NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT (GEOLOGICAL/GEOPHYSICAL SUMMARY)

on the AT PROPERTY

Ottarasko Mountain, Tatla Lake Area, Clinton MD, BC

Centered Near: Latitude 51° 29’ 45” North, Longitude 124° 41’ 44” West UTM coordinates: 5706330 m N, 382300 m E (NAD 83, Zone 10)

==> picture [410 x 273] intentionally omitted <==

Prepared for: 1200164 B.C. LTD. (DBA AVALON WEST ACQUISITIONS) 1080 – 789 West Pender Street Vancouver, B.C. V6C 1H2 Prepared by: David G. Mark, P.Geo. Effective Date: February 18, 2021

Geotronics

		TABLE OF CONTENTS
1	*SUMMARY ____________ 1*
2	*INTRODUCTION AND TERMS OF REFERENCE _________ 5*
3	*RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS _________ 7*
4	*PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION ______ 7*
	4.1	Property Area and Location _______ 7
	4.2	Land Tenure, Legal Agreements, and Other Assets ______ 7
	4.3	Location of Mineralization and Facilities _________ 9
	4.4	Environmental Liabilities _________ 9
	4.5	Permits and Land Use Agreements _______ 9
	4.6	Factors and Risks _________ 9
5	*ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY 9*
	5.1	Access ____________ 9
	5.2	Local Resources and Infrastructure ______ 10
	5.3	Physiography ___________ 10
	5.4	Climate __________ 10
6	*EXPLORATION HISTORY _______ 10*
7	*GEOLOGICAL SETTING and MINERALIZATION ________ 12*
	7.1	Regional Geology ________ 12
	7.1.1	Stratified Rocks __________ 12
	7.1.2	Intrusive Rocks ___________ 13
	7.2	Regional Structures and Metamorphism _______ 14
	7.3	Property Geology ________ 14
	7.4	Property Mineralization _________ 15
8	*MINERAL DEPOSIT TYPES ____________ 17*
	8.1	Analogous Mineral Deposits ___________ 21
9	*EXPLORATION _________ 22*
	9.1	Interpretation of Government Airborne Magnetics _____ 23
	9.2	Fisher/Nicholson 2018 Exploration Program __________ 24
	9.3	2020 UAV and Helicopter Magnetic Survey _____ 26

Geotronics

9.4 2020 UAV Multispectral Photogrammetric Imaging Survey _____ 28
9.5 2020 Prospecting and Rock Sampling __________ 30
9.5.1 2020 Assay Results _____________ 30
9.5.2 Nickel ____________ 31
9.5.3 Copper ___________ 31
9.5.4 PGE’s ____________ 32
9.5.5 Other Elements __________ 32
9.5.6 Intrusive Units Chemistry ________ 33
10 *DRILLING _____________ 36*
11 *SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY _________ 36*
11.1 2018 Work _____________ 36
11.2 2020 Work _____________ 37
12 *DATA VERIFICATON __________ 40*
13 *MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING ______ 40*
14 *MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES ______ 40*
15 *MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES _______ 40*
16 *Mining Methods _____________ 40*
17 *RECOVERY METHODS _________ 40*
18 *PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE __________ 40*
19 *MARKET STUDY AND CONTRACTS ___________ 40*
20 *ENVIRONMENT STUDIES, PERMITTING AND SOCIAL COMMUNITY IMPACT __ 40*
21 *CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS ___________ 40*
22 *ECONOMIC ANALYSIS _________ 41*
23 *ADJACENT PROPERTIES _______ 41*
24 *OTHER RELAVENT DATA AND INFORMATION ________ 41*
25 *INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS _______ 41*
26 *RECOMMENDATIONS _________ 42*
27 *REFERENCES __________ 44*
28 *CERTIFICATE OF AUTHOR - David Mark, P.Geo _______ 48*
29 *APPENDIX I – ROCK DESCRIPTIONS AND LAB RESULTS ________ 1*
29.1 Sample Descriptions by Len Gal, M.Sc, Geologist ________ 1
29.2 Lab Results ______________ 1

Geotronics

29.3	Thin Section Report _____________ 1
30 *APPENDIX II – ROCK SAMPLE PLAN MAPS _____ 2*
30.1	All Rock Samples – fig 1 __________ 2
30.2	All Rock Samples Showing Airborne – fig 2 _______ 2
30.3	2020 Rock Samples – fig 3 ________ 2
30.4	2020 Rock Samples Showing Airborne – fig 4 _____ 2
30.5	2020 Rock Samples – fig 5a _______ 2
30.6	2020 Rock Samples – fig 5b _______ 2
30.7	2020 Rock Samples – fig 5c _______ 2
30.8	2018 Rock Samples – fig 6 ________ 2
30.9	2018 Rock Samples Showing Airborne – fig 7 _____ 2
30.10	2018 Rock Samples – fig 8a ___________ 2
30.11	2018 Rock Samples – fig 8b ___________ 2
30.12	2018 Rock Samples – fig 8c ___________ 2
30.13	Historical Rock Samples – fig 9 ________ 2
30.14	Historical Rock Samples Showing Airborne – fig 10 ____ 2
30.15	Historical Rock Samples – fig 11a ______ 2
30.16	Historical Rock Samples – fig 11b ______ 2
30.17	Historical Rock Samples – fig 11c ______ 2
31 *APPENDIX III – AT PROPERTY GEOPHYSCAL & PHOTOGRAMMETRY MAPS ___ 3*
31.1	Airborne Magnetic Survey – fig GP 1 ______ 3
31.2	Airborne Magnetic Survey Showing Contours – fig GP 2 ________ 3
31.3	Airborne Magnetic Survey Showing Geology – fig GP 3 _________ 3
31.4	Airborne Photogrammetry Survey – Iron Oxide Index – fig P3 ___ 3

Geotronics

FIGURES	page #
Figure 1	Regional Location Map, AT Property ................................................. after 7
Figure 2	Claim Map ........................................................................................... after 7
Figure 3	Regional Geology Map ........................................................................ after 12
Figure 4	Property Geology Map ......................................................................... after 12
Figure 5	Geology Legend ................................................................................... after 12
Figure 6	AT Property Mineralization ................................................................. after 15
Figure 7	Model of Development of Magmatic Ni-Cu Sulphide Deposits .............. 19
Figure 8	Model for magmatic segregation Ni-Cu-Co-PGE deposit-type
mineralization within the inter-mediate to ultramafic polyphase pluton at the AT
Property	................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 9	Total Alkalis vs. Silica Discriminant Plot for Intrusive Samples ............. 34
Figure 10	AFM Plot .................................................................................................. 34
Figure 11	MgO vs. Fe, Al and Si Oxides in Intrusive Rocks .................................... 35
TABLES	page #
Table 1	Definitions................................................................................................. 6
Table 2	Claims Optioned by 1200164 B.C. Ltd. (Avalon) .................................... 8
Table 3	Median Tonnage and Grade for Ni-Cu-Co Deposits ................................ 18
Table 4	Summary of Work and Expenditure on AT Property ............................... 23
Table 5	Exploration Budget ................................................................................... 43

Geotronics

1 SUMMARY

1200164 B.C. Ltd. (dba Avalon West Acquisitions) “Avalon”, contracted David Mark, P.Geo. of Geotronics Consulting, to visit, prospect, rock sample, carry out drone magnetic and photogrammetry surveying, as well as to prepare a Technical Report on the AT Property. This independent report summarizes known information pertaining to magmatic-hosted Ni-Cu sulphides + PGE targets . It describes the geology of the project area, summarizes the property’s known exploration history, reviews the nature of property nickel, copper, and cobalt mineralization, documents the results of the 2018-2020 exploration programs, which consisted of prospecting, rock sampling, drone magnetic surveying and photogrammetry surveying, and then makes recommendations for further exploration.

This report was prepared at the request of Avalon and was written under the guidelines of Canadian National Instrument 43-101 and in compliance with Form 43-101F1 (the “Technical Reports”). David Mark, P.Geo, served as the independent Qualified Person responsible for preparing the Technical Report. David Mark visited and worked on the property from September 22[nd] to October 3[rd] , 2020.

The AT Property area is situated in the Chilcotin region of the Clinton Mining Division within south central British Columbia 190 km west-southwest of the town of Williams Lake. It presently consists of 4 claims totaling 3,440.7 hectares, the names and tenure numbers of which are given in Table 1. Access to the property is best by helicopter from a heliport at the south end of Bluff Lake which is accessed by 245 km of highway and gravel road from Williams Lake.

The AT Project claims are owned 50% by Ron Fisher and 50% by George Nicholson. The two owners have entered into an option agreement dated September 14, 2020, with Avalon, whereby Avalon was granted an option to acquire 100% undivided right, title and interest in and to the AT Property, subject to a 2.5% net smelter return royalty in favour of Fisher/Nicholson, 1% of which may be repurchased by Avalon in consideration for $4,000,000 in shares (0.5% by $1,000,000 in shares and 0.5% by $3,000,000 in shares). Avalon must also pay out $10,000 upon signing of the option agreement and 10% of exploration costs up to a maximum of $250,000. In addition, Avalon must issue 300,000 common shares upon Avalon’s public listing, as well as 1,200,000 shares upon a positive feasibility report.

The report is also being prepared to support a proposed qualifying transaction by Avalon, pursuant to the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange.

This report discusses exploration potential of the AT Property, and recommendations for further exploration. These opinions and recommendations are intended to serve as guidance for future evaluation of the property and should not be interpreted as a guarantee of success.

Geotronics

1 | P a g e

volcanic arc, and locally some younger overlap assemblages. The CPC is a magmatic arc of Jurassic to Tertiary intrusive rocks that stitch together Stikine terrane with terranes further outboard. A central gneiss belt in the CPC marks the locus of deformation in the magmatic arc and associated with this are fold and thrust belts as well as major transcurrent shear zones, a function of plate interactions and docking of successive terranes in the Cordillera.

The AT Property lies between Ottarasko Mountain and Sleepwalker Peak, and to the west of Nude Creek. The claims cover a large part of a northeast-trending, Late Cretaceous to Early Tertiary granodiorite to tonalite pluton. This intrusive is post-metamorphic and postdeformational; crosscutting the interleaved thrust fault slices that make up Ottarasko Mountain. The intrusive rocks include mafic to ultramafic phases. There are also presumed Tertiary aged dykes that cut the ultramafic rocks. These are described variously as hornblende porphyries, and felsic to diabase dykes. Also, ultramafic dykes cut the deformed sedimentary and volcanic sequences in the northwest part of the property. North-trending faults offset the ultramafic rocks in the core of the AT 2 claim.

West of Ottarasko Mountain, and in the extreme western part of the property, a Late Cretaceous tonalitic orthogneiss, part of the central gneiss belt, is thrust over fault slices of Cloud Drifter formation clastic sedimentary rocks and volcanic dominated Ottarasko formation, the latter forming much of the massif of Ottarasko Mountain. Thin, highly deformed and at least partly fault-bounded, limestone to limy shale beds outcropping west and south of the peak of Ottarasko Mountain are likely part of Ottarasko formation. These rocks outcrop along the northwest edge of the property on the AT 2 claim. Along the south and southeast margins of the property, sedimentary rocks of Cloud Drifter formation outcrop on the north slopes of Sleepwalker Peak and to the east.

The main mineralization of interest on the property is magmatic-hosted nickel-copper sulphides +/- platinum group elements (PGE). An analogous deposit in BC is the past producing Giant Mascot nickel mine located 10 km north of the town of Hope. Many of the characteristics of the AT Property are similar to those of the Giant Mascot Mine. The BC MINFILE lists the main showing area as the AT 2 showing (BC MINFILE # 092N 048). The property mineralization was originally discovered as a boulder train in 1983 that consisted of mineralized igneous rocks, containing Cu-Ni-Co minerals with values up to 1.5% Cu. In 1987, follow-up on this boulder train by prospecting led to the recognition of ultramafic phases in the poorly exposed, postdeformational pluton southeast of Ottarasko Mountain. Two zones of massive sulphide mineralization were then discovered, each exposed on a cliff face over 5-10 square metres, and consisting of pyrite, pyrrhotite, chalcopyrite, pentlandite and unspecified associated cobalt minerals. These were interpreted as magmatic segregations in the mafic-ultramafic intrusive. Analysis of samples yielded up to 0.50% Cu, 0.41% Ni and 0.14% Co as well as anomalous gold (95 ppb), silver (0.8 ppm), platinum (40 ppb) and palladium (65 ppb). However, given their position, these outcrops were not thought to be the source of the original boulder train of interest. A second sample from the boulder train material yielded 150 ppb Pt, 100 ppb Pd, 1.08% Cu and 0.19% Ni. Further samples were taken from ultramafic rock yielding 97 ppm Cu, 443 ppm Ni, 79 ppm Co and an adjacent pyritic alteration zone yielding 646 ppm Cu, 113 ppm

Geotronics

2 | P a g e

Co. The host and nature of the alteration was not specified, but Pt and Pd were below detection limit. A quartz float boulder from the northwest part of the current AT 2 claim assayed 0.73% Cu but quartz carbonate veins within the intrusive rocks, where sampled, were largely barren.

Further sampling of the intrusive pluton in 1988 yielded more anomalous results including,

Sampling of float material from a nearby source (cliff face) about 1,100 m southwest of the main ultramafic occurrences (on or near the north side of the present AT 5 claim) yielded 3.08% Cu, 1,697 ppm Ni, 644 ppm Co, 60 ppb Au, 110 ppb Pt and 60 ppb Pd from hornblende diorite with massive sulphide inclusions.
A sample 400 meters to the southwest consisting of ultramafic rock with sulphide inclusions to several cm across assayed 5,653 ppm Cu, 1,291 ppm Ni, 163 ppm Co. The sample was described as float with a nearby source, in a northwest-trending canyon assumed to host a fault structure.

The occurrence of these anomalous sulphide-bearing mafic-ultramafic rocks indicates that the ultramafic rocks are more widespread, and/or the enclosing diorite body is also prospective for Cu-Ni-Co +/- PGE mineralization.

Further sampling and prospecting were carried out in 1998 which verified what was previously known.

Up until this point, all recorded assessment work was prospecting with no geological mapping, geochemistry, or geophysics.

No other work was carried out on the property, as far as the author is aware, until it was staked by the current owners in 2017. In 2018, a regional geophysical study was carried out and it noted that the property was largely underlain by a government aeromagnetic anomaly that closely correlated with the tonalite intrusion. Inversion modelling determined that the source of the high was a nearly cylindrical (slightly elongated NE-SW) core, approximately 3 km in diameter, centred near the middle of the AT Property. This core approaches to within approximately 300 metres of the surface. This interpreted core is smaller than the mapped tonalite indicating that it is a different rock-type that is a phase of the broader intrusive. Multiphase intrusions are more conducive to mineralization.

Later, in 2018, a 3-man crew carried out prospecting and rock sampling from an approximately 400 m by 600 m area mainly within the intrusive rocks on the AT 2 claim, in the area of, and topographically above, the original discovery. Sampling was concentrated north and east of the exposed massive sulphide, magmatic segregation zones, as retreating glacial ice had exposed new bedrock in the mafic to ultramafic complex. Forty-five samples were sent for multielement analyses. Assay values from outcrop reached as high as 583 ppm Cu, 352 ppm Ni and 73.5 ppm Co from ultramafic rocks. One ultramafic float sample yielded 125 ppm Cu, 511 ppm Ni 83.1 ppm Co. Some quartz+/-carbonate veins from within the Triassic volcanic units yielded anomalous results such as one sample assaying 651 ppm Cu and 17.4 ppm Ag from a quartz

Geotronics

3 | P a g e

vein and a second sample assaying 666 ppm Cu from a sample of andesite with minor quartz stringers with trace malachite.

A 4-man crew in 2020 carried out a program of prospecting, rock sampling, UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) magnetic surveying, and UAV spectral photogrammetry. The prospecting revealed some gossanous zones. From these, a sample from outcrop of medium to coarsecrystalline pyroxenite yielded the highest anomalous value in nickel being 493 ppm. The sample was estimated to contain about 1% sulphides, chiefly pyrrhotite with minor chalcopyrite, in clots or small patches of concentrated grains. It also yielded 179 ppm Cu, and the highest Co and Cr in this group of samples, at 95 and 925 ppm, respectively. Nickel values in the intrusive rock samples did correlate well with Mg, Cr and Co, but not so well with Cu. Copper values reached a maximum of 816 ppm . This sample also yielded 81 ppm Ni and anomalous Co (60 ppm).in one sample described as a medium to coarse crystalline gabbro, locally porphyritic, with possible xenocrysts of olivine and garnet. Sulphides were estimated at about 2% by volume, being chiefly pyrrhotite, with some chalcopyrite and occurring as disseminations as well as in cross-cutting fine fractures. The sample was collected from a rusty subcrop zone a few metres wide and extending for a hundred meters or more. It occurs on the ridge above the 1988 float sample picked up in scree from a cliff that assayed 3% copper and therefore may be the source of the float.

The main feature of the UAV magnetic surveying is that it showed the government-flown aeromagnetic anomaly in much greater detail which results in a superior interpretation. The broad government anomaly is revealed to consist of three strong linear-shaped magnetic highs that are probably caused by a gabbroic phase of the underlying intrusive. It also revealed exploration targets to consist of possible magmatic Ni- Cu mineralization -

to occur within the highs. One of the highs contains rock samples with anomalous values in nickel.
to occur on the boundaries with the highs. A gossanous zone with a rock sample highly anomalous in copper occurs along the northern edge of one of the highs.
to occur along magnetic lineations that are indicative of structural zones such as faults.
to occur within weaker highs which is quite common. A weaker high occurs to the north of the float at the AT 2 showing and therefore may be its source.

An iron oxide map was produced from the spectral photogrammetry surveying. It revealed two iron oxide anomalies each of which could be associated with mineralization. The smaller one within Francois Creek correlates with a weak magnetic high. The larger oval-shaped one occurs on the creek draining the main lake and occurs on the northern edge of the government magnetic high.

The exploration work carried out so far on the AT Property has supported It is the author’s conclusion that the AT project is a property of merit, and worthy of future exploration, as outlined in Section 26. Recommendations.

Geotronics

4 | P a g e

A 2021 program of extending the UAV magnetic and photogrammetry surveying as well as detailed geological mapping and sampling of existing and new mineral showings is recommended. The budget for Phase 1 recommendations totals C$215,000.

2 INTRODUCTION AND TERMS OF REFERENCE

This technical report summarizes the exploration history, geological information and recent work conducted by Avalon, and property owners on the AT Property magmatic-hosted Ni-Cu sulphides + PGE targets . The property is south of Tatla Lake within south central British Columbia approximately 190 km west-southwest of the town of Williams Lake British Columbia. Historical and recent property exploration efforts were directed towards structurally controlled gold mineralization located in the central property area and recently discovered skarn mineralization in the southeastern portion of the property.

Avalon contracted David Mark, P.Geo, the author of this report, to visit, carry out exploration work and prepare a Technical Report on the AT Project property (claims listed in Table 1) located in south central British Columbia. The work entailed the compilation of a geological summary and history of work conducted on the property and the preparation of a Technical Report as defined in National Instrument 43-101 and in compliance with Form 43-101F1 (the “Technical Reports”). This report summarizes the work carried out and describes mineralization on the property and on the adjacent properties. David Mark, P.Geo, served as the independent Qualified Person responsible for preparing the Technical Report. David Mark, as part of a 4- man crew, visited and worked on the property from September 22[nd] to October 3rd.

This report is also being prepared to support a proposed qualifying transaction by Avalon pursuant to the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange. The property covers the AT 2 mineral showing documented in the British Columbia provincial mineral database, MINFILE (Figure 2.

Geological, geophysical, spectral photogrammetry, and rock sampling data compiled by the author has led to recommendations for work on the AT Property mineral claims. Results from previous exploration have been positive and a two-phase program of drilling, trenching, detailed geological mapping, geochemical sampling, UAV magnetic surveying is recommended. The budgets of Phases 1 and 2 have a combined total of C$1,000,000.

Geotronics

5 | P a g e

	Table 1 Definitions
AAS	atomic absorption spectroscopy
Ag	silver
As	arsenic
Au	gold
cm	centimeter
Co	cobalt
Cr	chromium
Cu	copper
g	gram
gpt	gramsper tonne,equivalent toppm
Hg	mercury
ICP	inductivelycoupledplasma
kg	kilogram
km	kilometre
m	metre
mm	millimetre
NAD	North American Datum
Ni	nickel
Ma	Millionyears
opt	ouncesper ton
Pb	lead
Pd	palladium
Pt	platinum
PGE	platinumgroupelements
ppb	partsper billion
ppm	partsper million,equivalent togramsper tonne
QA/QC	QualityAssurance/QualityControl
TSX	Toronto Stock Exchange
TSX.V	Toronto Venture Stock Exchange
UAV	unmanned aerial vehicle
UTM	Universal Transverse Mercator,coordinate system
Zn	zinc

Data generated at the AT Property utilizes SI (metric) units in this Technical Report unless otherwise noted. Assay and/or geochemical data may be presented as parts per million (ppm) and its equivalent grams per tonne (gpt) or ounces per ton (opt). Where relevant, conversions between different units used in this report were calculated utilizing the factors supplied by the BC government Ministry of Energy Mines website using the following conversion factors.

1 meter 39.370 inches 1 meter 3.28083 feet 1 kilometer 3,280 feet 1 gpt 1 ppm

Geotronics

6 | P a g e

1 ounce (troy) 31.1034768 grams 1 ounce (avdp) 28.3495 grams 1 troy ounce/ton 34.2857 grams per metric tonne = 34.2857 ppm 1 gram per metric tonne 0.0292 troy ounce per short ton 1 kilogram (kg) 32.151 ounces (troy) = 35.274 ounces (avdp) = 2.205 lbs 1 hectare 2.471 acres = 10,000 sq. metres = 0.00386 sq. miles

3 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS

For information pertaining to ownership of claims on the AT Property, the author has relied on information provided by Avalon and data found on the BC provincial government’s website - Mineral Titles Online. To the best of the author’s knowledge and experience the data is correct. However, the author disclaims responsibility for such information.

As of the date of the report, the author is not aware of any material fact or material change with respect to the subject matter of this technical report that is not reflected in this report, the omission to disclose which would make this report misleading.

4 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION

4.1 PROPERTY AREA AND LOCATION

The AT Property is situated in the Clinton Mining Division within southwestern British Columbia, 45 kilometres south of the small community of Tatla Lake and 190 kilometres west-southwest of the town of Williams Lake, which is the main supply center for the area. The property is located on NTS mapsheets 92N/07 and 92N/10 (TRIM mapsheets 92N.047 and 92N.057) centering at a latitude of 51˚29'45" N and longitude 124˚41'44" W (Figures 1,2, and 3). The correlating UTM NAD 83 coordinates are 382300 easting and 5706330 northing within zone 10.

4.2 LAND TENURE, LEGAL AGREEMENTS, AND OTHER ASSETS

The AT Property presently consists of 4 claims totaling 3,440.7352 hectares, whose names and tenure numbers are given in Table 2 below. The claim area is rectangular in shape and is 8.8 kilometres in an east-west direction by 6.7 kilometers in a north-south direction.

Geotronics

7 | P a g e

==> picture [842 x 595] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Highway 20
Tatla Lake
Bluff
Lake Heliport
Tatlayoko Lake
Chilko Lake
1 2 0 0 1 6 4 B C L T D.
AT PROPERTY
Ottarasko Mountain, Tatla Lake Area, Clinton MD, BC
REGIONAL LOCATION MAP
DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: NTS: DATE: FIG NO.:
CAM 20-04 92N/07,10 JAN '21 1
l
----- End of picture text -----

==> picture [842 x 595] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Minfiles
Prospect
1 2 0 0 1 6 4 B C L T D.
AT PROPERTY
Ottarasko Mountain, Tatla Lake Area, Clinton MD, BC
CLAIM MAP
DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: NTS: DATE: FIG NO.:
DGM 20-04 92N/07,10 JAN '21 2
Francois Creek
Nude Creek
----- End of picture text -----

TABLE 2. CLAIMS OPTIONED BY 1200164 B.C. LTD. (AVALON)


Tenure Number	Type	Claim Name	Expiry Date	Area (ha)

1055631	Mineral	AT 2	May18,2024	724.187
1055922	Mineral	AT5	May18,2024	684.119
1056238	Mineral	AT 6	May18,2024	1227.35
1056240	Mineral	AT 7	May18,2024	805.075
			TOTAL	3,440.735

The claims are owned 50% by Ron Fischer of Kelowna, BC, and 50% by George Nicholson of Langley, BC. The AT Property has not been legally surveyed.

Exploration work must be carried out on the property in order to keep them in good standing and to retain ownership. When this work is applied to the claims and filed with the BC Government, it is termed “assessment work”. The assessment work required for the AT Property, which consists of 3,440.735 hectares, is as follows:

i. $5/hectare/year for a total of $17,204/year until October 18, 2019
ii. $10/hectare/year for a total of $34,408/year until October 18, 2021
iii. $15/hectare/year for a total of $51,612/year until October 18, 2023
iv. $20/hectare/year for a total of $68,815/year for every year thereafter.

For applying assessment work past the property due date of May 18, 2024, $68,815 per year must be spent on the property in order to keep it in good standing with the BC government.

Avalon has entered into an option agreement dated September 14, 2020 with Ron Fisher and George Nicholson (Fisher/Nicholson) whereby Avalon was granted an option to acquire 100% undivided right, title and interest in and to the AT Property, subject to a 2.5% net smelter return royalty in favour of Fisher/Nicholson, 0.5% of which may be repurchased by Avalon in consideration for $1,000,000 to be paid in shares and an additional 0.5% in consideration for $3,000,000 to be paid in shares.

To keep the Avalon’s option in good standing and to exercise the option, thereby earning 100% interest in and to the property, Avalon is required to pay $260,000, and issue 1,500,000 common shares as follows:

i. $10,000 upon signing of the option agreement with Fisher/Nicholson;
ii. a further 10% of exploration costs up to a maximum of $250,000 to be paid to Fisher/Nicholson within 90 days of completion of the work program(s);
iii. an issuance of 300,000 common shares upon achieving a public listing where the AT property is the “Qualifying Property” as such term is defined in the TSX Venture Exchange policies.

Geotronics

8 | P a g e

iv. a further issuance of 1,200,000 shares upon a positive Feasibility Report with respect to the property drafted in accordance with NI 43-101 rules.

There are no annual minimum or maximum exploration expenditures on the property except to keep the claims in good standing with the BC government.

4.3 LOCATION OF MINERALIZATION AND FACILITIES

The known mineralization is shown mainly on the AT Property Mineralization map, Fig 6, which is after page 15. In addition, the main showing is plotted on the accompanying claim map, the rock sample maps and the geophysical maps. There are no active mines on the property nor any type of facilities.

4.4 ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITIES

The author is not aware of:

I. Any environmental liabilities to which the property is subject.
II. Any other significant factors and risks that may affect access, title, or the right or ability to perform work on the property.

4.5 PERMITS AND LAND USE AGREEMENTS

No permits are required for the initial work that is recommended to be carried out on the property this year (2021). A permit will be required for the recommended diamond drilling which is anticipated to be carried out in 2022. Any future physical work disturbance will necessitate public consultations with potentially impacted groups.

4.6 FACTORS AND RISKS

No other factors or risks are known that may affect access, title or the right or ability to perform work on the property.

5 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY

5.1 ACCESS

Access to the property is best by a 12-minute helicopter ride from the heliport located at the south side of Bluff Lake which is 25 km to the north of the property. The heliport is owned and operated by White Saddle Air Services. It is accessed by vehicle from Williams Lake by travelling westerly on Highway 20 (Chilcotin-Bella Coola Highway) for 220 km to within one km of the community of Tatla Lake, and then turning southerly and travelling for 25 km to the heliport. The heliport can also be accessed by small aircraft to a 600-meter-long gravel airstrip that is located adjacent to the heliport.

Geotronics

9 | P a g e

5.2 LOCAL RESOURCES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Williams Lake, which is a town of just under 11,000 population, is the main supply center for the property area, and is vehicle accessed by 550 km along paved highway from the city of Vancouver.

The closest significant electrical power is the Tatla Lake area through which a powerline runs westerly.

5.3 PHYSIOGRAPHY

The AT Property is located within the Pacific Ranges, which is a physiographic division of the Coast Mountains, and occurs along the eastern boundary of the Coast Mountains within the Interior Plateau System. The Pacific Ranges contain the highest peaks within the Coast Mountains with the highest being Mount Waddington at 4,016 meters above sea level (asl) located 48 km to the west of the property. The property occurs along the southeastern slope of Ottarasko Mountain, the peak of which is 3,056 meters located 700 meters to the north of the property. Elevations range from 1,340 metres within the southeastern corner of the property to 2,650 metres elevation along a northeasttrending ridge top within the east central part of the property and to 2700 meters at the northwestern corner of the property just south of Ottarasko Peak.

The terrain consists of steeply sloped bluffs incised by numerous streams and creeks. The main creeks drain the property easterly to northeasterly as well as westerly to southwesterly. Most of the property is above treeline except for the lower elevations of the main creeks. In general, the creeks are within U-shaped valleys with steep sides.

5.4 CLIMATE

The AT Property occurs on the northeastern edge of the Coast Mountains close to its boundary with the Chilcotin plateau. The Coast Mountains have relatively high precipitation which decreases from southwest to northeast. Therefore, the AT Property has lower precipitation than further southwest, and this is further moderated by its proximity to the Chilcotin area. For example, Tatla Lake, which occurs within the Chilcotin just to the northeast of this boundary, has dry summers. However, the property occurs at higher elevations and thus snow accumulates earlier and leaves later than at lower elevations. Therefore, the operating season for exploration on the property ranges typically from June to mid-October.

6 EXPLORATION HISTORY

The following discusses the history prior to the current staking of the claims in 2017. Work on the property after the claims were staked is discussed under “Exploration”.

During the summer of 1983, Louis Berniolles found a mineralized boulder train trending westsouthwest from the south-facing glacier of Mount Ottarasko. The mineralization was mostly disseminated chalcopyrite hosted in a medium-to-dark grey igneous rock. Berniolles reported

Geotronics

10 | P a g e

that it contained approximately 1.5% copper, with anomalous quantities of nickel and cobalt. It was obvious to him that the source of the mineralized boulder train was just to the east, and therefore, the following year in 1984, he staked his AT 2 claim.

Little work was done until 1987 when Berniolles carried out an exploration program. The exploration crew consisted of three men who established a 1.3-kilometer baseline and collected 18 rock samples. This included samples from outcrop and high-grade float samples within the glacial debris (Assessment Report 16688). This program uncovered three types of mineralization:

1) Zones of magmatic segregations within the intrusive. This mineralization is of the copper-nickel-cobalt type with values ranging up to 1.0% Cu, 0.4% Ni and 0.1% Co. Also present were Ag-Pt-Pd.
2) Veins or zones of pyritization and alteration situated at or near the intrusive contact. This includes all the quartz carbonate veins which are rooted in the batholith, as well as several quartz or calcite veins and pyritized structures situated very close to the contact. These are essentially barren, apart from their iron content.
3) Veins or structures within the intruded volcanic series, situated at same distance from the contact. These show some values in copper that are up to 0.7%.

The original AT 3 and AT 4 claims were staked in July 1987 by Berniolles as western and northwestern extensions of the historic AT 2 claim. The claims were located primarily on Triassic volcanics underlain by the Coast Batholith. At the southern end of the group the batholith had actually been uncovered by glacial action. Exploration was concentrated in the northern sector which is now part of the newly acquired AT 3 and AT 4 claims. Minor prospecting was also conducted along the lower, western portion of the AT 2 claim block with a total of ten rock samples collected. Prospecting discovered two float samples with massive sulphides within an ultramafic unit and many large quartz-carbonate veins. The float came from the local cliff face (Assessment Report 18022). Several of the located float samples show good mineralization and need to be followed to their source.

In 1998, Blackhorn Gold Mines Ltd. acquired the claims as part of their larger claim group collectively named the Niut Range Property (Assessment Report 25551). A total of 22 rock samples were collected in the AT 2 claim area. Of these, only samples collected from the sulphide-rich zones within the gabbroic to dioritic stock contained anomalous values of copper, nickel and cobalt. Samples of the mineralized ultramafic dykes or layers contained up to 1,988 ppm copper, 1,657 ppm nickel and 285 ppm cobalt. Samples from the gossanous, pyrite rich xenoliths have lower metal concentrations with values up to 335 ppm copper, 65 ppm nickel and 34 ppm cobalt. Gold results for all the samples were low and no assays were performed for palladium or platinum.

Geotronics

11 | P a g e

7 GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATIN

7.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY

The AT Property is situated at the boundary between the Coast Plutonic Complex (CPC) and the Intermontane superterrane of the Cordillera of British Columbia. The Intermontane rocks here are Paleozoic to Mesozoic stratified volcanic and sedimentary rocks of the Stikine terrane volcanic arc, and locally some younger overlap assemblages (Rusmore and Woodsworth, 2011). The CPC is a magmatic arc of Jurassic to Tertiary intrusive rocks that stitch together Stikine terrane with terranes further outboard. A central gneiss belt in the CPC marks the locus of deformation in the magmatic arc and associated with this are fold and thrust belts as well as major transcurrent shear zones, a function of plate interactions and docking of successive terranes in the Cordillera.

The regionally occurring units as described below were mapped by Rusmore and Woodswoth (1994) in the Mount Queen Bess (NTS 92N/07) map sheet, covering the AT Property area. Lithological descriptions are grouped into the stratified rocks of Stikine terrane and the intrusive and related rocks of the CPC.

7.1.1 Stratified Rocks

The oldest stratified rocks in the region are upper Triassic maroon and green, basaltic to andesitic volcanic breccia, commonly augite-phyric; and lesser volcanogenic sandstone, massive greenstone and rare carbonate of the informally named Mt. Moore formation (Rusmore and Woodsworth, 1994). These lie south of the property.

Upper Triassic (Lower Norian) units of maroon and green tuffaceous shale and lapilli tuff; and limestone with subordinate limy shale occur along the Homathko River southeast of the property and may be correlative with Mt. Moore formation.

Upper Triassic Mosley formation (informal name) outcrops just north of the property on NTS 92 N/10 and comprises red and grey volcaniclastic sandstone, red siltstone and minor limestone.

Stratigraphically younger, lower Cretaceous Cloud Drifter formation (informal name) comprises sandstone, siltstone and minor conglomerate. The sandstone commonly contains detrital hornblende, and the conglomerate is dominated by clasts of felsic and intermediate volcanic rocks, and quartzose granitoid rocks (Rusmore and Woodsworth, 1994). This unit outcrops at the northwest and southeast margins of the property.

The informally named Ottarasko formation occurs northwest of the property, is upper Jurassic to lower Cretaceous in age, and comprises green volcanic breccia and tuffs, rare flows, and minor siltstone and shale. The volcanic rocks are dacite and andesite with subordinate, but locally significant, rhyolite and basalt; poorly sorted and poorly stratified, and metamorphosed from greenschist to amphibolite facies (Rusmore and

Geotronics

12 | P a g e

==> picture [842 x 595] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Nude Creek
Ottarasko Creek Ottarasko Fault
1 2 0 0 1 6 4 B C L T D.
AT PROPERTY
Ottarasko Mountain, Tatla Lake Area, Clinton MD, BC
REGIONAL GEOLOGY MAP
DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: NTS: DATE: FIG NO.:
CAM 20-04 92N/07,10 JAN '21 3
Cheshi Creek Fault
Tchaikazan Fault
Niut Fault
Blackhorn Thrust
Tatlayoko Lake
----- End of picture text -----

==> picture [842 x 595] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Ottarasko
Mount ain
Ottarasko Creek
Nude Creek Sleepwalker
Mountain
Cloud Drifter
Mountain
1 2 0 0 1 6 4 B C L T D.
AT PROPERTY
Ottarasko Mountain, Tatla Lak e Are a, Clinton MD, BC
PROPERTY GEOLOGY MAP
DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: NTS: DATE: FIG NO.:
CAM 20-04 92N/07,10 JAN '21 4
----- End of picture text -----

==> picture [823 x 577] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

.
Geology LKPeBgd | Late Cretaceous to Paleocene uTrlm | Upper Triassic
Bendor Suite | granodioritic intrusive rocks Unnamed | limestone, marble calcareous
sedimentary rocks
Diorite
JKRMTMs | Upper Jurassic to Lower Cretaceous
Relay Mountain Group - Teepee Mountain Formation uTrMMvm | Upper Triassic
undivided sedimentary rocks Ultramafic and gabbro Mount Moore Formation | mafic volcanic rocks
KTCs | Cretaceous lKRMPRsf | Lower Cretaceous
Taylor Creek Group | undivided sedimentary rocks Relay Mountain Group - Potato Range Formation uTrsv | Upper Triassic
mudstone, siltstone, shale fine clastic sedimentary Stuhini Group | undivided volcanic rocks
rocks
LJHPto | Late Jurassic LTrCto | Late Triassic .
Homathko Peak tonalite | tonalite intrusive rocks Cadwallader Plutonic Suite | tonalite intrusive rocks Thrust fault
lKCDsn | Lower Cretaceous muTrCVvb | Middle to Upper Triassic
Cloud Drifter Formation | sandstone Cadwallader Group | basaltic volcanic rocks Fault
lKOca Ottarasko Formation | Lower Cretaceous| calc-alkaline volcanic rocks TrKim Eastern Waddington | Late Triassic to Cretaceous - thurst belt Minfiles Showing
imbricate zone
LKog | Late Cretaceous uKPCv | Upper Cretaceous
Unnamed | orthogneiss metamorphic rocks Powell Creek Formation | undivided volcanic rocks Prospect
uTrCHsc | Upper Triassic
Cadwallader Group - Hurley Formation
Developed Prospect
coarse clastic sedimentary rocks
1 2 0 0 1 6 4 B C L T D.
AT PROPERTY
Ottarasko Mountain, Tatla Lake Area, Clinton MD, BC
GEOLOGY LEGEND
B. Kasper, 1998, ARIS #25,551 DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: NTS: DATE: FIG NO.:
CAM 20-04 92N/07,10 JAN '21 5
----- End of picture text -----*

Woodsworth, 1994). This unit also makes up much of the highly imbricated, thrusted and folded rocks on Ottarasko Mountain.

Lower Cretaceous (Albian) Taylor Creek Group outcrops north of the property on NTS 92 N/10. It is composed of siliciclastic sediments and rare felsic tuff. Upper Cretaceous andesitic to basaltic breccias, tuffs and flows also outcrop to the north (Powell Creek Formation equivalents). They are commonly hornblende and plagioclase-phyric and are metamorphosed to sub-greenschist facies.

The foregoing stratified rocks likely represent a true stratigraphic sequence but are structurally juxtaposed by faults in the property area. This is particularly well displayed in the imbricated zone on Ottarasko Mountain.

7.1.2 Intrusive Rocks

The oldest intrusive rocks are the Late Jurassic Homathko Peak tonalite (154-160 Ma). This unit ranges from tonalite to quartz diorite, is unfoliated to weakly foliated, and metamorphosed to greenschist facies.

Late Cretaceous orthogneiss (87.3 +/- 0.3 Ma) is tonalitic, with biotite >= hornblende. Accessory titanite and epidote are conspicuous. This unit was emplaced during regional deformation and metamorphism, and generally lacks secondary alteration. This gneiss is part of the central gneiss belt of the CPC.

Late Cretaceous to Early Tertiary (68.2 +/- 0.2 Ma) tonalite, quartz diorite, and granodiorite are post-deformational and post-metamorphic, and these intrusions are of the most interest on the AT Property. Biotite dominates over hornblende as the mafic mineral. Titanite and epidote are locally common. The intrusions are foliated or weakly foliated, and generally lack secondary alteration.

Rusmore and Woodsworth (1994) did not mention mafic and ultramafic phases of these intrusions, but they are present on the property. Berniolles (1987) found ultramafic rocks south of Ottarasko Mountain and Kasper (1998) mapped ultramafic phases of a post deformational, post-metamorphic (Late Cretaceous to Early Tertiary) pluton. It is this mafic-ultramafic intrusive rock that is the focus of exploration on the property.

Rusmore and Woodsworth (1994) mapped the Doran Creek pluton west of Mount Queen Bess. This unit is quartz diorite to tonalite and generally shows compositional layering and weak foliation. The age was assumed to be Late Cretaceous to Early Tertiary but the relationship with other units was not determined.

The youngest intrusion (63 Ma) is the large Tiedemann pluton lying southwest of the property. This early Tertiary body of diorite, tonalite and lesser quartz diorite is unfoliated and displays no secondary alteration. Of mafic minerals, biotite is greater or equal to hornblende in abundance.

Geotronics

13 | P a g e

Kasper (1998) mentions several types of dykes on the AT Property that were also assumed to be Tertiary in age.

7.2 REGIONAL STRUCTURES AND METAMORPHISM

In this part of the Cordillera, the eastern margin of the CPC is marked by eastern Waddington thrust belt, a zone of northeast verging low-angle thrust faults, about 35 km wide and at least 100 km along strike (Rusmore and Woodswoth, 1991). This thrust belt involves Triassic rocks of the Intermontane (Stikine terrane) as well as early Cretaceous clastic and volcanic rocks, and plutonic rocks of the CPC arc to the northeast (Rusmore and Woodsworth, 1994). The minimum shortening across the thrust belt is estimated at 50% (about 40 km: Rusmore and Woodsworth, 1994). Further to the northwest, thrusting at the margin of the CPC is west-southwest directed.

The effect of the thrusting is an imbrication and interleaving of fault bounded units, especially well displayed in the stratified units such as at Ottarasko Mountain. Overturned folds with sub-horizontal axes and shallow axial planes lie within the fault slices.

To the east of the property lie the Ottarasko Fault and to the northeast, the Tchaikazan Fault, a transcurrent strike slip fault along which a postulated 32 km of right-lateral displacement has occurred. These faults are analogous to the sub-parallel Yalakom Fault to the east, along which 175 km of displacement is inferred.

Regional metamorphism associated with deformation at the margin of the CPC arc reached a peak around 82-84 Ma (Rusmore and Woodsworth, 1994). There may be some contact metamorphism associated with younger intrusions.

7.3 PROPERTY GEOLOGY

The property is rugged and highly glaciated. Morrainal deposits, talus and colluvium cover much of the ground. The high peak and ridges of Ottarasko Mountain, just north of the property, is dominated by strained and deformed volcanic and sedimentary outcrops. The lower slopes are covered in talus and colluvium. Intrusive rocks are exposed dominantly on the lowest southern and southeastern slopes of Ottarasko Mountain, in the valley bottoms, and at the toes of receding icefields.

The AT Property lies between Ottarasko Mountain and Sleepwalker Peak, and to the west of Nude Creek. The claims cover a large part of a northeast-trending, Late Cretaceous to Early Tertiary granodiorite to tonalite pluton, dated at 68 Ma (Rusmore and Woodsworth, 1988). This intrusive is post-metamorphic and post-deformational; crosscutting the interleaved thrust fault slices that make up Ottarasko Mountain. The intrusive rocks were recognized by Berniolles (1987, 1988) to include mafic to ultramafic phases. Kasper (1998) mapped out these phases in the central part of the AT 2 claim, outlining: ultramafic to gabbro, gabbro to diorite, diorite, and undifferentiated granodiorite to tonalite phases of the intrusion. These phases were mapped as roughly

Geotronics

14 | P a g e

concentric shells near the northwest border of the exposed pluton. Kasper (1998) noted a younger, finer grained phase of diorite that intruded the older coarser grained dioritegabbro. Ultramafic layers within the intrusive were described by Kasper (1998) as dykes or possibly layers.

There are also presumed Tertiary aged dykes that cut the ultramafic rocks. These are described variously as hornblende porphyries, and felsic to diabase dykes by Kasper (1998). Kasper (1998) also noted ultramafic dykes to cut the deformed sedimentary and volcanic sequences in the northwest part of the property.

North-trending faults offset the ultramafic rocks in the core of the AT 2 claim.

West of Ottarasko Mountain, and in the extreme western part of the property, a Late Cretaceous tonalitic orthogneiss, part of the central gneiss belt, is thrust over fault slices of Cloud Drifter formation clastic sedimentary rocks and volcanic dominated Ottarasko formation, the latter forming much of the massif of Ottarasko Mountain (Rusmore and Woodsworth, 1988). Thin, highly deformed and at least partly fault-bounded, limestone to limy shale beds outcropping west and south of the peak of Ottarasko Mountain are likely part of Ottarasko formation. These rocks outcrop along the northwest edge of the property on the AT 2 claim.

Along the south and southeast margins of the property (AT 6 and AT 7 claims), sedimentary rocks of Cloud Drifter formation outcrop on the north slopes of Sleepwalker Peak and to the east.

7.4 PROPERTY MINERALIZATION

The main mineralization of interest on the property is nickel-copper sulphides +/platinum group elements (PGE). The BC MINFILE lists the main showing area as the AT 2 showing (BC MINFILE # 092N 048) as is shown on the claim map and two geology maps, figures 2, 3, and 4, respectively. In addition, the property mineralization, as described below, is best shown on the AT Property Mineralization Map, figure 6.

In 1983, L. Berniolles discovered a boulder train of mineralized igneous rocks, containing Cu-Ni-Co minerals with values up to 1.5% Cu (Berniolles, 1987). Follow-up on this boulder train led to the recognition of ultramafic phases in the poorly exposed, 68 Ma, post-deformational pluton southeast of Ottarasko Mountain. Berniolles (1987) then discovered two zones of massive sulphide mineralization, each exposed on a cliff face over 5-10 square metres, and consisting of pyrite, pyrrhotite, chalcopyrite, pentlandite and unspecified associated cobalt minerals. These were interpreted as magmatic segregations in the mafic-ultramafic intrusive. Analysis of samples (numbers AT2-87-14 and 15) yielded up to 0.50% Cu, 0.41% Ni and 0.14% Co (Berniolles, 1987). Anomalous gold (95 ppb), silver (0.8 ppm), platinum (40 ppb) and palladium (65 ppb) were also recorded from these samples. However, given their position, these outcrops were not thought to be the source of the original boulder train of interest.

Geotronics

15 | P a g e

AT Property Mineralization

==> picture [585 x 446] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

AT 2 showing
Creek
I
Francois
----- End of picture text -----

Fig. 6

A second sample from the boulder train material (AT2-87-4) yielded 150 ppb Pt, 100 ppb Pd, 1.08% Cu and 0.19% Ni (Berniolles, 1987). Further samples were taken from ultramafic rock (AT2-87-3; 97 ppm Cu, 443 ppm Ni, 79 ppm Co) and an adjacent pyritic alteration zone (AT-2-87-2; 646 ppm Cu, 113 ppm Co; Berniolles, 1987). The host and nature of the alteration was not specified, but Pt and Pd were below detection limit.

Berniolles (1987) sampled a quartz float boulder from the northwest part of the current AT 2 claim that assayed 0.73% Cu. Quartz carbonate veins within the intrusive rocks, where sampled, were largely barren.

Further sampling of the intrusive pluton by Berniolles (1988) yielded more anomalous results. Sampling of float material from a nearby source (cliff face) about 1,100 m southwest of the main ultramafic occurrences (on or near the north side of the present AT 5 claim) yielded 3.08% Cu, 1,697 Ni, 644 ppm Co, 60 ppb Au, 110 ppb Pt and 60 ppb Pd from hornblende diorite with massive sulphide inclusions (sample AT34-87-19). 400 meters to the southwest, a sample (AT34-87-26) of ultramafic rock with sulphide inclusions to several cm across assayed 5,653 ppm Cu, 1,291 ppm Ni, 163 ppm Co. The sample was described as float with a nearby source, in a northwest-trending canyon assumed to host a fault structure. The occurrence of these anomalous sulphide-bearing mafic-ultramafic rocks indicates that the ultramafic rocks are more widespread than mapped by Kasper (1998), and/or that the enclosing diorite body is also prospective for Cu-Ni-Co +/- PGE mineralization.

Kasper (1998) reported sampling from the “Atwood” area, in around the same place on the current AT 2 claim, where Berniolles (1987) made his initial discoveries of ultramafic hosted mineralization. Kasper (1998) described pyrrhotite + pyrite + chalcopyrite disseminations (1-2% by volume disseminated throughout) or pods (up to 50 cm in length) within ultramafic dykes or layers (1.2 m to 3 m thick), within a medium to coarse-grained gabbro-diorite stock. Gossanous, pyrite-rich lenses or “xenoliths” up to 11 m by 3 m were also hosted in the gabbro-diorite. It is assumed these “lenses” are the sulphide segregations described by Berniolles as the original showing.

Samples collected from the sulphide-rich zones of the gabbro-diorite stock were anomalous in Cu and Ni (Kasper, 1998). Samples collected from the mineralized ultramafic dykes or layers contained up to 1988 ppm Cu, 1,657 ppm Ni and 285 ppm Co. PGE were not analyzed in any of these samples. A select grab from a pyrite-rich pod within one of the sulphide lenses assayed 2,200 ppm Cu, 217 ppm Ni and 172 ppm Co (sample V154862; Kasper 1998).

Simpson (2019) reported a collection of several samples in 2018 from an approximately 400 m by 600 m area mainly within the intrusive rocks on AT 2 claim, in the area of, and topographically above, the original discovery. Sampling was concentrated north and east of the exposed massive sulphide, magmatic segregation zones, as retreating glacial ice had exposed new bedrock in the mafic to ultramafic complex. Forty-five samples were sent for multi-element analyses. PGEs were not assayed. Assay values from

Geotronics

16 | P a g e

outcrop reached as high as 583 ppm Cu, 352 ppm Ni and 73.5 ppm Co from ultramafic rocks. One ultramafic float sample (RS-20) yielded 125 ppm Cu, 511 ppm Ni 83.1 ppm Co.

Some quartz+/-carbonate veins from within the Triassic volcanic units yielded anomalous results: sample RB-16 assayed 651 ppm Cu and 17.4 ppm Ag from a quartz vein; and RB-18 gave 666 Cu from a sample of andesite with minor quartz stringers with trace malachite. Gold values were negligible, reaching a maximum of 7 ppb Au.

8 MINERAL DEPOSIT TYPES

Broadly the main mineral deposit type of interest on the property is magmatic-hosted nickelcopper (Ni-Cu) sulphides with platinum group elements (PGE’s). There are several subsets of this designation, based mainly on the form and chemistry of the host intrusive bodies, the ore chemistry and mineralogy (including the relative amount of sulphide minerals), and the tectonic setting of the deposit . Figure 6 shows a model for magmatic Ni-Cu sulphides in a subvertical intrusive stock.

Naldrett (2004) simplified the characterization of these deposit types by dividing them into two main groups: (1) sulphide-rich deposits, with economic value mainly in Ni and Cu, and (2) sulphide-poor deposits with values mainly in PGE. The sulphide rich type can be further subdivided by the nickel to copper ratio. The first of these two sub-sets typically have Ni:Cu ratios of 0.8-2.5 and the 100% sulphide ore has typical grades of 1-6% Ni. The second sub-set has Ni:Cu ratios of >3 and grades of 6-18% Ni in pure sulphide ore. From what we know of the AT Property mineralization to date, it is best described as belonging to the first subset of the sulphide-rich group.

The AT 2 occurrence is not assigned a deposit model in the BC MINFILE database, however Hulbert (2001) classified it as a tholeiitic or calc-alkaline hosted mafic-ultramafic body with NiCu sulphides. Limited whole rock analyses (Simpson, 2019) do support tholeiitic, sub-alkaline chemistry for the mafic and ultramafic phases of the intrusion. This is essentially the same classification Hulbert (2001) used to describe the past-producing Giant Mascot deposit, located some 650 km to the SE near Hope, BC. BC MINFILE assigns Giant Mascot (# 92HSW 004) to the tholeiitic intrusion-hosted Ni-Cu deposit type (M-02). Giant Mascot shares some similarities to the AT 2 occurrence, as outlined further below.

The tholeiitic intrusion-hosted Ni-Cu model name can be considered largely synonymous with gabbroid-associated Ni-Cu-PGE (Ecsktrand, 1984, model 12.2.c; Cox and Singer, 1986, model 7a). Both sources list the Giant Mascot Mine as an example of the model type. Schulz et al. (2014) use the term “magmatic sulfide-rich nickel-copper-(PGE) deposits related to mafic and ultramafic dike-sill complexes” to include all the above in their review.

The salient features of the model are summarized by Eckstrand (1984) and Schulz et al. (2010). The underlined parts are meant to highlight similarities with what is known or suspected of the AT property:

Geotronics

17 | P a g e

The geological setting is generally small-medium sized stock-like intrusions in Precambrian greenstone or younger orogenic belts. The host (mineralized) rocks are various phases of a mafic intrusive complex with associated mafic to ultramafic types. Complexes may be layered and/or composite. Ore forms irregular zones, in some cases pipelike (as at Giant Mascot). Ore consists of massive sulphide, sulphide matrix breccia, disseminated sulphides and sulphide veins. Phase and cryptic layering are sometimes present, rocks are usually cumulate textured. Principal gangue and ore minerals pyrrhotite +/- pyrite +/- magnetite and pentlandite, chalcopyrite, cubanite, millerite, and various PGE minerals. Ages of host rocks are variable; most are Precambrian, but Paleozoic and Mesozoic examples are known. Intrusions may be either syn-or postorogenic. The ore is syngenetic with the host intrusions.

The mafic-ultramafic magma, probably mantle-derived, was emplaced generally quiescently in multiple pulses in the upper levels of the crust, in some cases apparently in a tensional environment. Sulphur saturation of the magma through contamination produced flow- and gravity-segregations of Ni-Cu bearing sulphides at the base of the intrusion, in structural traps, or where flow rates changed quickly. Ore is usually concentrated in the more ultramafic (and structurally lower) parts of the intrusive complex. This is more apparent in sub-horizontally oriented intrusions such as sills or magma chambers, which are more common as host bodies.

Much of the sulphur was probably scavenged from neighbouring sedimentary (and volcanic) rocks. Immiscible sulphides were likely present in the magma at the time of - emplacement. A chief guide to exploration is differentiated, multiple phase, stock like intrusions.

Cox and Singer (1986) supply median tonnage and grades for these deposits:

Table 3 – Median Tonnage and Grade for Ni-Cu-Co Deposits

	32 deposits	Median value	Top 10% of deposits
	tonnage	2.1 Mt	>17 Mt
	Nigrade	0.77%	>1.6%
	Cugrade	0.47%	>1.3%
Co(data on veryfew deposits)		0.017%

Geotronics

18 | P a g e

==> picture [486 x 518] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 7: Simplified model showing major features in development of magmatic Ni-Cu sulphide deposits. After Luolavirta (2018)

Geotronics

19 | P a g e

==> picture [257 x 602] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 8 - Model for magmatic segregation Ni-CuCo-PGE deposit-type mineralization within the intermediate to ultramafic polyphase pluton at the AT ~~Property - after A. Miller Ph.D. (2019)~~

Important features on the AT Property support the gabbroid-associated Ni-CuPGE model. Figure 8 is a model specific to the AT Property, showing the stages in development of a post-deformational, multi-phase mafic-ultramafic pluton with associated NI-Cu (+ Co, PGE) sulphide mineralization.

Small and medium sized intrusions are more common. Unlike the giant layered intrusions that are more noted for PGE (e.g., Bushveld Complex in South Africa), these sulphiderich Ni-Cu-PGE deposits are more commonly hosted in small intrusive bodies. There are “elephant deposits” like Norilsk in Russia, but these are less common. The supergiant Sudbury deposits are a special exception given their unique genesis. Intrusions are more commonly sills and (originally) sub-horizontally oriented bodies, but sub-vertical pipe or funnel like bodies are known. These include Giant Mascot, Turnagain, BC, and Duke Island, Alaska (Thakurta et al., 2008).
The host rock is layered and/or composite mafic-ultramafic intrusions. Layering (i.e., cumulate textures) have not yet been definitively recorded at AT 2 Property. However, the main intrusive body is composite, with a more ultramafic core and distinct mappable phases (Kasper, 1998). Kasper (1998)

Geotronics

20 | P a g e

also noted ultramafic dykes may in fact be lenses or layers. Moreover, distinct temporal phases are likely (as suggested by Kasper, 1998) and multiple phases suggest prolonged intrusive events, which may have served to re-concentrate and amend the metal lode.

Pyrrhotite-pentlandite-chalcopyrite mineralization is dominant, which is a characteristic of the deposits. Pyrite also occurs at AT-2, and magnetite may be present. Ni (and Co) is hosted primarily within the pentlandite, although it may also be present in the olivine. The amount of sulphide mineralization at AT-2 suggests sulphide saturation (through interaction with wall rocks) may have been sufficient to partition Ni into sulphides. PGE typically are hosted in sulphides, alloys, and other accessory minerals.
Sulphides are hosted within dioritic and more mafic phases (i.e., hornblendite) at AT-2 property. In the more common sub-horizontal oriented deposits, gravity and density contrasts result in ultramafic phases at the base of the differentiated intrusion, along with sulphide minerals which are generally thought to have settled out from the silicate melt as immiscible globules, and in some cases as semi-coherent larger sulphide “slugs” (e.g., Lesher, 2019). The dense sulphides are generally trapped in the lower part of the intrusion, in the immediate footwall rocks, or in structural, topographic or flow regime “traps”. The main gabbroic intrusion at AT-2 Property has been interpreted to be shaped like an ovoid, subvertical pipe or rough cylinder (Simpson, 2019). Structural traps may be found as associated “blade-shaped” dykes (Barnes and Mungall, 2018) and in fact SJ Geophysics has interpreted an anomalous mantling shell around the SE margin of the main body which might represent such a knife-like dyke. In some cases, notably at Giant Mascot and Nickel Mountain (E & L deposit) BC, sulphide ore is arranged in subvertical shoots or pipes, yet still ascribed to segregation as immiscible dense sulphide phase (Nixon and Hammack, 1999), probably with some structural component.
Song, et al. (2011) has also noted that high temperature magma, and possibly prolonged magma flow (if the host body is a magma chamber with entry and exit; not known from the AT Property) one would expect contact metamorphic aureoles in the surrounding country rock. This has not been recorded on the AT-2 property by workers, however any contact metamorphism might have been unrecognized due to the pre-existing regional greenschist facies metamorphism. Alternatively, the magma(s) may have been emplaced as somewhat cooler crystal “mushes”. This is proposed for the Permian aged ultramafic rocks of the Bridge River mining camp and Bralorne area to the south (Church and Jones, 1999), as well as in other deposits.

8.1 ANALOGOUS MINERAL DEPOSITS

The Giant Mascot Mine, located about 10 km northwest of Hope BC, serves as an analogy for a mineral deposit possible on the AT Property. It is also British Columbia’s only recorded nickel producer (discontinuous production between 1936 and 1974). It occurs in the CPC as well, but is somewhat older in age, and is involved in deformation, as it sits within a west-directed thrust sheet. The description below is taken mainly from BC MINFILE and Nixon and Hammack (1991).

Geotronics

21 | P a g e

Production from 4.3 Mt of ore at Giant Mascot (also known as Pacific Nickel) totaled 26 million kg Ni and 13 million kg Cu, with recorded Co, Ag and Au. Ore graded about 0.77% Ni and 0.34% Cu. Nixon and Hammack (1991) report grades of 0.68 g/t Au and 0.34 g/t PGE from the main period of production 1958-74. Higher PGE grades were known to occur. A 22.7 tonne bulk sample taken in 1936 yielded 2.74 g/t Pt and 0.68 g/t Au (BC MINFILE).

The property lies within an ultramafic complex at the southern tip of the CPC, forming an irregular, multi-phase stock about 1.5 km by 3 km. Ultramafic lithologies exhibit cumulate textures and are crudely zoned about peridotite cores. Mineralization is restricted to the southwestern half of the stock and comprises more than 18 orebodies which lie along a linear trend. The orebodies are pipe-like concentrations of pyrrhotite, pentlandite, chalcopyrite, magnetite, pyrite and sphalerite with lesser amounts of Cr and Co-bearing minerals. The orebodies are either unzoned, with sharp contacts between ore and country rock; or more commonly zoned, where massive sulphides in the cores are gradational into sulphide disseminations. A single orebody may exhibit both types, however. Alteration on the property does not seem related to mineralization or the mineralizing process, suggesting syngenetic deposition of the ore with the intrusion. Most workers have supported an origin via magmatic segregation and accumulation of an immiscible sulphide melt. This seems at odds with the vertical pipe-like arrangement of the ore bodies. Another curious feature of the Giant Mascot deposit is that the host ultramafic rocks are older than the surrounding, related Spuzzum pluton. It has been suggested that the earlier phase ultramafics were not yet solidified when the enclosing, dominantly dioritic, Spuzzum rocks pushed up and around the ultramafics. This emplacement may have something to do with the orientation and alignment of individual orebodies.

9 EXPLORATION

The claims were staked in 2017 and since that time, an exploration program was carried out in 2018 by the owners, Fisher and Nicholson, on the property and consisted of prospecting with rock sampling and an interpretation of the government airborne magnetic survey. In 2020, as mentioned above, Avalon optioned the property from Fisher/Nicholson and carried out drone magnetic surveying and photogrammetry surveying, as well as additional prospecting with rock sampling.

The work is summarized in the following table and described in the sections following. A total of $185,224.80 has been spent on the property to date, with applicable costs summarized below.

Geotronics

22 | P a g e

Table 4 - Summary of Work and Expenditure on AT Property



SJ Geophysics	Interpretation of Gov’t Airborne Magnetics	Feb 2018	8,178.56
R. Simpson	Prospecting& Rock sampling	July/Sept 2018	18,886.24
Geotronics	Drone Magnetics, Spectral Photography, Prospecting & Rock Sampling	Sept/Oct, 2020	158,160.00
TOTAL			$185,224.80

9.1 INTERPRETATION OF GOVERNMENT AIRBORNE MAGNETICS

The following is from Pezzot’s 2018 memorandum-styled interpretive report on the government airborne magnetics.

In 2018, a regional geological and geophysical study was conducted by SJ Geophysics who carried out a review of existing regional geophysical studies covering the AT claims group. Two regional airborne datasets were found. Data gathered from the 1993 Geological Survey of Canada, BC 1: Area A survey provided the most detailed information, with residual magnetic field data grid to 200 metre cells.

Digital elevation models for NTS map sheets 92N/07 and N92N/10 were downloaded from the Natural Resources of Canada (NRCAN) centre for topographic information, merged and output into Geosoft formatted grid files for compilation with the geophysical data.

A high altitude, regional airborne magnetic survey covering the claims area maps a strong magnetic anomaly coincident with the tonalite intrusion. The magnetic response is significantly smaller than the geologically outlined body, implying the intrusion is either smaller or contains high magnetic susceptibility facies within it.

3D modelling of the regional airborne magnetic survey maps the tonalite intrusion as having a 3-km diameter, northeasterly elongated high susceptibility core, buried at least 300 metres below surface. It also delineates a high susceptibility halo that wraps around the western and southern flanks of the core and extends northeasterly, forming a steep to vertically dipping plate like body. Low susceptibility, ring-like structures, most prominent along the northeastern and northerly flanks or the intrusion may reflect an alteration halo.

In consideration of these observations, the AT claim group is deemed to have a high potential for a sedimentary hosted, Co-Cu-Au deposit. A systematic exploration program designed to determine the extent and precise nature of sulphide mineralization is required. Due to the ruggedness of the terrain this is likely to require prospecting by qualified mountaineering personnel in some areas.

The outcome of this study indicated that the regional magnetic data is dominated by a strong magnetic high anomaly that closely coincides with the government mapped,

Geotronics

23 | P a g e

multi-compositional, tonalite-quartz diorite-granodiorite intrusion underlying the AT property. The magnetic anomaly is confined to the northeastern half of the geologically outlined unit implying the intrusion is smaller than geological mapping indicates or that it is comprised of multiple zones with different magnetic characteristics. 3D modelling maps the intrusion as 3 km in diameter with a northeasterly elongated high susceptibility core, buried at least 300 metres below surface. It also delineates a high susceptibility halo that wraps around the western and southern flanks of the core and extends northeasterly, forming a steep to vertically dipping plate-like body. Low susceptibility, ring-like structures, most prominent along the northeastern and northerly flanks or the intrusion may reflect an alteration halo.

The regional magnetic data also reveals numerous north-northwesterly lineations. The most prominent of these are located northeast of the AT property and appear to coincide with the Ottarasko and Tchaikazan transcurrent faults. Similar orientated, short strike length lineations are evident across the area and likely reflect the dominant lithological contact orientation.

9.2 FISHER/NICHOLSON 2018 EXPLORATION PROGRAM

The following is from Simpson’s 2019 report on the 2018 exploration program.

Initial prospecting of the property was carried out in July 2018 by a 2-man crew, and subsequently in September by a 3-man crew. The work was carried out within the center of the AT 2 claim directly above the two known zones of massive sulphide mineralization, each exposed over 5 to 10 square meters. Previous work indicated that the source for the boulder train, which was the original discovery, lay below the glacier which has retreated over 500 m since last prospected. A total of 81 rock samples were collected from outcrop and glacial float. Of these, 45 samples were sent to ALS Canada Ltd. in North Vancouver where they were analyzed for 48 elements by ICP-MS.

The rock samples results are shown in figures R6, R7, and R8a to R8c within Appendix II. On the West side of the main tarn, samples RB-01, 06, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19 and 20 from outcrop and float samples RS- 12,22, 23 and 24 are grey to dark grey volcanic, possibly andesite, with varying amounts of silica content and 1-5% sulphides. Minor amounts of quartz veining and quart-carbonate veining is present throughout the area and within the samples. Anomalous values in the assay results include.

sample RB-06 contains 43.6 ppm cobalt and 183.5 ppm copper
sample RB-10 contains 39.3 ppm arsenic
sample RB-12 contains 60.0 ppm tungsten
sample RB-17 contains 32.3 ppm nickel and 85.0 ppm chromium

Geotronics

24 | P a g e

Samples RB-04, RB-08, RS-13 and RS-17 are similar samples of a micro-to mediumgrained quartz diorite. Small amounts of finely-disseminated sulphides were noted in the field and then confirmed in the assays with no anomalous values.

Samples RB-05, RB-07, RB-13, RB-16 and RB-18 are examples of the quartz and quartz carbonate veins that occur throughout the area. The veins contain minor sulphides and minor malachite staining. Assays returned the following anomalous values.

sample RB-05 contains 114.5 ppm nickel, 37.6 ppm cobalt, 169.5 ppm copper and 15.8ppm stibnite

• sample RB-13 contains 168 ppm molybdenum

• sample RB-16 contains 17.4 ppm silver, 53.2 ppm arsenic, 651.0 ppm copper and 459 ppm stibnite

sample RB-18 contains 666.0 ppm copper

The final rock-type sampled on the west side of the lake is the mafic to ultramafic rock with minor to semi-massive sulphides. Sample RB-09 is from outcrop while RS-14 and RS-20 are from float.

• Sample RB-09 contains 68.3 ppm arsenic, 13.0% iron and 6.1% sulfur

Sample RS-20 contains 511.0 ppm nickel, 83.1 ppm cobalt, 837.0 ppm chromium and 12.1% magnesium

The samples from the east side of the lake are all float from the north-facing scree slope. Samples GN-02, GN-15, GN-18, GN-19 and RS-05 are green to grey volcanic unit with minor disseminated sulphides and moderate iron oxide. The assay values are below the anomalous threshold except sample GN-19 containing 207.0 ppm copper.

Samples GN-01, GN-04, GN-05, GN-06, GN-31, GN-33 and GN-34 are all micro diorite to diorite. Some samples show minor banding and minor quartz veining. Minor disseminated mineralization is represented in the assay results other than sample GN-31 containing 566.0 ppm copper.

The remaining samples are mafic to ultramafic rock-types and include samples GN-03, GN-07, GN-16, GN-21, GN-26, GN-27 and GN-30. Samples include fine-grained to coarse-grained textures with weak to fine disseminated sulphides. Sample GN-26 and GN-27 contain up to 15% sulphides. Assay values are much higher in the ultramafics with the following values.

sample GN-07 contains 272.0 ppm nickel, 62.6 ppm cobalt, 571 ppm chromium and 8.4% magnesium

• sample GN-16 contains 352.0 ppm nickel, 73.5 ppm cobalt, 734.0 ppm chromium and 10.1% magnesium

Geotronics

25 | P a g e

• Sample GN-21 contains 261.0 ppm nickel, 74.0 ppm cobalt, 275.0 ppm chromium and 8.9 % magnesium

It is notable that all three samples above are depleted in sulfur.

• sample GN-26 contains 583.0 ppm copper and 3960 ppm manganese

• sample GN-27 contains 413.0 ppm copper and 3970 ppm manganese

Simpson, in summary, stated that the geological mapping, regional geochemical sampling surveys and historical exploration in the AT claims area have identified a geological setting that is deemed to have a high potential for a magmatic segregation or a sedimentary hosted Co-Cu-Au deposit. In addition to the mapped tonalite intrusion and the AT 2 MINFILE occurrence which reports Cu, Ni, Co, Hg, Au, Ag, Pt and Pd mineralization, prospecting has confirmed the presence of sulphide mineralization in the area. Polymetallic veining that includes Au, Ag, Cu, Zn and Pb, extending northwesterly from the intrusion, supports the interpretation of the presence of a large hydrothermal alteration system.

9.3 2020 UAV AND HELICOPTER MAGNETIC SURVEY

The purpose of this work was to more accurately map the magnetics on the property, especially the magnetic high that is shown on the government airborne magnetic survey maps and as discussed above. This high is reflecting basic and ultrabasic rock-types that are associated with mineralization consisting of nickel, copper, palladium, platinum, cobalt, gold, and silver.

The government survey was flown at an elevation averaging at about a 300-meter terrain clearance that changes as the survey crosses valleys and ridge tops. A UAV survey is flown at a much lower terrain clearance of 30 to 50 meters with a much lower variability over terrain. This results in a more accurate survey and thus the geology can be more accurately mapped. This is especially important considering that the magnetic high is caused by basic and ultrabasic rock-types that are associated with the known mineralization on the AT property.

The equipment used for the UAV aeromagnetic survey was a GEM Systems AirBIRD that contained a potassium magnetometer, model GSMP-35U which has a sensitivity of 0.0002 nT, a resolution of 0.0001 nT, and a reading interval of 20 readings/second; a laser altimeter for measuring terrain clearance; a GPS unit for measuring the UTM location to an accuracy of 0.7 meters; and a RadioLink unit for transmitting data to a base station while in flight. The AirBIRD was carried by a DJI Matrice 600 (M600) Pro unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV).

The DJI M600 Pro is an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) hexacopter with an A3 flight controller, six TB48s batteries, and a hovering accuracy of +/- 0.5m vertical and 1.5m horizontal. The M600 Pro is controlled by a remote controller with a range of 5km. The

Geotronics

26 | P a g e

AirBIRD was attached to the M600 via a single tow line with a distance of 10m from the UAV.

The flight line separation was 15 meters, and the readings were taken every 0.5 meter, which was the result of the magnetometer taking 20 readings/second with a UAV speed of 10 m/s. The UAV survey was augmented with helicopter-flown survey lines with a 100-to a 200-meter separation. The diurnal variation of the magnetic field was monitored by a base station GEM Systems Overhauser magnetometer located at the helicopter base at the south end of Bluff Lake. The data from both the field and base station magnetometers were downloaded at the end of each day. The field data was then diurnally corrected and processed in order to produce three colour-contoured maps of the survey area shown in Appendix III. The first map is GP 1 which shows the magnetic interpretation, the second map is GP 2 which shows correlation with the photogrammetric-produced contours, and the third map is GP 3 which shows correlation with geology.

The magnetic plan map shows the main anomalous high as revealed on the BC Government maps consists of three sub-highs each of which has a strong magnetic intensity. They are defined by a lighter red contour, with each striking in a different direction and have been labelled by the upper-case letters, A, B, and C. These three magnetic anomalies together correlate directly with a diorite which is a phase of the pluton that underlies most of the property as shown on figure GP3. Perhaps the three highs are reflecting a different rock-type within the mapped diorite which could be a gabbro intrusive or an ultramafic as discussed below with each of the three anomalies.

Magnetic anomaly A is the northernmost of the three and strikes in a northerly direction. It has a minimum strike length of 1,400 meters with it being open to the north, a width of 250 to 350 meters, and reaches a high of over 56,200 nT (nanoTeslas). The rock samples taken along the ridge top strongly suggest that the causative source is a gabbro intrusive or an ultramafic rock-type. Anomaly A directly correlates with a north-trending ridge top suggesting that the ridge is caused by a gabbro intrusive. The shape of the anomaly suggests that the causative source has a vertical dip.

Magnetic anomaly B occurs to the southwest of anomaly A and strikes in a westerly direction. It also reaches a high of over 56,200 nT. This anomaly also correlates with a westerly-striking ridge top and therefore suggesting that the ridge is caused by a mafic and/or ultramafic rock type. It has a strike length of 1,400 meters and a width of at least 630 meters with the width being open to the south. The shape of this anomaly suggests a dip to the south.

The 2020 rock samples were taken along a strongly gossanous zone occurring along anomaly B’s northern edge. Some of these samples were anomalous in copper and nickel values indicating possible copper and nickel mineralization nearby.

Geotronics

27 | P a g e

Magnetic anomaly C occurs to the south-southeast of anomaly A and is open to the northeast. Correlating this anomaly with the government airborne anomaly indicates that it appears to strike northeasterly and may possibly extend for about 4.5 km in that direction making it the largest of the three anomalies. It also appears to have a similar shape to anomalies A and B. Therefore, the causative source is probably the same as that for the other two anomalies. That part of anomaly C that was surveyed shows a magnetic field of over 55,650 nT, but higher values may occur to the northeast.

Mineralization is not necessarily in the most magnetic rocks, nor the most mafic/ultramafic rocks. Therefore, magnetic highs of lower intensity are also of exploration interest since they often correlate with sulphide mineralization. One occurs about 200 meters north of the AT 2 showing and therefore could be reflecting the source of the mineralized float at the AT 2 showing. A second one occurs about a kilometer downstream of the same showing correlating with an iron oxide anomaly, as discussed below, and therefore could also be reflecting mineralization of exploration interest.

Lineations of magnetic lows occur within the survey area and these are delineated by dashed lines. They are suggestive of geologic structure such as faults and shear zones which are important for the emplacement of mineralizing fluids, especially where these intersect. Three lineations are shown to strike northeasterly and two northwesterly; MinFile prospect AT 2 occurs at the intersection of two of these lineations.

9.4 2020 UAV MULTISPECTRAL PHOTOGRAMMETRIC IMAGING SURVEY

The purpose of this work was to locate any areas of iron oxide which are often associated with sulphide mineralization as well as to accurately map the terrain which is considered important in assisting the interpretation of the magnetic survey as well as further exploration on the property. It was planned to cover the entire magnetic survey area, but this was not completed due to adverse weather conditions.

The equipment used for the UAV multispectral imaging survey was a Micasense RedEdge-MX camera capturing images in five spectral bands at once: blue (475 nm center, 32 nm bandwidth), green (560 nm center, 27 nm bandwidth), red (668 nm center, 14 nm bandwidth), red edge (717 nm center, 12 nm bandwidth), and near-IR (842 nm center, 57 nm bandwidth). The RedEdge-MX has a global shutter and max capture rate of one capture per second. The camera uses a downwelling light sensor (DLS 2) to correct for changes in the positioning of the sun and has a built-in GPS to append positioning data to each capture. Images and metadata are stored on an SD card in the camera.

The Micasense RedEdge-MX was carried by a DJI Matrice 300 (M300) RTK UAV. The M300 is a quadcopter with four TB60 batteries and a hovering accuracy of +/- 0.1m vertical and 0.3m horizontal. The M300 is controlled by a remote controller with a

Geotronics

28 | P a g e

range of 15km. The RedEdge-MX is mounted on a gimbal on the front of the UAV and wired into the UAV flight system.

The survey was flown at an average above ground level of 100m at a speed of 10 m/s. The images were automatically triggered with a forward and side overlap of 80%, on average once very 1.3 seconds. The ground sample distance (GSD), which is the cm per pixel, was 6.94. Before and after every flight a reflectance calibration image was captured of a known color and reflectance. A total 19,205 images were captured after processing through quality control

The raw images were then processed through Agisoft Metashape, a software product for photogrammetric processing of digital images and for generating 3D spatial data. In Agisoft, the raw image data is cleaned up and optimised using a photogrammetry protocol. It is then used to generate a 3D point cloud of the survey area. This point cloud model is used as a reference to generate an orthomosaic of the survey area being figure P1 and a high-resolution digital elevation model (DEM) and being figure P2. Neither of these maps are included in this report. The iron oxide ratio is a calculated ratio of the red and blue wavelengths and is visualised as an orthomosaic. The presence of limonitic-bearing phyllosilicates and limonitic iron oxide alteration cause absorption in blue band and reflectance in red band. This causes areas with strong iron alteration to be bright. The spectrum ranges used were blue (475 nm center, 32 nm bandwidth) and red (668 nm center, 14 nm bandwidth).

Iron Oxide Index = Red / Blue

The iron oxide spectral map, figure P3 within Appendix III, has located one main ovalshaped area, labeled iron oxide anomaly #1 , on the east side of the survey area downstream of the main tarn, that is, one kilometer to its east. This zone strikes northnorthwesterly with a strike length of 900 meters and a width of 400 meters. The UAV magnetic survey did not extend far enough east to cover this area but in correlating it with the government airborne anomaly shows it to occur on the magnetic anomaly’s northern edge. This can be interpreted to suggest that the iron oxide area contains mineralization that occurs on the boundary of a basic and/or ultrabasic intrusive. Therefore, the iron oxide zone is considered to be of strong exploration interest on this property.

A second anomaly, labeled iron oxide anomaly #2 , occurs at the west end of the survey area about one kilometer downstream of the AT 2 MINFILE prospect. This is a smaller circular area appearing to be about 250 meters in diameter.

An area of iron oxide lineations, in addition to these two anomalies, extends from a smaller tarn north-northeasterly to the main tarn. It is a minimum 1,000 meters in strike length with it being open to the south-southwest and is 600 meters in width.

Geotronics

29 | P a g e

9.5 2020 PROSPECTING AND ROCK SAMPLING

This is a continuation of the prospecting and rock sampling carried out in 2018 which is discussed above. It was carried out by a 2-man crew consisting of a prospector and helper. The purpose of the work was to locate sulphide mineralization with the ultimate purpose in trying to locate the source of the mineralization within the boulder train as discovered by Berniolles in 1983.

Prospecting and sampling were carried out as shown on the accompanying map, fig. R3, to the northeast of the main lake as well as along a gossanous ridge that occurs above the location of the mineralized boulders. A total of 67 samples were picked up and were geologically examined and assayed as follows:

The 67 samples were sent to Len Gal, geologist, in Winnipeg for his examination and geological description. Mr. Gal is experienced in petrologic descriptions, including basic/ultrabasic lithologies. As a result, some composite samples were split and re-packaged, resulting in 74 samples. His descriptions are given in Appendix I in excel table format.
The samples were returned to the writer who then had them tested for magnetic susceptibility. These values have been inserted into the rock descriptions within Appendix I.
The samples were then taken to the laboratory at SGS Canada Inc. in Burnaby, BC, for geochemical assaying, the results of which are given in Appendix I.
Thin sections were made of 11 of these samples, as determined by Len Gal. The description of these is given in Appendix I.

9.5.1 2020 Assay Results

SGS Canada Inc., in Burnaby, British Columbia. The samples were analyzed for a suite of 32 elements by ICP methods, with a four-acid digestion (SGS codes GE_DIG_40Q12, GE_ICP40Q12). A subset of 34 samples were analyzed by fire assay for Au, Pt, and Pd (SGS code GE_FAI30V5).

Complete analytical methods and QA-QC procedures are in Section 11.2.

Analytical results are discussed below with respect to main elements of interest being nickel, copper, platinum group elements (PGE’s), and other elements. This is followed by a brief discussion of the chemistry of the intrusive rocks.

Hand sample descriptions by Len Gal noted abundant clinopyroxene in many samples, but subsequent X-ray scans by SGS revealed much of that to be amphibole. In fact, pyroxenes were not identified in the 11 thin sections scanned by SGS. Olivine was only identified in one sample. Based on the 11 thin sections scanned for mineral species to date, most samples originally designated pyroxenites or dunites are more likely gabbros.

Geotronics

30 | P a g e

The most basic samples are more properly termed hornblendites. Ongoing petrographic studies (reflected light microscopy) will shed more light on the nature of the abundant amphibole, but initial indications are that it is a primary, magmatic species rather than a secondary mineral.

9.5.2 Nickel

Nickel values reached a maximum of 493 ppm in sample ATrs/20-46, described as a medium to coarse-crystalline pyroxenite (possibly hornblendite) with phenocrysts up to 10-15 mm long. The sample was estimated to contain about 1% sulphides (by volume); chiefly pyrrhotite with minor chalcopyrite, in clots or small patches of concentrated grains. The sample (from site photos) is apparently from an outcrop. This sample also yielded 179 ppm Cu, and the highest Co and Cr in this group of samples, at 95 and 925 ppm, respectively. Fire assay yielded 7 ppb Au and 3 ppb Pd with Pt being below detection limit.

This sample was taken from close to the main (AT2) showing area, at the head of a small glacial valley draining WSW.

Mean nickel values were highest in ultramafic rocks with greater than 18% (by weight) MgO, and were progressively less in less mafic intrusives, and (interpreted) nonintrusive rocks. This is shown in the table below. It should be noted that the designation of ultramafic rocks as those having greater than 18 weight percent (wt.%) MgO is somewhat arbitrary, but likely more accurate than the hand sample (or field) descriptions, which tended to overestimate the mafic minerals and number of ultramafic samples.

	Number	Mean Cu (ppm)	Mean Ni (ppm)
Ultramafic rocks(>18 wt.% MgO)	6	79	369
High MgO intrusives(>10 wt.% MgO)	7	65	216
Intermediate intrusives	37	98	36
Non-intrusive rocks	21	64	20

Nickel values in the intrusive rock samples did correlate well with Mg, Cr and Co. Correlation with Co is anticipated, since minor amounts of Co occur in pentlandite, which is thought to be the main Ni-bearing mineral. Correlations with Fe and Cu were not clear. Ni did correlate with sulphur, at least at lower concentrations of sulphur (<0.2 wt.%). This suggests Ni may be mainly hosted in the sulphide mineral pentlandite, which would be a chief ore mineral. In ultramafic rocks, Ni may also be hosted in olivine.

9.5.3 Copper

Copper values reached a maximum of 816 ppm in sample ATrs/20-58, described as a medium to coarse crystalline gabbro, locally porphyritic, with possible xenocrysts of olivine and garnet. Sulphides were estimated at about 2% by volume, chiefly pyrrhotite,

Geotronics

31 | P a g e

with some chalcopyrite. Sulphides occurred as disseminations as well as in cross-cutting fine fractures. The sample was collected from a rusty subcrop zone a few metres wide and extending for tens of metres, based on photographs. This sample yielded 81 ppm Ni and anomalous Co (60 ppm). A fire assay yielded 6 ppb Au, 2 ppb Pd, and Pt below detection limit.

This sample was collected from southwest of the main showing area, along the edge of a glacial valley. This is close to the area where Berniolles (1988) described mineralization about 1000 to 1500 meters southwesterly of the main showing.

As mentioned above, copper does not correlate well with Ni, but does correlate somewhat with Co. It does not seem to be increased in more mafic rocks, as illustrated in the table below.

	Lithology	n	Mean Cu (ppm)
Ultramafic	rocks (>18 wt.% MgO)	6	79
High MgO intrusives (>10 wt.% MgO)		7	65
Intermediate intrusives		37	98
Non-intrusive rocks		21	64

9.5.4 PGE’s

Two PGEs, platinum and palladium, were analyzed by fire assay in 34 samples. Results were low, with a maximum of 10 ppb Pt and 8 ppb Pd in sample ATrs/20-62, a small float boulder described as a gabbro, with about 5% contained sulphides. The relatively high amount of sulphides in this sample is reflected also in high Fe and S; and Cu at 364 ppm, Ni at 175 ppm. Sample ATrs/20-62 is fine to medium- crystalline, with some more felsic segregations, and moderate iron oxide staining. The sample was collected from the same area as ATrs/20-58 which featured the highest Cu value.

9.5.5 Other Elements

Gold values reached a maximum of only 18 ppb in sample AT-rs/20-23, described as a fine crystalline, granoblastic tonalite, with about 2% (by volume) disseminated pyrite and chalcopyrite. The sample was collected from very rusty possible subcrop (from examination of photos) and may actually be a hornfels. Sample AT-rs/20-11 (at 11 ppb Au) yielded the only other gold assay of note. This sample is a possible gabbro, but lithology was uncertain. The sample featured about 2-3% disseminated sulphides.

While gold values are low, it is interesting that these two samples were collected adjacent to one another, south of the larger lake that lies east of the AT 2 prospect area.

Silver values were below detection limits (2 ppm) in all samples.

Cobalt and chromium were highest in sample ATrs/20-46, as noted above.

Geotronics

32 | P a g e

Sample AT-rs/20-37 was from a hornfelsed country rock, described as a metapsammite, with quartz (+/- carbonate) veinlets. It yielded an anomalous 217 ppm Li, and also had the highest values in this sample group of Pb (29 ppm) and Sb (65 ppm), as well as anomalous As (30 ppm). It was collected from rusty float south of the main zone.

Another country rock sample from south of the main zone, AT-rs/20-44, a psammitic schist, yielded the highest Zn (316 ppm) and As (73 ppm) for this sample group.

Overall, anomalous Ni and Cu were confirmed in float and outcrop samples, over a significant area. The bedrock source(s) of the highly mineralized float samples reported by Berniolles (1987) and restricted to occurring within the west-southwest-trending glacial valley, have not yet been found.

9.5.6 Intrusive Units Chemistry

From the 2019 sample set, intrusive rocks were divided into ultramafic rocks (greater than 18 wt.% MgO), high Mg mafic rocks (> 10% MgO) and other, more intermediate phases. This division resulted in six ultramafic samples, and seven high MgO mafic rocks. The divisions based on chemistry are more robust than the field or hand sample descriptions (Appendix I), which overestimated the number of ultramafic samples.

In lieu of whole rock analyses, major element assays were converted to oxides. Iron was treated as wholly Fe2O3. Silicon oxide was estimated by making up the total of major element oxides, plus S, to equal 100 per cent. It is recognized that this overestimates SiO2.

Geotronics

33 | P a g e

An alkalis vs SiO2 plot (Figure 9) shows that most intrusive rocks can be classed in the gabbro to diorite fields. Many trend into ultramafic fields, particularly when the liberal estimates for SiO2 are considered. . Gabbros to diorite series dominates, with a few main clusters of like lithologies.

Figure 9. Total Alkalis vs. Silica Discriminant Plot for Intrusive Samples (after Cox, Bell and Pankhusrt, 1979)

An AFM plot (Figure 10) shows three major groupings (with some outliers) of rock chemistry: a calc- alkaline group, a relatively iron-rich tholeiitic group, and the high Mg mafic-ultramafics, which are along the tholeiitic boundary. This suggests possible multiple phases and/or multiple magmatic pulses in the host pluton.

==> picture [296 x 251] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 10. AFM Plot (Irving and Barragar, 1971). A= K and Na oxides, F= Fe oxides, M= Mg oxide

Geotronics

34 | P a g e

Figure 11 illustrates MgO vs Fe, Al and (estimated) Si oxides. The diverging trend lines, seen particularly in Mg vs Fe and Si oxides, might indicate separate magmatic phases, differing amounts of contamination, or sources for the most Mg- rich magmas. The trend lines suggest that the ultramafic phases (and high MgO phases) may be a separate population (magmatic phase or event) than the gabbros to diorites (intermediate to mafics). This is seen most clearly in the top and bottom graphs.

Figure 11 MgO vs. Fe, Al and Si Oxides in Intrusive Rocks

Geotronics

35 | P a g e

10 DRILLING

Avalon has conducted no drilling on the property.

11 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY

11.1 2018 WORK

Rock samples taken on the AT Property in the summer of 2018 were not tampered with by anyone to the best of my knowledge. The samples were prepared using standard analytical procedures by ALS Canada Inc. in North Vancouver, B.C. as follows:

All samples were collected using rock hammers to break the rocks into manageable sizes; the rocks were then placed in 12x20 poly sample bags, labelled with the appropriate field ID then tied off with flagging tape. The field location was flagged with the corresponding field ID. Samples were then placed into large rice bags and then secured with plastic locking ties. All the samples were then transported by helicopter toa truck at the nearest road and then taken to the laboratory at ALS Canada Ltd in North Vancouver; the samples never left the care of the Richard Simpson, prospector and author of the 2019 report.

The samples were analyzed by a 48 element four acid ICP-MS, LOI for ME-XRF06, Ore Grade Au 30g AA Finish and six samples were analyzed for Whole Rock Package –XRF. The samples underwent sample preparation including WEI-21 – received sample weight, LOG-22 – sample login, DISP-01 – disposal of all sample fractions, CRU-QC Crushing QC test, PUL-QC – pulverizing QC test, CRU-31 – fine crushing – 70%<2mm, SPL-21 – split sample (riffle splitter), PUL-31 – pulverize split to 85%<75um.

ALS is ISO/IEC 17025:2005 accredited. The author is not aware of any relationship between ALS and Avalon nor with.

At ALS, blanks, reference materials and duplicate samples were inserted by the lab into the sample stream. The results reported from the lab’s control samples were within the limits of instrumental and analytical accuracy. No corrective measures were taken by the labs. No control samples were submitted by the property owners, Fisher and Nicholson.

It is the author’s opinion that the methods of sample preparation, security and analytical procedures used for the 2016 and 2017 rock samples are adequate for reliable rock sample assay data. The author believes that the sample data is sufficiently reliable to guide further sampling, geological mapping and geophysics at the AT Property.

General Sample Preparation Methods

Receiving : Samples arrive via courier, post or by client drop-off; shipment inspected for completeness.

Geotronics

36 | P a g e

Sorting and Inspection : Samples sorted and inspected for quality of use (quantity and condition). Rock and Drill Core samples inspected for mineralization (colour and % sulphides, metal oxides or carbonates). Pulp samples inspected for homogeneity and fineness. Coarse pulps are screened or pulverized after getting client’s approval.

Drying : Wet or damp samples are dried at 60°C (40°C if specified by the client).

Sieving : Soil and sediment sieved to -80 mesh ASTM (-177 microns) unless client specifies otherwise. Sieve cleaned by brush and compressed air between samples. Reference material G-1 (pulp made of granite blank) is carried as first sample in sequence (sieve›weigh›digest›analyse) to monitor background noise.

Crushing and Pulverizing : Rock and Drill Core crushed to 70% passing 10 mesh (2 mm), homogenized, riffle split (250 g subsample) and pulverized to 95% passing 150 mesh (100 microns). Crusher and pulverizer cleaned by brush and compressed air between routine samples. Silica wash scours equipment after high-grade samples, between changes in rock colour and at end of each file. Silica is crushed and pulverized as first sample in sequence and carried through to analysis to monitor background noise.

Compositing : Equal weights of crushed, pulverized or sieved material from 2 or more samples are combined and pulverized for 60+ seconds to produce a homogeneous mixture.

Storage : Pulp samples (up to 100 g for soils or sediments and up to 250 g for rock and drill core) are archived for 3 months at no cost. Soil and sediment rejects are discarded immediately. Rock and drill core rejects are stored for 3 months at no charge. Client may request additional storage, return or disposal of pulps and rejects after initial freestorage period.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, there is no relationship between ALS Canada Ltd. and either of Ron Fisher, George Nicholson, or Avalon.

11.2 2020 WORK

All samples, as with the 2018 work, were collected using rock hammers to break the rocks into manageable sizes; the rocks were then placed in 12x20 poly sample bags, labelled with the appropriate field ID then tied off with flagging tape. The field location was flagged with the corresponding field ID. Samples were then placed into large rice bags and then secured with plastic locking ties. At the end of each day the samples were transported by helicopter to a truck at the heliport at Bluff Lake. At the end of the work program, the samples were taken to Surrey, BC, shipped to Len Gal, geologist, in Winnipeg for rock descriptions, shipped back to the writer, taken to David Bridge. Geologist, for rock susceptibility measurements and then taken to the SGS Canada Inc laboratory at 3260 Production Way in Burnaby.

Geotronics

37 | P a g e

The samples were tested with a four-acid digestion with a SGS method number GE_ ICP40B (GE_ICP40Q12). The following is description of the method:

Parameter(s) measured, unit(s) : Silver (Ag); Arsenic (As); Barium (Ba); Beryllium (Be); Bismuth (Bi); Cadmium (Cd); Chromium (Cr); Cobalt (Co); Copper (Cu); Lanthanum (La); Lithium (Li); Manganese (Mn); Molybdenum (Mo); Nickel (Ni); Lead (Pb); Antimony (Sb); Scandium (Sc); Tin (Sn); Strontium (Sr); Vanadium (V); Tungsten (W); Yttrium (Y); Zinc (Zn); Zirconium (Zr), in ppm Aluminum (Al); Calcium (Ca); Iron (Fe); Potassium (K); Magnesium (Mg); Sodium (Na); Phosphorus (P); Sulphur (S); Titanium (Ti), in %
Typical sample size: 0.2 g
Type of sample applicable (media): Crushed and Pulverized exploration grade samples (rocks, soils and sediments)
Sample preparation technique used: Weighed representative samples are digested with HCl, HNO3, HF and HCLO4 and heated until dry. The residue is then dissolved in HNO3 and HCl.
Method of analysis used: The digested sample solution is analyzed by Inductively Coupled Plasma Optical Emission Spectrometer (ICP-OES).
Data reduction by: Computer, online, data fed to SGS Laboratory Information Management System with secure audit trail.
Figures of Merit: This method has been fully validated for the range of samples typically analyzed. Method validation includes the use of certified reference materials, replicates, duplicates and blanks to calculate accuracy, precision, linearity, range, limit of detection, reporting limit, specificity and measurement uncertainty.
Quality control: Quality control materials include method blanks, replicates and reference materials and are randomly inserted with the frequency set according to method protocols at ~11%. Quality control materials will also include BRM (Barren reference materials, or preparations blanks) and preparation duplicates if samples have been taken through the sample reduction process. Instrument calibration is performed for each batch or work order and calibration checks are analyzed within each analytical run.

A selected number of the samples, 34 were also tested for gold, platinum, and palladium by lead fusion fire assay and inductively coupled plasma – atomic emission spectrometry which is SGS method GE_FAI30V5 described as follows:

Parameter(s) measured, unit(s): Gold (Au), Platinum (Pt), Palladium (Pd); in ppb
Typical sample size: 30 g

Geotronics

38 | P a g e

Type of sample applicable (media): Pulverized/screened exploration grade samples (mucks, soil, sediment, chips, drill core, test holes).
Sample preparation technique used: Weighed representative samples are mixed with flux and fused using lead oxide at 1100°C, followed by cupellation of the resulting lead button. The bead is dissolved using HCl and HNO3 and the resulting solution is submitted for analysis.
Method of analysis used: The digested sample solution is analyzed by inductively coupled plasma Optical Emission Spectrometer (ICP-OES).
Data reduction by: Computer, online, data fed to SGS Laboratory Information Management System with secure audit trail.
Figures of Merit: This method has been fully validated for the range of samples typically analyzed. Method validation includes the use of reference materials, replicates, duplicates and blanks to calculate accuracy, precision, linearity, range, limit of detection, reporting limit, specificity and measurement uncertainty.

The Reporting Limit has been determined according to the following:

Element	Reporting Limit (ppb)	Upper Limit (ppb)
Au	1.0	10,000
Pt	10	10,000
Pd	1.0	10,000

Quality control: Quality control materials include method blanks, replicates and reference materials and are randomly inserted with the frequency set according to method protocols at ~11%. Quality control materials will also include BRM (Barren reference materials, or preparations blanks) and duplicates if samples have been taken through the sample reduction process. Instrument calibration is performed for each batch or work order and calibration checks are analyzed within each analytical run.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, there is no relationship between SGS Canada Ltd. and either of Ron Fisher, George Nicholson, or Avalon.

SGS Canada’s laboratory at Production Way in Burnaby is accredited with the Standards Council of Canada as ‘Accredited Laboratory No. 744’, which conforms with requirements of CAN-P-1579 which are the guidelines for the Accreditation of Mineral Analysis Testing Laboratories, and CAN-P-4E (ISO/IEC 17025:2005) which are the general requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories.

Geotronics

39 | P a g e

12 DATA VERIFICATON

The author has been involved directly in the exploration program carried out on the property during September and October 2020. The author is satisfied that the analyses were done according to accepted industry practices.

The author believes that sufficient sites of significance were inspected and sampled to make a quality assessment of the AT Property. There were no limitations on, or failure to conduct, the data verification outlined above. It is the author’s opinion that the rock sample data, geological data and geophysical data is adequate for the purposes used in this technical report.

13 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING

The author of this Technical Report is not aware of any mineral processing and/or metallurgical testing analyses that have been carried out on the subject property or of any metallurgical problems that would adversely affect development.

14 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES

There are no current NI 43-101 mineral resource estimates for the AT Property.

15 MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES

No mineral reserve estimates were calculated on the AT Property.

16 MINING METHODS

There has been no work on mining methods at the AT Property.

17 RECOVERY METHODS

There has been no work on recovery methods at the AT Property.

18 PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE

There has been no work on project infrastructure at the AT Property.

19 MARKET STUDY AND CONTRACTS

There has been no work on market studies and there are no outstanding contracts at the AT Property.

20 ENVIRONMENT STUDIES, PERMITTING AND SOCIAL COMMUNITY IMPACT

There have been no environmental studies, permitting any work involving social or community impact at the AT Property.

21 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS

There has been no work on capital and operating costs at the AT Property.

Geotronics

40 | P a g e

22 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

There has been no economic analysis at the AT Property.

23 ADJACENT PROPERTIES

This report is not relying on information from adjacent properties.

24 OTHER RELAVENT DATA AND INFORMATION

The author is not aware of any other relevant information that could change the conclusions or recommendations of this report.

25 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS

Magmatic-hosted nickel-copper (Ni-Cu) sulphide mineralization with platinum group elements (PGE’s) occurs on the AT Property. This is the main mineral deposit type of exploration interest. An analogous deposit in BC is the Giant Mascot nickel mine located 10 km north of the town of Hope. Many of the characteristics of the AT Property are similar to those of the Giant Mascot Mine.

The property occurs on the eastern edge of the Pacific Ranges with the terrain consisting of steeply sloped bluffs incised by numerous streams and creeks. Access is by helicopter.

The AT Property claims cover a large part of a northeast-trending, Late Cretaceous to Early Tertiary granodiorite to tonalite pluton which is post-metamorphic and post-deformational and includes mafic to ultramafic phases. Mafic and probably ultramafic rocks have been identified in outcrop and float and these are permissive of the target mafic-hosted Ni-Cu-PGE deposit type.

The historic sampling has revealed several samples with potential ore-grade values occurring within the glacial bowl at the AT 2 showing and close to it. These copper values range up to 3 % with several values at 0.8 % and 1 % and the nickel values range up to 0.4 % with several just under 0.2 %. Most of these samples were float with the source occurring in all probability within a few hundred meters within the glacial bowl. The 2018 and 2020 sampling confirm high copper, nickel and anomalous cobalt and chromium, if not to the same level as historic numbers.

In addition, anomalous PGE and precious metal values have been found historically.

The high-resolution drone magnetic survey has revealed exploration targets that support the magmatic-hosted Ni-Cu + PGE’s mineralization as follows.

Three strong magnetic highs, labelled A, B, and C, that the rock sampling shows are caused by gabbro intrusives and these may contain sulphide mineralization. So far, rock sampling has revealed mineralization, though weak, within anomaly A.

Geotronics

41 | P a g e

Contact zones around the three highs. The rock sampling has shown weak mineralization within a gossanous zone occurring along the northern edge of anomaly B.
Weak magnetic highs. One occurs 200 meters north of showing AT 2 and therefore may be reflecting mineralization that is the source of the float at AT 2. A second weak magnetic high occurs at the west end of the survey area correlating directly with an iron oxide zone which is indicative of mineralization.
Lineations of northeasterly and north-northwesterly-striking magnetic lows that are indicative of faults. Mineralization often occurs along faults especially where they cross each other and/or contact zones.

In addition, these magnetic highs as revealed by the magnetic survey outline discrete high magnetic susceptibility bodies which denotes separate intrusive phases within the main (tonalite or gabbro-diorite) body. Multiple phases of intrusion, and/or prolonged intrusive events, may be more conducive to mineralization.

The drone spectral imaging survey revealed 2 main zones of iron oxide that are indicative of underlying mineralization. Anomaly #1 occurs at the northern edge of the government aeromagnetic anomaly and is of significant size. Anomaly #2 occurs at the western edge of the survey area downstream of the AT 2 showing and correlates with a weak magnetic high.

26 RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that Avalon carry out additional exploration on the AT Property. The past work has been successful in delineating target areas and therefore should be continued. An initial $215,000 exploration program is recommended. See Table 26.0

The priority areas at the AT Property include the northwestern area within the upper reaches of Francois Creek around the AT 2 showing as well as along the eastern-trending ridge to the south of the showing where a significant gossanous zone occurs. Both areas contain evidence of the possible existence of magmatic-hosted Cu-Ni plus PGE deposits.

1) Careful geological mapping of bedrock at suitable scale. Entire host intrusion should be mapped with attention to contacts, as well as internal architecture (different phases, magmatic layering, etc.). This should also include mapping and prospecting of the mineralized boulder trains as well as the remainder of the property. Quaternary sediment mapping to outline moraines, outwash, local ice flow, to support boulder train mapping and geochemistry surveys. This will also assist in interpreting the magnetic survey results.
2) Rock geochemistry should include selected fire assay for PGE, and standardized methods (e.g., 4 acid digestion) as well as thin section work on selected samples.
3) Continue the UAV magnetic surveying to the northeast well past the iron oxide anomaly and to the southwest in order to determine the extent of magnetic anomaly B.

Geotronics

42 | P a g e

4) Continue the spectral photogrammetry work in order to locate additional iron oxide anomalies. This also has the additional benefit of accurate contouring of the terrain.
5) Carry out two lines of mobile metal ion (MMI) soil sampling across each of the two iron oxide anomalies. MMI is the soil sampling method that is most likely to work within alpine conditions where soil development is often poor.
6) The program is expected to be carried out in a 15-day period with all six personal being on the property at the same time.

	TABLE 5– EXPLORATION BUDGET	TABLE 5– EXPLORATION BUDGET

	ITEM	ESTIMATED COST
Geologist and assistant with all-inclusive field costs		$40,500
Prospector and assistant with all-inclusive field costs		$24,000
Magnetics and photogrammetry with all-inclusive field costs		$66,000
Helicopter		$30,000
Rock sampling assays, 125 @ $40 each		$5,000
Thin section work, including geological analysis, 20 @ $650 each		$13,000
MMI lab costs, 150 @ $45 each		$6,750
Data reduction		$9,000
Interpretation and reporting		$6,000
Contingency		$14,750
TOTAL		$215,000

Note : The first three items include room, board, truck rental, and instrumentation.

The size and scope of the Phase Two program as well as the type of work is dependent on the results of Phase One. At this point the recommended work would be a helicopter SkyTEM survey which is capable of locating conductive bodies at depth. Also recommended may be diamond drilling of any exploration targets produced by the geological, geophysical, and geochemistry work.

Geotronics

43 | P a g e

27 REFERENCES

Anonymous (1940): British Columbia Ministry of Mines Annual Report, 1940; p. A72. Barnes, S.J. and Mungall, J.E., 2018: Blade-shaped dikes and nickel sulphide deposits: a model - for the emplacement of ore bearing small intrusion, Economic Geology v.113 n.3 p. 789798. Berniolles, L. (1987): Prospecting Report, AT2 Claim, Clinton Mining Division; British Columbia, Ministry of Energy and Mines Geological Survey Branch, Assessment Report #16,688. Berniolles, L. (1988): Prospecting Report, AT3, AT4 Claims, Clinton Mining Division; British Columbia, Ministry of Energy and Mines Geological Survey Branch, Assessment Report #18,022. Berniolles, L. (1989): Prospecting Report, HWl, HW4, HW5 Claims, Clinton Mining Division; British Columbia, Ministry of Energy and Mines Geological Survey Branch, Assessment Report #19,355. 33333 Berniolles, L. (1991b): Prospecting Report - HW9 Claim, Clinton Mining Division, British Columbia Ministry of Energy and Mines Geological Survey Branch Assessment, Report #21,861. Church, B.N. and Jones, L.D., 1999: Metallogeny of the Bridge River mining camp (092J10, 15 & 092O02), British Columbia Geological Survey ; Geofile 1999-01, 64 p. Copeland, J.J. (1981): Prospecting Report on McCope, McDon and McMul Claims; British Columbia Ministry of Energy and Mines Geological Survey Branch Assessment Report #9,575. Copeland, J.J. (1988): Diamond Drill Sampling on the J.J.#l.Rec:2422 & J.J.#2,Rec2423; British Columbia Ministry of Energy and Mines Geological Survey Branch Assessment Report #17,858. Cox, K. G., Bell, J.D., and Pankhurst, R. J., 1979. The Interpretation of Igneous Rocks. George, Allen and Unwin, London. Cox, D.P. and Singer, D.A. (eds.), 1986: Mineral deposit models, U.S. Geological Survey , Bulletin 1693, 379 p. Culbert, R. (1988): Geochemical and Prospecting Report On The Loot 1 And Loot 2 Claims; British Columbia Ministry of Energy and Mines Geological Survey Branch Assessment Report #18,250. Culbert, R., Heberlein, K. and Lammie, C.A.R. (1988): Geochemical, Prospecting and Au Photo - Study Report For Assessment Purposes On The Loot l 2 Claims; British Columbia Ministry of Energy and Mines Geological Survey Branch Assessment Report #17,392

Eckstrand, O.R. (ed.), 1984: Canadian mineral deposit types: a geological synopsis, Geological Survey of Canada , Economic Geology Report 36, 86 p.

Geotronics

44 | P a g e

Hulbert, L., 2001: British Columbia mafic-ultramafic hosted Ni, Ni-Cu, Cr +/- PGE occurrences, mafic-ultramafic bodies and Lithological Assemblage Map, Geological Survey of Canada and British Columbia Geological Survey , Geoscience Map 2001-2A, 1 sheet (.pdf file).

Irvine, T. N. and Baragar, W. R. A., 1971. A Guide to Chemical Classification of the Common Volcanic Rock. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 8, p. 523-548. - - Jones, H.M. (1984): Assessment Report Geological Report McDuck, McCope, McDow, McMul No. 1 and McMul No. 2 Claims; British Columbia Ministry of Energy and Mines Geological Survey Branch Assessment Report #12,691.

Kasper, Bruno, (1998): 1997 Geological and Geochemical Report on the Niut Range Property, - - (Comprising of the AT 2, Blackhorn, BLK 1 2, BLK 3 6, Champagne, HW 5, ORT 1A, ORT - 2A, ORT 3 4 Claims), Located in the Niut Range Clinton MD, BC,

Lefebure, D.V., 2000: Potential for palladium and platinum deposits in British Columbia, British Columbia Geological Survey ; Geofile 2000-05, 11 p.

Lesher, C.M., 2019: Up, down, or sideways: Emplacement of Fe-Ni-Cu-PGE sulfide melts in large igneous provinces, Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v.56, p.756-773.

Luolavirta, K., 2018: Magmatic evolution of the Kevitsa igneous complex, northern Finland, and its relation to the associated Ni-Cu-(PGE) mineralization, Publications in Geosciences, University of Oulu , ser. A, n. 37, 68 p.

Kasper, B., 1998: 1997 Geological and Geochemical report on the Nuit Range Property, BC Ministry of Energy and Mines , Assessment Report #25551, 89 p.

McConnell, G. (1982): Geological Report McDuck, McDon, McCope and McMuI Claim Group; British Columbia Ministry of Energy and Mines Geological Survey Branch Assessment Report #10,654.

Miller, Allen, Ph.D, P.Geo,

— Naldrett, A.J., 2004: Magmatic sulfide deposits Geology, geochemistry, and exploration, Berlin, Springer-Verlag , 727 p.

Nixon, G.T. and Hammack, J.L., 1999: Metallogeny of ultramafic-mafic rocks in British Columbia

with emphasis on the platinum group elements, In Ore deposits, tectonics and metallogeny in the Canadian cordillera, British Columbia Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, Paper 1991-4, p. 125-161

O’Grady, B.T. (1938): British Columbia Ministry of Mines Annual Report, 1937; p. F3-F6.

Pezzot, E. Trent, (2018): Memorandum, Regional Geophysical Study – AT Claims Project, for Conico Resources Ltd, by SJ Geophysics

Geotronics

45 | P a g e

Peatfield, G.R. (1996): Technical Report on The Niut Range Property, Tatlayoko Lake Area, British Columbia; Report submitted to the Vancouver Stock Exchange as a part of Black Horn Gold Mines company prospectus. Romring, P.A. (1984): Preliminary Geology and Geochemistry Of The Lori 1,2,3 And 4 Claims; British Columbia Ministry of Energy and Mines Geological Survey Branch Assessment Report#13,150.

Rusmore, M.E. and Woodsworth, G.J., 1988: Eastern margin of the Coast Plutonic Complex, Mount Waddington map area, B.C. in Current Research, Part E, Geological Survey of Canada , Paper 88-1 E, p. 185-190.

Rusmore, M.E. and Woodsworth, G.J., 1993: Geological maps of the Mount Queen Bess (092 N/07) and Razorback Mountain (092 N/10) map areas, Coast Mountains, British Columbia, Geological Survey of Canada , Open File 2586, 2 sheets, scale 1:50,000.

Rusmore, M.E. and Woodsworth, G.J., 1994: Evolution of the eastern Waddington thrust belt and its relation to the mid-Cretaceous Coast Mountains arc, western British Columbia, Tectonics , v.13 n.5 p.1052-1067. Rusmore, M.E. and Woodsworth, G.J., 2011: Distribution and tectonic significance of Upper Triassic terranes in the eastern Coast Mountains and adjacent Intermontane Belt, British Columbia, Canadian Journal of Earth Science , v. 28 n. 4 p.532-541.

Sargent, H. (1939): British Columbia Ministry of Mines Annual Report, 1938; p. F29-F38.

Schulz, K.J., Woodruff, L.G., Nicholson, S.W., Seal, R.R., II, Piatak, N.M., Chandler, V.W., and Mars, J.L., 2014: Occurrence model for magmatic sulfide-rich nickel-copper-(platinumgroup element) deposits related to mafic and ultramafic dike-sill complexes, U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5070–I, 80 p .

Simpson, R.S., 2019: 2018 Prospecting and Geophysical report on the AT Claims. BC Ministry of Energy and Mines, Assessment Report #37897, 89 66 p.

Song, Xieyan, Wang, Yushan, Chen, Liemeng, (2011): Magmatic Ni-Cu-(PGE) Deposits in Magma Plumbing Systems: Features, Formation, and Exploration, Geoscience Frontiers, from China University of Geosciences (Beijing) , pp 375-384

Stevenson, J.S. (1947): Lode Gold Deposits, Southwestern British Columbia (Exclusive of Vancouver Island); British Columbia Department of Mines Bulletin No. 20 - Part IV.

Thakurta, J., Ripley, E.M. and Li, C., 2008: Geochemical constraints on the origin of sulfide mineralization in the Duke Island Complex, southeastern Alaska. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, v. 9, n.7.

Tipper, H.W. (1969): Mesozoic And Cenozoic Geology of The Northeast Part Of Mount - Waddington Map Area (92N), Coast District, British Columbia; Geological Survey of Canada Paper 68-33.

Geotronics

46 | P a g e

Tipper, H.W., Woodsworth, G.J. and Gabrielse, H. (1981): Tectonic Assemblage Map of The Canadian Cordillera And Adjacent Parts Of The United States Of America; Geological Survey of Canada Map 1505A.

Geotronics

47 | P a g e

28 CERTIFICATE OF AUTHOR - DAVID MARK, P.GEO

I, David Mark, P.Geo, as the author of the report entitled “Technical Report – Geological Summary, AT Property, British Columbia” do hereby certify that:

I am a self-employed consulting geoscientist residing at 6204 125[th] , Street, Surrey, B.C., V3X 2E1.
I graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in Geological Sciences from the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia in 1968.
I am registered as a Professional Geoscientist with the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of the Province of British Columbia (license #20608), in good standing since 1993.
I have worked continuously as a geoscientist for fifty-three years since my graduation from university and have been involved in exploration projects for gold (both placer and hard rock), base metals, diamonds, gravel, and silica sand in Canada, USA, Mexico, Cuba, Honduras, Mali, and Papua New Guinea. The type of work includes field work, data interpretation, and project management.
I have read the definition of “qualified person” set out in National Instrument 43-101 (“NI 43-101”) and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (as defined in NI 43-10 1) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a “qualified person” for the purposes of NI 43-101.
I am responsible for all sections of the technical report titled Technical Report on the AT Property”, British Columbia and dated December 20, 2020, of which I am the author. This report is based upon a personal examination of all available company and government reports pertinent to the subject property. Where applicable, sources of information are noted in the body of the text or illustrations. I carried out an exploration program and was on the property during the period of September 22[nd] to October 3[rd] , 2020.
I have not had any prior involvement with the property.
As of the date of this report, I am not aware of any material fact or material change with respect to the subject matter of the Technical Report that is not reflected in the Technical Report, the omission to disclose of which makes the Technical Report misleading. This report contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed.
I am independent of the issuer (1200164 B.C. Ltd.), and of the optionors of the subject property, applying the tests set out in section 1.5 of National Instrument 43-101. I have no interest in the property, which is the subject of this report, nor do I expect to receive any interest in this property or any other owned by the issuer or the optionors.
I have read National Instrument 43-101 and Form 43-101F1, and the Technical Report has been prepared in compliance with that instrument and form.
I consent to the filing of the Technical Report with any stock exchange and other regulatory authority and any publication by them, including electronic publication in the public company files on their websites accessible by the public, of the Technical Report.

Dated this 20th day of December 2020 at Surrey, British Columbia

"Original Signed and Stamped"

David G. Mark, P.Geo.

Geotronics

48 | P a g e

– 29 APPENDIX I ROCK DESCRIPTIONS AND LAB RESULTS

29.1 SAMPLE DESCRIPTIONS BY LEN GAL, M.SC, GEOLOGIST

29.2 LAB RESULTS

29.3 THIN SECTION REPORT

2020 ROCK DESCRIPTIONS LEN GAL, M.Sc, Geologist

		colour index	rock type		igneous sub-type			Mag Susc							mineral		mineral	minera		mineral 5,
															1		2	l 3		accessory
AT-RS/20-01A	green s/p	45	igneous		mafic	diorite		7.276	wk-mod	f-mgr	mainly 2-3 mm	plag	nd	plag		cpx		bt			sl Feox	uniform	a single chunk	tr to nil	nd
AT-RS/20-01B	darkgreen	80	igneous		ultramafic	pyroxenite		1.105	mod-str	cgr	mainly 3-10, some larger clinopyroxe ne crystals to 15mm	nd	cpx	cpx		plag		ol			sl ep with qtz in rare frxx	uniform to porphyritic, but quite coarse and may be from a single cumulate layer?		tr	nd
AT-RS/20-01C	grey	90	igneous		ultramafic	dunite	wehrlite?	3.877	mod-str	fgr	<1mm	probablycpx	olivine microcrysts	ol		cpx				mag?	ep in env of qtz frx	uniform, probably an ultramfic dyke as described in the area		tr if any	nd
AT-RS/20-02A	lightgreen	90	igneous		ultramafic	dunite	umafic xenolith / garnetite	0.873	wk	fgr	<1-2mm	mafics	nd	ol		cpx		gt	ep		poss skarn	uniform but cut by vnlets - quartz-calcite-epidote- feldspar? Fine grained, possible skarn or hornfels influence. There is a mass of fgr gt that suggests skarn assemblage, and it is closely associated with qtz-ep. But there are also poss separate gt xenocrysts (or porphyroblasts)		1% cpydiss	nd
AT-RS/20-02B	darkgreen	80	igneous		ultramafic	pyroxenite		6.829	mod	m-cgr	2-12 mm	nd	cpx to 14mm	cpx		plag		?hbl	?ol		quite fresh	uniform some cpx phenos though, no layering apparent		tr	seems like the photo is of the dark green rock, seems like outcrop with frxx and possible brecciation. And looks like layering or the ultamafic is a dyke cuttingmgrgabbros
AT-RS/20-03	dark green / white	70	igneous		ultramafic	pyroxenite	cut by felsic peg and/or qv		wk	m-cgr	2-5mm mainly in mafic intr	mostlythe fsp	some cpx p to 8mm in mafic intr	cpx		plag		bt		qtz		uniform	nd	1-2% po, poss tr cpy	float boulder; pegmatitic vein is cut bylaterqtz frxx
AT-RS/20-03A			igneous		ultramafic	pyroxenite	see 20-03 description	0.141	wk	m-cgr	2-5mm mainly in mafic intr	mostlythe fsp	some cpx p to 8mm in mafic intr	cpx		plag		bt		qtz		one piece cut by 2cm qtz vn w bt, a bit of po, prob plag. The other piece looks cut by 1-2 cm felsic pegmatite(plag, bt, qtz, apatite?) and this piece includes a wallrock chunk of pyroxenite that has po clots to 9-10mm across	the piece with the qtz vn with a little po	see 20-03	aa
AT-RS/20-03B			igneous		ultramafic	pyroxenite	see 20-03 description	0.262	0.262	m-cgr	2-5mm mainly in mafic intr	mostlythe fsp	some cpx p to 8mm in mafic intr	cpx		plag		bt		qtz		one piece cut by 2cm qtz vn w bt, a bit of po, prob plag. The other piece looks cut by 1-2 cm felsic pegmatite(plag, bt, qtz, apatite?) and this piece includes a wallrock chunk of pyroxenite that has po clots to 9-10mm across	the piece with the felsicpegmatite	see 20-03	aa
AT-RS/20-04	greys/p	60-75	igneous		mafic	gabbro		12.14	mod	f-mgr	mainly 1- 3mm	mostlythe fsp	some coarser cpx	cpx		plag		?hbl	?bt	ep qtz bt	ep qtz vnelts	mostly uniform, but cut by ep and qtz vnlets, and some coarser more mafic xenoliths / segregations with cpx to 8-10mm	a bit of a mixed bag, phases differ a bit, poss qtz dior even in here	tr	float boulder; xenoliths and sub parallelqtz frxx
AT-RS/20-05	grey	90	igneous		ultramafic	dunite	wehrlite	3.679	wk	fgr	<1-2mm	mafics	ol microphenos	ol		cpx		?hbl		gt	quite fresh	uniform, a few large ophitic ol, rare gt xenocrysts, both to 80-10mm, cut by a few hairline qtz-fsp frxx		tr, bit of cpy assoc with a qtz veinlet <1mm wide	float boulder,rusty
AT-RS/20-06	green s/p	40	igneous	intermedia te		diorite-qtz dior		9.74	mod-str	fgr	1-3mm	nd	nd	plag		hbl		bt	qtz	?cpx	quite fresh	uniform, pretty fresh looking but cut by one hairline frx partly open with greenish envelope		tr?	nd
AT-RS/20-07	darkgreen	70	igneous	mafic		gabbro	trending toward pyroxenite	3.396	strong	m-cgr	2-15mm	fsp,mafics	cpx	plag		plag		bt	ol?	hbl, gt	sl ep assoc with qtz vn, very sl chl?	some cpx megacrysts, phenos, some cse bt as well but some of this assoc w qv. mostly even and med- cgr, but cut by several qtz vnlets of different orientations, thicker ones qtz-bt, atually thichest one 2.5cm is prob a qtz-bt-fsp felsic dykelet		1%po	float boulder, looks like breccia or reaction rims on clasts?
AT-RS/20-08	lightgrey	nd	metamor phic	nd		calc-silicate or skarn	mmic calcareous seds?	0.34	wk	f-mgr	<1-4mm	qtz,fsp,cc?	phlog, trem- wollastonoite ? Some kind of acicular stellate clusters, probably secondary	plag		qtz		cc	bt?	trem or wollastonit e	calc-silicate assemblage or skarn type	porphyroblastic, can't see foliation or layering, maybe this is a calcareour or limy metasediment		trpo	veryrustyfloat boulder
AT-RS/20-09	darkgreen	40-85	igneous	mafic		gabbro	a range of phases?	2.91	mod-str	m-cgr	nd	usuallyfsp	ol,cpx	cpx		plag		ol	?hbl	gt? as xenocrysts	mainly fresh, ol phenos may show slight alteration	most uniform, one piece has ol phenos (ophitic) possibly wehrlite; other are coarser cpx. Cut by some fine stringers		tr-1% po, prob pentlandit e as see some Ni bloom and tr mal	looks like an agmatitic float boulder with angular ultramafic in a more felsic matrix
AT-RS/20-10	no fresh surface	nd	?metamo rphic	nd		metapsamm ite	a bit of qtz vein involved	0.02	nd	fgr	<1mm	nd	nd	plag		hbl?or bt?					str Feox	uniform, kind of granoblastic, probably metamorphic. too rusty to see anything fresh, there is some qtz vn material though		10-15% py, po, cpy in vnlets, patches assoc w vn, diss	veryrustyfloat boulder
AT-RS/20-11	greengrey	60	igneous	mafic		gabbro	actually some might be adjacent mmic hfels rocks	5.42	mod	mgr	2-3mm	fsp where present enough	nd	cpx		plag		hbl	?bt	ol?	mod Feox	uniform but some inclusions, possibly layering or cumulates. Layering might actually be contact with wall rock xenolith. Cut by some qtz vnlets u to a few mm.		3% po, cpy , in fine frxx and diss	a few small rustyfloats

Rock 1

2020 ROCK DESCRIPTIONS LEN GAL, M.Sc, Geologist

		colour index	rock type	igneous sub-type			Mag Susc							mineral		mineral	minera l 3		mineral 5,
														1		2			accessory
AT-RS/20-12	green	80	igneous	ultramafic	pyroxenite?	poss dunite?	3.152	mod	fgr	mainly <1mm	mafics	coarser phase poss ol, or opx, some look blocky tho so epidotized plagor opx	ol		?opx		hbl	?plag	bt?	ep assoc with someqtz vnlet	uniform and fgr, groundmass may be ol or opx rather than cpx, maybe a dyke, cut by ep-qtz frxx		tr	larger angular float boulder, looks to host some xenoliths and be cur by a couple fine frxx
AT-RS/20-13	green	90	igneous	ultramafic	dunite	wehrlite	0.964	nd	fgr	<1mm, a few olivine to 3mm	mafics	ol rarely	ol		cpx		?hbl		ep in qtz veinlets	quite fresh	uniform, cut by a couple of 4-5 mm qtz vn		trpo cpy	another larger angular float cut by at least 2 cross cutting qtz frxx
AT-RS/20-14	grey	80	igneous	ultramafic	lamprophyr e?	mafic dyke	0.24	wk	fgr	actual dyke rock <1mm	nd	rare phlog, poss altd olivine	nd							groundmass pretty fresh, xenoliths and xenocrysts slightly altered chl-serp?	uniform to porphyritic with sm xenocysts, xenoliths incl one large 10cm altd xenolith. Most probably a lamprophyre dyke		tr to none?	float with a few qtz frxx and looks like epon frxx envelope
AT-RS/20-15	grey-green	85	igneous	ultramafic	pyroxenite		0.541	wk-mod	fgr	mainly <1mm	mafics	nd	cpx		ol				?mag	quite fresh	uniform but a few sl coarser ol, cut by a few sub mm qtz vn, one is 2-3mm wide. Possibly a dyke rock		1-2%? diss and assoc with vnlets - po, py tr cpy?	looks like ultramafic float boulders sitting on outcrop of mgr gabbro cut by fine frxx, with orange coloured alteration envelopes. So sample is not from the outcrophere.
AT-RS/20-16	grey-green	85	igneous	ultramafic	pyroxenite	wehrlite	3.543	wk-mod	fgr	<1mm mainly	mafics	ol upto 3mm	?cpx		ol				opaques?	slight alteration of olphenos	wk porphyritic with ol microphenocrysts, cut by at least one fine qtz frx 1mm about, possibly an ultramafic dyke (similar to 20-15)		trpo	small float boulder, cut by at least 1 qtz frxx, looks to have xenoliths, and poss cumulatephases(ol,cpx)
AT-RS/20-17	green	85	igneous	ultramafic	dunite	wehrlite?	2.131	wk	fgr	mainly <1mm	mafics	coarser phase prob ol, looks clearer ol than sample 20-12	ol		?cpx					ep-qtz vnlets up to a few mm, sorme serp/ep altn of ol	uniform but a few megacrysts and some sulphide segregations, cut by a few straight qtz-ep hairline frxx		2%, mainly as equant po +/- py xtls to 4mm across, a few aggreagate s of smaller sxx look more mesh textured of at least settled out rather than pblasts. Tr sxx assoc w qtz-ep frx	float boulder of ultramafics in an area with lots;some epon frxx
AT-RS/20-18	mixed	nd	metamor phic	nd	metapsamm ite	mixed sample, prob 85% metavolc	8.683	intr is mod	intrusive is fgr	<1mm	nd	nd	plag		bt		qtz			mod Feox	fgr and uniform, mainly some recrystallized hornfelsed rock, with a bit of intrusive in there so possibly a dyke contact? And a bit of qtz vein frxx zone with parallel straight frxx along the side of one piece		trpydiss	veryrustyfloat boulder
AT-RS/20-19	whitish	30	igneous	inter- mediate	qtz diorite		1.272	wk	fgr	1mm mainly	nd	nd	plag		bt		qtz	?hbl		sl-mod Feox on weathered surfaces	uniform fgr intrusive		2% diss fn py,tr cpy	rustyfloat boulder looksgabbro
AT-RS/20-20	s/p	45	igneous	inter- mediate	qtz diorite	diorite	1.72	wk-mod	mgr	2-4 mainly	nd	nd	plag		cpx		bt	qtz	?hbl	weak ep, ep on some frxx but quite fresh overall	uniform, cut by a couple of hairline frxx		tr	possible outcrop of m-cgr gabbro/diorite
AT-RS/20-21	green s/p	35-55	igneous	mafic	diorite?	a range of intrusive phases?	7.125	varies, wk, most mafic pc is mod-str	mgr	mainly 2- 3mm	nd	nd	plag		cpx		bt	hbl?	?qtz	v sl Feox,sl chl?	uniform intrusives, but different phases included, also possibly some metamorphic rock, not useful really		tr	veryrustyfloat boulder
AT-RS/20-22	greenish grey	70	igneous	ultramafic	pyroxenite	poss cumulate	3.831	mod to str	m-cgr	3-5 mainly. Common cpx coarse	fsp	cpx	cpx		plag		?hbl	ol?	gt,ol,mag	v sl Feox	cpx coarser phase, to 10-15mm; possibly cumulate texture; ol and gt in some of the more fsp rich areas (xenolithprobably)		tr? To almost none	probable outcrop
AT-RS/20-23	greenish s/p	35	igneous	mafic	tonalite		0.958	v weak	fgr	1-2mm	nd	nd	plag		qtz		bt			mod Feox	uniform and granoblastic. Possibly metamorphosed / hornfelsed, but probably intrusive "microdiorite" although probably more felsic than that		2% diss py, cpy	veryrusty,might be subcrop
AT-RS/20-24	grey	nd	metamor phic	nd	hornfels	poss dyke	12.1	nd	fgr	<1mm	?	bt(phlog?)	bt								porphyritic; this might be a lamprophyric dyke or a hornfels		tr?	probable subcrop in a <1m wide rib surrounded by float boulders rounded,so maybe it is a dyke
AT-RS/20-25	grey	50	metamor phic	nd	metapsamm ite	possibly intrusive microdiorite	4.15	weak-mod	fgr	<1mm	mafics	fsp usually crystals but often not	nd								this fgr salt and pepper granoblastic texture I think is probably a metamorphosed psammite, greywacke. It could be a "microdiorite" though, Weak foliation, and there are a couple of more mafic "inclusions"	the hand sample does not seem to match the location picprovided byRS	tr	looks like outcrop of mafic-umafic dykes cutting gabbro - so doesn't reallymatch handsample?

Rock 2

2020 ROCK DESCRIPTIONS LEN GAL, M.Sc, Geologist

		colour index	rock type	igneous sub-type			Mag Susc					groundmass phases			mineral		mineral	minera		mineral 5, accessory
															1		2	l 3
AT-RS/20-26	no fresh surface	nd	metamor phic	nd	metapsamm ite	mixed sample, probably 80% metamorphic	0.061	nd	intrusive is f- mgr	nd	nd		nd	plag		qtz		bt			mod Feox	a mixed sample, poss some qtz vnlet but mainly fsp rich metamorphic	1-2% po diss and in	looks like outcrop and subcrop of few m wide gossan zone, possibly at contact with intrusives
																							frxx, tr cpy
AT-RS/20-27	mixed	nd	igneous	inter- mediate	qtz diorite?		1.304	volc is med str, intr is wk	intr is fgr	1-2mm intr	nd		nd	plag		bt		hbl	qtz	ep conspicuo us on some frxx	sl Feox especially on frxx	mixed sample. looks like a slightly more mafic (gabbro) inclusion in the felsic intrusive. But most pieces are metamorphic	tr	pictures show two very different outcrops: strained dark rock whick may be a metavolcanic, and an intermediate intrusive mgr with lots of rounded xenoliths in it.
AT-RS/20-28	grey	nd	metamor phic	nd	metapsamm ite	poss hornfels, similar to 20- 33	0.336	nd	fgr	<1mm	fsp,	bt	nd	plag		bt		?hbl	?qtz		mod Feox	fgr recrystallized metamorphic	1% diss, po- py	subcrop-outcrop,veryrusty
AT-RS/20-29	mixed	nd	metamor phic	nd	metapsamm ite	mixed sample, prob 80% metamorphic	11.64	mostly str	intrusive is mgr	1-2mm intr	nd		nd	plag		bt		?qtz	?hbl		sl Feox	indistinct contact between intrusive and metamorphic, at least 2 generations of qtz vn, earlier one cut by hairline frx	assoc with earlier qv and diss and in fine frxx, py	rounded float boulder, cut by pegmatitic veins andqtz vnlets
AT-RS/20-30	medium grey	nd	metamor phic	nd	metavolcani c	poss hornfels, similar to 20- 33	19.95	mod-str	fgr	<1mm	nd		nd	plag		bt		?qtz	?hbl		v sl Feox,sl ep	some foliation apparent by compositional layering, metamorphosed country rock, possibly hornfelsed	tr?	outcrop of gabbro with some rusty patches, some xenoliths or differentiated patches. Looks interesting.
AT-RS/20-31	greenish	nd	metamor phic	nd	metavolcani c		0.446	v weak	fgr	<1mm generally	nd		nd	plag		hbl?		qtz			mod Feox	uniform metavolcanic?, some qtz vnlets though (with recrystallized qtz)	2% py, cpy, diss and frxx assoc	rustyrounded float boulder
AT-RS/20-32	medium grey	55	igneous	mafic	gabbro/diori te	contact with piece of felsic rock (gneiss?)	6.153	mod to str	fgr	1-2 mm mainly, a few xtls to 4mm	maficphases		fsp plag forms good xtls	plag		hbl/?cpx		bt	qtz?		tr chl altn in biotite/phlogopi te	largely uniform to somewhat porphyritic, fsp (and rarely bt) is the phenocryst phase with mafic minerals in the groundmass. But about 15% of sample is felsic ?orthogneis with very weak foliation of mafic minerals. The contact is quite sharp, but these might be intrusive phases?	tr	small float boulder
AT-RS/20-33	darkgreen	nd	metamor phic	nd	metavolcani c		5.376	weak	fgr	<1mm	fsp		nd	plag		qtz					mod Feox,chl?	metamorphic with possible qtz vnlet, a few hairline rusty frxx	1-2% diss and on hairline frxx, po and cpy tr mal	bedrock outcrop, very rusty, couple of m thick
AT-RS/20-34A	green s/p	55	igneous	mafic	gabbro	ranges to qtz diorite	2.516	weak-mod	mgr	2-3mm mainly, a few hbl, cps to 8 mm	nd		nd	hbl (cpx?)		plag		bt	qtz	cpx	quite fresh, sl chl	one 2-3 cm "vein" of more felsic rock fsp-qtz-bt-hbl with some alteration ep-chl, and a few 1mm irregular qtz vnlets	tr to almost none	possible outcrop
AT-RS/20-34B	green s/p	55	igneous	mafic	gabbro		2.62	weak to v mod	mgr	2-3 mm mainly	hbl,fsp		a few clots of bioitite, rare large hbl	hbl +/- ?cpx?		plag		bt	qtz?	rare	quite fresh, v sl weathering of bt	even grained but possibly very slight foliation/alignment in hbl. Some areas are more felsic (fsp-bt). Cut by a few sub 1mm qtz-fsp irregular veinlets	tr	possible outcrop
AT-RS/20-35	grey	40	metamor phic	nd	metapsamm ite		0.083	wk	fgr	<1mm	nd		nd	plag		bt		hbl?	qtz		mod Feox	meta psammite probably but this looks a little more crystalline (could be crystal overgrowths). Overall granoblastic and uniform but some larger cpx/hbl xtls. Cut by several anastomosing to sub parallel rustyfrxx	tr	looks pretty nice rusty outcrop, hard to tell. Cut bya fewqtz frxx
AT-RS/20-36	no fresh surface	45	metamor phic	nd	metapsamm ite		0.105	wk	fgr	<1mm	nd		nd	plag		bt		qtz			sl to mod Feox	uniform granoblastic meta psammite (possibly microdiorite as crystalline texture is apparent), cut by hairline rusty frx and at least 2 orientations of qtz veinlets <1mm	tr py assoc w frx	probable outcrop-subcrop rusty, looks moderatlyfractured
AT-RS/20-37	pinkishgrey	2	metamor phic	nd	metapsamm ite		0.095	wk	fgr	<1mm	nd		nd	qtz		plag		clays?			mod Feox, reddish altn to clays(orplag?)	weakly foliated, almost no biotite, quartzite essentially. Cut by qtz vnlet 2mm, also carb+/- qtz frx	tr?	veryrustysmall bits of float
AT-RS/20-38	dark green- grey	60	igneous	mafic	gabbro		11.738	wk-mod	mgr	2-5mm mainly	felsics fsp		nd	cpx		plag		?hbl	bt?	opx?	uniform slight clay alteration of plag, weak Feox mostly on frx	mafic intrusion	trpo	slightly rusty, possible outcrop of gabbroic rock
AT-RS/20-39	light grey- green	35	igneous	mafic	leuco gabbro	leucodiorite	7.754	mod-str	fgr	1mm mainly	felsics fsp		cpx	plag		cpx		qtz		mag?	quite fresh	glomeroporphyritic cpx possibly cumulate texture in a leucogabbro	tr?	outcrop about 1 foot wide band of rusty coloured gabbro. Most of it looks pretty regular but this spotty leucogabbro appears to be a layer or dyke that crosscuts the rusty weatheringoutcroprib
AT-RS/20-40	s/p	55	igneous	mafic	gabbro		9.186	mod	f-mgr	2-4 mm mainly	nd		nd	plag		cpx		hbl	bt?		v sl altn of bt, sl Feox on weathered surfaces	uniform, but slightly layered with more mafic layers	tr	probably float of slightly rusty gabbro
AT-RS/20-41	green s/p	60	igneous	mafic	gabbro	dioritic	11.83	mod	f-mgr	2-3 mm mainly	maficphases		fsp plag forms good xtls	plag		hbl/?cpx		bt			quite fresh	largely uniform, fsp (and rarer bt) is the pheno phase and hbl / cpx is groundmass	tr	sample might be from float but looks like some rusty gabbro outcrop in picture, just above sample site.
AT-RS/20-42	medium greys/p	55	igneous	mafic	gabbro		22.76	mod-str	fgr	<1-2mm	nd		nd	plag		hbl/?cpx					quite fresh, sl Feox especially on hairline frx	uniform	trpy?	outcrop area near claim post, looks mafic-ultramafic

Rock 3

2020 ROCK DESCRIPTIONS LEN GAL, M.Sc, Geologist

		colour index	rock type		igneous sub-type			Mag Susc							mineral		mineral	minera		mineral 5, accessory
															1		2	l 3
AT-RS/20-43	dark green grey	65	igneous		mafic	gabbro		13.12	mod-str	mgr	1-4 mainly, some cpx up to about 10mm	nd	nd	cpx		plag					quite fresh, plag less altd than sample 20-38	uniform but cut by qtz-fsp frx, hairline and sub parallel	tr, speck of mal (or poss Ni bloom)	probable outcrop m-cgr gabbro with igneous breccia textures and probable layering
AT-RS/20-44	darkgrey	nd	metamor phic		nd	psammitic schist	psammite	2.592	wk	fgr	<1-2mm	mainlyfelsics	nd	plag		bt		qtz	hbl?		mod - str Feox	metamorphic rock, mostly foliated (bt, lesser hbl). Close to a quartz-biotite schist	tr? Rusted Iguess	very rusty patch of possible bedrock surrounded by fresh float of light coloured intrusive
AT-RS/20-45	mixed	nd	metamor phic		nd	metapsamm ite	mixed sample 90% metamorphic	20.25	nd	intrusive is f- mgr	1-3mm intr	nd	nd	plag		hb		bt	qtz		sl Feox assoc with frxx	uniform, at least 2 generations of qtz vnlet, fine hairline straight cuts old wider and more irregular vns which also incl ep	trpy	rusty angular talus not far from outcrop
AT-RS/20-46	darkgrey	70	igneous		ultramafic	pyroxenite	gabbroic piece as well	4.416	nd	m-cgr	2-5mm mainly	nd	cpx	cpx		?hbl		bt	plag	ol	quite fresh	porphyritic with cpx coarser phase, to 10-15mm. One piece seems more felsic with bt>ol	1% but conc in clots of diss grains, po,cpy	ultramafic probable outcrop at the heli site, looks vaguely cumulate in thephoto
AT-RS/20-47	green-white	55	igneous		mafic	gabbro	pegmatite/ porphyritic	0.589	v weak	mgr-vcgr	2-10 mainly, some clinopyroxe ne to 40mm, felsic phases (plagioclase) in groundmass generally, mafics coarser xtls incudingl biotite	fsp	cpx,bt	cpx		plag		bt	hbl?	ol, gt, chl (maybe some after bt?), poss later qtz vnlet	chl?, tr ep, v sl Feox	sl porphyritic to pegatititic with cpx xtls up to 4cm long. Gt-ol bearing xenolith(?) is caught up in the pegmatitic phase. Cut by narrow qtz vnlet as well.	tr py, poss cpy	likely bedrock with rounded xenoliths, some igneous breccia textures and or pegmatitic segregations, also cut by some qtx frxx
AT-RS/20-48	dark grey- green	80	igneous		ultramafic	pyroxenite		1.418	mod-str	cgr	mainly 2- 5mm, some up to 12 mm (clinopyroxe ne)	nd	nd	cpx		plag					quite fresh	uniform	tr if any	possible subcrop, vaguely cumulate look about it
AT-RS/20-49	green s/p	40	igneous	intermedia te		qtz diorite		1.428	mod to str	mgr	2-4 mm	nd	nd	plag		hbl/?cpx		bt	qtz?		v sl Feox, v sl chl?	uniform	tr	outcroparea
AT-RS/20-50	light grey- green	35	igneous	inter- mediate		qtz diorite		1.959	wk-mod	f-mgr	mainly 2- 3mm	nd	nd	plag		bt		?hbl	qtz		sl chl	uniform, possible hairline frxx face with ep. One of the most felsic samples in this set.	tr cpy	probable outcrop, cut by a 10cm vein/dyke with bleached reaction envelope(or bordering qtz vnlets?)
AT-RS/20-51	dark grey- green	80	igneous	ultramafic		pyroxenite		23.4	mod-str	cgr	mainly 2- 5mm, some 10mm	nd	many large cpx 10-12 mm	cpx		plag					quite fresh	uniform, but some fgr, possibly more felsic segregations/layers 1cm or less	tr	hard to see probable float, but a big outcropbluff 50m back
AT-RS/20-52	darkgreen	75	igneous	ultramafic		pyroxenite		9.964	nd	m-cgr	2-8mm mainly, some 10- 12mm clinopyroxe ne	fsp,cpx,?	cpx, some smaller ol xtls	cpx		ol		plag	?hbl	gtprob	quite fresh	uniform to porphyritic with some larger ophitic cpx. one pc cut by irregular qtz-fsp vns to 12mm	1% po-py, v tr Co bloom and Ni bloom (or mal)	possible outcrop, some nearby just a bit lower down slope. Looks to be cut byan irregular lookingvn
AT-RS/20-53	grey	45	metamor phic	nd		metapsamm ite		0.114	wk	fgr	<1mm	nd	nd	plag		bt		?hbl	?qtz		sl chl of bt, sl Feox	uniform granoblastic, metamorphic psammite likely. Cut by a couple of rusty hairline frxx	tr	blocky probable outcrop, possible granodiorite dike in behind
AT-RS/20-54	grey	50	?metamo rphic	nd		metapsamm ite	possible intrusion, microdiorite	1.247	nd	fgr	<1mm	nd	nd	plag		cpx?- hbl?		?bt			v sl Feox	quite uniform granoblastic, metapsammite or possibly microdiorite	tr	outcrop; a suggestion of layering in this outcrop, oriented vertically in thephoto. Plus aqtz vnlet.
AT-RS/20-55	grey	50	metamor phic	nd		metapsamm ite	possible intrusion, microdiorite	7.607	nd	fgr	<1mm	nd	nd	plag		cpx?- hbl?		bt	?qtz		pretty fresh except some platy pieces sl - mod Feox	uniform, cut by rusty hairline frx and some qtz vnlets to 3mm	tr	outcrop, extremely rusty <1m band in layered rock along contact (possiblycontact with intrusive?)
AT-RS/20-56	greenish	40	igneous	inter- mediate		diorite/ qtz diorite		0.606	weak-mod	fgr	<1mm, v few 2-3mm plagioclase, biotite	nd	nd	plag		hbl/?cpx		bt	qtz?		weak Feox	uniform, rare coarser plag and bt. a bit of qtz vein on one frx face	tr py, wee speck of mal?	wide view so hard to tell where sample came from, but there are rustyoutcrops around
AT-RS/20-57	grey	55	igneous	mafic		gabbro	diorite	9.121	mod	f-mgr	mainly 1- 3mm	nd	nd	plag		cpx		?			mod-str Feox	rusty with no good fresh rock, probably gabbro to diorite, uniform texture with a bit of grain size variation between pieces. Cut by several rusty hairline frx,somepossibleqtz vnlets	trpy	outcropveryrusty1m wide zone

Rock 4

2020 ROCK DESCRIPTIONS LEN GAL, M.Sc, Geologist

		colour index	rock type	igneous sub-type			Mag Susc							mineral		mineral	minera		mineral 5,
														1		2	l 3		accessory
AT-RS/20-58	black-green s/p	60	igneous	mafic	gabbro	locally pegmatitic	4.036	mod to str	m-cgr	2-4mm mainly, phenocrysts upto 25mm	plag fsp, <1- 2mm	cpx, ol+/- gt xenocrysts?	cpx		plag		hbl	bt?	ol, gt, apatite? In pegmatitic parts	sl Feox	uniform to porphyritic (cpx) to locally pegmatitic, ol- gt crystals are cumulate phases or xenocrysts?		maybe 2% overall; py tr, po plus tr cpy, py inmesh texture, also po in vnlet, crss cutting with tr cry, py	strongly gossanous area , at least a few m wide rusty outcrop, trends off in the distance for tens of m. Pegmatitic zones and it looks like layeringofphases? Nice!
AT-RS/20-59	mixed	nd	igneous	inter- mediate	qtz diorite?	mixed sample, prob 40% metavolcanic	6.43	intr is mod	intrusive is fgr	intr <1mm to rare 2-4 mm phenocrysts	nd	fsp,bt?	plag		hbl/?cpx		bt	qtz		mod Feox especially in metamorphic pieces	mixed sample , int is uniform mainly to plag porphyritic, metavolcanic(?) is rusty and cut by several qtz frxx		py, cpy, mal,?po?	outcrop area strongly rusty, at least a couple of m wide, possibly can project into picture many tens of m (might be the same horizon as foreground where sample was from)
AT-RS/20-60	green s/p	60	igneous	mafic	gabbro	locally pegmatitic	7.44	nd	m-cgr, some pieces f-mgr	2-5 mm mainly, some clinopyroxe ne (hornblende ?) to 2-3cm, also some fgr <1mm pieces	fspmainly	cpx mainly	plag		cpx		?hbl	?bt		sl Feox, sl chl/ep?	mixed sample, slight porphyritic (cpx phenocrysts) to pegmatititc, intrusive on contact with metamorphic		trpo +/-py	bedrock, strongly rusty linear zone <1m wide, along frxx or contact? Looks like m0cgr intrusives, with some ep-qtz frxx
AT-RS/20-61	no fresh surface	40	igneous	mafic	diorite	to qtz diorite?	0.983	wk-mod	fgr	1-2mm mainly	nd	nd	plag		bt		cpx?	?qtz		str Feox	very rusty and no fresh faces, probably fgr uniform intrusive. cut by several hairline rusty frxx and some qtz vnlets to a couple mm wide		tr but rusted boxes of py mean pro 2-3%	looks like float,smallpieces
AT-RS/20-62	darkgreen	60	igneous	mafic	gabbro	?pyroxenite	21.25	mod-str	f-cgr	1-4 mainly, some sub 1mm and some clinopyroxe ne up to about 8mm	mainlyfsp	cpx locally	cpx		plag					mod Feox	some cgr, some finer gr and more felsic xenoliths(?) or dykelets(?) W indistinct boundaries, poss few frxx. Sulphides look promising		5% po-py little cpy, diss, frx, but pretty good net texture aggregates	small piece of rusty float in amongst a bunch of smallish sub-rounded boulders
AT-RS/20-63A	green	90	igneous	ultramafic	dunite	wehrlite?	1.719	wk	fgr	<1mm	cpx	ol equant micrphenos	ol		cpx		?bt		gt	quite fresh, cut by a hairline frxx	uniform but possible weak alignment of cpx and hbl(?)	only2 smpieces	tr to none?
AT-RS/20-63B	dark green- grey	55	igneous	mafic	gabbro		21.26	strong	mgr	mainly 2- 4mm	fsp	nd	plag		cpx					sl fe ox	uniform		tr to none?
AT-RS/20-63C	grey	50	ig-meta	nd	metapsamm ite	possible intrusion, microdiorite	4.16	mod-str	fgr	<1mm	nd	nd	plag		cpx?		?bt			mod Feox	uniform but includes a bit of the m-cgr gabbro from 063B, cut by several hairline rusty frxx		tr,tr mal
AT-RS/20-64	dark greenish	60	igneous	mafic	gabbro		0.302	weak	fgr	<1mm mainly	nd	cpx	cpx		plag		?ol	hbl?		Feox	uniform, rare cpx 2-4 mm; some of the groundmass plag might be ol (greenish cast). cut by a few hairline, straight rusty frxx		po, tr cpy, py, in veinlets and diss	rusty float/subcrop in a rudely linear zone, covered by lighter coloured rocks mainly
AT-RS/20-65	green s/p	50	igneous	mafic	gabbro/diori te		2.259	strong	mgr	2-3 mm mainly	nd	nd	hbl		plag		bt	cpx, qtz?		verysl fe ox	uniform, slight tendency to alignmnet of hbl		tr	probable outcrop
AT-RS/20-67	s/p	55	metamor phic	nd	metavolcani c	possible intrusion, microdiorite	0.261	nd	fgr	<1mm	nd	nd	plag		hbl?		bt?	qtz?		mod Feox, some rusty envelopes on frxx	uniform granoblastic metamorphic. Cut by some hairline qtz frxx.		trpy	very rusty outcrop a few m wide, that seems to project 00s of m into the distant ridge
AT-RS/20-66	grey-green	40	igneous	intermed- iate	qtz diorite		0.247	v weak	fgr	<1mm, few 1-2mm (hornblende )	qtz-fsp-hbl	nd	plag		qtz		hbl	bt?	cpx?py	Feox sl-mod	uniform, cut by a few qtz veinlets. Possibly a few mafic segregations or xenoliths		py <1%, tr cpy, poss tr po. Py mainly as cubes <1mm	another couple m wide outcrop area very rusty, thay seems to trend off into the distance 100m plus. Very rustyorange in outcrop

Rock 5

AT LAB RESULTS

2020 ROCK SAMPLES

	WTKG	Au	Pt	Pd	Ag	Al	As	Ba	Be
METHOD		GE_FAI30V5	GE_FAI30V5	GE_FAI30V5	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12
DETECTION	0.01	1	10	1	2	0.01	10	1	0.5
UNITS	kg	ppb	ppb	ppb	ppm	%	ppm	ppm	ppm
AT‐rs/20‐1A	0.69				<2	9.61	<10	338	1
AT‐rs/20‐1B	2.49	<1	<10	3	<2	5.77	<10	128	<0.5
AT‐rs/20‐1C	2.3	<1	<10	1	<2	10.17	<10	231	0.7
AT‐rs/20‐2A	1.72	<1	<10	1	<2	9.48	<10	142	0.6
AT‐rs/20‐2B	0.74	1	<10	2	<2	5.7	<10	69	<0.5
AT‐rs/20‐3A	1.51	2	<10	<1	<2	7.85	<10	119	<0.5
AT‐rs/20‐3B	0.49	2	<10	1	<2	10.57	<10	216	0.7
AT‐rs/20‐4	3.33	3	<10	<1	<2	9.71	<10	266	0.8
AT‐rs/20‐5	2.18	3	<10	1	<2	10.33	<10	90	0.6
AT‐rs/20‐6	0.83				<2	9.38	<10	532	1.1
AT‐rs/20‐7	3.02	3	<10	3	<2	6.34	<10	215	<0.5
AT‐rs/20‐8	1.83				<2	12.17	<10	342	1.5
AT‐rs/20‐9	1.97	1	<10	3	<2	7.96	<10	172	0.7
AT‐rs/20‐10	1.33	3	<10	<1	<2	9.16	<10	297	1
AT‐rs/20‐11	2.99	11	<10	<1	<2	10.5	<10	125	0.8
AT‐rs/20‐12	1.14	3	<10	2	<2	9.91	<10	145	0.7
AT‐rs/20‐13	1.86	4	<10	1	<2	9.91	<10	101	0.6
AT‐rs/20‐14	1.86	<1	<10	1	<2	7.24	<10	124	<0.5
AT‐rs/20‐15	1.74	3	<10	1	<2	10.78	<10	238	0.7
AT‐rs/20‐16	1.58	3	<10	1	<2	10.37	<10	115	0.6
AT‐rs/20‐17	2.47	3	<10	<1	<2	10.07	<10	276	0.7
AT‐rs/20‐18	3.4				<2	10.5	<10	87	0.7
AT‐rs/20‐19	1.32	2	<10	<1	<2	8.16	<10	771	0.8
AT‐rs/20‐20	1.24				<2	9.17	<10	363	1
AT‐rs/20‐21	2.17				<2	9.64	<10	497	0.9
AT‐rs/20‐22	2.75	3	<10	3	<2	5.5	<10	95	<0.5
AT‐rs/20‐23	1.81	18	<10	1	<2	8.9	14	710	1
AT‐rs/20‐24	1.76				<2	6.41	13	1785	3.5
AT‐rs/20‐25	1.16				<2	9.59	<10	241	1
AT‐rs/20‐26	1.92				<2	9.16	<10	602	0.8
AT‐rs/20‐27	2.06				<2	9.6	<10	244	0.8

Lab 1

AT LAB RESULTS

2020 ROCK SAMPLES

	Bi	Ca	Cd	Co	Cr	Cu	Fe	K
METHOD	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12
DETECTION	15	0.01	1	1	1	0.5	0.01	0.01
UNITS	ppm	%	ppm	ppm	ppm	ppm	%	%
AT‐rs/20‐1A	<15	3.51	<1	20	21	61	4.83	0.91
AT‐rs/20‐1B	<15	6.66	2	80	851	66.4	8.27	0.39
AT‐rs/20‐1C	<15	5.86	2	37	25	47.2	8.54	0.46
AT‐rs/20‐2A	<15	9.23	2	25	43	125	7.67	0.1
AT‐rs/20‐2B	<15	6.14	2	83	674	63.1	8.29	0.29
AT‐rs/20‐3A	<15	6.1	1	54	286	104	5.56	0.39
AT‐rs/20‐3B	<15	4.91	<1	26	84	88.5	3.49	0.35
AT‐rs/20‐4	<15	5.78	1	26	22	31.1	5.96	0.67
AT‐rs/20‐5	<15	7.57	2	32	14	48.3	7.89	0.2
AT‐rs/20‐6	<15	3.73	<1	13	15	15.1	4.72	1.31
AT‐rs/20‐7	<15	4.65	2	79	558	149	7.73	0.57
AT‐rs/20‐8	<15	3.04	<1	14	15	32.5	4.07	0.78
AT‐rs/20‐9	<15	6.68	2	50	489	57.5	6.99	0.58
AT‐rs/20‐10	<15	5.52	<1	8	37	111	5	0.38
AT‐rs/20‐11	<15	8.37	2	25	7	100	7.42	0.32
AT‐rs/20‐12	<15	5.53	2	36	22	21.7	7.8	0.36
AT‐rs/20‐13	<15	6.08	2	32	16	75.3	7.66	0.07
AT‐rs/20‐14	<15	6.37	<1	14	20	14.1	4.16	0.2
AT‐rs/20‐15	<15	5.88	2	33	23	39.3	8.27	0.69
AT‐rs/20‐16	<15	7.04	2	36	20	87.9	7.78	0.26
AT‐rs/20‐17	<15	5.57	2	33	11	53.6	8.18	0.63
AT‐rs/20‐18	<15	5.23	2	14	6	61.9	7.26	0.38
AT‐rs/20‐19	<15	1.41	<1	2	9	13.5	2.25	1.72
AT‐rs/20‐20	<15	4.19	1	22	56	29.4	5.03	0.93
AT‐rs/20‐21	<15	3.68	1	19	8	33.8	5.6	1.09
AT‐rs/20‐22	<15	6.43	2	83	740	50.9	8.37	0.29
AT‐rs/20‐23	<15	2.97	<1	9	7	26.7	3.36	1.06
AT‐rs/20‐24	<15	6.48	2	33	54	184	7.02	2.16
AT‐rs/20‐25	<15	5.87	2	30	53	40.1	7.25	0.7
AT‐rs/20‐26	<15	2.96	<1	8	8	104	2.87	0.89
AT‐rs/20‐27	<15	6.48	2	29	20	72	8.26	0.76

Lab 2

AT LAB RESULTS

2020 ROCK SAMPLES

	La	Li	Mg	Mn	Mo	Na	Ni	P
METHOD	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12
DETECTION	0.5	1	0.01	2	1	0.01	1	0.01
UNITS	ppm	ppm	%	ppm	ppm	%	ppm	%
AT‐rs/20‐1A	10.3	21	1.74	724	3	3.54	17	0.13
AT‐rs/20‐1B	2.4	10	11.35	1162	5	0.96	343	0.03
AT‐rs/20‐1C	4.1	10	2.98	1322	5	2.31	19	0.05
AT‐rs/20‐2A	3.6	4	1.48	1071	5	0.85	12	0.03
AT‐rs/20‐2B	2.7	9	11.61	1181	4	1.15	347	0.03
AT‐rs/20‐3A	4.2	9	5.53	795	5	1.96	138	0.02
AT‐rs/20‐3B	5.6	7	2.54	458	3	3.47	55	0.04
AT‐rs/20‐4	6.7	12	2.51	924	4	3.02	23	0.12
AT‐rs/20‐5	3.7	9	2.78	1475	5	1.6	13	0.05
AT‐rs/20‐6	11.5	15	1.33	859	3	3.64	9	0.12
AT‐rs/20‐7	4.2	9	10.37	1134	4	1.52	399	0.03
AT‐rs/20‐8	10.4	21	0.83	739	4	3.2	13	0.04
AT‐rs/20‐9	4.3	11	7.28	1109	4	1.87	199	0.03
AT‐rs/20‐10	12.7	4	2.03	954	7	2.9	7	0.11
AT‐rs/20‐11	5.2	7	2.33	1460	5	1.69	7	0.08
AT‐rs/20‐12	3.5	11	3.45	1457	5	2.14	16	0.05
AT‐rs/20‐13	3.3	14	2.85	1416	5	2.39	14	0.05
AT‐rs/20‐14	4.8	13	2.66	1057	3	1.24	11	0.04
AT‐rs/20‐15	2.5	19	3.35	1297	5	1.91	12	0.04
AT‐rs/20‐16	3	11	3.19	1394	5	1.75	17	0.04
AT‐rs/20‐17	3.2	15	3.12	1442	5	2.04	13	0.04
AT‐rs/20‐18	3.6	10	2.02	1480	5	2.87	4	0.06
AT‐rs/20‐19	15.9	10	0.41	306	2	4	2	0.05
AT‐rs/20‐20	10	23	2.42	814	3	3.46	39	0.12
AT‐rs/20‐21	9.4	18	1.74	640	9	3.35	5	0.15
AT‐rs/20‐22	2.7	4	12.02	1222	4	1.07	346	0.03
AT‐rs/20‐23	12.6	10	0.88	300	3	3.42	5	0.09
AT‐rs/20‐24	65.6	21	2.47	1040	4	2.99	66	0.53
AT‐rs/20‐25	9.2	12	3.14	1194	4	3.04	44	0.18
AT‐rs/20‐26	11.5	9	0.64	193	27	3.48	5	0.08
AT‐rs/20‐27	5.1	14	2.75	1369	5	2.2	16	0.05

Lab 3

AT LAB RESULTS

2020 ROCK SAMPLES

	Pb	S	Sb	Sc	Sn	Sr	Ti	V
METHOD	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12
DETECTION	2	0.01	5	0.5	10	0.5	0.01	2
UNITS	ppm	%	ppm	ppm	ppm	ppm	%	ppm
AT‐rs/20‐1A	7	0.01	<5	9.5	<10	964	0.46	145
AT‐rs/20‐1B	<2	0.11	<5	36	<10	380	0.41	186
AT‐rs/20‐1C	<2	0.01	<5	27.7	<10	230	0.61	285
AT‐rs/20‐2A	<2	0.02	<5	26.3	<10	426	0.56	344
AT‐rs/20‐2B	<2	0.12	<5	36.1	<10	370	0.45	203
AT‐rs/20‐3A	<2	0.47	<5	24	<10	570	0.3	125
AT‐rs/20‐3B	<2	0.15	<5	9	<10	987	0.25	70
AT‐rs/20‐4	<2	0.01	<5	14.6	<10	1107	0.55	215
AT‐rs/20‐5	<2	0.01	<5	33.9	<10	304	0.6	304
AT‐rs/20‐6	3	0.01	<5	6.7	<10	988	0.41	113
AT‐rs/20‐7	<2	0.13	<5	19.8	<10	461	0.33	137
AT‐rs/20‐8	6	0.16	<5	14.5	<10	705	0.52	156
AT‐rs/20‐9	<2	0.04	<5	37.8	<10	589	0.68	265
AT‐rs/20‐10	<2	1.75	<5	18.5	<10	506	0.44	169
AT‐rs/20‐11	<2	0.91	<5	29.3	<10	310	0.63	220
AT‐rs/20‐12	<2	<0.01	<5	34.7	<10	330	0.6	338
AT‐rs/20‐13	<2	0.01	<5	32.8	<10	315	0.57	297
AT‐rs/20‐14	<2	<0.01	<5	14.9	<10	342	0.24	152
AT‐rs/20‐15	<2	0.15	<5	33.8	<10	396	0.69	313
AT‐rs/20‐16	<2	0.02	<5	34.6	<10	409	0.58	292
AT‐rs/20‐17	<2	0.25	<5	35.3	<10	204	0.65	328
AT‐rs/20‐18	<2	0.27	<5	29.4	<10	291	0.61	210
AT‐rs/20‐19	7	0.33	<5	1.5	<10	552	0.13	26
AT‐rs/20‐20	<2	0.01	<5	12.7	<10	937	0.51	168
AT‐rs/20‐21	3	0.48	<5	9.1	<10	948	0.49	153
AT‐rs/20‐22	<2	0.11	<5	34.4	<10	383	0.39	177
AT‐rs/20‐23	3	1.39	<5	4	<10	823	0.21	68
AT‐rs/20‐24	8	0.1	<5	15.5	<10	648	1.53	208
AT‐rs/20‐25	<2	0.03	<5	15.3	<10	1104	0.83	273
AT‐rs/20‐26	<2	0.61	<5	1.8	<10	869	0.18	37
AT‐rs/20‐27	<2	0.1	<5	23.8	<10	512	0.57	260

Lab 4

AT LAB RESULTS 2020 ROCK SAMPLES

	W	Y	Zn	Zr
METHOD	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12
DETECTION	10	0.5	1	0.5
UNITS	ppm	ppm	ppm	ppm
AT‐rs/20‐1A	<10	7.6	83	11.5
AT‐rs/20‐1B	<10	6.5	64	16.9
AT‐rs/20‐1C	<10	21	73	29.9
AT‐rs/20‐2A	<10	15.6	42	32
AT‐rs/20‐2B	<10	7.3	69	20.1
AT‐rs/20‐3A	<10	5.6	46	20.4
AT‐rs/20‐3B	<10	3.2	33	9.6
AT‐rs/20‐4	<10	7.1	89	17.5
AT‐rs/20‐5	<10	18.2	68	25.4
AT‐rs/20‐6	<10	9.1	72	8.9
AT‐rs/20‐7	<10	5.9	74	18.2
AT‐rs/20‐8	<10	3.7	106	1.8
AT‐rs/20‐9	<10	10.9	71	20.9
AT‐rs/20‐10	<10	14.8	49	9.9
AT‐rs/20‐11	<10	25.2	87	14.8
AT‐rs/20‐12	<10	18.8	73	23.4
AT‐rs/20‐13	<10	18.5	65	25.7
AT‐rs/20‐14	<10	11.8	47	14.4
AT‐rs/20‐15	<10	16.2	65	11.5
AT‐rs/20‐16	<10	17.8	62	18.5
AT‐rs/20‐17	<10	19.6	67	12.4
AT‐rs/20‐18	<10	18.9	77	8.6
AT‐rs/20‐19	<10	4.3	14	3.2
AT‐rs/20‐20	<10	8.7	80	14.6
AT‐rs/20‐21	<10	7.7	53	10
AT‐rs/20‐22	<10	6.6	72	18.8
AT‐rs/20‐23	<10	6.8	54	3.1
AT‐rs/20‐24	<10	14	136	323
AT‐rs/20‐25	<10	9	94	20.6
AT‐rs/20‐26	<10	3.2	26	1.9
AT‐rs/20‐27	<10	17.2	82	11.5

Lab 5

AT LAB RESULTS

2020 ROCK SAMPLES

	WTKG	Au	Pt	Pd	Ag	Al	As	Ba	Be
METHOD		GE_FAI30V5	GE_FAI30V5	GE_FAI30V5	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12
DETECTION	0.01	1	10	1	2	0.01	10	1	0.5
UNITS	kg	ppb	ppb	ppb	ppm	%	ppm	ppm	ppm
AT‐rs/20‐28	1.21				<2	9.83	<10	467	1.1
AT‐rs/20‐29	1.92				<2	8.47	<10	325	1.1
AT‐rs/20‐30	1.83				<2	10.49	<10	114	0.6
AT‐rs/20‐31	1.45				<2	12.75	<10	488	1.5
AT‐rs/20‐32	1.63				<2	9.46	<10	172	0.9
AT‐rs/20‐33	2.85				<2	11.01	<10	199	1.2
AT‐rs/20‐34A	3.44				<2	7.19	<10	389	0.9
AT‐rs/20‐34B	4.38				<2	8.17	<10	244	0.9
AT‐rs/20‐35	1.83				<2	9.58	<10	563	1
AT‐rs/20‐36	1.86				<2	8.14	<10	524	0.9
AT‐rs/20‐37	1.45				<2	8.83	30	361	0.9
AT‐rs/20‐38	2.28				<2	9.15	<10	224	0.9
AT‐rs/20‐39	1.6	<1	<10	<1	<2	11.96	<10	294	0.6
AT‐rs/20‐40	1.88				<2	9.54	<10	177	1
AT‐rs/20‐41	2.77				<2	9.03	<10	212	1
AT‐rs/20‐42	1.2				<2	10.22	<10	126	0.8
AT‐rs/20‐43	1.48	4	<10	<1	<2	9.82	<10	196	0.8
AT‐rs/20‐44	1.32				<2	11.09	73	239	1.5
AT‐rs/20‐45	1.12				<2	10.07	<10	72	0.6
AT‐rs/20‐46	1.29	5	<10	3	<2	5.92	<10	107	<0.5
AT‐rs/20‐47	2.13	4	<10	3	<2	7.75	<10	311	0.6
AT‐rs/20‐48	1.51	3	<10	2	<2	5.6	<10	108	<0.5
AT‐rs/20‐49	2.06				<2	6.51	<10	239	0.5
AT‐rs/20‐50	1.19				<2	10.73	<10	310	0.7
AT‐rs/20‐51	1.78	3	<10	3	<2	5.51	<10	115	<0.5
AT‐rs/20‐52	2.38	2	<10	2	<2	6.12	<10	133	<0.5
AT‐rs/20‐53	0.91				<2	8.45	<10	638	0.9
AT‐rs/20‐54	0.65				<2	9.71	<10	129	0.6
AT‐rs/20‐55	2.12				<2	9.72	<10	201	0.9
AT‐rs/20‐56	1.54				<2	9.2	<10	412	1
AT‐rs/20‐57	2.57	6	<10	2	<2	9.69	<10	95	0.5

Lab 6

AT LAB RESULTS

2020 ROCK SAMPLES

	Bi	Ca	Cd	Co	Cr	Cu	Fe	K
METHOD	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12
DETECTION	15	0.01	1	1	1	0.5	0.01	0.01
UNITS	ppm	%	ppm	ppm	ppm	ppm	%	%
AT‐rs/20‐28	<15	3.17	1	18	41	49.8	5.55	1.26
AT‐rs/20‐29	<15	4.52	2	28	67	56.7	8.62	0.93
AT‐rs/20‐30	<15	7.19	2	39	21	44	8.97	0.31
AT‐rs/20‐31	<15	1.36	2	17	31	68.9	7.25	1.28
AT‐rs/20‐32	<15	6.68	2	39	161	85	7.37	0.47
AT‐rs/20‐33	<15	5.77	1	27	72	187	6.26	0.28
AT‐rs/20‐34A	<15	4.71	2	55	163	42.6	7.09	0.93
AT‐rs/20‐34B	<15	6.27	2	46	234	81.2	6.95	0.68
AT‐rs/20‐35	<15	4.25	1	13	31	24.2	5.2	0.84
AT‐rs/20‐36	<15	4.24	1	12	37	30.2	4.94	0.78
AT‐rs/20‐37	<15	4.71	1	21	38	5.3	5.09	0.97
AT‐rs/20‐38	<15	5.76	2	42	76	90	7.94	0.69
AT‐rs/20‐39	<15	5.75	<1	11	19	20.7	3.75	0.55
AT‐rs/20‐40	<15	5.91	2	36	68	88.8	7.11	0.53
AT‐rs/20‐41	<15	5.95	2	37	80	79.6	7.76	0.58
AT‐rs/20‐42	<15	7.11	2	35	8	84.2	9.06	0.33
AT‐rs/20‐43	<15	7.13	2	46	151	104	7.78	0.56
AT‐rs/20‐44	<15	3.67	2	25	29	135	8.48	0.25
AT‐rs/20‐45	<15	6.55	2	32	11	29.5	8.62	0.17
AT‐rs/20‐46	<15	5	2	95	925	179	9	0.3
AT‐rs/20‐47	<15	4.96	2	52	422	44.9	6.15	1.08
AT‐rs/20‐48	<15	5.8	2	81	806	51.6	8.2	0.29
AT‐rs/20‐49	<15	3.39	2	31	526	39.2	9	0.62
AT‐rs/20‐50	<15	4.37	<1	8	16	6.9	3.74	0.66
AT‐rs/20‐51	<15	5.69	2	79	786	64.5	8.16	0.34
AT‐rs/20‐52	<15	5.57	2	60	489	43.6	6.97	0.4
AT‐rs/20‐53	<15	3.26	1	18	35	16.8	4.89	1.4
AT‐rs/20‐54	<15	5.56	2	29	8	25.2	8.24	0.17
AT‐rs/20‐55	<15	4.59	2	28	16	33.7	7.36	0.48
AT‐rs/20‐56	<15	4.22	1	17	32	42.6	5.16	0.69
AT‐rs/20‐57	<15	5.98	2	37	80	307	7.64	0.12

Lab 7

AT LAB RESULTS

2020 ROCK SAMPLES

	La	Li	Mg	Mn	Mo	Na	Ni	P
METHOD	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12
DETECTION	0.5	1	0.01	2	1	0.01	1	0.01
UNITS	ppm	ppm	%	ppm	ppm	%	ppm	%
AT‐rs/20‐28	13.5	27	1.69	731	5	2.16	23	0.08
AT‐rs/20‐29	10.2	15	2.36	1256	6	1.96	28	0.07
AT‐rs/20‐30	3.1	11	3.51	1595	5	1.91	18	0.05
AT‐rs/20‐31	13.2	55	1.89	1342	6	1.71	15	0.04
AT‐rs/20‐32	7.2	10	4.46	962	4	2.46	94	0.13
AT‐rs/20‐33	7.3	6	1.97	1251	5	2.67	39	0.08
AT‐rs/20‐34A	6.9	14	6.9	1053	4	2.1	183	0.06
AT‐rs/20‐34B	5.7	11	6.11	887	4	2.15	157	0.06
AT‐rs/20‐35	10.4	11	1.9	947	4	2.98	13	0.08
AT‐rs/20‐36	7.9	13	1.62	1096	4	2.8	11	0.07
AT‐rs/20‐37	8.6	217	1.93	768	3	0.65	28	0.12
AT‐rs/20‐38	5.7	17	4.6	1220	5	2.27	64	0.04
AT‐rs/20‐39	5.2	10	0.84	383	3	3.33	7	0.11
AT‐rs/20‐40	6.7	10	3.81	950	4	2.52	49	0.1
AT‐rs/20‐41	6.2	9	4.7	1133	5	2.35	81	0.06
AT‐rs/20‐42	7.1	7	3.14	1008	6	2.08	12	0.26
AT‐rs/20‐43	3.8	16	4.33	873	5	1.91	58	0.03
AT‐rs/20‐44	14.5	26	1.94	1627	8	2.08	15	0.08
AT‐rs/20‐45	2.8	7	3.23	1361	5	1.79	12	0.04
AT‐rs/20‐46	2.7	6	12.91	1182	5	1.06	493	0.03
AT‐rs/20‐47	5.9	18	7.15	1044	4	1.67	188	0.04
AT‐rs/20‐48	2.7	5	11.79	1151	5	1.06	341	0.03
AT‐rs/20‐49	9.4	12	6.84	2988	5	1.87	134	0.24
AT‐rs/20‐50	5.9	11	0.99	630	3	3.74	6	0.13
AT‐rs/20‐51	2.9	5	11.13	1162	4	1.12	345	0.03
AT‐rs/20‐52	3.2	11	8.94	1067	4	1.44	254	0.03
AT‐rs/20‐53	14.7	10	1.63	1211	4	2.09	25	0.14
AT‐rs/20‐54	2.7	8	2.6	1545	5	2.5	8	0.05
AT‐rs/20‐55	5.3	15	2.63	1212	4	2.96	16	0.08
AT‐rs/20‐56	10	13	1.74	1175	4	2.85	17	0.08
AT‐rs/20‐57	3.9	5	3.21	1548	5	1.74	46	0.07

Lab 8

AT LAB RESULTS

2020 ROCK SAMPLES

	Pb	S	Sb	Sc	Sn	Sr	Ti	V
METHOD	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12
DETECTION	2	0.01	5	0.5	10	0.5	0.01	2
UNITS	ppm	%	ppm	ppm	ppm	ppm	%	ppm
AT‐rs/20‐28	6	0.51	<5	18.5	<10	527	0.48	164
AT‐rs/20‐29	5	0.32	<5	21.4	<10	458	0.71	328
AT‐rs/20‐30	<2	0.02	<5	35.8	<10	404	0.61	332
AT‐rs/20‐31	4	1	<5	26.8	<10	460	0.38	261
AT‐rs/20‐32	<2	0.11	<5	26.6	<10	949	0.82	291
AT‐rs/20‐33	<2	1.43	<5	28.1	<10	472	0.67	294
AT‐rs/20‐34A	<2	0.02	<5	28.7	<10	642	0.69	255
AT‐rs/20‐34B	<2	0.02	<5	35.1	<10	754	0.91	327
AT‐rs/20‐35	3	0.02	<5	15.4	<10	612	0.41	143
AT‐rs/20‐36	3	0.1	<5	12.5	<10	730	0.4	145
AT‐rs/20‐37	29	0.04	65	9.8	<10	874	0.52	159
AT‐rs/20‐38	<2	0.1	<5	29.4	<10	874	0.87	323
AT‐rs/20‐39	<2	0.04	<5	4.2	<10	1787	0.3	128
AT‐rs/20‐40	<2	0.09	<5	23.6	<10	983	0.79	289
AT‐rs/20‐41	<2	0.06	<5	28.6	<10	869	0.96	307
AT‐rs/20‐42	<2	0.16	<5	15.3	<10	1259	0.69	302
AT‐rs/20‐43	<2	0.12	<5	37.5	<10	779	0.85	417
AT‐rs/20‐44	<2	0.56	<5	24.6	<10	666	0.79	270
AT‐rs/20‐45	<2	0.02	<5	30.7	<10	577	0.55	298
AT‐rs/20‐46	<2	0.14	<5	22.3	<10	443	0.35	162
AT‐rs/20‐47	<2	0.03	<5	26.2	<10	461	0.38	153
AT‐rs/20‐48	<2	0.05	<5	33.6	<10	353	0.41	185
AT‐rs/20‐49	<2	0.08	<5	8.4	<10	758	0.36	111
AT‐rs/20‐50	<2	0.02	<5	1.1	<10	1808	0.3	76
AT‐rs/20‐51	<2	0.07	<5	33.6	<10	332	0.45	205
AT‐rs/20‐52	<2	0.05	<5	27.8	<10	396	0.37	160
AT‐rs/20‐53	4	0.02	<5	14.1	<10	572	0.36	120
AT‐rs/20‐54	<2	<0.01	<5	29.2	<10	421	0.61	276
AT‐rs/20‐55	<2	0.04	<5	25.9	<10	541	0.56	234
AT‐rs/20‐56	3	0.37	<5	16.5	<10	636	0.41	148
AT‐rs/20‐57	<2	1.24	<5	16.5	<10	885	0.39	199

Lab 9

AT LAB RESULTS 2020 ROCK SAMPLES

	W	Y	Zn	Zr
METHOD	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12
DETECTION	10	0.5	1	0.5
UNITS	ppm	ppm	ppm	ppm
AT‐rs/20‐28	<10	13	78	6.8
AT‐rs/20‐29	<10	13.7	131	14
AT‐rs/20‐30	<10	17.2	74	16.4
AT‐rs/20‐31	<10	6.9	108	3.1
AT‐rs/20‐32	<10	12	83	28.2
AT‐rs/20‐33	<10	8.9	60	2.4
AT‐rs/20‐34A	<10	9.3	88	30.9
AT‐rs/20‐34B	<10	11.2	75	40.6
AT‐rs/20‐35	<10	12.4	79	5.3
AT‐rs/20‐36	<10	9.7	72	2.7
AT‐rs/20‐37	<10	8.8	124	32.5
AT‐rs/20‐38	<10	19	96	30
AT‐rs/20‐39	<10	3.5	37	5.4
AT‐rs/20‐40	<10	12.1	81	25.3
AT‐rs/20‐41	<10	13.8	96	30.3
AT‐rs/20‐42	<10	12.7	103	21.8
AT‐rs/20‐43	<10	9.8	62	18.6
AT‐rs/20‐44	<10	11.5	316	12.2
AT‐rs/20‐45	<10	13.9	70	12.9
AT‐rs/20‐46	<10	5.6	84	19.8
AT‐rs/20‐47	<10	7.1	97	16.7
AT‐rs/20‐48	<10	6.6	76	20
AT‐rs/20‐49	<10	6.8	199	8.6
AT‐rs/20‐50	<10	2.1	56	1.1
AT‐rs/20‐51	<10	7.6	80	21.2
AT‐rs/20‐52	<10	6.6	79	18.7
AT‐rs/20‐53	<10	18.1	78	6.3
AT‐rs/20‐54	<10	19.5	88	12.4
AT‐rs/20‐55	<10	17.9	95	15
AT‐rs/20‐56	<10	14.2	92	10.6
AT‐rs/20‐57	<10	3.9	86	6.8

Lab 10

AT LAB RESULTS

2020 ROCK SAMPLES

	WTKG	Au	Pt	Pd	Ag	Al	As	Ba	Be
METHOD		GE_FAI30V5	GE_FAI30V5	GE_FAI30V5	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12
DETECTION	0.01	1	10	1	2	0.01	10	1	0.5
UNITS	kg	ppb	ppb	ppb	ppm	%	ppm	ppm	ppm
AT‐rs/20‐58	5.41	6	<10	2	<2	10.74	<10	102	0.6
AT‐rs/20‐59	4.11				<2	10.59	<10	144	0.7
AT‐rs/20‐60	3.87				<2	10.16	<10	235	0.8
AT‐rs/20‐61	3.46				<2	12.24	<10	240	1.5
AT‐rs/20‐62	3.91	4	10	8	<2	9.49	<10	131	0.9
AT‐rs/20‐63A	0.3	<1	<10	1	<2	9.26	<10	12	0.7
AT‐rs/20‐63B	0.72	2	<10	2	<2	8.34	<10	261	0.8
AT‐rs/20‐63C	2.16				<2	9.13	<10	173	0.8
AT‐rs/20‐64	1.25	1	<10	<1	<2	8.81	<10	237	0.8
AT‐rs/20‐65	0.8				<2	10.47	<10	156	0.7
AT‐rs/20‐66	4.67				<2	9.61	<10	154	0.9
AT‐rs/20‐67	3.34				<2	9.16	<10	240	0.9
*DUP‐AT‐rs/20‐34B	4.38				<2	8.02	<10	235	1
OREAS 601					51	6.46	297	733	2
*REP‐AT‐rs/20‐9					<2	7.95	<10	173	0.7
OREAS 520					<2	5.76	141	562	1.1
BLANK					<2	0.02	<10	<1	<0.5
OREAS 520					<2	5.83	143	4262	1.2
*REP‐AT‐rs/20‐54					<2	10.56	<10	131	0.7
OREAS 601					50	6.41	311	2808	2.1
BLANK					<2	<0.01	<10	<1	<0.5
BLANK		<1	<10	<1
*REP‐AT‐rs/20‐17		3	<10	1
PGMS‐27		5080	1330	2100
*REP‐AT‐rs/20‐43		2	<10	<1
BLANK		<1	<10	<1
BLANK		<1	<10	<1
OREAS45F		17	40	58

Lab 11

AT LAB RESULTS

2020 ROCK SAMPLES

	Bi	Ca	Cd	Co	Cr	Cu	Fe	K
METHOD	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12
DETECTION	15	0.01	1	1	1	0.5	0.01	0.01
UNITS	ppm	%	ppm	ppm	ppm	ppm	%	%
AT‐rs/20‐58	<15	6.91	2	61	100	816	8.28	0.25
AT‐rs/20‐59	<15	5.59	2	25	41	142	7.31	0.16
AT‐rs/20‐60	<15	6.12	2	42	145	95.2	8.34	0.6
AT‐rs/20‐61	<15	2.25	2	37	29	92.4	8.72	0.79
AT‐rs/20‐62	<15	5.56	3	66	74	364	9.86	0.29
AT‐rs/20‐63A	<15	11.27	3	38	56	26.1	9.84	0.06
AT‐rs/20‐63B	<15	6.34	2	20	45	32.5	6.67	0.2
AT‐rs/20‐63C	<15	6.31	3	33	27	74.6	9.4	0.31
AT‐rs/20‐64	<15	7.55	1	20	41	49.2	6.02	0.2
AT‐rs/20‐65	<15	6.4	2	37	27	74	8.1	0.39
AT‐rs/20‐66	<15	5.84	2	18	49	56.3	6.98	0.15
AT‐rs/20‐67	<15	5.48	1	9	33	39.1	6.44	0.2
*DUP‐AT‐rs/20‐34B	<15	6.07	2	52	195	74.1	7.37	0.72
OREAS 601	17	1.31	8	6	30	978	2.64	2.16
*REP‐AT‐rs/20‐9	<15	6.79	2	50	460	58.2	7.02	0.58
OREAS 520	<15	4.02	5	199	32	2890	>15.00	3.42
BLANK	<15	<0.01	<1	<1	<1	<0.5	0.01	<0.01
OREAS 520	<15	3.9	5	195	32	2894	>15.00	3.52
*REP‐AT‐rs/20‐54	<15	5.69	2	30	6	25.9	8.23	0.18
OREAS 601	18	1.27	8	7	27	961	2.55	2.11
BLANK	<15	<0.01	<1	<1	<1	<0.5	<0.01	<0.01
BLANK
*REP‐AT‐rs/20‐17
PGMS‐27
*REP‐AT‐rs/20‐43
BLANK
BLANK
OREAS45F

Lab 12

AT LAB RESULTS

2020 ROCK SAMPLES

	La	Li	Mg	Mn	Mo	Na	Ni	P
METHOD	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12
DETECTION	0.5	1	0.01	2	1	0.01	1	0.01
UNITS	ppm	ppm	%	ppm	ppm	%	ppm	%
AT‐rs/20‐58	3	6	3.32	924	5	1.67	81	0.04
AT‐rs/20‐59	5.9	4	2.35	953	5	2.68	27	0.08
AT‐rs/20‐60	6.4	8	3.84	831	5	2.27	78	0.1
AT‐rs/20‐61	13.3	50	1.37	1222	9	1.28	21	0.41
AT‐rs/20‐62	7	8	3.04	963	6	2.21	175	0.16
AT‐rs/20‐63A	6.8	6	2.97	1024	6	0.26	30	0.24
AT‐rs/20‐63B	7.5	3	2.69	1280	5	2.7	29	0.1
AT‐rs/20‐63C	8.5	4	3.24	1165	5	2.22	21	0.3
AT‐rs/20‐64	6.7	4	2.98	1152	7	2.59	17	0.1
AT‐rs/20‐65	5.3	4	3.16	808	5	2.12	24	0.05
AT‐rs/20‐66	6.5	6	2.71	2026	5	2.69	16	0.11
AT‐rs/20‐67	7.7	5	2.62	1603	5	2.79	9	0.12
*DUP‐AT‐rs/20‐34B	6.1	12	6.29	954	4	2.07	154	0.07
OREAS 601	30	21	0.37	483	5	1.46	24	0.04
*REP‐AT‐rs/20‐9	4.1	11	7.3	1109	4	1.87	196	0.03
OREAS 520	84.2	18	1.13	2372	58	1.39	71	0.07
BLANK	<0.5	<1	<0.01	3	<1	<0.01	<1	<0.01
OREAS 520	82.2	17	1.17	2363	58	1.37	71	0.07
*REP‐AT‐rs/20‐54	3	8	2.66	1539	5	2.57	8	0.06
OREAS 601	30	20	0.38	484	5	1.42	22	0.05
BLANK	<0.5	<1	<0.01	<2	<1	<0.01	<1	<0.01
BLANK
*REP‐AT‐rs/20‐17
PGMS‐27
*REP‐AT‐rs/20‐43
BLANK
BLANK
OREAS45F

Lab 13

AT LAB RESULTS

2020 ROCK SAMPLES

	Pb	S	Sb	Sc	Sn	Sr	Ti	V
METHOD	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12
DETECTION	2	0.01	5	0.5	10	0.5	0.01	2
UNITS	ppm	%	ppm	ppm	ppm	ppm	%	ppm
AT‐rs/20‐58	<2	1.18	<5	17.9	<10	1078	0.55	280
AT‐rs/20‐59	<2	1.64	<5	15.3	<10	868	0.4	167
AT‐rs/20‐60	<2	0.03	<5	23.4	<10	914	0.78	343
AT‐rs/20‐61	5	1.74	<5	14.1	<10	481	0.59	220
AT‐rs/20‐62	<2	1.73	<5	24.2	<10	909	0.71	272
AT‐rs/20‐63A	4	0.02	<5	20.3	<10	3274	0.8	358
AT‐rs/20‐63B	<2	0.23	<5	18	<10	753	0.5	236
AT‐rs/20‐63C	<2	0.1	<5	20.5	<10	872	0.71	308
AT‐rs/20‐64	<2	0.35	<5	20.2	<10	683	0.48	195
AT‐rs/20‐65	<2	0.01	<5	17	<10	1087	0.63	277
AT‐rs/20‐66	<2	1.08	<5	20.9	<10	837	0.55	207
AT‐rs/20‐67	<2	0.36	<5	18.1	<10	798	0.47	169
*DUP‐AT‐rs/20‐34B	<2	0.02	<5	36.7	<10	726	0.95	339
OREAS 601	332	1.06	30	4.6	<10	222	0.18	27
*REP‐AT‐rs/20‐9	<2	0.04	<5	36.9	<10	593	0.68	260
OREAS 520	5	0.97	<5	15.4	<10	99	0.39	259
BLANK	<2	<0.01	<5	<0.5	<10	1.1	<0.01	<2
OREAS 520	5	1.01	<5	15.3	<10	103	0.4	256
*REP‐AT‐rs/20‐54	<2	<0.01	<5	34.6	<10	432	0.61	285
OREAS 601	315	1.1	31	4.6	<10	222	0.18	28
BLANK	<2	<0.01	<5	<0.5	<10	0.5	<0.01	<2
BLANK
*REP‐AT‐rs/20‐17
PGMS‐27
*REP‐AT‐rs/20‐43
BLANK
BLANK
OREAS45F

Lab 14

AT LAB RESULTS 2020 ROCK SAMPLES

	W	Y	Zn	Zr
METHOD	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12	GE_ICP40Q12
DETECTION	10	0.5	1	0.5
UNITS	ppm	ppm	ppm	ppm
AT‐rs/20‐58	<10	5.9	76	12.9
AT‐rs/20‐59	<10	4.8	69	6.1
AT‐rs/20‐60	<10	12	89	21.4
AT‐rs/20‐61	<10	21.6	172	1.3
AT‐rs/20‐62	<10	18.8	93	18.1
AT‐rs/20‐63A	<10	13.9	66	28
AT‐rs/20‐63B	<10	11	104	7.9
AT‐rs/20‐63C	<10	16.1	113	22.6
AT‐rs/20‐64	<10	15.6	75	12.4
AT‐rs/20‐65	<10	9.4	87	21.8
AT‐rs/20‐66	<10	9.9	89	14.1
AT‐rs/20‐67	<10	11.6	86	11.5
*DUP‐AT‐rs/20‐34B	<10	11.7	79	43.8
OREAS 601	<10	10.8	1248	150
*REP‐AT‐rs/20‐9	<10	10.6	70	19.6
OREAS 520	41	19.5	21	125
BLANK	<10	<0.5	<1	<0.5
OREAS 520	40	19.3	22	127
*REP‐AT‐rs/20‐54	<10	21.6	88	11.6
OREAS 601	<10	11	1318	161
BLANK	<10	<0.5	<1	<0.5
BLANK
*REP‐AT‐rs/20‐17
PGMS‐27
*REP‐AT‐rs/20‐43
BLANK
BLANK
OREAS45F

Lab 15

==> picture [109 x 57] intentionally omitted <==

TIMA DATA

prepared for:

Geotronics Consulting Inc.

Internal Project MI7018-DEC20 February 19, 2021

Prepared by: Logan Jameson Senior Mineralogist

SGS Canada

3260 Production Way, Burnaby BC, Canada, V5A 4W4 Tel. +1 (604) 638-2349 www.sgs.com www.sgs.com/met Member of the SGS Group (SGS SA)

Geo-Tronics Internal Project MI7018-DEC20

Mineral Mass AT-RS-20-11 AT-RS-20-12 AT-RS-20-16 AT-RS-20-17 AT-RS-20-22 AT-RS-20-25 AT-RS-20-35 AT-RS-20-58 AT-RS-20-62 AT-RS-20-63A AT-RS-20-64	Mineral Mass AT-RS-20-11 AT-RS-20-12 AT-RS-20-16 AT-RS-20-17 AT-RS-20-22 AT-RS-20-25 AT-RS-20-35 AT-RS-20-58 AT-RS-20-62 AT-RS-20-63A AT-RS-20-64	Mineral Mass AT-RS-20-11 AT-RS-20-12 AT-RS-20-16 AT-RS-20-17 AT-RS-20-22 AT-RS-20-25 AT-RS-20-35 AT-RS-20-58 AT-RS-20-62 AT-RS-20-63A AT-RS-20-64	Mineral Mass AT-RS-20-11 AT-RS-20-12 AT-RS-20-16 AT-RS-20-17 AT-RS-20-22 AT-RS-20-25 AT-RS-20-35 AT-RS-20-58 AT-RS-20-62 AT-RS-20-63A AT-RS-20-64	Mineral Mass AT-RS-20-11 AT-RS-20-12 AT-RS-20-16 AT-RS-20-17 AT-RS-20-22 AT-RS-20-25 AT-RS-20-35 AT-RS-20-58 AT-RS-20-62 AT-RS-20-63A AT-RS-20-64	Mineral Mass AT-RS-20-11 AT-RS-20-12 AT-RS-20-16 AT-RS-20-17 AT-RS-20-22 AT-RS-20-25 AT-RS-20-35 AT-RS-20-58 AT-RS-20-62 AT-RS-20-63A AT-RS-20-64	Mineral Mass AT-RS-20-11 AT-RS-20-12 AT-RS-20-16 AT-RS-20-17 AT-RS-20-22 AT-RS-20-25 AT-RS-20-35 AT-RS-20-58 AT-RS-20-62 AT-RS-20-63A AT-RS-20-64	Mineral Mass AT-RS-20-11 AT-RS-20-12 AT-RS-20-16 AT-RS-20-17 AT-RS-20-22 AT-RS-20-25 AT-RS-20-35 AT-RS-20-58 AT-RS-20-62 AT-RS-20-63A AT-RS-20-64	Mineral Mass AT-RS-20-11 AT-RS-20-12 AT-RS-20-16 AT-RS-20-17 AT-RS-20-22 AT-RS-20-25 AT-RS-20-35 AT-RS-20-58 AT-RS-20-62 AT-RS-20-63A AT-RS-20-64	Mineral Mass AT-RS-20-11 AT-RS-20-12 AT-RS-20-16 AT-RS-20-17 AT-RS-20-22 AT-RS-20-25 AT-RS-20-35 AT-RS-20-58 AT-RS-20-62 AT-RS-20-63A AT-RS-20-64	Mineral Mass AT-RS-20-11 AT-RS-20-12 AT-RS-20-16 AT-RS-20-17 AT-RS-20-22 AT-RS-20-25 AT-RS-20-35 AT-RS-20-58 AT-RS-20-62 AT-RS-20-63A AT-RS-20-64	Mineral Mass AT-RS-20-11 AT-RS-20-12 AT-RS-20-16 AT-RS-20-17 AT-RS-20-22 AT-RS-20-25 AT-RS-20-35 AT-RS-20-58 AT-RS-20-62 AT-RS-20-63A AT-RS-20-64
Pyrite	0.34	0.00	0.00	1.55	0.06	0.04	0.00	1.55	13.8	0.00	0.94
Pyrrhotite	1.57	0.00	0.00	0.02	0.14	0.01	0.00	0.03	0.12	0.00	0.05
Other Sulphides	0.03	0.00	0.01	0.00	0.02	0.00	0.00	0.05	0.41	0.00	0.01
Quartz	4.18	5.29	5.12	9.33	0.44	0.16	13.5	1.09	11.5	6.17	3.09
Plagioclase	54.6	33.5	29.4	24.2	6.95	52.7	66.1	21.4	5.89	1.04	55.8
K-Feldspar	0.15	0.00	0.00	0.02	0.00	0.26	0.05	0.00	0.01	0.00	0.06
Sericite/Muscovite	2.35	7.85	9.85	7.92	0.24	1.71	1.28	1.53	1.20	0.49	1.50
Biotite	0.11	4.52	1.30	9.89	0.37	5.10	11.8	0.18	0.01	0.00	0.00
Chlorites	0.27	20.3	13.3	23.2	1.79	2.21	1.96	5.59	22.2	6.49	0.58
Clays	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	7.53	0.00	0.00	0.30	0.07	0.00	0.00
Amphiboles	31.4	5.27	21.4	3.35	68.4	32.4	4.53	62.2	25.8	21.2	35.4
Epidote	0.82	18.9	17.5	19.2	0.07	0.72	0.02	2.22	9.73	60.0	0.66
Ilmenite	1.59	0.00	0.31	0.00	0.00	1.44	0.15	0.23	1.10	0.01	0.59
Ilmenorutile	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.00
Iron Oxide	1.02	3.36	0.80	0.55	1.05	1.99	0.21	2.42	6.52	0.82	0.31
Rutile	0.19	0.43	0.57	0.33	0.00	0.19	0.03	0.36	0.44	0.90	0.20
Titanite	0.02	0.41	0.01	0.24	0.00	0.10	0.00	0.54	0.96	1.09	0.10
Other Oxides	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Carbonates	0.09	0.06	0.03	0.07	0.19	0.09	0.03	0.05	0.02	0.41	0.05
Apatite	0.38	0.12	0.07	0.12	0.31	0.86	0.35	0.19	0.19	1.35	0.31
Olivine	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	12.4	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Other	0.95	0.03	0.27	0.02	0.06	0.02	0.05	0.10	0.08	0.04	0.38
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

==> picture [463 x 596] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Modals
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
AT-RS-20-11 AT-RS-20-16 AT-RS-20-22 AT-RS-20-35 AT-RS-20-62 AT-RS-20-64
Sample
Pyrite Pyrrhotite Other Sulphides Quartz
Plagioclase K-Feldspar Sericite/Muscovite Biotite
Chlorites Clays Amphiboles Epidote
Ilmenite Ilmenorutile Iron Oxide Rutile
Wt%
----- End of picture text -----

==> picture [588 x 479] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Pyrite Grain Size Distribution
100
90
AT-RS-20-11
AT-RS-20-12
80 AT-RS-20-16
AT-RS-20-17
AT-RS-20-22
70
AT-RS-20-25
AT-RS-20-35
60 AT-RS-20-58
AT-RS-20-62
AT-RS-20-63A
50 AT-RS-20-64
40
30
20
10
0
1 10 100 1000
Grain Size (µm)
Cumulative % Mineral Mass
----- End of picture text -----

Grain size
	Top size
Size	[µm]	AT-RS-20-11	AT-RS-20-12	AT-RS-20-16	AT-RS-20-17	AT-RS-20-22
<1.00	1	0	0	0	0	0
<1.53	2	0	0	0	0	0
<2.34	2	0	0	0	0	0
<3.59	4	0	0	0	0	0
<5.49	5	0	0	0	0	0
<8.41	8	1	17	7	0	0
<12.87	13	2	20	14	0	0
<19.71	20	12	58	59	0	0
<30.17	30	28	100	100	0	10
<46.19	46	47	100	100	0	15
<70.71	71	67	100	100	0	32
<108.25	108	84	100	100	0	52
<165.72	166	96	100	100	0	64
<253.71	254	100	100	100	0	82
<388.40	388	100	100	100	0	100
<594.60	595	100	100	100	3	100
<910.28	910	100	100	100	11	100
<1393.56	1394	100	100	100	11	100
<2133.40	2133	100	100	100	39	100
<3266.04	3266	100	100	100	100	100
<5000.00	5000	100	100	100	100	100
Allgrains		100	100	100	100	100

	Top size
Size	[µm]	AT-RS-20-25	AT-RS-20-35	AT-RS-20-58	AT-RS-20-62	AT-RS-20-63A	AT-RS-20-64
<1.00	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
<1.53	2	0	0	0	0	0	0
<2.34	2	0	0	0	0	0	0
<3.59	4	0	0	0	0	0	0
<5.49	5	0	0	0	0	0	0
<8.41	8	2	13	0	0	8	1
<12.87	13	4	21	0	0	11	1
<19.71	20	13	69	1	0	20	6
<30.17	30	32	69	2	0	40	15
<46.19	46	52	100	5	0	40	30
<70.71	71	80	100	10	1	40	51
<108.25	108	94	100	18	1	100	74
<165.72	166	100	100	37	1	100	90
<253.71	254	100	100	56	2	100	98
<388.40	388	100	100	71	3	100	100
<594.60	595	100	100	85	5	100	100
<910.28	910	100	100	100	10	100	100
<1393.56	1394	100	100	100	23	100	100
<2133.40	2133	100	100	100	35	100	100
<3266.04	3266	100	100	100	79	100	100
<5000.00	5000	100	100	100	100	100	100
Allgrains		100	100	100	100	100	100

Page 1 of 1

– 30 APPENDIX II ROCK SAMPLE PLAN MAPS

30.1 ALL ROCK SAMPLES – FIG 1

30.2 ALL ROCK SAMPLES SHOWING AIRBORNE – FIG 2

– 30.3 2020 ROCK SAMPLES FIG 3

– 30.4 2020 ROCK SAMPLES SHOWING AIRBORNE FIG 4

30.5 2020 ROCK SAMPLES – FIG 5A

30.6 2020 ROCK SAMPLES – FIG 5B

– 30.7 2020 ROCK SAMPLES FIG 5C

– 30.8 2018 ROCK SAMPLES FIG 6

– 30.9 2018 ROCK SAMPLES SHOWING AIRBORNE FIG 7

30.10 2018 ROCK SAMPLES – FIG 8A 30.11 2018 ROCK SAMPLES – FIG 8B – 30.12 2018 ROCK SAMPLES FIG 8C

– 30.13 HISTORICAL ROCK SAMPLES FIG 9 – 30.14 HISTORICAL ROCK SAMPLES SHOWING AIRBORNE FIG 10 – 30.15 HISTORICAL ROCK SAMPLES FIG 11A – 30.16 HISTORICAL ROCK SAMPLES FIG 11B – 30.17 HISTORICAL ROCK SAMPLES FIG 11C

==> picture [35 x 34] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [161 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

Historic Rock Samples 2018 Rock Samples 2020 Rock Samples 1 2 0 0 1 6 4 B C L T D. AT PROPERTY Ottarasko Mountain, Tatla Lake Area, Clinton MD, BC ALL ROCK SAMPLES DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: NTS: DATE: FIG NO.: CAM 20-04 92N/07,10 JAN '21 R1

==> picture [842 x 595] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Historic Rock Samples
2018 Rock Samples
2020 Rock Samples
1 2 0 0 1 6 4 B C L T D.
AT PROPERTY
Ottarasko Mountain, Tatla Lake Area, Clinton MD, BC
ALL ROCK SAMPLES
showing airborne magnetics
DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: NTS: DATE: FIG NO.:
CAM 20-04 92N/07,10 JAN '21 R2
Francois Creek
----- End of picture text -----

==> picture [842 x 595] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

1 2 0 0 1 6 4 B C L T D.
AT PROPERTY
Ottarasko Mountain, Tatla Lake Area, Clinton MD, BC
2020 ROCK SAMPLES
DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: NTS: DATE: FIG NO.:
CAM 20-04 92N/07,10 JAN '21 R3
Francois Creek
----- End of picture text -----

==> picture [842 x 595] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

1 2 0 0 1 6 4 B C L T D.
AT PROPERTY
Ottarasko Mountain, Tatla Lake Area, Clinton MD, BC
2020 ROCK SAMPLES
showing airborne magnetics
DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: NTS: DATE: FIG NO.:
CAM 20-04 92N/07,10 JAN '21 R4
Francois Creek
----- End of picture text -----

==> picture [35 x 34] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [51 x 73] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Francois Creek
----- End of picture text -----

Historic Rock Samples - Co 62-645 2020 Rock Samples - Co 0.1 - 16 16.1 - 26.3 26.4 - 34.9 35.0 - 62 62.1 - 644

1 2 0 0 1 6 4 B C L T D.

AT PROPERTY

Ottarasko Mountain, Tatla Lake Area, Clinton MD, BC

==> picture [161 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

COBALT (ppm) 2020 Rock Sample Survey

DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: NTS: DATE: FIG NO.: CAM 20-04 92N/07,10 JAN '21 R5a

==> picture [35 x 34] intentionally omitted <==

Historic Rock Samples - Cu 413 - 35000 2020 Rock Samples - Cu 1 - 28 29 - 63 64 - 115 116 - 413 413 - 35000

1 2 0 0 1 6 4 B C L T D.

AT PROPERTY

==> picture [161 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

Ottarasko Mountain, Tatla Lake Area, Clinton MD, BC COPPER (ppm) 2020 Rock Sample Survey DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: NTS: DATE: FIG NO.: CAM 20-04 92N/07,10 JAN '21 R5b

==> picture [35 x 34] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [48 x 74] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Francois Creek
----- End of picture text -----

==> picture [161 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

Historic Rock Samples - Ni 261 - 4090 2020 Rock Samples - Ni 0.1 - 9 9.1 - 15 15.1 - 114 114.1 - 261 261 - 4090

1 2 0 0 1 6 4 B C L T D. AT PROPERTY Ottarasko Mountain, Tatla Lake Area, Clinton MD, BC NICKEL (ppm) Rock Sample Survey DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: NTS: DATE: FIG NO.: CAM 20-04 92N/07,10 JAN '21 R5c

==> picture [467 x 461] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [353 x 461] intentionally omitted <==

1 2 0 0 1 6 4 B C L T D. AT PROPERTY Ottarasko Mountain, Tatla Lake Area, Clinton MD, BC 2018 ROCK SAMPLES DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: NTS: DATE: FIG NO.: CAM 20-04 92N/07,10 JAN '21 R6

==> picture [842 x 595] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

1 2 0 0 1 6 4 B C L T D.
AT PROPERTY
Ottarasko Mountain, Tatla Lake Area, Clinton MD, BC
2018 ROCK SAMPLES
showing airborne magnetics
DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: NTS: DATE: FIG NO.:
CAM 20-04 92N/07,10 JAN '21 R7
----- End of picture text -----

==> picture [467 x 461] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [467 x 120] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Francois Creek
----- End of picture text -----

Historic Rock Samples - Co 62-645 2018 Rock Samples - Co 0.1 - 16 16.1 - 26.3 26.4 - 34.9 34 - 62 62.1 - 645

1 2 0 0 1 6 4 B C L T D. AT PROPERTY Ottarasko Mountain, Tatla Lake Area, Clinton MD, BC COBALT (ppm) 2018 Rock Sample Survey DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: NTS: DATE: FIG NO.: CAM 20-04 92N/07,10 JAN '21 R8a

==> picture [842 x 595] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Historic Rock Samples - Cu
413 - 35000
2018 Rock Samples - Cu
1 - 28
29 - 63
64 - 115
116 - 413
413 - 35000
1 2 0 0 1 6 4 B C L T D.
AT PROPERTY
Ottarasko Mountain, Tatla Lake Area, Clinton MD, BC
COPPER (ppm)
2018 Rock Sample Survey
DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: NTS: DATE: FIG NO.:
CAM 20-04 92N/07,10 JAN '21 R8b
Francois Creek
----- End of picture text -----

Historic Rock Samples - Ni 261 - 4090 2018 Rock Samples - Ni 0.1 - 9 9.1 - 15 15.1 - 114 114.1 - 261 261 - 4090

==> picture [467 x 128] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Francois
Creek
----- End of picture text -----

1 2 0 0 1 6 4 B C L T D. AT PROPERTY Ottarasko Mountain, Tatla Lake Area, Clinton MD, BC NICKEL (ppm) 2018 Rock Sample Survey DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: NTS: DATE: FIG NO.: CAM 20-04 92N/07,10 JAN '21 R8c

==> picture [842 x 595] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

1 2 0 0 1 6 4 B C L T D.
AT PROPERTY
Ottarasko Mountain, Tatla Lake Area, Clinton MD, BC
HISTORICAL ROCK SAMPLES
DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: NTS: DATE: FIG NO.:
CAM 20-04 92N/07,10 JAN '21 R9
Creek
Francois
----- End of picture text -----

==> picture [481 x 480] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [262 x 480] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [481 x 91] intentionally omitted <==

1 2 0 0 1 6 4 B C L T D. AT PROPERTY Ottarasko Mountain, Tatla Lake Area, Clinton MD, BC

HISTORICAL ROCK SAMPLES showing airborne magnetics

DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: NTS: DATE: FIG NO.: CAM 20-04 92N/07,10 JAN '21 R10

==> picture [842 x 595] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Historic Rock Samples
0.1 - 16
16.1 - 26.3
26.4 - 34.9
34 - 62
62.1 - 645
1 2 0 0 1 6 4 B C L T D.
AT PROPERTY
Ottarasko Mountain, Tatla Lake Area, Clinton MD, BC
COBALT (ppm)
Historical Rock Samples
DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: NTS: DATE: FIG NO.:
CAM 20-04 92N/07,10 JAN '21 R11a
Creek
Francois
----- End of picture text -----

==> picture [842 x 595] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Historic Rock Samples
1 - 28
29 - 63
64 - 115
116 - 413
413 - 35000
1 2 0 0 1 6 4 B C L T D.
AT PROPERTY
Ottarasko Mountain, Tatla Lake Area, Clinton MD, BC
COPPER (ppm)
Historical Rock Samples
DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: NTS: DATE: FIG NO.:
CAM 20-04 92N/07,10 JAN '21 R11b
Creek
Francois
----- End of picture text -----

==> picture [842 x 595] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Historic Rock Samples
0.1 - 9
9.1 - 15
15.1 - 114
114.1 - 261
261 - 4090
1 2 0 0 1 6 4 B C L T D.
AT PROPERTY
Ottarasko Mountain, Tatla Lake Area, Clinton MD, BC
NICKEL (ppm)
Historical Rock Samples
DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: NTS: DATE: FIG NO.:
CAM 20-04 92N/07,10 JAN '21 R11c
Creek
Francois
----- End of picture text -----

– 31 APPENDIX III AT PROPERTY GEOPHYSCAL & PHOTOGRAMMETRY MAPS

– 31.1 AIRBORNE MAGNETIC SURVEY FIG GP 1

– 31.2 AIRBORNE MAGNETIC SURVEY SHOWING CONTOURS FIG GP 2 – 31.3 AIRBORNE MAGNETIC SURVEY SHOWING GEOLOGY FIG GP 3 31.4 AIRBORNE PHOTOGRAMMETRY SURVEY – IRON OXIDE INDEX – FIG P3

==> picture [822 x 470] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Lineations of magnetic lows
suggesting geologic structures
A
B
C
Lineations of magnetic lows
suggesting geologic structures
System: GEM Systems AirBIRD
Survey Mag: GEM potassium magnetometer, model GSMP-35U
Base Mag: GEM Overhauser, model GSM-19
rancois Creek
F
----- End of picture text -----

System: GEM Systems AirBIRD Survey Mag: GEM potassium magnetometer, model GSMP-35U Base Mag: GEM Overhauser, model GSM-19 Reading interval: 20 readings/second Drone: DJI Matrice 600 Helicopter: Bell 407 Terrain Clearance: 20 to 100 meters Line Separation: 15 m drone, 100 - 200 m helicopter

1 2 0 0 1 6 4 B C L T D . AT PROPERTY Ottarasko Mountain, Tatla Lake Area, Clinton MD, BC AIRBORNE MAGNETICS showing anomalies

DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: NTS: DATE: FIG NO.: CAM 20-04 92N/07,10 JAN '21 GP1

==> picture [633 x 325] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Fancois Creek
----- End of picture text -----

1 2 0 0 1 6 4 B C L T D .

AT PROPERTY Ottarasko Mountain, Tatla Lake Area, Clinton MD, BC AIRBORNE MAGNETICS showing elevation contours

DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: NTS: DATE: FIG NO.: CAM 20-04 92N/07,10 JAN '21 GP2

1 2 0 0 1 6 4 B C L T D .

==> picture [152 x 10] intentionally omitted <==

AT PROPERTY

==> picture [49 x 78] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [42 x 340] intentionally omitted <==

Ottarasko Mountain, Tatla Lake Area, Clinton MD, BC AIRBORNE MAGNETICS showing geology

DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: NTS: DATE: FIG NO.: CAM 20-04 92N/07,10 JAN '21 GP3

==> picture [63 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [621 x 485] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Iron Oxide
Anomaly #1
Creek
Iron Oxide
Anomaly #2
Multispectral System: Micasense RedEdge-MX
Capture interval: 1.3 seconds/capture
Drone: DJI Matrice 300 RTK
Terrain Clearance: 80 to 120 meters
Line Separation: 80% Front & Side Overlap Area of NNE-trending
Software: Agisoft Metashape
iron oxide lineations
Francois
----- End of picture text -----

==> picture [222 x 83] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

1 2 0 0 1 6 4 B. C. L T D.
AT PROPERTY
Ottarasko Mountain, Tatla Lake Area, Clinton M D, B C
IRON OXIDE INDEX
UAV High Resolution Photogrammetry
DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: NTS: DATE: FIG NO.:
CAM 20-04 92N/07,10 JAN '21 P3
----- End of picture text -----

AI assistant

Quri-Mayu Developments Ltd. — Regulatory Filings 2021

47676_rns_2021-11-18_90b05be0-51ce-4e6a-9aba-23f5ae7bdb44.PDF

NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT (GEOLOGICAL/GEOPHYSICAL SUMMARY)

on the AT PROPERTY

1 SUMMARY

2 INTRODUCTION AND TERMS OF REFERENCE

3 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS

4 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION

4.1 PROPERTY AREA AND LOCATION

4.2 LAND TENURE, LEGAL AGREEMENTS, AND OTHER ASSETS

4.3 LOCATION OF MINERALIZATION AND FACILITIES

4.4 ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITIES

4.5 PERMITS AND LAND USE AGREEMENTS

4.6 FACTORS AND RISKS

5 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY

5.1 ACCESS

5.2 LOCAL RESOURCES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

5.3 PHYSIOGRAPHY

5.4 CLIMATE

6 EXPLORATION HISTORY

7 GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATIN

7.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY

7.1.1 Stratified Rocks

7.1.2 Intrusive Rocks

7.2 REGIONAL STRUCTURES AND METAMORPHISM

7.3 PROPERTY GEOLOGY

7.4 PROPERTY MINERALIZATION

AT Property Mineralization

8 MINERAL DEPOSIT TYPES

Table 3 – Median Tonnage and Grade for Ni-Cu-Co Deposits

8.1 ANALOGOUS MINERAL DEPOSITS

9 EXPLORATION

9.1 INTERPRETATION OF GOVERNMENT AIRBORNE MAGNETICS

9.2 FISHER/NICHOLSON 2018 EXPLORATION PROGRAM

9.3 2020 UAV AND HELICOPTER MAGNETIC SURVEY

9.4 2020 UAV MULTISPECTRAL PHOTOGRAMMETRIC IMAGING SURVEY

9.5 2020 PROSPECTING AND ROCK SAMPLING

9.5.1 2020 Assay Results

9.5.2 Nickel

9.5.3 Copper

9.5.4 PGE’s

9.5.5 Other Elements

9.5.6 Intrusive Units Chemistry

10 DRILLING

11 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY

11.1 2018 WORK

General Sample Preparation Methods

11.2 2020 WORK

12 DATA VERIFICATON

13 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING

14 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES

15 MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES

16 MINING METHODS

17 RECOVERY METHODS

18 PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE

19 MARKET STUDY AND CONTRACTS

20 ENVIRONMENT STUDIES, PERMITTING AND SOCIAL COMMUNITY IMPACT

21 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS

22 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

23 ADJACENT PROPERTIES

24 OTHER RELAVENT DATA AND INFORMATION

25 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS

26 RECOMMENDATIONS

27 REFERENCES

28 CERTIFICATE OF AUTHOR - DAVID MARK, P.GEO

– 29 APPENDIX I ROCK DESCRIPTIONS AND LAB RESULTS

AT LAB RESULTS

2020 ROCK SAMPLES

AT LAB RESULTS

2020 ROCK SAMPLES

AT LAB RESULTS

2020 ROCK SAMPLES

AT LAB RESULTS

2020 ROCK SAMPLES

AT LAB RESULTS

2020 ROCK SAMPLES

AT LAB RESULTS

2020 ROCK SAMPLES

AT LAB RESULTS

Quri-Mayu Developments Ltd. Regulatory Filings 2021