Pea Goldensummit

FREEGOLD VENTURES LIMITED
PO BOX 10351
SUITE 888 – 700 WEST GEORGIA STREET
VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA V7Y 1G5
PHONE: (604) 662-7307 | FAX: (604) 662-3791
NI 43-101 Technical Report

Golden Summit Project
Preliminary Economic Assessment
Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska USA
Document: 910054-REP-R0001-01
RESOURCE EFFECTIVE DATE: MAY 31, 2013

REPORT EFFECTIVE DATE: JANUARY 20, 2016
ISSUE DATE: MARCH 10, 2016
AMENDED AND RESTATED DATE: MAY 11, 2016
Prepared by List of Qualified Persons and Designations
Mark J. Abrams, C.P.G.

Jackie A. Blumberg, P.E.
Gary H. Giroux, P.Eng.
Chris Johns, P.Eng.
Edwin C. Lips, P.E.
Nick Michael, QP
Dave M. Richers, QP, PG
Vicki J. Scharnhorst, P.E., LEED AP
D. Erik Spiller, QP
Keith Thompson, CPG, PG
350 Indiana Street, Suite 500, Golden, CO 80401

Phone: 303-217-5700 Fax: 303-217-5705
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 KEY OUTCOMES ............................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION & OWNERSHIP ............................................................................................. 1-2
1.4 HISTORY .......................................................................................................................................... 1-2
1.5 GEOLOGY & MINERALIZATION ........................................................................................................... 1-5
1.6 MINERAL RESOURCES ...................................................................................................................... 1-5
1.7 MINERAL PROCESSING & METALLURGICAL TESTING .......................................................................... 1-9
1.7.1 MINERAL PROCESSING ....................................................................................................... 1-9
1.7.2 METALLURGICAL TESTING .................................................................................................. 1-9
1.8 MINING METHODS ............................................................................................................................ 1-9
1.9 INFRASTRUCTURE .......................................................................................................................... 1-10
1.10 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING & SOCIAL OR COMMUNITY IMPACT ...................................... 1-12
1.11 CAPITAL & OPERATING COSTS........................................................................................................ 1-12
1.11.1 CAPITAL COSTS ............................................................................................................... 1-12
1.11.2 OPERATING COSTS .......................................................................................................... 1-13
1.12 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................... 1-13
1.13 INTERPRETATIONS & CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................ 1-14
1.13.1 GEOLOGY ........................................................................................................................ 1-14
1.13.2 MINING ............................................................................................................................ 1-14
1.13.3 GROUNDWATER HYDROGEOLOGY .................................................................................... 1-14
1.13.4 METALLURGY & PROCESS ................................................................................................ 1-15
1.13.5 ENVIRONMENTAL ............................................................................................................. 1-15
1.14 RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................................... 1-16
2.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ............................................................................................................ 2-1
2.2 TERMS OF REFERENCE..................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 SCOPE OF WORK ............................................................................................................................. 2-2
2.4 SOURCES OF INFORMATION & DATA .................................................................................................. 2-2
2.5 UNITS OF MEASURE ......................................................................................................................... 2-2
2.6 DETAILED PERSONAL INSPECTIONS................................................................................................... 2-2
3.0 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS .............................................................................................................. 3-1
4.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION ............................................................................................ 4-1
4.1 LOCATION ........................................................................................................................................ 4-1
4.2 CLAIMS & AGREEMENTS ................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2.1 KEYSTONE CLAIMS............................................................................................................. 4-5
4.2.2 TOLOVANA CLAIMS............................................................................................................. 4-5
4.2.3 NEWSBOY CLAIMS ............................................................................................................. 4-6
4.2.4 GREEN CLAIMS .................................................................................................................. 4-6
4.2.5 CHATHAM CLAIMS .............................................................................................................. 4-7
May 2016 i
4.2.6 ALASKA MENTAL HEALTH TRUST AUTHORITY LAND ............................................................. 4-7
4.2.7 FORMER FAIRBANKS EXPLORATION CLAIMS ........................................................................ 4-8
5.0 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY .........5-1
5.1 ACCESSIBILITY ................................................................................................................................. 5-1
5.2 CLIMATE .......................................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.3 LOCAL RESOURCES.......................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.4 PHYSIOGRAPHY................................................................................................................................ 5-1
6.0 HISTORY ...................................................................................................................................................... 6-1
7.0 GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION ..................................................................................... 7-1
7.1 REGIONAL, DISTRICT & PROPERTY GEOLOGY ................................................................................... 7-1
7.1.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY.......................................................................................................... 7-1
7.1.2 FAIRBANKS DISTRICT GEOLOGY ......................................................................................... 7-1
7.1.3 GOLDEN SUMMIT PROJECT GEOLOGY................................................................................. 7-3
7.2 MINERALIZATION .............................................................................................................................. 7-6
7.2.1 INSTRUSIVE-HOSTED SULFIDE-QUARTZ VEINLETS ............................................................... 7-8
7.2.2 AURIFEROUS QUARTZ VEINS .............................................................................................. 7-8
7.2.3 SHEAR-HOSTED VEINLET ZONES ........................................................................................ 7-9
8.0 DEPOSIT TYPES ......................................................................................................................................... 8-1
9.0 EXPLORATION ............................................................................................................................................ 9-1
10.0 DRILLING ................................................................................................................................................... 10-1
10.1 CHRISTINA PROSPECT .................................................................................................................... 10-9
11.0 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY ........................................................................ 11-1
11.1 1992–2004 ................................................................................................................................... 11-1
11.2 2005–2011 ................................................................................................................................... 11-2
11.3 2008 CORE DRILLING ..................................................................................................................... 11-3
11.4 2011 ............................................................................................................................................. 11-6
11.5 2012 ............................................................................................................................................. 11-6
11.6 2013 ............................................................................................................................................. 11-7
12.0 DATA VERIFICATION ............................................................................................................................... 12-1
13.0 MINERAL PROCESSING & METALLURGICAL TESTING....................................................................... 13-1
13.1 KCA TESTWORK ............................................................................................................................ 13-1
13.1.1 BOTTLE ROLL TESTWORK................................................................................................. 13-1
13.2 SGS PROCESS FLOWSHEET TESTWORK ......................................................................................... 13-3
13.2.1 BOND BALL MILL WORK INDEX TESTWORK........................................................................ 13-4
13.2.2 WHOLE MINERALIZED MATERIAL LEACHING....................................................................... 13-4
13.2.3 WHOLE MINERALIZED MATERIAL PRESSURE OXIDATION AND LEACHING ............................. 13-4
13.2.4 WHOLE MINERALIZED MATERIAL ROASTING ...................................................................... 13-5
13.2.5 SULFIDE FLOTATION & LEACHING ..................................................................................... 13-5
13.2.6 FLOTATION PRESSURE OXIDATION & LEACHING ................................................................ 13-6
13.2.7 COARSE MINERALIZED MATERIAL CYANIDATION ................................................................ 13-6
May 2016 ii
13.3 MCCLELLAND TESTWORK ............................................................................................................... 13-6
13.3.1 BOTTLE ROLL TESTWORK................................................................................................. 13-7
13.3.2 COLUMN LEACH TESTWORK ............................................................................................. 13-9
14.0 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES......................................................................................................... 14-1
14.1 DATA ANALYSIS.............................................................................................................................. 14-1
14.2 COMPOSITES ................................................................................................................................. 14-6
14.3 VARIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................... 14-8
14.4 BLOCK MODEL ............................................................................................................................... 14-8
14.5 BULK DENSITY ............................................................................................................................... 14-9
14.6 GRADE INTERPOLATION ................................................................................................................ 14-12
14.7 CLASSIFICATION ........................................................................................................................... 14-13
14.8 MODEL VERIFICATION ................................................................................................................... 14-19
15.0 MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES ............................................................................................................ 15-1
16.0 MINING METHODS .................................................................................................................................... 16-1
16.1 CUT-OFF GRADE............................................................................................................................ 16-1
16.2 OPEN PIT MINE DESIGN.................................................................................................................. 16-2
16.2.1 PIT SLOPE CONSTRAINTS ................................................................................................. 16-3
16.2.2 BENCH DESIGN ................................................................................................................ 16-3
16.2.3 HAUL ROAD DESIGN......................................................................................................... 16-4
16.2.4 DILUTION & MINING LOSS ................................................................................................. 16-4
16.2.5 ULTIMATE PIT DESIGN ...................................................................................................... 16-4
16.2.6 PIT PHASES ..................................................................................................................... 16-7
16.2.7 ANNUAL PIT DESIGNS....................................................................................................... 16-7
16.2.8 SURGE STOCKPILE........................................................................................................... 16-7
16.2.9 MINE ROCK STORAGE FACILITY DESIGN ........................................................................... 16-7
16.2.10 PRODUCTION SCHEDULE .................................................................................................. 16-7
16.2.11 EQUIPMENT SELECTION & PRODUCTIVITIES ...................................................................... 16-8
16.2.12 MINE PERSONNEL ............................................................................................................ 16-9
17.0 RECOVERY METHODS ............................................................................................................................. 17-1
17.1 SULFIDE MATERIAL PROCESSING TRADEOFF STUDY ........................................................................ 17-1
17.2 BIO-OXIDATION OF SULFIDE MATERIALS .......................................................................................... 17-2
17.3 PROCESSING FLOWSHEET .............................................................................................................. 17-2
17.3.1 OXIDE HEAP LEACH ......................................................................................................... 17-4
17.3.2 SULFIDE BIO-OXIDATION & LEACHING ............................................................................... 17-5
18.0 PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................................................................................. 18-1
18.1 SITE LAYOUT.................................................................................................................................. 18-1
18.2 PROCESS PLANTS .......................................................................................................................... 18-1
18.3 PROJECT LOGISTICS ...................................................................................................................... 18-2
18.4 ROADS & RAIL................................................................................................................................ 18-2
18.5 BUILDINGS & FACILITIES ................................................................................................................. 18-2
18.6 POWER SUPPLY ............................................................................................................................. 18-3
18.7 COMMUNICATIONS.......................................................................................................................... 18-3
May 2016 iii

18.8 WATER MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................................... 18-4
18.8.1 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT .................................................................................... 18-10
18.8.2 WATER SUPPLY ............................................................................................................. 18-10
18.8.3 PROCESS WATER .......................................................................................................... 18-10
18.8.4 FIRE / POTABLE WATER ................................................................................................. 18-10
18.8.5 WASTE WATER TREATMENT ........................................................................................... 18-11
18.8.6 DEWATERING ................................................................................................................. 18-12
18.9 TAILINGS STORAGE FACILITY ........................................................................................................ 18-13
18.9.1 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS AND CONCEPT .......................................................................... 18-13
18.9.2 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION.......................................................................................... 18-14
18.9.3 OPERATION ................................................................................................................... 18-15
18.9.4 CLOSURE ...................................................................................................................... 18-15
18.10 HEAP LEACH FACILITY .................................................................................................................. 18-15
18.10.1 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS AND CONCEPT .......................................................................... 18-15
18.10.2 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION.......................................................................................... 18-16
18.10.3 OPERATION ................................................................................................................... 18-17
18.10.4 CLOSURE ...................................................................................................................... 18-18
18.10.5 COLD WEATHER CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................. 18-18
19.0 MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS .................................................................................................... 19-1
20.0 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING AND SOCIAL OR COMMUNITY IMPACT ........................ 20-1
20.1 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES .............................................................................................................. 20-1
20.1.1 HISTORIC EVALUATION OF FORMER SKI AREA ................................................................... 20-1
20.1.2 INITIAL GEOCHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF WASTE ROCK ............................................ 20-1
20.1.3 FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REQUIREMENTS .......................................................... 20-2
20.2 PERMITTING ................................................................................................................................... 20-3
20.2.1 EXPLORATION PERMIT...................................................................................................... 20-3
20.2.2 TEMPORARY WATER USE PERMIT..................................................................................... 20-3
20.2.3 WETLANDS PERMIT .......................................................................................................... 20-3
20.2.4 REQUIRED MAJOR MINING PERMITS ................................................................................. 20-3
20.2.5 CLEAN WATER ACT SECTION 404 WETLANDS PERMIT ....................................................... 20-5
20.2.6 AIR QUALITY PERMIT........................................................................................................ 20-6
20.2.7 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT .......................................................................... 20-6
20.3 SOCIAL OR COMMUNITY REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................................... 20-7
20.4 MINE CLOSURE AND RECLAMATION................................................................................................. 20-7
20.4.1 PLANT GROWTH MEDIUM SALVAGE .................................................................................. 20-8
20.4.2 REVEGETATION................................................................................................................ 20-8
20.4.3 EROSION CONTROL.......................................................................................................... 20-8
20.4.4 MINE ROCK STORAGE FACILITY ........................................................................................ 20-9
20.4.5 OPEN PIT ........................................................................................................................ 20-9
20.4.6 ACCESS AND SERVICE ROADS .......................................................................................... 20-9
20.4.7 PROCESS FACILITY .......................................................................................................... 20-9
May 2016 iv
20.4.8 TAILINGS STORAGE FACILITY .......................................................................................... 20-10
20.4.9 HEAP LEACH PAD .......................................................................................................... 20-10
20.4.10 PROCESS WATER PONDS ............................................................................................... 20-11
20.4.11 TAILINGS SLURRY, TSF RECLAIM, BARREN SOLUTION AND PLS PIPELINES ...................... 20-11
20.4.12 STORM WATER PONDS .................................................................................................. 20-11
20.4.13 MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE .................................................................................... 20-11
21.0 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS ........................................................................................................ 21-1
21.1 PRINCIPAL ASSUMPTIONS ............................................................................................................... 21-1
21.2 LIFE OF MINE PRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 21-2
21.2.1 OPEN PIT MINING............................................................................................................. 21-2
21.2.2 PROCESSING ................................................................................................................... 21-3
21.3 CAPITAL COSTS ............................................................................................................................. 21-3
21.3.1 10 – OPEN PIT MINING ..................................................................................................... 21-4
21.3.2 20 – CRUSHING CIRCUIT .................................................................................................. 21-4
21.3.3 30 – HEAP LEACH (OXIDE) ............................................................................................... 21-4
21.3.4 40 – PROCESS PLANT (SULFIDE) ...................................................................................... 21-5
21.3.5 50 – TAILINGS STORAGE FACILITY .................................................................................... 21-5
21.3.6 60 – INFRASTRUCTURE .................................................................................................... 21-5
21.3.7 70 – CONSTRUCTION ....................................................................................................... 21-6
21.3.8 80 – INDIRECTS................................................................................................................ 21-6
21.3.9 90 – OWNER’S COSTS...................................................................................................... 21-7
21.4 OPERATING COSTS ........................................................................................................................ 21-7
21.4.1 GENERAL OPERATING ASSUMPTIONS ............................................................................... 21-8
21.4.2 LABOR ASSUMPTIONS & WAGES ....................................................................................... 21-8
21.4.3 MINING ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................................... 21-11
21.4.4 PROCESS ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................................ 21-11
21.5 TAXES & ROYALTIES .................................................................................................................... 21-12
21.5.1 ROYALTIES .................................................................................................................... 21-12
21.5.2 TAXES ........................................................................................................................... 21-12
22.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................. 22-1
22.1 SMELTER SCHEDULE ...................................................................................................................... 22-1
22.2 ECONOMIC RESULTS ...................................................................................................................... 22-2
22.3 SENSITIVITY ................................................................................................................................... 22-4
23.0 ADJACENT PROPERTIES ........................................................................................................................ 23-1
23.1 FORT KNOX MINE ........................................................................................................................... 23-1
23.2 TRUE NORTH MINE ......................................................................................................................... 23-1
24.0 OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION ..................................................................................... 24-1
24.1 GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY ......................................................................................................... 24-1
24.1.1 HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING .............................................................................................. 24-1
24.1.2 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ........................................................................................... 24-2
May 2016 v
24.2 SURFACE WATER ........................................................................................................................... 24-4
24.2.1 SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY ......................................................................................... 24-4
24.2.2 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT ...................................................................................... 24-7
24.3 WATER BALANCE ........................................................................................................................... 24-9
24.4 GEOCHEMISTRY ........................................................................................................................... 24-10
25.0 INTERPRETATION & CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................... 25-1
25.1 GEOLOGY ...................................................................................................................................... 25-1
25.2 MINING .......................................................................................................................................... 25-1
25.3 GROUNDWATER HYDROGEOLOGY ................................................................................................... 25-1
25.4 METALLURGY & PROCESS .............................................................................................................. 25-2
25.5 ENVIRONMENTAL ............................................................................................................................ 25-2
26.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 26-1
26.1 GEOLOGY ...................................................................................................................................... 26-1
26.2 MINING .......................................................................................................................................... 26-3
26.3 GROUNDWATER HYDROGEOLOGY ................................................................................................... 26-3
26.4 WATER MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................................... 26-4
26.5 METALLURGY & PROCESS .............................................................................................................. 26-4
26.6 TAILINGS STORAGE FACILITY .......................................................................................................... 26-5
26.7 HEAP LEACH FACILITY .................................................................................................................... 26-6
26.8 GEOCHEMICAL RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................ 26-7
26.9 ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING & REGULATORY COMPLIANCE ........................................................... 26-7
27.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 27-1
28.0 CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON.................................................................................................. 28-1
28.1 QUALIFICATIONS OF CONSULTANTS ................................................................................................ 28-1
May 2016 vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1: Summary of Exploration (1969-2015) Conducted for the Property and Adjacent Prospects ...................1-2
Table 1-2: Dolphin Zone Indicated Resource within Conceptual Pit .......................................................................... 1-6
Table 1-3: Dolphin Zone Inferred Resource within Conceptual Pit ............................................................................ 1-6
Table 1-4: Oxide Zone Indicated Resource within Conceptual Pit ............................................................................. 1-7
Table 1-5: Oxide Zone Inferred Resource within Conceptual Pit ............................................................................... 1-7
Table 1-6: Sulfide Zone Indicated Resource within Conceptual Pit ........................................................................... 1-8
Table 1-7: Sulfide Zone Inferred Resource within Conceptual Pit.............................................................................. 1-8
Table 1-8: LoM Capital Costs................................................................................................................................... 1-12
Table 1-9: LoM Operating Costs .............................................................................................................................. 1-13
Table 4-1: Summary of Claims Comprising the Golden Summit Property ................................................................. 4-2
Table 4-2: Keystone Claims Royalty Payments ......................................................................................................... 4-5
Table 4-3: Green Claims Royalty Payments .............................................................................................................. 4-6
Table 4-4: Chatham Claims Royalty Payments.......................................................................................................... 4-7
Table 4-5: MHT Sliding Scale Royalty ....................................................................................................................... 4-7
Table 4-6: Claim List .................................................................................................................................................. 4-9
Table 6-1: Summary of Exploration (1969-2015) Conducted for the Property and Adjacent Prospects ....................6-2
Table 10-1: Drillholes Completed on the Property during 2013 ............................................................................... 10-4
Table 10-2: Significant Core Drilling Assay Results for the 2013 Dolphin/Cleary Drillholes..................................... 10-4
Table 10-3: Significant Core Drilling Assay Results for the 2011 to 2012 Christina Drillholes ................................. 10-9
Table 13-1: Summary of the Highest Leach Recoveries .......................................................................................... 13-3
Table 13-2: Bond Ball Mill Work Index ..................................................................................................................... 13-4
Table 13-3: Flotation Concentrate Gold Recoveries ................................................................................................ 13-5
Table 13-4: Bottle Roll Test Results......................................................................................................................... 13-8
Table 14-1: Gold Populations Present within Mineralized Solid ............................................................................... 14-5
Table 14-2: Statistics for Gold within the Mineralized Solid ..................................................................................... 14-6
Table 14-3: Statistics for Gold in Three m Composites within the Mineralized Solid ............................................... 14-6
Table 14-4: Gold Populations Three m Composites within Mineralized Solid .......................................................... 14-7
Table 14-5: Semivariogram Parameters .................................................................................................................. 14-8
Table 14-6: Specific Gravity Determinations Dolphin ............................................................................................... 14-9
Table 14-7: Specific Gravity Sorted by Gold Grades ............................................................................................. 14-11
Table 14-8: Specific Gravity Sorted by Oxidation State ......................................................................................... 14-12
Table 14-9: Kriging Parameters ............................................................................................................................. 14-13
Table 14-10: Dolphin Zone Indicated Resource within Conceptual Pit .................................................................. 14-16
Table 14-11: Dolphin Zone Inferred Resource within Conceptual Pit .................................................................... 14-17
Table 14-12: Oxide Zone Indicated Resource within Conceptual Pit ..................................................................... 14-17
Table 14-13: Oxide Zone Inferred Resource within Conceptual Pit ....................................................................... 14-18
Table 14-14: Sulfide Zone Indicated Resource within Conceptual Pit.................................................................... 14-18
Table 14-15: Sulfide Zone Inferred Resource within Conceptual Pit...................................................................... 14-19
Table 16-1: Pit Optimization Parameters ................................................................................................................. 16-1
Table 16-2: Open Pit Design Criteria Summary ....................................................................................................... 16-2
Table 16-3: Ultimate Pit Parameters ........................................................................................................................ 16-4
Table 16-4: Open Pit Production Schedule .............................................................................................................. 16-6
Table 16-5: Production Equipment........................................................................................................................... 16-9
Table 16-6: Haul Time Estimates ........................................................................................................................... 16-13
Table 16-7: Maximum Open Pit Manpower ............................................................................................................ 16-14
Table 17-1: Oxide Equipment List ............................................................................................................................ 17-4
Table 17-2: Sulfide Equipment List .......................................................................................................................... 17-5
Table 18-1: Buildings and Facilities ......................................................................................................................... 18-3
May 2016 vii

Table 18-2: Secondary Treatment Effluent Limits (Excerpt from State of Alaska, as described above) ................ 18-11
Table 18-3: TSF Requirements and Characteristics .............................................................................................. 18-14
Table 20-1: Potential Required Major Permits for the Project .................................................................................. 20-5
Table 21-1: TEM Principal Assumptions .................................................................................................................. 21-1
Table 21-2: LoM Production ..................................................................................................................................... 21-2
Table 21-3: RoM Mill Feed ....................................................................................................................................... 21-3
Table 21-4: LoM Capital Costs................................................................................................................................. 21-3
Table 21-5: Open Pit Capital Costs.......................................................................................................................... 21-4
Table 21-6: Crushing Circuit Capital Costs .............................................................................................................. 21-4
Table 21-7: Heap Leach Capital Costs .................................................................................................................... 21-4
Table 21-8: Process Plant Capital Costs ................................................................................................................. 21-5
Table 21-9: Tailings Storage Facility Capital Costs.................................................................................................. 21-5
Table 21-10: Infrastructure Capital Costs ................................................................................................................ 21-5
Table 21-11: Construction Capital Costs ................................................................................................................. 21-6
Table 21-12: Indirect Capital Costs .......................................................................................................................... 21-6
Table 21-13: Owner’s Capital Costs ........................................................................................................................ 21-7
Table 21-14: LoM Operating Costs .......................................................................................................................... 21-7
Table 21-15: Operating Parameters......................................................................................................................... 21-8
Table 21-16: G&A Labor .......................................................................................................................................... 21-8
Table 21-17: Mining Labor ....................................................................................................................................... 21-9
Table 21-18: Process & Infrastructure Labor ......................................................................................................... 21-10
Table 21-19: Drilling & Blasting Parameters .......................................................................................................... 21-11
Table 21-20: Heap Leach Process Reagents ........................................................................................................ 21-11
Table 21-21: Sulfide Process Reagents................................................................................................................. 21-11
Table 21-22: Process Supplies .............................................................................................................................. 21-12
Table 22-1: LoM Revenues & Costs ........................................................................................................................ 22-1
Table 22-2: Technical-Economic Results ................................................................................................................. 22-2
Table 22-3: Annual Cash Flow ................................................................................................................................. 22-3
Table 23-1: Fort Knox Reserve Estimate March 31, 2015 ....................................................................................... 23-1
Table 24-1: Water Well Data Summary ................................................................................................................... 24-2
Table 24-2: Summary of Groundwater Quality for Fort Knox Mine Dewatering Wells ............................................. 24-3
Table 24-3: Summary of Baseline Groundwater Quality for Fort Knox Alluvial and Bedrock Wells ......................... 24-3
Table 24-4: Monthly Precipitation............................................................................................................................. 24-4
Table 24-5: Design Storm Basis for Water Management Facilities .......................................................................... 24-5
Table 24-6: Facility Areas ........................................................................................................................................ 24-7
Table 24-7: Diversion Design Criteria ...................................................................................................................... 24-8
Table 24-8: Mine Facility Design Criteria ................................................................................................................. 24-8
Table 24-9: Core Samples and Intervals for Waste Rock Characterization ........................................................... 24-12
Table 24-10: Geochemical Sample Summary........................................................................................................ 24-13
Table 26-1: Project Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 26-1
May 2016 viii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1: Project Location Map ............................................................................................................................... 1-4
Figure 1-2: General Arrangement ............................................................................................................................ 1-11
Figure 4-1: Project Location Map ............................................................................................................................... 4-3
Figure 4-2: Project Land Status Map ......................................................................................................................... 4-4
Figure 7-1: General Geology of the Fairbanks Mining District ................................................................................... 7-2
Figure 7-2: Local Geology and Major Prospects on the Project (Geology from Newberry et al, 1996) ......................7-5
Figure 7-3: Shear Hosted Breccia & Quartz Vein Zone – GSDL 12-10.................................................................... 7-10
Figure 7-4: Quartz Stockwork Zone in Granodiorite & Tonalite – GSDC 11-32 ....................................................... 7-10
Figure 7-5: Intense Quartz Stockwork Zone (End of Hole) – GSDC 11-32 .............................................................. 7-11
Figure 7-6: Intense Brecciation and Fractured Schist hosted Stockwork – GSDL 12-01 ......................................... 7-11
Figure 10-1: Historical Drillhole Locations – Golden Summit Property..................................................................... 10-2
Figure 10-2: Golden Summit 2013 Drillholes ........................................................................................................... 10-3
Figure 10-3: Cross Section through Dolphin Prospect with Lithology and Gold Assays .......................................... 10-6
Figure 13-1: Gold Leaching Kinetics ........................................................................................................................ 13-2
Figure 13-2: Gold Recovery Curve .......................................................................................................................... 13-9
Figure 14-1: Local Geology of the Dolphin Stock Area (Adams, 2010) .................................................................... 14-1
Figure 14-2: Dolphin Stock Area Geologic Map, Gold-Arsenic Soil Anomalies, Aeromagnetic Anomaly and
Drillholes (Adams, 2010).................................................................................................................... 14-2
Figure 14-3: Isometric View Looking NE Showing the Mineralized Solid Purple, Oxides in Brown, Drillhole
Traces and Surface Topography ...................................................................................................... 14-3
Figure 14-4: Cumulative Frequency Plot for Gold in Oxidized and Unoxidized Assays ........................................... 14-4
Figure 14-5: Lognormal Cumulative Frequency Plot for Gold Assays within Mineralized Solids. ............................ 14-5
Figure 14-6: Lognormal Cumulative Frequency Plot for Gold Three m Composites within Mineralized Solids....... 14-7
Figure 14-7: Isometric View of Block Model Looking N Showing Oxides Red, Mineralized Solid in White and
Drillhole Traces in Purple ................................................................................................................... 14-9
Figure 14-8: Swath Plot for Au along 20 m East-West Slices ................................................................................ 14-20
Figure 14-9: Swath Plot for Au along 20 m North-South Slices ............................................................................. 14-20
Figure 14-10: Swath Plot for Au along Vertical Slices ............................................................................................ 14-21
Figure 14-11: Dolphin Zone Section 479030 E ...................................................................................................... 14-22
Figure 14-14: Dolphin Zone showing Conceptual Pit in White and 3 new Holes in Magenta................................. 14-25
Figure 14-15: Scatter Plot for Gold in Estimated Blocks in Pit vs. New Hole Composite Gold Grades Within
Blocks .............................................................................................................................................. 14-25
Figure 16-1: Ultimate Pit Design .............................................................................................................................. 16-5
Figure 16-2: Phase 1 Pit Design ............................................................................................................................ 16-10
Figure 17-1: Process Flow Diagram......................................................................................................................... 17-3
Figure 18-1: General Arrangement .......................................................................................................................... 18-5
Figure 18-2: Sulfide Process Plant Layout ............................................................................................................... 18-6
Figure 18-3: Local Road Design Section ................................................................................................................. 18-7
Figure 18-4: Tailings & Heap Corridor Sections ....................................................................................................... 18-8
Figure 18-5: Pit & Haul Corridor Sections ................................................................................................................ 18-9
Figure 18-6: Estimated Pumping Rate and Number of Dewatering Wells.............................................................. 18-13
Figure 22-1: Project Sensitivity - Post-Tax NPV (5%) .............................................................................................. 22-4
May 2016 ix
Figure 24-1: Cleary Creek Watershed ..................................................................................................................... 24-6
Figure 24-2: Site Wide Water Balance ..................................................................................................................... 24-9
Figure 24-3: Domestic Water Balance ..................................................................................................................... 24-9
Figure 24-4: Static Geochemical Boreholes Sample Locations ............................................................................. 24-11
Figure 24-5: Available Boreholes Relative to the Dolphin Mineralized Body.......................................................... 24-11
Figure 26-1: Areas of Proposed Drilling ................................................................................................................... 26-2
May 2016 x
LIST OF ACRONYMS
Acronym Definition Acronym Definition
US Bureau of Land Management online
ADL Alaska Division of Lands LR2000
Legacy Rehost System (BLM land status)
Alaska Department of
ADEC MHT Alaska Mental Health Trust Land Authority
Environmental Conservation
Absorption, Desorption and
ADR MRSF Mine Rock Storage Facility
Refining
AOI Area of influence MSGP Multisector Stormwater General Permit
Alaska Pollution Discharge
APDES NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
Elimination System
Application for Permits to Mine
APMA NAD North American Datum
in Alaska
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
AQIA Air Quality Impact Assessment NOAA
Administration
Alaska Department of Natural
ADNR NRCS National Resource Conservation Service
Resources
CAPEX Capital cost estimate NSR Net Smelter Royalties
CEQ Council of Environmental Quality OPEX Operating expenses
Code of Federal Regulations
CFS POD Point of diversion
(U.S. Federal Code)
CO2 Carbon dioxide PSD Prevention of significant deterioration
CWA Clean Water Act PTE Potential to emit
DDH Diamond drillhole PZM Precipitation Zone Method
DEM Digital Elevation Model QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
DRI Desert Research Institute RAB Reverse Air Blast (drillhole)
DST Dry stack tailings RC Reverse circulation (drillhole)
EA Environmental Assessment RCH MODFLOW recharge
EIS Environmental Impact Statement SAG Semi-autogenous grinding
Soil Conservation Service (or NRCS,
EPM Equivalent porous media SCS
National Resource Conservation Service)
ET Evapotranspiration SDR Standard dimension ratio
Fire Assay with Atomic Absorption
System for Electronic Document Analysis and
FA/AA finish, analytical technique for gold SEDAR
Retrieval
analysis
FEI Fairbanks Exploration Inc. SFR MODFLOW Stream Flow Routing
FGMI Fairbanks Gold Mining Inc. SWWB Site-wide water balance
F.M. Fairbanks Meridian TMT Tentative Minimum Tax
FNSB Fairbanks North Star Borough TSF Tailings Storage Facility
GHB General head boundaries TU Tritium Unit
GIS Geographic Information System UIC Underground injection control
GMWL Global Metric Water Line USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
GPS Global Positioning System USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
HDPE High density polyethylene USGS U.S. Geological Survey
HLP Heap Leach Storage Facility UTM Universal Transverse Mercator
Inductively Coupled Plasma
ICP WEL MODFLOW well
(geochemical analytical method)
IP Induced polarization WMB Water management basin
LLDPE Linear Low-Density Polyethylene WMC Water Management Consultants
LMPT Large Mine Permitting Team WRCC Western Region Climate Center
May 2016 xi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviation Definition Abbreviation Definition
µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter Kz vertical conductivity
µm micrometers (microns) lb pound
ac-ft acre-feet lb/t pounds per ton
amsl above mean sea level LF linear foot
cfm cubic feet per minute LoM life of mine
cfs cubic feet per second Ma million years ago
cm/s centimeters per second m meter
cy cubic yards m2 square meter
d day mg/L milligrams per liter
dmt dry metric tonne mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter
dst dry short ton mm millimeter
fpm feet per minute MMBtu million British thermal units
ft feet mph miles per hour
ft/d feet per day MVA megavolt-ampere
ft/hr feet per hour MW megawatt
ft2 square foot opt ounces per ton
ft2/tpd square feet per ton per day Oz ounce
ft3 cubic foot PAG potentially acid generating
ft3/d cubic foot per day Pcf pounds per cubic foot
ft3/hr cubic foot per hour PGM plant growth medium
ft3/t cubic foot per ton pH hydrogen ion concentration
G gram PIW pounds per inch of width
g/cc grams per cubic centimeter PoO Plan of Operations
g/t grams per tonne ppm parts per million
gpd gallons per day psf pounds per square foot
gpm gallons per minute psi pounds per square inch
h; hr hour Rb/Sr Rubidium-Strontium
Hp horsepower Rpm revolutions per minute
In inch SG specific gravity
in/yr inches per year st/h short tons per hour
Kg kilogram Tc time of concentration
kg/m2hr kilograms per square meter per hour Tlag lag time
km kilometer TDS total dissolved solids
kV kilovolt t/m3 tonnes per cubic meter
kVA kilovolt-ampere toz troy ounce
kW kilowatt tpd tons per day
kWh kilowatt hour tph tons per hour
kWh/t kilowatt hour per ton tpy tons per year
Kxy horizontal hydraulic conductivity yd2 square yard
May 2016 xii

ABBREVIATIONS OF THE PERIODIC TABLE
actinium = Ac aluminum = Al amercium = Am antimony = Sb argon = Ar
arsenic = As astatine = At barium = Ba berkelium = Bk beryllium = Be
bismuth = Bi bohrium = Bh boron = B bromine = Br cadmium = Cd
calcium = Ca californium = Cf carbon = C cerium = Ce cesium = Cs
chlorine = Cl chromium = Cr cobalt = Co copper = Cu curium = Cm
dubnium = Db dysprosium = Dy einsteinum = Es erbium = Er europium = Eu
fermium = Fm fluorine = F francium = Fr gadolinium = Gd gallium = Ga
germanium = Ge gold = Au hafnium = Hf hahnium = Hn helium = He
holmium = Ho hydrogen = H indium = In iodine = I iridium = Ir
iron = Fe juliotium = Jl krypton = Kr lanthanum = La lawrencium = Lr
lead = Pb lithium = Li lutetium = Lu magnesium = Mg manganese = Mn
meltnerium = Mt mendelevium = Md mercury = Hg molybdenum = Mo neodymium = Nd
neon = Ne neptunium = Np nickel = Ni niobium = Nb nitrogen = N
nobelium = No osmium = Os oxygen = O palladium = Pd phosphorus = P
platinum = Pt plutonium = Pu polonium = Po potassium = K prasodymium = Pr
promethium = Pm protactinium = Pa radium = Ra radon = Rn rhodium = Rh
rubidium = Rb ruthenium = Ru rutherfordium = Rf rhenium = Re samarium = Sm
scandium = Sc selenium = Se silicon = Si silver = Ag sodium = Na
strontium = Sr sulfur = S technetium = Tc tantalum = Ta tellurium = Te
terbium = Tb thallium = Tl thorium = Th thulium = Tm tin = Sn
titanium = Ti tungsten = W uranium = U vanadium = V xenon = Xe
ytterbium = Yb yttrium = Y zinc = Zn zirconium = Zr
May 2016 xiii

UNITS OF MEASURE
All dollars are presented in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted. Common units of measure and conversion
factors used in this report include:
Weight:
1 oz (troy) =31.1035 g
Analytical Values:
percent grams per
metric tonne
1% 1% 10,000
1 g/t 0.0001% 1.0
10 ppb
100 ppm
Linear Measure:
1 inch (in) =2.54 centimeters (cm)

1 foot (ft) =0.3048 meters (m)
1 year (yd) =0.9144 meters (m)
1 mile (mi) =1.6093 kilometers (km)
Area Measure:
1 acre =0.4047 hectare

1 square mile =640 acres =259 hectares
May 2016 xiv

PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE
Technical work executed by the Project team has been organized around the following work areas. In
addition, the Technical Economic Model follows this hierarchical decomposition of the work. The Work
Breakdown Structure can be found on the following page.
May 2016 xv
WBS # Description WBS # Description WBS # Description
10 Mining 320 ADR Plant 470 Plant Services
100 Capitalized Costs 320.01 Carbon Columns 470.01 Control System Upgrade
100.01 Site Preparation 320.02 Stripping Circuit/Acid Wash 470.01 Expert System
100.02 Haul Roads 320.03 Electrowinning (Gold Room) 470.02 Plant Air Compressor, 434 cfm
110 Mobile Equipment 320.04 Dore Furnace (Gold Room) 470.02 Air Receivers, 250 gal
110.01 Rope Shovel P&H 2800 320.05 Kiln, 3'x20' 470.02 Air Dryer
110.02 Wheel Dozer Cat 854 320.05 Dewatering Screen, 4'x8', Single Deck 470.03 Fresh Water
110.03 Loader Caterpillar 992 320.05 Motor 470.04 Instrument Air
110.04 Atlas DM-45 320.06 Caustic Tank, 15,000 gal 470.05 Plant Water
110.05 Haul Truck Cat 793 320.06 Caustic Pump, 30 gph 470.06 Metallurgical/Assay Laboratory
110.06 Dozer Caterpillar D10T 320.06 Acid Tank, 15,000 gal 470.07 Sample Preparation Lab
110.07 Grader Caterpillar 16M 320.07 Acid Pump, 30 gph 470.08 Pickup Trucks
110.08 Water Wagon 320.08 Building 470.08 Skid Steer
110.09 Lube/Fuel 330 Plant Services 470.08 Forklift, Rugged Terrain
110.10 Service 330.01 Control Systems 470.08 Pickup Trucks, Flatbed, Work
110.11 Tire Truck 330.02 Plant Air 480 Structures
110.12 Caterpillar IT38H 330.03 Pit Dewatering to ADR (Pump) 480.01 Plant Building/Warehouse
110.13 Caterpillar 430E 330.03 Pit Dewatering to ADR (Pipe) 480.02 Laboratory Building
110.14 Caterpillar 256E 330.06 Pickup Trucks 50 Tailings Storage Facility
110.15 Pickups 330.06 Skid Steer 500 Earthworks
110.16 Rough Terrain Forklift 330.06 Forklift, Rugged Terrain 500.01 Site Preparation
110.17 Warehouse Forklift 330.06 Pickup Trucks, Flatbed, Work 500.02 Underdrain Installation
110.18 50 Ton Mobile Crane 40 Process Plant (Sulfide) 500.03 Liner Installation
110.19 ANFO Truck 400 Site Preparation 500.04 Overdrain Installation
110.20 Light Plant 400.01 Plant Earthworks 500.05 Embankment Construction
110.21 Mobile Crushing/Screening 410 Grinding 500.06 Reclaim Pond
110.22 Mobile Disp Sys. (90 unit) 410.01 Ball Mill, 16'x30' 510 Tailings Pumping & Piping
120 Facilities 410.01 Motor, Ball Mill 510.03 Tailings Slurry Piping
120.01 Mine Dry 410.01 Cyclone Feed Pumps, 10,000 gpm 510.04 Reclaim to Pond Pump
120.02 Mine Shop/Warehouse 410.01 CFP Motor 510.04 Reclaim Pond to TSF Pump
120.03 Fuel/Lube Storage Facilities 410.01 Cyclone Cluster, 26"x5 510.04 Reclaim to Pond Pipe
130 Mine Services 420 Flotation 510.04 Reclaim Pond to TSF Pipe
130.01 Explosives Handling 420.01 Conditioning Tank, 54,800 gal, 21x32 60 Infrastructure
130.02 Overland Conveyor 420.01 Flotation Feed Pump, 5,000 gpm 610 Structures
130.03 Gyratory Crusher 420.02 Rougher Flotation Cells, 3,500 ft3 610.01 Mine Gate
130.04 Crusher Pocket Build 420.02 Floatation Cell Motors 610.02 Administrative Office
130.05 Crusher Install 420.02 Rougher Tailings Pump, 5,000 gpm 610.03 Security Gate
130.06 Pit Dewatering 420.02 Rougher Conc Pump 610.04 Access Roads
130.07 In-Pit Substations 420.02 Rougher Conc Pump Motor 610.05 Support Roads
20 Crushing Circuit 420.03 Cyanide Isotainers 610.06 Perimeter Fence
200 Heap Leach 420.03 Cyanide Mixing Skid 610.07 Process Fence
200.01 RoM Pad & Reclaim 420.03 Cyanide Pumps, 10 gpm 620 Power Lines/Substations
200.02 Crusher, Std Cone, 7' dia. 420.03 Cyanide Tanks, 17,000 gal 630 Water Management
200.02 Crusher, Short Head, 7' dia. 420.03 Lime Slaking Plant, 4,000 lb/hr 630.01 Fire Water Tank & Foundation
200.02 Screen, Inclined, 8x16, Double Deck 420.03 Flotation Chem System Tanks, 4,500 gal 630.01 Fire Water Pipe
200.02 Screen, Motor 420.03 Pumps, 30 gph 630.02 Potable Water
210 Sulfide Plant 420.04 Float Conc Thickener, 20' 630.03 Waste Water Treatment Plant
210.01 RoM Stockpile & Reclaim System 420.04 O/F Pump, 500 gpm 630.04 Pond Excavation
210.02 Motor, SAG Mill 420.04 O/F Pump Motor 630.04 Geosynthetic Liner
210.02 Screen, Inclined, 8x16, Double Deck 420.04 U/F Pump, 200 gpm 640 Communications
210.02 Motor Screen 420.04 U/F Pump Motor 650 Mobile Equipment
210.02 Crusher, Pebble 430 Bioxidation 70 Construction
30 Heap Leach (Oxide) 430.01 Bioxidation Tanks 700 Construction Labor
300 Site Preparation 430.01 Bioxidation Tank Agitators 710 Piping
300.01 Site Preparation 440 CIL Plant 720 Electrical & Instrumentation
300.01 Wells 440.01 Bioxidation Wash Thickener, 20' 730 Concrete
300.01 Underdrain Installation 440.01 O/F Pump, 1000 gpm 740 Structural Steel
300.01 Impoundment Liner Installation 440.01 O/F Pump Motor 750 Painting & Insulation
300.01 Overdrain Installation 440.01 U/F Pump, 200 gpm 80 Indirects
300.01 Embankment 440.01 U/F Pump Motor 800 Construction Indirects
300.01 Drip Lines 440.02 CIL Tanks, 35'x35' 810 Spares & Inventory
310 HLP Equipment 440.02 CIL Tank Agitators 820 First Fills
310.01 Tank, Barren Solution, 185 kgal 450 Ancillary Equipment 830 Freight & Logistics
310.02 Conveyors, Grasshoppers, 36"x100' 450.01 CIL Blowers, 3,200 cfm 840 Commissioning & Start-Up
310.03 Pumping & Piping 450.01 Bioxidation Blowers, 3,200 cfm 850 EPCM
310.03 PLS Soln Pump 460 Cyanide Detoxification 860 Vendor & Consultant Assistance
310.03 Barren Soln Pump 460.01 Cyanide Detoxi Tank, 43,000 gal 90 Owner's Costs
310.03 PLS Soln Pipe 460.01 Tailings Pumps, 5,000 gpm 900 Project Management
310.03 Barren Soln Pipe 460.01 Tailings Pump Motors 910 Environmental & Permitting
310.03 HLP Sub-Headers 460.01 Tailings Thickener, 100' dia 920 Mine Closure & Reclamation
310.04 Cyanide Isotainers 460.01 O/F Pump, 500 gpm 930 Exploration & Infill Drilling
310.04 Cyanide Mixing Skid 460.01 O/F Pump Motor 940 Engineering Studies
310.04 Cyanide Tank, 17,000 gal, 21'x7.25' 460.01 U/F Pump, 5,000 gpm 950 Legal
310.04 Cyanide Tank Pumps, 10 gpm 460.01 U/F Pump Motor 960 Insurance
1.0 SUMMARY
1.1 I NTRO DUCTIO N

Freegold Ventures Limited (Freegold) retained Tetra Tech, Inc. (Tetra Tech) with Mark J. Abrams, C.P.G.
and Gary H. Giroux, P.Eng to prepare this preliminary economic assessment (PEA or “Report”) for the
Golden Summit Project (the Project) in the Fairbanks Mining District, Alaska. The purpose of this Report
is to provide Freegold with an independent opinion of the technical aspects of the Project and make
recommendations for future work. This Report is in compliance with National Instrument 43-101
(NI 43-101).
1.2 K EY O UTCOMES
The PEA evaluates a two-phase, 24-year open pit mine generating two gold streams, each operating at
10,000 tonnes per day (tpd). Processing operations for the oxide and sulfide resource are heap leach and
bioxidation respectively. All values are presented in US$.
Based on a gold price of $1,300/oz, highlights of the Project PEA include:
• A post-tax NPV5% and IRR of $188 million and 19.6% respectively;

• A mine life of 24 years with peak annual gold production of 158 thousand ounces (koz) and
average annual gold production of 96 koz;
• 2,358 koz of doré produced over the life of mine;
• Total cash cost estimated at $842/oz Au (including royalties, refining and transport);
• Ability to execute Phase 1 with low initial capital; initial and sustaining capital costs, including
contingency, estimated at $88 million and $348 million respectively;
• A payback of 3.3 years post-tax; and
• Favorable geopolitical climate; completion risk is offset through strong legislative and
financial support at state and federal levels.
Value-enhancing opportunities, such as leased mine equipment, improved metallurgical performance

through additional testing, liquid natural gas, local labor surveys, power generation sets, and local power
contracts will be further investigated as the Project moves towards the Preliminary Feasibility stage.
Additionally, there is potential for immediate resource expansion with continued drilling efforts within
the oxide zone. Work completed to date which includes geophysical, geochemical and geological studies,
indicates that there is a strong possibility to expand upon the known resource. A similar geochemical and
geophysical signature over the known resource appears to extend to the north, west and southwest over
distances in excess of one kilometer.
May 2016 1-1

1.3 P ROJECT D ESCRIPTIO N & O WNERSHIP
The Golden Summit Property (the Property) is located 18 miles (29 km) by road northeast of the City of
Fairbanks, Alaska, United States of America. It is located in the north portion of the Fairbanks Mining
District (Figure 1-1), a northeast trending belt of lode and placer gold deposits that compose one of the
largest gold producing areas in the state of Alaska.
The Property consists of 50 patented claims, 94 unpatented federal claims, and 268 State of Alaska claims
which cover a total area of 14,630 acres (5,921 hectares).The Property is situated in Township 3N, Range
1E, 2E and 3E of the Fairbanks Meridian, centered at approximately 479250 E, 7215464 N (UTM Zone 6
NAD 27 Alaska).
1.4 H ISTO RY
Placer or lode gold mining has occurred almost continuously in the Project area since gold was discovered
in the district in 1902. Over 9.5 million ounces of placer gold have been recovered from the Fairbanks
Mining District, of which 6.75 million ounces have been recovered from streams that drain the Project
(Freeman, 1992e). In addition, over 506,000 ounces of lode gold were recovered from past producing
mines on the Project (Freeman and others, 1996). More than 80 lode gold occurrences have been
documented in the Project area. Recent exploration discoveries in the Tintina Gold Belt have underscored
the potential for bulk tonnage and high-grade deposits, both of which are known to exist in the Project
area (McCoy and others, 1997; Flanigan and others, 2000).
Table 1-1 provides a chronology of exploration activities conducted for the property and adjacent
prospects.
Table 1-1: Summary of Exploration (1969-2015) Conducted for the Property

and Adjacent Prospects
Company Years Exploration/Mining Activity Principle Targets

International Minerals & 1969 Trenching Saddle Zone
Chemicals RC drilling Circle Trail Zone
Placid Oil Company 1978 – Trenching Christina Vein
1986 Core & RC drilling Pioneer Vein
Adit excavation American Eagle Vein
Christina feasibility study Hi Yu Vein
SC 1980 – Diamond core drilling Tolovana Shear Zone
1981 RC drilling
Resource estimate
Fairbanks Exploration 1988 Bulk sampling Christina Vein
Keystone Mines 1989 Bulk sampling of mine waste dumps American Eagle, Hi Yu,
Partnership Cleary Hill areas
British 1987 – Trenching, RC drilling Too Much Gold prospect
Petroleum/Fairbanks 1988 Saddle Zone
Exploration( FEI) JV Circle Trail Zone
Christina Vein
Freegold/FEI JV 1991 Property-wide data compilation Property-wide
Freegold/Amax Gold JV 1992 – Trenching, soil sampling, RC drilling, aerial Too Much Gold prospect
1994 geophysical surveys (EM), bottle roll testing, Cleary Hill area
baseline water quality surveys, aerial photos, EDM
surveys
May 2016 1-2

Freegold 1995 – RC drilling Dolphin area
1996 Cleary Hill area
Freegold/Barrick JV 1997 – Property-wide grid-base soils, recon & prospect Property-wide
1998 mapping, grab sampling, limited RC and core Goose Creek prospect
drilling North Extension prospect
Coffee Dome
Dolphin area
Newsboy area
Wolf Creek area
Freegold 2000 Limited core drilling Cleary Hill area
Freegold 2002 Trenching Cleary Hill area
(Currey Zone)
Freegold 2003 Limited core drilling Cleary Hill area
(Currey Zone)
Freegold/Meridian 2004 Trenching, core drilling Tolovana area
Minerals JV Cleary Hill area
Freegold 2005 – Trenching Cleary Hill area
2006 Wackwitz Vein area
Beistline Shaft area
Freegold 2007 – Trenching, RAB drilling, core drilling, bulk Cleary Hill area
2008 sampling Tolovana Mine area
Freegold 2010 Induced Polarization Survey Dolphin area
Freegold 2011 Induced Polarization Survey, Geochemical Dolphin area
Surveys, Core Drilling, Cleary Hill area, Christina
Prospect
Freegold 2012 Induced Polarization Survey, Geochemical Dolphin/Tolovana area,
Surveys, Trenching, Metallurgical Work, Core Cleary Hill area, Chatham,
Drilling Christina Prospect
Freegold 2013 Core Drilling, Geophysics, Dolphin, Coffee Dome area
Freegold 2014 Water Quality Sampling, Cultural Resource Dolphin and Cleary Hill areas
Studies, Metallurgical tests, Geochemical Surveys
Freegold 2015 Water Quality Sampling, Cultural Resource Studies Dolphin and Cleary Hill areas
and Geochemical Surveys
May 2016 1-3

GOLDEN SUMMIT
PROJECT
True North
Gold Mine
Fort Knox
Gold Mine
Nome MAP AREA

Fairbanks
Anchorage
Freegold Ventures Limited Fig1-1_Location.dwg FIGURE 1-1

TETRA TECH Golden Summit Project GOLDEN SUMMIT PROJECT
350 Indiana Street, Suite 500 Preliminary Economic Assessment 114-910054
Golden, Colorado 80401
(303) 217-5700 (303) 217-5705 fax GENERAL LOCATION MAP
Fairbanks Mining District, Alaska March/2016
1.5 G EOLOGY & M INERALIZATIO N
Gold mineralization on the Golden Summit property occurs in three main forms, including 1) intrusive-
hosted sulfide-quartz stockwork veinlets (such as the Dolphin gold deposit), 2) auriferous sulfide-quartz
veins (exploited by historic underground mines), and 3) shear-hosted gold-bearing veinlets. All three
types are considered to be part of a large-scale intrusive-related gold system on the property. The Dolphin
gold deposit is hosted in the Dolphin stock, which consists largely of granodiorite and tonalite, similar to
the Pedro Dome pluton. It is the only large intrusive body known on the property at this time. The Dolphin
stock is approximately the same age as the nearby Fort Knox pluton, which hosts Kinross Gold’s Fort Knox
gold mine. Freegold made the initial discovery of widespread low-grade gold mineralization in the Dolphin
stock during the initial drilling campaign on the prospect in 1995; however resource definition drilling only
commenced in 2011. A total of 87 holes have been drilled within the resource area since 2011 totaling
24,156 meters.
1.6 M INERAL R ESO URCES

An update of the resource reported in December 2012 (Abrams and Giroux, 2012) was estimated
incorporating an additional ten drillholes completed in 2013. The update also subdivides the resource
into oxide and sulfide portions. The effective date for this resource is May 31, 2013, the date that the
data was received. There were three drillholes completed since this date which do not have a material
effect on this resource and as a result this resource remains current. The three new holes were compared
to the estimated blocks they pass through and found to correlate well. Of the total 330 drillholes on the
property, 185 penetrated the three dimensional geologic Dolphin Stock solid and were used for the
estimate. The gold grade distribution identified multiple overlapping lognormal populations present.
Erratic gold assays were capped at 88 g/t. Uniform down-hole composites three m in length were formed
to honor the solid boundaries. The gold distribution of three meter composites also identified overlapping
lognormal populations and an indicator approach was used for the estimate. Semivariograms for the high
grade gold indicator and low grade background were produced and used to define and orient the various
search ellipses. Grades for gold were interpolated into blocks 10 x 10 x 5 meters in dimension by a
combination of Indicator and Ordinary Kriging. A total of 66 specific gravity measurements showed no
correlation to gold grades and as a result an average value of 2.51 was used above the oxide surface and
2.67 below this surface to convert volume to tonnage. Estimated blocks were classified based on geologic
and grade continuity into Indicated and Inferred. As part of this study, a conceptual open pit, based on
$1300/oz Au, has been developed. As a result only blocks falling within this pit are now reported as a
Resource within the following tables.
May 2016 1-5

Table 1-2: Dolphin Zone Indicated Resource within Conceptual Pit
Grade > Cut-off

Tonnes
Au Cut-off
>Cut-off Au Contained
(g/t)
(tonnes) (g/t) kg Au oz Au
0.20 82,650,000 0.58 47,610 1,531,000

0.25 71,140,000 0.63 45,030 1,448,000
0.30 61,460,000 0.69 42,410 1,363,000
0.35 53,460,000 0.74 39,770 1,279,000
0.40 46,690,000 0.80 37,260 1,198,000
0.50 35,590,000 0.91 32,320 1,039,000
0.60 26,720,000 1.03 27,440 882,000
0.70 20,030,000 1.15 23,110 743,000
0.80 15,030,000 1.29 19,390 623,000
0.90 11,450,000 1.43 16,350 526,000
1.00 8,870,000 1.57 13,910 447,000
1.10 6,990,000 1.71 11,940 384,000
1.20 5,560,000 1.85 10,300 331,000
1.30 4,490,000 2.00 8,960 288,000
Table 1-3: Dolphin Zone Inferred Resource within Conceptual Pit
Grade > Cut-off

Tonnes
Au Cut-off
(g/t)
0.20 95,920,000 0.58 55,350 1,779,000

0.25 82,910,000 0.63 52,400 1,685,000
0.30 71,500,000 0.69 49,260 1,584,000
0.35 61,640,000 0.75 46,050 1,480,000
0.40 52,690,000 0.81 42,730 1,374,000
0.50 38,800,000 0.94 36,510 1,174,000
0.60 28,710,000 1.08 30,980 996,000
0.70 21,700,000 1.22 26,450 850,000
0.80 16,910,000 1.35 22,880 736,000
0.90 12,890,000 1.51 19,460 626,000
1.00 10,090,000 1.67 16,820 541,000
1.10 8,350,000 1.80 15,000 482,000
1.20 7,050,000 1.92 13,500 434,000
1.30 5,880,000 2.05 12,050 387,000
May 2016 1-6

Table 1-4 and Table 1-5 show the resource present above the oxide surface, within the Conceptual Pit
while Table 1-6 and Table 1-7 show the resource present below the oxide surface again within the
Conceptual Pit.
Table 1-4: Oxide Zone Indicated Resource within Conceptual Pit
Grade > Cut-off

Tonnes
Au Cut-off
(g/t)
0.20 22,520,000 0.55 12,270 395,000

0.25 18,960,000 0.61 11,490 369,000
0.30 16,180,000 0.66 10,730 345,000
0.35 13,990,000 0.72 10,020 322,000
0.40 12,160,000 0.77 9,340 300,000
0.50 9,180,000 0.87 8,000 257,000
0.60 6,850,000 0.98 6,730 216,000
0.70 5,030,000 1.10 5,550 178,000
0.80 3,700,000 1.23 4,560 147,000
0.90 2,800,000 1.36 3,790 122,000
1.00 2,100,000 1.49 3,130 101,000
1.10 1,650,000 1.61 2,660 85,000
1.20 1,330,000 1.72 2,290 74,000
1.30 1,040,000 1.86 1,930 62,000
Table 1-5: Oxide Zone Inferred Resource within Conceptual Pit
Grade > Cut-off

Tonnes
Au Cut-off
(g/t)
0.20 14,660,000 0.47 6,950 223,000

0.25 11,810,000 0.53 6,310 203,000
0.30 9,620,000 0.59 5,700 183,000
0.35 8,120,000 0.64 5,220 168,000
0.40 6,910,000 0.69 4,770 154,000
0.50 4,940,000 0.79 3,890 125,000
0.60 3,360,000 0.90 3,020 97,000
0.70 2,330,000 1.01 2,360 76,000
0.80 1,690,000 1.11 1,880 61,000
0.90 1,160,000 1.23 1,430 46,000
1.00 720,000 1.41 1,020 33,000
1.10 510,000 1.57 800 26,000
1.20 360,000 1.75 630 20,000
1.30 270,000 1.91 510 17,000
May 2016 1-7

Table 1-6: Sulfide Zone Indicated Resource within Conceptual Pit
Grade > Cut-off

Au Cut-off Tonnes >Cut-off
Au Contained
(g/t) (tonnes)
(g/t) kg Au oz Au
0.20 60,130,000 0.59 35,360 1,137,000

0.25 52,180,000 0.64 33,550 1,079,000
0.30 45,280,000 0.70 31,650 1,018,000
0.35 39,470,000 0.76 29,800 958,000
0.40 34,530,000 0.81 27,930 898,000
0.50 26,410,000 0.92 24,300 781,000
0.60 19,870,000 1.04 20,720 666,000
0.70 14,990,000 1.17 17,550 564,000
0.80 11,330,000 1.31 14,820 476,000
0.90 8,650,000 1.45 12,550 404,000
1.00 6,770,000 1.59 10,780 347,000
1.10 5,340,000 1.74 9,280 298,000
1.20 4,230,000 1.89 8,010 257,000
1.30 3,450,000 2.04 7,030 226,000
Table 1-7: Sulfide Zone Inferred Resource within Conceptual Pit
Grade > Cut-off

Au Cut-off Tonnes >Cut-off
Au Contained
(g/t) (tonnes)
(g/t) kg Au oz Au
0.20 81,260,000 0.60 48,350 1,554,000

0.25 71,100,000 0.65 46,070 1,481,000
0.30 61,880,000 0.70 43,560 1,401,000
0.35 53,520,000 0.76 40,840 1,313,000
0.40 45,780,000 0.83 37,950 1,220,000
0.50 33,860,000 0.96 32,610 1,048,000
0.60 25,360,000 1.10 27,970 899,000
0.70 19,360,000 1.24 24,080 774,000
0.80 15,210,000 1.38 20,990 675,000
0.90 11,730,000 1.54 18,040 580,000
1.00 9,370,000 1.69 15,810 508,000
1.10 7,840,000 1.81 14,200 456,000
1.20 6,700,000 1.93 12,900 415,000
1.30 5,610,000 2.06 11,530 371,000
May 2016 1-8

1.7 M INERAL P RO CESSING & M ETALLURGICAL T ESTING
1.7.1 Mineral Processing

Gold recovery from the Golden Summit deposit will come from two separate processing methods. Oxide
material will be crushed prior to loading onto a 10,000 tpd heap leach facility. The crushed oxide material
will then be leached with a sodium cyanide solution. Gold from the pregnant leachate solution will then
be recovered onto activated carbon and further refined in an elution/electrowinning circuit. The product
from the electrowinning cells will be further refined into gold doré. Oxide gold recoveries of 80% are
expected during operation.
Sulfide material containing gold will be processed in a 10,000 tpd bio-oxidation plant. The sulfide material
will be processed by crushing and grinding the material prior to flotation and bio-oxidation of the sulfide
concentrate. The oxidized slurry will be sent to a carbon-in-leach (CIL) circuit for cyanide leaching and
recovery onto activated carbon. Gold loaded onto the activated carbon will then be recovered in the
same elution circuit used for the oxide material, to produce gold doré. Sulfide gold recoveries of 90% are
expected during operation.
1.7.2 Metallurgical Testing

Sample composites from five different rock types were taken from various drill core for metallurgical
testing. The five composites were subjected to over 60 cyanidation tests to investigate gold recoveries
using various methods of sulfide oxidation and cyanidation. A total of 36 coarse bottle roll tests were also
completed to define parameters for a single column leach test to simulate heap leaching conditions for
the Oxide material. In addition to the leach tests, the five composites had Bond Ball Mill Work Indices
conducted to determine comminution requirements. Head analyses for gold, silver, and sulfur were also
conducted. Major conclusions from the test program include:
• Golden Summit oxide material leaches rapidly and achieves good recoveries under standard
heap leaching parameters;
• Sulfide material responds favorably to multiple methods of oxidation and cyanidation;
• Gold recoveries greater than 80% were observed from the column tests; and
• Gold recoveries greater than 90% were observed from sulfide oxidation testwork.
1.8 M INING M ETHO DS

Due to the pit containing both sulfide and oxide material, there will be two methods of processing. Two
sets of cut-off values were calculated; breakeven cut-off and the internal cut-off were calculated using
$1,300/oz Au price for both the oxide material and the sulfide material. The oxide mine plan used a
breakeven cut-off grade of 0.182 g/t Au, and an internal cut-off grade of 0.132 g/t Au. The sulfide mine
plan used a breakeven cut-off grade of 0.611 g/t Au, and an internal cut-off grade of 0.566 g/t Au. The
oxide will be processed via heap leach, while the sulfide will be processed through a plant. The mine has
been scheduled to provide up to 3.5 million tonnes per year (Mtpy) of each material type. Oxide is mined
in the early years, as it forms a cap over the sulfide material. Years in the middle of the production
schedule have an overlap of oxide and sulfide production prior to completion of oxide mining. A detailed
pit design was created using the pit optimizer cones as guidelines. The phases within the ultimate pit
were developed to enhance the Project by scheduling higher-value material earlier in the mine life.
May 2016 1-9

Oxide material will be mined and processed exclusively for the first eight years of the mine production. A
small amount of sulfide material will be mined before year eight; this sulfide material (approximately
800,000 tonnes) will be stockpiled until the end of mine life. In year nine, the sulfide material comes
online for production. Mining of the oxide material will continue through year 14 of the 24-year mine life.
Mining of sulfide material will continue from year nine through the end of the 24 -year mine life.
During production, both oxide and sulfide material will be transported from the pit to the primary crusher
located near the pit exit. After primary crushing, oxide and sulfide material will be transported by
conveyor to its respective process area. The oxide will be leach processed in an area to the southeast of
the pit, while the sulfide will be processed northwest of the pit.
Waste will be hauled by truck to the Mine Rock Storage Facility (MRSF). The MRSF has been designed to
permanently contain the overburden and waste material associated with the pit. The current MRSF
design, located to the northeast of the pits, is built around the hill. The MRSF was designed with a buffer
around the nearby creeks. The total MRSF design will contain 100% of the expected waste material
planned to be generated - approximately 239 million tonnes of swelled material.
The mine has been planned using diesel blasthole drills, large haul trucks and rope shovels. Primary mine
production is achieved using 64 Mt payload rope shovels along with 227 Mt payload haul trucks. The
drills, shovels and haul trucks selected for the Project are scheduled to operate around the clock and
require four crews on 12-hour shifts for complete shift coverage.
1.9 I NFRASTRUCTURE
The following key infrastructure will support the mine and process facilities:
• From Fairbanks, Alaska the Project lies approximately 29 km (18 miles) northeast via State
Highway 2 and State Highway 6 (the Steese Highway). The site holds a series of gravel roads
which allow access to most areas of the property on a year-round basis. Fairbanks is served
by the Alaska Railroad, and is connected to Anchorage and Whitehorse, Canada by well-
maintained paved highways.
• Heap leach pad and solution storage;
• Conventional slurry tailings storage facility to serve the sulfide processing facility;
• Processing, truck shop, warehouse, and administration buildings;
• Substation and power distribution; and
• Potable water, fire water and sewage treatment systems.
Fairbanks and its surrounding area serves as the regional service and supply center for interior Alaska and
comprises a total population of approximately 100,000. Labor will come from the Fairbanks area where
there is ready access to trained personnel. In addition the State of Alaska allows $20M of exploration
expenditures to be carried forward and recovered against State taxes due. The general site layout is
provided in Figure 1-2.
May 2016 1-10

478,000N
479,000N
480,000N
481,000N
482,000N
483,000N
484,000N
485,000N
GOLDEN SUMMIT PROPERTY BOUNDARY
7,218,000N ACCESS
7,218,000N
ROAD
STEESE TAILINGS
HWY CORRIDOR TAILINGS
STORAGE
FACILITY
STORM WATER
PONDS
PROCESS
PLANT AREA
7,217,000N 7,217,000N
PROCESS PLANT
POWER ACCESS ROAD
LINE
ALASKA
SULFIDE
CONVEYOR
PERIMETER FENCE
PRIMARY
CRUSHER ULTIMATE MRSF
STEESE PIT
HWY CORRIDOR
7,216,000N HAUL ROAD 7,216,000N
HEAP LEACH
AREA
ULTIMATE PIT
STORM WATER
Y:\A-G\Freegold Ventures Limited\114-910054 - Golden Summit Project PEA\110-2D CADD\Mining_MASTER.dwg, SNYDER, JEREMY, 3/10/2016 1:15 PM
PONDS
484,000N
485,000N
OXIDE
AD
CONVEYOR R
PL
AN
PERIMETER FENCE T
PLS EXTRACTION
ADR WELLS
FACILITY
7,215,000N 7,215,000N
HEAP LEACH
ALASKA
CORRIDOR
LEACH AREA
ACCESS ROAD

200 0 200 400 600 800
SCALE IN METERS
477,000N
478,000N
479,000N
480,000N
481,000N
482,000N
483,000N
ENGINEER'S SEAL Scale: As Noted Issued for: Issued by:
Designed by: TETRA TECH
Drawn by:
Checked by:
L. AGA
E. LIPS
GOLDEN SUMMIT PROJECT B
Approved by: V. SCHARNHORST GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
THE CONTENT OF THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT INTENDED FOR THE USE OF, NOR IS IT
INTENDED TO BE RELIED UPON BY ANY PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION OTHER
TETRA TECH REVISION
THAN THE CLIENT AND TETRA TECH. TETRA TECH DENIES ANY LIABILITY
EDIT TO MRSF JS 03/2016 WHATSOEVER TO OTHER PARTIES FOR DAMAGES OR INJURY SUFFERED BY SUCH
Project: Project no.:
B THIRD PARTY ARISING FROM THE USE OF THIS DOCUMENT BY THEM, WITHOUT GOLDEN SUMMIT PROJECT
A EDIT TO MRSF LA 12/2015 THE EXPRESSED WRITTEN AUTHORITY OF TETRA TECH AND OUR CLIENT. THIS 114-910054
Rev Description BY Date
DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO FURTHER RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY THE CONTRACT
BETWEEN THE CLIENT AND TETRA TECH AND THESE PARTIES PERMISSION MUST
BE SOUGHT REGARDING THIS DOCUMENT IN ALL OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES.
PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
Location: Date:
FIGURE 1-2
REFERENCE REVISIONS FAIRBANKS MINING DISTRICT, ALASKA March/2016
1.10 E NVIRONMENTAL S TUDIES , P ERMITTING & S OCIAL OR C OMMUNITY I MPACT
The Project area lies within the Cleary Creek watershed and in addition to Cleary Creek, includes the
drainages of Willow Creek, Bedrock Creek, Chatham Creek, Fairbanks Creek, Too Much Gold Creek, and
Wolf Creek. The Cleary Creek basin is tributary to the Chatanika River. To date, a limited amount of
baseline environmental data have been collected in the Project area to characterize water resources,
water quality, wetlands, aquatic resources, on-site meteorology, subsistence use and cultural resources.
An evaluation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) concerning the historic
status of a former ski area within the Project area has been conducted by the Alaska State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO). Additionally, an initial evaluation of waste rock geochemistry has also been
conducted.
Baseline environmental data will be required including on-the-ground studies to delineate jurisdictional
wetlands. These data will be required to meet a number of needs including permitting and mine design
and location of facilities, mine construction and operations. Freegold has initiated consultation with the
State’s Large Mine Permitting Team (LMPT) to begin the process of project planning, development and
environmental permitting. Through this process, the LMPT will assist in developing a broader
environmental baseline program.
1.11 C APITAL & O PERATING C OSTS
1.11.1 Capital Costs

Life of mine (LoM) capital cost requirements are estimated at $437 million as summarized in Table 1-8.
Initial capital of $88 million is required to commence operations and a sustaining capital of $348 million.
Table 1-8: LoM Capital Costs

Initial Sustaining LoM
Description
($000s) ($000s) ($000s)
Direct Costs
10 Mining $39,744 $110,784 $150,528
20 Crushing & SAG Mill Circuits $3,921 $9,884 $13,805
30 Heap Leach (Oxide) $11,410 $23,723 $35,133
40 Process Plant (Sulfide) $0 $27,894 $27,894
50 Tailings Storage Facility $0 $67,774 $67,774
60 Infrastructure $10,131 $11,000 $21,131
70 Construction $12,095 $56,903 $68,998
Direct Costs $77,301 $307,962 $385,263
Indirect Costs
800 Construction Indirects $456 $2,232 $2,688
810 Spares & Inventory $342 $1,674 $2,016
820 First Fills $342 $1,674 $2,016
830 Freight & Logistics $799 $2,789 $3,588
840 Commissioning & Start-Up $342 $1,674 $2,016
850 EPCM $1,369 $4,184 $5,553
860 Vendor & Consulting Assistance $228 $1,116 $1,344
Indirect Costs $3,879 $15,342 $19,221
90 Owner's Costs $7,240 $24,984 $32,224
Total Capital $88,420 $348,288 $436,708
May 2016 1-12

The open pit mine utilizes some leased mobile equipment. Leases are capitalized during the
preproduction period, then reported in the operating costs during the production.
1.11.2 Operating Costs

LoM operating costs are summarized in Table 1-9. Open pit mining costs, as reported in this table, do not
include the lease costs. Lease unit costs are shown separately.
Table 1-9: LoM Operating Costs
Description $/t-moved $/t-Mined $/oz-gold

Mining $3.04 $10.56 $441.68
Mining Lease - $1.06 $44.53
Crushing Circuit - $0.91 $38.10
Heap Leach (Oxide) - $1.20 $50.18
Process Plant (Sulfide) - $4.44 $185.59
Tailings Storage Facility - $0.12 $4.96
Infrastructure - $0.31 $13.09
Direct Operating Cost - $18.60 $778.13
Property Tax - $0.15 $6.10
Mining License Tax - $0.57 $23.74
Operating Cost - $19.31 $807.97
Refining charges, transportation, and royalties are not included in the operating cost estimate.
1.12 E CONOMIC A NALYSIS

The following preliminary economic assessment analysis includes inferred mineral resources which
are considered too speculative geologically to have economic considerations applied to them,
and are therefore not categorized as mineral reserves. There is no certainty that the
preliminary economic assessment will be realized.
Project cost estimates and economics are prepared on an annual basis. Based upon design criteria
presented in this report, the level of accuracy of the estimate is considered ±35%.
Project economics are based primarily on inputs developed in the preliminary economic assessment.
Economic results suggest the following conclusions:
• Mine Life: 24 years;

• Pre-Tax NPV5%: $213 million; IRR: 20.0%;
• Post-Tax NPV5%: $188 million; IRR: 19.6%;
• Payback (Post-Tax): 3.3 years;
• Federal Income Taxes Paid: $58 million;
• State Income Tax Paid: $21 million;
• Mining License Tax Paid: $55 million;
• Cash costs of $842/oz; and
• Initial project capital of $88 million, sustaining project capital of $348 million, and total project
capital of $437 million.
May 2016 1-13

1.13 I NTERPRETATIONS & C ONCLUSIONS
1.13.1 Geology
Three main rock units underlie the Property, including rocks of the Fairbanks Schist, rocks of the Chatanika
Terrane, and intrusive rocks (Figure 7-2). The Fairbanks Schist and Chatanika Terrane have both been
subjected to one or more periods of regional metamorphism. The intrusive bodies are post-
metamorphism. Chatanika Terrane rocks are found structurally above the Fairbanks Schist and north of
the Chatanika Thrust fault and comprise the northernmost portion of the property. Intrusive rocks are
relatively minor on the Property, and are primarily represented by the Dolphin stock, although small
granitic dikes are known in several locations.
The Dolphin stock is located on the ridge between Bedrock and Willow Creek. Initial diamond core logging
identified five intrusive phases within the Dolphin stock, including: 1) fine- to medium-grained,
equigranular to weakly porphyritic biotite granodiorite; 2) fine- to medium-grained, equigranular to
weakly porphyritic hornblende-biotite tonalite; 3) fine-grained biotite granite porphyry; 4) fine-grained
biotite rhyolite to rhyodacite porphyry; and 5) rare fine-grained, chlorite-altered mafic dikes (Adams and
Giroux, 2012).
Limited drill data suggests the north and west contacts of the Dolphin stock are fault contacts (Adams and
Giroux, 2012). The south and east contacts are largely intrusive contacts with minor faulting
1.13.2 Mining
Mine production constraints were imposed to ensure that mining wasn’t overly aggressive with respect
to the equipment anticipated for use at the Project. The schedule has been produced using mill targets
and stockpiling strategies to enhance the project economics. The constraints and limits used are
reasonable to support the project economics.
Pit designs were created using 10 m benches for mining with a catch bench every level. This corresponds
to the resource model block heights, and Tetra Tech believes this to be reasonable with respect to mining
loss and the equipment anticipated to be used in mining.
1.13.3 Groundwater Hydrogeology

Estimates of groundwater conditions at the project site are based on records from existing groundwater
wells at and near the Project site and on conditions observed at the Fort Knox mine, which is
approximately 5 km (3 mi) to the south of the project site and is considered to provide a good
representation of the conditions at the project site.
Groundwater is expected to be present in two units: unconsolidated deposits consisting of alluvium and
dredge tailings along the valley floors, and fractured bedrock throughout the property. The degree of
bedrock fracturing, and therefore the hydraulic conductivity, are expected to be highly variable. Reported
depths to groundwater in nearby water wells ranged from 2.1 m (6.9 ft) below the land surface in the
valley bottoms to 68.6 m (225 ft) below the land surface in upland areas. Reported yields of water supply
wells ranged from 16 to 491 m3/day (3 to 90 gpm), and dewatering wells at the Fort Knox mine were
reported to have capacities up to approximately 1,000 m3/day (183 gpm). Groundwater flow on a local
scale is anticipated to be from bedrock in the upland areas toward the valleys and thence down-valley in
May 2016 1-14

the alluvial deposits or dredge tailings. Regional-scale groundwater flow cannot be determined from
available data.
Planned open pit mining at the property would extend below the water table, and dewatering would be
required for maintaining pit wall stability and dry conditions within the pit. Because of weather
conditions, a well system would likely be the most feasible dewatering method. The mine pit would
intersect the water approximately six months to one year after the start of mining, but dewatering would
need to start earlier in order for the pumping effects to extend throughout the required area. The
estimated annual average pumping rate was approximately 410 m3/day (75 gpm) initially, increased to
approximately 4,460 m3/day (818 gpm) by the third year of mining, declined slightly through the eighth
year of mining, and then increased gradually to approximately 6,600 m3/day (1,210 gpm) near the end of
the mine life. The number of wells required for dewatering is estimated to range from two initially to
16 later in the mine life.
Data would need to be collected to characterize the site-specific hydrogeologic conditions and develop
site-specific designs for dewatering.
1.13.4 Metallurgy & Process

Sufficient metallurgical testwork has been completed on samples from the Project deposit to determine
the preferred processing methods to recover gold from oxide and sulfide materials at a PEA level study.
The oxide material was shown to be highly amenable to heap leaching. The testwork showed that
oxidation of the sulfide material was needed to achieve acceptable gold recoveries. The oxidation
methods tested were able to achieve acceptable recoveries, but high capital cost requirements made
those methods un-feasible for this PEA study. The processing method chosen for the sulfide material was
bio-oxidation followed by cyanide leaching. While bio-oxidation testwork has not been performed on the
deposit material, the high recoveries achieved throughout the testwork indicate that the sulfide material
would be amenable to bio-oxidation.
1.13.5 Environmental
Development of the project will require extensive environmental baseline analyses, assessment of
environmental impacts and evaluation, and associated permitting requirements reflective of the direct,
indirect and cumulative impacts associated with full project build-out, and the sensitive environment in
which it is to be constructed. The complexity of the environmental impact review and permitting of the
various facilities will be dependent on siting of facilities in relationship to the various creeks and valleys
surrounding the project development target areas. This PEA provides preliminary siting information of
facilities such as tailings disposal, waste rock, and leach pads. Baseline and environmental studies that
will be required to move the project toward permitting can now be planned, implemented, and modified
as necessary as the project progresses through the prefeasibility and feasibility planning process.
Required environmental data for this Project will include on-the-ground studies to delineate jurisdictional
wetlands. These data will be required to meet a number of needs including permitting, mine design,
location of facilities, mine construction and operations. Freegold has initiated consultation with the
State’s Large Mine Permitting Team (LMPT) to begin the process of project planning, development and
environmental permitting. Through this process the LMPT will assist in developing a broader
environmental baseline program.
May 2016 1-15

1.14 R ECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results of the PEA, and the resultant economic evaluation, it is recommended that this study
be followed by a preliminary feasibility study in order to further assess the economic viability of the
Project. Additional drilling, metallurgical testing, environmental analyses, other permitting and property
confirmation activities will need to be undertaken as part of this next level of study. The approximate
cost of this study is estimated at $700,000.
Detailed recommendations are provided in Section 26.0 of this report.
May 2016 1-16

2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 B ACKGRO UND I NFORMATION

Freegold Ventures Limited (Freegold) retained Tetra Tech, Inc. (Tetra Tech) to prepare this Technical
Report for the Golden Summit Project (the Project) in the Fairbanks Mining District, Alaska. The purpose
of this Report is to provide Freegold with an independent opinion of the technical aspects of the Project
and make recommendations for future work.
The data from Abrams and Giroux (2012) was reviewed and validated by the authors and subsequent new
information generated by Freegold was evaluated and incorporated in this report.
The authors have been provided documents, maps, reports and analytical results by Freegold.
Additionally, Freegold personnel ― Kristina Walcott, President and CEO and Alvin Jackson, Vice President,
Exploration and Development ― accompanied the authors to the property May 25 and 26, 2012, and on
May 6, 2014 and discussed the geology and explained the past and proposed exploration activities. During
these visits the authors reviewed the geology, areas of historical activities, claim corners/locations
monument locations, drillholes, open cuts and other pertinent features of the property. The authors also
reviewed core in Freegold’s Fairbanks core storage facility.
The work completed by Freegold, along with historical data available to the authors, forms the basis of
this report. These data include reports from previous operators, including but not limited to, annual,
monthly, operations, geological, engineering, metallurgy and production reports as well as new
metallurgical testwork.
2.2 T ERMS OF R EFERENCE

This Report is prepared for Freegold by Tetra Tech, Inc. (Tetra Tech), Mark Abrams (Abrams) and Giroux
Consultants Ltd. (Giroux Consultants).
This Technical Report has been prepared in accordance with Section 4.2(1)(j)(ii) of Canadian National
Instrument 43-101 - Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (NI 43-101); and in accordance with the
Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM) Definition Standards for Mineral Resources
and Mineral Reserves, prepared by the CIM Standing Committee on Reserve Definitions, adopted by the
CIM Council on May 10, 2014; and in accordance with the Canadian Securities Administrators Staff
Notice 43-307, dated August 16, 2012. CIM defines a “preliminary economic assessment” (PEA) as a study,
other than a pre-feasibility or feasibility study, that includes an economic analysis of the potential viability
of mineral resources. By definition, the PEA is preliminary in nature, and includes Inferred Mineral
Resources that are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied
to them that would enable them to be categorized as Mineral Reserves; and as such, there is no certainty
that the PEA would be realized. The reason there are no Mineral Reserves is because reserves require a
positive prefeasibility study of the indicated resource estimates, and the Project has not reached that
stage of advancement.
The quality of information, conclusions, and estimates contained herein is consistent with the level of
effort based on: i) information available at the time of preparation, ii) data supplied by outside sources,
and iii) the assumptions, conditions, and qualifications set forth in this Report.
May 2016 2-1

2.3 S COPE OF W ORK
The scope of work conducted by Tetra Tech per the request of Freegold was the development of a PEA
Study that evaluates a three-phase open pit and a two-phase process operation. This Report is based on
the May 31, 2013 Resource estimate.
2.4 S OURCES OF I NFORMATION & D ATA

Principal technical documents and files relating to the Project, used in the preparation of this Report, are
listed in Section 27.0.
2.5 U NITS OF M EASURE

Unless otherwise noted, all costs contained in this report are denominated in United States (U.S.) dollars
(US$1.00 = CDN$1.00), which would likely be $1.30 or better.
All units of measurement used in this report are metric unless otherwise stated. Historical grade and
tonnage are reported as originally published. Gold grades are reported as referenced and conversion
factors are listed below. The Project site is on the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate
system, NAD 27 Alaska, Fairbanks Meridian (F.M.).
2.6 D ETAILED P ERSONAL I NSPECTIONS

1. Mark J. Abrams visited the property on May 25 and 26, 2012.
2. Jackie Blumberg has not visited or inspected the property.
3. Gary Giroux has not visited or inspected the property.
4. Chris Johns has not visited or inspected the property.
5. Ed Lips has visited and inspected the property on May 6, 2014.
6. Nick Michael has not visited or inspected the property.
7. Dave Richers has visited and inspected the property on May 6, 2014.
8. Vicki Scharnhorst has visited and inspected the property on May 6, 2014.
9. Erik Spiller has not visited or inspected the property.
10. Keith Thompson has not visited or inspected the property.
May 2016 2-2

3.0 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS
The Consultants used their experience to determine if the information from previous reports was suitable
for inclusion in this Technical Report and adjusted information as required. This Report includes technical
information, which required subsequent calculations to derive subtotals, totals, and weighted averages.
Such calculations inherently involve a degree of rounding and consequently introduce a margin of error.
Where these occur, the Consultants do not consider them to be material.
May 2016 3-1

4.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
4.1 L OCATION
The Golden Summit Property (the Property) is located 18 miles (32 km) by road northeast of the City of
Fairbanks, Alaska, United States of America. It is located in the north portion of the Fairbanks Mining
District (Figure 4-1), a northeast trending belt of lode and placer gold deposits that compose one of the
largest gold producing areas in the state of Alaska.
The Property comprises 50 patented claims, 94 unpatented federal claims (managed by the U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM)), and 268 State of Alaska claims (managed
by the State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR)) and covers a total area of 14,630 acres
(5,921 hectares). The Property is situated in Township 3N, Ranges 1E, 2E, and 3E of the Fairbanks
Meridian, centered at approximately 479250 E, 7215464 N (UTM Zone 6 NAD 27 Alaska).
4.2 C LAIMS & A G REEMENTS

No annual payments or work are required by law in connection with patented federal mining claims.
Annual claim maintenance fees or rents for unpatented federal claims or state claims vary according to
the type of claims, claim size, and age, are adjusted every five to ten years, and are due and payable by
August 31 of each year (for unpatented federal claims) and November 30 of each year (for state claims).
Annual maintenance fees and rents that currently must be paid to maintain the claims in good standing
are $14,570 (BLM) and $42,450 (DNR). No minimum amount of work is required by law to be performed
on or for the benefit of the unpatented federal claims to maintain them in good standing. To maintain
state claims in good standing, however, at least $2.50 per acre per year of work must be performed on or
for the benefit of state claims, though work performed in excess of the minimum may be carried forward
and used to satisfy future work requirements for up to four years. All unpatented federal claims and state
claims included in the Property currently are in good standing with the BLM or DNR (as the case may be),
with excess work banked the maximum four years into the future.
Other than the 50 patented mining claims (fee simple lands), claims included in the Project have not been
surveyed by a registered land or mineral surveyor and there is no State or federal law or regulation
requiring such surveying. Survey plats for the townships in which the Project is situated and for all
patented mining claims are open to public inspection at the BLM.
Freegold currently holds a valid Five Year Hardrock Exploration Permit from the State of Alaska (2012-
2016) as well as a Department of Army Permit POA-2007-510; which authorizes APMA 9726, a Hard Rock
Exploration permit to conduct exploration at the Project. The land on which the Project is situated is
zoned as Mineral Land by the Fairbanks North Star Borough, giving mineral development activities first
priority use. But as the Project moves forward, additional permits and approvals will need to be acquired
from federal, state, and local regulatory agencies. Freegold also expects that it will need or desire to
acquire certain additional property rights. For example, depending on how the Project moves forward,
Freegold may need or wish (a) to extend or amend one or more of the agreements described in
Sections 4.2.1-4.2.7, (b) to purchase or lease the undivided 50% interest that it does not currently own or
control in two claims (unless Freegold were to acquire this outstanding 50% interest, Freegold will need
to account to the co-owner of this claim for its “fair share of the profits” from such claims), (c) to include
additional lands in its MHT lease described in Section 4.2.6 below, or (d) to acquire certain surface rights
from DNR or other third parties.
May 2016 4-1

Figure 4-2 shows the current land status and extent of the Property. A summary of the claims held by
Freegold is shown in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1: Summary of Claims Comprising the Golden Summit Property
Claim Type Total Claims Total Area (sq. mi) Total Area (acres) Total Area (hectares)
Federal Patented 50 1.08 693.6 280.6
Federal Unpatented 94 2.93 1,880 760.8
State of Alaska 268 24.44 15,640 6,329.28
Total 412 28.45 18,213.62 7,370.68
The agreements under which Freegold holds non-owned claims are summarized below. Total acreage under claim is
greater than total area as there are overlapping state and federal claims.
Some of the claims included in the Project are owned outright by Freegold; others are held by Freegold
under long-term leases. Claims included in the Project are subject to various NSR royalties ranging from
2% to 5%, and all state claims are subject to a royalty payable to the State of Alaska equal to 3% of net
income.
For the claims included in the Project that are subject to long-term leases, Freegold is required to make
lease and/or payments as per the following schedules.
A complete list of claims is available at the end of the section.
May 2016 4-2

GOLDEN SUMMIT
PROJECT
True North
Gold Mine
Fort Knox
Gold Mine
Nome MAP AREA

Fairbanks
Anchorage
Freegold Ventures Limited Fig4-1_Location.dwg FIGURE 4-1

TETRA TECH Golden Summit Project GOLDEN SUMMIT PROJECT
350 Indiana Street, Suite 500 Preliminary Economic Assessment 114-910054
Golden, Colorado 80401
(303) 217-5700 (303) 217-5705 fax GENERAL LOCATION MAP
Fairbanks Mining District, Alaska March/2016
4.2.1 Keystone Claims
On May 17, 1992, Freegold entered into an agreement with Keystone whereby Freegold agreed to make
payments of $15,000 per year. In May 2000, the agreement was renegotiated and on October 15, 2000,
a $50,000 signing bonus was paid. On November 30, 2001, Freegold restructured the payments.
Table 4-2: Keystone Claims Royalty Payments
Time Period Amount ($) Status

1992 – 1998
$105,000 (paid)
(US$15,000 per year)
($25,000 paid in cash and $25,000
2000 $50,000
with 9,816 treasury shares issued)
2001 – 2006
$300,000 (paid)
(US$50,000 per year)
2007 $150,000 (paid)
(paid $75,000 in 2008 with the remaining $75,000
2008 $150,000
paid in 2009, subject to a payment extension)
2009 $150,000 (paid)
2010 $150,000 (paid)
2011 $150,000 (paid)
2012 $150,000 (paid)
2013 $150,000 (paid)
2014 $150,000 (paid)
$75,000 paid to date ($75,000 due August 1st, and
2015
November 1st – deferred
This property is subject to a 3% net smelter returns (NSR) royalty. Fifty percent (50%) of the payments
shall be credited against future production. In 2011 Freegold negotiated an extension of the Lease for so
long as there is either active exploration or production on the Project. In December 2015, Freegold re-
negotiated the lease to reduce the annual payments to $75,000 payable in two equal installments on
August 1 and November 1, until such time as the price of gold reaches $1,400 for a sustained period. In
addition Freegold will undertake to conduct $75,000 in exploration expenditures on the property as
consideration for the reduced payments.
4.2.2 Tolovana Claims

In May 2004, Freegold entered into an agreement with a third party (the “Seller”) whereby the Seller
transferred to Freegold 100% of the rights under a 20-year lease on this property.
Under the terms of the agreement, Freegold assumed all of the Seller’s obligations under the lease, which
include making annual payments of $1,000 per month for the first 23 months increasing to $1,250 per
month for the 24th to the 48th months and increasing to $1,500 after the 49th month and for the duration
of the lease. These payments are current.
This property is subject to a sliding scale NSR royalty as follows: 1.5% NSR if gold is below $300 per ounce,
2.0% NSR in the event the price of gold is between $300 to $400 per ounce, and 3.0% NSR in the event
that the price of gold is above $400 per ounce. Freegold has the right to purchase 100% of the rights to
May 2016 4-5

the property including the NSR for US $1 million, less any payments made to date. In addition, Freegold
made a cash payment of $7,500 on signing and issued 66,667 shares on regulatory approval. An additional
33,333 shares were to be issued within 30 days, if a minimum 200,000 ounce mineral resource being
calculated on the property if the resource was established in five years or less from the date of the
agreement. No resource was calculated during the prescribed time frame so these shares were not issued.
4.2.3 Newsboy Claims

By lease agreement dated February 28, 1986 and amended March 26, 1996, Freegold assumed the
obligation to make payments of $2,500 per year until 1996 (paid) and $5,000 per year until 2006 (paid).
During 2006, the Company renewed the existing lease term for an additional five years on the same terms
and conditions. In 2011 Freegold extended the lease for another five years through 2016 and the
payments increased to $12,000 per year. These payments are current. In addition Freegold has the
opportunity to further extend the lease for another 5 years by making a one-time payment of $50,000.
The claims are subject to a 4% NSR royalty. Freegold has the option to purchase the royalty for the greater
of the current value or $1,000,000, less all payments made.
4.2.4 Green Claims

By lease agreement dated December 16, 2010, Freegold acquired from Christina Mining Company, LLC
(CMC) certain mineral claims known as the Green Property. The property is controlled by Freegold through
a long-term lease agreement. The claims are subject to a 3% NSR royalty. Commencing in December 2014
all annual payments shall be credited against future production. Freegold must make annual cash
payments and exploration expenditures as shown in Table 4-3.
Table 4-3: Green Claims Royalty Payments
Time Period Payments Exploration Expenditures

1 December 2010 $100,000 (paid) -
1 December 2011 $100,000 (paid) $250,000 (completed)
1 December 2014 $100,000 (paid) $1,000,000 (completed)
1 December 2015 to 2019 $100,000 per year -
1 December 2020 to 2029 $200,000 per year -
Total $3,000,000 $2,500,000 (completed)
In December 2015, an amendment was signed to reduce the annual advance royalty for 2015 to US
$50,000 and payment was deferred until March 31st, 2016.
May 2016 4-6

4.2.5 Chatham Claims
Freegold holds certain mineral claims known as the Chatham Property. The property is controlled by
Freegold through a four-year lease agreement. The claims are subject to a 2% NSR royalty. Freegold must
make annual cash payments and exploration expenditures as follows.
Table 4-4: Chatham Claims Royalty Payments
Time Period Payments Exploration

Expenditures
11 July 2011 $20,000 (paid) -
11 July 2012 $30,000 (paid) $50,000
11 July 2013 $40,000 (paid) $50,000
11 July 2014 $50,000 (waived) $50,000
11 July 2015 $50,000* $50,000
Total $140,000 $200,000
*By mutual agreement the July 2015 payment was deferred.
Freegold has the option to purchase one-half of the NSR representing 1% for $750,000. Freegold also has
the option to purchase the property for US$750,000, less the amount already paid.
4.2.6 Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority Land

Freegold entered into a long term lease agreement with the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority, Trust
Land Office (MHT) for land and minerals with an effective date of June 1, 2012 (and subsequently
amended twice increasing the acreage to 1,576 acres). With respect to the annual rental payments and
work commitments to be made for the amendments the date of execution of the amendment shall govern
the work and payment requirements. The property is controlled by Freegold through a three-year lease
agreement, which may be extended for two extensions of three years each. In 2015 a first extension of
the lease was granted. The land is subject to the following sliding scale royalty.
Table 4-5: MHT Sliding Scale Royalty
Price of Gold
Net Royalty
($/oz)
$500 – or below 1.0%
$500.01 - $700 2.0%
$700.01 - $900 3.0%
$900.01 - $1,200 3.5%
Above $1,200 4.5%
May 2016 4-7

Freegold must make annual cash payments and exploration expenditures as follows.
Time Period Annual Payments Exploration Expenditures
Execution of agreement $20,000 (paid) -

Years 1 -3 $10.00 per acre (paid) $125.00 per acre per year (completed)
Year 4-6 $15.00 per acre $235.00 per acre per year
Years 7-9 $20.00 per acre $355.00 per acre per year
4.2.7 Former Fairbanks Exploration Claims

In 1997, Freegold acquired certain claims from Fairbanks Exploration Inc (FEI), subject to a 7% carried
working interest held in trust by Freegold for FEI. After production is achieved, FEI must contribute 7% of
any future approved budget. The same claims are also subject to a 2% NSR payable to FEI. Freegold has
a 30-day right of first refusal in the event that the 7% carried working interest of FEI or the NSR is to be
sold. Freegold can also purchase the NSR at any time following the commencement of commercial
production, for a price equal to its then net present value (NPV) as determined in accordance with an
agreed upon formula.
May 2016 4-8

Table 4‐6: Claim List
NO. CLAIM NAME SECTION Township Range Meridian ADL #
1 Blueberry 21 T3N R2E Fairbanks 308497
2 Robin 1 28 T3N R2E Fairbanks 308498
8 Ing Fraction 22 T3N R2E Fairbanks 315014
9 Gene Fraction 22 T3N R2E Fairbanks 315015
10 Beta Fraction 22 T3N R2E Fairbanks 315016
11 Alpha Fraction 21,22 T3N R2E Fairbanks 315017
12 Arnold Fraction 22 T3N R2E Fairbanks 315018
Federal
No. Claim Name Section Township Range Meridian BLM F#
1 Alabama 30 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45603
2 Disc. on Bedrock Cr. 24,25 T3N R1E Fairbanks F45604
3 July #1 30 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45605
6 July Frac. #4 30 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45608
7 Liberty Lode #1 30 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45609
10 Millsite Fraction 30 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45612
11 New York Mineral 24,25 T3N R1E Fairbanks F45613
12 No Name 30 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45614
13 #1 Above Disc. on Bedrock Cr 30 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45615
14 Snow Drift 19 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45616
15 Texas 19 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45617
16 Wyoming Quartz 30 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45618
17 Wyoming Frac. 25 T3N R1E Fairbanks F45619
18 Button Weezer 27,28 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45620
19 Caribou Frac. 21,28 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45621
20 Caribou #1 21,22 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45622
21 Caribou #2 21,22 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45623
22 Fern 28 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45624
23 Free Gold 21 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45625
24 Henry Ford #1 28 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45626
28 Laughing Water 21 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45630
29 Little Jim 28 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45631
30 Minnie Ha Ha 21 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45632
31 Pennsylvania 21 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45633
32 Ruth Frac. 21 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45634
33 Speculator 28 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45635
34 Wolf Lode 20,21 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45636
35 Bonus 22 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45637
36 Don 15,22 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45638
37 Durando 22 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45639
38 Edythe 15,22 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45640
39 Flying Joe 22 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45641
40 Gold Point 22 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45642
41 Helen S. 23 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45643
42 Hi Yu 23 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45644
43 Hi Yu Millsite 23 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45645
44 Homestake 23 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45646
45 Inez 22 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45647
46 Insurgent #1 23 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45648
47 Insurgent #2 23 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45649
48 Julia 15, 22 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45650
49 Jumbo 22 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45651
50 Laura 22 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45652
51 Lillian 23 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45653
52 Long Shin 23 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45654
53 Mame 14,15 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45655
54 Mayflower 22,27 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45656
55 Mohawk 22 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45657
56 #1 Moose Gulch 23 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45658
57 #2 Moose Gulch 23 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45659
58 N.R.A. 15 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45660
59 Nars 22,23 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45661
60 O'Farrel Frac. 23 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45662
61 Ohio 22 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45663
62 Rand 23 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45664
63 Red Top 22 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45665
64 Rob 23 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45666
65 Royalty 15 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45667
66 Santa Clara Frac. 23 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45668
67 Summit 22,23 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45669
68 Sunnyside 22 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45670
69 Teddy R. 23 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45671
70 Yankee Doodle 23 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45672
71 Insurgent #3 14,23 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45673
72 Roy 23 T3N R2E Fairbanks F45674
Patented
No. Claim Name Section Township Range Meridian Pat. #
1 Freegold 19 T3N R2E Fairbanks MS821
2 Colorado 19,30 T3N R2E Fairbanks MS1639
3 California 19,30 T3N R2E Fairbanks MS1639
4 Pauper's Dream 30 T3N R2E Fairbanks MS1639
5 Idaho 30 T3N R2E Fairbanks MS1639
6 Keystone 20,21 T3N R2E Fairbanks MS1607
7 Kawalita 20,21 T3N R2E Fairbanks MS1607
8 Fairbanks 21 T3N R2E Fairbanks MS1607
9 Hope 21 T3N R2E Fairbanks MS1607
10 Willie 21 T3N R2E Fairbanks MS2198
11 Marigold 21,28 T3N R2E Fairbanks MS2198
12 Pioneer 21 T3N R2E Fairbanks MS2198
13 Henry Ford 21,28 T3N R2E Fairbanks MS2198
14 Henry Clay 21 T3N R2E Fairbanks MS2198
FREEGOLD
State
NO. Claim Name Section Township Range Meridian ADL #
1 FRG # 1 31 T3N R2E Fairbanks 558129
7 Erik 1 18 T3N R2E Fairbanks 574226
10 Kelly 1 27 T3N R2E Fairbanks 574122
16 Starbuck 1 16 T3N R3E Fairbanks 574128
20 Butterfly 1 33 T3N R3E Fairbanks 575583
22 Butterfly 3 33, 34 T3N R3E Fairbanks 575585
23 Butterfly 4 3, 4 T2N R3E Fairbanks 575586
28 Eldorado #1 27 T3N R1E Fairbanks 575591

29 Lauren #9 18 T3N R2E Fairbanks 604794
30 3 Above 2 T LL 18, 19 T3N R2E Fairbanks 519698
31 4 Above 2 T LL 18, 19 T3N R2E Fairbanks 519699
32 FRG 7 26 T3N R2E Fairbanks 714368
FRG 47 19 T3N R2E Fairbanks
73 FRG 48 24,25 T3N R1E Fairbanks 619291
FRG 48 19,30 T3N R2E Fairbanks
72 STARBUCKS 5 16 T3N R3E Fairbanks 717870
82 FRG 47 19,24,25 T3N 1E,2E Fairbanks 619290
83 FRG 48 19,24,25,30 T3N 1E,2E Fairbanks 619291
Patented Freegold
No. Claim Name Patent #
No. 9 Number Nine Above Discovery On
1 1687
Cleary Creek
Bench Claim No. 9 Above Discovery, Left
2 1671
Limit Cleary Creek
3 No. 8 Above Discovery On Cleary Creek 1670
5 No. 6 Above Discovery Cleary Creek 1670
Side Claim No. 8, Above Left Limit On
6 807
Cleary Creek, Placer
Side Claim No. 8, Above Left Limit, Cleary
7 524
Creek, Placer
Side Claim No. 8, Above Left Limit, Cleary
8 1968
Creek
No. 7 Above Discovery, 1st Tier, Left Limit
9 1968
Placer
Placer Mining Claim No. 6, 1st T.LL. Above
10 1972
Discovery on Cleary Creek Placer
Bench No. 5, Above Discovery On Left
11 367
Limit Cleary Creek
No. 5 Above Discovery L.L. First Tier,
14 836
Placer
The Lower Divided One Half of the Upper
15 One Half of Number 4 Above Left Limit 1793
Bench Placer
The Lower Half of Number 4 Above
16 1793
Discovery Creek Claim Placer
Claim No. Three (3) Above Discovery On
17 1793
Cleary Creek Placer
Fraction No. Three Above Discovery First
18 1793
Tier Left Limit Placer
No. 3 Above Discovery, First Tier, Left
19 1919
Limit on Cleary Creek, Placer
20 Discovery Placer 805
21 No. 1 Above Discovery 805
22 No. 2 Above Discovery 805
No. 2 Side Claim, Left Limit, Cleary Creek,
23 1798
Placer
24 No. Two Above Fraction Placer 1798
No. 1 One Above Discovery on the Left
25 1605
Limit of Cleary Creek, Placer
Discovery Bench Left Limit Cleary Creek,
26 1926
Placer
Side Claim on Right Limit of Discovery
27 1794
Cleary Creek, Placer
28 Discovery Claim on Wolf Creek Placer 1901
Bench Claim Right Limit Opposite
29 1920
Discovery on Wolf Placer
TOLOVANA
State
1 VDH‐AMS #1 25 T3N R1E Fairbanks 344681
Federal
1 Willow Creek #1 25, 26 T3N R1E Fairbanks 24963
2 Willow Creek #2 25 T3N R1E Fairbanks 24964
3 Willow Creek #3 25 T3N R1E Fairbanks 24965
4 Willow Ck. #1 Placer 25 T3N R1E Fairbanks 24966
FAIRBANKS EXPLORATION
State
1 What's Next #1 24 T3N R2E Fairbanks 501821
9 Crane #1 24 T3N R2E Fairbanks 502551
13 Anticline #1 24 T3N R2E Fairbanks 501825
14 Anticline #2 24 T3N R2E Fairbanks 501836
15 Ruby 3A Fraction 25 T3N R1E Fairbanks 515911
16 Ruby 4A Fraction 25 T3N R1E Fairbanks 515912
17 Ruby 5 Fraction 25 T3N R1E Fairbanks 515913
EHB LLC
State
No. Claim Name Section Township Range Meridian ADL #
1 Greenback 1 35 T3N R1E Fairbanks 359771
5 Newsboy 26 T3N R1E Fairbanks 333135
6 Newsboy Extension 25 T3N R1E Fairbanks 333136
CHATHAM (BURGGRAF)
Patented
No. Claim Name Section Township Range Meridian Pat #
1 Chatham #2 Lode 20, 29 T3N R2E Fairbanks 1713
2 Fey Lode 20, 29 T3N R2E Fairbanks 1713
3 Colby #2 Lode 29 T3N R2E Fairbanks 1713
4 Colby Lode 28, 29 T3N R2E Fairbanks 1713
5 Fay Claim #2 Lode 20, 28, 29 T3N R2E Fairbanks 1713
6 I.B. Claim 28 T3N R2E Fairbanks 1676
7 Margery Daw Claim 28, 29 T3N R2E Fairbanks 1676
CHRISTINA MINING LLC
Federal
1 Christina 20, T3N R2E Fairbanks F58503
2 Fraction #1 20, 21 T3N R2E Fairbanks F58504
3 Fraction #2 20, 21 T3N R2E Fairbanks F58505
4 Fraction #3 20 T3N R2E Fairbanks F58506
5 Carrie A 20 T3N R2E Fairbanks F58507
6 Carrie A #1 20 T3N R2E Fairbanks F58508
7 Carrie A #2 20 T3N R2E Fairbanks F58509
8 Grace E 20 T3N R2E Fairbanks F58510
9 Grace E #1 20 T3N R2E Fairbanks F58511
10 Grace E #2 20 T3N R2E Fairbanks F58512
11 Grace Eva #1 20 T3N R2E Fairbanks F58513
14 Wolf Lode #1 20, 21 T3N R2E Fairbanks F58516
15 Wolf Lode #2 20, 21 T3N R2E Fairbanks F58517
16 Fairbanks #1 21 T3N R2E Fairbanks F58518
State
1 RAM 1 17 T3N R2E Fairbanks 303366
44 RAM 2A 20 T3N R2E Fairbanks 302892
48 RAM 58B 19 T3N R2E Fairbanks 302896
49 RAM 58C 19 T3N R2E Fairbanks 302897
50 RAM 58D 19 T3N R2E Fairbanks 302898
51 RAM 58E 19 T3N R2E Fairbanks 302899
52 RAM 58F 20 T3N R2E Fairbanks 302900
53 RAM 58G 20 T3N R2E Fairbanks 302901
54 RAM 58H 20 T3N R2E Fairbanks 302902
55 RAM 58I 18 T3N R2E Fairbanks 302903
56 RAM 58J 20 T3N R2E Fairbanks 302904
57 RAM 58K 20 T3N R2E Fairbanks 302905
58 RAM 58L 20 T3N R2E Fairbanks 302906
59 VD 1 20 T3N R2E Fairbanks 302907
60 VD2 20 T3N R2E Fairbanks 302908
61 GOOSE 1 20 T3N R2E Fairbanks 342763
67 MOOSE FRACTION 1 23 T3N R2E Fairbanks 344966
71 OAKIE FRACTION 1 30 T3N R2E Fairbanks 342791
80 OLD GOLD 1 21 T3N R2E Fairbanks 322801
81 OLD GOLD FRACTION 2 21 T3N R2E Fairbanks 322802
89 OLD GOLD FRACTION 11A 22 T3N R2E Fairbanks 336671
116 RUBY 1 25 T3N R1E Fairbanks 354215
117 RUBY 2 FRACTION 25 T3N R1E Fairbanks 354216
120 WW FRACTION 1 20 T3N R2E Fairbanks 342778
126 WW 7 29 T3N R2E Fairbanks 342784
Mental Health Trust
TOTAL 1,576 Acres
NW1/4(Excluding portion of MS2376,
25 T3N R1E
MS2448 and ADL344682)
E1/2NE1/4 26 T3N R1E
87.5 Acres
(S1/2S1/2) 24 T3N R1E
(NW1/4NE1/4) 25 T3N R1E

92.12 Acres 25 T3N R1E
S1/2S1/2
11.3 Acres 19 T3N R2E

S1/2S1/2
1,173 Acres ‐ contained within
5 irregularly shaped parcels 26 T3N R1E
35 T3N R1E
portions of 28‐31 T3N R2E

5.0 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES,
INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY
5.1 A CCESSIBILITY
The Golden Summit Property (Property) is situated close to the city of Fairbanks, the second largest city
in Alaska (population of the greater Fairbanks area is approximately 100,000). Fairbanks serves as a major
population and supply center for the interior region of Alaska.
Access to the Property from Fairbanks is by 29 km of paved highway (Steese Highway). The Steese
Highway transects the Property and is connected to state and privately-maintained gravel roads which
allows easy access to most areas of the property on a year-round basis. A high voltage electrical power
line, land telephone lines, and a cellular phone net service the property.
5.2 C LIMATE
Sub-freezing temperatures are the norm in this region of Alaska during the six to eight months of winter.
Following winter, four to six months of warm summer weather prevails. Precipitation in this part of Alaska
averages 13 inches, occurring mostly as snowfall between October and March. Permafrost is
discontinuous throughout the area. Drilling is possible on a year-round basis on the Property.
5.3 L OCAL R ESO URCES

Fairbanks serves as the seat for the Fairbanks Northstar Borough, a region which supports a population of
approximately 100,000 and has excellent labor and services infrastructure, including rail and international
airport access. The Fairbanks International Airport is served by several major airlines with numerous
scheduled daily flights. Fairbanks is also served by the Alaska Railroad, and is connected to Anchorage
and Whitehorse, Canada by well-maintained paved highways.
The main campus of the University of Alaska is located in Fairbanks in addition to state and federal Offices.
Major employers within the Fairbanks Area include Fort Knox (Kinross), Fort Wainwright (U.S. Army), the
University of Alaska, as well as numerous state and federal Agencies. Exploration and development costs
in the Fairbanks area are similar to those common in the western United States.
5.4 P HYSIOGRAPHY
The terrain in the Project areas is composed of low, rounded hills cut by steep sided valleys and a number
of streams. Elevations on the property range from 1,000 feet (305 meters) to over 2,200 feet (670
meters). Outcrops are rare except in man-made exposures. Vegetation consists of a tundra mat that
supports subarctic vegetation (alder, willow, black spruce, aspen and birch). A variably thick layer of
aeolian silt covers most of the Property. Permafrost is limited to small discontinuous lenses on steep,
poorly drained north-facing slopes, and does not pose an obstacle to mining activities.
May 2016 5-1

6.0 HISTORY
Placer or lode gold mining has occurred almost continuously in the Project area since gold was discovered
in the district in 1902. Over 9.5 million ounces of placer gold have been recovered from the Fairbanks
Mining District, of which 6.75 million ounces have been recovered from streams that drain the Project
(Freeman, 1992e). In addition, over 506,000 ounces of lode gold were recovered from past producing
mines on the Project (Freeman and others, 1996). More than 80 lode gold occurrences have been
documented in the Project area. Recent exploration discoveries in the Tintina Gold Belt have underscored
the potential for bulk tonnage and high-grade deposits, both of which are known to exist in the Project
area (McCoy and others, 1997; Flanigan and others, 2000).
Freegold acquired an interest in the Project in mid-1991 and since then has conducted extensive geologic
mapping, soil sampling, trenching, rock sampling, geophysical surveys, core, reverse circulation, and
rotary air blast drilling on the project (Freeman, 1991; Galey and others, 1993; Freeman and others, 1996;
Freeman and others, 1998; Freeman, 2004; Freeman, 2005; Freeman, 2006 and Freeman, 2007, Adams
and Giroux, 2012). Drilling completed by Freegold on the Project between 1991 and 2009 totaled
88,241 feet of core and reverse circulation in 214 holes and 80,822 feet of rotary air blast drilling in
2,028 holes before commencing a comprehensive property compilation in 2010.
In the summer of 2010, a ground-based geophysical survey was undertaken on the Dolphin area in
addition to the extensive compilation work on the Project. The results of the geophysical survey indicated
that the alteration in the Dolphin Area is well defined with a low resistivity feature. Total exploration
expenditures at Golden Summit in 2010 amounted to $293,378. In addition to the exploration and
compilation work, Freegold also entered into a long term lease on 133 State of Alaska mining claims and
18 unpatented Federal mining claims in order to better strengthen its land position within the Project
area. In March of 2011, Freegold completed its first NI 43-101 compliant Mineral Resource calculation
using previous drilling completed in the Dolphin area. The Mineral Resource was completed by Giroux
Consultants of Vancouver, British Columbia and, using a 0.3 g/t cut-off grade, included Indicated
Resources totaling 7,790,000 tonnes grading 0.695 g/t (174,000 ounces) and Inferred Resources totaling
27,010,000 tonnes grading 0.606 g/t (526,000 ounces). Drilling aimed at increasing this Mineral Resource
began in February 2011. During 2011 a total of 29 holes (20,766.5 feet/6,329.5 meters) were completed
in the Dolphin area. The results of the Dolphin drilling were incorporated into the updated NI 43-101
which was released in December 2011 and using a 0.3 g/t cut-off resulted in an increase in the Indicated
category to 17,270,000 tonnes at 0.62 g/t (341,000 contained ounces) and 64,440,000 tonnes at 0.55 g/t
(1,135,000 contained ounces) in the Inferred category. 2011 also saw the further expansion of the
Property with the addition of seven patented mining claims of the Chatham mine block. Ground based
induced polarization (IP) geophysics and shovel soil sampling was also carried out during the summer and
fall of 2011.
A total of 18 holes (11,515 feet/3,509.9 meters) were also drilled in the Cleary Hill area during 2011. This
initial drilling was aimed at infilling historical drilling in the Cleary Hill mine area with the aim of linking
the Dolphin/Cleary Hill areas in a future resource model. Total exploration expenditures in 2011 on the
Project were $3,927,969.
In late 2011, Freegold also undertook its first drilling in the Christina prospect area, a high grade vein and
bulk tonnage style target which lies three km to the east of the Dolphin – Cleary Hill area. A total of
12 holes were drilled (15,058 feet) (4,580 meters) in the Christina prospect during late 2011 and early
2012.
May 2016 6-1

A total of 55 holes (54,470.5 feet/16,602.6 meters) were completed at the Project in 2012. In January
2012 drilling resumed with one drill rig at the Christina area and a second rig at the Dolphin/Cleary Hill
area. From mid-May on, a single drill rig remained active on the Dolphin/Cleary Hill area through late
September. In addition ground based geophysics and shovel soil sampling were also undertaken on the
project. A mineral lease with the MHT was finalized in 2012 which expanded the project area by 212 acres
to the west. The company also staked an additional 37 State of Alaska claims covering 4,720 acres along
it southern boundary.
In October 2012, an updated NI 43-101 resource was again calculated this time expanding the Dolphin
Resource to encompass the eastern portion of the Cleary Hill area as well (reference Section 14).
Exploration expenditures to September 30, 2012 were $4,763,783.
Freegold drilled thirteen holes (16,860 feet/5,138 meters) in 2013. In addition, an updated NI 43-101
compliant gold resource was calculated for the Dolphin/Cleary area based on the ten holes completed
during the winter drill program, of which eight were incorporated into the Resource. The additional three
holes were drilled after the updated resource was completed, and as such, were not included in the
Resource. An additional three State of Alaska claims which covered 120 acres were staked as well as an
additional 191 acres were added to the MHT Lease.
No additional drilling was undertaken in 2014 and 2015. Activities were concentrated on metallurgical
testing, cultural resource work, water quality sampling and geochemical surveys.
Table 6-1 provides a summary of exploration activities conducted for the property and adjacent prospects.
Table 6-1: Summary of Exploration (1969-2015) Conducted for the Property and Adjacent Prospects

International Minerals & 1969 Trenching Saddle Zone
Chemicals RC drilling Circle Trail Zone
Placid Oil Company 1978 – Trenching Christina Vein
1986 Core & RC drilling Pioneer Vein
Adit excavation American Eagle Vein
Christina feasibility study Hi Yu Vein
SC 1980 – Diamond core drilling Tolovana Shear Zone
1981 RC drilling
Resource estimate
Fairbanks Exploration 1988 Bulk sampling Christina Vein
Keystone Mines 1989 Bulk sampling of mine waste dumps American Eagle, Hi Yu,
Partnership Cleary Hill Mines
British 1987 – Trenching, RC drilling Too Much Gold prospect
Petroleum/Fairbanks 1988 Saddle Zone
Exploration( FEI) JV Circle Trail Zone
Christina Vein
Freegold/FEI JV 1991 Property-wide data compilation Property-wide
Freegold/Amax Gold JV 1992 – Trenching, soil sampling, RC drilling, aerial Too Much Gold prospect
1994 geophysical surveys (EM), bottle roll testing, baseline Cleary Hill Mine area
water quality surveys, aerial photos, EDM surveys
Freegold 1995 – RC drilling Dolphin Deposit
1996 Cleary Hill Mine area
May 2016 6-2

Freegold/Barrick JV 1997 – Property-wide grid-base soils, recon & prospect Property-wide
1998 mapping, grab sampling, limited RC and core drilling Goose Creek prospect
North Extension prospect
Coffee Dome
Dolphin Deposit
Newsboy Mine area
Wolf Creek area
Freegold 2000 Limited core drilling Cleary Hill Mine area
Freegold 2002 Trenching Cleary Hill Mine area
(Currey Zone)
Freegold 2003 Limited core drilling Cleary Hill Mine area
(Currey Zone)
Freegold/Meridian 2004 Trenching, core drilling Tolovana Mine area
Minerals JV Cleary Hill Mine area
Freegold 2005 – Trenching Cleary Hill Mine area
2006 Wackwitz Vein area
Beistline Shaft area
Freegold 2007 – Trenching, RAB drilling, core drilling, bulk sampling Cleary Hill Mine area
2008 Tolovana Mine area
Freegold 2010 Induced Polarization Survey Dolphin/Tolovana Area
Freegold 2011 Induced Polarization Survey, Geochemical Surveys, Dolphin Deposit
Core Drilling, Cleary Hill, Christina
Prospect
Freegold 2012 Induced Polarization Survey, Geochemical Surveys, Dolphin/Tolovana Area,
Trenching, Core Drilling Cleary Hill, Christina
Prospect
Freegold 2013 Core Drilling, Geophysics, Dolphin, Coffee Dome
Area
Freegold 2014 Water Quality Sampling, Cultural Resource Studies, Dolphin/Tolovana Area,
Metallurgical tests, Geochemical Surveys Cleary Hill,
Freegold 2015 Water Quality Sampling, Cultural Resource Studies,, Dolphin/Tolovana Area,
and Geochemical Surveys Cleary Hill,
May 2016 6-3

7.0 GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION
7.1 R EGIONAL , D ISTRICT & P ROPERTY G EOLOGY
7.1.1 Regional Geology

The following summary of the regional geology of eastern Interior Alaska is excerpted from Adams and
Giroux (2012).
The Fairbanks Mining District is located in the north-central portion of the Yukon-Tanana Terrane (YTT).
The YTT is a diverse lithotectonic terrane of largely continental affinity consisting primarily of quartzitic,
pelitic, and calcic metasedimentary rocks; and local mafic and felsic meta-igneous rocks. These protoliths
are intruded to a large extent by Mesozoic and Cenozoic granitic rocks (Foster and others, 1994;
Newberry, 2000). The YTT is bound on the north by the Tintina-Kaltag fault system, and on the south by
the Tanana-Denali-Farewell fault system. These fault systems form zones of major right lateral strike-slip
movement, but are largely obscured by alluvial and other Quaternary deposits. Small subterranes of
possible island-arc affinity occur along the south margin and in the northeast portion of the YTT
(Nokleberg, et al, 1994).
Igneous rocks are widespread throughout the YTT, but are most abundant in the eastern portion of the
province. Age dates of plutonic rocks in the YTT generally cluster into three distinctive groups:
1) 215-188 million years ago (Ma) (Late Triassic–Early Jurassic); 2) 110-85 Ma (mid- to Late Cretaceous);
and 3) 70-50 Ma (Latest Cretaceous-Eocene). Within the 110-85 Ma group, most age dates cluster within
a sub-group ranging in age from 95-90 Ma, and typically referred to as the “Tombstone” suite (Mortinson
et al, 2000); plutonic compositions of the Tombstone suite ranges are dominantly granite, granodiorite,
quartz monzonite and diorite. The Tombstone suite plutonic rocks are thought to be derived from crustal
melts, but could also be mantle-derived melts with significant crustal material contamination. Volcanic
rocks in the YTT are far less voluminous than plutonic rocks. Volcanic rocks ranging from Cretaceous to
Cenozoic in age, and from rhyolite to basalt in composition, are found in scattered locations throughout
the YTT.
7.1.2 Fairbanks District Geology

Bedrock geology of the Fairbanks Mining District is dominated by a N60-80E trending lithologic and
structural trend covering a 30-mile by 15-mile area (Robinson and others, 1990; Newberry and others,
1996). The Project is situated in lower to middle Paleozoic metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks of
the Cleary sequence and Fairbanks Schist adjacent to an east-west trending thrust fault known as the
Chatanika thrust (Figure 7-1). Rocks of the Fairbanks Schist and Cleary Sequences are exposed at Golden
Summit in the Cleary antiform, the northern of two northeast trending antiformal belts which form
distinctive marker horizons in the mineralized portions of the district. Lithologies within the Cleary
Sequence include quartzite, massive to finely laminated mafic to intermediate flows and tuffs, calc-schist,
black chloritic quartzite, quartz-sericite schist of hydrothermal origin and impure marble. Lithologies in
the Fairbanks Schist include quartz muscovite schist, micaceous quartzite and biotite quartz mica schist.
These lithologies have been metamorphosed to the lower amphibolite facies.
May 2016 7-1

From: Newberry and others, 1996; modified by Avalon Department, 2008
FIGURE 7-1
GENERAL GEOLOGY OF THE FAIRBANKS MINING DISTRICT
Current maps for the Fairbanks District indicate rocks of the Fairbanks Schist and Cleary Sequence have
been over thrust from the northeast by eclogite to amphibolite facies rocks of the Chatanika terrane
(Newberry and others, 1996;). The Chatanika terrane consists of quartz muscovite schist, carbonaceous
quartzite, impure marble, garnet feldspar muscovite schist, and garnet-pyroxene eclogite that have
yielded Ordovician Ar40/Ar39 age dates ranging from 470 to 500 Ma (Douglas, 1997). Motion on the
Chatanika thrust fault has been dated at approximately 130 million years and resulted in structural
preparation of favorable host units in the Chatanika Terrane and adjacent lower plate rocks. Diamond
drilling and trenching completed on the Project by Freegold have encountered Chatanika Terrane rocks
over a zone extending up to one mile south of the mapped contact of the Chatanika Terrane. The location
of these exposures suggests that the contact between the upper and lower plate is in fact a series of en-
echelon low angle structures. This mixed terrane can be distinguished on airborne magnetics maps as a
zone of intermediate magnetic intensity that is less than the highly magnetic rocks of the Chatanika
Terrane but more magnetic than the Fairbanks Schist (Freeman, 2009). The ramifications of this
hypothesis are discussed in Section 7.2.
Intrusives in the Fairbanks District have yielded Ar40/Ar39 and K-Ar dates of 85 to 95 million years
(Freeman and others, 1996). These intrusives range in composition from diorite to granite and possess
elevated Rb/Sr ratios indicative of significant crustal contribution to subduction generated magmas.
Several granodiorite to aplite intrusive bodies are present in the Project area. The presence of hypabyssal
intrusives and sporadic Au-W skarn mineralization in the Project area suggests the area may be underlain
by more extensive intrusive bodies similar to those on Pedro Dome and Gilmore Dome (Freeman and
others, 1998). This conclusion is supported by airborne geophysical surveys (DGGS, 1995) and by depth
modeling conducted on these airborne data (PRJ, 1998). Mineralization within the Pedro Dome, Gilmore
Dome and Dolphin intrusive complexes suggests plutonic rocks pre-date mineralization.
Rocks on the Project are folded about earlier northwest and northeast trending isoclinal recumbent fold
axes followed by an open folded N60-80E trending event (Hall, 1985). Upper plate rocks of the Chatanika
Terrane have been affected by more intense northwest and northeast trending isoclinal and recumbent
folding followed by folding along the same N60-80E trending axis which affected lower plate rocks.
Lithologic packages in both the upper and lower plates are cut by steeply dipping, high angle northwest
and northeast trending shear zones, some of which are mineralized (Figure 7-1). Recent large-scale
trenching in the Cleary Hill mine area suggest that numerous low angle structures are present in the
Project area, some of which are mineralized. Late post-mineral north-south structures with normal
motion further dissect the project. Airborne magnetic data in this part of the Fairbanks District indicate
the presence of district scale east-west and northeast trending structures which appear to post-date
N60-80E folding (DGGS, 1995). Gold mineralization on the Project post-dates regional and district scale
folding and is contemporaneous with or slightly younger than district-scale northeast trending structures
and plutonic activity. Excavations completed in the Cleary Hill area in 2006, 2007 and 2008 clearly indicate
that the strike and/or dip of gold-bearing quartz veins were influenced by pre-existing fold geometry. This
subject is discussed in more depth under Section 9.0.
7.1.3 Golden Summit Project Geology

The following summary of the Project general geology is derived in large part from Freeman (2009) and
Adams and Giroux (2012).
May 2016 7-3

Most of the Property is underlain by the Fairbanks Schist. The Fairbanks Schist consists largely of quartz-
mica schist and micaceous, massive to laminated quartzite, with lesser amounts of amphibolite, chlorite
schist, calc-schist and marble. A unit within the Fairbanks Schist, referred to as the “Cleary Sequence”,
consists of three mappable sub-units containing distinctive and highly variable lithologies. The lower
portion of the Cleary Sequence (~450 feet thick) consists of massive, mafic metavolcanic rocks (flows and
tuffs), and minor actinolite schist, quartzite, and dolomite. The middle portion of the Cleary Sequence
(~300 feet thick) consists of massive quartzite, feldspathic quartz schist, and quartz mica schist. The upper
portion (~250 feet) is similar to the middle portion, but is distinguished by the presence of interlayered
marble and minor amounts of garnet-bearing schist. Locally the Cleary Sequence is capped by a distinctive
gray, sulfide-bearing marble unit up to 50 feet thick.
Chatanika Terrane rocks on the Property include muscovite-quartzite, coarse-grained muscovite schist,
amphibolite, massive actinolite greenschist, chlorite schist, and local garnet-diopside eclogitic rocks
(Swainbank, 1971). Chatanika Terrane mafic rocks are not readily discernible from mafic rocks of the
Fairbanks Schist either in hand specimen or drill core. This has created difficulties with mapping, logging
and establishing a stratigraphic section in the Tolovana Mine and Cleary Hill Mine areas. The Dolphin
stock is located on the ridge between Bedrock and Willow Creek. Initial diamond core logging identified
five intrusive phases within the Dolphin stock, including: 1) fine- to medium-grained, equigranular to
weakly porphyritic biotite granodiorite; 2) fine- to medium-grained, equigranular to weakly porphyritic
hornblende-biotite tonalite; 3) fine-grained biotite granite porphyry; 4) fine-grained biotite rhyolite to
rhyodacite porphyry; and 5) rare fine-grained, chlorite-altered mafic dikes (Adams and Giroux, 2012).
Giroux, 2012). The south and east contacts are largely intrusive contacts with minor faulting.
Due to the paucity of radiometric age dates, limited outcrop, and limited observations of crosscutting
relations, the crystallization and mineralization history of the Dolphin stock remain unknown. Small dikes
of granodiorite cutting tonalite have been observed in core, and altered granitic dikes cut both altered
and unaltered granodiorite and tonalite, suggesting multiple phases of intrusion and hydrothermal
alteration. Two radiometric age dates, including two sericite Ar40/Ar39 plateau age dates (McCoy, 1996),
place some constraints on the timing of crystallization and mineralization. The sericite ages were obtained
from two different samples representing two distinctly different styles of gold mineralization. One
sample, from stockwork style mineralization, was 90.1 Ma. Another sample, from a sericite shear-zone,
was 88.3 Ma. These ages are quite similar to ages from Fort Knox (86.3-88.2 Ma). Due to age and chemical
similarities, most workers associate the Dolphin and Fort Knox intrusive rocks with widespread
intrusive-related gold deposits in the Tintina Gold Belt.
Nearly all rocks comprising the Property are highly deformed. Primary foliations (S0) in the Fairbanks
Schist generally dip north on the north half of the property and generally dip south on the south half of
the property, defining the Cleary antiform, a large-scale northeast trending antiform. Deformation
intensity increases further north, with proximity to the Chatanika Thrust fault. The Chatanika Thrust fault
is thought to represent an ancient thrust event, and one of the earliest deformation events in the area.
May 2016 7-4

FIGURE 7-2
March 2016
FIGURE 7-2
LOCAL GEOLOGY AND MAJOR PROSPECTS ON THE PROJECT (Geology from Newberry et al, 1996)
Rather than a simple fault contact as shown on published geologic maps of the district, the Chatanika
Thrust fault is a complex thrust fault zone containing numerous thin thrust sheets or wedges emplaced
above and in between layers of various Fairbanks Schist lithologies (Freeman, 2009). The Chatanika Thrust
fault has been offset by numerous northeast-trending high angle faults. These types of faults are very
common throughout the northern part of the Yukon Tanana Terrane, and typically represent a very late
stage structural event. The Chatanika Thrust fault may also have been re-activated during later
deformation events, or served as the focus of north-directed gravity or listric style fault activity. The next
oldest structural event is thought to be represented by the high angle faults and shear zones which host
the major auriferous quartz veins found at numerous locations on the property. These zones are largely
oriented northwest-southeast, however, northeast-southwest oriented shear zones, which are otherwise
very similar in terms of structural style and mineralization; occur to the west of the Dolphin deposit and
at several other locations on the property. The veins most often dip steeply towards the south, but
occasionally dip north. Field evidence for repeated veining, alternating with brecciation suggests the
mineralization within these zones was largely syn-deformational. Short offsets (<20ft) of the veins occur
along the youngest structures observed at the Property, along steep, north to northeast-trending normal
faults.
7.2 M INERALIZATION
Over 63,000 strike feet of mineralized shear zones have been identified within and immediately adjacent
to the Project (Freeman and others, 1996). The majority of the mineralized shear zones on the eastern
end of the project trend N60-80W and dip steeply to the southwest. Shear zones on the western end of
the project area predominantly trend N60-80E and dip steeply north. Shear zones in the central portion
of the project (centered on the Dolphin/Cleary Hill area trend closer to east-west with variable south dips
and appear to mark a transition zone from primarily northwest trending, south dipping shears to the east
to primarily northeast trending, north dipping shears to the west. Bulk sampling completed in 2006, 2007,
and 2008 has exposed mineralized flat-lying (10-30 degrees (°)) structures dipping both north and south.
The extent and economic significance of these flat-lying structures is uncertain. In addition, exploration
activities conducted by Freegold have identified previously unrecognized shear zones trending N30-50W
and due north-south (Freeman and others, 1998). These shear zones possess significantly different metal
suites than flat-lying structures or N80W and N60E trending shears. These shear zone geometries and
their distribution may represent sympathetic structures generated by regional scale shear couples related
to Tertiary (post 55 Ma) motion of the Tintina and Denali faults (Flanigan and others, 2000).
Examination of the spatial arrangement of the +80 known gold occurrences in the Project area and the
geometry of the +63,000 linear feet of documented gold-bearing quartz veins in the area suggest veins
tend to cluster into discrete vein swarms. These vein swarms are controlled by a series of district-scale
northeast-trending structures regularly spaced approximately 8,000 feet (2.4 km) apart in the Project
area. These structures were first identified as district scale features evident on public airborne geophysical
surveys conducted in the mid-1990’s (DGGS, 1995). Their periodicity with respect to clusters of known
gold occurrences was unrecognized prior to 2004 when it was recognized on the Project (Freeman, 2004).
The Eldorado fault, which appears to control mineralization at both the Ryan Lode and the True North
deposits, is the best documented of these district scale northeast structures. The Dolphin trend, located
parallel to and 8,000 feet east of the Eldorado fault, is the next best-defined northeast-trending structure
and probably is critical to the mineralization in the Newsboy, Tolovana, and 6 Moz Dolphin/Cleary Hill
areas. Approximately 8,000 feet farther east, an unnamed northeast-trending structure passes through
the Saddle zone where it may be integral to the formation of the highest known density of veins in the
Fairbanks Mining District, including those which host gold mineralization at the historic McCarty,
May 2016 7-6

American Eagle, Pioneer and Pennsylvania mines. Eight thousand feet further east, another unnamed
northeast-trending structure passes through the Hi Yu mine area and probably is key to the formation of
multiple veins in this area of the Project. This 8,000-foot periodicity probably extends to the east where
northeast structures may control mineralization on Coffee Dome and to the west of the Eldorado Creek
fault where they may control gold mineralization in the Treasure Creek area and the Sheep Creek area of
Ester Dome.
The other recently recognized feature of gold mineralization in the Project area is related to the structural
relationship between “lower plate” rocks of the Fairbanks Schist – Cleary Sequence and “upper plate”
rocks of the Chatanika Terrane. Published maps of the district (Robinson and others, 1990; Weber and
others, 1992; Newberry and others, 1996) indicate that the contact between the overlying Chatanika
Terrane and rocks of the lower plate are marked by a single north-dipping thrust plane that strikes
northeast according to Robinson and others (1990) or east-west according to Newberry and others (1996).
Douglas (1997 dated this thrust event at 130 Ma based on data derived from a single core hole drilled by
Placer Dome on the south flank of Marshall Dome near the northwestern edge of the Project. The actual
contact between upper and lower plate rocks is not exposed at surface anywhere along its mapped trace
so the inferred motion direction (thrust versus low-angle gravity fault) remains uncertain. Regional scale
kinematic evidence is permissible for the formation of either gravity or thrust faults. Douglas (1997)
presents evidence of multiple low-angle fault events which structurally interpose thin (<250 feet) layers
of upper and lower plate rocks over a +750-foot interval. Chemical evidence for structurally juxtaposed
upper and lower plate rocks has also been documented in drilling in the Cleary Hill mine area (Freeman
and others, 1998).
With the exception of gold and antimony mineralization in the vicinity of the True North deposit, published
geologic maps of the district indicate that all of the historic lode gold, tungsten and antimony occurrences
in the Project area are hosted in lower plate rocks. However, reinterpretation of the airborne magnetic
data for the Project suggests rock with magnetic signatures identical to the Chatanika Terrane (variable
but high magnetic susceptibilities) extend considerably farther south than current published geologic
maps indicate. In the field, geological and multi-element geochemical data suggest that virtually all of the
known lode gold occurrences on the Project are hosted in a zone containing structurally mixed lithologies
derived from both upper and lower plate rocks. This mixed zone appears to be the result of multiple en-
echelon low angle structures separating upper and lower plate rocks. If this interpretation is correct, the
grade and geometry of gold mineralization in the Project area may be controlled in part by physical and/or
chemical conditions that existed at the time of mineralization along or adjacent to en-echelon low-angle
faults caused by emplacement of the Chatanika Terrane.
The major historic lode gold mines of the Project derived their production primarily from steeply dipping
northwest and northeast trending high angle, low sulfide, gold-polymetallic quartz veins and shear zones
which transect what is now thought to be the mixed upper plate - lower plate rock package at Golden
Summit (Hill, 1933; Pilkington, 1969; Metz, 1991; Freeman and others, 1996). These shear zones are
characterized by a metal suite containing free gold with variable amounts of tetrahedrite,
jamesonite/boulangerite, arsenopyrite, stibnite and scheelite with minor base metal sulfides. Fluid
inclusion data suggest mineralization was associated with high CO2, low salinity fluids at temperatures
averaging 350° Celsius (C). Lead and sulfur isotope data, tellurium geochemistry and tourmaline
compositions suggest a strong plutonic component to the Golden Summit shear hosted mineralization
(McCoy and others, 1997).
There are three styles of gold occurrences identified on the Property, including: 1) intrusive-hosted sulfide
disseminations and sulfide-quartz stockwork veinlets (such as the Dolphin gold deposit); 2) auriferous
May 2016 7-7

sulfide-quartz veins; and 3) shear-hosted gold-bearing veinlets. All three types are considered to be part
of a large-scale intrusive-related gold system on the Property.
7.2.1 Instrusive-Hosted Sulfide-Quartz Veinlets

Intrusive-hosted, auriferous sulfide disseminations and auriferous sulfide-quartz veinlets (0.1-5 mm)
within the Dolphin stock are spatially associated with the highest gold grades within the Dolphin gold
deposit (Figure 7-3). Gold also occurs with disseminated euhedral arsenopyrite (1 to 5 mm) which appear
to be an earlier, higher temperature mineralization event (McCoy and Olson, 1997). Gold mineralization
within the deposit also occurs as mineralized fault gouge enriched with sulfides, sulfide-rich veins, and
locally as narrow sulfide-quartz veins <6 inches thick; however, these comprise a relatively small portion
of the total gold resource.
Gold within the Dolphin gold deposit occurs largely as inclusions in sulfides, and locally as visible grains,
within the sulfide-quartz veinlets. Pyrite and arsenopyrite is the most common sulfide mineral, although
stibnite, lead-antimony sulfosalt minerals, tetrahedrite, scheelite, galena and sphalerite occur locally.
McCoy and Olson (1997) identified two distinct varieties of arsenopyrite in the Dolphin gold deposit based
on arsenopyrite geothermometry and age relations. Older arsenopyrite from quartz stockworks (90.1 Ma)
formed at higher temperatures, whereas younger arsenopyrite from shear zones formed at lower
temperatures (88.3 Ma). McCoy also noted that older “hotter” arsenopyrites were finer-grained
compared to younger “cooler” arsenopyrites, which were generally coarse and bladey. Furthermore, the
high-temperature arsenopyrite contains particulate inclusions of gold, whereas the low-temperature
arsenopyrite contains maldonite (a gold-bismuth mineral). Although stibnite and antimony sulfosalts are
not uncommon in the deposit, geochemical studies suggest that high antimony values are generally
associated with very low gold values. Evidence suggests that the fluids evolved towards increasing base
metals and antimony with time (Figure 7-6). For example, chalcopyrite embayments in pyrite were noted
in thin section, and massive sulfide veins (jamesonite, galena, stibnite and/or sphalerite) cutting
arsenopyrite-quartz veins are noted in several drill logs. In addition to sulfides, some portions of the
Dolphin gold deposit contain abundant scheelite.
Several forms of alteration have overprinted the Dolphin intrusive rocks. The most common alteration
types are chloritization, kaolinitization, silicification and sericitization. Carbonate alteration, as calcite or
less commonly dolomite or iron carbonate, is found locally. Alteration can range from weak to intense,
and is generally indicative of higher gold values, in particular, when strong silicification and sericitization
are present. As mentioned, strong sericite alteration is characteristic of shear zones, but weak to
moderate sericite alteration is ubiquitous throughout the deposit and appears to be one of the earliest
phases of hydrothermal alteration in the Dolphin deposit. Detailed core logging suggests the paragenetic
sequence of alteration and mineralization events at the Dolphin deposit range from early sericite
alteration and disseminated arsenopyrite ± pyrite through sheeted auriferous quartz-sulfide veining to
coarse grained pyrite-dominated ± base metal sulfide veining (no quartz associated).
7.2.2 Auriferous Quartz Veins

High grade auriferous quartz veins (2 cm to 3 m), hosted in metamorphic rocks, occur at numerous
locations, and were the source of all previous gold production from the Property. A discussion of each
occurrence is beyond the scope of this report; the general mineralogy, morphology and structural setting
is summarized below. Detailed information for individual vein prospects on the Property can be obtained
from previous reports (Freeman, 1992).
May 2016 7-8

The auriferous quartz veins typically crosscut the host rock primary foliation at very high angles. A large
number of these veins dip south, although some veins dip north. Vein thickness is quite variable, and can
range from a few inches to several feet over short distances along both strike and dip. Pinch-and-swell
features, bifurcations and splays are characteristic. Discrete auriferous quartz veins often have sharp
wallrock contacts but can grade into shear zones suggesting a continuum between this type of gold quartz
veining and shear-hosted gold described below (Brown and others, 2008a, 2008b). In contrast to the high
grade quartz veins, barren, translucent or milky colored metamorphic quartz most often occurs as seams
or boudinage sub-parallel to the primary foliation of the host rocks.
Auriferous quartz veins on the Property consist of hydrothermal quartz with minor to trace amounts of
sulfides. The veins are opaque to milky white quartz and locally gray to mottled gray and white. Bands
or laminations parallel to the vein walls are not uncommon, and vein centers often contain vuggy or
comby quartz crystals. Silicified vein breccia is also common, and may comprise the entire vein or be
restricted to bands within the banding sequence (Adams and Giroux, 2012). This suggests there were
most likely multiple, possibly alternating episodes of silicification and deformation. Auriferous quartz
veins seldom contain more than 5% total sulfides and average 1-3%. The most common sulfide is
arsenopyrite, although other sulfides are locally present, including pyrite, stibnite, jamesonite,
tetrahedrite, galena and sphalerite. Scheelite is present in a few specific veins (notably abundant in the
Cleary Hill and Wyoming vein). Visible gold typically occurs as coarse flakes, filigree, or wires suspended
in quartz or mingled with sparse, scattered sulfides. Locally the auriferous quartz veins may be
accompanied by parallel stringers and pods of later massive stibnite. This massive stibnite occurs locally
as <10 inch (<0.25 m) thick seams or pods parallel or adjacent to auriferous quartz veins, and also as veins
up to 4 feet (1.3 m) thick along steep cross-faults which offset the auriferous quartz veins. This stibnite
mineralization is thought to be formed as the last metal-bearing event at lower temperatures.
7.2.3 Shear-Hosted Veinlet Zones

Shear-hosted auriferous veinlet zones on the Golden Summit Property are found within some of the same
shear zones which host major auriferous quartz veins and, as mentioned above, are likely parts of the
same mineralization event. The key characteristic of these zones is that they may contain sufficient
polyphase veinlet density and gold grade to justify bulk-mining methods. Several of these zones have
been explored since about 1969, including the Too Much Gold prospect, the Circle Trail and Saddle
prospects, and the Curry Zone. Most recently, several zones in the Cleary Hill Mine area have been
targeted by Freegold and included in the resource estimate outlined in this report (refer to Section 14).
The shear-hosted veinlets consist largely of quartz with variable amounts of sulfides, although locally the
veinlets may consist largely of sulfides with lessor amounts of quartz. Sulfide-quartz veins within the
shear-hosted zones generally are less than a few centimeters in thickness. Locally these veins form vein
sets with spacing of a few feet, resembling a sheeted vein system (vein swarm). The veins are
discontinuous along strike and dip, and often grade into broken veins, vein breccia, or zones of sugary,
granulated crush quartz material. Higher quartz vein and veinlet density is generally indicative of higher
gold values.
The shear-hosted veinlet zones are characterized by pervasive sericite and clay alteration, as well as
localized silicification and carbonate alteration. In addition, the zones are typically highly oxidized near
the surface, and contain locally intense iron, arsenic or antimony oxides. The majority of the veinlets
within the zones are sub-parallel to the strike and dip of the zone.
May 2016 7-9

Host rocks for the veinlet zones are quite variable. Differences in rock competency appears to influence
the geometry of mineralization within and adjacent to the deformation zone. For example, massive
quartzite or greenstone units are more competent, and tended to propagate fractures where fluids were
more restricted, resulting in the formation of thinner but often higher grade gold quartz veins. In
comparison, thin-bedded units with higher pelitic, carbonaceous and calcareous components are more
susceptible to shearing and widespread infiltration by metal-bearing fluids, resulting in stockwork of
sheeted vein zones. Therefore, key factors are thought to be the right combination of host rock lithology,
location within a major shear zone, and access to a hydrothermal fluid source. These zones are best
developed where multiple shears or faults intersected and caused widespread fracturing and increase
permeability within metamorphic host rocks.
Figure 7-3: Shear Hosted Breccia & Quartz Vein Zone – GSDL 12-10
Figure 7-4: Quartz Stockwork Zone in Granodiorite & Tonalite – GSDC 11-32
May 2016 7-10

Figure 7-5: Intense Quartz Stockwork Zone (End of Hole) – GSDC 11-32
Figure 7-6: Intense Brecciation and Fractured Schist hosted Stockwork – GSDL 12-01
May 2016 7-11

8.0 DEPOSIT TYPES
Recent discoveries in the Fairbanks District have outlined a series of distinctive mineral occurrences which
appear to be genetically related to mid-Cretaceous plutonic activity which affected a large area of
northwestern British Columbia, Yukon, Alaska and the Russian Far East (Flanigan and others, 2000). This
work, based on extensive geologic and structural mapping and analytical studies (major and trace element
analysis, fluid inclusion microthermometry, 40Ar/39Ar geochronology, and isotope analysis) has provided
new information regarding gold metallogenesis in the Fairbanks District (Baker and others, 2006; Burns et
al., 1991; Lelacheur et al., 1991; Hollister, 1991; McCoy et al., 1994; Newberry et al., 1995; McCoy et al.,
1995). A synthesis of this information (Hart et al., 2002, McCoy et al., 1997, Lang and others 2001)
suggests a deposit model in which gold and high CO2 bearing fluids fractionate from ilmenite series, I-type
mid- Cretaceous intrusions during the late phases of differentiation. The gold is deposited in
anastomosing pegmatite and/or feldspar selvage quartz veins. Brittle fracturing and continued fluid
convection and concentration lead to concentration of gold bearing fluids in intrusions and schist-hosted
brittle quartz-sericite shear zones. Carbonate and/or calcareous metabasite horizons host W-Au skarns
and replacement deposits. Structurally prepared calcareous and/or carbonaceous horizons may host
bulk-minable replacement deposits. These occur most distal to the intrusions within favorable host rock
in the Fairbanks Schist and Chatanika Terrane.
Seven different potentially economic gold deposit types have been identified in the Fairbanks District.
1. Gneiss or high-grade schist-hosted quartz veins or metasomatic replacement zones proximal to

or within causative intrusives. Metals associated include Au, Bi, and As and possibly Cu. W. Pogo
(+7 Moz) and Gil (+0.5 Moz) are examples of such mineralization.
2. Stockwork-shear style mineralization hosted in porphyritic intermediate to felsic intrusives.

Mineralization contains Au with anomalous Bi, Te, W and trace Mo. There is a strong genetic
relationship between host intrusion and gold mineralization. Examples include Fort Knox
(10 Moz) and the Eagle (+3 Moz).
3. Porphyritic stockwork with intrusion/schist shear hosted Au-As-Sb with a strong genetic
relationship between host intrusion and gold mineralization. Ryan Lode (2.4 Moz) and Dolphin
area are examples of this type of mineralization.
4. Base metal ± Au, Ag and W intrusion hosted mineralization with a possible genetic relationship
between precious metal mineralization and intrusion. Silver Fox prospect is an example.
5. Structurally controlled mineralization hosted by schist-only high angle shear zones and veins.
Associated metals include Au, As, Sb, Ag, Pb and W in low-sulfide quartz-carbonate veins.
Alteration adjacent to veins is pervasive quartz-sericite-sulfide alteration that can extend for up
to one mile from the source structure. Deposits were mined heavily prior to World War II and are
noteworthy because of their exceptional grades (+1 to +5,000 ounces per ton (opt) Au). Examples
include Cleary Hill (281,000 oz production), Christina (20,000 oz production), American Eagle
(60,000 oz production), Hi Yu (110,000 oz production) and Newsboy (40,000 oz production) veins.
6. Low angle, disseminated, carbonate-hosted Au-As-Sb mineralization associated with brittle thrust
or detachment zones distal to generative intrusives. The True North deposit (1.3 Moz) is an
example of this type of mineralization.
May 2016 8-1

7. Shear-hosted monominerallic massive stibnite pods and lenses. Trace As, Au, Ag and Pb but these
prospects are noteworthy because they appear to represent the most distal end members of the
intrusive gold hydrothermal systems. Examples include the past producing Scrafford and
Stampede mines.
May 2016 8-2

9.0 EXPLORATION
In 2010 Freegold commenced a comprehensive compilation program on the Project with a view to
establish the potential for a bulk tonnage resource within the Dolphin/Cleary Hill area. Exploration
commenced with an induced polarization survey in the Dolphin area which indicated a strong correlation
between areas of known mineralization and potential area for expansion. Between 2011 and April, 2013,
Freegold completed 102,183 feet (31,145 meters) of core drilling in 117 holes primarily in the
Dolphin/Cleary Hill areas. In addition to the drilling induced polarization, limited trenching, shovel soil
sampling, rock sampling and cultural resource activities were also undertaken. A summary of activities is
presented in Adams and Giroux (2012) and Abrams and Giroux (2013) and is not repeated here and is filed
on SEDAR. Drilling recommenced in July 2013 on the Dolphin area, with a total of 5,468 feet (1,666 m) in
three holes completed. These holes were not included in the current resource however the results were
determined not to have material effect on the resource. The three new holes are compared to the
estimated blocks they pass through in Section 14.8 were examined Exploration efforts since 2013 have
included water quality sampling, cultural resource studies, metallurgical testing, as well as additional
ground geophysical and geochemical surveys.
May 2016 9-1

10.0 DRILLING
A summary of pre-2013 drilling activities is presented in Adams and Giroux (2012) and Abrams and Giroux
(2012) and is not repeated here. A map showing all Freegold drilling is presented in Figure 10-1.
Drilling on the Golden Summit property during 2013 consisted of diamond core drilling in the
Dolphin/Cleary Hill gold resource area. Freegold completed drilling a total of 16,860 feet (5,138 meters)
of HQ (2.5 inch) and NQTW (1.995 inch) core in ten drillholes (Table 10-1; Figure 10-2). The locations of
the 2013 drilling are shown in Table 10-1. Figure 10-2 is a map showing the collar locations of the
drillholes in the Dolphin/Cleary Hill gold resource. Significant assay results for all drillholes completed
during 2013 are listed in Table 10-2.
All of the drilling was conducted with HQ sized core which resulted in excellent core recoveries in spite of
difficult ground conditions, particularly within the schist and breccia zones. In addition to better
recoveries it also provides for larger sample size which is normally more representative.
May 2016 10-1

Source: Mark J. Abrams, Reno, NV
FIGURE 10-1
HISTORIC DRILLHOLE LOCATIONS – GOLDEN SUMMIT PROPERTY
March 2016
FIGURE 10-2
DRILLHOLE LOCATIONS INCLUDING 2013 DRILLING
Table 10-1: Drillholes Completed on the Property during 2013
Hole Prospect Easting Northing Elev. (ft) Azimuth Dip TD (ft)

GSDL1301 Dolphin 479216 7215239 1473 360 -90 1489.5
GSDL1302 Dolphin 479210 7215187 1496 360 -90 2000
GSDL1303 Dolphin 479218 7215138 1526 360 -90 86.5
GSDL1304 Dolphin 479215 7215135 1526 360 -90 2000
GSDL1305 Dolphin 479216 7215081 1555 360 -90 2000
GSDL1306 Dolphin 479211 7215032 1572 360 -90 1597
GSDL1307 Dolphin 479252 7215527 1266 360 -55 232
GSDL1308 Dolphin 479252 7215527 1266 360 -55 161
GSDL1309 Dolphin 479252 7215527 1266 360 -62 917
GSDL1310 Dolphin 479173 7215468 1328 360 -55 907
GSDL1311 Dolphin 479097 7215154 1529 180 -75 1922
GSDL1312 Dolphin 479097 7215154 1529 360 -75 1832
GSDL1313 Dolphin 479051 7215209 1512 360 -70 1714.5
Holes GSDL 1311, GSDL 1312, and GSDL 1313 were not included in the current resource.
Table 10-2: Significant Core Drilling Assay Results for the 2013 Dolphin/Cleary Drillholes
TD From To Interval Interval

Hole # Hole Incl. Au g/t
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (m)
Dolphin Area
GSDL1301 -90 1489.5 937 1489.5 552.5 168.4 0.64
including 1047 1489.5 442.5 134.9 0.71
GSDL1302 -90 2000 787 923.5 136.5 41.6 0.51
including 986.5 2000 1013.5 308.9 0.63
including 1259 1626.6 367.6 112.0 1.03
GSDL 1304 -90 2000 32 367 335 102.1 0.21
648 2000 1352 412.1 0.58
including 678 848 170 51.8 0.61
including 1606 2000 394 120.1 0.87
GSDL 1305 -90 2000 12 232 220 67.1 0.23
512 530 18 5.5 1.96
619.5 2000 1380.5 420.8 0.46
including 1837 2000 163 49.7 1.02
GSDL 1306 -90 1597 118.5 252 133.5 40.7 0.40
632 809 177 53.9 0.50
977 1597 620 189.0 0.42
including 1247 1597 350 106.7 0.54
GSDL 1309 -62 917 64.5 98.5 34 10.4 0.69
245.5 328 82.5 25.1 0.74
512 612.5 100.5 30.6 0.96
755.5 848 92.5 28.2 0.53
May 2016 10-4

TD From To Interval Interval
Hole # Hole Incl. Au g/t
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (m)
GSDL 1310 -55 907 23 136.5 113.5 34.6 0.91
275 302 27 8.2 3.29
381 541 160 48.8 0.64
including 506 541 35 10.7 1.47
654 890 236 71.9 0.56
including 782 890 108 32.9 0.83
GSDL 1311 -75 1922 37 1922 1885 574.52 0.82
incl 37 78 41 12.50 2.61
incl 243 347 104 31.70 1.48
incl 377.5 558 180.5 55.01 0.75
incl 667 798 131 39.93 0.62
incl 1039.5 1628 588.5 179.67 1.13
incl 1728 1922 194 59.13 0.87
GSDL1312 -75 1832 19 1832 1813 552.6 0.68
19 88 69 21.03 0.54
185 425.5 240.5 73.30 0.54
507 596 89 27.13 3.00
736 802 71 21.64 0.76
1578 1795 217 66.14 1.76
incl 1767 1795 28 8.53 7.49
GSDL1313 -70 1714.5 8 1714.5 1706.5 520.14 0.49

13 178 165 50.29 0.62
577 740 163 49.68 0.72
811.5 883 71.5 21.79 1.15
980 1068 88 26.82 1.39
1340.5 1696.5 356 108.51 0.54
In the figures below are representative sections depicting geology and assay results through the central
portion of the Dolphin Deposit. Figure 10-3, Figure 10-4 and Figure 10-5 are north south sections looking
towards the east.
May 2016 10-5

FIGURE 10-3
CROSS SECTION THROUGH DOLPHIN PROSPECT WITH LITHOLOGY AND GOLD ASSAYS
FIGURE 10-4
FIGURE 10-5
10.1 C HRISTINA P ROSPECT
During 2011 and 2012 Freegold completed its first ever drilling in the Christina Prospect. Previous drilling
at Christina (+70,000 feet from 1977 to 1988) was focused solely on outlining a high grade vein resource
on the prospect (Freeman, 1992). No effort was made to explore for bulk tonnage mineralization
associated with the Christina vein and Freegold conducted no other work on the prospect until 2011.
During 2011 and 2012 a total of 12 holes were drilled (15,058 feet) (4,589 meters). The holes were
targeted on a combination of known geological structure and chargeability anomalies outlined by the
induced polarization survey. Drilling has indicated a good correlation between chargeability and
mineralization. The bulk of the mineralization is associated with quartz veins and quartz stockworks with
associated pyrite and arsenopyrite. Host rocks are predominately chloritic schists. Several of the holes
intersected broader zones of mineralization indicative of bulk tonnage potential. Additional drilling is
contemplated, however the focus remains the Dolphin/Cleary area.
Table 10-3: Significant Core Drilling Assay Results for the 2011 to 2012 Christina Drillholes
Hole # Hole Incl. TD (ft) From (ft) To (ft) Interval (ft) Interval (m) Au g/t
GSDC 1175 -55 818.5 226.5 505 278.5 84.9 0.64

GSDC 1176 -55 736 402 614.5 212.5 64.7 1.75
GSDC 1178 -55 785 215 345 130 39.6 0.39
544 615 71 21.6 0.38
GSCH 1201 -55 733.5 20 78 58 17.6 0.48
243.5 383 139.5 42.5 0.32
GSCH1202 -50 748 135 204 69 21 0.56
290 379 89 27.1 0.4
679 748 69 21 0.35
GSCH1203 -50 810 118 205.5 87.5 26.7 0.3
456 554.5 98.5 30 0.39
GSCH1204 -50 700 80 148.5 68.5 20.9 0.37
514 629.5 115.5 35.2 0.35
GSCH1205 -50 863.5 240 310 70 21.3 0.42
460 574.5 114.5 34.7 0.67
702 753.5 51.5 15.7 1.07
833.5 858.5 25 7.6 0.4
GSCH1206 -50 830 276.5 495 218.5 66.6 0.49
GSCH1207 -50 848 93.5 155 61.5 18.75 0.42
339 448 109 33.22 0.78
including 426 433 7 2.13 7.9
491 582 91 27.74 0.63
789 838 49 14.94 0.36
May 2016 10-9

11.0 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY
The following summarizes the procedure used for sample preparation, analyses and security for drill
samples collected during the drilling programs completed on the Golden Summit Project.
The database has been maintained by Freegold’s prime geological contractor Avalon Development
Corporation of Fairbanks, Alaska. Personnel from Avalon have been involved in each of the programs
undertaken on the Golden Summit Project by Freegold. The author has had held numerous discussions
with Avalon in regard to sampling protocol. A digital database has been maintained of all assay and
geochemical work completed on the project, including results from all the drilling programs, both Reverse
Circulation (RC) and diamond (Core); and RAB (Rotary Air Blast) as well as rock and soil sampling. Since
1997 all rock and soil geochemical samples collected were described in the field and located using hand-
held global positioning system (GPS) methods. Data from each sample was then entered into a digital GIS-
database for later interpretation. Channel samples collected on the project were taken along the trench
floor or rib using a rock pick and chisel as required. Channel sampling using a power saw was attempted
but abandoned due to the heavy weathering and penetrative cleavage of metamorphic rocks on the
project, both of which made such sampling difficult and potentially unreliable.
The following is a summary of the methods and procedures employed for the various drill campaigns.
The bulk of the resource drilling, approximately 70%, that comprises the resource was completed during
the 2011–2013 timeline, and accordingly, the discussion is heavily weighed to those programs.
11.1 1992–2004
Drilling completed on Golden Summit consisted of both diamond core and down-hole hammer reverse
circulation drilling. The majority of the drilling conducted was RC. All drilling conducted during these
programs was managed by Avalon Development and was conducted by local and national drilling
contractors.
All reverse circulation and rotary air blast samples were quick-logged on-site by an experienced geologist
and later detail logged using representative chip samples from each 2.5, 3 or 5 foot sample interval.
Reverse circulation samples were one-eighth to one-quarter split, depending on hole diameter while
100% of RAB cuttings were collected, all core samples were sawed at variable intervals depending on
visible geological criteria and shipped to the geochemical lab for analysis.
During all programs, Avalon Development collected, logged and retained the samples collected in the field
until turned over to a commercial laboratory representative. Selected sample pulps were reanalyzed by
metallic screen methods to quantify nugget effect in high-grade samples or where visible gold was noted
during sampling.
All samples collected on the Golden Summit project were retained at Avalon’s secure warehouse facility
until picked up by Chemex or Bondar Clegg. Sample preparation was completed by Chemex or Bondar
Clegg in their laboratories in Anchorage and/or Fairbanks, and analytical work was completed by Chemex
Labs and Bondar Clegg Ltd. at their facilities in Vancouver, B.C, Analytical work consisted of a series of gold
by fire assay plus multi-element inductively coupled plasma (ICP) analyses. Sample preparatory
procedures employed by the laboratory at that time were not available to the author, but as Bondar Clegg,
and subsequently ALS Chemex are well-recognized laboratories it was expected that sample preparation
would have been conducted in line with industry accepted practices
May 2016 11-1

Prior to 2000 all samples were prepared using two acid digestion procedures. Sampling conducted in 2000
through 2004 used four acid digestion procedures. In 1996, Quality assurance consisted of duplicate
samples, which were inserted on a one for ten basis. During 1997-1998, additional Quality Assurance was
added with the addition of blanks and standards. Blanks were inserted on a 1 for 25 basis from 2000-2004,
and commercially prepared standards were introduced on a 1 to 50 basis during 2004.
11.2 2005–2011
Exploration during 2005 focused on a limited trenching program. During 2005, Alaska Assay Labs, a
Fairbanks facility, prepared trench samples and ALS Chemex Labs completed sample analysis until August
2005. (See 2011-2013 discussion for general laboratory preparatory procedures).. Commercial standards
containing 1.5 and 2.5 gpt gold were introduced on a 1:50 basis in 2005. Analyses of variance performed
on samples analyzed by ALS Chemex indicated no unacceptable sample results in the standard submitted.
RAB (Rotary Air Blast) exploration drilling commenced in 2006. Samples were collected during the 2006
and 2007 RAB program and from January through June 2008 exploration programs. Sampling consisted of
a 100% split of the drill cuttings. Samples were collected by Avalon Development personnel and weighed
from 4 kilograms to 54 kilograms, averaging about 7 kilograms. The samples were weighed and logged on-
site and transported daily to a locked warehouse at Avalon Development’s office complex for subsequent
pick-up, preparation and analysis by ALS Chemex and/or Alaska Assay Laboratories. A new sampling
procedure was introduced as of June 2007, which consisted of collecting all samples on 2.5-foot intervals
and passing 100% of the sample through a Jones-type splitter until the sample intended for analysis
weighed between 250 and 500 grams. Depending on the volume of drill cuttings coming from the drill
interval, this meant splitting the sample between 4 and 7 times (averaging 5 splits) to reach the desired
sample weight. Results of RAB drilling have been viewed as a geochemical tool and have not been
incorporated into the resource.
Commercial standards containing 0.627 ppm, 2.56 ppm, 4.46 ppm, or 11.33 ppm gold were included in
sample streams for 2006 at a rate of 1 per 25 for rock and channel samples and 1 per rotary air blast drill
hole (approx. 1 per 17-25 samples). No unacceptable analysis results were returned for these standards
from either ALS Chemex or Alaska Assay Labs. During the program one duplicate sample was inserted per
hole (average 45 feet) and a blank or standard was inserted every 10 samples.
Samples collected from September 2006 were prepared and analyzed entirely by Alaska Assay
Laboratories, which was a member of the AHK Group and was fully accredited to ISO 17025. Sample
procedures utilized by the laboratory include strict chain of custody, sample recording, preparation
particle size, monitoring blanks, duplicates and blanks within given sample batches. Samples were
crushed to 70% passing- 10 mesh, a 250 gram riffle split was taken, and then subsequently pulverized to
85% passing-200 mesh. The subsequent pulp was assayed utilizing Fire Assay with an AA finish. Samples
in excess of >10,000 ppb gold would be automatically rerun with a gravimetric finish. . No unacceptable
analysis results were returned for these standards and blanks from either ALS Chemex or Alaska Assay
Labs.
May 2016 11-2

11.3 2008 C ORE D RILLING
Twenty-three core holes totaling 8,839.5 feet of drilling were completed, several of which were completed
in the resource area. During the 2008 core drilling program, a total of 117 blank samples were inserted
into the sample submittals. Sample blanks were inserted on a two per one hundred sample basis and
consisted of Browns Hill Quarry basalt, an unmineralized Quaternary basalt flow from the Fairbanks
Mining District, Alaska. Eight different commercial standards provided by Analytical Solutions were also
used. Values in these standards raged from 0.627 ppm to 11.33 ppm gold. Whole core analyses was
performed by Alaska Assay Labs, Fairbanks, Alaska (Subsequently acquired by Acme Laboratories). No
unacceptable analysis results were returned for these standards and blanks from Alaska Assay Labs .
Samples were crushed to 70% passing -10 mesh, and then a riffle split of 250 grams was taken. This split
was subsequently pulverized to 85% passing -200 mesh. Analytical procedures included fire assay for gold
using AA/Grav which had detection limits ranging from 10 ppb to 0.10/oz t.
The Core logging, chain of custody and sampling procedures employed were primarily the same as those
in subsequent program.
The following summarizes the procedure used for sample preparation, analysis and security for drill
samples collected in the Golden Summit drilling programs:
a. Core was moved by Avalon from the drill rig to the secure logging facilities at each shift
change.
b. Core boxes were stacked in numerical order in the core logging area.
c. Core boxes were inspected for proper labeling and core in the boxes was inspected to
insure that the core was placed in the boxes at the drill rig in the proper order with the
proper footage markings on the core run blocks.
d. Core was moved to logging tables and placed in order by box number such that the lowest
numbered box (with the shallowest drill core) was on the far left side of the logging bench
and while the highest numbered box (with the deepest drill core) is on the far right side
of the logging bench.
e. Core was washed with a spray bottle to remove polymer or other drill mud. Due to the
presence of coarse free gold, core was not washed with a brush since this could smear
coarse gold particles from a mineralized to an unmineralized interval.
f. Core recovery (ratio of core recovered in a given core run to the actual length of the core
run) was calculated and marked on the logging sheet for each core run interval pulled by
the drilling company. This information was entered in the logs as a percent- recovered.
g. The RQD, or Rock Quality Designation was calculated for each core run. The RQD is the
combined length of all whole core segment in each core run that were greater than 10
cm (4 inches) or longer than twice the core diameter, divided by the total length of the
recorded core run multiplied by 100 (expressed in % form). The total length of core
includes all lost core sections. Breaks in the core that result from the drilling process or
extraction of the core from the core barrel are usually fresh looking and have rough edges.
These mechanical breaks were ignored while calculating RQD. For the NQ2 drill core
drilled at Golden Summit (diameter 1.995 inches), samples qualifying for addition in the
RQD calculation would be 4 inches or more in length. RQD information was recorded in
May 2016 11-3

percentage form on the logging sheet for each core run interval pulled by the drilling
company.
h. The drill core was logged by a senior geologist with experience in the rock type, alteration
and mineralization. Details relating to lithology, structure, alteration and mineralization
were recorded systematically. Lithologic details were compiled on paper logs, and later
converted to digital format. Structural details were measured and their angle to core axis
recorded in the log. Details relating to the thickness, angle and other aspects were
recorded in the log. Hydrothermal alteration features, such as quartz or sericite
alteration, were noted in the logs and details relating to its extent and intensity were
recorded. Hydrothermal mineralization was recorded in the log. Details recorded include
morphology, mineralogy and color of quartz veins, sulfide mineralogy, form and
abundance (in volume %), metallic oxide mineralogy, form and relative abundance, and
any other feature related to gold, gold-pathfinder or other metallic mineralization. The
geologist took close-up digital photographs of unique or otherwise significant features
described above.
i. Following logging, the geologist selected sample intervals for geochemical analyses.
Selection of sample intervals utilized all the visual rock information gathered by the logger
as well as any information gathered through the use of additional tools such as an XRF
hand held analyzer, hand held geophysical tools, ultraviolet lamp or any other analytical
tool that provided additional information about the geologic environment and
mineralization. Sample intervals did not cross core recovery block boundaries. Sample
intervals were no longer than 5 feet in length and no shorter than 0.5 feet in length. The
minimum core sample length was predicated on obtaining sufficient sample from which
to create a 500 gram pulp. The selection of intervals for geochemical analysis focused on
selecting the shortest sample interval that the accumulated logging information indicates
was a unique zone, structure or area of mineralization. Similarly, wider zones that appear
to be gold mineralized were all sampled as a unit. Wooden blocks, designating the sample
number and starting footage mark, were placed in the core boxes to guide the sampler.
These sample blocks were marked in red while core footage run blocks were marked in
black. Care was taken in assigning sample numbers to allow for insertion of blanks and
standards into the sample stream. Blanks and standards comprised approximately 10% of
the samples submitted to the lab from any given drill hole.
j. The core was digitally photographed. During this process the core was wetted to enhance
picture quality and photographed under high intensity electric lights utilizing plain light
spectrum bulbs. Each core box was photographed with a placard denoting hole number
and footage contained in the box. Core run block and sample interval blocks were plainly
visible in the pictures. Digital resolution was +5 mega-pixels to insure extremely high
quality results. In addition to photographing each core box, close-up or macro photos
were taken by the core logger of any obviously mineralized intervals, significant alteration
or textures, noteworthy lithologic contacts, distinctive structural zones, etc. The core
logger kept an accurate written log of the footage and hole number of these macro photos
were crossed referenced to the digital file name. Once a given hole was photographed
completely, the file name of the macro photos was changed to reflect the hole number
and footage of each macro photo.
May 2016 11-4

k. Once all hole photos from a given hole or part of a hole was taken, they were checked for
quality and completeness by Alina Wyatt, Avalon’s QA/QC manager or Ken Wolf in the
2008 program. Unclear or incomplete photos were re-photographed, re-checked and
added to the complete digital database for each hole.
l. The original hand-written drill core logs were scanned to a digital format (Adobe pdf) and
the resulting scans were checked for clarity and completeness. Hard copy hand drill logs
were converted to a digital drill log format (Excel format) to allow for their use in GIS
and/or resource estimation software. The Excel file was checked for accuracy and
completeness against the original hand written drill log by a third party and any
discrepancies were rectified and errors or omissions corrected. Where necessary, the
core logger referred to the core to make corrections, additions or other changes.
m. Once QA/QC checks were completed on core logs and core photos, a digital copy of the
core logs and core photos was burned to a DVD and stored off-site. In addition, these data
were stored on at least 2 computers in two separate buildings on Avalon’s premises and
were transmitted to Freegold via ftp or email.
n. Sampling Procedure: Once all of the above steps were completed and verified by the
geologist, each marked geochemical sample interval was extracted from the core box.
i. 2008 Sampling Procedure: 100% of the core from each sample interval was placed in
a canvas sample bag bearing the sample number on the sample interval block in the
sample bag. Extra care was taken to insure that only rock and rock fragments from
the proper interval were collected in the sample bag. This sampling was done by a
two person team who cross-referenced sample numbers of intervals on the core logs
to the sample blocks and the sample numbers on the sample bags. The individual
sample bags were sealed and stored in Avalon’s warehouse for subsequent batch
shipping to the geochemical lab.
ii. 2011–2013 Sampling Procedure: Core was split in half length-wise using a tile saw
fitted with a diamond blade. Every section of core drilled was then sampled by taking
one half of the core drilled between each set of run blocks. Extra care was taken to
ensure that only rock and rock fragments from the proper interval were collected in
the sample bag. The individual sample bags were sealed and stored in Avalon’s
warehouse for subsequent batch shipping to the geochemical lab. The remaining half
core is stored in the original boxes at Avalon’s core logging facility.
o. Senior Avalon personnel and the core logger completed the geochemical laboratory
submittal paperwork. Bagged and labeled samples were then loaded into large nylon
poly- sacks capable of holding 2,000 pounds. Representatives of the geochemical lab
collected the poly-sacks and handled all sample preparation and analysis from that point
forward. The minimum instructions required for each sample shipment included:
i. Project Name and client billing instructions.
ii. Name or description for the sample preparation methods requested.
iii. Name or description for the sample pulp size (500 grams).
iv. Name or description of Au analysis procedure (Fire Assay, gravimetric finish) and
description of over-limit condition and action required by laboratory.
May 2016 11-5

v. Name or description of multi-element package analysis procedure (if any) and
description of over-limit condition and action required by laboratory.
vi. Method for distribution of analytical results.
11.4 2011
A total of 10,790 samples were analyzed, including assay and QAQC samples. The types of QAQC samples
used included standards, blanks and duplicates. Standards were inserted at a rate of approximately 7
standard samples per 100 assay samples (7%), blanks were inserted at a rate of approximately 2 blank
samples per 100 assay samples (2.3%), and duplicates (a quarter-section of core) were inserted at a rate
of approximately 1 duplicate sample per 100 assay samples (1%).
The standards used are commercially available from a reputable vendor (Analytical Solutions). The
standards used had values ranging from 0.098ppm gold to 7.15ppm gold. An attempt was made to use
lower gold value standards (with higher base metal values) in zones known to contain higher sulfide
contents, and higher gold value standards were used where high gold values in the core were suspected.
Seventeen different standards were used, with fifteen expected values, including: 7.15ppm Au,
0.334ppm Au, 0.527ppm Au, 1.02ppm Au, 1.81ppm Au, 2.57ppm Au, 3.63ppm Au, 0.885ppm Au,
0.098ppm Au, 0.841ppm Au, 0.627ppm Au, 1.52ppm Au, 4.76ppm Au, 1.24ppm Au, 2.0ppm Au. All except
three standard samples returned acceptable values (within approximately 15% of the expected value, or
approximately one standard deviation). Those standard samples which returned suspect values were re-
run at Avalon’s request, and in all cases the re-assay values fell within the acceptable range.
Blank samples consisted of Browns Hill Quarry basalt, an unmineralized Quaternary basalt flow from the
Fairbanks Mining District, Alaska. Avalon Development has an extensive data base of assay values for this
material which provides a reliable base-line for determining expected geochemical values. All except five
blank samples returned acceptable values. Those blank samples which returned suspect values were re-
run at Avalon’s request, and in all cases the re- assay values fell within the acceptable range.
11.5 2012
QAQC samples were inserted into the drill sample strings on the basis of approximately 1 QAQC sample
per 10 assay samples (approximately 10%). A total of 13,519 samples were analyzed, including assay and
QAQC samples. The types of QAQC samples used included standards, blanks and duplicates. Standards
were inserted at a rate of approximately 7 standard samples per 100 assay samples (7%), blanks were
inserted at a rate of approximately 2 blank samples per 100 assay samples (2.3%), and duplicates (a
quarter-section of core) were inserted at a rate of approximately 1 duplicate sample per 100 assay
samples (1%).
Sixteen standards were used in the 2012 drill program. Four standards were obtained from Rocklabs and
ranged in value from 0.203 ppm gold to 3.562 ppm gold. Twelve standards were obtained from Analytical
Solutions and ranged in value from .334 ppm gold to 7.15ppm gold. An attempt was made to use lower
gold value standards (with higher base metal values) in zones known to have a higher sulfide
concentration, and higher gold value standards were used where high gold values in the core were
suspected. Of the 941 standards used in the 2012 drill program, 11 returned values differing more than
15% from the expected value. Those standard samples which returned suspect values were re-run at
Avalon’s request along with core samples surrounding the standard in question, and in all cases the
re-assay values fell within the acceptable range.
May 2016 11-6

material which provides a reliable base-line for determining expected geochemical values. The Author
reviewed the sample preparation, security and insertion of blanks and standards and is of the opinion the
sampling was completed to industry standards.
11.6 2013
QAQC samples were inserted into the drill sample strings on the basis of approximately 1 QAQC sample
per 10 assay samples (approximately 10%). A total of 2,448 samples were analyzed, including assay and
QAQC samples. The types of QAQC samples used included standards, blanks and duplicates. Standards
were inserted at a rate of approximately 7 standard samples per 100 assay samples (7%), blanks were
inserted at a rate of approximately 2 blank samples per 100 assay samples (2.4%), and a duplicate sample
was taken every 100 samples (1%). Standard and blank samples were analyzed in order of sample number
by ALS Chemex along with the core samples. The coarse reject material to be used for the duplicate
samples was returned to Avalon by ALS Chemex and will be sent to another lab for further quality
assurance.
Thirteen standards were used in the 2013 drill program. Five standards were obtained from Rocklabs and
ranged in value from .414 ppm gold to 3.562 ppm gold. Eight standards were obtained from Analytical
Solutions and ranged in value from .334ppm gold to 7.15ppm gold. An attempt was made to use gold
standards with higher base metal values in zones known to have a higher sulfide concentration, and higher
gold value standards were used where high gold values in the core were suspected. Of the 71 standards
used in the 2013 drill program, none returned values differing more than 15% from the expected value.
material which provides a reliable base-line for determining expected geochemical values.
Drill core from the 2011 – 2013 programs at Golden Summit were prepared at ALS Chemex in Fairbanks
with pulps analyzed at either ALS Chemex’s analytical facilities in Reno, Nevada or Vancouver, BC.
Approximately half of the samples during the 2012 drilling campaign were sent to Acme Lab as ACME Lab
had both prep and analysis laboratories in Fairbanks. ALS Chemex holds ISO 9001:2008 registration and
an ISO 17025 accreditations for specific laboratory procedures. ACME was an ISO/IEC 17025 Accredited
facility. There is no relationship between Freegold and any of the laboratories. Sample preparation
procedures between the facilities has varied over time however, analytical work consisted of gold by fire
assay with atomic absorption or gravimetric finish plus a variable multi-element suite analyzed by
inductively coupled plasma emission spectroscopy (ICP) methods.
Laboratory Preparatory and Analytical Procedures have been largely derived from ALS Chemex and Acme
Laboratories procedures that are publically available.
Samples Assayed by ALS Chemex generally underwent the following preparatory and assay procedures:
a. The sample was first logged in the tracking system, weighed, dried and finely crushed to
better than 70 % passing a 2 mm (Tyler 9 mesh, US Std. No.10) screen. A split of up to 250
g was taken and pulverized to better than 85 % passing a 75-micron (Tyler 200 mesh, US
Std. No. 200) screen. This method was utilized for rock chip or drill samples.
May 2016 11-7

b. Excessively wet samples were dried in drying ovens. This is the default drying procedure
for most rock chip and drill samples.
c. Fine crushing of rock chip and drill samples to better than 70% of the sample passing 2
mm. The sample was then split using a riffle splitter. The 250 g sample split was then
pulverized to better than 85% of the sample passing 75 microns. In instance where gold
only was required.: AA23 AU Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy (AAS) was performed.. A
prepared sample was fused with a mixture of lead oxide, sodium carbonate, borax, silica
and other reagents as required, inquarted with 6 mg of gold-free silver and then cupelled
to yield a precious metal bead. The bead was digested in 0.5 mL dilute nitric acid in the
microwave oven, 0.5 mL concentrated hydrochloric acid was then added and the bead
was further digested in the microwave at a lower power setting. The digested solution
was cooled, diluted to a total volume of 4 mL with de-mineralized water, and analyzed by
atomic absorption spectroscopy against matrix-matched standards. A 30 g sample weight
was utilized. Detection Limits under this method are: 0.005 ppm to 10 ppm. Samples that
returned greater that >10 ppm were automatically re-done using Au Grav 2 or Au-GRA22.
Under this method the prepared sample was fused with a mixture of lead oxide, sodium
carbonate, borax, silica and other reagents in order to produce a lead button. The lead
button containing the precious metals was cupelled to remove the lead. The remaining
gold and silver bead is parted in dilute nitric acid, annealed and weighed as gold. Silver, if
requested, is then determined by the difference in weights. Detection limits under this
method ranged from 0.5 ppm to 1,000 ppm.
d. In the event multi-element analyses was requested generally the ME ICP61 was selected
– Inductively Coupled Plasma – Atomic Emission Spectroscopy (ICP – AES). Under this
method a prepared sample (0.25 g) was digested with perchloric, nitric, hydrofluoric and
hydrochloric acids. The residue was topped up with dilute hydrochloric acid and the
resulting solution analyzed by inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry.
Results are corrected for spectral interelement interferences. NOTE: Four acid digestions
are able to dissolve most minerals; however, although the term “near- total ” is used,
depending on the sample matrix, not all elements are quantitatively extracted.
e. Soil Sampling was also conducted on the project in 2011 and 2012. Soil samples were
collected by digging a hole through the tundra mat cover down to the mineral soil layer
and placing a sample of the soil into a marked bag. The clumps of moss and remaining soil
were then returned and the hole was covered up. Sample weights were generally 250 –
500 grams. Samples were taken to ALS Chemex in Fairbanks for preparation and
subsequent analysis at either their Vancouver, BC or Reno, Nevada analytical facilities.
Multi-element analysis for gold and pathfinder elements was performed. Fire Assay for
gold with an AA finish for the gold and four acid digestion was used for the 33 pathfinder
elements. (ICP- AES). QA/QC was restricted to the laboratories internal QA/QC program
for the soil sampling program.
Samples Assayed by Acme Laboratories generally underwent the following preparatory and assay
procedures:
a. Excessive wet samples were first dried. The sample was crushed to 70% passing -10 mesh
and then a 250 g split was taken. The 250g split was then pulverized to 85% passing 200
mesh. The preparation process and this split are subject to QA/QC control checks during
the progression and prior to the submission to the analytical portion. A sieve test is used
May 2016 11-8

to monitor the process on select and random samples at the primary crushing stage and
pulverization, which are recorded. In the event there is non-conformance the quality
standard process is reviewed and corrected. In the instance where gold only assays were
required Fire Assay 30 – with AAS Finish was selected. Detection limits ranges from 0.0005
to 10 ppm. Any assay that was greater than >10 ppm was automatically re-run employing
a gravimetric finish.
Both ALS Chemex and Acme Laboratories have rigorous internal quality control standards, which utilize
the use of their own standard, blanks and duplicates within the sample stream in addition to the standard,
blanks and duplicates employed in the sample submittal process by Avalon.
It is the opinion of this author that the data collection, sampling, core recovery, chain of custody,
preparation and analysis of the samples, and QA/QC protocol was conducted with a high level of due care,
employing methods that meet or exceed industry standards.
May 2016 11-9

12.0 DATA VERIFICATION
The following provides an overview of the Data Verification methods employed during the various
exploration programs undertaken at Golden Summit.
Core photographs, and assay certificate as well as the database were reviewed. Spot checking of the assay
database was also performed. During each exploration program Avalon Development undertook an
evaluation of each sample batch as it was received and any spurious results were corrected by the
analytical lab prior to the data being posted to the master geochemical database for the project. The
Author has visited the Avalon Development logging facilities on multiple occasions and has noted the
above detailed procedures being performed as described. The Author has also held several discussions
with Avalon Development with regard to the QA/QC procedures employed and has not noted any areas
of concern. It is the opinion of this author that the data collection, sampling, core recovery, chain of
custody, preparation and analysis of the samples, and QA/QC protocol was conducted with a high level of
due care, employing methods that meet or exceed industry standards.
May 2016 12-1

13.0 MINERAL PROCESSING & METALLURGICAL
TESTING
Metallurgical testing for the Project was initiated in 2012 with bottle roll tests being performed on 10
different drill samples. This testwork was performed by Kappes, Cassiday & Associates (KCA) with the
final report dated March 21, 2012. The primary objective of this testwork was to obtain a preliminary
indication of the cyanide leaching characteristics of the oxide mineralogy within the deposit.
A second set of process testwork was started in 2013 on five different mineralogical composites. These
tests were performed by SGS Canada Inc. (SGS) with the final report dated May 21, 2014. This testwork
primarily focused on investigation of various processing methods for the recovery of gold from sulfide
materials.
Additional bottle roll and column leach testwork was performed in 2014 to investigate grind sensitivities
in four drill core composites and to examine heap leach behavior in the oxide material. These tests were
performed by McClelland Laboratories, Inc. with a final report dated January 9, 2015.
13.1 KCA T ESTWO RK
13.1.1 Bottle Roll Testwork

KCA received 13 drill interval samples on February 16, 2012 for preparation of ten separate bottle roll
tests. The metallurgical testwork at KCA consisted of 120 hour bottle roll tests on seven individual samples
as well as three composite samples.
The samples were first crushed in the lab and added to water to create a suitable slurry for testing. Sodium
cyanide and hydrated lime were then added to the slurry to achieve 1.0 g/L NaCN at a pH between 10.5
and 11.0, additional reagents were added to maintain these values throughout the test period. The slurry
was then agitated for two minutes every hour, with solution samples initially taken at two, four, eight,
and 24 hours. After the initial 24 hours, samples were taken every 24 hours for four days.
Gold head grades for the ten samples ranged from 0.34 g/t to 1.4 g/t. Final soluble gold recoveries, after
120 hours, ranged from 38% to 73%, with no measurable correlation to head grade. The tests show that
all of the samples have fast leaching kinetics, with over 60% of the total soluble recovery occurring in the
first 24 hours. Figure 13-1 shows the time vs recovery curve for each of the ten tests.
May 2016 13-1

Figure 13-1: Gold Leaching Kinetics
May 2016 13-2

13.2 SGS P ROCESS F LOWSHEET T ESTWORK
SGS received 279 drill core samples that were composited into five different rock types: oxide, transition,
hornfels sulfide, intrusive sulfide, and schist sulfide. All five composites were subjected to Bond Ball Mill
Work Index and whole mineralized material cyanide leach testing. The four non-oxide composites were
also subjected to additional sulfide recovery tests, including: whole mineralized material roasting, whole
mineralized material pressure oxidation (POX), flotation, and flotation followed by pressure oxidation. A
summary of the highest Gold recoveries is presented in Table 13-1.
Table 13-1: Summary of the Highest Leach Recoveries
Mineralized Gold Head Grade Gold Recovery

Flowsheet
Material Type (g/t) (%)
Oxide Whole Mineralized Material 0.94 89.3
Coarse Mineralized Material 0.97 88.2
Transition Whole Mineralized Material 0.66 75.6
Coarse Mineralized Material 0.52 57.3
Whole Mineralized Material POX 0.55 98.3
Whole Mineralized Material Roast 0.57 85.4
Flotation 0.66 74.8
Flotation – POX 0.60 91.1
Hornfels Whole Mineralized Material 0.66 57.8
Sulfide Whole Mineralized Material POX 0.68 98.5
Flotation 0.78 57.0
Intrusive Whole Mineralized Material 0.95 65.2
Sulfide Whole Mineralized Material POX 0.89 97.9
Flotation 1.02 66.6
Schist Sulfide Whole Mineralized Material 0.93 15.5
Whole Mineralized Material POX 0.92 97.9
Flotation 0.91 14.1
Results from process flowsheet testwork shows that the oxide and, to a lesser extent, the transition
material are recoverable without any form of sulfide oxidation. Both the hornfels and intrusive sulfide
material can be recovered with direct cyanidation, although at much lower recoveries. All of the sulfide
containing material was shown to respond favorably to both POX and roasting.
May 2016 13-3

13.2.1 Bond Ball Mill Work Index Testwork
All five composites were subjected to Bond Ball Mill Work Index testing. The composites were crushed to
minus 6 mesh with the tests being conducted to a 150 mesh closing size. A summary of the test results is
presented in Table 13-2 indicating that the Project mineralized materials have a medium hardness.
Table 13-2: Bond Ball Mill Work Index
Mineralized F80 P80 BWI

Material Type (µm) (µm) (kWh/t)
Oxide 1484 81 12.5
Transition 1601 81 13.6
Hornfels Sulfide 1590 80 14.8
Intrusive Sulfide 844 77 13.7
Schist Sulfide 1485 79 12.8
13.2.2 Whole Mineralized Material Leaching

Whole mineralized material leaching testwork was performed on all five composites using standard bottle
roll test procedures. The bottle roll tests were conducted for 48 hours at a range of target grind sizes,
from P80 20 µm to P80 106 µm, with cyanide concentrations of 1.0 g/L.
Both the oxide and transition samples had recoveries that were slightly dependent on grind size. The
oxide sample had gold recoveries between 85.2% at the coarsest grind to 89.3% at the finest grind. The
transition sample had slightly lower gold recoveries than the oxide sample, recovering between 68.2% at
the coarse size and 75.6% at the fine size.
The hornfels sulfide and intrusive sulfide samples had lower gold recoveries, with the hornfels sample
recovery ranging between 47.9% and 57.8% and the intrusive sample recovery ranging from 57.8% to
65.2%. The schist sulfide sample had very low gold recoveries, ranging from 8.5% to 15.5%. All three
sulfide composites were shown to have no measurable correlation between grind size and recovery at the
tested grind sizes.
13.2.3 Whole Mineralized Material Pressure Oxidation and Leaching

Whole mineralized material POX testwork was performed on the four sulfide containing composites. Two
samples from each of the sulfide containing composites were ground to P80 75 µm and P80 53 µm. All of
the samples underwent 45 minutes of pre-acidification, to a pH of 2.0, prior to POX. The samples were
then oxidized in an autoclave at 200°C with 100 psi of overpressure for 80 minutes. POX residue showed
that over 97% of the sulfides in the samples were oxidized.
Residues of the POX tests were washed and neutralized prior to undergoing cyanidation bottle roll testing.
Test parameters for the bottle roll tests were the same as those used in the whole mineralized material
leaching testwork. The test results from the leaching show that gold recovery is insensitive to grind size
in the ranges tested. Average gold recovery for the transition composite was 96.4%. The hornfels,
intrusive, and schist sulfide samples had average gold recoveries of 97.1%, 97.2%, and 97.0%, respectively.
May 2016 13-4

13.2.4 Whole Mineralized Material Roasting
Whole mineralized material roasting testwork was performed on the four sulfide containing composites.
All of the samples were ground to P80 75 µm and heated to 550°C for 90 minutes. The samples were then
washed neutralized prior to leaching. Sulfide analysis on the roasted material showed that over 95% of
the sulfides in the samples were oxidized.
The samples were then leached using the same standard bottle roll test procedures as the whole
mineralized material leaching. All four samples showed increased gold recoveries compared to whole
mineralized material leaching. The transition sample had the highest gold recovery, at 85.4%, an increase
of approximately 15% compared to whole mineralized material leaching. The hornfels sample gold
recovery increased to 81.5%, an increase of approximately 28% compared to whole mineralized material
leaching. The gold recovery for the intrusive sample increased to 84.0%, an increase of approximately
25% compared to whole mineralized material leaching. The schist sample had the highest overall increase
in gold recovery when compared to whole mineralized material leaching, an increase of approximately
57%, but had the lowest overall recovery, at 68.4%.
13.2.5 Sulfide Flotation & Leaching

Rougher kinetic flotation tests were performed on each of the four sulfide containing composites to
determine flotation characteristics of the composites. Each composite had three tests performed at
different grind sizes ranging between P80 80 µm and P80 130 µm. Copper sulfate was used to activate the
sulfide minerals in the samples with potassium amyl xanthate (PAX) and Aero 407 being used as collectors.
Gold recoveries into flotation concentrate are shown in Table 13-3.
Table 13-3: Flotation Concentrate Gold Recoveries
Composite Rock Type Test # Au Recovery (%)

Transition R-04 85.2
Hornfels Sulfide R-01 88.1
Intrusive Sulfide R-02 92.8
Schist Sulfide R-03 83.0
At the conclusion of the rougher kinetic tests, twelve batch flotation tests were performed to generate
concentrate for downstream testing. The products from the twelve tests were combined to form
composites for each of the four sulfide rock types.
Samples from each of the bulk flotation concentrates were ground for zero, 15, and 45 minutes and then
subjected to leaching with a 5 g/L sodium cyanide solution. Gold recoveries for the transition sample
May 2016 13-5

averaged 74.8%. Gold recoveries for the hornfels, intrusive, and schist sulfide samples had recoveries
averaging 58.0%, 69.0%, and 13.4%, respectively. These recoveries were similar to the recoveries seen in
the whole mineralized material leaching testwork, indicating that oxidation of the sulfides is required to
improve recoveries.
Additional cyanide leaching testwork was performed on flotation tailings to determine gold extractions of
the tailings stream. Gold recoveries in the tailings streams ranged from 18.1% to 61.4%. The low
recoveries reflect the low proportion of gold reporting to the flotation tailings.
13.2.6 Flotation Pressure Oxidation & Leaching

Flotation concentrate from the bulk flotation tests were subjected POX tests. Eight 80-minute POX tests
were performed, two from each sulfide composite, utilizing an autoclave at 200°C and 100 psi oxygen
overpressure. The residues from the POX tests indicated that sulfide oxidation was greater than 98% for
all samples.
Residues of the POX tests were washed and neutralized prior to undergoing intense cyanidation bottle
roll testing. Test parameters for the bottle roll tests were the same as those used in the flotation
concentrate leaching testwork. Gold recoveries for the transition samples averaged 95.9%. Gold
recoveries for the hornfels and schist Sulfide composites averaged 98.4% and 91.6%, respectively. One of
the cyanidation tests performed on the intrusive sulfide composite achieved a gold recovery 83.8%. This
result was likely erroneous due to poor solution chemistry. The second test performed on the intrusive
sulfide composite achieved a much higher gold recovery of 97.1%.
13.2.7 Coarse Mineralized Material Cyanidation

Four coarse mineralized material bottle roll tests, two on each of the oxide and transition composites,
were conducted to examine the sensitivity of gold recoveries to particle size. The samples were crushed
to minus 6 mesh prior before the material was added to a 5 g/L sodium cyanide leach solution. The bottle
roll tests were conducted by rotating the bottles for one minute every hour. Solution samples were taken
at the two, six, and 24 hour marks and every 24 hours after, until the 120 hour mark.
The leaching kinetics for both of the samples were very fast, with greater than 95% of the total gold
recoveries occurring in the first 24 hours. Overall gold recoveries for the oxide sample averaged 88.1%,
only one percent lower than the best result from the whole mineralized material testwork ground to
P80 50 µm. The transition sample did not perform as well as the oxide sample when compared to the
whole mineralized material testwork. The transition samples only achieved 57.3% gold recovery,
compared to the 75.6% achieved for the whole mineralized material testwork ground to P80 50 µm.
13.3 M C C LELLAND T ESTWORK

Metallurgical testwork was performed on four drill core composites of different mineralogy from the
Project. The different composites were designated as oxide, transition, intrusive sulfide, and hornfels
sulfide. These composites were initially subjected to coarse bottle roll tests conducted at five different
feed sizes. Due to poor recoveries on the non-oxide composites, additional bottle roll tests were
performed at the finer grind sizes in attempt to increase recoveries.
One column leach test was performed on the crushed oxide composite to determine heap leaching
characteristics of the material.
May 2016 13-6

13.3.1 Bottle Roll Testwork
Bottle roll testwork was performed on four composites using standard bottle roll test procedures. The
first set of bottle roll tests were ran for 120 hours, agitating for one minute every hour. Target grind size
ranged from P80 25 mm to P80 1.7 mm, with cyanide concentrations of 1.0 g/L.
The oxide sample had gold recoveries between 77.2% and 81.3%. Grind size did not appear to have an
appreciable effect on gold recoveries at the sizes tested. The transition sample had gold recoveries
between 21.5% and 40.4%. Similar to the oxide sample, the grind size did not appear to have an
appreciable effect on gold recoveries between 25 mm and 6.3 mm, as all four tests had recoveries
between 21.5% and 29.4%. Grind size did appear to have an effect when going from 6.3 mm to 1.7 mm
as gold recovery improved to 40.4%.
Both the intrusive sulfide and hornfels sulfide samples had low gold recoveries, with the intrusive sample
recovery ranging between 17.9% and 41.5% and the hornfels sample recovery ranging from 12.3% to
27.9%. Finer grind sizes appeared to have a positive effect on recoveries. Recoveries increased at each
finer grind size with the exception of the coarsest hornfels sample.
Due to the low recoveries achieved on the transition, hornfels, and intrusive samples, additional bottle
roll tests were performed at P80 212 µm and P80 75 µm. The test procedures for the additional bottle rolls
differed from the previous tests by decreasing the leach time to 96 hours and increasing the cyanide
concentration to 5 g/L. All three samples had higher recoveries than the previous tests. Gold
recoveries ranged from 57.9% to 65.8% in the transition sample, 54.7% to 63.9% in the intrusive sample,
and 44.2% to 53.3% in the hornfels sample. Grind size did not appear to have an effect on recoveries
between 212 µm to 75 µm.
May 2016 13-7

Table 13-4 summarizes the gold recoveries for all bottle roll tests.
Table 13-4: Bottle Roll Test Results
Leach Time NaCN Conc. Au Recovery

Composite Feed Size
(hr) (g/L) (%)
Oxide 25 mm 5 1.00 79.8
Oxide 19 mm 5 1.00 79.2
Oxide 12.5 mm 5 1.00 77.8
Oxide 6.3 mm 5 1.00 77.2
Oxide 1.7 mm 5 1.00 81.3
Transition 25 mm 5 1.00 21.5
Transition 19 mm 5 1.00 29.4
Transition 12.5 mm 5 1.00 25.9
Transition 212 µm 4 5.00 65.8
Intrusive Sulfide 25 mm 5 1.00 17.9
Intrusive Sulfide 19 mm 5 1.00 25.3
Intrusive Sulfide 12.5 mm 5 1.00 29.7
Intrusive Sulfide 212 µm 4 5.00 63.9
Hornfels Sulfide 25 mm 5 1.00 23.6
Hornfels Sulfide 19 mm 5 1.00 12.3
Hornfels Sulfide 12.5 mm 5 1.00 15.4
Hornfels Sulfide 212 µm 4 5.00 47.8
May 2016 13-8

13.3.2 Column Leach Testwork
Column leach testwork was performed on the oxide composite in a 15 cm diameter by 3 m high column.
The material, crushed to a P80 25 mm, was loaded into the column and subjected to cyanidation using a
cyanide solution of 1.0 g/L sodium cyanide. The cyanide solution was applied at a rate of 12 Lph/m2 with
solution samples being collected every 24 hours for analysis. The total overall leach cycle for the test was
55 days, which included a 34 day primary leach cycle followed by a 14 day rest cycle and an additional
7 day secondary leach cycle. The leach cycle was followed by a nine day rinse cycle and a 10 drain-down
test.
The test showed that the oxide composite had extremely fast leaching kinetics, achieving greater than an
80% gold recovery in 11 days with a total gold recovery of 87%. The gold recovery curve for the tests is
presented in Figure 13-2.
100%
90%
80%
70%
Au Recovery
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0 15 30 45 60 75
Leach Time (days)
Figure 13-2: Gold Recovery Curve
May 2016 13-9

14.0 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES
Freegold contracted Giroux Consultants to update the gold resource present on the Project. Gary Giroux
was the Qualified Person responsible for the resource estimate. Mr. Giroux is a Qualified Person based
on education, experience and his membership in a professional organization; criteria set out in NI 43-101.
Mr. Giroux is also independent of Freegold.
This update of the NI 43-101 resource reported in December 2012 (Abrams and Giroux, 2012) was based
on an additional 10 drillholes completed in 2013 and subdivides the resource into an oxide and sulfide
portion. The effective date for this resource is May 31, 2013, the date that the data was received. There
were 3 drillholes completed since this date which would not have a material effect on this resource and
as result this resource remains current. The 3 new holes are compared to the estimated blocks they pass
through in section 14.8 Model Verification.
14.1 D ATA A NALYSIS

The data provided by Freegold consisted of 330 drillhole collars and 43,581 gold assays extending across
the Property. Gold assays reported as less than the detection limit were replaced by a value of 0.5 that
detection limit. Gold values reported as zero parts per billion (ppb) were also set to one ppb. A total of
306 gaps in the from-to record were found and values of one ppb Au were inserted to fill these gaps.
Figure 14-1: Local Geology of the Dolphin Stock Area (Adams, 2010)
The Dolphin stock is a multi-phase intrusive located on the ridge between Willow Creek and Bedrock
Creek. The stock has been traced on surface by soil sampling and RC drill data and represents an area of
1,200 ft. by 2,000 ft. (366 x 610 m).
May 2016 14-1

Figure 14-2: Dolphin Stock Area Geologic Map, Gold-Arsenic Soil Anomalies, Aeromagnetic Anomaly
and Drillholes (Adams, 2010)
A three-dimensional mineralized solid was provided by Freegold to constrain the Dolphin Stock Zone
Resource estimate.
May 2016 14-2

Figure 14-3: Isometric View Looking NE Showing the Mineralized Solid Purple, Oxides in Brown,
Drillhole Traces and Surface Topography
Drillholes were “passed through” these solids with the point each hole entered and left the solid recorded.
Individual assays were then tagged with a code of mineralized if inside solid and below oxide surface,
oxide if inside the mineralized solid and above the oxide surface and waste if outside the mineralized solid.
Of the supplied drillhole data, 185 drillholes were drilled in the mineralized Dolphin Stock totaling
39,301 m. Note that of the ten new drillholes provided for this update three were drilled from the same
collar. Holes GSDL1307 and GSDL1308 were not used in the estimate as they were replaced by GSDL1309
which was drilled deeper.
To compare samples above and below the oxide surface the distribution of gold grades was examined
using a lognormal cumulative frequency plot (Figure 14-4). The distributions of grade are almost identical
with no differences shown that would indicate remobilization at the contact. As a result all assays were
combined for estimation purposes.
May 2016 14-3

Figure 14-4: Cumulative Frequency Plot for Gold in Oxidized and Unoxidized Assays
The gold distribution, within the mineralized solid, was examined using a lognormal cumulative frequency
plot to determine if capping was required and if so at what level. The procedure used is explained in a
paper by Dr. A.J. Sinclair titled Applications of probability graphs in mineral exploration (Sinclair, 1976).
In short the cumulative distribution of a single normal distribution will plot as a straight line on probability
paper while a single lognormal distribution will plot as a straight line on lognormal probability paper.
Overlapping populations will plot as curves separated by inflection points. Sinclair proposed a method of
separating out these overlapping populations using a technique called partitioning. In 1993 a computer
program called P-RES was made available to partition probability plots interactively on a computer
(Bentzen and Sinclair, 1993). A screen dump from this program is shown for gold in Figure 14-5. On this
plot the actual gold distribution is shown as black dots. The inflection points that separate the populations
are shown as vertical lines and each population is shown by the straight lines of open circles. The
interpretation is tested by recombining the data in the proportions selected and this test is shown as
triangles compared to the original distribution.
May 2016 14-4

Figure 14-5: Lognormal Cumulative Frequency Plot for Gold Assays within Mineralized Solids.
A total of seven over-lapping lognormal populations are indicated (Table 14-1).
Table 14-1: Gold Populations Present within Mineralized Solid
Population Mean Au Percentage Number of

( g/t) of Total Assays
1 97.61 0.04 % 11
2 48.84 0.08 % 23
3 13.52 0.25 % 70
4 5.91 0.72 % 200
5 0.31 55.49 % 15,394
6 0.08 25.78 % 7,151
7 0.01 17.63 % 4,891
May 2016 14-5

Population 1 represents erratic outlier grades and should be capped. An effective cap would be two
standard deviations above the mean of Population 2, a value of 88 g/t Au. A total of seven assays were
capped at 88 g/t Au. Populations 2, 3 and 4 might represent shear zone mineralization thought to strike
to the north east and dip 40 to 50° to the northwest. Population 5 might represent the earlier stockwork
style mineralization. Populations 6 and 7 could represent post mineral dykes and internal waste. Since
there is insufficient data to model the higher grade shear zones an indicator approach was used.
Table 14-2: Statistics for Gold within the Mineralized Solid
Description Assay Capped

Au (g/t) Au (g/t)
Number of Assays 30,152 30,152
Mean Au (g/t) 0.457 0.442
Standard Deviation 3.098 2.285
Minimum Value 0.001 0.001
Maximum Value 264.0 88.0
Coefficient of Variation 6.78 5.17
14.2 C OMPOSITES
Uniform downhole three m composites were formed that honored the mineralized solid boundaries.
Intervals less than 1.5 m at the boundary of the solid were combined with the adjoining sample to produce
a composite file of uniform support, 3 ± 1.5 m in length. The statistics for three m composites are shown
below.
Table 14-3: Statistics for Gold in Three m Composites within the Mineralized Solid
Description Au (g/t)
Number of Composites 12,787
Mean Au (g/t) 0.417
Standard Deviation 1.256
Minimum Value 0.001
Maximum Value 52.47
Coefficient of Variation 3.01
A lognormal cumulative probability plot was again used to evaluate the mineralized populations within
three m composites. Figure 14-5 shows seven overlapping lognormal populations with the erratic outlier
population gone after capping.
May 2016 14-6

Figure 14-6: Lognormal Cumulative Frequency Plot for Gold Three m Composites
within Mineralized Solids
Table 14-4: Gold Populations Three m Composites within Mineralized Solid
Mean Percentage Number of

Population
Au (g/t) of Total Assays
1 45.00 0.04 % 5
2 10.25 0.33 % 42
3 3.67 0.93 % 119
4 0.33 68.93 % 8,833
5 0.07 17.50 % 2,243
6 0.02 8.05 % 1,032
7 0.003 4.21 % 541
Populations 1 to 3 might represent the higher grade shear hosted gold mineralization while Population 4
might represent the more pervasive stockwork style gold. Populations 5, 6 and 7 would represent post
mineral dykes and other internal waste. A threshold that would separate Populations 1 to 3 from
Population 4 would be two standard deviations above the mean of Population 4, a value of 1.0 g/t Au.
May 2016 14-7

An indicator approach to modelling these two styles of mineralization would set up a single indicator
variable for each composite. The indicator would be defined as follows.
Au IND = 0 if Au < 1.0 g/t Au (stockwork style mineralization)
Au IND = 1 if Au ≥ 1.0 g/t Au (shear zone mineralization)
In this manner the data base is reduced to zeros and ones for modelling.
14.3 V ARIOG RAPHY

Pairwise relative semivariograms were produced for gold in the low grade stockwork data (Au < 1.0 g/t)
and for the higher grade shear zone indicator variable for composites with Au ≥ 1.0 g/t . The longest range
and therefore best continuity within the stockwork mineralization was 120 m along azimuth 68°. The
longest range for the higher grade shear zone indicator variable was 100 m along azimuth 90°. In all cases
geometric anisotropy was demonstrated with nested spherical models fit to the data. The semivariogram
parameters are tabulated below.
Table 14-5: Semivariogram Parameters
Variable Az/Dip Co C1 C2 Short Long

Range (m) Range (m)
Au in LG 68 / 0 0.20 0.32 0.13 12.0 120.0
158 / -73 0.20 0.32 0.13 50.0 110.0
338/ -17 0.20 0.32 0.13 15.0 40.0
HG IND 90 / 0 1.40 0.31 0.19 30.0 100.0
0 / -85 1.40 0.31 0.19 10.0 120.0
180 / -5 1.40 0.31 0.19 12.0 30.0
14.4 B LOCK M O DEL

A block model containing blocks 10 x 10 x 5 m in dimension was superimposed over the Dolphin
mineralized solid with the percentage of each block below surface topography and within the solid
recorded. In addition the proportion of each block lying above the oxide surface was recorded. The block
model origin is shown below.
Lower Left Corner

Easting 478700 E Column size = 10 m 145 Columns
Northing 7214700 N Row size = 10 m 130 Rows
Top of Model
Elevation 590 Level size = 5 m 155 Levels
No Rotation
May 2016 14-8

Figure 14-7: Isometric View of Block Model Looking N Showing Oxides Red, Mineralized Solid in White
and Drillhole Traces in Purple
14.5 B ULK D ENSITY

A total of seven specific gravity (SG) determinations, using the weight in air/ weight in water methodology,
were made in 2011 from drill core in holes GSDC1127 and GSDC1128. An additional 23 determinations
were completed in 2011 from holes GSDC1128 to GSDC1131. In 2012 an additional 37 measurements
were made. When the single measurement in massive sulfide is ignored, the other 66 had an average SG
of 2.67.
Table 14-6: Specific Gravity Determinations Dolphin
Depth Dry Weight Wet Weight

Hole Number (ft) Avg. (g) Avg. (g) SG Rock Type
GSDC 1127 270.50 227.70 186.00 5.46 massive sulfide
GSDC 1130 594.00 391.40 231.70 2.45 AGRD
GSDC 1174 790.50 777.33 495.67 2.76 BqzS
GSDC 1174 802.00 1681.33 1062.33 2.72 BqzS
GSCH1205 637.00 1368.33 854.33 2.66 BqzS
GSCL1207 558.30 909.00 578.33 2.75 BqzS
GSDL1220 296.00 947.67 598.00 2.71 BqzS
GSDC 1176 590.60 522.00 328.00 2.69 CarbS
GSDC1165 390.60 707.00 440.00 2.65 CarbS
GSDC1167 91.00 690.67 403.00 2.40 CarbS
GSDC1169 396.50 567.00 356.00 2.69 CarbS
May 2016 14-9

GSCL1207 40.00 704.00 419.00 2.47 CarbS
GSDC 1130 545.00 486.30 294.70 2.54 CHL-GRD
GSDC 1176 509.00 730.00 455.33 2.66 ChlS
GSDC1165 123.40 521.00 326.00 2.67 ChlS
GSDC1165 968.00 566.00 361.67 2.77 ChlS
GSDC 1131 496.00 397.90 233.60 2.42 DAC PORPH
GSCL1202 777.50 1606.00 1029.00 2.78 Eco
GSCL1202 776.50 781.00 500.33 2.78 Eco
GSDC 1127 284.00 192.50 114.60 2.47 GRD
GSDC 1127 298.00 547.50 343.50 2.68 GRD
GSDC 1127 641.00 182.65 115.50 2.72 GRD
GSDC 1128 348.50 573.90 419.50 3.72 GRD
GSDC 1128 282.00 234.50 135.20 2.36 GRD
GSDC 1128 332.50 435.70 274.40 2.70 GRD
GSDC 1128 439.00 440.50 267.20 2.54 GRD
GSDC 1128 493.00 524.00 326.00 2.65 GRD
GSDC 1128 512.50 529.50 327.80 2.63 GRD
GSDC 1128 522.00 409.00 256.00 2.67 GRD
GSDC 1128 531.00 384.80 240.50 2.67 GRD
GSDC 1128 557.50 224.90 138.00 2.59 GRD
GSDC 1128 576.00 410.00 257.00 2.68 GRD
GSDC 1128 582.00 473.00 296.50 2.68 GRD
GSDC 1128 584.00 134.20 79.50 2.45 GRD
GSDC 1128 621.00 297.80 178.70 2.50 GRD
GSDC 1128 643.00 164.00 101.80 2.64 GRD
GSDC 1129 13.50 398.90 240.20 2.51 GRD
GSDC 1130 271.00 479.60 292.00 2.56 GRD
GSDL1211 155.00 1475.00 961.00 2.87 GRD
GSDL1220 224.00 746.00 464.67 2.65 GRD
GSDL1220 361.00 912.33 573.00 2.69 GRD
GSDL1220 411.00 670.00 423.00 2.71 GRD
GSDL1222 137.00 1177.00 709.00 2.51 GRD
GSDC1165 90.60 738.67 479.67 2.85 GS
GSDC1165 113.50 743.00 489.00 2.93 GS
GSDC1167 12.80 669.00 432.33 2.83 GS
GSDC1168 39.50 1138.33 742.33 2.87 GS
GSCL1212 122.00 689.00 437.67 2.74 HFS
GSDC1165 880.70 920.00 580.67 2.71 Mar
GSDC1165 886.00 884.00 526.00 2.47 Mar
GSDC1165 205.80 1020.33 633.67 2.64 QmiS
GSDC1167 95.50 507.00 309.67 2.57 QmiS
GSDC 1130 644.00 418.40 258.00 2.61 RHY PORPH
May 2016 14-10

GSDC1165 940.80 468.00 295.00 2.71 Sch
GSDC1165 954.20 727.00 448.33 2.61 Sch
GSDC1167 499.20 681.00 427.33 2.68 Sch
GSDC 1130 620.00 318.10 198.90 2.67 SGRD
GSDC 1131 528.00 424.50 263.90 2.64 SGRD
GSDC 1131 636.00 301.70 186.10 2.61 SGRD
GSDC 1127 651.50 179.30 111.60 2.65 TON
GSDC 1128 321.00 511.70 308.30 2.52 TON
GSDL1211 528.00 743.33 467.33 2.69 TON
GSDL1211 1068.50 995.00 630.00 2.73 TON
GSDL1212 777.00 1016.67 646.33 2.75 TON
GSDL1213 1661.50 991.00 635.33 2.79 TON
GSDL1220 533.00 1065.00 672.33 2.71 TON
GSDL1220 585.50 1066.33 673.67 2.72 TON
GSDC 1131 332.50 435.70 274.40 2.70
Total = 66 2.67
The relationship between SG and gold grade was examined by averaging the SG over a series of gold grade
ranges in Table 14-7.
Table 14-7: Specific Gravity Sorted by Gold Grades
Au Grade Average Number of Minimum Maximum Average

Range ( g/t) Au ( g/t) Samples SG SG SG
0.001 – 0.01 0.005 11 2.47 2.93 2.74
0.01 – 0.05 0.027 13 2.40 2.78 2.63
0.05 – 0.10 0.063 10 2.51 2.87 2.69
0.10 – 0.50 0.228 22 2.45 2.79 2.63
> 0.5 1.086 11 2.36 3.72 2.70
TOTAL 67 2.67
May 2016 14-11

Based on the samples to date there appears to be no correlation between gold grades and SG. When the
oxide surface is considered the results can be subdivided as follows:
Table 14-8: Specific Gravity Sorted by Oxidation State
Oxidation Number of Minimum Maximum Average

State Samples SG SG SG
Oxides 14 2.23 2.61 2.51
Sulfides 49 2.36 3.72 2.66
Waste 6 2.66 2.77 2.71
As a result an SG of 2.51 was used for oxide material while the average of 2.67 was applied to all blocks
below the oxide surface. This is an increase from the average of 2.63 used in the 2011 estimate (Adams
and Giroux, 2012).
During future drill campaigns every effort should be made to further quantify the SG value of oxide
material.
14.6 G RADE I NTERPOLATIO N

Grades for the lower grade stockwork style mineralization were first interpolated into blocks using only
composites < 1.0 g/t Au. The interpolation was done by ordinary kriging in four passes. The first pass
used a search ellipse with dimensions equal to 0.25 the semivariogram range for low grade Au. A
minimum of four composites (from composites within the mineralized solid but less than 1.0 g/t Au), were
required to estimate the block. For blocks not estimated in pass one a second pass using dimensions
equal to 0.5 the semivariogram range was attempted. Again a minimum of four composites were required
to make an estimate. For blocks not estimated a third pass using the full range and a fourth pass using
twice the range completed the estimation process. In all passes a maximum of 12 composites were used
with a maximum of three coming from any single drillhole. This exercise determined a grade for the low
grade (stockwork) portion of the block.
A second kriging exercise was then completed estimating the high grade indicator or the probability of
finding high grade within any given block. This estimation was completed using the zero or one indicator
value for composites within the mineralized solid and resulted in a value between zero and one. Again
ordinary kriging was used in a series of four passes with the search ellipse dimensions for each pass a
function of the high grade indicator semivariogram.
Finally, for blocks with a kriged indicator value greater than zero, a high grade gold value was estimated
from composites within the mineralized solid greater than or equal to 1.0 g/t Au. A similar four pass
estimate was made with the search ellipse dimensions a function of the high grade gold indicator
variogram. Blocks estimated for low grade Au but not estimated for HG IND were not included.
May 2016 14-12

The final grade for each block was a weighted average of the two styles of mineralization.
Au Total = (LG Au * (1.0 – IND)) + (HG Au * IND)
Where:
• Au Total is the weighted average grade for the block;
• LG Au is the grade of the stockwork or low grade portion of block;
• HG Au is the grade for the shear zone or high grade portion of block; and
• IND is the probability between zero and one that high grade exists in the block.
The search parameters for the various kriging runs are tabulated below.
Table 14-9: Kriging Parameters
Number Dist. Dist. Dist.

Variable Pass Az/Dip Az/Dip Az/Dip
Estimated (m) (m) (m)
LG Au 1 17,888 68 / 0 30.0 158 / -73 27.5 338 / -17 10.0
2 108,982 68 / 0 60.0 158 / -73 55.0 338 / -17 20.0
3 214,728 68 / 0 120.0 158 / -73 110.0 338 / -17 40.0
4 89,022 68 / 0 240.0 158 / -73 220.0 338 / -17 80.0
HG IND 1 7,239 90 / 0 25.0 0 / -85 30.0 180 / -5 7.5
2 61,691 90 / 0 50.0 0 / -85 60.0 180 / -5 15.0
3 193,861 90 / 0 100.0 0 / -85 120.0 180 / -5 30.0
4 167,829 90 / 0 200.0 0 / -85 240.0 180 / -5 60.0
HG Au 1 408 90 / 0 25.0 0 / -85 30.0 180 / -5 7.5
2 8,834 90 / 0 50.0 0 / -85 60.0 180 / -5 15.0
3 66,706 90 / 0 100.0 0 / -85 120.0 180 / -5 30.0
4 105,365 90 / 0 200.0 0 / -85 240.0 180 / -5 60.0
14.7 C LASSIFICATIO N
Based on the study herein reported, delineated gold mineralization of the Dolphin Zone at the Project is
classified as a resource according to the following definitions from CIM NI 43-101:
“In this Instrument, the terms "Mineral Resource", "Inferred Mineral Resource", "Indicated Mineral
Resource" and "Measured Mineral Resource" have the meanings ascribed to those terms by the
Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum, as the CIM Definition Standards (May
2014) on Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves adopted by CIM Council, as those definitions
may be amended.”
May 2016 14-13

The terms Measured, Indicated and Inferred are defined by CIM as follows:
“A Mineral Resource is a concentration or occurrence of solid material of economic

interest in or on the Earth’s crust in such form, grade or quality and quantity that there
are reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction. The location, quantity, grade
or quality, continuity and other geological characteristics of a Mineral Resource are
known, estimated or interpreted from specific geological evidence and knowledge,
including sampling.”
“The term Mineral Resource covers mineralization and natural material of intrinsic
economic interest which has been identified and estimated through exploration and
sampling and within which Mineral Reserves may subsequently be defined by the
consideration and application of Modifying Factors. The phrase ‘reasonable prospects for
economic extraction’ implies a judgement by the Qualified Person in respect of the
technical and economic factors likely to influence the prospect of economic extraction.
The Qualified Person should consider and clearly state the basis for determining that the
material has reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction. Assumptions should
include estimates of cut-off grade and geological continuity at the selected cut-off,
metallurgical recovery, smelter payments, commodity price or product value, mining and
processing method and mining, processing and general and administrative costs. The
Qualified Person should state if the assessment is based on any direct evidence and
testing. Interpretation of the word ‘eventual’ in this context may vary depending on the
commodity or mineral involved. For example, for some coal, iron, potash deposits and
other bulk minerals or commodities, it may be reasonable to envisage ‘eventual economic
extraction’ as covering time periods in excess of 50 years. However, for many gold
deposits, application of the concept would normally be restricted to perhaps 10 to 15
years, and frequently to much shorter periods of time.”
Inferred Mineral Resource
“An ‘Inferred Mineral Resource’ is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity and
grade or quality are estimated on the basis of limited geological evidence and sampling.
Geological evidence is sufficient to imply but not verify geological and grade or quality
continuity. An Inferred Mineral Resource has a lower level of confidence than that
applying to an Indicated Mineral Resource and must not be converted to a Mineral
Reserve. It is reasonably expected that the majority of Inferred Mineral Resources could
be upgraded to Indicated Mineral Resources with continued exploration.”
“An ‘Inferred Mineral Resource’ is based on limited information and sampling gathered
through appropriate sampling techniques from locations such as outcrops, trenches, pits,
workings and drillholes. Inferred Mineral Resources must not be included in the economic
analysis, production schedules, or estimated mine life in publicly disclosed Pre-Feasibility
or Feasibility Studies, or in the Life of Mine plans and cash flow models of developed
mines. Inferred Mineral Resources can only be used in economic studies as provided
under NI 43-101.”
“There may be circumstances, where appropriate sampling, testing, and other

measurements are sufficient to demonstrate data integrity, geological and grade/quality
continuity of a Measured or Indicated Mineral Resource, however, quality assurance and
quality control, or other information may not meet all industry norms for the disclosure
May 2016 14-14

of an Indicated or Measured Mineral Resource. Under these circumstances, it may be
reasonable for the Qualified Person to report an Inferred Mineral Resource if the Qualified
Person has taken steps to verify the information meets the requirements of an Inferred
Mineral Resource.”
Indicated Mineral Resource
“An ‘Indicated Mineral Resource’ is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity,
grade or quality, densities, shape and physical characteristics are estimated with
sufficient confidence to allow the application of Modifying Factors in sufficient detail to
support mine planning and evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit. Geological
evidence is derived from adequately detailed and reliable exploration, sampling and
testing and is sufficient to assume geological and grade or quality continuity between
points of observation. An Indicated Mineral Resource has a lower level of confidence than
that applying to a Measured Mineral Resource and may only be converted to a Probable
Mineral Reserve.”
“Mineralization may be classified as an Indicated Mineral Resource by the Qualified

Person when the nature, quality, quantity and distribution of data are such as to allow
confident interpretation of the geological framework and to reasonably assume the
continuity of mineralization. The Qualified Person must recognize the importance of the
Indicated Mineral Resource category to the advancement of the feasibility of the project.
An Indicated Mineral Resource estimate is of sufficient quality to support a Preliminary
Feasibility Study which can serve as the basis for major development decisions.”
Measured Mineral Resource
“A Measured Mineral Resource is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity,
grade or quality, densities, shape, and physical characteristics are estimated with
confidence sufficient to allow the application of Modifying Factors to support detailed
mine planning and final evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit. Geological
evidence is derived from detailed and reliable exploration, sampling and testing and is
sufficient to confirm geological and grade or quality continuity between points of
observation. A Measured Mineral Resource has a higher level of confidence than that
applying to either an Indicated Mineral Resource or an Inferred Mineral Resource. It may
be converted to a Proven Mineral Reserve or to a Probable Mineral Reserve.”
“Mineralization or other natural material of economic interest may be classified as a

Measured Mineral Resource by the Qualified Person when the nature, quality, quantity
and distribution of data are such that the tonnage and grade or quality of the
mineralization can be estimated to within close limits and that variation from the estimate
would not significantly affect potential economic viability of the deposit. This category
requires a high level of confidence in, and understanding of, the geology and controls of
the mineral deposit.”
May 2016 14-15

Modifying Factors
“Modifying Factors are considerations used to convert Mineral Resources to Mineral

Reserves. These include, but are not restricted to, mining, processing, metallurgical,
infrastructure, economic, marketing, legal, environmental, social and governmental
factors.”
For the mineralized Dolphin zone the geological continuity has been established though surface mapping
and diamond drillhole interpretation. Grade continuity can be quantified by semivariogram analysis.
Blocks estimated in Pass 1 or Pass 2, using up to 0.5 the semivariogram range, during the low grade gold
estimation, were classified as Indicated. All other blocks were classified as Inferred.
The results are tabulated (Table 14-10 and Table 14-11) below assuming one could mine to the limits of
the mineralized solids. At the time this resource was estimated (2013), no economic analysis had been
completed for the Dolphin zone, and as a result the economic cut-off was unknown. In the author’s
judgement and experience the resource stated has reasonable prospects of economic extraction. The
nearest analogous mine to the Dolphin would be the Fort Knox mine owned and operated by Kinross Gold
Corporation. In their March 31, 2015 Technical Report, Kinross reports the mineral resource at a 0.16 g/t
Au cut-off within a pit shell based on a $1400 Au price (Sims, 2015). A value of 0.3 g/t Au has been
highlighted as a possible cut-off for open pit extraction on the Dolphin deposit.
As part of the 2015 PEA a conceptual open pit, based on $1300 Au, has been produced by Tetra Tech. As
a result only blocks falling within this pit are reported as a Resource within the following Tables.
Table 14-10: Dolphin Zone Indicated Resource within Conceptual Pit
Grade > Cut-off

Tonnes>
Au Cut-off
Cut-off Au Contained
(g/t)
(tonnes) (g/t) kg Au ozs Au
0.20 82,650,000 0.58 47,610 1,531,000
0.25 71,140,000 0.63 45,030 1,448,000
0.30 61,460,000 0.69 42,410 1,363,000
0.35 53,460,000 0.74 39,770 1,279,000
0.40 46,690,000 0.80 37,260 1,198,000
0.50 35,590,000 0.91 32,320 1,039,000
0.60 26,720,000 1.03 27,440 882,000
0.70 20,030,000 1.15 23,110 743,000
0.80 15,030,000 1.29 19,390 623,000
0.90 11,450,000 1.43 16,350 526,000
1.00 8,870,000 1.57 13,910 447,000
1.10 6,990,000 1.71 11,940 384,000
1.20 5,560,000 1.85 10,300 331,000
1.30 4,490,000 2.00 8,960 288,000
May 2016 14-16

Table 14-11: Dolphin Zone Inferred Resource within Conceptual Pit
Tonnes> Grade > Cut-off

Au Cut-off
(g/t)
0.20 95,920,000 0.58 55,350 1,779,000
0.25 82,910,000 0.63 52,400 1,685,000
0.30 71,500,000 0.69 49,260 1,584,000
0.35 61,640,000 0.75 46,050 1,480,000
0.40 52,690,000 0.81 42,730 1,374,000
0.50 38,800,000 0.94 36,510 1,174,000
0.60 28,710,000 1.08 30,980 996,000
0.70 21,700,000 1.22 26,450 850,000
0.80 16,910,000 1.35 22,880 736,000
0.90 12,890,000 1.51 19,460 626,000
1.00 10,090,000 1.67 16,820 541,000
1.10 8,350,000 1.80 15,000 482,000
1.20 7,050,000 1.92 13,500 434,000
1.30 5,880,000 2.05 12,050 387,000
A second set of tables (Table 14-12 and Table 14-13) show the resource present above the oxide surface,
within the Conceptual Pit. A third set of tables (Table 14-14 and Table 14-15) show the resource present
below the oxide surface again within the Conceptual Pit.
Table 14-12: Oxide Zone Indicated Resource within Conceptual Pit
Tonnes> Grade > Cut-off

Au Cut-off
(g/t)
0.20 22,520,000 0.55 12,270 395,000
0.25 18,960,000 0.61 11,490 369,000
0.30 16,180,000 0.66 10,730 345,000
0.35 13,990,000 0.72 10,020 322,000
0.40 12,160,000 0.77 9,340 300,000
0.50 9,180,000 0.87 8,000 257,000
0.60 6,850,000 0.98 6,730 216,000
0.70 5,030,000 1.10 5,550 178,000
0.80 3,700,000 1.23 4,560 147,000
0.90 2,800,000 1.36 3,790 122,000
1.00 2,100,000 1.49 3,130 101,000
1.10 1,650,000 1.61 2,660 85,000
1.20 1,330,000 1.72 2,290 74,000
1.30 1,040,000 1.86 1,930 62,000
May 2016 14-17

Table 14-13: Oxide Zone Inferred Resource within Conceptual Pit
Grade > Cut-off

Tonnes>
Au Cut-off
(g/t)
0.20 14,660,000 0.47 6,950 223,000
0.25 11,810,000 0.53 6,310 203,000
0.30 9,620,000 0.59 5,700 183,000
0.35 8,120,000 0.64 5,220 168,000
0.40 6,910,000 0.69 4,770 154,000
0.50 4,940,000 0.79 3,890 125,000
0.60 3,360,000 0.90 3,020 97,000
0.70 2,330,000 1.01 2,360 76,000
0.80 1,690,000 1.11 1,880 61,000
0.90 1,160,000 1.23 1,430 46,000
1.00 720,000 1.41 1,020 33,000
1.10 510,000 1.57 800 26,000
1.20 360,000 1.75 630 20,000
1.30 270,000 1.91 510 17,000
Table 14-14: Sulfide Zone Indicated Resource within Conceptual Pit
Grade > Cut-off

Tonnes>
Au Cut-off
(g/t)
0.20 60,130,000 0.59 35,360 1,137,000
0.25 52,180,000 0.64 33,550 1,079,000
0.30 45,280,000 0.70 31,650 1,018,000
0.35 39,470,000 0.76 29,800 958,000
0.40 34,530,000 0.81 27,930 898,000
0.50 26,410,000 0.92 24,300 781,000
0.60 19,870,000 1.04 20,720 666,000
0.70 14,990,000 1.17 17,550 564,000
0.80 11,330,000 1.31 14,820 476,000
0.90 8,650,000 1.45 12,550 404,000
1.00 6,770,000 1.59 10,780 347,000
1.10 5,340,000 1.74 9,280 298,000
1.20 4,230,000 1.89 8,010 257,000
1.30 3,450,000 2.04 7,030 226,000
May 2016 14-18

Table 14-15: Sulfide Zone Inferred Resource within Conceptual Pit
Grade > Cut-off

Tonnes>
Au Cut-off
(g/t)
0.20 81,260,000 0.60 48,350 1,554,000
0.25 71,100,000 0.65 46,070 1,481,000
0.30 61,880,000 0.70 43,560 1,401,000
0.35 53,520,000 0.76 40,840 1,313,000
0.40 45,780,000 0.83 37,950 1,220,000
0.50 33,860,000 0.96 32,610 1,048,000
0.60 25,360,000 1.10 27,970 899,000
0.70 19,360,000 1.24 24,080 774,000
0.80 15,210,000 1.38 20,990 675,000
0.90 11,730,000 1.54 18,040 580,000
1.00 9,370,000 1.69 15,810 508,000
1.10 7,840,000 1.81 14,200 456,000
1.20 6,700,000 1.93 12,900 415,000
1.30 5,610,000 2.06 11,530 371,000
14.8 M ODEL V ERIFICATION

In order to verify the block model results, three methods were used: swath plots, cross sections and a
comparison of estimated block grades with new drillhole composites.
Swath plots take slices through the mineral deposit comparing average grades of blocks with the average
grades of composites. The results are shown for east-west slices (Figure 14-8), for north-south slices
(Figure 14-9) and for slices in the vertical plane (Figure 14-10). In general the block estimates match very
well with the sample grades with the larger deviations occurring in areas with few sample points at the
horizontal extremities of the zone and at the very bottom.
May 2016 14-19

Figure 14-8: Swath Plot for Au along 20 m East-West Slices
Figure 14-9: Swath Plot for Au along 20 m North-South Slices
May 2016 14-20

Figure 14-10: Swath Plot for Au along Vertical Slices
Cross sections were evaluated with block grades compared to composite grades with the results
appearing reasonable. Three examples are shown as Figure 14-11, Figure 14-12 and Figure 14-13.
May 2016 14-21

Figure 14-11: Dolphin Zone Section 479030 E
May 2016 14-22

May 2016 14-23

After the 2013 estimate was completed three additional drillholes were completed on the Dolphin Zone:
GSDL1311, GSDL1312 and GSDL1313 (see Figure 14-14). As a test for the block model the gold assays
from these three holes were composited and compared to the estimated gold grades of the blocks that
contained them. A scatter plot showing the new hole composite gold grades vs. the estimated blocks is
shown as Figure 14-15. There is no apparent bias with estimated grades matching new drillhole results
reasonably well.
May 2016 14-24

Figure 14-14: Dolphin Zone showing Conceptual Pit in White and 3 new Holes in Magenta
ESTIMATED BLOCKS WITHIN

CONCEPTUAL PIT
10
8
New Hole Compoosite Gold Grades (g/t)
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Estimated Block Gold Grades (g/t)
Figure 14-15: Scatter Plot for Gold in Estimated Blocks in Pit

vs. New Hole Composite Gold Grades Within Blocks
May 2016 14-25

15.0 MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES
Indicated and Inferred resources were used in the LoM plan. Mineral resources are not mineral reserves
and have no demonstrated economic viability. There is no certainty that all or any part of the mineral
resources would be converted into mineral reserves. Mineral reserves can only be estimated as a result
of a positive preliminary feasibility study or feasibility study of a mineral project. Accordingly, at the
present level of development, the Golden Summit Project has no mineral reserves.
May 2016 15-1

16.0 MINING METHODS
16.1 C UT -O FF G RADE
Optimized pit cones were created in Vulcan 3D mining software. By using a minimum cut-off grade, the
block model is queried by block to determine if the block has positive net block value using the assumed
parameters. Blocks above the cut-off grade are flagged as mineralized blocks and assigned costs
associated with the mineralized blocks, such as mining and processing costs. Waste blocks below the cut-
off grade are assigned a mining cost. The combination of these factors provides an optimized (economic)
pit design.
There are two cut-off grades typically used in the mining industry: breakeven and internal. The pit cones
were generated using a breakeven cut-off grade, which implies that the mining cost was part of the cut-
off calculation to burden every tonne of material mined. This method is used to produce a more
conservative economic cone as a design guide. Once the breakeven pit has been designed, an internal
cut-off grade is applied to the tonnes inside the pit. An internal cut-off grade removes the mining cost
from the calculation thereby dropping the cut-off grade slightly and maximizing the tonnes of material to
be processed while reducing the tonnes going to the Mine Rock Storage Facility (MRSF). The internal cut-
off grade is applied to the Au grade. Furthermore, the pit optimization runs for the project use Indicated
and Inferred Resources when developing pit shells.
The study consists of one ultimate open pit, which contains two types of material, oxide and sulfide. The
process costs for the two types of materials differ. These costs were fed into the optimization process.
The recovery for each material type is also different and were fed into the pit optimizer. Many factors
can change the outcome of the cone analysis, such as the price of Au, cost of mining, and process recovery.
The parameters used for the pit optimization are shown in Table 16-1.
Table 16-1: Pit Optimization Parameters
Parameters Value
Gold Price $1,300/oz
Oxide Recovery 80%
Sulfide Recovery 90%
Mining Cost $1.65/tonne material mined
Oxide Process Cost $3.50/tonne processed
Sulfide Process Cost $20.00/tonne processed
Royalty $0.72/tonne processed
General and Administrative Cost $0.80/ton $/tonne processed
Freight/Smelting/Refining $0.26/ton $/tonne processed
Another factor that can alter the outcome of the cone analysis is the pit slope used during the analysis. A
default pit slope of 45°was used to run the pit optimization process.
Two sets of cut off values were calculated, one for the oxide material and one for the sulfide material.
The oxide cone used a breakeven cut-off grade of 0.182 g/t Au, and an internal cut-off grade of
0.132 g/t Au. The sulfide cone used a breakeven cut-off grade of 0.611 g/t Au, and an internal cut-off
grade of 0.566 g/t Au. Both the breakeven cut-off and the internal cut-off were calculated using
May 2016 16-1

$1,300/oz Au price. Pit optimization results tabulated in this report are calculated on the internal cut off
for each material.
16.2 O PEN P IT M INE D ESIGN

Due to the processing of both sulfide and oxide material, there would be two types of material provided
for processing. The oxide would be processed via heap leach, while the sulfide would be processed
through a plant. The mine has been scheduled to provide up to 3.5 million tonnes per year (Mtpy) of each
material type. Oxide material is mined in the early years, as it forms a cap over the sulfide material. Years
in the middle of the production schedule have an overlap of oxide and sulfide production prior to
completion of oxide mining. A detailed pit design was created using the pit optimizer cones as guidelines.
Items included in the design are ultimate pits, phased pit designs and annual pit designs. The ultimate pit
was designed to allow mining of economic resources identified by pit optimization while providing safe
access for personnel and equipment. The phases within the ultimate pit was developed to enhance the
Project by scheduling higher-value material earlier in the mine life.
Oxide material is mined exclusively for the first eight years of the mine production. A small amount of
sulfide material would be mined before Year Eight; the sulfide material (approximately 800,000 tonnes)
will be stockpiled until the end of mine life. In Year Nine, sulfide material comes online for production.
Mining of the oxide material continues through Year 14 of the 24 year mine life. Mining of sulfide material
continues from Year Nine through the end of the 24 year mine life.
During production, material, both oxide and sulfide, is transported from the pit to the primary crusher
located near the pit exit. After primary crushing, oxide and sulfide material would be transported by
conveyor to its respective process area. The oxide leach would be processed in an area to the southeast
of the pit, while the sulfide would be processed northwest of the pit. Waste is hauled by truck to the Mine
Rock Storage Facility (MRSF). A summary of the open pit design criteria used is included in Table 16-2.
Table 16-2: Open Pit Design Criteria Summary
Input Value
Mining Loss Mine Plan Model - 5% Ave
Pit Design Parameters
Benching 10m Single
Haul Roads Two Way Roads - 27m
Primary Crushing 42 x60 Gyratory located on pit crest
Mine Fleet Parameters
Loading 64 metric tonne payload Rope Shovels
Haulage Haul Trucks - 227 metric tonne trucks
Drilling Diesel Drills - 171mm bit diameter
Work Schedule
Shifts / Day 2
Shift Length 12 hours
# of work crews 4
Operating Days per Year 365
May 2016 16-2

Input Value
Production
Annual Outage Factor 5%
Shift Change Loss Factor 30 minutes/12 hour shift (87.5%)
Operator Efficiency Factor 50 minutes/ hour (84%)
Year 1 = 92%
Year 2 = 90%
Year 3 = 88%
Mechanical Availability Factor Year 4 = 86%
Year 5 = 84%
Year 6 = 82%
Year 7 --->= 80%
Equipment Productivity Assumptions
Moisture Content 4%
Swell Factor 40%
Truck Spot Time 90 seconds
Truck Dump @ Crusher 90 seconds
Truck Dump @ MRSF 60 seconds
Shovel Cycle Time per Pass 45 seconds
Rock Density By block per block model
Vulcan Haul Profiler software used to develop
cycle times per Block in Block Model using OEM
Truck Cycle Times
Manufacturer provided rim pull data with local
speed limits applied
50 kph (30 mph) - flat empty/loaded
50 kph (30 mph) - uphill empty
Truck Speed Limits
42 kph (25 mph) - downhill empty
25 kph (15 mph) - loaded up/downhill
Blasting Powder Factor Feed 0.237 kg/tonne
Blasting Powder Factor - Waste 0.222 kg/tonne
Average Drilling Penetration Rate 25.9 m/hr
Drilling bench – Feed and Waste 10 m
Sub-Drill – Feed and Waste 1.03 m
Stemming - Feed and Waste 3.5 m
Blasthole Diameter – Feed and Waste 171 mm
16.2.1 Pit Slope Constraints

Pit slope configurations used in designing the pit were based on the geologic information provided in the
drill logs and physical inspection of the material during the site visit. Since no geotechnical pit slope
analysis study has been conducted, a generic pit slope design consisting of 45° overall inter-ramp slope
angles with 63° bench face angles were designed, using 10 m benches.
16.2.2 Bench Design

Pit designs were based on 10 m single benches for the rock units. This corresponds with the resource
model block heights (10 m).
May 2016 16-3

16.2.3 Haul Road Design
Haul-roads, in general, are designed to be inside of the pit where only one safety berm is required. Haul
roads inside and outside of the pit have been designed at an average of 27 meters. This provides
approximately 3.5 times the width of the planned trucks.
Ramps were designed to have a maximum centerline gradient of 10%. Switchbacks are designed with flat
turnarounds. Once the switchback is complete, the ramp continues at 10%.
16.2.4 Dilution & Mining Loss

Dilution was not applied to the block model used for the pit optimization runs. Nor was a diluted model
was used for the mine design. An overall 5% mining loss was applied to the block model mineralized block
for design production purposes.
16.2.5 Ultimate Pit Design

The ultimate pit design uses switchbacks to maintain the road and ramp for the entrance of the pit. This
allows for better traffic flow between pit phases. The haul roads provide access to the Primary Crusher.
The haul roads also provide access to the MRSF for placement of overburden and waste rock material.
The crest of the ultimate pit is at an elevation of about 460 meters above mean sea level (amsl), with a pit
bottom of 80 meters amsl. The ultimate pit design is shown on Figure 16-1.
The analysis performed for the development of Table 16-3 that was utilized for the economic
model includes indicated and inferred mineral resources, of which 52% are indicated and 48% are
inferred. Mineral resources are considered too speculative geologically to have economic considerations
applied to them, and are therefore not categorized as mineral reserves. The reason there are no mineral
reserves is that reserves require a positive pre-feasibility of the indicated resource estimates, and the
project has not reached that level of advancement. There is no certainty that the preliminary economic
assessment will be realized.
Table 16-3: Ultimate Pit Parameters
Description Value Unit

Gold Price $1,300 USD
Waste 239 Mst
Oxide Tonnes 48 Mst
Sulfide Tonnes 50 Mst
Total 337 Mst
Stripping Ratio 2.45 waste:feed
Grade
Oxide 0.54 g/t
Sulfide 1.14 g/t
Gold Ounces 2,660 koz
May 2016 16-4

478,000N
479,000N
480,000N
481,000N
PLANT AREA
ACCESS ROAD SULFIDE
CONVEYOR
ALASKA
STEESE PRIMARY
HWY CRUSHER
7,216,000N 7,216,000N
HAUL ROAD
ULTIMATE PIT
OXIDE
CONVEYOR
AD
R
PL
AN
T
LEACH AREA
ACCESS ROAD
7,215,000N 7,215,000N
481,000N
Y:\A-G\Freegold Ventures Limited\114-910054 - Golden Summit Project PEA\110-2D CADD\Mining_MASTER.dwg, AGA, LEE, 3/8/2016 8:04 PM
ALASKA
200 0 200 400

478,000N
479,000N
480,000N
SCALE IN METERS

Designed by: K. JOHNSON
Drawn by:
Checked by:
L. AGA
E. LIPS
GOLDEN SUMMIT PROJECT A
Approved by: V. SCHARNHORST ULTIMATE PIT
TETRA TECH REVISION
WHATSOEVER TO OTHER PARTIES FOR DAMAGES OR INJURY SUFFERED BY SUCH
THIRD PARTY ARISING FROM THE USE OF THIS DOCUMENT BY THEM, WITHOUT GOLDEN SUMMIT PROJECT
THE EXPRESSED WRITTEN AUTHORITY OF TETRA TECH AND OUR CLIENT. THIS 114-910054
Location: Date:
FIGURE 16-1
REFERENCE REVISIONS FAIRBANKS MINING DISTRICT, ALASKA Oct/2015
Table 16‐4: Mine Production Schedule
Units Grand Total Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 Year 19 Year 20 Year 21 Year 22 Year 23 Year 24 Grand Total
Oxide
3,800 3,800 3,550 3,666 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 1,300 58 155 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47,864
Mined to Process tonnes(000s) 47,864
Oxide
Oxide Volume cubic meters 19,069 1,514 1,514 1,414 1,461 1,394 1,394 1,394 1,394 1,394 1,394 1,394 1,394 1,394 518 23 62 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19,069
Oxide Density 2.510 2.510 2.510 2.510 2.510 2.510 2.510 2.510 2.510 2.510 2.510 2.510 2.510 2.510 2.510 2.510 2.510 2.510 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.510
Oxide Au gpt 0.435 0.453 0.500 0.530 0.506 0.493 0.515 0.337 0.369 0.508 0.444 0.381 0.318 0.342 0.331 0.299 0.273 0.290 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.435
Units Total Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 Year 19 Year 20 Year 21 Year 22 Year 23 Year 24 Grand Total
Sulfide Mined
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,020 1,808 2,598 3,300 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,481 3,412 3,500 3,500 3,500 1,672 48,791
to Process tonnes(000s) 48,791
Sulfide
Sulfide Volume cubic meters 18,274 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 382 677 973 1,236 1,311 1,311 1,311 1,311 1,311 1,311 1,304 1,278 1,311 1,311 1,311 626 18,274
Sulfide Density 2.670 0.000 2.670 2.670 2.670 2.670 2.670 2.670 2.670 2.670 2.670 2.670 2.670 2.670 2.670 2.670 2.670 2.670 2.670 2.670 2.670 2.670 2.670 2.670 2.670 2.670
Sulfide Au gpt 1.030 0.000 0.586 0.713 0.894 1.034 0.925 0.948 0.987 1.095 1.103 0.977 0.982 0.972 1.081 1.058 1.236 1.266 0.987 0.980 0.941 0.910 0.855 1.057 1.049 1.030
Waste tonnes(000s) 239,170 3,861 3,230 3,115 3,139 2,719 2,413 4,000 4,000 4,000 9,955 16,055 25,000 24,882 20,665 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,792 12,639 11,814 9,148 8,075 3,950 1,719 239,170
Waste
Waste Volume cubic meters 89,592 1,462 1,241 1,199 1,209 1,053 934 1,505 1,506 1,525 3,742 6,020 9,340 9,286 7,717 5,977 5,965 5,960 6,250 4,716 4,414 3,422 3,024 1,479 644 89,592
Waste Density 2.670 2.640 2.603 2.597 2.597 2.581 2.582 2.657 2.655 2.624 2.660 2.667 2.677 2.680 2.678 2.677 2.682 2.684 2.687 2.680 2.677 2.673 2.671 2.670 2.670 2.670
Mined
3,800 3,800 3,550 3,666 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 4,520 5,308 6,098 6,800 7,000 4,800 3,558 3,655 3,536 3,500 3,481 3,412 3,500 3,500 3,500 1,672 96,655
to Process tonnes(000s) 96,655
Volume cubic meters 37,343 1,514 1,514 1,414 1,461 1,394 1,394 1,394 1,394 1,776 2,072 2,368 2,630 2,705 1,829 1,334 1,372 1,325 1,311 1,304 1,278 1,311 1,311 1,311 626 37,343
Combined
Density tonnes/cu.M 2.588 2.510 2.510 2.510 2.510 2.510 2.510 2.510 2.510 2.544 2.562 2.576 2.585 2.588 2.625 2.667 2.663 2.668 2.670 2.670 2.670 2.670 2.670 2.670 2.670 2.588
Au Grade gpt 0.735 0.453 0.500 0.530 0.506 0.493 0.515 0.337 0.369 0.640 0.669 0.635 0.640 0.657 0.878 1.046 1.196 1.256 0.987 0.980 0.941 0.910 0.855 1.057 1.049 0.735
Waste tonnes(000s) 239,170 3,861 3,230 3,115 3,139 2,719 2,413 4,000 4,000 4,000 9,955 16,055 25,000 24,882 20,665 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,792 12,639 11,814 9,148 8,075 3,950 1,719 239,170
Waste Volume cubic meters 89,592 1,462 1,241 1,199 1,209 1,053 934 1,505 1,506 1,525 3,742 6,020 9,340 9,286 7,717 5,977 5,965 5,960 6,250 4,716 4,414 3,422 3,024 1,479 644 89,592
Waste Density 2.670 2.640 2.603 2.597 2.597 2.581 2.582 2.657 2.655 2.624 2.660 2.667 2.677 2.680 2.678 2.677 2.682 2.684 2.687 2.680 2.677 2.673 2.671 2.670 2.670 2.670
Tonnes
3,800 3,800 3,550 3,666 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 4,520 5,308 6,098 6,800 7,000 4,800 3,558 3,655 3,536 3,500 3,481 3,412 3,500 3,500 3,500 2,500 97,483
Processed tonnes(000s) 97,483
Waste Tonnes tonnes(000s) 239,170 3,861 3,230 3,115 3,139 2,719 2,413 4,000 4,000 4,000 9,955 16,055 25,000 24,882 20,665 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,792 12,639 11,814 9,148 8,075 3,950 1,719 239,170
Total Tonnes Moved tonnes(000s) 336,653 7,661 7,030 6,665 6,805 6,219 5,913 7,500 7,500 8,520 15,263 22,153 31,800 31,882 25,465 19,558 19,655 19,536 20,292 16,120 15,225 12,648 11,575 7,450 4,219 336,653
Tonnes mined tonnes(000s) 97,483 3,800 3,800 3,590 3,796 3,732 3,703 3,587 3,634 4,520 5,308 6,098 6,800 7,000 4,800 3,558 3,655 3,536 3,500 3,481 3,412 3,500 3,500 3,500 1,672 97,483
Open Pit Mine, Mill and Stockpile Information
Au gpt 0.735 0.453 0.500 0.532 0.520 0.526 0.537 0.352 0.392 0.640 0.669 0.635 0.640 0.657 0.878 1.046 1.196 1.256 0.987 0.980 0.941 0.910 0.855 1.057 1.049 0.735
Sulfide Tonnes
0 0 40 130 232 203 87 134 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 828
to Stockpile tonnes(000s) 828
Au gpt 0.953 0.000 0.586 0.713 0.894 1.034 0.925 0.948 0.987 1.095 1.103 0.977 0.982 0.972 1.081 1.058 1.236 1.266 0.987 0.980 0.941 0.910 0.855 1.057 1.049 0.953
Sulfide Tonnes
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 828 828
from Stockpile tonnes(000s) 828
Au gpt 0.953 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.953 0.953
Sulfide Tonnes
0 0 40 171 403 606 694 828 828 828 828 828 828 828 828 828 828 828 828 828 828 828 828 0 0
in Stockpile tonnes(000s) 0.000
Au gpt 0.000 0.000 0.586 0.712 0.851 0.957 0.946 0.946 0.953 0.953 0.953 0.953 0.953 0.953 0.953 0.953 0.953 0.953 0.953 0.953 0.953 0.953 0.953 0.953 0.000 0.000
Oxide Tonnes to Pad tonnes(000s) 47,864 3,800 3,800 3,550 3,666 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 1,300 58 155 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47,864
Au gpt 0.435 0.453 0.500 0.530 0.506 0.493 0.515 0.337 0.369 0.508 0.444 0.381 0.318 0.342 0.331 0.299 0.273 0.290 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.435
Sulfide Tonnes to Mill tonnes(000s) 49,619 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,020 1,808 2,598 3,300 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,481 3,412 3,500 3,500 3,500 2,500 49,618.581
Au gpt 0.000 0.586 0.713 0.894 1.034 0.925 0.948 0.987 1.095 1.103 0.977 0.982 0.972 1.081 1.058 1.236 1.266 0.987 0.980 0.941 0.910 0.855 1.057 1.017
NOTE: Oxide and Sulfide grades displayed in this table include process recovery.
16.2.6 Pit Phases
Pit phases were used to create a design work flow to assist with better annual pit development thus
improving the Project NPV by extracting higher-value material in the early years of the Project. Phase 1
includes mining of the oxide material, which would be produced first via heap leach and must be mined
to uncover the sulfide material.
Two criteria were used to establish the best pit-phasing strategy. First, the pit optimizer “nested shells”
were used for phase creation. By examining shells with a lower Au sell price, the most profitable material
can be targeted for early exploitation. Secondly, the chosen “nested shells” were selected to allow for
the creation of push backs with appropriate work areas between phases. From the pit optimizer cones a
series of fully designed (including haul roads) pit phases were developed for the life of the mine. The pit
phases are shown in Figure 16-2 through Figure 16-4. The final phase (ultimate pit) is shown in Figure
16-1.
16.2.7 Annual Pit Designs

Annual pit designs complete with haul roads and slope constraints were designed to meet the annual
processing plant requirements while removing the necessary quantity of waste rock material.
16.2.8 Surge Stockpile

A small amount of sulfide material would be mined before Year Eight, but not an amount large enough to
justify constructing the process facility earlier. These tonnes (approximately 800,000 tonnes) would be
stockpiled until the end of mine life and added to the feed tonnes during the final year of sulfide
processing.
16.2.9 Mine Rock Storage Facility Design

A MRSF has been designed to permanently contain the overburden and waste material associated within
the pit. The ultimate design incorporates an overall slope angle of 3:1 with catch benches of10 meters on
20 meter lifts. Figure 18-1 shows the MRSF location. The current MRSF design, located to the northeast
of the pits, is built around the hill. The MRSF was designed with a buffer around the nearby creeks.
A 40% swell factor and densities specific to the rock being hauled were used in the volume calculations
for the design of the MRSF. The average specific gravity (SG) of the MRSF material (before swell) is
estimated to be approximately 2.65. The total MRSF design would contain 100% of the expected waste
material planned to be generated - approximately 239 million tonnes of swelled material.
16.2.10 Production Schedule

A mining schedule was developed based on sequencing the pit phases, starting with the Phase 1 and
finishing with Phase 3, which is the Ultimate Pit. Scheduling was accomplished using Vulcan Haul Profiler
and MineMax Scheduler. Production and waste removal were scheduled to maximize revenue while
minimizing yearly production fluctuations.
A summary of mined primary material and waste material was generated for each period. A plant feed
schedule was then prepared from the open pit mine material movement schedule.
May 2016 16-7

In-pit material was used to schedule mine production. The final mining production schedule is shown in
Table 16-4. The mining production schedule, together with the plant feed and projected grades, were
used to drive the economic model developed for this study.
16.2.11 Equipment Selection & Productivities

The open pit mine has been planned using diesel blasthole drills, large haul trucks and rope shovels.
Production blasthole drilling for both mineralized and waste material would use a DM-45 type diesel drill.
Primary mine production is achieved using P&H 2800 rope shovels along with Cat 793 type haul trucks.
The shovels have a nominal rated payload of 64 metric tonnes; due to the average density of the material
buckets sized at 31 m3 throughout the life of mine (LoM) were used. The haul trucks have a nominal rated
payload of 227 metric tonnes. The drills, shovels and haul trucks selected for the Project are scheduled
to operate around the clock and require four crews on 12-hour shifts for complete shift coverage.
The production rate for each truck varies through the life of the mine since productivity is based on the
density of the material being loaded and the distance to the destination. The following factors were used
in determining the truck and shovel productivities. Mechanical availability was based on age of
equipment:
• Year 1 mechanical availability = 92%;

• Year 6 mechanical availability = 82%; and
• Year 7 (and older) mechanical availability = 80%.
Other factors affecting productivity include:
• An operator efficiency factor of 50 minutes per operating hour (84%) was used on all
production equipment;
• An annual outage factor of 5% was used - maximum hours available per year is 8,322; and
• A shift change loss factor to account for the time lost in changing crews, breaks, and lunch
was used. The shift change factor is 1 hour and 30 minutes lost per shift change (87.5% on a
12 hour shift).
The truck productivity for each block profile was estimated by a haul profile simulator (Vulcan Haul
Profiler) which estimates the haul and return times for each block in the block model. Truck cycle-times
are based on weighted-average truck-cycle times for resource and waste by period to either a pre-
determined primary crusher location or a waste dump location. The destinations include the primary
crusher and various MRSF locations depending on material type and period. Each production period has
a weight-averaged cycle time estimated for each period’s destination. The estimated haul times are
shown in Table 16-6. Truck fleets were determined based on total operating hours required for resource
and waste. Due to a peak in required truck hours during a three year period (Years 12-14) a mining
contactor would be used to support the owner-operated trucks. A summary of the estimated maximum
owner open pit equipment is shown in Table 16-7.
May 2016 16-8

Table 16-5: Production Equipment
Description Maximum
Drills
DM-45 7
Shovels
Rope Shovel 3
Production Support
Loader Caterpillar 992 1
Wheel Dozer Cat 854 1
Dozer Caterpillar D10 3
Grader Caterpillar 16 2
Water Wagon 1
Haul Trucks
Haul Truck Cat 793 20
16.2.12 Mine Personnel

Mine personnel estimates include both hourly and salaried staff personnel. Hourly personnel is estimated
as the number of people required to operate trucks, loading equipment, and support equipment to
achieve the production schedule. Mine staffing is based on the personnel required for supervision and
support of mine production. The estimated maximum number of mine personnel required to achieve the
mine plan is shown in Table 16-7. Hourly wages for each position were estimated based on information
estimated from the 2014 CostMine Wage and Salary Survey for an Alaskan mine similar to the Golden
Summit Project. Salaries include an allowance for benefits of the base salary for each position.
May 2016 16-9

478,000N
479,000N
480,000N
481,000N
SULFIDE
PLANT AREA CONVEYOR
ACCESS ROAD
ALASKA
STEESE CRUSHER
HWY
7,216,000N 7,216,000N
HAUL ROAD
PHASE 1 PIT
OXIDE
CONVEYOR
AD
R
PL
AN
T
LEACH AREA
ACCESS ROAD
7,215,000N 7,215,000N
481,000N
ALASKA
200 0 200 400

478,000N
479,000N
480,000N
SCALE IN METERS

Drawn by:
Checked by:
L. AGA
E. LIPS
Approved by: V. SCHARNHORST PHASE 1 PIT
TETRA TECH REVISION
Location: Date:
FIGURE 16-2
478,000N
479,000N
480,000N
481,000N
SULFIDE
PLANT AREA CONVEYOR
ACCESS ROAD
ALASKA
STEESE
CRUSHER
HWY
7,216,000N 7,216,000N
HAUL ROAD
OXIDE
CONVEYOR
PHASE 2 PIT
AD
R
PL
AN
T
LEACH AREA
ACCESS ROAD
7,215,000N 7,215,000N
481,000N
ALASKA
200 0 200 400

478,000N
479,000N
480,000N
SCALE IN METERS

Drawn by:
Checked by:
L. AGA
E. LIPS
Approved by: V. SCHARNHORST PHASE 2 PIT
TETRA TECH REVISION
Location: Date:
FIGURE 16-3
478,000N
479,000N
480,000N
481,000N
PLANT AREA
ACCESS ROAD SULFIDE
CONVEYOR
ALASKA
STEESE PRIMARY
HWY CRUSHER
7,216,000N 7,216,000N
HAUL ROAD
ULTIMATE PIT
OXIDE
CONVEYOR
AD
R
PL
AN
T
LEACH AREA
ACCESS ROAD
7,215,000N 7,215,000N
481,000N
ALASKA
200 0 200 400

478,000N
479,000N
480,000N
SCALE IN METERS

Drawn by:
Checked by:
L. AGA
E. LIPS
Approved by: V. SCHARNHORST PHASE 3/ULTIMATE PIT
TETRA TECH REVISION
Location: Date:
FIGURE 16-4
Table 16‐6: Haul Time Estimates
Description
Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 Yr 6 Yr 7 Yr 8 Yr 9 Yr 10 Yr 11 Yr 12 Yr 13 Yr 14 Yr 15 Yr 16 Yr 17 Yr 18 Yr 19 Yr 20 Yr 21 Yr 22 Yr 23 Yr 24
RESOURCE
Load 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50
Haul 22.54 21.71 19.71 19.05 18.00 16.84 14.06 14.71 16.11 17.02 17.37 19.13 17.71 20.39 24.35 24.88 27.44 30.07 33.77 28.24 30.68 33.28 36.44 39.15
Dump 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50
Total Cycle Time Minutes 28.54 27.71 25.71 25.05 24.00 22.84 20.06 20.71 22.11 23.02 23.37 25.13 23.71 26.39 30.35 30.88 33.44 36.07 39.77 34.24 36.68 39.28 42.44 45.15
WASTE
Load 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50
Haul 23.15 33.50 32.62 32.38 31.48 30.46 26.79 28.79 31.55 32.34 33.41 42.70 43.78 45.04 46.02 46.82 46.93 47.33 50.95 53.62 56.82 59.82 63.12 67.14
Dump 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Total Cycle Time Minutes 28.65 39.00 38.12 37.88 36.98 35.96 32.29 34.29 37.05 37.84 38.91 48.20 49.28 50.54 51.52 52.32 52.43 52.83 56.45 59.12 62.32 65.32 68.62 72.64
Table 16‐7: Open Pit (Maximum) Manpower Table
Benefit Total Hourly Maximum
Mine Operations Hourly Rate Load Rate Manpower
Driller, blasthole $ 33.80 50.9% $ 51.01 24
Driller Helper, blasthole $ 26.84 50.9% $ 40.51 8
Blaster $ 33.19 50.9% $ 50.09 2
Blaster Helper $ 27.18 50.9% $ 41.02 5
Shovel Operator $ 33.80 50.9% $ 51.01 11
Wheel Dozer Operator $ 26.84 50.9% $ 40.51 6
Truck Driver $ 23.30 50.9% $ 35.17 71
Track Dozer Operator $ 26.84 50.9% $ 40.51 11
Loader Operator $ 26.84 50.9% $ 40.51 6
Grader Operator $ 26.84 50.9% $ 40.51 11
Water Truck Driver $ 26.84 50.9% $ 40.51 3
Dispatcher $ 33.96 50.9% $ 51.26 4
Laborer/Trainee $ 19.96 50.9% $ 30.13 3
VSA Operator* $ 26.84 50.9% $ 40.51 9
VSA Laborer/Trainee** $ 19.96 50.9% $ 30.13 4
Subtotal = 178
Maintenance
Heavy Equip. Mechanic $ 36.05 50.9% $ 54.41 15
Welder/Mechanic $ 25.77 50.9% $ 38.89 8
Electrician/Instrumentman $ 33.10 50.9% $ 49.96 8
Lubeman/PM Mechanic $ 25.77 50.9% $ 38.89 8
Tireman $ 25.77 50.9% $ 38.89 4
Machinist $ 36.05 50.9% $ 54.41 4
Crusher/Belt Operator $ 23.72 50.9% $ 35.80 8
Utilityman $ 33.96 50.9% $ 51.26 3
Laborer/Trainee $ 19.96 50.9% $ 30.13 2
VSA Mechanic* $ 25.77 50.9% $ 38.89 3
VSA Laborer** $ 19.96 50.9% $ 30.13 2
Subtotal = 64
Salary
Production Superintendent $ 126,900 43.0% $ 181,467 1
Mine Foreman $ 98,600 43.0% $ 140,998 17
Maintenance Superintendent $ 126,200 43.0% $ 180,466 1
Maintenance Foreman $ 98,600 43.0% $ 140,998 8
Maint. Planner $ 86,200 43.0% $ 123,266 4
Chief Engineer* $ 120,600 43.0% $ 172,458 1
Sr. Mine Engineer* $ 110,000 43.0% $ 157,300 1
Mine Engineer $ 86,200 43.0% $ 123,266 2
Chief Geologist $ 115,600 43.0% $ 165,308 1
Geologist $ 79,000 43.0% $ 112,970 2
Equipment Trainer $ 100,000 43.0% $ 143,000 1
Surveyor $ 86,200 43.0% $ 123,266 2
Surveyor Ass't $ 47,500 43.0% $ 67,925 2
Sampler $ 47,500 43.0% $ 67,925 2
Subtotal = 57
Total (Maximum) Manpower needed = 299
* 5% of total for Vacations, Sickness, and Absenteeism (VSA)
** 2% of total for Vacations, Sickness, and Absenteeism (VSA)
Note: Benefits listed include scheduled/planned overtime but excludes bonus pay
17.0 RECOVERY METHODS
Gold recovery from the Project deposit would be accomplished in two separate processing operations for
oxide and sulfide mineralized materials. Gold from oxide material in Phase 1 production would be
recovered by crushing run-of-mine (RoM) material prior to loading onto a heap leach pad. The crushed
oxide material would then be leached with a sodium cyanide solution to recover the soluble gold. Gold
from the pregnant leachate solution would then be recovered onto activated carbon and further refined
in an elution/electrowinning (EW) circuit. The product from the EW cells would be further refined into
gold doré. For the purpose of this report, an oxide gold recovery of 80% was used in all calculations based
on the available metallurgical testwork.
Gold from the sulfide materials would be recovered by crushing and grinding the material prior to bio-
oxidation of the sulfide minerals. The oxidized slurry would be sent to a carbon-in-leach (CIL) circuit for
cyanide leaching and recovery onto activated carbon. Gold would be loaded onto the activated carbon
and then recovered in the same elution circuit as the oxide material to produce gold doré. For the purpose
of this report, a sulfide gold recovery of 90% was used in the calculations. Additional metallurgical
testwork is needed to confirm the gold recovery rate.
17.1 S ULFIDE M ATERIAL P ROCESSING T RADEOFF S TUDY

Metallurgical testwork (SGS, 2014) on the Project deposit showed that sulfide oxidation would likely be
necessary to achieve acceptable gold recoveries in the non-oxide feed material. An economic tradeoff
study was performed between three options in order to confirm the need for oxidation as well as to
determine a preferred processing method for the sulfide feed material. The three options investigated
were:
1) Heap leaching of sulfide material,

2) Whole material pressure oxidation (POX) followed by CIL, and
3) POX treatment of sulfide flotation concentrate followed by CIL.
All three options include heap leaching of oxide material. Due to the lower recoveries observed in the
metallurgical testwork, flowsheets for the leaching of either roasted material or non-oxidized flotation
concentrate were not considered in the tradeoff.
The whole sulfide material POX-CIL option provided negative economic results and was eliminated as a
processing option. Both the float-POX-CIL option and sulfide heap leaching provided positive economic
results with the float-POX-CIL option having a higher relative NPV, higher capital cost, and longer payback
period. At the conclusion of the tradeoff study, it was determined that neither of these two options were
economically-preferred processing methods as the float-POX-CIL option was determined to have a
relatively high capital cost and the sulfide heap leaching option only processes a small portion of the
sulfide material due to low recoveries.
May 2016 17-1

17.2 B IO -O XIDATIO N OF S ULFIDE M ATERIALS
Once the tradeoff study concluded that the aforementioned processing options examined in the
metallurgical test program were economically advantageous for the processing of the sulfide material, it
was determined that bio-oxidation of sulfides would be a possible alternative processing method. While
no metallurgical bio-oxidation testwork has been performed on the deposit, the success of other oxidation
methods would indicate that bio-oxidation of the sulfide material is feasible. Additionally, benchmarking
of bio-oxidation plants around the world indicated that the Project would be similar in size and cost to
existing operating projects.
17.3 P ROCESSING F LO WSHEET

Processing of mineralized materials at the Project facility would consist of two separate phases, termed
Phase 1 for oxide materials and Phase 2 for sulfide materials. The Phase 1 production would process oxide
materials at nominal rate of 10,000 tpd by heap leaching. The Phase 2 production would provide bio-
oxidation and leaching of sulfide materials in a nominal 10,000 tpd processing facility, starting in
production year nine of the mine life. Heap leaching of oxide materials would continue throughout
Phase 2 until the end of the mine life. A simplified flowsheet for both processing circuits is shown in Figure
17-1.
May 2016 17-2

PHASE 2 (SULFIDE MATERIALS) PHASE 1
RECLAIM WATER
RETURNED TO PROCESS
(OXIDE MATERIALS)
PRIMARY
CRUSHING
Tailings Tailings SAG MILL

CONVEYING CONVEYING
Overflow
VIBRATING Oversize
CYCLONE SCREEN
VIBRATING
SCREEN SECONDARY
Oversize CRUSHER
Underflow
Undersize
PEBBLE Undersize
CRUSHER
BALL Oversize
FLOTATION MILL VIBRATING
SCREEN TERTIARY
CRUSHER
Undersize
TAILINGS
THICKENER
CONVEYING
Barren Solution Returned

to Leaching Process
HEAP LEACH
BIO-OXIDATION
TANKS
Gold Bearing
WASH Pregnant liquor Solution (PLS)
THICKENER
CARBON IN
GOLD RECOVERY COLOMN
Regenerated
Carbon
CARBON
REGENERATION
KILN
CARBON IN
LEACH
Barren
Carbon
Barren Solution Returned

to Leaching Process
Loaded Carbon Loaded Carbon

Y:\A-G\Freegold Ventures Limited\114-910054 - Golden Summit Project PEA\110-2D CADD\Fig17-1_Prossesing.dwg, AGA, LEE, 3/8/2016 8:15 PM
ACID WASH ELUTION
Gold
Sludge
ELECTROWINNING ELECTROWINNING ELECTROWINNING
SMELTING
FURNACE
GOLD DORE

Designed by: C. WOLF
Drawn by: L. AGA GOLDEN SUMMIT PROJECT A
Checked by: E. SPILLER
Approved by: V. SCHARNHORST PROCESS FLOWSHEET
TETRA TECH REVISION
WHATSOEVER TO OTHER PARTIES FOR DAMAGES OR INJURY SUFFERED BY SUCH Project: Project no.:
Location: Date:
FIGURE 17-1
REFERENCE REVISIONS FAIRBANKS MINING DISTRICT, ALASKA August/2015
17.3.1 Oxide Heap Leach
Crushed oxide material would be received from the gyratory crusher located at the mine and conveyed
to secondary and tertiary crushing circuit to reduce the size to a nominal minus one-inch product. The
crushed material would be placed on a nominal 10,000 tpd lined heap leach pad via conveyors. After the
material is prepared for leaching, barren leach solution containing sodium cyanide would be applied to
the heap leach surface using buried drip irrigation lines. Pregnant leach solution would percolate through
the heap and would be collected in the drainage overliner and gravity flow into pregnant solution pond.
Pregnant solution would be pumped from the pregnant solution pond to carbon adsorption columns (CIC).
Additional sodium cyanide would then be added to the barren leach solution to maintain reagent
concentrations and pumped back to the heap leach. Heap leaching of fresh oxide material would occur
seasonally with new oxide material being added to the pad as weather allows. During the cold weather
months, leach solution would be recirculated within the pad, but no fresh leaching would occur. The
designed primary leach cycle is 90 days with secondary leaching occurring on subsequent lifts.
Loaded carbon from the CIC would be transported to the elution circuit where it would be acid washed
prior to stripping. After acid washing, the carbon would be neutralized with caustic and transferred to a
stripping vessel. Carbon stripping would use a pressurized Zadra method to desorb the gold from the
carbon. Stripped carbon would be transferred to a rotary kiln for thermal reactivation prior to being
returned to CIC.
Effluent solution from the stripping vessel would be circulated through EW cells to precipitate gold into a
concentrated sludge. Solution from the discharge of the EW cells would be recirculated back to the elution
circuit. Gold-bearing sludge from the EW cells would be periodically collected for smelting into gold doré.
Major equipment planned for the oxide leach process is presented in Table 17-1.
Table 17-1: Oxide Equipment List
Equipment Description Number Size
Secondary Cone Crusher; Standard 1 7 ft diameter; 800 HP

Tertiary Cone Crusher; Shorthead 1 7 ft diameter; 800 HP
Vibrating Screens 2 8 ft by 16 ft; double-deck; inclined; 40 HP
Grasshopper Conveyors 10 36 inch width by 100 ft long; 20 HP Each
Carbon Columns 5 16 ft diameter
Submersible Solution Pumps (8 operating; 2 standby) 10 1,100 gpm, 400 ft head: 150 HP
Centrifugal Solution Pumps (2 operating; 2 standby) 4 10,000 gpm, 250 ft head; 1,000 HP
Carbon Stripping Circuit 1 4 ton capacity; 3 HP
Carbon Reactivation Kiln 1 4 ft diameter by 25 ft long; 15 HP; propane fueled
EW Cells 3 16 cubic ft capacity
Gold Furnace 1 285 lb capacity; propane fueled
May 2016 17-4

17.3.2 Sulfide Bio-Oxidation & Leaching
Phase 2 of the project would use the existing primary crushing circuit from Phase 1 to provide primary
crushed sulfide mineralized material to a crushed coarse material stockpile at the process plant site.
Crushed sulfide material would be reclaimed by apron feeders and conveyed to the primary grinding
circuit. The primary grinding circuit would use a SAG mill in closed circuit with a pebble crusher to grind
the material to an acceptable size for the secondary grinding circuit. The secondary grinding circuit would
use a ball bill operating in closed circuit with hydrocyclones to produce material suitable for rougher
flotation assumed at P80 100-200 microns for this study (to be confirmed by additional test work).
Ground material from the cyclone overflow would then be sent to a flotation circuit to recover gold-
bearing sulfide mineralization. Flotation concentrate would then be pumped to bio-oxidation tanks for
sulfide oxidation. The oxidized residue would be pumped to acid neutralization circuit to increase the pH
of the slurry to acceptable levels for cyanide leaching. Sodium cyanide would then be added to the
neutralized slurry and be sent to Carbon-in-Leach (CIL) tanks to recover the gold onto activated carbon.
Tailings from the CIL circuit would then be treated for cyanide detoxification and sent to a tailings storage
facility. Loaded carbon from the CIL circuit would be transported to the shared elution circuit of the oxide
circuit from Phase 1 where the gold would be stripped from the carbon, recovered by EW cells, and
smelted into gold doré.
Table 17-2 lists the major equipment items for the Phase 2 sulfide process.
Table 17-2: Sulfide Equipment List
Equipment Description Number Size
SAG Mill 1 26 ft by 12 ft; 4,500 HP

Vibrating Screen 1 8 ft by 16 ft; double-deck; inclined; 40 HP
Pebble Shorthead Crusher 1 5 ft diameter; 500 HP
Cyclone Feed Pumps (1 operating; 1 standby) 2 10,000 gpm; 500 HP
Cyclones 5 26 inch diameter
Ball Mill 1 16 ft by 28 ft; 4,500 HP
Rougher Flotation Cells 5 3,500 cubic ft; 125 HP each cell
Flotation Concentrate Thickener 1 25 ft diameter; 2 HP
Biox Tanks 6 35 ft diameter by 35 ft high; agitated; 150 HP Each
Biox Wash Thickener 1 25 ft diameter; 2 HP
CIL Tanks 6 35 ft diameter by 35 ft high; agitated; 150 HP Each
Tailings Thickener 1 50 ft diameter; 5 HP
Slurry Pumps (10 operating; 10 standby) 20 2,500 gpm; 100 HP Each
May 2016 17-5

18.0 PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE
18.1 S ITE L AYOUT

The proposed on-site and off-site infrastructure for the Project will include:
• Process Plants
• Truck Shop
• Administration Building
• Process/Mine Warehouse
• Substation and power distribution
• Mine Rock Storage Facility
• Tailings Storage Facility
• Water Treatment Facility
• Wastewater Treatment Facility
• Access and site roads
The general arrangement for the site is provided in Figure 18-1.
18.2 P ROCESS P LANTS

The oxide Adsorption Desorption Recovery (ADR) plant is shown in Figure 18-1. The following
supporting infrastructure for the Oxide process facility includes
• Three stage crushing and conveying circuit

• Heap leach pad and solution storage
• Carbon adsorption columns
• Carbon stripping circuit
• Carbon reactivation kiln
• Electrowinning cells
• Gold smelting furnace
• Reagent handling
• Maintenance/Warehouse
• ADR Building and Operations Office
The sulfide processing facility, shown on Figure 18-2, includes:
• Primary crushing circuit

• Primary and secondary grinding circuits
• Sulfide flotation
• Bio-oxidation tanks and wash thickener
• CIL leaching circuit
• Tailings thickener
• Tailing storage facility
• Reagent handling
• Carbon stripping circuit (shared with oxide process)
• Carbon reactivation kiln (shared with oxide process)
May 2016 18-1

• Electrowinning cells (shared with oxide process)
• Gold smelting furnace (shared with oxide process)
• Assay and metallurgical laboratory Carbon adsorption columns
18.3 P ROJECT L OGISTICS

The Property has direct access to Fairbanks via paved state highways (reference Figure 4-1). The City of
Fairbanks serves as the region service and supply center for Interior Alaska. It serves as the seat of
government for the Fairbanks North Star Borough, where the Property is located, which comprises a total
population of approximately 100,000.
Fairbanks has excellent labor and services infrastructure, including rail and international airport access.
The Fairbanks International airport is served by several major airlines with numerous scheduled daily
flights. The main campus of the University of Alaska is located in Fairbanks in addition to numerous State
and federal Offices. Major employers within the Fairbanks Area include Fort Knox, Fort Wainwright (US
Army), the University of Alaska as well as numerous state and federal agencies. Exploration and
development costs in the Fairbanks area are at or below those common in the western United States.
18.4 R OADS & R AIL

From Fairbanks, the Property lies approximately 29 km (18 miles) northeast via State Hwy 2 and State Hwy
6 (the Steese Highway). The site holds a series of gravel roads which allow access to most areas of the
property on a year-round basis.
Fairbanks is served by the Alaska Railroad, and is connected to Anchorage and Whitehorse, Canada by
well-maintained paved highways.
General corridor and road sections are provided in Figure 18-3 to Figure 18-5.
18.5 B UILDINGS & F ACILITIES

The main entrance to the project would be constructed on the northwest side of the property with the
main access road coming from the Steese Highway. The administration building, parking lot and fuel farm
would be just inside the ADR Plant area compound surrounded by an 8-ft chain link fence. Just past the
administration building would be a security gate with an armed guard controlling access to the mineralized
process portion of the plant area.
May 2016 18-2

The supporting buildings, and a description of purpose and phase are included in the Table 18-1. For
Phase 2 facilities, the maintenance shop areas for the sulfide process plant will be contained within the
mill building.
Table 18-1: Buildings and Facilities
Building/Structure Description
PHASE 1
Mine Entrance Located at project entrance gate; includes reception; security; gate bar; desks
Administrative Building Reception; offices; conference room; communications center; dining/kitchen area; all office
equipment and furnishings
Laboratory Metallurgical lab; sample preparation; assay laboratory; offices, sample storage; assay
equipment; office furnishings
Change House Showers, toilets, lockers/change areas (separate for work and street clothes); security
HEAP LEACH AREA:
Operations Office Offices for operations and maintenance staff; lunch room area
Maintenance/Warehouse Closed area for shelving for spare parts and equipment; outside fenced-area for large
equipment such as crusher liners
PHASE 2: The maintenance shop areas for the sulfide process plant will be contained within the mill building.
Mine Entrance Located at project entrance gate; includes reception; security; gate bar
Administrative Reception; offices; conference room; communications center; dining/kitchen area
Laboratory Metallurgical lab; sample preparation; assay laboratory; offices, sample storage
Change House Expanded for additional personnel in mine and sulfide process plant
HEAP LEACH AREA: For Phase 2, assumes there would not be any additional building/structures required for heap
leach area.
Note 1: assumes no additional building construction for Phase 2 production.
18.6 P OWER S UPPLY

Power would be supplied to the Project by two 3-MW diesel generators in Phase 1. Once the Project
ramps up to Phase 2, Freegold would upgrade the system with supply from Golden Valley Electric
Association (GVEA), who provide electric power in the Fairbanks area and along the Steese Highway. The
estimated peak electrical load for the Project is estimated at approximately 15MW. In order to serve this
load, the existing 138kV transmission line currently terminating at the Ft. Knox Mine would be extended
to the Project. This would include construction of a 138kV switching station near the existing 138kV
transmission line to provide a connection point, and a 138kV substation.
18.7 C OMMUNICATIO NS
Existing telephone lines run along the Steese Highway and there is currently cellular phone coverage
servicing the property.
On-site communication systems would include a voice over internet protocol (VoIP) telephone system, a
local area network (LAN) with wired and wireless access points, and hand-held very high frequency (VHF)
radios. Telecommunications for the Project would be provided by Summit Telephone Company.
May 2016 18-3

The estimate includes providing telephony for approximately 20 personnel in the administration office
and sites within the sulfide plant area and oxide leach facility. The phone system and internet access
would be provided by Alaska Communications.
18.8 W ATER M ANAG EMENT

This section describes water management and required infrastructure for the Project. There are four
types of water sources at the Property that would require management:
• Groundwater reporting to the open pit mine;

• Precipitation that would contact material associated with engineered facilities;
• Small streams to be diverted around the footprint of the facilities; and
• Stormwater runoff from surface disturbance areas.
Section 24 includes the methodology and analysis for surface water and groundwater hydrology; water
balance; and geochemistry as well as design criteria. This section provides an overview of required
facilities, and includes water supply, process water, fire/potable water, treatment of site wastewater and
dewatering requirements.
The groundwater reporting to the open pit mine and the contact precipitation would be collected, treated
and recycled for use in the processing facilities. It is expected, based on the preliminary assessment, that
excess water would need to be released back into the environment. This expectation requires that the
PEA include capital and operating costs for a wastewater treatment plant. The need and type of treatment
facility would be determined during the feasibility study stage.
May 2016 18-4

478,000N
479,000N
480,000N
481,000N
482,000N
483,000N
484,000N
485,000N
7,218,000N ACCESS
7,218,000N
ROAD
STEESE TAILINGS
HWY CORRIDOR TAILINGS
STORAGE
FACILITY
STORM WATER
PONDS
PROCESS
PLANT AREA
7,217,000N 7,217,000N
PROCESS PLANT
POWER ACCESS ROAD
LINE
ALASKA
SULFIDE ULTIMATE MRSF
CONVEYOR
PERIMETER FENCE
PRIMARY
CRUSHER
STEESE PIT
HWY CORRIDOR
7,216,000N HAUL ROAD 7,216,000N
HEAP LEACH
AREA
ULTIMATE PIT
STORM WATER
Y:\A-G\Freegold Ventures Limited\114-910054 - Golden Summit Project PEA\110-2D CADD\Mining_MASTER.dwg, SNYDER, JEREMY, 3/10/2016 1:14 PM
PONDS
484,000N
485,000N
OXIDE
AD
CONVEYOR R
PL
AN
PERIMETER FENCE T
PLS EXTRACTION
ADR WELLS
FACILITY
7,215,000N 7,215,000N
HEAP LEACH
ALASKA
CORRIDOR
LEACH AREA
ACCESS ROAD

200 0 200 400 600 800
SCALE IN METERS
477,000N
478,000N
479,000N
480,000N
481,000N
482,000N
483,000N
Drawn by:
Checked by:
L. AGA
E. LIPS
Approved by: V. SCHARNHORST GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
TETRA TECH REVISION
Location: Date:
FIGURE 18-1
480,800N
479,800N
480,000N
480,200N
480,400N
480,600N
ACCESS ROAD
MINE GATE
TAILINGS
Pa
ALASKA rkin CORRIDOR
g
7,217,400N 7,217,400N
Fu
Lubel & MRSF & PROCESS
Ad e STORM WATER POND
min
.
STEESE Sec
HWY Ga urity
te
BIO
X
FW Dry
AT CIL
Lab
Gri
ndi De
ng tox Wa
PROCESS WATER reh
Tru ous
c kS e
hop
FIRE WATER
PERIMETER FENCE
Re
ady
Lin
e
SEWER TREATMENT
FEED
PLANT
7,217,200N CONVEYOR 7,217,200N
Su
b
PLANT AREA
70m SECURITY FENCE
LIVE
STORAGE
480,800N
7,217,000N 7,217,000N
MINE ROAD SULFIDE ULTIMATE

CONVEYOR DUMP
50 0 50 100
479,800N
480,000N
480,200N
480,400N
480,600N
SCALE IN METERS
ENGINEER'S SEAL B Edit to MRSF L. AGA Dec/2015 Scale: As Noted Issued for: Issued by:
Drawn by:
Checked by:
L. AGA
E. LIPS
Approved by: V. SCHARNHORST SULFIDE PLANT AREA LAYOUT
TETRA TECH REVISION
Location: Date:
FIGURE 18-2
LOCAL ROAD DESIGN NOTES
- Minimum Right Of Way = 15m
- Minimum Trafficway = 6m
- Minimum Shoulder = 60cm
- Minimum Base Material = 30cm
Replace top 10cm with surface course on grades >7%, 7.6cm on grades <7%
- Add 50cm tall safety berm
Shoulder 60cm
Safety Berm Shoulder 60cm Safety Berm
Trafficway 6m 3:1
50cm 50cm
Min. 30cm Base Material

3:1
Graded and Compacted Subbase
Min. 15m ROW Width
Centimeters Meters
200 100 0 1 2
Metric Scale
Designed by: TETRA TECH Issued for: Issued by:

Checked by: E. LIPS
Approved by: V. SCHARNHORST LOCAL ROAD DESIGN SECTION
TETRA TECH Project: Project no.:
REVISION
GOLDEN SUMMIT PROJECT

114-910054
THIRD PARTY ARISING FROM THE USE OF THIS DOCUMENT BY THEM, WITHOUT
THE EXPRESSED WRITTEN AUTHORITY OF TETRA TECH AND OUR CLIENT. THIS
Location: Date:
FIGURE 18-3
BE SOUGHT REGARDING THIS DOCUMENT IN ALL OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES. FAIRBANKS MINING DISTRICT, ALASKA Oct/2015
TAILINGS CORRIDOR
Tailings Delivery Tank Centimeters Meters

200 100 0 1 2
Metric Scale
Tailings In 18" Pipe

Drop Down Bars
Reclaim Water Out 18" Pipe
Road 2%
8m
5m
5m 1.5m Storm Water
2:1 Channel 2:1
Tailings
5m
Note: shifted/relocated depending on deposit strategy
HEAP LEACH CORRIDOR

3m 1m 1m 5m
3:1 Storm Water Road 2%

1:1 Channel
Safety Berm
50cm
Solution Pipe 12"
Centimeters Meters
200 100 0 1 2
Metric Scale

Checked by: E. LIPS
Approved by: V. SCHARNHORST TAILINGS & HEAP CORRIDOR SECTIONS
REVISION

114-910054
Location: Date:
FIGURE 18-4
PIT CORRIDOR
Safety Berm
Drainage Ditch
1:1 50cm Road 50cm
50cm
Open Pit 1m 5m 1m 1m
Centimeters Meters
200 100 0 1 2
Metric Scale
HAUL ROAD CORRIDOR

Safety Berm Drainage Ditch
1:1 50cm Road 50cm

50cm
1m 24m 1m 1m
Centimeters Meters
200 100 0 1 2
Metric Scale

Checked by: E. LIPS
Approved by: V. SCHARNHORST PIT & HAUL ROAD CORRIDOR SECTIONS
REVISION

114-910054
Location: Date:
FIGURE 18-5
18.8.1 Surface Water Management
Surface water is divided into runoff from mine affected surfaces such as the TSF, MRSF, HLP and process
plant (contact water), and runoff from natural surfaces (non-contact water). Non-contact water also
includes management of natural streams entering or exiting the property. Non-contact water may be
collected or diverted and released directly into natural systems downstream whereas contact water may
require treatment prior to release. The overall goal of water management is to maintain separation
between the two types of water so that treatment volumes are minimized and to protect the environment
and site facilities.
Non-contact water would be diverted prior to encountering site facilities by constructed channels that
would ultimately report to natural systems downstream. Similarly, contact water would be collected by
a separate channel system but would report to ponds for detention, evaluation and possible treatment.
Contact water may also be recycled back to the mill, for use as process water.
Channel and pond design is based on site rainfall and runoff evaluation and regulatory design basis. Given
the lack of design criteria specific to gold mining operations, Alaska coal mining regulations were used as
a basis of design.
Additional information regarding the methodology for storm water management is included in
Section 24.2.
18.8.2 Water Supply

Raw water for processing would primarily be required for start-up and emergency purposes, gland seal
water, reagent, and process water makeup.
Potable and fire water supply would be from groundwater wells.
A water use authorization would be required from the State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources,
Division of Mining, Land and Water. Fairbanks Creek and Too Much Gold Creek are authorized for water
appropriation of 8,000 gallons per minute (gpm) for placer mining under water right Certificate of
Appropriation ADL 46157. Wolf Creek is authorized for water use of 10,000 gpm for placer mining under
TWUP F2011-48. The Property would be required to coordinate water withdrawals with other companies
and placer mine operations in the area that may be withdrawing water.
18.8.3 Process Water

Mineral processing requires an estimated 500 gpm of make-up water. Groundwater wells (described
above), water from the pit, or diverted run-on would be used as sources for makeup water.
18.8.4 Fire / Potable Water

Fire demand, storage tank and distribution lines at the Property are estimated based upon the pressure,
flow rates and volumes required for fire suppression as defined by the International Fire Code and NFPA
122. The water tank would either be stored within the process building or insulated if located outside, to
prevent freezing. Duration of fire water use would be dependent upon the area of the process facility.
Based on required water supply for fire suppression at the largest building (Process Facility), a minimum
of 330,000 gallons of water would be maintained in the potable water supply tank to ensure a flow rate
May 2016 18-10

of 2,750 gpm for two hours of fire suppression. Water must not be used to suppress petroleum or
chemical based fires.
Sprinkler systems would be required in facilities with areas greater than 12,000 square feet and/or heights
of more than three stories. The process facility and mine truck shop would be constructed with automatic
sprinkler systems designed to provide 0.18 gpm/ft2 for fire suppression.
It is estimated that approximately 15,000 gallons of water would be required daily to satisfy potable water
demand. A potable water tank (500,000 gallons was sized to allow for ample fire flow requirements) and
a hydro-chlorination unit would be provided. The chlorination system was estimated with a flow rate of
500 gpm.
18.8.5 Waste Water Treatment

Sewage treatment and disposal for the estimated 500 site employees would consist of a packaged
wastewater treatment facility. The plant would be manufactured off-site and containerized for simple
connection to the collection system on site.
This plant would be sized to treat domestic wastewater as well as excess water from the pit (after pre-
treatment as required). The plant would meet secondary treatment requirements for the State of Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), 18 AAC Chapter 70 - Water Quality Standards.
For the purposes of this study, a treatment plant was sized for a flow of 25,000 gallons per day (gpd) and
the following secondary treatment effluent limits (Table 18-2).
Table 18-2: Secondary Treatment Effluent Limits (Excerpt from State of Alaska, as described above)
In addition, the regulations in 18 AAC 83.540 require that effluent limits meet mass-based limits for
copper, lead and ammonia. The regulation at 18 AAC 83.520 requires that effluent limits be calculated
based on the design flow of the facility.
Once treated, the plant effluent would be discharged to Cleary Creek (considered a “non-salmon-bearing
stream” in the regulations) in accordance with an Alaska Pollution Discharge Elimination System (APDES)
permit.
May 2016 18-11

18.8.6 Dewatering
Hydrogeologic conditions at the Project site are discussed in Section 24.1.
required for maintaining pit wall stability and dry conditions within the pit. Considering winter
temperatures, dewatering by means of wells would be the most feasible strategy. Data from the
dewatering well system at the Fort Knox mine were used to estimate dewatering requirements for open
pit mining at the property.
Specific capacity is a term used to denote the relationship between pumping rate and water-level
drawdown in a well. If a constant drawdown is maintained in the well, the pumping rate needed to
maintain that drawdown, and thus specific capacity, would decrease gradually with time. This concept
can be applied to a dewatering system. The “specific capacity” of the dewatering system at the Fort Knox
mine was estimated from reported pumping rates for the dewatering system (FGMI 2006, 2008, 2011,
2012, 2013, 2014) and estimated depths of the mine pit at various points in time. The time-varying
“specific capacity” estimated for the Fort Knox mine dewatering system was applied to the Project mine
plan, based on the changing depth of the planned open pit below an assumed water table elevation. The
initial water table elevation in the planned pit area was assumed to be approximately 450 m (1,475 ft)
amsl, the approximate elevation at which the floor of the Willow Creek valley intersects the planned mine
pit.
The estimated pumping rates and number of dewatering wells that would be required to depress
groundwater levels to below the pit floor are summarized in Figure 18-6. The number of wells is shown
for two scenarios, the first based on an average pumping rate of 545 m3/day (100 gpm) per well, plus one
backup well for every five dewatering wells, and the second based on 218 m3/day (40 gpm) per well, plus
one backup well for every ten dewatering wells. The 545 m3/day (100 gpm) rate is based on typical well
yields listed on Fort Knox well construction and testing records obtained from ADNR (2014) for Fort Knox
dewatering wells; the 218 m3/d (40 gpm) rate is based on the annual pumping rate and number of wells
listed in the Fort Knox 2010 annual activity report (FGMI, 2011), the year of highest reported annual inflow
to the pit. The Project mine pit would intersect the water approximately six months to one year after the
start of mining, but dewatering would need to start earlier in order for the pumping effects to extend
throughout the required area. The estimated annual average pumping rate was approximately
410 m3/day (75 gpm) initially, increased to approximately 4,460 m3/day (818 gpm) by the third year of
mining, declined slightly through the eighth year of mining, and then increased gradually to approximately
6,600 m3/day (1,210 gpm) near the end of the mine life.
May 2016 18-12

Figure 18-6: Estimated Pumping Rate and Number of Dewatering Wells
The number of wells that would be required for effective dewatering through the LoM was estimated
based on a combination of the total estimated pumping rate, the length of pit perimeter, and the average
pumping capacity of a dewatering well at the Fort Knox mine. The number of wells would increase as the
pit is enlarged and deepened. Two wells would be required initially. That number would increase to 11
by the second year of mining, remain steady through the tenth year of mining, and then increase to 16 by
the final year of mining. The number of wells includes at least one backup well throughout the mine life.
The cost of dewatering was estimated based on the cost of a typical dewatering well 200 m (656 ft) in
total depth, cased with 20.3-cm (8-inch) diameter steel casing and mill-slotted well screen and equipped
with a submersible pump capable of pumping approximately 550 m3/day (100 gpm) from the total depth
of the well. The average total depth of the wells assumes that wells would be installed on benches within
the mine pit whenever possible, thereby limiting the required drilling depth.
18.9 T AILING S S TO RAG E F ACILITY
18.9.1 Design Requirements and Concept

The Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) was designed to accommodate the nominal 49.6 Mt of sulfide material
to be processed between Year 9 through Year 24. The mill throughput would ramp up to a nominal rate
of 3.5 Mtpa.
A cross valley type conventional slurry TSF concept was adopted based on the mine plan and assessment
of the site topography. The TSF was sited north of the proposed waste dump location in the Wolf Creek
valley.
The valley storage design was established to permit storage of 38 Mm3 assuming an average settled
tailings dry density of 1.3 t/m3 and including an allowance for freeboard and tailings beach slopes.
May 2016 18-13

The TSF embankment would be raised in three stages and constructed of mine waste rock material. The
total volume of the embankment at full capacity is 13.3 Mm3. The final crest elevation of the TSF would
be 405 m.
A summary of TSF design requirements and characteristics is provided in Table 18-3.
Table 18-3: TSF Requirements and Characteristics
TSF Feature Value

Tailings Storage Capacity 38 Mm3
Tailings Storage Capacity 49.6 Mt
Tailings Storage Capacity 16 years up to 3.5 Mtpa
Embankment Crest Elevation (Final) 405 m
Embankment Volume (Final) 13.3 Mm3
Maximum Embankment Height 100 m
18.9.2 Design and Construction

The TSF embankment would be constructed in stages by downstream methods using mine waste rock and
select borrow material as required. The staged raises would be constructed to accommodate storage
requirements and mine waste rock production. The zoned embankment would include a low permeability
compacted clayey zone keyed into competent and low permeability foundation, a random fill zone, and
rockfill blanket drain. The clayey zone would be protected from freeze-thaw cycles by the random fill
zones and suitable cover at each stage of construction. A liner is then placed on top of the upslope interior
random fill zone.
The crest width of 15 m was adopted to accommodate maintenance equipment access, windrows, and
the tailings slurry pipeline. The adopted embankment design slope is 3H:1V downstream and 2.5H:1V
upstream to suit typical stability and closure requirements.
A nominal 3m thick rockfill drainage blanket shall be installed below the downstream portion of the
embankment to improve downstream drainage and maintain a low phreatic surface in the embankment.
Additionally, a geomembrane liner with an underliner and overliner drain system will be installed in order
to collect ground water seepage and TSF seepage, respectfully.
Surface water diversion ditches will be required to divert surface water from the storage area.
The TSF footprint would be grubbed and topsoil stripped and stockpiled for future reclamation. The TSF
basin area would be ripped, moisture conditioned, and compacted in place to create a low permeability
layer and reduce infiltration to groundwater.
An access road would be constructed around the facility perimeter to facilitate installation of the tailings
slurry pipeline and provide access to the water return.
May 2016 18-14

18.9.3 Operation
The tailings slurry would be deposited from the embankment and along the perimeter of the storage area.
This would optimize tailings storage capacity while reducing the risks associated with embankment
stability and seepage. Tailings deposition would be undertaken to maintain the decant water return pond
adjacent to the south valley wall. Decant water would be returned to the process plant for re-use. Heat
traced and insulated pipelines and storage tanks would be required to mitigate cold weather operation
risks.
The following outlines practices important in the optimization of the TSF:
1. The water pond size shall be kept to a minimum by optimizing water return.
2. Deposition should be cycled in such a manner as to concentrate and maintain the water pond
around the water recovery point located in the valley area of the storage.
3. The supernatant water should not be allowed to pond against the embankment.
4. TSF Monitoring.
The TSF monitoring program would include the embankment stability, tailings storage management, and
groundwater quality.
Embankment stability would be monitored by routine visual inspections and periodic measurements of
slope inclinometers, survey stakes, and standpipe and/or vibrating wire piezometers.
Tailings management would be monitored by routine visual inspection by operations and management
staff as well as annual audits by geotechnical specialists.
Piezometers would be installed to permit monitoring of groundwater flow and quality.
18.9.4 Closure
The conceptual closure plan involves covering the top surface of the TSF with overburden and
revegetating the surface and embankment. The revegetation technique that is adopted would be based
on site specific trials and experience.
A spillway would be required to facilitate controlled release of surface runoff from significant storm
events.
18.10 H EAP L EACH F ACILITY
18.10.1 Design Requirements and Concept

The proposed heap leach facility is a valley fill concept located adjacent to the Mine Waste Rock Facility
(MRSF) and in the Chatham Creek valley. The heap leach facility was designed to accommodate the
47,864 Mt of oxide material to be treated in the current mine plan. This translates to a required minimum
capacity of 27,350 million m3 of mineralized material assuming an average dry density of 1.75 t/m3 in the
heap.
May 2016 18-15

The heap leach facility would utilize an in-heap storage pond for the collection of the pregnant solution.
This approach was selected to reduce operational risks in the cold environment.
The facility design incorporates surface water diversion features and a lined containment system with a
network of overdrainage pipework for solution collection. The facility would be constructed in stages to
suit the production schedule. The footprint was selected to suit site geometry with consideration of lease
limits and proposed mine infrastructure. An underdrain system would be in place to collect any
groundwater seepage.
Material for the heap leach would be transported from the open pit to the heap leach facility via
conveyors. Material would be loaded on the pad in lifts of nominal 12 m thickness at a rate of 3.5 Mt per
annum.
The design was developed based on the environmental setting, state of practice design requirements, and
similar operations close to the Project site. Geotechnical and environmental site investigation was not
undertaken as part of this preliminary design.
18.10.2 Design and Construction
18.10.2.1 IN-HEAP STORAGE POND
The heap leach facility would include an in-heap storage pond to eliminate surface exposure of the process
solution. The in-heap storage pond would be sized to contain:
1. Solution storage for operations;
2. Solution from a 24-hour draindown;
3. Runoff from design storm event; and
4. Freeboard as per Alaska dam safety requirements.
Earthworks for the in-heap storage would include a toe embankment and contouring of the storage pond
basin to promote drainage towards the proposed return pump wells. The in-heap embankment would be
constructed of mine waste and select borrow as required, with slopes of 3H:1V with a 15m wide crest.
The basin fill would be moisture conditioned and compacted. The surface would be contoured for a
minimum 2% slope toward the proposed return pump wells.
18.10.2.2 COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT DESIGN
The leach pad would be fully lined to facilitate effective pregnant solution recovery and mitigate impact
to the environment.
Topsoil in the basin would be stripped and stockpiled for future reclamation. Any soils deemed unsuitable
for the foundation of the facility would also be removed and stockpiled. This would include removal of
any local and discrete permafrost zones that may be present to mitigate risks associated with differential
settlement due to permafrost melt. Following stripping, a subbase soil layer would be prepared. This
subbase would be ripped, moisture conditioned and compacted to create a low permeability layer. The
compacted surface would then be covered with a Linear Low Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) liner. The
LLDPE liner was selected for its strength, chemical resistance and performance in cold environments.
May 2016 18-16

The area below the in-heap storage pond would include a double synthetic liner system with a Leakage
Collection and Recovery System (LCRS) between the liners. The double synthetic liner would be comprised
of two LLDPE liners with a geocomposite drainage layer in between. Any seepage collected by the LCRS
would report to a sump at the upstream toe of the in-heap embankment. It would then be pumped back
to the storage pond.
Above the liner system, the entire footprint of the leach pad would be overlain with 1 meter of crushed
mill reject material. This 1 meter of crushed material (the overliner) would consist of less than 1” size rock
with a network of perforated piping. The purpose of this overliner is to convey collected pregnant solution
to the storage pond and solution collection wells. It would also serve to protect the synthetic liner from
damage during material loading on the heap. The piping network would consist of perforated corrugated
double walled collection pipes.
18.10.2.3 UNDERDRAIN AND DIVERSION DITCHES
A network of underdrains would be installed to capture and transport flow from seepage areas below the
heap leach facility. The underdrains are designed with a primary function of removing seepage from
below the liner system, therefore process solution is not anticipated to drain to these underdrains. Flow
would be released unless indications of process solution are identified through monitoring. Monitoring
of the underdrain would provide a performance review of the lining system.
Diversion ditches would be constructed and lined with run of mine rock around the active stages of the
heap leach facility to convey any surface water runoff around the facility.
18.10.3 Operation
18.10.3.1 HAULING AND LOADING
The heap leach pad would be constructed over a period of 17 years (Mine Year 1 to Year 17). Loading
would occur in 12 m lifts. The operation of mining and hauling material to the pad is anticipated to occur
year-round at a rate of 3.5 Mt per annum. The material is to be conveyed from the open pit to the heap
leach pad.
The bench face angle of the heap leach facility would be 37.5o while the overall slope is to be 18.5o.
18.10.3.2 SOLUTION MANAGEMENT
The solution would be applied via drip emitters, drop emitters, or sprinklers. The method used would
depend on the season. The drip emitters would be utilized during the cold winter months and would be
buried under 5 feet of material. In the summer months either drop emitters or sprinklers would be used.
The solution applied would then flow through the material to the in-heap storage pond.
Once the solution is applied and allowed to flow through the heap to the in-heap storage pond, the
pregnant solution would then be recovered via collection wells. There would be five pregnant solution
collection wells located at the lowest portion of the in-heap storage pond. Three of the five wells would
be in use at any given time with the others on standby. The pumping rate would closely match the
application rate. The wells can be run simultaneously during storm events. However, the application rate
of the barren solution would be reduced during these wet conditions to mimic the typical operational
levels.
May 2016 18-17

Barren and Pregnant solution would be pumped between the heap leach pad and the plant in double lined
pipes. The requirements for pumping and maintaining the required head to pump the barren solution to
the top of the heap leach pad would vary as the size of the heap leach facility grows. Pumps would need
to be added over the life of the mine.
18.10.4 Closure
The Heap Leach Facility closure concept would involve residual leaching until uneconomic recovery is
achieved, followed by solution recirculation/rinsing to destroy cyanide and meet compliance standards.
At closure, the facility would be re-graded and growth media placed as required to create a stable
landform. The seepage and quality of minor long-term seepage would be monitored.
18.10.5 Cold Weather Considerations

Year-round leaching operations in the cold climate are considered feasible assuming design provisions are
incorporated for adding and maintaining heat in the process solutions applied to the heap and adequate
operational methods are adopted. This would include adjustments to the heap loading schedule based
on air and rock temperature monitoring to prevent formation of ice lenses within the heap, cross ripping
of cells before leaching to break up frozen and/or compacted ground, burial of solution emitter lines, and
heat tracing and insulation of solution tanks and pipelines as required.
These measures are adopted because frozen material on a heap leach pad is detrimental to the operation.
This is due to the loss of effective percolation resulting in reduced recovery and possible heap instability
from lateral solution flows to the heap slopes.
The proposed valley fill heap leach construction with internal pond and pump recovery wells has the
advantage of limited heat loss from solution as compared to a design with an external pregnant solution
pond. The approach may result in relatively higher construction cost and reduced operational control as
compared to a design with an external solution pond.
May 2016 18-18

19.0 MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS
There were no market studies conducted and no contracts in place between Freegold and refiners at this
time. Freegold plans to establish refining agreements with third-party entities for refining of doré.
In the future, Freegold will negotiate refining contracts and sales agreements that are typical and
consistent with standard industry practice, and similar to contracts for doré elsewhere in the global
market.
May 2016 19-1

20.0 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING AND
SOCIAL OR COMMUNITY IMPACT
This section characterizes the existing environmental baseline data for the Project area, makes
suggestions for additional studies that would provide a basis for the mine permitting efforts, describes
the major environmental permits that would likely be required for the Project, and identifies potential
significant social or community impacts.
20.1 E NVIRONMENTAL S TUDIES

The Project area lies within the Cleary Creek watershed and in addition to Cleary Creek, includes the
drainages of Willow Creek, Bedrock Creek, Chatham Creek, Fairbanks Creek, Too Much Gold Creek, and
Wolf Creek. The Cleary Creek basin is tributary to the Chatanika River. To date, a limited amount of
baseline environmental data have been collected in the Project area to characterize water resources,
water quality, wetlands, aquatic resources, on-site meteorology, subsistence use and cultural resources.
An evaluation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) concerning the historic
status of a former ski area within the Project area has been conducted by the Alaska State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO). Additionally, an initial evaluation of waste rock geochemistry has also been
conducted in support of this PEA.
20.1.1 Historic Evaluation of Former Ski Area

The Cleary Summit ski area was located in the Willow Creek watershed and operated between 1949 and
1993. The area, which extended both above and below the Steese Highway, consisted of several buildings,
lodges, and ski tows that were associated with the ski area over the years of operation. The buildings,
debris and equipment were removed or sold after the area closed in 1993. The State of Alaska SHPO
performed a NHPA Section 106 review of the ski area and former operations to determine if it would be
eligible for listing under the National Register of Historic Places. Alaska SHPO found that the ski area was
not eligible for listing as an historic place. As a result of this finding, the Project will not need to consider
avoidance or mitigation the former property in locating facilities or for mine operations.
20.1.2 Initial Geochemical Characterization of Waste Rock

The mineralization described in Section 7.2 indicates the presence of sulfide material, including
arsenopyrite. Sulfide waste material has the potential to generate acid upon exposure to both oxygen
and water. Acid drainage is often associated with metal leachate generation that requires management
to reduce impact to water resources. As the sulfidic material is arsenopyrite, arsenic is predicted to be
released upon weathering of the waste rock. A geochemical testing program was initiated to evaluate the
potential for acid drainage and metal leachate to be generated.
Twenty one (21) representative waste rock samples were selected from available core for initial
geochemical characterization of waste rock. The samples represented spatially and vertically distributed
drill core primarily obtained from the Dolphin Deposit. Seven samples were analyzed for mineralogical
quantification. Twenty-one samples were analyzed for constituent mobility using the Synthetic
Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP), acid generating and neutralization potential using acid-base
accounting (ABA), and net acid generating (NAG) testing to determine the resulting pH after complete
oxidation of sulfide minerals. Results from these initial evaluations are as follows:
May 2016 20-1

• Two of the seven samples had measurable pyrite based on mineralogical quantification with
percentages of 0.2 percent (%) and 1.4 %. Acid neutralizing minerals, primarily calcite, were
observed in three of the seven samples with concentrations ranging from 4.4 % to 20.4 %.
Ankerite, another acid neutralizing mineral, was present in two of the seven samples with
concentrations of 0.3 % and 1.3 %.
• Total elemental arsenic in excess of 1,000 parts per million (ppm) was reported in six of the
21 samples across various lithologies. Total elemental lead in excess of 1,000 ppm is reported
in two of the 21 samples from the granodiorite rock type.
• Predominately, the pH of leachate generated by the SPLP was slightly alkaline to alkaline. In
all, 20 of the 21 samples report values above the upper Reference Value pH threshold of 8.5.
A total of six samples report arsenic concentrations above the Reference Value of 0.15 mg/L.
A correlation with total element arsenic concentrations (exceedences of 1,000 ppm) is
observed in four of the six samples. A total of five of the 21 samples reported iron
concentrations above the Reference Value of 1.0 mg/L. Isolated exceedences of copper, lead,
and zinc were also reported from the granodiorite rock type.
• A total of six of the 21 samples were classified as potentially acid generating (PAG) across a
range of rock types. NAG pH results show a wide range of values between 2.8 to 11.0, with
three of the 21 samples reporting a value less than 4.5. Insufficient acid neutralization
capacity exists in the majority of the represented samples to counteract acidity that may
theoretically be generated as a result of weathering processes. Appreciable acid neutralizing
potential is observed in only two of the 21 samples.
20.1.3 Further Environmental Study Requirements

Development of the Project would require extensive environmental baseline analyses, assessment of
indirect and cumulative impacts associated with full project build-out, and the environment in which it
would be constructed. Development of the Project would entail significant infrastructure development
including the mine, mill, tailings impoundment and ancillary facilities, as well as any off-site infrastructure
such as power transmission and road improvements. The complexity of the environmental impact review
and permitting of the various facilities would be dependent on siting of facilities in relationship to the
various creeks and valleys surrounding the Project development target areas. This PEA provides
preliminary siting information of facilities such as the open pit, tailings disposal, waste rock, and leach
pad.
Baseline environmental data would be required for this Project including on-the-ground studies to
delineate jurisdictional wetlands. These data would be required to meet a number of needs including
permitting and mine design and location of facilities, mine construction and operations. Freegold has
initiated consultation with the State’s Large Mine Permitting Team (LMPT) to begin the process of project
planning, development and environmental permitting. Through this process, the LMPT would assist in
developing a broader environmental baseline program.
Owing to the long lead time to collect data, it is important that the baseline program generates adequate
data in terms of type, quality and quantity. For example, defined baseline needs would include
characterization of surface water resources, including type, flow, and water quality. Groundwater
baseline sampling down gradient from proposed tailings and waste rock storage facilities would be
important and should be initiated as soon as those areas have been tentatively identified through the
May 2016 20-2

feasibility process. Groundwater pump tests should be performed within the proposed limits of the open
pit. Collection of meteorological data would need to be implemented to delineate local variations in wind
and precipitation and for air quality permitting. These data may need to be initially complemented by
snow surveys, depending on the site wide water balance which would be better defined as the feasibility
study process continues. Other surveys or studies would also be required including birds and wildlife.
Permafrost studies would likely be required for foundation and dam designs.
The characterization program would need to extend beyond the anticipated footprint of the Project to
provide hydrologic, hydrogeologic and water quality data that is representative of background conditions
downstream of proposed operations. Monitoring of established sites would be required by regulatory
agencies both during mine operations and after closure. Agencies often require evaluations of alternative
sites for waste rock and tailings storage, so hydrology and water quality at feasible alternative sites should
also be characterized. All of these data are important to the development of an accurate environmental
baseline and water balance for the Project area.
20.2 P ERMITTING
20.2.1 Exploration Permit

Freegold performs mineral exploration at the Project under State of Alaska Land Use Permit #9726. The
permit covers exploration activities through 2016. These activities are bonded through the State
Reclamation Bond Pool under bond Application for Permits to Mine in Alaska (APMA) #9726 for a
proposed disturbance area of 65 acres. A portion of this bond may be returned after reclamation of
disturbed areas is completed and approved by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR)
Division of Mining, Land, and Water.
20.2.2 Temporary Water Use Permit

Freegold currently conducts site activities and exploration under a State of Alaska Temporary Water Use
Permit (TWUP F2011-133). The permit defines allowable takeout points on Cleary Creek, Chatham Creek,
Wolf Creek, Fairbanks Creek, and Too Much Gold Creek. The current permit expires in 2016.
20.2.3 Wetlands Permit

Exploration activities are also permitted under a federal Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit
(POA-2007-510-M1, Cleary Creek) authorized by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for
the discharge of approximately 76,450 cubic meters (100,000 cubic yards) of gravel fill into 17 hectares
(41.8 acres) of jurisdictional wetlands. The permit was required for anticipated impacts to waters of the
U.S. that would result from the exploration activities, including the development of access roads, drill
pads, and drillholes. The permit has been issued through 2018.
20.2.4 Required Major Mining Permits

ADNR requires approval of a Reclamation & Closure Plan and bond assessment, prior to mine
construction. ADNR also grants certificates to construct and then operate a dam (tailings and water
storage) and issues Water Use Authorizations. ADNR further requires approval of a Plan of Operations
(PoO) which is normally required when a mine project is situated at least partially on State lands. Typically
the PoO consists of the project description, reclamation & closure plan, water, waste rock and tailings
May 2016 20-3

management plans and monitoring plans, and may contain additional information such that it may
simultaneously satisfy the application requirements of other permits.
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) would require an Integrated Waste
Management Permit, air permits for construction, then operations, and an Alaska Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (APDES) Permit for the discharge of wastewater. Discharges of stormwater to surface
waters would be regulated under the state Multisector Stormwater General Permit (MSGP). ADEC would
also be required to provide a federal Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 Certification for the CWA
Section 404 permit (see further discussion below).
The Alaska Department of Fish & Game would require permits for any culverts that need to be placed in
fish-bearing streams or other impacts to fish-bearing streams and fishery habitats.
An underground injection control (UIC) permit from ADEC and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) would be needed if underground injection would be used to dispose of wastewater.
USACE would require a CWA Section 404 permit for dredging and filling activities in “waters of the U.S.,”
including jurisdictional wetlands. This federal permitting action requires USACE to comply with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and, for a project of this magnitude, the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would likely be required. The USACE would likely serve as the lead
agency for the NEPA process. The NEPA process would require consultation and coordination with
additional federal agencies, such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and EPA, as well as with Alaska SHPO
and Tribal Governments under Section 106 of the Historical and Cultural Resources Protection Act.
Additional studies or surveys would be required to support preparation of an EIS, including traditional
knowledge and subsistence use, noise, visual resources, and socioeconomics. A more detailed discussion
of permitting requirements under CWA Section 404 and NEPA is provided in Section 20.3.5 and Section
20.3.6, respectively.
The overall timeline required for permitting would largely be driven by the time required for the NEPA
process, which would be triggered by the submission of the Section 404 permit application to the USACE.
The NEPA process is completed with a Record of Decision, following publication of the final EIS. In Alaska,
the EIS and permitting processes are generally coordinated so that permitting and environmental review
under NEPA occurs in parallel.
May 2016 20-4

A list of major potential permits that could be required is provided in Table 20-1 below. Several other
minor federal, state, and local permits would be required depending on specific facility operations.
Table 20-1: Potential Required Major Permits for the Project
Government Entity Permit

Plan of Operations Approval/Reclamation Plan Approval
Upland Mining Lease
Water Use Authorization (Water Right)
Reclamation Bond
Certificates to Construct/Operate Dam(s)
State of Alaska Fish Passage and Habitat Permits
Discharge Permit (treated waste water) to surface water (APDES)
Stormwater Management Permit (MSGP)
Integrated Waste Management Permit (Tailings and Waste Rock)
Air Quality Permit, both during construction and then operation under Title V of the
Clean Air Act (CAA)
CWA Section 404 Dredge and Fill Permit (Wetlands)
Federal Government
Spill Prevention Control, and Countermeasures Plan under the CWA
Local – Fairbanks
Master Plan Approval
North Star Borough
20.2.5 Clean Water Act Section 404 Wetlands Permit

The major environmental driver for the Project would be the issuance of a CWA Section 404 Permit, issued
by USACE for the purpose of authorizing the placement of fill into wetlands and Waters of the U.S. The
permit authorizes the placement of “clean fill” for use as necessary in Waters of the U.S. for the
construction of facilities, bridges, roads, or for the storage of wastes such as tailings. The Section 404
permit application is required to include the following information: a description of the activities that
require Section 404 permitting, description of the fill material, a determination of impacts on the aquatic
ecosystem, information on alternative disposal sites and locations, and a Mitigation Plan. The Mitigation
Plan defines how the Project has avoided or minimized impacts to waters of the U.S. and wetlands to the
extent practicable and identifies the mitigation proposed for wetland impacts which are unavoidable. The
plan would need to cross reference the Reclamation and Closure Plan of the PoO as part of the
minimization and mitigation discussion. Depending on the nature of the proposed mitigation, a wetlands
monitoring plan may also need to be developed. Mitigation is driven to an extent by the functions and
values provided by the existing wetland types. The USACE requires a functions/values assessment as part
of the baseline data collection. Recent guidance in the USACE’s approach to mitigation calls for a focus
on in lieu fee programs where fees are paid to wetland managers who then obtain deed restrictions or
conservation easements to protect wetlands from development pressures.
The USACE cannot issue the Section 404 permit for the Project until the Project attains NEPA compliance.
When the USACE is a lead (or cooperating) agency, it develops the EIS in parallel with the Section 404
permit. Typically the USACE requires a draft 404 permit application to trigger the NEPA process. A final
application is not desired since it is anticipated that the actions requiring permitting and/or the impact
analysis supporting the application would be modified through the NEPA process.
May 2016 20-5

20.2.6 Air Quality Permit
The Project is located outside the PM2.5 nonattainment area boundary for the Fairbanks area. Regardless
of the project’s final potential-to-emit (PTE) and source classification, ADEC retains the discretionary
authority to require an applicant to conduct an Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) (i.e. dispersion
modeling) as part of the permitting process. In order to conduct the AQIA, meteorological and ambient
air quality data are required, in addition to the engineering and emissions data that is obtained from the
facility design. The adequacy of any meteorological and ambient air quality monitoring and permitting
program is determined by ADEC who requires approval of the location and type of monitoring equipment
installed, as well specifying Data Quality Objectives (DQO) for meteorological and background pollutant
data.
In general, ADEC requires at least 12 months of continuous monitoring with a DQO of data logging of 90
percent of the time within each quarter prior to construction (80 percent of each quarter for background
pollutants). It is not uncommon for meteorological and pollutant monitoring programs in Alaska to have
difficulty meeting these DQOs at remote sites, often resulting in project delays while the necessary data
are obtained for permitting. In addition, obtaining more than a single continuous year of data can result
in less stringent permit requirements generated through the AQIA. Consultation with ADEC is required to
obtain approval of siting a proposed met station, the equipment used as well as approval of a Quality
Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). The goal is to obtain multiple years of applicable data to be used in
permitting.
Should generator sets be used as a power source for a period of time, they would be considered for
inclusion in the air permitting process and regulatory compliance for the project. Based on the potential
size of the generator sets, 2 MW, specific federal requirements for the generator sets themselves are
likely to be required. These requirements may include:
• Code of Federal Regulations Title 40 Part 60 Subpart IIII—Standards of Performance for

Stationary Compression Ignition Internal Combustion Engines, and
• Code of Federal Regulations Title 40 Part 63 - Subpart ZZZZ—National Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines.
Specific requirements will depend on variety of factors including the fuel burned (i.e., diesel or LNG) and
the anticipated operating characteristics and power generation needs of the mine. Operating generators
of this size could produce a significant amount of emissions (particularly if fueled by diesel), and could
trigger federal operating permit requirements, commonly referred to as Title V. In addition, this
alternative might potentially trigger federal prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permitting
requirements as a major source. As the project further advances through the prefeasibility and feasibility
process, a regulatory applicability assessment can be conducted to iteratively compare power generation
needs and mine operations with potential emission inventories to further evaluate regulatory drivers (i.e.
major versus minor emitters) and assess financial impact.
20.2.7 National Environmental Policy Act

NEPA and the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations at 40 CFR 1500-15008 would govern
the federal environmental permitting process for the Project. Before the USACE makes a decision on
whether or not to issue a CWA Section 404 permit for the Project, the Project would need to comply with
NEPA, including preparation of an EIS or an Environmental Assessment (EA).
May 2016 20-6

The EIS/EA evaluates and discloses the projected impacts of the Project across a reasonable range of
alternatives. It is likely that USACE would serve as the lead NEPA agency as the primary federal action
would include issuance of a CWA 404 permit. The EIS/EA would also serve as a vehicle to support a
required CWA Section 404(b)(1) analysis. Under Section 404(b)(1), Freegold Ventures would be required
to demonstrate through the PoO how project planning:
1. First considered avoidance of wetlands altogether;
2. Second, that the project alternatives considered minimization of impacts to wetlands, this
includes potential alternative placement of facilities, such as tailings impoundments; and
3. Third, how impacts would be mitigated.
Other agencies would have roles in reviewing the EIS as cooperating agencies. For large mining projects
in Alaska, the state and federal agencies are proficient at coordinating the baseline data and analysis
requirements for NEPA and permitting.
There are no standard guidelines regarding the specific the amount of baseline information and analysis
needed to prepare an EIS/EA. However, much of the data required for permitting and approvals described
above are also required and used to support the preparation of the EIS or EA.
20.3 S OCIAL OR C OMMUNITY R EQUIREMENTS

The Project is located approximately 18 miles northeast of the city of Fairbanks and is within the Fairbanks
North Star Borough (FNSB). The population of Fairbanks is approximately 32,324 and the population of
the FNSB as a whole is approximately 100,000 (2013 Census). The Project has the potential to positively
impact work opportunities and socioeconomics in the area and provide economic growth within the
interior of Alaska.
Potential impacts, real or perceived, to hunting, fishing, and recreational opportunities for the local
population would likely result in some public opposition to the Project. It is anticipated that there would
be concerns voiced by local environmental groups and the operators of the Skiland ski area (Mount
Aurora) which is located immediately south of the Project. Local community concerns would be formally
recognized during the scoping stage at the beginning of the NEPA process. At that time, the lead federal
agency would hold scoping meetings and record concerns in order to address significant issues during the
preparation of the EIS. Early and continued community engagement and government affairs programs by
Freegold would aid in minimizing these concerns.
20.4 M INE C LOSURE AND R ECLAMATION

Mine reclamation and closure would be conducted pursuant to reclamation and closure plans developed
as regulated by ADNR Office of Project Management and Permitting (OPMP) under the permitting-related
requirements of state law AS 27.19. Preliminary reclamation and closure plans would serve as the basis
for Freegold’s financial assurance obligations to the DNR Mining, Land and Water (MLW) Mining Section.
The preliminary reclamation plan evaluates the necessary reclamation measures that would be conducted
on-site during and after mining to minimize impacts to the surrounding area.
May 2016 20-7

20.4.1 Plant Growth Medium Salvage
The Project mine site is composed of Ester-Gilmore Complex, Steese, Ester Peat, and existing mine
disturbance (NRCS, 2015) and thus provides varying levels of salvageable plant growth medium (PGM) for
future use in reclamation of mine features. To the extent practicable, up to approximately 0.3 meters (12
inches) of PGM would be salvaged from the mine site prior to mining for use as seed bedding material
during reclamation. Sensitive vegetation would be transplanted for use during revegetation.
PGM salvage would consist of scraping and excavating any salvageable PGM from disturbance footprints
prior to construction of mine features. PGM would be salvaged from the pit Mine Rock Storage Facility
(MRSF), Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) and Heap Leach Pad (HLP) disturbance areas and stockpiled at the
toe of the MRSF. Approximately 0.3 meters (12 inches) of PGM would be salvaged from mine feature
disturbance areas.
The Project mill site is composed of primarily disturbed soils from previous mining activities (NRCS, 2015).
As a result no surface soil would be salvaged in the disturbed areas at the mill site. Any sensitive
vegetation would be transplanted during PGM salvage activities for use during revegetation.
20.4.2 Revegetation
Project site vegetation is characterized primarily by forested land. Areas disturbed by previous mining
activity are sparsely vegetated. Disturbed areas would be revegetated during reclamation and closure to
prevent erosion, and improve soil and slope stability. Disturbed areas to be reclaimed include the MRSF,
TSF, HLP, and process facility yard.
To the extent practicable, sensitive species of vegetation would be collected prior to and during PGM
salvage activities. Salvaged vegetation would be transplanted to PGM stockpiles for preservation until
reclamation commences at each facility. Transplanted vegetation would serve to prevent erosion of the
PGM stockpiles during mining operations, and reclaimed mine facilities after reclamation.
Revegetation would be accomplished with a native seed mix applied by approved methods. The seed mix
is to be genetically pure and certified from a source adapted to the project area. Acceptable species of
vegetation include grass species native to the area such as Artared Fescue, Guening Alpine Bluegrass,
Tundra Glaucous Bluegrass, and Nortran Tufted Hairgrass. Seeding would be completed during the late
spring months through about mid-July. Due to the generally steep slopes of the mine site, hydroseeding
inclusive of a tackifier would be the recommended seeding method.
20.4.3 Erosion Control

Erosion from bare and disturbed areas would be minimized during reclamation activities. To prevent
erosion and sedimentation caused by surface water runoff, silt fence and hay bales would be installed
perpendicular to slopes along down-gradient edges of disturbed areas. Additional berms and diversions
would be constructed as necessary to manage surface water during precipitation events. Surface water
management is discussed in Sections 18 and 24.
Water trucks would be used to spray disturbed areas during reclamation, minimizing the potential for
wind erosion. Dust suppression would likely be a continuous need throughout reclamation.
May 2016 20-8

20.4.4 Mine Rock Storage Facility
A MRSF would be constructed during pre-stripping and pit development. The MRSF would primarily
contain surface stripping waste generated during pit development. The MRSF would be constructed to a
height of approximately 200 feet at 3(H):1(V) slopes and cover approximately 310 hectares during life of
mine operations. PGM would be salvaged from the MRSF footprint to the extent practicable prior to
construction, as previously discussed.
No regrading of the MRSF slopes would be required during reclamation because the MRSF would be
constructed at a 3(H):1(V) slope during mining operations. Minor regrading may be required to create
uniform slopes on the MRSF. Because the MRSF would be composed primarily of stripping waste from pit
development, the MRSF surface is assumed to be sufficiently coarse with large cobbles to protect against
erosion both during mining and after reclamation regrading. Upon closure the MRSF surface would be
covered by approximately 0.3 meters (12 inches) of PGM salvaged from the pit and MRSF footprint.
Placed PGM would then be ripped to prepare a suitable seed bedding surface and revegetated using
native seed mix as previously discussed.
20.4.5 Open Pit

The Open Pit would cover a disturbance footprint of approximately 100 hectares during the life of mine.
PGM would be salvaged from the pit footprint to the extent practicable prior to construction. Discussion
of the open pit development is provided in Section 16.
After mining, the pit area would be protected with the construction of an access prevention berm around
the pit perimeter. The pit perimeter berm would also serve to prevent surface water drainage from
entering the pit, directing surface water around the berm and down native slopes. The berm would be
constructed to a height of approximately 3 meters with a crest width of approximately one meter and
side slopes of approximately 2(H):1(V). The berm would be covered with approximately 0.3 meters
(12 inches) of PGM and revegetated as discussed in Section 20.4.2.
20.4.6 Access and Service Roads

Mine site access roads and facility service roads would not be reclaimed upon the cessation of mining
activities. These roads would be left in place to allow access to the site and to reclaim mine features for
post-closure monitoring and maintenance activities. Maintenance activities may be required on access
and service roads throughout the monitoring and maintenance period to ensure vehicle access to
reclaimed mine features.
20.4.7 Process Facility

The Process Facility would be located within a fenced yard area at the mine site. Process equipment is
estimated to cover a disturbance area of approximately 28 hectares. The process area would include the
mill building, administration building, mine truck shop, change house, warehouses, material stockpile,
parking lots, and laboratory. No PGM would be salvaged from the process yard area due to its location
within areas of historic mine disturbance.
Reclamation of the Process Facility would include decommissioning of all processing equipment. To the
extent feasible, used equipment would be salvaged and sold. In the estimate it was assume that costs for
equipment decommissioning would be offset by the salvage value of the used equipment.
May 2016 20-9

Walls of process facility structures would be demolished and demolition debris would be disposed of as
at the MRSF or a landfill as appropriate. Concrete from conveyor and building foundations and slabs
would be demolished and rubblized. Rubblized concrete would be hauled from the mill site to the MRSF
prior to MRSF closure.
Fences installed around the process area would be left in place to prevent access to the site and provide
continued security to minimize public health and safety risks.
The mill site area would be regraded, covered with a 0.3 meter (12 inch) PGM cover, ripped to prepare a
suitable seed bedding surface, and revegetated using a native seed mix.
20.4.8 Tailings Storage Facility

Tailings produced at the mill site would be stored in an impounded tailings storage facility (TSF) at the
north end of the mine site. The TSF embankment would be constructed at a slope of approximately
3(H):1(V) to a height of approximately 100 meters, and would cover approximately 140 hectares during
operations. PGM would be salvaged from the MRSF footprint to the extent practicable prior to
construction. Further details regarding TSF construction are provided in Section 18.
At closure the following steps would be completed to minimize erosion potential at the TSF.
1. Minor grading of the embankment slope to create uniform 3(H):1(V) slopes.
2. Bridging of impounded tailings with approximately 0.67 meters (2 feet) of non-PAG rock material
3. Cover of rock bridging material in the impoundment and the entire embankment area with
approximately 0.3 meters (12 inches) of salvaged PGM
4. Ripping of PGM to prepare suitable seed bedding surface
5. Revegetation of placed PGM with native seed mix.
20.4.9 Heap Leach Pad

Oxide material at the project would be placed in a Heap Leach Pad (HLP) as discussed in Section 18. The
HLP would be constructed to a height of approximately 140 meters and cover a disturbance footprint of
approximately 55 hectares. The HLP would be constructed with slopes of approximately 1.3(H):1(V) with
benches at 12 meter intervals. Upon cessation of mining activities the following steps would be completed
to reclaim and minimize erosion potential at the TSF.
1. Regrading the HLP slopes to uniform slopes of approximately 3(H):1(V)
2. Placement of PGM to a thickness of approximately 0.3 meters (12 inches) of salvaged PGM
3. Ripping of PGM to prepare suitable seed bedding surface
4. Revegetation of placed PGM with native seed mix.
May 2016 20-10

20.4.10 Process Water Ponds
Process water storage ponds would be constructed to contain contact water from the TSF, HLP, and MRSF.
Design details for these process water ponds are discussed in Section 24. Closure of process water ponds
would be conducted upon cessation of mining activities. Closure activities would include cutting and
folding of HDPE liner, burial of liner in place, and backfilling of the process water pond depressions using
bermed material from pond excavation. Backfilled material would be ripped to prepare a suitable seed
bedding surface and would be revegetated with a native seed mix as previously discussed.
20.4.11 Tailings Slurry, TSF Reclaim, Barren Solution and PLS Pipelines
Pipelines would be installed to direct tailings slurry from the process facility to the TSF, tailings reclaim
water to the TSF contact water pond, and tailings reclaim water from the pond to the process facility.
Additional pipelines would be installed at the HLP to direct barren solution from the ADR facility to the
HLP and PLS from the HLP to the ADR. All TSF and HLP pipelines would be removed upon cessation of
mining activities. Reclamation activities would include excavation and removal of buried pipelines and
removal of pipelines installed at the surface. Pipe segments would be tested for contamination levels and
disposed of at the MRSF or at a hazardous waste landfill as determined by contamination characterization.
20.4.12 Storm Water Ponds

Stormwater ponds would be constructed throughout the facility to manage non-contact surface water
and run-on stormwater. Stormwater and non-contact surface water pond design details are provided in
Section 24. Non-contact surface water ponds would be left in place upon reclamation and closure of the
mine site to provide continued surface water management at the site.
20.4.13 Monitoring and Maintenance

Ongoing monitoring and maintenance would be conducted at the Project to ensure effective
implementation of reclamation construction. A comprehensive site monitoring and maintenance plan
would be developed and implemented as future work at the Project. Revegetation progress, cover
stability, and erosion control measures would be routinely inspected, and maintenance actions would be
taken in areas appearing vulnerable to erosion and instability. Maintenance and monitoring actions would
continue at the site until reclamation metrics are achieved.
May 2016 20-11

21.0 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS
All costs and economic results are presented in Q4 2015 U.S. dollars. Quantities and values are presented
using metric units unless otherwise specified. No escalation has been applied to capital or operating costs.
21.1 P RINCIPAL A SSUMPTIONS

Parameters used in the Technical Economic Model (TEM) analysis are shown in Table 21-1. These
parameters are based upon current market conditions, vendor quotes, design criteria developed by Tetra
Tech, and benchmarks against similar existing projects.
The construction schedule accounts for four years of pre-production activities. The operations are
planned to operate at a rate of 10 ktpd for oxide material and 10 ktpd for sulfide materials; where sulfide
mining starts in year nine of mine operations.
Table 21-1: TEM Principal Assumptions
Description Parameter Unit

General Assumptions
Pre-Production Period 4 years
Mine Life 24 years
Operating Days 365 days/year
Production* 3,650 ktpy
Market Assumptions
Price
Gold $1,300 $/oz
Payable Metal
Gold 2,308 koz
Deductions
Gold Deduction 0.1%
Transport & Insurance $4.00 $/oz
Refining $3.00 $/oz
Financial Assumptions
Private Royalty 2.0%
Federal Income Tax 35.0%
State Income Tax 9.4%
Property Tax 1.3%
Mining License Tax 7.0%
Alaska Production Royalty 3.0%
Technical Assumptions
Diesel $3.00 $/gal
Electric $0.13 $/kWh
Recovery
Heap Leach 80%
Bioxidation 90%
*Applicable to each phase individually (oxide and sulfide).
May 2016 21-1

Projected revenue from the sale of gold is based upon a market price of $1,300/oz-Au. There is a gold
deduction of 0.1% to recovered gold, transport and insurance is $4.00/oz-doré, refining is $3.00/oz-doré
and a private royalty of 2.0%.
The Project will be subject to a 35% federal income tax, a 9.4% Alaska state income tax, a property tax of
1.3%, a mining license tax of 7%, and an Alaska production royalty of 3%.
Diesel fuel price used is $3.00/gal. Electric power costs are $0.130/kWh, which include provision for
demand and energy charges.
Metallurgical testwork supports the assumed oxide and sulfide material recovery rates of 80% and 90%,
respectively.
21.2 L IFE OF M INE P RO DUCTIO N
21.2.1 Open Pit Mining

Mining will commence with the open pit production of the gold deposit. The RoM open pit production
totals 97 Mt. Open pit production will have a 2.45:1 strip ratio over the 24-year LoM. Production over
the LoM is summarized in Table 21-2.
Table 21-2: LoM Production
Description Value Unit

Waste 239 Mst
Oxide Tonnes 48 Mst
Sulfide Tonnes 50 Mst
Total 337 Mst
Stripping Ratio 2.45 waste:feed
Grade
Oxide 0.54 g/t
Sulfide 1.14 g/t
Contained Metal (Au) 2,660 koz
May 2016 21-2

21.2.2 Processing
The Project process oxide material by heap leach and sulfide material with bioxidation. See Section 17.0
for specific process procedures. Each recovery method is designed to process 10 ktpd. LoM mill feed is
shown in Table 21-3. Over the Project life, 2,358 koz of doré will be produced.
Table 21-3: RoM Mill Feed
RoM Feed Value Unit

Contained Metal
Oxides 837 koz
Sulfides 1,823 koz
Total 2,660 koz
Recovered Gold
Heap Leach 670 koz
Bioxidation 1,641 koz
Total 2,310 koz
Doré Produced 2,358 koz
21.3 C APITAL C OSTS

LoM capital cost requirements are estimated at $437 million as summarized in Table 21-4. Initial capital
of $88 million is required to commence operations and a sustaining capital of $348 million.
Table 21-4: LoM Capital Costs

Description
($000s) ($000s) ($000s)
Direct Costs
10 Mining $39,744 $110,784 $150,528
20 Crushing & SAG Mill Circuits $3,921 $9,884 $13,805
30 Heap Leach (Oxide) $11,410 $23,723 $35,133
40 Process Plant (Sulfide) $0 $27,894 $27,894
50 Tailings Storage Facility $0 $67,774 $67,774
60 Infrastructure $10,131 $11,000 $21,131
70 Construction $12,095 $56,903 $68,998
Direct Costs $77,301 $307,962 $385,263
Indirect Costs
820 First Fills $342 $1,674 $2,016
850 EPCM $1,369 $4,184 $5,553
860 Vendor & Consulting Assistance $228 $1,116 $1,344
Indirect Costs $3,879 $15,342 $19,221
90 Owner's Costs $7,240 $24,984 $32,224
Total Capital $88,420 $348,288 $436,708
May 2016 21-3

The open pit mine utilizes some leased mobile equipment. Leases are capitalized during the
preproduction period, then reported in the operating costs during the production.
21.3.1 10 – Open Pit Mining

LoM open pit capital cost requirements are estimated at $151 million as summarized in Table 21-5. Initial
capital of $40 million is required to commence operations and a sustaining capital of $111 million.
Table 21-5: Open Pit Capital Costs

Description
($000s) ($000s) ($000s)
100 Capitalized Costs $14,360 $2,578 $16,938
110 Mobile Equipment $6,906 $103,820 $110,726
120 Facilities $2,225 $0 $2,225
130 Mine Services $16,252 $4,387 $20,639
Total $39,744 $110,784 $150,528
21.3.2 20 – Crushing Circuit

LoM crushing circuit capital cost requirements are estimated at $14 million as summarized in Table 21-6.
Table 21-6: Crushing Circuit Capital Costs

Description
($000s) ($000s) ($000s)
200 Heap Leach $3,921 $0 $3,921
210 Sulfide Plant $0 $9,884 $9,884
Total $3,921 $9,884 $13,805
21.3.3 30 – Heap Leach (Oxide)

LoM heap leach capital cost requirements are estimated at $35 million as summarized in Table 21-7.
Table 21-7: Heap Leach Capital Costs

Description
($000s) ($000s) ($000s)
300 Site Preparation $3,253 $23,723 $26,976
310 HLP Equipment $3,773 $0 $3,773
320 ADR Plant $2,278 $0 $2,278
330 Plant Services $2,106 $0 $2,106
Total $11,410 $23,723 $35,133
May 2016 21-4

21.3.4 40 – Process Plant (Sulfide)
LoM process plant capital cost requirements are estimated at $28 million as summarized in Table 21-8,
and are only sustaining capital.
Table 21-8: Process Plant Capital Costs

Description
($000s) ($000s) ($000s)
400 Site Preparation* $0 $0 $0
410 Grinding $0 $5,719 $5,719
420 Flotation $0 $2,551 $2,551
430 Bioxidation $0 $4,140 $4,140
440 CIL Plant $0 $4,296 $4,296
450 Ancillary Equipment $0 $1,332 $1,332
460 Cyanide Detoxification $0 $1,718 $1,718
470 Plant Services $0 $2,098 $2,098
480 Structures $0 $6,040 $6,040
Total $0 $27,894 $27,894
Accounted for in infrastructure.
21.3.5 50 – Tailings Storage Facility

LoM tailings storage facility capital cost requirements are estimated at $68 million as summarized in
Table 21-9, and are only sustaining capital.
Table 21-9: Tailings Storage Facility Capital Costs

Description
($000s) ($000s) ($000s)
500 Earthworks $0 $64,549 $64,549
510 Tailings Pumping & Piping $0 $3,226 $3,226
Total $0 $67,774 $67,774
21.3.6 60 – Infrastructure
LoM infrastructure capital cost requirements are estimated at $21 million as summarized in Table 21-10.
Table 21-10: Infrastructure Capital Costs

Description
($000s) ($000s) ($000s)
610 Structures $1,186 $0 $1,186
620 Power Lines/Substations $1,990 $11,000 $12,990
630 Water Management $6,922 $0 $6,922
640 Communications $33 $0 $33
650 Mobile Equipment* $0 $0 $0
Total $10,131 $11,000 $21,131
*Accounted for in mining and process.
May 2016 21-5

21.3.7 70 – Construction
LoM construction capital cost requirements are estimated at $69 million as summarized in Table 21-11.
Table 21-11: Construction Capital Costs

Description
($000s) ($000s) ($000s)
700 Construction Labor $3,423 $11,158 $14,581
710 Piping $1,712 $11,158 $12,869
720 Electrical & Instrumentation $2,510 $10,321 $12,831
730 Concrete $1,712 $8,368 $10,080
740 Structural Steel $2,054 $12,552 $14,606
750 Painting & Insulation $685 $3,347 $4,032
Total $12,095 $56,903 $68,998
21.3.8 80 – Indirects
LoM indirect capital cost requirements are estimated at $19 million as summarized in Table 21-12. Initial
Table 21-12: Indirect Capital Costs

Description
($000s) ($000s) ($000s)
820 First Fills $342 $1,674 $2,016
850 EPCM $1,369 $4,184 $5,553
860 Vendor & Consultant Assistance $228 $1,116 $1,344
Total $3,879 $15,342 $19,221
May 2016 21-6

21.3.9 90 – Owner’s Costs
LoM owner’s capital cost requirements are estimated at $32 million as summarized in Table 21-13. Initial
Table 21-13: Owner’s Capital Costs

Description
($000s) ($000s) ($000s)
900 Project Management 2,000 0 2,000
910 Environmental & Permitting 600 0 600
920 Mine Closure & Reclamation 0 17,834 17,834
930 Exploration & Infill Drilling 1,000 1,000 2,000
940 Engineering Studies 3,000 0 3,000
950 Legal 500 0 500
960 Insurance 140 6,150 6,290
Total 7,240 24,984 32,224
21.4 O PERATING C O STS

LoM operating costs are summarized in Table 21-14. Open pit mining costs, as reported in this table, do
not include the lease costs. Lease unit costs are shown separately.
Table 21-14: LoM Operating Costs
Description $/t-moved $/t-Feed $/oz-gold

Mining $3.04 $10.56 $441.68
Mining Lease - $1.06 $44.53
Crushing Circuit - $0.91 $38.10
Heap Leach (Oxide) - $1.20 $50.18
Process Plant (Sulfide) - $4.44 $185.59
Tailings Storage Facility - $0.12 $4.96
Infrastructure - $0.31 $13.09
Direct Operating Cost - $18.60 $778.13
Property Tax - $0.15 $6.10
Mining License Tax - $0.57 $23.74
Operating Cost - $19.31 $807.97
Refining charges, transportation, and royalties are not included in the operating cost estimate.
May 2016 21-7

21.4.1 General Operating Assumptions
The following operating parameters were used for development of operating hours, presented in
Table 21-15.
Table 21-15: Operating Parameters
Description Units Feed Waste Mill

Annual Production Rate kt/yr 3,650 10,950 3,650
Operating Days day/yr 350 350 365
Shifts shifts/day 2 2 3
Shift Length hours/shift 12 12 8
Annual Hours hours/year 8,400 8,400 8,760
Availability % 85% 85% 85%
Available Hours hours/year 7,140 7,140 7,446
Production st/day 511 1,534 490
21.4.2 Labor Assumptions & Wages

Table 21-16 presents G&A labor assumptions and wages.
Table 21-16: G&A Labor
Base Burdened Annual

Salary Base Burden
Area Classification Rate Rate Pay
($/yr) Hours (%)
($/hr) ($/hr) ($000s)
Project Support Functions
65100 General Manager $250,000 - - 30% - $325,000
65100 Sr. Accountant $110,000 - - 30% - $143,000
65100 Accountant $79,000 - - 30% - $102,700
65100 Clerk $47,500 - - 30% - $61,750
65100 HR/HSE Manager $86,200 - - 30% - $112,060
65100 Purchasing Agent $90,000 - - 30% - $117,000
65100 Environmental Manager $110,000 - - 30% - $143,000
65100 Environmental Technician $79,000 - - 30% - $102,700
65100 IT Coordinator $90,000 - - 30% - $117,000
65100 IT Technician - $21.96 2,080 30% $28.55 $59,380
65100 Training Coordinator $79,000 - - 30% - $102,700
65100 Administrative Support - $19.96 2,080 30% $25.95 $53,972
65100 Security - $21.96 2,080 30% $28.55 $59,380
May 2016 21-8

Table 21-17 presents mining labor assumptions and wages.
Table 21-17: Mining Labor

Salary Base Burden
($/yr) Hours (%)
($/hr) ($/hr) ($000s)
Operations
10200 Driller, blasthole - $33.80 2,080 30% $43.94 $91,395
10200 Driller Helper, blasthole - $26.84 2,080 30% $34.89 $72,575
10200 Blaster - $33.19 2,080 30% $43.15 $89,746
10200 Blaster Helper - $27.18 2,080 30% $35.33 $73,495
10200 Shovel Operator - $33.80 2,080 30% $43.94 $91,395
10200 Wheel Dozer Operator - $26.84 2,080 30% $34.89 $72,575
10200 Truck Driver - $23.30 2,080 30% $30.29 $63,003
10200 Track Dozer Operator - $26.84 2,080 30% $34.89 $72,575
10200 Loader Operator - $26.84 2,080 30% $34.89 $72,575
10200 Grader Operator - $26.84 2,080 30% $34.89 $72,575
10200 Water Truck Driver - $26.84 2,080 30% $34.89 $72,575
10200 Dispatcher - $33.96 2,080 30% $44.15 $91,828
10200 Laborer/Trainee - $19.96 2,080 30% $25.95 $53,972
10200 VSA Operator - $26.84 2,080 30% $34.89 $72,575
10200 VSA Laborer/Trainee - $19.96 2,080 30% $25.95 $53,972
Maintenance
10300 Heavy Equip. Mechanic - $36.05 2,080 30% $46.87 $97,479
10300 Welder/Mechanic - $25.77 2,080 30% $33.50 $69,682
10300 Electrician/Instrumentman - $33.10 2,080 30% $43.03 $89,502
10300 Lubeman/PM Mechanic - $25.77 2,080 30% $33.50 $69,682
10300 Tireman - $25.77 2,080 30% $33.50 $69,682
10300 Machinist - $36.05 2,080 30% $46.87 $97,479
Crusher / Belt / Pump crew - $23.72 2,080 30% $30.84 $64,139
Utilityman - $33.96 2,080 30% $44.15 $91,828
Laborer/Trainee - $19.96 2,080 30% $25.95 $53,972
VSA Mechanic* - $25.77 2,080 30% $33.50 $69,682
VSA Laborer** - $19.96 2,080 30% $25.95 $53,972
Maintenance
10300 Production Superintendent $126,900 - - 30% - $164,970
10300 Mine Foreman $98,600 - - 30% - $128,180
10300 Maintenance Superintendent $126,200 - - 30% - $164,060
10300 Maintenance Foreman $98,600 - - 30% - $128,180
10300 Maint. Planner $86,200 - - 30% - $112,060
10300 Chief Engineer* $120,600 - - 30% - $156,780
10300 Sr. Mine Engineer* $110,000 - - 30% - $143,000
10300 Mine Engineer $86,200 - - 30% - $112,060
10300 Chief Geologist $115,600 - - 30% - $150,280
10300 Geologist $79,000 - - 30% - $102,700
10300 Equipment Trainer $100,000 - - 30% - $130,000
10300 Surveyor $86,200 - - 30% - $112,060
10300 Surveyor Asst. $47,500 - - 30% - $61,750
10300 Sampler $47,500 - - 30% - $61,750
May 2016 21-9

Table 21-18 presents process and infrastructure labor assumptions and wages.
Table 21-18: Process & Infrastructure Labor

Salary Base Burden
($/yr) Hours (%)
($/hr) ($/hr) ($000s)
Heap Leach Operations
Plant Operator - $33.80 2,080 30% $43.94 $91,395
Plant Helper - $27.18 2,080 30% $35.33 $73,495
Refiner Operator - $33.80 2,080 30% $43.94 $91,395
Laborer - $19.96 2,080 30% $25.95 $53,972
Pad Operator - $30.42 2,080 30% $39.55 $82,256
Pad Helper - $27.18 2,080 30% $35.33 $73,495
Assayer $56,500 - - 30% - $73,450
Sample Prep $47,500 - - 30% - $61,750
Mechanic/Welder - $25.77 2,080 30% $33.50 $69,682
Mechanic Helper - $19.96 2,080 30% $25.95 $53,972
Electrician - $33.10 2,080 30% $43.03 $89,502
Plant Superintendent $126,900 - - 30% - $164,970
Plant General Foreman $98,600 - - 30% - $128,180
Shift Foreman $98,600 - - 30% - $128,180
Clerk - $19.96 2,080 30% $25.95 $53,972
Plant Maintenance
Superintendent $126,900 - - 30% - $164,970
Maintenance General Foreman $98,600 - - 30% - $128,180
Foreman $98,600 - - 30% - $128,180
Metallurgist $115,600 - - 30% - $150,280
Plant Operations
Control Room Operators - $27.18 2,080 30% $35.33 $73,495
Crusher Operator - $27.18 2,080 30% $35.33 $73,495
Grinding Operators - $27.18 2,080 30% $35.33 $73,495
Flotation Operators - $27.18 2,080 30% $35.33 $73,495
Filter Operators - $27.18 2,080 30% $35.33 $73,495
Dryer Operators - $27.18 2,080 30% $35.33 $73,495
Assayers $56,500 - - 30% - $73,450
Samplers $47,500 - - 30% - $61,750
Laborers - $19.96 2,080 30% $25.95 $53,972
Mechanics - $25.77 2,080 30% $33.50 $69,682
Electricians - $33.10 2,080 30% $43.03 $89,502
Mill Superintendent $126,900 - - 30% - $164,970
General Foreman $98,600 - - 30% - $128,180
Maintenance Foreman $98,600 - - 30% - $128,180
Plant Foreman $98,600 - - 30% - $128,180
Senior Metallurgist $115,600 - - 30% - $150,280
Metallurgist $98,600 - - 30% - $128,180
Process Technician - $30.39 2,080 30% $39.51 $82,175
Instrument Technician - $33.10 2,080 30% $43.03 $89,502
Process Foreman $98,600 - - 30% - $128,180
Tailings Dam
TSF Operator - $27.18 2,080 30% $35.33 $73,495
May 2016 21-10

21.4.3 Mining Assumptions
Table 21-19 presents drilling and blasting parameters.
Table 21-19: Drilling & Blasting Parameters
Description Units Value
ANFO Price $/kg $1.23
Booster Price $/hole $5.32
Cap/Cord/Line $/hole $10.89
21.4.4 Process Assumptions

Table 21-20 presents heap leach process reagents.
Table 21-20: Heap Leach Process Reagents
Consum. Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost

Description
(lb/t Feed) (US$/lb) ( US$/year) (US$/t Feed)
Lime 3.000 $0.15 $1,642,500 $0.45
Cyanide 0.350 $1.50 $1,916,250 $0.53
Carbon 0.010 $2.00 $73,000 $0.02
Total $3,631,750 $1.00
Table 21-21 presents sulfide process reagents.
Table 21-21: Sulfide Process Reagents

Description
(lb/t Feed (US$/lb) ( US$/year) (US$/t Feed
CuSO4 0.400 $2.00 $2,920,000 $0.80
Collector - AERO 407 0.100 $1.50 $547,500 $0.15
Collector - PAX 0.240 $1.50 $1,314,000 $0.36
MIBC 0.100 $1.75 $638,750 $0.18
Lime 4.000 $0.15 $2,190,000 $0.60
Cyanide 0.350 $1.50 $1,916,250 $0.53
Carbon 0.080 $2.00 $584,000 $0.16
NaOH 0.200 $0.30 $219,000 $0.06
Flocculant 0.100 $1.90 $693,500 $0.19
Total $11,023,000 $3.02
May 2016 21-11

Table 21-22 presents process supplies.
Table 21-22: Process Supplies

Description
(lb/t Feed (US$/lb) (US$/yr) (US$/t Feed)
SAG Mill Balls 1.00 $0.58 $2,104,225 $0.58
SAG Mill Liners $300,000 $0
Cone Crusher Liners $86,493 $0
Ball Mill Balls 0.75 $0.58 $1,591,856 $0.44
Ball Mill Liners $300,000 $0
Total $4,382,574 $1.20
21.5 T AXES & R OYALTIES
21.5.1 Royalties
Royalties are estimated on NSR at a rate of 2%.
21.5.2 Taxes
Federal Tax
Corporate federal income tax is determined by computing and paying the higher of a regular tax or a
Tentative Minimum Tax (TMT). If the TMT exceeds the regular tax, the difference is called the Alternative
Minimum Tax (AMT). Regular tax is computed by subtracting all allowable operating expenses, overhead,
depreciation, amortization and depletion from current year revenues to arrive at taxable income. The tax
rate is then determined from the published progressive tax schedule (35% for the Project). An operating
loss may be used to offset taxable income, thereby reducing taxes owed. A 3.5 year tax holiday on the
State of Alaska Production royalty is currently in place.
State Income Tax
State income tax is calculated in the same manner as federal tax, however it takes 9.4% of taxable income
after the deduction of federal income tax.
Property Tax
Property tax is calculated using an estimated 1.3% of the net of gross income and direct operating costs.
Mining License Tax
Mining License Tax is 7% of taxable income.
Production Royalty
The Alaska Production Royalty is 3% of net income.
May 2016 21-12

22.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
The following preliminary economic assessment analysis includes inferred mineral resources which
are considered too speculative geologically to have economic considerations applied to them,
and are therefore not categorized as mineral reserves. There is no certainty that the
preliminary economic assessment will be realized.
Project cost estimates and economics are prepared on an annual basis. Based upon design criteria
presented in this report, the level of accuracy of the estimate is considered ±35%.
Project economics are based primarily on inputs developed in the preliminary economic assessment.
Economic results suggest the following conclusions:
• Mine Life: 24 years;
• Pre-Tax NPV5%: $213 million; IRR: 20.0%;
• Post-Tax NPV5%: $188 million; IRR: 19.6%;
• Payback (Post-Tax): 3.3 years;
• Federal Income Taxes Paid: $58 million;
• State Income Tax Paid: $21 million;
• Mining License Tax Paid: $55 million;
• Cash costs of $842/oz; and
• Initial project capital of $88 million, sustaining project capital of $348 million, and total project
capital of $437 million.
Technical economic tables and figures presented require subsequent calculations to derive subtotals,
totals, and weighted averages. Such calculations inherently involve a degree of rounding. Where these
occur they are not considered to be material.
22.1 S MELTER S CHEDULE

The estimate of smelter revenue is summarized in Table 22-1. Technical parameters supporting these
estimates are described in Section 21.0. Gold deductions are assume to be 0.1% off recovered gold,
transport and insurance is estimated at $4.00 per ounce of doré produced, and refining is estimated at
$3.00 per ounce of payable gold.
Table 22-1: LoM Revenues & Costs

LoM Cost
Description
($000s)
Gross Sales $3,003,548
Metal Deduction ($3,004)
Transport & Insurance ($9,430)
Refining Charge ($6,924)
Net Smelter Return $2,984,190
Private Royalty ($59,684)
Gross Income from Mining $2,924,506
May 2016 22-1

22.2 E CONOMIC R ESULTS
Technical economic results for the Project are presented in Table 22-2 and Table 22-3.
Table 22-2: Technical-Economic Results
Unit Cost LoM Cost

Cost Category
$/oz-recovered ($000s)
Gross Sales $1,300 $3,003,548
Deductions ($8.38) ($19,358)
Royalty ($25.83) ($59,684)
Gross Income $1,266 $2,924,506
Operating Costs
Open Pit Mining ($441.68) ($1,020,468)
Mining Lease ($44.53) ($102,877)
Crushing Circuit ($38.10) ($88,038)
Heap Leach (Oxide) ($50.18) ($115,929)
Process Plant (Sulfide) ($185.59) ($428,803)
Tailings Storage Facility ($4.96) ($11,464)
Infrastructure ($13.09) ($30,236)
Property Tax ($6.10) ($14,094)
Mining License Tax ($23.74) ($54,845)
Total Operating ($807.97) ($1,866,753)
Operating Profit $457.82 1,057,753
Capital Costs
10 Open Pit Mining - ($150,528)
20 Crushing & SAG Mill Circuits ($13,805)
30 Heap Leach (Oxide) - ($35,133)
40 Process Plant (Sulfide) - ($27,894)
50 Tailings Storage Facility - ($67,774)
60 Infrastructure - ($21,131)
70 Construction - ($68,998)
Indirect Costs - ($19,221)
Owner’s Costs ($32,224)
Total Capital - (436,708)
Pre-Tax Cash Flow $613,168
NPV5% $212,603
IRR 20.0%
Post-Tax Cash Flow $533,613
NPV5% $187,742
IRR 19.6%
Payback (years) 3.3
May 2016 22-2

Table 22-3
Freegold Ventures Limited
Golden Summit Project PEA >Oxide Mining & Processing END<
Estimate of Cash Flow >Pre-Production END< >Sulfide Mining & Processing END<
Total -4 -3 -2 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Description Units or Avg. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Production Summary
Waste Mined - - kt 239,170 0 0 0 0 3,861 3,230 3,115 3,139 2,719 2,413 4,000 4,000 4,000 9,955 16,055 25,000 24,882 20,665 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,792 12,639 11,814 9,148 8,075 3,950 1,719 0 0 0
Oxide Resource - - kt 47,864 0 0 0 0 3,800 3,800 3,550 3,666 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 1,300 58 155 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sulfide Resource - - kt 48,791 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,020 1,808 2,598 3,300 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,481 3,412 3,500 3,500 3,500 1,672 0 0 0
RoM Resource - - kt 96,655 0 0 0 0 3,800 3,800 3,550 3,666 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 4,520 5,308 6,098 6,800 7,000 4,800 3,558 3,655 3,536 3,500 3,481 3,412 3,500 3,500 3,500 1,672 0 0 0
Material Moved - - kt 335,826 0 0 0 0 7,661 7,030 6,665 6,805 6,219 5,913 7,500 7,500 8,520 15,263 22,153 31,800 31,882 25,465 19,558 19,655 19,536 20,292 16,120 15,225 12,648 11,575 7,450 3,391 0 0 0
Recovered Gold - $96.27 koz 2,310 0 0 0 0 50 61 61 60 56 58 40 41 56 111 158 148 148 136 121 137 142 117 111 107 103 97 115 79 0 0 0
Dore Produced - - koz 2,358 0 0 0 0 51 62 62 61 57 59 41 42 57 113 161 151 151 139 123 139 144 119 114 109 105 99 118 81 0 0 0
Estimate of Cash Flow
Gross Income from Mining price option $/oz
Market Price 1 - $/oz 1 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300
Gold Sold - - koz 2,310 0 0 0 0 50 61 61 60 56 58 40 41 56 111 158 148 148 136 121 137 142 117 111 107 103 97 115 79 0 0 0
Gross Sales - $1,300 $000s 3,003,548 0 0 0 0 64,727 78,699 78,731 77,681 72,622 74,953 51,854 53,503 72,253 143,960 205,099 192,197 192,327 176,466 157,319 177,675 184,084 151,684 144,933 139,060 134,061 126,591 149,928 103,142 0 0 0
NSR:
Gold Deduction 0.1% - koz (2.3) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0.05) (0.06) (0.06) (0.06) (0.06) (0.06) (0.04) (0.04) (0.06) (0.11) (0.16) (0.15) (0.15) (0.14) (0.12) (0.14) (0.14) (0.12) (0.11) (0.11) (0.10) (0.10) (0.12) (0.08) 0.00 0.00 0.00
Payable Gold - - koz 2,308 0 0 0 0 50 60 61 60 56 58 40 41 56 111 158 148 148 136 121 137 141 117 111 107 103 97 115 79 0 0 0
Deductions:
Metal Deduction - ($1.30) $000s (3,004) 0 0 0 0 (65) (79) (79) (78) (73) (75) (52) (54) (72) (144) (205) (192) (192) (176) (157) (178) (184) (152) (145) (139) (134) (127) (150) (103) 0 0 0
Transport & Insurance $4.00 ($4.08) $000s (9,430) 0 0 0 0 (203) (247) (247) (244) (228) (235) (163) (168) (227) (452) (644) (603) (604) (554) (494) (558) (578) (476) (455) (437) (421) (397) (471) (324) 0 0 0
Refining $3.00 ($3.00) $000s (6,924) 0 0 0 0 (149) (181) (182) (179) (167) (173) (120) (123) (167) (332) (473) (443) (443) (407) (363) (410) (424) (350) (334) (321) (309) (292) (346) (238) 0 0 0
Deductions - ($8.38) $000s (19,358) 0 0 0 0 (417) (507) (507) (501) (468) (483) (334) (345) (466) (928) (1,322) (1,239) (1,240) (1,137) (1,014) (1,145) (1,186) (978) (934) (896) (864) (816) (966) (665) 0 0 0
Net Smelter Return $1,292 $000s 2,984,190 0 0 0 0 64,310 78,192 78,223 77,180 72,154 74,470 51,520 53,158 71,787 143,033 203,777 190,958 191,088 175,329 156,305 176,530 182,898 150,706 143,999 138,164 133,197 125,775 148,961 102,477 0 0 0
Royalty:
Private Royalty (NSR) 2.0% ($25.83) $000s (59,684) 0 0 0 0 (1,286) (1,564) (1,564) (1,544) (1,443) (1,489) (1,030) (1,063) (1,436) (2,861) (4,076) (3,819) (3,822) (3,507) (3,126) (3,531) (3,658) (3,014) (2,880) (2,763) (2,664) (2,515) (2,979) (2,050) 0 0 0
Gross Income from Mining $1,266 $000s 2,924,506 0 0 0 0 63,023 76,628 76,659 75,636 70,710 72,981 50,489 52,095 70,352 140,172 199,702 187,139 187,266 171,822 153,179 173,000 179,240 147,692 141,119 135,401 130,533 123,259 145,982 100,428 0 0 0
Operating Costs
Mining $3.039 $441.68 $000s 1,020,468 0 0 0 0 21,423 21,357 20,356 20,576 19,289 18,370 20,576 21,137 23,961 39,107 55,609 91,818 93,093 76,372 58,971 59,953 60,417 63,984 53,221 51,226 44,522 42,433 28,114 14,584 0 0 0
Mining Lease - $44.53 $000s 102,877 0 0 0 0 8,199 8,199 8,199 8,199 8,199 8,199 8,199 8,199 3,107 3,107 3,107 3,107 3,107 3,107 3,107 3,107 3,107 3,107 3,107 3,107 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Crushing Circuit - $38.10 $000s 88,038 0 0 0 0 1,407 1,407 1,314 1,357 1,295 1,295 1,295 1,295 2,765 3,901 5,040 6,052 6,340 5,526 5,066 5,102 5,058 5,045 5,017 4,917 5,045 5,045 5,045 2,410 0 0 0
Heap Leach (Oxide) - $50.18 $000s 115,929 0 0 0 0 8,231 8,231 7,929 8,069 7,868 7,868 7,868 7,868 6,757 6,866 6,996 7,112 7,145 4,480 1,697 1,532 1,351 1,197 1,194 1,182 1,197 1,197 1,197 896 0 0 0
Process Plant (Sulfide) - $185.59 $000s 428,803 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16,072 20,387 24,711 28,552 29,646 29,646 29,646 29,646 29,646 29,646 29,541 29,164 29,646 29,646 29,646 13,558 0 0 0
Tailings Storage Facility - $4.96 $000s 11,464 0 0 0 0 491 491 491 491 491 491 491 491 491 491 491 491 491 491 491 491 491 491 491 491 491 491 491 160 0 0 0
Infrastructure - $13.09 $000s 30,236 0 0 0 0 1,318 1,318 1,318 1,318 1,318 1,318 1,318 1,318 1,331 1,331 1,331 1,331 1,331 1,331 1,331 1,331 1,331 1,331 1,331 1,331 1,331 1,331 703 352 0 0 0
Direct Operating Cost - $778.13 $000s 1,797,814 0 0 0 0 41,069 41,003 39,606 40,010 38,461 37,541 39,747 40,308 54,485 75,191 97,287 138,464 141,154 120,954 100,310 101,163 101,403 104,802 93,903 91,420 82,233 80,144 65,196 31,960 0 0 0
Property Tax - $6.10 $000s 14,094 0 0 0 0 289 468 487 463 403 442 133 144 193 811 1,276 598 566 629 655 896 973 533 589 549 604 539 1,005 849 0 0 0
Mining License Tax - $23.74 $000s 54,845 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 376 1,620 1,823 639 866 1,174 3,309 5,357 3,192 3,061 3,033 3,049 3,718 3,868 2,378 2,422 2,241 2,363 2,144 4,331 3,882 0 0 0
Operating Cost $19.31 $807.97 $000s 1,866,753 0 0 0 0 41,357 41,472 40,093 40,850 40,483 39,806 40,519 41,318 55,852 79,311 103,921 142,254 144,781 124,616 104,014 105,776 106,243 107,712 96,914 94,209 85,200 82,826 70,532 36,691 0 0 0
Cash Cost - 0.000 $/oz $842 $0 $0 $0 $0 $865 $719 $696 $718 $759 $725 $1,050 $1,038 $1,039 $750 $693 $996 $1,013 $952 $894 $808 $785 $957 $903 $915 $860 $885 $646 $497 $0 $0 $0
Operating Profit - $457.82 $000s 1,057,753 0 0 0 0 21,666 35,157 36,566 34,786 30,227 33,174 9,970 10,777 14,500 60,861 95,781 44,885 42,485 47,206 49,164 67,223 72,996 39,980 44,205 41,192 45,333 40,434 75,450 63,737 0 0 0
Capital Costs
Project Capital:
10 Mining $000s 150,528 0 0 9,131 30,613 0 0 0 0 0 344 0 0 8,282 46,768 24,254 23,837 4,515 673 1,606 344 0 26 0 0 135 0 0 0 0 0 0
20 Crushing & SAG Mill Circuits $000s 13,805 0 0 1,569 2,353 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,884 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
30 Heap Leach (Oxide) $000s 35,133 0 0 0 11,410 1,977 1,977 1,977 1,977 1,977 1,977 1,977 1,977 1,977 1,977 1,977 1,977 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
40 Process Plant (Sulfide) $000s 27,894 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27,894 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
50 Tailings Storage Facility $000s 67,774 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13,394 0 0 15,449 0 0 0 38,932 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
60 Infrastructure $000s 21,131 0 0 0 10,131 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
70 Construction $000s 68,998 0 0 0 12,095 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56,903 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Indirect Costs $000s 19,221 0 0 0 3,879 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,342 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Owner's Costs $000s 32,224 1,810 2,810 1,310 1,310 150 150 150 150 150 150 650 800 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 17,834 0 0
Project Capital $000s 436,708 1,810 2,810 12,010 71,790 2,127 2,127 2,127 2,127 2,127 2,471 2,627 137,193 10,559 49,045 41,980 26,114 4,815 973 40,838 644 300 326 300 300 435 300 300 300 17,834 0 0
Working Capital:
Beginning Balance $000s 389,159 0 0 0 0 0 8,612 8,709 8,433 8,579 8,479 8,356 8,377 8,545 11,551 16,620 21,864 29,462 29,969 25,852 21,631 22,090 22,218 22,341 20,146 19,574 17,746 17,231 14,896 7,881 0 0
Ending Balance 20% $000s 389,159 0 0 0 0 8,612 8,709 8,433 8,579 8,479 8,356 8,377 8,545 11,551 16,620 21,864 29,462 29,969 25,852 21,631 22,090 22,218 22,341 20,146 19,574 17,746 17,231 14,896 7,881 0 0 0
Required Working Capital $000s 0 0 0 0 0 8,612 96 (276) 146 (100) (123) 21 168 3,005 5,069 5,244 7,599 506 (4,117) (4,221) 460 127 123 (2,195) (572) (1,828) (514) (2,336) (7,015) (7,881) 0 0
Total Capital - - $000s 436,708 1,810 2,810 12,010 71,790 10,739 2,223 1,851 2,273 2,027 2,348 2,648 137,361 13,565 54,114 47,224 33,713 5,321 (3,143) 36,617 1,103 427 449 (1,895) (272) (1,393) (214) (2,036) (6,715) 9,953 0 0
Cumulative - $000s - 1,810 4,620 16,630 88,420 99,159 101,383 103,234 105,507 107,534 109,882 112,530 249,891 263,456 317,570 364,793 398,506 403,827 400,684 437,300 438,404 438,831 439,280 437,385 437,113 435,720 435,506 433,470 426,755 436,708 436,708 436,708
Estimate of Cash Flow
Operating Profit $000s 1,057,753 0 0 0 0 21,666 35,157 36,566 34,786 30,227 33,174 9,970 10,777 14,500 60,861 95,781 44,885 42,485 47,206 49,164 67,223 72,996 39,980 44,205 41,192 45,333 40,434 75,450 63,737 0 0 0
Project Capital $000s (436,708) (1,810) (2,810) (12,010) (71,790) (10,739) (2,223) (1,851) (2,273) (2,027) (2,348) (2,648) (137,361) (13,565) (54,114) (47,224) (33,713) (5,321) 3,143 (36,617) (1,103) (427) (449) 1,895 272 1,393 214 2,036 6,715 (9,953) 0 0
Federal Tax $000s (58,386) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (3,370) (7,491) (3,160) (4,367) (4,181) (4,983) (4,314) (13,315) (13,205) 0 0 0
State Tax $000s (21,169) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (1,222) (2,716) (1,146) (1,583) (1,516) (1,807) (1,564) (4,827) (4,788) 0 0 0
Alaska Production Royalty $000s (7,877) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (494) (56) 0 0 (494) (934) (93) (77) (222) (262) (529) (642) (271) (374) (358) (427) (370) (1,141) (1,132) 0 0 0
Post-Tax Cash Flow $000s 533,613 (1,810) (2,810) (12,010) (71,790) 10,927 32,933 34,714 32,513 28,200 30,333 7,266 (126,584) 935 6,254 47,622 11,080 37,086 50,128 12,286 60,999 61,720 34,954 39,775 35,409 39,510 34,399 58,202 51,327 (9,953) 0 0
Cumulative $000s - (1,810) (4,620) (16,630) (88,420) (77,493) (44,560) (9,846) 22,668 50,868 81,201 88,466 (38,118) (37,183) (30,929) 16,693 27,773 64,859 114,987 127,272 188,271 249,991 284,945 324,719 360,128 399,638 434,037 492,240 543,566 533,613 533,613 533,613
Present Value 5% $000s 187,742 (1,810) (2,676) (10,893) (62,015) 8,990 25,804 25,904 23,107 19,087 19,553 4,460 (74,011) 520 3,317 24,053 5,329 16,990 21,871 5,105 24,139 23,262 12,546 13,597 11,528 12,251 10,158 16,369 13,748 (2,539) 0 0
NPV $000s - (1,810) (4,486) (15,380) (77,395) (68,405) (42,601) (16,697) 6,410 25,497 45,050 49,510 (24,501) (23,981) (20,664) 3,389 8,718 25,708 47,578 52,683 76,822 100,084 112,630 126,227 137,756 150,006 160,164 176,533 190,281 187,742 187,742 187,742
IRR - 20%
Payback years 3.3 8
22.3 S ENSITIVITY
Project Sensitivity at a post-tax basis is shown in Figure 22-1. As shown below, the Project is most sensitive
to revenue. Sensitivity to operating and capital costs is closely matched, with the project being more
sensitive to operating costs. These results are typical of similar projects.
Figure 22-1: Project Sensitivity – Post-Tax NPV (5%)
May 2016 22-4

23.0 ADJACENT PROPERTIES
In addition to several nearby exploration properties and gold-bearing prospects the Project is adjacent to
leases controlled by Kinross Gold Corporation (Kinross) on the southern border of Section 32 of Township
3 North 2 East that are associated with the Fort Knox Mine.
The qualified person has not independently verified the past production, resources or reserve estimates
of any adjacent properties. Results from adjacent properties are not necessarily indicative of the
mineralization on the property that is the subject of the technical report.
23.1 F ORT K NO X M INE

The Fort Knox Mine is located nine km to the southwest of the Project. The Fort Knox Mine is an operating
mine that includes an open pit, carbon-in-pulp mill, heap leach, and a tailings storage facility. As of
year-end 2015, the mine has produced approximately 6.8 million ounces of gold since commencing
commercial production in 1997. The remaining reserves stated in Kinross’s 2015 technical report are
shown in Table 23-1.
Table 23-1: Fort Knox Reserve Estimate March 31, 2015
Tonnes Grade Contained

Classification
M Au g/t Au Ounces M
Proven 24.0 0.56 0.435
Proven 43.9 0.31 0.437
Stockpiles
Subtotal 67.9 0.40 0.872
Proven
Probable 96.0 0.49 1.527
Total 163.8 0.46 2.398
Proven and Probable
Notes:
1) The cutoff grades are based on a gold price of US$1,200/oz Au
2) Proven Reserve contains stockpiles.
3) Mineral Reserves are reported to a cutoff grade of 0.35 g/t Au for
A-ore (mill), 0.29 g/t for B-ore (stockpile), and
0.19 g/t C-ore (leach)
23.2 T RUE N ORTH M INE

The True North Mine, part of the greater Fort Knox Mine project, is 6 km to the west of the Dolphin deposit
and is currently under post-closure monitoring. In 1997 estimated resources were 18.2 M tons grading
0.072 Au opt containing 1.3 million ounces of gold (La Teko Resources Ltd. June, 1997). The True North
Mine achieved commercial production in early April 2001 and closed in 2004. While in production,
11,026,772 tons of ore were delivered to the Fort Knox Mine for processing (USGS Alaska Resource Data
File).
May 2016 23-1

24.0 OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION
24.1 G ROUNDWATER H YDROLOGY

Hydrogeologic conditions at the Project site are expected to be similar to those at the nearby Fort Knox
mine, based on the proximity of the two sites and the similarity of geologic conditions. The Fort Knox
mine has been operating since 1996, and valuable groundwater-related data from annual operations
reports and various permitting documents were available from those documents.
A search of State of Alaska, federal records and publicly-available literature was conducted to locate
information regarding hydrogeologic conditions at or near the Project property. The following
information was identified.
• Records of three water wells on the property, nine wells within approximately six km
(3.7 miles) northwest, southwest and south of the property, and four wells at the Fort Knox
mine were obtained from ADNR.
• Several United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports regarding groundwater quality in the
vicinity of Fairbanks, but not within the property, were obtained.
• Numerous documents regarding the Fort Knox mine, including permit information and annual
reports, were obtained from the ADNR.
• No other publicly-available literature or hydrogeologic data specific to the Project property
were identified for use in this study.
24.1.1 Hydrogeologic Setting

The Project area topography is characterized by low, rounded hills cut by steep valleys. Land surface
elevations range from approximately 305 to 670 m (1,000 to 2,200 ft) amsl. The lower reaches of the
valleys typically hold perennial streams. Unconsolidated alluvial deposits or dredge tailings are present
along the valley floors, and a variably-thick layer of eolian silt covers most of the property (Abrams and
Giroux, 2013). Permafrost occurs in small, discontinuous lenses on steep, poorly-drained north-facing
slopes.
The geology of the Project is described in Abrams and Giroux (2013); the following description is taken
from that document. The majority of the Project is underlain by the Fairbanks Schist; rocks of the
Chatanika Terrane are present beneath the northern edges of the property. Both rock units are comprised
primarily of schist and are similar both lithologically and in appearance. The two units are in contact
across the east-northeast-trending Chatanika Thrust Fault, which carries the Chatanika Terrane southward
over the Fairbanks Schist. The thrust fault itself is offset by a series of northeast-trending, steeply-dipping
normal faults. In addition, a number of shorter, more closely-spaced, normal faults trend east-west
through the north-central part of the property. Mineralization is hosted in shear zones and auriferous
quartz veins oriented northwest-southeast in the eastern part of the property and east-west in the
western part of the property.
May 2016 24-1

24.1.2 Groundwater Conditions
Based on data obtained from records of water wells within approximately 6 km (3.7 miles) of the Property
(Table 24-1) (ADNR, 2014) and conditions reported at the Fort Knox mine site (FGMI, 2006), groundwater
is expected to be present in two units: unconsolidated deposits consisting of alluvium and dredge tailings
along the valley floors, and fractured bedrock throughout the property. Logs of water wells in the Project
area indicate that alluvial deposits and dredge tailings may be 10 m (33 ft) or more in thickness. FGMI
(2006) reported that the upper portion of the bedrock (up to about 30 m (100 ft) in thickness) is highly
weathered, with variable degrees of fracturing, and that movement of groundwater in the bedrock occurs
in open fractures. The fractures in the bedrock provide essentially all of the permeability, as the schistose
rock mass has very low permeability. The hydraulic conductivity provided by the fractures is directly
related to the degree of fracturing and is expected to be highly variable. Aquifer testing results reported
in FGMI (2006) indicated that the alluvial deposits and the bedrock each exhibit hydraulic conductivities
in the range of 0.0086 to 8.6 meters per day (m/d) (0.028 to 28 ft/d).
The water table is anticipated to reflect the topography, but with subdued relief. Reported depths to
static water levels in wells at and near the Project were reported to range from 2.1 m (6.9 ft) below the
land surface in the valley bottoms to 68.6 m (225 ft) below the land surface in upland areas. Reported
yields of water supply wells ranged from 16 to 491 m3/day (3 to 90 gallons per minute (gpm)), and
dewatering wells at the Fort Knox mine were reported to have capacities up to approximately
1,000 m3/day (183 gpm). Groundwater flow on a local scale is anticipated to be from bedrock in the
upland areas toward the valleys and thence down-valley in the alluvial deposits or dredge tailings.
Regional-scale groundwater flow cannot be determined from available data.
Table 24-1: Water Well Data Summary
Hole Depth to Pumping

Quarter
Township Range Section Depth Static Water Rate Comments
Sections
(m) Level (m) (m3/day)
003N 001E 2 -- 61.0 -- -- Domestic

003N 001E 12 -- 82.3 -- -- Stanford Research Institute
003N 001E 12 -- 27.4 -- -- Domestic
003N 001E 36 SW NE 54.9 37.5 16.4 Domestic*
003N 002E 31 NW NE SE 121.9 68.6 45.2 Domestic*
003N 002E 31 SE NE NW SE 61.0 21.3 -- Fairbanks Creek Lodge*
002N 001E 2 -- 13.7 11.6 490.6 Public water supply
002N 001E 10 SE SE SE SE 28.7 9.1 163.5 Domestic
002N 001E 15 NE NE 29.9 2.1 136.3 Domestic
002N 001E 15 SW 164.6 -- -- Domestic
002N 001E 15 SW 22.9 13.7 43.6 Domestic
002N 001E 15 -- 12.5 2.4 16.3+ Domestic
002N 002E 16 -- 182.9 -- -- Dewatering, Fort Knox
002N 002E 16 -- 150.9 -- 27.3 Dewatering, Fort Knox
002N 002E 16 -- 18.3 7.3 218.1 Dewatering, Fort Knox
002N 002E 16 SW NE NE 125.0 40.8 81.8+ Mill house water supply, Fort Knox
*Denotes well located within Project property.
May 2016 24-2

Groundwater quality is anticipated to be similar to that observed at the Fort Knox mine. Average
groundwater quality in samples collected from dewatering wells there in 2011, as reported by
Schlumberger Water Services (SWS, 2013), is summarized in (Table 24-2). That water could be considered
representative of groundwater from bedrock; water quality in unconsolidated alluvial deposits and dredge
tailings would likely differ. Overall, the predominant ions were calcium, sulfate and bicarbonate.
Groundwater was slightly basic and contained a moderately small concentration of total dissolved solids
(TDS) (approximately 220 milligrams per liter [mg/L]).
Table 24-2: Summary of Groundwater Quality for Fort Knox Mine Dewatering Wells
Average Concentration Average Concentration

Parameter in 2011 Dewatering Parameter in 2011 Dewatering
Well Samples (mg/L) Well Samples (mg/L)
pH, std. units 8.0 Lead 0.00026
Alkalinity as CaCO3 74 Magnesium 5.4
Ammonia <MDL Manganese 0.014
Antimony 0.0032 Mercury <MDL
Arsenic 0.0247 Nitrate, as N 0.54
Barium 0.0014 Nitrite, as N 0.063
Cadmium <MDL Phosphorus 0.001
Calcium 40.0 Potassium 0.99
Chloride 0.3 Selenium 0.00095
Chromium <MDL Silver <MDL
Copper <MDL Sodium 16.1
WAD-cyanide 0 Sulfate 78.2
Fluoride 0.36 Zinc 0.013
Iron 0.028
Less than method detection limit (<MDL)
FGMI (2008) reported baseline (pre-mining) concentrations of TDS, iron, manganese, arsenic and
antimony for 43 groundwater samples from alluvial wells and 46 samples from bedrock wells in the Fish
Creek valley near the current Fort Knox tailings storage facility. The results are summarized in Table 24-3.
That report also noted that concentrations of iron and manganese were elevated after placer mining in
that area but before initiation of mining at Fort Knox. Lang Farmer et al. (1998) reported that arsenic
concentrations in the Fairbanks area are highly variable both spatially and between wells, and relatively
high concentrations of arsenic in water reflect a naturally high regional background.
Table 24-3: Summary of Baseline Groundwater Quality for Fort Knox Alluvial and Bedrock Wells
Alluvial Wells Bedrock Wells

Parameter
Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum
TDS, mg/L 114 366 84 357
Iron, mg/L 0.164 58.2 0.017 23.9
Manganese, mg/L 0.384 155 0.016 1.61
Arsenic, mg/L 0.001 0.034 0.002 0.026
Antimony, mg/L 0.005 0.008 0.004 0.025
May 2016 24-3

24.2 S URFACE W ATER
24.2.1 Surface Water Hydrology

The project is located within the Cleary Creek watershed (Figure 24-1). Numerous creeks exist on the
property including Willow Creek, Tamarack Creek, Bedrock Creek, Chatham Creek, Fairbanks Creek, Wolf
Creek and Goose Creek. Cleary Creek discharges into the Chatanika River. Dominant soil types are Ester-
Gilmore complex, with Steese-Gilmore, Steese Loam and Ester Peat in the vicinity of the proposed tailings
storage facility. These soils are of hydrologic class D, which exhibit low infiltration rates. Precipitation for
nearby Fairbanks, Alaska, is reported to be approximately 11 inches annually. Monthly totals are
presented in Table 24-4.
Table 24-4: Monthly Precipitation
Precipitation Precipitation Snowfall

Month
(in)/(mm) Days (in)/(mm)
Jan 0.59/15 9 10/254
Feb 0.43/11 7 8/203
Mar 0.24/6 7 5/127
Apr 0.31/8 4 3/76
May 0.59/15 8 1/25
Jun 1.38/35 11 0
Jul 2.17/55 13 0
Aug 1.89/48 15 0
Sep 1.1/28 10 2/51
Oct 0.83/21 11 11/280
Nov 0.67/17 9 13/330
Dec 0.63/16 8 12/305
The manner in which precipitation becomes runoff is a function of site topography, soil characteristics,
vegetative cover and geology. Surface water management designs were developed by evaluation of
typical meteorological conditions (monthly precipitation totals) and statistical design storms, which are
discussed in greater detail below.
Water management design criteria were developed using Alaska coal mining regulations as a basis. Design
storm selection for sizing of facilities was dependent upon the characteristics of the water being stored
or conveyed. Stated differently, design criteria were based on whether water contacted mine affected
surfaces (runoff) or undisturbed areas (run-on). A summary of the design storms and their basis is
presented below.
May 2016 24-4

Table 24-5: Design Storm Basis for Water Management Facilities
Rainfall Depth
Design Storm Water Management Facility
(in)/(mm)
100-year, 24-hour 3.83/96 Runoff from Tailings, Waste Rock or Heap Leach
Facilities. Pit dewatering.
100-year, 6-hour 2.15/54 Run-on diversion of perennial streams
10-year, 24-hour 2.18/55 Sediment Ponds
10-year, 6-hour 1.31/33 Run-on diversion of overland flow
Design storm depths were defined using the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA)
point precipitation frequency data server. Temporal distributions were selected from the All Cases data
set and 10 percent exceedence was assumed, for conservatism.
Basin areas were delineated within ArcGIS using LiDAR topography. Areas were exported for further
evaluation within AutoCAD Civil 3D and to define hydrologic modeling parameters.
Hydrologic modeling was performed using HEC-HMS software to determine peak flow rates and volumes
for each basin and facility. Within HEC-HMS, losses to soil were characterized using the Soil Conservation
Service (SCS) curve number method and direct runoff was calculated using the SCS unit hydrograph. A
curve number of 80 was assigned to the upland areas, to represent a combination of evergreen and aspen
trees, with grass understory. Curve number estimates for the facilities ranged between 84 and 88 and
may be adjusted in future studies as material properties become available. The SCS unit hydrograph is
based on time of concentration, or the time necessary for water to travel from the hydraulically most
remote point to the basin outlet. The unit hydrograph is further defined by the lag time parameter.
Assuming uniform distribution of runoff, time of concentration (Tc) and lag time (Tlag) are related based
on the following equation:
Tlag = 0.6*Tc
Time of concentration calculations were performed for the largest basins: W2, W4, T2 and T3 and found
to be very near the minimum value of 6.0 minutes. Lag times were therefore 3.6 minutes for all basins.
The singular exception to the above is the time of concentration for the MRSF was calculated as 10
minutes, resulting in a lag time of 6 minutes.
Rainfall and snowmelt would accumulate on site as either run-on from undisturbed areas or contact water
runoff from mine-affected surfaces. These waters would be managed by a series conveyance channels
and detention basins. Run-on channels would divert non-mine affected waters around facilities and
confluence with existing natural channels downstream. Runoff channels would direct mine-affected
water from the MRSF and HLP into dedicated stormwater ponds. Waters associated with the TSF would
be contained within the TSF embankment. All contact water would either be incorporated into the
process circuit or treated and released.
May 2016 24-5

478,000N
479,000N
480,000N
481,000N
482,000N
483,000N
484,000N
485,000N
486,000N
487,000N
7,219,000N 7,219,000N
GOLDEN SUMMIT
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
T4
7,218,000N 7,218,000N
WATERSHED
T2 BOUNDARIES
PROPOSED TAILINGS
STORM WATER AREA
PONDS
7,217,000N PLANT 7,217,000N

AREA
MRSF T5 T3
AREA
PROPOSED
PROPOSED CONVEYANCE
CULVERTS CHANNELS
7,216,000N
W4 7,216,000N
OPEN PIT
AREA
P4 PROPOSED
H2
STORM WATER LEACH
7,215,000N AREA 7,215,000N
POND
486,000N
487,000N
PROPOSED W3
PROPOSED CULVERT
CONVEYANCE W2
P3 CHANNELS P2 WATERSHED
BOUNDARIES GOLDEN SUMMIT
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
7,214,000N 7,214,000N
200 0 200 400 600 800
SCALE IN METERS
478,000N
479,000N
480,000N
481,000N
482,000N
483,000N
484,000N
485,000N
Drawn by:
Checked by:
L. AGA
E. LIPS
Approved by: V. SCHARNHORST WATERSHED MAP
TETRA TECH REVISION
Location: Date:
FIGURE 24-1
24.2.2 Surface Water Management
Surface water management addresses the protection of the natural environment and site facilities by
means of conveyance and detention structures. Site facilities include the Tailings Storage Facility (TSF),
the Heap Leach Pad (HLP), the Mine Rock Storage Facility (MRSF) and the Open Pit.
Run-on from areas upland of mine facilities would be diverted to protect infrastructure and maintain pre-
development hydrology to the greatest extent practicable. Areas associated with the mine facilities and
upland zones are presented in Table 24-6. For calculation purposes, each basin or facility was assigned a
unique ID, presented in the table below and depicted in Figure 24-1.
Table 24-6: Facility Areas

Facility and Catchment Identification Area (acres)/(sq. km)
TSF
T1 - TSF Embankment 295/1.19
T2 - Goose Diversion 324/1.31
T3 - Wolf Diversion 300/1.21
T4 - North Side Upslope Diversion1 284/1.15
T5 - South Side Diversion 284/1.15
HLP
H1 – HLP Perimeter & Basin 27/0.11
H2 - Chatham Diversion 170/0.69
Pit2
P2 - Bedrock Diversion 333/1.35
P3 - Willow Diversion 133/0.54
P4 - Overland from Ridge 47/0.19
MRSF
W1 – MRSF Perimeter and Basin 718/2.91
W2 - Tamarack Diversion (South) 527/2.13
W3 - Chatham Tributary Diversion 134/0.54
W4 - Wolf Diversion 209/0.85
(1) Some uncertainty due to limits of LiDAR
(2) Runoff from disturbed pit surfaces excluded from this study. Pump and
pipe infrastructure for pit dewatering from groundwater inflows assumed
suitable to accommodate additional flows from runoff.
Conveyance channel dimensions were determined using Manning’s equation based on the peak flow rates
from HEC-HMS. For diversions serving multiple basins, no attenuation, or diminishing of hydrograph
peaks during travel was assumed for conservatism. Minimum longitudinal grades were assumed to be
2%. Conveyance channels and stormwater ponds that serve the MRSF and HLP were assumed to be lined
with geosynthetic material. Channels conveying run-on from undisturbed uplands were assumed to be
earthen with rock and gravels sized similarly with existing, natural channels on site. The TSF embankment,
HLP and MRSF runoff conveyance channels and stormwater ponds are designed as zero discharge facilities
under the Solid Waste Permit. As such, each was designed using the 100-year, 24-hour storm criteria.
Design criteria for diversions and mine facilities are summarized in Table 24-7 and Table 24-8,
respectively.
May 2016 24-7

Table 24-7: Diversion Design Criteria
Approximate
Peak Flow Channel
Diversions Liner Material
(cfs)/(m3/s) Length
(ft)/(m)
MRSF Runoff Conveyance 191/5.4 31,820/9,700 Geosynthetic
HLP Runoff Conveyance 9/0.25 4,265/1,300 Geosynthetic
T2/T4 Diversion 467/13.2 6,889/2,100 Earthen/Gravel/Rock
T3/W4/T5 Diversion 658/18.6 10,497/3,200 Earthen/Gravel/Rock
H2/W3/W2 Diversion 693/19.6 5,249/1,600 Earthen/Gravel/Rock
P3 Diversion 138/3.9 1,968/600 Earthen/Gravel/Rock
P2/P4 Diversion 236/6.7 7,738/2,360 Earthen/Gravel/Rock
Table 24-8: Mine Facility Design Criteria
Volume
Facilities (acre- Liner Material
ft)/(m3)
MRSF Stormwater Pond 69.5/85,730 Geosynthetic
HLP Stormwater Pond 2.8/3,450 Geosynthetic
Facility Stormwater Pond 4.7/5,800 Earthen
Bedrock Detention Pond 27.5/34,000 Earthen
TSF Embankment 33/40,580 Geosynthetic
Design of the box culverts to be placed at an estimated six locations to protect haul road and stream
crossings are not included in this study. However, these items are included as a cost contingency.
Run-on diversion channels would follow side slope contours around the facilities they serve and connect
with existing natural channels at a downstream endpoint. It is assumed that the strip of land that
separates the south side of the TSF from the north side of the MRSF would be maintained throughout the
LoM, allowing the diversion channel to remain functional (not to be encroached upon by the ultimate
MRSF footprint). MRSF and HLP runoff channels would terminate into stormwater ponds that would be
pumped back into process or to treatment prior to release. The MRSF and HLP runoff channels and
stormwater ponds would allow an additional 1-foot of freeboard. The TSF embankment would be
designed to store tailings solids, supernatant water and the storm volume specified above. Additional
freeboard is recommended to accommodate wave run-up and ice formation on the supernatant pond. In
addition to the runoff within the TSF, seepage would be collected from both the overdrain and underdrain
systems; seepage would need to be diverted back into the TSF embankment, or stored within a dedicated
pond. Project cost estimates assume a dedicated pond.
May 2016 24-8

24.3 W ATER B ALANCE
Simple schematics showing the Project site wide water balance are presented in Figure 24-2 and Figure
24-3 for site wide and camp specific areas, respectively.
Figure 24-2: Site Wide Water Balance
Figure 24-3: Domestic Water Balance
Water sources for the Project are identified as:
• Mine dewatering (estimated as 4,000 to 6,000 m3/day) (Reference the hydrogeology section);
• Contact water from MRSF, Pit faces, TSF and HLP;
• Run-on from basins undisturbed by mining;
• Well water and
• Mineralized Material moisture.
May 2016 24-9

Site water demands include:
• Process water requirement (raw water and make-up water); and

• Domestic water requirements.
Finally, water exits the system as follows:
• Water entrained within the tailings slurry (a fraction of this water is recovered via decant
processes and recycled back into the process circuit);
• Evaporative and seepage losses from the TSF;
• Evaporative loss from other contact or stormwater ponds; and
• Treatment and release processes (e.g. treatment and release of wastewater).
Site water would be managed to minimize the volumes requiring treatment prior release by utilizing
dewatering and contact water within the process circuit and by separating run-on and contact water
streams to the greatest extent practicable. Run-on from basins undisturbed by mining would be diverted
around mine facilities to confluence with existing natural channels below. Considering the ultimate
configuration of mine affected surfaces, approximately 524 hectares (1,294 acres) of the site would
contribute roughly 1.13 million cubic meters (m3) (915 acre-feet) of runoff each year near the end of the
LoM that must either be retained, recycled or treated. (SCS method applied to annual total precipitation
applied to ultimate mine affected surfaces; conservative, as some precipitation would occur as snowfall).
Process water requirements and tailings characteristics are not well defined at the time of this Report.
However, the initial estimate for make-up water required for process is approximately 0.03 m3/s
(500 gallons per minute). Weighing this requirement against the flow rates associated with the various
sources on site, a net surplus of water is assumed for the Project site. This estimate is consistent with
similar mining operations located nearby.
24.4 G EOCHEMISTRY
A site visit was conducted between May 6 and May 7, 2014 to look over the surface geology of the mine
site and inspect diamond rock core samples as an integral part of the geochemical waste rock
characterization. The core laboratory was located on the north corner of the junction of Alaska Highway 2
and Goldstream Road in Fox, Alaska. Core was stored under water proof tarps on pallets outside with
core cutting and viewing facilities available in the shed.
A total of 23 samples representing the spatial, lithologic, and oxide/sulfide range of the site geology were
viewed and selected for analysis. Figure 24-4 depicts the surface locations of available cores from the
Project. These bores appear in Figure 24-5 projected in 3D over the oxide/sulfide block model as supplied
by the client. As shown in Figure 24-5, borehole distribution appears to adequately penetrate and
represent the current mineralized Dolphin body.
May 2016 24-10

Figure 24-4: Static Geochemical Boreholes Sample Locations
Figure 24-5: Available Boreholes Relative to the Dolphin Mineralized Body
May 2016 24-11

A total of 21 representative waste rock cores were selected for geochemical characterization consisting
of spatially and vertically distributed drill core samples primarily from within the current Dolphin Deposit.
From these rock cores, 23 total samples were selected that are representative of the Dolphin Deposit
located in the Project area. These materials predominantly represent the lower to middle Paleozoic
metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks of the Cleary Sequence and Fairbanks Schist. Lithologies within
the Cleary Sequence include quartzite, massive to finely laminated mafic to intermediate flows and tuffs,
calc-schist, black chloritic quartzite, quartz-sericite schist of hydrothermal origin and impure marble.
Lithologies in the Fairbanks Schist include quartz muscovite schist, micaceous quartzite and biotite quartz
mica schist. These lithologies have been metamorphosed to the lower amphibolite facies.
Table 24-9 lists the core samples and intervals used in the geochemical characterization.
Table 24-9: Core Samples and Intervals for Waste Rock Characterization
Interval
Sample ID Rock Type Borehole
From To
GSDC_4 GSDC1129 121.2 127.5
GSDC_8 GSDC1149 60.5 69.5
GSDC_20 GSDC1132 31.3 42
Granodiorite
GSDC_21 GSDC1150 60.6 69.8
GSDC_22 GSDC1132 37.5 45
GSDC_24 GSDC1174 779 785
GSDC_11 Granodiorite/Quartzite GSCL1224 218 224.5
GSDC_19 Tonalite GSDC1132 294.7 310.5
GSDC_3 GSDC1160 30.5 39.5
GSDC_7 GSDC1155 140.5 150.5
Schist
GSDC_14 GSCL1201 132.7 146.5
GSDC_18 GSDL1215 425 436.7
GSDC_16 GSDC1162 56 70
Albitic Greenschist GSDC1171 54.4 58.2
GSDC_17
GSDC1171 59.5 65.8
GSCL1209 42.9 45.5
GSDC_13
Graphitic Schist GSCL1209 48.3 51
GSDC_15 GSDC1158 151 155
GSDC_23 Marble GSDC1156 546 629
GSDC_1 GSDC1143 160.6 168.5
Skarn/Hornfels
GSDC_12 GSCD1134 37.5 51
GSDC_5 Breccia Gouge/Granodiorite GSDC1147 380 389
GSDC_2 Fault/Vein GSCH1204 160.6 164.5
May 2016 24-12

Each rock type was chosen to allow for a representative sampling as shown in Table 24-10. Two samples
were composited (Albitic Greenschist, and Graphitic Schist) to allow for sufficient sample for the
geochemical analysis.
Table 24-10: Geochemical Sample Summary
Number of Percentage
Lithology
Samples of Samples
Granodiorite 6 28.6
Granodiorite/Quartzite 1 4.8
Tonalite 1 4.8
Schist 4 19.0
Albitic Greenschist 2 9.5
Graphitic Schist 2 9.5
Marble 1 4.8
Skarn/Hornfels 2 9.5
Breccia Gouge/Granodiorite 1 4.8
Fault/Vein 1 4.8
A total of seven samples underwent mineralogical quantification. All 21 samples underwent water
leachability testing to estimate constituent mobility upon meteoric water contact (by Synthetic
Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP)), acid-base accounting (ABA) to assess their potential to generate
and neutralize acid, and net acid generating (NAG) pH testing to determine the pH upon complete
oxidation of sulfide minerals. Results from this stage of testing show:
• Two of the seven samples have measurable pyrite based on mineralogical quantification with
percentages of 0.2% and 1.4%. Acid neutralizing minerals are present as calcite, observed in
three of the seven samples with concentrations ranging from 4.4% to 20.4%. Ankerite,
another acid neutralizing mineral, is present in two of the seven samples with concentrations
of 0.3% and 1.3%.
• Total elemental arsenic in excess of 1,000 parts per million (ppm) is reported in six of the
21 samples across various lithologies. Total elemental lead in excess of 1,000 ppm is reported
in two of the 21 samples from the granodiorite rock type.
• The pH of leachate generated by the SPLP is predominantly slightly alkaline to alkaline. In all,
20 of the 21 samples report values above the upper Reference Value threshold of 8.5. A total
of six samples report arsenic concentrations above the Reference Value of 0.15 mg/L. A
correlation with total element arsenic concentrations (exceedences of 1,000 ppm) is observed
in four of the six samples. A total of five of the 21 samples reported iron concentrations above
the Reference Value of 1.0 mg/L. Isolated exceedences of copper, lead, and zinc were also
reported from the granodiorite rock type.
• A total of six of the 21 samples are classified as potentially acid generating across a range of
rock types. Furthermore, NAG pH results show a wide range of values between 2.8 to 11.0,
with a total of three of the 21 samples reporting a value less than 4.5. Insufficient acid
neutralization capacity exists in the majority of the represented samples to counteract acidity
that may theoretically be generated as a result of weathering processes. Appreciable acid
neutralizing potential is observed in only two of the 21 samples.
May 2016 24-13

25.0 INTERPRETATION & CONCLUSIONS
25.1 G EOLOGY
The Dolphin stock is located on the ridge between Bedrock and Willow Creek. Initial diamond core logging
identified five intrusive phases within the Dolphin stock, including: 1) fine- to medium-grained,
equigranular to weakly porphyritic biotite granodiorite; 2) fine- to medium-grained, equigranular to
weakly porphyritic hornblende-biotite tonalite; 3) fine-grained biotite granite porphyry; 4) fine-grained
biotite rhyolite to rhyodacite porphyry; and 5) rare fine-grained, chlorite-altered mafic dikes (Adams and
Giroux, 2012).
Giroux, 2012). The south and east contacts are largely intrusive contacts with minor faulting
25.2 M INING
Mine production constraints were imposed to ensure that mining wasn’t overly aggressive with respect
to the equipment anticipated for use at the Project. The schedule has been produced using mill targets
and stockpiling strategies to enhance the project economics. The constraints and limits used are
reasonable to support the project economics.
Pit designs were created using 10 m benches for mining with a catch bench every level. This corresponds
to the resource model block heights, and Tetra Tech believes this to be reasonable with respect to mining
loss and the equipment anticipated to be used in mining.
25.3 G ROUNDWATER H YDROGEOLOGY

Estimates of groundwater conditions at the project site are based on records from existing groundwater
wells at and near the Project site and on conditions observed at the Fort Knox mine, which is
approximately 5 km (3 mi) to the south of the project site and is considered to provide a good
representation of the conditions at the project site.
Groundwater is expected to be present in two units: unconsolidated deposits consisting of alluvium and
dredge tailings along the valley floors, and fractured bedrock throughout the property. The degree of
bedrock fracturing, and therefore the hydraulic conductivity, are expected to be highly variable. Reported
depths to groundwater in nearby water wells ranged from 2.1 m (6.9 ft) below the land surface in the
valley bottoms to 68.6 m (225 ft) below the land surface in upland areas. Reported yields of water supply
wells ranged from 16 to 491 m3/day (3 to 90 gpm), and dewatering wells at the Fort Knox mine were
reported to have capacities up to approximately 1,000 m3/day (183 gpm). Groundwater flow on a local
scale is anticipated to be from bedrock in the upland areas toward the valleys and thence down-valley in
May 2016 25-1

the alluvial deposits or dredge tailings. Regional-scale groundwater flow cannot be determined from
available data.
required for maintaining pit wall stability and dry conditions within the pit. Because of weather
conditions, a well system would likely be the most feasible dewatering method. The mine pit would
intersect the water approximately six months to one year after the start of mining, but dewatering would
need to start earlier in order for the pumping effects to extend throughout the required area. The
estimated annual average pumping rate was approximately 410 m3/day (75 gpm) initially, increased to
approximately 4,460 m3/day (818 gpm) by the third year of mining, declined slightly through the eighth
year of mining, and then increased gradually to approximately 6,600 m3/day (1,210 gpm) near the end of
the mine life. The number of wells required for dewatering is estimated to range from two initially to
16 later in the mine life.
Data would need to be collected to characterize the site-specific hydrogeologic conditions and develop
site-specific designs for dewatering.
25.4 M ETALLURGY & P RO CESS

Sufficient metallurgical testwork has been completed on samples from the Project deposit to determine
the preferred processing methods to recover gold from oxide and sulfide materials at a PEA level study.
The oxide material was shown to be highly amenable to heap leaching. The testwork showed that
oxidation of the sulfide material was needed to achieve acceptable gold recoveries. The oxidation
methods tested were able to achieve acceptable recoveries, but high capital cost requirements made
those methods un-feasible for this PEA study. The processing method chosen for the sulfide material was
bio-oxidation followed by cyanide leaching. While bio-oxidation testwork has not been performed on the
deposit material, the high recoveries achieved throughout the testwork indicate that the sulfide material
would be amenable to bio-oxidation.
25.5 E NVIRONMENTAL
Development of the project will require extensive environmental baseline analyses, assessment of
indirect and cumulative impacts associated with full project build-out, and the sensitive environment in
which it is to be constructed. The complexity of the environmental impact review and permitting of the
various facilities will be dependent on siting of facilities in relationship to the various creeks and valleys
surrounding the project development target areas. This PEA provides preliminary siting information of
facilities such as tailings disposal, waste rock, and leach pads. Baseline and environmental studies that
will be required to move the project toward permitting can now be planned, implemented, and modified
as necessary as the project progresses through the prefeasibility and feasibility planning process.
Required environmental data for this Project will include on-the-ground studies to delineate jurisdictional
wetlands. These data will be required to meet a number of needs including permitting, mine design,
location of facilities, mine construction and operations. Freegold Ventures, Ltd. has initiated consultation
with the State’s Large Mine Permitting Team (LMPT) to begin the process of project planning,
development and environmental permitting. Through this process the LMPT will assist in developing a
broader environmental baseline program.
May 2016 25-2

26.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results of the PEA, and the resultant economic evaluation, it is recommended that this study
be followed by a preliminary feasibility study in order to further assess the economic viability of the
Project. Additional drilling, metallurgical testing, environmental analyses, other permitting and property
confirmation activities will need to be undertaken as part of this next level of study. The approximate
cost of this study is estimated at $700,000.
The recommendations are designed to further advance the Project and as such should be undertaken
independently of each part of the program. Total recommended program is budgeted at $8.5 million.
Table 26-1: Project Recommendations
Total
Task Recommended
Costs ($000s)
Geology & Resources $3,000
Mining $1,000
Groundwater Hydrogeology $500
Water Management $120
Metallurgy & Process $250
Tailings Storage Facility $250
Heap Leach Facility $150
Geochemical $400
Environmental Permitting &
$2,800
Regulatory Compliance
Total $8,470
26.1 G EOLOGY
It is recommended that the following actions be initiated to further understanding of the resource:
• Increase the Dolphin/Cleary Hill gold resource by a) drilling shallow to moderate depth holes
in un-tested areas adjacent to the southwest, north and west portions of the deposit, b)
drilling a limited number of exploration drill holes in locations more distal to the resource,
and c) drilling strategically located infill drill holes to move more ounces into the drill indicated
category. Exploration drill holes should target areas where gold-bismuth anomalous soils are
known to the south of the deposit and on the west side of Willow Creek, and areas where
IP/resistivity survey data suggests the presence of possible shallow intrusive rocks to the
southwest of the deposit. Approximately an additional 15,000 meters of drilling
recommended for the Dolphin/Cleary area - approximate cost of this program is $3,000,000
(Figure 26-1).
• It is recommended that during future drill campaigns more attention is paid to getting
representative specific gravity determinations from oxide material.
May 2016 26-1

FIGURE 26-1
AREAS OF PROPOSED DRILLING
Geophysics has proven to be an effective tool in the Dolphin/Cleary Area. The resistivity lows track the
alteration extremely well and match well with the coincident gold geochemistry. A significant gold
geochemical anomaly has been delineated on the newly acquired Mental Health Trust Land. A ground
geophysical survey should be carried out over that portion of the property. RAB drilling completed to the
north of the current resource outlined an area of potential gold mineralization. Additional drilling is
warranted to the west, north and southwest to expand upon the oxide portion of the current resource.
Additional drilling, metallurgical testing, environmental analyses and studies, and other and property
acquisition activities will need to be undertaken as the project moves toward preliminary feasibility.
26.2 M INING
• The current pit slope geotechnical is based on review of drill logs and site observations. A full
geotechnical pit slope investigation should be conducted using the latest drilling information,
the latest pit designs and a geotechnical borehole drilling/lab analysis program. The
estimated budget for the geotechnical investigation is $500,000.
• In order to ensure that there is no economic resource under the planned MRSF and/or leach
areas, a comprehensive condemnation drilling program should be instituted. The estimated
budget for the condemnation drilling investigation is $400,000.
• Perform lab testing/analysis on the mineralized rock types to determine if a jaw crusher could
be used instead of a gyratory crusher to potentially lower capital and operating costs. The
estimated budget for the crushing investigation is $50,000.
26.3 G ROUNDWATER H YDROGEOLOGY

A hydrologic investigation and monitoring plan capable of providing baseline data for mine permitting and
dewatering system design should be developed. The plan should be based on basic data requirements
for developing a conceptual site model for groundwater flow and quality as well as in consideration of
dewatering design, water supply and permitting needs. Baseline hydrogeologic data collection would
include on-site testing to determine hydraulic properties of the rock units and geologic structures, as well
as groundwater monitoring for water levels and quality. Such a system should also allow ongoing
monitoring during the mine life.
A basic groundwater monitoring system should include monitoring wells in bedrock and alluvium
upgradient and downgradient from planned disturbance areas. Initially, all wells would provide data on
background conditions unaffected by mining activity associated with the Project. This should include
baseline groundwater quality in areas previously disturbed by placer mining. During the Project life, wells
upgradient of planned disturbance areas would monitor groundwater quality conditions unaffected by
the Project activities, while wells downgradient from planned disturbance areas would monitor for water
quality changes in areas potentially affected by the Project activities.
For dewatering system design, at least one aquifer test within the proposed pit footprint would be
required. Hydrogeologic investigation plans should be incorporated into the ongoing exploration drilling
program. Cost savings could be realized in that manner. Exploration core holes often can provide valuable
hydrogeologic information if routine but specific efforts are made to 1) collect and record appropriate
data (such as groundwater occurrences, static water levels, factures, and other high-permeability zones
May 2016 26-3

as indicated by drilling fluid loss or lost circulation) while drilling is in progress, and 2) utilize exploration
boreholes for hydrologic testing and piezometer or monitoring well construction.
When site-specific hydrogeologic information becomes available, mine dewatering plans and cost
estimates based on the site-specific data should be developed.
The cost of developing and implementing a hydrologic investigation and monitoring plan as described
above is estimated to be $500,000. The cost estimate is based on the assumptions that eight monitoring
wells (three to approximately 75 m [250 ft], two to approximately 30 m [100 ft] and three to approximately
15 m [50 ft]) and one pumping well (to 150 m [500 ft]) would be installed and slug-tested, two 1-day and
one 7-day aquifer tests would be conducted on selected wells, water-level data loggers would be installed
for continuous monitoring of water levels in all the wells, and water-quality samples would be collected
quarterly for one year. Water-quality samples would be analyzed for the following parameters:
• Metals (dissolved and total): aluminum, antimony, arsenic, cadmium, calcium, chromium,
cobalt, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, potassium,
selenium, silver, sodium, and zinc;
• Metals (total): barium, beryllium, boron, lithium, mercury (low-level), thallium, and
vanadium; and
• General Chemistry: pH (field and lab), specific conductance (field and lab), temperature (field
and lab), hardness, total alkalinity, total acidity, total dissolved solids, chloride, sulfate,
carbonate, bicarbonate, fluoride, ammonia as N, nitrate plus nitrite as N, total organic carbon,
dissolved organic carbon, cyanide (total and WAD).
26.4 W ATER M ANAG EMENT

Tetra Tech recommends the following to improve accuracy, performance and overall quality of water
management and infrastructure for the Project site:
• Development of a detailed site-wide water balance based on the production process,

expectations for tailings and waste rock characteristics, advancement of the heap leach
operation and greater understanding of camp and domestic water usage ($15,000);
• Performing environmental base line studies to characterize site specific meteorology, soils
and hydrology ($55,000); and
• Installation of instrumentation to collect site specific meteorological data ($50,000).
26.5 M ETALLURGY & P RO CESS

In the ongoing effort to progress the project, Tetra Tech recommends that the following metallurgical
testwork be performed on representative samples for subsequent engineering studies:
• Bench scale bio-oxidation testwork on all identifiable sulfide material types. The oxidation
testwork should explore the following:
 Grind size vs. recovery relationship;
 Comparative tests on different bacteria types;
 Reagent dosages and consumptions;
May 2016 26-4

 Temperature;
 Acid generation; and
 Oxidation kinetics.
• Leaching testwork subsequent to oxidation should follow the same protocols as previous
testwork.
• Heap leach column tests on the oxide material. This testwork should expand upon the existing
oxide testwork by testing multiple areas of the deposit. The column tests should be
conducted using larger scale columns than previous testwork. The tests should also be
conducted at different ambient temperatures to determine the effect of the sub-arctic
conditions on leaching kinetics.
• Additional comminution testwork on the various different sulfide material types. These tests
should include Bond Ball Mill Grindability, Bond Abrasion Index, JKTech Drop Weight, and
JKTech SMC tests.
The cost for the testwork programs described is approximately $250,000.
26.6 T AILING S S TO RAG E F ACILITY

The following items are recommended to advance the preliminary design of the TSF as part of a
Preliminary Feasibility Study:
• A trade-off study of alternate tailings storage methods should be undertaken that includes
consideration of thickened and dry stack approaches.
• A subsurface geotechnical investigation including materials characterization via field and
laboratory testing should be performed at the proposed footprint to assess foundation
conditions and potential construction materials. The assessment of potential permafrost
conditions should be undertaken as part of this investigation. Geotechnical characterization
of tailings samples should be undertaken.
• Geotechnical stability and seepage assessment of select stages of the TSF development
should be undertaken that include thermal analyses and potential ice entrainment
considerations.
• Geochemical assessment of tailings and mine waste.
• The design of containment features should be developed based on seepage and stability
assessments that consider material properties, site conditions, and regulatory requirements.
Contaminant fate and transport modelling should be undertaken to support determination of
containment requirements.
• Design of water management features, including diversion size and alignment, and
incorporating seasonal climate and mine site water balance considerations.
• A staged construction plan should be developed with consideration of site features, climate,
and the mine schedule.
• Geotechnical and environmental monitoring plan developed that includes consideration of
monitoring instrument type and position, and locations of groundwater monitoring wells.
May 2016 26-5

It is estimated that $250,000 would be required for the PFS design and tailings tradeoff study.
26.7 H EAP L EACH F ACILITY

The following items are recommended to advance the preliminary design of the Heap Leach Facility as
part of a Preliminary Feasibility Study:
• A subsurface geotechnical investigation including materials characterization via field and

laboratory testing should be performed at the proposed footprint of the facility to assess
foundation conditions and potential construction materials. The assessment of potential
permafrost conditions should be undertaken as part of this investigation. Geotechnical
characterization of heap leach samples should be undertaken.
• Geotechnical stability and seepage assessment of select stages of the Heap Leach Facility
development should be undertaken that include thermal analyses considerations.
• The design of containment features should be developed based on seepage and stability
assessments that consider material properties, site conditions, and regulatory requirements.
• Design of water management features, including diversion size and alignment, and
incorporating seasonal climate and mine site water balance considerations.
• A preliminary stacking plan and proposed haul road and pipeline alignments should be
developed with consideration of site features and the mine schedule. The following
provisions for seasonal stacking should be considered:
 Sizing of the crushing operation and haul fleet to allow increased production rate
during warm months;
 Sizing of the starter heap leach pad to accommodate more than 1 year of
mineralized material production to allow advanced stacking for the first winter
season;
 Provision for ripping frozen material prior to leaching; and
 Provision for temporary over-irrigation to melt potential ice layers in the heap.
• Geotechnical and environmental monitoring plan developed that includes consideration of
monitoring instrument type and position, and locations of groundwater monitoring wells.
• The closure and reclamation plan should be developed in accordance with design guidelines
and regulatory requirements.
• Seepage flow model for heap leaching process that considers temperature effects on
leaching, mineralized material placement schedule.
It is estimated that $150,000 would be required for the PFS design.
May 2016 26-6

26.8 G EOCHEMICAL R ECO MMENDATIONS
Preliminary geochemical testing indicates that some of the waste rock is likely to generate acid drainage
and metal leachate. As mine planning progresses, additional geochemical testing is required to support
waste rock management to minimize the generation of deleterious drainage that may require water
treatment through both operational and closure phases. The following testing is recommended to
support a PFS-level study:
• Additional static testing to reflect the waste proportions and tonnages of rock type that will
comprise the waste rock facility. The geochemistry team will evaluate the proposed
proportional tonnages of each rock type and then calculate the number of samples required
to support decision making at the PFS level. The available core data will then be reviewed
and representative samples will be selected for static testing.
• Kinetic testing involves weathering tests to aid prediction of drainage quality from mine
wastes. Two rates are obtained from kinetic testing - Weathering Rate (rate (mass per unit
time) at which a primary mineral is transformed into a secondary product (soluble species or
insoluble mineral) and Release Rate (the mass efflux (per unit mass of bulk rock) of an element
or species away from a unit mass of rock, per unit time). As there is no single test that
produces all of the chemical information required to evaluate all mine wastes under all
conditions of disposal, the objectives of the testing will be discussed with the mine planners
and an appropriate kinetic test method will be selected to best simulate site conditions. It is
recommended that kinetic testing be undertaken on individual lithologies as well as lithology
combinations to understand the interaction of acid generation and neutralization to minimize
deleterious drainage generation.
Approximate costs to do this work will be $400,000.
26.9 E NVIRONMENTAL P ERMITTING & R EGULATO RY C OMPLIANCE

Baseline and environmental studies that would be required to move the Project toward permitting can
now be planned, implemented, and modified as necessary as the Project progresses through the
preliminary feasibility and feasibility planning process estimated a total cost of $2,800,000. The following
items are recommended to advance the Project as part of a Preliminary Feasibility Study:
• Freegold has initiated consultation with the State’s Large Mine Permitting Team (LMPT) to
begin the process of project planning, development and environmental permitting. Through
this process, the LMPT would assist in developing a broader environmental baseline program.
• Owing to the long lead time for data collection, it is important that the baseline program
generates adequate data in terms of type, quality and quantity. For this reason, baseline
studies to support environmental impact assessments under NEPA and environmental
permitting should be initiated. Primary initial studies should include both desk-top and
ground verification wetlands delineation studies to support CWA Section 404 permitting,
meteorological monitoring for air quality permitting, characterization of site ground and
surface water hydrology and water quality, and flora and fauna studies. As previously
described, the major environmental driver for the Project would be the issuance of a CWA
Section 404 permit (wetlands) which will require an impacts assessment under NEPA. Several
years of environmental baseline studies are required in order to support an EA or EIS.
May 2016 26-7

• Additional samples would verify the preliminary geochemical results from this study and assist
in better understanding the potential for acid generation and metal leaching. The additional
sampling is necessary to reflect the waste rock proportions and tonnages of rock types that
would comprise the mine rock storage facility.
• As the program advances, a need to focus on acquiring representative rock type samples
should be undertaken. By acquiring an accurate representative lithology apportionment of
the waste rock storage facility a more thorough classification and understanding of waste rock
leaching chemistry and acid generation can be realized. Further, subsequent waste rock
handling can be better planned and executed. Using the planned mine schedule in association
with the tonnages and proportion of waste rock types a more representative sample set
would be selected for the next phase of testing.
• The cost of initiating a meteorological monitoring program is approximately $150,000 in the
first year followed by approximately $30,000 per year following. Wetland delimitation studies
are estimated at $100,000 but could vary depending on available aerial photographic data.
The estimated costs of groundwater characterization studies were previously discussed and
estimated to be $464,000. Surface water characterization studies are estimated to be
approximately $80,000 per year and initial flora and fauna studies could be initiated for
approximately $30,000.
• The costs of preparing an Environmental Impact Study for recent similar mining projects in
Alaska have ranged between $1 million and $2 million. However, it is estimated that with
adequate baseline characterization studies, the project impact assessment would be at the
lower end of this range. Final permitting is estimated to be approximately $500,000.
• Reclamation and closure costs will be developed as more detailed engineering and study work
is completed that is sufficient to support a detailed reclamation and closure plan. Both ADNR
and ADEC require financial assurance in conjunction with approval and issuance of large mine
permits. ADNR, under authority of Alaska Statute 27.19, requires a reclamation and closure
plan as well as financial assurance to assure reclamation of the site prior to construction.
ADEC requires financial assurance both during and after operations, and to cover short and
long-term water treatment if necessary, as well as reclamation and closure costs, monitoring,
and maintenance needs. The financial assurance must also include the property holding costs
for a one-year period. The financial assurance amount is calculated through the process of
reviewing and approving the Project reclamation and closure plan during the permitting
process. Current financial assurance amounts for Alaska’s six operating metal mines range
from $6 million to $305 million; however, for comparison, the required financial assurance
amount for the near-by open pit Fort Knox mine is $68 million.
May 2016 26-8

27.0 REFERENCES
Abrams, M.J. and Giroux, G.H. 2013. Technical Report for the Golden Summit Project, Fairbanks Mining District,
Alaska. Prepared for Freegold Ventures Limited. Dated August 7, 2013. 118 pages.
Abrams, M.J. and G.H. Giroux (2012), “Technical Report for the Golden Summit Project, Fairbanks Mining District,
Alaska”, 43-101 Report for Freegold Ventures Limited and Free Gold Recovery, USA, Dec. 14, 2012.
Adams, D. and G.H. Giroux (2011), “Geology and Mineralization and Mineral Resource Estimate for the Golden
Summit Project, Fairbanks Mining District, Alaska”, 43-101 Report for Freegold Ventures Inc. March 31,
2011.
Adams, D. and G.H. Giroux (2012), “2011 Update Report on the Geology and Mineralization and Mineral Resource
Estimate for the Golden Summit Project, Fairbanks Mining District, Alaska”, 43-101 Report for Freegold
Ventures Inc. January 12, 2012.
Adams, D.D., 1996, Geologic report on the Golden Summit project, Fairbanks Mining District, Alaska: Internal Rept.,
Spectrum Resources Inc., submitted to Intl. Freegold Mineral Development Inc., 47 p.
ADNR 2014. Well Log Tracking System. http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/welts/#/?page=show-welts-intro-template.

Viewed July 14, 2014.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining, Land and Water. 2009. Regulations Governing Coal
Mining in Alaska.
Aleinikoff, J.N., Dusel-Bacon, Cynthia, and Foster, H.L., 1981, Geochronologic studies in the Yukon-Tanana Upland,
east-central Alaska, in Albert, N.R., and Hudson, T., eds., The United States Geological Survey in Alaska--
Accomplishments during 1979, U.S. Geological Survey Circular C-823-B, p. 34-37.
Baker, T., 2003, Intrusion-related gold deposits – explorable characteristics: Short Course, Cordilleran Roundup
Conference, pp. 1-11.
Baker, T., Ebert, S., Rombach, C. and Ryan, C.G., 2006, Chemical Compositions of Fluid Inclusions in Intrusion-
Related Gold Systems, Alaska and Yukon, Using PIXE Microanalysis: Econ Geol., Vol. 101, pp. 311-327.
Beyers, F.M., 1957, Tungsten deposits of the Fairbanks District, Alaska: U.S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 1024-I, p. 179-216.
Bentzen, A., and A.J. Sinclair (1993), “P-RES – a computer program to aid in the investigation of polymetallic ore
reserves”, Tech. Rept. MT-9 Mineral Deposit Research Unit, Dept. of Geological Sciences U.B.C. 55 pp.
Blakestad, R.A., 1982, Geology and Mineralization of the Hart property, Alaska: Sedcore Expl. Ltd., Internal Rept.,
71 p.
Brown, R.C., Freeman, C.J. and Wolf, K., 2007, Executive summary report for Keystone Mines Partnership, Golden
Summit Project, Fairbanks Mining District, Alaska, December 14,2007: Avalon Development Corp., internal
report KS07EXE1-Form43.doc, submitted to Freegold Recovery Inc., USA and Freegold Ventures Limited,
90 p.
Brown, R.C., Freeman, C.J. and Wolf, K., 2007, Executive summary report for Tolovana Property, Golden Summit
Property, Fairbanks Mining District, Alaska, December 14, 2007: Avalon Development Corp., internal
report TL07EXE1-Form43.doc, submitted to Freegold Recovery Inc., USA and Freegold Ventures Limited,
49 p.
May 2016 27-1

Brown, R.C., Freeman, C.J. and Wolf, K., 2008a, Executive summary report for Keystone Mines Partnership, Golden
Summit Project, Fairbanks Mining District, Alaska, December 15,2008: Avalon Development Corp., internal
report KS08EXE1-Form43.doc, submitted to Freegold Recovery Inc., USA and Freegold Ventures Limited,
71 p.
Brown, R.C., Freeman, C.J. and Wolf, K., 2008b, Executive summary report for Tolovana Property, Golden Summit
Project, Fairbanks Mining District, Alaska, December 15,2008: Avalon Development Corp., internal report
TL08EXE1-Form43.doc, submitted to Freegold Recovery Inc., USA and Freegold Ventures Limited, 50 p.
Burns, L.E., Newberry, R.J., and Solie, D.N., 1991, Quartz normative plutonic rocks of Interior Alaska and their
favorability for association with gold: Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, Report of
Investigations 91-3, 58 p.
Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral
Reserves, prepared by the CIM Standing Committee on Reserve Definitions, adopted by the CIM Council,
May 10, 2014.
Caterpillar Field Guide, 2013, Caterpillar Inc., Peoria, IL, 2013.
Caterpillar Performance Handbook, Edition 41, Caterpillar Inc., Peoria, IL, 2010.
Day, W.C., Aleinikoff, J.N., Roberts, P., Smith, M., Gamble, B.M., Henning, M.W., Gough, L.P. and Morath, L.C.,
2003, Geologic map of the Big Delta B-2 quadrangle, east-central Alaska: U.S. Geol. Surv. Geol. Inv. I-2788,
11 pp., 1 map.
Day, W.C., O’Neill, J.M., Aleinikoff, J.N., Green, G.N., Saltus, R.W., Gough, L.P., 2007, Geologic Map of the Big Delta
B-1 Quadrangle, East-Central Alaska, U.S Geol. Surv., Scientific Investigations Map SIM-2975. 23pp., 1
map.
DGGS, 1995, Airborne magnetic survey of the Fairbanks Mining District, Alaska: AK Div. Geol. Geophys. Surv., PDF
95-6 , 2 maps.
Douglas, T. A., 1997, Metamorphic histories of the Chatanika eclogite and Fairbanks Schist within the Yukon
Tanana Terrane, Alaska, as revealed by electron microprobe geothermometry and 40AR/39AR single grain
dating: unpub. Masters Thesis, Univ. Alaska – Fairbanks.
Fernie, A.D. "Pit to Plant - Current Trends", Mining Engineering, January 1985.
FGMI. 2006. Walter Creek Valley Fill Heap Leach Facility Project Description. Dated June 23, 2006. 74 pp.
FGMI. 2008. Fort Knox Compliance Monitoring Plan. Dated June 2008. 132 pages.
FGMI. 2011. Fort Knox Mine 2010 Annual Activity Report. Dated March 11, 2011. 29 pp.
FGMI. 2012a. Fort Knox Mine 2011 Annual Activity Report. Dated February 27, 2012. 34 pp.
FGMI. 2012b. Fort Knox Gold Mine Monitoring Plan. Dated October 2012. 32 pp.
FGMI. 2013. Fort Knox Mine 2012 Annual Activity Report. Dated February 22, 2013. 30 pp.
FGMI. 2014. Fort Knox Mine Annual Activity Report for Reporting Year 2013. Dated March 6, 2014. 29 pp.
Flanigan, B., Freeman, C., Newberry, R., McCoy, D., and Hart, C., 2000, Exploration models for mid and Late
Cretaceous intrusion-related gold deposits in Alaska and the Yukon Territory, Canada, in Cluer, J.K., Price,
J.G., Struhsacker, E.M., Hardyman, R.F., and Morris, C.L., eds., Geology and Ore Deposits 2000: The Great
Basin and Beyond: Geological Society of Nevada Symposium Proceedings, May 15-18, 2000, p. 591-614.
May 2016 27-2

Foster, H.L.; Dusel-Bacon, C. and Weber, F. R., 1977a, Reconnaissance geologic map of the Big Delta C-4
quadrangle, Alaska: U.S. Geol. Surv. Open File Rept. 77-262, 1 map.
Foster, H. L.; Weber, F. R. and Dusel-Bacon, C., 1977b, Gneiss Dome in the Big Delta C-4 quadrangle, Yukon-Tanana
uplands, Alaska in Blean, K. M., ed., The U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska--Accomplishments during 1976:
U.S. Geol. Surv. Circ. 751-B, p. 833.
Foster, H. L.; Albert, N. R. D.; Griscom, A.; Hessin, T. D.; Menzie, W. D.; Turner, D. L. and Wilson, F. H., 1979, Alaskan
Mineral Resource Assessment Program: Background Information to Accompany folio of Geologic and
mineral resource maps of the Big Delta Quadrangle, Alaska: U.S. Geol. Surv. Circ. 783, 19 p.
Freeman, C.J., 1991, 1991 Golden Summit Project Final Report - Volume 1: General project summary and
exploration summary for the Too Much Gold, Circle Trail, Saddle and Christina Prospects: Geol. Rept.
GS91-1, Avalon Development Corp., internal report submitted to Intl. Freegold Mineral Development, 164
p.
Freeman, C.J, 1992, 1991 Golden Summit Project Final Report - Volume 2: Historical summary of lode mines and
prospects in the Golden Summit project area, Alaska: Geol. Rept. GS91-1, Avalon Development Corp.,
internal report submitted to Intl. Freegold Mineral Development, 159 p.
Freeman, C.J, 1996a, Summary report for the Dolphin prospect, Tolovana mine property, Fairbanks Mining District,
Alaska: Geol. Rept. DL95-1, Avalon Development Corp., internal report submitted to Intl. Freegold Mineral
Development, 12 p.
Freeman, C.J, 1996b, Phase two summary report for the Dolphin prospect, Tolovana mine property, Fairbanks
Mining District, Alaska: Geol. Rept. DL96-1, Avalon Development Corp., internal report submitted to Intl.
Freegold Mineral Development, 15 p.
Freeman, C.J, 2001, Executive summary for the Golden Summit Project, April 2001: Avalon Development Corp.,
internal report submitted to Intl. Freegold Mineral Development.
Freeman, C.J, 2003, Executive summary for the Golden Summit Project, August 28, 2003: Avalon Development
Corp., internal report GS03-EXE1, submitted to Intl. Freegold Mineral Development, 27 p.
Freeman, C.J 2004, Executive summary for the Golden Summit Project, August 28, 2003: Avalon Development
Freeman, C.J, 2005, Executive summary for the Golden Summit Project, August 28, 2003: Avalon Development
Freeman, C.J, 2006, Executive summary for the Golden Summit Project, February 10, 2006: Avalon Development
Freeman, C.J, 2007, Executive summary for the Golden Summit Project, April 2, 2007: Avalon Development Corp.,
internal report GS04-EXE1, submitted to Intl. Freegold Mineral Development, 48 p.
Freeman, C.J, 2009, Executive summary report for the Golden Summit Project, Fairbanks Mining District, Alaska,
March 31, 2009: Avalon Development Corp., internal report GS09EXE1-Form43.doc, submitted to
Freegold Recovery Inc., USA and Freegold Ventures Limited, 84 p.
Freeman, C.J, Adams, D.D.; Currey, J.; Ken Wolf, K; Wietchy, D.M.; Angell, W.; Tannenbaum, T.; Olson, I., 1996,
1996 Final Report , Golden Summit Project, Fairbanks Mining District, Alaska: Geol. Rept. GS96-2, Avalon
Development Corp., internal report submitted to Intl. Freegold Mineral Development.
May 2016 27-3

Freeman, C.J, Flanigan, B.; Currey, J.; Wolf, K and Wietchy, D., 1998, 1997 and 1998 Final Report, Golden Summit
project, Fairbanks Mining District, Alaska: Geol. Rept. GS98-1, Avalon Development Corp., internal report
submitted to Intl. Freegold Mineral Development and Schaefer, J.G., 1999, Alaska Resources Data File for
the Livengood Quadrangle, Alaska: U.S. Geol. Surv., Open File Rept. 99-574, 464 pp.
Galey, J.T.; Duncan, W.; Morrell, R., Szumigala, D. and May, J., 1993, Exploration summary on the Golden Summit
project, Fairbanks District, Alaska: Amax Gold Expl., Internal Rept. Hall, M. H., 1985, Structural Geology of
the Fairbanks mining district, Alaska : Univ. of Alaska, Unpub. M.S. Thesis, 68p.
Goldfarb, RJ, Farmer, GL, Cieutat, BA, and Meier, AL. 1999. Major element, trace-element, and strontium-isotope
systematics of natural waters in the Fairbanks mining district: Constraints from local geology in Kelley,
KD, ed. Geological Studies in Alaska by the U.S. Geological Survey, 1997. U.S. Geological Survey
Professional Paper 1614. p. 139–150.
Hart, C.J.R., McCoy, D.T., Smith, M, Roberts, P., Hulstein, R., Bakke, A.A., and Bundtzen, T.K., 2002, Geology,
exploration and discovery in the Tintina Gold Province, Alaska and Yukon: Soc. Econ. Geol., Spec. Pub. 9, p.
241-274.
Hartman, H. L. - SME Mining Engineering Handbook, SME, Littleton, CO, 1992.
Hill, J.M., 1933, Lode deposits of the Fairbanks Mining District, Alaska: U.S. Geol. Surv., Bull. 849B, 163p.
Hollister, V.F., 1991, Origin of placer gold in the Fairbanks, Alaska, area: a newly proposed lode source: Econ. Geol.,
V.86, p. 402-405.
Iles, Calvert, "Costs of In-Pit Crushing", Mining Engineering, December 1997.
Johnson, PR, Wilcox, DE, Morgan, WD, Merto, J, and McFadden, R.1978. Arsenic, nitrate, iron, and hardness in
ground water, Fairbanks area, Alaska. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 78-1034. 1 sheet.
Kinross Gold, 2003, Corporate News Release, November 5, 2003 Lang, J.R. and Baker, T, 2001, Intrusion-related
gold systems – the present level of understanding: Mineralium Deposita, V36, pp. 477-489.
Kinross Gold Corporation. 2008. Technical Report for the Fort Knox Mine. Prepared for Kinross Gold Corporation
and Fairbanks Gold Mining Incorporated. Effective date March 31, 2008. 79 pp.
Kinross Gold Corporation. 2015. NI 43-101 Technical Report for the Fort Knox Mine, Fairbanks North Star Borough,
Alaska, USA. Prepared for Kinross Gold Corporation. Effective date March 31, 2015. 173 pp.
Lang Farmer, G, Goldfarb, RJ, Lilly, MR, Bolton, B, Meier, AL, and Sanzolone, RF. 2000. The chemical characteristics
of ground water near Fairbanks, Alaska in Kelley, KD, and Gough, LP, eds. Geologic Studies in Alaska by the
U.S. Geological Survey, 1998. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1615. p. 167-178.
LeLacheur, E.A., 1991, Brittle-fault hosted gold mineralization in the Fairbanks District, Alaska: Univ. Alaska, Unpub.
M.S. Thesis, 154 p.
Lowrie, R.L. – Mining Reference Handbook, SME, Littleton, CO, 2002.
Manz, S., 2008, President’s Message: Freegold Ventures Limited, website address,
http://www.freegoldventures.com /s/PresidentsMessage.asp McCoy, D.T., Layer, P.W., Newberry, R.J.,
Bakke, A., Masterman, S., Newberry, R.J., Layer, P., and Goldfarb, R., 1994, Timing and source of lode gold
in the Fairbanks mining district, Interior Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1107, p. 210.
McClelland Laboratories, Inc. Report on Cyanidation Testing of Four Golden Summit Composites, Dated January 9,
2015.
May 2016 27-4

McCoy, D.T., Newberry, R.J., and Layer, P.W., 1995, Geological, geochemical, and geochronologic evidence for both
metamorphic and intrusive metallogenesis in Alaskan gold deposits: Geological Society of America.,
Abstract with program, v. 27, p. A63.
McCoy, D. T, Newberry, R.J., Layer, P.W., DiMarchi, J.J., Bakke, A., Masterman, J.S. and Minehane, D.L. 1997,
Plutonic Related Gold Deposits of Interior Alaska in Goldfarb, R.J., ed. Ore Deposits of Alaska, Economic
Geology Monograph, No. 9, Society of Economic Geologists.
McCoy, D.T., 1999, Regional overview of the geologic setting of the Tintina Gold Belt: in Abstracts of the 16th
Annual Cordilleran Exploration Roundup, Vancouver, page 20-21.
McCoy, D.T. and Olson, I., 1997, Thermochronology and mineralogy of the Dolphin deposit and other selected
Golden Summit deposits: Private Report prepared for Freegold Recovery, 19 p.
McCoy, D.T., Newberry, R. J., Severin, K., Marion, P., Flanigan, B. and Freeman, C.J., 2002, Paragenesis and metal
associations in Interior Alaska gold deposits: an example from the Fairbanks District: Mining Engineering,
Jan., 2002, p. 33-38.
Metz, P.A., 1991, Metallogeny of the Fairbanks Mining District, Alaska and adjacent areas: , University of Alaska,
Mineral Industry Research Lab, MIRL Rept. 90, 229 p.
Mine and Mill Equipment Costs – Surface Mining Equipment: An Estimator’s Guide, 2014 edition, CostMine
Infomine USA, 2014.
Mortensen, J.K., Hart, C.J.R., Murphy, D.C., and Heffernan, S., 2000, Temporal evolution of early and mid-
Cretaceous magmatism in the Tintina Gold Belt: The Tintina Gold Belt: concepts, exploration and
discoveries, BCYCM Spec. Vol. 2 (Cordilleran Roundup Jan. 2000), pp. 49-57.
National Fire Protection Association. NFPA 122: Standard for Fire Prevention and Control in Metal/Nonmetal
Mining and Metal Mineral Processing Facilities. 2015.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Point Precipitation Frequency Data Server [rainfall data]
retrieved from http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_map_ak.html on March 2, 2015.
Newberry, R.J.; McCoy, D.T.; Brew, D.A., 1995, Plutonic-hosted gold ores in Alaska: Igneous vs. Metamorphic
Origins: Resource Geology Special Issue, no.18.
Newberry, R.J.; Clautice, K., Bundtzen, T.K.; Combellick, R.A.; Douglas, T., Laird, G.M.; Liss, S.A.; Pinney, D.S.,
Reifenstuhl, R.R. and Solie, D.S., 1996, Preliminary geologic map of the Fairbanks Mining District, Alaska,
AK Div. Geol. Geophys. Surv., PDF 96-16, 2 maps.
Nokleberg, W.J., Brew, D.A., Grybeck, D., Yeend, W., Bundtzen, T.K., Robinson, M.S., Smith, T.E., 1994, Metallogeny
and major mineral deposits of Alaska, in Plafker, G., and Berg, H.C., eds, The Geology of Alaska: Boulder,
Colorado, Geological Society of America, The Geology of North America, v. G-1, p. 855-903.
Nokleberg, W.J., Moll-Stalcup, E.J., Miller, T.P., Brew, D.A., Grantz, A., Reed, J.C., Plafker, G., Moore, T.E., Silva, S.R.,
and Patton, W.W., Jr., 1994, Tectonostratigraphic terrane and overlap assemblage map of Alaska: USGS
Open-file Rept 94-194.
PRJ, 1998, An aeromagnetic interpretation of the Fairbanks District, Alaska: Pearson, DeRidder and Johnson, Inc.,
unpub. report for Barrick Gold, 17 pp.
Pilkington, D., 1970, Keystone Mines Inc. Exploration Program Summary: Intl. Minerals & Chemicals, Unpub.
Report, 61p, 1 plate.
Porterfield, J. and Croff, C., 1986, Summary Report for the Cleary Project, Fairbanks District, Alaska - 1985: Placid
Oil Company, unpub. report, 36 p.
May 2016 27-5

Robinson, 1990, Smith, T.E. and Metz, P.A., 1990, Bedrock Geology of the Fairbanks Mining District: AK Div. Geol.
Geophys. Surveys, Prof. Rept. 106, 2 maps.
Salzer, K. N. - U.S. Metal & Industrial Mineral Mine Salaries, Wages & Benefits 2014 Survey Results, InfoMine USA,
Inc, www.costmine.com, 2014.
Schlumberger Water Services (SWS) 2013. Fort Knox Pit Lake Evaluation 2012 Update. Technical memorandum
from Drummond Earley and Liane George, SWS, to Delbert Parr, Linda Schmoll and Mark Huffington,
Fairbanks Gold Mining, Inc. Dated February 11, 2013. 10 pp.
SGS Canada Inc. An Investigation Into Process Flowsheet Options for the Golden Summit Deposit, Dated May 21,
2014.
Sinclair, A.J. (1974) “Applications of probability graphs in mineral exploration”, Spec. v. Association of Exploration
Geochemists, 95 pages.
Singhal, Collins and Fytas, "Canadian Experience in Open Pit Mining", Mining Engineering, January 1995, pg 58-61.
Szumigala, D.J and Hughes, R.A., 2005, Alaska’s mineral industry 2004: a summary: AK Div. Geol. & Geophys. Surv.,
13 pp.
United States Climate Data. [Fairbanks Alaska climate data] retrieved from
http://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/fairbanks/alaska/united-states/usak0083 on August 10, 2015.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1986. Urban Hydrology for Small
Watersheds: Technical Release 55.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey [soils data]
retrieved from http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx on August 5, 2015.
Wall, V.J., 1999, Pluton-related (Thermal Aureole) Gold: Short Course for Yukon Geoscience Forum, Weber, F.R.;
Foster, H.L.; Keith, T.E.C. and Dusel-Bacon, C., 1978, Preliminary geologic map of the Big Delta
Quadrangle, Alaska: U.S. Geol. Surv. Open File Rept. 78-529A, 1 map.
Water Management Consultants (WMC). 2008. Baseline Water Quality Analysis Technical Memorandum to
Delbert Parr. March 5, 2008.
Weber, F.R., Wheeler, K.L., Rinehart, C.D., Chapman, R.M., and Blodgett, R.B., 1992, Geologic map of the Livengood
quadrangle, Alaska: United States Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-562.
May 2016 27-6

28.0 CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON
28.1 Q UALIFICATIO NS OF C ONSULTANTS

The Consultants preparing this Technical Report are specialists in the fields of geology, exploration,
Mineral Resource estimation and classification, mining, geotechnical, environmental, permitting,
metallurgical testing, mineral processing, processing design, capital and operating cost estimation, and
mineral economics.
None of the Consultants or any associates employed in the preparation of this report has any beneficial
interest in Freegold. The Consultants are not insiders, associates, or affiliates of Freegold. The results of
this Technical Report are not dependent upon any prior agreements concerning the conclusions to be
reached, nor are there any undisclosed understandings concerning any future business dealings between
Freegold and the Consultants. The Consultants are being paid a fee for their work in accordance with
normal professional consulting practice.
The following individuals, by virtue of their education, experience and professional association, are
considered Qualified Persons (QP) as defined in the NI 43-101 standard, for this report, and are members
in good standing of appropriate professional institutions.
This Technical Report was prepared by the following QPs, certificates for whom are contained herein:
Name Title, Company Responsible for Sections

Mark J. Abrams, C.P.G. Certified Professional Geologist 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, 7.0,
8.0, 9.0, 10.0, 11.0, and 12.0
Jackie A. Blumberg, P.E. Surface Water Hydrologist 18.8, 18.8.1, 18.8.2, 18.8.3, 18.8.4,
Tetra Tech, Inc. 18.8.5, 24.2, 24.3, and 26.4
Gary H. Giroux, P.Eng. Consulting Geological Engineer 1.6, 1.13.1, 14.0, 25.1, and 26.1
Giroux Consultants, Ltd.
Chris Johns, M.Sc., P.Eng. Geological Engineer 18.9, 18.10, 26.6, and 26.7
Tetra Tech, Inc.
Edwin C. Lips, P.E. Principal Mining Engineer 1.8, 1.13.2, 15.0, 16.0, 25.2, and 26.2
Tetra Tech, Inc.
Nick Michael, QP Principal Mineral Economist 1.11, 1.12, 19.0, 21.0, and 22.0
Tetra Tech, Inc.
Dave M. Richers, PhD, PG Geochemist / Geologist 24.4 and 26.8
Tetra Tech, Inc.
Vicki J. Scharnhorst, P.E. Principal Consultant 1.1, 1.2, 1.9, 1.10, 1.13.5, 1.14, 18.1,
Tetra Tech, Inc. 18.2, 18.3, 18.4, 18.5, 18.6, 18.7, 20.0,
23.0, 25.5, 26.0, 27.0, and 28.0
D. Erik Spiller, QP Principal Metallurgist 1.7, 1.13.4, 13.0, 17.0, 25.4, and 26.5
Tetra Tech, Inc.
Keith Thompson, CPG, PG Hydrogeologist 1.13.3, 18.8.6, 24.1, 25.3, and 26.3
Tetra Tech, Inc.
May 2016 28-1

Preliminary Economic Assessment | Golden Summit Project
CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON

Consulting Geologist
604 Elko Summit Drive
Elko, Nevada 89801, USA
Telephone: 775-830-2744
Email: onstrikeexploration@yahoo.com
To accompany the Report Entitled: “NI 43-101 Technical Report, Golden Summit Project, Preliminary
Economic Assessment, Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska, USA” (Technical Report), Resource
Effective Date: May 31, 2013, Report Effective Date: January 20, 2016, Issue Date: March 10, 2016, and
amended and restated May 11, 2016.
I, Mark J. Abrams, C.P.G. of Reno, Nevada do hereby certify that:
1. I am a consulting geologist with an office at 604 Elko Summit Drive, Elko, Nevada 89801, USA.
2. I am a graduate of Eastern Washington University in 1978 with a B.S. degree; and in 1980 with a
M.S. degree, both in Geology. I am a member in good standing of the American Institute of
Professional Geologists #11451. I have practiced my profession continuously since 1979. I have
35 years of experience in all phases of mineral exploration and economic geology. I have read
the definition of “qualified person” set out in National Instrument 43-101 and certify that by
reason of education, experience, independence and affiliation with a professional association, I
meet the requirements of an Independent Qualified Person as defined in National Instrument
43-101.
3. I visited the property on May 25 and 26, 2012.
4. I am responsible for Sections 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, 7.0, 8.0, 9.0, 10.0, 11.0, and 12.0
of the Technical Report.
5. I satisfy all the requirements of independence according to NI 43-101.
6. I have had no prior involvement with the property that is the subject of this Technical Report.
7. I have read National Instrument 43-101, Form 43-101F1, and 43-101CP, and the Technical
Report has been prepared in compliance with that instrument, form, and companion policy.
8. As of the effective date of the Technical Report, to the best of my knowledge, information and
belief, the Technical Report contains all scientific and technical information that is required to
be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading.
Signed and dated May 11, 2016 at Elko, Nevada.
Original document dated, signed and sealed by Mark J. Abrams, C.P.G.

Consulting Geologist
May 2016

Water Resource Engineer
Tetra Tech, Inc.
350 Indiana Street, Suite 500
Golden, CO 80401, USA
Telephone: 303-217-5700
Facsimile: 303-17-5705
Email: Jackie.Blumberg@tetratech.com
Economic Assessment, Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska, USA” (Technical Report), Resource Effective
Date: May 31, 2013, Report Effective Date: January 20, 2016, Issue Date: March 10, 2016, and amended
and restated May 11, 2016.
I, Jackie A. Blumberg, P.E. of Golden, CO, do hereby certify that:
1. I am a Water Resource Engineer at Tetra Tech, Inc. located at 350 Indiana Street, Suite 500,
Golden, CO 80401, USA.
2. I have a Master of Science degree in Civil Engineering from Utah State University (2000). I hold a
Colorado Professional Engineering License (#43184). My relevant experience is that I have
practiced my profession as a Water Resource Engineer for 15 years. I have practiced my
discipline within the mining engineering framework for the past 3 years. I have provided
engineering services for numerous mine projects in arid environments: Nevada, Arizona, Utah,
New Mexico, Mexico and the Pilbara region of Australia. I am a “Qualified Person” for purposes
of National Instrument 43-101.
3. I have not visited or inspected the property.
4. I am responsible for Sections 18.8, 18.8.1, 18.8.2, 18.8.3, 18.8.4, 18.8.5, 24.2, 24.3, and 26.4 of
the Technical Report.
Signed and dated May 11, 2016 at Golden, Colorado.
Original document dated, signed and sealed by Jackie A. Blumberg, P.E.

Water Resource Engineer
Tetra Tech, Inc.
May 2016

Consulting Geological Engineer
982 Broadview Drive
North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Telephone: 604 684-0899
Email: gclmail@telus.net
I, Gary H. Giroux, P.E. of North Vancouver, British Columbia, do hereby certify that:
1. I am a consulting geological engineer with an office at 1215-675 West Hastings Street,
Vancouver, British Columbia.
2. I am a graduate of the University of British Columbia in 1970 with a B.A. Sc. and in 1984 with a
M.A. Sc., both in Geological Engineering. I am a member in good standing of the Association of
Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of the Province of British Columbia. I have practiced
my profession continuously since 1970. I have had over 40 years experience calculating mineral
resources. I have previously completed resource estimations on a wide variety of intrusive
hosted gold deposits, including Brewery Creek, Kisladag and Red Mountain. I have read the
definition of “qualified person” set out in National Instrument 43-101 and certify that by reason
of education, experience, independence and affiliation with a profesional association, I meet the
requirements of an Independent Qualified Person as defined in National Instrument 43-101.
4. I am responsible for Sections 1.6, 1.13.1, 14.0, 25.1, and 26.1 of the Technical Report.
5. I satisfy all the requirements of independence according to section 1.5 of NI 43-101.
6. Before being retained by Freegold Ventures, I have had no prior involvement with the property
that is the subject of this Technical Report.
Signed and dated May 11, 2016 at Vancouver, British Columbia.
Original document dated, signed and sealed by Gary H. Giroux, P.Eng.

Consulting Geological Engineer
May 2016

Chris Johns, P.Eng.
Geological Engineer
Tetra Tech, Inc. EBA
150-1715 Dickson Avenue,
Kelowna, British Columbia V1Y 9G6
Telephone: 250-862-4832
Facsimile: 250-862-2941
Email: Chris.Johns@tetratech.com
I, Chris Johns, P.Eng. of Kelowna, British Columbia, do hereby certify that:
1. I am a Geological Engineer at Tetra Tech, Inc. EBA located at 150-1715 Dickson Avenue,
Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada.
2. I am a graduate of Queen’s University, Ontario with a Bachelor of Science degree in Geological
Engineering (1994) and of the University of Alberta with a Master of Science degree in
Environmental Engineering (1999). My relevant experience includes 18 years of geological
engineering on projects involving design of waste containment facilities. I have been involved
with tailings storage facility design from scoping study through feasibility and construction
stage. I am a registered Professional Engineer in the Provinces of Alberta and British Columbia,
and a Chartered Professional Engineer with the Institution of Engineers Australia. I am a
“Qualified Person” for purposes of National Instrument 43-101 (the “Instrument”).
4. I am responsible for Sections 18.9, 18.10, 26.6, and 26.7 of the Technical Report.
Signed and dated May 11, 2016 at Kelowna, British Colombia.
Original document dated, signed and sealed by Chris Johns, P.Eng.
Chris Johns, P.Eng

Geological Engineer
Tetra Tech EBA, Inc.
May 2016

Edwin C. Lips, P.E.
Principal Mining Engineer
Tetra Tech, Inc.
Telephone: 303-217-5700
Facsimile: 303-217-5705
Email: Ed.Lips@tetratech.com
I, Edwin C. Lips, P.E. of Phoenix, Arizona do hereby certify that:
1. I am a Principal Mining Engineer at Tetra Tech, Inc. located at 350 Indiana Street, Suite 500,
Golden, CO 80401, USA.
2. I am a graduate of Montana Tech (Bachelor of Science degree in Mining Engineering, 1982).
I am a licensed Professional Engineer in good standing in the State of Nevada, license number
022863. My relevant experience is that I have practiced my profession as a mining engineer
continuously since graduation, for a total of 33 years. I am a “Qualified Person” for purposes of
National Instrument 43-101 (the “Instrument”).
3. I have visited and inspected the property on May 6, 2014.
4. I am responsible for Sections 1.8, 1.13.2, 15.0, 16.0, 25.2, and 26.2 of the Technical Report.
Signed and dated May 11, 2016 at Phoenix, Arizona.
Original document dated, signed and sealed by Edwin C. Lips, P.E.
Edwin C. Lips, P.E.

Principal Mining Engineer
Tetra Tech, Inc.
May 2016

Nick Michael, QP
Principal Mineral Economist
Tetra Tech
350 Indiana St., Suite 500
Golden, CO 80401 USA
Telephone: 303-947-3499
Email: nmichael@unionmilling.com
I, Nick Michael, QP of Lakewood, CO, do hereby certify that:
1. At the time this report was prepared, I was a Principal Mineral Economist at Tetra Tech located
at 350 Indiana Street, Suite 500, Golden, CO 80401.
2. I am a graduate of the Colorado School of Mines in Golden, Colorado USA in mining engineering
(1983) and received a MBA from Willamette University (1986). I have practiced my profession
continuously since 1987. Since 1990, I have completed valuations, evaluations (technical-
economic models), and have audited a variety of projects including exploration, pre-production
(feasibility-level), operating and mine closure projects. I have also served as expert witness with
respect to technical-economic issues. I am a “Qualified Person” for purposes of National
Instrument 43-101 (the “Instrument”). I am also a Registered Member of the Society of Mining,
Metallurgy, and Exploration (# 4104304) in good standing.

4. I am responsible for Sections 1.11, 1.12, 19.0, 21.0, and 22.0 of the Technical Report.
Signed and dated May 11, 2016 at Lakewood, Colorado.
Original document dated, signed and sealed by Nick Michael, QP
Nick Michael, QP
Principal Mineral Economist
Golder Associates Inc.
May 2016

David M. Richers, QP, P.G.
Geochemist / Geologist
Tetra Tech, Inc.
Telephone: 303-217-5700
Email: Dave.Richers@tetratech.com
To accompany the Report Entitled: “NI 43-101 Technical Report, Golden Summit Project, Preliminary Economic
Assessment, Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska, USA” (Technical Report), Resource Effective Date: May 31, 2013,
Report Effective Date: January 20, 2016, Issue Date: March 10, 2016, and amended and restated May 11, 2016.
I, David M. Richers, QP, P.G. of Golden, CO, do hereby certify that:
1. I am a Geochemist/Geologist at Tetra Tech, Inc. located at 350 Indiana Street, Suite 500, Golden, CO
80401, USA.
2. I have been practicing my profession as a geologist/geochemist for over 41 years since receiving my BS
degree in Geology from Pennsylvania State University in 1974. I also received an MS degree in
Geology/Geochemist in 1977 from University of Kentucky, and a PhD degree in Geology/ Geochemistry
from University of Kentucky in 1980. My relevant experience as a geologist and geochemist includes
geochemical site characterization services and mine geology. I have worked on mining projects in the
United States, Australia, Spain, and Canada including both surface and underground operations. My duties
routinely included participation in geochemical studies and programs aimed at protecting the
environment including quantification of geochemical processes for engineering design, closure planning
and impact analysis. My background also includes extensive work with acid rock drainage and metal
leaching (ARD/ML) and the associated fate and transport. I also have expertise in geologic computer
mapping and 3D GIS. I am a “Qualified Person” for purposes of National Instrument 43-101 (the
“Instrument”). I am a Registered Member of the Society of Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration (# 4174527)
in good standing.
3. I have completed a personal inspection of the Property on May 6, 2014.
4. I am responsible for Sections 24.4 and 26.8 of the Technical Report.
7. I have read National Instrument 43-101, Form 43-101F1, and 43-101CP, and the Technical Report has
been prepared in compliance with that instrument, form, and companion policy.
8. As of the effective date of the Technical Report, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the
Technical Report contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make
the Technical Report not misleading.
Original document dated, signed and sealed by David M. Richers, QP, P.G.
David M. Richers, QP, P.G.

Geochemist / Geologist
Tetra Tech, Inc.
May 2016

Principal Consultant
Tetra Tech, Inc.
Telephone: 303-217-5700
Email: Vicki.Scharnhorst@tetratech.com
I, Vicki J. Scharnhorst, P.E., LEED AP, of Golden, CO, do hereby certify that:
1. I am a Principal Consultant at Tetra Tech, Inc. located at 350 Indiana Street, Suite 500, Golden, CO 80401,
USA.
2. I am a graduate of Kansas State University with a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering (1982).
My relevant experience includes 30 years of civil engineering on infrastructure and water resource
projects inclusive of water quality programs, environmental impact studies, permitting and civil works. I
am a licensed Engineer in the states of Nevada, Michigan, Missouri and Colorado; a water right surveyor
in the State of Nevada; a LEED Accredited Professional with the U.S. Green Building Council; and have
served on the Nevada State Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors. I am a “Qualified
Person” for purposes of National Instrument 43-101 (the “Instrument”).
3. I have completed a personal inspection of the Property on May 6, 2014.
4. I am responsible for Sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.9, 1.10, 1.13.5, 1.14, 18.1, 18.2, 18.3, 18.4, 18.5, 18.6, 18.7, 20.0,
23.0, 25.5, 26.0, 27.0, and 28.0 of the Technical Report.
Original document dated, signed and sealed by Vicki J. Scharnhorst, P.E., LEED AP

Principal Consultant
Tetra Tech, Inc.
May 2016

D. Erik Spiller, QP
Principal Metallurgist
Tetra Tech, Inc.
Golden, CO, 80401, USA
Telephone: 303-217-5700
Email: Erik.Spiller@tetratech.com
I, D. Erik Spiller, QP of Golden, CO, do hereby certify that:
1. I am a Principal Metallurgist at Tetra Tech, Inc. located at 350 Indiana Street, Suite 500, Golden, CO,
80401, USA.
2. I am a graduate of the Colorado School of Mines, (Bachelor of Science degree in Metallurgical Engineering,
1970). I am a Qualified Professional (QP) member of the Mining and Metallurgical Society of America
(MMSA #01021QP). In addition, I am a Registered (QP) member of Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and
Exploration, Inc. (SME #3051820RM). My relevant experience is that I have worked as a metallurgical
engineer in the mineral resource industry for more than 40 years. During this career I held responsible
positions in process research, process development, engineering, and senior management. In addition, I
have served as an Adjunct instructor (22 years) and as an appointed Research Professor (9 years) in the
Metallurgical and Materials Engineering Department at the Colorado School of Mines, where I lecture in
mineral beneficiation and direct graduate students conducting metallurgical research in my area of
expertise.
4. I am responsible for Sections 1.7, 1.13.4, 13.0, 17.0, 25.4, and 26.5 of the Technical Report.
Signed and dated May 11, 2016, at Golden, Colorado.
Original document dated, signed and sealed by D. Erik Spiller, QP
D. Erik Spiller, QP
Principal Metallurgist
Tetra Tech, Inc.
May 2016

Keith Thompson, C.P.G.
Senior Hydrogeologist
Tetra Tech, Inc.
3801 Automation Way, Suite 100
Fort Collins, CO 80525, USA
Telephone: 970-223-9600
Facsimile: 970-223-7171
Email: Keith.Thompson@tetratech.com
I, Keith Thompson, C.P.G., of Greeley, CO, do hereby certify that:
1. I am a Senior Hydrogeologist at Tetra Tech, Inc. located at 3801 Automation Way, Suite 100, Fort
Collins, CO 80525, USA.
2. I am a graduate of Youngstown State University (Bachelor of Science degree in Geology, 1975).
I am also a graduate of the University of Wyoming (Master of Science degree in Geology,
specialization in Hydrogeology, 1979). I am an active member of the American Institute of
Professional Geologists (C.P.G. #6005). I am a “Qualified Person” for purposes of National
Instrument 43-101 (the “Instrument”).
4. I am responsible for Sections 1.13.3, 18.8.6, 24.1, 25.3, and 26.3 of the Technical Report.
7. I have read National Instrument 43-101, Form 43-101F1, Companion Policy 43-101CP, and the
Technical Report. The portions of the Technical Report for which I am responsible have been
prepared in compliance with that instrument, form, and companion policy.
belief, the portions of the Technical Report for which I am responsible contain all scientific and
technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not
misleading.
Signed and dated May 11, 2016 at Greeley, Colorado.
Original document dated, signed and sealed by Keith Thompson, C.P.G.
Keith Thompson, C.P.G.

Senior Hydrogeologist
Tetra Tech, Inc.
May 2016

Pea Goldensummit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pea Goldensummit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pea Goldensummit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FREEGOLD VENTURES LIMITED

NI 43-101 Technical Report

RESOURCE EFFECTIVE DATE: MAY 31, 2013

Prepared by List of Qualified Persons and Designations

Mark J. Abrams, C.P.G.

350 Indiana Street, Suite 500, Golden, CO 80401

May 2016 iii

May 2016 vii

May 2016 viii

May 2016 xii

arsenic = As astatine = At barium = Ba berkelium = Bk beryllium = Be

bismuth = Bi bohrium = Bh boron = B bromine = Br cadmium = Cd

calcium = Ca californium = Cf carbon = C cerium = Ce cesium = Cs

chlorine = Cl chromium = Cr cobalt = Co copper = Cu curium = Cm

dubnium = Db dysprosium = Dy einsteinum = Es erbium = Er europium = Eu

fermium = Fm fluorine = F francium = Fr gadolinium = Gd gallium = Ga

germanium = Ge gold = Au hafnium = Hf hahnium = Hn helium = He

holmium = Ho hydrogen = H indium = In iodine = I iridium = Ir

iron = Fe juliotium = Jl krypton = Kr lanthanum = La lawrencium = Lr

lead = Pb lithium = Li lutetium = Lu magnesium = Mg manganese = Mn

meltnerium = Mt mendelevium = Md mercury = Hg molybdenum = Mo neodymium = Nd

neon = Ne neptunium = Np nickel = Ni niobium = Nb nitrogen = N

nobelium = No osmium = Os oxygen = O palladium = Pd phosphorus = P

platinum = Pt plutonium = Pu polonium = Po potassium = K prasodymium = Pr

promethium = Pm protactinium = Pa radium = Ra radon = Rn rhodium = Rh

rubidium = Rb ruthenium = Ru rutherfordium = Rf rhenium = Re samarium = Sm

scandium = Sc selenium = Se silicon = Si silver = Ag sodium = Na

strontium = Sr sulfur = S technetium = Tc tantalum = Ta tellurium = Te

terbium = Tb thallium = Tl thorium = Th thulium = Tm tin = Sn

titanium = Ti tungsten = W uranium = U vanadium = V xenon = Xe

ytterbium = Yb yttrium = Y zinc = Zn zirconium = Zr

May 2016 xiii

1 inch (in) =2.54 centimeters (cm)

1 acre =0.4047 hectare

May 2016 xiv

1.1 I NTRO DUCTIO N

Based on a gold price of $1,300/oz, highlights of the Project PEA include:

• A post-tax NPV5% and IRR of $188 million and 19.6% respectively;

Value-enhancing opportunities, such as leased mine equipment, improved metallurgical performance

May 2016 1-1

Table 1-1: Summary of Exploration (1969-2015) Conducted for the Property

Company Years Exploration/Mining Activity Principle Targets

May 2016 1-2

May 2016 1-3

Nome MAP AREA

Freegold Ventures Limited Fig1-1_Location.dwg FIGURE 1-1

1.6 M INERAL R ESO URCES

May 2016 1-5

Grade > Cut-off

0.20 82,650,000 0.58 47,610 1,531,000

Table 1-3: Dolphin Zone Inferred Resource within Conceptual Pit

Grade > Cut-off

0.20 95,920,000 0.58 55,350 1,779,000

May 2016 1-6

Grade > Cut-off

0.20 22,520,000 0.55 12,270 395,000

Table 1-5: Oxide Zone Inferred Resource within Conceptual Pit

Grade > Cut-off

0.20 14,660,000 0.47 6,950 223,000