1. RESOURCE AND RESERVE AUDITS GAA TALK PERTH, WA MAY 10, 2004

2. RESOURCE AND RESERVE AUDITS BECOMING INCREASINGLY COMMON TYPES OF AUDITS Review of Methodology (“Fatal Flaw”) Due Diligence – (“Sign Off”) Endorsement – (“QA-QC”) SUGGESTED STANDARDS IN RED

3. REVIEW OF METHODOLOGY (1) 1-2 Days Site Visit Preferred Adequacy of Database to Support Resources and Reserves Identify Risk Areas

4. REVIEW OF METHODOLOGY (2) Review Geological Controls Review Selectivity of Mining Operation Problem: Time or Scope Sometimes Insufficient to Find Fatal Flaw

5. DUE DILIGENCE (1) Duration Typically Several Weeks Review Procedures Database Check Implementation Check Suitable to Support Project Financing, CP, 43-101,10-K and 20-F Reports, etc.

6. DUE DILIGENCE (2) Site Visit Mandatory Field Check Hole Locations (5-10%) Verify Down-hole Surveys (5%) Verify Assays (5% Routine, Others That Appear Anomalous) Data Entry Error Rate < 1%

7. DUE DILIGENCE (3) Review Sampling Procedures, Core Recovery, RC Weight Recovery Check Grade Versus Recovery Check for Down-hole Contamination Check Density Determinations (Number, Method)

8. DUE DILIGENCE (4) Visit Assay Laboratory, Submit Checks Review QA-QC - Coarse Rejects (1:20) - Pulp Duplicates (1:20) - Standard Reference Materials (1:20) - Blanks (1:20)

10. DUE DILIGENCE (5) Is Sampling and Assaying Protocol Reasonable? Check for Bias (Ideally < 5%) Check for Precision - 90% within +/- 20% for Coarse Rejects - 90% within +/-10% for Pulps

12. DUE DILIGENCE (6) Logging Suitable, Consistent Geological Interpretation is Reasonable Supported by Plans and Sections That Reconcile Ore Controls Clear Compare to Similar Deposits

13. DUE DILIGENCE (7) Check Choice of Rocktypes for Modeling (Particularly Ore Controls) Check Grade Distributions Check Domaining (Get Coefficient of Variation Down, Below 1 if Possible) Check Compositing (Consider Length versus Geological Variability, Mining Selectivity)

16. DUE DILIGENCE (8) Check Frequency Distributions (Histograms) for Outliers Check Capping or Outlier Restriction: Adjust Risk to 20 th Percentile for High- Grade Population

17. DETERMINATION OF METAL-AT-RISK MONTE CARLO SIMULATION

18. DETERMINATION OF METAL- AT-RISK RISK ADJUSTMENT

19. DETERMINATION OF METAL- AT- RISK

20. DUE DILIGENCE (9) Check Variography – Have Variograms Been Computed in Down-hole Direction? Has Lag Been Adjusted to Composite Length? Are Models Consistent in 3 Dimensions? Do Variogram Domains Reflect Zoning?

21. DUE DILIGENCE (10) Check Interpolation Plan – Is There Stationarity of Mean Within Selection Neighborhood? Are Soft, Firm, Hard Boundaries Reasonable? Is There Overprojection of High-Grade Due to Increased Data Density?

23. DUE DILIGENCE (11) Verify Interpolation Program: Composite Selection, Weights Validate With Simple Model (Nearest Neighbor – Swath Plots Check Selective Mining Unit Distribution Versus Grades; SMU Consistent with Production Rate?

25. DUE DILIGENCE (12) Review Sections and Plans Showing Block and Composite Grades Assess Risk, Need for Drilling

27. DUE DILIGENCE (13) Review Classification of Blocks as Measured, Indicated, Inferred -Measured = +/- 15% with 90% Confidence on Quarterly Basis = Confirm Continuity -Indicated = +/-15% with 90% Confidence on Annual Basis = Assume Continuity

28. KONIAMBO NICKEL – ORE THICKNESS

29. EXAMPLE CONDITIONAL SIMULATION

30. QUARTERLY CONFIDENCE LIMITS

31. ANNUAL CONFIDENCE LIMITS

32. DUE DILIGENCE (14) Check Resource Statements Check Final Model for Mine Planning: External Dilution Factors Reasonable? Mining (Ore) Recovery Reasonable?

33. EXTERNAL DILUTION SIMULATION

34. DUE DILIGENCE (15) Geotech/Hydrogeology in Hand to Support Slopes, Stope Design? Metallurgical Data Representative, Sufficient? Prices, Costs Reasonable? Cutoff Grade Reasonable? Assess Risk Mine Design Refined, Annual Production Schedule? Assess Risk

35. DUE DILIGENCE (16) Review Past Production Versus Models Ideally Within 5% (Cu), 10% (Au) -Grade Control to Model – Check Planned Dilution/Ore Loss (Aim for 0%) -Plant to Model – Check Unplanned Dilution/Ore Loss (Within 5-10%) If You Do Not Measure It, You Cannot Control It!!!!!!!!

37. DUE DILIGENCE (17) Review Other Factors: Legal, Environmental Permits, Socioeconomics, Sales Contracts

38. ENDORSEMENT Same Procedure as Due Dilligence Responsible for QA-QC of Entire Data Entry, Resource Modeling, Reserve Conversion Anticipate Needs of Future Auditors

39. CONCLUSIONS Resource and Reserve Modeling is a Serial Process Even Small Errors (10%) Can Make Big Impact on Profits; Nearly Everything is Potentially Material ASSUME NOTHING; CHECK EVERTHING TRUST NO ONE

40. PARALLELISM TO FINANCIAL AUDITS (1) Based on Discussions with: -Matthew Hird (Deloitte & Touche) -Jason Burkitt (PricewaterhouseCoopers)

41. PARALLELISM TO FINANCIAL AUDITS (2) Financial Audits: Follow the Money Resource/Reserve Audits: Follow the Metal

42. PARALLELISM TO FINANCIAL AUDITS (3) Same General Steps -Planning -Field Work -Check Correctness of Presentation

43. DIFFERENCES Financial Audits Rely More on Test of Controls; Procedures are Routine; Are They Followed? Emphasis on Risk Areas That Could Affect Viability of Business, Incorrect Statement of P/L, Balance Sheet Analytical Review a Major Tool

44. DIFFERENCES Codified Industry Standards for Accounting and Audits Working Papers Highly Structured Extensive Internal and External Peer Review

45. WHERE WE MUST GO Better Definition of Best Practice Publication of Audit Standards Corporate and Regulatory Policies on When Audits Required

46. SEC/SME RESERVES WORKING GROUP Commodity Prices (3 year average versus ?) Definition/Declaration of Resources Definition of Feasibility Study -Base Case Versus Optimization Permitting Requirements Competent Person

47. JORC CODE VERSUS CIM 43-101 AND SEC JORC Code is a Minimum Standard Contains Loopholes or Loosely Interpreted -Geological and/or Grade Continuity -Inferred Resources Given Positive Value to Support Pit Designs Used to Declare Reserves Measured Resources Much More Restrictive in Canada, not Used Much in USA SEC More Active, Strict than In Past but Selective Enforcement Regulatory Pressure to Upgrade Standards

48. CHALLENGES Fast-track Drilling and Resource Modelling Increasing Optimization in Engineering Declining Cutoffs Increase Risk of Failure Pigrooting in Sparsely Drilled High-Grade Areas Narrow Cuts to Minimise Stripping GPS Controlled Mining, Robotics

49. MEETING THE CHALLENGES Increased Education and Training Take Back R+D from Vendors Conditional Simulation to Become Routine Tool Increased Drilling Density to Support Design More Focus on Reconciliation and Improvement Standards, Professionalism and Audits