Yaoure Gold PEA Shows Robust Economics

Technical Report and
Preliminary Economic Assessment of the

Yaoure Gold Project, Cte dIvoire
AMARA MINING PLC
Effective Date: 25 April 2014
Prepared By
Bruce Van Brunt

Group Technical Manager
Amara Mining Plc
In accordance with the Requirements
of National Instrument 43-101
PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

YAOURE GOLD PROJECT CTE DIVOIRE
APRIL 2014
D ATE AN D SI GN ATUR E P AGE

This report has been prepared and signed for by the following Qualified Persons (within the meaning
of National Instrument 43-101). The effective date of this report is 25 April 2014.
Signed the 25 April 2014
________________
Bruce Van Brunt
Fellow AusIMM, Member SME
Group Technical Manager, Amara Mining PLC.
Report Date and Signature Page 1

APRIL 2014

APRIL 2014

APRIL 2014

APRIL 2014

APRIL 2014

APRIL 2014
EX E CUTI V E SUM M ARY
Amara Mining Plc (Amara) presents the results of a Preliminary Economic Assessment
(PEA) of its 100% owned Yaoure gold project (Yaoure Project, Yaoure or Project) in
Cte dIvoire, West Africa.
The PEA supports a large scale operation, with favourable metallurgy and low
operating costs, which yields a strong financial performance at USD 1,250 per ounce
gold and offers significant scope for future project optimisation.
The study evaluated throughput scenarios of 5, 6.5 and 8 Mt/a and two different two
different sized open pit scenarios. An option for a small scale oxide heap leaching
operation has also been included in the report. The highlights of the Headline and Base
cases are provided below, with the results of the cases in the summary Table 1.
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE 8 MT/A HEADLINE CASE:
The PEA establishes the robust economic and technical viability of the Headline
Case 8 million tonne per annum operation at Yaoure, producing 325,000 ounces
per annum (average) over 12 years of mine life.
At an 8% discount rate, the post-tax net present value of the project is

USD 688 million at a gold price of USD 1,250 per ounce.
Post-tax cumulative net cash flow is USD 1,510 million, generating an IRR of 32%
and payback period of 2.4 years at USD 1,250 per ounce gold.
Mining from a single open pit using owner-operated equipment, with a strip ratio of
5.2:1, and a conventional whole ore leach processing plant, result in operating cash
costs (excluding royalties) over the life of mine of USD 598 per ounce.
Pre-production capital costs are USD 408 million, with sustaining capital over the
life of mine of USD 146 million, setting All-In Costs (including capital) of USD 792
per ounce.
Yaoures resilience to lower gold prices is demonstrated by the project achieving an

IRR of 23% at a lower gold price of USD 1,100 per ounce.
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE 6.5 MT/A BASE CASE:
The PEA establishes similar economics and the technical viability of the Base
Case 6.5 million tonne per annum scenario at Yaoure, producing 279,000 ounces
per annum (average) over 10 years of mine life.
At an 8% discount rate, the post-tax net present value of the project is

USD 613 million at a gold price of USD 1,250 per ounce.
Post-tax cumulative net cash flow is USD 1,260 million, generating an IRR of 33%
and payback period of 2.6 years at USD 1,250 per ounce gold.
Open pit mining from a single pit using owner-operated equipment with a strip ratio
of 4.9:1 and a conventional whole ore leach processing plant, provide operating
cash costs (excluding royalties) over the life of mine of USD 537 per ounce.
Executive Summary I

APRIL 2014
Pre-production capital costs are USD 357 million, with sustaining capital over the
life of mine of USD 89 million, setting All-In Costs (including capital) of USD 743 per
ounce.
The Base Case also shows resilience to lower gold prices as demonstrated by the
project achieving an IRR of 25% at a lower gold price of USD 1,100 per ounce.
A conventional whole ore leach plant has been designed to process Yaoures
substantial sulphide resource, achieving a recovery rate of 95%. Project economics are
assisted by the low energy cost of 9 c/kWh, a high gold recovery, and a strip ratio of
around 5:1. These factors result in moderate operating cash costs and provide quick
payback and strong cash flows from the operation. The results strongly support
continued investment in the project
The project demonstrates solid economics over a range of scales and gold price
scenarios, providing a number of options for development. The PEA explored a number
of processing and scale scenarios, and has also identified further opportunities for
optimisation work in the following areas:
Staged development approach to reduce up-front capital;

Reduced operating and capital costs through improvements in mine and
infrastructure layout utilising project topography;
In-fill drilling to improve strip ratio and resource size;
Selective mining of the CMA zone to increase average processed grade;
Increased size of mining equipment to reduce operating costs;
SAG milling to reduce processing costs, subject to confirmatory test work;
Other processing routes such as pre-concentration via flotation to be explored to
see if cost savings possible; and
Kalsaka/Sega heap leach plant relocation for smaller oxides starter operation.
Executive Summary II

APRIL 2014
Table 1: Key Project Parameters Table 1.1:
5 Mt/a
USD 800/oz
Pit Design
6.5 Mt/a
BASE
CASE
USD 800/oz
Pit Design
6.5 Mt/a
USD 950/oz
Pit Design
8 Mt/a
HEADLINE
CASE
USD 950/oz
Pit Design
Annual Production (Mt)
5.0
6.5
6.5
8.0
Mine Life (Yrs)
13
10
15
12
Ore Mined (Mt)
63.9
63.9
94.6
94.6
Average Grade (g/t)
1.53
1.53
1.39
1.39
Waste Mined (Mt)
314
314
492
492
Total Material (Mt)
378
378
587
587
Strip Ratio (t w:o)
4.9
4.9
5.2
5.2
3.1
3.1
4.2
4.2
Mining
Processing
Contained gold (Moz)
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
Gold Produced (Moz)
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
Annual Average Output (koz)
216
279
265
325
265
282
282
317
66
75
80
92
464
613
554
688
25
33
26
32
CIP Recovery (%)
Pre-Production Capital
Processing & Infrastructure
Mining (USD m)
Results
NPV (post-tax at 8%, USD m)
IRR (%)
Payback (Yrs)
Gold Price (USD/oz)
3.4
2.6
3.2
2.4
1,250
1,250
1,250
1,250
Executive Summary III

APRIL 2014
CONTENTS
1.0
SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1
Property Description and Location .............................................................................. 1-2
1.2
Geology and Mineralization ........................................................................................ 1-3
1.3
Exploration .................................................................................................................. 1-3
1.4
Process Development ................................................................................................. 1-5
1.5
Mineral Resource Estimates ....................................................................................... 1-6
1.6
Mining Methods ........................................................................................................... 1-7
1.6.1 Mine Development and Operations ............................................................... 1-7
1.7
Recovery Methods ...................................................................................................... 1-7
1.8
Project Infrastructure ................................................................................................... 1-9
1.9
Environmental ........................................................................................................... 1-11
1.10
Economic Analysis .................................................................................................... 1-11
1.10.1 Project capital costs ..................................................................................... 1-11
1.10.2 Operating costs ............................................................................................ 1-14
1.10.3 Economic analysis results ............................................................................ 1-15
1.11
Conclusions and recommendations .......................................................................... 1-16
1.11.1 Risks and opportunities ................................................................................ 1-17
1.11.2 Recommendations ....................................................................................... 1-18
2.0
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................... 2-19
2.1
Terms of Reference .................................................................................................. 2-19
2.2
Technical Report Preparation ................................................................................... 2-19
2.2.1 Sources of Information ................................................................................. 2-20
2.2.2 Site Visits ..................................................................................................... 2-20
2.3
Units and Currency ................................................................................................... 2-21
2.4
Glossary and Abbreviation of Terms......................................................................... 2-21
3.0
RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS ....................................................................................... 3-24

3.1
General Statement .................................................................................................... 3-24
3.2
Sources of Information .............................................................................................. 3-24
4.0
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION...................................................................... 4-26

4.1
Location ..................................................................................................................... 4-26
4.2
Property Description.................................................................................................. 4-26
4.3
Ownership and Title .................................................................................................. 4-27
5.0
ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND

PHYSIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................. 5-30
5.1
Accessibility............................................................................................................... 5-30
5.2
Physiography ............................................................................................................ 5-31
5.3
Climate ...................................................................................................................... 5-32
5.4
Infrastructure ............................................................................................................. 5-32
5.5
Local Resources ....................................................................................................... 5-33
6.0
HISTORY ............................................................................................................................... 6-34

6.1
Exploration and Mining ............................................................................................. 6-34
6.2
Historical Mineral Resource Estimates ..................................................................... 6-35
7.0
GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION ............................................................... 7-36

7.1
Regional Geology...................................................................................................... 7-36
7.2
Local Geology ........................................................................................................... 7-37
7.3
Project Geology......................................................................................................... 7-37
7.3.1 Stratigraphy .................................................................................................. 7-37
7.3.2 Intrusions ...................................................................................................... 7-37
7.3.3 Description of Lithologies ............................................................................. 7-40
7.3.4 Structure ....................................................................................................... 7-44
7.3.5 Metamorphism ............................................................................................. 7-47
7.3.6 Alteration ...................................................................................................... 7-47
Contents i
7.4
7.5
7.6

APRIL 2014
7.3.7 Deposits ....................................................................................................... 7-47
Mineralized Zones ..................................................................................................... 7-47
7.4.1 Yaoure Central ............................................................................................. 7-48
7.4.2 CMA North-Central ...................................................................................... 7-48
7.4.3 CMA South ................................................................................................... 7-49
7.4.4 CMA South-East .......................................................................................... 7-49
7.4.5 Cross-cutting Quartz Veins .......................................................................... 7-49
7.4.6 Cross sections and Relogging Exercise ...................................................... 7-49
Metallogeny and Paragenesis ................................................................................... 7-55
Summary of Field Characteristics of the Mineralization ............................................ 7-56
8.0
DEPOSIT TYPES ................................................................................................................... 8-57
9.0
EXPLORATION...................................................................................................................... 9-59
9.1
Coordinates, Datum Grid Control and Topographic Surveys ................................... 9-59
9.2
Summary of Exploration Activity ............................................................................... 9-59
9.3
Geological Mapping .................................................................................................. 9-59
9.4
Remote Sensing and Satellite Imagery..................................................................... 9-62
9.5
Geophysics ............................................................................................................... 9-62
9.6
Surface Geochemistry............................................................................................... 9-65
9.6.1 Stream Sediment Sampling ......................................................................... 9-65
9.6.2 Outcrop Sampling ........................................................................................ 9-66
9.6.3 Soil Geochemistry ........................................................................................ 9-67
9.6.4 Trenching and Pitting ................................................................................... 9-67
9.7
Geotechnical and Hydrology ..................................................................................... 9-70
9.8
Petrology, Mineralogy and Other Research Studies ................................................. 9-70
10.0
DRILLING ............................................................................................................................. 10-71

10.1
Summary of Drilling Activity .................................................................................... 10-71
10.2
Collar Coordinates .................................................................................................. 10-71
10.3
Downhole Surveys .................................................................................................. 10-73
10.3.1 Rotary Air Blast Drilling (RAB) ................................................................... 10-73
10.4
Yaoure Sulphide Project Drill Programme .............................................................. 10-73
10.5
RC Drilling ............................................................................................................... 10-74
10.6
Diamond Core Drilling Programme Phases ............................................................ 10-75
10.7
Diamond Core Drilling Methods .............................................................................. 10-78
10.7.1 Significant Drill Intersections ...................................................................... 10-82
11.0
SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY................................................... 11-84

11.1
Sampling Methods Approach .................................................................................. 11-84
11.1.1 Bulk Density Measurements ...................................................................... 11-84
11.1.2 Soil and Trenches ...................................................................................... 11-87
11.1.3 RC Drillhole Sampling ................................................................................ 11-87
11.1.4 Diamond Drill Core Samples...................................................................... 11-87
11.2
Sample Preparation and Analysis ........................................................................... 11-88
11.2.1 Soil Samples .............................................................................................. 11-88
11.2.2 RC and RAB Hole Samples ....................................................................... 11-88
11.2.3 Diamond Core Hole Samples (DDH) ......................................................... 11-88
11.3
Chain of Custody and Security ............................................................................... 11-89
11.4
Sample and Assay QA/QC ..................................................................................... 11-90
11.4.1 QA/QC Procedures and Submission - Drilling Phases 1-3. ....................... 11-90
11.4.2 QA/QC Procedures - Drilling Phases 1-3 .................................................. 11-90
11.4.3 Inter-Laboratory Checks Drilling Phases 1-3 ............................................. 11-91
11.4.4 SGS vs. Intertek Inter-Laboratory Check Drilling Phases 1-3 ................... 11-91
11.4.5 Intertek vs. ALS Inter-Lab check Drilling Phases 1-3 ................................ 11-94
11.4.6 Blanks Drilling Phases 1-3 ......................................................................... 11-96
11.4.7 Certified Reference Materials (CRM / SRM) Drilling Phases 1-3 .............. 11-97
11.4.8 Field Duplicate Samples Drilling Phases 1 through 3 ................................ 11-99
11.4.9 Screen Metallic Fire Assays ..................................................................... 11-101
Contents ii
11.5
11.6
11.7

APRIL 2014
Independent Review of QA/QC Results Drilling Phases 1-3 ................................ 11-102
QA/QC Results, Phase 4 ...................................................................................... 11-102
11.6.1 QA/QC Submissions ................................................................................ 11-103
11.6.2 Results ..................................................................................................... 11-104
11.6.3 Coarse Duplicate...................................................................................... 11-106
11.6.4 Pulp Duplicates ........................................................................................ 11-108
11.6.5 Blanks ...................................................................................................... 11-110
11.6.6 Cross Laboratory Checks ........................................................................ 11-110
Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 11-112
12.0
DATA VERIFICATION ....................................................................................................... 12-114

12.1
Data verification by Amara .................................................................................... 12-114
12.1.1 Site Visit ................................................................................................... 12-114
13.0
MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING.......................................... 13-116

13.1
Test Work Summary ............................................................................................. 13-116
13.1.1 Phase 1 tests April 2012 ....................................................................... 13-116
13.1.2 Leach variability tests December 2012 ................................................. 13-117
13.1.3 Phase 2 scoping tests May 2013 .......................................................... 13-118
13.1.4 Phase 3 tests November 2013.............................................................. 13-119
13.1.5 Summary .................................................................................................. 13-121
13.2
Process Options .................................................................................................... 13-121
13.2.1 Comminution ............................................................................................ 13-121
13.2.2 Pre-concentration ..................................................................................... 13-122
13.2.3 Leaching, adsorption and elution ............................................................. 13-123
13.2.4 Heap leaching .......................................................................................... 13-124
14.0
MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES ................................................................................ 14-125

14.1
Background ........................................................................................................... 14-125
14.2
Drill Hole Data ....................................................................................................... 14-125
14.2.1 Assay Data ............................................................................................... 14-126
14.2.2 Mineralization Envelope ........................................................................... 14-126
1.1
Geologic Data and Geologic Model ...................................................................... 14-128
14.2.3 Oxidation .................................................................................................. 14-130
14.2.4 Final Estimation Domains ........................................................................ 14-131
14.3
Compositing and Exploratory Data Analysis ......................................................... 14-135
14.3.1 Topography .............................................................................................. 14-137
14.4
Block Model ........................................................................................................... 14-138
14.5
Resource Estimation Strategy and Parameters .................................................... 14-140
14.6
Bulk Density Evaluation ........................................................................................ 14-141
14.7
Grade Capping and Indicator Statistics ................................................................ 14-142
14.7.1 Indicator Statistics .................................................................................... 14-143
14.8
Variography ........................................................................................................... 14-143
14.8.1 Gold Variograms ...................................................................................... 14-148
14.9
Grade Estimation .................................................................................................. 14-150
14.9.1 Estimation Procedures ............................................................................. 14-150
14.9.2 Post-processing MIK and IMOK estimates .............................................. 14-150
14.9.3 Model Validation....................................................................................... 14-152
14.10 Resource Classification ........................................................................................ 14-153
14.11 Mineral Resource and Grade-Tonnage ................................................................ 14-155
15.0
MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES ................................................................................... 15-157
16.0
MINING METHODS ........................................................................................................... 16-158

16.1
Pit Optimization ..................................................................................................... 16-158
16.1.1 Whittle model ........................................................................................... 16-158
16.1.2 Input parameters ...................................................................................... 16-158
16.1.3 Optimization Results ................................................................................ 16-159
16.2
Mine Design .......................................................................................................... 16-160
Contents iii
16.3
16.4
16.5
16.6

APRIL 2014
16.2.1 Lithology ................................................................................................... 16-161
16.2.2 Geotechnical Evaluation .......................................................................... 16-161
16.2.3 Final Pit Designs ...................................................................................... 16-163
16.2.4 Oxide (heap leach) pit designs ................................................................ 16-168
Mine Schedule ...................................................................................................... 16-169
16.3.1 Schedule Cases ....................................................................................... 16-169
16.3.2 Base case - USD 800 Pit Design, 6.5 Mt/a scenario ............................... 16-170
16.3.3 Other whole ore leach cases ................................................................... 16-171
16.3.4 Oxide case ............................................................................................... 16-171
Open Pit Mine Operation ...................................................................................... 16-172
16.4.1 Equipment ................................................................................................ 16-172
16.4.2 Drill & Blast ............................................................................................... 16-172
16.4.3 Loading .................................................................................................... 16-172
16.4.4 Haulage .................................................................................................... 16-173
16.4.5 Ancillary Equipment ................................................................................. 16-173
Manpower ............................................................................................................. 16-173
16.5.1 Staff .......................................................................................................... 16-174
Mine Layout ........................................................................................................... 16-174
17.0
RECOVERY METHODS .................................................................................................... 17-176

17.1
Sulphides Tank Leach ....................................................................................... 17-176
17.1.1 Crushing ................................................................................................... 17-176
17.1.2 Milling ....................................................................................................... 17-176
17.1.3 Leaching ................................................................................................... 17-176
17.1.4 Adsorption ................................................................................................ 17-177
17.1.5 Elution and Regeneration ........................................................................ 17-177
17.1.6 Electrowinning and Smelting .................................................................... 17-177
17.1.7 Tailings Management ............................................................................... 17-177
17.1.8 Reagents .................................................................................................. 17-178
17.2
Oxides - Heap Leach ............................................................................................ 17-180
17.2.1 Crushing and Agglomeration ................................................................... 17-180
17.2.2 Heap Leaching ......................................................................................... 17-180
17.2.3 Solution Recovery .................................................................................... 17-181
17.2.4 Adsorption ................................................................................................ 17-181
17.2.5 Desorption ................................................................................................ 17-182
17.2.6 Electrowinning and Smelting.................................................................... 17-182
18.0
PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE ........................................................................................ 18-184

18.1
Tailings Management Facility ............................................................................... 18-184
18.1.1 Site options study ..................................................................................... 18-184
18.1.2 Design criteria .......................................................................................... 18-193
18.1.3 General layout .......................................................................................... 18-194
18.1.4 Embankment fill material .......................................................................... 18-196
18.1.5 Depth Capacity Evaluation and Staged Construction .............................. 18-196
18.1.6 Tailings deposition ................................................................................... 18-198
18.1.7 Seepage collection ................................................................................... 18-198
18.1.8 Drainage Management ............................................................................ 18-198
18.1.9 Basal Liner ............................................................................................... 18-199
18.1.10 Closure ..................................................................................................... 18-199
18.1.11 Recommendations ................................................................................... 18-199
18.2
Water Supply......................................................................................................... 18-200
18.3
Heap Leach Design............................................................................................... 18-200
18.3.1 Site optimization ....................................................................................... 18-200
18.3.2 Design criteria .......................................................................................... 18-201
18.3.3 Solution management .............................................................................. 18-202
18.3.4 Solution control ........................................................................................ 18-202
18.3.5 Solution Collection ................................................................................... 18-202
18.3.6 Solution Corridor ...................................................................................... 18-202
Contents iv
18.4
18.5

APRIL 2014
18.3.7 Emergency discharge .............................................................................. 18-203
18.3.8 Process ponds ......................................................................................... 18-203
18.3.9 Closure ..................................................................................................... 18-203
Power Supply ........................................................................................................ 18-204
18.4.1 Consultations between Amara and CIE ................................................... 18-205
Access ................................................................................................................... 18-208
19.0
MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS ........................................................................... 19-210

19.1
Market Study ......................................................................................................... 19-210
19.1.1 Refining Charges, Gold Pricing & Revenue ............................................. 19-210
19.2
Contracts ............................................................................................................... 19-210
20.0
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMMITTING AND SOCIAL OR COMMUNITY IMPACT20-211

20.1
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 20-211
20.2
Critical Discussion and analysis ............................................................................ 20-211
20.2.1 Licences and Authorisations .................................................................... 20-211
20.2.2 Water Resources/Water use .................................................................... 20-213
20.2.3 ARD Issues .............................................................................................. 20-214
20.2.4 Flora and Fauna ....................................................................................... 20-214
20.2.5 Air Quality................................................................................................. 20-215
20.2.6 Noise ........................................................................................................ 20-215
20.2.7 Land acquisition and compensation issues ............................................. 20-216
20.2.8 Resettlement ............................................................................................ 20-216
20.2.9 Power and Energy ................................................................................... 20-216
20.2.10 Road Accesses and diversions ................................................................ 20-217
20.2.11 Abandoned equipment ............................................................................. 20-217
20.2.12 Illegal small scale mining operations ....................................................... 20-218
20.2.13 Social Investments ................................................................................... 20-218
20.2.14 Cultural heritage ....................................................................................... 20-218
20.3
Conclusion and Recommendations ...................................................................... 20-218
20.3.1 Recommendations ................................................................................... 20-219
21.0
CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS ................................................................................ 21-220

21.1
Processing and Infrastructure Capital Estimates .................................................. 21-220
21.1.1 Estimate Structure.................................................................................... 21-220
21.1.2 Estimate Basis ......................................................................................... 21-221
21.1.3 Estimation Method ................................................................................... 21-225
21.1.4 Qualifications and Clarifications ............................................................... 21-227
21.1.5 Processing and Infrastructure Capital Cost Summary ............................. 21-228
21.2
Mining Capital Estimates ...................................................................................... 21-233
21.2.1 Estimate Basis ......................................................................................... 21-233
21.2.2 Mining Equipment Fleet ........................................................................... 21-233
21.2.3 Sustaining capital ..................................................................................... 21-234
21.2.4 Mining capital costs summary .................................................................. 21-234
21.2.5 Oxide (heap leach) capital estimates ....................................................... 21-235
21.3
Capital cost summary............................................................................................ 21-235
21.4
Processing Operating Costs Estimate .................................................................. 21-236
21.4.1 Estimate Basis ......................................................................................... 21-236
21.4.2 Reagents and Consumables.................................................................... 21-236
21.4.3 Processing Operating Costs Estimate Summary..................................... 21-237
21.5
Mining Operating Costs Estimates ........................................................................ 21-238
21.5.1 Estimate Basis ......................................................................................... 21-238
21.5.2 Mining operating cost estimate summary ................................................ 21-243
21.5.3 Oxide (heap leach) mining operating cost estimate................................. 21-244
21.5.4 Other General and Administration costs .................................................. 21-244
22.0
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................... 22-246

22.1
Evaluation Method ................................................................................................ 22-246
22.1.1 Model Assumptions .................................................................................. 22-246
Contents v

APRIL 2014
22.1.2 Evaluation Results ................................................................................... 22-248
22.1.3 Sensitivity ................................................................................................. 22-252
22.1.4 Summary and discussion of scenarios .................................................... 22-253
23.0
ADJACENT PROPERTIES ................................................................................................ 23-254
24.0
OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION ............................................................. 24-255

24.1
Project development and implementation ............................................................. 24-255
24.1.1 Preliminary Feasibility Study (PFS) ......................................................... 24-255
24.1.2 Definitive Feasibility Study (DFS) ............................................................ 24-256
24.1.3 Front End Engineering and Project Execution ......................................... 24-256
25.0
INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS........................................................................ 25-257

25.1.1 Conclusions .............................................................................................. 25-258
25.1.2 Risks ........................................................................................................ 25-258
25.1.3 Opportunities ............................................................................................ 25-260
26.0
RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................... 26-262

26.1
Exploration ............................................................................................................ 26-262
26.2
Metallurgy/process Recommendations ................................................................. 26-263
26.3
Mining recommendations ...................................................................................... 26-264
27.0
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 27-265
T ABLE S
Table 1: Key Project Parameters ............................................................................................................ III
Table 1.1: Scenarios studied in the PEA .............................................................................................. 1-1
Table 1.2: Yaoure Total Mineral Resource, as at 1 December 2013.................................................... 1-6
Table 1.3: Material quantities contained in USD 800 & USD 950 Pit Designs ..................................... 1-7
Table 1.4: Pre-production Capital Cost Estimates - Process & Infrastructure .................................... 1-12
Table 1.5: Sustaining Capital Cost Estimates - Process & Infrastructure ........................................... 1-12
Table 1.6: 1.6 Mt/a Oxide Circuit (Heap Leach) Capital Cost Estimates ............................................ 1-12
Table 1.7: Capital Cost Estimates - Mining ......................................................................................... 1-13
Table 1.8: Total Capital Cost Estimates - Summary ........................................................................... 1-13
Table 1.9: Operating Cost Estimates .................................................................................................. 1-14
Table 1.10: Unit Cash Cost Estimates LOM .................................................................................... 1-15
Table 1.11: Fiscal Assumptions .......................................................................................................... 1-15
Table 1.12: Key Financial parameters by case ................................................................................... 1-16
Table 1.13: Base case NPV (USD m) & IRR sensitivity to discount rate and gold price .................... 1-16
Table 2.1: Glossary and Abbreviation of Terms.................................................................................. 2-21
Table 3.1: Report Authors ................................................................................................................... 3-25
Table 4.1: Mineral Tenure Information ................................................................................................ 4-27
Table 4.2: Coordinates of the Exploration Licence (EXPL 168) ......................................................... 4-28
Table 4.3: Coordinates of the New Exploration Licence (EXPL 397) ................................................. 4-29
Table 10.1: Summary of Drilling from 2009 to 2013 ......................................................................... 10-72
Table 10.2: Drilling Excluded from Resource Estimation .................................................................. 10-74
Table 10.3: Yaoure Diamond Drill Programme Phases .................................................................... 10-75
Table 10.4: Proportion of Core Sizes in Diamond Drilling ................................................................ 10-79
Table 10.5: Yaoure Intersections (> 50 m g/t) ............................................................................... 10-83
Table 11.1: In situ bulk dry densities by lithology and weathering code ........................................... 11-84
Table 11.2: Intertek Inter-Laboratory Check of SGS CRMs .......................................................... 11-91
Table 11.3: Summary Statistics of Check Assays - SGS vs. Intertek ............................................... 11-92
Table 11.4: Summary of Inter-Laboratory Check Intertek and ALS ............................................... 11-95
Table 11.5: Analysis of Certified Reference Materials at SGS and Intertek (All Rocklab Samples) 11-98
Table 11.6: Summary Statistics of Original Assays vs. Field Duplicate Assays ............................... 11-99
Table 11.7: Commercial Standards Characteristics ....................................................................... 11-103
Contents vi

APRIL 2014
Table 11.8: Yaoure Phase 4 Diamond Drilling - Descriptive Statistics of Coarse Duplicates ........ 11-107
Table 11.9: Yaoure Phase 4 Diamond Drilling - Descriptive Statistics of Pulp Duplicates ............. 11-109
Table 11.10: Yaoure Phase 4 Diamond Drilling ALS vs. Intertek Descriptive Statistics ........... 11-111
Table 13.1: Cyanidation Variability Test Results ............................................................................ 13-117
Table 13.2: Cyanidation Grind/Extraction Test Results .................................................................. 13-118
Table 13.3: Gravity Product Leaching Test Results ....................................................................... 13-119
Table 13.4: Falcon/Mozley Product Leaching Test Results ............................................................ 13-120
Table 13.5: Flotation Variability Test Results .................................................................................. 13-120
Table 13.6: Leach Type Test Results ............................................................................................. 13-120
Table 13.7: Leach Variability Test Results ...................................................................................... 13-121
Table 13.8: Relative costs of process options (at 5 Mt/a) ............................................................... 13-123
Table 14.1: List of Available Drill holes, Survey, Assay and Lithology Intervals ............................. 14-125
Table 14.2: Assay Intervals Inside 0.1 g/t grade shell; Statistics are length-weighted ................... 14-128
Table 14.3: Original and Simplified Geologic Codes. The second row shows the 11 Simplified Codes.
For a complete explanation of the Original codes, see W. Bonds report (2013b). ... 14-129
Table 14.4: Eleven Simplified Geologic Codes and their description ............................................. 14-130
Table 14.5: Rationalization of Weathering Codes into Oxide-Sulphide Domains........................... 14-131
Table 14.6: Final Geologic Codes that define Gold Estimation Domains ....................................... 14-133
Table 14.7: Length-weighted statistics, gold assays, 8 main units, below Base of W3 (sulphides) only14-135
Table 14.8: Length-weighted statistics, 2m gold Composites, 8 main units, below Base of W3
(sulphides) only .......................................................................................................... 14-136
Table 14.9: Model Dimensions and Cell Sizes ............................................................................... 14-139
Table 14.10: Model Fields and Codes ............................................................................................ 14-139
Table 14.11: Indicator Thresholds and Statistics, Domains FR+AC; and CV+EXT+INT+OTH ...... 14-143
Table 14.12: Indicator Thresholds and Statistics, Domains QV; AL+ALSH; and SH+ALFR .......... 14-143
Table 14.13: Search Parameters used for Gold and Indicator Estimates ...................................... 14-150
Table 14.14: Yaoure Total Mineral Resource ................................................................................. 14-155
Table 16.1: Coordinate limits and block size of the Whittle model ................................................. 16-158
Table 16.2: Whittle optimization results .......................................................................................... 16-159
Table 16.3: Resource quantities contained in USD800 & USD950 Pit Designs, at 0.5g/t cut-off .. 16-165
Table 16.4: Material quantities contained in USD 800 & USD 950 Pit Designs ............................. 16-166
Table 16.5: Primary CIP Scenarios scheduled ............................................................................... 16-169
Table 16.6: Base case 6.5 Mt/a CIP mining schedule .................................................................... 16-170
Table 16.7: Summary of CIP Cases scheduled tonnages .............................................................. 16-171
Table 16.8: Project Manning Base Case ..................................................................................... 16-173
Table 18.1: TMF Site Options Environmental Base Data ............................................................... 18-186
Table 18.2: TMF Environmental Ranking Scoring Criteria ............................................................. 18-187
Table 18.3: TMF Site Option Environmental Ranking .................................................................... 18-189
Table 18.4: TMF Site Option Technical Ranking Base Data Plant Option 1 ............................... 18-191
Table 18.5: TMF Site Option Technical Ranking Base Data Plant Option 2 ............................... 18-191
Table 18.6: TMF Site Option Technical Ranking Process Plant Option 1 ................................... 18-192
Table 18.7: TMF Site Option Technical Ranking Process Plant Option 2 ................................... 18-192
Table 18.8: TMF Site Option Overall Ranking Process Plant Option 1 ....................................... 18-193
Table 18.9: TMF Site Option Overall Ranking Process Plant Option 2 ....................................... 18-193
Table 18.10: CIE proposed power costs as of 22 March 2012 ....................................................... 18-206
Table 18.11: CIE proposed power costs as of 17 March 2014 ....................................................... 18-207
Table 18.12: Power connection Options ......................................................................................... 18-207
Table 21.1: Process Plant Mobile Equipment Fleet ........................................................................ 21-223
Table 21.2: Sulphides Plant and Infrastructure Capital Cost Estimate ........................................... 21-228
Table 21.3: Oxides Plant Capital Cost Estimate 1.6 Mt/a ............................................................ 21-230
Table 21.4: Schedule of Sustaining Capital Expenditure - Sulphides Plant 6.5Mt/a ................... 21-231
Table 21.5: Schedule of Sustaining Capital Expenditure - Oxides Plant ........................................ 21-232
Contents vii

APRIL 2014
Table 21.6: Sulphides Plant Closure Cost ...................................................................................... 21-232
Table 21.7: Oxides Plant Closure Cost ........................................................................................... 21-232
Table 21.8: Pre-production capital Mining Fleet .......................................................................... 21-233
Table 21.9: Sustaining capital Mining Fleet (LOM) ...................................................................... 21-234
Table 21.10: Mining Capital Cost Estimates Summary .................................................................. 21-235
Table 21.11: Total LOM Capital Cost Estimates - Summary .......................................................... 21-235
Table 21.12: Operating Cost Summary 6.5 Mt/a Sulphide Plant ................................................. 21-237
Table 21.13: Operating Cost Summary 5 Mt/a Sulphide Plant .................................................... 21-238
Table 21.14: Operating Cost Summary 8 Mt/a Sulphide Plant .................................................... 21-238
Table 21.15: Operating Cost Summary Oxide Plant .................................................................... 21-238
Table 21.16: Loading Equipment Parameters ................................................................................ 21-241
Table 21.17: Haulage parameters .................................................................................................. 21-242
Table 21.18: Truck Cycle Parameters ............................................................................................ 21-242
Table 21.19: Annual haulage requirements Base case ............................................................... 21-242
Table 21.20: Mining operating cost estimates summary ................................................................ 21-243
Table 21.21: G&A charges included in Mining & Processing costs ................................................ 21-244
Table 21.22: Other G&A charges .................................................................................................... 21-244
Table 22.1: Scenarios included in economic analysis .................................................................... 22-246
Table 22.2: Key assumptions in the economic evaluation .............................................................. 22-246
Table 22.3: Fiscal Assumptions ...................................................................................................... 22-247
Table 22.4: Sunk capital assumptions ............................................................................................ 22-247
Table 22.5: Summary results by Project case ................................................................................ 22-248
Table 22.6: Cash cost breakdown by Project case ......................................................................... 22-249
Table 22.7: Base case (6.5 Mt/a, USD 800 Pit Design) discounted cash flow model .................... 22-250
Table 22.8: Base case NPV (USD m) & IRR sensitivity to discount rate and gold price ................ 22-252
Table 22.9: Base case NPV (USD m) & IRR sensitivity to CAPEX ................................................ 22-253
Table 22.10: Base case NPV (USD m) & IRR sensitivity to OPEX ................................................ 22-253
Table 22.11: Base case NPV (USD m) & IRR sensitivity to gold production* ................................ 22-253
Table 26.1: Yaoure Infill Drilling Cost Estimates ............................................................................. 26-262
FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Project Location .................................................................................................................. 1-2
Figure 4.1: Location Map Yaoure Gold Project ................................................................................... 4-26
Figure 4.2: Yaoure Gold Project Land Tenure: Exploration Licences ................................................ 4-29
Figure 5.1: Location of the Yaoure Gold Project ................................................................................. 5-30
Figure 5.2: Yaoure Exploration Licence: Topography and Drainage .................................................. 5-31
Figure 5.3: Yaoure Gold Project - Typical Vegetation and Terrain: Looking North ............................ 5-32
Figure 5.4: CIE Hydroelectric Power Station, Kossou ........................................................................ 5-33
Figure 6.1: BRGM Gold-in-Soil Anomalies and Structural Trends...................................................... 6-35
Figure 7.1: Geological Map of Cte dIvoire and surrounding countries ............................................. 7-36
Figure 7.2: Simplified Geological Map of the Yaoure Area ................................................................. 7-38
Figure 7.3: Geology Map of the Yaoure Gold Deposit ........................................................................ 7-39
Figure 7.4: Oxidation of possible Granodiorite, Yaoure Central North Pit .......................................... 7-40
Figure 7.5: Oxidized Pillow Basalt, Yaoure Central South Pit ............................................................ 7-42
Figure 7.6: Polymict Volcaniclastite with Felsic to Intermediate Matrix .............................................. 7-42
Figure 7.7: Basaltic Autolithic Volcaniclastite ...................................................................................... 7-43
Figure 7.8: Mafic Lapilli Tuff with Alteration Rims around Lapilli ........................................................ 7-43
Figure 7.9: Granodiorite with Mafic Xenoliths ..................................................................................... 7-44
Figure 7.10: Fresh Porphyry with Plagioclase and Mafic Phenocrysts ............................................... 7-44
Figure 7.11: Interpreted Structures in the Vicinity of the Yaoure Gold Deposit .................................. 7-45
Figure 7.12: PNG Reinterpretation of Magnetic and Radiometric Data .............................................. 7-46
Figure 7.13: Drill Section 777680 mN (7500 mN local) after relogging .............................................. 7-50
Contents viii

APRIL 2014
Figure 7.14: Original Drill Section 777680 mN (7500 mN local) section from May 2013 NI 43-101
Technical Report ............................................................................................................ 7-51
Figure 7.15: Simplified Drill Section 777680 mN (7500 mN local) ..................................................... 7-52
Figure 7.16: Drill Section 776680 mN (6500 mN local) after relogging .............................................. 7-53
Figure 7.17: Simplified Drill Section 776680 mN (6500 mN local) ..................................................... 7-54
Figure 7.18: Key for Major Units from Relogging Exercise ................................................................. 7-55
Figure 8.1: Geology Map of West Africa showing Gold Deposits ....................................................... 8-57
Figure 9.1: Map Showing Prospects near to the Yaoure Gold Deposit .............................................. 9-60
Figure 9.2: Geological Mapping - Yaoure Central North (Prospect 4) Pit. Level 215 mRL ................ 9-61
Figure 9.3: Composite Natural Colour Image over the Yaoure Mine Site .......................................... 9-63
Figure 9.4: Remote Sensing Interpretation Simplified Geology of Exploration Licence Area ......... 9-64
Figure 9.5: Aeromagnetic Survey - Analytical Signal of the Total Magnetic Intensity ........................ 9-65
Figure 9.6: Results of Stream Sediment Sampling Showing Anomalous Catchment Areas .............. 9-66
Figure 9.7: Results of Soil Sampling Throughout the Exploration Licence ......................................... 9-68
Figure 9.8: Soil Sampling Results in the Vicinity of the Yaoure Gold Deposit .................................... 9-69
Figure 9.9: UCC Normalized Plots Mineralized Samples ................................................................... 9-70
Figure 10.1: Diamond Core Drilling Rig: CMA North (Infilled) Pit ..................................................... 10-75
Figure 10.2: Yaoure Sulphide Drilling Phases and Locations ........................................................... 10-76
Figure 10.3: Yaoure Sulphide Project Diamond Drillhole Traces ..................................................... 10-81
Figure 10.4: Marking the Bottom of a Run for Core Orientation ....................................................... 10-82
Figure 11.1: Check Densities, BV vs. Amara, Yaoure. ..................................................................... 11-85
Figure 11.2: Cumulative Relative Difference Plot, Check Densities, BV vs. Amara, Yaoure. .......... 11-86
Figure 11.3: Cumulative Frequency Plot, Check Densities, BV vs. Amara, Yaoure......................... 11-86
Figure 11.4: Correlation Plot - SGS vs. Intertek................................................................................ 11-92
Figure 11.5: QQ Plot - SGS vs. Intertek ............................................................................................ 11-93
Figure 11.6: HARD Plot - SGS vs. Intertek ....................................................................................... 11-93
Figure 11.7: Histogram of Relative Percentage Difference SGS vs. Intertek ................................ 11-94
Figure 11.8: Scatter Plot - Intertek vs. ALS....................................................................................... 11-95
Figure 11.9: Quantile-Quantile (QQ) Plot - Intertek vs. ALS ............................................................. 11-96
Figure 11.10: HARD Plot - Intertek vs. ALS ...................................................................................... 11-96
Figure 11.11: Results of Blank Control Samples .............................................................................. 11-97
Figure 11.12: Field Duplicate Correlation Analysis ........................................................................... 11-99
Figure 11.13: Field Duplicate Analysis - Mean Pairs vs. Relative Difference ................................. 11-100
Figure 11.14: Field Duplicate HARD Analysis ................................................................................ 11-101
Figure 11.15: Original Fire Assay vs. Metallic Screen Fire Assay (All Data) .................................. 11-101
Figure 11.16: Original Fire Assay vs. Metallic Screen Fire Assay (with 3 Outliers Removed) ....... 11-102
Figure 11.17: ROCKLABS OXA89 Plot .......................................................................................... 11-105
Figure 11.18: ROCKLABS 0XE106 Plot ......................................................................................... 11-105
Figure 11.19: ROCKLABS OXI96 Plot ............................................................................................ 11-105
Figure 11.20: ROCKLABS SI64 Plot ............................................................................................... 11-106
Figure 11.21: ROCKLABS SL61 Plot .............................................................................................. 11-106
Figure 11.22: Yaoure Phase 4 drilling - Scatter Plot of Coarse Duplicates .................................... 11-107
Figure 11.23: Yaoure Phase 4 Diamond Drilling - QQ Plot of Coarse Duplicates .......................... 11-108
Figure 11.24: Yaoure Phase 4 Diamond Drilling HARD Plot of Coarse Duplicates .................... 11-108
Figure 11.25: Yaoure Phase 4 Diamond Drilling - Scatter Plot of Pulp Duplicates ........................ 11-109
Figure 11.26: Yaoure Phase 4 Diamond Drilling Quantile-Quantile Plot of Pulp Duplicates ....... 11-110
Figure 11.27: Yaoure Phase 4 Diamond Drilling HARD Analysis of Pulp Duplicates ................. 11-110
Figure 11.28: Yaoure Phase 4 Diamond Drilling ALS vs. Intertek Assay Plot ............................. 11-111
Figure 11.29: Yaoure Phase 4 Diamond Drilling ALS vs. Intertek QQ Plot .............................. 11-112
Figure 11.30: Yaoure Phase 4 Diamond Drilling ALS vs. Intertek HARD Plot ......................... 11-112
Figure 13.1: Phase 1 Test Bottle Roll Kinetic Extraction Curve ...................................................... 13-117
Figure 14.1: Modelling Boundary and Constrained Drilling Data .................................................... 14-126
Contents ix

APRIL 2014
Figure 14.2: Perspective view of 0.1 g/t Gold Grade Envelope and Drill holes, looking from SW . 14-127
Figure 14.3: E-W Section: Initial Grade Shell and Final Mineralized Shells, Section 776,880 ....... 14-127
Figure 14.4: Cross Sectional view (Sec. 776,880N) of Base of W3 surface (in brown),
oxides/sulphides interface, in relation to drill holes and 0.1 g/t grade shell ............... 14-131
Figure 14.5: Quantile-Quantile plot, gold grades, Altered and Altered-Sheared vs. Quartz Veins . 14-132
Figure 14.6: Quantile-Quantile plot, gold grades, Altered and Altered-Sheared vs. Quartz Veins . 14-132
Figure 14.7: Box plot, gold assays, 8 main units, below Base of W3 (sulphides) only ................... 14-135
Figure 14.8: Probability plot, gold 2m composites, CMA, below Base of W3 (sulphides) .............. 14-136
Figure 14.9: Probability plot, gold 2m composites, Oxides, above Base of W3 ............................. 14-137
Figure 14.10: Topography Plan View, Yaoure Project .................................................................... 14-138
Figure 14.11: CMA Pit Surface Cross Section N776,980 ............................................................... 14-138
Figure 14.12: Cross Section (776980N), Lithological Units ............................................................ 14-140
Figure 14.13: Histogram and basic statistics, Above Base of W3 .................................................. 14-141
Figure 14.14: Histogram and basic statistics, Above Base of W3 .................................................. 14-142
Figure 14.15: Indicator Variogram Model, 0.2 g/t gold; Domains QV; AL; ALSH; SH; ALFR; horizontal
slices through ellipsoid of continuity; note the N40W azimuth .................................. 14-144
Figure 14.16: Indicator Variogram Model, 0.2 g/t gold; Domains QV; AL; ALSH; SH; ALFR; E-W cross
sectional slices through ellipsoid of continuity; note the 25-30 dip to the East ......... 14-145
Figure 14.17: Indicator Variogram Model, 0.2 g/t gold; Domains QV; AL; ALSH; SH; ALFR;
Longitudinal slices through ellipsoid of continuity ...................................................... 14-145
Figure 14.18: Indicator Variogram Model, 2.0 g/t gold; Domains QV; AL; ALSH; SH; ALFR; horizontal
slices through ellipsoid of continuity; note the almost NNW azimuth ......................... 14-146
Figure 14.19: Indicator Variogram Model, 2.0 g/t gold; Domains QV; AL; ALSH; SH; ALFR; E-W cross
sectional slices through ellipsoid of continuity; note the 50 dip to the East (steeper for
higher grades) ............................................................................................................ 14-147
Longitudinal slices through ellipsoid of continuity ...................................................... 14-147
Figure 14.21: Correlogram Model, Sulphides; horizontal slices through ellipsoid of continuity; observe
how the main anisotropy is in the expected NNW direction, but there is a structure with a
NE continuity, interpreted to correspond to higher grades......................................... 14-148
Figure 14.22: Correlogram Model, Sulphides; E-W cross sectional slices through ellipsoid of
continuity; note the dip at about -30 to East ............................................................. 14-149
Figure 14.23: Correlogram Model, Oxides; Longitudinal slices through ellipsoid of continuity ...... 14-149
Figure 14.24: Block with Gold Grade Estimates, Section 776,980N .............................................. 14-151
Figure 14.25: Block with Gold Grades Estimates, Section 776,720N ............................................ 14-151
Figure 14.26: Swath plot, Gold, CMA, Northings ............................................................................ 14-152
Figure 14.27: Swath plot, Gold; Domains QV, AL, ALSH, SH, ALFR; Eastings ............................. 14-152
Figure 14.28: Resource Classification, Cross Section 776,880N ................................................... 14-155
Figure 16.1: Whittle optimization results - pit by pit graph .............................................................. 16-160
Figure 16.2: The USD 950 pit design showing the location of oxide (brown) and fresh (green) rock in
the pit wall and the measured slope angles in various sectors. ................................. 16-162
Figure 16.3: Pit design based on the USD 800 gold price .............................................................. 16-164
Figure 16.4: Pit design based on the USD 950 gold price .............................................................. 16-164
Figure 16.5: Cross section at 7100 N of Block model and USD 950 vs USD 1500 pits ................. 16-165
Figure 16.6: Cross section at 6900 N of USD 950 Pit Design, showing Yaoure and CMA zones . 16-167
Figure 16.7: Cross section at 6900 N of Block Model & USD 950 Pit Design ................................ 16-167
Figure 16.8: Heap Leach (oxides) pit designs ................................................................................ 16-168
Figure 16.9: Base case 6.5 Mt/a CIP mining schedule ................................................................... 16-171
Figure 16.10: Mine layout ................................................................................................................ 16-175
Figure 17.1: Block Flow Diagram Sulphides Treatment Plant ..................................................... 17-179
Figure 17.2: Block Flow Diagram Oxides Treatment Plant. ......................................................... 17-183
Figure 18.1: Tailing Management Site Options............................................................................... 18-184
Contents x

APRIL 2014
Figure 18.2: TMF General Layout ................................................................................................... 18-194
Figure 18.3: TMF Embankment Typical Sections ........................................................................... 18-195
Figure 18.4: TMF Depth Capacity Curves ...................................................................................... 18-197
Figure 18.5: Heap Leach Facility General Layout........................................................................... 18-201
Figure 18.6: Kossou Dam ............................................................................................................... 18-208
Figure 20.1: Site Map used for Field Tour ...................................................................................... 20-212
Figure 20.2: Photos of Algae colonized ponds & Typha and algae colonized pond....................... 20-214
Figure 20.3: Photos of Electrical Pylons ......................................................................................... 20-217
Figure 22.1: Project NPV sensitivity Base case ........................................................................... 22-252
Figure 23.1: Adjacent Properties to Amaras Yaoure Licence Area ............................................... 23-254
Figure 24.1: Project Implementation Schedule Sulphides Plant .................................................. 24-255
APPENDICES
A
Appendix A:
B
Appendix B:
C
Appendix C:
D
Appendix D:
E
Appendix E:
F
Appendix F:
G
Appendix G:
H
Appendix H:
I
Appendix I:
J
Appendix J:
K
Appendix K:
L
Appendix L:
M
Appendix M:
N
Appendix N:
O
Appendix O:
P
Appendix P:
Process & Infrastructure Risks & Opportunities

Process Design Criteria Sulphides Plant
Process Design Criteria Oxides Plant
Design Criteria TMFs
Design Criteria Heap Leach
TMF Site Options
Typical TMF Sections
Heap Leach Pad Earthworks General Arrangement
Pit Sections
Opex Estimates Processing & Infrastructure
Sustaining Capital Processing & Infrastructure
Mining Cost Estimates
Manning
Mine Schedules and Discounted Cash Flow Models
Sensitivity Analysis
Qualified Persons Certificates
Contents xi

APRIL 2014
1.0
SUMMARY
This Technical Report has been prepared by Amara Mining Plc (Amara) for the Yaoure
gold project, located in the central (Vallee du Bandama) region of the Republic of Cte
dIvoire. The report is a Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) of the Project.
This study was overseen by Bruce Van Brunt, MEng of Amara. Amara commissioned
the following entities to review the following aspects of the project:
GeoSystems International, Inc. - Mineral Resources
AMEC Earth & Environmental UK Ltd Recovery Methods, Process Plant, Project
Infrastructure, Tailings Management Facility (TMF)
SGS Environmental Services Ltd Environmental, Permitting and Social Impact
The report has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of National
Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101), Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects, of the
Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) for lodgement on the CSAs System for
Electronic Document Analysis and Retrieval (SEDAR).
Scope and scenarios

Assessing the potential economics of the large, low grade sulphide resource at Yaoure
was the predominant focus of the study. This sulphide material makes up the bulk of
the Yaoure resource, representing 94% of the December 2013 Mineral Resource
estimate. A number of whole ore leach scenarios at throughput capacities ranging from
5 to 8Mt/a were evaluated, as well as a small scale heap leach operation focused on
the smaller oxide resource.
The scenarios covered by the PEA are summarized in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1: Scenarios studied in the PEA
Throughput
Process Circuit
Pit Design
Material
Nomenclature
5.0 Mt/a
Whole ore leach
USD800/oz
Oxide & sulphide
6.5 Mt/a
Whole ore leach
USD800/oz
Oxide & sulphide
6.5 Mt/a
Whole ore leach
USD950/oz
Oxide & sulphide
8.0 Mt/a
Whole ore leach
USD950/oz
Oxide & sulphide
headline case
1.6 Mt/a
Heap leach
Oxide
oxide case
base case
Cautionary statements
The purpose of this technical report is to present the PEA findings of the Project. The
contents of this report reflect various technical and economic conditions at the time of
writing. Given the nature of the mining business, these conditions can change
significantly over relatively short periods of time. Consequently, actual results may be
significantly more or less favourable.
Page 1-1

APRIL 2014
The reader is cautioned that the PEA summarized in this technical report is preliminary
in nature and is only intended to provide an initial, high-level review of the project.
Further studies are required with regards to the resource, infrastructure and operational
methodologies. The PEA mine plan and economic model include the use of a
significant portion of Inferred Resources that are considered to be too speculative
geologically to have economic considerations applied to them that would enable them
to be characterized as mineral reserves. There is no guarantee that Inferred Resources
can be converted to Indicated or Measured resources. There is no guarantee that the
project economics described herein would be achieved.
1.1
Property Description and Location

The Yaoure gold project is located in central Cte dIvoire in West Africa, 40 km
northwest of Yamoussoukro, the political capital, and 270 km north-west of Abidjan, the
economic capital of Cte dIvoire.
Figure 1.1: Project Location
The Yaoure project comprises two exploration licences granted to Amaras 100%
directly-owned subsidiary, Cluff Gold (WA) Cte dIvoire SARL. Both exploration
licences are due to expire on 9 August 2015 and cover a combined area of 141.76
square miles (367 km).
The site is accessed by paved national and main roads, with the last 5 km section of
the primary access west of the Kossou dam being gravel. Electrical power is supplied
by a 33 KV feeder line from the nearby 150 MW Kossou hydroelectric power station.
The population immediately surrounding the Yaoure gold project is estimated at about
5,000 local people from several villages. The main economic activities in the area are
pastoral and cultivated agriculture, forestry, artisanal mining, and fishing.
Page 1-2

APRIL 2014
Project history
Artisanal gold mining is known to have been conducted at the Yaoure site (previously
known as Angovia) since 1935. From 1946 to 1969, several exploration projects aimed
to assess the gold potential in quartz veins, and gold mineralization. Modern
exploration, in the form of regional soil and stream sediment geochemical sampling
programme, began in 1983 with the French Bureau de Recherches Geologiques et
Minires (BRGM), who defined two significant gold-in-soil anomalies. Subsequent work
through to 1991 consisted of geophysics, trenching and core drilling, with a focus on
the Angovia Prospect 1 which subsequently became the Compagnie Minire dAfrique
(CMA) mine.
An Exploitation Permit was granted to CMA in 1993, a feasibility study was completed
in 1994, and a heap leach oxide gold mining operation established in 1999. Production
continued until the mine closed towards the end of 2003. CMA reportedly extracted 1.9
million tonnes (Mt) of ore, with a mean plant feed grade of 3.9 g/t gold from three open
pits. Treatment of the oxidized ore reportedly achieved a mean recovery of
approximately 85%.
Amara acquired the exploration licence in 2004 and subsequently produced 54,382
ounces of gold from mining at Yaoure Central (formerly called Prospects 2 and 4) and
Blangan Hill from 2008 until January 2011.
The project then reverted to an exploration phase, focused on the underlying sulphide
resource. A large mineral resource was delineated in 2013 following a drill campaign
from 2011 to 2013.
1.2
Geology and Mineralization

The geology of the Yaoure deposit area is relatively simple. The majority of the Yaoure
Project area is underlain by mafic volcanics, which are predominantly massive and
pillowed basalts. The north part of the area is intruded by a massive granodiorite that
locally has a subtle porphyritic texture. Elsewhere, but mainly associated with the main
Yaoure Zone, there are numerous porphyry sills. A volcaniclastic unit, mainly of
epiclastic origin, is situated near the contact of the granodiorite to the north.
The mineralisation at Yaoure is contained within two shallow dipping (<30 Degrees)
gold bearing north-south trending packages controlled by a thick zone of brittle-ductile
shearing. The Yaoure Central package is a 200 metre thick, lower grade mineralised
zone with higher grade lenses and cross-cutting high grade sub-vertical quartz veins.
The CMA package is a more discrete, relatively continuous 20 metre thick zone
approximately 140 metres above the Yaoure Central body.
The PEA considers both the sulphide and oxide portions of the Yaoure deposit.
1.3
Exploration
Exploration on the licence has consisted of geological mapping, remote sensing,
satellite imagery and geophysics, and surface geochemistry sampling of streams,
outcrops, soils, trenches and pits. As targets were identified, drilling programmes were
Page 1-3

APRIL 2014
designed using, as required, rotary air blast (RAB), reverse circulation (RC) or diamond
core methods.
Between April 2009 and January 2011 and from June 2011 to October 2012, soil
sampling was carried out around several targets. Subsequently from November 2012
to August 2013 the regional soil sampling programme focused on the targets identified
by the airborne geophysical survey and the remote sensing interpretation. From
September 2013 to December 2013, further soil sampling was carried out within four
kilometres of the Yaoure deposit with the dual objectives of sterilising ground for future
mine planning purposes as well as delineating additional mineralized zones.
Drilling conducted by Amara between 2009 and 2013 has consisted of rotary air blast
(RAB), reverse circulation (RC), and diamond core drilling. Drilling was initiated in 2005
by testing the BRGM soil anomalies with reverse circulation (RC) drilling at the thennamed Prospects 2, 3 and 4, and Angovia 2. 53,056 m of RC drilling (775 holes) were
completed between 2005 and 2007; and in addition 6,484 m of diamond drilling (62
holes) were completed in 2007. As a consequence, resources were delineated at
Prospect 2 and Prospect 4 (now Yaoure Central pit) and Angovia 2.
In February 2009, a review of all available data identified the Blangan soil anomaly as a
target, subsequent RAB drilling of which was the basis of a resource definition, leading
to mining. The soil anomaly at Kongonza was tested with RC drilling in 2010, from
which a resource was delineated.
Exploration resumed in June 2011, including RAB drilling at the Zone North soil
anomaly from which a lateritic resource was defined. RAB drilling of soil anomalies
continued through the remainder of 2011 and up to October 2012, while RC drilling
resumed from October 2011 to October 2012.
In August 2011, the Yaoure sulphide diamond drilling project started. Diamond drilling
at the Yaoure gold project was carried out in four campaigns, testing an area of up to
2.1 km in an N-S direction and up to 1.4 km in an E-W direction. By June 2013, 152
holes comprising 47,300 m had been drilledtesting an area of up to about 2.1 km in
an N-S direction and up to about 1.4 km in an E-W direction. This drilling is the basis
for the Yaoure oxide and sulphide mineral resource estimates. Six diamond drill holes
(1,101 m) were also drilled at Kongonza in October 2011.
Phase 1 of the diamond drilling project, consisted of 23 drill holes, all collared within the
existing Yaoure Central pit to confirm results from 2005-2007 RC drilling, provide
structural information and to test cross-cutting steep veins. A further 24 holes drilled
during Phase 2 tested the continuity of north-south trending, shallow east-dipping
structures west of the Yaoure Central pit, on 100 m sections and at between 100 m and
340 m intervals. The Phase 3 outline drilling, of 59 holes, tested the extent of
potentially open pit minable sulphide mineralization around the Yaoure Central and
CMA pits. Phase 4 infill drilling, consisting of 46 holes, focused on CMA North-Central
and Yaoure Central South. Phase 4 infill diamond drilling started on 14 January 2013
and finished on 4 June 2013.
Page 1-4

APRIL 2014
1.4
Process Development
A number of options were evaluated at a high level based on preliminary test work
conducted by SGS for Amara. Whole ore cyanide leaching was found to be effective,
achieving gold extraction generally between 90 % and 96 % without excessive cyanide
consumption. Gold extraction was observed to be directly affected by the fineness of
grind down to a grind size of 80 % passing 106 m, below which there was minimal
benefit in grinding finer. Extraction was generally observed to peak after 24 hours
leaching and then reduce when leaching was continued to 48 hours. Leach tests in the
presence of activated carbon did not achieve higher leach extractions and hence
AMEC has recommended that direct cyanide leaching followed by carbon in pulp (CIP)
can be used. Aerated bottle roll tests yielded higher extractions than non-aerated tests.
Gravity concentration was able to recover approximately 30 % of the gold into a
concentrate. Leaching of the gravity tail was tested but the combined recovery from
concentrate and tailing was no greater than whole ore leaching and the overall cyanide
consumption was higher. Similarly, flotation achieved good recovery on some samples
but the combined flotation and leach recovery was lower than that achieved by whole
ore leaching. Flotation response between samples was variable.
The Bond ball mill Work Index was found to be 13.9 kWh/t, close to the median value
of the tests performed by SGS. The Bond rod mill Work Index was measured for one
composite sample and a value of 26.3 kWh/t was obtained. This ranks the Yaoure
material tested as among the hardest of all rocks tested by SGS.
Since the very limited testing to measure comminution parameters showed the rod mill
Work Index to be much higher than the ball mill Work Index, SAG milling has not been
considered for this study and staged crushing and ball milling has been costed.
Single stage ball milling is capable of creating a product of the size required for
effective leaching of the Yaoure material (80 % passing 106 m). For the purpose of
this study, a single mill has been selected as this option incurs the lowest capital
expenditure.
High level comparison of gravity concentration and flotation with whole ore treatment
has shown that neither concentration method has economic returns better than whole
ore cyanidation, therefore the PEA has been based on whole ore treatment.
Since high extraction was achieved by direct cyanidation this process (whole ore
processing via tank leach followed by CIP) has been used for the PEA. Leach
retention time of 24 hours and oxygen addition is predicted to realize a gold extraction
of 95 %.
No recent laboratory testing has been performed on the oxide rock type which lies
between the two existing open pit mines worked previously. For this study, it has been
assumed that the rocks in this zone are amenable to the tank and heap leaching under
the same conditions as used during the previous operational phases.
Further metallurgical test work will be undertaken to ensure the recovery, reagent
consumption and comminution parameters are fully representative of the Yaoure
Page 1-5

APRIL 2014
deposit as the project advances through feasibility. Further work will be performed to
confirm the process route selection for the sulphide material.
1.5
Mineral Resource Estimates

The Mineral Resource estimate was completed by GeoSystems International, Inc and
reported in January 2014. All material within the 0.1 g/t gold grade envelope was
defined as available for resource declaration. A Resource Pit was developed from the
block model, using a USD 1,500/oz. gold price and different recoveries and pit slopes
for oxide and sulphide mineralization. Gold grades were estimated using a combination
of multiple indicator kriging (MIK) for the broader Yaoure Central mineralized zone and
Indicator-modified kriging (IMOK) for oxides and the CMA zone.
Most of the resource has been classified as Inferred, although there are small volumes
of material up-dip that has been classified as Indicated. All oxide resources are
classified as Inferred. The results from the optimized Resource Pit shell are used
solely for the purpose of reporting mineral resources that have reasonable prospects
for economic extraction. The Resource Pit optimization was based on the following
economic parameters:
USD1,500/oz gold price,

6Mt/a throughput, bulk mining model
90% recoveries, 85% oxide heap leach.
USD11.67/t processing cost, including G&A of $1.67/t,
Mining cost of USD2.25/t + USD0.03 per 10m depth > 250mRL,
35o oxide pit slopes, 46o fresh slopes.
The Yaoure total Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources at cut-off grades of 0.5, 0.8,
and 1.0 g/t Au, are presented in Table 1.2.
Table 1.2: Yaoure Total Mineral Resource, as at 1 December 2013
Indicated
Inferred
Tonnes
Grade
Content
Tonnes
Grade
Content
(Mt)
(g/t)
(koz)
(Mt)
(g/t)
(koz)
0.5
20,286
1.20
778
133,030
1.29
5,518
0.8
13,340
1.48
637
85,731
1.65
4,554
1.0
10,043
1.68
541
65,575
1.89
3,974
Cut-off
1.
The effective date of the Yaoure Mineral Resource estimate is 1 December 2013.
2.
The gold price used in this estimate USD1,500/oz and assuming an open-pit mining scenario.
Oxides are being mined assuming Heap Leach economics, Sulphides assuming Flotation.
3.
Mineral resources which are not mineral reserves, do not have demonstrated economic viability.
4.
There are no known environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-economic, marketing, and
political or other relevant issues that may materially affect the resource estimates.
5.
Totals and average grades are subject to rounding to the appropriate precision and some columns
or rows may not compute exactly as shown.
A subset of this resource was used for the scenarios studied in the PEA with updated
parameters as outlined in Section 16.
Page 1-6

APRIL 2014
1.6
Mining Methods
1.6.1
Mine Development and Operations

Optimised pits targeting the CMA and Yaoure Central zones, which are developed and
mined as a single open pit, were selected for detailed design and scheduling. Two pits
were optimised using a USD 800 and USD 950 per ounce Whittle pit shell. For the
purposes of the PEA, these pits generated a subset of the Mineral Resource, based on
the material that is contained within each detailed pit design, which was used for the
LOM plan. The material contained in each of these pits which were used for planning
and scheduling purposes are shown in Table 1.3.
Table 1.3: Material quantities contained in USD 800 & USD 950 Pit Designs
Total
Waste
Strip Ratio
Tonnes
Grade
Content
(Mt)
(Mt)
(t/t)
(Mt)
(g/t)
(koz)
USD 800 Pit Design
377.7
313.8
4.9
63.9
1.53
3,140
USD 950 Pit Design
586.6
492.0
5.2
94.6
1.39
4,239
LOM Material
Notes
1. Totals and average grades are subject to rounding to the appropriate precision and some columns or
rows may not compute exactly as shown.
2. Effective cut offs for each pit are 0.59g/t for USD 800 and 0.49 g/t for USD 950 per ounce
The conceptual mine plan assumes drill and blasting, and mining with trucks and
shovels on an owner-operated basis. This delivers both oxide and sulphide material
containing gold to the processing plant. The resulting overall strip ratio is around 5:1.
Both Indicated and Inferred resources were used in the LOM plan with Inferred
resources representing circa 80% of the material mined for processing. Mineral
Resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
There is no certainty that all or any part of the mineral resources would be converted
into mineral reserves. Mineral reserves can only be estimated as a result of an
economic evaluation as part of a preliminary feasibility study (PFS) or a feasibility study
(FS) of a mineral project. Accordingly, at the present level of development, there are no
mineral reserves at the Yaoure Project.
Note the estimated grades of the resources include some geologic dilution through the
use of sub-blocking (onto partial blocks measuring 6.25 x 6.25 x 5 metres (on a parent
block basis measuring 25 x 25 x 10 metres). Blocks at the outer edge of the 0.1 g/t gold
envelope were diluted with 0 g/t grade. The stated resources include dilution in the
block model that relates to the level of low selectivity envisioned in a bulk open pit
operation, assuming 10m bench heights. No additional operational or mining dilution or
ore loss has been incorporated.
A smaller oxide only case was also run based on the potential relocation of Amaras
Kalsaka plant, mining 5.6 million tonnes of oxide material.
1.7
Recovery Methods
Based on the results of test work, AMEC proposed whole ore processing via tank
leach, followed by CIP processing for the sulphide circuit, as outlined below.
Page 1-7

APRIL 2014
Sulphide Circuit (conventional leach)

Haul trucks tip run-of-mine material into a hopper which feeds onto a vibrating grizzly
feeder (VGF). Oversize feeds a primary jaw crusher and crusher discharge is collected
on a conveyor with VGF undersize for delivery to secondary crushing and screening.
Oversize from the secondary screen passes through a cone crusher operating in
closed circuit. Secondary screen undersize is collected on a conveyor which delivers
to tertiary crushing and screening.
There are two parallel circuits for tertiary crushing and screening. The tertiary screens
are double deck units. Oversize from both decks passes through a cone crusher and is
conveyed back to the tertiary screens. Tertiary screen undersize is collected on the
final crusher product conveyor which delivers to a storage silo.
Crusher product from the silo is delivered onto a mill feed conveyor which discharges
into a ball mill. The ball mill operates in closed circuit, mill discharge entering a pump
box and being pumped to a cluster of hydrocyclones. Cyclone underflow returns to the
ball mill and cyclone overflow passes through vibrating screens for removal of trash.
The product from the milling section has a P80 of 106 m.
Gold is leached by cyanidation in a series of open, mechanically agitated tanks. Flow
between tanks is by gravity.
The pH of the slurry in the leach tanks is maintained in the range 10 11 by addition of
lime to the mill feed conveyor. Cyanide is provided by a strong solution of sodium
cyanide. Oxygen in the first two tanks is obtained from an oxygen plant on site and is
added to the slurry in a high shear reactor. Oxygen in the other tanks is provided by
the supply of low pressure compressed air.
Leached gold is recovered from solution by adsorption onto activated carbon using the
carbon-in-pulp (CIP) process. Slurry from leaching flows through a series of open,
mechanically agitated tanks by gravity. Each tank contains activated carbon which is
retained by mechanically swept interstage screens.
Pump Cells will be used as adsorption vessels, facilitating operation of the adsorption
section in carousel mode. Discharge from the last tank is screened to recover any
carbon that may be contained.
Loaded carbon from adsorption is eluted using the AARL method in which elution is
performed in open circuit followed by electrowinning. Carbon slurry from the first
adsorption tank passes over a vibrating screen, the carbon being washed and collected
in a hopper and the screen undersize returning to adsorption.
Loaded carbon is treated with dilute hydrochloric acid in an acid washing column and
then transferred to the elution column. Carbon is soaked in hot caustic cyanide solution
and then eluted with softened water. Eluate passes through electrowinning cells for
recovery of contained gold.
Page 1-8

APRIL 2014
Eluted carbon is regenerated in an electrically heated rotary kiln before returning to the
adsorption circuit.
Gold sludge is washed from the electrowinning cells cathodes, filtered, dried and
smelted before being cast into dor bars.
Undersize from the carbon safety screen is pumped to the tailings dam.
In general, ultraviolet light destructs cyanide in tailings on the TMF. A facility to
detoxify tailing slurry using the SO2/air process is installed and operated should the
cyanide concentration in tailing slurry or TMF decant water be higher than acceptable
levels. This facility will consist of an open, mechanically agitated tank with associated
equipment to dose sodium metabisulphite, copper sulphate and lime.
Oxides Circuit (Heap Leach)
The crushing, agglomeration, stacking and ADR circuit is sourced from Amaras
existing Kalsaka operation in neighbouring Burkina Faso.
Crushed and agglomerated oxide material is transported by a series of conveyors to a
movable stacker for deposition on a new heap leach pad. Stacked material will be drip
irrigated with a dilute solution of sodium cyanide which percolates through the heap.
Solution is collected by a network of pipes at the base of the heap and flows by gravity
to storage ponds. The resulting higher grade solution is collected in a pregnant leach
solution (PLS) pond and pumped to the adsorption/desorption/regeneration (ADR)
plant for treatment and gold recovery.
The heap leach pad is designed as a permanent type pad with 2 lifts of 7 m each.
1.8
Project Infrastructure
The project location benefits from good regional infrastructure due to the close
proximity to the 150MW Kossou Dam, located 10 kilometres away, which offers cheap
and reliable hydro-electric power (HEP) and abundant water, housing and excellent
roads connecting to the capital Yamoussoukro and the port of Abidjan.
Power supply
Based on tariff proposals from the Compagnie Ivoirienne dElectricite (CIE), Amara has
estimated an average power cost of 9c/kWh. This power cost is very low relative to
diesel generation and is a distinct advantage for Yaoure in terms of project economics.
The power demand for the 6.5 million tonne scenario is approximately 40MW, with an
average draw of 36MW.
Page 1-9

APRIL 2014
Tailings Management Facility

Tailings will be pumped to the Tailings Management Facility (TMF) via a dedicated
pipeline, where it will be subaerially discharged onto the upstream beach.
TMF prescriptive design criteria include the following:
Tailings production: 6.5 Mt/a

Minimum storage capacity: approximately 80 Mt
Life of Mine: approximately 13 years.
A number of potential options for TMF sites were identified. Following the initial data
review, a staged selection procedure was implemented which comprised a site ranking
of each option to identify the most promising, socially, environmentally and technically
acceptable sites in relation to the process plant. A preliminary assessment for
subsequent potential expansion of capacity of the candidate TMFs has also been
addressed.
Two of the four potential TMF sites, TMF 1 and TMF 2 were selected by Amara due to
their proximity to the selected is plant site. The Study addressed the construction and
subsequent development of these two facilities.
The current arrangement exhibits a minimal land take, optimises embankment length
and volume of construction material needed while also taking advantage of the natural
topography. To ensure that sufficient freeboard is maintained and to accommodate
initial high rates of rise the embankment will initially be formed by the downstream
method of construction. In the unlikely event that floods greater than the Probable
Maximum Flood (PMF) occur an emergency spillway formed adjacent to the crest of
the main embankment will allow for emergency discharge. At closure, a permanent
spillway will be constructed within this western embankment section and the adjacent
natural ridge, to ensure that uncontaminated surface runoff freely discharges from the
rehabilitated facility.
Final crest elevation will be 63 m for TMF 1 and 68 m for TMF 2. However, the TMF
sequential and ultimate crest alignment and elevations will require to be confirmed
during the next stage of project development.
There is currently no information available on the hydraulic conductivity of the TMF
foundation soil at either TMF site. However, it has been assumed that the permeability
of the soil foundation is low and hence no HDPE liner has been allowed for to control
seepage. Should test work show a liner to be required, the cost of the TMFs will
increase by an estimated $18 million for the life of mine.
Material used for the embankment will need to meet certain requirements with respect
to strength, permeability and other physical characteristics.
In respect of its
geochemical characteristics the construction material should contain no pyrite/sulphide
and be non-acid-generating. For the purpose of this study, the use of approved mine
waste has been prioritised. Characterisation test work will be undertaken at the next
study stage to quantify and confirm availability of suitable stripped mine waste.
Page 1-10

APRIL 2014
1.9
Environmental
SGS Environmental Services was engaged by Amara, to undertake a preliminary
assessment of the environmental and social conditions of the project. From the initial
field visit and preliminary stakeholder engagements by SGS, the government of Cte
dIvoire has no objection to the development of the Yaoure Gold Project contingent on
Amara complying and fulfilling the requirements of the law.
The previous mining permit for oxide heap leaching operation reverted to an
exploration licence in 2014. Exploration Permits 168 and 397 now cover the proposed
project area. In August 2015, these permits expire thus requiring that Amara progress
economic and environmental studies to support future permitting requests.
In this permitting process, the next step in obtaining an environmental license is to
progress an Environmental and Social Impacts Assessment (ESIA). Prior to initiating
any environmental studies, The Environmental Protection Agency ANDE requires an
Environmental Audit of the current site.
1.10
Economic Analysis
1.10.1
Project capital costs

The major capital cost component for the project is the processing and associated
infrastructure facilities. The engineering design and cost estimate for the facilities have
been performed by AMEC, which has acted as an independent technical consultant to
Amara for the PEA.
Sulphide plant and associated capital

Capital costs have been estimated for the sulphides plant and site infrastructure
separately from the capital cost of the oxide heap leaching plant.
The sulphide plant cost estimate is for a plant with a nominal capacity of 6.5 Mt/a.
Costs for plants with notional capacities of 5 Mt/a and 8 Mt/a have been factored from
the cost of the 6.5 Mt/a plant. Infrastructure costs for these options have been factored
separately.
All costs are estimated in US dollars as at Q1 2014 and are judged to have an
accuracy of 35 %. The estimate covers the direct costs of constructing the plant and
infrastructure components of the Yaoure Project and the indirect costs associated with
the design, construction and commissioning of the new facilities. Owners costs,
contingencies and risk amounts are specifically excluded from this estimate.
The initial capital cost of the 6.5 Mt/a sulphides plant and infrastructure is estimated to
be USD 282 million. The factored cost of the plant and infrastructure for the 5 Mt/a
option is estimated to be USD 265 million and that for the 8 Mt/a option is
USD 317 million.
Page 1-11

APRIL 2014
Table 1.4: Pre-production Capital Cost Estimates - Process & Infrastructure
PROCESSING & INFRASTRUCTURE CAPEX
5 Mt/a
6.5 Mt/a
8 Mt/a
Process Plant (USD m)
111
124
143
Plant Infrastructure (inc. TMF) (USD m)
30
32
35
Other Infrastructure (USD m)
26
27
27
Miscellaneous (USD m)
16
18
20
EPCM & Indirect (USD m)
46
43
49
Contingency (15%, USD m)
35
37
42
Total Pre-production Capital (USD m)
265
282
317
Sustaining capital is required throughout the life of the sulphides plant, mainly for the
development of the TMF retaining wall. The total sustaining capital expenditure over a
12 year life of mine is estimated to be USD 61 million, which is limited or extended in
each case by the relative mine life.
Table 1.5: Sustaining Capital Cost Estimates - Process & Infrastructure
PROCESSING &
INFRASTRUCTURE CAPEX
(USD m)
5 Mt/a
USD 800/oz
Pit Design
6.5 Mt/a
USD 800/oz
Pit Design
6.5 Mt/a
USD 950/oz
Pit Design
8 Mt/a
USD 950/oz
Pit Design
Process Plant
27
22
30
26
Plant Infrastructure (inc. TMF)
31
32
36
35
Other Infrastructure
Total Sustaining Capital
61
57
69
63
Heap leach
Capital costs for the oxide plant have been estimated at one feed rate, 1.6 Mt/a. This
estimate assumes relocation of existing crushing and ADR facilities from Amaras
Kalsaka mine in Burkina Faso to Yaoure with provision for a new leach pad and ponds.
The initial capital cost, including equipment relocation, is estimated to be
USD 31.2 million.
Table 1.6: 1.6 Mt/a Oxide Circuit (Heap Leach) Capital Cost Estimates
Preproduction
Sustaining
(6 year life)
Sustaining
(4 year life)
Process Plant
14.1
1.6
0.4
Plant Infrastructure. (inc. Heap Leach Pads)
1.1
17.5
9.8
Other Infrastructure
1.4
0.1
0.0
Owner's Cost & Misc.
3.4
EPCM & Indirect
5.0
Contingency (15%)
6.2
Total Heap Leach Capital
31.2
19.2
10.2
OXIDE (HEAP LEACH) CAPEX (USD m)
Page 1-12

APRIL 2014
Sustaining capital totalling USD 19.2 million is required assuming a six-year life of the
oxides plant, being mainly incurred in phased construction of the leach pad.
Closure costs
Closure costs are estimated to be USD 18.4 million for the Sulphides Plant and
USD 2.6 million for the Oxides Plant.
Mining capital costs

The mining capital costs have been estimated by Amara internally based on an owner
operated fleet that has been sized to move the scheduled tonnages. The mining preproduction capital cost and sustaining capital cost over the LOM are shown in Table
1.7. As the project advances, a trade-off study will need to be completed between
owner-operated vs contractor mining, which would reduce the upfront capital, however
at this stage higher unit costs over the life of the project are uncompetitive when
compared against the capital estimate.
Table 1.7: Capital Cost Estimates - Mining
5 Mt/a
USD 800/oz
Pit Design
6.5 Mt/a
USD 800/oz
Pit Design
6.5 Mt/a
USD 950/oz
Pit Design
8 Mt/a
USD 950/oz
Pit Design
Pre-production
66
75
80
92
Sustaining
46
14
75
65
MINING CAPEX (USD m)
Total capital required

Therefore, the Projects total pre-production capital cost for the Base case is
USD 357 million representing the start-up capital for full 6.5 Mt/a plant, infrastructure
and mining equipment. The headline case is USD 408 million representing the start-up
capital for full 8 Mt/a plant, infrastructure and mining equipment.
Table 1.8: Total Capital Cost Estimates - Summary
5 Mt/a
USD 800/oz
Pit Design
6.5 Mt/a
USD 800/oz
Pit Design
6.5 Mt/a
USD 950/oz
Pit Design
8 Mt/a
USD 950/oz
Pit Design
1.6 Mt/a
Heap
Leach
Mining
112
89
155
156
16
Pre-production
66
75
80
92
15
TOTAL CAPEX (USD m)
Sustaining
46
14
75
65
345
357
369
398
44
Pre-production
265
282
282
317
31
Sustaining
61
57
69
63
10
Closure
18
18
18
18
Total Pre-production Capital
331
357
362
408
46
107
71
144
127
11
Total LOM Capital
456
446
524
554
60
Page 1-13

APRIL 2014
Over the LOM capital, the 6.5 Mt/a base case benefits from having a 10 year mine life,
significantly reducing sustaining costs for replacement mining capital relative to the
other cases.
For the oxide heap leach scenario due to the short mine life, a contractor operation
was assumed with mining capital charges of USD 3 million mobilisation and
USD 1 million demobilisation assumed. Also assumed is USD 2 million in owners
establishment costs and a USD 10 million intercompany transfer (purchase) payment
for the equipment.
1.10.2
Operating costs
Unit and total operating costs were estimated over the life of the project. Mining
operating costs include labour, materials, consumables and other services and are
based on the operating plans and schedules driven from the design mill capacity.
Processing and associated infrastructure operating costs were estimated by AMEC to a
target accuracy of 35% using a range of data sources and first principle estimates.
Table 1.9: Operating Cost Estimates
Units
5 Mt/a
USD 800/oz
Pit Design
6.5 Mt/a
USD 800/oz
Pit Design
6.5 Mt/a
USD 950/oz
Pit Design
8 Mt/a
USD 950/oz
Pit Design
t mined
2.49
2.41
2.47
2.42
Processing (USD/t)
t processed
10.52
10.13
10.13
9.90
Other G&A (USD/t)
t processed
1.22
1.03
0.99
0.85
Area
Mining (USD/t)
Note: Mining & Processing costs include a portion of associated G&A representing:
USD 1.51/t milled at 5 Mt/a

USD 1.16/t milled at 6.5 Mt/a
USD 0.94/t milled at 8 Mt/a.
Other primary cost drivers included diesel fuel (USD 1.10/litre) and sodium cyanide
(USD 3,500/tonne). Labour costs were modelled based on the companys existing
operating experience in Cte dIvoire with Yaoure operating on industry standard work
schedules. Camp costs are based on accommodating approximately 150 people,
largely expatriates, and with the remaining workforce of up to 450 people sourced at
the gate from surrounding villages and from the capital city Yamoussoukro, which is
located only 40km from site.
The project enjoys relatively low operating costs with Total Cash Costs over the LOM
estimated in the Base case of USD 594 per ounce (including royalties) with All-In
Sustaining Costs of USD 743 per ounce, at USD 1,250 per gold ounce. The Headline
case achieves Total Cash Costs of USD 655 per ounce with All-In Sustaining Costs of
USD 792 per ounce, at USD 1,250 per gold ounce.
Operating costs for the oxides plant are estimated to be USD 18.3 million per year
which is equivalent to USD 11.43/tonne crushed. An average mining contractor rate of
USD 3.45/tonne mined has been applied for the oxide only scenario.
Page 1-14

APRIL 2014
Table 1.10: Unit Cash Cost Estimates LOM
5 Mt/a
USD 800/oz
Pit Design
6.5 Mt/a
USD 800/oz
Pit Design
6.5 Mt/a
USD 950/oz
Pit Design
8 Mt/a
USD 950/oz
Pit Design
1.6 Mt/a
Heap
Leach
Mining
315
305
360
352
320
Processing
225
217
238
233
299
Area
(USD/oz)
Other G&A*
20
15
17
14
78
Operating Cash Costs
560
537
615
598
697
Royalty/Other
56.5
56.5
56.5
56.5
56.5
Total Cash Costs
617
594
671
655
754
Depreciation
168
168
140
150
453
Total Production Costs
785
762
811
805
1207
Total Capital
153
149
130
138
279
All-In Costs
770
743
801
792
1033
*Note: Mining & Processing costs include a portion of associated G&A (see Table 1.9)
Fiscal terms
The mine will operate under Cte dIvoire mining legislation. The Cte dIvoire
parliament voted the new mining code on 4 March 2014, however this new mining code
does not include tax provisions, which have been subject to prolonged public and
industry consultation. Amara has participated in consultations between the Government
and the mining industry for the fiscal terms. Once these aspects have been finalised, it
is planned that they will be issued by means of presidential decree. The PEA assumes
fiscal terms which have been drawn from a combination of these discussions,
published Government proposals and recent precedent mining agreements.
Table 1.11: Fiscal Assumptions
Item
Rate
Corporate Tax (%)
25
Community fund (% revenue)
0.5
Royalties (%)
Scale
<= USD 1000/oz
<= USD 1300/oz
3.5
<= USD 1600/oz
> USD 1600/oz
Tax Holiday (years)*
Government free carry provision (%)
10
*Note: Tax holiday not applied to oxides (heap leach) case.
1.10.3
Economic analysis results

The primary economic analysis utilises an average gold price of USD 1,250 per ounce
over the mine life. At an 8% discount rate, the post-tax net present value of the Project
for each case is shown in Table 1.12. These results strongly support continuing to
advance the project.
Page 1-15

APRIL 2014
Table 1.12: Key Financial parameters by case
5 Mt/a
USD 800/oz
Pit Design
464
6.5 Mt/a
USD 800/oz
Pit Design
613
6.5 Mt/a
USD 950/oz
Pit Design
554
8 Mt/a
USD 950/oz
Pit Design
688
1.6 Mt/a
Heap
Leach
28
IRR(%)
25
33
26
32
52
Payback (Yrs)
3.4
2.6
3.2
2.4
0.8
1,250
1,250
1,250
1,250
1,250
NPV(post-tax at 8%,USDm)
Gold Price (US$/oz)
The stronger performance of the 6.5 Mt/a base case is driven by the higher grade,
lower strip ratio and shorter mine life which brings forward net cash flows and
significantly reduces the replacement mining capital requirements that occur in the
options that extend beyond 10 years.
Also note that in viewing these results it must be considered that the preliminary
economic assessment is preliminary in nature, that it includes Inferred mineral
resources considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations
applied to them that would enable them to be categorises as mineral reserves, and
there is no certainty that the preliminary economic assessment will be realised.
Table 1.13: Base case NPV (USD m) & IRR sensitivity to discount rate and gold price
Discount
USD1,000
USD1,100
USD1,200
USD1,250
USD1,300
USD1,400
USD1,500
5%
366
535
713
802
891
1,056
1,234
8%
247
388
538
613
687
826
975
10%
183
310
444
511
578
702
835
IRR
19%
25%
30%
33%
36%
40%
45%
A sensitivity analysis shows the performance of the project at a range of gold prices
from USD 1,100 to USD 1,500. This demonstrates that Yaoure continues to deliver
strong returns at gold prices below USD 1,250 per ounce, making the project robust
despite the gold price fluctuations.
At a gold price of USD 1,100, Yaoures post-tax IRR remains above 20% in both the
Base and Headline case. Further stress testing shows the project remains resilient
down to a break even gold price of circa USD 850 per ounce for these two cases.
1.11
Conclusions and recommendations

This PEA is based on industry standard mining, processing and development practice
as well as standard economic evaluation methodology. The quality of geological and
other relevant data is adequate for the purpose of generating a PEA. Based on the
assumptions and methodology applied, the results of this study show that the Yaoure
project has positive economics (within the very preliminary parameters of a PEA) and
should be advanced to the next phase of studies by undertaking the work outlined in
the Recommendations section of this report.
Page 1-16

APRIL 2014
While a significant amount of information is still required for a complete assessment of

the project, at this point, there do not appear to be any fatal flaws in the project. The
study has achieved its original objective of providing a preliminary review of the
potential economic viability of the Yaoure Project and has highlighted that the project
contains a large amount of optionality that may be explored in further detail as the
project progresses.
1.11.1
Risks and opportunities

As with almost all mining ventures, there are a large number of risks and opportunities
that can affect the economic viability of the project. Subsequent higher level
engineering studies would be required to further understand the existing risks and
opportunities, identify new ones, and define strategies for risk mitigation or opportunity
implementation.
The main preliminary risks for the Yaoure Project have been identified as follows:
Reduced gold prices,

Geological interpretation and mineral resource classification (80% of the resources
used in the mine plan are Inferred), specifically with respect to overall Yaoure
deposit tonnage and grade,
Increased OPEX and/or CAPEX,
Geotechnical, geochemical and hydrogeological considerations,
Gold recovery and mineral processing assumptions,
Cte dIvoire mining convention and changes in fiscal terms, and
Community engagement, and unexpected changes in relocation and environmental
requirements
The following key opportunities may improve the project economics and need further
investigation:
Selective mining: The Mineral Resource and the PEA have assumed a bulk
approach to mining. The economics of the project may be optimised by selective
mining of the mineralised packages contained in the CMA zone combined with
further pit optimisation. Increased selectivity would allow for reduced blocks sizes in
the model, resulting in lower dilution and higher grades to supplement the lower
grades of the Yaoure Central zone.
Equipment optimisation: Given the bulk nature of the mining in Yaoure mine
plans and the relative proportion of mining operating costs, there is potential for
future optimisation of the size of the equipment fleet compared to what was
considered in the PEA. A trade-off on contract versus owner-operated equipment
will be evaluated as the project advances.
Process selection: With favourable metallurgy and the mineralisations

amenability to a number of conventional processing methods, such items as preconcentration via flotation and/or gravity need further testing and evaluation, to see
if capital and operating savings can be achieved. Also SAG milling has been
excluded on the basis of a single rod mill test result therefore further test work is
required to confirm this approach.
Page 1-17

APRIL 2014
1.11.2
Project layout: Depending on the processing route taken, there is further potential
to optimise the locations of site infrastructure such as the waste storage facility,
tailing storage facility and the mill site to take greater advantage of the project
topography, thus reducing total operating costs.
Staged development: The capital spending profile of Yaoure project may benefit
from staged development approach, particularly with regards to mill capacity,
process route and the mining and processing schedule of oxide and sulphide
material to reduce start-up capital requirements.
Heap leach plant relocation: An opportunity exists to develop oxides in short term
by the relocation to site of the 1.6Mtpa Kalsaka/Sega plant, which has an estimated
capital spend of USD 31.2 million to relocated and establish the plant and
infrastructure.
Recommendations
The results of the PEA indicate that the Project should be taken to the next level of
engineering study and economic assessment, which typically is a PFS, but can be a FS
in certain cases.
It is estimated that a PFS, along with all of the accompanying engineering and field
work would cost approximately USD 2.5 million, exclusive of the recommended
additional geology and drilling program which is estimated at USD 14.4 million.
To enable a comprehensive prefeasibility or feasibility study to be completed, the
Inferred Resource component in the current resource estimate requires upgrading to
Indicated or Measured Resource categories.
This PEA is preliminary in nature as it includes Inferred Mineral Resources that are
considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to
them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves and there is no
certainty that this PEA will be realized. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves
do not have demonstrated economic viability.
Page 1-18

APRIL 2014
2.0
INTRODUCTION
2.1
Terms of Reference
The following Technical Report was prepared to provide a NI 43-101 compliant
Technical Report summarizing the findings of a Preliminary Economic Assessment of
the gold mineralization at Amara Minings 100% owned Yaoure gold project in Cte
dIvoire, West Africa.
The purpose of this study is to demonstrate the viability of the Yaoure gold project
through a technical and economic evaluation, at preliminary level, taking into account
the update resources and initial capital and operating costs.
The work covered in this report relates to exploration, drilling, metallurgical testwork,
process design and Mineral Resource estimation undertaken in the period of 2005,
through to January 2013. It relies on the resource estimate produced in the previous
Technical Report, Yaoure Gold Project, Cte DIvoire; Technical Report and Mineral
Resource Estimates, with an effective date 13 January, 2014, which is reproduced in
Sections 4 to 12, 14 and 23 of this report.
This report was prepared by Amara and the study was overseen by Bruce Van Brunt,
MEng of Amara Mining Plc. with contributions commissioned by Amara of the following
entities to review the following aspects of the project:
GeoSystems International, Inc. (GeoSystems) - Mineral Resources
AMEC Earth & Environmental UK Ltd (AMEC) Recovery Methods, Process Plant,
Infrastructure, Tailings Management Facility and related Capital and Operating
Costs.
SGS Environmental Services Ltd (SGS Environmental) Environmental, Permitting

and Social Impact
Amara Mining Plc is listed on the AIM market of the London Stock Exchange (LSE)
(symbol: AMA). The address of the corporate office is 4th Floor, 29-30 Cornhill, London
UK UC3V 3NF.
This report is considered current as of April 25, 2014.
2.2
Technical Report Preparation

The report was prepared, in conformance with the standards required by NI 43-101 and
Form 43-101F. The estimate of mineral resources contained in this report conforms to
the CIM Definition Standards For Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves, prepared
by the CIM Standing Committee on Reserve Definitions and adopted by CIM council on
November 27, 2010 referred to in National Instrument (NI) 43-101, Standards of
Disclosure for Mineral Projects.
The contents of this report reflect various technical and economic conditions at the time
of writing. Given the nature of the mining business, these conditions can change
significantly over relatively short periods of time. Consequently, actual results may be
Page 2-19

APRIL 2014
significantly more or less favourable. This report may include technical information that
requires subsequent calculations to derive subtotals, totals, and weighted averages.
Such calculations inherently involve a degree of rounding and consequently introduce a
margin of error. Where these occur, Amara does not consider them to be material.
Abbreviations and acronyms are used throughout this report and are provided in the
Glossary and Abbreviation of Terms in Section 2.4 of this report.
The economic analysis described in this report provides only a preliminary overview of
the Project as insufficient detailed engineering and costing work has been done to
date. As per CIM guidelines, reserves can only be declared with a preliminary
feasibility-level study.
The mineral resources used in the LOM plan and economic analysis include Inferred
material. Inferred mineral resources are considered too speculative geologically to
have economic considerations applied to them to be categorized as mineral reserves,
and there is no certainty that the Inferred resources will be upgraded to a higher
resource category. Based on this, there is no certainty that the results of this
preliminary assessment will be realized.
2.2.1
Sources of Information
This report is based, in part, on internal company technical reports, and maps,
published government reports, company letters and memoranda, and public
information as listed in the References Section 27 at the conclusion of this Technical
Report.
Sections of the Technical Report result from reports and deliverables produced from
the both desktop and site-based investigation work by consultants engaged by the
company to review key areas as part of the Study. Several sections from reports
authored by other consultants have been directly quoted in this Technical Report, and
are so indicated in Section 3.
2.2.2
Site Visits
In compliance with the requirements for preparation of a 43-101 Report, Amaras key
competent person has visited the project and has drawn on information from site-based
personnel. In addition, the following external contributors have visited the project site
and region to gather first-hand information for the study:
Augustine Owusu-Asare, Senior Environmental Scientist, SGS Environmental

visited site and the region during the week 2-6 December 2013.
Mario E. Rossi, Principal Geostatistician, GeoSystems, visited site from September

12-14, 2013.
Page 2-20

APRIL 2014
2.3
Units and Currency

Unless otherwise stated all units used in this report are metric. Gold assay values are
reported in grams per metric tonne (g/t) unless some other unit is specifically stated.
US dollars (USD) is the currency.
2.4
Glossary and Abbreviation of Terms

In this document, in addition to the definitions contained heretofore and hereinafter,
unless the context otherwise requires, the following terms have the meanings set forth
below.
Table 2.1: Glossary and Abbreviation of Terms
AARL
Anglo American Research Laboratory
ADR
Adsorption, desorption and regeneration
ANDE
Ivorian National Environment Agency
ANFO
Ammonium Nitrate Fuel Oil
ARD
Acid Rock Drainage
ASTGM
Aster global digital elevation model
BRGM
Bureau de Recherches Gologiques et Minires
c/kWh
Cents per kilowatt hour
CAPEX
Capital expenditures
CCC
Community Consultative Committee
CCTV
Closed-circuit television
CIAPOL
Centre for Ivorian Anti-Pollution
CIE
Compagnie Ivorienne Electricit
CIL
Carbon-in-leach
CIP
Carbon-in-pulp
CLO
Community Liaison Officer
CMA
Compagnie Minire dAfrique
CSA
Canadian Securities Administrators
DD
Diamond drilling
DG
Director General
DWT
Deadweight tonne
EIS
Environmental Impact Study
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
EPCM
Engineering, Procurement and Construction Management
ESIA
Environmental and Social Impacts Assessment
ESIS
Environmental and Social Impacts Study
ESMP
Environment and social management plan
FCFA
Franc of the Communaut Financire Africaine
FS
Feasibility Study
G&A
General and Administration
g/t
grams per tonne
ha
Hectare
HDPE
High Density Poly Ethylene
Page 2-21

APRIL 2014
HEP
Hydro-electric power
HL
Heap leach
HLP
Heap leach pad
hr
Hour
HSE
Health, Safety and Environment
ILS
Intermediate leach solution
IMOK
Indicator modified kriging
kg/t
Kilogrammes per tonne
km
Kilometres
koz
thousand troy ounces
kPa
Kilopascal
kV
Kilovolts
kWh
Kilo watt hour
kWh/t
Kilo watt hours per tonne
l/hr
Litres per hour
l/m2/h
litre per square metre per hour
LBMA
London Bullion Market Association
LOM
Life-of-mine
metres/million
Square metre
m3/h
cubic metres per hectare
MCAF
Mining cost adjustment factor
MIK
Multiple indicator kriging
mm
Millimetres
Moz
million troy ounces
Mt
million tonnes
Mt/a
million tonnes per annum
MW
Megawatts
NASA
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NI
National Instrument
NPV
Net present value
/oz
per troy ounce of gold
OPEX
Operating expenditures
PAP
Project affected persons
PCM
Procurement & construction management
PEA
Preliminary Economic Assessment
PFD
Project feasibility document
PFS
Preliminary feasibility study
PLS
Pregnant leach solution
PMF
Probable Maximum Flood
ppm
Parts per million
RAB
Rotary air blast
RAP
Relocation action plan
RC
Reverse Circulation
RL
Relative level
ROM
Run of Mine
Page 2-22

APRIL 2014
RoW
Right of Way
SABC
Semi-autogenous ball crushing
SAG
Semi-autogenous grinding
SEDAR
System for Electronic Document Analysis and Retrieval
SG
Specific Gravity
Tonnes
t/d
Tonnes per day
t/hr
Tonnes per hour
t/m
Tonne per cubic metre
TMF
UCS
Unconfined compressive strength
US
United States
USD
United States dollars
VAT
Value added tax
VGF
Vibrating grizzly feeder
w:o
waste:ore, strip ratio on a waste to ore tonnage basis
WOL
Whole ore leach
YMSA
Yaoure Mining SA
Yr or Yrs
Year or Years
ZAR
Zuid-Afrikaanse Rand
microns
Page 2-23

APRIL 2014
3.0
RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS
3.1
General Statement
The Author(s) has assumed and relied on the fact that all the information and existing
technical documents listed in the References section of this Report are accurate and
complete in all material aspects.
Although copies of the tenure documents, operating licenses, permits, and work
contracts were reviewed, an independent verification of land title and tenure was not
performed. Verification of the legality of any underlying agreement(s) that may exist
concerning the permits or other agreement(s) between third parties has not be
undertaken as part of this study.
Any statements and opinions expressed in this document are given in good faith and in
the belief that such statements and opinions are not false and misleading at the date of
this Report.
3.2
Sources of Information
Table 3.1 identifies the authors for each section of the Report. The References listed in
Section 27 provides further details.
Published information from several Sections of the previous NI 43-101 Report, Yaoure
Gold Project, Cte dIvoire: Technical Report and Mineral Resource Estimates with an
effective Report date of 13 January 2014, are reproduce fully or partially in this report.
Section 13: Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing (summary), Section 17:
Recovery; Section 18: Project Infrastructure and part of Section 21: Capital and
Operating Costs (Processing and Site Infrastructure) were reproduced fully from the
report Scoping Study - Processing Facilities and Site Infrastructure - Yaoure Gold
Project, Cte dIvoire dated 11 April 2014 by AMEC.
Section 20: Environmental Studies, Permitting and Social or Community Impact were
reproduced fully from or partially report Yaoure Gold Project - Preliminary
Environmental Assessment dated 13 March 2014 by SGS Environmental.
The remaining sections we prepared by and authored by Bruce Van Brunt, MEng of
Amara Mining Plc. The author considers the information to be of good quality and
accurate.
Page 3-24

APRIL 2014
Table 3.1: Report Authors
Sections
Author
1: Summary
2: Introduction
3: Reliance on Other Experts
15: Mineral Reserve Estimates
16: Mining Methods
19: Market Studies and Contracts
21: Capital and Operating Costs (Mining)
22: Economic Analysis
24: Other Relevant Data and Information
25: Interpretation and Conclusions
26: Recommendations
27: References
Bruce Van Brunt, Amara
4: Property Description and Location

5: Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure
and Physiography
6: History
7: Geological Setting and Mineralization
8: Deposit Types
9: Exploration
10: Drilling
11: Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security
12: Data Verification
14: Mineral Resource Estimates
23: Adjacent Properties
Mario Rossi, GeoSystems
13: Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing

17: Recovery Methods
18: Project Infrastructure
21: Capital and Operating Costs (Processing and Site
Infrastructure)
Ian Jackson and Ciaran Molloy, AMEC
20: Environmental Studies, Permitting and Social or

Community Impact
Pietro Berno, SGS Environmental
Page 3-25

APRIL 2014
4.0
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
4.1
Location
The Yaoure gold project is located in central Cte dIvoire in West Africa, 40 km northwest of Yamoussoukro, the political capital, and 270 km north-west of Abidjan, the
economic capital of Cte dIvoire (Figure 4.1).
Figure 4.1: Location Map Yaoure Gold Project
4.2
Property Description
The Yaoure gold project comprises of two exploration licences (EXPL 168 and EXPL
397) granted to Amaras 100% directly-owned subsidiary, Cluff Gold (WA) Cte dIvoire
SARL (CG(WA)CDI).
The exploration licence (EXPL 168) covers an area of 122 square miles (317 km) and
the exploration licence (EXPL 397), which lies within EXPL 168, covers an area of 19
square miles (50 km). Details of the mineral tenure can be found in Table 4.1.
Page 4-26

APRIL 2014
Table 4.1: Mineral Tenure Information
Tenement Name
Cluff Gold WA Cte dIvoire

SARL
Cluff Gold WA Cte dIvoire

SARL
Licence Number
168
397
Tenement Type
Exploration Licence
Exploration Licence
8 October 2004
One year
534 sq. km
11 December 2013
Twenty months
50 sq.km
31 July 2005
Two years
534 sq. km
None
31 July 2007
Two years
367 sq. km (reduced to 317 sq km
on 18 September 2008)
None
Exceptional Renewal Date

Duration
Surface area
9 August 2012
Three years
317 sq. km
None
Expiry date
9 August 2015
9 August 2015
Grant Date
Duration
Surface area
First Renewal Date
Duration
Surface area
Second Renewal Date
Duration
Surface area
4.3
Ownership and Title

Exploration licence (EXPL 168):
The exploration licence (EXPL 168) was transferred from CMA (Compagnie Minire
dAfrique) to CG(WA)CDI on 8 October 2004. The area covered was 206 square miles
(534 km) and the duration of the exploration licence was one year. On 31 July 2005,
the exploration licence was renewed for the first time for two years. On 31 July 2007,
the exploration licence was renewed for the second time for two years and the area
covered was reduced to almost 142 square miles (367 km). The area was further
reduced to 122 square miles (317 km2) on 18 September 2008 when the mining permit
(ML 33) was granted. On 9 August 2012, the exploration licence was exceptionally
renewed for three years; the area covered remained 122 square miles (317 km). The
location of the coordinates for the exploration licence as set out in the permit are shown
in Figure 4.2 and listed in Table 4.2.
Exploration licence (EXPL 397):

Initially the area now covered by the new exploration licence (EXPL 397) was included
in the area of the exploration licence (EXPL 168). Further to exploration activities, a
mining licence (ML 33) covering the area now covered by the new exploration licence
(EXPL 397) was granted to CG(WA)CDI on 18 September 2008 for five years.
In compliance with the requirements of Cte dIvoire Mining Code, an exploitation
company was created to exploit the mining licence. This exploitation company was
Yaoure Mining SA (YMSA), an 89.7% subsidiary of Amara. (The State of Cte dIvoire
Page 4-27

APRIL 2014
owns 10% of YMSA and minority shareholders hold the remaining 0.3%). The mining
licence was transferred from CG(WA)CDI to the exploitation company YMSA by means
of a ministerial decree issued on 11 December 2008 with retroactive effect from 18
September 2008. This mining licence expired on 18 September 2013.
On 10 May 2013, with the prospect of this mining licence expiring, the Ministry of Mines
issued a commitment letter stating that a new exploration licence covering the same
area as the mining licence would be delivered to CG(WA)CDI in order to ensure the
continuity of the exploration activities of CG(WA)CDI.
On the 11th of December 2013, in compliance with the commitment made, the
government of Cte dIvoire adopted a decree granting the new exploration licence
(EXPL 397) to CG(WA)CDI. This new exploration licence covers the same area as the
previous mining permit, an area of 19 square miles (50 km), and expires on the 9th of
August 2015. The location of the coordinates for the new exploration licence as set out
in the permit are shown in Figure 4.2 and listed in Table 4.3.
Table 4.2: Coordinates of the Exploration Licence (EXPL 168)
EXPLORATION LICENCE (EXPL 168)
367 sq. km
POINT
LATITUDES (NORTH)
LONGITUDES (WEST)
70750
54000
70657
53914
70651
53539
70914
53220
70736
53016
70500
53306
70315
53124
70242
52841
65500
52841
65500
54000
Page 4-28

APRIL 2014
Figure 4.2: Yaoure Gold Project Land Tenure: Exploration Licences
Reproduced from Government permits
Table 4.3: Coordinates of the New Exploration Licence (EXPL 397)

EXPLORATION LICENCE (EXPL 397)
50 sq. km
POINT
LATITUDES (NORTH)
LONGITUDES (WEST)
70300
53346
70300
52955
65910
52955
65910
53346
Whilst the licence coordinates are specified in degrees latitude and longitude, the
regional exploration is based on the UTM coordinate system, specifically Zone 30 North
in WGS 84 datum on the EGM96 Geoid model. Drilling and mining activities by Amara
since 2005 at the Yaoure gold deposit have been based on a local grid. There is an
angular difference of 0.21 between the two systems, with the local grid north being
0.21 degrees to the east of UTM north.
Page 4-29

APRIL 2014
5.0
ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES,

INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY
5.1
Accessibility
The Yaoure gold project is located within a rural area 40 km north-west of
Yamoussoukro, 22 km east-north-east of the city of Bouafle and 5 km west of Kossou
dam and hydroelectric power station. Figure 5.1 is a satellite image showing the
location of the Yaoure gold project and deposit, with the outline of the exploration
licence shown in blue, and the mining permit in red. The nearest villages to the site, 1
km to the east are Angovia and Allahou-Bazi.
A 5 km gravel road leads from the Yaoure gold project site to the western end of the
Kossou dam, while a further 16 km of paved road connects the Kossou hydroelectric
power station to the main BouafleYamoussoukro road at Toumbokro. Yamoussoukro
lies a further 24 km to the south-east. The 5 km gravel road, west of the Kossou dam,
and the paved road to Toumbokro are both seasonally maintained by Amara. The
Yaoure gold project can also be accessed directly from the main road at Bozi, but that
gravel road is poorly maintained. Much of the 230 km road between Yamoussoukro
and Abidjan, the commercial capital, is dual carriageway, and the remaining singlecarriage section is being widened.
Figure 5.1: Location of the Yaoure Gold Project
Page 5-30

APRIL 2014
Figure 5.2: Yaoure Exploration Licence: Topography and Drainage
On 11 December 2013, the Mining Licence was converted to an exploration licence (EXPL 397).
5.2
Physiography
The terrain of the Yaoure exploration licence area is dominated by the Mount Yaoure
hills (Figure 5.2) in the centre of the southern half of the licenced area, away from
which the terrain is mostly flat to undulating plains, which in turn give way to the north
to the man-made Kossou Lake (Figure 5.3). In addition to the primary river, the
Bandama, which flows southwards from the Kossou hydroelectric power station, there
is a radial pattern of rivers and streams which drain the Mount Yaoure hills.
Page 5-31

APRIL 2014
Ecologically, the area is classified as a forest-savannah mosaic, consisting of forest,

interlaced with savannah and grassland habitats, with areas cleared for settlement and
agriculture. Figure 5.3 shows a view from west of the CMA South pit, looking north,
showing typical vegetation and terrain surrounding the Yaoure gold deposit. Angovia
village, with Lake Kossou behind, can be seen in the distance.
Figure 5.3: Yaoure Gold Project - Typical Vegetation and Terrain: Looking North
5.3
Climate
The tropical climate of the central region of Cte dIvoire, in which the Yaoure gold
deposit is located, consists of four seasons; with a long dry season from December to
May, a short wet season from May to July, a short dry season from July to October,
and a short rainy season from October to November. Annual average rainfall is 1,000
mm. Prevailing winds are the south-west monsoon and the north-east Harmattan.
Average temperatures range from 22C to 32C throughout the year.
5.4
Infrastructure
Electrical power to the site is supplied by the local grid, via a 33 kV feeder line from the
nearby 150 MW Kossou hydroelectric power station (Figure 5.4). A 455 kVA standby
generator has been installed on-site to be used in the event of power failures.
Yaoure Gold Deposit

Page 5-32

APRIL 2014
Figure 5.4: CIE Hydroelectric Power Station, Kossou
The entire area is serviced by reliable mobile phone networks and internet
communications on-site are provided by means of satellite. The internet system was
upgraded in early 2013 by using cable fibre-optics.
Site infrastructure consists of an office complex, change room, messing facilities,
logistic stores, laboratory, guard room, workshop, and core shed. Diesel storage
capacity at site is currently 25,000 litres. Senior personnel are currently accommodated
at Kossou village, on the eastern side of Kossou dam.
The population immediately surrounding the Yaoure gold project is estimated to
comprise about 5,000 local people from the villages of Angovia/Allahou-Bazi, Kouakou
Gnanou, Akakro and Nda Koffi-Yobouekro. The Bouafle district population is
represented by three main ethnic groups: the Yaours, the Ayaous, and the Gouros.
The Yaoures, who are the principal inhabitants of the region, are separated into the
Yaoures North and the Yaoures South. Most of the inhabitants in the area surrounding
the project are from the Yaoures North group. Land is held in common by the Yaoures
North. A large proportion of the population follow traditional tribal beliefs, while the
remainder are either Christian or Muslim. Each village is directed by a council of heads
of the more influential families, led by the village Chief who is traditionally descended
from the founding family of the village. The village council reports to the local
Sous Prefet, who reports to the regional Prefet, nominated by the government.
5.5
Local Resources
The main economic activities in the area are pastoral and cultivated agriculture,
forestry, artisanal mining, and fishing.
Page 5-33

APRIL 2014
6.0
HISTORY
6.1
Exploration and Mining

Artisanal gold mining is known to have been conducted at Yaoure (name changed from
Angovia to Yaoure in January 2012) since 1935. It is estimated that between one and
two tonnes of gold were extracted at Yaoure up to 1945. From 1946 to 1969, several
exploration projects aimed to assess the gold potential in quartz veins, and gold
mineralization with values from 1.9 g/t to 4 g/t at Angovia were reported.
Modern exploration began in 1983 with the French Bureau de Recherches Geologiques
et Minires (BRGM), who conducted a regional soil and stream sediment geochemical
sampling programme over the entire Exploration Permit (PRA No. 36). This survey
defined two significant gold-in-soil anomalies; at Angovia, and near the village of
Kouako Gnanou (the Kongonza prospect). Subsequent work through to 1991 consisted
of geophysics, trenching, and core drilling to evaluate these main anomalies, with a
focus on the Angovia Prospect 1 which subsequently became the Compagnie Minire
dAfrique (CMA) mine.
Figure 6.1 shows original BRGM gold-in-soil anomalies in the area of the Yaoure gold
deposit, with contours at +200 ppb and +400 ppb. Also shown are structural trends
from the 2009 reinterpretation, and satellite deposits (mainly oxide).
On 25 March 1993, an Exploitation Permit was granted to CMA (Permit Number 30 by
Order Number 048/MME/DM), who carried out further drilling, leading to a feasibility
study in 1994. A heap leach oxide gold mining operation was established in 1999, and
production continued until the mine closed towards the end of 2003.
CMA reportedly extracted 1.9 million tonnes (Mt) of ore, with a mean plant feed grade
of 3.9 g/t gold from three open pits; CMA North, CMA Central, and CMA South. The
CMA North pit and Central pit eventually merged into one pit, reaching a maximum
depth of 40 m below-surface. Treatment of the oxidized ore in a heap leach facility
reportedly achieved a mean recovery of approximately 85%.
CMA was also granted a 485 km2 exploration permit in July 2002 with the aim of
delineating further near-surface oxidized material near to the existing process plant.
However, following the closure of the mine in late 2003, the permits were relinquished
in 2004, and subsequently transferred to Cluff Gold (West Africa) Cte dIvoire SARL
on 8 October 2004.
Page 6-34

APRIL 2014
Figure 6.1: BRGM Gold-in-Soil Anomalies and Structural Trends
6.2
Historical Mineral Resource Estimates

Amara understands that CMA produced a preliminary estimate for the oxidized
mineralization in satellite bodies to the main mineralization. However, as no
documentation has been obtained to support this, there are no historical estimates to
disclose.
Page 6-35

APRIL 2014
7.0
GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION
7.1
Regional Geology
The geology of Cte dIvoire mainly consists of Archaean and Palaeoproterozoic
terranes (Figure 7.1). The coastal part of the country is largely covered by a MesozoicCenozoic sedimentary basin.
Figure 7.1: Geological Map of Cte dIvoire and surrounding countries
The Archaean rocks which form the Pre-Birimian basement occur essentially in the
western part of the country. The Archaean terranes are generally composed of
hypersthene-bearing rocks (termed charnockitic suite or granulitic suite). Ferruginous
Page 7-36

APRIL 2014
quartzite, basic and ultrabasic rocks (pyroxenite and amphibole pyroxenite), gneiss,
migmatite, and granite are also found. The metamorphism varies between granulite
and amphibolite facies.
Palaeo-Proterozoic terranes (Birimian) cover more than two-thirds of the country
(Lompo 2010, Vidal et al 2009). They consist predominantly of granitoid zones with
volcano-sedimentary greenstone belts. The predominant strike is NNESSW, with a
typical subvertical dip. The dominant regional metamorphism is greenschist facies.
7.2
Local Geology
The Yaoure project area lies on the eastern half of the main central Birimian-aged
greenstone belt. The belt is a NNE-trending assemblage of Palaeo-Proterozoic
volcanic, sedimentary and intrusive rocks located in central Cte dIvoire. The rock
types found in the Yaoure district are, for the most part, mafic volcanic rocks with minor
cherts, turbiditic metasediments and a fluviodeltaic formation (Figure 7.2). The flyschlike turbiditic metasediments consist of sandstone to argillite with graphitic and
conglomeratic horizons. The fluviodeltaic formation consists of sandstone,
conglomerate, and argillite. The volcano-sedimentary rocks were intruded by tonalitetrondhjemite-granodiorite (TTG) type plutonic rocks and undifferentiated granitoids.
Mafic to ultramafic complexes are also found in the Yaoure district.
7.3
Project Geology
The Yaoure gold deposit is hosted by Early Proterozoic (Birimian) mafic volcanics
(basalts), with granodiorite and mafic porphyry intrusions. A provisional geological map
of the Yaoure central area is shown in Figure 7.3.
7.3.1
Stratigraphy
South of 7,300 mN (local grid), 777480 N (UTM), the geology is dominated by mafic
volcanics, much of which is pillow basalts, with lesser mafic porphyry bodies. Some of
the massive basalt is possibly intrusive as sills into the pillow basalts.
Volcaniclastic and mafic lapilli tuff layers occur within the basalts; the most continuous
and thickest volcaniclastic unit occurs immediately below the granodiorite body in the
north of Yaoure central (Figure 7.3). As a subaerial volcanic deposit within the
subaqueous basaltic lavas, a lapilli tuff would be expected to show some stratigraphic
correlation between drillholes; however, this is not the case. There is some suggestion
of a correlation, albeit offset by possible faults, in drillholes YDD0033, YDD0044 and
YDD0046, on section 7,300 mN.
7.3.2
Intrusions
There are two main intrusive lithologies granodiorite and porphyry. Granodiorite
bodies can be clearly seen in the airborne radiometric data (Figure 7.11).
Page 7-37

APRIL 2014
Figure 7.2: Simplified Geological Map of the Yaoure Area
Granodiorite intrusives are important in the northern half of the Yaoure Central
deposit. There appear to be two separate bodies (Figure 7.3), although they may be
linked. The largest body is to the north of the Yaoure Central deposit and has been
intersected in drill holes on local sections: 7,500, 7600, 7700 and 7800 mN. Based on
the symmetry of the contact pattern, the tabular or sheet-like intrusion trends roughly EW and plunges directly north at up to 40 degrees. It appears to be spreading out in both
NW and NE directions, i.e. it is growing in a plunging sub-circular manner to the north.
In the NE direction the circular expansion trend is about N45E and the CMA longsection plunge is following that trend down. This granodiorite body is not mineralised.
Page 7-38

APRIL 2014
The smaller granodiorite occurs in the northern half of the Yaoure Central pit. It is subvertical and extends for 900 metres with an N-S trend up to the larger flatter-lying
granodiorite body. This granodiorite body is well mineralised with a relatively high
proportion of cross-cutting mineralised quartz veins.
The relationship of the two bodies is not clear. They could be separate bodies with the
sub-vertical mineralised body being earlier. Alternatively, they could be a single body
with the southern sub-vertical part having been caught up in the shearing-fracturingalteration-mineralization processes.
A smaller granodiorite body occurs within the Yaoure Central pit (Figure 7.4). For
example, in the eastern half of section 7,300 mN (Figure 7.4), there is a separate
sheared and recrystallized sill-like granodiorite body about 10 m thick, the orientation of
which varies between horizontal and dipping at 10 to the east.
Porphyry bodies occur throughout the drilled volcanic sequence; however, there is the
suggestion that more porphyry is associated with the Yaoure Central mineralisation
than with the CMA North-Central mineralisation. The orientation of the porphyry bodies
is difficult to determine in drill core; however, on sections adjacent porphyry
intersections can be correlated as sills which predominantly dip to the east at 30
degrees. In the Northern 7,500 mN to 7,600 mN sections, porphyry does not appear to
intrude the main granodiorite body or the underlying volcaniclastite unit. A hypothesis
that needs further evaluation by drilling is that sill-like porphyry bodies: (i) controlled
and compartmentalized the flow of fluids that resulted in both alteration and
mineralization and (ii) mark the base of the Yaoure Central deposit.
Figure 7.3: Geology Map of the Yaoure Gold Deposit
Page 7-39

APRIL 2014
Figure 7.4: Oxidation of possible Granodiorite, Yaoure Central North Pit
7.3.3
Description of Lithologies
Basalt
In terms of volume, basalt is the dominant lithology. It occurs in three main varieties:
pillow basalt, a fine to medium-grained massive basalt, and slightly coarser-grained
porphyritic basalt with black mafic phenocrysts. The last of these has a particularly
fresh appearance. During core logging, it was not possible to systematically distinguish
between the three types. Contacts between pillow basalt and massive basalt are
occasionally sharp, but often the possible contacts are deformed and altered
transitional zones. The massive basalt(s) may represent parts of a (sheeted?) dyke
complex intruding the pillow basalts. Figure 7.5 shows an example of pillow basalts,
with chert-filled voids that probably formed during crystallization and cooling of the
basalt.
Volcaniclastite
A distinct polymictic volcaniclastite unit occurs below the granodiorite, but only in the
northernmost-drilled area on sections 7,500 mN (Figure 7.13) to 7,800 mN. Angular
aligned clasts of various lithologies, up to pebble-size occasionally cobble-size, are the
characteristic feature. The matrix of the volcaniclastite commonly appears to be
sheared, but this could be due to igneous flow, and is typically pale, which suggests a
felsic composition.
Page 7-40

APRIL 2014
Figure 7.5: Oxidized Pillow Basalt, Yaoure Central South Pit
Figure 7.6 shows polymictic volcaniclastite with a felsic to intermediate matrix in the
upper part of the volcaniclastite unit from 87.0 m-119.7 m in drillhole, YDD0034.
However, the composition changes downhole to a mafic composition with a greater
number of autolithic clasts and a more breccia-like texture. This is illustrated in Figure
7.7 as basaltic autolithic volcaniclastite.
Mafic Lapilli Tuff

The recognition of the mafic lapilli tuff is difficult. The most convincing lapilli tuff displays
pale rims around dark, aligned, ellipsoid lapilli. See Figure 7.8, which shows mafic lapilli
tuff with thermal alteration rims around flattened aligned lapilli, at 181.5 m in drillhole
YDD0069. The rims probably represent thermal alteration.
Granodiorite
The lithology is an unremarkable medium-grained granodiorite, occasionally
approaching a porphyritic texture, with mafic xenoliths common throughout. Figure 7.9
shows exposed granodiorite in the Yaoure Central North pit.
Porphyry
A mid-grey, fine-grained porphyry with milky white feldspar phenocrysts and occasional
subhedral mafic (hornblende?) phenocrysts. Figure 7.10 presents typical fresh
porphyry, with large plagioclase phenocrysts and subordinate smaller mafic
(hornblende?) phenocrysts. In some cores, the porphyry alternates frequently with
basalt and occurs as very thin dykelets as well as thicker dykes/sheets. It is unaltered
and clearly intrudes the basalts, including the coarser-grained porphyritic basalt.
Alteration veins in pillow basalt in particular were seen to terminate at the porphyry
contact.
Page 7-41

APRIL 2014
Figure 7.5: Oxidized Pillow Basalt, Yaoure Central South Pit
Figure 7.6: Polymict Volcaniclastite with Felsic to Intermediate Matrix
Page 7-42

APRIL 2014
Figure 7.7: Basaltic Autolithic Volcaniclastite
Figure 7.8: Mafic Lapilli Tuff with Alteration Rims around Lapilli
Page 7-43

APRIL 2014
Figure 7.9: Granodiorite with Mafic Xenoliths
Figure 7.10: Fresh Porphyry with Plagioclase and Mafic Phenocrysts
7.3.4
Structure
The Yaoure greenstone belt was subjected to WNW/ESE-directed crustal shortening
during the Eburnean Orogeny, but has a lower aspect ratio than similar belts in West
Africa (i.e. it is short and wide) which is consistent with its comparatively undeformed
state. Large-scale, NNE-striking folds appear to be tight rather than isoclinal (which is
Page 7-44

APRIL 2014
more typical of other West-African greenstone belts), and a penetrative fabric is absent
at Yaoure.
An Eburnian structure of particular importance to the Yaoure gold deposit is an arcuate,
NE-trending regional fault (denoted as D in Figure 9.4) which Le Roux (2012) called a
deep trend but which Baker (2012) describes as a compressional fault which was
reactivated as a dextral strike-slip structure at a late stage in the Eburnian orogeny.
Dextral motion along the east-north-east-trending segment of Fault D has generated
two sets of north-to-north-east-trending sigmoidal lenses. East-dipping structures,
known from the Yaoure Central open pit, suggest that the NNESSW fault branch
passing through the Yaoure gold deposit (Figure 9.4) experienced transpressive
movement (Baker 2012). Gold mineralization at Yaoure was formed during Late
Eburnian transpression and is overprinted only by minor kinking and by late brittle
faulting (Kerr 2012). Kerr (2012) describes the east-dipping reverse/sinistral shear zone
that passes through the CMA North and Central pits as a master structure and
interprets it as a second-order splay off the regional Fault D.
Additional information on the structure in the vicinity of the Yaoure gold deposit has
come from detailed interpretation of the airborne magnetic and radiometric data. Figure
7.11 shows structures interpreted from the vertical derivative of the (pole-reduced) total
magnetic field, superimposed on potassium anomaly Steenkamp (2012). Figure 7.12
presents a recent reinterpretation of the same data by Ailleres (PGN, Geoscience
2013) with reference to the Yaoure diamond drillholes.
Figure 7.11: Interpreted Structures in the Vicinity of the Yaoure Gold Deposit
Page 7-45

APRIL 2014
Figure 7.12: PNG Reinterpretation of Magnetic and Radiometric Data
Key to PGN Lithologies in Figure 7.12

BV_KALT
Basalt with K alteration
FVC
Felsic volcaniclastics
GD
Granodiorite
MSedts
Metasediments
MVC
Mafic volcaniclastics Unit 1
MVC2
Mafic volcaniclastics Unit 2
mag
Magnetic
Page 7-46

APRIL 2014
7.3.5
Metamorphism
The metamorphic grade of the volcanic rocks at Yaoure is regarded as regional lower
greenschist facies. An initial petrological study of 27 thin sections of core samples
supports this. Original ferromagnesian minerals are variably replaced by chlorite and
leucoxene and rare actinolite and biotite. Plagioclase is typically sausiritized and
variably replaced by albite, sericite and minor calcite. The development of epidote in a
hornfels texture in some rocks suggests thermal metamorphism in the albite-epidote
hornfels facies.
7.3.6
Alteration
Alteration associated with gold mineralization includes silicification, carbonatization
(particularly in basalt), sericitization (particularly in granodiorite) and, less commonly,
tourmalinization (clusters of needles), biotitization and chloritization. Altered wallrocks
to veins typically contain up to 2% disseminated pyrite and locally up to 5%.
7.3.7
Deposits
The Angovia gold deposit was renamed Yaoure by the Amara in January 2012. The
Yaoure deposit consists of the Yaoure Central mineralization underlying the Amaras
Yaoure Central open pit (formerly Prospects 2 and 4) and the CMA mineralization
underlying CMAs North, Central and South pits. Smaller deposits are found at
Kongonza, Angovia 2, and Zone North. The mineral resource estimate documented in
this report relates only to the sulphide portion of the Yaoure Central deposit.
7.4
Mineralized Zones
At the Yaoure gold deposit there are two main targets:
The NS trending Yaoure Central body in the west: a 200 m thick low-grade body with
high-grade lenses, extending down to the east from the Yaoure Central pit at a dip of 30;
The NS trending CMA body in the east: a discrete relatively continuous 20 m thick body,
about 140 m above the Yaoure Central body, extending down to the east from the CMA
North and Central pits.
Additional targets include:
The SWNE trending CMA South pit mineralization.
Mineralization within later cross-cutting high-grade subvertical quartz veins with

visible gold. Although they have the potential to enhance the overall grade of the
deposit, these veins were not a primary target of the drilling programme.
Mineralization at porphyry-basalt contacts.
A new target CMA South East, a possible NWSE zone, which could extend
600 m towards the Angovia 2 and Kongonza NW prospects (Figure 9.1).
Page 7-47

APRIL 2014
7.4.1
Yaoure Central
The 20112012 diamond drilling demonstrated that the NS trending Yaoure Central
mineralization is a 200 m (150250 m) thick body, as defined by the 0.1 g/t threshold
envelope, about 140 m (70-220 m) below the CMA zone, dipping at approximately 30
to the east (Figure 7.15 and Figure 7.17). Within this thick low-grade body are multiple
higher-grade lenses with a typical width of about 15 m. Mineralization within these
higher-grade zones, mainly dipping at about 30 to the east, occurs as sulphides
associated with an array of quartz veins, ranging in thickness from metres to
millimetres, silicification and minor carbonate and variable degrees of shearing. The
boundaries of the higher grade zones are gradational. There appears to be a possible
SE plunge to the high-grade mineralization, as seen in modelling with Leapfrog
software (Abraham 2013). There is frequently a spike in gold at porphyry-basalt
contacts and there appears to be porphyry-gold association, best seen in hole
YDD0043.
The Yaoure Central pit extends from 6,200 mN to 7,600 mN (local grid). At the north
end of the pit, Phase 4 infill drilling has extended the mineralization to 7,800 mN,
although the strike has changed to NWSE, being deflected by the main granodiorite
intrusion. The Yaoure body appears to continue down-dip for at least 700 m to a
vertical depth in excess of 450 m as shown in some of the deepest holes; (YDD0056,
YDD0068, YDD0078, YDD0079, YDD0100 and YDD0101), but with reduced continuity
as it is not found in all deep holes, e.g. YDD0081.
7.4.2
CMA North-Central
Diamond drilling has established the northsouth trending CMA North-Central
mineralization (Zones 2 and 3 of Leapfrog modelling) as essentially a discrete
continuous body within a 20 m to 45 m wide brittle-ductile shear zone (as compared to
the more brittle nature of Yaoure Central), dipping between 24 and 30 to the east
(Figure 7.15 and Figure 7.17). Sulphide mineralization, quartz-carbonate veining,
silicification and, in particular, abundant distinctive carbonate alteration are associated
with a zone of strong reverse/sinistral ductile, locally mylonitic, shearing, hydrothermal
alteration and later brittle brecciation. The boundaries of the CMA mineralization are
more marked than the Yaoure Central mineralization. Importantly, but not yet fully
understood, is that the veins in the CMA mineralization dip towards a range between E
and N to NE/NNE at 30 in CMA North, and to N/NE in CMA Central at 15. The CMA
North-Central zone is regarded as the upper or main shear of the Yaoure deposit.
The body extends along a strike length of at least 1.1 km from 6,400 mN to 7,500 mN
which includes a newly discovered extension of at least 200 m northwards from the end
of the CMA North pit. The deepest intersections, at a vertical depth of approximately
300 m in YDD0094 on 7,300 mN, 280 m in YDD95 on 6,900 mN and 250 m in
YDD0100 on 7,100 mN, extend the body down-dip for a distance of approximately
500 m (from the presumed base of the CMA pit) at a dip of 24. The CMA North-Central
body was intersected in all the holes targeting it.
Page 7-48

APRIL 2014
7.4.3
CMA South
Results for the drillholes designed to test mineralization below the CMA South pit,
which trends SWNE have been disappointing. The mineralisation in the CMA South
pit is not the same as the distinctive high-grade CMA North-Central mineralisation and
is regarded as a later NE-SW trending cross-cutting structure. Consequently, the CMA
South zone was regarded as a low priority for Phase 4 infill drilling.
7.4.4
CMA South-East
A synthesis of structural information has indicated a new target CMA South East, a
SE-trending arm extending from the south end of the CMA Central pit towards the
Angovia 2 resource, i.e. the mirror image of the SW-trending CMA South pit
mineralization. Two holes have tested this target. Results have confirmed the validity of
the new target and returned intersections of multiple zones of low-grade mineralization.
It is thought that CMA South-East probably represents a continuation of the
mineralization that extends from Kongonza, 2.1 km to the SE, through Kongonza NW
and Angovia 2 South.
7.4.5
Cross-cutting Quartz Veins

Sub-vertical cross-cutting quartz veins, which typically trend NE/ENE (main) and WNW
(secondary), are an important subsidiary target which has not been systematically
tested in the drilling programmes.
7.4.6
Cross sections and Relogging Exercise

As indicated in the May 2013 NI43-101 Technical Report, relogging of all the diamond
drill core obtained since August 2011 was carried out by a consultant, W. Bond, with
Amara geologists, from April to July 2013 in order to gain a better understanding of the
deposit. This relogging resulted in the definition of 145 lithologic codes. Two examples
of cross sections, one kilometre apart (7500 mN and 6500 mN), after the relogging
campaign are presented as Figure 7.13 and Figure 7.16. A key for the major units from
the relogging exercise is included as Figure 7.18. For comparison, the original 7500
mN cross section is included as Figure 7.14. Whilst the continuity of the shearcontrolled, intensely altered CMA North-Central mineralisation from section to section
was confirmed, Yaoure Central alteration and mineralisation proved to be much more
irregular in distribution which suggests a much more haphazard discontinuous brittle
structure. It proved to be very difficult to connect up shearing, alteration and porphyry
bodies from section to section for Yaoure Central. In order to produce a 3D geologic
model, simplified cross sections were produced. The simplified sections for 7500 mN
and 6500 mN are presented as Figure 7.15 and Figure 7.17.
Page 7-49

APRIL 2014
VC
200mRL
YAOURE
D
11
4
D
14
D
14
D
83
200mRL
VC
VC
GRD
VC
VC
0mRL
D
63
D
47
D
49
D
69
D
34
YAOURE PIT
D
10
-27
Figure 7.13: Drill Section 777680 mN (7500 mN local) after relogging
D69
196.12m
D34
242.66m D49
263.47m
0mRL
D47
325.5m
D63
372.86m
YAOURE
-200mRL
221,000mN
-400mRL
220,800mN
220,600mN
metres
?
Suspected
Possible
Vein Trends
(No apparent
data taken)
D101
650.56m
Page 7-50
221,600mN
200
D110
530.5m
221,400mN
100
-27
CMA
221,200mN
D144
389.64m
D83
502m
SECTION 7500N
-200mRL
D147
359.76m
-400mRL

APRIL 2014
Figure 7.14: Original Drill Section 777680 mN (7500 mN local) section from May 2013 NI 43-101 Technical Report
Page 7-51

APRIL 2014
Figure 7.15: Simplified Drill Section 777680 mN (7500 mN local)
Page 7-52

APRIL 2014
D
56
D
10
4
D
86
D
11
5
YAOURE PIT
D
11
7
D
80
D
12
8
-28
-28
D
74
Regional Trend
Approx -70 to -75E ?
D
76
-40
D
73
400mRL
D
12
0
Figure 7.16: Drill Section 776680 mN (6500 mN local) after relogging
CMA PIT
200mRL
200mRL
PILLOWED
PILLOWED
D128
176.75m
D76
202.05m
D73
261.03m
0mRL
D120
243.1m
0mRL
MASSIVE
PILLOWED
D80
335.28m
D74
405.72m
D117
329.56m
YAOURE
MOSTLY
PILLOWED
D86
473.26m
SECTION 6500N
-400mRL
metres
-200mRL
221,800mN
D56
601.02m
200
221,600mN
D71
EOH
(50m in
front of
section)
221,200mN
-40
100
221,400mN
D104
539.76m
221,000mN
220,600mN
220,800mN
D115
497.6m
-200mRL
220,400mN
PILLOWED
MASSIVE
PILLOWED
-400mRL
Page 7-53

APRIL 2014
Figure 7.17: Simplified Drill Section 776680 mN (6500 mN local)
Page 7-54

APRIL 2014
Figure 7.18: Key for Major Units from Relogging Exercise
GRANODIORITE
STRONGLY ALTERED
(Carb-dol-ank-silica-pk carb)
PORPHYRY
WEAK-MOD ALTERED
(Carb-dol-ank-silica-pk carb)
BASALT
STRONGLY ALTERED
(Carb-dol)
FRACTURED BASALT
WEAK-MODLY ALTERED
(Carb_dol)
INTERMED-MAFIC DIKE
YAOURE ZONE
CMA ZONE
7.5
Metallogeny and Paragenesis

SRK (2008) stated that the Yaoure gold deposit had been classified as an epithermal
gold, copper and molybdenum porphyry, a hypothesis apparently supported by the
presence of copper, molybdenum and the presence of potassic alteration zones
associated with a series of small porphyritic acid-intermediate intrusions ranging from
granodiorite to syenite. There is a close spatial association with small granodiorite
intrusions and a porphyry-gold association at porphyry contacts. However, it is not
thought that there is a porphyry-related or a reduced intrusion-related gold system
(IRGS) at Yaoure. The porphyry contact association is thought to be due to the
physical competency difference between the intrusive porphyry bodies and basalts,
rather than porphyry being the source or driving mechanism for the gold.
In a study of Early Proterozoic ore deposits of the Birimian in West Africa, Milesi et al
(1992) regarded the Yaoure gold deposit as a syn-orogenic deposit with disseminated
gold and sulphide. Amara believes that, although at a still relatively early stage of
knowledge, the Yaoure gold deposit can be best classified as a mesothermal
greenstone-hosted quartz-carbonate vein deposit (Robert et al 1997).
This is based on:
The geological setting of a greenstone belt and a spatial association with a major
fault (Fault D, Figure 9.5) a compressional fault which was reactivated as a
dextral strike-slip structure at a late stage in the Eburnian orogeny.
The association with carbonatization and sericitization, as well as silicification.
The association of gold with Ag, W, Mo, and As.
The form of mineralization as quartz-carbonate veins associated with brittle-ductile
shearing.
The lack of clear epithermal features such as vuggy silica sinters indicative of
boiling, chalcedonic quartz and alunite-adularia.
Page 7-55

APRIL 2014
Coulibaly et al (2008), in a fluid inclusion study, concluded that the mineralizing

process is likely to be the formation of gold-bearing immiscible CO2-rich fluids from
aqueous fluids. The immiscibility event was caused by the release of fluid pressure
after fracturing along the main shear zones.
7.6
Summary of Field Characteristics of the Mineralization

The mineralization is not usually exposed at surface; the only good exposures are in
the Yaoure Central pit. The key feature that is used in the current regional exploration
programme, based on soil sampling, is the presence of quartz veins. Therefore, all
occurrences of quartz vein, both float and rare outcrop, are sampled.
Page 7-56

APRIL 2014
8.0
DEPOSIT TYPES
There are four related gold deposit types at Yaoure:
Greenstone-hosted, mesothermal, brittle-ductile shear zone deposits, for example

Yaoure Central and CMA, but also smaller deposits such as Kongonza;
Oxidized deposits in saprolite overlying the primary sulphide deposits; the two
examples are the open pits at Yaoure Central and CMA North, Central and South;
Lateritic oxide deposits as ferricrete remnants on the top of hills, consisting of
transported and re-cemented iron-rich pisoliths and quartz fragments; the only
examples are Blangan and Zone North;
Small eluvial and alluvial deposits which have been mined by artisanal miners.
The Yaoure gold deposit occurs within the Palaeoproterozoic Birimian metallogenic
province that extends from Senegal and Mali through north-eastern Guinea, Cte
dIvoire, Ghana and Burkina Faso and as far as Niger. In Figure 8.1 the extent of the
Birimian is shown in pink, Birimian volcanic belts in green, and the Man Craton in
orange. Stars indicate gold deposits.
Figure 8.1: Geology Map of West Africa showing Gold Deposits
Gold deposits in the West African Birimian gold province, including the Yaoure gold
deposit, show many characteristics consistent with their classification as orogenic
mesothermal gold deposits. Similar deposits occur in the Abitibi Greenstone belt of
Canada and in the Yilgarn region of Australia. However, the apparent deformation at
Yaoure particularly that associated with Yaoure Central mineralization is relatively low
when compared to other Birimian deposits. In this sense, mineralization at Yaoure is
similar to other meso- or epithermal, low and medium sulphidization deposits such as
the CSH 217 deposit in Inner Mongolia, or the San Cristbal dilational jog, stockwork
deposit in Northern Chile.
The main characteristics of the Yaoure mineralization are:
Page 8-57

APRIL 2014
The geological setting of a greenstone belt and a spatial association with a major
fault.
The association with carbonatization and sericitization, as well as silicification.
The association of gold with Ag, W, Mo, and As.
The form of mineralization as quartz-carbonate veins associated with brittle-ductile
shearing.
Visitors to Yaoure have compared aspects of Yaoure mineralization, such as the

veining and alteration, with features at the Golouma deposits in the Sabodala area
(Bond 2013a) of Senegal, and Lefa in Guinea, albeit that Lefa gold mineralization is
hosted in sedimentary rocks, as compared to basaltic volcanics at Yaoure.
Page 8-58

APRIL 2014
9.0
EXPLORATION
9.1
Coordinates, Datum Grid Control and Topographic Surveys

Regional exploration in the exploration licence is based on the UTM coordinate system,
specifically Zone 30 North in WGS 84 datum on the EGM96 Geoid model. Positions,
for example soil samples, are located using hand-held GPS units.
Drilling at the Yaoure gold deposit site has been based on a local grid used by Amara
since 2005 for both its exploration and mining activities. There is an angular difference
of 0.21 between the two systems, with the local grid north being 0.21 degrees to the
east of UTM north. The local grid was transformed into the UTM system in 2007.
Topographic surveys at the Yaoure gold deposit are carried out by the former mine
surveyor using a total station, or by local contract surveyors using total stations.
9.2
Summary of Exploration Activity

Between April 2009 and January 2011, soil sampling was carried out at Kongonza,
between Kongonza and Blangan (Kongonza north-west), Zone North, Govisou and
Magazine (Figure 9.1).
Exploration resumed in June 2011, initially focusing on the search for more Blangantype lateritic deposits with soil sampling, and followed by RAB drilling at the Zone North
soil anomaly (Refer to Section 10 for drilling).
At a regional scale, an airborne geophysical survey was carried out over the whole
exploration licence area in MarchApril 2012. A remote sensing interpretation, which
also took into account the airborne magnetic and radiometric data, was completed in
June 2012. The geophysics and remote sensing interpretation defined a number of
regional exploration targets which have been tested by soil sampling. The remote
sensing interpretation also identified resistant ferricrete remnants (lateritic hill tops)
and refocused the final search for Blangan-type deposits by soil sampling. Soil
sampling, in the search for Blangan-type lateritic deposits, stopped in October 2012.
The regional soil sampling programme focused on the targets identified by the airborne
geophysical survey and the remote sensing interpretation was conducted from
November 2012 until August, following initial field checking and prioritization. From
September 2013 to December 2013, further soil sampling was carried out within four
kilometres of the Yaoure deposit with the dual objectives of sterilising ground for future
mine planning purposes as well as defining additional mineralised zones.
9.3
Geological Mapping
No systematic geological mapping has been carried on the exploration licence, as good
outcrop is generally poor, due to the thick vegetation and the processes of lateritization
and saprolitization. Rare surface outcrops found during regional soil geochemistry are
recorded. The best exposure is found in the Yaoure Central pit, and geological
mapping of each bench was carried out during mining (Figure 9.2).
Page 9-59

APRIL 2014
Figure 9.1: Map Showing Prospects near to the Yaoure Gold Deposit
Page 9-60

APRIL 2014
Figure 9.2: Geological Mapping - Yaoure Central North (Prospect 4) Pit. Level 215 mRL
Page 9-61

APRIL 2014
9.4
Remote Sensing and Satellite Imagery

A remote sensing study of the exploration licence area was carried out by consultant Dr
Michael Baker, and reported in July 2012 (Baker 2012). Structure and general lithology
were interpreted from Landsat imagery, combined with the recently acquired
aeromagnetic and radiometric data at a scale of 1:40,000. A mosaic of high-resolution
Ikonos and Quickbird satellite imagery was used to refine the interpretation locally and
to map ferricrete occurrences in detail. Figure 9.3 is a composite Ikonos/Quickbird
natural colour image over the Yaoure mine site.
The main products of the study were:
9.5
A new geology map of the area (Figure 9.4) showing major structures and
prospective areas for follow-up, and;
A map showing the distribution of ferricrete remnants (flat to gently-dipping

resistant lateritic cappings) which was used to refocus the search for Blangan-type
lateritic oxide gold deposits.
Geophysics
A high-resolution airborne magnetic and radiometric survey was flown by Xcalibur
Airborne Geophysics for Cluff Gold (WA) Cte dIvoire SARL in April 2012 over the
exploration licence (Figure 9.5). The main survey comprised 5,057 line-km over a
23 km by 22 km area. The survey was flown at a nominal ground clearance of 50 m
and line spacing of 100 m. Fill-in lines were flown to yield 50 m line spacing over the
north-eastern part of the exploration licence. The data was interpreted by Xcalibur (Le
Roux 2012, Steenkamp 2012), the main products being a geological interpretation of
the whole exploration licence area including follow-up targets and a detailed
interpretation for the vicinity of the Yaoure gold deposit (Figure 7.11). The data has
been reinterpreted by PGN Geoscience (Figure 7.12, Allieres 2012).
Page 9-62

APRIL 2014
Figure 9.3: Composite Natural Colour Image over the Yaoure Mine Site
Page 9-63

APRIL 2014
Figure 9.4: Remote Sensing Interpretation Simplified Geology of Exploration Licence Area
Page 9-64

APRIL 2014
Figure 9.5: Aeromagnetic Survey - Analytical Signal of the Total Magnetic Intensity
9.6
Surface Geochemistry
9.6.1
Stream Sediment Sampling

Trial stream sediment sampling over the whole exploration licence area was carried out
in December 2012. The 105 samples were analysed by the BLEG method with solvent
extraction (detection limit = 1 ppb Au) at Bureau Veritas laboratories in Abidjan, the
results of which are shown in Figure 9.6. The BLEG method was shown to be a useful
tool for the rapid preliminary evaluation of a large exploration licence, although not the
only tool that should be used.
Page 9-65

APRIL 2014
Figure 9.6: Results of Stream Sediment Sampling Showing Anomalous Catchment Areas
9.6.2
Outcrop Sampling
Little systematic outcrop sampling has been carried out. Rare outcrops found during
the current regional soil sampling programmes are sampled; however the key lithology
Page 9-66

APRIL 2014
that is sought is quartz vein. All occurrences of quartz vein, both float and rare outcrop,
are therefore sampled.
9.6.3
Soil Geochemistry
Soil sampling has proven to be an effective method of detecting oxide gold
mineralization (both in saprolite and laterite), and hence primary sulphide-associated
gold. The initial BRGM soil sampling in the 1980s detected the Yaoure Central, CMA,
Blangan, Kongonza and Zone North mineralization. The results of subsequent soil
sampling by Amara since 2009 are shown in Figure 9.7 and Figure 9.8.
Samples are taken along grid lines established using hand-held GPS units. At each
sample point the top humus layer is removed with a pick axe and shovel, and the top
30 cm of the soil regolith is cleared. The sample is taken at a depth of about 30 cm.
Sample details such as soil type; colour; moisture; rock fragments; and vegetation are
recorded. Care is taken to avoid contamination from the top soil layers. Large rock
fragments are removed and 1 kg2 kg of sample is collected into plastic pre-numbered
bags. All relevant information of the area around the sample position, such as
vegetation, farming, or nearby artisanal mining, is recorded.
Phase 1 regional sampling is carried out at a grid line spacing of 400 m and a sample
collection interval of 50 m. Earlier sampling by Amara, to follow-up BRGM soil
geochemical anomalies, was carried out at grid line spacing of 200 m and 100 m. Initial
soil sampling of the numerous ferricrete remnants identified in the remote sensing
interpretation was along single lines covering each lateritic hill top. If gold anomalism
above 200 ppb was detected, follow-up soil sampling was carried out; however, this
relatively high threshold has only been used for surficial Blangan-type targets.
9.6.4
Trenching and Pitting

Trenching and pitting has not formed a large part of the Amaras exploration
methodology. In 20092010, four old BRGM trenches were reopened at Blangan and
Kongonza, and 22 pits were excavated at Prospect 2. Following the restart of
exploration in June 2011, limited trenching has been conducted immediately south of
Angovia 2, and at Kadjabo, Wanu, Govisou and Benou in the extreme north of the
exploration licence area. Trenching at Benou failed to repeat the 42 m at 1.0 g/t Au
reported from BRGM trenching. Trenching is carried out under the supervision of an
Amara geologist or geotechnician, particularly with a view to safety and quality.
Trenches are excavated to a maximum depth of 3 m, with a width of between 0.8 m
and 1.0 m, using an excavator if near to the mine site, or by hand when further afield,
for example at Benou. Trenches are channel sampled just above the trench floor at 2 m
intervals.
Although trenching is occasionally used as an exploration tool for defining target areas
for further work, results from trenches are excluded from the database used for mineral
resource estimation. Amara plans to use a higher proportion of trenching as its tool for
initial investigation of soil anomalies or other targets.
Page 9-67

APRIL 2014
Figure 9.7: Results of Soil Sampling Throughout the Exploration Licence
Page 9-68

APRIL 2014
Figure 9.8: Soil Sampling Results in the Vicinity of the Yaoure Gold Deposit
Page 9-69

APRIL 2014
9.7
Geotechnical and Hydrology

No drilling solely for the purpose of geotechnical or hydrological investigations has
been conducted for the Yaoure sulphide project. Geotechnical logging of the diamond
drill core, prior to sampling, has been carried out for every diamond drillhole.
9.8
Petrology, Mineralogy and Other Research Studies

Petrological thin section descriptions were made in July 2012 by Microsearch CC for 27
core samples, to aid with core logging. The range of sample types covered all main
lithologies and sulphide mineralization types.
Twenty-six core samples, representing both mineralized and barren zones were
analysed for 48 elements by Actlabs in Canada. Au correlates well with Ag and Bi and
S and to a lesser extent with Mo, Pb and W. Various elements were also normalized
with the Upper Continental Crust (UCC) composition (Figure 9.9). Both barren and
particularly mineralized samples show enrichment of As, Ag, Sb, Bi, and Au compared
to the UCC, indicating that the effects of the hydrothermal alteration were quite
pervasive. Surprisingly, there is no correlation between Au and Cu; the highest Cu is
275 ppm.
Figure 9.9: UCC Normalized Plots Mineralized Samples
SRK (2008) stated that the Yaoure gold deposit had been classified as an epithermal
gold, copper and molybdenum porphyry, a hypothesis apparently supported by the
presence of copper, molybdenum and the presence of potassic alteration zones
associated with a series of small porphyritic acid-intermediate intrusions
Page 9-70

APRIL 2014
10.0
DRILLING
10.1
Summary of Drilling Activity

Amara started drilling in 2005 by testing the BRGM soil anomalies with reverse
circulation (RC) drilling, initially at Prospect 4 to the west of the CMA North pit, but also
Prospect 2, Prospect 3, and Angovia 2 (Figure 6.1 and Figure 9.1). 53,056 m of RC
drilling (775 holes) were completed between 2005 and 2007; in addition 6,484 m of
diamond drilling (62 holes) were completed in 2007. As well as delineating resources at
Prospect 2 and Prospect 4 (now the Yaoure Central pit), resources were delineated at
Angovia 2.
In February 2009, a review of all available data was carried out by Amara. This
identified the Blangan soil anomaly as a target, subsequent RAB drilling of which was
used to define a resource, leading to mining (refer to Section 17). The soil anomaly at
Kongonza was tested with RC drilling in 2010, from which a resource was delineated
(Section 16).
Exploration resumed in June 2011, including RAB drilling at the Zone North soil
anomaly. RAB drilling of soil anomalies continued through the remainder of 2011 and
up to October 2012 at Kongonza NW, K2, Office Zone, and Govisou.
RC drilling resumed in October 2011 and was carried out at Kongonza, Kongonza NW,
K2, Magazine, Govisou and Yaoure Central North.
In August 2011, the Yaoure sulphide diamond drilling project started, and by November
2012, 31,865 metres (106 holes) had been drilled, testing an area of up to about 2.1
km in an NS direction and up to about 1.4 km in an EW direction. This drilling is the
basis for the Mineral Resource Estimate in Section 14 of this report. Six diamond
drillholes (1,101 m) were also drilled at Kongonza in October 2011.
The quantities of the various types of drilling conducted by Amara between 2009 and
2013 rotary air blast (RAB), reverse circulation (RC) and diamond drilling are
summarized in Table 10.1.
10.2
Collar Coordinates
Throughout the Yaoure sulphide project drilling campaigns, all drill collars have been
initially pegged by an Amara surveyor, using total station equipment, or by Amara
Geologists using hand-held GPS units. After completion of drilling, collars were
secured with 12 m of metal casing and capped with a concrete plinth on which the
drillhole number, azimuth, inclination, and final drill depth are inscribed. Final collar
positions are surveyed by the Amara surveyor by total station.
Page 10-71

APRIL 2014
Table 10.1: Summary of Drilling from 2009 to 2013
Year
Drill Type
Prospect
Metres
No. of holes
2009
RAB
Blangan
716
70
Kongonza
984
118
Prospect 2
388
39
Prospect 4
276
16
Total
2364
243
Blangan
240
24
Kongonza
5351
82
Prospect 4
3406
78
Total
8997
184
Angovia 2 South
581
30
Kongonza NW
5339
248
Kongonza K2
1751
74
Zone North
5608
270
Magazine
1844
96
Total
15123
718
RC
Kongonza
1669
21
DD
Yaoure Central North

(Prospect
Kongonza 4)
1967
23
1101
Total
2068
29
Angovia 2 South
2690
130
Govisou
8285
362
Kongonza NW
4323
266
K2
2250
167
Office Zone
3871
239
Low-grade stock piles
372
51
Total
21791
1215
Angovia 2 South
7846
83
Govisou
400
Kongonza
2668
32
Kongonza NW
11594
157
Kongonza K2
3573
60
Magazine
5315
97
Yaoure Central North extension
1402
Total
32798
13
446
DD
Yaoure Central and CMA
29898
83
DD
Yaoure Central and CMA North-Central
15435
47
2010
2011
2012
RC
RAB
RAB
RC
2013
Page 10-72

APRIL 2014
10.3
Downhole Surveys
For diamond drilling, downhole surveys have been carried out by the drilling
contractors using either Proshot (GES) or Reflex EZ-Com II (E-Global) survey
instruments. Readings are taken at 30 m intervals. From early October 2012 an
additional reading at 6 m was introduced. The surveys are checked at the drill-site by a
Geotechnician.
Criteria for repeating the readings are:
Consecutive azimuth readings with a difference greater than 10.

Consecutive inclination readings have a difference greater than 6.
Readings that failed to meet these criteria were repeated immediately. If repeat
readings are still not satisfactory, then a note is made in the database and the reading
is excluded. An indication of the amount of deviation in the Yaoure diamond drillholes
is shown in Figure 10.3. An additional survey tool (EZ A2) was used from April 2013 to
June 2013 during Phase 4 sent to check and confirm the readings provided by the
Reflex kit. Reassuringly no significant differences were found.
10.3.1
Rotary Air Blast Drilling (RAB)

RAB drilling was carried out by Foraco, an Ivorian contractor, using a Montabert
Hydroforse rig with 85 mm drill hammers. The rig used a separate Atlas Copco
compressor with a maximum capacity of 350 psi. Holes were usually inclined at 60,
although for surface laterite prospects such as Blangan, holes were vertical. The depth
of RAB holes was 10 m20 m; holes were typically drilled to hammer refusal. Sampling
was carried out under the supervision of an Amara geotechnician.
Samples were captured in high-density plastic bags, from the head of the collar at
every 1 m drill interval, then weighed and split using a riffle splitter into 3 kg samples for
BLEG analysis at the Amaras Yaoure laboratory. The remainder of the split bulk
sample was taken to the exploration sample yard for storage for a period of one month.
The geotechnician constantly monitors sample recovery. The metre markings of the
driller are checked to ensure that the 1 m samples are consistently correct. The splitter
was cleaned out after every sample with a soft brush, and compressed air was used to
flush remnant sample material from the drill stem after every 1 m sample interval and
downhole at every rod change. After weighing 20 samples, the calibration of the scale
is checked with a standard weight.
10.4
Yaoure Sulphide Project Drill Programme

The mineral resource estimates documented in this report are based solely on the
diamond drilling that Amara has conducted from August 2011 to June 2013.
Three sets of drillholes, summarized in Table 10.2, have been excluded from the
sulphide resource modelling dataset. These are: an RC drilling programme, drilled in
September-October 2012, to test the northwestwards extension of Yaoure Central
Page 10-73

APRIL 2014
mineralization; an RC drilling conducted in 2005-2007; and diamond drilling conducted

in 2007-2008, mainly at Prospect 4.
Samples from the September-October 2012 RC drilling were assayed at Amaras
Yaoure site laboratory, using the bottle-roll analytical method. This assaying method is
applicable for mineralization expected to be processed by cyanide leaching, such as for
the Yaoure oxide resources, but the results are incompatible with fire assays obtained
for diamond drill core.
Table 10.2: Drilling Excluded from Resource Estimation
10.5
Period
Method
Holes
Metres
Reason for Exclusion
Sep-Oct 2012
RC
13
1,402
Incompatible assaying methods
2005-2007
RC
469
51,250
2007-2008
DDH
62
6,484
All data not available
RC Drilling
RC drilling at the Yaoure Gold deposit in 2011 and 2012 accounts for only 4% of the
total amount of RC drilling in those years. The RC focus has been on other prospects
which lie outside the Yaoure gold deposit resource area (Table 10.3). No RC drilling
has been included in the mineral resource estimates that are the subject of this report.
RC drilling since 2011 was carried out by GES, a Cte dIvoire-based company, using
either a Schramm 450 or and Hanjin Power 7000SD-RC rig, under the supervision of
an Amara geologist or geotechnician. Both rigs used SullAir compressors, with a
maximum capacity of 500 psi. Only 140 mm RC hammers were used, together with the
appropriate shrouds, which were dependent upon drilling conditions. Drilling under wet
conditions was continued infrequently with the assistance of a booster compressor. If
sample recovery became poor under wet conditions, the hole was abandoned.
Compressed air was used to flush remnant sample material from the drill stem after
every 1 m sample interval and downhole at every rod change.
RC samples were collected from the cyclone underflow at every 1 m drill interval into
high-density new plastic bags. The sample was dried, if necessary, then split at the drill
site using multistage riffle splitter to obtain 3 kg-3.5 kg sample, weighed using
electronic scales. Field duplicates were also collected at every 20th interval and given
unique identification number by numerical order rather than setting aside specific series
of numbers. The remainder of the split bulk sample was taken to the exploration
sample yard for storage for a period of one month.
The splitter and cyclone were cleaned out after every sample with a hand-held air hose
from the rig. The Amara geotechnician constantly monitored sample recovery. The
metre markings of the driller are checked to ensure that the 1 m samples are correct.
After weighing 20 samples the calibration of the scale was checked with a standard
weight.
Page 10-74

APRIL 2014
Every sample was sieved for rock chips, which are washed and placed on a table for
logging. Each RC sample has details of date, hole identification, geological description
of alteration, oxidation, sample quality and observed minerals recorded.
10.6
Diamond Core Drilling Programme Phases

Following a review of data in 2011, leading to recognition of potential for significant
sulphide gold mineralization at Yaoure, a phased diamond drilling programme was
initiated on 29 August 2011 and completed on 4 June 2013, with a total advance in
2011, 2012 and 2013 of 47,300 metres (Table 10.1). A typical diamond core drilling
set-up is shown in Figure 10.1.
Diamond drilling was carried out in four drilling campaigns (Figure 10.2), testing an
area of up to 2.1 km in a NS direction and up to 1.4 km in an EW direction.
Table 10.3: Yaoure Diamond Drill Programme Phases
Metres
Number of
Holes
Number of
Rigs
AugustDecember 2011
1,967
23
Phase 2
JanuaryApril 2012
6,442
24
1-2
Phase 3
MayNovember 2012
23,456
59
2-4
Phase 4
January-June 2013
15,435
46
1-3
47,300
153
Drilling Phase
Date
Phase 1
Total
Figure 10.1: Diamond Core Drilling Rig: CMA North (Infilled) Pit
Page 10-75

APRIL 2014
Figure 10.2: Yaoure Sulphide Drilling Phases and Locations
Page 10-76

APRIL 2014
Phase 1
The first phase of Yaoure sulphide project diamond drilling, conducted from August to
December 2011, totalled 1,967 m over 23 drillholes, all collared within the existing
Yaoure Central pit. Ten holes were orientated at an azimuth of 270 and inclined at 60
to the west. Eight holes were drilled to the north at an inclination of 60 and five holes
were drilled to the south at an inclination of 60. The objectives of the first phase were:
To confirm the mineralization and results of the historical RC drilling in 20052007.

To obtain structural information.
To test the cross-cutting steep veins, by aligning the holes to the north or south.
The results confirmed the widths and grades of the main mineralized zone reported
from historical RC results, and were reported by press releases on 19 January 2012
and 20 June 2012.
Hole YD0021 was drilled 15 m down-dip of RC hole ARC0024 (30 m at 3.64 g/t) with
the objective of confirming the RC intersection, and to determine whether the wet
conditions had affected the grades returned in the RC samples. The results of YD0021
were very positive; the width and grade of the main zone were confirmed, with an
aggregate composite intersection of 28.37 m at 3.24 g/t from 35.30 m (Table 10.5).
Drilling in an N-S alignment confirmed the presence of steep cross-cutting veins with
visible gold, for example YDD0003 (Table 10.5).
Phase 2
The second phase of diamond drilling, conducted in Q1-Q2 2012, totalled 6,442 m over
24 holes. This phase tested the continuity of the northsouth-trending structures at
Yaoure Central, which dip to the east at between 25 and 45, over a 900 m strike
length and up to 340 m across strike. These holes were all drilled to the west (270)
from the east of the current Yaoure Central pit, with a nominal spacing of 100 m and
stepping back between approximately 100 m and 340 m. The results from 18 of the 24
holes were reported on 19 June 2012; the remaining 6 holes were reported on
14 August 2012. The drilling confirmed the dip of the Yaoure Central mineralization to
the east.
Phase 3
Phase 3 outline drilling began in early May 2012; positive initial results led Amara to
expand the programme in August 2012. The objective of the expanded Phase 3 outline
programme was to outline the extent of the open pit minable sulphide mineralization
around Yaoure Central, at a nominal 200m grid spacing, extending over an area of 2.1
km in a NS direction by up to 1.1 km in an EW direction. This enlarged target area
included the backfilled CMA North and Central pits to the east and the CMA South pit
in the south.
At the end of Phase 3, on 8 November 2012, a total of 59 holes (including 6 structural
holes collared in the Yaoure Central pit and 4 abandoned holes) had been drilled, with
a total advance of 23,546 m. Results of the first 8 holes were reported on 14 August
2012; results for a further 30 holes, plus 4 deepened holes, were reported on
Page 10-77

APRIL 2014
3 December 2012. Results of the remaining 16 holes, plus a further 7 deepened holes
were reported on 4 February 2013.
Of the 55 completed Phase 3 holes:
16 deep holes tested both the mineralization below the CMA North and Central pits,
and the continuity from the west of the underlying Yaoure Central pit mineralization
at depth.
8 holes only tested the mineralization below the CMA North and Central pits.
6 holes tested the CMA South pit and possible Yaoure Central mineralization under
the CMA South pit.
17 holes tested only the Yaoure Central pit mineralization at depth and up to 200 m
to the north of the Yaoure Central pit.
2 holes tested a new target - CMA South East - the SE-trending arm extending
from the southern end of the CMA Central pit, trending towards the Angovia 2
mineralization.
6 holes were short structural holes, collared within the Yaoure Central pit.
The CMA North-Central area was mainly drilled at 200 m spacing during Phase 3. The
drill pattern comprised three rows of drillholes; the first row close to the estimated
position of the backfilled CMA pits, the second row stepped back 200 m, and the third
row stepped back a further 200 mwith a maximum vertical intersection depth of
approximately 300 m (a down-dip length of about 500 m from the presumed base of
CMA North pit).
Since August 2011, the only other location that has been tested by diamond drilling is
at Kongonza (5.5 km SE of Yaoure Central), where 6 diamond drillholes (1,101 m)
were completed in November 2011, testing down to a vertical depth of 300 m. The
results of the six Kongonza holes do not form part of the Mineral Resource Estimate
reported herein.
Phase 4
Phase 4 infill drilling, conducted from 14 January to 4 June 2013, totalled 15,435 m
over 47 holes. Of the 47 holes:
10.7
27 holes infilled the CMA North and Central deposit to 100 m.

10 holes infilled the Yaoure Central South drilling.
4 holes tested the extension of Yaoure Central to the northwest.
2 holes tested the underlying Prospect 3 mineralisation to the southwest.
2 holes tested the possible extension of mineralization to the northeast (towards the
Magazine area).
2 holes tested a cross-cutting quartz vein in the CMA North area.
Diamond Core Drilling Methods

The Yaoure diamond drilling has been carried out by two contractors:
GES mainly using a CoreTech YDX3L rig, but also a CoreTech CSG1300G rig.
Page 10-78

APRIL 2014
E-Global (a UK subsidiary of the Canadian Energold Group) using two Atlas Copco
CS1000 rigs (Figure 10.1) and a man-portable Energold HC616 Series 3 rig for
some of the shorter holes.
All drills used fluid circulation and wireline methods.

GES was the sole diamond drilling contractor from August 2011 to May 2012, up to
hole YDD0058. E-Global started drilling in June 2012. Holes YDD0059 to YDD0112
were drilled by both contractors. The Phase 4 drilling was carried out solely by EGlobal.
Drilling contractors and Amara staff follow a drilling protocol to ensure quality of data
collected and safety of personnel.
For a given drillhole in Phases 1 to 3, diamond drilling was initiated with HQ coring
through the oxide material, with a reduction to NQ once competent fresh rock is
intersected, at an average downhole depth of 60 m. In the case of the Energold HC616
Series 3 rig, holes were initiated using HQ and then NTW instead of NQ. For the Phase
4 infill drilling programme, HQ was maintained to a greater depth than for the previous
phases, to an average downhole depth of 170 m. The proportion of drill core sizes for
the Yaoure sulphide project is listed in Table 10.4.
Table 10.4: Proportion of Core Sizes in Diamond Drilling
Core Size
Diameter (mm)
Proportion (%)
HQ
63.5
27.5
NQ
47.6
63.2
NTW
56.0
9.3
Drill core orientation procedures are carried out at approximately 3 m intervals in

competent rock using Reflex ACT II RD equipment. The orientations are bottom
marked (Figure 10.4) and the procedure is checked by the geotechnician on site.
Geotechnical data such as solid core recovery (SCR), rock quality designation (RQD),
fracture frequency and the rock type are determined and recorded at the drill site
before transportation of the core to the core yard. The core is also washed clean of
surface mud or other drilling fluids at the drill site. The core processing procedure for
handling a run of core at the diamond drill rig site includes:
On retrieval of the inner tube after drilling a run, the orientation procedure is
checked by the Amara geotechnician as being performed correctly by the driller.
The core is carefully transferred to angle iron layout holder, ensuring that no core is
lost.
The geotechnician marks the bottom end of the core run with a vertical line from the
top-edge to centre-of-core (Figure 10.4).
The core is carefully reassembled in the angle-iron holder.
Page 10-79

APRIL 2014
If the core recovery is 100% and the core can be correctly reassembled, a
preliminary top orientation line is drawn up-hole along the core to the top of the run
in yellow wax pencil. Where core recovery is less than 100% and the core cannot
be continuously reassembled, then the yellow line is taken only as far as good
recovery allows.
The core orientation marks at the bottom of the previous run and at the top of the
new run are compared. If the two sets of orientation marks are in agreement, then a
black line is drawn for the new run overwriting the yellow line. If the orientation
marks do not match, then no black line is drawn and, pending a review at the core
yard, the core cannot be orientated with any certainty.
The total length of recovered core is recorded by the geotechnician, and metre
interval marks are drawn. The solid core recovery (SCR), rock quality designation
(RQD), fracture frequency, and rock type are determined and recorded.
The core is transferred into appropriately-labelled aluminium core boxes. Core

boxes are labelled with the drillhole number, box number and the starting and
ending depths of that core box. Wooden or plastic core blocks are placed between
runs, recording the run length and drillhole depth.
The core trays are then transported to the core yard, an average distance of less
than 1 km, for further logging.
Diamond drilling core recovery below weathering (more precisely at the base of W3
saprock) averages 98%. Specialized drilling mud (bentonite) and drilling polymers
are used to maximize core recovery.
Page 10-80

APRIL 2014
Figure 10.3: Yaoure Sulphide Project Diamond Drillhole Traces
Page 10-81

APRIL 2014
Figure 10.4: Marking the Bottom of a Run for Core Orientation
10.7.1
Significant Drill Intersections

Every hole of the Yaoure sulphide diamond core drilling programme intersected gold
mineralization. All holes have been reported in public announcements on 19 January
2012, 19 June 2012, 14 August 2012, 3 December 2012, 4 February 2013, 22 May
2013 and 16 July 2013, and in the Amara annual exploration reports for 2011 and
2012.
The reporting criteria for composite intersections are:
A minimum width of 2 m
A cut-off of 0.4 g/t gold
Internal dilution of up to 2 m, at less than 0.4 g/t allowed for continuity.
A number of composite intersections have been aggregated on the basis that the
mineralization forms a single geological zone with a minimum grade of 0.4 g/t. Internal
material below this grade, with a width greater than 2 m, is included in the calculation of
the weighted average grade of the aggregate intersection. Intersections that exceed a
value of 50 when intersection width (m) is multiplied by gold grade (g/t) are listed in
Table 10.5.
Page 10-82

APRIL 2014
Table 10.5: Yaoure Intersections (> 50 m g/t)
Hole ID
Location
From
(m)
42.00
To
(m)
45.55
Interval
(m)
3.55
Gold
(g/t)
97.60
YDD0003
Yaoure Central North in pit
YDD0008
55.45
76.50
21.05
2.62
31.90
45.15
13.25
9.22
YDD0014
YDD0021
36.80
68.40
31.60*
1.57
35.30
63.67
28.40*
3.24
Including
60.63
63.67
3.04
19.03
YDD0033
31.44
53.50
22.06*
2.54
YDD0036
170.40
175.33
4.93
21.82
YDD0041
186.97
207.22
20.35
3.55
YDD0047
188.64
214.71
26.07
2.23
YDD0048
CMA North northern extension
57.77
67.90
10.13
7.15
YDD0051
Yaoure Central South
59.35
94.44
35.09*
1.51
YDD0054
Yaoure Central North deep
421.67
427.84
6.17
9.06
YDD0056
Yaoure Central South deep
542.75
553.09
10.34
5.58
YDD0059
40.92
47.43
6.51
9.39
YDD0060
111.88
129.68
17.80
4.44
YDD0062
188.65
233.37
44.72*
1.39
YDD0065
Yaoure Central South deep
348.00
393.00
45.00*
3.24
Including
348.00
366.00
18.00
4.71
CMA North
102.88
141.02
38.14*
3.67
Including
118.52
141.02
22.50
4.88
69.00
77.00
8.00
9.47
144.85
188.00
43.15*
1.78
YDD0068
YDD0073
Including
161.00
174.00
13.00
4.94
YDD0079
CMA North
196.00
225.00
29.00
3.24
YDD0081
CMA North WNW-trending quartz

vein
Yaoure Central North deep
35.70
104.00
68.30*
1.52
YDD0083
322.00
375.00
53.00*
1.17
YDD0084
21.00
25.20
4.2
12.44
75.00
83.00
8.00
8.46
YDD0090
261.00
270.00
9.00
6.87
YDD0110
392.00
405.00
13.00
5.59
YDD0118
CMA North northern extension,

deep
Yaoure Central
23.00
44.00
21.00
7.83
YDD0130
338.00
346.00
8.00
YDD0132
CMA North
155.70
167.00
11.30
5.53
YDD0133
CMA North
161.00
183.00
22.00
2.56
YDD0141
CMA North
157.00
196.00
19.00
4.37
YDD0142
CMA North
211.00
220.00
9.00
7.21
YDD0152
CMA North
203.00
217.00
14.00
3.91
YDD0153
CMA North
292.00
327.00
35.00*
8.28
2.03
Aggregate intersection in which a number of composite intersections have been aggregated on the basis that
the aggregate intersection forms a single geological zone with a minimum gold grade of 0.4 g/t. Internal waste
below this grade with a greater width than 2 m is included in the calculation of the weighted average grade of
the aggregate intersection.
Page 10-83

APRIL 2014
11.0
SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY
11.1
Sampling Methods Approach
11.1.1
Bulk Density Measurements

For its 2006 mineral resource estimate, SRK excavated two metallurgical pits to a
maximum depth of 8 m and obtained an average density of 1.87 g/cm3 for oxide. For
the 2007 estimate by Auverdi, measurements from drill core were available, and a
constant density value for oxidized material of 1.87 g/cm3 and a value for sulphide
material of 2.75 g/cm3 were used.
Since August 2011, Amara has carried out systematic density determinations on
diamond drill core before splitting and sampling. Density measurement of the whole
range of lithologies at various depths and with different states of weathering are made
using the water immersion method. A digital balance is used to weigh plastic-sealed
samples in both air and water.
A total of 1,417 density determinations were done within both the mineralised and nonmineralised zones. All the bulk densities were completed using a film-coated water
immersion technique on dry drill core samples.
The samples were approximately 10-22 cm, half core and full core. The drill hole name
and down hole distances were recorded and each sample was used to determine the
spatial location. Density determination was carried out at the mine site laboratory and
quality control test on the density carried out by an external laboratory (Bureau Veritas
lab) in Abidjan. The summary of the density results is presented in Table 11.1 below.
Table 11.1: In situ bulk dry densities by lithology and weathering code
Bulk Density classification by rock types

Lithology
Code
W1
W2
W3
W4
W5
W6
fresh
slightly
weathered
moderately
weathered
highly
weathered
completely
weathered
lateritic
Basalt Volcanic
2.84
2.80
2.16
Other Mafic Rocks
2.90
Mafic Tuff
2.80
Volcaniclastic
2.72
2.04
Granodiorite
2.69
2.57
Porphyritic Granodiorite
2.72
Quartz veining
2.68
2.62
Porphyry
2.74
2.64
1.76
1.69
Saprock
2.53
2.20
Saprolite
laterite
2.14
Overburden
1.55
Page 11-84

APRIL 2014
An external check on 203 bulk density measurements on half core samples was carried
out at the Bureau Veritas laboratory in Abidjan.
Amara Mining staff analysed the 203 density values reported by Bureau Veritas (BV),
which were selected in different weathering and lithological units, with 74% in fresh
rock and in 52% in basalt. The check densities were determined on dry samples and on
half core using the same film-coated method used by Amara.
Descriptive statistics show an average relative difference of -3.38%, with the BV
density values being on average higher. The correlation coefficient between the two
sets of data is 84%, see Figure 11.1. Note that the checks compare less well in the
lower density range, which naturally is much less reliable information when taken from
core.
Figure 11.1: Check Densities, BV vs. Amara, Yaoure.
The Cumulative Relative Difference graph (HARD analysis) shows that the precision
of the density determination was good, with 95% of the data having less than 10% of
relative error (Figure 11.2).
Page 11-85

APRIL 2014
Figure 11.2: Cumulative Relative Difference Plot, Check Densities, BV vs. Amara, Yaoure.
The cumulative frequency curves are coherent with maximum 5% of percentage

difference. Notice that the portion of the plot where the differences most significant are
in the lower values (weathered profile, including saprolites, laterites, and generally
weathered rock). This is the portion of the density profile that is hardest to measure,
and is also highly variable compared to the density distribution of hard rock, see Figure
11.3.
Figure 11.3: Cumulative Frequency Plot, Check Densities, BV vs. Amara, Yaoure.
Page 11-86

APRIL 2014
11.1.2
Soil and Trenches

Field procedures for soil, trench and pit sample collection are described in Section 9.6.
Each sample is placed in a plastic bag and marked with sample number. The samples
are then sealed and transported to the in-house laboratory for sample preparation and
analysis.
11.1.3
RC Drillhole Sampling
Field procedures for RC drillhole sample collection are described in Section 10.5.
11.1.4
Diamond Drill Core Samples

On receipt of the diamond drill core at the core yard, the meter marking and orientation
line are checked, and then the core is photographed dry and wet with a digital camera
before logging. Core photos record the drillhole number, box number, top and bottom
depths.
Logging procedures continue with the completion of any geotechnical logging, followed
by geological logging. Lithology, alteration, veins, mineralization and weathering are
recorded on log sheets, and later entered into the database. In order to gain a better
understanding of the deposit, a relogging exercise was carried out from April to July
2013.
The orientations of geological structures are measured on the basis of alpha, beta and
gamma angles relative to the orientation line initially produced at the rig site. True and
apparent orientations are then obtained by calculation and are occasionally checked
with the home-made jig.
After core logging, the core is marked up for splitting and sampling. The core is split
along the orientation line with a diamond saw, ensuring that a sufficient amount of the
line and downhole arrow markings remain so that the remaining half core can be
correctly re-orientated at a later stage, and half of the core retained for quality control
and additional sampling if necessary. Primary samples are taken at regular 1 m
intervals, with adjustments to the sample interval being made to account for geological
contacts and significant core loss. Sample intervals are not usually less than 0.5 m nor
longer than 2.0 m. In the first 47 drillholes, sample lengths were frequently shorter than
0.5 m in order to sample individual veins. In the current Phase 4 infill drilling and
sampling, there is little sampling that is not at a standard 1 m interval. The split half
core is placed in a pre-labelled new plastic bag together with a sample tag, while the
remaining split core is replaced in the core box and stored at Amaras core yard at
Yaoure.
Blank material consisting of coarse granite with a mean grade of 0.01 g/t Gold was
inserted into the preparation sequence at a frequency of 1-in-20 samples. In Phases 1
to 3 quarter-core field duplicates are submitted into the preparation sequence at a
frequency of 1-in-20 samples In Phase 4, field duplicates were produced by taking an
additional split after crushing to 2 mm at a frequency of 1-in-20 samples. Certified
Reference Materials (standards) were inserted into the assay sequence at a frequency
of 1-in-20 samples.
Page 11-87

APRIL 2014
11.2
Sample Preparation and Analysis

Yaoure project soil, RAB and RC samples are prepared and analysed for gold at
Amaras in-house facility at Yaoure. Up to drillhole YDD0054, Yaoure project diamond
drill core samples were sent to the SGS sample preparation facility in Yamoussoukro,
Cte dIvoire, prior to fire assay at the SGS laboratory in Tarkwa. Ghana. From hole
YDD0055 onwards, drill core samples have been sent to the Intertek sample
preparation facility in Yamoussoukro, prior to fire assay at Intertek Minerals Ltd in
Accra, Ghana. In addition, two trial batches of samples (two holes) were sent to Bureau
Veritas in Abidjan, Cte dIvoire, for sample preparation and fire assay.
11.2.1
Soil Samples
All soil samples are analysed at the in-house laboratory at Yaoure. The entire 2 kg
sample is dried at a temperature of 105 C for a minimum of 12 hours, jaw crushed to a
nominal 75% passing 2 mm if required, then milled in a Keegor mill to a nominal 85%
passing 75 m. The pulverized sample is then re-bagged, ready for weighing. All the
preparatory equipment is flushed with compressed air between each sample. A 1,000 g
sub-sample of the pulp is weighed into a five-litre leach bottle and leached with onelitre cyanide solution (0.50% cyanide strength, pH 10.50 -11.5). Gold is determined
from the leached solution by atomic absorption spectrophotometry (AAS) with detection
limit of 5 ppb.
11.2.2
RC and RAB Hole Samples

All RC and RAB samples are analysed at the in-house laboratory at Yaoure. The
method is similar to that for soils. The entire sample, approximately 3.5 kg, is dried at a
temperature of 105 C for a minimum of 12 hours, jaw crushed to a nominal 75%
passing 2 mm, then milled in a Keegor mill to a nominal 85% passing 75m. A 500 g
sub-sample of the pulp is weighed into a five-litre leach bottle and leached with 1 L
cyanide solution (0.50% cyanide strength, pH 10.5011.5). Gold is determined from the
leached solution by AAS with a detection limit of 10 ppb.
11.2.3
Diamond Core Hole Samples (DDH)

Diamond drill core up to drillhole YDD0054 was prepared at the SGS sample
preparation facility in Yamoussoukro, Cte dIvoire. Core from YDD0055 to YDD0112
was prepared at the Intertek preparation facility in Yamoussoukro; Phase 4 core
(YDD0113 to YDD0158) was prepared at Amaras own preparation facility at Yaoure
using the same protocol. For Phases 1 to 3 up to drillhole YDD0112, the pulps were
then transported to either the SGS laboratory in Tarkwa, Ghana or to Intertek Minerals
Ltd in Accra, Ghana, for fire assay. For Phase 4 from YDD0113 to YDD0158, all fire
assays were carried out at Intertek. The sample preparation and assay protocols are
essentially the same for both companies:
The entire sample is oven dried at 105C

Crush <3.5 kg in a jaw crusher to 85% passing 2 mm
Riffle split with a Jones riffle splitter,
Pulverize 1.5 kg split in an LM2 pulveriser to 85% passing 75 m
Page 11-88

APRIL 2014
50 g fire assay with AAS finish, detection limit 0.01 ppm

All samples returning >10 g/t gold or with visible gold are re-assayed by 500 g
metallic screen fire assay.
Routine QC procedures for sample preparation by Intertek include a 1-in-15 re-split at

the sample preparation stage, 1 in 20 samples undergoing sieve analysis to monitor
grind size, and the use of a barren wash at the start of each crushing and pulverizing
procedure. In addition, Intertek includes two replicates, two reference standards, and
one blank per batch of 50 samples at the assay stage.
Routine QC procedures by SGS were similar: every 50th sample screened to confirm %
passing 2 mm and 75 m, and crusher and pulveriser cleaned with barren material at
the start of each batch. One reagent blank, one preparation blank, one weighed
replicate, one preparation duplicate, and two CRMs, are inserted per batch of 50
samples at the assay stage.
The SGS Tarkwa laboratory is not yet ISO 17025 accredited for the above technical
procedures. However, all services at SGS Tarkwa are provided with a quality
assurance protocol in line with ISO 17025, the quality accreditation system for
commercial laboratories. The Intertek Minerals Ltd laboratory in Accra operates under
the umbrella of its technical centre for geochemical services at Intertek/Genalysis
Services Pty Ltd in Australia (NATA Accreditation No: 3244), and its methods are
based on ISO 17025 accredited methods.
Umpire samples were submitted by Amara to ALS Geochemistry in Johannesburg,
South Africa. Prior to that, additional umpire samples of pulps originally submitted to
SGS had been submitted to Intertek.
11.3
Chain of Custody and Security

Samples are shipped and tracked in a manner to ensure that there will be no tampering
that could invalidate results. The custody system consists of the following:
Secure transportation of the core from the rig site to the core yard at Yaoure, an
average distance of less than 1 km;
Core is kept in a designated core logging and storage area;
Security guards are employed on rigs and at the Yaoure core yard on a 24-hourper-day basis;
Sample shipments to the preparation or assaying laboratories are in sealed boxes;
The transportation of samples to the preparation laboratories is by secure Amara

vehicles;
Shipments are accompanied by forms showing box contents, method of transport,

personnel sending and receiving the samples and date and time of departure;
Confirmation of receipt of the shipment by the laboratory is sent by email to Yaoure

noting date of receipt, nature of seals at the time of receipt, and whether all
samples were received;
Page 11-89

APRIL 2014
A chart showing shipping and assay turnaround time is maintained;
Coarse reject samples and unused pulp samples are returned to Yaoure and
securely stored.
11.4
Sample and Assay QA/QC
11.4.1
QA/QC Procedures and Submission - Drilling Phases 1-3.

Quality Control (QC) measures are in place to ensure the reliability and trustworthiness
of exploration data. The measures include verification of aspects such as drilling,
surveying, sampling, assaying, data management and data integrity. Exploration field
data are recorded on internally designed log sheets and transcribed into the computer
and stored in Microsoft Excel spread sheets. Core logging, surveying and sampling
data are verified routinely for consistency.
The collection and processing of all samples prior to dispatch to laboratory is
conducted by Yaoure geologists and field staff. Duplicates, standards (CRMs) and
blank material are inserted into the sample sequences before dispatch to laboratory.
Samples are submitted in batches with a unique batch number, using a standardized
laboratory submission form which lists the sample numbers, type of rock sample and
analysis required.
11.4.2
QA/QC Procedures - Drilling Phases 1-3

Laboratory audits of the Intertek and SGS preparation and assay facilities were carried
out by the Amara Senior Geologist responsible for QA/QC validation, accompanied by
the manager of the Amaras in-house laboratory at the Kalsaka mine in Burkina Faso.
Reports detailing any perceived issues were submitted to the respective laboratories
and remedial actions discussed and agreed.
Assay results are delivered by the laboratories electronically and examined for
consistency and completeness on a batch-by-batch basis. In addition, time plots of
reference and blank material assays are made to check for drift over time. A single
Amara Senior Geologist has the responsibility of reviewing all assay results and
detecting any assaying problems. Potential failures are recorded, investigated, and
corrective measures, such as re-assaying, carried out. For each batch of results,
before including in the database, a decision is made by the Senior Geologist
responsible as to whether the results are acceptable. This decision is based on a
statistical approach that takes into account how all the QA/QC samples (blanks,
duplicates and CRM standards) that were inserted into a particular batch have
performed and could result in a partial or complete batch failure.
The main rejection criteria are:
The CRM assay is outside three standard deviations from the stated CRM value.
Two consecutive reference material assays are greater than two standard
deviations (on the same side of the accepted mean) from the stated CRM value.
Page 11-90

APRIL 2014
11.4.3
Inter-Laboratory Checks Drilling Phases 1-3

Inter-laboratory checks were conducted between SGS and Intertek and between SGS
and Bureau Veritas. The more comprehensive of the two checks was between SGS
and Intertek. The check with Bureau Veritas was to determine how their 40 g fire assay
compared with the 50 g fire assay of SGS. No significant differences were observed in
the results.
11.4.4
SGS vs. Intertek Inter-Laboratory Check Drilling Phases 1-3

A total of 824 pulp samples collected from
pulp samples from Intertek despatched to
laboratory. A total of 51 ROCKLAB CRM
submission, out of which 20% failed 2
Table 11.2.
SGS were dispatched to Intertek, and 175

SGS, to check on the analyses by either
and 21 pulp blanks were inserted for the
standard deviation tolerance as shown in
Table 11.2: Intertek Inter-Laboratory Check of SGS CRMs

Failed
Samples
-2SD
+2SD
Assigned
Value
(g/t)
0.082
0.005
0.08
98%
Oxi81
1.807
0.033
1.75
97%
SE58
25
0.607
0.019
0.6
99%
SL61
5.931
0.177
5.94
100%
SN60
8.543
0.175
8.44
99%
SRM
No. of
Samples
OxA59
Standard
Deviation
Analytical
Average
(g/t)
Percentage
Variance
Number
of
Outliers
The summary statistics for the 999 samples for both laboratories are presented in
Table 11.3. The relative percentage difference between the means of SGS and that of
Intertek assays recorded 6.8% in favour of SGS. The highest grades recorded in both
datasets are 22.4 g/t and 16.9 g/t in the SGS and Intertek sample populations
respectively.
The correlation plot of the results (Figure 11.4) shows slight bias towards SGS assays,
though the values are relatively evenly spread around the parity line (y=x). A correlation
coefficient 0.95 was established between the two laboratories. The Q-Q plot
(Figure 11.5), generated with assay value greater than 0.1 g/t demonstrates good
correlation between the two laboratories. The HARD plot (Figure 11.6) was generated
using assay value greater than 0.1 g/t. The HARD plot shows only 61% of the total
dataset has an error less than 10%, which is not satisfactory as the statistical standard
expects 90% of the total assays to attain an error of less than 10% for pulp samples.
Page 11-91

APRIL 2014
Table 11.3: Summary Statistics of Check Assays - SGS vs. Intertek
SGS
INTERTEK
Mean
0.555
0.517
Standard Error
0.047
0.043
Median
0.120
0.080
Mode
0.010
0.005
Standard Deviation
1.486
1.350
Sample Variance
2.208
1.822
Kurtosis
69.354
49.419
Skewness
7.023
6.113
Range
22.390
16.905
Minimum
0.010
0.005
Maximum
22.400
16.910
Sum
554.800
516.875
999
999
Count
Figure 11.4: Correlation Plot - SGS vs. Intertek
YAOURE PROJECT
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT
SGS vs INTERTEK CHECK ASSAYS
16.0
INTERTEK ASSAYS (g/t)
14.0
12.0
y = 0.8561x + 0.1173
R = 0.91
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
SGS ASSAYS (g/t)

Assays
y=x
Page 11-92
Linear (Assays)
16.0

APRIL 2014
Figure 11.5: QQ Plot - SGS vs. Intertek
YAOURE PROJECT
QUANTILE-QUANTILE PLOT
SGS vs INTERTEK PULP CHECK ASSAYS
8.00
7.00
y = 0.9616x + 0.0228
R = 0.9971
Intertek
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
Assays
4.00
SGS
y=x
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
Linear (Assays)
Figure 11.6: HARD Plot - SGS vs. Intertek

YAOURE PROJECT
HARD PULP ANALYSIS
SGS vs INTERTEK CHECK ASSAYS
September 2011 - December 2012
100%
90%
80%
Relative Error (%)
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0%
Percentile Ranking
HARD
The histogram of relative percentage difference plot (Table 11.7Figure 11.7) shows a
positive bias towards SGS laboratory. The relative percentage difference versus pair
mean shows that most samples above 5.0 g/t returned a higher grade from the SGS
laboratory.
Page 11-93

APRIL 2014
Figure 11.7: Histogram of Relative Percentage Difference SGS vs. Intertek
Frequency
Yaoure Project
SGS vs Intertek
September 2011 - December 2012
-200
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-100
100
-10 0
Relative % difference
200
Frequency
The result of the inter-lab correlation analysis between the SGS and Intertek
laboratories is considered to be satisfactory. However, because the Intertek laboratory
in Yamoussoukro is not ISO accredited, but works under the umbrella of its parent
company in Australia, pulp samples from Intertek were submitted to an accredited ISO
laboratory ALS Geochemistry in Johannesburg, South Africa.
11.4.5
Intertek vs. ALS Inter-Lab check Drilling Phases 1-3

The summary results obtained from the descriptive statistics between Intertek and ALS
laboratory are presented in the Table 11.4. The scatter plot showing the results of the
two laboratories is presented in Figure 11.8. The quantile-quantile (QQ) plot is
presented in Figure 11.9 and indicates no significant bias. The half absolute relative
difference (HARD) plot, shown in Figure 11.10, reported that 64% of the data returned
error less than 10%, and after changing the threshold, 85% of the analysis returned
error less than 20%. This is considered satisfactory.
Page 11-94

APRIL 2014
Table 11.4: Summary of Inter-Laboratory Check Intertek and ALS
Description
INTERTEK
ALS
Mean
1.24
1.25
Standard Error
0.08
0.09
Median
0.54
0.50
Mode
0.30
0.06
Standard Deviation
1.70
1.81
Sample Variance
2.90
3.28
Kurtosis
5.43
6.71
Skewness
2.29
2.49
Range
9.85
11.24
Minimum
0.01
0.01
Maximum
9.85
11.25
505.57
508.22
407
407
Sum
Count
Figure 11.8: Scatter Plot - Intertek vs. ALS
YAOURE PROJECT
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT
INTERTEK vs ALS CHECK ASSAYS
12.0
11.0
10.0
y = 1.0338x - 0.0355
R = 0.9465
ALS JB ASSAYS (g/t)
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0
INTERTEK ASSAYS (g/t)

Assays
y=x
Page 11-95
Linear (Assays)

APRIL 2014
Figure 11.9: Quantile-Quantile (QQ) Plot - Intertek vs. ALS
YAOURE PROJECT
QUANTILE-QUANTILE PLOT
INTERTEK HEAD ASSAYS vs ALS CHECK ASSAYS
8.00
7.00
y = 1.0526x - 0.0563
R = 0.9967
ALS JB Assays
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
intertek
Assays
y=x
6.00
8.00
Linear (Assays)
Figure 11.10: HARD Plot - Intertek vs. ALS

YAOURE PROJECT
HARD PULP ANALYSIS
INTERTEK vs ALS CHECK ASSAYS
December 2012
100%
90%
80%
Relative Error (%)
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0%
Percentile Ranking
HARD
The result of the inter-lab check between Intertek and ALS is considered to be
satisfactory.
11.4.6
Blanks Drilling Phases 1-3

Blank material used in the QA/QC procedure consists of coarse granite collected about
30 km from the mine operation. The majority of the coarse blank samples assayed
Page 11-96

APRIL 2014
during the drilling campaign reported within acceptable limits (less than three times the
laboratory detection limit of 0.01 g/t) and contamination was not an issue.
Statistical analysis of coarse blank samples returned a mean grade of 0.01 g/t gold for
a total of 775 samples. Figure 11.11: Results of Blank Control Samples shows blank
sample results from all the laboratories.
Figure 11.11: Results of Blank Control Samples
Yaoure Mine
Blank
Sep2011 - Dec 2012
0.10
Grade (g/t)
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0
200
400
600
800
1000
samples
Blank_Au
11.4.7
3x detection limit
Certified Reference Materials (CRM / SRM) Drilling Phases 1-3

Twelve different CRM samples (Table 11.5: Analysis of Certified Reference Materials
at SGS and Intertek (All Rocklab Samples)) were inserted into the assay sequence.
The CRM samples vary in grade, ranging from low, through medium to high grade, and
include both sulphide and oxide standards. A total of 1,871 CRM samples were
inserted and submitted for analysis. The majority of the CRM samples reported within
acceptable limits of 3 standard deviations. Examples of the CRM assay plots for the
drilling campaigns 1 through 3 were shown in the previous NI 43-101 Report, , Yaoure
Gold Project, Cte dIvoire: Technical Report and Mineral Resource Estimates with an
effective Report date of 25 March 2013.
Page 11-97

APRIL 2014
Table 11.5: Analysis of Certified Reference Materials at SGS and Intertek (All Rocklab Samples)
SGS TARKWA
INTERTEK TARKWA
+3SD
Assigned Value
(g/t)
STANDARD
DEVIATION
Analytical
Average (g/t)
Percentage
Variance
Number of
Outliers
0.082
0.005
0.110
135%
13
0.084
0.008
0.070
84%
1.807
0.033
1.820
101%
60
1.802
0.039
1.840
102%
SE29
58
0.597
0.016
0.590
99%
SN26
14
8.543
0.175
8.630
101%
SL61
502
5.931
0.177
6.010
101%
SI64
361
1.780
0.042
1.800
101%
SL34
16
5.893
0.140
5.620
95%
SI25-3
20
1.801
0.044
1.780
99%
SN60
493
8.595
0.223
8.640
101%
16
SE58
169
0.607
0.019
0.610
100%
Number
Assayed
-3SD
+3SD
-3SD
OxA59
38
OxA89
96
OxI81
39
OxI96
SRM
Page 11-98

APRIL 2014
Field Duplicate Samples Drilling Phases 1 through 3

A total of 1,519 field duplicate samples were submitted. A correlation plot of the field
duplicate results shows a relatively skewed distribution towards the original assays.
The distribution of the data around the parity line (y=x) is significantly better in the lowgrade ranges than the high-grades (Figure 11.12).
A comparison of the mean grades between the two sample populations, including all
samples, shows a relative percentage difference of the order of 1.89% with the
duplicate samples reporting lower than the original samples. Summary statistics are
presented in Table 11.6.
Figure 11.12: Field Duplicate Correlation Analysis
Yaoure Field Duplicates

Correlation Analysis
Sept 2011 - 2012
20
18
16
14
Duplicate
11.4.8
12
10
y = 0.6441x + 0.502
R = 0.6713
8
6
4
2
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
Original
samples
x=y
Linear (samples)
Table 11.6: Summary Statistics of Original Assays vs. Field Duplicate Assays
Original
Duplicate
Mean
0.271
0.266
Standard Error
0.038
0.031
Median
0.020
0.020
Mode
0.005
0.005
Standard Deviation
1.486
1.208
Sample Variance
2.209
1.460
Range
31.975
22.595
Minimum
0.005
0.005
Maximum
31.980
22.600
Sum
411.085
403.410
Count
1519.000
1519.000
Page 11-99

APRIL 2014
The relative percentage difference versus mean grade plot (Figure 11.13) shows very
high error in the low-grade ranges; the general trend of the error is bias towards the
originals in both the low-grade and high-grade ranges. This could be attributed to
instrumental errors from the laboratories, possible instability at the lower (close to
detection) and upper limits of detection, but is most likely to be the natural variability
between the two samples.
Figure 11.13: Field Duplicate Analysis - Mean Pairs vs. Relative Difference
Yaoure Field Duplicate Analaysis

Sept 2011 - Nov 2012
100
Relative % diffrence
80
60
40
20
0
-20 0
10
15
20
25
-40
-60
-80
-100
Pair mean of Au(g/t)
The half absolute relative difference (HARD) plot is used to determine precision. The
field duplicate HARD analysis plot shows that only 38% of the total dataset (Au>0.25
g/t) had an error less than 20%. At the 90% percentile threshold, the data has a relative
error above 100% (Figure 11.14).
The reason for the poor HARD analysis could be the number of low-grade samples
with generally high relative percentage error, but is thought to be most likely due to the
natural variability between pairs of samples.
Page 11-100

APRIL 2014
% rel error
Figure 11.14: Field Duplicate HARD Analysis
Yaoure HARD Analysis

Field Duplicate
Sept 2011 - Nov 2012
120%
110%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percentile rank
Overall, the correlation between the original assays and the field duplicate assays is
regarded as being satisfactory.
11.4.9
Screen Metallic Fire Assays

All samples returning >10 g/t Au or with visible gold are routinely re-assayed by 500 g
Metallic Screen Fire Assay. Comparisons between the original 50 g fire assay and the
500 g Metallic Screen fire assay are presented in Figure 11.15 (all data) and Figure
11.16 (without three outliers).
Figure 11.15: Original Fire Assay vs. Metallic Screen Fire Assay (All Data)
Page 11-101

APRIL 2014
Figure 11.16: Original Fire Assay vs. Metallic Screen Fire Assay (with 3 Outliers Removed)
11.5
Independent Review of QA/QC Results Drilling Phases 1-3

In the previous Technical Report, Yaoure Gold Project, Cte dIvoire: Technical
Report and Mineral Resource Estimates, effective date of 25 March 2013, an
independent investigation on the QA/QC provided was reported.
The authors of that Technical Report concluded in their analysis that, while some
further investigations and checks were required, the QA/QC of the data showed that it
was appropriate for resource estimation. Full details of the discussion can be found in
the Report mentioned above.
11.6
QA/QC Results, Phase 4

A full QA/QC program was executed for Phase IV drilling that was completed at
Amaras Yaoure project, Cte dIvoire. The program included Blanks, Duplicates and
Commercial Standards, and took place during the first half of 2013.
Samples consisted of average 3kg of sawn half core. The entire sample was dried,
crushed to 75-80% passing 2mm. Unbiased riffle splitting of 1 to 1.5 kg is pulverized to
85-90% passing 75m with an LM2 pulveriser. Assaying was performed at the Intertek
laboratory, in Tarkwa, Ghana, using Fire Assay on 50g, AAS finish.
There were a total of 17,956 samples that were submitted to the laboratory, including
20% of QC samples, which consisted of 951 blanks, 895 commercial standards and
1,071 coarse and pulp duplicates. In addition, cross laboratory checks have been
conducted for 377 samples that were selected from mineralized intervals.
Page 11-102

APRIL 2014
11.6.1
QA/QC Submissions
Blanks
The material used as Blank was collected from barren granitic body located some 30
km from the mine site. The source material was not a proven 0 value but gold contents
were generally low, estimated at an average grade of 0.01g/t.
Blanks are routinely inserted at a rate of 1 every 20th sample; however the insertion
frequency is increased up to 1 every 5 samples in recognized mineralized intervals.
The accepted tolerance for blanks is three times the laboratory detection limit.
Certified Standards
Commercial standards were also inserted at a rate of about 1 every 20th sample. Six
types of Rocklabs standards were used: Three for insertion in Oxide samples (OXA89,
OXE106, and OXI96) and three for insertion in sulphide samples (SI64, SL61 and
SN60). Details of the standards are presented in Table 11.7. The accepted tolerance
was three times the certified Standard Deviation.
The use of OXA89 was subsequently suspended following consistent low bias trends
noticed in the assays of this material.
Table 11.7: Commercial Standards Characteristics
ROCKLABS (ppm)
Value (g/t)
Std. Dev.
Mean-3S
Mean+3S
OXA89
0.0836
0.008
0.0599
0.1073
OXE106
0.606
0.013
0.5670
0.6450
OXI96
1.802
0.039
1.685
1.919
SI64
1.780
0.042
1.654
1.906
SL61
5.931
0.177
5.400
6.462
SN60
8.595
0.223
7.926
9.264
Duplicates
Two types of duplicates were used to assess sub-sampling and assay precision:
Coarse duplicates: Every 20th sample is duplicated by splitting the crushed sample
and by duplicating the sampling procedure.
Pulp duplicates were staggered with coarse duplicates and were inserted every
20th sample.
Coarse duplicates and pulp duplicates were assigned numbers in the same series as
the original sample, and assayed in the same batch. This procedure is blind to the
analytical laboratory.
Cross laboratory checks

In order to assess assay reproducibility, pulp samples initially assayed at Intertek were
sent to ALS Johannesburg (South Africa), an accredited laboratory independent from
Amara. Samples were taken in mineralized intervals of at least one hole on every drill
Page 11-103

APRIL 2014
section. Pulp Duplicates, Blanks and Certified Reference Materials were inserted in the
consignments at the same frequency as for the batches submitted to Intertek.
QAQC Procedures
Assay results are delivered by the laboratories electronically and examined for
consistency and completeness on a batch-by-batch basis. In addition, time plots of
reference and blank material assays are made to check for drift over time. Potential
failures are recorded, investigated, and corrective measures, such as re-assaying,
carried out. For each batch of results, before including in the database, a decision is
made to whether the results are acceptable. This decision is based on a statistical
approach that takes into account how all the QA/QC samples (blanks, duplicates and
CRM standards) that were inserted into a particular batch have performed and could
result in a partial or complete batch failure.
11.6.2
Results
Standards
Figure 11.17 to Figure 11.21 show the results of the total 895 commercial standards
inserted within the Yaoure Phase 4 sample batches. The accepted threshold is +/- 3
Standard Deviations.
Apart from OXA89 which returned a percentage of relative error of -9%, all the other
types of standards show a non-significant positive bias of 1 to 2%, which is acceptable
(less than 5%). The use of OXA89 has been suspended, although a clear reason of
this anomaly has not been established.
Linear regressions display a lower accuracy for the initial sample batches and this has
triggered a laboratory audit by Amara Mining. This is particularly visible for the SL61.
Correction actions (mainly about instrument calibration and dispensers) were
suggested and subsequently implemented by Intertek. Assay quality has since
improved significantly. The plots show a fairly random distribution around the certified
mean with no significant decrease in dispersion and no consistent shift in sample
assays.
The overall fail rate is 1% and all the assays on the individual types of CRMs have
satisfied the Sketchley (1998) statistical condition. The accuracy of the assays is
therefore considered satisfactory.
Page 11-104

APRIL 2014
Figure 11.17: ROCKLABS OXA89 Plot
Figure 11.18: ROCKLABS 0XE106 Plot
Figure 11.19: ROCKLABS OXI96 Plot
Page 11-105

APRIL 2014
Figure 11.20: ROCKLABS SI64 Plot
Figure 11.21: ROCKLABS SL61 Plot
11.6.3
Coarse Duplicate
A total 893 coarse duplicates were inserted in the Yaoure Phase 4 sample batches.
Gold values in original versus duplicate samples are shown in Figure 11.22. The
correlation coefficient (Pearson square) for the full dataset is 98%, reflecting a good
repeatability of the assays. These coarse duplicates are blind to the laboratory.
Table 11.8 below shows the descriptive statistics of the duplicate pairs. Sample
variance is relatively high; however, the Relative Coefficient of Variation (3.99) is below
the 5% level. Parent and Duplicate populations are skewed to the right.
Page 11-106

APRIL 2014
Figure 11.22: Yaoure Phase 4 drilling - Scatter Plot of Coarse Duplicates
Table 11.8: Yaoure Phase 4 Diamond Drilling - Descriptive Statistics of Coarse Duplicates
PARENT
FDUP
Mean
0.29
0.30
Standard Error
0.06
0.07
Median
0.01
0.01
Mode
0.01
0.01
Standard Deviation
1.90
2.12
Sample Variance
3.61
4.49
Range
45.00
50.00
Minimum
0.01
0.01
Maximum
45.00
50.00
Sum
254.87
269.66
Count
893.00
893.00
Figure 11.23 and Figure 11.24 show respectively the quantile-quantile plot and the Half
Absolute Relative Difference (HARD) plot.
The QQ-plot displays a single and uniform population, which suggests that minimal
sampling error has occurred for low and high grades samples.
The HARD plot shows that 60% (expected 80% minimum) of the duplicate pairs had
less than 20% of relative error. This relatively low precision level is also seen on the
Mean vs. HARD plot with a wide but with symmetrical scatter. The sampling and
preparation protocol may not be adequate for this type of deposit. In order to help
define a sampling preparation protocol that would improve the level of precision, a
sampling heterogeneity test should be completed.
Page 11-107

APRIL 2014
Figure 11.23: Yaoure Phase 4 Diamond Drilling - QQ Plot of Coarse Duplicates
Figure 11.24: Yaoure Phase 4 Diamond Drilling HARD Plot of Coarse Duplicates
11.6.4
Pulp Duplicates
A total 178 pulp duplicates were inserted in the samples batches of nine holes of
Yaoure Phase 4 drilling. Gold values in original versus pulp duplicate samples are
shown in Figure 11.25. The correlation coefficient (Pearson square) for the full dataset
is 98%, reflecting a good repeatability of the assays, with a slight bias towards the
original assay values. These pulp duplicates are blind to the analytical laboratory.
Page 11-108

APRIL 2014
Figure 11.25: Yaoure Phase 4 Diamond Drilling - Scatter Plot of Pulp Duplicates
Table 11.9 below shows the descriptive statistics of the pulp duplicate pairs. Sample
variance is significantly lower than the coarse duplicates, as would be expected. The
Relative Coefficient of Variation is below 5%.
Table 11.9: Yaoure Phase 4 Diamond Drilling - Descriptive Statistics of Pulp Duplicates
PARENT
PDUP
Mean
0.18
0.17
Standard Error
0.07
0.06
Median
0.01
0.01
Mode
0.01
0.01
Standard Deviation
0.89
0.74
Sample Variance
0.79
0.54
Range
9.97
7.19
Minimum
0.01
0.01
Maximum
9.97
7.19
Sum
31.32
29.40
Count
178.00
178.00
This homogeneity is reflected on the HARD Plot which displays 88% of the data with
less than 20% of relative error (Long, 2002). About 60% of the samples have less than
10% of relative error.
Figures 11.26 and 11.27 show respectively the Quantile-Quantile plot and the Half
Absolute Relative Difference (HARD) plot. There is no significant bias.
Page 11-109

APRIL 2014
Figure 11.26: Yaoure Phase 4 Diamond Drilling Quantile-Quantile Plot of Pulp Duplicates
Figure 11.27: Yaoure Phase 4 Diamond Drilling HARD Analysis of Pulp Duplicates
11.6.5
Blanks
A total 951 blanks were inserted in the consignments during Yaoure Phase 4 diamond
drilling. All the blank sample (over 99%) but one, have returned assay values below the
accepted threshold of three times the laboratory low detection limit of 0.01 ppm. The
one anomalous blank sample has occurred inserted in a completely barren basalt
interval. No significant contamination has affected the samples during preparation and
during assaying.
11.6.6
Cross Laboratory Checks

Assay results were received for 376 umpire pulp samples sent to ALS Johannesburg.
The samples were assayed via same protocol as for Intertek, i.e. Fire Assay on 50g,
AAS finish. The precision and accuracy of this second lab were confirmed with the
insertion, in the check-sample batches, of Duplicates, Blanks and CRMs. These control
samples were satisfactory: Blanks and CRMs reported within accepted thresholds, and
duplicates repeatability was satisfactory.
The validated results from ALS were then compared with the results obtained from
Intertek for the same samples. Descriptive statistics are shown below in Table 11.10.
The data sets are both skewed to the right. The inter-laboratory coefficient correlation
was 96%, with a single outlier excluded (Figure 11.28).
Page 11-110

APRIL 2014
Table 11.10: Yaoure Phase 4 Diamond Drilling ALS vs. Intertek Descriptive Statistics
INTERTEK
ALS
Mean
1.66
1.60
Standard Error
0.16
0.15
Median
0.41
0.38
Mode
0.01
0.01
Standard Deviation
3.13
3.00
Sample Variance
9.83
9.00
Range
25.61
24.50
Minimum
0.01
0.01
Maximum
25.61
24.50
Count
376
376
The Q-Q Plot (Figure 11.29) and the HARD Plot (Figure 11.30) show a single
population with 82% of the samples having less than 20% of Relative Error. At a level
of confidence of 95%, the F-test (F-Calc=1.09; F-Critical=1.22) and the T-Test (TCalc=0.26; T-Critical=1.96) show that the two sets of data belong to the same
population with similar precisions, and that there are no systematic errors. The
reproducibility of the assays is therefore considered satisfactory.
Figure 11.28: Yaoure Phase 4 Diamond Drilling ALS vs. Intertek Assay Plot
Page 11-111

APRIL 2014
Figure 11.29: Yaoure Phase 4 Diamond Drilling ALS vs. Intertek QQ Plot
Figure 11.30: Yaoure Phase 4 Diamond Drilling ALS vs. Intertek HARD Plot
11.7
Conclusions
During the Yaoure Phase 4 Diamond Drilling program, the quality of the assay results
has been comprehensively controlled to industry standards. Control sample insertion
consisted of coarse duplicates, pulp duplicates, blanks and Certified Reference
Materials. Inter-laboratory check assays was also performed. Batch validation and, if
required, correction actions were taken in real time.
The main conclusions of the QA/QC program are:
1. The repeatability and the reproducibility of the assays were acceptable in the
context of a deposit involving the presence of coarse gold. However, the sampling
protocol can be adapted and optimized through a heterogeneity test.
Page 11-112

APRIL 2014
2. With 20% of QAQC samples inserted in Yaoure Phase 4 Diamond Drilling, the
control sample insertion rate is conforming to industry standards.
3. Precision, accuracy and contamination were monitored in real time and correction
actions were taken immediately when required, including laboratory audit and reassay requests.
4. Overall fail rate for the Certified Reference Materials was 1% with no significant
decrease in dispersion around the mean and no consistent shift in sample assays.
Analytical accuracy was satisfactory for all grade ranges tested, which are
representative of the grades encountered at Yaoure.
5. The analysis of the coarse duplicates and the pulp duplicates data indicate that
sub-sampling, pulverization, homogenization and assay repeatability are within
acceptable thresholds in terms of Relative Precision Error and Fisher Precision.
However, precision is lower for the coarse duplicates, probably due to the presence
of coarse gold mineralization.
6. Over 99% of the blank samples have assayed below the accepted tolerance of
three times the laboratory low detection limit. No significant contamination has
occurred during sample preparation and during the analytical process. No sample
mismatch is noticed.
7. Inter-laboratory checks were conducted and have confirmed assay reproducibility
with a Correlation Coefficient of 96% and similar F-Test precisions.
8. It is concluded that the Yaoure Phase 4 diamond drilling analytical data is adequate
for Resource Estimation.
Page 11-113

APRIL 2014
12.0
DATA VERIFICATION
12.1
Data verification by Amara

Digital data received from the lab are imported in the database by using the Excel
VLOOKUP function. Data validation is also undertaken using both Datamine and
MapInfo/Discover. The database has been validated in a variety of ways, including
digitally using Datamine and MapInfo functions and physically by plotting hard copies of
the data as maps and graphs.
The assay files from the labs are merged using the VLOOKUP function. Checks are
randomly done against the original certificates at about 1 in 10. The downhole
measurements are verified and readings are redone. Finally, the collars are plotted for
visual verification.
12.1.1
Site Visit
In accordance with National Instrument 43-101 guidelines, Mario Rossi, FAusIMM,
Member CIM, and Member SME, visited the Yaoure gold project site from 12
September to 14 September 2013. During the visit inspections of exploration activities,
records, and data and site management were completed. Ground inspections included
outcrops, exposures within the oxide mined pits, open trenches, and artisanal mining
works.
During the site visit, observations were made from different vantage points about the
general project setting; prior mining; the presence of waste dumps and a low grade
stock pile which could have interesting grades; visited a trench south of Yaoure
Central, observing in detail the quality of the trench and sampling; observed in the pit
examples of quartz veining, pillow basalts, and mineralized granodiorite.
It was observed that the waste dumps backfilling the older CMA pit and around the
Yaoure pit may have low grade mineralization, perhaps near but above the expected
oxide cut-off operation.
Core Shed
Core from several representative drill holes was inspected and compared with log
sheets and assay information. In particular, consideration was given to the
relationships of gold grades with lithologies, alteration, sulphide content, veining and
structure. The intervals looked at were from Yaoure Central holes (YDD031; YDD102;
YDD043; YDD073; YDD035; and YDD065), and the CMA zone (YDD065; YDD153;
YDD142; YDD157; YDD141; YDD061; and three other holes from CMA Central).
The main observations are that the CMA zone is quite traceable on the core, with a
significant width (consistently 10 to 20m) and average grades for the entire intercept. It
presents fairly consistent alteration, shearing, and distinctive colouring. It would be
expected that in an eventual pit or underground mine it would present visual markers to
aid in grade control.
Yaoure Central, on the other hand, is not as easy to view in the core. Predicting grade
from macro visual observations cannot be done. The grades are erratic, and although
there is correlation between some of the geologic indicators, such as quartz veining,
Page 12-114

APRIL 2014
alteration, and shearing, these correlations are not 1 to 1. Sometimes there are
intervals with unexpected high grades in unaltered basalt, or altered and sheared
zones with little or no grades. In GSIs experience, this implies that it is nearly
impossible to define and follow through high grade zones as would be required for a
highly selective, low tonnage-high grade operation. Therefore, bulk mining at a lower
grade appears to be a reasonable approach.
Sampling and Assaying

The sample preparation facility was also visited. Although not working at the time of the
visit, it appears to be well equipped to handle the task. The sample preparation
protocol was discussed in detail, as was the assaying protocol used.
GSI made a few minor observations regarding the sample preparation protocol. It is
important than no less than half a NQ or HQ core, 1m long interval, be crushed at the
first stage. Otherwise, lower lengths or core diameters would risk significant increases
in sampling errors from not having enough weight in the first material crushed.
In addition to GSIs direct observations, and also given the prior investigations by third
parties, it is the GSIs opinion that Yaoures analytical results delivered by the
laboratories are sufficiently reliable for the purpose of mineral resource estimation at
the current level of project evaluation. However, GSI observes that the review of gold
assay QA/QC data returned some results that were outside of acceptable parameters,
and therefore considers that there is scope for improvements in the reliability of data
from future evaluation of the Yaoure oxide and sulphide mineralization.
Page 12-115

APRIL 2014
13.0
MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING
13.1
Test Work Summary

Laboratory test work commissioned by Amara was conducted by SGS in four discrete
programmes:
In January 2012, pulverised rejects from 42 exploration samples were leached for
24 hours and 48 hours at 33 % solids and 5,000 ppm cyanide.
In April 2012, six samples were combined into two composites and a programme
comprised of the following tests was undertaken:
Metallics analysis
Bottle roll cyanidation
Diagnostic leaching
Gravity release analysis
Rougher flotation kinetic test
Bond ball mill Work Index
Bond Abrasion Index.
In December 2012, 11 samples were subjected to direct cyanidation and carbon-inleach tests under the same conditions to assess leach variability.
In May 2013, a Phase 2 scoping programme on the same samples used for the
previous tests comprised the following:
13.1.1
Coarse ore 14-day bottle roll tests
Fine ore 48-hour bottle roll tests
Heavy liquid separation
Size-by-size gravity recovery
Flotation scoping tests to evaluate effects of grind size, reagents and cleaning
Bond ball mill Work Index.
In November 2013, results of the following tests on four samples were reported:
o
Bond rod mill Work Index
Gravity release analysis
Flotation on fresh material and gravity concentration tailings, including kinetic

tests, cleaning tests and locked cycle tests
Leaching of gravity and flotation concentrates and gravity and flotation tailings
Leach variability
Flotation variability.
Phase 1 tests April 2012

The gold contents of the two samples were assayed at 2.42 g/t and 4.77 g/t
respectively which are significantly higher than the average resource estimate grade.
Diagnostic leaching showed that 96.6 % of the gold is amenable to direct cyanidation
and a further 1.08 % could be recovered by cyanidation after treatment of the sulphides
with sulphuric acid.
Page 13-116

APRIL 2014
The Bond ball mill Work Index was measured to be 14.8 kWh/t at a closing size of
106 m. This value is close to the median of the population of samples tested by SGS.
The Abrasion Index was 0.1816 lb/kWh.
Gravity release analysis showed that liberation of free gold began to occur below
250 m and the best gravity recovery was obtained between 45 m and 125 m.
Concentrate grades of approximately 200 g/t Au were measured.
Flotation testing recovered 87 % of the gold into a concentrate containing 4.1 % of the
solids by weight after 6 minutes of flotation. Beyond this time gold recovery increased
with mass pull and a recovery of 88 % into 19 % of the solids was obtained after 15
minutes of flotation.
Bottle roll cyanidation tests yielded gold extractions of 94.2 % from the lower grade
sample and 96.9 % from the higher grade sample after 24 hours of leaching.
Corresponding recoveries in CIL tests were 95.6 % and 97.1 %, representing marginal
increases likely to be within experimental and analytical tolerance.
Figure 13.1: Phase 1 Test Bottle Roll Kinetic Extraction Curve
13.1.2
Leach variability tests December 2012

Eleven samples were stage-ground through 106 m and leached at 40 % solids by
weight with the pH maintained at 10.5 by lime addition and cyanide concentration
maintained at 0.5 g/l. Bottle roll leach tests were performed over 48 hours with and
without activated carbon present. Samples were taken during the tests with no added
carbon and only at the end of the tests with added carbon. Results are summarized in
Table 13.1.
The average of the head grades of the samples used for standard leach tests was
2.49 g/t and 2.21 g/t for the samples used for CIL tests. This difference could be
expected to be within acceptable experimental and analytical variance (11 % of the
standard test average head grade) but there are significantly greater differences
between head grades measured on individual tests. For example, Test 5 has a relative
difference of 28.7 % and Test 9 has a relative difference of 32.7 %. This may be
indicative of coarse gold (nugget effect) or of procedural or analytical inconsistency in
the laboratory.
Table 13.1: Cyanidation Variability Test Results
Test
No carbon added
Page 13-117
CIL

APRIL 2014
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Average
Head
grade
g/t
1.77
1.70
2.68
2.12
3.07
1.04
1.54
3.07
2.78
1.53
6.05
2.49
Extn
24 h
Extn
48 h
CN
kg/t
Lime
kg/t
97.63
94.37
94.71
91.08
96.07
98.69
97.22
96.34
98.63
90.77
91.20
95.2
97.74
94.40
94.20
90.57
96.91
97.57
97.07
94.09
98.19
89.51
91.32
94.7
0.21
0.04
0.17
0.19
0.12
0.79
0.07
0.04
0.12
0.08
0.21
0.19
1.17
0.57
0.57
0.50
0.42
0.40
0.86
1.72
0.56
0.60
1.15
0.77
Head
grade
g/t
1.16
1.37
2.78
1.34
2.19
0.85
1.77
3.20
1.87
1.47
6.35
2.21
Extn
48 h
CN
kg/t
Lime
kg/t
95.22
92.66
93.32
86.91
95.39
95.82
85.53
89.43
96.51
88.07
91.65
91.9
0.36
0.31
0.22
0.25
0.88
0.96
0.21
0.32
0.32
0.22
0.29
0.39
0.76
0.51
0.66
0.70
0.52
0.42
0.75
0.85
0.47
0.50
1.15
0.66
The average recovery after 24 hours of standard leaching was 95.2 % which reduced
to 94.7 % after 48 hours. This is thought to be within experimental tolerances. The
average extraction after 48 hours of CIL was 91.9 %. Only Sample 11 returned a CIL
recovery higher than the standard leach test, other samples generally reporting much
lower extraction during CIL tests than standard tests. This observation is against what
is normally expected; if preg-robbing were occurring then the CIL test extraction would
be higher than during standard leaching and if there was no preg-robbing then either
the two test methods would yield the same result or CIL would give a higher extraction.
The laboratory report of this work suggested that cyanide-soluble copper may have
been present in the samples and this reduced the efficiency of gold adsorption by
carbon. Analyses required to support or refute this argument were not performed and it
is not possible for AMEC to offer an opinion as to the likely cause.
13.1.3
Phase 2 scoping tests May 2013
Grind versus cyanidation extraction

The eleven samples tested in the previous programme were composited and bottle roll
tests were performed at a range of grind sizes. The extractions after 24 and 48 hours
of leaching are listed in Table 13.2. As is to be expected, leach extraction increases
with fineness of grind. At coarse grinds, the extraction was higher after 48 hours than
after 24 hours but at P80 75 m and 38 m the extraction peaked at 24 hours.
Table 13.2: Cyanidation Grind/Extraction Test Results
P80
(m)
634
400
250
180
125
75
38
24 h extraction
(%)
68.33
73.89
82.59
84.33
89.55
90.96
95.98
48 h extraction
(%)
69.86
75.36
84.02
84.83
89.79
90.61
95.04
Page 13-118

APRIL 2014
Gravity concentration
Heavy liquid analysis was performed on two size fractions, -6.3 mm +3.35 mm and 3.35 mm +1 mm. In order for gravity concentration to recover a similar amount of gold
to direct cyanidation, the mass pull to concentrate would have to be greater than 76 %.
Gravity concentration tests at sizes below 1 mm showed that maximum recovery was
achieved between 75 m and 250 m. Gravity concentration tests at 75 m were
followed by leaching of both the gravity concentrate and tailing. The results are
presented in Table 13.3. Gravity concentration recovered 54.9 % of the gold into
0.59 % of the weight and leaching of the products realised an overall extraction of
approximately 89 %.
Table 13.3: Gravity Product Leaching Test Results
Concentrate
Tailing
Total
Mass split
(%)
0.59
99.41
100.00
Au recovery
(%)
54.94
45.06
100.00
Leach extraction
(%)
91.62
85.71
Overall recovery
(%)
50.34
38.62
88.96
Flotation
Flotation tests using potassium amyl xanthate (PAX) as a collector were performed at
grind sizes ranging from 250 m to 75 m. The best flotation rate and recovery were
achieved at a grind of 75 m. Gold recovery was 93 % into a concentrate containing
4.25 % of the weight and grading 66 g/t Au.
Subsequent tests improved the reagent suite, after which open circuit cleaning tests
were performed. Gold recovery of 85.55 % into a concentrate grading 191 g/t was
achieved. Gravity concentration prior to flotation resulted in a decrease in combined
recovery.
Ball mill Work Index

The Bond ball mill Work Index to 106 m was measured at 13.9 kWh/t, characterising
the rocks as moderately hard.
13.1.4
Phase 3 tests November 2013

Four samples from across the sulphide deposit were tested.
Rod mill Work Index

The Bond rod mill Work Index was measured to be 26.3 kWh/t to 1180 m. This places
the material in the very hard category.
Gravity Release Analysis again showed that the optimum size for gravity concentration
was 75 m 106 m, approximately 85 % of the gold being recoverable to a
concentrate containing 15 % of the weight.
Page 13-119

APRIL 2014
A larger scale test on 10 kg of material milled to 80 % -75 m which was then passed
through a Falcon concentrator, cleaned on a Mozley table and the products leached
yielded the results shown in Table 13.4. The cyanide consumption during leaching of
the gravity concentrate was 70.557 kg/t concentrate.
Table 13.4: Falcon/Mozley Product Leaching Test Results
Sample
Concentrate
Tailing
Total
Weight
(%)
0.26
99.74
100.00
Au recovery
(%)
14.75
85.25
Leach extraction
(%)
98.66
87.12
Overall recovery
(%)
33.22
57.79
91.01
Flotation
Flotation tests continued from the previous programme, reducing the reagent addition
while maintaining gold recovery. The best gold recovery achieved was 91.8 % at a
concentrate mass pull of 5.7 % using Aero 7249 as an auxiliary collector or promoter.
Batch rougher tests were performed at the same conditions on a portion of each
sample. A summary of results is given in Table 13.5.
Table 13.5: Flotation Variability Test Results
Sample
Head grade
Mass pull to concentrate
Au recovery
S recovery
Unit
g/t
%
%
%
12
0.52
6.6
92.9
95.1
13
0.50
5.4
80.9
86.6
14
0.99
3.8
93.2
98.2
15
0.57
4.7
75.1
91.5
Average
0.65
5.1
85.5
92.9
A locked cycle test was conducted on whole feed. Final concentrate at 36.5 g/t was
1.48 % of the feed weight and contained 85.9 % of the gold. Insufficient concentrate
was produced to allow a leach test to be performed.
Leaching
Single leach tests were performed on composites to compare standard (unaerated)

conditions with aerated and CIL. The results are summarized in Table 13.6.
Table 13.6: Leach Type Test Results
Sample
Head grade
Extraction at 24 h
Extraction at 48 h
Unit
g/t
%
%
Standard
0.60
93.21
89.86
Aerated
0.54
96.23
86.81
CIL
0.77
90.75
Aeration had a clear benefit to kinetics and recovery after 24 hours. The recovery is
observed to reduce during the latter half of the tests. Extraction using CIL was similar
to that achieved under standard conditions.
Tests to investigate the effect of cyanide concentration on leach efficiency appeared to
show that higher concentration did not increase gold extraction although analytical
errors acknowledged by the laboratory made interpretation of the results difficult.
Each of the four samples was milled to 106 m and leached for 48 hours at 0.5 g/l
cyanide. Results are summarised in Table 13.7.
Page 13-120

APRIL 2014
Table 13.7: Leach Variability Test Results
Sample
Head grade
Extraction at 24 h
Extraction at 48 h
13.1.5
Unit
g/t
%
%
12
0.48
88.3
92.7
13
0.38
91.9
97.3
14
1.27
97.5
99.1
15
0.47
93.2
97.9
Average
0.65
92.7
96.8
Summary
Whole ore cyanide leaching was found to be effective, gold extraction generally
exceeding 90 % without incurring excessive cyanide consumption. Gold extraction was
observed to be directly affected by the fineness of grind down to a grind size of 80 %
passing 106 m, below which there was minimal benefit in grinding finer.
Leach extraction was generally observed to peak at 24 hours leaching and then reduce
when leaching was continued to 48 hours. Although this trend is typical of pregrobbing there is no evidence of typical preg-robbing minerals such as graphite or
carbonates being present. Leach tests in the presence of activated carbon did not
achieve higher leach extractions which would be expected if preg-robbing was
occurring, suggesting that another mechanism, such as testing error, is causing this
trend. Aerated bottle roll tests yielded higher extractions than non-aerated tests.
Gravity concentration was able to recover approximately 30 % of the gold into a
concentrate. Intensive cyanidation of this concentrate required very high cyanide
addition. Leaching of the gravity tail was tested but the combined recovery from
concentrate and tailing was no greater than whole ore leaching and the overall cyanide
addition was higher.
Similarly, flotation achieved good recovery on some samples but the combined flotation
and leach recovery was lower than that achieved by whole ore leaching. Flotation
response between samples was variable.
The Bond rod mill Work Index was measured for one composite sample and a value of
26.3 kWh/t was obtained. This ranks the Yaoure material tested as among the hardest
of all rocks tested by SGS. The Bond ball mill Work Index was found to be 13.9 kWh/t,
close to the median value of the tests performed by SGS.
13.2
Process Options
A number of process options have been investigated for each circuit. These options
are presented in this section.
13.2.1
Comminution
It is generally accepted that SAG milling of rocks which exhibit a rod mill Work Index
which is significantly higher than the ball mill Work Index will be expected to
accumulate a critical size. Although in-circuit pebble crushing (SABC) can overcome
this problem, extreme hardness in the critical size range can lead to excessive
circulation of pebbles rendering SABC impractical. Since the samples from Yaoure
showed this trend, SAG milling has not been selected for this study and staged
crushing and ball milling is preferred. Given the extreme value of rod mill Work Index
that was reported it is recommended that further testing be performed to confirm this
value and validate the process selection.
Page 13-121

APRIL 2014
SAG milling can potentially offer benefits such as reduced complexity of operation and
lower capital and operating costs and should therefore not be permanently discounted
as a viable option on the basis of a small number of tests which have returned extreme
results. Further testing of SAG milling should be considered during any further stages
of test work.
Single stage ball milling is capable of creating a product of the size required for
effective leaching of the Yaoure material (80 % passing 106 m). Ball mill feed,
typically with d80 between 10 mm and 15 mm, can be prepared with staged crushing
and screening.
Although the throughput of the sulphides plant is quite high it is within the capacity
range of jaw crushers. This type of crusher has been selected for the 6.5 Mt/a option as
the total installed cost should be lower than that for a gyratory crusher as a result of the
lesser extent of civil works required by this type of unit. Jaw crushing will also be
suitable for 5 Mt/a feed rate but will require verification for 8 Mt/a.
Three stages of crushing and screening are commonly used to prepare ball mill feed
and this process has been used for the Study. Large units have been selected in order
reduce operational and maintenance complexity and gain the benefits of scale by
reducing capital cost.
AMEC considered alternative configurations of the milling circuit:
Two stages of ball milling in series

Single stage ball milling in two parallel mills with single pinion drives
Single stage milling in a single unit with a dual pinion drive.
The required grind can be achieved by single stage ball milling. Two-stage milling could
potentially achieve slight increases in power efficiency and would require smaller units
but this would be at the expense of higher capital and operating cost and lower plant
availability. Parallel single stage milling circuits will provide more operational flexibility
and result in higher availability but will incur higher capital and operating costs than a
single unit. For the purpose of this Study, one single-stage milling unit has been
selected as this option incurs the lowest capital cost.
13.2.2
Pre-concentration
Laboratory test work to date has included preliminary investigations of gravity
concentration and froth flotation to generate gold-bearing concentrates with the
objectives of reducing the amount of material to be leached and/or increasing the
overall recovery. Both processes were reasonably successful in concentrating gold but
recovery was no greater than with whole ore cyanidation.
High cyanide addition was required to extract gold from the gravity concentrate.
Leaching of flotation concentrate was not tested but SGS have stated an opinion that
the mineralogical composition of the flotation concentrate should be very similar to the
gravity concentrate and therefore the leachability and extraction rate should also be
similar. Cyanidation of flotation concentrate would also be expected to require high
cyanide addition rate.
Page 13-122

APRIL 2014
Early in the Study, AMEC performed a high level comparison of gravity concentration
and flotation with whole ore treatment. The comparative relative costs of various
process options and at a notional plant feed rate of 5 Mt/a are shown in Table 13.8.
Note that this table does not reflect actual costs. The estimated cost of the main
sections of a standard whole ore leaching plant has been assigned an index of 100 and
the estimated costs of the other process options considered are shown relative to this
index.
The expected capital cost reduction achievable through pre-concentration was not
realised because the pre-concentration concentrate and tailing both had to be leached
for the gold recovery to be acceptable. The comparison shows that neither
concentration methods has economic returns better than whole ore cyanidation, mainly
because of the high cyanide consumption in concentrate leaching measured during
laboratory test work, and the Study has therefore been based on whole ore treatment.
The mass pull to concentrates was low and there is potential to increase gold recovery
to concentrate by increasing the mass pull, with a potential outcome of being able to
eliminate tailing leaching. Further test work to improve the understanding of the mass
pull/recovery relationship, reduce the cyanide consumption during leaching of gravity
concentrate and evaluate the leachability of flotation concentrate should be done
before pre-concentration options are finally discounted.
Table 13.8: Relative costs of process options (at 5 Mt/a)
Plant Area
Crushing
Milling
Flotation
WOL
Regrind
Concentrate leach
CIP
Tailing leach
Tailings
TOTAL
13.2.3
Whole ore
standard
leach
11.8
31.1
Whole ore
aerated
leach
11.8
31.1
5.4
5.4
Option
Gravity +
Whole
gravity
ore CIL
tail leach
11.8
11.8
31.1
31.1
10.8
8.7
8.7
8.7
43.1
100.0
43.1
100.0
43.1
105.5
5.4
1.1
3.1
0.1
4.4
4.5
43.1
104.6
Float +
conc
leach
11.8
31.1
6.5
Gravity + float
+ combined
conc leach
11.8
31.1
6.5
8.8
0.4
4.4
1.1
9.7
0.4
4.4
43.1
106.1
43.1
108.1
Leaching, adsorption and elution

A number of the leach kinetic profiles generated from laboratory testing show gold
extraction peaking at 24 hours of leaching and reducing when the leach test is
continued to 48 hours, as discussed in Section 13.1. The laboratorys interpretation of
these results is that preg-robbing occurs. Amara has advised that there are no likely
preg-robbing components such as graphite or other carbonaceous minerals present in
the deposit, suggesting that another mechanism is responsible for the apparent loss of
extracted gold between 24 hours and 48 hours. This is supported by carbon-in-leach
tests not achieving a higher extraction of gold than standard leaching.
Since high extraction was achieved by direct cyanidation this process has been
selected for the Study. The leach retention time has been limited to 24 hours in line
with the peak extraction. Aerated bottle roll tests resulted in increased leach extraction,
Page 13-123

APRIL 2014
as is expected from consideration of the Elsner equation which describes the chemical
formation of the gold cyanide complex. Since aerated leach tests gave higher
extraction in the same suite of tests as non-aerated tests and CIL tests this type of
process should be adopted. The recovery from this test has been applied during the
Study and costs for oxygen addition have been provided for in the Study. The need for
oxygen addition (as opposed to low pressure air) and the leach extraction achievable
should be investigated in more detail during the next phase of testing.
Modelling of leaching followed by carbon-in-pulp (CIP) at typical conditions has shown
that approximately 18 t of loaded carbon would have to be eluted daily in order to
recover the gold from solution. Process models using pump cells in place of standard
CIP tanks shows that the quantity of loaded carbon could be reduced by half with
resulting reductions in capital and operating costs. This type of adsorption system has
therefore been selected for the study.
13.2.4
Heap leaching
No laboratory testing has been performed on the oxide rock type which lies between
the two existing open pit mines worked previously. For this study, it has been assumed
that the rocks in this zone contain gold that is amenable to heap leaching under the
same conditions as used during the previous operational phases. This assumption
should be proven through laboratory column leach tests should heap leaching of this
material be pursued.
Page 13-124

APRIL 2014
14.0
MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES
14.1
Background
The estimation of mineral resources for the Yaoure oxide and sulphide gold deposits
has been based on geological logging and interpretations, as well as grade and other
information recorded from drill holes. Datamine Studio 3 was used as the basic
modelling tool, with most of the statistical analysis and geostatistical estimation
completed using modified GSLib routines (Deutsch and Journel, 1997). Variography
was completed using SAGE 2001 (Isaaks, 1999).
There was multiple estimation domains defined within Yaoure Central, which were
based on simplified lithology codes defined by Yaoures geologists, as explained
below. The estimation methods chosen were driven by the statistical characteristics of
the available sample information and the spatial distribution of gold mineralization,
which was variable depending on the domain considered. For oxides and CMA, an
Indicator-Modified Ordinary Kriging method was used, while for the units with more
samples, a full Multiple Indicator Kriging (MIK) was implemented. MIK is considered an
appropriate estimation method for the typical short-scale grade continuity of the
mineralization, even though grade estimation is constrained by geological domains,
because within those domains the mineralization is still highly variable, with a relatively
broadly-spaced dataset.
The deposits have been evaluated with reference to the Universal Transverse Mercator
(UTM) grid (Zone 30 North in WGS 84 datum), and all directional references in the
mineral resource estimates portions of this report are according to this grid.
14.2
Drill Hole Data

Amara provided the diamond drill hole data in MS Excel spread sheets, as well as a
collection of data and analytical files relating to Amara QA/QC protocols in July, 2013.
Other information, such as topography, in situ density, geologic codes and models,
etc., was also provided through the month of July. Drill holes are mostly on 100m
sections, although there are minor exceptions to this.
The data was imported into Datamine Studio. All validation on the data was completed
within Datamine, with a few minor errors that were cleared with Yaoure geologists
including gold grades equal to 0. Table 14.1 summarizes the available drill hole data
used in for estimating the resources.
Table 14.1: List of Available Drill holes, Survey, Assay and Lithology Intervals
Drill Hole IDs
YDD0001 through
YDD0158
Number of
Collars
Number of
Downhole Surveys
Number of
Assays
Number of
Lithology Codes
153
1,842
48,651
9,593
Gold is currently the only assay field considered to be economically significant and was
therefore the sole assay field selected for the estimation of grades.
RC drilling was excluded from grade estimation on the basis that the bottle roll method
of gold assaying used for the RC samples is incompatible with the diamond core
Page 14-125

APRIL 2014
assays which were determined using the fire assay method. Pit and trench samples
also were not used in grade estimation.
The same modelling boundary used in previous resource estimates was considered in
the resource update. This was defined by Amara using a polygon which extends
around the Yaoure Central and CMA pit areas. Figure 14.1 shows the modelling
boundary.
Figure 14.1: Modelling Boundary and Constrained Drilling Data
14.2.1
Assay Data
The Yaoure assay database was prepared in Datamine using the desurveying process
which assigns to each drill hole interval with gold grades an X/Y/Z coordinate. Also, the
simplified lithologic code is assigned to that interval. The intervals in this database are
thus the same assayed intervals, mostly 1m, but variable between a 9 centimetres and
over 4m in some cases.
14.2.2
Mineralization Envelope
Gold mineralization has been observed throughout the drilled area. The grade appears
to occur within broad mineralized domains, with boundaries that can appear either
gradational or sharp. Although there are clear associations between gold grade and
certain geologic features, such as the presence of quartz or sulphides, there are no
obvious boundaries to the mineralized zone.
The use of some type of mineralization boundary at Yaoure to constraint grade
estimation is important, because it is difficult to predict the presence of gold, and
extrapolation needs to be avoided. This is even more important given the broad drill
hole spacing.
Factors that influenced the interpretation of a grade envelope for Yaoure Central
included prior experience, gold grade distribution, potential economic cut-offs, and
visual analysis. It was decided that a grade envelope at 0.1 g/t gold provides a suitable
constraint for grade estimation, since it provides a broad mineralization envelope,
Page 14-126

APRIL 2014
within which mineralization can occur (but not necessarily), and outside which no
resource estimate can be obtained.
The interpretation of the 0.1 g/t envelope was completed on E-W cross sections, and
encompassed both Yaoure Central and the CMA zones, with approximately -30 dip to
the east. The basic criteria used for interpretation include:
1. The envelope is snapped to the last interval down-the-hole at or above 0.1 g/t gold;
2. If the last interval in the hole is mineralized ( 0.1 g/t gold), snap the envelope 10m
down the hole;
3. Laterally, carry the envelope at most 50m from the last mineralized drill hole;
4. If there are no drill holes within 200m radii, enclose the un-informed volume as if it
were an un-mineralized island.
There are volumes within the envelope that have little or no information, and are
currently considered un-mineralized, although it is quite possible that with additional
drilling, they would show the same type of mineralization within the envelope.
Figure 14.2 shows a perspective view of the grade envelope, while Figure 14.3 shows
cross section 776,880N with drill holes and gold grades.
Figure 14.2: Perspective view of 0.1 g/t Gold Grade Envelope and Drill holes, looking from SW
Figure 14.3: E-W Section: Initial Grade Shell and Final Mineralized Shells, Section 776,880
The statistics of gold grades inside the grade shell is shown in Table 14.2. For resource
estimation, only those samples in Table 14.2 are used. Note that the statistics are
Page 14-127

APRIL 2014
length-weighted, as the assay intervals are of uneven length. Note that the nonweighted mean is 0.441 g/t, while the average length-weighted mean is 0.3455 g/t. This
suggests that shorter intervals tend to be higher grades. For bulk minable deposits
such as this, it is important to sample at regular intervals, as Amara has been doing for
the past several drilling campaigns.
Table 14.2: Assay Intervals Inside 0.1 g/t grade shell; Statistics are length-weighted
Statistics
Gold g/t
Num Samples
31,040
Min
0.005
Max
94
Mean
0.441
Weighted mean
0.3455
First quartile
0.0059
Median
0.0196
Third quartile
0.1291
Weighted SD
1.9512
Weighted variance
3.8071
Weighted CV
5.6475
1.1 Geologic Data and Geologic Model

Previous geologic work by William Bond (Final Summation Report for the Yaoure
Project, new logging system and interpretations, dated 4 May, 2013) resulted in the
definition of 145 lithologic codes (Table 14.3). This number of codes and level of detail,
while perhaps appropriate for exploration campaigns, is incompatible and impractical
for resource estimation.
Amaras geologists filtered and rationalized the coding system, resulting in 11
simplified codes from the original 145 codes. The simplified codes are major
groupings and classes derived from the original code. GSI discussed with Amaras
team the geology of the deposit and the criteria for the simplification and interpretation
of the 11 codes.
These 11 simplified codes are the basis for the initial analysis of the correlation
between the codes and gold grade, and are shown in Table 14.3. The Table shows
which original codes were lumped into each Simplified Code.
Page 14-128

APRIL 2014
Table 14.3: Original and Simplified Geologic Codes. The second row shows the 11 Simplified Codes. For a complete explanation of the Original codes,
see W. Bonds report (2013b).
1
QV
OBQV
LTQV
SPQV
SRSQ
SRQV
OFQV
BVSHQ
BVFRQ
BVQV
BVQVW
BPQV
MTQV
GDQV
PGDQ
POQV
QV
QCSV
QCV
QSV
QTV
QVVG
QCTV
BVSV
VCQV
CV
CV
CQV
SRCQ
OFCQ
BVCQ
SH
SPSH
SRSH
OFSH
BVSH
BPSH
MTSH
VCSH
POSH
PGDS
GDSH
FR
BVFR
BPFR
MTFR
VCFR
GDFR
PGDFR
POFR
FLT
INBX
QBX
AL
SPAL
SRAL
OFAL
BVAL
BVALW
BPAL
MTAL
VCAL
GDAL
PGDAL
POAL
INAL
SPAQ
SRAQ
OFAQ
BVAQ
BPAQ
MTAQ
VCAQ
GDAQ
PGDAQ
POAQ
BVALT
BVAP
ALSH
SPAS
SRAS
OFAS
BVAS
BPAS
MTAS
VCAS
GDAS
PGDAS
SRASQ
OFASQ
BVASQ
BPASQ
MTASQ
VCASQ
GDASQ
PGDASQ
Page 14-129
ALFR
BVAFR
GDAFR
POAFR
BVAFRQ
AC
BVAC
BVACW
BVACQ
BVACS
BVACB
BVACT
10
EXT
INT
SPBV
SRBV
OFBV
BV
BVMG
BVMD
BVFMD
BPLD
BP
BBX
MT
VC
OFVT
SRVT
SPVC
BVT
SRVC
VCFM
GD
PGD
SPPO
SRPO
OFPO
PO
HBPO
SPIN
SRIN
OFIN
ININ
INFL
VCF
11
OTH
SPMN
SPRU
SR
SROF
SRMN
OF
OB
OBBF
OBLT
CAV
LT
LTMO
SP
SPMO

APRIL 2014
Amara also developed computerized models (solids) representing some of the

lithologies and zones in three dimensions.
Table 14.4 shows a brief description of each simplified codes, which were used as
elements (variables) of the geologic model in support of the resource model. From
these codes, estimation domains were been defined.
Table 14.4: Eleven Simplified Geologic Codes and their description
Numeric Code
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
14.2.3
Character Code
QV
CV
SH
FR
AL
ALSH
ALFR
AC
EXT
INT
OTH
Description
QUARTZ VEIN
CARBONATE VEIN
SHEARED
FRACTURED
ALTERED
ALTERED AND SHEARED
ALTERED AND FRACTURED
CARBONATE ALTERATION
EXTRUSIVES
INTRUSIVES
OTHERS
Oxidation
The mineralization at Yaoure is present in both the weathered and non-weathered
material. It is important to define the limits of oxidation for geologic, resource estimation
and inventory, and metallurgical reasons. Amara has defined and modelled 6 different
weathering levels, which again must be simplified in order to be able to use them.
The interpretation of the weathered horizon was based on geological logging codes
from near-surface intersections in drillholes. The logged oxidation codes record a
progressive decrease in oxidation, from completely oxidized nearer to surface, down to
fresh rock, as shown in Table 14.5.
Similar to what was done in prior models the weathering codes were rationalized into
oxide and sulphide domains, using the interface between the W2 and W3 as the base
of oxidation. After a minor adjustment that Amara agreed to, the final weathering
surface (Base of W3) was obtained, and is shown in Figure 14.4 as a smooth line. An
appreciation for the relative depth of the oxidized zone can be gained from the Cross
Section shown.
Page 14-130

APRIL 2014
Table 14.5: Rationalization of Weathering Codes into Oxide-Sulphide Domains
Description
Code
Laterite
W6
Upper SAP
W5
Lower SAP
W4
Saprock
W3
Transition
W2
Fresh
W1
Domain
OXIDE
SULPHIDE
Figure 14.4: Cross Sectional view (Sec. 776,880N) of Base of W3 surface (in brown),
oxides/sulphides interface, in relation to drill holes and 0.1 g/t grade shell
14.2.4
Final Estimation Domains

The final estimation domains resulted from statistical correlations between gold grade
and each of the simplified lithologies. Further grouping was possible, but based more
on grade distribution, rather than pure geology. Another criterion used was the
abundance of assay intervals within each simplified unit, which, if sparse, can
significantly limit the effectiveness of the estimation methods used.
One of the statistical tools used to observe the similarity of gold grade distributions
among the different is the Quantile-Quantile (Q-Q) plot. Figure 14.5 shows as an
example a comparison of gold grades in Altered and Altered-Sheared rock, compared
to gold grades in intervals coded as quartz veins or veinlets. The example shows that
the grade distributions are similar; comparing to Figure 14.6, where a Q-Q plot of gold
grades coded as Altered and Altered-Sheared intervals is compared to gold grades in
Fractured and with Carbonate Alteration. In this latter case, the two grade distributions
are clearly different, with the altered/altered-sheared having the better grades.
Page 14-131

APRIL 2014
Figure 14.5: Quantile-Quantile plot, gold grades, Altered and Altered-Sheared vs. Quartz Veins
Figure 14.6: Quantile-Quantile plot, gold grades, Altered and Altered-Sheared vs. Quartz Veins
The Estimation Domains were obtained comparing systematically gold grade

distributions in different lithologies, which are a combination of simplified lithologic units
with similar gold grade distribution. Table 14.6 shows the basic combinations.
Page 14-132

APRIL 2014
Table 14.6: Final Geologic Codes that define Gold Estimation Domains
Numeric Code
1
2
Character Code
QV
AL-ALSH
SH-ALFR
FR-AC
CV+EXT+INT+OTH
Description
QUARTZ VEIN
ALTERED PLUS ALTERED AND SHEARED
SHEARED, PLUS ALTERED AND
FRACTURED
FRACTURED PLUS CARBONATE
ALTERATION
CARBONATE VEIN + EXTRUSIVES +
INTRUSIVES + OTHERS
In addition to analysing the assay intervals coded with different lithologies, there were
other considerations that defined the estimation domains. There are two types of
domains defined in this geologic model, based on the possibility of interpreting from
sections and plans the different units. Some zones can be interpreted and modelled
continuously in cross sections over 200 or more meters. These zones are represented
in the Resource Model with three-dimensional volumes (solids).
Other geologic variables cannot be interpreted and modelled across cross sections
with any confidence. However, they are deemed important controls of gold
mineralization present at Yaoure, as indicated by geologic knowledge, and statistical
analysis of the correlations between gold grade and lithologic codes. These were
estimated into the block model using a form of multiple indicator kriging specific for
geologic variables.
Therefore, the final geologic model is a combination of interpreted, deterministic solids,
and a probabilistic estimation for those variables that are not continuous enough to be
modelled.
The summary of the units that support and condition the Resource Model is:
1. A 0.1 g/t grade envelope was interpreted on sections from all available drill hole
data. The corresponding three-dimensional solid represents the volume where gold
mineralization may exist, and outside of which, it does not. It also is likely to
represent the resource reporting volume, as there is a reasonable expectation that
all material above cut-off within this envelope can be economically mined in the
future. The envelope was projected at most 50m down-dip, and 10m beyond the
last interval of a drill hole, if the hole finished in a mineralized interval. In all other
cases, the envelope was snapped to the bottom of the last 0.1 g/t in the hole. All
other Estimation Domains described below exist within this envelope.
2. A three-dimensional solid representing the CMA zone. This zone has been
interpreted by Amaras geologists, and is thinner than was interpreted and
estimated in the March 2013 Resource Model. It is very consistent across many
sections, and has been subdivided into a CMA North and a CMA Central.
3. A three-dimensional solid representing the CMA Cross Cutting (CCC, previously
known as CMA South). Also interpreted by Amaras geologists, this zone has few
DDH intercepts, very low grade, and is not likely to be a part of the declared
Resources. However, it is a volume distinct from Yaoure Central, and therefore is
useful to consider the volume as a separate zone.
Page 14-133

APRIL 2014
4. Some of the larger quartz veins have been modelled as three-dimensional solids.
However, there are a significant number of intervals outside these veins also coded
as quartz veins; but they do not show any continuity, or are too narrow to be able to
model them explicitly with any confidence. Therefore, the Quartz Vein estimation
domain has a deterministic volume (provided by the three-dimensional solids), and
a probabilistic component, estimated from the intercepts that are not included in the
solids. The Quartz Vein unit has generally good grades, although it is very narrow.
5. The Altered plus Altered and Sheared intervals (AL-ALSH) could not be modelled
explicitly, as they do not correlate well from one section to the next. This implies
that the only option for coding the block model with this unit is to estimate it using a
probabilistic model. This is generally better grade mineralization than the other
units, and contains significant proportion of the total gold in Yaoure.
6. The Sheared plus Altered and Fractured intervals (SH-ALFR) also could not be
modelled explicitly. This unit also was estimated using a probabilistic model. Again,
it would be preferable to interpret this unit on section, and it should be attempted
after the Phase V infill drilling. Also can have good grades, although generally not
as good as the Al-ALSH unit.
7. The Fractured and Carbonate Alteration unit (FR-AC) also was estimated
probabilistically. Medium to low grades, still of interest because it can present
intervals with good grades.
8. The remaining unit, a grouping of Carbonate Vein, Extrusives, Intrusives, and
Other (CV+EXT+INT+OTH) is the unit considered as background, by default in
the model, and was not be modelled, as a three-dimensional solid, nor
probabilistically. It is generally lower grade or barren, although it can occasionally
have high grades.
In addition to the above, weathering will also be taken into account. Amara has defined
six weathered profiles which have been modelled as surfaces from drill hole intercepts
and trenching. The basic separation was the Base of W3, with oxidized material above,
fresh or sulphide mineralization below. This may be appropriate at this stage of project
development, but future metallurgical testing and model updates may need to consider
that there is a transitional profile, with a gradational decrease in oxidation from top to
bottom.
The estimation domains discussed above are applicable to below the Base of W3
(Fresh and Transition), dominated by sulphide mineralization; above the Base of W3,
all oxidized material will be estimated as a single volume, under the assumption that
weathering obliterates many of the geologic characteristics of the rock, such that there
is less confidence in the descriptions of the Simplified Units.
The summary statistics of the main units defined is shown in the box plots of Figure
14.7. Note that CMA, AL-ALSH, and QV (both interpreted, unit 1, and outside the
interpreted intervals, unit 6) have the highest grades.
Page 14-134

APRIL 2014
Figure 14.7: Box plot, gold assays, 8 main units, below Base of W3 (sulphides) only
Table 14.7: Length-weighted statistics, gold assays, 8 main units, below Base of W3
(sulphides) only
AL-ALSH SH-ALFR
FR-AC
CV, EXT,
Prob. QV
INT, OTH
QV
CMA
CCC
No. of Samples
2,875
2,098
70
4,500
2,232
9,790
24,261
1,732
Minimum
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
Maximum
91.6
69.7
3.86
94
32.7
58.5
50.3
72
Mean
0.668
1.177
0.346
0.805
0.352
0.219
0.144
0.806
Weighted mean
0.505
1.0671
0.28
0.718
0.319
0.176
0.101
0.736
First quartile
0.0059
0.0059
0.0106
0.0106
0.0059
0.0059
0.0059
0.0106
Median
0.0299
0.0901
0.0402
0.0703
0.0299
0.0196
0.0102
0.0496
Third quartile
0.1592
0.9196
0.0999
0.4195
0.1592
0.0793
0.0398
0.3095
Weighted SD
3.072
3.0009
0.7332
2.8795
1.2956
1.2691
0.8529
3.2286
Weighted CV
6.0884
2.8121
2.6221
4.0106
4.0599
7.2034
8.4414
4.3895
14.3
Compositing and Exploratory Data Analysis

In recent years, sampling procedures at Yaoure were modified to almost always
retrieve a sample consistently 1 m long. The objective of sample compositing for
statistical analysis and grade estimation is primarily to reduce the variability of gold
grades in the samples, and to maintain or achieve mostly uniform support.
GSI completed a detailed analysis on alternative composite length, from 2 to 5m down
the hole. A 2m composite is better suited for Yaoure because of the characteristics of
the mineralization, and is also necessary to maximize the number of data available for
the estimation method chosen (Multiple Indicator Kriging). The down-the-hole dilution
obtained for varying composites lengths was compared using statistics and gradetonnage curves, and was concluded that too much mixing occurs at 5m composites.
Page 14-135

APRIL 2014
On the basis of the analysis completed, the original assay intervals were composited to
2m long, retaining all samples greater than 1m long (50% of the nominal interval).
Table 14.8: Length-weighted statistics, 2m gold Composites, 8 main units, below Base of W3
(sulphides) only
No. of Samples
QV
CMA
CCC
AL-ALSH SH-ALFR
304
814
29
1,373
1,377
FR-AC
4,770
CV, EXT,
QV (Prob.)
INT, OTH
9,703
1,163
Minimum
0.005
0.005
0.0063
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
Maximum
17.167
27.5369
2.41087
25.14
22.3748
27.4094
25.5128
53.95
Mean
Weighted mean
0.632
1.051
0.271
0.627
0.458
0.197
0.098
0.493
0.632
1.051
0.285
0.627
0.458
0.196
0.098
0.479
First quartile
0.013
0.013
0.020
0.023
0.015
0.007
0.006
0.010
Median
0.063
0.163
0.035
0.108
0.063
0.028
0.012
0.048
Third quartile
0.333
1.027
0.170
0.530
0.307
0.110
0.044
0.213
Weighted SD
1.667
2.196
0.529
1.726
1.484
0.907
0.568
2.109
Weighted variance
2.780
4.823
0.279
2.978
2.203
0.822
0.322
4.448
Weighted CV
2.637
2.090
1.856
2.750
3.241
4.616
5.795
4.401
The exploratory data analysis included other statistics and plots, such as histograms,
probability plots, and quantile-quantile plots used to compare distributions. Among the
plots of interest, probability plots such as those shown in Figure 14.8 and Figure 14.9
for the CMA 2m composites (below Base of W3), and Oxides 2m composites (above
Base of W3), were used to help define capping grades, see below.
Figure 14.8: Probability plot, gold 2m composites, CMA, below Base of W3 (sulphides)
Page 14-136

APRIL 2014
Figure 14.9: Probability plot, gold 2m composites, Oxides, above Base of W3
14.3.1
Topography
The topographic surface was obtained from Amara in a Datamine-format file. The
topography data used by Amara are based on surveys described in Section 9.1 of this
report. Figure 14.10 shows a color-coded contour map of the topography used.
There are mined-out areas within the project that need to be discounted or treated
differently in the resource estimate. These features are a) the old Yaoure pit, which has
been incorporated in the current topography, and is shown in purple colours in the
North-Central area of Figure 14.10; and b) the old CMA pit (now backfilled with Yaoure
Centrals waste, and some of the CMA stripped material (waste or low grade, that was
piled to the East of the pit.
There are no final pit surveys representing the mined-out and now backfilled CMA pit,
or the original topography prior to CMA mining. The available data is limited to the last
CMA pit design surface, and this was supplied to GSI as a Datamine wireframe, which
was used with no modifications. Figure 14.11 shows Cross Section N776,980 with
current topography in black, and the old CMA pit in green, including an estimate of the
stockpiled material.
Page 14-137

APRIL 2014
Figure 14.10: Topography Plan View, Yaoure Project
Figure 14.11: CMA Pit Surface Cross Section N776,980
14.4
Block Model
The block model for resource estimation was constructed with sub-cells and according
to the geometry and model extents shown in Table 14.9. The parent block geometry
was selected on the basis of the overall drill spacing (approximately 100 m 100 m) in
the nearer-surface area. Sub-blocking was allowed along bounding surfaces down to
the minimum sub-block dimensions shown.
Page 14-138

APRIL 2014
The parent block size in the model is 25 x 25 x 10m; sub-celling (partial blocks) down
to 6.25 x 6.25 x 5m was allowed, for better resolution in the coding of the estimation
domains and other geology. Any geologic feature of smaller volume will be absorbed
into the surrounding volume and lost.
Table 14.9: Model Dimensions and Cell Sizes
Orientation
Origin
No. of Blocks
Parent Block
Sub-blocks
Easting
219,900
84
25m
6.25m
Northing
775,500
108
25m
6.25m
-520
92
10m
5m
RL
The surfaces and solids with boundaries that created sub-blocks included topography,
Base of W3 (oxide/sulphide interface), CMA solid, CCC solid, and QV solids. Table
14.10 shows the main fields and codes used in the block model.
Figure 14.12 shows, as an example, the block model coded with some of the
lithological units, showing both parent blocks and sub-blocks. The CMA zone is most
easily seen. In addition to the lithology surfaces, the W3, topography, and the grade
shell all also cause the definition of sub-blocks.
Table 14.10: Model Fields and Codes
BLOCK MODEL CODES
DOMAIN/SOLID
MODEL TYPE
VARIABLE NAME IN BM
CODE
0.1GPT GRADE SHELL

QV
CMA
CCC
AL_ALSH
SH_ALFR
FR_AC
CV, EXT, INT, OTH
QV
WEATHERING 1, FRESH
WEATHERING 2, OXIDE FRACTURED
WEATHERING 3, SAPROCK
WEATHERING 4, LOWER SAPROLITE
WEATHERING 5, UPPER SAPROLITE
WEATHERING 6, LATERITE
WIREFRAME
PROBABILISTIC
WIREFRAME
WIREFRAME
PROBABILISTIC
PROBABILISTIC
PROBABILISTIC
BACKGROUND
WIREFRAME
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
GRSHELL
LITHO
LITHO
LITHO
LITHO
LITHO
LITHO
LITHO
LITHO
WEATH
WEATH
WEATH
WEATH
WEATH
WEATH
1 (INSIDE)
6
10
20
2
3
4
5
1
1
2
3
4
4
6
Page 14-139
COMMENTS
RECODED TO 1
RECODED TO 3
RECODED TO 3
RECODED TO 3

APRIL 2014
Figure 14.12: Cross Section (776980N), Lithological Units
14.5
Resource Estimation Strategy and Parameters

GSI defined an estimation strategy for updating the Yaoure Resource model, along
with other resource model parameters, such as block sizes, composite lengths to be
analysed, and estimation methodology.
A Multiple Indicator Kriging (MIK) method was used to estimate gold grades in the
domains within Yaoure Central, using what is known as an e-type estimate, with the
exception of the Oxides and the CMA units. The definition of the indicators used varied
by estimation domains. The possibility of applying additional change of support
corrections was looked at during model validations, and decided they were not
required.
The Oxides (above Base of W3) and CMA domains were estimated using an Indicatormodified Indicator Kriging (IMOK). There are four steps in this method: a) estimate an
indicator at a suitable grade threshold, in this case 0.2g/t gold for both domains; this
indicator estimates the proportion within each block of material above and below 0.2 g/t
gold; b) estimate with ordinary kriging (OK) the gold grade of portion of the block below
0.2 g/t, using nearby 2m composites that are below 0.2 g/t; c) estimate with OK the
gold grade of portion of the block above 0.2 g/t, using nearby 2m composites that are
above 0.2 g/t; and d) calculate the overall block gold grade by weighted average of the
two OK estimates, and using the proportion estimated in a) as weights.
The intent of this model is to achieve a level of control over smoothing and smearing by
introducing one indicator at a critical mineralized/un-mineralized grade boundary. This
allows estimating dilution into the block, not easily achieved with OK alone. It is used
when there are insufficient composites in the domain for a reliable, robust
implementation of MIK.
All other estimation-specific parameters, such as search neighbourhood, number of
data to be used in the estimation, use of hard or soft contacts among domains, etc.,
were decided based on the statistical analysis of the 2m composites by domain.
Page 14-140

APRIL 2014
14.6
Bulk Density Evaluation

Since there are a significant number of bulk density measurements available from drill
hole core, GSI decided that the variable could be directly estimated in the blocks. An
Inverse Distance Squared method was used on two domains, the Oxidized and the
Fresh material. They were estimated separately using density data from above and
below Base of W3, respectively, as a hard boundary.
The average value for above Base of W3 densities is 1.97 (179 values), no change
compared to the dataset used in the previous resource model. For fresh rock, the
average
Bulk density is 2.82 (1,438 values), slightly higher than the average value assigned in
the previous model.
Histograms and probability plots of bulk density for both oxidized and fresh material
suggest multiple populations; see Figure 14.13 and Figure 14.14, respectively. The
implication is that it is likely that there is some mixing of densities in both domains, an
issue that will have to be analysed in more detail in future resource updates.
Figure 14.13: Histogram and basic statistics, Above Base of W3
Page 14-141

APRIL 2014
Figure 14.14: Histogram and basic statistics, Above Base of W3
14.7
Grade Capping and Indicator Statistics

Different domains were estimated using different methods. For those domains with less
data, a simplified version of MIK, called Indicator-modified Ordinary Kriging (IMOK),
was used. These included CMA and Above Base of W3 (oxide) domains. The main
Yaoure Central domains, domains 1 through 6, were estimated with MIK. And the low
grade or mostly barren CCC zone, which is not part of the declared resource, was
nonetheless estimated using Inverse Distance Cubed.
The method to control outlier gold grades at the time of estimation depends on the
method used. In the case of MIK, grade capping is done by manipulating the average
grades of the last classes used in each domain. In the case of the IMOK method, grade
capping is done at the time of estimating the higher grade population.
For the CMA and Oxide units, capping was decided on the basis of the probability plots
shown in Figure 14.9 and Figure 14.10 above and the locations of high grades relative
to local averages. Capping was set at 15.0 g/t for both CMA and Oxides. In the case of
CMA, the grade represents a higher percentile of the gold grades in CMA, because
grades are more continuous, and the distribution within CMA seems to be less erratic.
CMA mineralization demonstrated more clustering, thereby reducing risks to estimated
grades. In the case of Oxides, capping was more strict (although at the same gold
grade value), representing a lower percentile in the oxide gold grade distribution.
GSI elected to apply grade capping to the composites, because the composites are
comparable in length to the majority of the original assayed interval.
Page 14-142

APRIL 2014
14.7.1
Indicator Statistics
Indicators were generated for each of the domains to be estimated using MIK. These
included domains 1 through 6: QV (solids); AL+ALSH; SH_ALFR; FR+AC;
CV+EXT+INT+OTH; and QV (probabilistic). When determining the corresponding
indicator thresholds, declustered average grades for each class, and indicator
variography, it was decided to pool together the units into two major groups, a high
grade and a low grade group. Units 1, 2, 3, and 6 are the higher grade units, and 4
and 5 the low grade units.
A total of 4 indicator thresholds were selected for domains 4 and 5 (low grade), and 6
indicators were selected for the higher grade units, as these were considered sufficient
to discretize both the sample and metal values at this level of study. The selected
indicators and declustered class means are shown in Table 14.11 and Table 14.12.
In both Tables, the highlighted cells indicate the original declustered class mean and
the contribution of that class to the total Quantity of Metal (QM and QM %) in 2m
composites. The last 3 rows of both Tables show the modified last class average and
the impact of that lower average on total Quantity of Metal. Note that in both cases the
last classes, although they contain fewer data, are responsible for most of the metal
content in the deposit. This form of grade capping reduces metal content by 10% in
the lower grade units, and about 12% in the higher grade units.
Table 14.11: Indicator Thresholds and Statistics, Domains FR+AC; and CV+EXT+INT+OTH
Cutoff
Count
Sum_Lgth
Class_Mean
QM
QM%
Mod. Last Class Ave.
Mod. QM
Mod. QM%
0.00
12888
785.28
0.031
24.0
0.25
0.031
24.3
0.26
0.20
919
582.72
0.318
185.1
1.96
0.318
185.3
1.97
0.50
333
463.61
0.697
323.0
3.43
0.697
323.1
3.43
1.00
244
771.88
1.586
1224.1
12.98
1.586
1224.2
12.98
3.00
89
1165.84
6.582
7673.0
81.37
5.800
6761.9
71.71
Table 14.12: Indicator Thresholds and Statistics, Domains QV; AL+ALSH; and SH+ALFR
Indicator Cutoff
No. of Composites
Sum_Lgth
Class_Mean
QM
QM%
Mod. Last Class Ave.
Mod. QM
Mod. QM%
14.8
0.0
2843
269.30
0.048
12.80
0.05
0.048
12.93
0.05
0.2
541
355.10
0.329
116.80
0.49
0.329
116.83
0.49
0.5
319
457.95
0.720
329.90
1.37
0.720
329.72
1.37
1.0
255
709.32
1.398
991.40
4.13
1.398
991.62
4.13
2.0
100
497.98
2.470
1229.80
5.12
2.470
1230.01
5.12
3.0
8.0
121
38
1077.63 1097.79
4.453
15.059
4799.00 16531.10
19.99
68.85
4.453
12.000
4798.69 13173.46
19.99
54.86
Variography
All variogram models required for estimating gold grades at Yaoure for the different
domains and methods used were obtained using the software SAGE2001 (Isaaks,
1999). In all cases, the variograms are based on 2m gold composites. The required
variograms to complete the resource estimation are:
Page 14-143

APRIL 2014
1. Four indicator variograms for each threshold chosen for the lower grade domains
(MIK);
2. Six indicator variograms for each threshold chosen for the lower grade domains
(MIK);
3. One 0.2 g/t gold indicator variogram for Oxides; two gold grade variograms, one for
2m composites less than 0.2 g/t, the other using the composites above or equal 0.2
g/t gold (IMOK, Oxides);
4. One 0.2 g/t gold indicator variogram for CMA; two Gold grade variograms, one for
2m composites less than 0.2 g/t, the other using the composites above or equal 0.2
g/t Gold (IMOK, CMA).
Figure 14.15 through Figure 14.17 show three views of the continuity ellipsoid for the
0.2 g/t Gold Indicator Variogram, higher grade domains; Figure 14.18 through Figure
14.20 show the corresponding ellipsoids for the 2.0 g/t Gold indicator. Note how, for the
same domain, the continuity changes according to grade changes, which can be
correlated to different geologic controls for different grades.
horizontal slices through ellipsoid of continuity; note the N40W azimuth
Page 14-144

APRIL 2014
Figure 14.16: Indicator Variogram Model, 0.2 g/t gold; Domains QV; AL; ALSH; SH; ALFR; E-W
cross sectional slices through ellipsoid of continuity; note the 25-30 dip to the
East
Longitudinal slices through ellipsoid of continuity
Page 14-145

APRIL 2014
horizontal slices through ellipsoid of continuity; note the almost NNW azimuth
Page 14-146

APRIL 2014
Figure 14.19: Indicator Variogram Model, 2.0 g/t gold; Domains QV; AL; ALSH; SH; ALFR; E-W
cross sectional slices through ellipsoid of continuity; note the 50 dip to the East
(steeper for higher grades)
Longitudinal slices through ellipsoid of continuity
Page 14-147

APRIL 2014
14.8.1
Gold Variograms
Directional gold variograms were calculated in multiple directions, and within the plane
of the mineralized zones. Correlograms and pairwise relative variograms were used to
obtain the models for gold grade 0.2 g/t in Oxides and CMA; gold grade < 0.2 g/t in
Oxides and CMA; and overall to assess the degree of dilution in the final model.
Figure 14.21 through 14.23 show as an example the anisotropy of the pairwise relative
variogram model for the Oxides, all 2m composites.
Figure 14.21: Correlogram Model, Sulphides; horizontal slices through ellipsoid of continuity;
observe how the main anisotropy is in the expected NNW direction, but there is a
structure with a NE continuity, interpreted to correspond to higher grades
Page 14-148

APRIL 2014
Figure 14.22: Correlogram Model, Sulphides; E-W cross sectional slices through ellipsoid of
continuity; note the dip at about -30 to East
Figure 14.23: Correlogram Model, Oxides; Longitudinal slices through ellipsoid of continuity
Page 14-149

APRIL 2014
14.9
Grade Estimation
The block model was estimated based only on DDH 2m composites constrained within
the interpreted 0.1 g/t grade shell, and within it, according to the different estimation
domains defined.
Gold grades were estimated using a combination of multiple indicator kriging (MIK),
which was considered a particularly appropriate estimation method for the typical shortscale grade continuity of the mineralization observed at Yaoure. Two estimation
domains, Oxides (above the base of the Weathering 3 surface) and CMA, were
estimated using indicator-modified ordinary kriging (IMOK).
14.9.1
Estimation Procedures
The kriging parameters for both the MIK and the IMOK runs were determined based on
the respective variograms, as well as data density. Grades were estimated onto the
partial blocks (on a parent block basis), and then the overall block grade was obtained
as a weighted average of the different estimated grades for each domain. Blocks at the
outer edge of the 0.1 g/t gold envelope were diluted with 0 g/t grade, except for those
on the topographic surface, for which only the partial tonnage was accounted for.
There were three estimation passes for each domain, using different search ellipses
and minimum and maximum composite constraints (Table 14.13). The search ellipsoid
orientations for all estimation runs were set to the approximate dip and dip direction of
the mineralization, -30 to the east. Octant search was used, as well as a requirement
on a minimum number of drill holes for the 2 first passes. In Table 14.13, the higher
grade domains QV, AL, ALSH, SH,; and ALFR have numeric codes 1-3 plus 6; the
lower grade domains FR+AC, and CV+EXT+INT+OTH have been coded as 4 and 5.
Table 14.13: Search Parameters used for Gold and Indicator Estimates
Domain Au Pass
1+2+3+6 (MIK) 1
2
3
4+5 (MIK)
1
2
3
CMA (IMOK) 1
2
3
Oxides (IMOK) 1
2
3
14.9.2
Search
Ellipsoid
Search Rotation
y x z r_alpha r_beta r_zeta
100 20 40
-15
0
30
150 30 50
-15
0
30
200 40 60
-15
0
30
100 20 40
-15
0
30
150 30 50
-15
0
30
200 40 60
-15
0
30
100 20 80
-15
0
30
150 30 120 -15
0
30
200 40 160 -15
0
30
100 20 80
-15
0
30
150 30 120 -15
0
30
200 40 160 -15
0
30
Num. of Composites
Octants
DH limit
Min Comps
Max Comps Max N M/Oct
5
10
3
2
4
10
3
2
3
12
3
1
5
10
3
2
4
10
3
2
3
12
3
1
5
8
2
2
4
10
2
2
2
12
3
1
5
8
3
2
4
10
3
2
2
12
3
1
Post-processing MIK and IMOK estimates

The MIK method results in an estimate of the proportions of each block to be within
each grade classes defined by the indicators chosen. The final block grade in this case
was obtained using an e-type estimate, which is using the estimated proportions of
each class to weigh the average grade of each class.
Page 14-150

APRIL 2014
Au* p1 * c1 p2 * c2 ... pn * cn
Where Au* is the final estimated gold grade; pi are the proportions of the block of each
grade class estimated with MIK; and ci are the declustered class mean grades from the
2m composites discussed above. For the higher grade units there are 7 classes, 6
indicators (i=6); for the lower grade units, there are 5 classes, 4 indicators (i=4).
The post-processing just described only applies to MIK; the IMOK estimates of the
Oxides and CMA units are based on estimated grades above and below a single
indicator, in this case 0.2 g/t gold. In this case, the estimated indicator is the proportion
of the block above 0.2 g/t gold. The final grade is again a weighted average of the two
OK-estimated grades, above and below 0.2 g/t gold:
Au* Ind0.2 * Au*0.2 (1 Ind0.2 ) * Au*0.2

Cross-sections of the model with estimated gold values are provided in Figure 14.24
and Figure 14.25.
Figure 14.24: Block with Gold Grade Estimates, Section 776,980N
Figure 14.25: Block with Gold Grades Estimates, Section 776,720N
Page 14-151

APRIL 2014
14.9.3
Model Validation
Several validations of the estimated values were completed, including visual and
statistical reviews of the model against the input composite data. Checks for the final
estimated gold grades included:
A comparison of the mean grades of the declustered composites against model

mean grades by estimation domain 0.0 g/t gold grade cut-off (global check);
Swath plots of declustered composites and model grades by main coordinate axes.
Grade and tonnage curves for theoretical Selective Mining Unit obtained using a
change-of-support Discrete Gaussian Model, and the 25 x 25 x 10 block model.
Figure 14.26 and Figure 14.27 show two examples of swath plots (CMA, Northings;
and higher grade units, Eastings) comparing the average gold grades of the block
model with the grades of declustered 2m composites, which in this case is a NearestNeighbour model. Notice how the estimated block model is fairly smooth with respect
to the declustered composites, which is an indication of the relatively wide data
spacing.
Figure 14.26: Swath plot, Gold, CMA, Northings
Figure 14.27: Swath plot, Gold; Domains QV, AL, ALSH, SH, ALFR; Eastings
Page 14-152

APRIL 2014
14.10
Resource Classification
The Yaoure gold project Mineral Resources have been estimated using the Canadian
Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM) Standards on Mineral Resources
and Reserves, Definitions and Guidelines prepared by the CIM Standing Committee on
Reserve Definitions and adopted by CIM Council, and procedures for classifying the
reported Mineral Resources were undertaken within the context of the Canadian
Securities Administrators National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101).
Resource classification for this updated Yaoure resource model was developed in two
stages:
1. The conditions for measured, indicated, and Inferred categories were defined
based on the data spacing, the geologic model, and the amount of information used
to estimate each block. These criteria were expressed in simple terms, such as the
number of holes and composites required to exist within specific distances and
orientations for each category.
2. The classification was implemented either through the estimation passes, or other
algorithm applied on the block model that will reflect the criteria defined in the
previous step.
3. Additional constraints are imposed to define what is potentially recoverable from
the resource, in this case a Resource Pit based on economic parameters described
below.
The basic criteria used to define the conditions for each resource category to exist
were:
1. The quality of the data gathering, data management, assays and geologic
information, which is considered high, notwithstanding some comments made
about laboratory QA/QC in Section 11;
2. Confidence in the geological conceptual model, mapping and interpretation.
Limitations of the computerized geological model, related to drill hole spacing and
width of units modelled.
3. Drill hole spacing and orientation for the different mineralized zones.
4. Gold grade spatial distribution and continuity, as observed from statistical and
geostatistical analyses.
GSIs experience with similar deposits indicate that a drill hole spacing between 25 and
30m are required for measured resources; about 50m for indicated; and rarely Inferred
is informed if the spacing is more than 100m to 120m. This was used a as general
guideline; detailed analysis specific to the data, geology, and other factors is always
required.
The observed gold grade spatial distribution at Yaoure, its variability, and quantified
continuity through correlograms and indicator variograms leads to conclude that most
of the mineralization within the 0.1 g/t envelope can be categorized as Inferred.
According to the CIM Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral
Page 14-153

APRIL 2014
Reserves, prepared by the CIM Standing Committee on Reserve Definitions and

adopted by the CIM Council on November 27, 2010, an Inferred Mineral Resource is:
that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity and grade or quality can be
estimated on the basis of geological evidence and limited sampling and
reasonably assumed, but not verified, geological and grade continuity. The
estimate is based on limited information and sampling gathered through
appropriate techniques from locations such as outcrops, trenches, pits,
workings and drill holes.
Further, the Definition adds:
Due to the uncertainty that may be attached to Inferred Mineral Resources, it cannot
be assumed that all or any part of an Inferred Mineral Resource will be upgraded to an
Indicated or Measured Mineral Resource as a result of continued exploration.
Confidence in the estimate is insufficient to allow the meaningful application of
technical and economic parameters or to enable an evaluation of economic viability
worthy of public disclosure. Inferred Mineral Resources must be excluded from
estimates forming the basis of feasibility or other economic studies.
GSI considers that the Yaoure estimated resource within the 0.1 g/t grade envelope is
an Inferred Resource. Within the envelope, and to the edges and in some cases more
central, there are volumes of material that have no drill holes within 200 meters. These
areas do not have an estimated grade or a classification code. On the other hand,
certain limited volumes with denser drilling qualify as Indicated Resources (from the
same reference):
An Indicated Mineral Resource is that part of a Mineral Resource for which
quantity, grade or quality, densities, shape and physical characteristics, can be
estimated with a level of confidence sufficient to allow the appropriate
application of technical and economic parameters, to support mine planning and
evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit. The estimate is based on
detailed and reliable exploration and testing information gathered through
appropriate techniques from locations such as outcrops, trenches, pits,
workings and drill holes.
GSI interpreted a three-dimensional shape to enclose those portions of the model that
are considered Indicated resources. This was done by visual observation in plan view.
All the material within the 0.1 g/t gold grade envelope is defined as the reporting
volume.
Figure 14.28 shows a cross section of the resource classification for Yaoure. In blue
Inferred, green indicated. Blocks coloured brown are blocks without grade and
classification code, and therefore not part of the resource.
Page 14-154

APRIL 2014
Figure 14.28: Resource Classification, Cross Section 776,880N
14.11
Mineral Resource and Grade-Tonnage

The resource estimate was completed by Mr Mario E. Rossi, Qualified Person
according to the definition set out in NI 43-101 by reason of education, affiliation with a
professional association (as defined in NI 43-101) and past relevant work experience.
Also, Mr Rossi is independent of Amara Mining Plc. applying all of the tests in Section
1.5 of NI 43-101.
The Yaoure total Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources, at cut-off grades of 0.5,
0.8, and 1.0 g/t gold, are presented in Table 14.14.
Table 14.14: Yaoure Total Mineral Resource
Indicated
Inferred
Tonnes
Grade
Content
Tonnes
Grade
Content
(Mt)
(g/t)
(koz)
(Mt)
(g/t)
(koz)
0.5
20,286
1.20
778
133,030
1.29
5,518
0.8
13,340
1.48
637
85,731
1.65
4,554
1.0
10,043
1.68
541
65,575
1.89
3,974
Cut-off
USD1500/oz Resource Pit; uses Heap Leach and Flotation Economics; 35 oxide pit slopes, 46o fresh
slopes, 90% recoveries, bulk model.
1.
The effective date of the Yaoure Mineral Resource estimate is 1 December 2013.
2.
The gold price used in this estimate USD1,500/oz and assuming an open-pit mining scenario.
Oxides are being mined assuming Heap Leach economics, Sulphides assuming Flotation.
3.
Mineral resources which are not mineral reserves, do not have demonstrated economic viability.
4.
5.
Totals and average grades are subject to rounding to the appropriate precision and some columns
or rows may not compute exactly as shown.
Some additional observations are:
There has been a significant increase in Inferred resources at Yaoure compared to

the previous model. This is in part due to additional drilling, but also the use of a 0.1
Page 14-155

APRIL 2014
g/t gold grade envelope that encompasses most of the mineralized volume within
Yaoure.
The estimated grades of the resources include some geologic dilution through the
use of sub-blocking; also, the stated resources include dilution that relates to the
level of low selectivity envisioned in an open pit operation, assuming 10m bench
heights. No additional operational or mining dilution or ore loss has been
incorporated. The model can only be considered fully diluted (except for mining
dilution) if the assumed SMU is actually achieved at the time of mining.
Page 14-156

APRIL 2014
15.0
MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES

No mineral reserves were calculated for this study.
Page 15-157

APRIL 2014
16.0
MINING METHODS
The mineable portion of the deposit has been assessed using open pit mine planning
scenarios based on detailed designs of selected Whittle optimized pit shells. The
material extracted in these shells use the Mineral Resource block model developed by
GeoSystems (as reported in Section 14 and constrained within an open pit shell
derived using a long term gold price of USD 1,500 per ounce).
16.1
Pit Optimization
The approach used to identify the optimal mining scenarios started with running Whittle
software to generate an incremental range of pit shell scenarios, each representing a
subset of the Mineral Resource. From this range, optimal shells were then selected for
a detailed design phase in order to produce production statistics for LOM schedules
that were run as 5, 6.5 and 8 Mt/a cases.
16.1.1
Whittle model
The Whittle model contains quantity of metal, oxidation type and tonnage information
exported from the mineral resource model in Vulcan. The coordinate limits of the
Whittle model and the block size are listed in Table 16.1 and are identical to the
dimensions of the estimated gold grade model constructed in Vulcan. All work has
been performed in the UTM Grid.
Table 16.1: Coordinate limits and block size of the Whittle model
Direction
Northing
Easting
Elevation
Minimum
meters
775500
219900
-520
Maximum
meters
778200
222000
400
Block Size
meters
25
25
10
Number of
Blocks
108
84
92
The Whittle positional mining cost adjustment factor (MCAF) is modelled in Vulcan to
represent the total unit mining cost per block considering the fleet equipment costs and
then exported to Whittle.
16.1.2
Input parameters
The Whittle pit optimizer is driven by the revenue created from processing a block
minus the costs of mining, processing and overheads, combined with other modifying
factors such as the defined pit slope constraints, process recoveries and range of gold
prices. For the initial pit optimization work on the Yaoure deposit, completed in 2013,
the following parameters where used to constrain the optimization runs:
Gold price range from USD 500 to USD 2,000 per ounce in USD 50 increments;
6 Mt/a processing throughput;
Bulk mining scenario;
Ore processing cost of USD11.67 per tonne processed inclusive of overheads;
Process recovery of 90%;
8% discount rate;
Page 16-158

APRIL 2014
Mining cost of USD2.00 per tonne mined in oxide and USD2.25 per tonne mined in
fresh rock, plus
A haulage component add-on to the mining cost of USD0.03 per 10m bench below
the 250mRL; and the
Whittle shell slope parameters (see Section 16.2.2).
The pit optimizations were run on Indicated and Inferred Resources with ore selection
by cut-off mode.
16.1.3
Optimization Results
Maximum value shells were generated for all of the gold prices across the range. The
results of the pit optimisation evaluation for the varying gold price values are displayed
in Table 16.2 showing containing total tonnes mined, ore tonnes, waste:ore strip ratio,
contained gold ounces and gold grade.
Table 16.2: Whittle optimization results
Optimization Pit Summary

Bulk Mining Scenario
Pit
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Gold Price
USD / tr. oz.
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
1050
1100
1150
1200
1250
1300
1350
1400
1450
1500
1550
1600
1650
1700
1750
1800
1850
1900
1950
2000
Total
Tonnes
Ore
Tonnes
113,648,489
152,562,341
176,354,232
220,221,700
336,596,002
347,014,888
362,592,036
377,059,978
520,863,706
537,131,493
563,594,306
654,284,509
763,754,384
783,732,755
867,381,338
897,364,279
947,205,046
990,545,449
1,060,413,778
1,098,442,726
1,115,932,525
1,125,169,170
1,141,580,992
1,153,182,086
1,169,746,570
1,194,861,058
1,205,774,831
1,218,701,394
1,228,207,537
1,232,265,832
1,251,294,377
22,593,264
31,603,961
38,297,229
48,588,009
64,625,852
70,186,238
76,408,986
81,868,595
98,408,834
103,503,136
113,342,900
129,196,499
152,456,862
161,207,267
174,591,656
185,535,645
196,716,200
210,057,698
226,107,507
236,854,470
244,893,120
252,725,395
262,109,200
264,522,480
273,904,791
284,860,078
287,821,264
296,048,140
305,467,224
307,500,520
317,632,372
Page 16-159
Strip
Ratio
GOLD
tr. oz.
4.0
3.8
3.6
3.5
4.2
3.9
3.8
3.6
4.3
4.2
4.0
4.1
4.0
3.9
4.0
3.8
3.8
3.7
3.7
3.6
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.1
3.0
3.0
2.9
1,428,034
1,845,651
2,111,052
2,516,585
3,336,807
3,479,840
3,640,976
3,776,502
4,487,566
4,613,854
4,817,811
5,273,488
5,878,789
6,033,664
6,404,705
6,593,059
6,818,650
7,053,684
7,353,947
7,528,330
7,635,824
7,724,656
7,835,585
7,875,762
7,981,978
8,110,524
8,152,688
8,232,126
8,315,241
8,338,428
8,434,215
GOLD
gpt
1.97
1.82
1.71
1.61
1.61
1.54
1.48
1.43
1.42
1.39
1.32
1.27
1.20
1.16
1.14
1.11
1.08
1.04
1.01
0.99
0.97
0.95
0.93
0.93
0.91
0.89
0.88
0.86
0.85
0.84
0.83

APRIL 2014
Figure 16.1: Whittle optimization results - pit by pit graph
Note that the NPV in the above optimization graph is used as only a guide in shell selection. The actual NPV
of the Project scenarios are summarized in the Economic Analysis Section of this report.
The results of the Whittle optimizer run is displayed in the pit-by-pit graph above which
shows the impact of scheduling on pit shells across the gold price range from USD 500
to USD 1500 per ounce. Two series of NPVs are calculated and plotted. In the Best
Case scenario, each pit shell contained within the specified gold price shell is mined
out incrementally and in the Worst Case scenario each bench is mined in total from
the specified gold price shell. The difference between the two scenarios indicates the
potential value outcomes from mine scheduling.
Based on analysis of the results above, two of the optimized pit shells, the USD 800
and USD 950 cases (Pit 7 and 10 in Table 16.2) were selected for detailed pit designs
for further mine scheduling and analysis purposes. These gold price points were
selected as these shells occur prior to large step downs in NPV and prior to step ups
in tonnage. Detailed designs included updated PEA slope parameters, cost estimates
and modifying factors
16.2
Mine Design
The two selected pits from the Whittle optimisation run were used as a basis to design
two pits in detail for the mine scheduling and economic analysis scenarios. These pits
were named:
USD 800 Pit Design

USD 950 Pit Design
Page 16-160

APRIL 2014
The design process incorporated more detailed consideration of the slope angles,
bench heights and berm widths, as well as the design and location of in-pit access
ramps. The pit designs targeted the extraction of the resource blocks identified in the
previous optimised shells.
16.2.1
Lithology
The mineralisation at Yaoure is contained within two shallow dipping (<30 Degrees)
gold bearing north-south trending packages controlled by a thick zone of brittle-ductile
shearing. The Yaoure Central package is a 200 metre thick, lower grade mineralised
zone with higher grade lenses and cross-cutting high grade sub-vertical quartz veins.
The CMA package is a more discrete, relatively continuous 20 metre thick zone
approximately 140 metres above the Yaoure Central body. The zones are contained
within predominantly massive basalts. The strike is generally north/south, and the dip is
to the East. Weathering occurs to an average depth of 60 meters.
16.2.2
Geotechnical Evaluation
No drilling solely for the purpose of geotechnical or hydrological investigations has
been conducted for the Yaoure sulphide project at this stage. Geotechnical logging of
the diamond drill core, prior to sampling, has been carried out for every diamond
drillhole. Geotechnical drilling is planned as part of the 2014 drill program.
For the PEA open pit slope design, consideration was given to operating experience
and the rock mass conditions in the existing pit and as observed in the boreholes.
Dr. Peter Gash, geotechnical mining advisor visited the property in February of 2014 to
have a first review of the deposit geology and drilling data, review the PEA pit designs.
Whittle shell slope parameters

The initial Whittle optimizations used to form the basis for pit designs used the following
slope constraints:
35o average slope in oxide rock

46o average slope in fresh rock
Pit design slope parameters

These were updated in the detailed pit designs which applied slope angles that were
further refined based on consideration and consultation with Dr Gash.
The average (inter-ramp) slope angles that had been used for economic shell
projection and in constructing the bench-berm-ramp design were updated as follows.
44o in oxides (mostly Saprolites) and

53o in the lower fresh rocks.
Page 16-161

APRIL 2014
Both these angles are considered customary for slopes in these materials in this region
and are reasonable parameters to use for preliminary purposes. Dr Gash made the
following observations/provisions for any future related exercise:
The angle of 44 degrees in Saprolite will apply over reasonable heights for
depressurised slopes, and will required control of the groundwater, particularly to
the north where the water table is high. Borehole dewatering capability is
considered to be required to assume these slopes in practice.
The fresh rock (i.e. below the weathered Saprolite at surface) hosting the ore zones
consists primarily of basalts which are strong and competent, reflecting the relative
lack of deformation in the Yaoure belt and the absence of a dominant fabric,
foliation or shearing. The strong rock mass conditions can be expected to be
favourable for the stability of the planned open pit walls.
The angle of 53 degrees in the fresh material is expected to be achievable due to

the observations of the hard rock types (predominantly basalt). There may be some
room to optimise the hanging wall slopes by a few degrees pending further test
work and characterisation. The footwall-side slopes angles will depend upon details
of any discontinuity controls which are not determinate at this stage. The footwallside is in any case substantially controlled by the shape of the mineralised zone
dip, so the dividend from steeping is much less than for the hanging wall.
Achieving slopes in rock of >50degs is likely to require wall control blasting, and in
this case this will be pre-splitting plus buffer.
Figure 16.2: The USD 950 pit design showing the location of oxide (brown) and fresh (green)
rock in the pit wall and the measured slope angles in various sectors.
Both sets of pit designs include two internal mining phases that minimize the amount of
waste rock mined early in the mine life while maintaining ore feed to the mill.
Page 16-162

APRIL 2014
Hydrological
The pit design assumes groundwater will be controlled by dewatering boreholes. This
is expected to be required particularly to the north where the water table is high.
Borehole dewatering capability is considered to be required to assume the assumed
slopes in practice. Further measurement and study of the hydrological parameters is
required in the next phase of study.
Benches
The Lerchs-Grossmann phase bench outlines have been smoothed to:
Maintain a minimum mining width

Conform to the geotechnical design parameters
Minimize the mining of additional waste
All mining phases have been completed using a 10m bench height. The nominal
reference crest elevation is the 225m RL which is the crest elevation (RL) near to the
Phase 3 ramp exit point.
Dual ramp access has been designed whenever practical as the pit shells of a certain
gold price are generally divided into two lobes, one centred over the Yaoure Central
deposit and the other over the CMA deposit. Pit ramps have been designed at 26m
width and 10% grade to accommodate 90-tonne, 6.8m wide haul trucks and to optimize
haul fleet productivity.
Pit designs utilized slope batter angles (between benches) of 45 degrees in oxide and
60 degrees in fresh rock and 5m berms spaced 20m vertically, resulting in average
slopes of 44 degrees in oxides/saprolite and 53 degrees in the underlying hard (fresh)
rocks. 20 metre berms are spaced every 80m down the pit wall.
16.2.3
Final Pit Designs

The final smoothed and access phase designs are illustrated in Figure 16.3 and Figure.
The primary difference in the two pit designs is the depth to which the CMA portion of
the pit to the east is mined, with the USD950 pit mining the zone 80m deeper than the
USD800 pit design.
Page 16-163

APRIL 2014
Figure 16.3: Pit design based on the USD 800 gold price
USD 800
Pit Design
Figure 16.4: Pit design based on the USD 950 gold price
USD 950
Pit Design
Page 16-164

APRIL 2014
Figure 16.5: Cross section at 7100 N of Block model and USD 950 vs USD 1500 pits
Table 16.3: Resource quantities contained in USD800 & USD950 Pit Designs, at 0.5g/t cut-off
Indicated
Inferred
Tonnes
Grade
Content
Tonnes
Grade
Content
(Mt)
(g/t)
(koz)
(Mt)
(g/t)
(koz)
USD 800 Pit Design
15.7
1.26
632
56.3
1.46
2,648
USD 950 Pit Design
18.5
1.22
723
75.3
1.45
3,505
Notes
1.
The effective date of the Yaoure Mineral Resource estimate is 1 December 2013, prepared by Mario E.
Rossi, GeoSystems International, Inc.
2.
Mineral Resources which are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability
3.
4.
Totals and average grades are subject to rounding to the appropriate precision and some columns or
Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic
viability. There is no certainty that all or any part of the mineral resources would be
converted into mineral reserves. Mineral reserves can only be estimated as a result of
an economic evaluation as part of a preliminary feasibility study (PFS) or a feasibility
study (FS) of a mineral project. Accordingly, at the present level of development, there
are no mineral reserves at the Yaoure Project.
Table 16.4 summarizes the tonnages and grades contained within the designed pit
limits (using the incremental gold price / cut-off values) which provide the material
estimates and gold grades for the LOM plan and schedule.
Page 16-165

APRIL 2014
Table 16.4: Material quantities contained in USD 800 & USD 950 Pit Designs
Total
Waste
Strip Ratio
Tonnes
Grade
Content
(Mt)
(Mt)
(t/t)
(Mt)
(g/t)
(koz)
USD 800 Pit Design
377.7
313.8
4.9
63.9
1.53
3,140
USD 950 Pit Design
586.6
492.0
5.2
94.6
1.39
4,239
LOM Material
Notes
1. Totals and average grades are subject to rounding to the appropriate precision and some columns or
2. Effective cut offs for each pit are 0.59g/t for USD 800 and 0.49 g/t for USD 950
The USD 800 pit design contains 36% less total tonnes, 6% lower strip ratio and 10%
higher grades than the USD 950 pit design. This is a result of the targeted mineralised
zone in each case being constrained by the different revenue assumptions which
results in an effective gold grade cut-off of 0.59g/t for the USD 800 pit and 0.49g/t for
the larger USD 950 pit.
Both Indicated and Inferred resources were used in the LOM plans with Inferred
resources representing approximately 80% of the material mined for processing in
each case (See Table 16.3).
Dilution
Note the estimated grades of the resources include some geologic dilution through the
use of sub-blocking (onto partial blocks measuring 6.25 x 6.25 x 5 metres (on a parent
block basis measuring 25 x 25 x 10 metres). Blocks at the outer edge of the 0.1 g/t gold
envelope were diluted with 0 g/t grade. The stated resources include dilution in the
block model that relates to the level of low selectivity envisioned in an open pit
operation, assuming 10m bench heights. No additional operational or mining dilution or
ore loss has been incorporated.
Strip Ratio
Both pits deliver relative attractive strip ratios of around 5:1. Based on the gold price
induced cut-offs, the ore to waste ratio in the USD 950 Pit Design is 5.2:1. In the higher
grade and smaller USD 800 Pit Design, the stripping ratio reduces to 4.9.
Page 16-166

APRIL 2014
Figure 16.6: Cross section at 6900 N of USD 950 Pit Design, showing Yaoure and CMA zones
Figure 16.7: Cross section at 6900 N of Block Model & USD 950 Pit Design
In addition to the material that is mined for processing, within the pit there remains
lower grade material that is either stockpiled (for future processing) or mined as waste,
which is not included in the strip ratio but which could be proved to be economic at
higher gold price scenarios.
Page 16-167

APRIL 2014
Sections
Cross sections at 100 metre intervals showing the USD 1500 Resource Pit shell and
USD 950 Pit Design showing the CMA and Yaoure Zones, boreholes and the Resource
Block Model are provided in Appendix I. Examples at 6900 N are provided above in
Figure 16.6 and Figure 16.7.
16.2.4
Oxide (heap leach) pit designs

The heap leach only scenario assumes contract mining due to the short 3.5 year
duration of mine life. Mining costs are based upon Amara Minings current experience
with mining contractors in its operations elsewhere in West Africa.
Figure 16.8: Heap Leach (oxides) pit designs
Production rates for the mine average 5.7 million tonnes per annum for all the years of
full operation. Five pits are included in the mine plan where a total of 19.9 million
tonnes of rock is mined to release 5.6 million tonnes of oxide material for heap leaching
Page 16-168

APRIL 2014
at an average grade of 1.49 g/t at a 2.5:1 strip ratio. Oxide material is sourced from
Yaoure Central, the CMA and a zone hanging wall to the CMA.
Pit depths are mostly shallow, with 20 to 40 metre depths to the pit bottoms from the
ramp crests, with the exception of the pit furthest to the south-east that is 70 metres
deep due to the topographic changes in that area.
Ramps have been designed at 26m width for 90-tonne class haul trucks operating with
two lanes of traffic and average inter ramp slopes are less than 45 degrees. Designs
are based on USD 900/oz gold price Whittle pit optimization shells.
Ore processing assumes the 1.6 Mt/a plant presently in operation at the Kalsaka Mine
in Burkina Faso is relocated after the closure of that operation. The plant includes a
sizer for soft ores and a 3 stage crushing circuit designed to achieve a 12.5mm
product. Gold recovery for Yaoure oxide is assumed to be 80%.
Oxide ore resources included in this mine plan do not include the potential resources
from Zone North, Angovia 2 or Kongonza.
16.3
Mine Schedule
Mine scheduling was completed using Vulcans Chronos scheduler. The scheduling
logic applied was to meet the annual mill feed production target with ore (+0.5 g/t gold
grade) while minimizing waste mined.
16.3.1
Schedule Cases
Fort the purposes of identifying the optimal scale and pit to focus on in future study, the
following cases for the CIP processing method where individually scheduled and
mining costs estimated.
The USD 800 pit design assuming a 6.5 Mt/a processing rate was selected as the
Base Case for scheduling and analysis;
A lower capital cost sensitivity to the Base Case utilizing a 5.0 Mt/a processing rate
was run on the USD 800 pit design;
A higher capital cost sensitivity to the Base Case utilizing an 8.0 Mt/a processing
rate was run against the larger USD 950 pit design was selected as the Headline
Case; and
For comparison, a 6.5 Mt/a processing rate was also run on the USD 950 pit
design.
Table 16.5: Primary CIP Scenarios scheduled

Processing Rate
Pit Design
Material
5.0 Mt/a
USD 800/oz
Oxide & sulphide
6.5 Mt/a
USD 800/oz
Oxide & sulphide
6.5 Mt/a
USD 950/oz
Oxide & sulphide
8.0 Mt/a
USD 950/oz
Oxide & sulphide
Page 16-169
Nomenclature
base case
headline case

APRIL 2014
16.3.2
Base case - USD 800 Pit Design, 6.5 Mt/a scenario

The production schedule for the base case (USD 800 Pit Design / 6.5Mtpa CIP milling
scenario) has a mine life of just over 10 years and requires an average mining rate of
37.3 Mt/a over the first 10 years, starting at 43Mt/a then tapering through the mine life.
Note that for the purposes of the PEA schedule any low grade ore stockpiled and not
processed has been classed as waste. Key aspects of the mining schedule are
summarized in Table 16.6 and Figure 16.9.
Table 16.6: Base case 6.5 Mt/a CIP mining schedule
PRODUCTION
units
Total/
Yr 1
Yr 2
Yr 3
Yr 4
Yr 5
Yr 6
Yr 7
Yr 8
Yr 9
Yr 10
Yr 11
Total Ore Mined
kt
63,897
3,320
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,430
6,500
6,500
6,500
2,147
Total Ore Grade
g/t
1.53
1.59
1.52
1.46
1.50
1.20
1.22
1.50
1.56
1.45
1.84
2.96
Contained Au
koz
3,140
169
317
306
314
252
254
310
326
303
384
204
Waste Mined
kt
313,848
39,680
36,500
36,500
36,500
36,500
34,673
26,570
23,241
23,500
18,018
2,166
Total Material
kt
377,745
43,000
43,000
43,000
43,000
43,000
41,173
33,000
29,741
30,000
24,518
4,313
t w:o
4.9
12.0
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.3
4.1
3.5
3.6
2.8
1.0
Plant Feed
kt
63,897
3,320
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,500
6,430
6,500
6,500
6,500
2,147
Grade
g/t
1.53
1.59
1.52
1.46
1.50
1.20
1.22
1.50
1.56
1.45
1.84
2.96
Contained Gold
koz
3,140
169
317
306
314
252
254
310
326
303
384
204
95.0%
95.0%
95.0%
95.0%
95.0%
95.0%
95.0%
95.0%
95.0%
95.0%
95.0%
95.0%
koz
2,983
161
301
290
298
239
241
295
310
288
365
194
Mining
Strip Ratio
Ave.
Processing
Recovery
Gold Produced
The schedule shows that the pit finishes in higher grade material, with a kick up in
grade seen in the final tonnage in part-year 11. This suggests that larger pits may
continue to be economic, which was tested in the cases involving the larger USD 950
pit design. The highest strip is in year 1 as ore production ramps up, and then also
tapers over the mine life to average 4.9:1 in the base case. Average annual gold
production at 95% recovery over years 1 to 10 is 279,000 ounces.
Page 16-170

APRIL 2014
Figure 16.9: Base case 6.5 Mt/a CIP mining schedule
16.3.3
Other whole ore leach cases

The scheduling parameters of the other cases for the CIP processing method are
displayed in Table 16.7.
Table 16.7: Summary of CIP Cases scheduled tonnages
Unit
5 Mt/a
USD 800/oz
Pit Design
6.5 Mt/a
USD 800/oz
Pit Design
6.5 Mt/a
USD 950/oz
Pit Design
8 Mt/a
USD 950/oz
Pit Design
Years
13
10
15
12
Average Mining Rate
Mt/a
28.8
37.3
38.9
48.4
Maximum Mining Rate
Mt/a
34.0
43.0
48.5
56.5
Minimum Mining Rate
Mt/a
17.3
24.5
21.1
27.2
g/t
1.53
1.53
1.39
1.39
t w:o
4.9
4.9
5.2
5.2
Item
Mine Life
Grade
Strip ratio
Notes:
1.
Mine life rounded to full years of processing
2.
Tonnages are total material moved, includes waste and ore
The detailed schedules and results for the 5 Mt/a, 6.5 Mt/a and 8 Mt/a scenarios are
provided in Appendix N.
16.3.4
Oxide case
For the heap leach (oxides) case, the ROM production was designed to match the
processing rate of 1.6 million tonnes of ore to the plant each full year of production,
based on the rated capacity of the companys existing facilities at Kalsaka/Sega.
Page 16-171

APRIL 2014
16.4
Open Pit Mine Operation
16.4.1
Equipment
The mining rate for the base case starts at 43 Mt/a combined ore and waste in Year 1
and maintains this production rate through to Year 5 before the mining rate decreases
towards closure. Inferred material will be handled as is appropriate for the grade of this
material. During the mine life, all mill-grade material is assumed to be rehandled on the
ROM pad.
16.4.2
Drill & Blast

The drilling program at Yaoure was designed based on assumed drilling and blasting
practices. These criteria serve as a baseline, and will likely be modified based on the
results obtained at Yaoure. The drilling criteria area as follows:
1. All mining will take place on 10m benches.
2. In the bulk waste material, drilling and blasting will be comprised of 165mmdiameter blastholes spaced 4.0m x 5.0m, with 1.2m of sub-drilling.
3. In the main ore zones, buffer zones and ramps, drilling and blasting will be
comprised of 115mm-diameter blastholes spaced 3.0m x 3.5m, with 1.2m of subdrilling in buffer zones and no sub-drilling on ramps.
4. Pre-split drilling and blasting will be comprised of one row of 92mm-diameter
blastholes spaced 1.0m apart, with 0.0m of sub-drilling.
5. Waste that immediately surrounds the ore will be mined as ore.
In order to address these requirements, two classes of drill units will be required. Bulk
waste will be drilled by a CAT MD6240 or equivalent. This is a 62 tonne rotary
blasthole drill.
Ore, buffer zones, ramps and pre-splits will be drilled by several Sandvik DP1500i units
or equivalent. This unit is a 22 tonne top-hammer blasthole drill.
16.4.3
Loading
The mine plan must balance between minimizing the cost of loading waste and
minimizing the dilution added when loading ore. Because of the waste:ore strip ratio
(4.9:1 in base case) and total tonnes that will be mined, the size the primary digging
unit(s) should be maximized. To a certain extent, Yaoure is a waste moving operation
where waste mining amounts to 83% (in base case) of the total mining cost and
warrants being the major focus of cost control for the mining department. On average,
not including the time value of money, a waste mining investment of USD 11.83 (in
base case) per tonne of ore mined has been made.
To achieve the foregoing objectives a 250 tonne face shovel of the Komatsu PC3000
type has been selected as the primary waste-loading unit with a nominal life of 60,000
operating hours. A smaller 200 tonne face shovel, equivalent to a Komatsu PC2000, is
envisaged as the ore-loading unit with a nominal life of 50,000 operating hours.
Page 16-172

APRIL 2014
16.4.4
Haulage
Weather conditions are highly variable at the project location. Ground water, muddy
conditions and seasonally heavy rains will be encountered throughout the mine life in
the pit and on haul roads, especially when dealing with the upper oxidized materials.
The fresh rock is hard and competent and should not be prone to washboarding on the
production floors. The main ramp gradient is designed at less than 10%.
90 tonne haul trucks are planned for transporting ore and waste with nominal life of
60,000 operating hours.
Shovel and truck fleet numbers have been estimated on first principles, based on the
operating hours required to achieve the production schedule, calculated by cycle times
and estimates of the equipments rated capacities and productivities.
16.4.5
Ancillary Equipment
Ancillary equipment will consist of a combination of new and used units to develop and
service the roads, dumps, pit floors and drilling patterns. The specifications, purchasing
conditions and number of machines required are listed below.
16.5
Dozers Komatsu D375A 70 tonne class

RTD Komatsu WD600
Road Graders Komatsu GD825
Backhoe CAT 385
Service Trucks
Tire Handler CAT IT28
Water Carts Komatsu HD465WT
Pit Lighting
Manpower
Manpower estimates are based on the equipment fleet required to achieve the
production schedule at the productivity and performance levels discussed in Section
21.0. In addition, a roster has been selected to optimise the economics of the
evaluation. The open pit will operate seven days per week, 365 days per year. The
manning levels include the construction and mine training requirements. Table 16.8:
Project Manning lists the manning conditions as evaluated for this study.
Table 16.8: Project Manning Base Case
Year
Mine Supervision
Technical Support
Mine Operations
Maintenance Supervision
Maintenance Operations
Total
1
15
21
212
3
0
251
2
16
20
232
5
15
288
3
19
32
249
5
47
352
4
19
37
261
5
47
369
5
19
37
252
5
47
360
6
19
37
245
5
47
353
Manning for the remaining cases are provided in Appendix M.

Page 16-173
7
19
36
213
5
47
320
8
19
36
196
5
47
303
9
19
36
166
5
33
259
10
16
36
145
5
17
219

APRIL 2014
16.5.1
Staff
Staffing for the mining process has been divided into the following categories:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Supervision
Technical
Operations
Maintenance
Excluding front-line supervision, which will follow the same shift rotation as the hourly
workforce, national staff will work a 7-day week composed of a 10-hour day on a 3
week on 1 week off basis.
Supervision
Overall supervision for the mining operation will be the responsibility of a Mine
Superintendent with support from a Mine General Foreman and two assistants. Three
Shift Foreman and three Shift Supervisors will manage the production activities. Two
Drill and Blast Foreman and three D&B Supervisors will manage the drilling fleet. A
small contingent of Earthworks and Maintenance staff will be required for small jobs
around the mine, monitoring the major equipment maintenance contractors and
performing maintenance on support fleet not covered under the maintenance contract.
Technical
Staff numbers in the engineering / geology group reflect the need to be self-sufficient
and multi-skilled in geological modelling, open pit mine design, scheduling and
application of computers for engineering purposes.
At start up, a total of 21 staff technical staff members will be required. All staff will have
to be multi-skilled and able to relieve others to ensure coverage for annual leave.
Operations
Pit operators will be scheduled 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, and 365 days per
year. Four crews will work a rotating schedule. The roster will be working 12-hour shifts
on a 4 days on / 4 days off schedule.
The number of operators will start at 212 and peak in Year 4 with 261.
Maintenance
Major mine equipment maintenance is assumed to be contracted out. Non-mining
equipment maintenance personnel will maintained at 47 from Year 3.
16.6
Mine Layout
The mine layout of Yaoure as designed for the PEA is provided in Figure 16.10.
Page 16-174

APRIL 2014
Figure 16.10: Mine layout
The 1.5km long by 1.4 km wide USD 950 design pit is displayed with the waste rock
dump designed to the west, with the ROM pad and plant sites to the east. The location
of potential heap leach pads is to the north.
Site locations were based primarily on making most use of the topography while
minimising haul distances and disturbance of local settlements.
Layout optimisation
There is potential to reconfigure these locations to optimise waste haulage and the final
TMF design. If heap leaching is not pursued, and if the strike of mineralisation allows,
an alternative location for the waste rock is to the north, which may see the plant site
moved to the east of the pit and a larger single TMF 3 site utilized. Combining this with
a detailed review of the haul routes and cycle times may further allow optimisation of
the fleet size and waste movement costs.
Page 16-175

APRIL 2014
17.0
RECOVERY METHODS
Amara engaged AMEC to complete a scoping study (the Study) on the processing
facility and associated infrastructure as input into the PEA. The Study investigated the
oxide and sulphide ore treatments.
17.1
Sulphides Tank Leach

The proposed flowsheet to achieve direct cyanide leaching followed by carbon in pulp
(CIP) is summarised in Figure 17.1 and described below.
17.1.1
Crushing
Haul trucks tip run-of-mine material into a hopper which feeds onto a vibrating grizzly
feeder (VGF). Oversize feeds a primary jaw crusher with an open side setting of
175 mm. Crusher discharge is collected on a conveyor with VGF undersize for delivery
to secondary crushing and screening.
The secondary screen cuts at 60 mm. Oversize passes through a cone crusher
operating at a closed side setting of 50 mm. Secondary crusher discharge is conveyed
back to the secondary screen feed conveyor. Secondary screen undersize is collected
on a conveyor which delivers to tertiary crushing and screening.
There are two parallel circuits for tertiary crushing and screening. The tertiary screens
are double deck units screening at 25 mm and 15 mm. Oversize from both decks
passes through a cone crusher operating at a closed side setting of 13 mm and is
conveyed back to the tertiary screens. Tertiary screen undersize is collected on the
final crusher product conveyor which delivers to a storage silo.
17.1.2
Milling
Crusher product from the silo is delivered onto a mill feed conveyor which discharges
into a ball mill.
The ball mill operates in closed circuit. Mill discharge enters a pump box and is
pumped to a cluster of hydrocyclones. Cyclone underflow returns to the ball mill and
cyclone overflow passes through vibrating screens for removal of trash.
The product from the milling section has a P80 of 106 m.
17.1.3
Leaching
Gold is leached by cyanidation in a series of open, mechanically agitated tanks. Flow
between tanks is by gravity.
The pH of the slurry in the leach tanks is maintained in the range 10 11 by addition of
lime to the mill feed conveyor. Cyanide is provided by a strong solution of sodium
cyanide. Oxygen in the first two tanks is obtained from an oxygen plant on site and is
added to the slurry in a high shear reactor. Oxygen in the other tanks is provided by
the supply of low pressure compressed air.
Page 17-176

APRIL 2014
17.1.4
Adsorption
Leached gold is recovered from solution by adsorption onto activated carbon using the
carbon-in-pulp (CIP) process. Slurry from leaching flows through a series of open
mechanically agitated tanks by gravity. Each tank contains activated carbon which is
retained by mechanically swept interstage screens.
Pump Cells will be used as adsorption vessels, facilitating operation of the adsorption
section in carousel mode in which counter-current flow of carbon is achieved by
changing the tank which receives leached slurry. Carbon from the previous first tank is
pumped to the loaded carbon screen in the elution plant. When all of the loaded
carbon has been recovered that pump cell is brought back into service as the last
adsorption vessel in the series with a fresh stock of regenerated carbon.
Discharge from the last tank is screened to recover any carbon that may be contained.
17.1.5
Elution and Regeneration

Loaded carbon from adsorption is eluted using the AARL method in which elution is
performed in open circuit followed by electrowinning. Carbon slurry from the first
adsorption tank passes over a vibrating screen, the carbon being washed and collected
in a hopper and the screen undersize returning to adsorption.
Loaded carbon is treated with dilute hydrochloric acid in an acid washing column and
then transferred to the elution column. Carbon is soaked in hot caustic cyanide
solution and then eluted with softened water. Eluate passes through electrowinning
cells for recovery of contained gold.
Eluted carbon is transferred from the elution column by pressurised water, dewatered
and collected in a hopper which feeds an electrically heated rotary kiln. Regenerated
carbon discharges from the kiln into a quench tank where it is cooled and screened to
remove fine carbon before being returned to the last adsorption tank.
17.1.6
Electrowinning and Smelting

Eluate is pumped through electrowinning cells for a fixed period before being discarded
to the leach tanks. Gold sludge is washed from the cathodes, filtered, dried and
smelted with fluxes before being cast into bars.
17.1.7
Tailings Management
Undersize from the carbon safety screen is collected in an agitated tank and pumped to
the tailings management facilities (TMFs). In general, ultraviolet light will be used to
destruct cyanide in tailings on the TMF. A facility to detoxify tailing slurry using the
SO2/air process will be installed and operated should the cyanide concentration in
tailing slurry or TMF decant water be higher than acceptable levels. This facility will
consist of an open, mechanically agitated tank with associated equipment to dose
sodium metabisulphite, copper sulphate and lime.
Page 17-177

APRIL 2014
A system to allow dosage of hydrogen peroxide is provided at the TMF decant ponds
should it be necessary to destruct cyanide in TMF decant solution.
17.1.8
Reagents
Lime
Lime is delivered to the mine site in bulk tankers and stored in a silo.
discharged from the silo onto the ball mill feed conveyor.
Lime is
Sodium cyanide
Sodium cyanide is delivered in the form of briquettes. Solution of the required strength
is made up on site and distributed to the points of use:
Barren solution pond

Leach tanks
Heap leach ADR plant
Sulphide elution plant.
Hydrochloric acid
Concentrated hydrochloric acid delivered to site by road tankers is stored in tanks and
pumped to the sulphides elution plant as required.
Sodium hydroxide
Solid sodium hydroxide delivered to site by road is mixed to the required concentration
and stored in a tank. Solution is pumped to each of the elution plants as required per
batch and the oxides heap leach barren solution pond as required to regulate the pH of
the solution
Page 17-178

APRIL 2014
Figure 17.1: Block Flow Diagram Sulphides Treatment Plant
Page 17-179

APRIL 2014
17.2
Oxides - Heap Leach

Oxide material from the Yaoure site was historically mined from two open pits, crushed
and heap leached. Gold was recovered from solution by adsorption onto activated
carbon, elution of the carbon, electrowinning and smelting into dor bars.
Amara believes that near-surface material between the two existing pits, which has to
be mined to access the lower sulphides, will also be amenable to heap leaching. The
processing plant used previously is reported to be unserviceable and a complete new
system is to be provided, assumed to be sourced from Amaras Kalsaka/Sega
operation. The flowsheet is as shown in Figure 17.2.
17.2.1
Crushing and Agglomeration

Amara operates other mines and a crushing plant of nominal 1.6 Mt/a capacity
currently used for production at the Kalsaka/Sega mine in Burkina Faso is expected to
be redundant before the Yaoure project is ready for development. It is proposed that
this crushing and agglomeration plant will be relocated from Kalsaka to Yaoure.
Haul trucks tip run-of-mine material through a 600 mm static grizzly into a hopper. A
vibrating grizzly feeder (VGF) removes material from the hopper and scalps at 75 mm.
Grizzly oversize passes through a jaw crusher with a closed side setting of 100 mm
and is then conveyed to a second primary VGF and jaw crusher unit.
The second primary VGF scalps at 75 mm. VGF oversize passes through a second
primary jaw crusher with a closed side setting of 50 mm. The undersize from both
VGFs and the discharge from the second primary jaw crusher are collected on a
conveyor which delivers to the secondary crushing and screening system.
The first secondary screen is a double deck unit screening at 30 mm and 13 mm.
Oversize from both decks passes through a Nordberg 4 standard cone crusher
operating at a closed side setting of 19 mm. First secondary screen undersize is
collected on the final crusher product conveyor.
Discharge from the first secondary crusher is conveyed to another secondary crushing
and screening system. The screen is a double deck unit screening at 20 mm and
13 mm. Oversize from both decks passes through a Nordberg 5 shorthead cone
crusher operating at a closed side setting of 12 mm and is conveyed back to the
second secondary screen. Undersize from this screen is collected on the final crusher
product conveyor with the first secondary screen undersize and the combined streams
are delivered to agglomeration.
Crusher product is fed into an inclined agglomeration drum and mixed with cement and
water.
17.2.2
Heap Leaching
Agglomerated material is transported by a series of conveyors to a movable stacker for
deposition on a new heap leach pad.
Page 17-180

APRIL 2014
Stacked material is drip irrigated with a dilute solution of sodium cyanide which
percolates through the heap. Solution is collected by a network of pipes at the base of
the heap and flows by gravity to storage ponds. Low grade solution is collected in an
intermediate leach solution (ILS) pond and is used to irrigate newly stacked areas of
the heap. The resulting higher grade solution is collected in a pregnant leach solution
(PLS) pond.
The pH and cyanide concentration of the leaching solution is controlled by periodic
addition of sodium hydroxide and sodium cyanide solution respectively.
17.2.3
Solution Recovery
Agglomerated oxide material will be transported by a series of conveyors to a movable
stacker for deposition on a new heap leach pad. Stacked material is drip irrigated with
a dilute solution of sodium cyanide which percolates through the heap. Solution is
collected by a network of pipes at the base of the heap and flows by gravity to storage
ponds. The resulting higher grade solution is collected in a pregnant leach solution
(PLS) pond and pumped to the adsorption/desorption/regeneration (ADR) plant for
treatment and gold recovery.
Primary and secondary solution applied to the heap will flow downstream along the
length of the respective cells through the solution collection system. Solution collection
will comprise high-density polyethylene (HDPE) perforated and solid pipes which
discharge solution from under the heap to the splitter box.
To facilitate efficient grade control and to enable solution to be discharged to the
respective solution retention ponds, the splitter box is divided into two segments.
Each segment typically comprises one feed pipe, an impact plate (to dissipate solution
discharge energy), a baffle plate (to develop uniform flow), a 90 degree weir (for
volume measurement) and a side channel which directs pregnant, intermediate and
excess solution to the discharge control valves.
If the solution grade falls below the respective concentration level target, the valve
reporting to the secondary pipe will be opened. The valve to the pregnant pipe will be
opened when the solution grade is equal to or above the concentration level target. If
the solution is barren, the excess solution will be discharged to the excess solution
launder.
In the event that the combined primary discharge from the cells will be less than the
required flow for the process plant absorption circuit, pregnant solution from the
adjacent cell will be bled off to the pregnant pipe. Should additional pregnant solution
not be available, solution from the intermediate stream will be directed to the pregnant
pipe.
17.2.4
Adsorption
The adsorption/desorption/regeneration (ADR) plant currently used for production at
Kalsaka will be relocated to Yaoure.
Page 17-181

APRIL 2014
PLS is pumped to the first in a series of adsorption tanks. Solution flows between
tanks by gravity. Barren solution leaving the last tank in the series returns to the barren
solution pond for reuse as leaching solution irrigating the leach heap.
Loaded carbon from the first tank is transferred to the elution (desorption) plant for
recovery of the adsorbed gold.
17.2.5
Desorption
Loaded carbon is eluted by the Zadra method in which carbon is eluted with hot caustic
cyanide solution and electrowinning of gold is in closed circuit with elution.
Eluted carbon is transferred from the elution column to a hopper which feeds a rotary
kiln. Regenerated carbon discharges from the kiln into a quench tank where it is
cooled and screened to remove fine carbon before being returned to the last adsorption
column.
17.2.6
Electrowinning and Smelting

Gold sludge is periodically washed from the cathodes, filtered, dried and smelted
before being cast into dor bars.
Page 17-182

APRIL 2014
Figure 17.2: Block Flow Diagram Oxides Treatment Plant.
AGGLOMERATION
2520
LEACH PAD & PONDS

2540
Run of Mine
Oxides
Primary crushing
Agglomeration
Leaching
Stockpile
Adsorption
Secondary crushing
& screening
Tertiary crushing
& screening
Elution
Conveying
& stacking
Regeneration
CONVEYING & STACKING
2530
ADR
2550
HL CRUSHING
2510
Page 17-183
Electrowinning
Smelting
Dor

APRIL 2014
18.0
PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE
18.1

Based on yearly tailings production of 6.5 Mt/a over a 13 year period, a Tailings
Management Facility (TMF) with a minimum capacity of approximately 80 Mt is
required.
18.1.1
Site options study

Four potential TMF sites were identified and assessed at concept level with respect to
social, environmental and technical characteristics. Siting of the TMF is intimately
related to the location of the process plant site. Two potential locations were
consequently considered for the process plant as illustrated in Figure 18.1:
Option 1, northeast of the open pit

Option 2, southwest of the Yaoure deposit.
Figure 18.1: Tailing Management Site Options
Plant Option 1
Plant Option 2
Following the initial data review, a staged selection procedure was implemented which
comprised ranking of each option to identify the most likely socially, environmentally
and technically acceptable sites, by considering:
Volume requirements
Topography
Distance from plant site location
Accessibility
Impact on the natural environment
Page 18-184

APRIL 2014
Impact on local communities.

Impact on local community development (land take in villages)
Significant visual effect
Significant loss of amenity, farming land, hunting grounds, etc
Technical assessment of each TMF site.
A preliminary assessment for potential expansion of capacity of the candidate TMF has
also been addressed.
Environmental Ranking
A preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was performed in 2007 for the
Yaoure (former Angovia) Project. The 2007 Angovia EIA report and baseline study
provided background to this study and enabled the base data for each site to be
established as summarised in Table 18.1.
Page 18-185

APRIL 2014
Table 18.1: TMF Site Options Environmental Base Data
Site
Option
Distance
from
Villages
(km)
Catchmen
t Area
(ha)
Stream
System
Drainage
Direction
Mineral
Rights
Land
Owner
Observed
Land use
Visibility
Impact on
Potential
Water
Supply
Impact on Culture and

Property (Sacred Forest
and Cemeteries)
TMF 1
1.5
231
TBC
EW
Amara
TBA
Forest/
Agricultural
High
Mid
High
TMF 2
1.2
477
TBC
NE
Amara
TBA
Degraded
Forest/
Agricultural
Mid High
Mid
High
TMF 3
1.7
456
TBC
NW
Amara
TBA
Forest/
Agricultural
Low
Mid
High
TMF 4
0.8
200
TBC
NE
Amara
TBA
Forest/
Agricultural
Mid High
Mid
High
Page 18-186

APRIL 2014
To consider the relative environmental effects of the screened sites and to establish
potential mitigation requirements, each site was ranked in relation to social and
economic factors, in accordance with perceived risks as summarised in Table 18.2.
Table 18.2: TMF Environmental Ranking Scoring Criteria
Score
Level of Objection
Resources and Risk
None or Minor objection expected
Minor resources required to counter objection
Objection expected
Major resources required to counter objection

and provide mitigation measures
Significant objection expected
Risk of onerous mitigation measures, requires

mitigation to be incorporated into technical design
The ranking analysis requires the following factors to be considered:
The quality, detail and extent of available data

Experience of similar tailings disposal impacts and effects
A judgement on the relative significance of the impacts in the context of the social
and environmental setting.
The assessment establishes a qualitative score for each site in respect of the
environmental factors considered. It is recognised that individual factors have a
different level of significance and the scores reflect the likelihood of objections to the
development based on each. The resources necessary to counter each objection and
the extent of the appropriate mitigation measures are reflected in the scores.
Therefore, a score of 1 is given to perceived minor objections to reflect minimal
environmental effect, whereas a score of 2 or 3 is used to highlight differences between
a minimal effect and situations of unfavourable environmental responses.
The results of the assessment are summarised in Table 18.3 and each potential effect
is discussed below.
Location/Village: A score of 1 was given to TMF options that are not close to
villages. A score of 3 was given to sites that are within the environs of villages.
Catchment: The surface water catchments of each site were identified according to
available mapping. TMF catchment areas have been scored as 1 where any fresh
water reporting from the TMF will have a minimal impact on the local population. A
score of 2 has been applied to TMF sites where some impact is envisaged and a
score of 3 for sites which could cause a significant impact on fresh water availability
to the population.
Vegetation: Where primary forest is evident and significant environmental

disturbance will be evident, a score of 3 has been awarded. A score of 1 has been
awarded where the majority of the area consists of degraded forest or agricultural
(set-aside) lands.
Land Use/Ownership: Details of land use and ownership should be confirmed at

the pre-feasibility stage. Where sites are adjacent to local communities the site has
Page 18-187

APRIL 2014
been given a rating of 3. Where a site is adjacent to a small village it has been
scored as 2 and where only minor subsistence farming is evident it has been
scored as 1.
Mineral Rights: Where a TMF site is outside the mine perimeter it has been given a
rating of 3. Where the site is partly inside it has been scored as 2 and where only
minor areas of the main footprint are outside the perimeter it has been scored a 1.
However details of use of land for TMF sites outside the mine perimeter should be
confirmed at the next stage study.
Visual Impact: Where possible, the assessment of visibility was based on

approximate TMF facility dimensions and local topography. A score of 1 to 3 was
allocated depending upon the perceived visibility, moderated by whether mitigation
incorporated into the design could overcome any potential objections.
Impact on Water Supply: As little information about existing village abstraction

points and water supply is available, where sites are up-gradient of a village they
are scored as 3 to reflect groundwater vulnerability.
Presence of Local Ecology: All sites were scored 2 to reflect vulnerability for
potential impact on areas of forests with diverse ecology.
Impact on Culture and Property: Based on information provided by Amara there

are sacred forests (related to traditional religious ceremonies) and graveyard sites
located within the concession area. Some of those sites could be compelled to
disappearance or displacement. TMF sites 1 and 3 show the highest impact on
those areas and were consequently scored 3 to reflect that objection is expected.
The results of site ranking in relation to social and environmental factors are
summarised in Table 18.3.
Page 18-188

APRIL 2014
Table 18.3: TMF Site Option Environmental Ranking
Land use
Mineral
Right
Visual
Impact
Potential
Impact on
Water
Supply
Presence
of Local
Ecology
Impact on
Culture
and
Property
Total
Score
Rank
21
22
16
23
Site
Village
Impact
Catchmen
ts
Vegetatio
n
TMF 1
TMF 2
TMF 3
TMF 4
Page 18-189

APRIL 2014
The preliminary ranking study suggests that TMF 3 is the preferred solution with
respect to minimal environmental impact, with TMF 4 the least favoured site.
Technical Ranking
Capacity Evaluation:
The TMF embankment alignments have been optimised to take full advantage of
the natural contours, topographical features and hills, as well as minimising
catchment areas and the interception of major rivers and streams. Preliminary
depth capacity curves have been developed based on topographical plans
available for each identified potential TMF location. In the development of each
depth capacity curve, AMEC has initially assumed a vertical upstream embankment
face, horizontal beach and tailings stored within the retention volume at an
estimated 1.3 t/m average density.
Preliminary screening was undertaken to appraise the potential for each site to
accommodate the predicted project tailings storage requirements. The engineering
implications for each TMF site option and its potential for expansion have
consequently been appraised.
The analysis suggests that, based on the assumed embankment alignments, the
TMF 1 and TMF 4 sites will not be suitable for the storage of 80 Mt of tailings within
a single facility. If TMF 1 or TMF 4 is adopted a second facility will be needed to
meet the design requirement.
The technical characteristics for each site option with respect to its maximum
capacity are summarised in Table 18.4 and Table 18.5.
Geotechnical/Geological Conditions:
The available topographic data and geological information indicate that the
topography and bedrock in the project area will, subject to geotechnical evaluation
and confirmation, provide suitable ground conditions for tailings dam construction.
Foundation conditions are expected to comprise alluvial deposits, residual soils and
weathered rock overlying bedrock. Prior to embankment construction, all organic
topsoil materials will be stripped. Further investigation should, however, be
undertaken during the prefeasibility stage to confirm the geotechnical
characteristics of the foundation soils and rock.
Hydrology:
Significant additional catchment area outside the TMF perimeter is noted for TMF 2
and TMF 3, which require diversion structures. The need of diversion structures
will have to be investigated further at the prefeasibility stage.
Page 18-190

APRIL 2014
Table 18.4: TMF Site Option Technical Ranking Base Data Plant Option 1
Tailings Delivery
Distance
Static Head
to Plant
from Plant
Site (km)
Site (m)
Main Embankment - Final
Bush
Clear
Area
(ha)
Catchment
Area
(ha)
Length
(km)
Height
(m)
Volume
3
(Mm )
38
231
0.9
63
3.3
2.6
65
54
477
0.9
63
2.8
367
5.0
147
46
456
0.8
74
2.7
317
1.6
97
49
200
1.9
87
11.0
Site
Option
Crest
Elevation
(masl)
TMF 1
228
2.4
TMF 2
285
TMF 3
TMF 4
Expansion
Capacity
Table 18.5: TMF Site Option Technical Ranking Base Data Plant Option 2
Tailings Delivery
Distance
Static Head
to Plant
from Plant
Site (km)
Site (m)
Main Embankment - Final
Bush
Clear
Area
(ha)
Catchment
Area
(ha)
Length
(km)
Height
(m)
Volume
3
(Mm )
-72
38
231
0.9
63
3.3
0.6
-15
54
477
0.9
63
2.8
367
2.3
67
46
456
0.8
74
2.7
317
1.7
17
49
200
1.9
87
11.0
Site
Option
Crest
Elevation
(masl)
TMF 1
228
5.0
TMF 2
285
TMF 3
TMF 4
Page 18-191
Expansion
Capacity

APRIL 2014
Topography:
The ultimate TMF elevation has been considered in addressing the transport of
tailings from the proposed plant site and return water pipeline alignment from the
supernatant pond. Where possible, AMEC has consequently ranked as preferred
those options where the static head is low and the preferential pipe alignments are
minimised.
The technical assessment of each TMF site option has been appraised by scoring
each site with respect to its engineering and estimated site conditions assuming a
common capacity of 40 Mt. The scores and rankings are summarised in Table 18.6
for Plant Site Option 1 and in Table 18.7 for Plant Site Option 2. A low score has
been equated to options exhibiting minimum static head between the crest and the
process plant, minimum clearing, catchment, embankment works, etc.
The scoring suggests that the most suitable TMF site with respect to civil works,
potential impacts, construction and operation is TMF 1 for Plant Site Option 1 and
both TMF 2 and TMF 3 for Plant Site Option 2.
Table 18.6: TMF Site Option Technical Ranking Process Plant Option 1
Site
Distance
to Plant
Embankment
Length
Static
Head
Bush
Clearance
Catchment
Area
Embankment
Volume
Total
Score
Ranking
TMF 1
11
TMF 2
14
TMF 3
14
TMF 4
15
Table 18.7: TMF Site Option Technical Ranking Process Plant Option 2
Site
Distance
to Plant
Embankment
Length
Static
Head
Bush
Clearance
Catchment
Area
Embankment
Volume
Total
Score
Ranking
TMF 1
16
TMF 2
12
TMF 3
12
TMF 4
14
Site Options Study Conclusions

Four TMF site options have been scored and ranked based on their suitability for use
from both environmental and technical viewpoints. The results for the environmental
analysis suggest that TMF 3 site exhibits the least potential for environmental impact.
When addressed with respect to their engineering technical conditions to safely store a
Page 18-192

APRIL 2014
common 40 Mt, TMF 1 is the most favourable for Process Plant Option 1 and both
TMF 2 and TMF 3 for Process Plant Option 2. However, TMF 1 and TMF 4 cannot
store more than 45 Mt.
The TMF 1 depth capacity curve indicates that a second facility will be required to
provide sufficient volume for the minimum design capacity of 80 Mt.
Review of the 45 Mt footprint of TMF2 shows that the impoundment area could
intersect the USD 1500 pit. Accepted good practice is to keep tailing management
facilities at least 500 m from the open pits to prevent seepage from entering the pit.
The combined ranking suggests that TMF 1 and TMF 3 are the most favoured site
options for plant Option 1 with respect to environmental impact and technical
characteristics (Table 18.8).
Table 18.8: TMF Site Option Overall Ranking Process Plant Option 1
Site
Option
Environmental
Ranking
Engineering
Ranking
Total
Combined
Ranking
TMF 1
TMF 2
TMF 3
TMF 4
TMF 3 is the most preferred site should Process Plant Option 2 be developed (Table
18.9). Besides, TMF 3 site option exhibits the greatest potential for ease of expansion
and this option should be considered if Plant Option 2 is adopted.
Table 18.9: TMF Site Option Overall Ranking Process Plant Option 2
Site
Option
Environmental
Ranking
Engineering
Ranking
Total
Combined
Ranking
TMF 1
TMF 2
TMF 3
TMF 4
Amara has confirmed that AMEC should adopt Process Plant Option 1 with TMF 1 and
TMF 2 for this study.
18.1.2
Design criteria
The main design criteria are summarised below:
Yearly tonnage: 6.5 Mt

Page 18-193

APRIL 2014
18.1.3
Minimum capacity: 80 Mt
Embankment construction method: downstream and upstream rise.
Tailings delivery system: Slurry transport.
General layout
The TMF sites take full cognisance of the local topography and will initially be
developed in two stages: TMF 1 for 7 years and TMF 2 for the remainder of the mine
life, located as shown in Figure 18.2.
Figure 18.2: TMF General Layout
Both TMF 1 and TMF 2 will be initially developed by the downstream method as the
rate of rise will be high and the beach drainage and consolidation characteristics may
not have developed sufficient strength for upstream construction. Following Year 3 of
TMF 1 and Year 7 of TMF 2, the rate of rise will have reduced sufficiently to allow
upstream construction. The ultimate final crest elevation will be 63 m for TMF 1 and 68
m for TMF 2 as illustrated in Figure 18.3.
Page 18-194

APRIL 2014
Figure 18.3: TMF Embankment Typical Sections
The stable upstream and downstream slope will be a function of the strength
characteristics of the fill material used and will need to be validated at the prefeasibility
study stage.
The TMF supernatant pond will be maintained remote from the embankment upstream
face as follows:
Initially, during deposition from the main embankment, the resultant supernatant
pond will be drawn down by localised pumping using a dedicated floating pump
decant system and water discharged to an impoundment upstream of a sacrificial
internal water retention berm from where it will be recovered by a dedicated side
slope pumped decant system back to the process plant.
As tailings are sequentially discharged with time, the supernatant pond will be
directed and confined within the environs of the eastern side slope pumped decant
system, finally inundating the internal water retention berm.
The TMF 1 will then be sequentially raised over a period of six years. Deposition
will then commence within TMF 2.
In year 6, pre-deposition civil earthworks will be undertaken to form the main starter
embankments within the TMF 2 area, to ensure that the facility is ready to receive
tailings.
As with TMF 1 the initial supernatant pond forming upstream of the main
embankment will be locally drawn down and discharged towards the side slope
decant.
The supernatant pond will be maintained within the vicinity of the side slope
decants by sequential deposition of tailings from the full periphery of the facility.
Page 18-195

APRIL 2014
Excess water remaining within the supernatant pond will discharge by gravity
through the decant system to the sediment control structures located downstream
of the main embankment.
The general arrangement and sequential development plan of the proposed TMF
scheme is presented on Figure 18.2 and the appended drawings.
18.1.4
Embankment fill material

Material used for the embankment will require to be suitable with respect to material
parameters (strength, permeability, physical characteristics) and geochemical
characteristics (contain no pyrite/sulphide) and as such be non-acid-generating. For
the purpose of this scoping level report, Amara has required that the use of approved
mine waste is prioritised. Where possible, embankment construction will comprise
won, hauled, placed, graded and compacted selected approved stripped mine waste
deriving originally from the upper (oxide) horizon of the open pit development works.
Additional characterisation works will need to be undertaken at the next study stage to
fully quantify and confirm availability of suitable stripped mine waste that can be used
for TMF embankment construction without being detrimental to the integrity of the
facility.
18.1.5
Depth Capacity Evaluation and Staged Construction

The TMFs have been designed to accommodate the predicted mine life tailings
production of 80 Mt. The respective arrangements exhibit a minimal land take,
optimise embankment length and volume of construction material needed, while also
taking advantage of the natural topography to provide 45 Mt storage in TMF 1 and
35 Mt in TMF 2.
The TMF sequential and ultimate crest alignment and elevations will require to be
confirmed during the next stage of studies once validation of the following design
information has been completed:
Embankment construction material criteria

Foundation characteristics
Tailings characteristics
Stability analysis
Projected beach profile
Project mass balance
Seismic risk.
In the interim, for the purposes of this study, a conservative 1.3 t/m average tailings
dry density has been assumed for placed tailings and the depth/capacity curve
developed accordingly for TMF 1 and TMF 2, as illustrated in Figure 18.4.
Page 18-196

APRIL 2014
Figure 18.4: TMF Depth Capacity Curves
To ensure that sufficient freeboard is maintained, and to accommodate initial high rates
of rise, the embankment will initially be formed by the downstream method of
construction. Thereafter the rate of rise is sufficient to allow for upstream construction
to commence. It must be recognised that the development of the TMF main
embankment cross section will be regularly monitored and redesigned (if required) on
an annual basis to ensure that the main embankment cross section remains robust.
The rate of rise could be reduced by operating both TMFs together. However, as
duplication of tailings delivery lines, water return systems, associated infrastructure and
starter could be required; this parallel option has not been addressed by AMEC. TMF
1 will consequently be operated first followed by TMF 2.
Page 18-197

APRIL 2014
18.1.6
Tailings deposition
Tailings will be pumped to the respective TMF via a dedicated pipeline, where it will be
sequentially sub-aerially discharged onto the upstream beach. Deposition from the
embankment will be via a series of spigots to ensure that a wide, drained beach is
formed. Tailings will also be discharged from dedicated locations along the depository
periphery, typically at the upstream end of small valleys, from valved open end
discharge points of the same diameter as the delivery line. This tailings disposal
strategy will ensure effective material deposition patterns within the TMF and that the
supernatant pond will be confined adjacent to the decant water system, away from the
main embankments.
Sufficient freeboard will be provided at all times to accommodate the Probable
Maximum Flood (PMF) event. In the unlikely event that floods greater than the PMF
occur, an emergency spillway formed adjacent to the crest of the main embankments
will allow for emergency discharge.
At closure, a permanent spillway will then be constructed within this western
embankment section and the adjacent natural ridge, to ensure that uncontaminated
surface runoff discharges freely from the surface of the rehabilitated facilities.
18.1.7
Seepage collection
When initially formed by the downstream method of construction, the phreatic surface
within the main embankments will be controlled by dedicated internal longitudinal filter
drains reporting to a series of transverse drains, manholes and a downstream lined
seepage collection pond.
The tailings beach directly upstream of the main
embankment will also be drained via an upstream under-drainage system, positively
connected transverse drains, sumps and collection pipes, which in turn discharge by
gravity to the same downstream seepage collection pond. All seepage reporting to this
pond will then be pumped back to the operating TMF.
Throughout the mine life, the internal drainage system will be extended to each new
section of the embankment to ensure continued drainage.
18.1.8
Drainage Management
Uncontaminated run-off from rainfall occurring over the downstream face of the main
embankments will be allowed to pass over the revegetated surface and be captured via
a series of surface open channel drains reporting to a dedicated downstream open
channel toe drain. The latter drain will safely direct natural (uncontaminated) flows past
the seepage collection ponds to the environment.
The design will include a cut-off trench below the starter embankments extended to
bedrock to minimise the risk of seepage under the respective embankments through
the shallow foundation layers. An under-drainage system will be developed to reduce
the hydraulic head below the tailings. The under-drainage will comprise a gravel filter
drained by HDPE perforated pipes. A drainage system comprising a series of sand
drains containing prefabricated drain strips wrapped in geotextile will also be
constructed upstream of the embankment to provide phreatic surface control. Seepage
Page 18-198

APRIL 2014
from the drain strips will report to perforated pipes wrapped in geotextile, aligned along
the embankments upstream toes and via solid pipes to the downstream seepage
collection pond.
18.1.9
Basal Liner
There is currently no geotechnical information available on the hydraulic conductivity of
the TMF foundation soils at either of the TMF sites. It has consequently been assumed
that the permeability of the upper horizon of the basin foundation is sufficiently low and
suitable basin drains will be developed, that no HDPE liner is necessary to control
basin seepage. This assumption will require to be validated at the next design stage.
Depending on the geophysical and geochemical characterisation of the stripped mine
waste ultimately proposed for embankment construction, the use of a low permeability
upstream face liner will require to be addressed.
It is recommended that all materials proposed for construction of the TMF and the
associated foundation soils are geotechnically (and geochemically) investigated to
validate their structural and physical characteristics. Should the natural foundation
soils be identified as unsuitable for lining, an HDPE geomembrane basal liner will need
to be installed within the TMF embankment upstream slope and basin area. A
geosynthetic liner (1.5 mm thick geomembrane) placed onto a grubbed, ripped and
smooth-rolled subgrade will be a suitable solution for both TMFs.
If this is necessary, the total life of mine cost of the TMFs will increase by an estimated
amount of USD 23.76 million, of which USD 5.64 million is incurred on TMF 1 as
preproduction capital and USD 18.12 million is sustaining capital on TMF 1 and TMF 2.
18.1.10 Closure
At closure the TMFs will be rehabilitated. The surface of the TMF will be capped with
topsoil recovered during initial construction. The topsoil may need improving with
additional organic content and/or fertiliser. Diversion ditches and roads will be
removed and precipitation will be allowed to run into the TMF. A permanent spillway
will be constructed to drain the TMF. No permanent water pond will be maintained on
the TMF surface.
18.1.11 Recommendations
A detailed topographical survey will be required to validate the respective TMF
embankment alignments and storage capacity. A detailed comprehensive geotechnical
laboratory and site investigation will need to be undertaken on tailings, foundation soil
and potential fill materials to:
Confirm earthworks volume.

Determine geotechnical characteristics of foundation soil and rock.
Investigate potential borrow areas and determine characteristics of engineering fill
materials.
Page 18-199

APRIL 2014
Geochemical and geotechnical characterisation of stripped mine waste to

investigate suitability as embankment fill material and availability at time of
construction.
Typical TMF embankment sections and staged construction have been based on a
series of assumptions pertaining to geotechnical and geochemical properties for
stripped mine waste fill and tailings materials, as at the time of study this information
was not available. Upstream and downstream embankment slopes depend on fill
material geotechnical properties. Amara has required that the use of approved mine
waste is prioritised. Comprehensive geotechnical and geochemical work are required
for this to be fully validated prior to detailed design.
18.2
Water Supply
Water is consumed in the heap leaching and tank leaching processes.
Recommendations to reduce the water consumption made in the preliminary design
developed for this study include:
Use of drip irrigation rather than sprinklers

Use of the Zadra elution plant from Kalsaka
Thickening of CIP tailing prior to deposition on the TMFs.
Optimisation of the design of the TMFs may lead to use of higher density tailing slurry
which would allow greater recovery of water in the plant and therefore reduced losses
at the TMFs.
Water for all applications on site will be drawn from Lake Kossou approximately 5 km
from the mine site. A new pumping station will be provided close to the barrage for the
hydroelectric power scheme and an overland pipe will deliver the water to a raw water
pond at the mine.
18.3
Heap Leach Design
18.3.1
Site optimization
The identification of a potential location for the heap leach facility focused on Amaras
concession area, at sites adjacent to the deposit (Figure 18.5). To minimise cut/fill
volumes, alignment of pad and solution ponds has been selected based on the
available topographical map generated from ASTGTM2-NASA 30 m (1 arc second)
satellite digital elevation model, corresponding to approximately 1:60,000 contour map
scale. Further site optimisation is required at the next stage of design.
Page 18-200

APRIL 2014
Figure 18.5: Heap Leach Facility General Layout
18.3.2
Design criteria
Prescriptive design criteria for the leach pad facility include the following:
Rate of stacking:1.6 Mt/a

Number of lifts: 2
Lift thickness: 7 m
Solution application rate: 12 l/m2/h
Ore placement method: stacker/conveyor.
The proposed heap leach pad liner system will consist of the following:
A prepared subgrade below the proposed site of the heap consisting of natural
material which has been ripped and compacted to a minimum 300 mm thickness
A 1.5 mm thick smooth HDPE geomembrane liner
A minimum of 600 mm of crushed gravel (cushion layer).
To increase the stability of the edge of the stacked heap a textured HDPE liner will be
installed, replacing the smooth HDPE within the heap toe area.
Five cells will initially be constructed to allow approximately 1.5 years of stacking. A
total of 16 cells have been designed to for the current total defined oxide resource, 6
years.
Page 18-201

APRIL 2014
18.3.3
Solution management
The solution management of the Yaoure heap leach facility is summarised as follows:
18.3.4
Closed system with zero tenor release to the environment. Solution will only be
released following neutralisation by the detoxification facility.
Solution ponds managed to provide a continuous operational flow.
Solution volumes monitored at the splitter box.
Solution control
To provide uniform solution coverage of the agglomerated ore and minimise potential
evaporation losses, a drip irrigation application system will be operated.
The drip irrigation system will deliver a maximum primary and secondary solution
volume at an average application rate of 12 l/m2/h. Considering cell size and estimated
irrigation area under normal operating conditions the average application rate will be
325 m3/h.
The primary irrigation stage is the application of intermediate solution to the freshly
stacked ore. As stacking progresses, the area under active leach will be maintained
constant by sequentially closing the drip lines along the retreating front and installing
new lines on the crest of the advancing front. When the recovered solution grade falls
below the target concentration or the maximum irrigation area is reached, the primary
application drip lines will be closed and the secondary irrigation stage initiated.
Use of a drip irrigation system is cost effective even when considering that drip
ribbons are effectively used only once.
18.3.5
Solution Collection
Solution collection pipes include transverse 100 mm diameter HDPE perforated pipes
aligned at 6 m centres. The 100 mm diameter pipes will be installed within the 600 mm
gravel layer above the liner. The horizontal alignment of the pipes will be maintained at
1 in 100 or at 45 degrees to the pad slope. Each 100 mm diameter collection pipe will
discharge to a 350 mm diameter (typical) longitudinal primary collection pipe which in
turn reports to the downstream splitter box.
18.3.6
Solution Corridor
The solution corridor comprises an HDPE lined bench and adjacent excess solution
launder.
The solution delivery pipes aligned along the bench comprise:
Pregnant solution pipe

Intermediate solution pipe
Primary solution application pipe
Secondary solution application pipe
Heap flushing application line (future application)
Page 18-202

APRIL 2014
Heap flushing return line (future application).
All pipes installed will require to be anchored to minimise thermal movements.

In the event that a pipe leaks, the solution will be contained in the excess solution
launder and discharge to the excess solution pond.
18.3.7
Emergency discharge
In the event of an extreme storm event occurring over the heap, the excess volume will
be attenuated within each cell until the solution level rises to the elevation of the
peripheral berm concrete weir. Excess solution will then overflow to the excess
solution launder and thence the excess pond where it will be captured.
All solution applied to the heap reports to the bottom of each cell and, due to the
presence of the liner and collector drains, is gravity discharged to the splitter box. One
splitter box is provided for each cell. All valves will be manually operated from the
access walkway. In the event that all the valves are closed and the splitter box
overflows, solution will report to the excess solution launder.
18.3.8
Process ponds
The process ponds volumes are individually optimised to store the fluctuating water
volumes in the system derived from operational variations, average rainfall events,
extreme precipitation events, dead storage and heap drain-down.
To maintain a sufficient storage volume for attenuation of the extreme storm event, the
normal storage in the excess solution pond must not exceed the seasonal elevation.
Should the seasonal volume be exceeded, excess solution will be pumped to the
neutralisation plant.
The process plant operators will be required to monitor all pond levels and discharge
from the heap (at the respective splitter box and flumes), to effectively manage the
pond elevations and maintain the required solution flow to the adsorption circuit.
18.3.9
Closure
Upon decommissioning the heap leach material will be rinsed with water after which it
is assumed that the cyanide concentrations will be acceptably low. The slopes of the
heap leach pads will be graded to achieve a maximum slope angle of around 1V:3H.
Soil characterisation, an ecological study and field trials are needed to investigate the
potential growth conditions on the bare heap, which may possibly avoid the cost of
spreading inert waste rock material on the heap. Should it be found that local species
can thrive on the bare heap leach material, no waste rock cover may be needed and
silt erosion fences made of coarse waste rock material may be sufficient. The
establishment and viability of vegetation on the heap will need to be tested. Full
cognisance will be taken of how the existing heaps are naturally revegetated. At this
time it is assumed that a 100 mm thick layer of top soil is spread on the heap before
seeding, to support the vegetation.
Page 18-203

APRIL 2014
18.4
Power Supply
Electrical power is supplied by the interconnected national grid via an access point at
the hydroelectric scheme at Lake Kossou, 10 km from the mine site. The hydroelectric
dam and generating plant exploits the Bandama River. It was built in 1972 and has a
rated capacity of 175 MW.
The Study has been based upon an operating load currently estimated at 40 MW.
AMEC has not investigated the requirements for supplying 40 MW to the mine in detail
and has not inspected the existing generating or transmission equipment at Kossou, a
preliminary assessment being sufficient for this study.
AMEC has reviewed a budget quotation submitted to Amara by Compagnie Ivorienne
Electricite (CIE) and dated 22 March 2012 for upgrade of the high voltage equipment
and installation of a new transmission system to the mine for a 10 MW subscription.
AMEC is generally in agreement with the costs from CIE for transformers and overhead
lines. The quotation also includes other significant costs for equipment (most likely
switchgear and network strengthening) which implies the work at the Kossou dam is
more than a basic tie-in. If the study progresses to the next phase then this is a key
area for further investigation.
The requirements for transmission of the power supply at two voltages have been
considered, using the following assumptions:
Sufficient generating capacity is available. This requires investigation and

verification during any further stages of study.
New 90 kV switchgear and 90 kV/33 kV transformers are required, based on the

submission by CIE.
New overhead lines and poles are required due to the significant increase in
electrical load over the existing system.
Dual (premium) 33 kV overhead lines are required. The option of a single supply
should be investigated.
The existing overhead line servitude can be reused for new overhead lines and is
wide enough.
The existing route of the overhead lines is relatively flat and accessible.
No section of the bulk supply main route is underground except possibly near the
start and end points.
No large electrical loads shall tap off the new 33 kV overhead lines.
On-site emergency generation shall be provided for critical loads, for example tank
agitators and thickener rakes.
On- site power factor correction will be installed (0.98 or better).
Preliminary quotes for 50 MVA 33 kV/125 kV transformers were obtained and four units
are required. The 125 kV lines would typically be Mink type (British standard)
supported on steel poles (not lattice towers). Line and transformer losses at full load
Page 18-204

APRIL 2014
are 600 kW. A disadvantage of a high voltage line is that it is expensive to tap off at a
later date.
If 33 kV is already available at Kossou then no transformers are required. The 33 kV
lines would typically be Sheep type (British standard) supported on wooden or steel
poles. Line losses at full load are 1.1 MW with 3 % voltage drop which is within normal
tolerance. It is much easier to tap off a medium voltage line and installation and
maintenance of a 33 kV line is fairly straightforward, requiring no highly specialist
knowledge or experience.
The overall cost for a medium voltage system was significantly less than that for a high
voltage system and transmission at 33 kV is therefore recommended.
Cte dIvoire is usually a net exporter of power, having 1350 MW of gas and
hydroelectric power generation installed. The hydro schemes have in recent years run
short of water in two years. At this time the government has installed extra thermal
power systems, being gas turbines. It is a reasonable assumption that, generally,
adequate power will be available for the Yaoure project, either from hydroelectric
generation or from thermal power from the grid.
The expected load comprises about 3.3 % of the nations generation capacity and
about 24 % of the generating capacity of the Kossou hydroelectric scheme.
18.4.1
Consultations between Amara and CIE

Aside from review by AMEC, further detail below is provided on the cost and availability
of power supplied from CIE.
Following a series of consultations and site visits between Amara and the local utility,
CIE, Amara has estimated and average cost of power for the Yaoure gold project
based on assessments and proposals by CIE to connect the Yaoure gold project site to
the national power grid (through the substation of the Kossou hydro electric power
plant).
The tariff assumed for the PEA was based initially on an offer received on 22 March
2012, which assumed a 10MW subscription by the mine - a scenario being considered
at that time. This proposal was then updated on 17 March 2014, following a new
request from Amara given the higher estimated capacity requirements of 40MW, as
identified by AMEC during the development of this PEA.
Fixed and variable charges

The tariff rates provided by CIE comprise of fixed and variable charges depending on
the connection voltage and hours of demand. These schedules of rates have been
used to calculate annual average power costs.
With regards to the variable rates, there is a precedent in the countrys mining industry
for a company to receive a special tariff which based on the preferential tariff applied in
textile industry. This preferential tariff accounts for:
Page 18-205

APRIL 2014
30% discount on energy tariff during Peak hours

7% discount on energy tariff during Rush hours
30% discount on energy tariff during Off Peak hours
For the PEA we have considered two options: both with and without the special tariff
discount, as shown in Table 18.10 and Table 18.11. It is noted however that the actual
power tariff can be subject to negotiation as part of a mining convention to be agreed
between the company and the State of Cte d'Ivoire at time of development permitting.
It is understood that such a Tariff can only be subject to negotiation on an exceptional
basis.
Further assumptions made to convert the proposed rates to an average annual power
cost were as follows:
No penalties for exceeding subscribed power

No penalties for poor power factor (from reactive energy consumption)
24 hour operation with no account for peak, off peak and rush hours in the start and
stop of processing.
Capital investment Assessment

In March 2014, CIE provided updated assessments and cost estimates for connecting
Yaoure to the Kossou hydro electric power plant substation. The capital investment
estimates, provided in Table 18.11 are composed of:
Study and engineering

Environmental & social impact Assessment; Environment and Social Management
Plan (ESMP)
Connection and/or reinforcement work at Kossou substation
Power transmission line Kossou- Angovia
Building of substation at Angovia
Project management costs
Based on a conversion rate of US $ 1 = FCFA 500, the CIE offers for operating and
capital costs for power are represented in Table 18.10 and Table 18.11.
Table 18.10: CIE proposed power costs as of 22 March 2012

Connection
Option
Annual
Subscribed
Power Cost
(Exc. Discount)
Power Cost
(Inc. Discount)
kW
USD/kWh
USD/kWh
15 KV and 33 KV
40,000
0.11
0.08
90 KV and 125 KV
40,000
0.09
0.07
22 March 2012 tariff rates based 10MW subscription, but calculated for 40MW draw
Total estimated investment in March 2012 for a 33KV line was USD5.68m
Power costs exclude initial capital investment and VAT
Power costs include fixed and variable costs
Page 18-206

APRIL 2014
Table 18.11: CIE proposed power costs as of 17 March 2014
Connection
Option
Annual
Subscribed
Capital
Investment
Power Cost
(Exc. Discount)
Power Cost
(Inc. Discount)
kW
USD m
USD/kWh
USD/kWh
33 KV
40,000
12.0
0.11
0.09
90 KV
40,000
11.4
0.09
0.07
225 KV
40,000
12.8
0.09
0.07
Power costs exclude initial capital investment and VAT

Power costs include fixed and variable costs
Based on the range of power costs calculated from CIEs tariff, Amara has assumed an
average power cost of 9c/kWh for the purposes of this PEA. This is representative of
the tariffs, considering the potential to negotiate a discount and the ability to optimise
the tariff verses the capital investment. Compared to diesel generation, this energy cost
is low and represents is a distinct advantage for Yaoure in terms of project economics.
Power connection options

As part of the March 2014 analysis by CIE, the connection options of the line capacity
for the potential subscribed 40MW were evaluated technically. A summary of these
evaluations is provided in Table 18.12.
Table 18.12: Power connection Options
Connection Option
Technical assessment
33KV
Requires important reinforcement at Kossou substation. This is not easy

considering the size of this substation. Furthermore, this option requires
building four 33KV power transmission lines, a second transformation from
33KV to 11KV at the mines substation. This succession of transformation
modules increases the probability of occurrence of a fault along the
connection line. On the other hand this option requires building at least
eight 11KV power transmission lines between the mine and Kossou
substation.
90KV
This connection enables to supply the gold mine in good conditions but it
is subject to strengthening of 225/90 kV transformation substation at
KOSSOU.
225KV
While ensuring optimal power supply conditions for the mine, this
connection requires no prior reinforcement at KOSSOU 225 KV
substation. This option enables to meet the requirement of any increase
in demand without additional investment.
CIE recommended a connection of 225 KV as it requires a comparable initial

investment, lower energy cost, better reliability and stability, and has capacity to meet
any demand increase with no extra investment. However, for the purposes of the
project a 33KV connection was assumed prior to this assessment being available.
Therefore it is recommended that the higher connection scenarios and potentially lower
tariff be further investigated in future studies as the power requirements are further
refined.
Page 18-207

APRIL 2014
18.5
Access
The Yaoure project is located in close proximity to Yamoussoukro, the capital of
Cte dIvoire. There are three access roads that connect the site to national highways.
The main road from the port of Abidjan to Yamoussoukro is the A1 and is considered to
be in fair condition, subject to heavy cargo traffic and regular road maintenance. The
A6 from Yamoussoukro to the Bandama river crossing is also known to need regular
maintenance but is able to carry heavy loads of the size expected for the project.
Police guidance and an escort will be required for some large items which will be the
mill sections, crushers and power transformers. No single component of more than
60 tonnes is expected.
Of the three access routes from Yamoussoukro to site, two traverse the Kossou Dam
embankment, shown in Figure 18.6. The other accesses the site from the West from
the A6 highway.
Figure 18.6: Kossou Dam
The most reliable route is expected to be the A6 road from Yamoussoukro to the
Bandama river crossing and then follows the Bandama river east bank to the Kossou
hydroelectric scheme, crosses the Bandama River at the hydroelectric installation and
follows the main embankment and then the final few kilometres on existing laterite
roads to the plant site. The utility will be contacted to confirm weight and width
limitations over the river and along the embankment and to obtain permission to use
the route.
The final 6.2 km of laterite road will require some grading and filling of sections but is
expected to be easily adequate for the purposes of construction.
Operations are likely to be unable to use this route on a daily basis as the hydroelectric
scheme is likely to wish to maintain the high level of security that exists for this
Page 18-208

APRIL 2014
important piece of infrastructure at present and so will restrict everything but occasional
large loads. For operations, the A6 from Yamoussoukro, over the Bandama River and
further West then turning off the tarmac road and approaching the project site from the
West is likely to be the chosen option. Should permission not be granted for heavy
loads to cross the Bandama River at the hydroelectric installation, this route will have to
be considered for construction loads as well as routine access.
Abidjan is the major industrial port for Cte dIvoire. It is accessed from the sea by a
tidal canal which provides reliable, safe passage to the protected port berths. The port
is known to be able to receive and dispatch vessels at its general cargo berths of
20 000 deadweight tonnes (DWT) with a channel draft at low water of 13.5 m. Along
the channel are tanker, fertilizer and mineral berths with maximum deadweight
limitations of 15 000 DWT to 95 000 DWT.
There are 134 000 m of bonded warehouses and 250 000 m of general cargo storage
area.
Cranage is available as follows:
Rubber tyred gantry cranes

Gantry cranes
Gottwald harbour cranes
Superstackers
16 x 40 t
4 x 40 t
3 x 100 t
13 x 45 t.
The general cargo berths provide more than 2 km of quay side with draught restrictions
of 9.45 m.
Port delays are occasionally experienced but recently, since the period of civil unrest in
the country, have been few. Demurrage is unlikely to be a significant issue.
The largest loads are likely to be the ball mill (bulk) and the cone crushers (weight).
Loads of 8 m diameter and 4 m length can be expected, as well as components of
smaller size but weighing up to 60 tonnes.
The port facilities and roads should be adequate for any large components required for
the project subject to police escort and availability of specialized road transport such as
low loaders. A bridge and gauge survey undertaken with the department of roads will
highlight any issues and procedures that will be needed to deliver these pieces of
critical equipment to site.
The crushing and ADR equipment to be relocated from Kalsaka would use a generally
south-westerly route through Burkina Faso via Bobo-Dioulasso and Banfora, crossing
the border into Cte dIvoire and continuing to Yaoure. Should the condition of the
roads or size of the loads prevent this route being followed, an alternative may be to
enter Ghana to the south of Burkina Faso, travel south to Tamali and then west into
Cte dIvoire. This route is considerably longer and import/export administration in
Ghana would likely be more onerous.
AMEC recommends that a transport survey be conducted. This could be developed
from historical surveys for the Angovia Project.
Page 18-209

APRIL 2014
19.0
MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS
19.1
Market Study
The gold market is defined as being one which does not require extensive marketing of
the product at the Company level. Marketing here is instead focused upon enhancing
the position of the Company and its strategy in the eyes of shareholders and thereby
the market rather than the commodity gold itself. There is already a ready market for
gold. The gold bullion bars, typically no greater than 30 kg each, produced at Yaoure
are sent to any of the active gold refiners in the world for toll refining. There are a
number of refiners in the world whose bars are accepted as good delivery such as for
example, the following associations:
London Bullion Market Association (LBMA)

Istanbul Gold Exchange (IGE)
Shanghai Gold Exchange (SGE)
The Chinese Gold & Silver Exchange Society. Hong Kong (CG &SES)
Amara has used and is using Metalor Technologies in Switzerland for refining gold
produced at their Kalsaka gold mine in Burkina Faso, and previously Angovia in Cte
dIvoire. Initial discussions have already been held with Metalor regarding the Yaoure
project and they will be requested to tender for the project in due course.
19.1.1
Refining Charges, Gold Pricing & Revenue

The refining process is usually completed within 2 weeks after receipt of bullion. The
refiner will charge refining costs to cover for melting, assaying, refining and the
provision of bars accredited to LBMA. The charges will be negotiated between Amara
and the selected refinery but for purposes of this study rates aligned to those currently
incurred from Metalor were used.
Generally 99.8% to 99.95% of the gold contained in the bullion will be added to the
bullion account held with the refiner in the name of Amara may then sell the bullion on
a date and to a customer of its choosing. The sale price will be fixed on the day of
contracted sale with a settlement usually within 2 business days.
19.2
Contracts
There is no Yaoure contract at this stage; however Amara already has a contract in
place for its operation in Burkina Faso with regard to refining with Metalor, whose rates
were used for estimating purposes.
Page 19-210

APRIL 2014
20.0
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMMITTING AND SOCIAL OR

COMMUNITY IMPACT
20.1
Introduction
SGS Environment of SGS Laboratory Services Limited (SGS) was engaged by Amara
Mining Plc, to undertake preliminary assessment of the environmental and social
conditions of the project.
This preliminary environmental assessment study aimed to presenting an overview of
the current environmental and social issues that need to be considered should a
decision be made in favour of a full ESIA pursuant to obtaining authorisation for mining.
The report followed field visits, desk top reviews of documents provided by Amara and
focussed meetings with relevant local and government stakeholders. The analysis was
based primarily on the plan of the project shown in Figure 20.1.
20.2
Critical Discussion and analysis

Based on the documents reviewed, field visit and interactions with various
stakeholders; both government and local communities, the critical issues regarding the
Yaoure Gold Project and the way forward are provided below.
20.2.1
Licences and Authorisations

The proposed project area is under 2 licenses both of which expire in 2015. The
government has indicated as part of the permit condition of EXPL 168, Art 8, the need
for Amara to submit a request for permit at the end of the validity period (2015). This
should be accompanied by a feasibility and ESIS. The EXPL 397 also highlights the
activities that must be conducted and for which the permit is issued. This includes
geological studies and determination or estimate the resource, topographic studies and
geotechnical and hydrogeological surveys. Should Amara comply with these clauses,
baseline and pertinent project information will be available and will be co-opted into the
ESIS.
Page 20-211

APRIL 2014
Figure 20.1: Site Map used for Field Tour
Page 20-212

APRIL 2014
A new mining code was voted in by the National Parliament on the 24th of March 2014,
(Law Number 2014-138 dated 24th of March 2014), with the details still being
assessed. However the following are the some main permits required by current Ivorian
legislation for the development of similar projects:
ESIA approved ordinance to be delivered by ANDE;

Exploitation mining permit to be delivered by the Ministry of Industry and Mines;
Authorization ordinance to be delivered by CIAPOL;
Authorization for collecting and use of groundwater and/or surface water;
Authorization to store/stock and exploit explosives;
The present list is not exhaustive; however it will be updated at the Assessment stage,
when a detail description of the project is provided.
On the whole any ESIS and RAP will do with guidance from the Ivorian constitution and
listed laws.
20.2.2
Water Resources/Water use

The project footprint is drained by the Bandaman River, which is dammed upstream
and downstream for hydroelectric power generation. Apart from its hydro power
potential, the river is used for irrigation of both crops and animal further downstream.
Its importance can therefore not be underestimated.
Data on water quality was provided by Amara and has been reviewed and incorporated
into this report. The data is useful in providing historic information of the water quality
both surface and ground water.
According to data collected by Yaoure between 2006 and 2012 upstream from the
project site, the Bandaman River was of a good quality based on the physico-chemical
tests performed. Preliminary observations made during visit showed that no activity
likely to affect the quantity and quality of the water was performed, with the exclusion of
illegal mining operations that could potentially affect the river.
The topography of the proposed site for TMF-1, lends itself to the development of a
TMF, however, the following should be considered in the feasibility:
The national importance of the Bandaman river as a contributor to the nations

power supply;
Use of its water for domestic work and irrigation by communities further
downstream;
The aesthetic benefits of the lake so created by the impoundment;
The site as host for sacred forest;
Relocation of main access road to Angovia village and the mine site to make way
for the project.
In the light of the above, the proposition for TMF-1 location should be thoroughly
assessed as a suitable site for TMF development.
Page 20-213

APRIL 2014
Within the mine, there are some four ponds that were used as receptacles for leachate
and process water reservoir (see Figure 20.2).
The ponds have HDPE lining, but have been colonized by algae and Typha spp.
Previous monitoring data do not support any underground water contamination though
some data gaps exist for water samples collected from the piezometers installed
around the ponds.
Figure 20.2: Photos of Algae colonized ponds & Typha and algae colonized pond
Algae colonized ponds (SGS)
Typha and algae colonized pond (SGS)
Granted that there is no seepage from the ponds, it is critical that the quality of water in
the ponds be determined prior to discharge. The water quality will be verified at the
ESIS phase. Should Yaoure Gold Project decide to proceed with TMF development, a
hydrogeological survey including groundwater flow modeling will be necessary.
20.2.3
ARD Issues
ARD issues characterize mining of sulphide ore resources. Amara has indicated its
intention to proceed to mine the sulphide in addition to the oxides, should authorization
be granted. Previous ARD results do not support ARD problem within the mine,
however, periodic sampling and monitoring of pH of surface and especially
groundwater within the mining area and pits will alert the mine of any ARD
development.
20.2.4
Flora and Fauna

The wide spread small illegal gold mining operations within the Yaoure Gold Project
concession and beyond have contributed to degrading large tracts of land. Except
where vegetation is preserved as sacred forest, degraded areas are left with grass and
scattered trees. This scenario makes the presence of forests valuable to maintaining a
balance in the ecosystem. A critical view of the project map shows that all the available
sacred forest occurs at sites proposed to accommodate mine infrastructure. This
includes the TMF-1 and 2 locations, the ROM pad, and to a lesser extent the mill and
waste dump areas.
Page 20-214

APRIL 2014
The illegal mining operations have affected the population of fauna and diversity of
flora within the area. A detailed zoological assessment will be required to establish a
baseline prior to commencement of mining. The assessment will consider the location
of any endangered species and will advise the mine on the location of these plants and
how mitigate the potentially adverse effects.
The ESIS will detail the management of any new plant species discovered within the
project area and will make reference to previous biodiversity studies conducted by the
University Cocody in 2008, especially with respect to the presence and distribution of
Nuxia spp within the project catchment.
20.2.5
Air Quality
The mine has not been operating for the past 2 years, so that all the activities that
could impact air quality are none existent. Sources of particulate matter and emission
are from fugitive sources such as vehicular movement on untarred access roads within
the mines environs. The villages use fuel wood as source of fuel for domestic chores
and for commercial cookery.
When the mine becomes operational, air quality will likely be affected as increased
vehicular movement on the unsealed access roads will increase particulate levels
along the route. Excavations and possibly blasting will also increase particulates and
affect the local air quality. Ore processing in the Plant and refinery will likely generate
emissions.
An inventory of all machinery and their emission factors should be noted from the
onset. The design of plants and infrastructure should also have inputs from
meteorology, especially wind direction and speed. This way emission control or quality
interventions can be implemented as the mine development commences and not as an
afterthought. Air pollution modelling will be considered at the ESIS phase. SGS will
calculate ambient air pollutant concentrations using the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (US EPA) BREEZE AERMOD atmospheric dispersion modelling
suite. AERMOD is a Gaussian plume model best used for near-field applications where
the steady-state meteorology assumption is most likely to apply and is able of handling
complex terrain. AERMOD is a dispersion modelling system with three components,
namely: AERMOD (AERMIC Dispersion Model), AERMAP (AERMOD terrain preprocessor), and AERMET (AERMOD meteorological pre-processor).
20.2.6
Noise
Noise levels will likely increase from current ambient conditions, which reflect a nonoperating mine. The use of excavators, drilling rigs, and blasting will contribute to
increased noise levels. The receptors will be communities such as Angovia,
KouakouGnanou, Allahou-Bazi and Akakro.
Map provided by the mine showed noise sampling locations at Angovia and AllahouBazi and other points within the mine site area. Should the mine decide to proceed with
mining, all potential receptors must be clearly identified and monitored and noise
scenarios modelled to guide noise impact mitigation and interventions. For noise
impact prediction modelling, SGS intends to use IMMI model, which is an international
Page 20-215

APRIL 2014
recognized modelling prediction tool. IMMI has been designed to account for ISO 9613
and European MPB-XPS31-133 requirement regarding noise modelling.
20.2.7
Land acquisition and compensation issues

A major issue that requires considerable attention regarding the intended pursuit of the
environmental permit and mine development is compensation. At a meeting on
December 4, 2013 with opinion leaders in Angovia, compensation was raised as an
issue of concern by the leaders. However, by the scope and nature of the meeting, this
issue was not explored by follow up questions to ascertain the various view points from
the PAPs. At the ESIS phase, however, some focused group and individual meetings
will be organized to unearth all the different shades of reaction and opinion on the issue
of compensation. The final output is expected to resolve any past issues and enhance
co-existence of the mine and the community.
Other ownership issues that have given rise to upheavals in the communities in July
2013, will be fully interrogated in the ESIS. Measures to mitigate or forestall any future
upheavals will be provided as part of the ESIS.
20.2.8
Resettlement
The mine site and spatial distribution of the proposed infrastructure may require
resettlement of project affected persons (PAP) depending on the final positioning of the
pit and infrastructure. While SGS is presently, unable to give estimates of the
population in each potentially affected village, the infrastructure for TMF-2 will affect the
Kouakougnanou village and its road accesses to Angovia village. The development of
TMF-1 will also affect the road access to Angovia village, from Kossou. Furthermore, it
is close to the Kossou dam lake and covers a tributary of Bandaman river.
Amara should ensure that any waste heaps do not visually intrude on the surrounding
communities. Given that the residences in these communities have almost merged with
their commercial centres, such as markets, resettlement goes beyond just resettling the
affected residences or huts, but affects also their infrastructure such as roads, schools
and power lines. These therefore make resettlement a major issue that requires
managements attention at the project feasibility and design stage.
Resettlement in this context will require significant financial outlay. Amara should
therefore assess all scenarios and consider possibilities to reduce resettlement, by
design modification or change in location altogether.
20.2.9
Power and Energy

The sources of power in the communities visited include electricity, fuel lamps and
firewood. A trip to the proposed location for TMF-2 showed that some 161 kVpower
lines that convey power from the Kossou Hydroelectric units to the national grid
traverse the site. In siting these pylons (towers) care was taken to avoid areas that are
water logged. Communities, schools and most infrastructures are not permitted within
the Right of Way (RoW) or easement of the power lines due to health and safety
reasons. In considering the location for TMF-2 therefore the following should be noted:
Page 20-216

APRIL 2014
Presence of the high-tension power line and towers that convey power to the
national grid (see photo 5.3);
Presence of the Kouakougnanou village, together with its commercial places and
schools;
The site as host for cemeteries and sacred forests;
Access to and from Kouakougnanou village passes through the intended site;
Currently the site has a number of small scale illegal gold miners.
Figure 20.3: Photos of Electrical Pylons
Pylons located within site proposed for TMF-2 (SGS)
It is important to discuss with electricity company (CIE) before making any decision
regarding the power line. Cost benefit analysis will be required among environmental
and social considerations in changing or maintaining the proposed location for TMF-2.
20.2.10 Road Accesses and diversions

The road network east and south of the project concession is key to accessing the
mine. The proposed infrastructure especially the proposed locations of TMF-1 and 2,
will mean diversion of the access route to another location. Should these sites be
adopted, significant interaction and inputs from the communities and government
agency responsible for roads is imperative. Amara will be diverting over 20 km of road
to allow the proposed location to be safe from public interference.
20.2.11 Abandoned equipment

There are a number of abandoned equipment and vehicles within the mine, which was
used by Cluff Gold when the mine was operational. SGS understands that, an
inventory of the equipment and scrap vehicles has been made in the past and these
would be sold in due course.
Page 20-217

APRIL 2014
20.2.12 Illegal small scale mining operations

A sizeable number of the population (judged from the throngs of people leaving for
illegal mining in the mornings and same returning at evening) are involved in illegal
mining. This has both socio-economic and security implications for the Yaoure Gold
Project. The origins of these persons will be ascertained at the ESIS phase as the
scope of this current study did not allow for one-on-one interactions. The profiles of
communities and persons will be provided as part of the social study in ESIS.
A detailed assessment of their impact will be conducted at the ESIS phase.
20.2.13 Social Investments

There is very little communities can do for mines in their locality without specific
training. Review of previous audit report e.g. audit report of 2011 state a number of
social investments that have been completed and other currently being developed.
SGS team during the field visit, observed schools and Youth centers that had been
constructed by Cluff Gold and are still in use. A detailed list of inexpensive social
intervention programme would be discussed when a detailed ESIS is commissioned.
20.2.14 Cultural heritage
Destruction, Relocation and compensation for cemeteries burial and sacred sites
Per the map provided for the field tour and field observations, the mine site and areas
proposed for development have several scattered cemeteries. Areas proposed for
TMF-1 and 2 all have cemeteries. Should the existing pit be developed to USD 1,500
pit size, some more cemeteries will have to be removed. At least 12 small and medium,
old and current cemeteries may have to be located to make room for mine
infrastructure development depending on the infrastructures final positioning.
SGS will explore previous interactions between Amara and the communities regarding
the removal or otherwise of the burial sites. The agreements reached with the
community by Amara, will form part of the ESIS.
20.3
Conclusion and Recommendations

From the initial field visit and preliminary stakeholder engagements, the government of
Cte dIvoire has no objection to the development of the Yaoure Gold Project
contingent on Amara complying and fulfilling the requirements of the law.
The various documents are relevant to the proposed project going forward. They either
provide historic information which will guide the environmental assessment process or
current information that will need to be customized and adopted for the Yaoure Gold
Project.
Exploration Permits 168 and 397, cover the proposed project area. In 2015, these
permits expire. Amara is therefore to take actions including requesting for permit to
Page 20-218

APRIL 2014
mine. This request should be accompanied by a feasibility report of the project and an
ESIS.
ANDE requires an Environmental Audit of the Yaoure Gold Project prior to initiating any
environmental studies pursuant to obtaining an environmental license. A request is
required to be made to ANDE who will develop the Terms of Reference to guide the
audit.
CIAPOL requires inspection on the mines site on bi-annual basis and also requires
Amara to comply with national anti-pollution laws.
The Ministry of Mines requires that the new law adopted by the national assembly on
24th March 2014 should be considered in the development of the ESIS and also priority
should be given to Ivorian nationals in recruitment to fill employment vacancies.
There remains an issue regarding compensation under the old and expired permit No
33. While continuous community engagement could assist in resolving the issue, the
ESIS phase will provide an opportunity to permanently close this matter.
Some villages leaders indicate during the site visit that the preponderance of Illegal
mining is underpinned by the absence of alternative livelihood schemes and absence
of other gainful economic activities.
20.3.1
Recommendations
The provision of Article 8 of EXPL 168 that requires bankable feasibility and ESIS
by the third and final year of the validity period of the permit should as much as
possible be complied with. This means an ESIS should be commissioned sooner
than later for Amara to meet the 2015 set date;
Resettlement issues should be considered upfront and alternative analysis done in

selecting locations of mine infrastructure and communities;
Address early artisanal mining and illegal mining issues with recourse to a
consultation framework, the law of the land and the Ministry of mine and CCC;
Amara should undertake a statutory environmental audit of the previous mine

operations as required by ANDE prior to the ESIS;
Amara should develop a grievance procedure and early warning systems for the
community that could serve to identify social tensions at an early stage and preempt same. This should not replace current regular community meetings held with
the PAPs, by Amara Community Liaison Officers.
Page 20-219

APRIL 2014
21.0
CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS

AMEC prepared cost estimates for the process plant and associated infrastructure.
Amara prepared the cost estimates for the mining and central costs. These estimates
are outlined below.
21.1
Processing and Infrastructure Capital Estimates

The AMEC Study presented
options/configurations:
capex
and
opex
values
for
the
following
Sulphides: A conventional circuit for treating predominately sulphide materials and

associated infrastructure.
o
6.5 Mt/a throughput is the base estimate.
8 Mt/a throughput is factored from the 6.5 Mt/a base estimate.
5 Mt/a throughput is factored from the 6.5 Mt/a base estimate.
Oxides: A 1.6 Mt/a heap leach facility for the oxide material.
Capital costs have been estimated for the sulphides plant and site infrastructure
separately from the capital cost of the oxide heap leaching plant.
All costs are estimated in US dollars as at first quarter 2014 (1Q14) and are judged to
have an accuracy of 35 %. The estimate covers the direct field costs of constructing
the plant and infrastructure components of the Yaoure Project and the indirect costs
associated with the design, construction and commissioning of the new
facilities. Owners costs, contingencies and risk amounts are specifically excluded from
this estimate.
The estimate was compiled in South African Rand (ZAR) and US dollars.
amounts have been converted to US dollars at the rate of USD 1 = ZAR 11.
21.1.1
Rand
Estimate Structure
The capital cost estimates have been structured into the following major categories.
Direct Costs
Direct costs are those expenditures that include supply of equipment and materials,
freight to site and construction labour at site.
Indirect Costs
Indirect costs are those expenditures covering temporary construction facilities and
engineering, procurement and construction management (EPCM) services, together
with the supervision of and commissioning of the works.
Page 21-220

APRIL 2014
Accuracy Provision (Growth Allowances)

Accuracy provisions have been assigned to each discipline item on the basis of the
perceived magnitude of the risks given that the study has been executed to order of
magnitude level. AMEC has applied provisions to the estimate to make allowance for
the following risks:
21.1.2
Minimal design input as suitable for estimates of this accuracy

Preliminary scope definition
Quantity survey errors and omissions
Rework
Gross versus net quantities
Material and labour rate accuracy
Equipment budget costing
Incorrect bulks factor applications.
Estimate Basis
All costs have been estimated using a cost structure developed for labour and
materials as at 1Q14 and are presented in US dollars. The following summarises the
estimation derivation and basis adopted for the study. This scope narrative has been
written mainly around the 6.5 Mt/a scenario, however the 5 Mt/a and 8 Mt/a scenarios
are based on similar scopes of work with the capital cost estimates factored
accordingly from the estimate for 6.5 Mt/a.
Bulk Material Rates
Unit rates for bulk materials - earthworks, concrete, steelwork, plate work, etc - have
been developed from in-house data for similar projects within West Africa, with the
exception of the cost for the supply of approved strip mine waste within the TMF
embankments which has been provided by Amara.
Process Plant Equipment Costs
Equipment costs are based on budget prices obtained from suppliers, AMECs inhouse database or allowances derived from quotations for similar equipment, modified
and escalated as appropriate.
Short form enquiries were issued for most major items of process equipment including:
Crushers
Screens
Conveyors
Ball mill
Leach tanks agitators
Pump cells (CIP)
Elution plant (sulphides plant).
Page 21-221

APRIL 2014
Equipment costs have been obtained for the 6.5 Mt/a case and factored for the 5 Mt/a
and 8 Mt/a options.
Plant Bulk Earthworks, Drainage and Roads
In the main, work at the plant site has been factored or allowances included. All civil
costs (preparation of foundations, concrete materials & associated labour) have been
factored from the mechanical equipment costs. In the absence of detailed geotechnical
data at this stage, the following assumptions were made and factored accordingly:
A flat site requiring minor removal of vegetation/deforestation, overburden and top

soil not exceeding 150 mm
No soil stabilisation
Simple pad foundations with bearing capacity of 200 kPa

No piling or blasting of rock
No consideration has been given to potential ground water.
Plant and Mine Buildings

The costs for buildings have been factored or allowances have been provided.
Substation Buildings and Transformer Compounds
Cost allowances have been made for substation buildings and transformer compound.
Fire Protection and Detection
The costs for fire protection systems have been factored or allowances have been
made.
Sewage Treatment and Disposal (Plant)
An allowance has been made for a sewage treatment plant. This allowance is the
same for each of the throughput options considered.
Plant Mobile Equipment
A stand-alone mobile equipment fleet has been included to support the plant and
support services operations. The fleet comprises the vehicles listed in Table 21.1. The
fleet provided is the same for each of the throughput options considered.
Page 21-222

APRIL 2014
Table 21.1: Process Plant Mobile Equipment Fleet
Vehicle type
Quantity
Dual cab utilities

Mobile crane
Flat top truck w/Hiab
Light flat top truck
Elevated work platform
Mobile diesel welding machine
Mobile welding unit
Mobile compressor
Mobile lighting tower
Conveyor belt reel
Conveyor belt vulcanising equipment
Backhoe
Skid steer loader
Wheel loader
Fork lift
Pedestrian fork lift
Wheel grader
Water truck
Fire tender
Ambulance
4WD sedan
Bus
14
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
3
Bulk Fuel Storage and Distribution

No bulk fuel storage and distribution has been allowed for. It has been assumed that
this will be provided by the fuel supplier as part of the fuel supply service.
Mine Area Facilities and Services
No mining area facilities have been included in this estimate.
Tailings Disposal, Storage and Decant
For tailings disposal, a 10 m diameter x 10 m high surge tank for CIP tailing and an
overland pump and pipe set have been allowed for in the process plant. The surge
tank has been sized to provide approximately 1 hour retention time which is the typical
requirement for cyanide detoxification. This obviates the need for a smaller surge tank
used in normal operation and a detoxification tank of this size which is used
occasionally.
As described in Section 18.1, two tailings management facilities (TMFs) are required to
accommodate the tailings which will arise during the life of mine. These TMFs will be
constructed and operated sequentially, TMF1 being constructed at the start of the
project and TMF2 being constructed during Year 6 to be ready to receive tailings in
Year 7 when TMF1 has reached its design capacity. Further, each of the TMFs has
been designed using a combination of downstream and upstream construction
Page 21-223

APRIL 2014
methods and regular lifts of the retaining walls are required throughout the life of each
TMF.
This capital cost estimate includes only the costs associated with the predeposition
works on TMF1, excluding HDPE basal liners. A schedule of sustaining capital
expenditure over the remaining life of mine has also been compiled and is shown in
Table 21.4.
A pump and pipeline has been provided for return of TMF decant water to the plant.
Heap Leach Crushers
The crushing plant for the oxides heap leach system is assumed to be an existing
crushing plant relocated from Amaras Kalsaka operation in neighbouring Burkina
Faso. This estimate assumes that there is no cost to the Yaoure Project to purchase
the crushing plant. AMEC has estimated the cost to dismantle the crushing plant at
Kalsaka, transport it by road and reconstruct the plant at Yaoure.
Heap Leach Pads and Ponds
Heap leaching of oxides was previously practiced at Yaoure and the pad and ponds
still exist. More detailed review of the current condition of the Yaoure site and
equipment and assessment of potential suitability of existing heap leach equipment for
the new heap leach duty is required before it can be known whether any of the existing
equipment can be reused. A new heap leach pad and pods have therefore being
included in the estimate.
The heap leach pad consists of 16 cells developed over the life of the heap leach
operation. This estimate includes the costs to establish the first five cells which will
provide space to stack for the first 18 months of production. The schedule of on-going
capital expenditure required to expand the leach pad is shown in Table 21.5.
Main HV Supply
The total electrical demand for the site has been estimated at 40 MW and a high level
investigation of the requirements for transmission of this load to the Yaoure mine site
from the nearby Kossou hydroelectric scheme was conducted. Costs for the additional
equipment and system upgrades have been estimated using AMECs knowledge of
unit rates for such work and taking guidance from the quotation previously submitted to
Amara by CIE for a smaller (10 MW) upgrade.
Communications
No allowance has been made for regional communications. An allowance has been
made for plant and area communications systems. This allowance is the same for each
of the throughput options considered.
Emergency Power
Emergency power generation by diesel generator sets has been allowed for.
Page 21-224

APRIL 2014
Security
An allowance has been made for plant security. This consists of security fencing
around the perimeter of the plants, CCTV monitoring and entry control for both
employees and visitors. This allowance is the same for each of the throughput options
considered.
Refuse/Waste Disposal and Storage Facility
The estimate includes costs for a secure refuse and waste disposal area.
allowance is the same for each of the throughput options considered.
This
Permanent Accommodation
The permanent accommodation village cost is based on construction of 50 rooms in
three bedroom houses.
Water Supply and Distribution
A cost provision has been made for a pump station and a nominal length of 4 km of
400 NB unlined steel pipe to deliver water to the plant from the Kossou dam, close to
the hydroelectric scheme.
Electrical Power Distribution
An allowance has been made for LV power distribution within the plant and other areas
within the scope of this study.
Regional and Area Roads
Sealed roads pass close to the mine site and have been assumed to be adequate for
transporting loads for construction and operation. The last part of the road access to
the mine site is a 6 km sand road. A cost provision has been made for widening this
road and repairs where required.
Storm water Protection and Diversion
The requirement for protection from storm water egress has not been quantified due to
the preliminary nature of the study. However, allowances have been included in the
estimate for this.
21.1.3
Estimation Method
The capital cost estimate has been assembled on an electronic spreadsheet using the
following general methods of calculation.
Equipment Costs
A detailed equipment list has been prepared and imported into the estimate. Costs
have been entered to each item of equipment as per the basis outlined above.
Page 21-225

APRIL 2014
Bulk Quantities
Costs for earthworks, concrete, steelwork, plate work, piping, electrical and
instrumentation have been factorized from the equipment cost using in-house factors
for each of these components from similar installations.
The factored instrumentation cost does not include a distributed control system for the
plant and a separate cost allowance has been made for this.
Construction Labour
The cost of construction labour each item on the mechanical equipment list has been
factorized from the equipment cost using in-house factors for similar installations.
Plant and Other Project Buildings
The costs for buildings have been developed from in-house data for similar facilities.
Costs have been included for the following buildings:
Plant workshops
Administration and management offices
Laboratory
Warehouse.
Freight
An allowance of 5 % road of the relevant direct field supply costs has been made for
transport costs. Ocean freight costs for equipment and materials have been factorized
as 10 % of the equipment cost.
Preliminaries (Mobilisation/Demobilisation, Temporary Facilities, etc.)
Preliminaries are those items that must be included to the estimate but cannot be
included in specific WBS areas because they are applicable across a number of areas.
They typically consist of:
Mobilisation and demobilisation of contractors

Contractors site ablutions
Construction site temporary power
Construction site temporary communications
Site temporary power to service contractors huts, etc.
Site temporary fuel storage
Construction water stand pipe and storage
Contractors laydown area
Cost of vendors representatives to be present when commissioning equipment
Assistance by contractors when carrying out commissioning the plant.
Mobilisation and demobilisation and commissioning assistance costs are included at a

rate of 15 % of the plant construction direct labour cost.
Page 21-226

APRIL 2014
First Fill of Reagents and Consumables

A cost allowance has been made for the first fill of reagents and consumables based
on projects of similar size.
Capital Spares
Included is an amount equal to 5 % of the installed equipment cost to cover capital and
start up spares.
Indirect Costs Temporary Facilities and EPCM
For the purpose of the study it is assumed that an Engineering, Procurement and
Construction Management (EPCM) model is adapted for project delivery.
Indirect EPCM costs have been calculated as 15 % of the Direct Costs.
The cost of temporary facilities such as the establishment of construction management
temporary facilities, temporary infrastructure and accommodation has been allowed at
4 % of the Direct Costs.
Accuracy Provision (Growth Allowances)
An accuracy provision has been applied at a rate of 20 % of the total Direct Cost and
Indirect Cost to allow for the present immaturity in the design. However, it does not
consider allowances for such subjective risks as:
21.1.4
Currency exchange rate fluctuations

Construction market forces
Environmental considerations
Community input considerations
Unusual weather conditions
Labour availability
Difficult ground conditions
Change to statutory regulations, charges and taxes
Scope changes.
Qualifications and Clarifications

Specific exclusions/inclusions are below:
GST, VAT or any like tax has not been included.

If import duty or foreign taxation is applicable to any imported equipment it has not
been included.
No escalation costs have been included from base date of estimate.
Foreign exchange variations from estimate base rates are excluded.
Minimum allowance has been made for rock excavation, dewatering or sub strata
improvement. It has been presumed that the site is generally clear and ground
conditions are suitable for the construction of the proposed works.
Page 21-227

APRIL 2014
21.1.5
It is assumed that suitable borrow pits for building materials are in close proximity
and, where there is a requirement for select fill, it can be produced with a minimum
of screening and water conditioning.
Mining fleet and mine pit development is excluded.
Owners project execution costs are excluded.
Owners contingencies or risk amounts are specifically excluded.
River and/or public road diversions have not been allowed for.
All costs not specifically stated
Package Plant not identified in the Mechanical Equipment List
Bulk fuel storage.
Processing and Infrastructure Capital Cost Summary
Sulphides Plant and Infrastructure

The cost breakdowns by WBS area for the three plant capacity options are given in
Table 21.2.
Table 21.2: Sulphides Plant and Infrastructure Capital Cost Estimate
6.5 Mt/a
Estimated
Cost
USD'000
Area Description
5.0 Mt/a
Factored
Cost
USD'000
8.0 Mt/a
Factored
Cost
USD'000
Crushing
48 409
43 393
57 157
Milling
27 595
24 735
31 256
Leaching
19 562
17 535
22 158
CIP
15 731
14 101
17 818
Elution and Gold Room
5 175
4 639
5 862
Tailings Disposal
4 042
3 623
4 578
Cyanide Detox
443
397
502
Reagents
327
293
370
Air Compression and Distribution
511
458
579
Water Distribution
772
692
875
1 471
1 318
1 666
124 039
111 185
142 821
2 575
In power
distribution
2 308
In power
distribution
2 916
In power
distribution
Plant Buildings
5 091
5 091
5 091
Fire Protection
500
448
566
Main Pipe Racks

Process Plant Total
Site Preparation and Improvements
Substation Buildings and Transformer Compounds
Sewage Disposal and Treatment (Plant)
100
100
100
5 045
5 045
5 045
By vendor
By vendor
By vendor
Tailings Line
2 961
2 654
3 354
Tailings Storage Facility
9 800
8 785
11 100
Decant Line
1 486
1 332
1 683
Not required
Not required
Not required
Mobile Equipment
Storage Ponds
Page 21-228

APRIL 2014
Area Description
Main HV Switch-yard
Control Systems
Communications (allowance)
Emergency Power
Security
Refuse/Waste Disposal & Storage Facility
6.5 Mt/a
Estimated
Cost
USD'000
In power
distribution
5.0 Mt/a
Factored
Cost
USD'000
In power
distribution
8.0 Mt/a
Factored
Cost
USD'000
In power
distribution
2 427
2 175
2 749
500
448
566
1 000
896
1 133
500
500
500
500
500
500
32 485
30 283
35 304
7 950
7 950
7 950
Water Supply and Distribution
2 986
2 677
3 383
3 185
2 855
3 608
N/A
N/A
N/A
Plant Infrastructure Total
Air Strip
Area Roads
3 000
3 000
3 000
Included
Included
Included
500
500
500
17 622
16 982
18 441
N/A
N/A
N/A
9 000
9 000
9 000
Included
Included
Included
N/A
N/A
N/A
Regional Infrastructure Total
9 000
9 000
9 000
First Fill Reagents and Consumables
4 591
4 115
5 200
Ocean Freight
1 302
1 167
1 475
Capital/Strategic Spares
3 032
2 717
3 434
Vendor's Representative

Area Communications
Area Infrastructure Total
Regional Roads
Electrical Power Feeder
Water Transmission Line
Regional Communications
Included
Included
Included
Contractors' mobilisation and demob
6 499
5 826
7 361
Commissioning assistance
2 575
2 575
2 575
Miscellaneous
Total Direct Cost
Construction Facilities, Services & Equipment
Construction Accommodation & Infrastructure
EPCM
PCM for Turnkey Packages
Total Indirect Cost
17 999
16 401
20 045
201 144
183 851
225 611
4 023
3 677
4 512
6 034
9 193
11 281
30 787
30 787
30 787
2 318
2 318
2 318
43 162
45 974
48 898
244 306
229 826
274 508
Accuracy Provision
37 406
35 189
42 030
Total Initial Capital
281 712
265 015
316 539
Total Bare Cost
Page 21-229

APRIL 2014
Oxides Plant
Table 21.3: Oxides Plant Capital Cost Estimate 1.6 Mt/a
Estimated Cost
USD'000
Area Description
HL equipment dismantling and reassembling
1 666
HL Crushing
HL Agglomeration
HL - Conveying and Stacking
HL - Pad and Ponds
12,473
HL ADR
Process Facility Total
14 140
Site Preparation & Improvements
664
Substation Buildings & Transformer Compounds
Existing
Plant Buildings
390
Fire Protection
Existing
Sewage Disposal and Treatment (Plant)
Existing
Mobile Equipment
Existing
Existing
Storage Ponds
Existing
Main HV Switch-yard
Existing
Control Systems
Existing
Communications (allowance)
Existing
Power
Existing
Security
33
Refuse/Waste Disposal & Storage Facility
Existing
TOTAL - Plant Infrastructure
1 087
1 365
Water Supply Distribution
Existing
Existing
Air Strip
N/A
Area Roads
Existing
Included
Area Communications
Existing
TOTAL - Area Infrastructure
1 365
Regional Roads
N/A
Electrical Power Feeder
Existing
Water Transmission Line
Existing
Regional Communications
N/A
TOTAL - Regional & Remote Infrastructure

First Fill Reagents & Consumables
0
Nil
Transport of plant
1 303
Capital/Strategic Spares
Existing
Vendor's Representative
N/A
Contractors' mobilisation and demob
2 121
Page 21-230

APRIL 2014
Estimated Cost
USD'000
Area Description
Commissioning assistance
N/A
TOTAL - Miscellaneous
3 424
TOTAL Direct Cost
20 015
Construction Facilities, Services & Equipment
801
Construction Accommodation & Infrastructure
1 001
EPCM
2 773
PCM for Turnkey Packages
384
TOTAL Indirect Cost
4 958
TOTAL BARE COST
24 973
Accuracy Provision
6 243
TOTAL Initial Capital
31 217
Sustaining Capital for Sulphides Plant

Construction of the main embankment at TMF1 requires on-going capital expenditure
from Years 2 to 5 of the project. During Year 6 the starter embankment of TMF 2 is
built and the base is prepared. Thereafter, on-going expenditure is required to
sequentially increase the height of TMF2. The schedule of this expenditure is shown in
Table 21.4. Also shown is the sustaining capital requirement for the sulphides plant
and infrastructure.
The costs to develop the TMFs have been estimated from quantities of materials
required at stage. Plant maintenance cost has been calculated as 2 % of the cost of
the direct cost of the plant. The costs for plant and area infrastructure have each been
calculated as 1.5 % of the direct cost in that area.
Table 21.4: Schedule of Sustaining Capital Expenditure - Sulphides Plant 6.5Mt/a
SUSTAINING CAPITAL (USD'million)
Area
Y2
Y3
Y4
Y5
Y6
Y7
Y8
Y9
Y10
Y11
Y12
TMF
Plant
Plant Infrastructure
(excl. TMF)
Area Infrastructure
1.13
1.35
2.48
0.92
2.48
0.43
2.48
11.84
2.48
0.71
2.48
5.75
2.48
4.49
2.48
1.46
2.48
0.97
2.48
1.00
2.48
0.34
0.26
0.34
0.26
0.34
0.26
0.34
0.26
0.34
0.26
0.34
0.26
0.34
0.26
0.34
0.26
0.34
0.26
0.34
0.26
Total
1.13
4.44
4.01
3.52
14.93
3.80
8.84
7.57
4.54
4.05
4.09
Note that the base case schedule applies only to Y11 of the above estimate due to the shorter mine life.
Sustaining Capital for Oxides Plant

Initial capital expenditure for the oxides plant provides for preparation of sufficient pad
area for 18 months of stacking. On-going expenditure is then required to create further
pad area to accommodate more crushed material. The schedule of this expenditure is
shown in Table 21.5. Costs have been derived from estimates of the quantities of
materials required at each stage of expansion of the pad.
Page 21-231

APRIL 2014
Table 21.5: Schedule of Sustaining Capital Expenditure - Oxides Plant
SUSTAINING CAPITAL (USD'million)
Area
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
HLP
Plant
Area Infrastructure
8.73
0.00
0.40
0.02
0.02
8.73
0.40
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.40
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.40
0.02
0.02
Total
8.73
0.43
9.17
0.43
0.43
An estimate for 6 Mt of ore (4 years) has also been completed and included in
Appendix K.
Closure Costs for Sulphides Plant and Infrastructure

Closure of the Sulphides Plant includes rehabilitation of the TMFs, dismantling and
removal of the processing plant and infrastructure equipment and rehabilitation of these
areas. The estimated cost of closure is shown in Table 21.6. Note that the closure and
rehabilitation of TMF 1 can be affected during the later years of operation, when TMF 2
is operating.
Table 21.6: Sulphides Plant Closure Cost
Cost
(USDmillion)
1.8
2.2
14.4
18.4
Area
TMF 1
TMF 2
Plant and infrastructure
Total closure cost
Closure Costs for Oxides Plant and Infrastructure

Closure of the Oxides Plant includes rehabilitation of the leached heaps and solution
ponds, dismantling and removal of the processing plant and infrastructure equipment
and rehabilitation of these areas. The estimated cost of closure is shown in Table 21.7.
Table 21.7: Oxides Plant Closure Cost
Area
Leach pad and ponds
Plant and infrastructure
Total closure cost
Cost
(USDmillion)
0.8
1.8
2.6
Page 21-232

APRIL 2014
21.2
Mining Capital Estimates
21.2.1
Estimate Basis
The mining capital costs have been estimated by Amara internally based on an owner
operated fleet that has been sized to fit the annual tonnage required to achieve the
production schedule.
As the project advances, a trade-off study will need to be completed between owneroperator versus contractor mining, which would reduce the upfront capital.
The capital cost of the mobile equipment has been estimated based upon data
supplied by the various equipment dealers.
21.2.2
Mining Equipment Fleet

The pre-production mining capital costs of USD 75.0 million (base case) covers the
cost of the new mobile equipment required to meet the Year 1 production schedule.
The equipment prices include the estimated transport and assembly costs at the mine
site. Table 21.8 lists the pre-production fleet numbers and total capital costs.
Table 21.8: Pre-production capital Mining Fleet
Function
Make
Model
Cost
5 Mt/a
6.5 Mt/a
6.5 Mt/a
8 Mt/a
(USD)
USD 800/oz
Pit Design
USD 800/oz
Pit Design
USD 950/oz
Pit Design
USD 950/oz
Pit Design
Primary Shovel
Komatsu
PC3000
4,691,517
Primary Haul Truck
Komatsu
HD785
1,127,450
18
21
21
27
Secondary Shovel
Komatsu
PC2000
2,936,704
Secondary Loader
Komatsu
WA900
1,661,641
Primary Drill Rig
Reedrill
SKF12
1,500,000
10
10
Secondary Drill Rig
Tamrock
Pantera 1500
510,368
Primary Dozer
Komatsu
D375AX
984,786
Primary Grader
Komatsu
GD825
682,792
Rubber Tired Dozer
Komatsu
WD600
780,242
Primary Water Truck
Komatsu
HD465-7WT
966,708
75,000
300,000
300,000
100,000
150,000
75,000
Light Vehicles
25,000
Dewatering Pumps
130,000
(USD)
65,677,280
74,980,917
79,895,445
91,768,858
RT Backhoe
CAT
Service Truck
Fuel Truck
General
Personnel Carrier
General
Tire Handler
Lighting Plants
Total Mining Capital
CAT
Allight
IT28B
Page 21-233

APRIL 2014
21.2.3
Sustaining capital
The sustaining capital of USD 14 million (base case) will cover the costs of:
Additional mining equipment to increase or maintain capacity (trucks)

Replacement mining equipment to sustain capacity (drills)
Table 21.9: Sustaining capital Mining Fleet (LOM)

Function
Make
Model
Cost
5 Mt/a
6.5 Mt/a
6.5 Mt/a
8 Mt/a
(USD)
USD 800/oz
Pit Design
USD 800/oz
Pit Design
USD 950/oz
Pit Design
USD 950/oz
Pit Design
Primary Shovel
Komatsu
PC3000
4,691,517
Primary Haul Truck
Komatsu
HD785
1,127,450
16
30
30
Secondary Shovel
Komatsu
PC2000
2,936,704
Secondary Loader
Komatsu
WA900
1,661,641
Primary Drill Rig
Reedrill
SKF12
1,500,000
Secondary Drill Rig
Tamrock
Pantera 1500
510,368
Primary Dozer
Komatsu
D375AX
984,786
Primary Grader
Komatsu
GD825
682,792
Rubber Tired Dozer
Komatsu
WD600
780,242
Primary Water Truck
Komatsu
HD465-7 WT
966,708
RT Backhoe
Service Truck
300,000
Fuel Truck
Personnel Carrier
General
Tire Handler
Lighting Plants
CAT
4
4
75,000
CAT
General
300,000
100,000
IT28B
Allight
150,000
75,000
Light Vehicles
25,000
14
14
35
35
Dewatering Pumps
130,000
(USD)
46,033,161
13,943,407
75,143,590
64,560,892
Total Mining Capital
The results of Table 21.9 show the impact of the production rate / equipment hours / pit
size trade off as the different pit sizes and production rates have a large impact on the
timing of equipment replacement expenditures. The shorter mine life (10.3 years) in the
base case has significantly reduced replacement capital requirements compared to the
other cases which all extend beyond 10 years. The other cases generally require
replacements to the mining fleets in years 9-11 based on the assumed circa 60,000
hour equipment life which the base case avoids. This is a key driver of the relative
economic performance of the base case.
21.2.4
Mining capital costs summary

Table 21.10 summarises the mining fleet capital requirements.
Page 21-234

APRIL 2014
Table 21.10: Mining Capital Cost Estimates Summary
5 Mt/a
USD 800/oz
Pit Design
6.5 Mt/a
USD 800/oz
Pit Design
6.5 Mt/a
USD 950/oz
Pit Design
8 Mt/a
USD 950/oz
Pit Design
Pre-production
65.7
75.0
79.9
91.8
Sustaining
46.0
13.9
75.1
64.6
MINING CAPEX (USD m)
21.2.5
Oxide (heap leach) capital estimates

For the oxide heap leach scenarios it has been assumed that it will be contractor
operation with mining capital costs of USD 3 million mobilisation and USD 1 million
demobilisation assumed.
An intercompany transfer cost (or purchase price) for the heap leaching equipment has
been estimated at USD 10 million and owners charges of USD 2 million have been
included in the pre-production capital for the heap leach case.
21.3
Capital cost summary

The pre-production and sustaining capital expenditure for mining, processing and
infrastructure in combined in Table 21.11 for each case covered in the PEA. In the base
case, the total LOM capital is USD 446 million, of which the preproduction capital is
USD 357 m.
Table 21.11: Total LOM Capital Cost Estimates - Summary
5 Mt/a
USD 800/oz
Pit Design
6.5 Mt/a
USD 800/oz
Pit Design
6.5 Mt/a
USD 950/oz
Pit Design
8 Mt/a
USD 950/oz
Pit Design
1.6 Mt/a
Heap
Leach
Mining
112
89
155
156
16
Pre-production
66
75
80
92
15
Sustaining
46
14
75
65
345
357
369
398
44
Pre-production
265
282
282
317
31
Sustaining
61
57
69
63
10
Closure
18
18
18
18
Total Pre-production Capital
331
357
362
408
46
107
71
144
127
11
Total LOM Capital
456
446
524
554
60
TOTAL CAPEX (USD m)
Except for the Heap Leach scenario, these figures assume owner-operated mining. If
contractor fleet was applied this could reduce the upfront capital by removing the
mining capital and replace it with higher mining operating costs.
Page 21-235

APRIL 2014
21.4
Processing Operating Costs Estimate
21.4.1
Estimate Basis
Operating costs for the plants and infrastructure have been estimated to an accuracy of
35 % using data from a number of sources. Individual operating cost estimates have
been compiled for both the sulphides plant/infrastructure components of the project and
the oxides heap leach operation.
21.4.2
Reagents and Consumables

Reagents are consumed during the leaching, elution and smelting processes. Where
reagent consumption was measured during laboratory testing, for example bottle roll
leach tests, figures from tests at similar conditions to those assumed for the process
design in this study have been applied. Where processes were not tested, such as
elution, typical conditions have been assumed and reagent consumption calculated
accordingly.
Costs have been estimated for the following reagents:
Lime sulphide leach pH control.

Cyanide sulphide leaching, sulphide elution plant, oxides leaching, oxide elution
plant.
Oxygen required for sulphide leaching, cost for rental of a 10 t/d VPSA plant.
Hydrochloric acid - sulphide elution plant, oxide elution plant.
Sodium hydroxide - sulphide elution plant, oxide elution plant, oxide heap leach
solution pH control.
Flocculant for operation of the tailing thickener.
Other consumables estimated include grinding media and activated carbon. Steel ball
consumption has been calculated from the Abrasion Index measured during the
laboratory programme. A typical rate of carbon consumption has been assumed. No
cost provision has been made for cyanide detoxification reagents as this process will
only be operated occasionally should cyanide concentrations exceed prescribed limits.
Cost allowances have been made for other consumables and services:
Crusher liners
Mill liners
Screen decks
Diesel for vehicles and mobile equipment
Sample analysis
Equipment hire.
Costs of reagents and consumables have been obtained from AMECs database and
these have been checked with Amaras knowledge of current rates of supply elsewhere
in West Africa.
Page 21-236

APRIL 2014
Reagent and consumable costs have been estimated for the oxides heap leach and
ADR plant separately to those for the sulphides plant to allow for better evaluation of
the economics of treating oxide material separately.
Maintenance
Maintenance costs have been estimated per area as a percentage of the direct costs in
that area.
Power
AMEC has estimated the electrical load from the Mechanical Equipment List. The cost
per unit has been taken as 0.09 USD/kWh on the advice of Amara.
Labour
AMEC has defined a manning structure for the plant and infrastructure areas of the
Yaoure Project. Local labour rates have been provided by Amara.
General costs
Cost allowances have been made for:
21.4.3
Safety equipment
General freight
Accommodation
Consultants.
Processing Operating Costs Estimate Summary

The operating costs of the sulphide plant at the base throughput of 6.5 Mt/a are shown
in Table 21.12. The estimated operating costs of the sulphides plant at 5 Mt/a and
8 Mt/a are shown in
Table 21.13 and Table 21.14 respectively. Details are included in Appendix J.
Table 21.12: Operating Cost Summary 6.5 Mt/a Sulphide Plant
Labour
% of total
cost
4
Annual Cost
USD000
2 910
Power
33
21 561
3.32
68.74
Reagents
49
32 412
4.99
103.34
Consumables
2 004
0.31
6.39
Maintenance materials
10
6 506
1.00
20.74
Cost element
TOTAL
Page 21-237
Unit Cost
USD/t milled
0.45
Unit Cost
USD/oz Au
9.28
483
0.07
1.54
65 876
10.13
210.03

APRIL 2014
Table 21.13: Operating Cost Summary 5 Mt/a Sulphide Plant
Labour
% of total
cost
6
Annual Cost
USD000
2 910
Unit Cost
USD/t milled
0.58
Unit Cost
USD/oz Au
12.06
Power
32
16 652
3.32
68.77
Reagents
48
25 023
5.00
103.71
Consumables
1 725
0.34
7.15
11
5 852
1.17
24.25
483
0.10
2.00
52 586
10.52
217.95
Unit Cost
USD/t milled
0.36
Unit Cost
USD/oz Au
7.54
Cost element
TOTAL
Table 21.14: Operating Cost Summary 8 Mt/a Sulphide Plant
Labour
% of total
cost
4
Annual Cost
USD000
2 910
Power
33
26 523
3.32
68.71
Reagents
50
48 488
4.94
102.29
Consumables
2 283
0.29
5.92
7 494
0.94
19.41
483
0.06
1.25
79 183
9.90
205.12
Cost element
TOTAL
Table 21.15: Operating Cost Summary Oxide Plant
Cost element
% of total
cost
Annual Cost
USD000
Unit Cost
USD/t milled
Unit Cost
USD/oz Au
Labour
599
0.37
9.22
Power
83
15 249
9.53
234.54
Reagents
616
0.38
9.47
Consumables
850
0.53
13.08
906
0.57
13.94
<1
60
0.04
0.92
18 281
11.43
281.17
Total
21.5
Mining Operating Costs Estimates
21.5.1
Estimate Basis
The open pit mine operating costs have been estimated on an annual basis by
determining the requirements for mobile equipment, manpower levels, pumping,
engineering, general services, and supplies.
Equipment operating costs have been established in detail on the basis of data
gathered from other operations and information provided by the manufacturers.
Page 21-238

APRIL 2014
The operating costs reflect component replacement and consumable costs. Such
details used in the estimates are sourced from data gathered from other operations and
information provided by the manufacturers Supplies for general services, assaying
and secondary drilling and blasting are included in General Services.
Fuel has been considered at a fixed rate in this study at USD 1.10/litre. Power has also
been considered at a fixed rate, remaining at USD 0.09/kWh.
Efficiency
For the major equipment, certain assumptions are made in order to establish the
operating hours required.
The base assumptions are:
365 Operating days per year

2 Operating shifts per day
10.5 Hours operated per shift
50 Minutes operated per hour
90% Availability
85% Utilisation
The Hours operated per shift are based on a 12-hour shift schedule. A typical 12-hour
shift will include 2 30-minute lunch breaks and 2 other 15-minute breaks over the
course of the shift. This equates to 1.5 hours of break time, or 10.5 usable hours per
shift. Over and above this, availability and utilization factors are applied to determine
the number of hours per day actually spent carrying out a particular function at peak
efficiency, where:
Efficiency = Availability x Utilisation
Labour
Labour costs have been developed based upon prior West African operations
experience with pay scales for hourly and salaried employees plus a benefits burden.
Manning levels were established from production schedules and were calculated on an
annual basis. The labor charges include all supervisor and technical management of
the mining process. The average labour cost over the life of the mine is displayed in
Table 21.20. The labor costs include a charge for the proportion of labor that will utilise
the camp accommodation. Manning numbers are displayed in Appendix M.
Drilling
The drill productivity and hence drill cost per tonne will be driven mostly by type of
material mined. Material within the Yaoure mining area varies from very soft (heavily
oxidized volcanics and granodiorite) to hard (fresh volcanic). Systematic measurement
of compressive strengths by rocktype and oxidation state has not yet been completed.
Large diameter drills have been assumed to operate with 20m per hour penetration
rates and the small diameter drills 35 m per hour.
Page 21-239

APRIL 2014
As discussed in Section (Open Pit Mine Operation Drilling), bulk waste patterns will
be drilled by a CAT MD6240 (or equivalent) with nominal life of 60,000 operating hours.
A Sandvik DP1500i (or equivalent) will drill the ore zones, buffer zones, ramps and presplit patterns, and will be used to supplement the CAT MD6240s as required with
nominal life of 26,000 operating hours.
The operational parameters used to establish the drilling costs are:
Drill hours per shift 8.8

Availability 90%
Utilisation 85%
Penetration rate 20m (CAT MD6240) and 35m (Sandvik DP1500i) per hour
Average drill operating cost per hour* USD 142.59/hr
Fuel consumption per hour 61 litres (CAT MD6240) and 57 litres (Sandvik
DP1500i)
*Excludes: all labour and hourly maintenance captured in maintenance contract and Manpower.
Drill requirements vary considerably over the mine life and are dependent on the
number of active phases and the relative proportion of ore and waste mined. The
number of drills required is shown in Table 21.8 and Table. The total number of smalldiameter drills required is the sum of the drills required for both pre-split and smalldiameter drilling.
In Year 1, eleven drills (8 large and 3 small) are needed because of high tonnage
required at start-up.
In Year 5, four small replacement drills are required.
The average drilling cost over the life of the mine is displayed in Table 21.20.
Blasting
The blasting cost varies and is primarily dependent on whether large- or small-diameter
blastholes are blasted. The expanded drill pattern for the large-diameter blastholes
potentially reduces the powder factor, and hence the blasting cost. Also, the cost may
increase with depth, as more wet-hole explosives are required due to groundwater. In
addition, as depth increases, the proportion of material that must be mined as buffer
zones will increase. If this material is drilled on the small-diameter pattern, it will result
in a further increase in blasting cost with depth. This is an issue that will be addressed
on an operational basis.
Blasting costs have been estimated based on the following parameters:
Initiating and bulk explosives will be supplied under a down-the-hole contract.

The supply contract will include a total on-bench blasting service.
Blasting crew will be supplied by the contractor.
Where possible, blastholes will use a waterproof emulsion rather than be
dewatered and lined.
Stemming plugs will be used to increase blasting efficiency, if operating costs justify
the use.
Page 21-240

APRIL 2014
Wet conditions are expected to occur with approximately 75% of material blasted.
ANFO is available at USD 650 per tonne
Emulsion is available at USD 1000 per tonne
Powder factor of 0.70 kg/m3 or 0.25 kg/t when SG = 2.83
Initiation costs of USD 20.91 per hole
The average blasting cost over the life of the mine is displayed in Table 21.20 and is
inclusive of the blasting contractor management fee.
Loading
The majority of waste will be handled by the PC3000 shovels. The PC2000 shovels will
handle the majority of ore loading as well as up to 10% of the bulk waste in a given
period. In addition, WA900 rubber tired loading units will be purchased to feed the
crusher and act as back up to the primary units. Parameters used to establish the
loading costs are given in the following table.
Table 21.16: Loading Equipment Parameters
Hours per shift
Availability
Utilization
Bucket capacity
Swell factor
Bucket fill factor
Moisture content
Shovel cycle time
First dump time
Spot time
Truck capacity
Loading time
Passes to load
Maximum output
Fuel consumption
Operating cost*
hr
%
%
3
m
%
%
%
s
s
s
3
m
s
#
t/hr
l/hr
USD/hr
PC3000
8.8
90
85
15
30
85
5
35
15
30
51
185
5
1685
196
215
PC2000
8.8
90
85
11
30
85
5
35
15
30
51
220
6
1366
151
167
WA900
9.2
90
85
9
30
85
5
40
15
30
51
325
8
1032
114
125
*Operating cost is displayed excluding labor.
The figures given for production rates are for fresh material. The actual rates are varied
throughout the life of the project, as the average SG of the rock moved varies slightly
from year to year. Production rate estimates for the PC3000 vary from 1366 t/h to 1685
t/h, for the PC2000 from 1149 t/h to 1366 t/h, and for the WA900 from 778 t/h to 1032
t/h over the schedule. The mine design calls for dual-lane access ramps to the bottom
of each phase.
Haulage
Haul distances, by period, have been determined for the waste, ore and stockpile
haulage requirements for each bench. The haul distances along with the road
conditions, the truck and shovel performance capabilities and the material propertied of
Page 21-241

APRIL 2014
the rocks are used to estimate the number of trucks required in each fleet and the fuel
consumption.
The haulage fleet is assumed to be based on 90-tonne class (Komatsu HD785 or CAT
777) haulage units. It is anticipated that 21 new haulage trucks will be required initially
in the base case.
Table 21.17: Haulage parameters
Ramp Grade
Cut-off
Speed
(Uphill)
Speed
(Downhill)
Fuel
(Uphill)
Fuel
(Downhill)
km/hr
km/hr
litres/hr
litres/hr
40
40
65
65
30
30
60
50
25
25
70
50
15
15
90
50
50
50
55
55
35
35
45
40
28
28
55
40
18
18
65
40
Loaded
Empty
The parameters used to establish haulage costs are listed below in Table 21.18.
Projected operating costs are USD 83 per operating hour in the base case.
Table 21.18: Truck Cycle Parameters
Item
Hours per shift
Availability
Utilization
Volume capacity
Truck fill factor
Truck carry back
Tire cost
Tire life
Fuel consumption
Operating cost
Unit
hr
%
%
3
m
%
%
$
hr
l/hr
$/hr
HD785
8.8
90
85
51
95
3
15000
4000
126
82.94
Table 21.19 details the year-by-year haulage fleet requirements. After an initial rampup to full production in Year 1, the haulage fleet requirements remain steady at
approximately 22 trucks until Year 4, when additional capacity is required. The
cumulative hours per tuck to the end of Year 10 is 62,668, showing a 4% stretch over
the equipment average life in the base case.
Table 21.19: Annual haulage requirements Base case
Year
Truck
Hours
Number
of trucks
Hours per
truck
10
142,536
127,302
138,439
159,422
150,752
154,473
127,321
122,930
132,614
122,950
21
22
22
25
24
25
20
20
21
20
6,197
6,365
6,293
6,377
6,281
6,179
6,366
6,147
6,315
6,148
Page 21-242

APRIL 2014
The average ore and waste load and hauling costs are shown in Table 21.20 including
maintenance and parts and excluding labour.
Roads and Dumps
This section encompasses the cost of all ancillary equipment required for operation of
the Yaoure open pit. This includes all equipment necessary for maintenance of the
bench floors, ramps, roads, waste dumps and stockpiles.
General Services
General services includes the following components:
Pit dewatering
Secondary drilling and blasting
Light vehicle supply and maintenance
General supplies
Supply and install of rock sheeting on ramps and bench floors.
Mine Engineering
Mine engineering costs consist of engineering and surveying supplies, assaying,
computing accessories and maintenance. Assaying is based upon costs established
from current West African mine assay rates and assuming each blasthole requiring one
assay.
Maintenance
Maintenance costs not covered by the maintenance and repair contract total USD 0.01
per total tonne or less than 1% of the total and include workshop and power
distribution.
21.5.2
Mining operating cost estimate summary

Table 21.20 provides the unit mining costs for the cases presented in this report.
Table 21.20: Mining operating cost estimates summary
5 Mt/a
USD 800/oz
Pit Design
6.5 Mt/a
USD 800/oz
Pit Design
6.5 Mt/a
USD 950/oz
Pit Design
8 Mt/a
USD 950/oz
Pit Design
Manpower
0.29
0.25
0.24
0.21
Drilling
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.23
Explosives & Blasting
0.37
0.36
0.37
0.37
Loading - Shovels
0.13
0.12
0.13
0.12
Loading - Rehandle - FEL
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
Ore & Waste Haulage - Trucks
0.33
0.31
0.37
0.36
Roads & Dumps - Other
0.21
0.21
0.18
0.18
MINING OPEX (USD/t mined)
Page 21-243

APRIL 2014
General Services
0.04
0.04
0.06
0.05
Mine Engineering
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Maintenance
0.83
0.82
0.82
0.82
Total Costs
2.49
2.41
2.47
2.42
The average mining cost over the life of the project in the base case is
USD 2.41 per tonne mined.
21.5.3
Oxide (heap leach) mining operating cost estimate

The oxide (heap leaching) scenario assumes a contractor operation due to the short
mine life. A mining cost of USD 3.45 per tonne was assumed, which includes
contractor charges based on the companys experience in operations currently using
contract mining in Burkina Faso.
21.5.4
Other General and Administration costs

A portion of the general and administration (G&A) costs are partially included in the
mining and processing operating cost estimates outlined above. The breakdown of the
G&A included in the mining and processing costs are summarised in Table 21.21. As
these do not cover all central charges, other G&A costs have been estimated and
provided in Table 21.22.
Table 21.21: G&A charges included in Mining & Processing costs
Item
USDm/a
Processing plant management staff
1.96
Mining operations management and technical staff
4.66
Accommodation camp & HSE
0.94
Total G&A included in Mining & Processing costs
7.55
Note this annual cost is common to the 5,6.5 and 8 Mt/a tonnage scenarios
Note that camp costs are based on accommodating approximately 150 people, largely
expatriates, with the remaining workforce of up to 450 people sourced at the gate from
surrounding villages and from the capital city Yamoussoukro, which is located only
40km from site.
Table 21.22: Other G&A charges
Item
Central management & administration staff
Accommodation camp
Security
Insurance
Legal / audit / tax / other advisory
Contingency
Other G&A costs (excluding Table 21.21above)
USDm/a
1.80
0.14
0.54
0.73
0.80
0.20
4.20
Note this annual cost is common to the 5,6.5 and 8 Mt/a tonnage scenarios
Therefore the annual combined G&A charge across each case is USD 11.8 million.
Page 21-244

APRIL 2014
Refining charges
In all cases a refining and freight charge of USD 6.50 per ounce of gold produced has
been applied in all cases.
Page 21-245

APRIL 2014
22.0
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
The Yaoure Gold Project economic evaluation has been prepared by combining the
mining schedule and cost estimates from Amara with the process and infrastructure
cost estimates from AMEC, as outlined in Sections 16, 17, 18 and 21. The financial
model and its outputs has been prepared Amara.
22.1
Evaluation Method
The Yaoure Project economics has been evaluated using the discounted cash flow
method, applying the annual schedule of tonnes mined and processed, grade profile
and recovery to the gold revenue and cost assumptions. The discount cash flow has
been used to generate the net present value (NPV) of the project. The project has been
evaluated on a 100% equity basis with no debt financing.
A discounted cash flow model was prepared on the same basis for each case
analysed, as listed in Table 22.1 below:
Table 22.1: Scenarios included in economic analysis
Capacity
Process Circuit
Pit Shell
Material
Nomenclature
5.0 Mt/a
Whole ore leach
USD800/oz
Oxide & sulphide
6.5 Mt/a
Whole ore leach
USD800/oz
Oxide & sulphide
6.5 Mt/a
Whole ore leach
USD950/oz
Oxide & sulphide
8.0 Mt/a
Whole ore leach
USD950/oz
Oxide & sulphide
headline case
1.6 Mt/a
Heap leach
Oxide
oxide case
base case
The effects of a 10% government free carry was also assessed and provided in the
detailed cash flow models provided in Appendix N.
22.1.1
Model Assumptions
The key assumptions used in the financial analysis are summarised in Table 22.2 and
commented on below. Fiscal assumptions for the project are in Table 22.3.
Table 22.2: Key assumptions in the economic evaluation
Item
Gold Price
Units
Rate
USD/oz
1,250
Discount Rate
Depreciation - CIP
10
Depreciation - Heap leach
25
Diesel Price
USD/l
1.10
Sodium Cyanide
USD/t
3,500
USD/kWh
0.09
Power
Gold price: Models were run at USD1,250 per ounce and sensitivities were un at $100
increments from USD1,000 to $1,500 gold.
Page 22-246

APRIL 2014
Fiscal terms: The mine will operate under Cte dIvoire mining legislation. The Cte
dIvoire parliament voted the new mining code on 4 March 2014, however this new
mining code does not include tax provisions, which remain subject to public and
industry consultation. Amara has participated in consultations between the Government
and the mining industry for the fiscal terms. Once these aspects have been finalised, it
is planned that they will be issued by means of presidential decree. The PEA assumes
fiscal terms which have been drawn from a combination of these discussions,
published Government proposals and recent precedent mining agreements. Not VAT,
duties or levies have been assumed.
Table 22.3: Fiscal Assumptions
Item
Rate
Corporate Tax (%)

Community fund (% revenue)
Royalties (%)
25
0.5
Scale
<= USD 1000/oz
<= USD 1300/oz
3.5
<= USD 1600/oz
> USD 1600/oz
Tax Holiday (years)
Government free carry provision (%)
10
No tax holiday was applied to Heap leach (oxides) case
Depreciation: A straight line method was applied over 10years for the whole ore plant
and reduced to 4 years for the heap leach (oxide) case in line with the shorter mine
life. It has been calculated from the time that production commences from each year
capital is expensed.
Construction capital: A two-year construction period and initial capital program has
been assumed (pre-production) with a 40:60 split, with the first year of construction
representing the first period of the NPV calculation.
Sunk capital: Expected project expenditures prior to the first year of the NPV
calculation have been estimated and included as sunk capital, which is carried forward
as losses and applied in the amortisation and depreciation charge.
Table 22.4: Sunk capital assumptions
Sunk Capital
USD m
Capital expenditure to date
32.4
Further estimate for CIP
25.0
Further estimate for oxides / HL
5.0
CIP or HL cases assume to stand-alone
Working capital: Working capital calculations are based on creditor and debtor period
assumptions typical for a gold mining operation based in West Africa in Amaras
experience. Due to the relatively high throughput rates and timing of the production and
limited prestrip in the first year of production, working capital associated with ramping
up has been applied.
Page 22-247

APRIL 2014
Inflation: In line with standard practice in the gold industry, no inflation was applied to
the cash flow analysis.
Currency: The inputs and financial modelling were all in United States Dollars.
Termination value: no termination value has been assumed in any case.
22.1.2
Evaluation Results
The main inputs and outputs of the financial model for each of the cases analysed are
summarised in Table 22.5 below:
Table 22.5: Summary results by Project case
5 Mt/a
USD 800/oz
Pit Design
6.5 Mt/a
USD 800/oz
Pit Design
6.5 Mt/a
USD 950/oz
Pit Design
8 Mt/a
USD 950/oz
Pit Design
5.0
6.5
6.5
8.0
1.6 Mt/a
Heap Leach
Mining
Annual Production (Mt)
1.6
Mine Life (Yrs)
13
10
15
12
Ore Mined (Mt)
63.9
63.9
94.6
94.6
5.6
Average Grade (g/t)
1.53
1.53
1.39
1.39
1.49
Waste Mined (Mt)
314
314
492
492
14
Total Material (Mt)
378
378
587
587
20
Strip Ratio (t w:o)
4.9
4.9
5.2
5.2
2.5
Processing
Contained gold (Moz)
CIP Recovery (%)
3.1
3.1
4.2
4.2
0.3
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
80.0
Gold Produced (Moz)
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
0.2
Annual Average Output (koz)
216
279
265
325
54
464
613
554
688
28
Results
NPV (post-tax at 8%, USDm)
IRR (%)
25
33
26
32
52
Payback (Yrs)
3.4
2.6
3.2
2.4
0.8
1,250
1,250
1,250
1,250
1,250
Gold Price (USD/oz)
All cases show strong economics at USD 1250 gold, with the prime options displayed
as the 6.5 Mt/a (USD 800/oz Pit Design) base case and the 8.0Mt/a (USD 800/oz Pit
Design) headline case. Furthermore, the two 6.5 Mt/a scenarios show the impact of
constraining the pit size to increase the grade, bringing forward production into a 10
year window and reducing the capital replacement exposure.
Note in viewing these results that the preliminary economic assessment is preliminary
in nature, that it includes Inferred mineral resources considered too speculative
geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable
them to be categorises as mineral reserves, and that there is no certainty that the
preliminary economic assessment will be realised.
Page 22-248

APRIL 2014
Cash costs
The LOM unit cash costs were also calculated. A breakdown of the life of mine
operating costs per ounce for each scenario are provided in Table 22.6
Table 22.6: Cash cost breakdown by Project case
5 Mt/a
USD 800/oz
Pit Design
6.5 Mt/a
USD 800/oz
Pit Design
6.5 Mt/a
USD 950/oz
Pit Design
8 Mt/a
USD 950/oz
Pit Design
1.6 Mt/a
Heap
Leach
Mining
315
305
360
352
320
Processing
225
217
238
233
299
Other G&A
Area (USD/oz)
20
15
17
14
78
Operating Cash Costs
560
537
615
598
697
Royalty/Other
56.5
56.5
56.5
56.5
56.5
Total Cash Costs
617
594
671
655
754
Depreciation
168
168
140
150
453
Total Production Costs
785
762
811
805
1207
Total Capital
153
149
130
138
279
All-In Costs
770
743
801
792
1033
The base case LOM discounted cash flow model is provided as Table 22.7. The
remaining scenarios are provided in Appendix N.
Key results
The project has been shown to be robust across a range of production capacities
The cases offering the most attractive NPV and IRR are the:
Base case the 6.5 Mt/a (USD 800 pit) operation delivers a post-tax NPV of
USD 613 million at a gold price of USD 1,250 per ounce and 8% discount rate, with
an IRR of 33% and operating cost (excluding royalties) of USD 537/oz.
Headline case - the 8 Mt/a (USD 950 pit) operation delivers a post-tax NPV of
USD 688 million at a gold price of USD 1,250 per ounce and 8% discount rate, with
an IRR of 32% and operating cost (excluding royalties) of USD 598/oz ounce.
Across the cases the payback period ranging from 0.8 (heap leach) to 3.4 (5 Mt/a)
years at a gold price of USD 1,250 per ounce.
Project economics are assisted by low energy cost, estimated at 9c/KWh, and a
high gold recovery of 95%.
The economic analysis supports the continued study and development of the
project with the base and headline cases showing large scale single pit operations
with gold production of circa 300,000 ounces per annum (average).
The oxide (heap leach) option provides an attractive IRR but is a lower value option
available to the group, pending the availability of capital.
Page 22-249

APRIL 2014
Table 22.7: Base case (6.5 Mt/a, USD 800 Pit Design) discounted cash flow model
Year
-2
-1
10
11
Total/ Ave.
PRODUCTION
Mining
Total Ore Mined
Total Ore Grade
Contained Au
Waste Mined
Total Material
Strip Ratio
kt
g/t
koz
kt
kt
t:waste:ore
63,897
1.53
3,140
313,848
377,745
4.9
0
0.00
0
0
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0
0
0.00
3,320
1.59
169
39,680
43,000
11.95
6,500
1.52
317
36,500
43,000
5.62
6,500
1.46
306
36,500
43,000
5.62
6,500
1.50
314
36,500
43,000
5.62
6,500
1.20
252
36,500
43,000
5.62
6,500
1.22
254
34,673
41,173
5.33
6,430
1.50
310
26,570
33,000
4.13
6,500
1.56
326
23,241
29,741
3.58
6,500
1.45
303
23,500
30,000
3.62
6,500
1.84
384
18,018
24,518
2.77
2,147
2.96
204
2,166
4,313
1.01
Processing
Plant Feed
Grade
Contained Gold
Overall Recovery
Gold Produced
kt
g/t
koz
%
koz
63,897
1.53
3,140
95.0%
2,982.81
279
0
0.00
0
0.0%
0
0
0.00
0
0.0%
0
3,320
1.59
169
95.0%
161
6,500
1.52
317
95.0%
301
6,500
1.46
306
95.0%
290
6,500
1.50
314
95.0%
298
6,500
1.20
252
95.0%
239
6,500
1.22
254
95.0%
241
6,430
1.50
310
95.0%
295
6,500
1.56
326
95.0%
310
6,500
1.45
303
95.0%
288
6,500
1.84
384
95.0%
365
2,147
2.96
204
95.0%
194
USD/oz
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
1,250
3,728,509
(130,498)
(18,643)
(19,388)
3,559,980
0
-
0
-
1,250
201,061
(7,037)
(1,005)
(1,046)
191,973
1,250
376,374
(13,173)
(1,882)
(1,957)
359,362
1,250
363,010
(12,705)
(1,815)
(1,888)
346,602
1,250
373,106
(13,059)
(1,866)
(1,940)
356,241
1,250
298,869
(10,460)
(1,494)
(1,554)
285,360
1,250
301,706
(10,560)
(1,509)
(1,569)
288,069
1,250
368,457
(12,896)
(1,842)
(1,916)
351,803
1,250
387,404
(13,559)
(1,937)
(2,015)
369,893
1,250
360,249
(12,609)
(1,801)
(1,873)
343,966
1,250
455,949
(15,958)
(2,280)
(2,371)
435,340
1,250
242,323
(8,481)
(1,212)
(1,260)
231,370
OPERATING COSTS
Mining
Processing
G&A
Total Opex
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
(909,502)
(647,275)
(46,200)
(1,602,977)
(78,651)
(33,632)
(4,200)
(116,483)
(96,332)
(65,845)
(4,200)
(166,377)
(112,119)
(65,845)
(4,200)
(182,164)
(104,654)
(65,845)
(4,200)
(174,699)
(95,059)
(65,845)
(4,200)
(165,104)
(104,303)
(65,845)
(4,200)
(174,348)
(80,804)
(65,131)
(4,200)
(150,135)
(80,557)
(65,845)
(4,200)
(150,602)
(87,737)
(65,845)
(4,200)
(157,782)
(55,257)
(65,845)
(4,200)
(125,302)
(14,030)
(21,752)
(4,200)
(39,982)
OPERATING CASHFLOW
USDk
1,957,003
75,490
192,986
164,439
181,543
120,256
113,721
201,668
219,292
186,183
310,038
191,388
REVENUE
Gold Price
Gross Revenue
Royalty
Community Development Fund
Freight and Refining Charges
Net Revenue
Page 22-250

APRIL 2014
Year
CAPITAL COSTS
Mining Pre-production
Mining Equipment
Process Plant
Area Infrastructure
Regional Infrastructure
Miscellaneous
Indirects
Contingency
Total Initial Capex
-2
-1
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
(74,981)
(124,039)
(32,485)
(17,622)
(9,000)
(17,999)
(43,162)
(37,406)
(356,694)
(49,616)
(12,994)
(7,049)
(3,600)
(7,200)
(17,265)
(14,962)
(112,685)
(74,981)
(74,423)
(19,491)
(10,573)
(5,400)
(10,799)
(25,897)
(22,444)
(244,009)
Mining
Other Sustaining
Closure
Total Sustaining & Closure Capex
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
(13,943)
(56,830)
(18,400)
(89,173)
Total Capex
USDk
(445,867)
(112,685)
PRE-TAX CASHFLOW
USDk
1,511,136
CORPORATE TAX
Depreciation
Cashflow less Depreciation
USDk
USDk
(501,022)
1,455,981
Tax allowance o/b

Tax allowance addition
Tax allowance used
Tax allowance c/b
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
Taxable income
Tax Payable
USDk
USDk
WORKING CAPITAL
Debtors - o/b
c/b
net change
10
11
(7,003)
(7,003)
(25)
(1,130)
(1,155)
(3,382)
(4,440)
(7,822)
(305)
(4,010)
(4,315)
(1,567)
(3,520)
(5,087)
(1,531)
(14,930)
(16,461)
(130)
(3,800)
(3,930)
(8,840)
(8,840)
(7,570)
(7,570)
(4,540)
(4,540)
(4,050)
(18,400)
(22,450)
(244,009)
(7,003)
(1,155)
(7,822)
(4,315)
(5,087)
(16,461)
(3,930)
(8,840)
(7,570)
(4,540)
(22,450)
(112,685)
(244,009)
68,487
191,831
156,616
177,228
115,169
97,260
197,738
210,452
178,613
305,498
168,938
(5,740)
(5,740)
(17,009)
(17,009)
(41,409)
34,080
(42,110)
150,876
(42,225)
122,213
(43,007)
138,535
(43,439)
76,817
(43,948)
69,773
(45,594)
156,074
(45,987)
173,305
(41,131)
145,053
(30,619)
279,419
(6,672)
184,716
5,740
5,740
5,740
17,009
22,749
22,749
(22,749)
-
11,332
-
150,876
-
122,213
-
138,535
-
76,817
-
69,773
(17,443)
156,074
(39,019)
173,305
(43,326)
145,053
(36,263)
279,419
(69,855)
184,716
(46,179)
USDk
USDk
USDk
5,260
(5,260)
5,260
9,846
(4,586)
9,846
9,496
350
9,496
9,760
(264)
9,760
7,818
1,942
7,818
7,892
(74)
7,892
9,638
(1,746)
9,638
10,134
(496)
10,134
9,424
710
9,424
11,927
(2,503)
11,927
11,927
Creditors - o/b
c/b
net change
USDk
USDk
USDk
(7,180)
7,180
(7,180)
(10,256)
3,076
(10,256)
(11,229)
973
(11,229)
(10,769)
(460)
(10,769)
(10,178)
(591)
(10,178)
(10,747)
570
(10,747)
(9,255)
(1,493)
(9,255)
(9,284)
29
(9,284)
(9,726)
443
(9,726)
(7,724)
(2,002)
(7,724)
(7,724)
Overall Net Change
USDk
1,921
(1,510)
1,323
(724)
1,351
496
(3,239)
(467)
1,153
(4,506)
4,203
PROJECT FREE CASHFLOW
USDk
1,259,051
70,408
(286,286)
190,320
(95,966)
176,504
238,477
116,520
354,996
80,312
435,308
155,481
590,789
166,659
757,448
143,503
900,951
231,138
1,132,088
126,962
1,259,051
Payback
Discount Rate
NPV
IRR
Years
%
USDk
%
2.6
8.00%
612,721
33.1%
157,939
61,973
2.6
1,508,113
(252,085)
(112,685)
(112,685)
(244,009)
(356,694)
Page 22-251

APRIL 2014
22.1.3
Sensitivity
A sensitivity analysis of the base case NPV is provided below. The remaining scenarios
are provided in Appendix O.
Figure 22.1: Project NPV sensitivity Base case
The project is most sensitive to gold production, followed by gold price. Impacts to gold
production can be driven by changes to the modelled grade or recovery, or other
impacts to the level of production (such as ramp up issues). The project is almost
equally sensitive to the gold price assumption. The project is also more sensitive to
changes in operating costs than capital costs.
The sensitivity analysis also shows the performance of the project at a range of gold
prices from USD 1,100 to USD 1,500 (Table 22.8). This demonstrates that Yaoure
continues to deliver strong returns at gold prices below USD 1250 per ounce, making
the project more robust to gold price fluctuations. Importantly the base case and
headline case post IRRs of above 20% in the USD 1,100 per ounce gold price
scenario. Stress testing beyond this range shows the project remains resilient down to
a break even gold price of circa USD 850 per ounce.
Table 22.8: Base case NPV (USD m) & IRR sensitivity to discount rate and gold price
Discount
USD1,000
USD1,100
USD1,200
USD1,250
USD1,300
USD1,400
USD1,500
5%
366
535
713
802
891
1,056
1,234
8%
247
388
538
613
687
826
975
10%
183
310
444
511
578
702
835
IRR
19%
25%
30%
33%
36%
40%
45%
Page 22-252

APRIL 2014
Table 22.9: Base case NPV (USD m) & IRR sensitivity to CAPEX
Discount
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
5%
877
839
802
765
727
8%
685
649
613
576
540
10%
582
547
511
475
440
IRR
41%
37%
33%
30%
27%
Table 22.10: Base case NPV (USD m) & IRR sensitivity to OPEX
Discount
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
5%
1,010
906
802
698
594
8%
790
701
613
524
436
10%
671
591
511
431
352
IRR
40%
36%
33%
30%
26%
Table 22.11: Base case NPV (USD m) & IRR sensitivity to gold production*
Discount
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
5%
359
581
802
1,024
1,245
8%
241
427
613
799
984
10%
178
345
511
678
844
IRR
19%
26%
33%
39%
46%
*Reflects impacts on gold output such as changes in productivity/grade/recovery
22.1.4
Summary and discussion of scenarios

The economic evaluation shows that the project produces robust cash flows across all
cases, with the 6.5 Mt/a base case and the 8 Mt/a headline case generating the highest
combined post tax NPV and IRR at USD 1,250 per ounce gold. While the project is
sensitive to the level of revenues driven by gold output and gold price, these two cases
maintain +20% IRR at a gold price of USD 1,100 per ounce. The 5 Mt/a case also run
on the USD 800 per ounce pit design also returned positive economics at
USD 1,250 per ounce gold, highlighting the potential for a staged development strategy
Clearly the low energy cost and access to a relatively established site are key in
maintaining the operating margins of the project.
The small scale heap leach case highlights the potential project option to enter
production on a reduced scale, pending the availability of capital. However, while the
potential returns on capital are high, the project generates a significantly lower NPV,
and is less robust at lower gold prices, with a breakeven of circa USD 1,075 per ounce.
The positive economics on the various production scales analysed suggest that
significant optionality exists in the project. This includes potential for staged
development scenarios. With further study and optimisation of the key aspects of the
project, such as the resource, recovery or mining methods, are therefore likely to
generate further beneficial results and could continue to alter the optimal project
parameters.
Page 22-253

APRIL 2014
23.0
ADJACENT PROPERTIES
Smaller reports or technical reports are prepared as one document. For larger reports,
sections are separated into sub-documents and later merged to create a master
document.
The situation with adjacent properties is unchanged since May 2013. Cominor CI has
an exploration licence to the north-east of Amaras Yaoure licence area, across Kossou
Lake (Figure 23.1). LGL Resources (Newcrest Mining Limited) has applied for two
exploration licences to the north-west part of the Yaoure licence area, which are in the
final stages of being granted. TD Continental, GIV Minerals, and D&K Mining CI have
applied for exploration licences to the south-west, south and south-east of the Yaoure
licence area.
Figure 23.1: Adjacent Properties to Amaras Yaoure Licence Area
Page 23-254

APRIL 2014
24.0
OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION
24.1
Project development and implementation

A high level, simplified timeline to development has been formulated for the purposes
of preparing the financial analysis in the PEA. This is shown graphically in Figure 24.1.
The study steps include:
Preliminary Feasibility Study 8 months

Definitive Feasibility Study 10-12 months
Front End Engineering and Project Execution 3 months to first construction
The durations of the next phases can be influenced by external factors such as
environmental permitting and consent of various government agencies. Given the
brownfield nature of Yaoure, the risks associated with these external factors are viewed
to be substantially less than for an equivalent greenfields project.
Figure 24.1: Project Implementation Schedule Sulphides Plant
24.1.1
Preliminary Feasibility Study (PFS)

The aim of a PFS is to produce a cost estimate of 20 % to 25 % accuracy. This will
generally involve work covering:
Defining measured and indicated resource

Conceptual mine design
Bench-scale metallurgical tests
Preliminary process flow diagrams (PFDs)
Preliminary material balances
Preliminary equipment list
Preliminary infrastructure and services
Basic mechanical drawings
Single source equipment pricing (major items).
There has been little test work done for either processing option. It is recommended
that more detailed test work is carried out covering comminution (including assessment
Page 24-255

APRIL 2014
of ore variability), leaching and other design aspects as discussed in Section 26.2. The
duration of a PFS would be eight months based on:
Four months for test work, pending laboratory availability

Four months of engineering and estimating work.
During the PFS, all options should be investigated with trade off studies conducted to
ensure that the optimum base case is selected by the end of the study in preparation
for more accurate cost definition in the subsequent phase.
24.1.2
Definitive Feasibility Study (DFS)

The aim of a DFS is to produce a cost estimate of 10 % to 15 % accuracy. This will
generally involve work covering:
Defining resource
Optimising plant capacity
Detailed mine design
Further bench-scale metallurgical tests or pilot plant
Finalisation of PFDs
Optimisation and detailing of material balances
Detailed equipment list
Detailed infrastructure and services
Preliminary mechanical drawings
Multiple source equipment pricing (major items).
Further test work is to be carried out on the selected process option to finalise the
process design criteria and ensure further accuracy of process and equipment
selection. The duration of a DFS would be 10 to 12 months based on:
24.1.3
Six months for test work pending laboratory availability

Four to six months of engineering and estimating work.
Front End Engineering and Project Execution

The execution phase includes detailed engineering, procurement, construction, initial
wet commissioning and the associated project management. The execution phase
itself is not judged to be unduly complex. Long lead items will determine the duration
of the project. The lead time for mills is up to 55 weeks (one year) in the current
market.
The ramp-up time to achieve design gold output is important. Given the development
of a sound engineering design basis, it is likely that the sulphides leach option would
achieve design throughput rapidly. It is expected that the ramp up period to full gold
output will be 3 months. It is important to note that these estimates will need to be
reviewed in the next phase of work.
Page 24-256

APRIL 2014
25.0
INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS

The Yaoure Project exhibits strong economics, exhibiting largely positive outcomes
over a wide variation in project scales and gold prices. In summary, using the base
case gold price of USD 1,250 per ounce and a discount rate of 8%, the following can
be asserted:
Base Case 6.5 Mt/a (USD 800 Pit design):
NPV: The Project is expected to generate a post-tax NPV of USD 613 million.
IRR: The financial model exhibits a post-tax IRR of 33%.
Total Cash Costs: LOM total cash costs (inc. royalties) of USD 594 per ounce.
Large scale production: 6.5 Mt/a single open pit operation at a strip ratio of 4.9,
producing 279,000 ounce per annum (average) over 10 years.
Headline case 8 Mt/a (USD 950 Pit design):
NPV: The Project is expected to generate a post-tax NPV of USD 688 million.
IRR: The financial model exhibits a post-tax IRR of 32%.
Total Cash Costs: LOM total cash costs (inc. royalties) of USD 594 per ounce.
Large scale production: 8 Mt/a single open pit operation, at a strip ratio of 5.2,
producing 325,000 ounce per annum (average) over 12 years.
Other key points
High Conventional Recoveries capacity: Processing through a conventional tank

leach / CIP plant achieves an expected gold recovery of 95%.
Optionality: Supports project configurations from heap leaching to whole ore

processing from 5 Mt/a to 8 Mta scale. This allows for further optimisation or staged
development, or if limited by capital, the ability to develop a much smaller scale
heap leaching operation.
Robust to lower price: the Base and Headline cases post an IRR of +20% at
USD 1,100 per ounce gold
Note that in viewing these results that the preliminary economic assessment is
preliminary in nature, that it includes Inferred mineral resources that are considered
too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them
that would enable them to be categorises as mineral reserves, and there is no
certainty that the preliminary economic assessment will be realised.
Page 25-257

APRIL 2014
25.1.1
Conclusions
This PEA is based on industry standard mining, processing and development practice
as well as standard economic evaluation methodology. The quality of geological and
other relevant data is adequate for the purpose of generating a PEA. Based on the
assumptions and methodology applied, the results of this study show that the Yaoure
project has positive economics (within the very preliminary parameters of a PEA) and
should be advanced to the next phase of studies by undertaking the work outlined in
the Recommendations section of this report.
While a significant amount of information is still required for a complete assessment of
the project, at this point, there do not appear to be any fatal flaws in the project. The
study has achieved its original objective of providing a preliminary review of the
potential economic viability of the Yaoure Project and has highlighted that the project
contains a large amount of optionality that may be explored in further detail as the
project progresses.
25.1.2
Risks
As with almost all mining ventures, there are a large number of risks and opportunities
that can affect the economic viability of the project. Subsequent higher level
engineering studies would be required to further understand the existing risks and
opportunities, identify new ones, and define strategies for risk mitigation or opportunity
implementation. For the process and infrastructure component, AMEC have detailed
risks and opportunities which are provided in Appendix A.
The key risks for the Yaoure Project have been identified as follows:
Reduced gold prices,

Geological interpretation and mineral resource classification (80% of the resources
used in the mine plan are Inferred), specifically with respect to overall Yaoure
deposit tonnage and grade,
Increased operating and capital estimates,
Geotechnical, geochemical and hydrogeological considerations,
Changes to gold recovery and mineral processing assumptions,
Cte dIvoire mining convention and changes in fiscal terms, and
Community engagement and unexpected changes in relocation and environmental
requirements.
More general statements regarding the project risk areas are defined below:
Defined risks
The nature of mining is characterised by inherent risk, with many factors both known
and unknown being able to threaten the economics of the project. For the project to
progress the risk factors needed to be aggressively addressed but that where possible,
further analysis or mitigating actions are required which can demonstrate that the
project remains robust despite inherent risks. Thus known risks, relevant to the
preliminary nature of this study, are identified and discussed below.
Page 25-258

APRIL 2014
The risks have been divided up into several sections, under the sub-headings seen as
follows:
General risks
Project specific risks
Mining and reserves risks
Processing risks
Environmental risks
General Risks
Mining assets are subject to certain inherent risks and opportunities, which apply to
some degree to all participants of the international precious metals mining industry.
These are defined largely as being items outside the control of the operator however
can be mitigated to a degree by have suitable mitigating plans in place.
Items such as fluctuations in gold price, gold price, exchange rates, inflation rate and
fuel prices are all beyond the control of the Project however some can be minimized by
potential forward selling of gold or ensuring contracts are fixed for certain periods of
time.
Country risks tend also to fall into this category where a stable fiscal environment is
desired. The negotiation of a mine convention that is beneficial to both parties becomes
paramount including the extent to which such conditions remain stable.
Project Stage Risks
It needs to be recognised that in viewing this document that the preliminary economic
assessment is preliminary in nature, that it includes Inferred mineral resources that are
considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to
them that would enable them to be categorises as mineral reserves, and there is no
certainty that the preliminary economic assessment will be realised. Further work to
increase the confidence of the resource estimate has potential to have a significant
impact on key project parameters as the project advances through the preliminary
feasibility study (PFS) and feasibility study (FS) stages of the project. Accordingly, at
the present level of development, there are no mineral reserves at the Yaour Project.
Project Specific Risks
Project-specific risks relate largely to the reliability of the PEA and the skilled
knowledge of personnel who provided input into the document on a discipline basis.
Examples of such risk include the level of accuracy of the financial model including the
inputs that stand behind it. It therefore highlights the need to ensure that well qualified
and experienced personnel become involved at an early stage so that risks in this area
are minimized.
Mining Risks
In mining, the very many aspects that contribute towards its definition or scope and
quantification thereof in terms of capital and operating costs is each subject to a certain
Page 25-259

APRIL 2014
amount of uncertainty. This in turn can have either a major or minor effect on the
originally intended project economics. Risks specific to this discipline include the level
of geotechnical and hydrological investigation performed along with its interpretation to
ensure that the selected pit slopes are considered adequate. The physical ability to be
able to follow the theoretical mine plan needs to be proved by further study and project
development.
Processing Risks
Processing risks to consider are specifically related to the material treatment. These
risks are unlikely to be catastrophic in nature but are more likely to represent gaps in
the knowledge base which with time will in any event become more accurate. These
have a high potential for being successfully managed and controlled through further
metallurgical testing and process design. The major risks identified include the ability of
being able to ramp up to full production as forecast both in terms of production and
gold recovery as well as reagent consumptions.
Environmental Risks
These risks are related to causal events which potentially result in some form of
environmental hazard. While no fatal flaws have been identified, the project needs to
be mindful of environmental and social risks the project may face. Such risks require
careful management, and are helped by a history of success. Amara has in the past,
and continues to maintain a strong relationship and dialogue with the surrounding
communities, and recognizes the value of a relationship built on the basis of mutual
benefit.
25.1.3
Opportunities
The following key opportunities may improve the project economics and need further
investigation:
Selective mining: The Mineral Resource and the PEA have assumed a bulk
approach to mining. The economics of the project may be optimised by selective
mining of the mineralised packages contained in the CMA combined with further pit
optimisation. Increased selectivity would allow for reduced blocks sizes in the
model, resulting in lower dilution and higher grades to supplement the lower grades
of Yaoure Central.
Equipment optimisation: Given the bulk nature of the mining in Yaoure mine
plans and the relative proportion of mining operating costs, there is potential for
future optimisation of the size of the equipment fleet compared to what was
considered in the PEA.A trade-off on contract versus owner-operator equipment will
be required as the project advances.
Process selection: With favourable metallurgy and Yaoure ores amenability to a

number of conventional processing methods, items such pre-concentration via
flotation and/or gravity need further testing and evaluation, to see if capital and
operating savings can be achieved. Also SAG milling has been excluded based on
one rod mill test results further test work is required to confirm this approach.
Page 25-260

APRIL 2014
Project layout: Depending on the processing route taken, there is further potential
to optimise the locations of site infrastructure such as the waste storage facility,
tailing storage facility and the mill site to take greater advantage of the project
topography, thus reducing total operating costs.
Staged development: The capital spending profile of Yaoure project may benefit
from staged development approach, particularly with regards to mill capacity,
process route and the mining and processing schedule of oxide & sulphide material
to reduce start-up capital requirements.
Heap leach plant relocation: An opportunity exists to develop oxides in short term
assuming the relocation to site of the 1.6 Mt/a Kalsaka/Sega plant, which has an
estimated plant and infrastructure capital spend of USD 31.2 million.
Page 25-261

APRIL 2014
26.0
RECOMMENDATIONS
The results of the PEA indicate that the Project should be taken to the next level of
engineering study and economic assessment, typically a PFS, but it could be a FS.
It is estimated that a PFS, along with all of the accompanying engineering and field
work would cost approximately USD 2.5 million, exclusive of the recommended
additional geology and drilling program outlined below.
To enable a comprehensive prefeasibility or feasibility study to be completed, the
Inferred Resource component in the current resource estimate requires upgrading to
Indicated or Measured Resource categories.
26.1
Exploration
The recommended three phase exploration programme is therefore focused on infill
drilling:
(i)
Phase 1 - to bring the drill spacing across the whole predominantly Inferred
resource to a nominal 100m x 100m spacing,
(ii)
Phase 2 - nominal 50m x 50m drill spacing for Indicated Resources for the for
Indicated Resources for the Pre-feasibility Study, and
(iii)
Phase 3 - 25m x 25m drill spacing for Measured Resources for the Feasibility
Study. The first infill phase of 12,500m will be diamond drilling.
The second phase of 42,500m will be split between diamond drilling and RC drilling. In
addition, about 4500m of core drilling for geotechnical, hydrogeological and
metallurgical studies is recommended for the Pre-Feasibility Study. A further 30,000m
of drilling is anticipated for the third phase to bring a portion of the Indicated Resource
to Measured status. The total programme is budgeted as $14.4 million.
Table 26.1: Yaoure Infill Drilling Cost Estimates
Infill
Objective
Phase 1
Information
Gaps
Phase 2
Indicated
resource
Phase 3
Measured
Resource
TOTAL
Method
Drill
Spacing
Drilling
Metres
Cost
1
USD K
Drilling
2
Duration
DD
100m x
100m
12,500
2,500
1.5 months
50m x 50m
42,500
6,800
4 months
25m x 25m
30,000
5,100
3 months
85,000
14,400
8.5 months
DD + RC
DD + RC
1.
Includes all drilling, assay and Mineral Resource Estimation costs, plus staff and logistics costs.
2.
Based on 3-4 Diamond drill rigs and one RC rig.
3.
Approximately 70% diamond drilling and 30% RC.
4.
There is likely to be a break between Phase 2 and Phase 3, whilst PFS is completed.
Page 26-262

APRIL 2014
26.2
Metallurgy/process Recommendations
It is recommended that test work and process trade off studies are performed to cover
the following:
Mineralogy: develop an understanding of the gold association and the sulphide

mineralisation present in the ore and waste. This is specifically relevant to waste
handling to understand the potential for acid rock drainage.
Ore Characterisation and Comminution: UCS values, crusher indices and SAG
milling indices were not measured previously. It is recommended that this test work
is done at the next phase of the project to ascertain whether SAG is a viable option
and to improve the level of confidence in the design of the crushing and milling
systems. Further crushing and grinding tests should be undertaken to quantify
variability in rock hardness across the deposit.
Beneficiation: conduct further flotation and gravity separation test work, in
particular aimed at reducing the consumption of cyanide in concentrate leaching, to
better estimate the effects on capital and operating cost of installing gravity or
flotation circuits, and to review and validate process selection.
Conventional Leaching: continue leach tests to determine the optimal conditions
for leaching, including oxygen uptake rate tests to confirm whether low pressure
compressed air is able to supply sufficient oxygen or oxygen enrichment is
necessary.
Solid-Liquid Separation: should geotechnical testing of tailings confirm that
thickening is required ahead of the TMF, perform settling tests to determine the size
of the required thickener and rheological tests to direct design of the tailing pipeline.
Geometallurgy: develop a geometallurgical model of the deposit to quantify
variability of throughput rate, gold recovery and reagent consumption across the
deposit which will allow more accurate financial modelling and better operational
management and control.
Acid Generating Potential: conduct laboratory tests to measure the acidgenerating potential of waste rock and tailings to identify suitability of this material
for construction of the TMF retaining walls and any lining requirements for these or
the waste dump.
Geotechnical studies for key infrastructure
A detailed topographical survey will be required to validate the heap leach pad,
solution corridor, TMF embankments alignment and TMF storage capacity.
Tailings and foundation soil geotechnical laboratory and site investigation will need
to be undertaken to confirm earthworks volume and foundation soil geotechnical
characteristics and investigate potential borrow area for fill material.
Hydrological and hydrogeological investigations will need to be undertaken at the

next stage of study. Geotechnical and geochemical analysis of mine waste should
commence as soon as possible to validate Amaras preference for using approved
mine waste in the construction of TMF embankments.
Page 26-263

APRIL 2014
26.3
Mining recommendations
Undertake mine layout studies, including review the location of the plant site, waste
dumps and TMFs;
Conduct geotechnical and hydrological studies of the pit parameters to confirm key
design assumptions;
Review and optimise the haulage cycles and equipment selections, with respect to
both bulk or selective mining methods and waste dump locations;
Optimise mine planning aspects such at Year 1 production and pre-stripping

requirements, ramp designs to optimise the ramp up early cash flow.
Page 26-264

APRIL 2014
27.0
REFERENCES
Abraham, A 2013, Report for CLUFF Gold plc. Cte dIvoire SARL (Amara Mining) on
the methodology for building of the Grade shells for the Yaoure Gold Deposit Cte
dIvoire, 11 April 2013. Unpublished Report.
Allieres, A 2013, Geophysical modelling and interpretation over Yaoure Deposit, Cte
dIvoire, Unpublished PGN Report 7/2013 for Amara Mining, April 2013, 23 pages.
AMC Consultants Ltd (UK), Yaoure Gold Project, Cte dIvoire: Technical Report and
Mineral Resource Estimates for Amara Mining Plc. NI 43-101 Report with effective
date 25 March, 2013.
AMEC Earth & Environmental UK Ltd, 2014, Scoping Study - Processing Facilities and
Site Infrastructure - Yaoure Gold Project, Cte dIvoire 11 April 2014, Unpublished
report for Amara Mining plc.
Baker, M 2011, Remote sensing/magnetics interpretation of Yaoure permit, Cte
dIvoire, Job No.211, June 2012, 11 pages.
Bond, W, 2013a, Final Summation Report for the Yaoure Project, new logging system
and interpretations, 4 May 2013, 22 pages.
Bond, W, 2013b, Report on the Cluff Gold (WA) CI Yaoure Mining SA Project, 10 July
2013, 91 pages.
Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy, and Petroleum. CIM DEFINITION
STANDARDS - For Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves. November 27, 2010.
Coulibaly, Y, Boiron, M, Cathelineau, M, & Kouamelan, A 2008, Fluid immiscibility and
gold deposition in the Birimian quartz veins of the Angovia deposit (Yaoure, Ivory
Coast), Journal of African Earth Sciences Volume 50, pp. 234-254.
Deustch, C.V., DECLUS: a FORTRAN 77 Program for Determining Optimum Spatial
Declustering Weights, Computers & Geosciences, 15(3): 325-332, 1989.
Deustch, C.V., and Journel, A.G., GSLIB: A Geostatistical Software Library and Users
Guide, Oxford University Press, New York, 340p., plus CD-ROM, 1997.
GeoSystems International, Inc, 2014, Yaoure Gold Project, Cte DIvoire; Technical
Report and Mineral Resource Estimates. NI 43-101 Report with effective date 13
January 2014.
Isaaks, E.H., SAGE2001 Documentation, www.isaaks.com, 68pp, 2001.
Isaaks, E.H., and Srivastava, R.M., An Introduction to Applied Geostatistics, Oxford
University Press, 561p, 1989.
Journel, A.G., and Huijbregts, Ch.J., Mining Geostatistics, Academic Press, 600p,
1978.
Page 27-265

APRIL 2014
Kerr, D 2012, Geological Interpretation and Controls on Gold Mineralization at the

Yaoure Gold Deposit, Cte dIvoire, Unpublished report for Yaoure Mining SARL, 26
November 2012, 22 pages.
Le Roux, T 2012, High Resolution Airborne Magnetic and Radiometric Survey
Interpretation Report, Yaoure Area, Xcalibur Airborne Geophysics, June 2012, 27
pages, Unpublished report for Amara Mining plc.
Lompo, M 2010, Paleoproterozoic structural evolution of the Man-Leo Shield (West
Africa). Key structures for vertical to transcurrent tectonics, Journal of African Earth
Sciences, Volume 58, pp. 19-36.
Milesi, JP, Ledru, P, Feybesse, J L, Dommanget, A & Marcoux, E 1992, Early
Proterozoic ore deposits and tectonics of the Birimian orogenic belt, West Africa,
Precambrian Research Volume 58, pp. 305-344.
Robert, F, Poulsen, KH & Dube, B, 1997, Gold Deposits and Their Geological
Classification, Proceedings of Exploration Geochemistry Volume 97 Paper 29, pp.
209-291.
Rossi, M.E. and Parker, H.M., Estimating Recoverable Reserves: Is It Hopeless?,
presented at the Forum 'Geostatistics for the Next Century', Montreal, Quebec,
Canada, June 3-5, 1993.
SGS, 2012a, Scoping Metallurgical Report on a Gold Ore from Cte dIvoire Project
Number 10866-321, 16 April 2012, Unpublished report for Amara Mining plc.
SGS 2012b Variability Cyanidation Report on a Gold Ore from Cte dIvoire Project
Number 10866-375, 5 December 2012, Unpublished report for Amara Mining plc.
SGS 2012c Phase Two Scoping Testwork on Yaoure Sulphide Ore Project Number
10866-395 dated 15th May 2013, Unpublished report for Amara Mining plc.
SGS 2012d Further Metallurgical Testwork on Samples from the Yaoure Gold Deposit,
Cte dIvoire Project Number 10866-425 dated 14th November 2013, Unpublished
report for Amara Mining plc.
SGS Environmental, 2014, Scoping Metallurgical Report on a Gold Ore from Cte
dIvoire Yaoure Gold Project - Preliminary Environmental Assessment, 13 March
2014, Unpublished report for Amara Mining plc.
Srivastava, R.M., and Parker, H.M., Robust Measures of Spatial Continuity, in M.
Amstrong, Ed., Geostatistics, pp. 295-308, Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland, 1988.
SRK Consulting 2008, Technical review of the Angovia gold mine, Mount Yaoure,
Cte dIvoire, NI 43-101 report for Cluff Gold PLC, 16 October 2008.
Steenkamp, W 2012, Observed Airborne Magnetic and Radiometric Signatures in the
Immediate Vicinity of the Angovia Deposit, Xcalibur Airborne Geophysics, June 2012,
13 pages, Unpublished report for Amara Mining plc.
Page 27-266

APRIL 2014
Vidal, M, Gumiaux, C , Cagnard, F, Pouclet, A G. Ouattara, G & M. Pichon, M 2009,

Evolution of a Paleoproterozoic weak type orogeny in the West African Craton (Ivory
Coast), Tectonophysics Volume 477, pp.145-159.
Page 27-267

APRIL 2014
APPENDICES
Appendix Page 1

APRIL 2014
APPENDIX A
Process & Infrastructure Risks & Opportunities
Appendix Page 2

APRIL 2014
Sulphides Plant and Infrastructure Risks and Opportunities
Risk/Opportunity
Explanation
Potential Impact
Potential Mitigation
Assumed gold recovery

too high/low
The recovery values selected for the Study are

based on limited test work.
Gold production/revenue values not correct.
Perform metallurgical test work based on a

sample selection programme/geometallurgical
evaluation.
Inaccurate topographical
base data
Project topographical map currently based on

low resolution satellite data only
Inaccurate earthworks volume estimation.

Inaccurate TMF storage capacity
More detailed survey will improve quantities

estimation accuracy
Climate report and water

management
The water balance defines the overall water

management strategy and costs
Excess storm water can cause significant

operating issues
Gather additional information on the

precipitation characteristics on site
Geotechnical assessment
No geotechnical assessment has been

undertaken to assess the soil foundation
strength and to identify potential fill sources
Lack of geotechnical data could affect heap

area requirement and TMF embankment slope
assumptions. A decrease in slope angles
would negatively impact on project economics
due to increased heap leaching area and TMF
embankment fill requirements.
Geotechnical site and laboratory

investigation/evaluation for next level of study
to develop reliable geotechnical models
Geochemical assessment
No geochemical laboratory testing has been

conducted to assess the potential of Acid Rock
Drainage
Specific monitoring and ARD control method

could be required to contain potential
contamination
Geochemical laboratory
investigation/evaluation for next level of study
Base data on water

quality and villages water
supply
No assessment has been undertaken to

identify possible path and receptors,
monitoring water quality, identify villages
water supply and to assess the transport fate
of contaminants from the tailings water
Implication of inaccurate assumptions on

detoxification requirement could impact
operating costs
Laboratory testing to assess cyanide and other

contaminant levels and determine impact on
environment and water supply detoxification
requirement
Appendix Page 3

APRIL 2014
Risk/Opportunity
Explanation
Potential Impact
Environmental/social
impact of location of
TMFs
Impact of TMF location on local communitys

exclusion areas (sacred forest areas,
cemeteries)
Risk of onerous mitigation measures which

require to be incorporated into technical design
Evaluate alternative TMF locations in greater

detail during further phases of study
TMF embankment fill

material won from open
pit pre-stripping works
Capital cost of suitable earth fill material for

embankment construction will influence the
overall project economics. No assessment has
been made of suitability of earth fill from open
pit pre-stripping works for embankment fill
Lack of suitable earth fill from open pit prestripping works at time of construction can
increase capital investment
Geotechnical and geochemical (ARD potential)

site and laboratory investigation/evaluation for
next level of study to identify alternative earth
fill sources
Laterite material to be
used for Heap Leach Pad
over liner-cushion layer
Over liner material (crushed gravel or naturally

sourced laterite) can have significant impact on
Heap Leach Pad capital cost
Availability of locally sourced laterite can

significantly reduce cost
Investigation/evaluation to assess suitability of

laterite material as over liner
No HDPE liner for the

proposed TMF
The requirement for a HDPE liner can have

significant impact on capital cost
Permeability of natural basal liner and potential

contamination of groundwater due to tailings
water seepage could lead to the requirement
for a HDPE liner and significant additional cost
Hydrogeological investigation of TMF

impoundment area to address the requirement
of HDPE liner
Ore hardness (Rod Mill

Work Index) is extremely
high
SAG milling
Cannot be certain of sample representivity.
Size of comminution equipment and power

requirement may be overstated
Perform further RMWI (and BMWI) tests on

representative samples
SAG appears not to be viable due to very high

RMWI value.
Opex and capex may be higher or lower than

could be achieved
Perform SAG-specific lab tests to determine

whether sulphides are amenable to SAG
Kalsaka crushing plant is

not capable of crushing
1.6 Mt/a of Yaoure oxides
AMEC has not reviewed the inputs to the

USIMPAC simulation of the Kalsaka crushers
Oxide plant throughput less than current

specification
Confirm crushability parameters through

specific testing
Appendix Page 4

APRIL 2014
Risk/Opportunity
Preconcentration by
flotation
Explanation
Potential Impact
Test work has shown that flotation and

intensive cyanidation of concentrate can
recover >80 % of the gold. High cyanide
consumption currently makes this less
economic than WOL but reduction in this could
change the comparison.
Pump cells of a given size are more costly
than conventional adsorption tanks of the
same size but a smaller elution plant is
possible.
Density for placement of tailings on TMF has
been assumed for this study due to absence of
geotechnical or rheological characterisation
tests. Higher pumped densities may be better
for TMF operation or have lower capex/opex.
Significant reduction in capital cost of leach

and CIP plants with lower opex.
Lab test work to investigate potential to reduce

cyanide addition.
Costs currently estimated may not be as low

as could be achieved.
Trade-off study recommended
Reduction in Capex
Determine if thickener is required by

performing tailings settling and compaction
tests
Cyanide detoxification
opex assumed to be zero
on the basis that UV light
will destruct cyanide at
TMF.
Cost to upgrade HV
substation at
hydroelectric station may
be inaccurate
In times when water is not retained at TMF for

long enough, detoxification may be required.
Opex will be higher during these periods.
Ensure decant pond provides sufficient

residence time to allow cyanide destruction
Previous quote from CIE was for 10 MW

upgrade but switchgear costs appear high.
Cost for 40 MW upgrade has been estimated
from this quote.
Capital cost may vary from current estimate
Substation inspection and discussion with

utility company recommended during next
stage of study
Power may not be

available for the
hydroelectric station
The increase of power demand to ~40 MW

may exceed the requirements/allocation to
industry.
Capex increase due to the necessity of

installing additional power generation capacity.
Project delays due to the above.
Engage with power supply authorities early

and confirm power availability.
High cost of pump cells

may not be offset by
reduced elution costs
Cost of tailing thickener
not currently justified by
demonstrable reduction
in TMF cost
Appendix Page 5

APRIL 2014
APPENDIX B
Process Design Criteria Sulphides Plant
Appendix Page 6

APRIL 2014
Yaoure Project PEA
Process Design Criteria

Sulphides Leach
Document No. 130134-2000-1100-DSC-001
Document No:
130134-2000-1100-DSC-001
Document Holder:
Ian Jackson
Region:
Growth Regions
Division:
Mining & Metals
Revision
Prepared
Reviewed
Approved
(&Position)
Date
Description
I Jackson
6 Jan 2014
I Jackson
Z El-Ansary
Z El-Ansary
8 Jan 2014
For Client Review
I Jackson
Z El-Ansary
Z El-Ansary
12 Feb 2014
Issued for Study
Appendix Page 7

APRIL 2014
Table of Contents
1.
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 9
2.
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 9
3.
DESIGN CRITERIA................................................................................................................... 11
3.1
General ........................................................................................................................ 11
3.2
Crushing ....................................................................................................................... 12
3.3
Milling ........................................................................................................................... 13
3.4
Leaching ....................................................................................................................... 14
3.5
Adsorption .................................................................................................................... 14
3.6
Elution, regeneration, electrowinning, smelting ........................................................... 15
3.7
Tailing thickening ......................................................................................................... 16
3.8
Detoxification ................................................................................................................ 16
3.9
Reagents ...................................................................................................................... 17
Appendix Page 8

APRIL 2014
1.
INTRODUCTION
The Yaoure Project is an extension of previous mining and processing of oxide ores at
the Yaoure mine (previously known as Angovia) to include primary sulphide ore below
the existing pits. Amara Mining plc (Amara) has undertaken some laboratory testing of
samples of drill core extracted during resource estimation which indicates that the
sulphide ore is not refractory. AMEC has reviewed these test results and the process
route and throughput upon which a Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) will be
based has been agreed with Amara.
This document describes the process design criteria to form the basis of the design of
the processing facilities and required site services for the PEA. Together with the
Block Flow Diagram, these criteria are the basis for definition of the mass balance and
equipment specifications. The design criteria and the associated mass balances will
be used to derive capital cost estimates and schedules for operating requirements such
as power, reagents and consumables, etc. Any recovery or similar data presented
herein are used for the purpose of this study only and are not statements of predicted
plant performance.
The design criteria have been based on data from various sources and each criterion is
referenced to its respective source. It is of particular importance to note areas in which
assumptions have been made that require verification.
This design criteria document is to be read in conjunction with the block flow diagram.
2.
REFERENCES
The process design criteria are derived from a variety of sources. All data is
referenced to a source to ensure that the basis of the information is fully understood.
Codes 1 to 10 are a standard set of codes where Code 9 and 10 are available for
additional standard references relevant to the project/client requirements. Information
included in the Specific reference section is referenced to documents in a Reference
Data bank where all references used for the PDC are catalogued under consecutive
numbers.
Appendix Page 9

APRIL 2014
CODE
SOURCE OF INFORMATION AND DATA
Client advice/correspondence
Agreement between client and AMEC
Test work data
AMEC recommendation
AMEC experience/database
Calculated data
Assumed or estimated data
Vendor data
9
10
11
Scoping Metallurgical Test Report, SGS, 16 April 2012
12
Scoping Phase 2 Metallurgical Test Report, SGS, 15 May 2013
13
Further Metallurgical Test Report, SGS, 14 November 2013
14
15
NI 43-101 Technical Report, AMC Consultants, 25 March 2013
to 19
Mineral Resource Estimate, Amara Mining plc, 13 December 2013
TBA
(Free use, e.g. a specific document)

To be advised
TBC
To be confirmed
Reference to a document number in the Project Reference Data Bank
20
onwards
Appendix Page 10

APRIL 2014
3.
DESIGN CRITERIA
3.1
General
Units
Value/Comment
40 km NW of Yamoussoukro,
central Cte dIvoire
0701' North
Ref
Rev
12
Longitude
0531' West
Elevation
masl
TBC
Rainfall
Minimum annual
Location
Latitude
mm
850
Average annual
mm
1,160
Maximum annual
mm
1,438
mm
829
79,676,371
g/t
1.44
13
Sulphur
TBA
Solids density (mean)
t/m
2.77
% w/w
Average
% w/w
Minimum
% w/w
kWh/t
26.3
11
Measured range
kWh/t
13.9 14.8
9,10
Design
kWh/t
14.8
0.1816
11
h/d
24
d/y
365
Crushing
75
Milling, leaching
93
Crushing
h/y
6,570
Milling, leaching
h/y
8,150
Evaporation rate per annum
Ore characteristics
Resource (Indicated + Inferred)
Head grade
Gold
Run-of-mine moisture content

Maximum
Bond rod mill work index

Bond ball mill work index
Bond abrasion index

Plant operation
Daily
Annual
Overall availability/utilisation
Annual operating hours
Appendix Page 11

APRIL 2014
t/y
6,500,000
Units
Value/Comment
Ref
Rev
t/h
989
t/h
1,000
mm
900
Jaw
178
Number of screens
Screen aperture
mm
60
3.0
9.1
Cone
Osborn T900
Number of units
Closed side setting
50
Ore to plant
Crushing
3.2
General
Average crushing rate
Design crushing rate
ROM top size
Primary crushing
Crusher type
Number of units
Open side setting
mm
Secondary crushing
Screen dimensions
Width
Length
Crusher type
Model
mm
Tertiary crushing
Number of screens
Screen aperture
Top deck
mm
25
Bottom deck
mm
15
3.0
9.1
Screen dimensions
Width
Length
Crusher type
Model
Number of units
Closed side setting
mm
Appendix Page 12
Cone
Osborn T900
13

APRIL 2014
Product size (d80)
Units
Value/Comment
Ref
Rev
mm
11
Units
Value/Comment
Ref
Rev
t/h
798
t/h
800
Single stage
Milling
3.3
Average milling rate

Design milling rate
Configuration
Number of modules
Feed size
d100
mm
15
d80
mm
11
Mill feed storage

Type
Capacity
Silo
Ball
Overflow
Closed
7.62
Mill type
Discharge arrangement
Circuit
Number of mills
Size of mills
Diameter
Length
Mill speed
Charge volume
Mill discharge density
Power at pinion
13.26
% of critical
75
30
% solids
70
kW
13,000
Number of drive trains
Motor rating (each)
kW
7,500
Ball size
mm
75
Media consumption
kg/t
1.30
Classification method
Hydrocyclones
Circulating load ratio
250
9,10
Product slurry density
% solids
45
106
10
Vibrating
Product size
d80
Trash screening
Screen type
Appendix Page 13

APRIL 2014
mm
0.6
Width
TBC
Length
TBC
Aperture
Screen dimensions
TBC
Number of units
Leaching
3.4
Units
Value/Comment
Ref
Rev
24
Number of tanks
Gold extraction
95
13
% solids
40
t/m
m
1.34
4,452
Diameter
18
Height
19
kW
132
Total retention time
Feed slurry density

Live volume per tank
Tank dimensions
Agitator motor rating

Oxygen
Concentration in process slurry
mg/l
TBC
Consumption
kg/d
10,000
8,7
Cyanide
Form
Sodium cyanide solution
Concentration in process slurry
g/l
0.5
Addition rate
kg/t
0.54
10.5
kg/t
1.09
13
95
Units
Value/Comment
Ref
Rev
minutes
100
1.34
Lime
Process slurry pH
Consumption
Leach extraction efficiency
3.5
Adsorption
Total retention time

Number of tanks
Feed slurry density
t/m
Appendix Page 14

APRIL 2014
Feed slurry solution gold concentration
mg/l
0.781
350
Diameter
TBC
Height
TBC
kW
55
Kemix pump cell
0.6
20 m
Included in agitator drive
Live volume per tank

Tank dimensions
Agitator motor rating

Interstage screens
Type
Aperture
mm
Model
Motor rating
kW
Number per stage

Adsorption efficiency
Stage
50
Overall
98.4
mg/l
0.012
Carbon concentration
g/l
50
Loaded carbon gold grade
g/t
2,095
Production rate of loaded carbon
t/d
8.8
Carbon loss
g/t
18
Vibrating
mm
0.6
Width
1.22
Length
3.66
Value/Comment
Ref
Rev
AARL
Number of modules
Elutions per day per module
Tailing solution gold concentration
Carbon safety screening

Screen type
Aperture
Screen size
Number of units
3.6
Elution, regeneration, electrowinning, smelting

Units
Elution method
Batch size
Cycle duration
Cyanide addition
Caustic addition
t
h
kg NaCN
/batch
kg NaOH
/batch
Appendix Page 15
12
414
540

APRIL 2014
Acid treatment
Hydrochloric
619
Regeneration kiln type
Rotary
Heat source
Electric
kg/h
450
176
Units
Value/Comment
Ref
Rev
% solids
35
Thickener underflow density
% solids
>50
Flocculant addition
Solids loading
g/t
t/(m h)
20
0.64
1,600
40
Units
Value/Comment
Ref
Rev
SO2/air
% solids
>50
650
Sodium metabisulphite
Air
Copper sulphate
Acid consumption
Carbon throughput
kg HCl
/batch
Volume of eluate
Per batch
3.7
Tailing thickening
Thickener feed density
Thickener area
Number of units
Thickener diameter
3.8
Detoxification
Method
Retention time
Number of stages
Feed slurry density
Tank volume
SO2 source
Addition rate
kg/t
Oxygen source
Catalyst
Addition rate
kg/t
Appendix Page 16

APRIL 2014
Reagents
3.9
Units
Value/Comment
Ref
Bulk
Rev
Lime
Received form
Storage
Consumption rate
m
kg/t
250
1.09
13
kg/d
20,928
t/m
628
t/d
10
Briquettes
Oxygen
Consumption rate (maximum)
Cyanide
Received form
Consumption rate
0.54
Elution
kg/t
kg/t
Total
kg/t
0.56
293
Elution
t/m
t/m
Total
t/m
306
25
Leach
0.02
Consumption
Leach
Solution make-up concentration
13
Hydrochloric acid
Received form
Consumption rate
Solution concentration
Bulk liquid
kg/t
0.16
t/m
63
30
Sodium hydroxide
Received form
Consumption rate
Solid
kg/t
0.06
t/m
33
Sodium metabisulphite
Received form
Consumption rate
Solid
kg/t
Flocculant
Received form
Total consumption rate
Dry powder
g/t
20
t/m
11
Appendix Page 17

APRIL 2014
APPENDIX C
Process Design Criteria Oxides Plant
Appendix Page 18

APRIL 2014
Yaoure Project PEA
Process Design Criteria

Oxides Leach
Document No. 130134-2000-1100-DSC-001
Document No:
130134-2000-1100-DSC-001
Document Holder:
Ian Jackson
Region:
Growth Regions
Division:
Mining & Metals
Revision
Prepared
I Jackson
I Jackson
Reviewed
Approved
Date
Description
?
Z El-Ansary
Z El-Ansary
Appendix Page 19
12 Feb 2014
Issued for study

APRIL 2014
Table of Contents
1.
INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................... 21
2.
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 21
3.
DESIGN CRITERIA................................................................................................................... 23
3.1
General ........................................................................................................................ 23
3.2
Crushing ....................................................................................................................... 24
3.3
Agglomeration .............................................................................................................. 25
3.4
Heap Leaching ............................................................................................................. 25
3.5
Adsorption .................................................................................................................... 26
3.6
Elution, regeneration, electrowinning, smelting ........................................................... 26
3.7
Reagents ...................................................................................................................... 27
Appendix Page 20

APRIL 2014
1.
INTRODUCTION
The Yaoure Project is an extension of previous mining and processing of oxide ores at
the Yaoure mine (previously known as Angovia) to include primary sulphide ore below
the existing pits. Amara Mining plc (Amara) has undertaken some laboratory testing of
samples of drill core extracted from the sulphide zone during resource estimation which
indicates that the sulphide ore is not refractory. AMEC has reviewed these test results
and the process route and throughput upon which a Preliminary Economic Assessment
(PEA) will be based has been agreed with Amara.
This document describes the process design criteria applicable to crushing and heap
leaching of oxide material. It is presently assumed that the plants to be used for
crushing and ADR will be relocated from Kalsaka. Design criteria for those plants have
been included where they are available. The criteria applicable to milling and leaching
of sulphide material are described in document 130134-2000-1100-DSC-001.
Together with the Block Flow Diagram, these criteria are the basis for definition of the
mass balance and equipment specifications. The design criteria and the associated
mass balances will be used to derive capital cost estimates and schedules for
operating requirements such as power, reagents and consumables. Any recovery or
similar data presented herein are for the purpose of this study only and are not
statements of predicted plant performance.
2.
REFERENCES
The process design criteria are derived from a variety of sources. All data is
referenced to a source to ensure that the basis of the information is fully understood.
Codes 1 to 10 are a standard set of codes where Code 9 and 10 are available for
additional standard references relevant to the project/client requirements. Information
included in the Specific reference section is referenced to documents in a Reference
Data bank where all references used for the PDC are catalogued under consecutive
numbers.
Appendix Page 21

APRIL 2014
CODE
SOURCE OF INFORMATION AND DATA
Client advice/correspondence
Agreement between client and AMEC
Test work data
AMEC recommendation
AMEC experience/database
Calculated data
Assumed or estimated data
Vendor data
9
10
11
Scoping Metallurgical Test Report, SGS, 16 April 2012
12
Scoping Phase 2 Metallurgical Test Report, SGS, 15 May 2013
13
Metallurgical Test Report, SGS, 14 November 2013
14
15
NI 43-101 Technical Report, AMC Consultants, 25 March 2013
to 19
TBA
TBC
Mineral Resource Estimate, Amara Mining plc, 13 December 2013

(Free use, e.g. a specific document)
To be advised
To be confirmed
20
onwards
Appendix Page 22

APRIL 2014
3.
DESIGN CRITERIA
3.1
General
Units
Location
Latitude
Value/Comment
40 km NW of Yamoussoukro,
central Cte dIvoire
0701' North
Ref
Rev
12
0531' West
Longitude
Elevation (approx)
masl
200
Rainfall
Minimum annual
mm
850
Average annual
mm
1,160
Maximum annual
mm
1,438
mm
829
8,891,837
Gold
g/t
1.35
Sulphur
TBA
Solids density (mean)
t/m
2.77
% w/w
% w/w
Minimum
% w/w
Bond rod mill work index
kWh/t
26.3
11
kWh/t
13.9 14.8
9,10
kWh/t
14.8
0.1816
11
Evaporation rate per annum
Ore characteristics
Resource (Inferred)
Head grade
Run-of-mine moisture content

Maximum
Average
Bond ball mill work index

Measured range
Design
Bond abrasion index
Plant operation
Daily
h/d
24
Annual
d/y
365
75
95
h/y
6,570
h/y
8,322
Overall availability/utilisation
Crushing & stacking
Leaching, ADR
Annual operating hours
Crushing
Leaching, ADR
Appendix Page 23

APRIL 2014
Ore to plant
Units
Value/Comment
Ref
Rev
t/y
1,600,000
Units
Value/Comment
Ref
Rev
t/h
244
mm
600
Vibrating grizzly feeder
Crushing
3.2
General
Average crushing rate
ROM top size
Primary crushing first stage
Scalper
Model
TBC
Crusher type
Jaw
30 x 42
101.6
Number of screens
Screen aperture
mm
75
0.9
3.6
Jaw
24 x 36
Number of units
Closed side setting
50
Model
Number of units
Closed side setting
mm
Primary crushing second stage
Screen dimensions
Width
Length
Crusher type
Model
mm
Secondary crushing first stage

Number of screens
Screen aperture
Top deck
mm
30
Bottom deck
mm
13
1.8
4.8
Cone
Screen dimensions
Width
Length
Crusher type
Appendix Page 24

APRIL 2014
Number of units
Model
Closed side setting
mm
Symons 4'
19
Secondary crushing second stage

Number of screens
Screen aperture
Top deck
mm
20
Bottom deck
mm
13
2.4
6.7
Cone
Symons 5'
mm
13
units
Value/Comment
Ref
Rev
TBC
TBC
1
Cement
kg/t
14
% by weight
10
m/t
2.22
Units
Value/Comment
Ref
Rev
t/y
1,600,000
t/h
244
Maximum heap height

Irrigation rate
14
Normal
l/(h m)
10
Design
l/(h m)
12
Screen dimensions
Width
Length
Crusher type
Number of units
Model
Closed side setting
Agglomeration
3.3
Drum dimensions
Diameter
Length
Number of units
Agglomerating agent
Addition rate
Moisture content of agglomerates
Water addition
Heap Leaching
3.4
Stacking rate
Lift height
Appendix Page 25

APRIL 2014
Units
Irrigation system
Ref
Rev
Drip
Sodium hydroxide
pH adjustment
Consumption
Value/Comment
kg/t
0.042
Units
Value/Comment
Ref
Rev
Ref
Rev
Adsorption
3.5
Number of stages
Feed solution gold concentration
TBC
mg/l
TBC
Diameter
TBC
Height
TBC
Tank dimensions
Carbon safety screening

TBC
Screen type
Aperture
mm
TBC
TBC
Screen size
Width
TBC
Length
TBC
TBC
Number of units
Elution, regeneration, electrowinning, smelting
3.6
Units
Elution method
Number of modules
Elutions per day per module

Batch size
Cyanide addition
Caustic addition
t
kg NaCN per
elution
kg NaOH per
elution
2.5
92
120
Hydrochloric
Acid treatment
Acid consumption
Value/Comment
Zadra
kg HCl per
elution
138
TBC
Regeneration kiln type
Diesel
Heat source
Carbon throughput
Nominal
kg/h
Appendix Page 26
100 (TBC)

APRIL 2014
Reagents
3.7
Units
Value/Comment
Ref
Rev
25
Heap leach
kg/t
0.48
Elution
kg/t
0.02
kg/t
0.50
30
kg/t
0.1
Heap leach
kg/t
0.042
Elution
kg/t
0.03
kg/t
14
t/m
2,460
Cyanide
Consumption rate
Hydrochloric acid
Consumption rate
Sodium hydroxide
Consumption rate
Portland cement
Appendix Page 27

APRIL 2014
APPENDIX D
Design Criteria - TMFs
Appendix Page 28

APRIL 2014
Yaoure Project PEA

Design Criteria
Document No. 130134-3100-1600-DSC-001
Document No:
130134-3100-1600-DSC-001
Document Holder:
Ciaran Molloy
Region:
Growth Regions
Division:
Mining & Metals
Revision
A
Prepared
E. Spadafora
Reviewed
Approved
(&Position)
C. Molloy
Date
9 Jan 2014
Appendix Page 29
Description

APRIL 2014
Table of Contents
1.
INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................... 31
2.
DESIGN STANDARD AND GUIDELINES ................................................................................ 31
3.
DESIGN CRITERIA................................................................................................................... 34
3.1
Site Location ................................................................................................................ 34
3.2
Climatological ............................................................................................................... 34
3.3
Plant Operation ............................................................................................................ 35
3.4
TMF Operating Requirements ..................................................................................... 36
3.5
Seepage Pond ............................................................................................................. 36
Appendix Page 30

APRIL 2014
1.
INTRODUCTION
AMEC E&E (AMEC) has been appointed by Amara Mining plc (Amara) to undertake a
Preliminary Economic Analysis (PEA) of the Yaoure Gold Project in Cte dIvoire. The
study includes a preliminary economic assessment of the Tailings Management Facility
(TMF) associated with Yaoure Gold Project
This document describes the design criteria to form the basis for the PEA of the TMF.
2.
DESIGN STANDARD AND GUIDELINES

The following standards and guidelines are used for the design of the TMF:
European Commission Directive 2006/21/EC Management of Waste from the

Extractive Industries
European Commission (2009) Reference Document on Best Available

Technologies for the Management of Tailings and Waste-Rock on Mining Activities
European Commission Decision (2009/337/EC) Classification of Waste Facilities in

accordance with Annex III of Directive 2006/21/EC
IFC General EHS Guidelines (Discharge)
IFC EHS Guidelines for Mining (Discharge)
EU Ambient Water Quality Guidelines
International Cyanide Management Institute (2012) The International Cyanide

Management Code
Mining Association of Canada (MAC, 2011) A Guide to the Management of Tailings

Facilities
Dept. Of Minerals and Energy, Western Australia (DME, 1999) Guidelines on the
Safe Design and Operating Standards for Tailings Storage
South African Bureau of Standards (SANS 10286) Code of Practice for Mine
Residue Deposits
British Standards BS EN 1997 Eurocode 7 Geotechnical Design
Australian Committee on Large Dams (ANCOLD, 2012 Draft) Guidelines On

Tailings Dams Planning, Design, Construction, Operation And Closure
International Committee on Large Dams (ICOLD) Bulletin 45 (1982) Manual on

tailings dams and dumps
ICOLD Bulletin 97 (1994) Tailings Dams - Design of drainage
Appendix Page 31

APRIL 2014
ICOLD Bulletin 98 (1995) Tailings Dams and Seismicity - Review and

Recommendations
ICOLD Bulletin 101 (1995) Tailings Dams. Transport. Placement. Decantation Review and recommendations
ICOLD Bulletin 103 (1996) Tailings Dams and Environment - Review and
Recommendations
ICOLD Bulletin 106 (1996) A guide to Tailings Dams and impoundments - Design,
construction, use and rehabilitation
ICOLD Bulletin 121 (2001) Tailings dams risk of dangerous occurrences - Lessons
learnt from practical experiences.
ICOLD Bulletin 139 (2011) Improving tailings dam safety - Critical aspects of
management, design, operation and closure
ICOLD Bulletin 163 (2013) Sustainable design and post-closure performance of

tailings dams
In addition, technical papers and other publications are referenced for the design of
specific items (to be detailed in final report). The following list is provided as an
example:
Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) Report 33

(1978). The Hydraulic Design of Stepped Spillways
CIRIA Special Publication 142 (1997) Design of Stepped Block Spillways
US Dept of Interior (1982) Surface Water Mining Diversion Design Manual
Blight G.E. and Bentel G.M., (1983) The behaviour of mine tailings during hydraulic
deposition
Davies, M.P., Chin, B.G. & Dawson, B.G. 1998. Static liquefaction slump of mine
tailings.
Paterson & Cooke. 2012. The Design of Slurry Pipeline Systems
Appendix Page 32

APRIL 2014
Design Input Codes

A
Assumed
Calculated
Client
GT
I
Geotehcnical Testwork
Industry practice
MT
Metallurgical Testwork
Information by Others
Published Information
AM
AMEC
Appendix Page 33

APRIL 2014
3.
DESIGN CRITERIA
3.1
Site Location
Item
Latitude
Longitude
Units
0701' North
0531' West
Degrees, Minutes
Generated from ASTGTM2 30
m Satellite Digital Elevation
Model data
Topographical Map
3.2
Value/Description
Design
Input
Source Reference
Rev
AM
GoogleEarth (Angovia Mine Site)
AM
NASA - ASTER Global Digital Elevation Map
Climatological
Item
Value/Description
Design Input
Source Reference
Rev
Angovia 2007 EIA

(Yamoussouko Station)
Design Storm Event

5-Year, 24 hr
97.4 mm
10-Year, 24 hr
100-Year, 24 hr
Diversion Channel System
Average Monthly Precipitation Data (mm)
112 mm
159 mm
100-Year, 24 hr
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
12.8
41
89.4
118
167.9
185.8
Appendix Page 34
Angovia 2007 EIA


APRIL 2014
Item
Average Monthly Evaporation Data (mm)
3.3
Value/Description
Design Input
Source Reference
Rev
Angovia 2007 EIA

120
90.6
148.4
116.7
53
16.7
104.2
117.8
108.3
80.2
63.7
48.3
48.1
46.3
47.6
50.3
54.7
59.7
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Plant Operation
Item
Value/Description
Design
Input
Source Reference
Rev
AMEC Process Workshop (19/12/2013)
Tailings Slurry Production Rate

Yearly
6.5 Mt
Operating hours/year
8,150
A
Appendix Page 35

APRIL 2014
Tailings Slurry Characteristics
Solids SG
Slurry SG
Solids % Slurry
3.4
TBA
TBA
50
TMF Operating Requirements

Item
Total tailings tonnage

Design Life
TMF Embankment
Design
Input
Source Reference
80 Mt
AM
AMEC Process Workshop (19/12/2013)
~13 years
Value/Description
Upstream Slope
3H:1V
Downstream Slope
Crest width
3H:1V
8m
Min. 2.0 m between embankment
crest lower point and pond operating
level plus allowance from inflow for
PMF
Minimum tailings freeboard
3.5
A
A
Rev
AM
Seepage Pond
Item
Design Storm Event
Design
Input
Value/Description
100-Year, 24 hr
Appendix Page 36
Source Reference
Rev
A

APRIL 2014
Item
Minimum Freeboard
Slope
Minimum Storage
Value/Description
0.8 metres above full operational
level plus allowance from inflow for
1:100 year 24hr rainfall
Design
Input
Source Reference
Rev
South Africa - National Water Act, 1998

(Act No.36 of 1998)
3H:1V
AM
5 days seepage water from TMF

plus 1:100 year 24hr rainfall
AM
Appendix Page 37

APRIL 2014
APPENDIX E
Design Criteria Heap Leach
Appendix Page 38

APRIL 2014
Yaoure Project PEA
Heap Leach Pad and Solution Ponds

Design Criteria
Document No. 130134-25400-1600-DSC-001
Document No:
130134-2540-1600-DSC-001
Document Holder:
Ciaran Molloy
Region:
Growth Regions
Division:
Mining & Metals
Revision
A
Prepared
E. Spadafora
Reviewed
Approved
(&Position)
C. Molloy
Date
9 Jan 2014
Appendix Page 39
Description

APRIL 2014
Table of Contents
1.
INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................... 41
2.
DESIGN STANDARD AND GUIDELINES ................................................................................ 41
3.
DESIGN CRITERIA................................................................................................................... 43
3.1
Site Location ................................................................................................................ 43
3.2
Climatological ............................................................................................................... 43
3.3
HLP Operating Requirements ...................................................................................... 44
3.4
HLP Solution Application And Recovery ...................................................................... 45
3.5
Ore Properties .............................................................................................................. 46
3.6
Conveying And Stacking .............................................................................................. 46
3.7
Solution Ponds ............................................................................................................. 47
Appendix Page 40

APRIL 2014
1.
INTRODUCTION
AMEC E&E (AMEC) has been appointed by Amara Mining plc (Amara) to undertake a
Preliminary Economic Analysis (PEA) of the Yaoure Gold Project in Cte dIvoire. The
study includes a preliminary economic assessment of the Heap Leach Pad (HLP)
associated with the Yaoure Gold Project
This document describes the design criteria to form the basis for the PEA of the HLP
and Solution Ponds.
2.
DESIGN STANDARD AND GUIDELINES

The following standards and guidelines are used for the design of the HLP:
IFC General EHS Guidelines (Discharge)
IFC EHS Guidelines for Mining (Discharge)
EU Ambient Water Quality Guidelines
International Cyanide Management Institute (2012) The International Cyanide

Management Code
British Standards BS EN 1997 Eurocode 7 Geotechnical Design
Nevada Administrative Code Chapter 445A Water Controls Mining Facilities
Utah Department of Environmental Quality Design and Construction Guidance

Document for Precious Metal Extraction Facilities
Appendix Page 41

APRIL 2014
Design Input Codes

A
Assumed
Calculated
Client
GT
I
Geotehcnical Testwork
Industry practice
MT
Metallurgical Testwork
Information by Others
Published Information
AM
AMEC
Appendix Page 42

APRIL 2014
3.
DESIGN CRITERIA
3.1
Site Location
Item
Latitude
Longitude
Units
0701' North
0531' West
Degrees, Minutes
Generated from ASTGTM2 30
m Satellite Digital Elevation
Model data
Topographical Map
3.2
Value/Description
Design
Input
Source Reference
Rev
AM
GoogleEarth (Angovia Mine Site)
AM
NASA - ASTER Global Digital Elevation Map
Climatological
Item
Value/Description
Design Input
Source Reference
Rev
Angovia 2007 EIA

Design Storm Event

5-Year, 24 hr
97.4 mm
10-Year, 24 hr
100-Year, 24 hr
Diversion Channel System
Average Monthly Precipitation Data (mm)
112 mm
159 mm
100-Year, 24 hr
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
12.8
41
89.4
118
167.9
185.8
Appendix Page 43
Angovia 2007 EIA


APRIL 2014
Item
Average Monthly Evaporation Data (mm)
3.3
Value/Description
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
120
90.6
148.4
116.7
53
16.7
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
104.2
117.8
108.3
80.2
63.7
48.3
48.1
46.3
47.6
50.3
54.7
59.7
Design Input
Source Reference
Rev
Angovia 2007 EIA

HLP Operating Requirements

Item
Ore production Rate

Placement Method
HLP Capacity
Design Life
Value/Description
Design Input
1.6 Mtpa
Stacker / Conveyor
10 Mt
~6 years
A
A
A
B
Appendix Page 44
Source Reference
Rev
A
A
A
A

APRIL 2014
Item
No. of Lifts
Lift Thickness
Maximum Ore Depth
Ore Angle of Repose
Leak Detection System
Value/Description
Design Input
Source Reference
Rev
2
7m
7m
37
Underliner below primary collection pipes only
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
HLP Containment Configuration
Composite Liner System consisting of:
1.5 mm HDPE geomembrane
300 mm natural soil liner ripped and compacted
HLP Cushion Layer
600 mm crushed gravel roadways with lateritic gravel (TBC)
3.4
HLP Solution Application And Recovery

Item
Containment Requirements
Unit Solution Application Rate
Leach Area
Active Leach Method
Evaporation Rate from Active Leach Area
Minimum leach cycle time
Manning n
Minimum Gradient
Cell Area
No. of Cells
Value/Description
Design Input
Zero Discharge
2
12/l/hr m
TBC
Drip Irrigation
5%
120 days
0.01
2%
510 m x 75 m
16
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Appendix Page 45
Source Reference
Rev

APRIL 2014
Solution Conveyance Method
Leachate Recovery
3.5
Gravity Flow
HDPE perforated pipes:
250 mm primary
100 mm secondary @ 6 m ccs
Ore Properties
Item
Dry Density
Wet Density
Initial Water Content
As delivered Water Content (by dry solid weight)
Leaching Water Content
Drain down Water Content
Ore Crush Size
3.6
Value/Description
Design Input
Source Reference
Rev
1400 kg/m3
1600 kg/m3
1%
5%
TBC
TBC
13 mm minus
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
AM
Value/Description
Design Input
Source Reference
Rev
AM
Kalsaka Project
Design Criteria
Conveying And Stacking

Item
Transport method
Ridge RHS construction, tire mounted movable

hoppers + conveyors
Over land conveyor No.1
width 600 mm x length 500 m x 22 kW
Overland conveyor speed
1.60 m/sec
Hopper conveyors
width 600 mm x length 35 m x No. 10 x 11 kW
Appendix Page 46

APRIL 2014
Maximum ramp/hopper conveyor angle
Hopper conveyor speed
12 & 5 degree
1.60 m/sec
Transverse conveyor
Transverse conveyor speed

Stacker feed conveyor
Belt speed (max)
3.7
1.60 m/sec
1.60 m/sec
Solution Ponds
Item
Minimum Pond Freeboard
Value/Description
Design Input
0.5 m (to invert of spillway)
Source Reference
Rev
A
Pond System/ No. of Ponds
Five (5) Pond System: 1 Barren, 1

Intermediate, 1 Pregnant, 1 Excess Water,
1 Fresh Water, 1 Detox
Pond Containment Requirements
Pond System to contain: 4 hours draindown

at Maximum Pumping Rate, 100 year-24
hour runoff, Precipitation Fluctuations,
Freeboard
Pond Configuration Process Solution
Double Liner System consisting of: Primary

geomembrane, Geonet, Secondary
geomembrane, Prepared Subgrade
Pond Containment for Storm water
Single Liner System consisting of: Synthetic

geomembrane, Prepared Subgrade
Leak Detection System
Geonet Collection System
Appendix Page 47

APRIL 2014
APPENDIX F
TMF Site Options
Appendix Page 48

APRIL 2014
Appendix Page 49

APRIL 2014
APPENDIX G
Typical TMF Sections
Appendix Page 50

APRIL 2014
Appendix Page 51

APRIL 2014
APPENDIX H
Heap Leach Pad Earthworks General Arrangement
Appendix Page 52

APRIL 2014
Appendix Page 53

APRIL 2014
APPENDIX I
Pit Sections
Appendix Page 54

APRIL 2014
Appendix Page 55

APRIL 2014
Appendix Page 56

APRIL 2014
Appendix Page 57

APRIL 2014
Appendix Page 58

APRIL 2014
Appendix Page 59

APRIL 2014
Appendix Page 60

APRIL 2014
Appendix Page 61

APRIL 2014
Appendix Page 62

APRIL 2014
Appendix Page 63

APRIL 2014
Appendix Page 64

APRIL 2014
Appendix Page 65

APRIL 2014
Appendix Page 66

APRIL 2014
Appendix Page 67

APRIL 2014
Appendix Page 68

APRIL 2014
Appendix Page 69

APRIL 2014
Appendix Page 70

APRIL 2014
Appendix Page 71

APRIL 2014
APPENDIX J
Opex Estimates Processing & Infrastructure
Appendix Page 72

APRIL 2014
Appendix Page 73

APRIL 2014
Appendix Page 74

APRIL 2014
Appendix Page 75

APRIL 2014
Appendix Page 76

APRIL 2014
Appendix Page 77

APRIL 2014
Appendix Page 78

APRIL 2014
Appendix Page 79

APRIL 2014
Appendix Page 80

APRIL 2014
Appendix Page 81

APRIL 2014
Appendix Page 82

APRIL 2014
Appendix Page 83

APRIL 2014
Appendix Page 84

APRIL 2014
Appendix Page 85

APRIL 2014
Appendix Page 86

APRIL 2014
Appendix Page 87

APRIL 2014
Appendix Page 88

APRIL 2014
APPENDIX K
Sustaining Capital Processing & Infrastructure
Appendix Page 89

APRIL 2014
Appendix Page 90

APRIL 2014
APPENDIX L
Mining Cost Estimates
Appendix Page 91

APRIL 2014
5 Mt/a (USD 800 Pit Design) Case

Manpower
($)
1
6,824,900
2
8,087,520
3
9,697,850
4
9,886,879
5
10,077,850
6
10,052,520
7
9,921,250
8
9,348,138
9
8,639,739
10
1,944,442
11
6,577,550
12
6,711,596
13
6,063,200
14
4,781,670
Total
108,615,105
per tonne mined
($/t)
0.20
0.24
0.29
0.32
0.30
0.30
0.29
0.35
0.33
0.09
0.30
0.28
0.35
1.26
$0.29
6,714,216
5,238,120
5,062,831
4,256,800
4,268,209
4,687,606
3,309,451
Drilling
($)
per tonne mined
($/t)
0.27
0.26
0.24
0.25
0.24
0.22
0.20
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
$0.22
($)
12,952,430
9,119,672
12,909,815
9,008,734
12,445,527
8,184,181
11,506,536
7,853,584
12,313,203
8,066,049
12,077,714
7,468,869
11,827,830
9,286,480
8,969,563
7,477,253
7,491,917
8,296,236
5,778,928
1,199,638
722,511
134,533,068
83,960,833
per tonne mined
($/t)
0.38
0.38
0.37
0.37
0.36
0.36
0.35
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.33
0.32
$0.36
Blasting Management Fee

Contractor - BME
($)
482,000
432,000
432,000
432,000
432,000
432,000
432,000
432,000
432,000
432,000
432,000
432,000
432,000
108,000
5,774,000
($/t)
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
$0.02
Loading - Shovels
($)
5,287,980
5,272,021
4,451,528
4,841,463
4,302,757
4,302,757
4,302,757
3,408,545
3,304,735
2,774,546
2,774,546
3,060,573
2,171,191
475,197
50,730,598
per tonne mined
($/t)
0.16
0.16
0.13
0.15
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
$0.13
($)
366,088
967,581
847,224
820,047
794,546
777,684
750,833
743,902
739,782
734,000
814,065
817,245
817,245
278,520
10,268,760
per tonne rehandled

per tonne milled
($/t)
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.17
0.17
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.14
0.14
$0.16
0.16
($)
8,821,571
8,744,277
9,290,730
9,165,047
10,641,562
11,117,217
10,773,239
9,354,061
9,378,544
8,251,751
8,886,087
10,101,073
7,924,635
1,996,429
124,446,222
per tonne mined
($/t)
0.26
0.26
0.27
0.29
0.31
0.33
0.32
0.35
0.36
0.38
0.40
0.42
0.46
0.53
$0.33
Roads & Dumps - Other Machines
($)
6,473,887
7,118,822
7,140,774
6,902,411
7,185,508
7,208,300
7,231,383
6,027,556
5,838,999
4,685,253
4,286,938
4,283,682
3,814,446
712,122
78,910,082
per tonne mined
($/t)
0.19
0.21
0.21
0.22
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.22
0.22
0.21
0.19
0.18
0.22
0.19
$0.21
General
($)
1,209,427
1,125,564
1,261,218
1,265,566
1,330,002
1,324,247
1,318,479
1,186,663
1,152,265
1,062,969
802,982
864,291
622,511
352,253
14,878,438
per tonne mined
($/t)
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.09
$0.04
Mine Engineering
($)
1,123,301
1,870,589
1,688,033
1,590,903
1,666,607
1,610,170
1,548,315
1,301,733
1,237,512
1,124,757
848,032
885,639
759,794
244,386
17,499,770
per tonne mined
($/t)
0.03
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.06
$0.05
Maintenance - Not covered by RAMP
($)
323,714
302,782
306,609
280,783
313,001
310,123
307,240
241,332
224,132
193,485
197,491
214,145
157,256
36,127
3,408,219
per tonne mined
($/t)
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
$0.01
RAMP - Contractor - KOMATSU
($)
11,411,606
23,044,045
35,102,477
29,802,688
24,372,312
31,086,064
26,384,389
26,957,166
27,421,768
16,917,399
15,757,035
19,859,683
15,321,174
3,079,621
306,517,428
per tonne mined
($/t)
0.34
0.68
1.03
0.95
0.72
0.91
0.78
1.00
1.05
0.77
0.72
0.82
0.89
0.81
$0.81
Total Costs
Cost $ per tonne Mined
($)
($US/t)
$64,396,575
$1.89
$78,883,750
$2.32
$90,848,150
$2.67
$84,347,907
$2.70
$81,495,398
$2.40
$87,767,665
$2.58
$81,511,932
$2.40
$73,525,695
$2.72
$72,401,872
$2.77
$49,854,654
$2.27
$53,136,851
$2.42
$60,213,768
$2.48
$47,171,831
$2.73
$13,986,474
$3.68
$939,542,522
$2.49
Appendix Page 92
12%
9%
14%
1%
5%
1%
13%
8%
2%
2%
0%
33%
100%

APRIL 2014
6.5 Mt/a (USD 800 Pit Design) - Base Case

1
10
11
Manpower
($)
7,704,300
8,647,770
10,388,150
10,871,650
10,689,850
10,489,010
9,877,050
9,531,471
8,773,950
1,930,962
3,655,700
Total
$US/t
92,559,863
per tonne mined
($/t)
0.18
0.20
0.24
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.30
0.32
0.29
0.08
0.85
$0.25
Drilling
($)
11,295,566
11,275,256
10,435,426
10,272,702
9,221,971
8,221,169
6,384,566
5,754,298
5,810,262
4,712,772
820,603
84,204,589
per tonne mined
($/t)
0.26
0.26
0.24
0.24
0.21
0.20
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
$0.22
($)
16,050,989
16,033,356
15,602,075
15,425,107
15,014,394
14,087,902
11,184,069
10,022,533
10,136,445
8,182,993
1,357,710
133,097,574
per tonne mined
($/t)
0.37
0.37
0.36
0.36
0.35
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.33
0.31
$0.35

Contractor - BME
($)
482,000
432,000
432,000
432,000
432,000
432,000
432,000
432,000
432,000
432,000
72,000
4,442,000
($/t)
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
$0.01
Loading - Shovels
($)
6,320,660
5,890,826
5,067,342
5,002,206
4,929,643
4,648,602
3,608,116
3,310,596
3,376,032
2,790,980
508,672
45,453,676
per tonne mined
($/t)
0.15
0.14
0.12
0.12
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.12
$0.12
($)
586,895
1,197,903
1,104,746
1,021,238
1,008,511
968,198
951,711
954,571
969,509
961,851
349,603
10,074,734
per tonne rehandled

per tonne milled
($/t)
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.17
0.17
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.16
0.16
$0.16
0.16
($)
11,196,038
9,986,374
10,982,946
13,061,636
12,351,390
12,778,538
10,750,526
10,521,059
11,502,242
10,971,398
2,481,142
116,583,288
per tonne mined
($/t)
0.26
0.23
0.26
0.30
0.29
0.31
0.33
0.35
0.38
0.45
0.58
$0.31
($)
8,282,107
8,675,392
8,700,990
8,851,348
8,753,170
8,605,923
7,136,108
6,286,423
6,769,182
4,926,142
467,597
77,454,381
per tonne mined
($/t)
0.19
0.20
0.20
0.21
0.20
0.21
0.22
0.21
0.23
0.20
0.11
$0.21
General
($)
1,397,266
1,406,323
1,583,890
1,774,628
1,783,567
1,740,596
1,577,131
1,530,467
1,605,244
1,620,864
796,721
16,816,695
per tonne mined
($/t)
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.07
0.18
$0.04
Mine Engineering
($)
1,477,485
2,327,206
2,161,398
2,128,853
2,027,209
1,888,857
1,583,848
1,502,299
1,530,050
1,359,584
266,847
18,253,636
per tonne mined
($/t)
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.06
$0.05
($)
408,591
379,349
388,179
395,563
389,282
367,797
286,065
262,733
267,871
221,931
40,859
3,408,219
per tonne mined
($/t)
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
$0.01
($)
13,448,991
30,079,789
45,271,593
35,416,712
28,457,969
40,074,149
27,032,776
30,448,203
36,564,612
17,145,876
3,212,656
307,153,325
per tonne mined
($/t)
0.31
0.70
1.05
0.82
0.66
0.97
0.82
1.02
1.22
0.70
0.74
$0.81
Total Costs
($)
($US/t)
$78,650,888
$1.83
$96,331,544
$2.24
$112,118,735
$2.61
$104,653,643
$2.43
$95,058,954
$2.21
$104,302,739
$2.53
$80,803,966
$2.45
$80,556,652
$2.71
$87,737,397
$2.92
$55,257,352
$2.25
$14,030,110
$3.25
$909,501,981
$2.41
Appendix Page 93
Total
10%
9%
15%
0%
5%
1%
13%
9%
2%
2%
0%
34%
100%

APRIL 2014
6.5 Mt/a (USD 950 Pit Design) Case

1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Manpower
($)
6,665,899
8,336,325
10,653,425
10,702,325
10,909,325
10,651,815
10,961,075
10,961,075
7,980,015
10,521,915
9,251,530
8,667,491
8,537,795
8,618,131
6,811,037
1,142,113
Total
$US/t
141,371,291
per tonne mined
($/t)
0.15
0.19
0.24
0.25
0.25
0.24
0.25
0.25
0.16
0.22
0.26
0.32
0.32
0.30
0.32
0.48
$0.24
Drilling
($)
10,965,283
10,709,996
10,381,144
9,172,993
8,469,884
8,877,494
8,693,564
9,025,935
10,015,933
10,277,549
7,291,096
5,787,579
6,099,811
6,948,053
5,509,694
-307,954
127,918,057
per tonne mined
($/t)
0.25
0.25
0.24
0.21
0.19
0.20
0.20
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.23
0.25
0.26
-0.13
$0.22
($)
17,178,871
16,711,192
16,244,572
15,692,796
15,384,203
15,379,553
15,333,351
15,406,901
17,020,472
17,021,877
12,083,629
9,232,030
9,188,792
9,667,015
7,055,659
807,428
209,408,340
per tonne mined
($/t)
0.38
0.38
0.37
0.36
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.33
0.34
$0.36

Contractor - BME
($)
482,000
432,000
432,000
432,000
432,000
432,000
432,000
432,000
432,000
432,000
432,000
432,000
432,000
432,000
432,000
108,000
6,638,000
($/t)
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.05
$0.01
Loading - Shovels
($)
6,961,862
6,743,870
6,743,870
5,504,439
5,504,439
5,504,439
5,504,439
5,504,439
6,123,899
6,141,194
4,421,704
3,399,349
3,386,892
3,570,424
2,662,130
301,626
77,979,014
per tonne mined
($/t)
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
$0.13
($)
600,723
1,294,774
1,085,559
1,029,397
1,034,636
977,355
984,902
1,017,137
1,008,692
1,004,620
988,991
997,283
1,009,952
1,007,841
990,926
87,498
15,120,288
per tonne rehandled

per tonne milled
($/t)
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.17
0.17
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
$0.16
0.16
($)
10,284,435
10,745,815
11,757,517
11,861,434
13,760,311
11,844,730
15,000,083
15,222,184
20,457,298
19,925,959
17,079,047
15,576,329
13,192,949
15,682,731
14,466,890
1,775,862
218,633,575
per tonne mined
($/t)
0.23
0.25
0.27
0.27
0.32
0.27
0.34
0.35
0.42
0.41
0.49
0.58
0.49
0.55
0.69
0.75
$0.37
($)
7,741,188
8,184,120
8,309,799
8,211,864
8,363,137
8,289,023
8,417,861
8,445,760
8,811,637
8,077,184
5,614,195
4,177,597
4,458,267
4,275,238
3,358,195
2,208,168
106,943,232
per tonne mined
($/t)
0.17
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.18
0.17
0.16
0.15
0.17
0.15
0.16
0.93
$0.18
1,272,559
1,520,458
1,752,824
1,941,190
2,176,040
2,176,040
2,176,040
2,378,614
2,753,260
2,922,393
2,624,354
2,463,797
2,628,289
2,656,263
2,344,621
1,969,912
35,756,654
General
($)
per tonne mined
($/t)
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.09
0.10
0.09
0.11
0.83
$0.06
Mine Engineering
($)
1,614,650
2,639,973
2,372,024
2,249,821
2,188,636
2,167,489
2,160,438
2,183,703
2,329,087
2,322,748
1,292,787
1,133,790
1,133,575
1,198,908
1,005,943
99,468
28,093,039
per tonne mined
($/t)
0.04
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.04
$0.05
($)
446,280
435,000
435,000
435,000
435,000
435,000
435,000
435,000
483,642
485,000
349,980
269,702
268,739
282,726
210,905
23,814
5,865,788
per tonne mined
($/t)
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
$0.01
($)
18,328,917
35,537,514
54,409,993
41,161,850
40,941,840
48,574,773
30,539,547
33,517,942
38,635,400
26,415,180
26,119,533
23,931,525
28,686,893
12,061,806
11,784,414
5,051,176
475,698,301
per tonne mined
($/t)
0.41
0.82
1.25
0.95
0.94
1.12
0.70
0.77
0.80
0.54
0.75
0.89
1.07
0.43
0.56
2.12
$0.81
Total Costs
($)
($US/t)
$82,542,667
$1.85
$103,291,036
$2.37
$124,577,726
$2.86
$108,395,109
$2.49
$109,599,452
$2.52
$115,309,711
$2.65
$100,638,300
$2.31
$104,530,691
$2.40
$116,051,335
$2.40
$105,547,620
$2.18
$87,548,846
$2.50
$76,068,472
$2.82
$79,023,955
$2.94
$66,401,137
$2.35
$56,632,413
$2.69
$13,267,111
$5.57
$1,449,425,580
$2.47
Appendix Page 94
Total
10%
9%
14%
0%
5%
1%
15%
7%
2%
2%
0%
33%
100%

APRIL 2014
8 Mt/a (USD 950 Pit Design) - Headline Case

1
10
11
12
13
Manpower
($)
7,195,900
9,156,000
11,447,900
11,582,400
11,685,900
11,997,660
12,151,650
12,203,400
7,885,874
10,242,558
9,218,584
8,722,469
1,717,575
Total
$US/t
125,207,870
per tonne mined
($/t)
0.13
0.17
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.22
0.22
0.19
0.29
0.27
0.32
0.32
$0.21
Drilling
($)
13,332,757
13,617,404
13,855,365
12,818,069
12,692,153
12,347,540
11,950,049
11,891,468
8,544,049
7,271,806
7,049,277
5,552,894
1,106,045
132,028,874
per tonne mined
($/t)
0.25
0.25
0.26
0.23
0.22
0.22
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.20
0.20
$0.23
($)
20,554,358
20,025,268
19,988,773
20,105,673
20,300,794
20,180,104
20,235,756
20,226,841
14,635,953
12,291,774
12,011,393
9,373,985
1,879,590
211,810,262
per tonne mined
($/t)
0.38
0.37
0.37
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
$0.36

Contractor - BME
432,000
108,000
($/t)
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
$0.01
Loading - Shovels
($)
7,661,183
7,639,352
7,639,352
6,430,669
6,580,840
6,561,059
6,580,840
6,580,840
4,870,476
4,119,861
4,009,197
3,195,566
640,435
72,509,670
per tonne mined
($/t)
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
$0.12
($)
1,006,040
1,580,858
1,580,858
1,580,858
1,602,429
1,602,429
1,602,429
1,602,429
1,602,429
1,602,429
1,602,429
1,602,429
301,159
18,869,203
per tonne rehandled

per tonne milled
($/t)
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
$0.20
0.20
($)
13,240,975
15,360,358
14,861,881
14,597,536
16,845,551
19,903,449
21,950,521
22,463,661
18,680,054
20,496,176
15,188,133
14,042,939
3,106,697
210,737,932
per tonne mined
($/t)
0.24
0.28
0.28
0.26
0.30
0.35
0.39
0.40
0.45
0.58
0.44
0.52
0.57
$0.36
($)
8,943,926
9,363,604
9,488,365
9,515,646
9,543,283
9,597,505
9,599,652
9,628,398
8,718,100
6,625,971
6,104,991
4,757,505
776,718
102,663,663
per tonne mined
($/t)
0.17
0.17
0.18
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.21
0.19
0.18
0.18
0.14
$0.18
General
($)
1,491,207
1,939,190
2,067,190
2,410,054
2,436,040
2,476,774
2,971,449
3,082,393
2,782,343
2,625,240
2,775,803
2,633,842
1,257,838
30,949,364
per tonne mined
($/t)
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.10
0.23
$0.05
Mine Engineering
($)
2,111,505
3,071,135
2,924,368
2,841,673
2,783,514
2,754,403
2,757,410
2,753,805
2,180,687
1,957,515
1,418,564
1,257,170
240,306
29,052,053
per tonne mined
($/t)
0.04
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.04
0.05
0.04
$0.05
($)
541,603
540,000
540,000
552,007
565,000
563,289
565,000
565,000
414,975
350,423
342,496
271,516
54,479
5,865,788
per tonne mined
($/t)
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
$0.01
($)
15,828,351
36,542,590
59,486,463
48,087,959
34,867,513
46,980,353
42,173,633
39,699,051
47,869,925
33,967,754
24,943,419
23,452,707
18,883,135
472,782,852
per tonne mined
($/t)
0.29
0.68
1.10
0.87
0.62
0.83
0.75
0.70
1.15
0.97
0.73
0.86
3.47
$0.81
Total Costs
($)
($US/t)
$92,389,804
$1.71
$119,267,758
$2.21
$144,312,514
$2.67
$130,954,545
$2.37
$120,335,015
$2.13
$135,396,564
$2.40
$132,970,388
$2.35
$131,129,286
$2.32
$118,616,863
$2.86
$101,983,509
$2.91
$85,096,286
$2.48
$75,295,021
$2.77
$30,071,978
$5.52
$1,417,819,532
$2.42
($)
482,000
432,000
432,000
432,000
432,000
432,000
432,000
432,000
Appendix Page 95
432,000
432,000
432,000
5,342,000
Total
9%
9%
15%
0%
5%
1%
15%
7%
2%
2%
0%
33%
100%

APRIL 2014
OTHER G&A MANNING

PERSONNEL LEVELS
Coverage
No.
Employment Cost
Total
$/ yr
$/ yr
General Manager
Secretary
D
D
1
1
275,000
12,263
275,000
12,263
Commercial Manager
Secretary
Senior Accountant
Accountants
Clerks
Warehouse Coordinator
Procurement Officer
Warehouse Attendants
HR Coordinator
HR Specialist
HR Officers
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
D
D
D
1
1
1
2
5
1
1
4
1
1
3
233,000
12,263
166,000
112,000
14,716
112,000
20,000
12,728
166,000
112,000
14,716
233,000
12,263
166,000
224,000
73,580
112,000
20,000
50,912
166,000
112,000
44,148
HSE Manager
Envirionmental Officer
H&S Officer
CLO Officer
HSE Technican
D
D
D
D
D
1
1
1
1
1
112,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
12,728
112,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
12,728
Security Manager
112,000
112,000
TOTAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE

Grand Sub Total
CONTINGENCY
0%
TOTAL OTHER G&A LABOUR COST, $/ yr
29
1,797,894
1,797,894
Appendix Page 96

APRIL 2014
APPENDIX M
Manning
Appendix Page 97

APRIL 2014
5 Mt/a (USD 800 Pit Design)

Year
Number
Costs
1
15
$1,513,500
2
16
$1,548,000
3
19
$1,915,500
4
19
$1,915,500
5
19
$1,915,500
6
19
$1,915,500
7
19
$1,915,500
8
19
$1,915,500
9
19
$1,915,500
10
16
$1,533,000
11
16
$1,533,000
12
16
$1,533,000
13
16
$1,533,000
14
16
$1,533,000
Technical Support
Number
Costs
20
$1,366,500
20
$1,555,500
32
$2,091,000
36
$2,331,000
37
$2,331,000
37
$2,331,000
37
$2,331,000
36
$2,331,000
36
$2,331,000
35
$2,331,000
23
$1,348,500
24
$1,348,500
23
$1,348,500
20
$1,108,500
Mine Operations
Number
Costs
167
$3,353,550
202
$4,010,700
213
$4,156,350
209
$4,076,179
219
$4,259,850
219
$4,233,300
213
$4,103,250
185
$3,537,438
158
$3,037,539
146
$2,812,650
144
$2,805,150
152
$2,931,896
119
$2,290,800
66
$1,270,350
Number
Costs
3
$313,950
5
$408,750
5
$408,750
5
$408,750
5
$408,750
5
$408,750
5
$408,750
5
$408,750
5
$408,750
5
$408,750
5
$408,750
5
$408,750
5
$408,750
5
$408,750
Number
Costs
0
$0
15
$264,450
47
$717,450
47
$717,450
47
$717,450
47
$717,450
47
$717,450
47
$717,450
33
$508,950
17
$282,450
9
$160,950
9
$160,950
9
$160,950
9
$160,950
Accomodations Back-charge
Number
Day rate
Costs
Number
Costs
38
$20
$277,400
205
$6,824,900
41
$20
$300,120
258
$8,087,520
56
$20
$408,800
316
$9,697,850
60
$20
$438,000
316
$9,886,879
61
$20
$445,300
327
$10,077,850
61
$20
$446,520
327
$10,052,520
61
$20
$445,300
321
$9,921,250
60
$20
$438,000
292
$9,348,138
60
$20
$438,000
251
$8,639,739
56
$20
$409,920
219
$7,777,770
44
$20
$321,200
197
$6,577,550
45
$20
$328,500
206
$6,711,596
44
$20
$321,200
172
$6,063,200
41
$20
$300,120
116
$4,781,670
Mine Supervision
Total Manning Level

Total Manning Costs

Year
Number
Costs
1
15
$1,513,500
2
16
$1,548,000
3
19
$1,915,500
4
19
$1,915,500
5
19
$1,915,500
6
19
$1,915,500
7
19
$1,915,500
8
19
$1,915,500
9
19
$1,915,500
10
16
$1,533,000
11
13
$1,429,500
Technical Support
Number
Costs
21
$1,366,500
20
$1,555,500
32
$2,091,000
37
$2,331,000
37
$2,331,000
37
$2,331,000
36
$2,331,000
36
$2,331,000
36
$2,331,000
36
$2,331,000
5
$382,500
Mine Operations
Number
Costs
212
$4,225,650
232
$4,570,950
249
$4,846,650
261
$5,053,650
252
$4,871,850
245
$4,669,790
213
$4,066,350
196
$3,720,771
166
$3,171,750
145
$2,751,409
57
$1,106,100
Number
Costs
3
$313,950
5
$408,750
5
$408,750
5
$408,750
5
$408,750
5
$408,750
5
$408,750
5
$408,750
5
$408,750
5
$408,750
5
$408,750
Number
Costs
0
$0
15
$264,450
47
$717,450
47
$717,450
47
$717,450
47
$717,450
47
$717,450
47
$717,450
33
$508,950
17
$282,450
9
$160,950
Number
Day rate
Costs
39
$20
$284,700
251
$7,704,300
41
$20
$300,120
288
$8,647,770
56
$20
$408,800
352
$10,388,150
61
$20
$445,300
369
$10,871,650
61
$20
$445,300
360
$10,689,850
61
$20
$446,520
353
$10,489,010
60
$20
$438,000
320
$9,877,050
60
$20
$438,000
303
$9,531,471
60
$20
$438,000
259
$8,773,950
57
$20
$417,240
219
$7,723,849
23
$20
$167,900
89
$3,655,700
Mine Supervision
Total Manning Level

Total Manning Costs
6.5 Mt/a (USD 950 Pit Design)

Year
Number
Costs
1
6
$654,000
2
10
$1,093,500
3
19
$1,915,500
4
19
$1,915,500
5
19
$1,915,500
6
19
$1,915,500
7
19
$1,915,500
8
19
$1,915,500
9
19
$1,915,500
10
19
$1,915,500
11
18
$1,788,000
12
18
$1,788,000
13
18
$1,788,000
14
17
$1,660,500
15
16
$1,533,000
16
16
$1,533,000
Technical Support
Number
Costs
21
$1,366,500
20
$1,555,500
32
$2,091,000
38
$2,331,000
38
$2,331,000
38
$2,331,000
38
$2,331,000
38
$2,331,000
38
$2,331,000
38
$2,331,000
37
$2,331,000
36
$2,331,000
36
$2,331,000
36
$2,331,000
25
$1,483,500
20
$1,357,500
Mine Supervision
Mine Operations
Number
Costs
207
$4,112,449
241
$4,757,925
261
$5,111,925
252
$4,877,025
264
$5,084,025
249
$4,825,275
267
$5,135,775
267
$5,135,775
261
$5,023,219
255
$4,921,125
202
$3,845,830
173
$3,269,091
164
$3,139,395
175
$3,353,371
148
$2,749,537
48
$897,750
Number
Costs
3
$313,950
5
$408,750
5
$408,750
5
$408,750
5
$408,750
5
$408,750
5
$408,750
5
$408,750
5
$408,750
5
$408,750
5
$408,750
5
$408,750
5
$408,750
5
$408,750
5
$408,750
2
$300,000
Number
Costs
0
$0
15
$264,450
47
$717,450
47
$717,450
47
$717,450
47
$717,450
47
$717,450
47
$717,450
33
$508,950
32
$491,700
29
$439,950
29
$439,950
29
$439,950
29
$439,950
19
$300,450
12
$202,800
Number
Day rate
Costs
30
$20
$219,000
237
$6,665,899
35
$20
$256,200
291
$8,336,325
56
$20
$408,800
364
$10,653,425
62
$20
$452,600
361
$10,702,325
62
$20
$452,600
373
$10,909,325
62
$20
$453,840
358
$10,651,815
62
$20
$452,600
376
$10,961,075
62
$20
$452,600
376
$10,961,075
62
$20
$452,600
356
$10,640,019
62
$20
$453,840
349
$10,521,915
60
$20
$438,000
291
$9,251,530
59
$20
$430,700
261
$8,667,491
59
$20
$430,700
252
$8,537,795
58
$20
$424,560
262
$8,618,131
46
$20
$335,800
213
$6,811,037
38
$20
$277,400
98
$4,568,450
Total Manning Level

Total Manning Costs

Year
Number
Costs
1
6
$654,000
2
10
$1,093,500
3
19
$1,915,500
4
19
$1,915,500
5
19
$1,915,500
6
19
$1,915,500
7
19
$1,915,500
8
19
$1,915,500
9
19
$1,915,500
10
19
$1,915,500
11
18
$1,788,000
12
18
$1,788,000
13
18
$1,788,000
Technical Support
Number
Costs
22
$1,366,500
20
$1,555,500
32
$2,091,000
39
$2,331,000
39
$2,331,000
39
$2,331,000
39
$2,331,000
39
$2,331,000
38
$2,331,000
37
$2,331,000
37
$2,331,000
36
$2,331,000
34
$2,331,000
Mine Operations
Number
Costs
234
$4,635,150
284
$5,577,600
301
$5,906,400
295
$5,749,800
301
$5,853,300
319
$6,163,800
328
$6,319,050
331
$6,370,800
260
$4,897,699
247
$4,649,088
199
$3,812,884
173
$3,324,069
76
$1,486,500
Number
Costs
3
$313,950
5
$408,750
5
$408,750
5
$408,750
5
$408,750
5
$408,750
5
$408,750
5
$408,750
5
$408,750
5
$408,750
5
$408,750
5
$408,750
5
$408,750
Number
Costs
0
$0
15
$264,450
47
$717,450
47
$717,450
47
$717,450
47
$717,450
47
$717,450
47
$717,450
33
$508,950
32
$491,700
29
$439,950
29
$439,950
29
$439,950
Number
Day rate
Costs
31
$20
$226,300
265
$7,195,900
35
$20
$256,200
334
$9,156,000
56
$20
$408,800
404
$11,447,900
63
$20
$459,900
405
$11,582,400
63
$20
$459,900
411
$11,685,900
63
$20
$461,160
429
$11,997,660
63
$20
$459,900
438
$12,151,650
63
$20
$459,900
441
$12,203,400
62
$20
$452,600
355
$10,514,499
61
$20
$446,520
340
$10,242,558
60
$20
$438,000
288
$9,218,584
59
$20
$430,700
261
$8,722,469
57
$20
$416,100
162
$6,870,300
Mine Supervision
Total Manning Level

Total Manning Costs
Appendix Page 98

APRIL 2014
APPENDIX N
Mine Schedules and Discounted Cash Flow Models
Appendix Page 99

APRIL 2014

Year
-2
-1
10
11
12
13
14
63,897
1.53
3,140
313,848
377,745
4.9
0
0.00
0
0
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0
0
0.00
1,963
1.40
88
32,037
34,000
16.32
5,000
1.54
248
29,000
34,000
5.80
5,000
1.53
246
29,000
34,000
5.80
5,000
1.51
243
26,254
31,254
5.25
5,000
1.45
233
29,000
34,000
5.80
5,000
1.34
215
29,000
34,000
5.80
5,000
1.11
179
29,000
34,000
5.80
5,000
1.30
209
22,028
27,028
4.41
5,000
1.56
251
21,163
26,163
4.23
5,000
1.61
259
17,000
22,000
3.40
5,000
1.38
222
17,000
22,000
3.40
5,000
1.62
261
19,246
24,246
3.85
5,000
1.86
299
12,258
17,258
2.45
1,934
3.01
187
1,863
3,796
0.96
63,897
1.53
3,140
95.0%
2,983
216
0
0.00
0
0.0%
0
0
0.00
0
0.0%
0
1,963
1.40
88
95.0%
84
5,000
1.54
248
95.0%
236
5,000
1.53
246
95.0%
233
5,000
1.51
243
95.0%
231
5,000
1.45
233
95.0%
221
5,000
1.34
215
95.0%
204
5,000
1.11
179
95.0%
170
5,000
1.30
209
95.0%
199
5,000
1.56
251
95.0%
238
5,000
1.61
259
95.0%
246
5,000
1.38
222
95.0%
211
5,000
1.62
261
95.0%
248
5,000
1.86
299
95.0%
284
1,934
3.01
187
95.0%
178
USD/oz
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
1,250
3,728,509
(130,498)
(18,643)
(19,388)
3,559,980
0
-
0
-
1,250
104,964
(3,674)
(525)
(546)
100,219
1,250
294,741
(10,316)
(1,474)
(1,533)
281,419
1,250
291,647
(10,208)
(1,458)
(1,517)
278,464
1,250
288,380
(10,093)
(1,442)
(1,500)
275,345
1,250
276,373
(9,673)
(1,382)
(1,437)
263,881
1,250
254,909
(8,922)
(1,275)
(1,326)
243,387
1,250
212,239
(7,428)
(1,061)
(1,104)
202,646
1,250
248,407
(8,694)
(1,242)
(1,292)
237,179
1,250
298,016
(10,431)
(1,490)
(1,550)
284,545
1,250
307,603
(10,766)
(1,538)
(1,600)
293,699
1,250
263,360
(9,218)
(1,317)
(1,369)
251,456
1,250
310,025
(10,851)
(1,550)
(1,612)
296,012
1,250
355,310
(12,436)
(1,777)
(1,848)
339,250
1,250
222,535
(7,789)
(1,113)
(1,157)
212,476
OPERATING COSTS
Mining
Processing
G&A
Total Opex
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
(939,543)
(672,195)
(58,800)
(1,670,537)
(64,397)
(20,653)
(4,200)
(89,250)
(78,884)
(52,600)
(4,200)
(135,684)
(90,848)
(52,600)
(4,200)
(147,648)
(84,348)
(52,600)
(4,200)
(141,148)
(81,495)
(52,600)
(4,200)
(138,295)
(87,768)
(52,600)
(4,200)
(144,568)
(81,512)
(52,600)
(4,200)
(138,312)
(73,526)
(52,600)
(4,200)
(130,326)
(72,402)
(52,600)
(4,200)
(129,202)
(49,855)
(52,600)
(4,200)
(106,655)
(53,137)
(52,600)
(4,200)
(109,937)
(60,214)
(52,600)
(4,200)
(117,014)
(47,172)
(52,600)
(4,200)
(103,972)
(13,986)
(20,341)
(4,200)
(38,528)
OPERATING CASHFLOW
USDk
1,889,443
10,970
145,735
130,816
134,197
125,585
98,819
64,334
106,854
155,343
187,044
141,519
178,998
235,278
173,948
CAPITAL COSTS
Mining Equipment
Process Plant
Area Infrastructure
Miscellaneous
Indirects
Contingency
Total Initial Capex
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
(65,677)
(111,185)
(30,283)
(16,982)
(9,000)
(16,401)
(45,974)
(35,189)
(330,691)
Mining
Other Sustaining
Closure
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
(46,033)
(61,140)
(18,400)
(125,573)
Total Capex
USDk
(456,264)
(106,006)
(224,686)
(1,812)
(995)
(3,960)
(5,022)
PRE-TAX CASHFLOW
USDk
1,433,178
(106,006)
(224,686)
9,158
144,740
126,856
129,175
Total/ Ave.
PRODUCTION
Mining
Total Ore Mined
Total Ore Grade
Contained Au
Waste Mined
Total Material
Strip Ratio
kt
g/t
koz
kt
kt
t:waste:ore
Processing
Plant Feed
Grade
Contained Gold
Overall Recovery
Gold Produced
kt
g/t
koz
%
koz
REVENUE
Gold Price
Gross Revenue
Royalty
Net Revenue
(44,474)
(12,113)
(6,793)
(3,600)
(6,560)
(18,390)
(14,076)
(106,006)
(65,677)
(66,711)
(18,170)
(10,189)
(5,400)
(9,841)
(27,584)
(21,113)
(224,686)
(1,812)
(1,812)
(25)
(970)
(995)
(3,960)
(3,960)
(1,432)
(3,590)
(5,022)
(2,959)
(3,170)
(6,129)
(15,784)
(7,710)
(23,494)
(130)
(12,920)
(13,050)
(6,129)
(3,360)
(13,050)
(3,410)
(23,494)
(22,074)
(12,507)
(3,630)
(3,660)
(22,470)
119,457
95,459
51,284
103,444
131,849
164,970
129,012
175,368
231,618
151,478
Appendix Page 100
(3,410)
(3,410)
(3,360)
(3,360)
(15,434)
(6,640)
(22,074)
(8,457)
(4,050)
(12,507)
(3,630)
(3,630)
(3,660)
(3,660)
(4,070)
(18,400)
(22,470)

APRIL 2014
Year
CORPORATE TAX
Depreciation
-2
-1
10
11
12
13
14
USDk
USDk
(501,602)
1,387,841
(5,740)
(5,740)
(16,341)
(16,341)
(38,809)
(27,840)
(38,990)
106,745
(39,090)
91,726
(39,486)
94,711
(39,988)
85,597
(40,601)
58,219
(40,937)
23,397
(42,242)
64,612
(36,843)
118,501
(28,592)
158,452
(8,331)
133,189
(9,400)
169,598
(9,664)
225,615
(9,634)
164,315
Tax allowance o/b

Tax allowance used
Tax allowance c/b
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
5,740
5,740
5,740
16,341
22,081
22,081
27,840
49,920
49,920
(49,920)
-
Taxable income
Tax Payable
USDk
USDk
56,825
-
91,726
-
94,711
-
85,597
-
58,219
(14,555)
23,397
(5,849)
64,612
(16,153)
118,501
(29,625)
158,452
(39,613)
133,189
(33,297)
169,598
(42,400)
225,615
(56,404)
164,315
(41,079)
WORKING CAPITAL
Debtors - o/b
c/b
net change
USDk
USDk
USDk
2,746
(2,746)
2,746
7,710
(4,964)
7,710
7,629
81
7,629
7,544
85
7,544
7,230
314
7,230
6,668
561
6,668
5,552
1,116
5,552
6,498
(946)
6,498
7,796
(1,298)
7,796
8,047
(251)
8,047
6,889
1,157
6,889
8,110
(1,221)
8,110
9,295
(1,185)
9,295
9,295
Creditors - o/b
c/b
net change
USDk
USDk
USDk
(5,502)
5,502
(5,502)
(8,364)
2,862
(8,364)
(9,102)
738
(9,102)
(8,701)
(401)
(8,701)
(8,525)
(176)
(8,525)
(8,912)
387
(8,912)
(8,526)
(386)
(8,526)
(8,034)
(492)
(8,034)
(7,964)
(69)
(7,964)
(6,575)
(1,390)
(6,575)
(6,777)
202
(6,777)
(7,213)
436
(7,213)
(6,409)
(804)
(6,409)
(6,409)
Overall Net Change
USDk
USDk
1,154,204
Payback
Discount Rate
NPV
IRR
Years
%
USDk
%
3.4
8.00%
463,575
25.4%
AMARA FREE CASHFLOW
USDk
1,033,937
Payback
Discount Rate
NPV
IRR
Years
%
USDk
%
3.4
8.00%
407,542
24.0%
1,444,757
(278,974)
2,756
(2,102)
818
(315)
138
948
731
(1,438)
(1,367)
(1,641)
1,360
(784)
(1,989)
2,885
(106,006)
(106,006)
(224,686)
(330,691)
11,914
(318,777)
142,638
(176,139)
127,674
(48,465)
128,860
80,395
3.4
119,595
199,990
81,853
281,843
46,166
328,008
85,852
413,861
100,857
514,718
123,717
638,434
97,074
735,509
132,184
867,693
173,226
1,040,919
113,285
1,154,204
(106,006)
(106,006)
(224,686)
(330,691)
11,914
(318,777)
142,638
(176,139)
127,674
(48,465)
115,974
67,509
3.4
107,636
175,144
73,668
248,812
41,549
290,361
77,267
367,628
90,771
458,399
111,345
569,744
87,367
657,111
118,966
776,077
155,904
931,981
101,957
1,033,937
Appendix Page 101

APRIL 2014

Year
-2
-1
10
11
63,897
1.53
3,140
313,848
377,745
4.9
0
0.00
0
0
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0
0
0.00
3,320
1.59
169
39,680
43,000
11.95
6,500
1.52
317
36,500
43,000
5.62
6,500
1.46
306
36,500
43,000
5.62
6,500
1.50
314
36,500
43,000
5.62
6,500
1.20
252
36,500
43,000
5.62
6,500
1.22
254
34,673
41,173
5.33
6,430
1.50
310
26,570
33,000
4.13
6,500
1.56
326
23,241
29,741
3.58
6,500
1.45
303
23,500
30,000
3.62
6,500
1.84
384
18,018
24,518
2.77
2,147
2.96
204
2,166
4,313
1.01
63,897
1.53
3,140
95.0%
2,982.81
279
0
0.00
0
0.0%
0
0
0.00
0
0.0%
0
3,320
1.59
169
95.0%
161
6,500
1.52
317
95.0%
301
6,500
1.46
306
95.0%
290
6,500
1.50
314
95.0%
298
6,500
1.20
252
95.0%
239
6,500
1.22
254
95.0%
241
6,430
1.50
310
95.0%
295
6,500
1.56
326
95.0%
310
6,500
1.45
303
95.0%
288
6,500
1.84
384
95.0%
365
2,147
2.96
204
95.0%
194
USD/oz
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
1,250
3,728,509
(130,498)
(18,643)
(19,388)
3,559,980
0
-
0
-
1,250
201,061
(7,037)
(1,005)
(1,046)
191,973
1,250
376,374
(13,173)
(1,882)
(1,957)
359,362
1,250
363,010
(12,705)
(1,815)
(1,888)
346,602
1,250
373,106
(13,059)
(1,866)
(1,940)
356,241
1,250
298,869
(10,460)
(1,494)
(1,554)
285,360
1,250
301,706
(10,560)
(1,509)
(1,569)
288,069
1,250
368,457
(12,896)
(1,842)
(1,916)
351,803
1,250
387,404
(13,559)
(1,937)
(2,015)
369,893
1,250
360,249
(12,609)
(1,801)
(1,873)
343,966
1,250
455,949
(15,958)
(2,280)
(2,371)
435,340
1,250
242,323
(8,481)
(1,212)
(1,260)
231,370
OPERATING COSTS
Mining
Processing
G&A
Total Opex
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
(909,502)
(647,275)
(46,200)
(1,602,977)
(78,651)
(33,632)
(4,200)
(116,483)
(96,332)
(65,845)
(4,200)
(166,377)
(112,119)
(65,845)
(4,200)
(182,164)
(104,654)
(65,845)
(4,200)
(174,699)
(95,059)
(65,845)
(4,200)
(165,104)
(104,303)
(65,845)
(4,200)
(174,348)
(80,804)
(65,131)
(4,200)
(150,135)
(80,557)
(65,845)
(4,200)
(150,602)
(87,737)
(65,845)
(4,200)
(157,782)
(55,257)
(65,845)
(4,200)
(125,302)
(14,030)
(21,752)
(4,200)
(39,982)
OPERATING CASHFLOW
USDk
1,957,003
75,490
192,986
164,439
181,543
120,256
113,721
201,668
219,292
186,183
310,038
191,388
CAPITAL COSTS
Mining Equipment
Process Plant
Area Infrastructure
Miscellaneous
Indirects
Contingency
Total Initial Capex
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
(74,981)
(124,039)
(32,485)
(17,622)
(9,000)
(17,999)
(43,162)
(37,406)
(356,694)
Mining
Other Sustaining
Closure
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
(13,943)
(56,830)
(18,400)
(89,173)
Total Capex
USDk
(445,867)
(112,685)
(244,009)
(7,003)
(1,155)
(7,822)
PRE-TAX CASHFLOW
USDk
1,511,136
(112,685)
(244,009)
68,487
191,831
156,616
Total/ Ave.
PRODUCTION
Mining
Total Ore Mined
Total Ore Grade
Contained Au
Waste Mined
Total Material
Strip Ratio
kt
g/t
koz
kt
kt
t:waste:ore
Processing
Plant Feed
Grade
Contained Gold
Overall Recovery
Gold Produced
kt
g/t
koz
%
koz
REVENUE
Gold Price
Gross Revenue
Royalty
Net Revenue
(49,616)
(12,994)
(7,049)
(3,600)
(7,200)
(17,265)
(14,962)
(112,685)
(74,981)
(74,423)
(19,491)
(10,573)
(5,400)
(10,799)
(25,897)
(22,444)
(244,009)
(7,003)
(7,003)
(25)
(1,130)
(1,155)
(3,382)
(4,440)
(7,822)
(305)
(4,010)
(4,315)
(1,567)
(3,520)
(5,087)
(1,531)
(14,930)
(16,461)
(4,315)
(5,087)
(16,461)
(3,930)
(8,840)
(7,570)
(4,540)
(22,450)
177,228
115,169
97,260
197,738
210,452
178,613
305,498
168,938
Appendix Page 102
(130)
(3,800)
(3,930)
(8,840)
(8,840)
(7,570)
(7,570)
(4,540)
(4,540)
(4,050)
(18,400)
(22,450)

APRIL 2014
Year
CORPORATE TAX
Depreciation
USDk
USDk
-2
-1
10
11
(501,022)
1,455,981
(5,740)
(5,740)
(17,009)
(17,009)
(41,409)
34,080
(42,110)
150,876
(42,225)
122,213
(43,007)
138,535
(43,439)
76,817
(43,948)
69,773
(45,594)
156,074
(45,987)
173,305
(41,131)
145,053
(30,619)
279,419
(6,672)
184,716
Tax allowance o/b

Tax allowance used
Tax allowance c/b
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
5,740
5,740
5,740
17,009
22,749
22,749
(22,749)
-
Taxable income
Tax Payable
USDk
USDk
11,332
-
150,876
-
122,213
-
138,535
-
76,817
-
69,773
(17,443)
156,074
(39,019)
173,305
(43,326)
145,053
(36,263)
279,419
(69,855)
184,716
(46,179)
WORKING CAPITAL
Debtors - o/b
c/b
net change
USDk
USDk
USDk
5,260
(5,260)
5,260
9,846
(4,586)
9,846
9,496
350
9,496
9,760
(264)
9,760
7,818
1,942
7,818
7,892
(74)
7,892
9,638
(1,746)
9,638
10,134
(496)
10,134
9,424
710
9,424
11,927
(2,503)
11,927
11,927
Creditors - o/b
c/b
net change
USDk
USDk
USDk
(7,180)
7,180
(7,180)
(10,256)
3,076
(10,256)
(11,229)
973
(11,229)
(10,769)
(460)
(10,769)
(10,178)
(591)
(10,178)
(10,747)
570
(10,747)
(9,255)
(1,493)
(9,255)
(9,284)
29
(9,284)
(9,726)
443
(9,726)
(7,724)
(2,002)
(7,724)
(7,724)
Overall Net Change
USDk
1,921
(1,510)
1,323
(724)
1,351
496
(3,239)
(467)
1,153
(4,506)
4,203
USDk
1,259,051
Payback
Discount Rate
NPV
IRR
Years
%
USDk
%
2.6
8.00%
612,721
33.1%
AMARA FREE CASHFLOW
USDk
1,123,549
Payback
Discount Rate
NPV
IRR
Years
%
USDk
%
2.7
8.00%
538,732
31.1%
1,508,113
(252,085)
(112,685)
(112,685)
(244,009)
(356,694)
70,408
(286,286)
190,320
(95,966)
157,939
61,973
2.6
176,504
238,477
116,520
354,996
80,312
435,308
155,481
590,789
166,659
757,448
143,503
900,951
231,138
1,132,088
126,962
1,259,051
(112,685)
(112,685)
(244,009)
(356,694)
70,408
(286,286)
190,320
(95,966)
142,145
46,179
2.7
158,853
205,032
104,868
309,900
72,281
382,181
139,933
522,114
149,993
672,106
129,153
801,259
208,024
1,009,283
114,266
1,123,549
Appendix Page 103

APRIL 2014

Year
-2
-1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
94,595
1.39
4,239
491,984
586,579
5.2
0
0.00
0
0
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0
0
0.00
3,019
1.29
125
41,609
44,628
13.78
6,500
1.42
297
37,000
43,500
5.69
6,500
1.48
308
37,000
43,500
5.69
6,500
1.49
312
37,000
43,500
5.69
6,500
1.10
230
37,000
43,500
5.69
6,500
1.13
236
37,000
43,500
5.69
6,500
1.28
267
37,000
43,500
5.69
6,500
1.19
250
37,000
43,500
5.69
6,500
1.26
263
41,864
48,364
6.44
6,500
1.35
282
42,000
48,500
6.46
6,500
1.45
303
28,498
34,998
4.38
6,500
1.40
293
20,470
26,970
3.15
6,500
1.85
387
20,374
26,874
3.13
6,500
1.36
285
21,773
28,273
3.35
6,500
1.66
346
14,591
21,091
2.24
576
2.93
54
1,806
2,381
3.14
94,595
1.39
4,239
95.0%
4,027
265
0
0.00
0
0.0%
0
0
0.00
0
0.0%
0
3,019
1.29
125
95.0%
119
6,500
1.42
297
95.0%
282
6,500
1.48
308
95.0%
293
6,500
1.49
312
95.0%
296
6,500
1.10
230
95.0%
219
6,500
1.13
236
95.0%
224
6,500
1.28
267
95.0%
254
6,500
1.19
250
95.0%
237
6,500
1.26
263
95.0%
250
6,500
1.35
282
95.0%
268
6,500
1.45
303
95.0%
287
6,500
1.40
293
95.0%
278
6,500
1.85
387
95.0%
368
6,500
1.36
285
95.0%
271
6,500
1.66
346
95.0%
329
576
2.93
54
95.0%
52
USD/oz
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
1,250
5,033,662
(176,178)
(25,168)
(26,175)
4,806,140
0
-
0
-
1,250
148,504
(5,198)
(743)
(772)
141,792
1,250
352,512
(12,338)
(1,763)
(1,833)
336,578
1,250
366,300
(12,821)
(1,832)
(1,905)
349,743
1,250
370,107
(12,954)
(1,851)
(1,925)
353,379
1,250
273,612
(9,576)
(1,368)
(1,423)
261,244
1,250
280,281
(9,810)
(1,401)
(1,457)
267,613
1,250
317,639
(11,117)
(1,588)
(1,652)
303,282
1,250
296,464
(10,376)
(1,482)
(1,542)
283,064
1,250
311,943
(10,918)
(1,560)
(1,622)
297,843
1,250
334,963
(11,724)
(1,675)
(1,742)
319,823
1,250
359,288
(12,575)
(1,796)
(1,868)
343,048
1,250
348,021
(12,181)
(1,740)
(1,810)
332,290
1,250
459,570
(16,085)
(2,298)
(2,390)
438,798
1,250
338,686
(11,854)
(1,693)
(1,761)
323,378
1,250
411,373
(14,398)
(2,057)
(2,139)
392,779
1,250
64,398
(2,254)
(322)
(335)
61,487
OPERATING COSTS
Mining
Processing
G&A
Total Opex
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
(1,449,426)
(958,243)
(67,200)
(2,474,869)
(82,543)
(30,583)
(4,200)
(117,326)
(103,291)
(65,845)
(4,200)
(173,336)
(124,578)
(65,845)
(4,200)
(194,623)
(108,395)
(65,845)
(4,200)
(178,440)
(109,599)
(65,845)
(4,200)
(179,644)
(115,310)
(65,845)
(4,200)
(185,355)
(100,638)
(65,845)
(4,200)
(170,683)
(104,531)
(65,845)
(4,200)
(174,576)
(116,051)
(65,845)
(4,200)
(186,096)
(105,548)
(65,845)
(4,200)
(175,593)
(87,549)
(65,845)
(4,200)
(157,594)
(76,068)
(65,845)
(4,200)
(146,113)
(79,024)
(65,845)
(4,200)
(149,069)
(66,401)
(65,845)
(4,200)
(136,446)
(56,632)
(65,845)
(4,200)
(126,677)
(13,267)
(5,830)
(4,200)
(23,297)
OPERATING CASHFLOW
USDk
2,331,271
24,466
163,242
155,121
174,939
81,600
82,258
132,599
108,488
111,746
144,230
185,454
186,177
289,729
186,932
266,101
38,190
CAPITAL COSTS
Mining Equipment
Process Plant
Area Infrastructure
Miscellaneous
Indirects
Contingency
Total Initial Capex
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
(79,895)
(124,039)
(32,485)
(17,622)
(9,000)
(17,999)
(43,162)
(37,406)
(361,608)
Mining
Other Sustaining
Closure
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
(75,144)
(69,100)
(18,400)
(162,644)
Total Capex
USDk
(524,252)
(112,685)
(248,923)
(4,823)
(3,660)
(4,440)
PRE-TAX CASHFLOW
USDk
1,807,019
(112,685)
(248,923)
19,643
159,582
150,681
Total/ Ave.
PRODUCTION
Mining
Total Ore Mined
Total Ore Grade
Contained Au
Waste Mined
Total Material
Strip Ratio
kt
g/t
koz
kt
kt
t:waste:ore
Processing
Plant Feed
Grade
Contained Gold
Overall Recovery
Gold Produced
kt
g/t
koz
%
koz
REVENUE
Gold Price
Gross Revenue
Royalty
Net Revenue
(49,616)
(12,994)
(7,049)
(3,600)
(7,200)
(17,265)
(14,962)
(112,685)
(79,895)
(74,423)
(19,491)
(10,573)
(5,400)
(10,799)
(25,897)
(22,444)
(248,923)
(4,823)
(4,823)
(2,530)
(1,130)
(3,660)
(4,440)
(4,440)
(5,065)
(4,010)
(9,075)
(2,041)
(3,520)
(5,561)
(2,255)
(14,930)
(17,185)
(9,075)
(5,561)
165,864
76,039
(18,800)
(4,050)
(22,850)
(11,450)
(8,840)
(20,290)
(5,363)
(7,570)
(12,933)
(17,185)
(4,405)
(20,290)
(12,933)
(23,691)
(22,850)
(7,027)
(4,215)
65,073
128,194
88,199
98,814
120,540
162,604
179,150
285,514
Appendix Page 104
(19,151)
(4,540)
(23,691)
(605)
(3,800)
(4,405)
(2,937)
(4,090)
(7,027)
(125)
(4,090)
(4,215)
(4,090)
(4,090)
(18,400)
(18,400)
(4,090)
(18,400)
182,842
266,101
19,790

APRIL 2014
Year
CORPORATE TAX
Depreciation
USDk
USDk
-2
-1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
(564,021)
1,767,250
(5,740)
(5,740)
(17,009)
(17,009)
(41,901)
(17,435)
(42,383)
120,859
(42,749)
112,371
(43,193)
131,745
(44,101)
37,499
(44,657)
37,601
(46,375)
86,223
(46,816)
61,672
(43,105)
68,642
(33,129)
111,101
(10,606)
174,848
(12,409)
173,768
(12,746)
276,983
(12,723)
174,209
(12,225)
253,877
(11,668)
26,521
Tax allowance o/b

Tax allowance used
Tax allowance c/b
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
5,740
5,740
5,740
17,009
22,749
22,749
17,435
40,183
40,183
(40,183)
-
Taxable income
Tax Payable
USDk
USDk
80,676
-
112,371
-
131,745
-
37,499
-
37,601
(9,400)
86,223
(21,556)
61,672
(15,418)
68,642
(17,160)
111,101
(27,775)
174,848
(43,712)
173,768
(43,442)
276,983
(69,246)
174,209
(43,552)
253,877
(63,469)
26,521
(6,630)
WORKING CAPITAL
Debtors - o/b
c/b
net change
USDk
USDk
USDk
3,885
(3,885)
3,885
9,221
(5,337)
9,221
9,582
(361)
9,582
9,682
(100)
9,682
7,157
2,524
7,157
7,332
(174)
7,332
8,309
(977)
8,309
7,755
554
7,755
8,160
(405)
8,160
8,762
(602)
8,762
9,399
(636)
9,399
9,104
295
9,104
12,022
(2,918)
12,022
8,860
3,162
8,860
10,761
(1,901)
10,761
10,761
Creditors - o/b
c/b
net change
USDk
USDk
USDk
(7,232)
7,232
(7,232)
(10,685)
3,453
(10,685)
(11,997)
1,312
(11,997)
(11,000)
(998)
(11,000)
(11,074)
74
(11,074)
(11,426)
352
(11,426)
(10,522)
(904)
(10,522)
(10,762)
240
(10,762)
(11,472)
710
(11,472)
(10,824)
(647)
(10,824)
(9,715)
(1,110)
(9,715)
(9,007)
(708)
(9,007)
(9,189)
182
(9,189)
(8,411)
(778)
(8,411)
(7,809)
(602)
(7,809)
(7,809)
Overall Net Change
USDk
USDk
1,445,658
Payback
Discount Rate
NPV
IRR
Years
%
USDk
%
3.2
8.00%
554,474
25.9%
AMARA FREE CASHFLOW
USDk
1,298,163
Payback
Discount Rate
NPV
IRR
Years
%
USDk
%
3.2
8.00%
490,345
24.6%
1,807,737
(361,361)
3,348
(1,884)
952
(1,097)
2,598
178
(1,882)
794
305
(1,250)
(1,746)
(413)
(2,736)
2,384
(2,504)
2,952
(112,685)
(112,685)
(248,923)
(361,608)
22,990
(338,618)
157,698
(180,920)
151,632
(29,288)
164,767
135,479
3.2
78,637
214,116
55,850
269,966
104,756
374,722
73,574
448,297
81,959
530,255
91,515
621,770
117,147
738,917
135,295
874,212
213,532
1,087,744
141,674
1,229,418
200,128
1,429,546
16,111
1,445,658
(112,685)
(112,685)
(248,923)
(361,608)
22,990
(338,618)
157,698
(180,920)
151,632
(29,288)
148,290
119,002
3.2
70,773
189,776
50,265
240,041
94,280
334,321
66,217
400,538
73,763
474,301
82,364
556,665
105,432
662,097
121,766
783,862
192,179
976,041
127,506
1,103,547
180,116
1,283,663
14,500
1,298,163
Appendix Page 105

APRIL 2014

Year
-2
-1
10
11
12
13
94,595
1.39
4,239
491,984
586,579
5.2
0
0.00
0
0
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0
0
0.00
5,091
1.34
219
49,069
54,160
9.64
8,000
1.51
389
46,000
54,000
5.75
8,000
1.49
383
46,000
54,000
5.75
8,000
1.13
289
47,201
55,201
5.90
8,000
1.10
283
48,500
56,500
6.06
8,000
1.23
317
48,329
56,329
6.04
8,000
1.24
318
48,500
56,500
6.06
8,000
1.38
356
48,500
56,500
6.06
8,000
1.42
366
33,497
41,497
4.19
8,000
1.38
355
27,042
35,042
3.38
8,000
1.79
460
26,250
34,250
3.28
8,000
1.46
375
19,152
27,152
2.39
1,504
2.66
129
3,944
5,448
2.62
94,595
1.39
4,239
95.0%
4,027
325
0
0.00
0
0.0%
0
0
0.00
0
0.0%
0
5,091
1.34
219
95.0%
208
8,000
1.51
389
95.0%
370
8,000
1.49
383
95.0%
364
8,000
1.13
289
95.0%
275
8,000
1.10
283
95.0%
269
8,000
1.23
317
95.0%
301
8,000
1.24
318
95.0%
302
8,000
1.38
356
95.0%
338
8,000
1.42
366
95.0%
347
8,000
1.38
355
95.0%
337
8,000
1.79
460
95.0%
437
8,000
1.46
375
95.0%
357
1,504
2.66
129
95.0%
122
USD/oz
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
1,250
5,033,662
(176,178)
(25,168)
(26,175)
4,806,140
0
-
0
-
1,250
260,023
(9,101)
(1,300)
(1,352)
248,270
1,250
462,381
(16,183)
(2,312)
(2,404)
441,481
1,250
454,813
(15,918)
(2,274)
(2,365)
434,256
1,250
343,667
(12,028)
(1,718)
(1,787)
328,134
1,250
336,113
(11,764)
(1,681)
(1,748)
320,921
1,250
376,126
(13,164)
(1,881)
(1,956)
359,125
1,250
377,370
(13,208)
(1,887)
(1,962)
360,313
1,250
422,655
(14,793)
(2,113)
(2,198)
403,551
1,250
434,287
(15,200)
(2,171)
(2,258)
414,658
1,250
421,687
(14,759)
(2,108)
(2,193)
402,626
1,250
545,904
(19,107)
(2,730)
(2,839)
521,229
1,250
445,820
(15,604)
(2,229)
(2,318)
425,669
1,250
152,816
(5,349)
(764)
(795)
145,909
OPERATING COSTS
Mining
Processing
G&A
Total Opex
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
(1,417,820)
(936,487)
(54,600)
(2,408,906)
(92,390)
(50,402)
(4,200)
(146,992)
(119,268)
(79,200)
(4,200)
(202,668)
(144,313)
(79,200)
(4,200)
(227,713)
(130,955)
(79,200)
(4,200)
(214,355)
(120,335)
(79,200)
(4,200)
(203,735)
(135,397)
(79,200)
(4,200)
(218,797)
(132,970)
(79,200)
(4,200)
(216,370)
(131,129)
(79,200)
(4,200)
(214,529)
(118,617)
(79,200)
(4,200)
(202,017)
(101,984)
(79,200)
(4,200)
(185,384)
(85,096)
(79,200)
(4,200)
(168,496)
(75,295)
(79,200)
(4,200)
(158,695)
(30,072)
(14,885)
(4,200)
(49,157)
OPERATING CASHFLOW
USDk
2,397,234
101,278
238,813
206,543
113,779
117,186
140,328
143,943
189,022
212,641
217,243
352,732
266,974
96,752
CAPITAL COSTS
Mining Equipment
Process Plant
Area Infrastructure
Miscellaneous
Indirects
Contingency
Total Initial Capex
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
(91,769)
(142,821)
(35,304)
(18,441)
(9,000)
(20,045)
(48,898)
(42,030)
(408,308)
Mining
Other Sustaining
Closure
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
(64,561)
(62,780)
(18,400)
(145,741)
Total Capex
USDk
(554,049)
(126,616)
(281,692)
(7,672)
(1,555)
PRE-TAX CASHFLOW
USDk
1,843,185
(126,616)
(281,692)
93,606
237,258
Total/ Ave.
PRODUCTION
Mining
Total Ore Mined
Total Ore Grade
Contained Au
Waste Mined
Total Material
Strip Ratio
kt
g/t
koz
kt
kt
t:waste:ore
Processing
Plant Feed
Grade
Contained Gold
Overall Recovery
Gold Produced
kt
g/t
koz
%
koz
REVENUE
Gold Price
Gross Revenue
Royalty
Net Revenue
(57,128)
(14,122)
(7,376)
(3,600)
(8,018)
(19,559)
(16,812)
(126,616)
(91,769)
(85,693)
(21,182)
(11,065)
(5,400)
(12,027)
(29,339)
(25,218)
(281,692)
(7,672)
(7,672)
(275)
(1,280)
(1,555)
(5,030)
(5,030)
(2,810)
(4,540)
(7,350)
(8,806)
(16,890)
(25,696)
(5,030)
(7,350)
(25,696)
(7,682)
(11,742)
(8,755)
(15,416)
(25,062)
201,513
106,429
91,490
132,646
132,200
180,267
197,224
192,181
Appendix Page 106
(3,382)
(4,300)
(7,682)
(1,732)
(10,010)
(11,742)
(175)
(8,580)
(8,755)
(10,266)
(5,150)
(15,416)
(21,562)
(3,500)
(25,062)
(7,755)
(3,500)
(11,255)
(125)
(18,400)
(18,525)
(11,255)
(18,525)
341,477
266,974
78,227

APRIL 2014
Year
CORPORATE TAX
Depreciation
-2
-1
10
11
12
13
USDk
USDk
(604,766)
1,792,468
(5,740)
(5,740)
(18,402)
(18,402)
(46,571)
54,707
(47,338)
191,475
(47,493)
159,050
(47,996)
65,783
(48,731)
68,455
(51,301)
89,027
(52,069)
91,873
(53,244)
135,778
(48,379)
164,262
(37,259)
179,984
(11,596)
341,136
(11,954)
255,019
(11,799)
84,953
Tax allowance o/b

Tax allowance used
Tax allowance c/b
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
5,740
5,740
5,740
18,402
24,142
24,142
(24,142)
-
Taxable income
Tax Payable
USDk
USDk
30,566
-
191,475
-
159,050
-
65,783
-
68,455
-
89,027
(22,257)
91,873
(22,968)
135,778
(33,945)
164,262
(41,065)
179,984
(44,996)
341,136
(85,284)
255,019
(63,755)
84,953
(21,238)
WORKING CAPITAL
Debtors - o/b
c/b
net change
USDk
USDk
USDk
6,802
(6,802)
6,802
12,095
(5,293)
12,095
11,897
198
11,897
8,990
2,907
8,990
8,792
198
8,792
9,839
(1,047)
9,839
9,872
(33)
9,872
11,056
(1,185)
11,056
11,360
(304)
11,360
11,031
330
11,031
14,280
(3,249)
14,280
11,662
2,618
11,662
11,662
Creditors - o/b
c/b
net change
USDk
USDk
USDk
(9,061)
9,061
(9,061)
(12,493)
3,432
(12,493)
(14,037)
1,544
(14,037)
(13,214)
(823)
(13,214)
(12,559)
(655)
(12,559)
(13,487)
928
(13,487)
(13,338)
(150)
(13,338)
(13,224)
(113)
(13,224)
(12,453)
(771)
(12,453)
(11,428)
(1,025)
(11,428)
(10,387)
(1,041)
(10,387)
(9,783)
(604)
(9,783)
(9,783)
Overall Net Change
USDk
2,259
(1,861)
1,742
2,084
(457)
(118)
(182)
(1,298)
(1,076)
(696)
(4,290)
2,014
1,880
1,857,361
(335,508)
USDk
1,507,677
Payback
Discount Rate
NPV
IRR
Years
%
USDk
%
2.4
8.00%
688,237
32.0%
AMARA FREE CASHFLOW
USDk
1,349,205
Payback
Discount Rate
NPV
IRR
Years
%
USDk
%
2.4
8.00%
607,574
30.2%
(126,616)
(126,616)
(281,692)
(408,308)
95,866
(312,442)
235,397
(77,045)
203,255
126,209
2.4
108,513
234,723
91,033
325,756
110,271
436,027
109,050
545,076
145,024
690,100
155,083
845,184
146,489
991,673
251,903
1,243,576
205,233
1,448,809
58,868
1,507,677
(126,616)
(126,616)
(281,692)
(408,308)
95,866
(312,442)
235,397
(77,045)
182,929
105,884
2.4
97,662
203,546
81,930
285,475
99,244
384,719
98,145
482,864
130,522
613,386
139,575
752,961
131,840
884,801
226,713
1,111,514
184,710
1,296,223
52,981
1,349,205
Appendix Page 107

APRIL 2014
1.6 Mt/a Oxide (Heap Leach)

Year
-1
5,619
1.49
269
14,294
19,912
2.544
0
0.00
0
0
0
0.00
1,600
2.23
115
4,054
5,654
2.53
1,600
1.17
60
4,093
5,693
2.56
1,600
1.24
64
4,150
5,750
2.59
819
1.14
30
1,996
2,815
2.44
5,619
1.49
269
80.0%
214.81
54
0
0.00
0
0.0%
0
1,600
2.23
115
80.0%
92
1,600
1.17
60
80.0%
48
1,600
1.24
64
80.0%
51
819
1.14
30
80.0%
24
USD/oz
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
1,250
268,509
(9,398)
(1,343)
(1,396)
256,372
0
-
1,250
114,803
(4,018)
(574)
(597)
109,614
1,250
60,149
(2,105)
(301)
(313)
57,430
1,250
63,584
(2,225)
(318)
(331)
60,710
1,250
29,973
(1,049)
(150)
(156)
28,618
OPERATING COSTS
Mining
Processing
G&A
Total Opex
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
(68,698)
(64,223)
(16,800)
(149,721)
(19,506)
(18,288)
(4,200)
(41,994)
(19,642)
(18,288)
(4,200)
(42,130)
(19,837)
(18,288)
(4,200)
(42,325)
(9,712)
(9,359)
(4,200)
(23,271)
OPERATING CASHFLOW
USDk
106,651
67,620
15,300
18,384
5,347
CAPITAL COSTS
Mining Contractor Mobilisation
Inter-project Transfer
Process Plant
Area Infrastructure
Miscellaneous
Indirects
Contingency
Total Initial Capex
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
(5,000)
(10,000)
(14,140)
(1,087)
(1,365)
(3,424)
(4,958)
(6,243)
(46,216)
Mining Contractor Demob

Other Sustaining
Closure
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
(1,000)
(10,160)
(2,600)
(13,760)
Total Capex
USDk
(59,976)
PRE-TAX CASHFLOW
USDk
46,675
CORPORATE TAX
Depreciation
USDk
USDk
(97,376)
9,275
Tax allowance o/b

Tax allowance used
Tax allowance c/b
USDk
USDk
USDk
USDk
Taxable income
Tax Payable
USDk
USDk
WORKING CAPITAL
Debtors - o/b
c/b
net change
USDk
USDk
USDk
Creditors - o/b
c/b
net change
USDk
USDk
USDk
Overall Net Change
USDk
USDk
37,334
Payback
Discount Rate
NPV
IRR
Years
%
USDk
%
0.8
8.00%
28,150
52.3%
AMARA FREE CASHFLOW
USDk
28,979
Payback
Discount Rate
NPV
IRR
Years
%
USDk
%
0.9
8.00%
20,713
40.6%
Total/ Ave.
PRODUCTION
Mining
Total Ore Mined
Total Ore Grade
Contained Au
Waste Mined
Total Material
Strip Ratio
kt
g/t
koz
kt
kt
t:waste:ore
Processing
Plant Feed
Grade
Contained Gold
Overall Recovery
Gold Produced
kt
g/t
koz
%
koz
REVENUE
Gold Price
Gross Revenue
Royalty
Net Revenue
(5,000)
(10,000)
(14,140)
(1,087)
(1,365)
(3,424)
(4,958)
(6,243)
(46,216)
(9,730)
(9,730)
(430)
(430)
(1,000)
(2,600)
(3,600)
(46,216)
(46,216)
67,620
(9,730)
(430)
(3,600)
5,570
17,954
1,747
(9,350)
(9,350)
(20,904)
46,716
(20,904)
(5,604)
(23,337)
(4,952)
(14,094)
(8,747)
9,350
9,350
9,350
(9,350)
-
5,604
5,604
5,604
4,952
10,556
10,556
8,747
19,303
37,366
(9,341)
3,003
(3,003)
3,003
1,573
1,430
1,573
1,663
(90)
1,663
1,663
(2,589)
2,589
(2,589)
(2,597)
8
(2,597)
(2,609)
12
(2,609)
(2,609)
37,366
(9,341)
(414)
1,438
(78)
(946)
(46,216)
(46,216)
57,864
11,648
0.8
7,008
18,657
17,877
36,533
801
37,334
(46,216)
(46,216)
52,078
5,862
0.9
6,308
12,169
16,089
28,258
721
28,979
Appendix Page 108

APRIL 2014
APPENDIX O
Sensitivity Analysis
Appendix Page 109

APRIL 2014

GOLD PRICE
NPV USD M
IRR
CAPEX
NPVs USD M
IRR
464
0.0%
5.0%
DR 8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
25.4%
464
0.0%
5.0%
DR 8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
25.4%
1,000
569
259
143
84
36
1,000
13.9%
1,100
796
412
267
193
133
1,100
18.5%
1,200
1,035
574
398
308
234
1,200
23.1%
1,250
1,154
654
464
366
285
1,250
25.4%
1,300
1,274
735
529
423
336
1,300
27.5%
-20%
1,235
727
533
433
351
-20.0%
31.3%
-10%
1,195
691
498
399
318
-10.0%
28.1%
0%
1,154
654
464
366
285
0.0%
25.4%
10%
1,114
618
429
332
252
10.0%
23.0%
20%
1,073
582
394
298
219
20.0%
21.0%
-20%
1,437
853
628
511
415
-20.0%
31.1%
-10%
1,296
754
546
438
350
-10.0%
28.2%
0%
1,154
654
464
366
285
0.0%
25.4%
10%
1,013
555
382
293
220
10.0%
22.4%
20%
871
456
300
220
155
20.0%
19.4%
-20%
560
253
138
80
32
-20.0%
13.7%
-10%
857
454
301
223
159
-10.0%
19.7%
0%
1,154
654
464
366
285
0.0%
25.4%
10%
1,451
855
626
509
412
10.0%
30.6%
20%
1,748
1,056
789
652
538
20.0%
35.6%
OPEX
NPVs USD M
IRR
464
0.0%
5.0%
DR 8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
25.4%
GOLD PRODUCTION
NPVs USD M
IRR
464
0.0%
5.0%
DR 8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
25.4%
Appendix Page 110
1,400
1,495
885
650
530
430
1,400
31.4%
1,500
1,733
1,046
781
644
531
1,500
35.3%

APRIL 2014

GOLD PRICE
NPV USD M
DR
IRR
CAPEX
613
0.0%
5.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
33.1%
NPVs USD M
DR
IRR
613
0.0%
5.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
33.1%
1,000
658
366
247
183
130
1,000
19.0%
1,100
890
535
388
310
244
1,100
24.7%
1,200
1,136
713
538
444
365
1,200
30.4%
1,250
1,259
802
613
511
425
1,250
33.1%
1,300
1,382
891
687
578
485
1,300
35.7%
-20%
1,338
877
685
582
495
-20.0%
40.9%
-10%
1,299
839
649
547
460
-10.0%
36.6%
0%
1,259
802
613
511
425
0.0%
33.1%
10%
1,219
765
576
475
390
10.0%
30.0%
20%
1,180
727
540
440
355
20.0%
27.4%
-20%
1,540
1,010
790
671
570
-20.0%
39.6%
-10%
1,399
906
701
591
497
-10.0%
36.4%
0%
1,259
802
613
511
425
0.0%
33.1%
10%
1,119
698
524
431
353
10.0%
29.7%
20%
978
594
436
352
281
20.0%
26.2%
-20%
648
359
241
178
126
-20.0%
18.8%
-10%
954
581
427
345
275
-10.0%
26.2%
0%
1,259
802
613
511
425
0.0%
33.1%
10%
1,565
1,024
799
678
575
10.0%
39.5%
20%
1,870
1,245
984
844
724
20.0%
45.6%
OPEX
NPVs USD M
DR
IRR
613
0.0%
5.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
33.1%
GOLD PRODUCTION
NPVs USD M
DR
IRR
613
0.0%
5.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
33.1%
Appendix Page 111
1,400
1,610
1,056
826
702
597
1,400
40.4%
1,500
1,854
1,234
975
835
717
1,500
45.3%

APRIL 2014

GOLD PRICE
NPV USD M
DR
IRR
CAPEX
554
0.0%
5.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
25.9%
NPVs USD M
DR
IRR
554
0.0%
5.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
25.9%
1,000
668
284
147
79
25
1,000
13.1%
1,100
967
480
304
216
146
1,100
18.3%
1,200
1,286
689
471
362
274
1,200
23.4%
1,250
1,446
793
554
435
338
1,250
25.9%
1,300
1,605
898
638
507
402
1,300
28.3%
-20%
1,537
875
633
510
412
-20.0%
32.1%
-10%
1,491
834
594
473
375
-10.0%
28.7%
0%
1,446
793
554
435
338
0.0%
25.9%
10%
1,400
752
515
397
301
10.0%
23.5%
20%
1,354
711
476
359
264
20.0%
21.5%
-20%
1,859
1,073
782
635
515
-20.0%
25.9%
-10%
1,652
933
668
535
426
-10.0%
25.9%
0%
1,446
793
554
435
338
0.0%
25.9%
10%
1,239
654
441
335
249
10.0%
25.9%
20%
1,032
514
327
235
161
20.0%
25.9%
-20%
656
276
140
74
21
-20.0%
25.9%
-10%
1,049
533
347
253
179
-10.0%
25.9%
0%
1,446
793
554
435
338
0.0%
25.9%
10%
1,842
1,053
762
616
497
10.0%
25.9%
20%
2,239
1,313
970
797
656
20.0%
25.9%
OPEX
NPVs USD M
DR
IRR
554
0.0%
5.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
25.9%
GOLD PRODUCTION
NPVs USD M
DR
IRR
554
0.0%
5.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
25.9%
Appendix Page 112
1,400
1,901
1,092
793
643
521
1,400
32.7%
1,500
2,218
1,300
960
788
648
1,500
37.2%

APRIL 2014

GOLD PRICE
NPV USD M
DR
IRR
CAPEX
688
0.0%
5.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
32.0%
NPVs USD M
DR
IRR
688
0.0%
5.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
32.0%
1,000
711
363
227
157
100
1,000
16.7%
1,100
1,019
579
406
316
241
1,100
22.9%
1,200
1,345
807
594
483
390
1,200
29.1%
1,250
1,508
921
688
566
465
1,250
32.0%
1,300
1,670
1,035
782
650
539
1,300
34.9%
-20%
1,605
1,011
775
651
547
-20.0%
40.2%
-10%
1,557
966
731
609
506
-10.0%
35.7%
0%
1,508
921
688
566
465
0.0%
32.0%
10%
1,459
876
645
524
423
10.0%
28.9%
20%
1,410
831
602
482
382
20.0%
26.3%
-20%
1,919
1,214
933
784
660
-20.0%
39.6%
-10%
1,713
1,068
810
675
562
-10.0%
35.9%
0%
1,508
921
688
566
465
0.0%
32.0%
10%
1,302
774
566
457
367
10.0%
28.1%
20%
1,097
627
444
348
269
20.0%
24.0%
-20%
698
354
220
151
94
-20.0%
16.4%
-10%
1,103
637
454
359
279
-10.0%
24.5%
0%
1,508
921
688
566
465
0.0%
32.0%
10%
1,912
1,204
922
774
650
10.0%
39.1%
20%
2,317
1,488
1,156
982
835
20.0%
45.8%
OPEX
NPVs USD M
DR
IRR
688
0.0%
5.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
32.0%
GOLD PRODUCTION
NPVs USD M
DR
IRR
688
0.0%
5.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
32.0%
Appendix Page 113
1,400
1,972
1,246
957
805
678
1,400
40.1%
1,500
2,296
1,473
1,144
971
826
1,500
45.4%

APRIL 2014
1.6 Mt/a Heap Leach (Oxide)

GOLD PRICE
NPV USD M
DR
IRR
CAPEX
28
0.0%
5.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
1,000
-8
-9
-10
-11
-11
1,000
-26.1%
1,100
10
6
5
4
3
1,100
17.2%
1,200
28
23
20
19
17
1,200
41.7%
1,250
37
31
28
26
24
1,250
52.3%
1,300
47
40
36
34
32
1,300
62.3%
-20%
49
42
39
37
35
-20.0%
83.3%
-10%
43
37
34
32
30
-10.0%
66.2%
0%
37
31
28
26
24
0.0%
52.3%
10%
32
26
23
21
19
10.0%
40.8%
20%
26
20
17
15
13
20.0%
31.1%
-20%
64
55
50
47
44
-20.0%
76.0%
-10%
51
44
40
37
35
-10.0%
65.3%
0%
37
31
28
26
24
0.0%
52.3%
10%
23
19
17
15
14
10.0%
37.5%
20%
9
7
5
4
3
20.0%
18.9%
-20%
-8
-10
-11
-11
-12
-20.0%
52.3% #NUM!
-10%
14
11
9
7
6
-10.0%
24.1%
0%
37
31
28
26
24
0.0%
52.3%
10%
60
52
47
45
42
10.0%
76.2%
20%
80
70
64
61
58
20.0%
96.3%
52.3%
NPVs USD M
DR
IRR
28
0.0%
5.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
52.3%
OPEX
NPVs USD M
DR
IRR
28
0.0%
5.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
52.3%
GOLD PRODUCTION
NPVs USD M
DR
IRR
28
0.0%
5.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
Appendix Page 114
1,400
63
54
50
47
44
1,400
79.2%
1,500
79
69
63
60
57
1,500
95.3%

APRIL 2014
APPENDIX P
Qualified Persons Certificates
Appendix Page 115

APRIL 2014
Appendix Page 116

APRIL 2014
Appendix Page 117

APRIL 2014
Appendix Page 118

APRIL 2014
Appendix Page 119

APRIL 2014
Appendix Page 120

APRIL 2014
Appendix Page 121

APRIL 2014
Appendix Page 122

APRIL 2014
Appendix Page 123

APRIL 2014
Appendix Page 124

APRIL 2014
END
Appendix Page 125

Yaoure Gold PEA Shows Robust Economics

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Yaoure Gold PEA Shows Robust Economics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technical Report and

Preliminary Economic Assessment of the

Effective Date: 25 April 2014

Bruce Van Brunt

PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

D ATE AN D SI GN ATUR E P AGE

Report Date and Signature Page 1

PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Report Date and Signature Page 2

PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Report Date and Signature Page 3

PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Report Date and Signature Page 4

PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Report Date and Signature Page 5

PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Report Date and Signature Page 6

PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

At an 8% discount rate, the post-tax net present value of the project is

Yaoures resilience to lower gold prices is demonstrated by the project achieving an

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE 6.5 MT/A BASE CASE:

At an 8% discount rate, the post-tax net present value of the project is

PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Staged development approach to reduce up-front capital;

PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Annual Production (Mt)

Mine Life (Yrs)

Ore Mined (Mt)

Average Grade (g/t)

Waste Mined (Mt)

Total Material (Mt)

Strip Ratio (t w:o)

Gold Produced (Moz)

Annual Average Output (koz)

CIP Recovery (%)

Executive Summary III

PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... 1-1

RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS ....................................................................................... 3-24

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION...................................................................... 4-26

ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND

HISTORY ............................................................................................................................... 6-34

GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION ............................................................... 7-36

PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

DEPOSIT TYPES ................................................................................................................... 8-57

DRILLING ............................................................................................................................. 10-71

SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY................................................... 11-84

PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

DATA VERIFICATION ....................................................................................................... 12-114

MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING.......................................... 13-116

MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES ................................................................................ 14-125

MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES ................................................................................... 15-157

MINING METHODS ........................................................................................................... 16-158

PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

RECOVERY METHODS .................................................................................................... 17-176

PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE ........................................................................................ 18-184

PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS ........................................................................... 19-210

ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMMITTING AND SOCIAL OR COMMUNITY IMPACT20-211

CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS ................................................................................ 21-220

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................... 22-246

PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

ADJACENT PROPERTIES ................................................................................................ 23-254