Technical Report for Ashram Rare Earth Deposit

Technical Report
Mineral Resource Estimation
Eldor Property – Ashram Deposit
Nunavik, Quebec
Commerce Resources Corporation

Respectfully submitted to:
Commerce Resources Corporation

By:
André Laferrière M.Sc. P.Geo.
SGS Canada Inc. – Geostat

Date:
April 15, 2011

Geostat
10 boul. de la Seigneurie Est, Suite 203, Blainville, Québec Canada
SGS Canada Inc. t (450) 433 1050 f (450) 433 1048 www.geostat.com www.met.sgs.com

Member of SGS Group (SGS SA)

Technical Report – Mineral Resource Estimation – Eldor Property – Ashram Deposit Page ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ ii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. iv
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ iv
1- Executive Summary .....................................................................................................................6
2- Introduction and Terms of Reference ..........................................................................................8
2.1 General ................................................................................................................................................ 8
2.2 Terms of Reference ............................................................................................................................. 8
2.3 Units and Currency.............................................................................................................................. 9
2.4 Disclaimer ......................................................................................................................................... 10
3- Reliance on Other Experts .........................................................................................................10
4- Property Description and Location ............................................................................................11
4.1 Location ............................................................................................................................................. 11
4.2 Property Ownership and Agreements................................................................................................ 12
4.3 Royalties Obligations ........................................................................................................................ 14
4.4 Permits and Environmental Liabilities .............................................................................................. 14
4.5 Mineralisation.................................................................................................................................... 14
5- Accessibility, Physiography, Climate, Local Resources and Infrastructure..............................15
5.1 Accessibility ...................................................................................................................................... 15
5.2 Physiography ..................................................................................................................................... 15
5.3 Climate .............................................................................................................................................. 15
5.4 Local Resources and Infrastructures ................................................................................................. 16
6- History .......................................................................................................................................16
6.1 Regional Government Surveys .......................................................................................................... 16
6.2 Mineral Exploration Work ................................................................................................................ 16
7- Geological Setting .....................................................................................................................18
7.1 Regional Geology .............................................................................................................................. 18
7.2 Property Geology .............................................................................................................................. 21
8- Deposit Model ...........................................................................................................................23
9- Mineralisation ............................................................................................................................25
10- Exploration and Drilling ..........................................................................................................26
11- Sampling Method and Approach .............................................................................................28
12- Sample Preparation, Analysis and Security .............................................................................30
12.1 Sample Preparation and Analyses ................................................................................................... 30
12.2 Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedure ......................................................................... 31
12.2.1 Analytical Standards ................................................................................................................. 31
12.2.2 Analytical Blanks...................................................................................................................... 35
12.2.3 Drill Core Duplicates ................................................................................................................ 35
12.2.4 Pulp Duplicates ......................................................................................................................... 38
12.2.5 QA/QC Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 44
12.3 Specific Gravity............................................................................................................................... 45
12.4 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................... 47
13- Data Verification .....................................................................................................................47
14- Adjacent Properties..................................................................................................................58
15- Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing ........................................................................59
16- Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Estimates ..................................................................60
16.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 60
16.2 Exploratory Data Analysis .............................................................................................................. 60
16.2.1 Analytical Data ......................................................................................................................... 60
SGS Canada Inc. - Geostat

Technical Report – Mineral Resource Estimation – Eldor Property – Ashram Deposit Page iii

16.2.2 Composite Data ........................................................................................................................ 63
16.2.3 Specific Gravity ........................................................................................................................ 65
16.3 Geological Interpretation ................................................................................................................. 65
16.4 Spatial Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 67
16.5 Resource Block Modeling ............................................................................................................... 68
16.6 Grade Interpolation Methodology ................................................................................................... 69
16.7 Mineral Resource Classification ..................................................................................................... 71
16.8 Mineral Resource Estimation .......................................................................................................... 71
16.9 Mineral Resource Validation........................................................................................................... 73
16.10 Comments about the Mineral Resource Estimate ......................................................................... 73
17- Other Relevant Data and Information .....................................................................................74
18- Interpretation and Conclusions ................................................................................................74
19- Recommendations ...................................................................................................................76
20- References ...............................................................................................................................78
21- Signature Page .........................................................................................................................80
22- Certificate of Qualification ......................................................................................................81


Technical Report – Mineral Resource Estimation – Eldor Property – Ashram Deposit Page iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 – List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................. 9
Table 2.2 – Conversion Factors .................................................................................................................. 10
Table 4.1 – Summary of Mineralisation Occurring on the Eldor Property ................................................. 15
Table 10.1 – Summary of Drilling Completed at Eldor by Commerce ...................................................... 27
Table 12.1 – Expected Values and QA/QC Ranges of SX18-01 and SX18-05 Analytical Standards for Y,
La, Ce, Nd and Nb2O5 .......................................................................................................................... 32
Table 12.2 - Summary Statistics of SX18-01 and SX18-05 Analytical Standards for Y, La, Ce, Nd and
Nb2O5 ................................................................................................................................................... 32
Table 12.3 – Comparative Statistics for the Drill Core Duplicates............................................................. 36
Table 12.4 –Statistics for the Pulp Duplicates (Act Labs vs. Inspectorate) ................................................ 39
Table 12.5 –Specific Gravity Statistics from Independent Check Sampling Program ............................... 45
Table 12.6 –Specific Gravity Statistics from Commerce 2010 Exploration Program ................................ 46
Table 13.1 –Statistics for the Independent Check Samples (Act Labs vs. SGS Minerals) ......................... 48
Table 13.2 –Statistics for the Independent Check Samples (Act Labs vs. ALS Chemex) .......................... 53
Table 13.3 – Final Drill Hole Database ...................................................................................................... 58
Table 16.1 – Summary Statistics of Analytical Data Used in the Mineral Resource Estimate................... 61
Table 16.2 – Summary Statistics for the 3 metre Composites .................................................................... 64
Table 16.3 – Variogram Model of TREO Grade for 3 m Composite ......................................................... 67
Table 16.4 – Resource Block Model Parameters ........................................................................................ 69
Table 16.5 – Eldor Property Mineral Resource Estimate ........................................................................... 72
Table 16.6 – Eldor Property Mineral Resource Estimate with Individual REO Values ............................. 73
Table 16.7 – Comparative Statistics of the Composite and Block Model Datasets .................................... 73
Table 18.1 – Final Mineral Resources for the Eldor Property .................................................................... 75
Table 19.1 – Proposed Budget for Recommended Exploration Work at Eldor .......................................... 77

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4.1 – General Location Map ............................................................................................................ 11
Figure 4.2 – Map of the Property Mineral Titles ........................................................................................ 13
Figure 7.1 – Regional Geology Map ........................................................................................................... 20
Figure 7.2 – Local Geological Map ............................................................................................................ 22
Figure 8.1 – Schematic Representation of St-Honore Carbonatite ............................................................. 24
Figure 9.1 – Drill Core from Hole EC10-028 Showing the A, B, BD and Contact Zones ......................... 26
Figure 10.1 – Plan View of the Drilling in the Ashram REE zone at the Eldor Property........................... 28
Figure 12.1 - Variation of Reported Values with Time for Analytical Standard SX18-01 ........................ 33
Figure 12.2 - Variation of Reported Values with Time for Analytical Standard SX18-05 ........................ 34
Figure 12.3 – Correlation Plot of the Drill Core Duplicates for TREE+Y ................................................. 37
Figure 12.4 – Correlation Plot of the Drill Core Duplicates for Nb2O5 ...................................................... 37
Figure 12.5 – Correlation Plot of the Drill Core Duplicates for F .............................................................. 38
Figure 12.6 - Correlation Plot of the Pulp Duplicates for TREE+Y, Y, La and Ce (ActLabs vs.
Inspectorate) ........................................................................................................................................ 40
Figure 12.7 - Correlation Plot of the Pulp Duplicates for Pr, Nd, Sm and Eu (ActLabs vs. Inspectorate) . 41
Figure 12.8 - Correlation Plot of the Pulp Duplicates for Gd, Tb, Dy and Ho (ActLabs vs. Inspectorate) 42
Figure 12.9 - Correlation Plot of the Pulp Duplicates for Er, Tm, Yb and Lu (ActLabs vs. Inspectorate). 43
Figure 12.10 – Histogram of Specific Gravity Measurements by Commerce at Ashram........................... 46
Figure 13.1 - Correlation Plot of the Independent Checks Samples for TREE+Y, Y, La and Ce (ActLabs
vs. SGS Minerals) ................................................................................................................................ 49
Figure 13.2 - Correlation Plot of the Independent Checks Samples for Pr, Nd, Sm and Eu (ActLabs vs.
SGS Minerals) ..................................................................................................................................... 50


Technical Report – Mineral Resource Estimation – Eldor Property – Ashram Deposit Page v

Figure 13.3 - Correlation Plot of the Independent Checks Samples for Gd, Tb, Dy and Ho (ActLabs vs.
SGS Minerals) ..................................................................................................................................... 51
Figure 13.4 - Correlation Plot of the Independent Checks Samples for Er. Tm, Yb and Lu (ActLabs vs.
SGS Minerals) ..................................................................................................................................... 52
Figure 13.5 - Correlation Plot of the Independent Checks Samples for TREE+Y, Y, La and Ce (ActLabs
vs. ALS Chemex)................................................................................................................................. 54
Figure 13.6 - Correlation Plot of the Independent Checks Samples for Pr, Nd, Sm and Eu (ActLabs vs.
ALS Chemex) ...................................................................................................................................... 55
Figure 13.7 - Correlation Plot of the Independent Checks Samples for Gd, Tb, Dy and Ho (ActLabs vs.
ALS Chemex) ...................................................................................................................................... 56
Figure 13.8 - Correlation Plot of the Independent Checks Samples for Er. Tm, Yb and Lu (ActLabs vs.
ALS Chemex) ...................................................................................................................................... 57
Figure 14.1 – Map of Adjacent Properties in the Vicinity of Eldor Property ............................................. 59
Figure 16.1 – Histogram of Samples Length from Ashram Database ........................................................ 61
Figure 16.2 – Plan View of the Drill Holes at Ashram ............................................................................... 62
Figure 16.3 – Longitudinal View of the Drill Holes at Ashram (looking north) ........................................ 63
Figure 16.4 - Plan View Showing the Spatial Distribution of the Composites ........................................... 64
Figure 16.5 – Longitudinal View Showing the Distribution of the Composites (looking north) ............... 65
Figure 16.6 – Modeled 3D Wireframe Envelope in Plan View .................................................................. 66
Figure 16.7 – Modeled 3D Wireframe Envelope in Longitudinal View (looking south) ........................... 67
Figure 16.8 – Variograms of TREO Grade of 3 metre Composite ............................................................. 68
Figure 16.9 –Different Search Ellipsoids Used for the Interpolation Process in Plan View ...................... 70
Figure 16.10 – Plan View Showing Block Model Interpolation Results .................................................... 70
Figure 16.11 – Longitudinal View Showing Block Model Interpolation Results (looking south) ............. 71
Figure 19.1 – Plan View Showing Proposed Drilling Area ........................................................................ 77


Technical Report – Mineral Resource Estimation – Eldor Property – Ashram Deposit Page 6

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SGS Canada Inc. – Geostat (“SGS Geostat”) was commissioned by Commerce Resources Corporation
(“Commerce”) on September 28, 2010 to prepare an independent estimate of the mineral resources
of the Ashram rare earth deposit for an open pit mining perspective. The mineral resource estimate
was completed by SGS Geostat based on data available from recent drilling data collected by
Commerce during the 2010 exploration program. The mineral resource estimate was done in
accordance with National Instrument 43‐101 Standards and Disclosure for Mineral Projects.
The Eldor Property (“Property”) is located in the Nunavik Region of the Province of Québec,
approximately 130 km south of the community of Kuujjuaq and, due to it remoteness, is only
accessible by float plane or helicopter. The Property consists in one block totalling 404 claims
covering 19,006.52 ha and extends 17.5 km in the east‐west direction and 24 km north‐south. From
the 404 claims comprising the Property, 8 claims were acquired in May 2007 by a purchase
agreement with Virginia Mines Inc. (“Virginia”), and 396 claims were acquired map staking
between May 2007 and October 2010.
The Eldor Property area has been explored since in the 1980’s mainly for uranium but
mineralisation in niobium, tantalum, and rare earths were discovered during that period. The
Property was re‐activated in 2002 went Virginia acquired 8 claims covering the main
mineralisation occurrences then conducted a small reconnaissance exploration program. In 2007,
Commerce acquired the claims owned by Virginia through a purchase agreement and staked an
additional 357 claims. Since 2008, Commerce conducted exploration programs on the Property
using prospecting, soil geochemistry, airborne and ground geophysics, trenching and diamond
drilling. In 2009, significant rare earth mineralisation was discovered in the Ashram area followed,
in 2010, by a significant exploration program centered at Ashram consisting of mainly diamond
drilling.
The Property is situated within the central area of the Proterozoic‐age New Quebec Orogen,
straddling two lithotectonic zones separated by a major thrust fault. The eastern portion of the
Property comprises paraschist, paragneiss, and amphibolites. To the west are mainly volcanic and
sedimentary rocks along with the Eldor carbonatite intrusive complex. The Eldor carbonatite
comprises several lithological subdivisions which can be simplified into early, mid and late stage
carbonatite. The mid stage carbonatite is most closely related to tantalum‐niobium mineralisation
while the late stage carbonatite hosts the REE mineralisation observed at the Ashram zone.
As part of the independent verification program, the author of the report validated the exploration
methodology which includes core logging, sampling, analytical procedures, and quality analysis‐
quality control protocol implemented by Commerce. SGS Geostat considers the samples
representative and of good quality, and is confident that the system is appropriate for the collection
of data suitable for the estimation of a NI 43‐101 compliant mineral resources.
The author visited the Property between October 4 and 6, 2010 and conducted an independent
sampling of mineralised core from the 2010 exploration program. SGS Geostat also completed a
verification of the drill hole database as part of the verification program. The author and SGS
Geostat are in the opinion that the data quality is acceptable and that the final drill hole database is
adequate to support a mineral resource estimate.



The mineral resource block model is derived from the geological interpretation and modeling of the
mineralised carbonatite at Ashram. The resource model is defined by blocks 10 m (east‐west) by 10
m (north‐south) by 10 m (elevation) in size, located below the bedrock/overburden interface.
Interpolation of the block grade was performed using ordinary kriging from composited analytical
data in multiple successive passes using anisotropic search ellipsoids increasing is size from one
pass to another. Finally, a mineral resource was estimate based on the results of the block model
interpolation. All the mineral resources were classified inferred resource categories. An average
bulk density of 3.0 t/m3 was used to calculate the final tonnage of the mineral resources based on
the volumetric estimates of the block model.
The final mineral resource estimate for the Eldor Property at a base case cut‐off grade of 1.25%
TREO totals 117,340,000 tonnes grading 1.740% TREO and 5.56% CaF2 in the inferred resource
category. The final mineral resources for the Eldor Property are presented in the table below.

Mineral Resources Estimate ‐ Eldor Property ‐ Ashram REE Deposit

Cut‐off Grade Resources
Tonnes* TREO (%)** LREO (%)** IREO (%)** HREO (%)** Y2O3 (%)** CaF2 (%)***
TREO (%) Categories

1.25% Inferred 117,340,000 1.740 1.612 0.069 0.019 0.040 5.56

Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.
Effective date March 1, 2011. Bulk density of 3.0 t/m3 used.
TREO includes La2O3, Ce2O3, Pr2O3 and Nd2O3, SM2O3, Eu2O3 and Gd2O3, Tb2O3, Dy2O3, Ho2O3, Er2O3, Tm2O3, Yb2O3 and Lu2O3, and Y2O3.
LREO includes La2O3, Ce2O3, Pr2O3 and Nd2O3.
IREO includes SM2O3, Eu2O3 and Gd2O3.
HREO includes Tb2O3, Dy2O3, Ho2O3, Er2O3, Tm2O3, Yb2O3 and Lu2O3.
* Rounded to nearest 10,000. ** Rounded to nearest 0.001. *** Rounded to nearest 0.01

SGS Geostat is in the opinion that the Company successfully confirmed the mineral resource
potential of the Ashram deposit located on the Eldor Property based on 2010 exploration program
and considers the Project to be sufficiently robust to warrant the following work:
 Additional drilling to a) confirm the western and eastern extent of the mineralisation, b)
test the northern, southern, and depth extensions of the mineralised carbonatite, and c)
confirm the existing inferred resources and upgrade the current resources to the indicated
category;
 Proceed to preliminary metallurgical study to better characterise the rare earth
mineralisation processing parameters;
 Complete a preliminary economic evaluation of the Project for a potential open pit mining
operation.
In addition to the work recommendation listed above, the author recommends to carry out a
baseline environmental study of the Property and to conduct discussions with the communities
neighbouring the Eldor project about the impact of a potential open pit mining operation.



2 INTRODUCTION AND TERMS OF REFERENCE

2.1 General

This technical report was prepared by SGS Canada Inc. – Geostat (“SGS Geostat”) for Commerce
Resources Corporation (“Commerce” or “Company”) to support the disclosure of mineral resources
for the Eldor Property (“Property” or “Project”).
The report describes the basis and methodology used for modeling and estimation of the Ashram
REE deposit located on the Property from recent holes drilled by Commerce during the 2010
exploration program. The report also presents a full review of the history, geology, sample
preparation and analysis, and data verification of the Project. The report also provides
recommendations for future work.
SGS Geostat was commissioned by Commerce on September 28, 2010 to prepare an independent
estimate of the mineral resources of the Ashram deposit for an open pit mining perspective.
Commerce supplied electronic format data from which SGS Geostat generate and validated a final
database.

2.2 Terms of Reference

This report on the mineral resource estimation at the Eldor Property was prepared by André
Laferrière M.Sc. P.Geo. The author, André Laferrière M.Sc. P.Geo, is responsible for all sections of the
report.
This technical report was prepared according to the guidelines set under “Form 43‐101F1
Technical Report” of National Instrument 43‐101 Standards and Disclosure for Mineral Projects.
The certificate of qualification for the Qualified Person responsible for this technical report has
been supplied to the Company as a separate document and can also be found in section 22 of the
report.
The author visited the Property between October 4 and 6, 2010, for a review of exploration
methodology, sampling procedures and to conduct an independent check sampling of selected
mineralised drill intervals.
Information in this report is based on critical review of the documents, information and maps
provided by personnel of Commerce and Dahrouge Geological Consulting Ltd (“Dahrouge”), in
particular Mr. Darren Smith, M.Sc. P.Geol., Project Geologist and Mr. Wayne McGuire, Senior GIS
Technician. A complete list of the reports available to the author is found in the References section
of this report.



2.3 Units and Currency

All measurements in this report are presented in Système International d’Unités (SI) metric units,
including metric tonnes (tonnes) or grams (g) for weight, metres (m) or kilometres (km) for
distance, hectare (ha) for area, and cubic metres (m3) for volume. All currency amounts are
Canadian Dollars (C$) unless otherwise stated. Abbreviations used in this report are listed in Table
2.1.

Table 2.1 – List of Abbreviations
tonnes or t Metric tonnes
kg Kilograms
g Grams
km Kilometres
m Metres
µm Micrometres
ha Hectares
m3 Cubic metres
km/h Kilometre per hour
% Percent sign
t/m3 Tonne per cubic metre
$ Dollar sign
° Degree
°C Degree Celcius
NSR Net smelter return
NPI Net Profit Interest
pH Potential of hydrogen (acidity scale)
ppm Parts per million
NQ Drill core size (4.8 cm in diameter)
SG Specific Gravity
NTS National Topographic System
UTM Universal Transverse Mercator
NAD North America Datum
Ga Billion years
REE Rare Earth Elements
REO Rare Earth Oxides



Table 2.2 – Conversion Factors
Conversion Factor
Name Element Oxide/Carbonate Definitions
(Element to Oxide/Carbonate)
Lanthanum La 1.17276 La2O3
Cerium Ce 1.17127 Ce2O3
LREO
Praseodymium Pr 1.17031 Pr2O3
Neodymium Nd 1.16638 Nd2O3
Samarium Sm 1.15961 Sm2O3
MREO
Europium Eu 1.15793 Eu2O3
(or IREO)
Gadolinium Gd 1.15261 Gd2O3
Terbium Tb 1.15100 Tb2O3 TREO
Dysprosium Dy 1.14768 Dy2O3
Holmium Ho 1.14551 Ho2O3
Erbium Er 1.14348 Er2O3 HREO
Thulium Tm 1.14206 Tm2O3
Ytterbium Yb 1.13868 Yb2O3
Lutetium Lu 1.13716 Lu2O3
Yttrium Y 1.26993 Y2O3
Niobium Nb 1.43050 Nb2O5
Fluorine F 2.05490 CaF2

2.4 Disclaimer

It should be understood that the mineral resources which are not mineral reserves do not have
demonstrated economic viability. The mineral resources presented in this Technical Report are
estimates based on available sampling and on assumptions and parameters available to the author.
The comments in this Technical Report reflect the author’s and SGS Canada Inc. – Geostat best
judgement in light of the information available.

3 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS

The author of this Technical Report, Mr. André Laferrière, M.Sc. P.Geo, is not qualified to comment
on issues related legal agreements, royalties, permitting, and environmental matters. The author
has relied upon the representations and documentations supplied by the Company management.
The author has reviewed the mining titles, their status, the legal agreement and technical data
supplied by Commerce, and any public sources of relevant technical information.
Sections 4 to 6 of this report has been modified from the assessment report “2008 and 2009
Exploration of the Eldor Property, Northern Quebec” by Dahrouge for Commerce and dated June 23,
2010 (Smith and Peter‐Rennich, 2010) and includes additional information from the recent
exploration programs completed by Commerce on the Property.



4 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION

4.1 Location

The Eldor Property is located in the Nunavik Region of the Province of Québec, approximately 130
km south of the community of Kuujjuaq (Figure 4.1). The Property is situated about longitude
68°24’0” west and latitude 56°56’0” north at its center and covers portion of NTS sheet 24C15,
24C16 and 24F01. The Property is only accessible by float plane or helicopter.

Figure 4.1 – General Location Map



4.2 Property Ownership and Agreements

As of April 2011, the Property consists in one block totalling 404 claims covering 19,006.52 ha. The
Property area extends are 17.5 km in the east‐west direction and 24 km north‐south. Figure 4.2
shows the claim map of the Property and a detailed listing of the Eldor Property claims is included
in Appendix A.
From the 404 claims comprising the Property, 8 claims were acquired in May 2007 by a purchase
agreement with Virginia Mines Inc (“Virginia”). The other 396 claims were acquired map staking
between May 2007 and October 2010.



Figure 4.2 – Map of the Property Mineral Titles



4.3 Royalties Obligations

The original 8 claims acquired from Virginia are subject to a 1% NSR royalty in favour of Virginia
and a 5% NPI royalty in favour of two individuals. Commerce has the right to buy back the 5% NPI
royalty in consideration of $500,000.

4.4 Permits and Environmental Liabilities

Commerce is conducting exploration work under valid permits and authorisations delivered by the
provincial Ministère des Ressources Naturelles et de la Faune (“MRNF”) and the Ministère du
Développement Durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs (“MDDEP”). On March 19, 2011, the
Company confirmed having the following work permits in good standing:
 Intervention permit (by the MRNF);
 Camp authorisation (by the MDDEP);
 Certificate of authorisation (by the MDDEP);
 Attestation of exemption (by the MDDEP).
There are no environmental liabilities pertaining to the Property, according to the Company
management.

4.5 Mineralisation

Different type of mineralisation related to the carbonatite intrusive complex occurs at the Eldor
Property. The main commodities include rare earth elements and fluorine discovered at Ashram
zone but also outlined in other areas on the property, and niobium, tantalum and phosphate
uncovered mainly at Star Trench, Southeast and Northwest areas. Table 4.1 summarises the
mineralisation occurring on the Property.



Table 4.1 – Summary of Mineralisation Occurring on the Eldor Property
Location
Area Name Commodities Significant Results Sampling Type
UTM East UTM North
DDH EC10‐045: 1.99% TREO over 309.18 m, including 2.30% TREO
536300 6312100 Ashram REE's, F Drill Core
over 172.89 m.
DDH EC‐10‐032: 0.43% Nb2O5 over 155.95 m; DDH EC10‐033:
0.58% Nb2O5 and 8.91% P2O5 over 74.25 m and 12.70% F over
Nb, Ta, F, Drill Core, Rocks,
538000 6311000 Southeast 32.42 m; DDH EC08‐015: 9.96% P2O5 over 13.45 m and 3552 ppm
phosphate Soils
Nb over 18.72 m and 353 ppm Ta over 5.73 m; 1.07% REE+Y in soils;
0.51% REE+Y in rocks
Ta, Nb, U, DDH EC10‐034: 6.90% P2O5 over 6.13 m; DDH EC10‐035: 4.37%
537300 6310100 Star Trench Drill Core, Rocks
phosphate P2O5 and 396 ppm U over 5.34 m; 1.03% Nb2O5 in rocks
541400 6311700 MC Exposure REE's, F DDH EC10‐037: 1.73% TREO over 7.87 m; 2.32% TREO in rocks Drill Core, Rocks
537400 6313000 REE's, phosphate 15.9% P2O5 in rocks; 1.06% TREO in soils Rocks, Soils
Miranna
537800 6313500 Triple‐D REE's 2.44% TREO in rocks; 0.68% TREO in soils Rocks, Soils
DDH EC08‐008: 3189 ppm Nb over 46.88 m; 1.69% REE+Y in rocks; Drill Core, Rocks,
535900 6312700 Northwest Nb, phosphate
2.11% REE+Y in soils Soils

5 ACCESSIBILITY, PHYSIOGRAPHY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES AND
INFRASTRUCTURE

5.1 Accessibility

Due to its remoteness, the Property is only accessible by float plane or helicopter.

5.2 Physiography

The Property is characterised by a rolling hill topography generally created by the underlying
glacial drumlins and eskers. Glacial sediments, mostly till, cover most of the Project area and can be
up to ten metres thick. Outcrops are rare but boulders are abundant. The elevation above sea level
ranges from 200 m to 320 m.
Drainage in the area, typical of the transitional taiga to tundra regions, is northward toward Ungava
Bay using small creeks and local poorly drained swampy area connecting to larger lakes and major
rivers. The vegetation is generally forest‐covered in the central portion of the Property, populated
mainly by black spruce and tamarack trees, with generally barren areas occurring in the more
elevated southern area. Willow and alder shrubs, often densely populated, also occur in low‐lying
areas throughout the Property.

5.3 Climate

The climate is sub‐arctic continental with average temperatures ranging from ‐25°C in February to
+11°C in July for the nearest community of Kuujjuaq. The average annual precipitation for the last
10 years in the region is 41 cm of rain and 174 cm of snow (weatherbase website 2011). Lakes
freeze‐up generally begins in early October and ice break‐up usually occurs around end of May‐
early June.



5.4 Local Resources and Infrastructures

The regional resources regarding labour force, supplies and equipment are challenging due to the
remoteness of the Project. The nearest communities are Kuujjuaq located 130 km north with a
population of more than 2,000 citizens and Schefferville (including the nearby native community)
situated approximately 275 km southeast with a population of just above 800 citizens (2006
census). Both communities are serviced by a regional airport and a float plane base. Kuujjuaq has a
small sea port and Schefferville is the northern terminus of the Tshiuetin railway (formerly
operated by the Quebec North Shore & Labrador) which connects to Labrador City then Sept‐Iles to
the south.
Exploration work on the Property is done from a temporary base camp located nearby the Ashram
REE deposit. The camp can be open year‐round and has the capacity to accommodate up to 20
persons. The camp is equipped with core logging and sampling facilities, and hosts the drill core
archive of the Project. No permanent access road has been built on the Property.

6 HISTORY

6.1 Regional Government Surveys

Several regional surveys have been conducted in the area of the Property by the Geological Survey
of Canada (“GSC”) and the MRNF. Between the 1950’s and the 1970’s, different authors from the
GSC and the MRNF conducted regional geological surveys in New Quebec Orogen at scale varying
from 4 miles per inch (1:253,440) and 1 mile per inch (1:63,360). In 1979, Dressler and Ciesielski
completed a geological compilation of the different geological surveys conducted in the area
(Dressler and Ciesielski, 1979). Since the end of the 1970’s, just few localised geological surveys
collecting new information at more detailed scale were completed by the MRNF.
The geological synthesises reported by the MRNF for the area since the 1990’s include a 1:250,000
scale map of the mineral occurrences of the New Quebec Orogen (Avramtchez et al., 1990), a
preliminary lithotectonic and metallogical synthesis at 1:500,000 scale (Bandyayera et al., 2002),
and more recently a complete lithological and metallogical synthesis of the New Quebec Orogen
(Clark and Wares, 2005).
In addition to regional geological surveys, a stream sediment geochemical survey was done in 1974
in the area (Dressler, 1974) followed in 1987 by a regional lake sediment geochemical survey
(Baumier 1987).

6.2 Mineral Exploration Work

The information reported in this section includes mainly mineral exploration work conducted for
the mineralisation related to the carbonatite intrusive complex occurring on the Property.



The Eldor carbonatite intrusive complex was first discovered in 1981 by Eldor Resources Ltd
(“Eldor Res.”) following a regional lake water and sediment sampling program completed in the
northern part of the Labrador Trough for uranium exploration. Carbonatitic units were outlined
during a follow‐up of the geochemical uranium anomalies outlined by the survey.
In 1982, after the acquisition of an exploration permit in the area of the Property, Eldor Res.
completed a 982 line‐km airborne radiometric survey which outlined several radiometric
anomalies in the area.
In 1983, Eldor Res. followed up the airborne anomalies with a prospecting program. During the
program, many of the anomalies were explained using a scintillometer in dug pits or trenches by
radioactive carbonatite outcrops or boulders. The samples collected returned anomalous thorium
values and some of the samples returned up to 7% Nb, 0.18% Ta and 4% total lanthanides. A
reconnaissance geological mapping survey was also conducted in the area of the newly discovered
carbonatite (Meusy et al., 1984, Lafontaine, 1984).
In 1985, Unocal Canada Ltd carried out a five day field program consisting of magnetic/radiometric
geophysical and soil geochemical orientation surveys with prospecting. Samples were collected for
geochemical analysis and petrographic study and confirmed the historical results by Eldor Res. and
additional Nb‐Ta occurrences were outlined in the area (Knox, 1986).
The Eldor carbonatite was staked in April 2002 by Virginia Gold Mines Ltd (now Virginia Mines
Inc.) based on the historical Ta values reported by Eldor Res. They conducted a small program with
the re‐sampled the historical Nb‐Ta showings and confirmed the historical results. No additional
work was performed in the area by Virginia.
In April 2007, Commerce concluded a purchase agreement with Virgina on the 8 original claims and
subsequently acquired an additional 357 claims covering the carbonatite and immediate vicinity.
During the summer, the Company mandated Dahrouge Geological Consulting Ltd to conduct an
exploration program consisting of prospecting and rock sampling, soil sampling, and ground
radiometric (scintillometer) and magnetic surveys. In addition to the field program, an airborne
magnetic‐electromagnetic‐radiometric survey was flown over the Property.
During 2008, Commerce conducted an exploration program on the Property consisting of
prospecting, soil sampling, ground geophysics, trenching, and diamond drilling. A total of 5,482
metres of drilling was completed over 26 holes in three different areas of the Property. From these
holes, 3,025 samples totalling 3,538 metres were collected and analysed. The best results returned
the following: Star Trench area, 4.37 m grading 597 ppm Ta2O5, 3,058 ppm Nb2O5, 736 ppm U3O8,
and 16.6% P2O5 (hole EC08‐025); Northwest area, 46.88 m grading 4,562 ppm Nb2O5 (hole EC08‐
008); Southeast area, 26.10 m grading 5,466 ppm Nb2O5 (hole EC08‐015). Fifteen (15) trenches
were documented on the Property with 71 samples collected from them. The ground geophysics
consisted of magnetic and scintillometer surveys. The soil sampling program returned 685 samples
collected at 50 m intervals along 1 km‐spaced lines. The prospecting work totalled 270 observation
points and returned a total of 93 rock samples.
In 2009, the Company completed a relatively small exploration program due to the negative global
market conditions. The field work consisted of prospecting and additional sampling of 2008 drill



core. Additional work was done in the office which consisted of air‐photo interpretation and re‐
analysis of the airborne geophysical survey. The most significant result from the 2009 exploration
program was the discovery of REE mineralisation in outcrop on the Ashram peninsula which
highlighted the exploration potential for rare earth elements on the Property. From the 70 grab
samples collected in the Ashram area, more than half returned TREE greater than 1% with the best
sample grading 2.74% TREE.

7 GEOLOGICAL SETTING

7.1 Regional Geology

The Eldor property is located in the Paleoroterozoic‐age New Quebec Orogen (also known as the
Labrador Trough) which is interpreted to be the western margin of the Southeastern Churchill
Province (“SECP”). The New Quebec Orogen is bounded to the west the Archean‐age Superior
Province, by the Proterozoic‐age Grenville Province to the south, and extent as far as the Ungava
Bay to the north. To the east, the New Quebec Orogen is in contact with a composite terrane of the
SECP named the Core Zone, composed of Archean and Paleoproterozoic‐age lithologies (James et al.
2003, Clark and Wares, 2005).
The New Quebec Orogen is interpreted as an early Proterozoic‐age (Aphebian) fold and thrust belt
with and geologic age ranging between 2.17 and 1.87 Ga. The older stratigraphic and structural
subdivision of the New Quebec Orogen outlined three supracrustal belts defined as 1) a western
foreland, parauthochthonous to allochthonous “miogeosynclinal” belt composed mainly of platform
sediment rocks; 2) a central foreland, allochthonous “eugeosynclinal” belt composed mainly of
greenschist facies, deep‐water, volcano‐sedimentary rocks intruded by numerous gabbro sills; and
3) an eastern allochthonous belt marking the beginning of the hinterland and composed of
amphibolitic facies rocks.
The recent interpretation defines the New Quebec Orogen by three cycles of sedimentation and
volcanism, which make up the Kaniupiskau Supergroup. The cycles thicken eastwards and are
separated from each other by erosional unconformities. The first two cycles are volcano‐
sedimentary in nature with emplacement age from U‐Pb dating between 2.17 and 2.14 Ga and
between 1.88 and 1.87 Ga respectively. Overlying this sequence is a syn‐orogenic suite of
metasedimentary rocks forming the third cycle. The belt is later subdivided into eleven
lithotectonic zones separated by major thrust faults.
The first cycle of the belt was prompted by continental rifting, followed by passive continental
margin development, then additional rifting, and finally the re‐establishment of the platform. A
period of approximately 175 Ma characterised by relatively little tectonic activity followed the first
cycle of the orogen. The second cycle is characterised by a transgressive sequence composed of
platform sediments (sandstones and iron formations) and turbidites (sandstones and mudstones)
later intruded in the central part of the belt by several ultramafic sills, tholeiitic in composition,
known as the Montagnais Sills. Near the end of the second cycle, the Le Moyne intrusion (Eldor
Carbonatite) was emplaced within basaltic to rhyolitic volcanic units. Finally, the third cycle



consisting of molasse type sedimentation at the margin of the Superior Province occurred between
1.82 and 1.77 Ga.
Generally, the metamorphic grade increases from west to east across the New Quebec Orogen. The
foreland changes from sub‐greenschist to upper greenschist facies and the hinterland goes from
upper greenschist to amphibolitic/granulite facies. The Eldor Carbonatitic suite of rocks has
thought to have undergone greenschist facies metamorphism and was deformed, along with the
surrounding rocks, during the Hudsonian Orogen.



Figure 7.1 – Regional Geology Map



7.2 Property Geology

The Property is situated within the central area of the New Quebec Orogen, straddling two
lithotectonic zones separated by a major thrust fault. To the east is the SC Zone, comprised of
Proterozoic paraschist, paragneiss, and amphibolites; to the west is the Gerido Zone, comprised of
the Le Moyne Group, Doublet Group and the Le Moyne Intrusion (Eldor Carbonatite).
The older Doublet Group rocks underlay the Le Moyne Group rocks and consist of mafic
pyroclastics, basalts, dolomites, and gabbros. The Le Moyne Group consists of volcanic and
sedimentary rocks of the Douay Formation (rhyolites, rhyodacites, felsic tuffs, dolomites, shales and
pelites), and the sedimentary Aulneau Formation (conglomerate, mudstones, dolomite, and
dolomite tuff) which includes mafic pyroclastics coeval with the Le Moyne Intrusion.  Finally, a sub‐
volcanic carbonatite intrusion (Le Moyne Intrusion or Eldor Carbonatite) was emplaced within the
Le Moyne Group. Local structure and geology indicate the volcanism was violent and may have
occurred in a shallow water environment.
The carbonatite complex has been mapped by Clark and Wares (2005) as intrusive (massive and
brecciated ultramafic) with marginal extrusive equivalents interpreted to be a possible volcanic
apron.  This notion of extrusive carbonatite components is still a matter of debate.
Historic exploration of the Eldor Carbonatite has shown it to have an elliptical shape with
approximate dimensions of 7.3 km long by 3 km wide (Sherer, 1984). More recently Clark and
Wares (2005) suggest a carbonatite extent of almost double at 15 km long by 4 km wide.
Emplacement occurred near the end of the second cycle of the belts formation, approximately 1.88 ‐
1.87 Ga (U ‐ Pb dating).
Multiple carbonatite intrusive events are believed to have occurred during emplacement of the
Eldor Complex with both calco‐carbonatite and magnesio‐carbonatite present (Sherer, 1984 and
Wright et al., 1998).
The Eldor Carbonatite geology is very complex with several lithological subdivisions
proposed/identified (Wright et al., 1998) and separate eruptive centres postulated (Demers and
Blanchet, 2002). Simplistically, the Eldor Complex can be separated into three major divisions;
early, mid and late stage carbonatite. The mid stage carbonatite is most closely related to tantalum‐
niobium mineralization (pyrochlore). The late stage carbonatite crosscuts all earlier phases and
hosts the REE mineralisation observed at the Ashram zone.



Figure 7.2 – Local Geological Map



8 DEPOSIT MODEL

The deposit model at the Eldor Property is the carbonatite‐hosted REE‐Nb‐Ta deposit. Carbonatites
are by definition igneous rocks, intrusive and extrusive, which contain more than 50% by volume of
carbonate minerals like calcite, dolomite, ankerite and less often siderite and magnesite. Intrusive
carbonatites occur commonly within alkalic complexes or as isolated intrusions (sills, dikes,
breccias or small plugs) that may not be genetically related with other alkaline intrusions.
Carbonatites can also be volcanic‐related and occur as flow or pyroclastic rocks like the well known
active Oldoinyo Lengai volcano in Tanzania. Carbonatites are generally related to large‐scale, intra‐
plate fractures, grabens or rifts that correlate with periods of extension, typically Precambrian to
recent in age.
Carbonatite‐hosted deposits occur almost exclusively in intrusive carbonatite and are subdivided
into magmatic, replacement/veins, and residual sub‐type. The Eldor carbonatite can be classified as
a magmatic sub‐type, which is the same category as the St‐Honore deposit in Quebec, Canada
(Niobec niobium mine, Iamgold), the Mountain Pass deposit in California, U.S.A. (REE) and the
Palabora deposit in South Africa (apatite). The pipe‐like carbonatites typically occur as sub‐circular
or elliptical shape and can be up to 3‐4 km in diametre. Magmatic mineralisation within pipe‐like
carbonatites is commonly found in crescent‐shape, steeply dipping zones. Metasomatic
mineralisation occurs as irregular forms, breccias or veins. Figure 8.1 illustrates the concentric,
steeply dipping features of a pipe‐like shapes of the St‐Honore carbonatite.
The major mineral constituents are calcite, dolomite, siderite, ferroan calcite, ankerite as
carbonates, and hematite, biotite, titanite, olivine and quartz. Economic minerals include fluorite
(F), apatite (P), pyrochlore (Nb), anatase (Ti), columbite (Nb‐Ta), monazite (REE), bastnaesite
(REE), parisite (REE), zircon (Zr), and magnesite (Mg), among others. Mineralisation within
carbonatites is typically syn‐ to post‐intrusion. The mineralisation is controlled primarily by
fractional crystallisation within the intrusion with tectonic and local structures influence the form
of metasomatic mineralisation which occurs as veins and breccia textures (Woolley and Kempe,
1989, Richardson and Birkett, 1996, Birkett and Simandl, 1999).



Figure 8.1 – Schematic Representation of StHonore Carbonatite

Image from IAMGOLD website – March 2011

In addition to the carbonatite deposit model mineralised in REE‐Nb‐Ta, other deposit types with
known mineralised occurrences are located in the vicinity of the Property. The other deposit types
includes magmatic Cu‐Ni (Co‐PGE) sulfides in mafic and ultramafic intrusive units and vein‐type
Au‐Cu (Ag) mineralisation hosted in fractured mafic intrusive.
Known occurrences of magmatic Cu‐Ni (Co‐PGE) mineralisation are located approximately 5 km
west of the Property. The most significant occurrences include: Island deposit (historical resources
of 1.09 Mt @ 2.02% Cu and 0.45% Ni), Lepage deposit (historical resources of 0.79 Mt @ 2.76% Cu
and 0.66% Ni), Redcliff deposit (historical resources of 1.07 Mt @ 2.09% Cu and 0.51% Ni), and the
Marymac II deposit (historical resources of 0.93 Mt @ 1.60% Cu and 0.43% Ni).



The known occurrences for the vein‐type Au‐Cu (Ag) mineralisation, located between 10 km and 15
km west of the Property, include the Lac Terre Rouge showing (grab sample with 24.75 g/t Au), the
Lac Daubancourt showing (grab sample with 14.3 g/t Au), and the Lac Deitrich‐Sud showing (grab
sample with 1.86 g/t Au) (Clark and Wares, 2005).

9 MINERALISATION

This section summarises the observations made during the site visit and information provided by
the Company in particular two internal reports on the mineralogy of the Ashram lithologies
completed in March 2010 and March 2011 by Patrik Schmidt and Roger H. Mitchell respectively,
both consultant petrologists.
The preliminary macroscopic and microscopic observations made of the F‐REE mineralisation at
the Ashram deposit suggests that three significantly complex zones of mineralisation intersected in
drill holes occurs in the carbonatite: A‐Zone, B‐Zone and BD‐Zone. Figure 9.1 shows a picture of
representative samples of the different mineralisation zones from hole EC10‐028 selected by the
author including the interpreted non‐carbonatite contact unit (an amphibole and phlogopite‐rich
lithology). The different zones have been described by the Company consultants as follow.
A‐Zone carbonatite is the most mineralised unit of the Ashram area (with the B‐Zone) and share
similarities in composition and textures with the B‐Zone. The units observed in this zone are
typically light to dark olive‐grey and composed of clasts of breunnerite (Mg‐siderite), fluorite or
fluorite plus monazite set in a complex matrix of several generations of ferrodolomite. The unit has
been geochemically classified as magnesio‐ to ferro‐carbonatite. The rocks shows textures
described as cataclastic through‐fluorite “schlieren breccias” (referred as mafic minerals, typically
apatite/biotite/REE minerals, having a preferential orientation creating bands during
crystallisation of magma). Colloform textures are also present. The breccias which occurred in
more than one stage (potentially due to deformation or hydrothermal events) are typically
composed of fluorite, late stage Fe‐rich coarse‐grained carbonates, and quartz. The most significant
economic minerals observed in the A‐Zone and are monazite (La‐Ce), REE‐F‐carbonates
(bastnaesite‐La‐Ce), REE‐phosphates (xenotime‐Y‐Dy), apatite, fluorite, pyrite and sphalerite.
Accessory minerals are niobium minerals (ferrocolumbite, niobian ilmenite and rutile), barite,
magnetite and galena, among others.
B‐Zone carbonatite shows similar mineralogy as the A‐Zone but with fewer clasts of fluorite plus
monazite and less tectonic and hydrothermal‐related textures. The units are cream‐yellow to grey‐
yellow in colour. The presence of patches or pools of quartz‐phlogopite is common and appear
distinct from the A‐Zone material. The unit has been geochemically classified as a magnesio‐
carbonatite.
BD‐Zone carbonatite occurs between the B‐Zone and a poorly understood contact lithology best
described as an albite‐amphibole‐phlogopite‐rich unit. The BD‐Zone units are typically cream to
white in colour with red‐orange pervasive shades from parisite‐baesnesite mineralisation. The BD‐
Zone shows a relatively consistent composition but significant variation in texture is observed
from one sample to another. The unit has been geochemically classified as a magnesio‐carbonatite.



In general, the BD‐Zone is less mineralised than the A‐Zone and B‐Zone but contains a greater
variety of REE‐F‐carbonates consisting of intergrowths of bastnaesite and parisite with minor
synchisite. A particularity of the BD‐Zone is the presence of microcline feldspar occurring as a late
stage anhedral crystals. Quartz is also commonly observed. The BD‐Zone is observed in contact
with a relatively un‐mineralised unit whose origin is enigmatic. The lithology is non‐carbonatite
and is best described as an albite amphibole phlogopitite interpreted to be a metasomatised
megaxenolith or a discrete intrusion genetically‐related to the Eldor carbonatite complex.

Figure 9.1 – Drill Core from Hole EC10028 Showing the A, B, BD and Contact Zones

10 EXPLORATION AND DRILLING

In 2010, the Company completed exploration work on the Property consisting of diamond drilling,
trenching, prospecting, ground geophysics and additional sampling of the 2008 drill core. The areas
of the Property that received exploration work in 2010 were Southeast, Star Trench, MC Exposure
but specifically Ashram where significant REE mineralisation was discovered in 2009. In addition,
other periphery targets received initial ground evaluations.
The BTW size diamond drilling completed on the Property during 2010 totals 5,390 m with 4 holes
drilled at Southeast, 3 at Star Trench, 2 at MC Exposure and finally 12 holes in the Ashram area.



From the drilling completed, a total of 5,882 samples were collected for analysis from which 3297
were sampled in the Ashram drill core. Table 10.1 summarises the drilling completed at Eldor by
Commerce since 2008. Figure 10.1 shows a plan view of the drilling completed at Ashram in 2010.

Table 10.1 – Summary of Drilling Completed at Eldor by Commerce

Year Area of the Property Number of Holes Total Metres Drilled
Northwest 12 2466
Southeast 13 2846
2008
Star Trench 1 170
Total (2008) 26 5482
Southeast 4 1392
Star Trench 3 494
2010 MC Exposure 2 192
Ashram 12 3313
Total (2010) 21 5390
Grand‐Total 47 10872



Figure 10.1 – Plan View of the Drilling in the Ashram REE zone at the Eldor Property

In addition to the diamond drilling, the Company conducted additional core sampling from the
2008 drilling (469 samples for 479.96 m), ground magnetic surveying in the Star Trench area (<1.5
km area), trenching (1 trench near Ashram area, 2 trenches near Star Trench area and 3 sub‐
parallel trenches at Miranna), and prospecting. The 2010 Data regarding trenches, ground magnetic
surveys, and prospecting samples is still being compiled and remains unvetted. Therefore, the total
number of samples collected from trenches and prospecting is not confirmed as several samples
were also collected from trenches excavated in 2008.

11 SAMPLING METHOD AND APPROACH

This section is based on information supplied by Commerce and observations made during the
independent verification program conducted at the Project site by the author between October 4
and 6, 2010.



The Company contracted Dahrouge Geological Consulting Ltd for the management of the
exploration work for the Eldor Property. Exploration work at the Property is managed from a field
camp which provides the office, core logging and core storage facilities for the Project.
The evaluation of the geological setting and mineralisation on the Property includes observations
and sampling from surface (through mapping, grab samples, and trenches) but is principally based
on information and sampling from diamond drilling. The drill core logging and sampling was
conducted at the Property. All samples collected by Commerce during the course of the 2010
exploration program were sent to Activation Laboratories Ltd (“Act Labs”) in Ancaster, Ontario, for
preparation and analysis. The remaining drill core is currently stored at the storage facilities
located at the Eldor main camp.
All drill core handling was done on site with logging and sampling processes conducted by
employees and contractors of Commerce or Dahrouge. The observations of lithology, structure,
mineralisation, sample number and location were recorded by the geologists and geotechnicians in
hard copy then compiled in MS Excel. Copies of the database are stored on external hard drive for
security.
Drill core of BTW size was placed in a wooden core boxes and collected twice a day at the drill site
then transported to the core logging facilities. The drill core was first aligned and measured by a
technician for core recovery. After a summary review of the core, it was logged and sampling
intervals were defined by a geologist. Before sampling, the core was photographed using a digital
camera in natural light and UV light (black light) to outline the florescent minerals. The core boxes
were identified with Box Number, Hole ID, From and To using aluminum tags.
Sampling intervals were determined by the geologist, marked and tagged based on observations of
the lithology and mineralisation. The geologists also use a portable XRF analyser, a handheld
magnetic susceptibility/conductivity probe, a handheld gamma‐ray scintillometer, and a handheld
spectrometer to help identify the lithologies and define the mineralised intervals. The typical
sampling length is 1 m but can vary according to lithological variation within the mineralised
carbonatite. The drill core samples were split in two halves with one half placed in a new plastic bag
along with the sample tag; the other half was replaced in the core box. The author noted that the
Company is not placing a duplicate sample tag in the core box. It has been recommended to change
the procedure in order to place a sample tag in the core box for reference. The remaining duplicate
sample tag was archived with the Project documents. The samples were then catalogued and placed
in sealed pails for shipping. The sample shipment forms were prepared on site with one copy
inserted in one of the shipment bags and one copy kept for reference. The samples were
transported on a regular basis by Commerce or Dahrouge employees or contractors using two
preferred routes. The first shipping route consisted in sending the samples on chartered float plane
to Kuujjuaq, using First Air Cargo to Montreal then ground transportation to Act Labs at Ancaster,
Ontario. The second route was through Schefferville using float plane, by train to Sept‐Iles then
ground transportation to Ancaster. The remaining core samples kept for reference are stored in
wooden racks or cross piled at the main camp.
SGS Geostat validated the exploration processes and core sampling procedures used by Commerce
as part of an independent verification program. SGS Geostat concluded that the drill core handling,



logging and sampling protocols are at conventional industry standard and conform to generally
accepted best practices. The author considers that the samples quality is good and that the samples
are generally representative. Finally, SGS Geostat is confident that the system is appropriate for the
collection of data suitable for the estimation of a NI 43‐101 compliant mineral resource estimate.

12 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSIS AND SECURITY

12.1 Sample Preparation and Analyses

Drill core samples collected during the 2010 exploration program are transported by Commerce
representatives and contracted consultants or companies to Act Labs laboratory facilities in
Ancaster, Ontario for sample preparation and analysis.
All samples received at Act Labs are inventoried then weighted. Drying is done to samples having
excess humidity. Sample material is crushed in a jaw and/or roll crusher to 70% passing 2 mm then
split with a rifle splitter to obtain a sub‐sample which is then pulverised to 95% passing 200 mesh
using a single component (flying disk) or a two components (ring and puck) ring mills. The pulp
material is then analysed using lithium metaborate/tetraborate fusion followed by Inductively
Coupled Plasma (“ICP”) for the major oxides and by Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry
(“ICP‐MS”) for a series of 45 elements which include the REE (Act Labs code 8‐REE package by
fusion ICP and ICP/MS). When the value of the Nb2O5 returned higher than 0.3%, the samples is
analysed by fusion X‐ray fluorescence (“XRF”). The element F is analysed using fusion ion selective
electrode (“ISE”) (Act Labs code 4‐F‐ISE). Act Labs is an accredited laboratory under ISO/IEC 17025
standards.
The re‐analysis of the pulp materials were conducted at Inspectorate Exploration & Mining Services
Ltd – Analytical Division Facilities (“Inspectorate”) in Richmond, B.C. and ALS Canada Ltd
laboratories in North Vancouver, B.C. (“ALS Chemex”), although none of the analytical results
returned from ALS Chemex were compiled and available at the time of writing the report. The pulp
samples sent to Inspectorate were directly analysed by lithium metaborate fusion followed by ICP‐
MS. Inspectorate is an accredited laboratory under ISO 9001:2008 and is in the process of being
accredited for ISO/IEC 17025.
The independent check samples were analysed at the SGS Canada Inc. – Minerals Services
laboratory located in Toronto, Ontario (“SGS Minerals”). The samples were crushed, split riffled
then pulverised to 200 mesh. The pulps are then analysed using lithium metaborate followed by
ICP‐MS (SGS Minerals code IMS95A). SGS Minerals is an accredited laboratory under ISO/IEC 17025
standards. The pulps of the independent check samples were re‐analysed at ALS Chemex
laboratories in North Vancouver, B.C. (“ALS Chemex”). The pulps were analysed using lithium
metaborate fusion followed by ICP‐MS (ALS Chemex code ME‐MS81). ALS Chemex is an accredited
laboratory under ISO/IEC 17025 standards.
The analytical protocols for Act Labs, Inspectorate, SGS Minerals and ALS Chemex are detailed in
Appendix D.



12.2 Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedure

Above the laboratory quality assurance quality control protocol (“QA/QC”) routinely conducted by
Act Labs using pulp duplicate analysis, Commerce implemented an internal QA/QC protocol
consisting in the insertion of reference material, analytical standards and blanks, and core
duplicates on a systematic basis with the samples shipped to Act Labs. The company also sent pulps
from selected mineralised intersection to Inspectorate for re‐analysis. SGS Geostat did not visit the
Act Labs facilities, or conduct an audit of the laboratories.

12.2.1 Analytical Standards

The Company used two different certified analytical standards in their internal QA/QC protocol.
The analytical standards are certified reference materials number SX18‐01 and SX18‐05 from
Dillinger Hutte Laboratory, Germany. The standards are inserted in the sample series at a rate of
one for every 25 samples.
Expected values are provided with each certified reference materials. Unfortunately, the expected
variance, also known as performance gates, is not readily available with the certified reference
materials and the information could not be retrieved from the manufacturer or reseller at the time
of writing the report. In order to evaluate the results of the two analytical standards of the Project,
the QA/QC warning threshold has been set to plus or minus 10% difference from the expected
values and the QA/QC failure to plus or minus 15% difference from the expected values. The
selected QA/QC warning and failure thresholds could be considered conservative based on
comparison with other similar certified reference materials available from Ore Research &
Exploration Pty Ltd, Australia. For the OREAS certified reference materials 101A, 101B, and 100A,
which included the element Y, La, Ce, Nd of comparable quantities, the reported performance gates
for 2 standard deviation (QA/QC warning) ranges between 8% and 20% and for 3 standard
deviation (QA/QC failure) ranges between 12% and 30%. Table 12.1 shows the expected values and
QA/QC failure and warning thresholds and Table 12.2 summarises the reported results for each
analytical standards. Figures 12.1 and 12.2 are graphs showing the variation of the reported
analytical results with time for analytical standards SX18‐01 and SX18‐05 respectively.



Table 12.1 – Expected Values and QA/QC Ranges of SX1801 and SX1805 Analytical
Standards for Y, La, Ce, Nd and Nb2O5
Expected Values and QAQC Ranges
Standard Element
Failure (-15%) Warning (-10%) Mean Warning (+10%) Failure (+15%)
Y (ppm) 114 120 134 147 154
La (ppm) 304 322 358 394 412
SX18-01 Ce (ppm) 689 730 811 892 933
Nd (ppm) 372 394 437 481 503
Nb2O5 (%) 0.591 0.626 0.695 0.765 0.799
Y (ppm) 197 209 232 256 267
La (ppm) 426 451 501 552 577
SX18-05 Ce (ppm) 929 984 1093 1202 1257
Nd (ppm) 434 460 511 562 588
Nb2O5 (%) 0.827 0.876 0.973 1.070 1.119

Table 12.2 Summary Statistics of SX1801 and SX1805 Analytical Standards for Y, La, Ce,
Nd and Nb2O5
Period Observed QAQC Warning Range QAQC Failure Range
Standard Element Count
From To Mean Std Dev Min Max Count % Count %
Y (ppm) 94 124 5 106 136 21 22% 1 1%
La (ppm) 94 364 16 332 407 7 7% 0 0%
SX18-01 27-Jul-10 17-Jan-11 Ce (ppm) 94 800 26 729 868 1 1% 0 0%
Nd (ppm) 94 393 15 354 425 43 46% 6 6%
Nb2O5 (%) 71 0.685 0.017 0.639 0.731 0 0% 0 0%
Y (ppm) 89 232 9 208 249 1 1% 0 0%
La (ppm) 89 468 16 430 508 14 16% 0 0%
SX18-05 27-Jul-10 17-Jan-11 Ce (ppm) 89 993 33 890 1090 30 34% 2 2%
Nd (ppm) 89 460 18 426 518 42 47% 5 6%
Nb2O5 (%) 65 0.973 0.011 0.94 0.997 0 0% 0 0%



Figure 12.1 Variation of Reported Values with Time for Analytical Standard SX1801

Eldor Property ‐ SX18‐01 Standard ‐ Y (ppm) Eldor Property ‐ SX18‐01 Standard ‐ La (ppm)
160 420 Failure (+15%)
Failure (+15%)
150 Warning (+10%) 400 Warning (+10%)

140 380
Expected Value

La (ppm)
Y (ppm)

130 360 Expected Value

Warning (‐10%)
120 340
Failure (‐15%)
Warning (‐10%)
110 320

Failure (‐15%)
100 300

Eldor Property ‐ SX18‐01 Standard ‐ Ce (ppm) Eldor Property ‐ SX18‐01 Standard ‐ Nd (ppm)
1000
510 Failure (+15%)
950 Failure (+15%)
490 Warning (+10%)
900
Warning (+10%)
470
850
450
Expected Value Nd(ppm)
Ce (ppm)

Expected Value
800
430

750 Warning (‐10%) 410
Warning (‐10%)
700 Failure (‐15%)
390
Failure (‐15%)
650 370

600 350

Eldor Property ‐ SX18‐01 Standard ‐ Nb2O5 (%)
Failure (+15%)

0.78
Warning (+10%)

0.73
Nb2O5 (%)

Expected Value
0.68

Warning (‐10%)
0.63

Failure (‐15%)
0.58


Technical Report for Ashram Rare Earth Deposit

Technical Report for Ashram Rare Earth Deposit

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Destacado

Destacado (6)

Similar a Technical Report for Ashram Rare Earth Deposit

Similar a Technical Report for Ashram Rare Earth Deposit (18)

Más de Commerce Resources Corp. (TSXv:CCE)

Más de Commerce Resources Corp. (TSXv:CCE) (20)

Último

Último (12)

Technical Report for Ashram Rare Earth Deposit