May 8, 2002 May 8, 2002 May 8, 2002 May 8, 2002 May 8, 2002 April 23, 2002 April 23, 2002 April 23, 2002 April 23, 2002 April 23, 2002 April 23, 2002 April 23, 2002 April 23, 2002 April 23, 2002 April 23, 2002 October 25, 2002 October 25, 2002 October 25, 2002 October 25, 2002
April 29, 2011 August 8, 2011 May 8, 2011 May 8, 2011 May 8, 2011 May 8, 2011 May 8, 2012 May 8, 2012 May 8, 2012 April 23, 2011 April 23, 2011 April 23, 2011 April 23, 2011 April 23, 2011 April 23, 2011 April 23, 2011 April 23, 2011 April 23, 2011 April 23, 2011 October 25, 2011 October 25, 2011 October 25, 2011 October 25, 2011
128 192 256 256 192 256 240 144 256 224 256 256 256 128 208 96 32 96 192 64 64 64 48
2% NSR to D. Jones et al. 2% NSR to D. Jones et al. 2% NSR to D. Jones et al. 2% NSR to D. Jones et al. 2% NSR to D. Jones et al. 2% NSR to D. Jones et al. 2% NSR to D. Jones et al. 2% NSR to D. Jones et al. 2% NSR to D. Jones et al. 2% NSR to D. Jones et al.
1249137 1249138 1249139 1249140 1249141 1249142 1249143 1249144 1249145 1249146 1249147 1249148 1249149 1249150 1249151 3001876 3001877 3001878 3001879 3001885 3013358 3013359 3013360 3013361 3013365 3016447 3016448 3016449 3016450 3016451
Lower Detour Lake Lower Detour Lake Lower Detour Lake Lower Detour Lake Lower Detour Lake Lower Detour Lake Lower Detour Lake Lower Detour Lake Lower Detour Lake Lower Detour Lake Lower Detour Lake Lower Detour Lake Lower Detour Lake Lower Detour Lake Lower Detour Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake Lower Detour Lake Lower Detour Lake Lower Detour Lake Lower Detour Lake Lower Detour Lake Lower Detour Lake Lower Detour Lake Lower Detour Lake Lower Detour Lake Lower Detour Lake
June 3, 2002 June 3, 2002 June 3, 2002 June 3, 2002 June 3, 2002 June 3, 2002 June 3, 2002 June 3, 2002 June 3, 2002 June 3, 2002 June 3, 2002 June 3, 2002 June 3, 2002 June 3, 2002 June 3, 2002 June 3, 2002 June 3, 2002 June 3, 2002 October 25, 2002 October 25, 2002 October 14, 2003 October 14, 2003 October 14, 2003 October 14, 2003 October 14, 2003 March 11, 2004 March 11, 2004 March 11, 2004 March 11, 2004 March 11, 2004
June 3, 2011 June 3, 2011 June 3, 2011 June 3, 2011 June 3, 2011 June 3, 2011 June 3, 2011 June 3, 2011 June 3, 2011 June 3, 2011 June 3, 2011 June 3, 2011 June 3, 2011 June 3, 2011 June 3, 2011 June 3, 2011 June 3, 2011 June 3, 2011 October 25, 2011 October 25, 2011 October 14, 2011 October 14, 2011 October 14, 2011 October 14, 2011 October 14, 2011 March 11, 2011 March 11, 2011 March 11, 2011 March 11, 2011 March 11, 2011
128 240 192 224 160 224 64 224 256 256 240 256 256 64 160 32 256 128 128 224 240 224 64 224 96 160 160 240 96 192 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp.
3016452 3016453 3016454 3016455 3016456 3016457 3016458 3016459 3016460 3016461 3016462 3016463 3016464 3016465 3016470 3016471 3017747 4212434 4217909 4240466 4240467 4240468 4240469 4240470 4240471 4240472 4240473 4240474 4240475 4241838 4241839 4253008 4253050 4254624 4254625 4254626
DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC
Lower Detour Lake Lower Detour Lake Lower Detour Lake Lower Detour Lake Lower Detour Lake Lower Detour Lake Lower Detour Lake Lower Detour Lake Lower Detour Lake Lower Detour Lake Lower Detour Lake Lower Detour Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Lower Detour Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Sunday Lake Sunday Lake Sunday Lake Sunday Lake Sunday Lake Sunday Lake Sunday Lake Sunday Lake Sunday Lake Sunday Lake Sunday Lake Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake Hopper Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake Hopper Lake
March 11, 2004 March 11, 2004 March 11, 2004 March 11, 2004 March 11, 2004 March 11, 2004 March 11, 2004 March 11, 2004 March 11, 2004 March 11, 2004 March 11, 2004 March 11, 2004 March 11, 2004 March 11, 2004 March 11, 2004 March 11, 2004 August 31, 2004 June 11, 2008 June 11, 2008 June 11, 2008 June 11, 2008 June 11, 2008 June 11, 2008 June 11, 2008 June 11, 2008 June 11, 2008 June 11, 2008 June 11, 2008 June 11, 2008 August 14, 2008 August 14, 2008 March 3, 2010 March 3, 2010 March 3, 2010 March 3, 2010 March 3, 2010
March 11, 2011 March 11, 2011 March 11, 2011 March 11, 2011 March 11, 2011 March 11, 2011 March 11, 2011 March 11, 2011 March 11, 2011 March 11, 2011 March 11, 2011 March 11, 2011 March 11, 2011 March 11, 2011 March 11, 2011 March 11, 2011 August 31, 2011 June 11, 2011 June 11, 2011 June 11, 2011 June 11, 2011 June 11, 2011 June 11, 2011 June 11, 2011 June 11, 2011 June 11, 2011 June 11, 2011 June 11, 2011 June 11, 2011 August 14, 2011 August 14, 2011 March 3, 2012 March 3, 2012 March 3, 2012 March 3, 2012 March 3, 2012
256 224 80 224 256 128 240 240 256 256 256 208 256 64 16 80 240 256 256 224 240 256 256 240 224 192 192 192 256 256 256 32 16 16 256 160
4254627 4254628 4254629 4254630 4257401 4257401 4257402 4257402 4257403 4257403 4257404 4257404 4257405 4257405 4257406 4257406 4257407 4257407 4257408 4257408 4257409 4257409 4257410 4257410 4257411 4257412 4257413 4257414 4257415 4257416 4257417 4257418
DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC
Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Sunday Lake Area Sunday Lake Area Sunday Lake Area Sunday Lake Area Sunday Lake Area Sunday Lake Area Sunday Lake Area Sunday Lake Area Sunday Lake Area Sunday Lake Area Sunday Lake Area Sunday Lake Area Sunday Lake Area Sunday Lake Area Sunday Lake Area Sunday Lake Area Sunday Lake Area Sunday Lake Area Sunday Lake Area Sunday Lake Area Sunday Lake Area Sunday Lake Area Sunday Lake Area Sunday Lake Area Sunday Lake Area Sunday Lake Area Sunday Lake Area Sunday Lake
March 3, 2010 March 3, 2010 March 3, 2010 March 3, 2010 April 26, 2010 April 26, 2010 April 26, 2010 April 26, 2010 April 26, 2010 April 26, 2010 April 26, 2010 April 26, 2010 April 26, 2010 April 26, 2010 April 26, 2010 April 26, 2010 April 26, 2010 April 26, 2010 April 26, 2010 April 26, 2010 April 26, 2010 April 26, 2010 April 26, 2010 April 26, 2010 April 26, 2010 April 26, 2010 April 26, 2010 April 26, 2010 April 26, 2010 April 26, 2010 April 26, 2010 April 26, 2010
March 3, 2012 March 3, 2012 March 3, 2012 March 3, 2012 April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012
256 160 32 16 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 80 256
Area 4257419 4257420 4257421 4257422 4257423 4257424 4257425 4257426 4257427 4257428 4257429 4257430 4257431 4257432 4257433 4257434 4257435 4257437 4257438 4257439 4257440 4257441 4257442 4257443 4257444 DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC Sunday Lake Area Sunday Lake Area Sunday Lake Area Sunday Lake Area Sunday Lake Area Sunday Lake Area Sunday Lake Area Sunday Lake Area Sunday Lake Area Sunday Lake Area Sunday Lake Area Sunday Lake Area Sunday Lake Area Sunday Lake Area Sunday Lake Area Sunday Lake Area West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake West of Sunday Lake April 26, 2010 April 26, 2010 April 26, 2010 April 26, 2010 April 26, 2010 April 26, 2010 April 26, 2010 April 26, 2010 April 26, 2010 April 26, 2010 April 26, 2010 April 26, 2010 April 26, 2010 April 26, 2010 April 26, 2010 April 26, 2010 April 26, 2010 April 26, 2010 April 26, 2010 April 26, 2010 April 26, 2010 April 26, 2010 April 26, 2010 April 26, 2010 April 26, 2010 April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 256 256 256 208 256 256 256 256 256 192 160 240 240 192 208 208 208 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 224 Trade Winds Ventures retains right to earn 50% subject to 2% NSR to NMC & 1% to PDI Trade Winds Ventures retains right to earn 50% subject to 2% NSR to NMC & 1% to PDI 2% NSR to Franco
CLM 228
DGC
March 31, 2023
281.932
CLM 229 CLM 230
DGC DGC
West of Sunday Lake Sunday Lake
March 31, 2023 February 28, 2023
349.786 331.025
Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. CLM 231 CLM 232 CLM 233 CLM 234 CLM 235 CLM 236 CLM 237 CLM 238 CLM 239 CLM 240 DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC Sunday Lake Sunday Lake Sunday Lake Sunday Lake Sunday Lake Hopper Lake Sunday Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake West of Sunday Lake Sunday Lake Sunday Lake Sunday Lake Sunday Lake Sunday Lake Sunday Lake Sunday Lake Sunday Lake Sunday Lake Sunday Lake Sunday Lake Sunday Lake Sunday Lake Sunday Lake Sunday Lake Sunday Lake Sunday Lake Sunday Lake April 30, 2019 April 30, 2019 April 30, 2019 April 30, 2019 April 30, 2019 April 30, 2019 April 30, 2019 269.160 April 30, 2019 April 30, 2019 February 28, 2023 February 28, 2023 February 28, 2023 February 28, 2023 March 31, 2023 March 31, 2023 March 31, 2023 March 31, 2023 March 31, 2023 March 31, 2023 301.960 424.127 352.267 370.870 268.654 274.446 391.594 199.498 404.868 460.265 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. Trade Winds Ventures retains right to earn 50% subject to 2% NSR to NMC & 1% to PDI 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco
CLM 396
DGC
May 31, 2012
308.840
P400974 P400975 P400976 P400977 P400978 P400979 P401008 P401009 P401014 P421282 P421283 P421284 P421381 P421382 P421383 P421384 P421386 P421387
DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC
Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. P421388 P421389 P421391 P421392 P421393 P421394 P524182 P524183 P524184 P524187 P524188 P524189 P524192 P524194 P524242 P524247 P524248 P524249 P524270 P524271 P524272 P524275 P524276 P524277 P524280 P524281 P524282 P524285 P524286 P524287 DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC Sunday Lake Sunday Lake Sunday Lake Sunday Lake Sunday Lake Sunday Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake April 30, 2019 April 30, 2019 April 30, 2019 April 30, 2019 May 31, 2012 May 31, 2012 May 31, 2012 May 31, 2012 May 31, 2012 May 31, 2012 May 31, 2012 May 31, 2012 May 31, 2012 May 31, 2012 May 31, 2012 May 31, 2012 May 31, 2012 May 31, 2012 May 31, 2012 May 31, 2012 May 31, 2012 May 31, 2012 May 31, 2012 May 31, 2012 May 31, 2012 May 31, 2012 May 31, 2012 May 31, 2012 728.183 205.928 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco
Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. P524290 P524291 P524292 P524295 P524296 P524297 P524302 P524303 P524304 P524305 P524306 P524307 P524308 P524309 P524310 P524311 P524312 P524313 P524314 P524315 P524316 P524317 RW306 RW307 Part 1 RW307 Part 2 RW308 RW309 4230224 4230251 4230252 4230254 DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Hopper Lake Sunday Lake Sunday Lake Sunday Lake Sunday Lake Sunday Lake Massicotte Massicotte Massicotte Massicotte 5/28/1984 0:00 5/28/1984 0:00 5/28/1984 0:00 5/28/1984 0:00 5/4/2011 23:59 5/4/2011 23:59 5/4/2011 23:59 5/4/2011 23:59 May 31, 2012 May 31, 2012 May 31, 2012 May 31, 2012 May 31, 2012 May 31, 2012 May 31, 2012 May 31, 2012 May 31, 2012 May 31, 2012 May 31, 2012 May 31, 2012 May 31, 2012 May 31, 2012 May 31, 2012 May 31, 2012 May 31, 2012 May 31, 2012 May 31, 2012 May 31, 2012 May 31, 2012 May 31, 2012 43.949 42.014 18.947 59.448 232.124 15,30 15,90 15,78 14,64 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp. 2% NSR to Franco Nevada & 1% Goldcorp.
4230232 4230233 4230261 4230264 4230292 4230295 4230322 4230323 4230271 4230301 4230305 4230334 4230335 4230352 4230355 4717461 4717462 4717463 4717464 4717465 4717471 4717472 4717473 4717474 4717475 4717481 4717482 4717483 4717484 4717485 4717491 4717492 4717493 4717494 4717495 4717501 4717502
DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC DGC
Massicotte Massicotte Massicotte Massicotte Massicotte Massicotte Massicotte Massicotte Massicotte Massicotte Massicotte Massicotte Massicotte Massicotte Massicotte Massicotte Massicotte Massicotte Massicotte Massicotte Massicotte Massicotte Massicotte Massicotte Massicotte Massicotte Massicotte Massicotte Massicotte Massicotte Massicotte Massicotte Massicotte Massicotte Massicotte Massicotte Massicotte
5/28/1984 0:00 5/28/1984 0:00 5/28/1984 0:00 5/28/1984 0:00 5/28/1984 0:00 5/28/1984 0:00 5/28/1984 0:00 5/28/1984 0:00 5/28/1984 0:00 5/28/1984 0:00 5/28/1984 0:00 5/28/1984 0:00 5/28/1984 0:00 5/28/1984 0:00 5/28/1984 0:00 11/30/1988 0:00 11/30/1988 0:00 11/30/1988 0:00 11/30/1988 0:00 11/30/1988 0:00 11/30/1988 0:00 11/30/1988 0:00 11/30/1988 0:00 11/30/1988 0:00 11/30/1988 0:00 11/30/1988 0:00 11/30/1988 0:00 11/30/1988 0:00 10/30/1988 0:00 11/30/1988 0:00 11/30/1988 0:00 11/30/1988 0:00 11/30/1988 0:00 11/30/1988 0:00 11/30/1988 0:00 11/30/1988 0:00 11/30/1988 0:00
5/5/2011 23:59 5/5/2011 23:59 5/5/2011 23:59 5/5/2011 23:59 5/5/2011 23:59 5/5/2011 23:59 5/5/2011 23:59 5/5/2011 23:59 5/6/2011 23:59 5/6/2011 23:59 5/6/2011 23:59 5/6/2011 23:59 5/6/2011 23:59 5/7/2011 23:59 5/7/2011 23:59 10/17/2011 23:59 10/17/2011 23:59 10/17/2011 23:59 10/17/2011 23:59 10/17/2011 23:59 10/18/2011 23:59 10/18/2011 23:59 10/18/2011 23:59 10/18/2011 23:59 10/18/2011 23:59 10/19/2011 23:59 10/19/2011 23:59 10/19/2011 23:59 10/19/2011 23:59 10/19/2011 23:59 10/19/2011 23:59 10/19/2011 23:59 10/19/2011 23:59 10/19/2011 23:59 10/19/2011 23:59 10/20/2011 23:59 10/20/2011 23:59
16,05 16,55 14,10 8,01 16,22 15,89 17,17 17,58 17,51 15,25 16,22 16,98 15,77 15,57 16,44 14,34 15,24 14,84 16,21 15,13 16,82 17,24 15,64 16,05 16,29 17,38 16,57 15,32 16,19 17,59 14,80 17,25 19,23 18,93 17,01 19,20 17,24
Appendix B: ASL Reports
June 2010
QPF-0012/B
REVIEW OF THE DETOUR LAKE PROJECT (ONTARIO) JUNE OCTOBER 2009 ASSAY QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM
Prepared on behalf of Detour Gold Corporation
Prepared by Lynda Bloom, M.Sc. November 2009 Analytical Solutions Ltd. 1214-3266 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario M4N 2L6 416-462-9124 FAX 416-462-1637 lynda@explorationgeochem.com
Executive Summary
Approximately 43,000 samples from 102 drill holes totaling 46,351 metres (DG-09-645 through approximately DG-09-737) have been collected and assayed from June to October 2009 for the drill program at the Detour Lake Project, Ontario. The quality control program consists of: a) insertion of a coarse blank one in every 40 samples; b) insertion of a refe rence material one in every 40 samples; c) routine duplicate assays of pulps as part of laboratory QC protocols; d) insertion of a preparation duplicate samples one in every 30 samples; and e) insertion of a duplicate drill core sample one in every 40 samples. Samples were prepared and analyzed at SGS Laboratories, Toronto, Canada. There is no evidence of systematic gold contamination based on the blanks that were inserted with samples. Blanks were submitted a total of 1,175 times with samples. There were six quality control failures based on blanks (<1% of the samples submitted for blanks) which were investigated and followed up by Madeline Thon (MT). Repeat assays were requested for all the failures and were set to supersede original assays where appropriate. Two of the six failures were categorized as contamination issues. No further action is required. Reference materials were inserted 1,215 times with samples. There were seven quality control failures and these assays were not included in the summary calculations or graphs. SGS gold assays on average are within 1.2% relative to expected values on all four RMs which is an acceptable result. The failure rate is less than 1% which is acceptable. Madeline Thon has taken the necessary corrective action and tracked any cases where repeat assays have replaced original assays. A total of 1,343 preparation duplicates were prepared routinely by SGS. Fifty-five percent of the preparation duplicates reproduce within 20% relative to 65% within 20% for laboratory pulp duplicates. Duplicate assays reported by SGS are within an expected range. Based on these data, the reproducibility of the pulps is typical of projects where there is particulate gold. This is similar to the result for preparation duplicates in previous reports. In general, the reproducibility for the duplicates in the current period is 5% better than previous periods and within expected ranges. Drill core duplicates were inserted 1,177 times. There were a total of 26 cases where the differences between drill core duplicates were greater than 100% and average assays were greater than 0.5 g/t Au. There is no bias evident between original and duplicate halves of the drill core. It is therefore assumed that there has been no bias introduced by preferentially submitting the more mineralized half of the core for assay. These variations are typical of core duplicates for gold projects and no changes in procedures are recommended at this time.
A total of 510 sample pulps (~0.8% of the samp les) were submitted to ALS-Chemex, Vancouver for check assays (original samples were assayed at SGS) for the period February to June 2009. Note that these check assays are relevant to the previous QC reporting period. A total of 20 RMs were inserted with the samples for check assays sent to ALS-Chemex. ALS-Chemex gold assays are low on average by 5% relative to expected values on all five RMs. There were two failures, and these failed QC samples were not included in the assessment of the average response for RMs. There should be a near equal number of cases where SGS assays are higher than ALSChemex, and vice versa. For the 485 samples with Au concentrations greater than five times detection limit, there are 247 cases where SGS assays are higher than ALS-Chemex assays and 232 cases where ALS-Chemex assays are higher than SGS assays. The median Relative Percent Difference (RPD) was 0%, indicating that SGS assays are not biased when compared to the ASL-Chemex assays on the suite of samples selected for check assays. There has been no audit of the ALS-Chemex sample preparation or laboratory facilities. An audit of SGS Laboratory at Don Mills, Ontario was conducted on October 24, 2008 and various recommendations were suggested.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary...................................................................................................................2 1.0 Introduction..............................................................................................................1 2.0 Sample Handling, Preparation, Qua lity Control and Assay Procedures..................2 2.1 Sample Handling......................................................................................................2 2.2 Sample Preparation and Assaying ...........................................................................3 3.0 Accuracy as Determined by Blanks and Reference Materials .................................4 3.1 Laboratory Performance for Blank Samples............................................................4 3.2 Laboratory Performance Based on Reference Materials and Control Samples.......5 4.0 Laboratory Pulp Duplicates ...................................................................................11 5.0 Preparation Duplicates ...........................................................................................13 6.0 Drill Core Duplicate Samples ................................................................................15 7.0 Screen Metallic Assays ..........................................................................................18 8.0 Check Assays at Secondary Laboratory.................................................................22 9.0 Laboratory Audit....................................................................................................26 10.0 Conclusions ............................................................................................................27
List of Figures
Figure 3.1.1: Figure 3.2.1: Figure 3.2.2: Figure 3.2.3 (a): Figure 3.2.3 (b): Figure 3.2.3 (c): Figure 3.2.3 (d): Figure 4.1: Figure 5.1: Figure 5.2: Figure 6.1: Figure 7.1: Figure 7.2: Figure 8.1: Figure 8.2: Figure 8.3: Assays for Blanks Percent of Expected for Gold Results for Reference Materials z-scores for Gold Results for Reference Materials Gold Results for RM OREAS 53Pb Gold Results for RM OREAS 6Pc Gold Results for RM OREAS 18Pb Gold Results for RM OREAS 10Pb Laboratory Pulp Duplicates Comparison of Gold Assays for Preparation Duplicates Summary of Reproducibility for Preparation Duplicates Comparison of Gold Assays for Drill Core Duplicates Comparison of Gold by Fire Assay and Screen Metallics (Selected on the basis of VG) Comparison of Gold by Fire Assay and Screen Metallics (Selected on the basis of Original Fire Assay Au > 5 g/t) RMs Inserted with Check Assays Check Assays for Gold (g/t) Comparison of Check Assays and Laboratory Pulp Duplicates
List of Tables
Table 3.2.1: Table 3.2.2: Table 4.1: Summary of Reference Materials List of QC Failures for RMs Percentage of Laboratory Pulp Duplicate Pairs Reporting Within Specific Ranges for Gold Assays
Detour Lake Projects Assay Quality Control Program Analytical Solutions Ltd.
November2009 www.explorationgeochem.com
Table 5.1: Table 6.1: Table 6.2: Table 6.3: Table 7.1: Table 7.2: Table 8.1: Table 8.2: Table 8.3:
Percentage of Preparation Duplicate Pairs Reporting Within Specific Ranges for Gold Assays Summary of Gold Assays for Core Duplicates Summary Percentage of Core Duplicate Pairs Reporting Within Specific Ranges Selected Gold Assays for Core Duplicates Comparison of Gold by Fire Assay and Screen Metallics (Selected on the basis of VG) Comparison of Gold by Fire Assay and Screen Metallics (Selected on the basis of Original Fire Assay Au > 5 g/t) Summary of RMs Inserted with Check Assays Summary of Check Assays Comparison of Check Assays over the Four Time Periods
Appendices
Appendix 1: Appendix 2: Appendix 3: Graphs for Laboratory Pulp Duplicates Graphs for Preparation Duplicates Graphs for Drill Core Duplicates
1.0 Introduction
Approximately 43,000 samples from 102 drill holes totaling 46,351 metres (DG-09-645 through approximately DG-09-737) have been collected and assayed from June to October 2009 for the drill program at the Detour Lake Project, Ontario. The Detour Lake project is located on the northern most, relatively under-explored, Abitibi Greenstone Belt in northeastern Ontario. It encompasses 242 square kilometers, including the Detour Lake deposit, which contains a near-surface gold resource of 13.4 million ounces (measured and indicated resource of 10,763,000 ounces and inferred resource of 2,452,000 ounces). The Detour Lake deposit is situated in the area of the former Detour Lake mine, which was operated by Placer Dome and produced 1.8 million ounces of gold from 1983 to 1999. The Detour Lake project is approximately eight kilometers west of the OntarioQuebec border and 185 kilometers northeast of Cochrane, Ontario. The Detour Lake project is located within the northwestern portion of the Abitibi Greenstone Belt in the Superior Province of the Canadian Shield. Underlying bedrock consists primarily of massive and pillowed mafic volcanics and minor ultramafic rocks, which have been locally intruded by gabbro, diorite to quartz diorite stocks, dykes and sills and transected by the southeasterly trending Sunday Lake Deformation Zone (SLDZ). The gold deposit outlined on the property is surrounding the former Detour Lake mine and is on the west extension of the SLDZ. The main structure in the mine area is a shallow southwest trending flexure, which is defined by a strongly sheared and altered contact between tholeiitic basalts and komatiitic ultramafic rocks (referred to as the chert marker horizon). Samples were prepared and analyzed at SGS Laboratories, Toronto, Canada. Analytical Solutions Ltd (ASL) reviewed the assay Quality Control (QC) program. Data were provided in a series of Excel spreadsheets by Detour Gold Corporation. The objective of this report is to document the gold assays acquired for quality control samples and to identify any bias in the assays or sources of contamination.
2.0 Sample Handling, Preparation, Quality Control and Assay Procedures

2.1 Sample Handling
The following procedure was provided to ASL in a Word document Detour Gold Corp Core Handling.doc by Roger Aubertin. Core Handling Drill core is packed into wooden core trays on site, with the depths of each run marked on wooden blocks and inserted into the trays. These trays are collected by Detour geo technicians and delivered to the geology shacks on site. Core handling consists of: Geological logging Lithology, veining, mineralization, alteration, structure Marking out samples Measuring core recoveries/RQDs Photographing core/tagging boxes with hole ids and meterage Measuring rock strengths Marking out fractures Marking meter intervals between runs Cutting core for sampling Sampling core Shipping Racking and storage All logging and marking of samples is done by Detour geologists. Photographing, recovery, fractures, and rock strengths measurements are carried out by geo technicians under geological supervision. Core is logged by Detour geologists according to the existing lithology code system established for incorporation into Datamine and Gemcom with existing historical data. Core recovery, RQD, rock strength, and fractures are recorded for each borehole, and all core is photographed to preserve a permanent record. All data entry is done on individual databases capable of synchronizing with a master database through the Detour Gold Corp network. These databases updated daily as the data is entered and synchronized. All core is systematically sampled, following the procedure outlined belo w: Mineralized/potentially mineralized zones are recorded. Visible gold broken down into half meter samples for pulp metallic analyses. Core is fitted together in the box, and a wax pencil is used to scribe a line along the core, using the core box edge as a guide. The scribe line is used to orient the core in the diamond saw, and the same half of the core, the exposed upper portion, is always put in the sample bag. The portion to be saved is fitted back into the core box to be kept as a permanent record. Samples are marked both on core and corresponding sample tags and bags. All core is sampled for entire borehole top to bottom in one meter intervals with the exception of pulp metallics, which are sampled at half- meter intervals. Detour Lake Projects Assay Quality Control Program Analytical Solutions Ltd. November2009 www.explorationgeochem.com
Samples are bagged and numbered by a lab technician and double checked by another lab technician for accuracy. All samples are logged with the sample number, depths, sample length and lithology unit recorded for each sample; additional information such as veining, mineralization, alteration and structure are also recorded in the database. Samples are delivered to the sample preparation laboratory for shipping where they are checked again for accuracy before being released. The database is programmed to prompt the geologist during sampling to enter Standards, Blanks and Duplicates at certain intervals. These ensure quality control here on site as well as the assay labs. Standards and Blanks are used by the lab technicians to check the sample bags and shipments for errors in sequenc ing. Lab technicians use sample reports generated by the database to verify correct standards and sequencing in samples. Shipments are also kept track of through the database, and it is capable of pulling any shipment report done by Detour Gold. Pulp metallics, copper analysis, and pulp copper analysis requests are highlighted for the lab technician while filing a shipment and totals are calculated to ensure accurate counts included in the batch.
All core is stored on site at the Detour exploration camp after logging, cutting, sampling and photography.
2.2 Sample Preparation and Assaying

Samples were prepared and analyzed at SGS Laboratories, Toronto, Canada. The method codes were:
1 2 3 4 5 6 SGS Code WGH79 CRU25 PUL46 FAI525 FAG505 FAS31K Description Weight of samples upon arrival Sample preparation crush to 90% passing 2 mm Pulverize 500 g in Cr steel to 85% passing 75 m 50 g fire assay with ICP-AES finish (5 ppb to 100,000 ppb) 50 g fire assay with gravimetric finish (for Au > 100 ppm) Gold by Screen Metallics Fire Assay on 500 gm screened at 106 m (for Au > 5 g/t) a second pulp is prepared from the reject
Samples with gold assays greater than 5 g/t Au were resubmitted for gold by screened metallics (FA-MET). A second 500 gm sample is prepared from the reject and 500 gm is pulverized to 90% passing 106 m. The quality control program consists of: a) insertion of a coarse blank one in every 40 samples; b) insertion of a reference material one in every 40 samples; c) routine duplicate assays of pulps as part of laboratory QC protocols; d) insertion of a preparation duplicate samples one in every 30 samples; and e) insertion of a duplicate drill core sample one in every 40 samples.
3.0 Accuracy as Determined by Blanks and Reference Materials

Coarse blanks and reference materials were submitted with samples for preparation and assaying at SGS Laboratories, Toronto, Canada.
3.1 Laboratory Performance for Blank Samples

Barren coarse material (a blank) is submitted with samples for crushing and pulverizing to determine if there has been contamination or sample cross-contamination in preparation. Elevated values for blanks may also indicate sources of contamination in the fire assay procedure (contaminated reagents or crucibles) or sample solution carry-over during instrumental finish. As of August 2007, decorative white pebbles for gardening (~250 gm sample size) purchased at the local hardware store were used as blank material. This material was also assayed at Swastika Laboratory to test that the material was not gold-bearing. There were a total of 1,175 blanks submitted with the samples for analysis. Ninety- nine percent (1,161 out of 1,175 samples) of the blanks assayed less than 0.025 g/t, which is five times the detection limit of 0.005 g/t (Figure 3.1.1). Figure 3.1.1: Assays for Blanks
Detour Gold - Blanks - Gold (g/t) (N = 1,169)
0.07
0.06
0.05
Gold (g/t)
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00 15/05/2009
04/06/2009
24/06/2009
14/07/2009
03/08/2009
23/08/2009
12/09/2009
02/10/2009
22/10/2009
Date Received
There were six quality control failures based on blanks (<1% of the samples submitted for blanks) which were investigated and followed up by Madeline Thon (MT). Repeat assays Detour Lake Projects Assay Quality Control Program Analytical Solutions Ltd. November2009 www.explorationgeochem.com
were requested for all the failures and were set to supersede original assays where appropriate. Two of the six failures were categorized as contamination issues. No further action is required. There is no evidence of systematic gold contamination based on the blanks tha t were inserted with samples.
3.2
Laboratory Performance Based on Reference Materials and Control Samples
Reference Materials (RM) are submitted with samples for assay to identify: a) if there were assay problems with specific sample batches; and b) possible long-term biases in the overall dataset. The definition of a quality control failure is when: a) assays for two consecutive RMs are outside two standard deviations or 10%; b) assays for a RM are outside three standard deviations or 10%. Four different RMs were submitted were purchased from OREAS (Australia). These were submitted a total of 1,215 times with samples sent to SGS. The OREAS RMs are: (a) well homogenized, (b) assayed at 15 recognized mineral testing laboratories, and (c) are certified in accordance with International Standards Organization (ISO) recommendations. The results were plotted and are shown in Figures 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 and summarized in Table 3.2.1. Quality control failures and mislabels are excluded from the graphs and calculations in these tables. Table 3.2.1: Summary of Reference Materials
RM OREAS 53Pb OREAS 6Pc OREAS 18Pb OREAS 10Pb Total N 316 342 289 268 1,215 Expected Au (g/t) Average Std. Dev. 0.623 0.021 1.520 0.070 3.630 0.070 7.150 0.190 Observed Au (g/t) Average Std. Dev. 0.625 0.032 1.502 0.088 3.615 0.162 7.223 0.318
* - Weighted Average
% of QC Expected Failures 100.3 98.8 99.6 101.0 99.9* 1 4 1 1 7
In Figure 3.2.1, the dashed red lines represent boundaries of +7% which is the expected tolerance limits for the fire assay method. A total of 1,165 RMs (96%) reported within +10% of the expected value.
Figure 3.2.1: Percent of Expected for Gold Results for Reference Materials
Detour Gold - Reference Materials (N = 1,208)
20
OREAS 18Pb OREAS 53Pb OREAS 10Pb OREAS 6Pc
Percent of Expected (Observed Assay less Expected Assay with respect to Expected Assay) (%)
15
10
+7%
-5
-7%
-10
-15
-20 15/05/2009
04/06/2009
24/06/2009
14/07/2009
03/08/2009
23/08/2009
12/09/2009
02/10/2009
22/10/2009
Date Received
Z-scores were also calculated and plotted (Figure 3.2.2). A z-score is the difference between the observed and expected assay divided by the expected standard deviation: z-score = (x - ) / s, where: x is the observed assay; is the expected assay for the RM; and s is the expected standard deviation for the RM. Seventy-four percent of the RM gold assays fall within 2s demonstrating an overall acceptable accuracy based on the assessment of RMs. The average gold result for the four RMs was within <1% of the expected gold values and does not demonstrate a bias. The re were technically seven quality control failures and repeat assays were requested in all seven cases; the failure rate was acceptable for fire assay. SGS gold assays on average are within 1.2% relative to expected values on all four RMs which is an acceptable result. For reference, the results for the individual RMs are plotted in Figures 3.2.3 (a) to (d).
Figure 3.2.2: z-scores for Gold Results for Reference Materials

8
z-score
-2
-4
-6
-8 15/05/2009
04/06/2009
24/06/2009
14/07/2009
03/08/2009
23/08/2009
12/09/2009
02/10/2009
22/10/2009
Date Received
Figure 3.2.3 (a): Gold Results for RM OREAS 53Pb

Detour Gold - Reference Materials OREAS 53Pb (N = 315)
0.75
0.70
+3 Std. Dev. +2 Std. Dev.
0.65
Gold (g/t)
0.60
-2 Std. Dev.
0.55
-3 Std. Dev.
0.50 15/05/2009
04/06/2009
24/06/2009
14/07/2009
03/08/2009
23/08/2009
12/09/2009
02/10/2009
22/10/2009
Date Received
Figure 3.2.3 (b): Gold Results for RM OREAS 6Pc

Detour Gold - Reference Materials OREAS 6Pc (N = 338)
1.8
+3 Std. Dev.
1.7
+2 Std. Dev.
1.6
Gold (g/t)
1.5
1.4
-2 Std. Dev.
1.3
-3 Std. Dev.
1.2 15/05/2009
04/06/2009
24/06/2009
14/07/2009
03/08/2009
23/08/2009
12/09/2009
02/10/2009
22/10/2009
Date Received
Figure 3.2.3 (c): Gold Results for RM OREAS 18Pb

4.2
4.0
+3 Std. Dev.
3.8
+2 Std. Dev.
Gold (g/t)
3.6
-2 Std. Dev.
3.4
-3 Std. Dev.
3.2
3.0 15/05/2009
04/06/2009
24/06/2009
14/07/2009
03/08/2009
23/08/2009
12/09/2009
02/10/2009
22/10/2009
Date Received
Figure 3.2.3 (d): Gold Results for RM OREAS 10Pb

8.2 8.0 7.8 7.6 7.4
Gold (g/t)
7.2 7.0 6.8
-2 Std. Dev.
6.6
-3 Std. Dev.
6.4 6.2 6.0 15/05/2009
04/06/2009
24/06/2009
14/07/2009
03/08/2009
23/08/2009
12/09/2009
02/10/2009
22/10/2009
Date Received
Results were designated as a mislabel in cases where the reported results were similar to other RMs or blanks and were more than three standard deviations from the expected value. It is suspected that the QC codes were not recorded properly. In some cases, it is possible that there were sample switches at the laboratory in sample preparation or analyses; as well as possib le human errors in the core shack. Detour performs various checks with their personnel to confirm whether an RM is actually mislabeled. When the original RM is suspected of being mislabeled, the geologist on site is informed and asked to check the paper work, the core box and the sample log. As there is more than one person involved in ensuring that the label is correct, it is compelling evidence for a request for repeats if all three places show the same recorded RM label. Spare RM material in pre-packaged packets is stored by the lab, designated by a letter. When repeats are requested, the lab is asked to use the appropriate lettered spare RM in the event that remaining standard material is insufficient, which is most often the case. There were no mislabels reported. There were a total of seven QC failures (~0.6% of the total number of RMs submitted) (Table 3.2.2) and these assays were not included in the calculations in Table 3.2.1. All of the assayrelated QC failures were investigated and followed up by Madeline Thon (MT). The Actions Taken by Madeline Thon (MT) are as reported to ASL. Detour Lake Projects Assay Quality Control Program Analytical Solutions Ltd. November2009 www.explorationgeochem.com
10
Repeat assays were requested for all seven failures and were set to supersede original assays where appropriate. Results are pending for six of the repeats requests. Table 3.2.2: List of QC Failures for RMs
BHID Sample No. RM Orig. Au (g/t) 0.746 Repeat Au Final Au (g/t) 0.746 Expected Au (g/t) Percent from Expected 19.74 Action Taken by MT
Request repeats for D813366D813370 on 02Oct09; Repeat Cert# = TO107901, new zscore = -2.05, supercede Request repeats for D796455D796459 on 15Oct09; Repeat Cert# = TO108031, new zscore = +0.33, supercede Request repeats for D810927D810932 on 06Oct09; Repeat Cert# = TO107948, new zscore = -7.67 still too low. Set to supercede as rock assays are slightly higher, and the negative z-score suggests they are still too low Request repeats for D801142D801146 on 11Oct09; Repeat Cert# = TO107992, new zscore = +1.00, super-cede Request repeats for D806736D806740 on 15Oct09 Request repeats for D789464D789468 on 14Oct09; Repeat Cert# = TO108059, new zscore = +0.37, supercede Request repeats for D794613D794617 on 15Oct09; Repeat Cert# = TO108033, new zscore = +0.57, supercede
DG-09-734
D813370
53Pb
0.623
DG-09-735A
D796457
6Pc
0.970
0.970
1.520
-36.18
DG-09-736
D810931
6Pc
1.050
1.060
1.060
1.520
-30.26
DG-09-732 DG-09-744 DG-09-733A
D801144 D806738 D789466
6Pc 6Pc 10Pb
1.140 1.190 2.220
1.140 1.190 2.220
1.520 1.520 7.150
-25.00 -21.71 -68.95
DG-09-735A
D794615
18Pb
2.720
2.720
3.630
-25.07
The RM data was also reviewed to determine where there were two or more consecutive RMs where the results were outside 2 standard deviations. There were 38 cases identified, but in 32 of the cases, one of the two pairs was 18Pb or 10P. The standard deviation is small for these two RMs and a failure criteria of 10% is generally applied instead. The percent of the expected value was generally less than 10% for 30 of the 38 cases identified and therefore the results are considered acceptable, with no further action required. In the period February to June 2009, it was reported that there was a slight low bias especially for RMs 18Pb and 10Pb, the higher grade gold RMs. For the current period, there is no bias apparent for any of the RMs.
11
4.0 Laboratory Pulp Duplicates

Commercial laboratories routinely assay a second aliquot of the sample pulp usually for one in ten samples. The data are used by the laboratory for their internal quality control monitoring. The data are either automatically reported to clients or can be requested. The assays for pulp duplicates provide an estimate of the reproducibility related to the uncertainties inherent in the analytical method and the homogeneity of the pulps. The precision or relative percent difference calculated for the pulp duplicates indicates whether pulverizing specifications should be changed and/or whether alternative methods, such as screened metallics for gold, should be considered. The original and duplicate assays are plotted in Figure 4.1. There were a total of 4,142 laboratory duplicate gold assays provided to ASL. The reproducibility of 65% of these assays was within 20% (Table 4.1 and Figure 4.1). Additional graphs are presented in Appendix 1. Figure 4.1: Labora tory Pulp Duplicates
Detour Gold - Laboratory Duplicates (N = 4,142)
1,000.0000
100.0000
+20%
10.0000
Duplicate Gold (g/t)
-20%
1.0000
0.1000
0.0100
0.0010
0.0001 0.0001
0.0010
0.0100
0.1000
1.0000
10.0000
100.0000
1,000.0000
Original Gold (g/t)
12
Table 4.1: Percentage of Laboratory Pulp Duplicate Pairs Reporting Within Specific Ranges for Gold Assays
Criteria all samples > 5 x d.l. >5 x dl & <0.1 g/t Au Original 0.1 to 1 g/t Au Original 1 to 5 g/t Au Original >5 g/t Au Original N 4,142 2,174 1,030 866 211 67 +5% 1,364 33% 523 24% 241 23% 199 23% 58 27% 25 37% +10% 1,984 48% 913 42% 425 41% 353 41% 94 45% 41 61% N = Falling Within +20% +25% 2,854 3,077 69% 74% 1,409 1,560 65% 72% 674 754 65% 538 62% 144 68% 53 79% 73% 594 69% 157 74% 55 82% +50% 3,673 89% 1,952 90% 935 91% 759 88% 193 91% 65 97% >+50% 469 11% 222 10% 95 9% 107 12% 18 9% 2 3%
Duplicate assays reported by SGS are within the expected range and similar to previous periods. Based on these data, the pulps are reasonably homogeneous with respect to gold for a deposit with free gold.
13
5.0 Preparation Duplicates

Preparation duplicates are created by splitting a second cut of the crushed sample in the same way and for the same weight as the original sample. The objective is to determine if: a) splitting procedures are applied consistently; and b) where changes to sample preparation procedures, specifically specification for the crush size, are required. A total of 1,343 preparation duplicates were prepared routinely by SGS. The reproducibility of 55% of these assays was within 20% (Table 5.1 and Figure 5.1). Additional graphs are presented in Appendix 2. Figure 5.1: Comparison of Gold Assays for Preparation Duplicates
Detour Gold - Preparation Duplicates (N = 1,343)
1,000.0000
100.0000
Preparation Duplicate Gold (g/t)
+20%
10.0000
-20%
1.0000
0.1000
0.0100
0.0010
0.0001 0.0001
0.0010
0.0100
0.1000
1.0000
10.0000
100.0000
1,000.0000
Original Gold (g/t)
Fifty- five percent of the preparation duplicates reproduce within 20% relative to 65% within 20% for laboratory pulp duplicates (Section 4) which is expected as the finer grain sizes provide more reproducible sub-samples.
14
Table 5.1: Percentage of Preparation Duplicate Pairs Reporting Within Specific Ranges for Gold Assays
Criteria all samples > 5 x d.l. >5 x dl & <0.1 g/t Au Original 0.1 to 1 g/t Au Original 1 to 5 g/t Au Original >5 g/t Au Original N 1,343 686 338 265 58 25 +5% 367 27% 128 19% 60 18% 50 19% 9 16% 9 36% +10% 539 40% 235 34% 110 33% 93 35% 18 31% 14 56% N = Falling Within +20% +25% 818 913 61% 68% 376 437 55% 64% 183 214 54% 148 56% 27 47% 18 72% 63% 231 87% 31 53% 19 76% +50% 1,136 85% 581 85% 283 84% 231 87% 45 78% 22 88% >+50% 207 15% 105 15% 55 16% 34 13% 13 22% 3 12%
This is similar to the result for preparation duplicates in previous reports (Figure 5.2). In general, the reproducibility for the duplicates in the current period is 5% better than previous periods and within expected ranges. Figure 5.2: Summary of Reproducibility for Preparation Duplicates
Detour Gold - Summary of Precision - January 2007 to October 2009 (for samples > 5 x detection limit)
90%
Jan. 2007 - Jul. 2007 Aug. 2007 - Jun. 2008 Jul. 2008 - Dec. 2008 Jan. 2009 - May 2009 Jun. 2009 - Oct. 2009
80%
Percentage of Samples Falling Within
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% +/-5 +/-10 +/-20 +/-25 +/-50
Relative Percent Difference Ranges for Assay Pairs
15
6.0 Drill Core Duplicate Samples

The second half of a drill core sample is assayed to determine: (a) the reproducibility of assays for different halves of the core, and (b) if there is any sampling bias. A total of 1,177 pairs were submitted, out of which there are 639 cases where the mean of the two values is greater than 0.025 g/t (five times detection limit) which are considered for statistical analysis. There are 552 cases where the assays for the original sample are higher than duplicate sample and 465 cases where the opposite is true (Table 6.1). The gold assays for the original and duplicate samples are compared in Figure 6.1. Additional graphs are present in Appendix 3. Figure 6.1: Comparison of Gold Assays for Drill Core Duplicates
Detour Gold - Core Duplicates (N = 1,177)
1,000.0000
100.0000
Second Half of Core - Gold (g/t)
10.0000
+20% -20%
1.0000
0.1000
0.0100
0.0010
0.0001 0.0001
0.0010
0.0100
0.1000
1.0000
10.0000
100.0000
1,000.0000
Original Core - Gold (g/t)
16
Table 6.1: Summary of Gold Assays for Core Duplicates

Criteria all samples > 5 x d.l. N 1,177 639 Orig. Core > Dupl. Core 552 47% 363 57% Orig. Core < Dupl. Core 465 39% 267 42% Orig. Core = Dupl. Core 160 14% 9 1%
Relative Percent Difference (RPD) was calculated (original core assay less duplicate core assay relative to the average). The results are summarized in Table 6.2 and the graphs are in Appendix 3. Nine percent of the duplicate pairs agree within 5%, 18% within 10% and 33% within 20%. Table 6.2: Summary Percentage of Core Duplicate Pairs Reporting Within Specific Ranges
Criteria all samples > 5 x d.l. >5 x dl to 0.1 g/t Au Original 0.1 to 1 g/t Au Original 1 to 5 g/t Au Original >5 g/t Au Original N 1,177 639 294 274 51 20 N = Falling Within +5% 213 18% 55 9% 29 10% 23 8% 2 4% 1 5% +10% 326 28% 115 18% 59 20% 48 18% 5 10% 3 15% +20% 525 45% 212 33% 106 36% 86 31% 15 29% 5 25% +25% 604 51% 258 40% 130 44% 105 38% 16 31% 7 35% +50% 835 71% 404 63% 203 69% 166 61% 26 51% 9 45% >+50% 342 29% 235 37% 91 31% 108 39% 25 49% 11 55%
There were 26 cases where the differences between drill core duplicates were greater than 100% and average assays were greater than 0.5 g/t Au (Table 6.3). There is no bias evident between original and duplicate halves of the drill core. The low percentage of agreement between the two halves of the core is expected based on review of reproducibility for preparation duplicates, the range of gold assays for samples with the same number of VG specks and other measurements, i.e. the evidence for the presence of free gold particles. It is therefore assumed that there has been no bias introduced by preferentially submitting the more mineralized half of the core for assay. Detour Lake Projects Assay Quality Control Program Analytical Solutions Ltd. November2009 www.explorationgeochem.com
17
These variations are typical of core duplicates for gold projects and no changes in procedures are recommended at this time. Table 6.3: Selected Gold Assays for Core Duplicates
BHID DG-09-720 DG-09-662 DG-09-718 DG-09-721 DG-09-656 DG-09-666 DG-09-691 DG-09-697B DG-09-731 DG-09-734 DG-09-741 DG-09-732 DG-09-645 DG-09-693 DG-09-674 DG-09-722 DG-09-741 DG-09-715 DG-09-687 DG-09-671 DG-09-739 DG-09-700 DG-09-727 DG-09-682 DG-09-707 DG-09-701 Original Original Sample No. Au (g/t) D787442 0.060 D770004 0.028 D779966 0.073 D805420 0.113 D751688 0.147 D771042 0.183 D777447 3.110 D778834 0.306 D797860 0.179 D813148 0.387 D801303 0.370 D800762 0.614 D749733 0.452 D780153 1.900 D766707 2.450 D810321 0.814 D801343 1.050 D782564 1.000 D776337 0.954 D767403 1.440 D811150 2.700 D791577 5.464 D806255 1.230 D775614 4.380 D786616 3.190 D783748 37.214 Duplicate Sample No. D787443 D770005 D779967 D805421 D751689 D771043 D777448 D778835 D797861 D813149 D801304 D800763 D749734 D780154 D766708 D810322 D801344 D782565 D776338 D767404 D811151 D791578 D806256 D775615 D786617 D783749 Duplicate Au (g/t) 8.860 1.820 1.050 1.370 1.640 1.710 28.171 2.180 0.947 1.840 1.430 2.280 1.440 0.597 0.642 0.211 0.226 0.194 0.184 0.246 0.415 0.599 0.062 0.151 0.019 0.121 Date Received 15/09/2009 16/06/2009 25/09/2009 24/09/2009 04/06/2009 23/06/2009 02/09/2009 01/09/2009 02/10/2009 06/10/2009 14/10/2009 02/10/2009 05/06/2009 31/07/2009 01/07/2009 30/09/2009 14/10/2009 06/10/2009 31/07/2009 18/06/2009 09/10/2009 21/08/2009 02/10/2009 20/07/2009 01/09/2009 19/08/2009 Average Au (g/t) 4.46 0.92 0.56 0.74 0.89 0.95 15.64 1.24 0.56 1.11 0.90 1.45 0.95 1.25 1.55 0.51 0.64 0.60 0.57 0.84 1.56 3.03 0.65 2.27 1.60 18.67 RPD (%) -197.31 -193.94 -174.00 -169.52 -167.10 -161.33 -160.23 -150.76 -136.41 -130.49 -117.78 -115.13 -104.44 104.37 116.95 117.66 129.15 135.01 135.33 141.64 146.71 160.48 180.80 186.67 197.63 198.70
18
7.0 Screen Metallic Assays

Samples were selected on the basis of Visible Gold (VG) and original Fire Assay Au reporting > 5 g/t and assayed for gold by Screen Metallics (FA-MET) at SGS and were then compared with the original gold value by Fire Assay. As discussed in a previous memorandum, it is important to discriminate between samples selected for FA-MET on the basis of VG versus the preliminary 50 gm fire assay. Selection of samples on the basis of the 50 gm fire assay for repeat FA-MET produces severe selection bias that is exacerbated by preparing a second 500 g pulp from the reject. A total of 110 samples were selected on the basis of VG and assayed for gold by Screen Metallics (FA-MET) at SGS and were then compared with the original gold value by Fire Assay. The data are summarized in Table 7.1 and plotted in Figure 7.1. Table 7.1: Comparison of Gold by Fire Assay and Screen Metallics (Selected on the basis of VG)
Criteria all samples >1 g/t Au (SF) 1 to 5 g/t Au (SF) 5 to 10 g/t Au (SF) >10 g/t Au (SF) 10 to 25 g/t Au (SF) >25 g/t Au (SF) 25 to 100 g/t Au (SF) >100 g/t Au (SF) N 110 105 17 14 74 33 41 35 6 Screen Fire > Fire Assay 82 75% 78 74% 14 82% 6 43% 58 78% 22 67% 36 88% 30 86% 6 100% Screen Fire < Fire Assay 27 25% 26 25% 3 18% 8 57% 15 20% 10 30% 5 12% 5 14% 1 1% 1 3% Screen Fire = Fire Assay 1 1% 1 1%
19
Figure 7.1: Comparison of Gold by Fire Assay and Screen Metallics (Selected on the basis of VG)
Detour Gold - Screen Fire versus Fire Assay Comparison - Gold (g/t) (selected on basis on Visible Gold) (N = 110)
1,000.00
100.00
+20%
Screen Fire Gold (g/t)
10.00
-20%
1.00
0.10
0.01 0.01
0.10
1.00
10.00
100.00
1,000.00
Fire Assay Gold (g/t)
Additionally, a total of 298 samples were selected on the basis of the original fire assay Au reporting > 5 g/t and assayed for gold by Screen Metallics (FA-MET) at SGS and were then compared with the original gold value by Fire Assay. The data are summarized in Table 7.2 and plotted in Figure 7.2.
20
Table 7.2: Comparison of Gold by Fire Assay and Screen Metallics (Selected on the basis of Original Fire Assay Au > 5 g/t)
Criteria all samples 1 to 5 g/t Au (SF) 5 to 10 g/t Au (SF) >10 g/t Au (SF) 10 to 25 g/t Au (SF) >25 g/t Au (SF) 25 to 100 g/t Au (SF) >100 g/t Au (SF) N 298 35 136 127 92 35 33 2 67 49% 83 65% 55 60% 28 80% 26 79% 2 100% Screen Fire > Fire Assay 150 50% Screen Fire < Fire Assay 148 50% 35 100% 69 51% 44 35% 37 40% 7 20% 7 21%
Figure 7.2: Comparison of Gold by Fire Assay and Screen Metallics (Selected on the basis of Original Fire Assay Au > 5 g/t)
Detour Gold - Screen Fire versus Fire Assay Comparison - Gold (g/t) (selected on basis on Fire Assay Au > 5 g/t) (N = 298)
1,000.0
100.0
+20%
-20%
10.0
1.0
0.1 0.1
1.0
10.0
100.0
1,000.0
21
The subset of samples selected on the basis of original 50 g fire assay determinations agree well with the FA-MET re-analyses for the current period, particularly in the grade range of 5 to 10 g/t Au which represents the majority of samples. In comparison, the subset of samples selected on the basis of the presence of VG, show good general correspondence but are biased higher by FA-MET, particularly for those samples with greater than 10 g/t Au by the 50 gm fire assay method. These patterns of agreement and bias are variable for different periods of time and have not been explained.
22
8.0 Check Assays at Secondary Laboratory

Check assays are recommended where the same pulp that was assayed originally is submitted to a different laboratory for the same analytical procedures primarily to augment the assessment of bias based on the RMs and in-house control samples submitted to the original laboratory. Reference materials are also inserted with samples submitted to the secondary laboratory to measure whether the secondary laboratory is potentially biased. A total of 510 sample pulps (~0.8% of the samples) were submitted to ALS-Chemex, Vancouver for check assays (original samples were assayed at SGS) for the period February to June 2009. Note that these check assays are relevant to the previous QC reporting period. Check assays are done on the same pulp that was assayed originally is submitted to a different laboratory for the same analytical procedures primarily to augment the assessment of bias based on the RMs and in- house control samples submitted to the original laboratory. Reference materials are also inserted with samples submitted to the secondary laboratory to measure whether the secondary laboratory is potentially biased. Samples were submitted for check assays in four separate batches over four time periods January 2007-July 2007; August 2007-June 2008, July 2008-January 2009 and February 2009-June 2009. The selection of samples for check assays was based on gold grades with a low proportion of less than detection limit samples submitted. Approximately 5% of samples with grades between 0.6 to 10 g/t Au were submitted for check assay and 0.3% of samples with lower grades. For this batch of check assays, a total of 20 RMs (spread over the three submittals) were inserted with the samples for check assays sent to ALS-Chemex. The results were plotted and are shown in Figure 8.1 and summarized in Table 8.1. Quality control failures and mislabels are excluded from the graphs and calculations in these tables. ALS-Chemex gold assays are low on average by 5% relative to expected values on all five RMs. There were two failures, and these failed QC samples were not included in the assessment of the average response for RMs. Table 8.1: Summary of RMs Inserted with Check Assays
RM OREAS 53Pb OREAS 15Pb OREAS 6Pc OREAS 18Pb OREAS 10Pb N 4 4 4 5 3 20 Expected Au (g/t) Average Std. Dev. 0.623 0.021 1.06 0.03 1.52 0.06 3.63 0.07 7.15 0.19 Observed Au (g/t) Average Std. Dev. 0.597 0.021 1.02 0.05 1.41 0.05 3.44 0.14 6.94 0.23
% of QC Expected Failures 95.7 96.2 92.7 94.7 97.1 95.1%* 1 1
23
Figure 8.1: RMs Inserted with Check Assays

Detour Check Assays - Reference Materials (N = 20)
12 10
10Pb 53PB 15Pb 6Pc 18Pb
8 6 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 -8 -10 -12
720000
725000
730000
735000
740000
745000
750000
755000
760000
765000
770000
Sample Number (DxxxxxxA)
SGS assays vs. ALS-Chemex assays are plotted in Figure 8.2. Figure 8.2: Check Assays for Gold (g/t)
Detour Check Assays (N = 510)
1,000.000
100.000
+20%
ALS-Chemex Gold (g/t)
10.000
-20%
1.000
0.100
0.010
0.001
0.001
0.010
0.100
1.000
10.000
100.000
1,000.000
SGS Gold (g/t)
24
Table 8.2 summarizes the number of cases with SGS assays greater than ALS-Chemex assays, and vice versa. There should be a near equal number of cases where one laboratory reports higher than the other, and vice versa. For the 485 samples with Au concentrations greater than five times detection limit, there are 247 cases where SGS assays are higher than ALS-Chemex assays and 232 cases where ALS-Chemex assays are higher than SGS assays. Table 8.2: Summary of Check Assays
Criteria all samples > 5 x dl (SGS) >5 x dl & <1 g/t Au SGS >1 g/t Au SGS 1 to 5 g/t Au SGS >5 g/t Au SGS N 510 485 269 216 180 36 SGS > ALSChemex 252 50% 247 51% 141 52% 106 49% 88 49% 18 50% SGS < ALSChemex 251 49% 232 48% 125 47% 107 50% 89 49% 18 50% SGS = ALSChemex 7 1% 6 1% 3 1% 3 1% 3 2%
There were nine samples (representing 2% of the samples submitted for check assays) that had assays reported that were different by more than 100%. This is expected based on comparison of results within the same laboratory and also for free gold-bearing deposits such as Detour. The data for the gold assays greater than five times the detection limit for the check assays from the three summary reports were compared and are summarized in Table 8.3 along with the median RPD (calculated as SGS less ALS-Chemex with respect to SGS) for each data set. Table 8.3: Comparison of Check Assays over the Four Time Periods
Reporting Time Period Jan07 to Jul07 Aug07 to Jun08 Jul08 to Dec08 Jan08 to Oct09 No. of Samples 231 473 436 485 SGS > ALSChemex 58% 50% 60% 51% SGS < ALSChemex 41% 49% 40% 48% SGS = ALSChemex 1% 1% 0% 1% Median 3.99 0.53 6.00 0.00
The reproducibility of gold assays for check assay samples with Au assays greater than five times the detection limit were compared to similar data for laboratory pulp duplicates and plotted (Figure 8.3).
25
Figure 8.3: Comparison of Check Assays and Laboratory Pulp Duplicates

Detour Gold - Comparison of Check Assays and Laboratory Pulp Duplicates (for samples with Au > 5 times detection limit)
100% 90% 80%
Lab Pulp Dups Check Assays
Number of Samples Falling Within (%)
70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% +/-5 +/-10 +/-20 +/-25 +/-50
Figure 8.3 shows that on average the reproducibility of the pulps assayed at the same laboratory (SGS) is better than when the pulp is resubmitted to a second laboratory (ALSChemex). It should be noted that SGS implements quality control systems that set tolerances for pulp duplicates according to analytical method and the lower detection limit. Pulp duplicates are required to fall within these tolerances independent of whether pulps are homogeneous with respect to gold; particulate gold creates inhomogeneity not anticipated by the quality control systems. ALS-Chemex does not know the original assay value and therefore does not force these restrictions on reported gold assays.
26
9.0 Laboratory Audit

Both SGS and ALS-Chemex are well-recognized, ISO-accredited laboratories. A laboratory audit for ALS-Chemex was not considered necessary at this time. Several issues including Madeline Thons observation that there had been an increased number of QC failures for RMs precipitated an audit of SGS Laboratory at Don Mills, Ontario that was conducted on October 24, 2008. Following this visit and after consultation with Gavin McGill (SGS Toronto laboratory manager), the following changes were recommended: a) Request fire assays with a 5 ppb detection limit as opposed to the current 1 ppb detection limit. This will change the lab internal quality control parameters so that there are fewer repeats, and therefore faster turnaround time, and will not change the quality of the data, as the lower detection limit only affects gold assays less than 0.1 g/t Au, which are not of economic significance. Provide the lab manager with tolerances for pulp and reject duplicates that are considered reasonable for the Detour Lake deposit; even an increase to 15% will substantially reduce the number of repeats and improve turnaround time. Insist that SGS report all gold assays and not randomly edit the results; traceability of all reported values must be ensured. Provide the lab manager with realistic sample flow information to improve his staffing and planning, with the anticipated outcome of improved turnaround time.
b)
c) d)
27
10.0 Conclusions
There is no evidence of systematic gold contamination based on the blanks that were inserted with samples. Bla nks were submitted a total of 1,175 times with samples. There were six quality control failures based on blanks (<1% of the samples submitted for blanks) which were investigated and followed up by Madeline Thon (MT). Repeat assays were requested for all the failures and were set to supersede original assays where appropriate. Two of the six failures were categorized as contamination issues. No further action is required. Reference materials were inserted 1,215 times with samples. There were seven quality control failures and these assays were not included in the summary calculations or graphs. SGS gold assays on average are within 1.2% relative to expected values on all four RMs which is an acceptable result. The failure rate is less than 1% which is acceptable. Madeline Thon has taken the necessary corrective action and tracked any cases where repeat assays have replaced original assays. A total of 1,343 preparation duplicates were prepared routinely by SGS. Fifty-five percent of the preparation duplicates reproduce within 20% relative to 65% within 20% for laboratory pulp duplicates. Duplicate assays reported by SGS are within an expected range. Based on these data, the reproducibility of the pulps is typical of projects where there is particulate gold. This is similar to the result for preparation duplicates in previous reports. In general, the reproducibility for the duplicates in the current period is 5% better than previous periods and within expected ranges. Drill core duplicates were inserted 1,177 times. There were a total of 26 cases where the differences between drill core duplicates were greater than 100% and average assays were greater than 0.5 g/t Au. There is no bias evident between original and duplicate halves of the drill core. It is therefore assumed that there has been no bias introduced by preferentially submitting the more mineralized half of the core for assay. These variations are typical of core duplicates for gold projects and no changes in procedures are recommended at this time. A total of 510 sample pulps (~0.8% of the samples) were submitted to ALS-Chemex, Vancouver for check assays (original samples were assayed at SGS) for the period February to June 2009. Note that these check assays are relevant to the previous QC reporting period. A total of 20 RMs were inserted with the samples for check assays sent to ALS-Chemex. ALS-Chemex gold assays are low on average by 5% relative to expected values on all five RMs. There were two failures, and these failed QC samples were not included in the assessment of the average response for RMs. There should be a near equal number of cases where SGS assays are higher than ALSChemex, and vice versa. For the 485 samples with Au concentrations greater than five times detection limit, there are 247 cases where SGS assays are higher than ALS-Chemex assays and 232 cases where ALS-Chemex assays are higher than SGS assays. The median Relative Detour Lake Projects Assay Quality Control Program Analytical Solutions Ltd. November2009 www.explorationgeochem.com
28
Percent Difference (RPD) was 0%, indicating that SGS assays are not biased when compared to the ASL-Chemex assays on the suite of samples selected for check assays. There has been no audit of the ALS-Chemex sample preparation or laboratory facilities. An audit of SGS Laboratory at Don Mills, Ontario was conducted on October 24, 2008 and various recommendations were suggested.
OVERVIEW OF THE DETOUR LAKE PROJECT (ONTARIO) ASSAY QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM (June to October 2009)
APPENDIX 1: Graphs for Laboratory Pulp Duplicates

1,000.0000
100.0000
+20%
10.0000
-20%
1.0000
0.1000
0.0100
0.0010
0.0001 0.0001
0.0010
0.0100
0.1000
1.0000
10.0000
100.0000
1,000.0000
Original Gold (g/t)

250
Relative Percent Difference (Original Assay less Duplicate Assay with respect to Average Assay) (%)
200 150 100 50 0 -50 -100 -150 -200 -250 0.0010
0.0100
0.1000
1.0000
10.0000
100.0000
Average Gold (g/t)

250
200 150 100 50 0 -50 -100 -150 -200 -250 740000
750000
760000
770000
780000
790000
800000
810000
820000
830000
840000
Sample No. (Dxxxxxx)
APPENDIX 2: Graphs for Preparation Duplicates

1,000.0000
100.0000
+20%
10.0000
-20%
1.0000
0.1000
0.0100
0.0010
0.0001 0.0001
0.0010
0.0100
0.1000
1.0000
10.0000
100.0000
1,000.0000
Original Gold (g/t)

250
200 150
100 50
-50 -100
-150 -200
-250 0.001
0.010
0.100
1.000
10.000
100.000
Average Gold (g/t)

2,000
Relative Percent Difference (Original Assay less Duplicate Assay with respect to Original Assay) (%)
-2,000
-4,000
-6,000
-8,000
-10,000
-12,000
-14,000 0.001
0.010
0.100
1.000
10.000
100.000
Original Gold Assay (g/t)
Detour Gold - Preparation Duplicates (N = 1,343) (y-axis capped at +500%)

500 400 300 200 100 0 -100 -200 -300 -400 -500 0.001
0.010
0.100
1.000
10.000
100.000
APPENDIX 3: Graphs for Drill Core Duplicates

1,000.0000
100.0000
10.0000
+20% -20%
1.0000
0.1000
0.0100
0.0010
0.0001 0.0001
0.0010
0.0100
0.1000
1.0000
10.0000
100.0000
1,000.0000

250
Relative Percent Difference (Original Half-Core Assay less Duplicate Half-Core Assay with respect to Average Assay) (%)
200 150 100 50 0 -50 -100 -150 -200 -250 0.001
0.010
0.100
1.000
10.000
100.000
Average Gold (g/t)
REVIEW OF THE DETOUR LAKE PROJECT (ONTARIO) OCTOBER 2009 JANUARY 2010 ASSAY QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM
Prepared on behalf of Detour Gold Corporation
Prepared by Lynda Bloom, M.Sc. Analytical Solutions Ltd. 1214-3266 Yo nge Street, Toronto, Ontario M4N 2L6 416-462-9124 FAX 416-462-1637 lynda@explorationgeochem.com
February 2010
Executive Summary
Approximately 31,000 samples from 78 drill holes totaling 33,829.8 metres (DG-09-753 through DG-09-820) have been collected and assayed from October 20, 2009 to January 15, 2010 for the drill program at the Detour Lake Project, Ontario. The quality control program consists of: a) insertion of a coarse blank one in every 40 samples; b) insertion of a reference material one in every 40 samples; c) routine duplicate assays of pulps as part of laboratory QC protocols; d) insertion of a preparation duplicate samples one in every 30 samples; and e) insertion of a duplicate drill core sample one in every 40 samples. Samples were prepared and analyzed at SGS Laboratories, Toronto, Canada. There is no evidence of systematic gold contamination based on the blanks that were inserted with samples. Blanks were submitted a total of 909 times with samples. There were two quality control failures based on blanks (<1% of the samples submitted for blanks) which were investigated and followed up by Madeline Thon (MT). Repeat assays were requested for the two failures and were set to supersede original assays where appropriate. Results are pending for one sample. No further action is required. Reference materials were inserted 961 times with samples. There were seven quality control failures and these assays were not included in the summary calculations or graphs. SGS gold assays on average are low by -1.6% relative to expected values for all four RMs which is an acceptable result. The failure rate is less than 1% which is similar for previous QC reports and within normal practice for commercial laboratories. Madeline Thon has requested repeats for all failures and results were set to supersede original assays where appropriate. Results are pending for one of the repeats requested. A total of 1,072 preparation duplicates were prepared routinely by SGS. Fifty-two percent of the preparation duplicates reproduce within 20% relative to 60% within 20% for laboratory pulp duplicates. Duplicate assays reported by SGS are within an expected range. Based on these data, the reproducibility of the pulps is typical of projects where there is particulate gold. This is similar to the result for preparation duplicates in previous reports. In general, the reproducibility for the duplicates in the current period is similar to previous periods and within expected ranges. Drill core duplicates were inserted 919 times. There were a total of 23 cases where the differences between drill core duplicates were greater than 100% and average assays were greater than 0.5 g/t Au. There is no bias evident between original and duplicate halves of the drill core. It is therefore assumed that there has been no bias introduced by preferentially submitting the more mineralized half of the core for assay. These variations are typical of core duplicates for gold projects and no changes in procedures are recommended at this time.
A total of 535 sample pulps (~2% of the samples) were submitted to ALS-Chemex, Vancouver for check assays (original samples were assayed at SGS) for the period October 2009 to January 2010. A total of 21 RMs were inserted with the samples for check assays sent to ALS-Chemex. ALS-Chemex gold assays are low on average by 5% relative to expected values on all five RMs. There were no QC failures. There should be a near equal number of cases where one laboratory reports higher than the other, and vice versa which is the case for these 521 samples with Au concentrations greater than five times detection limit. The average Relative Percent Difference (relative to the mean of the two laboratory results) was less than 1%, indicating that SGS assays are not biased when compared to the ASL-Chemex assays on the suite of samples selected for check assays. However, it should be pointed out that ALS-Chemex reported on average 5% low on the reference materials included with samples which may also suggest that SGS assays are conservative. There has been no audit of the ALS-Chemex sample preparation or laboratory facilities. An audit of SGS Laboratory at Don Mills, Ontario was conducted on October 24, 2008 and various recommendations were suggested.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary...................................................................................................................2 1.0 Introduction..............................................................................................................1 2.0 Sample Handling, Preparation, Quality Control and Assay Procedures..................2 2.1 Sample Handling......................................................................................................2 2.2 Sample Preparation and Assaying ...........................................................................3 3.0 Accuracy as Determined by Blanks and Reference Materials .................................4 3.1 Laboratory Performance for Blank Samples............................................................4 3.2 Laboratory Performance Based on Reference Materials and Control Samples.......5 4.0 Laboratory Pulp Duplicates ...................................................................................11 5.0 Preparation Duplicates ...........................................................................................13 6.0 Drill Core Duplicate Samples ................................................................................15 7.0 Screen Metallic Assays ..........................................................................................18 8.0 Check Assays at Secondary Laboratory.................................................................21 9.0 Laboratory Audit....................................................................................................25 10.0 Conclusions ............................................................................................................26
List of Figures
Figure 3.1.1: Figure 3.2.1: Figure 3.2.2: Figure 3.2.3 (a): Figure 3.2.3 (b): Figure 3.2.3 (c): Figure 3.2.3 (d): Figure 4.1: Figure 5.1: Figure 5.2: Figure 6.1: Figure 7.1: Figure 7.2: Figure 8.1: Figure 8.2: Figure 8.3: Assays for Blanks Percent of Expected for Gold Results for Reference Materials z-scores for Gold Results for Reference Materials Gold Results for RM OREAS 53Pb Gold Results for RM OREAS 6Pc Gold Results for RM OREAS 18Pb Gold Results for RM OREAS 10Pb Laboratory Pulp Duplicates Comparison of Gold Assays for Preparation Duplicates Summary of Reproducibility for Preparation Duplicates Comparison of Gold Assays for Drill Core Duplicates Comparison of Gold by Fire Assay and Screen Metallics (Selected on the basis of VG) Comparison of Gold by Fire Assay and Screen Metallics (Selected on the basis of Original Fire Assay Au > 5 g/t) RMs Inserted with Check Assays Check Assays for Gold (g/t) Comparison of Check Assays and Laboratory Pulp Duplicates
List of Tables
Table 3.2.1: Table 3.2.2: Table 3.2.3: Table 4.1: Summary of Reference Materials List of QC Failures for RMs List of Additional QC Failures for RMs Percentage of Laboratory Pulp Duplicate Pairs Reporting Within Specific Ranges for Gold Assays February 2010 www.explorationgeochem.com
Table 5.1: Table 6.1: Table 6.2: Table 6.3: Table 7.1: Table 7.2: Table 8.1: Table 8.2: Table 8.3:
Percentage of Preparation Duplicate Pairs Reporting Within Specific Ranges for Gold Assays Summary of Gold Assays for Core Duplicates Summary Percentage of Core Duplicate Pairs Reporting Within Specific Ranges Selected Gold Assays for Core Duplicates Comparison of Gold by Fire Assay and Screen Metallics (Selected on the basis of VG) Comparison of Gold by Fire Assay and Screen Metallics (Selected on the basis of Original Fire Assay Au > 5 g/t) Summary of RMs Inserted with Check Assays Summary of Check Assays Comparison of Check Assays over the Four Time Periods
Appendices
Appendix 1: Appendix 2: Appendix 3: Graphs for Laboratory Pulp Duplicates Graphs for Preparation Duplicates Graphs for Drill Core Duplicates
February 2010 www.explorationgeochem.com
1.0 Introduction
Approximately 31,000 samples from 78 drill holes totaling 33,829.8 metres (DG-09-753 through DG-09-820) have been collected and assayed from October 20, 2009 to January 15, 2010 for the drill program at the Detour Lake Project, Ontario. The Detour Lake project is located on the northern most, relatively under-explored, Abitibi Greenstone Belt in northeastern Ontario. The property encompasses 265 square kilometres, including the Detour Lake deposit, which contains an open pit reserve of 8.8 million ounces of gold averaging 1.15 g/t (proven reserve of 2,751,000 ounces and probable reserve of 6,062,000 ounces). The Detour Lake deposit is situated in the area of the former Detour Lake mine, which was operated by Placer Dome and produced 1.8 million ounces of gold from 1983 to 1999. In addition, Detour Gold has a 50% interest in Block A located west of the Detour Lake project, which host an indicated resource of 1.2 million ounces. The Detour Lake project is approximately eight kilometers west of the Ontario-Quebec border and 180 kilometers northeast of Cochrane, Ontario. The Detour Lake project is located within the northwestern portion of the Abitibi Greenstone Belt in the Superior Province of the Canadian Shield. Underlying bedrock consists primarily of massive and pillowed mafic volcanics and minor ultramafic rocks, which have been locally intruded by gabbro, diorite to quartz diorite stocks, dykes and sills and transected by the southeasterly trending Sunday Lake Deformation Zone (SLDZ). The gold deposit outlined on the property is surrounding the former Detour Lake mine and is on the west extension of the SLDZ. The main structure in the mine area is a shallow southwest trending flexure, which is defined by a strongly sheared and altered contact between tholeiitic basalts and komatiitic ultramafic rocks referred to as the C hert Marker Horizon (CMH). Samples were prepared and analyzed at SGS Laboratories, Toronto, Canada. Analytical Solutions Ltd (ASL) reviewed the assay Quality Control (QC) program. Data were provided in a series of Excel spreadsheets by Detour Gold Corporation. The objective of this report is to document the gold assays acquired for quality control samples and to identify any bias in the assays or sources of contamination.
2.0 Sample Handling, Preparation, Quality Control and Assay Procedures

2.1 Sample Handling
The following procedure was provided to ASL in a Word document Detour Gold Corp Core Handling.doc by Roger Aubertin. Core Handling Drill core is packed into wooden core trays on site, with the depths of each run marked on wooden blocks and inserted into the trays. These trays are collected by Detour geo technicians and delivered to the geology shacks on site. Core handling consists of: Geological logging Lithology, veining, mineralization, alteration, structure Marking out samples Measuring core recoveries/RQDs Photographing core/tagging boxes with hole ids and meterage Measuring rock strengths Marking out fractures Marking meter intervals between runs Cutting core for sampling Sampling core Shipping Racking and storage All logging and marking of samples is done by Detour geologists. Photographing, recovery, fractures, and rock strengths measurements are carried out by geo technicians under geological supervision. Core is logged by Detour geologists according to the existing lithology code system established for incorporation into Datamine and Gemcom with existing historical data. Core recovery, RQD, rock strength, and fractures are recorded for each borehole, and all core is photographed to preserve a permanent record. All data entry is done on individual databases capable of synchronizing with a master database through the Detour Gold Corp network. These databases updated daily as the data is entered and synchronized. All core is systematically sampled, following the procedure outlined below: Mineralized/potentially mineralized zones are recorded. Visible gold broken down into half meter samples for pulp metallic analyses. Core is fitted together in the box, and a wax pencil is used to scribe a line along the core, using the core box edge as a guide. The scribe line is used to orient the core in the diamond saw, and the same half of the core, the exposed upper portion, is always put in the sample bag. The portion to be saved is fitted back into the core box to be kept as a permanent record. Samples are marked both on core and corresponding sample tags and bags. All core is sampled for entire borehole top to bottom in one meter intervals with the exception of pulp metallics, which are sampled at half- meter intervals. Detour Lake Projects Assay Quality Control Program Analytical Solutions Ltd. February 2010 www.explorationgeochem.com
Samples are bagged and numbered by a lab technician and double checked by another lab technician for accuracy. All samples are logged with the sample number, depths, sample length and lithology unit recorded for each sample; additional information such as veining, mineralization, alteration and structure are also recorded in the database. Samples are delivered to the sample preparation laboratory for shipping where they are checked again for accuracy before being released. The database is programmed to prompt the geologist during sampling to enter Standards, Blanks and Duplicates at certain intervals. These ensure quality control here on site as well as the assay labs. Standards and Blanks are used by the lab technicians to check the sample bags and shipments for errors in sequencing. Lab technicians use sample reports generated by the database to verify correct standards and sequencing in samples. Shipments are also kept track of through the database, and it is capable of pulling any shipment report done by Detour Gold. Pulp metallics, copper analysis, and pulp copper analysis requests are highlighted for the lab technician while filing a shipment and totals are calculated to ensure accurate counts included in the batch.
All core is stored on site at the Detour exploration camp after logging, cutting, sampling and photography.
2.2 Sample Preparation and Assaying

Samples were prepared and analyzed at SGS Laboratories, Toronto, Canada. The method codes were:
1 2 3 4 4 5 6 SGS Code WGH79 CRU25 PUL46 PUL47 FAI525 FAG505 FAS31K Description Weight of samples upon arrival Sample preparation crush to 90% passing 2 mm Pulverize 500 g in Cr steel to 85% passing 75 m Pulverize 1.2 kg in Cr steel to 85% passing 75m (for screen metallics only) 50 g fire assay with ICP-AES finish (5 ppb to 100,000 ppb) 50 g fire assay with gravimetric finish (for Au > 100 ppm) Gold by Screen Metallics Fire Assay on 500 gm screened at 106 m (for Au > 5 g/t) a second pulp is prepared from the reject
Samples with gold assays greater than 5 g/t Au were resubmitted for gold by screened metallics (FA-MET). A second 500 gm sample is prepared from the reject and 500 gm is pulverized to 90% passing 106 m. The quality control program consists of: a) insertion of a coarse blank one in every 40 samples; b) insertion of a reference material one in every 40 samples; c) routine duplicate assays of pulps as part of laboratory QC protocols; d) insertion of a preparation duplicate samples one in every 30 samples; and e) insertion of a duplicate drill core sample one in every 40 samples.
3.0 Accuracy as Determined by Blanks and Reference Materials

Coarse blanks and reference materials were submitted with samples for preparation and assaying at SGS Laboratories, Toronto, Canada.
3.1 Laboratory Performance for Blank Samples

Barren coarse material (a blank) is submitted with samples for crushing and pulverizing to determine if there has been contamination or sample cross-contamination in preparation. Elevated values for blanks may also indicate sources of contamination in the fire assay procedure (contaminated reagents or crucibles) or sample solution carry-over during instrumental finish. As of August 2007, decorative white pebbles for gardening (~250 gm sample size) purchased at the local hardware store were used as blank material. This material was also assayed at Swastika Laboratory to test that the material was not gold-bearing. There were a total of 909 blanks submitted with the samples for analysis. A hundred percent (905 out of 909 samples) of the blanks assayed less than 0.025 g/t, which is five times the detection limit of 0.005 g/t (Figure 3.1.1). Figure 3.1.1: Assays for Blanks
Detour Gold - Blanks - Gold (g/t) (N = 907)
0.040
0.035
0.030
0.025
Gold (g/t)
0.020
0.015
0.010
0.005
0.000
14/10/2009 24/10/2009 03/11/2009 13/11/2009 23/11/2009 03/12/2009 13/12/2009 23/12/2009 02/01/2010 12/01/2010 22/01/2010
Date Received
There were two quality control failures based on blanks (<1% of the samples submitted for blanks) which were investigated and followed up by Madeline Thon (MT). Repeat assays Detour Lake Projects Assay Quality Control Program Analytical Solutions Ltd. February 2010 www.explorationgeochem.com
have been requested for the two failures and were set to supersede original assays where appropriate. Results are pending for one sample. No further action is required. There is no evidence of systematic gold contamination based on the blanks that were inserted with samples.
3.2
Laboratory Performance Based on Reference Materials and Control Samples
Reference Materials (RM) are submitted with samples for assay to identify: a) if there were assay problems with specific sample batches; and b) possible long-term biases in the overall dataset. The definition of a quality control failure is when: a) assays for two consecutive RMs are outside two standard deviations or 10%; b) assays for a RM are outside three standard deviations or 10%. Four different RMs were submitted were purchased from OREAS (Australia). These were submitted a total of 961 times with samples sent to SGS. The OREAS RMs are: (a) well homogenized, (b) assayed at 15 recognized mineral testing laboratories, and (c) are certified in accordance with International Standards Organization (ISO) recommendations.
Graphical Presentation of RM Results

The results were plotted and are shown in Figures 3.2.1 and 3.2.2. Quality control failures and mislabels are excluded from the graphs and calculations in these tables. In Figure 3.2.1, the dashed red lines represent boundaries of +7% which is the expected tolerance limits for the fire assay method. A total of 907 RMs (94%) reported within +10% of the expected value. Z-scores were also calculated and plotted (Figure 3.2.2). A z-score is the difference between the observed and expected assay divided by the expected standard deviation: z-score = (x - ) / s, where: x is the observed assay; is the expected assay for the RM; and s is the expected standard deviation for the RM.
Figure 3.2.1: Percent of Expected for Gold Results for Reference Materials
20
15
10
+7%
-5
-7%
-10
-15
-20
14/10/2009 24/10/2009 03/11/2009 13/11/2009 23/11/2009 03/12/2009 13/12/2009 23/12/2009 02/01/2010 12/01/2010 22/01/2010
Date Received
Figure 3.2.2: z-scores for Gold Results for Reference Materials

8
z-score
-2
-4
-6
-8
14/10/2009 24/10/2009 03/11/2009 13/11/2009 23/11/2009 03/12/2009 13/12/2009 23/12/2009 02/01/2010 12/01/2010 22/01/2010
Date Received
For reference, the results for the individual RMs are plotted in Figures 3.2.3 (a) to (d). Figure 3.2.3 (a): Gold Results for RM OREAS 53Pb
0.75
0.70
0.65
Gold (g/t)
0.60
-2 Std. Dev.
0.55
-3 Std. Dev.
0.50
14/10/2009 24/10/2009 03/11/2009 13/11/2009 23/11/2009 03/12/2009 13/12/2009 23/12/2009 02/01/2010 12/01/2010 22/01/2010
Date Received
Figure 3.2.3 (b): Gold Results for RM OREAS 6Pc

Detour Gold - Reference Materials OREAS 6Pc (N = 249)
1.8
+3 Std. Dev.
1.7
+2 Std. Dev.
1.6
Gold (g/t)
1.5
1.4
-2 Std. Dev.
1.3
-3 Std. Dev.
1.2
14/10/2009 24/10/2009 03/11/2009 13/11/2009 23/11/2009 03/12/2009 13/12/2009 23/12/2009 02/01/2010 12/01/2010 22/01/2010
Date Received
Figure 3.2.3 (c): Gold Results for RM OREAS 18Pb

4.0
3.9
+3 Std. Dev.
3.8
+2 Std. Dev.
3.7
Gold (g/t)
3.6
-2 Std. Dev.
3.5
3.4
-3 Std. Dev.
3.3
3.2
14/10/2009 24/10/2009 03/11/2009 13/11/2009 23/11/2009 03/12/2009 13/12/2009 23/12/2009 02/01/2010 12/01/2010 22/01/2010
Date Received
Figure 3.2.3 (d): Gold Results for RM OREAS 10Pb

8.0 7.8
7.6 7.4
Gold (g/t)
7.2 7.0
6.8
-2 Std. Dev.
6.6
-3 Std. Dev.
6.4 6.2
14/10/2009 24/10/2009 03/11/2009 13/11/2009 23/11/2009 03/12/2009 13/12/2009 23/12/2009 02/01/2010 12/01/2010 22/01/2010
Date Received
Quality Control Discussion Based on RMs

The results for the RMs are summarized in Table 3.2.1. Table 3.2.1: Summary of Reference Materials
RM OREAS 53Pb OREAS 6Pc OREAS 18Pb OREAS 10Pb Total N 250 254 232 225 961 Expected Au (g/t) Average Std. Dev. 0.623 0.021 1.520 0.070 3.630 0.070 7.150 0.190 Observed Au (g/t) Average Std. Dev. 0.620 0.028 1.467 0.091 3.552 0.139 7.137 0.286
% of QC Expected Failures 99.5 96.5 97.8 99.8 98.4* 0 5 0 2 7
Results were designated as a mislabel in cases where the reported results were similar to other RMs or blanks and were more than three standard deviations from the expected value. There were no mislabels reported. There were a total of seven QC failures (~0.7% of the total number of RMs submitted) (Table 3.2.2) and these assays were not included in the calculations in Table 3.2.1. All of the assayrelated QC failures were investigated and followed up by Madeline Thon (MT). The Actions Taken by Madeline Thon (MT) are as reported to ASL. Repeat assays were requested for all seven failures and were set to supersede original assays where appropriate. Results are pending for one of the repeats requested. Table 3.2.2: List of QC Failures for RMs
BHID DG-09803 DG-09810 DG-09810 DG-09820 DG-09819 DG-09808 DG-09814A Sample No. D853343 D852955 D852675 D838348 D828349 D837472 D850237 RM 10Pb 10Pb 6Pc 6Pc 6Pc 6Pc 6Pc Orig. Au (g/t) 5.42 5.70 1.05 1.15 1.18 1.19 1.19 7.01 1.46 1.34 1.43 1.49 1.44 7.01 1.46 1.34 1.43 1.49 1.44 Repeat Au (g/t) Final Au (g/t) Expected Au (g/t) 7.15 7.15 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 Percent from Expected -24.20 -20.28 -30.92 -24.34 -22.37 -21.71 -21.71 Action Taken by MT
Request repeats for D853341-D853345 on 09Jan10 Request repeats for D852953-D852957 on 08Jan10; Repeat Cert# = TO108946, new z-score = -0.74, super-cede Request repeats for D852671-D852677 on 19Dec09; Repeat Cert# = TO109040, new z-score = -1.00, super-cede Request repeats for D838346-D838350 on 13Jan10; Repeat Cert# = TO108969, new z-score = -3.00, super-cede Request repeats for D828344-D828351 on 13Jan10; Repeat Cert# = TO108969, new z-score = -1.50, super-cede Request repeats for D837470-D837474 on 19Dec09; Repeat Cert# = TO109041, new z-score = -0.50, super-cede Request repeats for D850235-D850239 on 15Jan10; Repeat Cert# = TO108991, new z-score = -1.33, super-cede
10
In addition, the RM data were reviewed to determine where there were two or more consecutive RMs where the results were biased both low or both high in the same work order. Biases of greater than+7% or less than -7% were used to identify cases that require repeats. Table 3.2.3 lists these cases and in all cases the observed results are less than the expected value. These cases have been investigated and no further action is required. Table 3.2.3: List of Additional QC Failures for RMs
Hole No. DG-09-766 DG-09-766 DG-09-767 DG-09-767 DG-09-797 DG-09-797 DG-09-804 DG-09-804 DG-09-810 DG-09-810 DG-09-810 DG-09-810 DG-09-810 DG-09-810 DG-09-813 DG-09-813 Sample Cert. No. No. D821270 SU07832 D821310 SU07832 D803550 D803590 D831826 D831866 D842116 D842156 D853075 D853115 D852875 D852915 D852995 D853035 D824646 D824686 SU07789 SU07789 SU08278 SU08278 SU08417 SU08417 SU08455 SU08455 SU08449 SU08449 SU08454 SU08454 SU08608 SU08608 RM 18Pb 10Pb 6Pc 53Pb 10Pb 6Pc 18Pb 10Pb 18Pb 10Pb 53Pb 18Pb 6Pc 53Pb 6Pc 53Pb Observed Au (g/t) 3.330 6.650 1.370 0.573 6.650 1.400 3.330 6.740 3.350 6.580 0.702 3.220 1.220 0.564 1.340 0.566 Expected Au (g/t) 3.630 7.150 1.520 0.623 7.150 1.520 3.630 7.150 3.630 7.150 0.623 3.630 1.520 0.623 1.520 0.623 Expected Date % of z-score Std. Dev. Recd. Expected 0.070 03/11/2009 -8.26 -4.29 0.190 03/11/2009 -6.99 -2.63 0.060 0.021 0.190 0.060 0.070 0.190 0.070 0.190 0.021 0.070 0.060 0.021 0.060 0.021 28/10/2009 28/10/2009 11/12/2009 11/12/2009 19/12/2009 19/12/2009 19/12/2009 19/12/2009 22/12/2009 22/12/2009 08/01/2010 08/01/2010 13/01/2010 13/01/2010 -9.87 -8.03 -6.99 -7.89 -8.26 -5.73 -7.71 -7.97 12.68 -11.29 -19.74 -9.47 -11.84 -9.15 -2.50 -2.38 -2.63 -2.00 -4.29 -2.16 -4.00 -3.00 3.76 -5.86 -5.00 -2.81 -3.00 -2.71
SGS gold assays on average are biased low by 1.6% relative to expected values for the four RMs which is an acceptable result. The failure rate is less than 1% which is similar for previous QC reports and within normal practice for commercial laboratories. RM OREAS 6Pc has not been performing well and SGS has reported the lowest average bias (-3.5%) and the highest number of failures for OREAS 6Pc. The material is described by OREAS as a greywacke with a low sulphide content and should not present a problem for fire assay. It appears to somehow be a time-sensitive problem; for example, from midNovember to early December, there are almost no results for 6Pc reported above the expected value and values tended to be 5% low. The trend was brought to the attention of SGS and a different RM has been selected for future use. Seventy-seven percent of the RM gold assays fall within 2s demonstrating an overall acceptable accuracy based on the assessment of RMs. Detour Lake Projects Assay Quality Control Program Analytical Solutions Ltd. February 2010 www.explorationgeochem.com
11
4.0 Laboratory Pulp Duplicates

Commercial laboratories routinely assay a second aliquot of the sample pulp usually for one in ten samples. The data are used by the laboratory for their internal quality control monitoring. The data are either automatically reported to clients or can be requested. The assays for pulp duplicates provide an estimate of the reproducibility related to the uncertainties inherent in the analytical method and the homogeneity of the pulps. The precision or relative percent difference calculated for the pulp duplicates indicates whether pulverizing specifications should be changed and/or whether alternative methods, such as screened metallics for gold, should be considered. The original and duplicate assays are plotted in Figure 4.1. There were a total of 3,539 laboratory duplicate gold assays provided to ASL. The reproducibility of 60% of these assays was within 20% (Table 4.1 and Figure 4.1). Additional graphs are presented in Appendix 1. Figure 4.1: Laboratory Pulp Duplicates
1,000.0000
100.0000
+20%
10.0000
-20%
1.0000
0.1000
0.0100
0.0010
0.0001 0.0001
0.0010
0.0100
0.1000
1.0000
10.0000
100.0000
1,000.0000
Original Gold (g/t)
12
Table 4.1: Percentage of Laboratory Pulp Duplicate Pairs Reporting Within Specific Ranges for Gold Assays
Criteria all samples > 5 x d.l. >5 x dl & <0.1 g/t Au Original 0.1 to 1 g/t Au Original 1 to 5 g/t Au Original >5 g/t Au Original N 3,539 1,903 873 769 191 70 +5% 1,147 32% 434 23% 174 20% 163 21% 61 32% 36 51% +10% 1,605 45% 736 39% 318 36% 279 36% 93 49% 46 66% N = Falling Within +20% +25% 2,313 2,514 65% 71% 1,143 1,295 60% 68% 506 569 58% 445 58% 136 71% 56 80% 65% 517 67% 150 79% 59 84% +50% 3,028 86% 1,644 86% 740 85% 664 86% 173 91% 67 96% >+50% 511 14% 259 14% 133 15% 105 14% 18 9% 3 4%
Duplicate assays reported by SGS are within the expected range and similar to previous periods. Based on these data, the pulps are reasonably homogeneous with respect to gold for a deposit with free gold.
13
5.0 Preparation Duplicates

Preparation duplicates are created by splitting a second cut of the crushed sample in the same way and for the same weight as the original sample. The objective is to determine if: a) splitting procedures are applied consistently; and b) where changes to sample preparation procedures, specifically specification for the crush size, are required. A total of 1,072 preparation duplicates were prepared routinely by SGS. The reproducibility of 52% of these assays was within 20% (Table 5.1 and Figure 5.1). Additional graphs are presented in Appendix 2. Figure 5.1: Comparison of Gold Assays for Preparation Duplicates
1,000.0000
100.0000
+20%
10.0000
-20%
1.0000
0.1000
0.0100
0.0010
0.0001 0.0001
0.0010
0.0100
0.1000
1.0000
10.0000
100.0000
1,000.0000
Original Gold (g/t)
Fifty-two percent of the preparation duplicates reproduce within 20% relative to 60% within 20% for laboratory pulp duplicates (Section 4) which is expected as the finer grain sizes provide more reproducible sub-samples.
14
Table 5.1: Percentage of Preparation Duplicate Pairs Reporting Within Specific Ranges for Gold Assays
Criteria all samples > 5 x d.l. >5 x dl & <0.1 g/t Au Original 0.1 to 1 g/t Au Original 1 to 5 g/t Au Original >5 g/t Au Original N 1,072 593 270 262 50 11 +5% 289 27% 102 17% 50 19% 44 17% 7 14% 1 9% +10% 406 38% 177 30% 90 33% 71 27% 13 26% 3 27% N = Falling Within +20% +25% 622 694 58% 65% 306 358 52% 60% 145 162 54% 130 50% 23 46% 8 73% 60% 163 62% 25 50% 8 73% +50% 879 82% 482 81% 222 82% 210 80% 40 80% 10 91% >+50% 193 18% 111 19% 48 18% 52 20% 10 20% 1 9%
This is similar to the result for preparation duplicates in previous reports (Figure 5.2). In general, the reproducibility for the duplicates in the current period is similar to previous periods and within expected ranges. Figure 5.2: Summary of Reproducibility for Preparation Duplicates
Detour Gold - Summary of Precision - Jan. 2007 to Jan. 2010 (for samples > 5 x detection limit)
90%
Jan. 2007 - Jul. 2007 Jul. 2008 - Dec. 2008 Jun. 2009 - Oct. 2009 Aug. 2007 - Jun. 2008 Jan. 2009 - May 2009 Oct. 2009 - Jan. 2010
80%
Percentage of Samples Falling Within
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% +/-5 +/-10 +/-20 +/-25 +/-50
15
6.0 Drill Core Duplicate Samples

The second half of a drill core sample is assayed to determine: (a) the reproducibility of assays for different halves of the core, and (b) if there is any sampling bias. A total of 919 pairs were submitted, out of which there are 500 cases where the mean of the two values is greater than 0.025 g/t (five times detection limit) which are considered for statistical analysis. There are 400 cases where the assays for the original sample are higher than duplicate sample and 367 cases where the opposite is true (Table 6.1). The gold assays for the original and duplicate samples are compared in Figure 6.1. Additional graphs are present in Appendix 3. Figure 6.1: Comparison of Gold Assays for Drill Core Duplicates
Detour Gold - Core Duplicates (N = 919)
1,000.0000
100.0000
10.0000
+20% -20%
1.0000
0.1000
0.0100
0.0010
0.0001 0.0001
0.0010
0.0100
0.1000
1.0000
10.0000
100.0000
1,000.0000
16
Table 6.1: Summary of Gold Assays for Core Duplicates

Criteria all samples > 5 x d.l. N 919 500 Orig. Core > Dupl. Core 400 43% 269 54% Orig. Core < Dupl. Core 367 40% 218 44% Orig. Core = Dupl. Core 152 17% 13 2%
Relative Percent Difference (RPD) was calculated (original core assay less duplicate core assay relative to the average). The results are summarized in Table 6.2 and the graphs are in Appendix 3. Eleven percent of the duplicate pairs agree within 5%, 18% within 10% and 30% within 20%. Table 6.2: Summary Percentage of Core Duplicate Pairs Reporting Within Specific Ranges
Criteria all samples > 5 x d.l. >5 x dl to 0.1 g/t Au Original 0.1 to 1 g/t Au Original 1 to 5 g/t Au Original >5 g/t Au Original N 919 500 216 N = Falling Within +5% 198 22% 53 11% 31 14% 16 222 7% 4 42 20 10% 2 10% +10% 261 28% 92 18% 48 22% 36 16% 6 14% 2 10% +20% 384 42% 148 30% 72 33% 62 28% 10 24% 4 20% +25% 449 49% 194 39% 92 43% 81 36% 14 33% 7 35% +50% 651 71% 325 65% 152 70% 138 62% 24 57% 11 55% >+50% 268 29% 175 35% 64 30% 84 38% 18 43% 9 45%
There were 23 cases where the differences between drill core duplicates were greater than 100% and average assays were greater than 0.5 g/t Au (Table 6.3). There is no bias evident between original and duplicate halves of the drill core. The low percentage of agreement between the two halves of the core is expected based on review of reproducibility for preparation duplicates, the range of gold assays for samples with the same number of VG specks and other measurements, i.e. the evidence for the presence of free gold particles.
17
It is therefore assumed that there has been no bias introduced by preferentially submitting the more mineralized half of the core for assay. These variations are typical of core duplicates for gold projects and no changes in procedures are recommended at this time. Table 6.3: Selected Gold Assays for Core Duplicates
BHID DG-09-769 DG-09-775 DG-09-782 DG-09-771 DG-09-772 DG-09-813 DG-09-811 DG-09-771 DG-09-797 DG-09-761 DG-09-755 DG-09-727 DG-09-761 DG-09-784 DG-09-817 DG-09-770 DG-09-810 DG-09-781A DG-09-775 DG-09-763 DG-09-781A DG-09-767 DG-09-810 Original Sample No. D822407 D809749 D826764 D828608 D804639 D824584 D838187 D828648 D831884 D816123 D802437 D806175 D816203 D840966 D827994 D825242 D853173 D830654 D809789 D809134 D830494 D804048 D852893 Original Au (g/t) 0.044 0.038 0.514 0.132 0.268 0.208 17.568 0.236 0.193 0.220 0.199 3.914 0.230 1.140 0.357 0.321 1.670 12.843 1.500 4.260 1.020 3.790 2.190 Duplicate Sample No. D822408 D809750 D826765 D828609 D804640 D824585 D838188 D828649 D831885 D816124 D802438 D806176 D816204 D840967 D827995 D825243 D853174 D830655 D809790 D809135 D830495 D804049 D852894 Duplicate Au (g/t) 3.040 1.020 13.100 1.210 1.900 1.440 110.000 1.430 1.080 1.230 1.030 20.213 0.892 4.170 1.200 0.990 0.456 3.370 0.372 0.973 0.185 0.591 0.239 Date Average Received Au (g/t) 12/11/2009 1.54 10/11/2009 0.53 30/11/2009 6.81 29/10/2009 0.67 20/11/2009 1.08 22/12/2009 0.82 14/01/2010 63.78 05/11/2009 0.83 11/12/2009 0.64 17/11/2009 0.73 24/10/2009 0.61 14/12/2009 12.06 24/11/2009 0.56 24/11/2009 2.66 13/01/2010 0.78 03/11/2009 0.66 22/12/2009 1.06 20/11/2009 8.11 10/11/2009 0.94 29/10/2009 2.62 26/11/2009 0.60 03/11/2009 2.19 22/12/2009 1.21 RPD (%) -194.29 -185.63 -184.90 -160.66 -150.55 -149.51 -144.91 -143.34 -139.36 -139.31 -135.23 -135.11 -118.00 -114.12 -108.29 -102.06 114.21 116.86 120.51 125.63 138.59 146.04 160.64
18
7.0 Screen Metallic Assays

Samples were selected on the basis of Visible Gold (VG) and original Fire Assay Au reporting > 5 g/t and assayed for gold by Screen Metallics (FA-MET) at SGS and were then compared with the original gold value by Fire Assay. As discussed in a previous memorandum, it is important to discriminate between samples selected for FA-MET on the basis of VG versus the preliminary 50 gm fire assay. Selection of samples on the basis of the 50 gm fire assay for repeat FA-MET produces severe selection bias that is exacerbated by preparing a second 500 g pulp from the reject. A total of 150 samples were selected on the basis of VG and assayed for go ld by Screen Metallics (FA-MET) at SGS and were then compared with the original gold value by Fire Assay. The data are summarized in Table 7.1 and plotted in Figure 7.1. Table 7.1: Comparison of Gold by Fire Assay and Screen Metallics (Selected on the basis of VG)
Criteria all samples >1 g/t Au (SF) 1 to 5 g/t Au (SF) 5 to 10 g/t Au (SF) >10 g/t Au (SF) 10 to 25 g/t Au (SF) >25 g/t Au (SF) N 150 139 22 37 80 39 41 Screen Fire > Fire Assay 91 61% 87 63% 11 50% 28 76% 48 60% 22 56% 26 63% Screen Fire < Fire Assay 59 39% 52 37% 11 50% 9 24% 32 40% 17 44% 15 37%
19
Figure 7.1: Comparison of Gold by Fire Assay and Screen Metallics (Selected on the basis of VG)
Detour Gold - Screen Fire versus Fire Assay Comparison - Gold (g/t) (selected on basis on Visible Gold) (N = 150)
1,000.00
100.00
+20%
10.00
-20%
1.00
0.10
0.01 0.01
0.10
1.00
10.00
100.00
1,000.00
Additionally, a total of 360 samples were selected on the basis of the original fire assay Au reporting > 5 g/t and assayed for gold by Screen Metallics (FA-MET) at SGS and were then compared with the original gold value by Fire Assay. The data are summarized in Table 7.2 and plotted in Figure 7.2.
The subset of samples selected on the basis of original 50 g fire assay determinations agree well with the FA-MET re-analyses for the current period, particularly in the grade range of 5 to 10 g/t Au which represents the majority of samples. In comparison, the subset of samples selected on the basis of the presence of VG, show good general correspondence but are biased higher by FA-MET, particularly for those samples with greater than 10 g/t Au by the 50 gm fire assay method. These patterns of agreement and bias are variable for different periods of time and have not been explained.
20
Table 7.2: Comparison of Gold by Fire Assay and Screen Metallics (Selected on the basis of Original Fire Assay Au > 5 g/t)
Criteria (sorted by SF) all samples 1 to 5 g/t Au (SF) 5 to 10 g/t Au (SF) >10 g/t Au (SF) 10 to 25 g/t Au (SF) >25 g/t Au (SF) N 360 47 177 136 101 35 86 49% 74 54% 59 58% 15 43% Screen Fire > Fire Assay 160 44% Screen Fire < Fire Assay 200 56% 47 100% 91 51% 62 46% 42 42% 20 57%
Figure 7.2: Comparison of Gold by Fire Assay and Screen Metallics (Selected on the basis of Original Fire Assay Au > 5 g/t)
Detour Gold - Screen Fire versus Fire Assay Comparison - Gold (g/t) (selected on basis on Fire Assay Au > 5 g/t) (N = 360)
1,000.0
100.0
+20% -20%
10.0
1.0
0.1 0.1
1.0
10.0
100.0
1,000.0
21
8.0 Check Assays at Secondary Laboratory

Check assays are recommended where the same pulp that was assayed originally is submitted to a different laboratory for the same analytical procedures primarily to augment the assessment of bias based on the RMs and in-house control samples submitted to the original laboratory. Reference materials are also inserted with samples submitted to the secondary laboratory to measure whether the secondary laboratory is potentially biased. A total of 535 sample pulps (~2% of the samples) were submitted to ALS-Chemex, Vancouver for check assays (original samples were assayed at SGS) for the period October 2009 to January 2010. Check assays are done on the same pulp that was assayed originally is submitted to a different laboratory for the same analytical procedures primarily to augment the assessment of bias based on the RMs and in- house control samples submitted to the original laboratory. Reference materials are also inserted with samples submitted to the secondary laboratory to measure whether the secondary laboratory is potentially biased. A total of 21 RMs were inserted with the samples for check assays sent to ALS-Chemex. The results were plotted and are shown in Figure 8.1 and summarized in Table 8.1. Quality control failures and mislabels are excluded from the graphs and calculations in these tables. ALS-Chemex gold assays are low on average by 5% relative to expected values on all five RMs. There were no QC failures. Table 8.1: Summary of RMs Inserted with Check Assays
RM OREAS 53Pb OREAS 15Pb OREAS H3 OREAS 18c OREAS 10Pb N 4 4 4 5 4 21 Expected Au (g/t) Average 0.623 1.06 2.00 3.52 7.15 Std. Dev. 0.021 0.03 0.08 0.11 0.19 Observed Au (g/t) Average 0.623 1.02 1.87 3.32 6.77 Std. Dev. 0.014 0.02 0.14 0.20 0.26 % of Expected 99.9 96.3 93.5 94.2 94.7 95.7%*
22
Figure 8.1: RMs Inserted with Check Assays

Detour Check Assays - Reference Materials (N = 20)
14 12
10Pb 53Pb 15Pb H3 18c
10 8 6 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 -8 -10 -12 -14
760000
770000
780000
790000
800000
810000
820000
830000
840000
850000
Sample Number (DxxxxxxA)
SGS assays vs. ALS-Chemex assays are plotted in Figure 8.2. Figure 8.2: Check Assays for Gold (g/t)
Detour Check Assays (N = 535)
1,000.000
100.000
+20%
ALS-Chemex Gold (g/t)
10.000
-20%
1.000
0.100
0.010
0.001
0.001
0.010
0.100
1.000
10.000
100.000
1,000.000
SGS Gold (g/t)
23
Table 8.2 summarizes the number of cases with SGS assays greater than ALS-Chemex assays, and vice versa. There should be a near equal number of cases where one laboratory reports higher than the other, and vice versa which is the case for these 521 samples with Au concentrations greater than five times detection limit. The average Relative Percent Difference (relative to the mean of the two laboratory results) was less than 1%, indicating that SGS assays are not biased when compared to the ASL-Chemex assays on the suite of samples selected for check assays. Table 8.2: Summary of Check Assays
Criteria all samples > 5 x dl (SGS) >5 x dl & <1 g/t Au SGS >1 g/t Au SGS 1 to 5 g/t Au SGS >5 g/t Au SGS N 535 521 293 228 169 59 SGS > ALSChemex 263 49% 259 50% 136 46% 123 54% 88 52% 35 59% SGS < ALSChemex 268 50% 259 50% 157 54% 102 45% 78 46% 24 41% SGS = ALSChemex 4 1% 3 1%
3 1% 3 2%
However, it should be pointed out that ALS-Chemex reported on average 5% low on the reference materials included with samples which may also suggest that SGS assays are conservative. There were eight samples (representing 2% of the samples submitted for check assays) that had assays reported that were different by more than 100%. This is expected based on comparison of results within the same laboratory and also for free gold-bearing deposits such as Detour. The data for the gold assays greater than five times the detection limit for the check assays from the four summary reports were compared and are summarized in Table 8.3 along with the median RPD (calculated as SGS less ALS-Chemex with respect to SGS) for each data set. Table 8.3: Compa rison of Check Assays over the Four Time Periods
Reporting Time Period Jan07 to Jul07 Aug07 to Jun08 Jul08 to Dec08 Jan08 to Oct09 Oct09 to Jan10 No. of Samples 231 473 436 485 521 SGS > ALSChemex 58% 50% 60% 51% 50% SGS < ALSChemex 41% 49% 40% 48% 50% SGS = ALSChemex 1% 1% 0% 1% Median 3.99 0.53 6.00 0.00 0.00
24
The reproducibility of gold assays for check assay samples with Au assays greater than five times the detection limit were compared to similar data for laboratory pulp duplicates and plotted (Figure 8.3). Figure 8.3: Comparison of Check Assays and Laboratory Pulp Duplicates
Detour Gold - Comparison of Check Assays and Laboratory Pulp Duplicates (for samples with Au > 5 times detection limit)
100% 90% 80%
Lab Pulp Dups Check Assays
Number of Samples Falling Within (%)
70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% +/-5 +/-10 +/-20 +/-25 +/-50
Figure 8.3 shows that on average the reproducibility of the pulps assayed at the same laboratory (SGS) is comparable to when the pulp is resubmitted to a second laboratory (ALSChemex).
25
9.0 Laboratory Audit

Both SGS and ALS-Chemex are well-recognized, ISO-accredited laboratories. A laboratory audit for ALS-Chemex was not considered necessary at this time. Several issues including Madeline Thons observation that there had been an increased number of QC failures for RMs precipitated an audit of SGS Laboratory at Don Mills, Ontario that was conducted on October 24, 2008.
26
10.0 Conclusions
There is no evidence of systematic gold contamination based on the blanks that were inserted with samples. Blanks were submitted a total of 909 times with samples. There were two quality control failures based on blanks (<1% of the samples submitted for blanks) which were investigated and followed up by Madeline Thon (MT). Repeat assays were requested for the two failures and were set to supersede original assays where appropriate. Results are pending for one sample. No further action is required. Reference materials were inserted 961 times with samples. There were seven quality control failures and these assays were not included in the summary calculations or graphs. SGS gold assays on average are low by -1.6% relative to expected values for all four RMs which is an acceptable result. The failure rate is less than 1% which is similar for previous QC reports and within normal practice for commercial laboratories. Madeline Thon has requested repeats for all failures and results were set to supersede original assays where appropriate. Results are pending for one of the repeats requested. A total of 1,072 preparation duplicates were prepared routinely by SGS. Fifty-two percent of the preparation duplicates reproduce within 20% relative to 60% within 20% for laboratory pulp duplicates. Duplicate assays reported by SGS are within an expected range. Based on these data, the reproducibility of the pulps is typical of projects where there is particulate gold. This is similar to the result for preparation duplicates in previous reports. In general, the reproducibility for the duplicates in the current period is similar to previous periods and within expected ranges. Drill core duplicates were inserted 919 times. There were a total of 23 cases where the differences between drill core duplicates were greater than 100% and average assays were greater than 0.5 g/t Au. There is no bias evident between original and duplicate halves of the drill core. It is therefore assumed that there has been no bias introduced by preferentially submitting the more mineralized half of the core for assay. These variations are typical of core duplicates for gold projects and no changes in procedures are recommended at this time. A total of 535 sample pulps (~2% of the samples) were submitted to ALS-Chemex, Vancouver for check assays (original samples were assayed at SGS) for the period October 2009 to January 2010. A total of 21 RMs were inserted with the samples for check assays sent to ALS-Chemex. ALS-Chemex gold assays are low on average by 5% relative to expected values on all five RMs. There were no QC failures. There should be a near equal number of cases where one laboratory reports higher than the other, and vice versa which is the case for these 521 samples with Au concentrations greater than five times detection limit. The average Relative Percent Difference (relative to the mean of the two laboratory results) was less than 1%, indicating that SGS assays are not biased when compared to the ASL-Chemex assays on the suite of samples selected for check assays. Detour Lake Projects Assay Quality Control Program Analytical Solutions Ltd. February 2010 www.explorationgeochem.com
27
However, it should be pointed out that ALS-Chemex reported on average 5% low on the reference materials included with samples which may also suggest that SGS assays are conservative. There has been no audit of the ALS-Chemex sample preparation or laboratory facilities. An audit of SGS Laboratory at Don Mills, Ontario was conducted on October 24, 2008 and various recommendations were suggested.
OVERVIEW OF THE DETOUR LAKE PROJECT (ONTARIO) ASSAY QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM (October 2009 to January 2010)
APPENDIX 1: Graphs for Laboratory Pulp Duplicates

1,000.0000
100.0000
+20%
10.0000
-20%
1.0000
0.1000
0.0100
0.0010
0.0001 0.0001
0.0010
0.0100
0.1000
1.0000
10.0000
100.0000
1,000.0000
Original Gold (g/t)

250
200 150 100 50 0 -50 -100 -150 -200 -250 0.0010
0.0100
0.1000
1.0000
10.0000
100.0000
Average Gold (g/t)

250
200 150 100 50 0 -50 -100 -150 -200 -250 780000
790000
800000
810000
820000
830000
840000
850000
860000
870000
Sample No. (Dxxxxxx)
APPENDIX 2: Graphs for Preparation Duplicates

1,000.0000
100.0000
+20%
10.0000
-20%
1.0000
0.1000
0.0100
0.0010
0.0001 0.0001
0.0010
0.0100
0.1000
1.0000
10.0000
100.0000
1,000.0000
Original Gold (g/t)

250
200 150
100 50
-50 -100
-150 -200
-250 0.001
0.010
0.100
1.000
10.000
100.000
Average Gold (g/t)

10,000
-10,000
-20,000
-30,000
-40,000
-50,000 0.001
0.010
0.100
1.000
10.000
100.000
Detour Gold - Preparation Duplicates (N = 1,072) (y-axis capped at +500%)

500 400 300 200 100 0 -100 -200 -300 -400 -500 0.001
0.010
0.100
1.000
10.000
100.000
APPENDIX 3: Graphs for Drill Core Duplicates

1,000.0000
100.0000
10.0000
+20% -20%
1.0000
0.1000
0.0100
0.0010
0.0001 0.0001
0.0010
0.0100
0.1000
1.0000
10.0000
100.0000
1,000.0000

250 200
Relative Percent Difference (Original Half-Core Assay less Duplicate Half-Core Assay with respect to Average Assay) (%)
150 100 50 0 -50 -100 -150 -200 -250 0.001
0.010
0.100
1.000
10.000
100.000
Average Gold (g/t)
Appendix C: Site Layouts
June 2010
QPF-0012/B

Detour Lake Project Technical Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Detour Lake Project Technical Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technical Report Feasibility Study

of the DETOUR LAKE PROJECT, Ontario for Detour Gold Corporation

43-101 Technical Report June 30, 2010

S:\Detour Lake Project\Technical Reports\2010-04draft\Technical Report_v6.docx

S:\Detour Lake Project\Technical Reports\2010-04draft\Technical Report_v6.docx

S:\Detour Lake Project\Technical Reports\2010-04draft\Technical Report_v6.docx

S:\Detour Lake Project\Technical Reports\2010-04draft\Technical Report_v6.docx

S:\Detour Lake Project\Technical Reports\2010-04draft\Technical Report_v6.docx

S:\Detour Lake Project\Technical Reports\2010-04draft\Technical Report_v6.docx

Strip Ratio 3.32

S:\Detour Lake Project\Technical Reports\2010-04draft\Technical Report_v6.docx

S:\Detour Lake Project\Technical Reports\2010-04draft\Technical Report_v6.docx

S:\Detour Lake Project\Technical Reports\2010-04draft\Technical Report_v6.docx

S:\Detour Lake Project\Technical Reports\2010-04draft\Technical Report_v6.docx

S:\Detour Lake Project\Technical Reports\2010-04draft\Technical Report_v6.docx

S:\Detour Lake Project\Technical Reports\2010-04draft\Technical Report_v6.docx

S:\Detour Lake Project\Technical Reports\2010-04draft\Technical Report_v6.docx

S:\Detour Lake Project\Technical Reports\2010-04draft\Technical Report_v6.docx

INTRODUCTION AND TERMS OF REFERENCE

S:\Detour Lake Project\Technical Reports\2010-04draft\Technical Report_v6.docx

S:\Detour Lake Project\Technical Reports\2010-04draft\Technical Report_v6.docx

S:\Detour Lake Project\Technical Reports\2010-04draft\Technical Report_v6.docx

S:\Detour Lake Project\Technical Reports\2010-04draft\Technical Report_v6.docx

RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS

S:\Detour Lake Project\Technical Reports\2010-04draft\Technical Report_v6.docx

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION

Figure 4-1: Detour Lake Property Location

S:\Detour Lake Project\Technical Reports\2010-04draft\Technical Report_v6.docx

S:\Detour Lake Project\Technical Reports\2010-04draft\Technical Report_v6.docx

Description Purchased Claims Block A (50% Detour Gold)

Total 10 3 4 145 36 53 69 320

Figure 4-2: Detour Lake Property Claim Location Map (1)

S:\Detour Lake Project\Technical Reports\2010-04draft\Technical Report_v6.docx

Buy-out Option $1,000,000 none $1,000,000 none none

S:\Detour Lake Project\Technical Reports\2010-04draft\Technical Report_v6.docx

S:\Detour Lake Project\Technical Reports\2010-04draft\Technical Report_v6.docx

ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPY

S:\Detour Lake Project\Technical Reports\2010-04draft\Technical Report_v6.docx

S:\Detour Lake Project\Technical Reports\2010-04draft\Technical Report_v6.docx

S:\Detour Lake Project\Technical Reports\2010-04draft\Technical Report_v6.docx

S:\Detour Lake Project\Technical Reports\2010-04draft\Technical Report_v6.docx

S:\Detour Lake Project\Technical Reports\2010-04draft\Technical Report_v6.docx

S:\Detour Lake Project\Technical Reports\2010-04draft\Technical Report_v6.docx

S:\Detour Lake Project\Technical Reports\2010-04draft\Technical Report_v6.docx

Figure 7-1: Regional Geology Map of the Detour Lake Area

S:\Detour Lake Project\Technical Reports\2010-04draft\Technical Report_v6.docx

S:\Detour Lake Project\Technical Reports\2010-04draft\Technical Report_v6.docx

Figure 7-3: Geology of the Detour Lake Mine District

S:\Detour Lake Project\Technical Reports\2010-04draft\Technical Report_v6.docx

Figure 7-4: Geological Section A-A View at 19,360 (looking west)

S:\Detour Lake Project\Technical Reports\2010-04draft\Technical Report_v6.docx

Figure 7-5: Geological Section B-B View at 18,500E (looking west)

S:\Detour Lake Project\Technical Reports\2010-04draft\Technical Report_v6.docx

S:\Detour Lake Project\Technical Reports\2010-04draft\Technical Report_v6.docx

Figure 7-6: Talc-Chlorite Altered Ultramafic Unit

Figure 7-7: Potassically Altered Pillow Flow

S:\Detour Lake Project\Technical Reports\2010-04draft\Technical Report_v6.docx

Figure 7-8: Quartz Veins within Massive Mafic Flow

S:\Detour Lake Project\Technical Reports\2010-04draft\Technical Report_v6.docx

Figure 7-9: Contoured Poles of Quartz Veins (Orientated Drill Core)

+16S +14S +12S +10S +8S

+6S +4S +2S E