Platreef PDF

Ivanplats Limited
Platreef Project
Limpopo Province, Republic of South Africa
NI 43-101 Technical Report on Updated Mineral Resource Estimate
Submitted by:
Dr Harry M.
Dr.
M Parker,
Parker RMSME
Mr. Timothy Kuhl, RMSME
Mr. Michael Valenta, Pr.Eng (Int) FSAIMM
Prepared for: Ivanplats Limited
Effective Date: 13 March 2013
Project Number: 172476
CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON
I, Harry Parker, Ph.D., RM SME., am employed as a Technical Director with AMEC E&C
Services, Inc. (AMEC).
This certificate applies to the technical report entitled Ivanplats Limited, Platreef Project,
Limpopo Province, Republic of South Africa, NI 43-101 Technical Report on Updated Mineral
Resource Estimate, that has an effective date of 13 March 2013 (the Technical Report).
I am a Fellow of the Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (#113051), and a Registered
Member of the Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration (#2460450). I graduated from
Stanford University with BSc and PhD degrees in Geology in 1967 and 1975 respectively. I
graduated from Harvard University in 1969 with an AM degree in Geology. I graduated from
Stanford University with an MSc degree in Statistics in 1974.
I have practiced my profession for 45 years during which time I have been involved in the
estimation of mineral resources and mineral reserves for various mineral exploration projects
and operating mines. I have either estimated or audited Ni, Cu and PGE resources for a
number of mineral deposits, including the Spruce Road deposit (Minnesota), Area 5 deposit
(Maine), Stillwater (Montana); McCreedy East (Ontario), and Voiseys Bay (Labrador).
As a result of my experience and qualifications, I am a Qualified Person as defined in National
Instrument 43101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (NI 43101).
I have visited the Platreef Project (the Project) on many occasions from September 2001 to
September 2003, in 2009, 2010, 2011, and most recently between 16 and 21 November 2012.
I am responsible for Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22,
23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 of the Technical Report.
I am independent of Ivanplats Ltd as independence is described by Section 1.5 of NI 43101.
I have been involved with the Platreef Project since 2001 during which time I have prepared or
supervised mineral resource estimates on the Project. I have previously prepared a technical report
on the Project entitled:
Parker, H., Kuhl, T., and David, D., 2012: Ivanplats Limited, Platreef Project, Limpopo Province,
Republic Of South Africa, NI 43-101 Technical Report: unpublished report prepared by AMEC E&C
Services Inc. for Ivanplats Limited, effective date 20 August 2012.
AMEC E&C Services, Inc.

961 Matley Lane, Suite 110
Reno, NV, 89502
Tel: 775 331 2375
Fax: 775-331-4153
www.amec.com
I have read NI 43101 and those portions of the Technical Report for which I am responsible have
been prepared in compliance with that Instrument.
As of the date of this certificate, to the best of my knowledge, information and 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.
Dated: March 22, 2013
Signed and sealed
Dr Harry M. Parker, RM SME.

Reno, NV, 89502
Tel: 775 331 2375
Fax: 775-331-4153
www.amec.com
I, Timothy O. Kuhl., am employed as a Principal Geologist with AMEC E&C Services, Inc.
This certificate applies to the technical report entitled Ivanplats Limited, Platreef Project,
Limpopo Province, Republic of South Africa, NI 43-101 Technical Report on Updated Mineral
Resource Estimate, that has an effective date of 13 March 2013 (the Technical Report).
I am a Registered Member of the Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration (#1802300).
I graduated from the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology with a Bachelors of
Science degree in Geological Engineering in 1975 and a Masters of Science degree in Geology
in 1982.
I have practiced my profession continuously since 1982. I have been involved in estimation of
mineral resources for various mining and exploration projects for commodities including gold,
copper, platinum, palladium and nickel.
As a result of my experience and qualifications, I am a Qualified Person as defined in National
Instrument 43101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (NI 43101).
I visited the Platreef Project (the Project) from 26 March to 9 April, 2010, and again from 19 July to
3 August 2011, from 25 January to 3 February 2012, and from 27 November 2012 to 12 December
2012.
I am responsible for Section 14 of the Technical Report.
I have been involved with the Platreef Project since 2007 during which time I have prepared mineral
resource estimates on the Project.
I have been involved with the Platreef Project since 2001 during which time I have prepared or
supervised mineral resource estimates on the Project. I have previously prepared a technical report
on the Project entitled:
Parker, H., Kuhl, T., and David, D., 2012: Ivanplats Limited, Platreef Project, Limpopo Province,
Republic Of South Africa, NI 43-101 Technical Report: unpublished report prepared by AMEC E&C
Services Inc. for Ivanplats Limited, effective date 20 August 2012.

Reno, NV, 89502
Tel: 775 331 2375
Fax: 775-331-4153
www.amec.com
I have read NI 43101 and those portions of the Technical Report for which I am responsible have
been prepared in compliance with that Instrument.
As of the date of this certificate, to the best of my knowledge, information and 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.
Dated: March 22, 2013
Signed and sealed
Timothy O. Kuhl, RM SME.

Reno, NV, 89502
Tel: 775 331 2375
Fax: 775-331-4153
www.amec.com
22 March 2013

Michael M. Valenta Pr.Eng (Int) FSAIMM
Managing Director
Metallicon Process Consulting (Pty) Ltd
I, Michael Matthew Valenta Pr.Eng (Int) FSAIMM, am the founder, managing director and chief consulting
metallurgist with Metallicon Process Consulting (Pty) Ltd (Metallicon).
This certificate applies to the technical report entitled Platreef Project, Limpopo Province, Republic of South
Africa, NI 43-101 Technical Report On Updated Mineral Resource Estimate, that has an effective date of
March 13, 2013 (the Technical Report).
I am a registered professional engineer (no. 970402) on the register of the Engineering Council of South Africa
as well as a registered professional engineer (no. 2003 60005) on the international register as defined by the
Washington Accord. I am also a Fellow (no. 55644) of the Southern African Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy. I am a member (no. 11354) of the Mine Metallurgical Managers Association of South Africa and
have served on the council and am a past president of the Mine Metallurgical Managers Association of South
Africa. I am a graduate of the University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa, with a BSc. in Extractive
Metallurgy (1990).
I have been practicing as a metallurgical engineer continuously since 1991 and have 22 years experience in
metallurgy. I have been involved in research and development, plant operation, project management, plant
design, plant optimization, due diligence studies and management in Africa, South America and Australia. My
research and development experience has been in the formal research sector with Mintek in South Africa, and
well as with my other employers throughout my experience. As a chief consulting metallurgist with Metallicon
since 2005 I have managed and overseen a number of test work programmes for clients with institutions such as
Mintek and SGS.
My formal design experience was gained as consulting metallurgist with Hatch Africa for three years prior to
the establishment of Metallicon in 2005.
Tel: +27 (0) 12 259 0792
Fax: +27 (0)86 688 3797 E-mail: [email protected] website:

www.metallicon.co.za
Office Suite: Sediba Plaza Hartbeespoort South Africa Reg. No: 2005/021843/07
Directors: M.M. Valenta B. Mulcahy H. Snyman
Page 1
As a result of my experience and qualifications, I am a Qualified Person as defined in National Instrument 43101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (NI 43-101).
I have not visited the site of the project as yet however I have been to Mintek to view the core samples, observe
flotation tests and meet with the Mintek team in formal meetings (September 4, 2012).
I am responsible for Section 13 and those portions of the Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations that
pertain to that section of the Technical Report.
I am independent of Ivanplats Limited as independence is described by Section 1.5 of NI 43-101.
I have been involved with the project since 2012 and have been reviewing the metallurgical test work and
metallurgical design.
I have read NI 43-101 and those portions of the Technical Report for which I am responsible have been
prepared in compliance with that Instrument.
As of the effective date of the Technical Report, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the
sections of the technical report for which I am responsible contain all scientific and technical information that is
required to be disclosed to make those sections of the technical report not misleading.
Michael M. Valenta Pr. Eng (Int) FSAIMM

Managing Director
Dated : 22 March 2013
Tel: +27 (0) 12 259 0792
Fax: +27 (0)86 688 3797 E-mail: [email protected] website:

www.metallicon.co.za
Office Suite: Sediba Plaza Hartbeespoort South Africa Reg. No: 2005/021843/07
Directors: M.M. Valenta B. Mulcahy H. Snyman
Page 2
IMPORTANT NOTICE
This report was prepared as National Instrument 43-101 Technical
Report for Ivanplats Limited (Ivanplats) by AMEC E&C Services Inc
(AMEC). The quality of information, conclusions, and estimates
contained herein is consistent with the level of effort involved in
AMECs services, 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. This
report is intended for use by Ivanplats subject to terms and conditions
of its contract with AMEC. Except for the purposed legislated under
Canadian provincial and territorial securities law, any other uses of this
report by any third party is at that partys sole risk.
PLATREEF PROJECT
LIMPOPO PROVINCE, REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT ON UPDATED MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE
CONTENTS
1.0
SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1
Key Findings ................................................................................................. 1-1
1.2
Property Description and Location ............................................................... 1-2
1.3
Mineral Rights, Royalties and Agreements .................................................. 1-3
1.4
Environment and Socio-Economics .............................................................. 1-4
1.5
History and Exploration ................................................................................ 1-4
1.6
Geological Setting and Mineralization .......................................................... 1-5
1.7
Drilling........................................................................................................... 1-7
1.8
Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security ................................................ 1-8
1.9
Data Verification ........................................................................................... 1-8
1.10 Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing .............................................. 1-8
1.11 Mineral Resource Estimates......................................................................... 1-9
1.12 Mineral Resource Statements .................................................................... 1-10
1.12.1 Base Case: Mineral Resource Statement (Estimate Assuming
Selective Underground Mining Methods) ........................................ 1-11
1.12.2 Mineral Resource Statement for Mineralization Amenable to
Underground Mining Methods (Estimate Assuming Mass-Mining
Methods) ......................................................................................... 1-13
1.12.3 Mineral Resources Amenable to Open-pit Mining Methods ........... 1-15
1.13 Exploration Targets .................................................................................... 1-16
1.14 Conclusions ................................................................................................ 1-17
1.15 Recommendations...................................................................................... 1-19
2.0
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1
Terms of Reference ...................................................................................... 2-1
2.2
Qualified Persons ......................................................................................... 2-1
2.3
Site Visits and Scope of Personal Inspection ............................................... 2-2
2.4
Effective Dates ............................................................................................. 2-2
2.5
Information Sources and References ........................................................... 2-3
2.6
Previous Technical Reports.......................................................................... 2-3
3.0
RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS .......................................................................... 3-1

3.1
Mineral Tenure ............................................................................................. 3-1
3.2
Surface Rights .............................................................................................. 3-2
3.3
Royalties ....................................................................................................... 3-3
3.4
Environmental............................................................................................... 3-3
4.0
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION ........................................................ 4-1

4.1
Location ........................................................................................................ 4-1
4.2
Property and Title in South Africa ................................................................. 4-1
4.2.1 Mineral Property Title ........................................................................ 4-3
4.2.2 Surface Rights Title .......................................................................... 4-3
4.2.3 Environmental Regulations ............................................................... 4-4
4.2.4 Taxation ............................................................................................ 4-4
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
TOC i
PLATREEF PROJECT
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10
4.11
4.12
4.13
4.2.5 Royalties ........................................................................................... 4-4

Project Ownership ........................................................................................ 4-5
Mineral Tenure ............................................................................................. 4-6
4.4.1 Prospecting Right No. MPT No. 55/2006 (LP30/5/111/2/872PR) ..... 4-6
4.4.2 Prospecting Right No. MPT 76/2007PR (LP30/5/1/1/2/740PR) ....... 4-8
4.4.3 Application for Mining Right .............................................................. 4-9
Surface Rights .............................................................................................. 4-9
4.5.1 Macalacaskop and Turfspruit .......................................................... 4-10
4.5.2 Rietfontein ....................................................................................... 4-10
Royalties and Encumbrances ..................................................................... 4-10
Property Agreements.................................................................................. 4-11
4.7.1 Atlatsa (Anooraq) Agreement ......................................................... 4-11
4.7.2 Itochu Agreement ........................................................................... 4-14
Environmental Studies................................................................................ 4-15
4.8.1 Previous Environmental Baseline Studies ...................................... 4-15
4.8.2 Current Baseline Studies ................................................................ 4-17
4.8.3 Air Quality ....................................................................................... 4-18
4.8.4 Compliance Audit ............................................................................ 4-18
Permits ....................................................................................................... 4-18
4.9.1 Current Permits ............................................................................... 4-18
4.9.2 Bulk Sampling ................................................................................. 4-19
4.9.3 Additional Permits to Support Future Mine Development ............... 4-19
Environmental Liabilities ............................................................................. 4-20
Social License ............................................................................................ 4-20
4.11.1 Land Claims .................................................................................... 4-20
4.11.2 Social and Community Impact ........................................................ 4-21
4.11.3 Surface Use and Co-operation Agreements ................................... 4-23
4.11.4 Platreef Skills and Business Survey ............................................... 4-23
Significant Risk Factors .............................................................................. 4-25
Comments on Section 4 ............................................................................. 4-25
5.0
ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND

PHYSIOGRAPHY..................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1
Accessibility .................................................................................................. 5-1
5.2
Climate ......................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2.1 Local Labour Resources ................................................................... 5-2
5.2.2 Power Supply .................................................................................... 5-2
5.2.3 Water Supply .................................................................................... 5-3
5.2.4 Highway Re-Alignment ..................................................................... 5-6
5.3
Physiography ................................................................................................ 5-6
5.4
Sufficiency of Surface Rights ........................................................................ 5-6
5.5
Comments on Section 5 ............................................................................... 5-7
6.0
HISTORY ................................................................................................................. 6-1
7.0
GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION ................................................. 7-1

7.1
Regional Geology ......................................................................................... 7-1
7.2
Northern Limb ............................................................................................... 7-3
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
TOC ii
PLATREEF PROJECT
7.3
7.4
7.2.1 Lithologies ......................................................................................... 7-6

7.2.2 Structure ........................................................................................... 7-7
7.2.3 Mineralization .................................................................................... 7-7
Project Geology ............................................................................................ 7-8
7.3.1 Overview ........................................................................................... 7-8
7.3.2 20122013 Geological Re-interpretation and Correlation with
Upper Critical Zone ......................................................................... 7-12
7.3.3 Delineation of New Platreef Regional Facies and Sub-Facies ....... 7-19
7.3.4 Geological Features of the UCZ in Project Area ............................. 7-21
7.3.5 Structure ......................................................................................... 7-29
7.3.6 Mineralogy of PGE-Base Metal Mineralization in the Project Area . 7-29
7.3.7 Mineralized Units ............................................................................ 7-40
Comments on Section 7 ............................................................................. 7-44
8.0
DEPOSIT TYPES ..................................................................................................... 8-1

8.1
Comments on Section 8 ............................................................................... 8-2
9.0
EXPLORATION ........................................................................................................ 9-1

9.1
Grids and Surveys ........................................................................................ 9-1
9.2
Geological Mapping ...................................................................................... 9-1
9.3
Geochemical Sampling ................................................................................. 9-1
9.4
Geophysics ................................................................................................... 9-2
9.5
Petrology, Mineralogy, and Research Studies ............................................. 9-4
9.6
Geotechnical Studies.................................................................................... 9-4
9.7
Hydrological Studies ..................................................................................... 9-5
9.7.1 Surface Water ................................................................................... 9-5
9.7.2 Ground Water ................................................................................... 9-6
9.8
Metallurgical Studies .................................................................................... 9-8
9.9
Exploration Potential..................................................................................... 9-9
9.10 Comments on Section 9 ............................................................................... 9-9
10.0
DRILLING ............................................................................................................... 10-1

10.1 Drill Programs ............................................................................................. 10-1
10.1.1 Zone 4 ............................................................................................. 10-1
10.1.2 Zones 1 to 3 .................................................................................... 10-1
10.1.3 Zone 5 ............................................................................................. 10-2
10.2 Drill Methods............................................................................................... 10-2
10.2.1 Zone 4 ............................................................................................. 10-2
10.2.2 Zones 1 to 3 and Zone 5 ................................................................. 10-2
10.3 Geological Logging ..................................................................................... 10-3
10.3.1 Zone 4 ............................................................................................. 10-3
10.3.2 Zone 1 to 3 and Zone 5 .................................................................. 10-4
10.4 Geotechnical Logging ................................................................................. 10-4
10.5 Recovery .................................................................................................... 10-5
10.6 Collar Surveys ............................................................................................ 10-5
10.7 Down-hole Surveys .................................................................................... 10-5
10.8 Geotechnical Drilling................................................................................... 10-6
10.9 Hydrogeological Drilling .............................................................................. 10-6
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
TOC iii
PLATREEF PROJECT
10.10
10.11
10.12
10.13
Proposed Shaft Location Geotechnical Evaluation .................................... 10-7

Metallurgical Drilling ................................................................................... 10-8
Summary of Drill Intercepts ........................................................................ 10-8
Comments on Section 10 ........................................................................... 10-8
11.0
SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES, AND SECURITY .................................... 11-1

11.1 Sampling Methods ...................................................................................... 11-1
11.1.1 Assay Sampling .............................................................................. 11-1
11.2 Metallurgical Sampling ............................................................................... 11-3
11.3 Density Determinations .............................................................................. 11-4
11.3.1 AMK and ATS Bulk Density ............................................................ 11-4
11.3.2 UMT Bulk Density ........................................................................... 11-5
11.4 Analytical and Test Laboratories ................................................................ 11-8
11.5 Sample Preparation and Analysis .............................................................. 11-9
11.5.1 AMK and ATS Sample Preparation .............................................. 11-10
11.5.2 UMT Sample Preparation ............................................................. 11-10
11.5.3 AMK and ATS Sample Analysis ................................................... 11-11
11.5.4 UMT Sample Analysis .................................................................. 11-12
11.5.5 Check Sample Analysis ................................................................ 11-13
11.6 Quality Assurance and Quality Control ..................................................... 11-14
11.6.1 AMK and ATS QA/QC .................................................................. 11-14
11.6.2 UMT QA/QC ................................................................................. 11-16
11.7 Databases ................................................................................................ 11-18
11.7.1 AMT and ATS Data Entry ............................................................. 11-18
11.7.2 UMT Database .............................................................................. 11-19
11.8 Sample Security ....................................................................................... 11-19
11.9 Comments on Section 11 ......................................................................... 11-19
12.0
DATA VERIFICATION............................................................................................ 12-1

12.1 McDonald Speijers Audit (2002, 2004) ....................................................... 12-1
12.2 External Review of ATS Model (2003) ....................................................... 12-1
12.3 AMEC AMK and ATS Database Reviews (2007, 2010) ............................. 12-1
12.4 AMEC Site Visits ........................................................................................ 12-2
12.5 AMEC 2012 Database Reviews ................................................................. 12-2
12.5.1 August 2012 Review ....................................................................... 12-3
12.5.2 December 2012 Review ................................................................. 12-3
12.6 Quality Assurance and Quality Control Results .......................................... 12-3
12.6.1 AMK and ATS QA/QC .................................................................... 12-3
12.6.2 UMT QA/QC ................................................................................... 12-4
12.6.3 QA/QC Drilling Completed Between March 2011 and June 2012 .. 12-6
12.7 AMEC Witness Samples ............................................................................ 12-6
12.7.1 April 2010........................................................................................ 12-6
12.7.2 February 2011 ................................................................................ 12-7
12.7.3 2013 ................................................................................................ 12-8
12.8 Verification of Grind-Assay Function .......................................................... 12-9
12.9 Comparison of UltraTrace and MINTEK assays ......................................... 12-9
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
TOC iv
PLATREEF PROJECT
13.0
MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING .............................. 13-1

13.1 Previous Metallurgical Testwork ................................................................. 13-1
13.1.1 AMK and ATS Drill Samples ........................................................... 13-1
13.1.2 MDS/Mintek ATS Sample Testwork ............................................... 13-2
13.1.3 UMT Testwork ................................................................................ 13-2
13.2 Current Metallurgical Testwork ................................................................... 13-5
13.3 Mineralogy .................................................................................................. 13-6
13.3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 13-6
13.3.2 PGM Search ................................................................................... 13-6
13.3.3 Base Metal Sulphide Analysis ...................................................... 13-14
13.3.4 Conclusions .................................................................................. 13-19
13.4 Flotation Test Work Summary .................................................................. 13-20
13.4.1 SGS Lakefield Test Work Master Composite II ......................... 13-20
13.4.2 Mintek Test Work Geometallurgical Units T1, T2U, T2L............ 13-24
13.4.3 Locked Cycle Test Work on two blends of T1 & T2
Geometallurgical Units .................................................................. 13-29
13.4.4 Mintek Test Work Analysis of the Concentrate by ICP-MS......... 13-33
13.4.5 Mintek Test Work Analysis of the Concentrate by XRD ............. 13-35
13.5 Recovery Estimates.................................................................................. 13-36
13.6 Metallurgical Variability ............................................................................. 13-39
13.7 Deleterious Elements ............................................................................... 13-39
14.0
MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES..................................................................... 14-1

14.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 14-1
14.2 UMT-TCU Resource Model ........................................................................ 14-2
14.2.1 Drill Hole Data ................................................................................. 14-2
14.2.2 Geological Model (UMT-TCU) ........................................................ 14-5
14.2.3 High-Grade Shells UMT-TCU ...................................................... 14-5
14.3 Mineralization Adjacent to the TCU Mineralized Zones .............................. 14-5
14.3.1 Compositing and Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA) for UMT-TCU
Model .............................................................................................. 14-7
14.3.2 Block Model and Grade Estimation ................................................ 14-7
14.3.3 Bulk Density .................................................................................. 14-14
14.3.4 Mineral Resource Classification ................................................... 14-16
14.3.5 UMT-TCU Model Validation .......................................................... 14-17
14.4 UMT-MM Model ........................................................................................ 14-20
14.4.1 Geological Model .......................................................................... 14-21
14.4.2 High-Grade Shells ........................................................................ 14-21
14.4.3 Exploratory Data Analysis and Grade Estimation Domains .......... 14-22
14.4.4 UMT-MM Block Model and Grade Estimation .............................. 14-22
14.5 Open-Pit Resource Models ...................................................................... 14-24
14.5.1 Geological Models (Open Pit) ......................................................... 14-1
14.5.2 EDA and Grade Estimation Domains (Open Pit) ............................ 14-1
14.5.3 Block Model and Grade Estimation (Open-Pit) ............................... 14-2
14.5.4 Density (Open Pit Models) .............................................................. 14-7
14.5.5 Comments on Open-Pit-Models ..................................................... 14-7
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
TOC v
PLATREEF PROJECT
14.6
14.7
14.8
14.9
14.5.6 Mineral Resource Classification (Open-Pit Models) ....................... 14-8

Reasonable Prospects of Economic Extraction .......................................... 14-8
14.6.1 Assumptions Made to Assess Reasonable Prospects for
Economic Extraction ....................................................................... 14-8
Mineral Resource Statement .................................................................... 14-10
14.7.1 Mineral Resources Amenable to Underground Mining Methods .. 14-11
14.7.2 Base Case: Mineral Resource Statement (Estimate Assuming
Selective Underground Mining Methods) ...................................... 14-12
14.7.3 Mineral Resource Statement for Mineralization Amenable to
Underground Mining Methods (Estimate Assuming Mass-Mining
Methods) ....................................................................................... 14-16
14.7.4 Mineral Resources Amenable to Open-Pit Mining Methods ......... 14-18
Exploration Targets .................................................................................. 14-20
Comments on Section 14.0 ...................................................................... 14-22
15.0
MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES ........................................................................ 15-1
16.0
MINING METHODS ............................................................................................... 16-1
17.0
RECOVERY METHODS ........................................................................................ 17-1
18.0
PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE ............................................................................. 18-1
19.0
MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS ................................................................ 19-1
20.0
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING, AND SOCIAL OR COMMUNITY

IMPACT .................................................................................................................. 20-1
21.0
CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS .................................................................... 21-1
22.0
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 22-1
23.0
ADJACENT PROPERTIES .................................................................................... 23-1
24.0
OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION ................................................. 24-1
25.0
INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................ 25-1
26.0
RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................... 26-1

26.1.1 Phase 1 ........................................................................................... 26-1
26.1.2 Phase 2 ........................................................................................... 26-1
27.0
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 27-1
TABLES
Table 1-1: Mineral Resource Statement for Mineral Resources Amenable to Selective Mining
Methods; Effective Date 13 March 2013, Harry M. Parker RM.SME. and Timothy O.
Kuhl, RM.SME. .............................................................................................................. 1-12
Table 1-2: Inferred Mineral Resources (at 0.15% Ni (total) Cut-Off) Assuming Underground
Mass Mining Methods, Effective Date 13 March 2013, Harry M. Parker RM. SME.
and Timothy O. Kuhl, RM. SME. ................................................................................... 1-14
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
TOC vi
PLATREEF PROJECT
Table 1-3: Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources at 0.1 % Sulphide Nickel Cut-off that are
Amenable to Open-Pit Mining Methods, Effective Date 31 March 2011, Harry M.
Parker, RM.SME. and Timothy O. Kuhl, RM.SME. ....................................................... 1-16
Table 7-1: Intercepts Grading > 2 g/t and > 3 g/t 3PE Located on Section Shown in Figure 7-8 .. 7-15
Table 7-2: Average Grade Shell True Thicknesses ....................................................................... 7-15
Table 7-3: Stratigraphic Correlations Summary ............................................................................... 7-22
Table 7-4: Upper Critical Zone (UCZ) on Turfspruit and Macalacaskop (Grobler et al., 2013)........ 7-23
Table 7-5: Facies and Sub-Facies Description ................................................................................ 7-24
Table 7-6: Summary of Structural Features in the Bushveld and Project Area ............................. 7-30
Table 7-7: Mineralization of Different Cyclic Units on Turfspruit and Macalacaskop, Northern Limb7-41
Table 10-1: Drill Intercept Summary Table ....................................................................................... 10-9
Table 11-1: Average Bulk Densities for AMK Area .......................................................................... 11-5
Table 11-2: Average Bulk Densities for ATS Area ........................................................................... 11-6
Table 11-3: Stratigraphic Unit Density ............................................................................................... 11-6
Table 11-4: Lithological Density ........................................................................................................ 11-6
Table 13-1: PGM-Bearing Particle Mode of Occurrence Classes ..................................................... 13-7
Table 13-2: PGM Types Detected in the Sample (Summary of volume %) ...................................... 13-8
Table 13-3: PGM Grain-Size Distribution ........................................................................................ 13-10
Table 13-4: PGM Mode of Occurrence PGM % by Volume ......................................................... 13-11
Table 13-5: PGM Liberation Index Data PGM by Volume % ....................................................... 13-12
Table 13-6: Predicted Reasons for PGM Losses to Tailings ......................................................... 13-13
Table 13-7: BMS Modal Proportions .............................................................................................. 13-15
Table 13-8: Master Composite II Head Assays ............................................................................... 13-20
Table 13-9: Head Assays of Phase II Geometallurgical Units ........................................................ 13-20
Table 13-10: Summary of Batch Cleaner Tests Conditions ............................................................ 13-22
Table 13-11: Summary of Batch Cleaner Tests Results ................................................................. 13-22
Table 13-12: Locked Cycle Test Metallurgical Projection ............................................................... 13-23
Table 13-13: Flotation Conditions Used for Grind Optimisation Tests ............................................ 13-24
Table 13-14: Individual Test Results .............................................................................................. 13-28
Table 13-15:Locked Cycle Conditions Blend ............................................................................... 13-30
Table 13-16:Locked Cycle Blends by Major Element...................................................................... 13-32
Table 13-17:Locked Cycle Blends by Element................................................................................ 13-32
Table 13-18: ICP-MS on Final Concentrate ................................................................................... 13-34
Table 13-19: XRD on Concentrate ................................................................................................. 13-35
Table 13-20: Preliminary Recovery Predictions for Individual Geometallurgical Units and Blends13-37
Table 13-21: Recovery Equation Parameters ................................................................................. 13-38
Table 14-1: Model Package Description .......................................................................................... 14-6
Table 14-2: Summary of GCODE for TCU and Bikurri (All Elements) ............................................. 14-6
Table 14-3: Proportions of Rhodium Assays by Strat Code and Grade Shell ............................... 14-10
Table 14-4: Search Strategy for Grade Estimation (All Elements) ................................................. 14-15
Table 14-5: Outlier Restriction Thresholds ..................................................................................... 14-15
Table 14-6: Mean Grades to Fill Blocks Not Estimated ................................................................. 14-15
Table 14-7: Bulk Density Values .................................................................................................... 14-16
Table 14-8: Composite Capping Levels for UMT-MM Model ......................................................... 14-23
Table 14-9: Outlier Restriction Thresholds for UMT MM-Mineable Model ..................................... 14-23
Table 14-10:Grade Estimation Composite Sharing for LG Zone UMT- MM Model ..................... 14-23
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
TOC vii
PLATREEF PROJECT
Table 14-11:Grade Estimation Composite Sharing for HG Zone UMT-MM Model ...................... 14-24
Table 14-12: AMK Inverse Distance Estimation Parameters ............................................................ 14-4
Table 14-13:ATS Inverse Distance Parameters ................................................................................ 14-5
Table 14-14:Density Values for Tonnage Estimations ...................................................................... 14-8
Table 14-15: Typical Metallurgical Recoveries for a T2U Block ..................................................... 14-10
Table 14-16: Mineral Resource Statement for Mineral Resources amenable to Selective Mining
Methods; Effective Date 13 March 2013, Harry M. Parker RM.SME. and Timothy O.
Kuhl, RM.SME. ............................................................................................................ 14-13
Table 14-17: Mineral Resources Within Grade Shells Assuming Selective Underground Mining
Methods, Effective Date 13 March 2013, Harry M. Parker RM.SME. and Timothy O.
Kuhl, RM.SME. ............................................................................................................ 14-15
Table 14-18: Mineral Resources Adjacent to Grade Shells Assuming Selective Underground
Mining Methods, Effective Date 13 March 2013, Harry M. Parker RM.SME. and
Timothy O. Kuhl, RM.SME. ......................................................................................... 14-16
Table 14-19:Inferred Mineral Resources (at 0.15% Ni (total) Cut-Off) Assuming Underground
Mass Mining Methods, Effective Date 13 March 2013, Harry M. Parker RM. SME.
and Timothy O. Kuhl, RM. SME. ................................................................................. 14-18
Table 14-20: Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources at 0.1 % Sulphide Nickel Cut-off that are
Amenable to Open-Pit Mining Methods, Effective Date 31 March 2011, Harry M.
Parker, RM.SME. and Timothy O. Kuhl, RM.SME. ..................................................... 14-19
Table 26-1: Proposed Drill Program ................................................................................................. 26-3
FIGURES
Figure 4-1: Project Location and Farm Boundaries ........................................................................... 4-2
Figure 4-2: Major Township and Farm Locations .............................................................................. 4-7
Figure 5-1: Location Plan Flag Boshielo Dam and Proposed Water Pipeline .................................... 5-4
Figure 5-2: Water Bore Location Plan ................................................................................................ 5-5
Figure 5-3: Project Physiography ....................................................................................................... 5-7
Figure 6-1: Conceptual Pit Designed to Depth of Approximately 500 m ........................................... 6-2
Figure 6-2: Conceptual Pit Designed to Depth of Approximately 560 m ........................................... 6-2
Figure 7-1: Regional Geological Plan of the Bushveld Complex ....................................................... 7-2
Figure 7-2: Schematic Cross Section through Bushveld Igneous Complex ...................................... 7-4
Figure 7-3: Geological Plan of the Northern Limb of the BIC ............................................................. 7-5
Figure 7-4: Project Geology Plan ....................................................................................................... 7-9
Figure 7-5: Perspective View, Platreef Floor Looking NorthNortheast........................................... 7-10
Figure 7-6: Perspective View, Platreef Top, Looking North-Northeast ............................................ 7-11
Figure 7-7: Project Zones Plan ......................................................................................................... 7-13
Figure 7-8: Cross Section along Dip Section 11 Showing TCU (red).............................................. 7-14
Figure 7-9: Proposed Cyclic Stratigraphic Framework ..................................................................... 7-16
Figure 7-10: Revised Stratigraphic Interpretation, Turfspruit Cyclic Unit ......................................... 7-18
Figure 7-11: Sub-facies Distribution of the Giant Pegmatoidal Facies across Zone 1 and Zone 3 . 7-20
Figure 7-12: Geophysical Plan, Falcon Gravity Data Showing Major Geological Fea ..................... 7-25
Figure 7-13: Pothole Structures, Karee Platinum Mine (Rustenburg Area) ..................................... 7-26
Figure 7-14: Isopach Map of the 2+3 g/t Grade Shell (units m) ....................................................... 7-26
Figure 7-15: Cross-section along Dip Section 7 through Zone 1 Turfspruit Cyclic Unit. .................. 7-28
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
TOC viii
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 7-16: ContourDip Direction Plan, Flatreef (Zone 1) Area .................................................... 7-31
Figure 7-17: Inset Plan, Flatreef (Zone 1) Area................................................................................ 7-32
Figure 7-18: Simplified Structural Plan Showing Locations of Wire-Frame Drill Sections ............... 7-33
Figure 7-19: TCU Dip Section 7, Looking Northwest ....................................................................... 7-34
Figure 7-20: TCU Dip Section 7 (inset), Looking Northwest ............................................................. 7-35
Figure 7-21: T1 Wireframe, Dip Section 11, Looking Northwest ...................................................... 7-36
Figure 7-22:Core Photograph from UMT083 at 1,323 m Depth, Illustrating Sulphide
Mineralization ................................................................................................................ 7-38
Figure 7-23:Transmitted and Reflected Light Photomicrographs of Four Platreef Samples ............ 7-39
Figure 7-24: TCU Mineralization Shown in Typical TCU Lithologies ................................................ 7-43
Figure 7-25:Comparison of Merensky Reef and the TCU ................................................................ 7-44
Figure 9-1: Geologically-constrained Falcon Gravity Inversion Interpretation .................................... 9-3
Figure 11-1: Idealized Density Strip Log .......................................................................................... 11-7
Figure 13-1: Mapping Old to New Geometallurgical Units ............................................................... 13-3
Figure 13-2: Master Composite Rock type Percentages (New Geometallurgical Units) ................. 13-5
Figure 13-3: PGM-Bearing Particle Mode of Occurrence Classes.................................................... 13-7
Figure 13-4: PGM Types Detected in the Samples ........................................................................... 13-9
Figure 13-5: PGM Grain-Size Distribution ....................................................................................... 13-10
Figure 13-6: PGM Mode of Occurrence .......................................................................................... 13-11
Figure 13-7: PGM Liberation Index Data ......................................................................................... 13-12
Figure 13-8: Predicted Reasons for PGM Losses to Tailings ......................................................... 13-14
Figure 13-9: BMS Modal Proportions .............................................................................................. 13-16
Figure 13-10: Pentlandite Grain Size Distribution ........................................................................... 13-17
Figure 13-11: Chalcopyrite Grain Size Distribution ......................................................................... 13-17
Figure 13-12: Pyrrhotite Grain Size Distribution .............................................................................. 13-18
Figure 13-13: BMS Mineral Associations Exposed Surfaces ................................................... 13-19
Figure 13-14: Locked Cycle Test Flow Sheet ................................................................................. 13-21
Figure 13-15: GradeRecovery Curves ......................................................................................... 13-23
Figure 13-16: T1 Grind versus Recovery ........................................................................................ 13-25
Figure 13-17 T2U Grind versus Recovery ....................................................................................... 13-25
Figure 13-18: T2L Grind versus Recovery ...................................................................................... 13-26
Figure 13-19: 4PE Grade Recovery Curves ................................................................................... 13-27
Figure 13-20: Mineral Relative Abundance ................................................................................. 13-36
Figure 14-1:Mineral Resource Areas for the UMT-MM and Open Pit .............................................. 14-3
Figure 14-2:UMT-TCU Mineral Resource Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource Areas............. 14-4
Figure 14-3: Contact Profile for Platinum between 1g and 2g 3PE Shells ........................................ 14-8
Figure 14-4: Rhodium Regression for the T2U ................................................................................ 14-9
Figure 14-5: Rhodum Regression for the T2L .................................................................................. 14-9
Figure 14-6: Extents of the UMT-TCU Resource Model, Showing Estimation Areas .................... 14-11
Figure 14-7: Down Hole Correlogram Model for Platinium Showing Nugget. ................................ 14-13
Figure 14-8: Directional Correlogram Model for Ptatinium at Azimuth 60 ....................................... 14-13
Figure 14-9: Surface Defining Lower Extent of Indicated Mineral Resources ............................... 14-18
Figure 14-10: Section AA Displaying 3PE Block and Composite Grades ..................................... 14-18
Figure 14-11: Section AA Displaying Ni Block and Composite Grades ......................................... 14-19
Figure 14-12: Platinum Swath Plot for T1MZ 2 g/t Shell ............................................................. 14-20
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
TOC ix
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 14-13: UMT Mass Mining Model Cross-Section A-A (Looking Northwest) Showing
Ni% .............................................................................................................................. 14-25
Figure 14-14: UMT Mass Mining Model Cross-Section A-A (Looking Northwest) showing 3PE
(g/t) .............................................................................................................................. 14-26
Figure 14-15: UMT Mass Mining Model Cross-Section B-B (Looking Northwest) Showing
Ni% .............................................................................................................................. 14-27
Figure 14-16: UMT Mass Mining Model- Cross-Section B-B (Looking Northwest) Showing 3PE
(g/t) .............................................................................................................................. 14-28
Figure 14-17: UMT-MM Inferred Mineral Resources Below UMT-TCU Model ............................... 14-29
Figure 14-18: AMK Sulphide Ni (%) Block Estimates and Composites Section 2500N
(Version L Model, 2003) ................................................................................................ 14-4
Figure 14-19: Exploration Targets ............................................................................................... 14-21
Figure 26-1:Proposed Drill Plan for 20132014 ............................................................................... 26-2
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
TOC x
PLATREEF PROJECT
1.0
SUMMARY
AMEC E&C Services Inc. (AMEC) was commissioned by Ivanplats Limited (Ivanplats)
to prepare a NI 43-101 Technical Report (the Report) for the wholly-owned Platreef
nickelcoppergoldplatinum group element (PGE) project (the Project) located near
Mokopane, in the Limpopo Province of the Republic of South Africa (Figure 2-1).
The report is prepared in support of Ivanplats press release dated 6 February 2013,
entitled Flatreef Discovery expands to 29.2 million ounces of platinum, palladium,
rhodium and gold in Indicated Mineral Resources, plus an additional 44.0 million
ounces in Inferred Mineral Resources, at a 2.0 g/t 4PE cutoff.
Ivanplats holds a 90% interest in Prospecting Right LP30/5/111/2/872PR and is
operator. Ivanplats holds a 90% interest in Prospecting Right LP30/5/111/2/872PR
and is operator. A consortium of Japanese entities including Itochu Corporation
(Itochu), ITC Platinum (ITC- an affiliate of Itochu), Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National
Corporation (JOGMEC), and Japan Gas Corporation (JGC) =holds the remaining 10%
direct interest. A joint venture with Atlatsa Resources Corporation covers Prospecting
Right No. LP30/5/111/2/740PR. Together, these prospecting rights form the Project.
1.1
Key Findings
The following are key outcomes of work to date:
The 20112012 drilling program focused on a 2.9 km2 area (Area 1), and reduced
the drill spacing from 400 m to 100m. This enabled detailed logging and
correlation of a cyclical sequence of norites, pyroxenites and harzburgites,
analogous to the Merensky Reef
The cyclic unit at Area 1, named by Ivanplats the Turfspruit Cyclic Unit (TCU) has
average true thicknesses of 24 m at a 2 g/t 4PE (Pt+Pd+Au+Rh) cutoff grade.
Average grades are 4.1 g/t 4PE. By comparison the Merensky Reef averages
similar grades over 1 to 2 m
The detailed drilling at Area 1 confirmed the previous (March 2011 Mineral
Resources; because of the 100 m hole spacing, the TCU has been classified as
Indicated Mineral Resource in Area 1. There are additional Inferred Mineral
Resources in TCU and adjacent mineralization surrounding Area 1
The TCU and immediately adjacent mineralization can be mined by mechanized

selective underground mining methods at depths of 600 to 900 m. Mineral
Resources are as follows:
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 1-1
PLATREEF PROJECT
1.2
At a 2 g/t 4PE cutoff grade there are Indicated Mineral Resources of 210 Mt
averaging 1.83 g/t Pt, 1.89 g/t Pd, 0.29 g/t Au, 0.12 g/t Rh (4.13 g/t 4PE),
0.34% Ni, and 0.17% Cu
At a 2 g/t 4PE cutoff grade there are Inferred Mineral Resources of 415 Mt
averaging 1.57 g/t Pt, 1.59 g/t Pd, 0.27 g/t Au, 0.11 g/t Rh (3.53 g/t 4PE),
0.33% Ni and 0.16 % Cu
Metallurgical testwork on TCU composites has shown that a saleable metallurgical

concentrate grading ~120 g/t PGEs is readily achievable at estimated recoveries of
85% for Pt, 87% for Pd, 65% for Au, 95% for Rh, 77% for Ni and 68% for Cu.
Therefore at this level of study, it is expected that economic recoveries are
possible using conventional flotation technology
Property Description and Location

The Project is located in the Limpopo Province of the Republic of South Africa, with its
centroid at about 2405'S and 2859'E. The Project is located on three farms:
Turfspruit (3,561 ha), Macalacaskop (4,281 ha) and Rietfontein (2,878 ha). The
Project is situated on the Northern Limb of the Bushveld Igneous Complex (BIC).
The Project is accessible year-round by paved road, and a developed rail network
goes through Mokopane, the closest railhead to the Project. Weather is not expected
to affect the ability to conduct year-round mining operations.
A large, unskilled labour force lives in urban areas near and on the farms. These
people can be trained, with some skilled trade and professional staff recruited from
elsewhere in South Africa. Local town facilities and infrastructure exist to handle an
influx of personnel.
An agreement was entered into with Eskom, the South African electricity supplier, to
supply 70 MVA of power from an expansion of the national grid that would bring an
additional high voltage line near the Project. A further agreement was entered into
with Eskom to provide a temporary supply of 5 MVA in support of power requirements
during any future construction activities.
The Limpopo province and the Mokopane area in particular, are considered to be
particularly water-poor resource areas, and various studies were commissioned to
determine the most likely water supply sources for the project. The Department of
Water Affairs (DWA) has stated that all water for the Northern Limb (including any
potential mining operation on the Platreef Project) would be supplied through the
Olifants River Water Resource Development Project (ORWRDP).
Under the
ORWRDP, a pipeline is to be constructed between Flag Boshielo dam on the Olifants
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 1-2
PLATREEF PROJECT
River to Pruissen and from there to the North of Mokopane including the Platreef and
other projects. Ivanplats continued participation requires contributions to the costs of
pipeline construction. In addition to the pipeline, a number of possible water sources
to augment the supply system have been investigated by the DWA. A further potential
short-term source of water is ground water in the Project area. Ground water sources
have been identified, and Ivanplats has applied for water-use licenses from the DWA.
AMEC is of the opinion that between these sources, there is a reasonable expectation
that the water supply needs for any proposed Project development can be met.
1.3
Mineral Rights, Royalties and Agreements

Platreef Resources (Pty) Limited (Platreef Resources), a subsidiary of Ivanplats,
legally holds exclusive prospecting rights for base and precious metals on the
Turfspruit and Macalacaskop Farms. Ivanplats acquired a prospecting right for both
Turfspruit and Macalacaskop farms in February 1998 and was granted a five-year New
Order Prospecting Right (prospecting right) for Turfspruit and Macalacaskop in 2006
(Prospecting Right LP30/5/111/2/872PR). Ivanplats recently renewed the prospecting
right, which now expires 31 May 2014.
Plateau Resources Limited (Plateau Resources), a subsidiary of Atlatsa Resources
Corporation (Atlatsa, formerly Anooraq Resources Corporation), legally holds
exclusive prospecting rights for base and precious metals on Rietfontein Farm
(Prospecting Right No. LP30/5/111/2/740PR), which is subject to a Settlement and
New Project Agreement (the 2009 Agreement) between Atlatsa and Ivanplats dated 11
December 2009. Under the 2009 Agreement, Ivanplats would hold an initial interest of
94% in the Property, and Anooraq a 6% interest in the Property, provided that the joint
venture contemplates an open-pit mining operation that incorporates the Rietfontein
mineral property. Anooraq would not hold an interest in an underground mine
exploiting resources on Turfspruit and Macalacaskop.
The prospecting right was valid for a five-year period, expiring 27 November 2011.
Prior to the expiry date, on 22 August 2011, Plateau Resources lodged an application
to renew the prospecting right for a three-year extension of term. As at the effective
date of the Report, the renewal was still pending.
Atlatsa is obligated to make payments necessary to keep the Rietfontein prospecting
right and other filings in good standing subject to the terms of the 2009 Agreement with
Ivanplats. Legal opinion indicates that a separate agreement between the South
African-registered subsidiaries may be required to support the 2009 Agreement.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 1-3
PLATREEF PROJECT
To support any future mining activities, prospecting rights are required to be converted
to mining rights. Ivanplats has made an application to convert Prospecting Right
LP30/5/111/2/872PR to a mining right.
A royalty payable to the South African government on production from any future
mining operations depends on whether the mined product will be classified as either a
refined material (capped at 5%), or unrefined material (capped at 7%).
In October 2010, Itochu acquired a 2% interest in Prospecting Right
LP30/5/111/2/872PR from Ivanplats. On 26 May, 2011, Itochu through ITC, and in
consortium with JOGMEC and JGC, announced the acquisition of an 8% direct interest
in Prospecting Right LP30/5/111/2/872PR from Ivanplats at a cost of 22.4 B yen
(approx US$280 M), and have concluded a Joint Operation and Investment Agreement
with Ivanplats (JOIA). Consequently, the Itochu corsortium holds an aggregated
interest of 10% in Prospecting Right LP30/5/111/2/872PR; Ivanplats owns the
remaining 90%. The consortiums cash contribution under the JOIA continues to be
applied to exploration and development of the Project
1.4
Environment and Socio-Economics

Baseline biophysical environmental studies were initially completed in 2003 and
updated in 2007 as changes in the environmental regulatory framework took place.
Under the terms of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (2002), a
Social and Labour Plan must be submitted as part of any mining rights application
submission and should demonstrate how a project will contribute towards the socioeconomic development of the area in which the mine will operate. An Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) and Environmental Management Plan Report (EMPR) are
required to be submitted 180 days after the submission of a mining rights application.
In 2011, Ivanplats commissioned Digby Wells Environmental to develop a detailed
scope of work to provide Ivanplats with appropriate baseline data to be used to support
an application for mining rights. These studies will include environmental,
archaeological, cultural, heritage, community, and resettlement baseline data, and
likely impacts of Project development.
1.5
History and Exploration

Exploration on the Platreef dates back to the 1960s, after which Rustenberg Platinum
Holdings Limited, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Anglo American Platinum Corporation,
began exploration over the Platreef in the 1970s. None of this historical information
was available to AMEC.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 1-4
PLATREEF PROJECT
Ivanplats acquired a prospecting licence for both Turfspruit and Macalacaskop farms in
February 1998 and subsequently entered into a joint venture with Anooraq over the
Rietfontein farm in 2001. The joint venture agreement was updated in 2009.
The initial exploration focus was on delineation of mineralization that could support
open-pit mining. Ivanplats contracted a series of consultants to provide various
studies involving concentrator/smelter options (Hatch in 2003), metallurgical testwork
(Mineral Development Services Ltd. in 2003), and conceptual mining studies to assess
reasonable prospects of developing an open-pit operation (African Minerals and AMEC
in 2004). Mining cost assumptions were updated to the end of 2006, and capital and
operating costs were updated in 2007 to support mineral resource assessments.
In 2007, Ivanplats commenced a deep drilling program to investigate the continuity and
grade in an area targeted as having underground mining potential. This resulted in a
series of unpublished Mineral Resource estimates assuming underground mining
methods and updates being prepared at various times between September 2010 and
January 2011. A March 2011 resource update was published in September 2012.
Work completed on the Project to date includes geological mapping, airborne and
ground geophysical surveys, limited trenching, percussion drilling over the Platreef
sub-crop, core drilling, petrography, density determinations, metallurgical testwork,
preliminary mineralogical studies, and Mineral Resource estimation. Preliminary
mining and supporting studies have commenced.
1.6
Geological Setting and Mineralization

The Platreef comprises a variably layered, composite noritepyroxeniteharzburgite
intrusion that lies at the base of the Northern Limb of the Bushveld Complex, in contact
with metasedimentary and granitic floor rocks. The variability of lithology and
thickness along strike is attributed to underlying structures and assimilation with local
country rocks.
Within the Project area, four major cyclic units have been recognized which correlate
well with the Upper Critical Zone (UCZ) rock sequence described for the main
Bushveld Complex. The Turfspruit Cyclic Unit (TCU) is the main mineralized cyclic
unit; this unit is analogous to the Merensky Cyclic Unit (MCU) that contains the
Merensky anorthosite and pyroxenite and hosts the Bushvelds principal mineralized
reefs. The TCU is laterally continuous across large parts of the Project area.
Mineralization in the TCU shows generally good continuity and is mostly confined to
pegmatoidal orthopyroxenite and harzburgite. Variations across the Project area in the
stratigraphic footwall of the TCU, and in thickness and lithology (facies) within the
TCU, are interpreted as related to potholes.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 1-5
PLATREEF PROJECT
Other cyclic units that have been identified adjacent to the TCU are the Norite Cycles
(NC1 and NC2), Pseudo Reef, and UG2. Contamination of the Platreef units by
assimilation of Transvaal Supergroup metasedimentary rocks can occur within any of
the stratigraphic horizons; however, it is predominantly confined to the units below the
TCU. To date, no evidence of the existence of Lower Critical Zone lithologies have
been found within the Turfspruit area, although Lower Zone mafic to ultramafic rocks
have been intersected in many deep holes within the Project area.
Within the TCU, high-grade PGENiCu mineralization is consistently hosted within an
unconformable, non-cumulate, pegmatoidal, mafic to ultramafic sequence, commonly
bound by chromitite stringers and containing coarse-grained to pegmatoidal sulphides;
this is known as T2. The T2 pegmatoid is subdivided into an upper pyroxenitic unit (T2
Upper) and a lower olivine-bearing pyroxenitic or harzburgitic unit (T2 Lower).
Overlying this pegmatoidal package is a barren non-pegmatoidal feldspathic
pyroxenite unit of variable thickness, termed T1. A second mineralized zone, called
T1m, of disseminated, medium- to coarse-grained sulphides, is perched near the top
of the T1 feldspathic pyroxenite.
A geographical demarcation of the Project area into five zones (Zone 1 to Zone 5) has
been developed based on exploration criteria. Three distinct geological features are
recognized within these zones and include the following:
A double reef package informally termed the Bikkuri Reef, wherein an upper
pyroxenite-dominated and mineralized sequence (the Bikkuri Reef) is separated
from a thicker, mixed-lithology sequence by Main Zone and metasedimentary
lithologies
Three different areas where TCU lithologies show significant thickening into what
appear to be large depressions or pothole depressions controlled by existing preBushveld fold structures
Presence of a flat-lying portion of the TCU (Flatreef) that is related to structural

controls.
A unique feature recognized within Zone 1 is the Flatreef portion of the Platreef,
initially recognized as being approximately flat-lying compared to the steeper-dipping
reefs within the Open Pit (Zone 4) area. The subhorizontal geometry of the TCU within
the Flatreef appears to be broadly controlled by faults active after the deposition of
the layered rocks of the UCZ and TCU, which may be reactivated older faults. The
Flatreef in essence appears to contain better-mineralized T2 mafic to ultramafic units
compared to the surrounding areas, where the T1 and T2 reefs occur in closer
proximity to each other.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 1-6
PLATREEF PROJECT
The most noticeable structural feature recognized within the TCU is a large depression
that occurs within the eastern part of Zone 1, where significant thickening of the NC1
and the upper (T1) stratigraphic layer of the TCU occur. This depression contains a
distinct thickening of the T1 feldspathic pyroxenite. A similar depression (only partly
drilled) is present towards the northwestern edge of Zone 1. However, in this case,
thickening of both the TCU as well as its footwall units appears to have occurred. A
third depression occurs mainly in the Zone 2 area in the northern part of Macalacaskop
farm. These depressions are interpreted to represent potholes analogous to those
known in the Merensky Reef.
Detailed drilling in Zone 1 demonstrates that, at the current 100m scale of drilling
resolution, perturbations in TCU structure contours appear to have resulted more from
potholes and faults, than from folding or basement topography.
Pyrrhotite, pentlandite and chalcopyrite occur as interstitial sulphides in the TCU
lithologies. Platinum group minerals are mainly present as PGEsulphides, PGEBiTe
and PGEAs alloys, that are fine-grained (< 10 m) and may occur within base metal
sulphides, on their rims, or encapsulated in silicates.
1.7
Drilling
Drilling on the Project has been undertaken in two major phases; the first from 2001 to
2003 termed the open-pit program. The second phase ran from 2007 to 2012 and is
termed the underground program(s). From the 954 core drill holes (excluding re-drilled
mother holes and all deflections) a total of 624,248 m were drilled and completed by
26 October 2012; this included 555 holes (194,591 m) from the open-pit program and
399 holes (429,657 m) from the underground program. Exploration drilling was halted
on 26 October 2012 and has not yet recommenced.
Standardised geological core logging conventions were used to capture information
from drill core. Geotechnical logging has been undertaken on selected drill cores. In
the majority of instances, core recovery averaged 100%. The recoveries do indicate a
substantial decrease within faulted/sheared zones. Collar surveys were conducted by
a licenced land surveyor on all completed holes. The majority of drill holes are downhole surveyed. All unsurveyed drill holes in the area that may potentially have Mineral
Resources amenable to open-pit mining are vertical and range in depth from 7 to 583
m. All drill holes in the area that may potentially be amenable to underground mining
have been down-hole surveyed by either gyroscopic (gyro) and/or electronic multi-shot
(EMS) instruments.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 1-7
PLATREEF PROJECT
1.8
Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security

Over the duration of Ivanplats work programs, sample preparation and analyses were
performed by accredited independent laboratories, including Set Point Laboratories
(Set Point) in Johannesburg, Lakefield Laboratory (Lakefield; now part of the SGS
Group) in Johannesburg, Ultra Trace (Ultra Trace) Laboratory in Perth, Genalysis
Laboratories, Perth and Johannesburg (Genalysis), and SGS Metallurgical Services
(SGS) in South Africa, Acme in Vancouver, and ALS Chemex in Vancouver.
Sample preparation and analytical procedures for samples that support Mineral
Resource estimation have followed similar protocols since 2001. The preparation and
analytical procedures are in line with industry-standard methods for PGEAuNiCu
deposits. Drill programs included insertion of blank, duplicate and standard reference
material (SRM) samples. The quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) program
results do not indicate any problems with the analytical programs that would preclude
use of the data.
Sample security has been demonstrated by the fact that the samples were always
attended or locked in the on-site sample preparation facility.
1.9
Data Verification
AMEC reviewed the sample chain of custody, quality assurance and control
procedures, and qualifications of analytical laboratories. AMEC is of the opinion that
the procedures and QA/QC control are acceptable to support Mineral Resource
estimation. AMEC also audited the assay database, core logging, and geological
interpretations. These are acceptable to support Mineral Resource estimation.
1.10
Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing

There have been a number of metallurgical test work campaigns and conceptual flow
sheet designs carried out for the treatment of Platreef mineralized material since 2001.
Metallurgical test work has focused on maximising the recovery of platinum group
elements (PGEs) and base metals, mainly nickel, whilst producing an acceptably high
grade concentrate suitable for further processing and/or sale to a third party.
Until 2006, metallurgical test work was carried out mainly on lower-grade shallow
material from the potentially large open-pit area, flotation recoveries and concentrate
grades were generally low, resulting in the necessity for further processing on site via
combinations of smelting, converting and magnetic separation; hydrometallurgical
treatment was also considered.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 1-8
PLATREEF PROJECT
Between 2008 and 2011, with the advent of the deep drilling exploratory program, test
work was performed on high-grade composite samples (approximately 0.4% Ni, 0.2%
Cu and 1.6 g/t 3PE (Pt+Pd+Au). The high-grade test work results were promising and
indicated that there was a strong possibility of increasing concentrate grade and
recovery.
During 20122013, work completed included mineralogical examination and flotation
testwork.
The major PGM species present are PGEbismuth tellurides, PGEarsenides and
PGE sulphides. PGM recovery by flotation at the grind size of the submitted sample
(80% -75 m) is estimated to be between 85% and 93%.
The metallurgical projection indicated a final concentrate grading 123 g/t 3PGE at
82.9% recovery.
Although this 20122013 test work is preliminary, it did indicate that an effective flow
sheet will involve several stages of cleaner flotation with recycle of the re-cleaner and
re-re-cleaner stage tailings. All of the geometallurgical units and the two blends
produced acceptable smelter-grade final concentrates at acceptable recoveries.
Calculations to simulate the effect of recycles from open circuit tests indicated a
concentrate containing 120 g/t 4PE at a recovery of 85% on a composite sample,
which was estimated to be comparable to the likely as-mined run of mine mineralized
material.
Any future processing plant is likely to consist of a relatively standard flotation
concentrator targeted at producing a saleable concentrate.
1.11
Mineral Resource Estimates

Three mutually exclusive Mineral Resource Models have been constructed:
Mineral Resources amenable to open-pit mining methods occur to the 650 m

elevation, which is approximately 500 m below the topographic surface. The
Platreef has been modelled as a series of dipping layers of norites and
pyroxenites, serpentinites (harzburgites), and xenoliths (rafts of hornfels). Nickel,
copper, platinum, palladium, and gold were all estimated in each layer using
inverse distance to a power interpolation. The Mineral Resource models were
completed in 2003.
Mineral Resources amenable to underground mass-mining methods occur below

the 650 m elevation (-500m depth) and are located below the TCU and adjacent
(75 m) material. Block-caving and sublevel caving are contemplated. Nickel,
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 1-9
PLATREEF PROJECT
copper, platinum, palladium gold and rhodium were estimated via inverse distance
cubed (ID3) interpolation within lithological units such as norites, pyroxenites,
harzburgites and mixtures of harzburgites and pyroxenites. These lithologies were
interpreted to be stratiform. Stratabound occurrences of contaminated (with floor
rocks) and disturbed zones were also modelled and estimated. The Mineral
Resource Model was last updated in March 2011.
1.12
Mineral Resources amenable to selective mining methods occur below the 650 m
elevation (-500m depth) and near the top of the Platreef. Mechanized drift-and-fill,
bench-and-fill and large scale sub level open stoping are being considered.
Components of the TCU and adjacent material were modelled deterministically.
Two main mineralized zones were modelled with three internal grade shells with
nominal cutoff grades of 1, 2 and 3 g/t 3PE (Pt+Pd+Au). Rhodium was not used
because assays were incomplete at the time of modelling. Three sets of faults
were interpreted using regional structure as a guide to orientation and observed
discontinuities in structure contour maps as to dip and dip direction. The
lithological units and grade shells were hung on an artificial horizontal plane.
Interpolation of nickel, copper, platinum, palladium, gold and rhodium was
performed using ID3 interpolation, with validation in the 100 m drill-spaced areas
by kriging. The Mineral Resource model was completed in March 2013.
Mineral Resource Statements

Mineral Resource statements for Mineral Resources amenable to underground mining
methods (UMT) and Mineral Resources amenable to open pit mining methods (ATS
and AMK) are tabulated in this section.
Mineral Resources are reported on a 100% basis. Attributable ownership is discussed
in detail in Section 4.0.
There are two mining scenarios that could exploit mineralization at depth within the
Platreef:
Selective mining within and adjacent to TCU mineralized zones and adjacent to
TCU mineralized zones. The selectively-mineable option is considered the Base
Case for the purposes of this Report.
AMEC reviewed the potential to mass-mine lower-grade material, and presents the
results as an additional and mutually exclusive case.
AMEC notes that conceptual mining studies are underway, and the preferred option
could change, or a mixture of the two options could emerge as the recommended
route for Project development.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 1-10
PLATREEF PROJECT
Other considerations are:
1.12.1
Concentrator and site G+A costs must be covered for reporting Mineral Resources
Mining costs have been considered in setting the cut-off ($38/t for the selective
case), and for the bulk case (from $9/t to $35/t depending on whether block caving
or some method of sub-level mining was used).
Base Case: Mineral Resource Statement (Estimate Assuming Selective

Underground Mining Methods)
The TCU and adjacent blocks above T1, between T1 and T2 and below T2 contain
higher-grade mineralization that could be mined using selective methods such as longhole open stoping, drift-and-fill, bench-and-fill, or cut-and-fill.
Table 1-1 shows Mineral Resources lying within and adjacent to the TCU mineralized
Zones.
AMEC compared these tonnages, and grades to the tonnages and grades stated in
Ivanplats press release dated 6 February 2013. At the 2 g/t and 3 g/t 4PE cutoff
grades being considered for scoping studies the AMEC tonnages and grades confirm
those stated by Ivanplats. At the 1 g/t cutoff grade there has been some
reclassification of Indicated to Inferred related to AMECs classification of material in
the footwall of the TCU that is sparsely sampled as Inferred Mineral Resources.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 1-11
PLATREEF PROJECT
Table 1-1: Mineral Resource Statement for Mineral Resources Amenable to Selective
Mining Methods; Effective Date 13 March 2013, Harry M. Parker RM.SME.
and Timothy O. Kuhl, RM.SME.
Indicated Mineral Resources
Tonnage and Grades
Cutoff 4PE
Mt
Pt (g/t)
Pd (g/t)
Au (g/t)
Rh (g/t)
4PE (g/t)
Ni (%)
Cu (%
3 g/t
137.0
2.273
2.314
0.347
0.153
5.086
0.375
0.185
2 g/t
214.4
1.830
1.886
0.290
0.124
4.129
0.341
0.168
1 g/t
387.0
1.275
1.339
0.214
0.087
2.916
0.282
0.139
Cutoff 4PE
Pt (Moz)
Pd (Moz)
Au (Moz)
Rh (Moz)
4PE (Moz)
Ni (Mlbs)
Cu (M
3 g/t
10.0
10.2
1.5
0.7
22.4
1,133.4
558.4
2 g/t
12.6
13.0
2.0
0.9
28.5
1,610.3
794.2
1 g/t
15.9
16.7
2.7
1.1
36.3
2,408.4
1,189
Pt (g/t)
Pd (g/t)
Au (g/t)
Rh (g/t)
4PE (g/t)
Ni (%)
Cu (%
Contained Metal
Inferred Mineral Resources

Tonnage and Grades
Cutoff 4PE
Mt
3 g/t
211.4
2.085
2.063
0.336
0.143
4.627
0.378
0.183
2 g/t
415.0
1.565
1.592
0.268
0.108
3.534
0.331
0.163
1 g/t
1054.8
0.960
1.018
0.175
0.068
2.221
0.254
0.130
Cutoff 4PE
Pt (Moz)
Pd (Moz)
Au (Moz)
Rh (Moz)
4PE (Moz)
Ni (Mlbs)
Cu (M
3 g/t
14.2
14.0
2.3
1.0
31.4
1,763.6
855.2
2 g/t
20.9
21.2
3.6
1.4
47.2
3,030.7
1,488
1 g/t
Notes:
32.6
34.5
5.9
2.3
75.3
5,916.7
3,022
Contained Metal
(1)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Mineral Resources estimated assuming underground selective mining methods are exclusive of the Mineral
Resources estimated assuming selective mining methods. The 2 g/t 4PE cut-off is considered the base case
for scoping studies in progress; the 3 g/t 4PE cut-off is also being considered.
Mineral Resources are reported on a 100% basis.
Mineral Resources are stated from approximately -200 m to 650 m elevation (from -500m to 1350m depth).
Assumed commodity prices are Ni: $8.81/lb, Cu: $2.73/lb, Pt: $1,699/oz, Pd: $667/oz, Au: $1,315/oz, and Rh:
$2,065/oz. It has been assumed that payable metals would be 82% from smelter/refinery and that mining costs
(average $40/t) and process, G&A, and concentrate transport costs (average $12.5/t for a 3 Mt/a operation)
would be covered. The process recoveries vary with block grade but typically would be 85-90% for Pt, Pd and
Rh; 65% for Au and 60% for Ni and 80% for Cu.
Indicated Mineral Resources are drilled on approximately 100 x 100m spacing; Inferred Mineral Resources are
drilled on 400 m x 400 m (locally to 400 m x 200 m and 200 m x 200 m) spacing.
Totals may not sum due to rounding
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 1-12
PLATREEF PROJECT
1.12.2
Mineral Resource Statement for Mineralization Amenable to Underground Mining

Methods (Estimate Assuming Mass-Mining Methods)
The Mineral Resources amenable to mass underground mining methods have been
revised for transfer of much of the previous (March 2011) Upper Unit Top Loaded
Zone to the Mineral Resources amenable to selective underground mining methods.
Table 1-2 shows a tabulation of the Mineral Resources amenable to underground
mining, and estimated assuming mass mining methods for the Platreef Project.
Inferred Mineral Resources are reported at 0.15% Ni cut-off grade. This cut-off grade
is justified using the commodity price and cost assumptions discussed in footnotes to
Table 1-2.
The Mineral Resources amenable to mass mineable methods are all located in areas
of wide spaced drilling (typically 400 x 400 m spacing). Only Inferred Mineral
Resources are declared. Rhodium assays are generally not available, and hence Rh
is not estimated for this case.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 1-13
PLATREEF PROJECT
Table 1-2:
Inferred Mineral Resources (at 0.15% Ni (total) Cut-Off) Assuming

Underground Mass Mining Methods, Effective Date 13 March 2013, Harry M.
Parker RM. SME. and Timothy O. Kuhl, RM. SME.
Tonnage and Grades

Property
Mt
Pt (g/t)
Pd (g/t)
Au (g/t)
3PE (g/t)
% Ni
Turfspruit
1,870
0.40
0.49
0.09
0.98
0.21
0.13
40
0.28
0.39
0.09
0.76
0.21
0.14
1,910
0.40
0.49
0.09
0.98
0.21
0.13
Property
Pt (Moz)
Pd (Moz)
Au (Moz)
3PE (Moz)
Ni (Mlbs)
% (Mlbs)
Turfspruit
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
8,740
5,520
Macalacaskop
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
190
120
Total
24.4
24.4
24.4
24.4
8,930
5,650
Macalacaskop
Total
% Cu
(3PE =Pt + Pd + Au)

Contained Metal
Notes:
(1)
Mineral Resources are reported on a 100% basis
(2)
Mineral Resources are stated from the 650 m elevation (-500m depth) downward to approximately -400 m
elevation (-1550m depth). The 2011 block model has been trimmed to exclude the 2013 block model for
selectively mineable Mineral Resources.
(3)
The cut-off grade (0.15% Ni) assumes commodity prices of Ni: $8.810/lb, Cu: $2.73/lb, Pt: $1,699/oz, Pd:
$667/oz, Au: $1,315/oz. It has been assumed that payable metals would be 82% from smelter/refinery and that
a mix of block cave and sub-level mining costs (averaging $20/t, and ranging from $9/t to $35/t), and process,
G&A, and concentrate transport costs (average of $12/t) would be covered for a conceptual 10 Mt/a operation.
Process recoveries are taken from metal-specific equations for serpentinite. Nickel is presented as an example
where nickel recovery = ((9.3 *Ln (Ni head grade) + 84.9).
(4)
Mineral Resources at the 0.15% Ni cut-off grade occur in continuous zones; there are a relatively minor number
of blocks inside these zones that are below cut-off and have been excluded.
(5)
Inferred Mineral Resources are based on an area drilled on approximately 400 m x 400 m (locally 400 m x
200 m and 200 m x 200 m) spacing.
(6)
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 1-14
PLATREEF PROJECT
1.12.3
Mineral Resources Amenable to Open-pit Mining Methods

Mineral Resources amenable to open-pit mining methods have not been updated from
the last Technical Report (September 2012).
Mineral Resources that could be exploited by open-pit mining methods include Platreef
mineralization at Turspruit (ATS) and Macalacaskop (AMK).
Grade and lithological continuity at the infill drilling density (75 X 100 m) appear to be
reasonably predictable. No Indicated Mineral Resources exist outside of the area of
infill drilling because the drill hole spacing is often too wide to assume continuity of
lithology (and thereby grade, which depends on lithology) between points of
observation. Rhodium assays are generally not available, and hence Rh is not
estimated for this case.
A 0.10% sulphide Ni cut-off was selected to declare Mineral Resources that are
amenable to open-pit mining methods, as the total precious and base metals grade of
the blocks above this cut-off grade are considered to cover projected conceptual
operating costs.
Table 1-3 provides a tabulation of Mineral Resources for the Platreef Project that could
be mined using open-pit methods.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 1-15
PLATREEF PROJECT
Table 1-3:
Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources at 0.1 % Sulphide Nickel Cut-off

that are Amenable to Open-Pit Mining Methods, Effective Date 31 March
2011, Harry M. Parker, RM.SME. and Timothy O. Kuhl, RM.SME.
Property/Deposit
Mt
% Ni
% Cu
Pt
Pd
Au
3PE
Sulphide
Sulphide
(g/t)
(g/t)
(g/t)
(g/t)
ATS Indicated
Turfspruit 241-KR
Rietfontein 2-KS
Total ATS Indicated
470
0.20
0.14
0.34
0.45
0.09
0.87
40
520
0.21
0.20
0.17
0.14
0.28
0.33
0.41
0.44
0.09
0.09
0.78
0.86
ATS Inferred
260
0.16
0.10
0.41
0.47
0.10
0.97
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
260
0.16
0.10
0.41
0.47
0.10
0.97
250
0.17
0.11
0.52
0.55
0.10
1.18
Indicated
520
0.20
0.14
0.33
0.44
0.09
0.86
Inferred
510
0.16
0.10
0.46
0.51
0.10
1.07
Turfspruit 241-KR
Rietfontein 2-KS
Total ATS Inferred
AMK Inferred
Macalacaskop
Total Open Pit (AMK +
ATS)
3PE = Pt + Pd + Au
Notes:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
1.13

Mineral Resources are stated from 650 metre elevation to surface (approximately 500 metres depth extent). A
selective mining unit (SMU) of 15 m x 15 m x 10 m has been assumed. External dilution has not been applied.
At a 0.1% sulphide nickel cut-off grade, the mineralization is continuous.
The 0.1% sulphide Ni cut-off grade is based on assumed costs and metal prices. Commodity prices were
assumed to be Ni: $9.20/lb, Cu: $3.00/lb, Pt: $1785/oz, Pd: $650/oz, Au: $1,265/oz.
Concentrator, G&A and concentrate transport costs are estimated to average $11/t for a conceptual 10 Mt/a
operation. Mining costs are estimated at an average of $5/t.
Indicated Mineral Resources are based on an area drilled on approximately 75 m x 100 m spacings.
Inferred Mineral Resources are based on an area drilled on approximately 120 m x 140 m spacings.
Totals may not sum due to rounding.
Exploration Targets
Beyond the current Mineral Resources, mineralization is open to expansion to the
south and west. Two exploration targets have been identified.
Target 1 is located along the strike of the Flatreef to the south of the existing Mineral
Resources. The target is based on results from three step-out holes and is estimated
to contain up to an additional 30 to 60 Mt grading 3.4 to 5.0 g/t 4PE, 0.26% to 0.38%
nickel and 0.13% to 0.19% copper over an area of 2.5 km2.
Target 2 surrounds the declared Mineral Resources and contains an estimated
additional 50 to 220 Mt grading 2.9 to 4.1 g/t 4PE, 0.24% to 0.32% nickel and 0.12% to
0.16% copper over an area of 7.6 km2. The tonnage and grades are based on
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 1-16
PLATREEF PROJECT
intersections of mineralization in adjacent drill holes within the Inferred Mineral

Resources.
AMEC cautions that the potential quantity and grade of these exploration targets is
conceptual in nature. There has been insufficient exploration and/or study to define
these exploration targets as a Mineral Resource. It is uncertain if additional
exploration will result in these exploration targets being delineated as a Mineral
Resource.
Beyond these Exploration Target areas is approximately 37.5 km2 of unexplored
ground on the property under which the Platreef is projected to lie. It is not possible to
estimate a range of tonnages and grades for this ground. There is excellent potential
for mineralization to significantly increase with further step-out drilling to the southwest.
1.14
Conclusions
The QPs are of the opinion that the Mineral Resources for the Project, which have
been estimated using core-drill data, have been performed to industry best practices
(CIM, 2003), and conform to the requirements of CIM Definition Standards, 2010.
Since the commencement of exploration in the UMT area, iterative mineral resource
estimates between 2010 and 2011 have led to a progressive increase in the tonnage
of Inferred Mineral Resources. With the inclusion of results from the ongoing drill
program in an update of the block model, higher confidence categories upgrades are
supported, and should permit completion of more detailed mining studies.
Permitting, environmental, legal and socio-economic issues taxation and infrastructure
considerations which may also impact the Mineral Resource estimates are typical of
advanced-stage exploration and development projects in Southern Africa. It is the
QPs opinion that there is a reasonable expectation that Ivanplats and various
stakeholders can reach agreement to develop the Project.
Other areas of uncertainty that may materially impact the Mineral Resource estimates
include:
Confirmation of the renewal of the Rietfontein prospecting licence has not been
granted. The Mineral Resources amenable to open-pit methods on Macalacaskop
are not expected to be affected; however, Mineral Resources amenable to open-pit
methods as declared for Turfspruit and Rietfontein would have to be re-evaluated
without a valid prospecting licence on Rietfontein.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 1-17
PLATREEF PROJECT
Monitoring of regulatory requirements needs to be improved. Continued instances

of non-compliance could provide grounds for revocation of the Prospecting Licence
held by Ivanplats or imposition of additional terms and conditions.
Assumptions used to generate the conceptual data for consideration of reasonable

prospects of economic extraction including:
Long-term commodity price assumptions
Long-term exchange rate assumptions
Assumed mining method
Operating and capital cost assumptions
Metal recovery assumptions
Concentrate grade and smelting/refining terms.
For the TCU deposits metallurgical sampling has focused on higher grade
composites approximating the average grade of the deposit assuming the base
case cut-off of 2 g/t 4PE is applied. The testing of lower grade material within and
adjacent to the TCU, or very high grades within the TCU, has not currently been
done
Additional metallurgical sampling is planned once the updated geological

interpretation has been validated; the ability to select samples from specific
mineralization layers may result in changes to the metallurgical recovery sand
smelter payables assumptions used to evaluate reasonable prospects of economic
extraction
Mineral Resources have been estimated on an externally undiluted basis and without
consideration for mining recovery. Dilution and recoveries will vary with the geometry
(dip, thickness, faulting and or irregularities in contacts) of the mineralization and the
eventual mining method used. These factors can only be estimated after life-of-mine
plans are prepared. Typically dilution (low-grade or waste materials) ranges from 10%
to 30%, and mining recoveries range from 70% to 100% using the mining methods
considered for evaluation of reasonable prospects of economic extraction.
Ivanplats and its contractors (AMEC, Stantec and SRK) are performing conceptual
studies to evaluate open-pit and underground options for project development. The
planned exploration shaft will provide access to the TCU, will provide the means of
taking a bulk sample, will enable trial mining, and will allow assessment of the shortscale variability of mineralization/waste contacts.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 1-18
PLATREEF PROJECT
1.15
Recommendations
Ivanplats has provided AMEC with a two-phase work program; the first phase of which
is focused on drilling. The second phase, which will be conducted concurrently with
the first, is the sinking of an exploration shaft.
The two programs total as follows:
Phase 1: 16 M
Phase 2: 176 M
Totals: $192 M
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 1-19
PLATREEF PROJECT
2.0
2.1
INTRODUCTION
Terms of Reference
AMEC E&C Services Inc. (AMEC) was commissioned by Ivanplats Limited (Ivanplats)
to prepare a NI 43-101 Technical Report (the Report) for the wholly-owned Platreef
nickelcoppergoldplatinum group element (PGE) project (the Project) located near
Mokopane, in the Limpopo Province of the Republic of South Africa (Figure 2-1).
The report is prepared in support of Ivanplats press release dated 6 February 2013,
entitled Flatreef Discovery expands to 29.2 million ounces of platinum, palladium,
rhodium and gold in Indicated Mineral Resources, plus an additional 44.0 million
ounces in Inferred Mineral Resources, at a 2.0 g/t 4PE cutoff.
Ivanplats holds a 90% interest in Prospecting Right LP30/5/111/2/872PR and is
operator. Ivanplats holds a 90% interest in Prospecting Right LP30/5/111/2/872PR
and is operator. A consortium of Japanese entities including Itochu Corporation
(Itochu), ITC Platinum (ITC- an affiliate of Itochu), Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National
Corporation (JOGMEC), and Japan Gas Corporation (JGC) =holds the remaining 10%
direct interest. A joint venture with Atlatsa Resources Corporation covers Prospecting
Right No. LP30/5/111/2/740PR. Together, these prospecting rights form the Project.
Holdings in the Platreef Project are through an indirectly wholly-owned Ivanplats South
African subsidiary, Platreef Resources (Pty) Limited (Platreef Resources). For the
purposes of this Report, the name Ivanplats refers interchangeably to, Ivanplats
Limited, the predecessor company named Ivanhoe Nickel and Platinum Limited, and to
the subsidiary company Platreef Resources and the parent company, Ivanplats.
Itochu is used interchangeably to refer to the parent and subsidiary companies of
Itochu Corporation.
2.2
Qualified Persons
The following people served as Qualified Persons (QPs) as defined in National
Instrument 43-101, Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects:
Dr Harry Parker, R.M.SME., Technical Director, AMEC, Sparks, Nevada
Mr Timothy Kuhl, R.M.SME., Principal Geologist, AMEC, Sparks, Nevada
Mr Michael Valenta, Pr.Eng (Int) FSAIMM, Managing Director, Metallicon Process

Consulting (Pty) Ltd
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 2-1
PLATREEF PROJECT
2.3
Site Visits and Scope of Personal Inspection

Dr Parker has made numerous visits to the Project site from September 2001 to
September 2003, in 2009, 2010, 2011, and most recently from 16 to 21 November
2012. During the site visits, Dr Parker personally inspected core and surface outcrops,
drill platforms, and sample cutting and logging areas; held discussions on geology and
mineralization with Ivanplats' staff; and reviewed geological interpretations with staff.
Mr Kuhl visited the site from 26 March to 9 April 2010, 19 July to 3 August 2011, 25
January to 3 February 2012 and again 27 November 2012 to 12 December 2012.
During these trips, he audited drill data obtained since AMEC's 2007 database audit
(DaSilva, 2007), obtained QA/QC data, field checked drill collars, and collected
witness samples for check assays. He also inspected core, surface outcrops, and
sample cutting and logging areas. Discussions were held with Ivanplats' staff about
project geology and mineralization; geological interpretations were reviewed, and
potential locations of major infrastructure were viewed.
Mr Valenta has not visited the Project site, but did visit the Mintek laboratory where the
current metallurgical testwork is underway.
2.4
Effective Dates
There are a number of effective dates, as follows:
Date of the Mineral Resource estimate that is amenable to open-pit mining

methods: 31 March 2011
Date of the Mineral Resource estimate that is amenable to selective underground

mining methods: 13 March 2013
Date of the Mineral Resource estimate that is amenable to mass mining methods:
13 March 2013
Date of the supply of the last information on the ongoing drill program on the
Project in the form of a Project database extraction: 26 October 2012
Date of the supply of the last information on permitting and tenure: 6 March 2013
The overall Report effective date is taken to be the date of the updated Mineral
Resource estimate that is amenable to underground mining methods, and is 13 March
2013.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 2-2
PLATREEF PROJECT
2.5
Information Sources and References

Reports and documents listed in the Reliance on Other Experts (Section 3.0) and
References (Section 27.0) sections of this Report were used to support the preparation
of the Report.
Other information was sourced from Ivanplats and AMEC staff in their areas of
expertise as required, providing supporting information for the QPs.
All measurement units used in this Report are metric, and currency is expressed in US
dollars unless stated otherwise. The Report uses Canadian English. Figures in the
text were prepared by AMEC unless otherwise referenced.
The following abbreviations are commonly used in the metallurgical sections of this
report: PGE = platinum group elements; PGM = platinum group metals; BMS = base
metal sulphides. 3E or 3PE denotes Pt + Pd + Au; 4E or 4PE denotes Pt + Pd + Au +
Rh.
2.6
Previous Technical Reports

Ivanplats has previously filed a technical report on the Project entitled:
Parker, H., Kuhl, T., and David, D., 2012: Ivanplats Limited, Platreef Project, Limpopo
Province, Republic Of South Africa, NI 43-101 Technical Report: unpublished report
prepared by AMEC E&C Services Inc. for Ivanplats Limited, effective date 20 August
2012.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 2-3
PLATREEF PROJECT
3.0
3.1
RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS

Mineral Tenure
The QPs have not reviewed the mineral tenure, nor independently verified the legal
status, ownership of the Project area, underlying property agreements or permits. The
QPs have fully relied upon, and disclaim responsibility for, information derived from
legal experts for this information through the following documents:
Webber Wentzel, 2012a: Legal Opinion: The South African Mineral Title held by
Platreef Resources (Proprietary) Limited: letter opinion prepared by Webber
Wenzel, Attorneys, on behalf of Ivanplats Ltd, BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc., Morgan
Stanley Canada Limited, AMEC E&C Services Inc, 7 September 2012
Webber Wentzel, 2012b: Plateau Resources (Proprietary) Limited: Prospecting

Right 740PR in respect of the Farm Rietfontein 2 KS: letter opinion prepared by
Webber Wenzel, Attorneys, on behalf of Ivanplats Ltd, BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc.,
Morgan Stanley Canada Limited, AMEC E&C Services Inc, 7 September 2012
Leppan Beech Inc., Attorneys, 2009: Opinion Requested Regarding the Integrity of
Prospecting Right Protocol O6/2006: letter opinion prepared by Leppan Beech
Inc., Attorneys on behalf of Ivanhoe Nickel and Platinum Pty Ltd., 12 November,
2009, with two annexes
Harrison, M., 2010: Opinion on Various Issues Pertaining to Platreef Resources

(Pty) Limited's Prospecting Right; Renewal of the Right and Mining Right
Application: letter opinion prepared by Harrison Attorneys on behalf of Ivanhoe
Nickel and Platinum Limited, dated 12 September 2010
Broughton, D., 2012: Platreef Project: letter prepared by David Broughton,

Ivanplats Vice President Exploration for AMEC on the status of mineral tenure and
surface rights for the Project, dated 14 June 2012.
Geraghty, L., and Duhl, H., 2013: Application for Mining Right: email clarification
from Harry Duhl, Legal Manager and Lex Geraghty, Senior Geologist, Ivanplats to
AMEC, dated 6 March 2013
This information is used in Section Error! Reference source not found. of the
Report.
Ivanhoe Nickel and Platinum Limited and Anooraq Resources Corporation, 2009:
Settlement and New Project Agreement: agreement signed between Ivanhoe
Nickel and Platinum Limited and Anooraq Resources Corporation, effective date 11
December, 2009.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 3-1
PLATREEF PROJECT
This information is used in Section 4.7 of the Report.

The QPs have viewed information from the South African Department of Minerals and
Energy in relation to the renewal of the prospecting licence over Macalacaskop 243KR
and Turfspruit 241KR Farms through the following document:
Department of Mineral Resources: Renewal of a Prospecting Right in Terms of

Section 18(3) of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2002
(Act 28 of 2002): Platreef Resources (Pty) Ltd on the Farms Macalacaskop 243KR
and Turfspruit 241KR, Situated in the Magisterial District of Mokerong: letter
prepared by the Acting Deputy Director General Mineral Regulation, Department of
Mineral Resources and addressed to Platreef Resources (Pty) Ltd, dated 4 May,
2011.
The QPs have viewed information from Plateau Resources in relation to the renewal of
the prospecting licence over the Rietfontein Farm through the following document:
Application In Terms Of Section 18 Of The MPRDA To Renew A Prospecting Right

Over The Farm Rietfontein 2 KS-Plateau Resources (Pty) Ltd: letter from Plateau
Resources to the Department of Mineral Resources advising of hard-copy renewal
application, dated 22 August 2011
This information is consistent with the information provided by the legal experts on
mineral title which is used in Section Error! Reference source not found. of the
Report.
Will need to add final letter to cover period from 7 September 2012 to 8 March 2013 re
Anooraq.
3.2
Surface Rights
The QPs have fully relied upon, and disclaim responsibility for, information supplied by
Ivanplats' staff and experts retained by Ivanplats for information relating to the status
of the current Surface Rights as follows:
Ivanhoe Nickel and Platinum Limited and Anooraq Resources Corporation, 2009:
Settlement and New Project Agreement: agreement signed between Ivanhoe
Nickel and Platinum Limited and Anooraq Resources Corporation, effective date 11
December 2009
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 3-2
PLATREEF PROJECT

surface rights for the Project, dated 14 June 2012.

Ivanplats' staff and experts retained by Ivanplats for information relating to agreements
concluded with local communities through the following document:

surface rights for the Project, dated 14 June, 2012
This information is used in Section 4.11.3 of the Report.
3.3
Royalties
Ivanplats' staff and experts retained by Ivanplats for information relating to the status
of the current royalty provisions for the Project as follows:
Harrison, M., 2010: Opinion on Various Issues Pertaining to Platreef Resources

(Pty) Limited's Prospecting Right; Renewal of the Right and Mining Right
Application: letter opinion prepared by Harrison Attorneys on behalf of Ivanhoe
Nickel and Platinum Limited, 12 September 2010

surface rights for the Project, dated 14 June, 2012.
3.4
Environmental
The QPs have obtained information regarding the environmental permitting status of
the Project through opinions and data supplied by experts retained by Ivanplats, and
from information supplied by Ivanplats' staff. AMEC has fully relied upon, and
disclaims responsibility for, information derived from such experts through the following
document:
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 3-3
PLATREEF PROJECT
Els, M., 2003: Interim Environmental Baseline Report for the Platreef Project:
WSP Walmsley Volume 1 Main Report W603/2, Sandton, Republic of South Africa
and Update of the Executive Summary of the August 2003 Environmental Baseline
Report for the Platreef Project S0242, September 2007: unpublished report
prepared by WSP Walmsley, Sandton, Republic of South Africa for Ivanplats.
Wessels, B., 2013: Platreef Updated Technical Report: email from Barbara
Wessels, Digby Wells Consultant to AMEC providing updates on ongoing
environmental studies.
This information is used in Section 4.8 of this Report.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 3-4
PLATREEF PROJECT
4.0
4.1
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION

Location
The Project centroid is located at about 2405'S and 2859'E. The Project is located in
the Limpopo Province of the Republic of South Africa (Figure 4-1). The Project is
located on three farms: Turfspruit (3,561 ha), Macalacaskop (4,281 ha) and Rietfontein
(2,878 ha).
4.2
Property and Title in South Africa

The Minerals Act 50 of 1991 (the 1991 Act), effective 1992, was the previous
legislation governing mining-related issues in South Africa; under this Act, mining
rights were privately held.
The Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act No 28 of 2002 (MPRDA),
which came into force in May 2004, and replaced the 1991 Act, provides the new
regulatory framework for South Africa's mining and minerals industry. The MPRDA is
centred upon mineral rights reverting to the State, and a "use-it-or-lose-it" principle
ensuring that, if a legal entity, such as a mining company, fails to use its mineral rights,
it will lose those rights after a certain period. The MPRDA also has provisions for the
State to have the powers to force a mineral rights holder to abandon development
projects if the State is of the opinion that the project is not producing at the most
efficient levels or is a threat to environmental sustainability or community health. The
Department of Minerals and Energy (DME) administers the MPRDA. The DME has
discretionary powers for awarding conversions of mining rights from the 1991 Act to
the MPRDA. These powers are primarily used in relation to Black Economic
Empowerment (BEE) and social-upliftment objectives.
Under the South African Mining Charter of 2004 (Charter), companies are required to
divest a portion of their investments to historically disadvantaged South Africans
(HDSAs), as a condition of the conversion of old-order mining rights to new-order
mining rights. In the Charter, mining company ownership targets for HDSAs are set at
15% during the first five years and 26% in 10 years. A special case was made for
state-owned rights where no mining or prospecting operations had previously been
conducted. In this instance, the HDSA target was 51% for a one-year period from 1
May 2004. After 1 May 2005, the Charter targets apply.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 4-1
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 4-1: Project Location and Farm Boundaries
Note:
Prospecting licence LP30/5/111/2/872PR boundaries correspond to the perimeter boundaries of the
Macalacaskop (243 KR) and Turfspruit (241 KR) farms. The boundaries for prospecting licence LP30/5/111/2/740PR
correspond to the perimeter of the Rietfontein (2 KS) farm. Collectively, the two prospecting licences form the Project
area. Khaki areas on the plan are the main settlements and townships. Figure by AMEC, 2012; data courtesy
Ivanplats.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 4-2
PLATREEF PROJECT
Mining companies were given up to two years to apply for prospecting permit
conversions and five years to apply for mining licence conversions for existing
operations. In order to convert a 1991 exploration and mining right (the old right) to a
2004 exploration and mining right (a new right), the holder was expected to lodge a
social and labour plan, and to provide an undertaking that outlined how the holder
intended to expand mining industry opportunities for HDSAs.
A holder of a mineral right is expected, under the terms of the MPRDA, to ensure that
a mineral resource is optimally exploited. In addition, a rights holder is only entitled to
a mining or prospecting right to the extent that the ground holding is actively worked.
A planned exploration or mining work program is required, and must be followed, or
corrective measures may be taken by the DME.
Trade in mining or prospecting rights, such as transfers between parties, or sales, can
only be concluded with the approval of the DME.
4.2.1
Mineral Property Title

A prospecting right is a new-order right (i.e. granted under the MPRDA) issued in
terms of the MPRDA that is valid for up to five years, with the possibility of a further
extension of three years. The right can be obtained either by the conversion of
existing old-order prospecting rights (i.e. granted under the 1991 Act or earlier acts) or
through new applications.
A mining right is a new-order right issued in terms of the MPRDA that is valid for up to
30 years. A mining right can be obtained either by the conversion of an existing oldorder mining right, or as a new-order right subject to the exercise of the exclusive right
of the holder of a new-order prospecting right, or subject to an application for a new
mining right.
4.2.2
Surface Rights Title

Under a common-law position previously in force in South Africa, which was supported
by the 1991 Act, a land owner was the owner of the whole of the land, including the air
space above the surface and everything below it. The MPRDA replaced this commonlaw position, and the 1991 Act was repealed by the MPRDA.
Although the MPRDA does not specifically indicate the Republic of South Africa as the
owner of unmined minerals, the ability of a land owner to exercise absolute rights over
minerals found on or under their land has been nullified. A landowner retains the
ultimate surface rights ownership, but not the minerals ownership.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 4-3
PLATREEF PROJECT
4.2.3
Environmental Regulations
On 2 August 2010, new environmental impact assessment (EIA) regulations came into
effect in South Africa. The regulations were designed to align the 2006 environmental
regulations with the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA), and to
streamline the EIA process. Within the regulations, specified timeframes for receipt of
Governmental assessment were stipulated, and some timeframes, such as the end of
the calendar year, were excluded from public consultation processes and in the
counting of days for both decisions and lodging of appeals.
Under the regulations, lists of activities requiring environmental authorization prior to
commencement were revised to three notices:
4.2.4
Listing notice 1: stipulates the activities requiring a basic assessment report

(BAR). These are typically activities that have the potential to impact negatively on
the environment. However, due to the nature and scale of such activities, such
impacts are generally known
Listing notice 2: identifies the activities requiring both a scoping exercise and an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR). These are typically considered to be largescale or highly-polluting activities, and the full range of potential impacts need to be
established through a scoping exercise prior to the activity being assessed
Listing notice 3: contains activities that will only require an environmental

authorization through a basic assessment process if the activity is undertaken in
one of the specified geographical areas indicated in that listing notice.
Geographical areas differ from province to province. An example of such a listing
would be erection of a cell phone mast.
Taxation
Mining companies in South Africa are typically taxed at the standard corporate tax rate
of 28%. Corporate tax is paid on all income, plus 50% of capital gains, less deductible
operating expenditure and a capital expenditure allowance.
4.2.5
Royalties
The South African Mineral and Petroleum Resources Royalty Act of 2008 came into
effect on 1 March 2010. Under the Act, royalties are payable by operators using a
prescribed formula by means of a ratio of earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT or
profit) to gross sales of mineral resources; such royalties, are, however, capped within
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 4-4
PLATREEF PROJECT
a range. The percentage is calculated in terms of different formulas depending on

whether the mineral resources are classed as unrefined or refined.
Platinum group elements (PGEs) comprising iridium, palladium, platinum, rhodium,
ruthenium and osmium, if in the form of a concentrate grading at least 150 ppm PGE,
would be classified as unrefined. The definition of unrefined copper is 20% to 30%
Cu. The unrefined nickel definition is 1.4% Ni content. There is no provision for
gold as an unrefined element.
All unrefined metals are subject to the following specific royalty formula:
0.5 + [earnings before interest and taxes/(gross sales in respect of unrefined mineral
resources x 9)] x 100
This royalty has a cap at 7%.
Platinum group elements comprising iridium, palladium, platinum, rhodium, ruthenium
and osmium, if smelted and refined to 99% purity, would be classified as refined.
Copper, when processed into copper metal slabs, blister copper or cathode copper of
at least 99.0% purity is considered refined. Nickel is refined once processed into a
metal or other form (e.g. ferro nickel, nickel metal or nickel sulphate) that has at least a
99.5% purity. To be classified as refined, gold must be refined and smelted to at
least a 99.5% purity.
All refined metals are subject to the following specific royalty formula:
0.5 + [earnings before interest and taxes/(gross sales in respect of refined mineral
resources x 12.5)] x 100.
This royalty has a cap at 5%.
4.3
Project Ownership
In October 2010, Itochu acquired a 2% interest in Prospecting Right
LP30/5/111/2/872PR from Ivanplats for US$10 million (840 M Japanese yen). On 26
May, 2011, Itochu announced the acquisition of an 8% direct interest in the
prospecting right from Ivanplats through its affiliate ITC Platinum for an additional
US$280 M (22.4 B yen), and has concluded a Joint Operation and Investment
Agreement with Ivanplats (Itochu, 2011). Consequently, the Itochu Consortium holds
an aggregated interest of 10% in Prospecting Right LP30/5/111/2/872PR; Ivanplats
owns the remaining 90%. The Itochu Consortiums cash contribution will be applied to
exploration and development activities on the prospecting right.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 4-5
PLATREEF PROJECT
Itochu established a 100%-owned subsidiary, Itochu Mineral Resources Development

Corporation, with intentions to undertake exploration and development projects in the
mineral resources sector. Itochus Platreef Project participation is one of the projects
that will be promoted by and between Itochu and this newly-established company.
Ivanplats is the operator of the Platreef Project.
4.4
Mineral Tenure
Location plans of the farms and prospecting rights discussed in the next sub-sections
are provided in Figure 4-1. The prospecting rights, and therefore the prospecting
licence boundaries, are the same as the farm perimeter boundaries in the plan.
Prospecting right LP30/5/111/2/872PR boundaries correspond to the perimeter
boundaries of the Macalacaskop and Turfspruit farms. The boundaries for prospecting
right LP30/5/111/2/740PR correspond to the perimeter of the Rietfontein farm. Figure
4-3 shows the locations of the townships that have developed within the farming areas,
including on farms that are outside the Project area; these are discussed in more detail
in Section 4.9.
4.4.1
Prospecting Right No. MPT No. 55/2006 (LP30/5/111/2/872PR)

AMEC was supplied with legal opinions and annexes dated 20 November 2006, 21
November 2006, and 12 November 2009, which reviewed the legal status of the
mineral lease K2921/2001 on the Turfspruit Number 241 KR and Macalacaskop
Number 243 KR Farms.
These documents indicated that Platreef Resources (Pty) Limited, registration number
1988/000334/27, a subsidiary of Ivanhoe Nickel and Platinum Ltd in South Africa,
legally holds exclusive prospecting rights to prospect for base and precious metals on
farms Turfspruit 241 KR and Macalacaskop 243-KR.
At the outset, these rights were granted in accordance with the 1991 Act. The mineral
right became legally effective in October 2002.
In January 2006 the mineral rights were converted to the new-order rights in terms of
Item 6 of Schedule II of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2002
(Act No. 28 of 2002), Republic of South Africa, under Mineral Prospecting Right MPT
No. 55/2006, Prospecting Right No. LP30/5/111/2/872PR and was to expire on
February 1, 2011.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 4-6
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 4-2: Major Township and Farm Locations
Note: The main road indicated on this plan is Highway N11. The UMT area would be mined from underground; the
AMK and ATS areas would be mined from open pits. The boundary of the ATS deposit is constrained by the Turfspruit
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 4-7
PLATREEF PROJECT
farm (mineral tenure) boundary and the northeastern boundary of UMT. Area1 was the focus of drilling activities in
20112012. Information on figure courtesy Ivanplats, generated by AMEC 2012.
Ivanplats made application to renew the prospecting right for a three-year extension of
term prior to the expiry date. Ivanplats was notified by the Department of Mineral
Resources on 4 May 2011 that the prospecting right had been renewed for a further
three-year term, and the relevant deed of renewal was signed on 1 June 2011. The
prospecting right is now valid until 31 May 2014.
For the title to continue to be maintained, Ivanplats must pay the required annual title
fees and comply with the relevant obligations and work programs relating to its
prospecting activities on the prospecting right. Ivanplats advised AMEC that the
required payments have been made as at the Report effective date.
4.4.2
Prospecting Right No. MPT 76/2007PR (LP30/5/1/1/2/740PR)

Atlatsa Resources Corporation (Atlatsa; formerly Anooraq Resources Corporation) is a
company incorporated in British Columbia, Canada. Its South African interests are
held in the name of Plateau Resources Limited, a company incorporated under the
laws of the Republic of South Africa.
Plateau Resources legally holds exclusive prospecting rights to prospect for base and
precious metals on the farm Rietfontein 2 KS. The mineral lease is identified as
Prospecting Right No. MPT 76/2007 PR, which has a DMR reference of
LP30/5/1/1/2/740 PR. The prospecting right was valid for a five-year period, and was
to expire on 27 November, 2011. Prior to the expiry date, on 22 August 2011, Plateau
Resources lodged an application to renew the prospecting right for a three-year
extension of term. At the effective date of the Report, the renewal was still pending.
Legal opinion provided to AMEC notes that under the terms of section 18(3) of the
MPRDA a prospecting right in respect of which an application for renewal has been
lodged shall, despite its expiry date, remain in force until such time as the application
has been granted or refused.
AMEC considers that, until there is legal opinion to the contrary or formal
documentation of refusal of the renewal from the appropriate South African regulatory
authorities, it is a reasonable expectation that the renewal will be forthcoming, and that
therefore Mineral Resources can be declared on Prospecting Right No.
MPT 76/2007 PR.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 4-8
PLATREEF PROJECT
4.4.3
Application for Mining Right

A prospecting right can only be renewed for one three-year period under MPRDA.
This renewal has occurred in respect of the Platreef prospecting right. The Atlatsa
application for renewal of Prospecting Right No. MPT 76/2007 PR is still pending. To
maintain tenure continuity over Mineral Prospecting Right MPT No. 55/2006, Ivanplats
will need to apply for a mining right prior to expiry of the prospecting right. Ivanplats
currently plans to lodge the application Ivanplats currently plans to lodge the
application during Q2 2013.
The mining right application will require the following:
4.5
Compliance with sections 22 and 23 of the MPRDA (regulating the application for
and grant of a mining right) and the BEE and social development provisions
applicable in the South African mining industry and incorporation of considerations
from the MPRDA, the Amendment of the Broad-Based Socio-Economic
Empowerment Charter for the South African Mining and Mineral Industry published
on 20 September 2010 and the Scorecard that deals with the nine elements of
BEE
Compliance with section 39(1) of the MPRDA
Compilation and lodgement of a scoping report in terms of regulation 49 of the

MPRDA
Completion of an environmental impact assessment (EIA) that will include public

participation meetings) and production of an EIA report in terms of regulation 50 of
the MPRDA
Submission of an environmental management programme within 180 days of the

date on which the Regional Manager provides a request for these data.
Surface Rights
The land over which the Mineral Prospecting Right MPT No. 55/2006 held, is owned
by the State and held in trust for the respective communities. The Madiba community
are the lawful occupiers of the Macalacaskop Farm and the Tshamahansi and
Magongoa communities are the lawful occupiers of the Turfspruit Farm. Rights to
prospect and mine the land are granted by the State. While holders of the prospecting
and mining rights granted by the State have statutory rights to use the land for
prospecting and mining purposes, the rights holder is expected to reach a consensus
with the lawful occupiers of the land prior to commencing prospecting or mining
operations. The lawful occupiers are entitled to compensation for losses and damages
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 4-9
PLATREEF PROJECT
arising from prospecting or mining operations. The MPRDA sets out a procedure if
agreement on compensation cannot be reached; this could include determination by
arbitration or a competent court.
4.5.1
Macalacaskop and Turfspruit

The Ivanplats-controlled farms, Macalacaskop No 243 KR and Turfspruit No 241 KR,
are contiguous, sharing a common boundary along the northwest border of
Macalacaskop and the southeastern border of Turfspruit. Macalacaskop contains
4,281 ha of land. Turfspruit contains 3,561 ha of land. The combined total is
7,842 ha.
The farms have been legally surveyed in the past, and the original surveys are on file
at the Office of the Surveyor-General of the Limpopo Province (formerly Northern
Province) of South Africa. Macalacaskop is filed at that location under reference SG
Number 1496/1894. Turfspruit is filed at the same location as reference SG Number
A44/1963. Plot surveys and land area calculations were performed by the Surveyor
General as indicated on the registered diagrams: SG Diagram No. A 44/63 (Turfspruit
241-KR) and No. A 45/63 (Macalacaskop 243-KR).
For the purposes of the Project, a local co-ordinate system is used, termed the Platreef
co-ordinate system.
4.5.2
Rietfontein
Rietfontein Farm, No 2 KS, has a contiguous border with Turfspruit Number 241 KR,
sharing a common boundary along the southwestern border of Rietfontein and the
northeastern border of Turfspruit. Rietfontein Farm has an area of 2,878 ha.
Plot surveys and land area calculations were performed by a Professional Land
Surveyor, of the RSA.
The farm was legally surveyed in the past, and the original surveys are on file at the
Office of the Surveyor-General of the Limpopo Province (formerly Northern Province)
of South Africa.
4.6
Royalties and Encumbrances

The Turfspruit prospecting licence was subject to an initial royalty agreement in 2001
with the Lebowa Minerals Trust (the Trust). A second agreement, which superseded
the first, was later signed with the Trust. Upon conversion of the old-order lease to a
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 4-10
PLATREEF PROJECT
new-order lease, under the Transitional Provisions of the MPRDA, old-order rights,
which include such provisions as contained in the second Trust agreement, lapsed.
Although the Transitional Provisions do make an exception for the continuation of
payment of royalties to communities, the Trust was dissolved by an Act of Parliament,
with the rights of the Trust then vested in the South African government; the
government is not a community. There are also tax-related provisions for continuation
of payments required under old-order rights for removal and disposal of minerals;
however, the agreement between the Trust and Ivanplats provided for prospecting
payments, and not for removal of minerals, and also does not apply.
A royalty will be payable to the South African government when the prospecting
licences have been converted to mining licences, and production has occurred. The
royalty will be determined on whether the mined product will be classified as either a
refined (capped at 5%), or unrefined (capped at 7%) material.
4.7
4.7.1
Property Agreements
Atlatsa (Anooraq) Agreement
A Settlement and New Project Agreement (the 2009 Agreement), dated 11
December 2009, was concluded between Ivanhoe Nickel and Platinum Ltd and
Anooraq Resources Corporation. The 2009 Agreement superseded and replaced
respective rights and obligations of Ivanplats and Anooraq under a 2001 Earn-in
Agreement. Under the 2001 Earn-in Agreement, Anooraq had granted to Ivanplats the
right to earn a 50% participating interest in the Rietfontein prospecting licence. The
2009 Agreement also terminated arbitration and other proceedings, and created a new
legal and business relationship between the two parties.
The 2009 Agreement contained the following key elements:
Anooraq contributed the Rietfontein prospecting right and the Rietfontein 2 KS

farm. Ivanplats contributed a defined portion of the Turfspruit prospecting right and
the Turfspruit 241 KR farm. This area became collectively the joint venture
Property. Under the agreement, both parties retain their existing prospecting
rights in respect of mineral properties in their own names but make these rights
and technical information on the properties available to the joint venture
Both companies agreed to evaluate the possibility of development and open-pit

mining activity on the Property, and if supported by a positive feasibility study, to
commence mining
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 4-11
PLATREEF PROJECT
The agreement envisaged that Ivanplats would hold an initial interest of 94% in the
Property, and Anooraq a 6% interest in the Property, provided that the joint venture
contemplates an open-pit mining operation that incorporates the Rietfontein
mineral property
Ivanplats is Operator of the joint venture
For so long as Anooraq holds an interest in the joint venture, it is entitled to appoint
a member to a technical committee, established to facilitate consultation and
discussion with Ivanplats with respect to joint venture operations
Expenditure during completion of a Feasibility Study will be borne by Ivanplats;

Anooraq would have no obligation to make any financial contribution, i.e. would be
free-carried. This time-frame is termed the Carried Interest Period. During the
Carried Interest Period, Anooraq must make payments to keep its Prospecting
Permits in good standing and make other payments and filings as required to
governmental authorities in the RSA to maintain its interest in Rietfontein 2 KS
farm
On completion of a Feasibility Study, Anooraq has two choices. The company can
elect to contribute to expenditures in proportion to the initial interest held by
Anooraq in the Property, in which case a new agreement, termed the Definitive
Participation Agreement would come into effect. Where funding is less than the
amount that would be expected in proportion to the initial interest, the company
that is providing less funding would have its interest in the Property diluted, and the
other partys interest in the Property would be increased by the same amount as
the dilution. Alternatively, Anooraq can relinquish its interest in the Property for a
5% net smelter returns royalty payable on any mineral products extracted from the
Rietfontein prospecting lease
A BEE provision will be required to obtain a mining right. In this instance, the 2009
Agreement states that Anooraq will not be obliged to reduce its interest in the
Property, but that the Ivanplats interest will be reduced. BEE from an ownership
perspective requires that at least 26% of the holder of the rights is owned and
controlled by HDSAs. Anooraq may increase its Property interest as part of a BEE
transaction if this is in accordance with appropriate South African laws, and
Anooraq meets the local ownership requirements for a BEE transaction.
A provision was made within the 2009 Agreement for potential underground mining
activities. In this instance, the agreement states:
if, and to the extent that, a feasibility study contemplates the extraction of mineral
products from both the Turfspruit property and the Rietfontein property by way of subsurface mining, and at the conclusion of the carried interest period, Anooraq elects to
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 4-12
PLATREEF PROJECT
maintain its interest in the project as a participating interest, the project property will be
deemed to include those areas of the Turfspruit property and the Rietfontein property,
respectively, from which the feasibility study contemplates that mineral products will be
extracted by way of sub-surface mining and the respective interests of the parties will
be adjusted:
(a) in the case of the interest of the Anooraq Group, by dividing the total
value of mineral products that the feasibility study contemplates will be
extracted exclusively from the Rietfontein property by the total value of
mineral products that the feasibility study contemplates will be extracted
from the entire project property and multiplying the resulting quotient by
100; and
(b) in the case of the interest of the Ivanplats Group, by dividing the total
value of mineral products that the feasibility study contemplates will be
extracted exclusively from the Turfspruit property by the total value of
mineral products that the feasibility study contemplates will be extracted
from the entire project property and multiplying the resulting quotient by
100.
Under (b), any proposed underground mine that extracts 100% of its mineral products
from Turfspruit would result in a 100% interest for Ivanplats.
Legal opinion provided to AMEC indicated that while the settlement agreement that
was entered into between Ivanplats and Anooraq/Atlatsa (the holding companies of the
South African subsidiaries that hold the prospecting rights through Platreef and
Plateau) remains a valid and binding agreement, it is not legally competent for a
holding company to create rights and obligations for a subsidiary under South African
law. This opinion noted that in order to give effect to the provisions of the settlement
agreement, the holders of the prospecting rights will be required enter into a separate
agreement. Depending on the structure and provisions of that agreement, it will
require various consents in terms of Section 11 and Section 102 of the MPRDA.
AMEC considers it a reasonable expectation that at the current stage of Project
knowledge, such agreements could be enacted, and that therefore declaration of
Mineral Resources on Prospecting Right No. LP30/5/111/2/872PR can be supported.
Ivanplats advised AMEC that an offer has been made to Anooraq/Atlatsa to outright
purchase the Anooraq/Atlatsa rights to the Rietfontein farm; Anooraq/Atlatsa were
considering the offer as of the Report effective date.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 4-13
PLATREEF PROJECT
4.7.2
Itochu Agreement
In October, 2010 Ivanplats entered into an Earn-in Agreement (the Earn-in Agreement)
with Itochu Corporation, a Japanese company. Under the Earn-in Agreement, Itochu
purchased a 2% interest in Beales Limited (Beales), a currently 90% owned subsidiary
of Ivanplats that owns the holding company, Platreef Resources, which holds the
Platreef Project.
On 26 May 2011, Itochu acquired, through its affiliate ITC Platinum, an additional 8%
interest in the Project, indirectly through Beales, through a Joint Operation and
Investment Agreement (JOIA). The JOIA includes various adjustment and other
clauses relating to the Beales shareholdings such that on enactment of the Joint
Operation and Investment Agreement on 6 June 2011, the effective participating
interests in the underlying Platreef Project became as follows: Ivanplats 90%, Itochu
2% and ITC Platinum Development Ltd. 8%.
Under the JOIA, Ivanplats granted Itochu and ITC Platinum Development Ltd
(collectively Itochu) a number of rights intended to preserve Itochus minority interest in
the Platreef Project. Such rights include:
A covenant that prohibits dilution of Itochus proportional ownership interest in the

Platreef Project as a result of a BEE investment
A pre-emptive right that permits Itochu to maintain its proportional interest in the
Platreef Project as a result of any other issuance of securities at a price equal to
the subscription price for those securities
A right of first offer to purchase the equity stake held by Ivanplats in Beales or on a
sale by Beales or Platreef Resources of an interest in the Platreef Project holdings
A tag-along right of Itochu in which it will be entitled to put its interest along with a
sale by Ivanplats of a significant equity stake in the Platreef Project holdings on the
same terms and conditions as Ivanplats receives from such a sale
The parties have also agreed to establish a technical committee and a management
committee in which Itochu will, in each case, be entitled to appoint two of six members
so long as it holds no less than a 2% interest in the Platreef Project.
The JOIA provides for cash calls for development funding by the two parties, and
dilution to the extent funding is covered by the other party. To the extent that Itochus
interest in the Platreef Project falls below 2%, its interest will be converted into a 1%
net smelter returns royalty.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 4-14
PLATREEF PROJECT
The JOIA provides for preferential third-party Japanese participation in the future
operations of the Platreef Project. In particular, Itochu has covenanted to assist in
securing Project financing for the development of the Platreef Project, while the parties
have agreed to provide either Itochu or an Itochu-facilitated financial-assistance entity
a right to off-take of production at commercial rates from the Platreef Project.
Finally, on a change of control, certain rights of the parties will be terminated and, to
the extent that financial assistance has been provided, the JOIA acknowledges that
such financial assistance will be reviewed, and repayment may be accelerated.
Finally, on a change of control, certain rights of the parties will be terminated and, to
the extent that financial assistance has been provided, the Joint Operation and
Investment Agreement acknowledges that such financial assistance will be reviewed,
and repayment may be accelerated.
4.8
4.8.1
Environmental Studies
Previous Environmental Baseline Studies
WSP Walmsley was contracted by Ivanplats to conduct biophysical environmental
baseline studies for the proposed mining area on the farms Macalacaskop, Turfspruit,
and Rietfontein (Els, 2003). The socio-economic and public participation components
were specifically excluded. The baseline studies were concentrated within the
potential mining area. The study goals were to:
Establish the pre-mining environmental baseline
Provide the necessary information for completion of the Environmental

Management Program Report (EMPR), in a form that is acceptable to the
authorities
Determine scientific grounds on which to base compensation claims
Determine whether there are any environmental fatal flaws
Provide input to the technical feasibility studies, such as ground water inflow
predictions, soil handling requirements, positioning and pollution control around
waste rock dumps, and water sources
Identify major costs (order of magnitude) such as removal of graves, royalty claims
Provide a sound scientific basis on which to determine the magnitude and

significance of impacts in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and to
make recommendations for the EMPR
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 4-15
PLATREEF PROJECT
Work together with the project team from an early stage in the project life cycle to
inform mine planning and to maximize the benefits of the project and to minimize
the impacts and costs.
In 2003, WSP Walmsley identified no fatal flaws that would prevent successful
completion of an EMPR, but cautioned that the baseline studies may have to be
supplemented once the actual area of mining disturbance has been defined.
Subsequently, WSP Walmsley (2007) updated the executive summary of the 2003
study in order to:
Identify potential material changes since 2003
Highlight areas needing special attention for an EIA prior to the Project proceeding
Highlight changes to the environmental framework and timetables affecting project

implementation.
Between 2003 and 2007, changes in the environmental regulatory framework took
place. Under the terms of the MPRDA, a social and labour plan must be submitted as
part of the mining rights application submission. The social and labour plan should
demonstrate how a project will contribute towards the socio-economic development of
the area in which the mine is proposed to operate. Under the Act, within 14 days of a
mining rights application, notice requiring submission of an EIA and EMPR within 180
days will be issued.
Updated EIA Regulations, Regulations 385, 386, and 387 in terms of Section 24
[Chapter 5] of National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) 107 of 1998 (NEMA),
came into force on 3 July 2006. Mining is listed in these Regulations as an activity
requiring an environmental authorization from the relevant provincial environmental
authority. However, the sections on mining had not come into force as at the Report
effective date, and will only do so after an official notification in the government
gazette.
Various activities that would be expected to be associated with mining of the Platreef
Project are also listed (i.e. roads, power lines, waste disposal, storage of hazardous
substances, etc.) and will require an EIA to be submitted to the provincial
environmental department for environmental authorization.
In 2007, WSP Walmsley noted that further work is required to identify the potential for
acid rock drainage (ARD) and high sulphate contents if mined material such as waste
rock is to be stored on surface. Ivanplats notes that ARD results obtained to date are
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 4-16
PLATREEF PROJECT
not exceptional in a mining context, and should be controllable by a management plan

forming part of an integrated environmental management plan.
In August 2010, new EIA regulations came into effect in South Africa. It is not
currently known how the regulations will affect in detail any proposed EIA supporting
any future development of the Platreef Project. The key change is that the Department
of Environment will approve EIAs, and not the Department of Mineral Resources.
AMEC notes that although mining activities have been listed and certain powers given
to the Minister of Mineral Resources, these provisions and listings have not been
brought into effect, as they are not yet empowered by either the National
Environmental Management Act or the Mineral Petroleum Resources Development
Act; hence the uncertainty with respect to the Project.
4.8.2
Current Baseline Studies

In February 2011, Ivanplats commissioned Digby Wells Environmental (Digby Wells),
an environmental consulting firm based in South Africa, to develop a detailed scope of
work to provide Ivanplats with appropriate baseline data that could be used to support
an application for a mining right. Included in the Digby Wells brief was a requirement
to ensure the studies conformed to the framework provided in the World Bank Group
(WBG) and International Finance Corporation (IFC) policies and guidelines for
Environmental Assessment (EA). The scope of work also requested that Digby Wells
identify the relevant local legislation for environmental assessment to which any
Project development will be required to adhere.
Baseline studies will include:
Topography and visual
Heritage and archaeology
Aquatic ecology
Fauna and flora
Noise
Soils
Resettlement action plan framework and social baseline
GIS and mapping.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 4-17
PLATREEF PROJECT
4.8.3
Air Quality
The study area is characterised by summer rainfalls and dry winters. The average
rainfall is 472 mm of rain per year. The average mid-day temperatures range from
19.8C in June to 27.8C in January. The predominant wind direction is from the
northnortheast, with the secondary component from the east and south east
quadrant.
The available climatic data includes a five-year dataset from the South African
Weather Service (SAWS) for the Mokopane Automatic Weather Station (20082012),
and site-specific MM5 modelled meteorological data set for full three calendar years
(20092011).
This dataset consists of surface data, as well as upper air
meteorological data that is required to run the dispersion model.
An ambient air quality dataset was obtained for the Mokopane Air Quality Monitoring
Station, which is part of the air quality monitoring network that was commissioned for
the WaterbergBojanala Priority Area during September 2012, and monitors all criteria
pollutants (PM10, PM2.5, NOx, SO2, CO, O3, BTEX, as well as basic meteorological
parameters).
Future project activities such as on-site smelting or processing will most likely trigger
listed activities identified in terms of Section 21 of the NEM:AQA. This will have to be
confirmed with the designated Air Quality Officer once a mine plan is developed.
4.8.4
Compliance Audit
A performance assessment report in respect of the approved EM Plan was requested
by the DMR in February 2012. Digby Wells was appointed by Platreef to conduct a
compliance audit against the EM Plan as required by Regulation 55 of the MPRDA and
to review and update the status of Ivanplats financial provision for exploration
activities as required in terms of Regulation 54 of the MPRDA. Platreef has submitted
the Prospecting Environmental Management Plan Performance Assessment Report
completed by Digby Wells. Results of the review indicated that an increase in financial
provision for rehabilitation was warranted, and a letter of guarantee for the required
environmental bonding was subsequently submitted to the DMR.
4.9
4.9.1
Permits
Current Permits
Ivanplats advised AMEC that exploration activities have typically been conducted in
compliance with applicable laws in South Africa. The exception is that the existing
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 4-18
PLATREEF PROJECT
Prospecting Works Program and EMPR were contravened, when more drill holes were
completed than the total number of drill holes granted to be drilled in the permits.
Ivanplats has submitted a Section 102 application for approval of an amended
Environmental Management Plan and Prospecting Works Program in order to
accommodate future prospecting. The Section 102 application was submitted to the
DMR on 16 May 2012 and subsequently replaced with a revised application to amend
lodged together with the Bulk Sampling Application as lodged with the authorities on
21 September 2012. The application is still being processed.
On 26 October 2012, the DMR served Ivanplats with a directive in terms of Section 93
of the MPRDA. The directive ordered Ivanplats to cease all prospecting operations
pending the conclusion of new surface use agreements with the occupants of the land
(communities) in the presence of the Department of Rural Development and Land
Reform.
Ivanplats has started the process to address the issue raised in the Section 93
directive and is meeting with the respective communities in the presence of the
Department of Rural Development and Land Reform.
4.9.2
Bulk Sampling
On 21 September, 2012, Ivanplats applied for permission to conduct a bulk sampling
program on the Project. The application envisaged an exploration shaft that would
allow for collection of an approximate 1,500 t bulk sample from approximately 780 m
depth below surface.
4.9.3
Additional Permits to Support Future Mine Development

Permits will be required to support any future underground access development such
as shaft excavation (refer to Section 26.0). In addition, a number of permits will be
required to support additional development of the Project and any subsequent mining
operation. Permits are likely to cover aspects such as water usage, emissions,
heritage, assessments of items/areas that may be of historical or cultural importance,
use of explosives, and refining licences and/or export licences.
Key permits that will be required to support mine development include:
Mining Right Application - MPRDA 28 of 2002, s 22 & GN R.527 Reg 10 & 11
Approved EIA & EMP - Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, Act
28 of 2002, s39(1) & GN R.527 Reg 48 -51
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 4-19
PLATREEF PROJECT
Environmental Authorization and EIAR/EMP approval - National Environmental

Management Act, Act 107 of 1998, s24(1), (2) & (5) & GN R543, GN R544, GN
R545 and GN R546
Waste License Application - National Environmental Management; Waste Act, Act

59 of 2008, s20 & GN R 718
Rezoning Application Town - Planning and Townships Ordinance No.15 of 1986
Integrated Water Use Licence Application - National Water Act, Act 36 of 1998, s21
& s40
Industrial water supply agreement - Water Services Act, 108 of 1997, s 7
Section 20 bulk sample application Mineral and Petroleum Resources

Development Act, Act 28 of 2002, s39(1) & GN R.527 Reg 48 -51
Section 102 amendment of the existing prospecting permit in accordance with the
MPRDA.
AMEC notes that the actual number and type of permits required to support mine
development would be identified during advanced studies on Project development.
4.10
Environmental Liabilities
Environmental liabilities are currently limited to field disturbances associated with drill
sites; these have been and are remediated as each drill site is completed.
A preliminary ecological survey did not identify any flora or fauna that required
specialist environmental management in the general area of the known mineralization.
4.11
4.11.1
Social License
Land Claims
Land claims by HDSAs have been lodged with a government commission over many
regions of South Africa. All such South African land claims are to be reviewed by a
governmental entity.
Ivanplats noted to AMEC that Ivanplats may have to pay some form of compensation
to any claimants who are granted land as a consequence of such successful
assertions. In the event of a claim succeeding, the claimant is entitled to restoration of
the actual land claimed or to equitable redress.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 4-20
PLATREEF PROJECT
The Rietfontein farm has been claimed by the Mamashela Community, and the claim
has been gazetted.
Legal opinion provided to AMEC indicates that in a letter from the Department of Rural
Development and Land Reform, dated 16 April 2012, the department confirmed that a
claim for restitution has been lodged over the Turfspruit farm by the Mokopane Tribe.
As of the Report effective date, the claim had not been gazetted.
Ivanplats has requested that Digby Wells, during the environmental studies that
Ivanplats has commissioned, confirm the land status, and assist with resolving any
potential claims in an equitable manner.
4.11.2
Social and Community Impact

Two large urban communities inhabit portions of the Platreef Project area (refer to
Figure 4-2).
The settlement of Madiba is located southwest of the known
mineralization at Macalacaskop, and the settlement of Tshamahansi exists over
significant parts of, and northeast of, Turfspruit, extending onto Rietfontein.
Some portion of the communities may be required to be relocated, with more
relocation required to enable open-pit mining of the ATS deposit versus open-pit
mining of the AMK deposit or underground mining of the UMT deposit. Such
relocations have previously been performed in South Africa; however, any full
relocation of Tshamahansi would be amongst the larger moves contemplated. Future
detailed studies would be necessary should such relocation be required.
In 2007, a detailed study was performed of the requirements to support relocation of
selected communities if an open-pit mine was developed (Synergy, 2007). The study
identified three key areas requiring careful management and lead-in times, including:
Timing: The time required for effective community relocation was considered to be
dependent on successful community engagement, and the capability of municipal
and provincial authorities to provide necessary infrastructure. Estimates of the
time required for planning, construction and relocation varied between seven and
nine years, based on the community sizes and areas in 2007
Costs: The costs of relocation are likely to be higher than those estimated in 2007.
In general terms, building costs in South Africa have been increasing at a rate in
excess of official inflation largely as a result of substantial growth and demand in
this sector
Land: Identification of suitable land for relocations considering land availability and
costs and project infrastructural requirement.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 4-21
PLATREEF PROJECT
Synergy (2007) noted that, at a minimum, the following points are likely to require
consideration in future evaluations:
Identification of issues, liabilities and costs relating to any proposed resettlement.

This should be supported by studies of lessons-learned outcomes from
resettlements undertaken by other mining companies in South Africa, in particular
that of Anglo Platinum at Ga Pila
Assessment of alternatives, including assessment of different potential sites, land

status evaluations, whether the resettlement should be completed as a single
phase or multi-phase operation and over what timeframe
Evaluation of government and community support for any proposed move
Inclusion of appropriate organizations, whether governmental, civil, or traditional, in

decision-making processes related to any proposed resettlement
Ability of existing governmental, civil, and traditional authorities to manage any

proposed resettlement, and to provide support for the communities post-relocation,
ability of these various parties to manage any conflicts or disputes that may result
Provision by Ivanplats for stakeholders to provide feedback on the process, and

provision for establishment of accepted grievance mechanisms so that
stakeholders dissatisfactions are addressed in a timely manner
Flexibility of Ivanplats to react to changing perceptions in the community or to

changes to the stakeholders involved both during the duration of any proposed
move and the life of the Project
Consideration of likely social (e.g. inheritance) or economic (e.g. awarding of

construction contracts) impacts on the communities
Consideration of Equator Principles and International Finance Corporation

guidelines.
There is currently no overarching integrated legislation or policy that governs

involuntary land settlement in South Africa, and consideration will have to be given to a
number of different legislative instruments as well as the experience of similar
settlement relocations undertaken by other companies. Additional legislation may be
passed into law in the future, and there can be no guarantee that relocation of the
settlements can be agreed between the parties involved, or that the timeframe, or the
terms under which an agreement may be completed will remain in agreement.
Ivanplats considers that a full census to identify affected villages and communities, and
identification of any affected infrastructure, such as schools, churches, and recreation
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 4-22
PLATREEF PROJECT
facilities, will be required, but the census should be conducted when the most
appropriate mining and development routes have been determined for the Project.
Such a census will be conducted by Digby Wells once any mining right application has
been submitted.
Ivanplats has already instituted policies and consultation procedures that will promote
community relations.
Regular meetings have been held with community
representatives.
4.11.3
Surface Use and Co-operation Agreements

Ivanplats has concluded four surface use and co-operation agreements with the
following local communities:
Kgobudi community
Magonoa community
Tshamahansi community
Madiba community
Legal opinion provided to AMEC indicates that a task team has been established by
the Government of the Limpopo Province, the DMR, the Department of Rural
Development and Land Reform and Ivanplats. This task team has initiated a process
in terms of which the above communities will hold an election to determine who will be
the members of the committees that will liaise with Ivanplats. The surface use and cooperation agreements will remain in place for the duration of the prospecting right until
they are replaced by new agreements following negotiations with the newly-elected
committees. This process has since been terminated by the parties.
As of February 2013, Ivanplats has created its own Stakeholder Engagement Forum,
which purpose is to provide a platform for direct engagement with all stakeholders,
including Government departments. The surface use and co-operation agreements
will remain in place for the duration of the prospecting right until they are replaced by
new agreements following negotiations with the affected local communities.
4.11.4
Platreef Skills and Business Survey

In March 2012, Digby Wells Environmental was appointed by Platreef to undertake a
sample survey of skilled individuals and small business enterprises in the Mokopane
area. The primary purpose of this survey was to establish an electronic database and
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 4-23
PLATREEF PROJECT
knowledge repository of formal and informal businesses as well as skilled individuals

within the proposed projects primary labour sending area.
During the survey, a total of 8,634 respondents registered their skills on the database.
In general individuals who registered are relatively young, with 89% being younger
than 40 years. With regards to gender females (52%) slightly outnumber males (48%).
About 90% of respondents have at least some secondary education, while a quarter
have attained some kind of tertiary education.
The majority (87%) of individuals who registered on the database are unemployed.
However, most of them were previously employed and have some workplace
experience. The majority of individuals were previously employed in the retail (12%),
administration (10%) and service sectors (10%). Another 7% of individuals were
previously employed in the mining sector.
A total of 537 respondents registered their businesses on the business database.
Unlike the residency of respondents registered on the skills database, the results
derived from the business survey, showed that a larger number of businesses are
located near the immediate study area. Most businesses specialise in building and
construction (20%), providing services (12%), and catering (10%). About 25% of these
businesses are located in Mahwelereng Village, and have been trading for more than
three years. Nearly 80% of businesses are registered as Close Corporations, while
only 5% are informal or unregistered businesses.
With regards to the total workforce of registered businesses, most companies
indicated that they employ less than five employees, while 35% indicated that they
employ five to 19 employees. Only 12% of companies indicated that their total
workforce ranges between 20 and 99.
Business owners were requested to indicate whether they are involved in contract
work, and just less than one third indicated that they were. These businesses mostly
specialise in the construction, service provision, and supply sectors. Of the
businesses regularly involved in contract work, the experience with mining contracts
includes catering, maintenance, construction, service provision, and supply.
It should be noted that the results of the survey only reflect the current trends in the
skills and business domains and, as a result, the usefulness of the databases will be
limited in future by the dated nature of the information they contain. To maintain and
improve the utility of these databases, Digby Wells recommended that they should be
updated on a regular basis, either by updating existing skills profiles or by allowing
new registrations.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 4-24
PLATREEF PROJECT
4.12
Significant Risk Factors

There are two significant permitting risks to Project development.
The first lies with any requirement for resettlement of occupants of townships on the
three farms. This risk is much less if underground mining operations are conducted
versus open-pit operations.
The second is the necessity for Ivanplats and Atlatsa to have lodged mining right
applications prior to the expiry of the prospecting licences in 2014, with appropriate
documentation such that legal grant of a mining lease can be obtained.
4.13
Comments on Section 4
In the opinion of the QPs, the information discussed in this section supports the
declaration of Mineral Resources. The QPs note the following:
Information provided by legal experts and Ivanplats support Ivanplats ownership

claims to Prospecting Right LP30/5/111/2/872PR. Ivanplats will need to apply for a
mining right prior to expiry of Prospecting Right No. LP30/5/111/2/872PR in May
2014. The application is planned to be lodged during Q2 2013
Ivanplats should seek legal opinion to confirm which elements are encompassed in
the grant of Prospecting Right LP30/5/111/2/872PR for base and precious metals,
to confirm if chrome is included in the list. AMEC notes that chromium is only
present in the form of thin chromitite stringers in the Project area
A joint venture with Atlatsa, over the Rietfontein farm, the circumstances of which
were in dispute, has now been settled. An agreement, dated 11 December 2009
that covers the previously-disputed area is currently in force between Ivanplats and
Atlatsa
Ivanplats and Atlatsa may need to prepare additional legal agreements between
the South African-registered subsidiary companies to meet South African law with
respect to the 2009 agreement
Ivanplats advised AMEC that Ivanplats has submitted an offer to outright purchase
the rights to Rietfontein from Atlatsa. Atlatsa is considering the offer
The Rietfontein licence renewal application was lodged on 22 August 2011;

however, at the Report effective date, the renewal is still pending. AMEC
considers that, until there is legal opinion to the contrary, it a reasonable
expectation that the renewal will be forthcoming, and that therefore declaration of
Mineral Resources on Prospecting Right No. LP30/5/111/2/872PR and
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 4-25
PLATREEF PROJECT
Prospecting Right No. LP30/5/111/2/740PR can be supported. Rietfontein is

critical to open-pit mining on Turfspruit. If the Prospecting Right on Rietfontein is
not renewed, Mineral Resources amenable to extraction by open-pit mining
methods on both Rietfontein and Turfspruit would have to be re-evaluated
Assuming the Rietfontein prospecting right is renewed, Atlatsa will need to apply
for a mining lease prior to expiry of Prospecting Right No. LP30/5/111/2/740PR in
August 2014
Mining lease applications require appropriate supporting documentation, including

completion of a scoping report, EIA, development of an environmental
management program, and a requirement to meet BEE provisions
Surface rights within the areas of the Rietfontein, Macalacaskop and Turfspruit
Farm areas belong to the national government. AMEC considers that there is a
reasonable expectation that land access and provision of land for infrastructure
development for any proposed mining activity will be achievable following
appropriate negotiation and compensation payments
A royalty will be payable to the South African Government on production; this will
be determined on whether the mined product will be classified as either a refined
(capped at 5%), or unrefined (capped at 7%) material
Exploration activities to date have been conducted within the regulatory framework
required by the South African Government
Collection of baseline environmental data has commenced. The current state of

knowledge on environmental and permit status for the Project supports the
declaration of Mineral Resources. Additional permits will be required for Project
development
A gazetted land claim has been lodged over the Rietfontein farm; information
provided to Ivanplats by the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform
indicates a non-gazetted claim by the Mokopane Tribe over the area covered by
Prospecting Right LP30/5/111/2/872PR
Should an open-pit mining scenario be considered, provision will need to be made

for relocation of villages and infrastructure that exists in the likely footprint area of
an open-pit mine. The impact of an underground operation will involve a smaller
surface area, (which could be mitigated if fill were introduced after mining to
mitigate subsidence), so that there are likely to be fewer relocation requirements
AMEC notes that there have been instances where drill programs have been
affected by short-term access issues, most recently in 2012. Over the 12+ years
Ivanplats has been conducting exploration activities, the company has previously
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 4-26
PLATREEF PROJECT
managed to reach resolutions such that the planned work has been able to be
completed
Through their actions to date, Ivanplats has shown their understanding of, and
accepts the importance of, proactive community relations, and is continuing to
liaise with representatives of the local communities.
To the extent known, there are no other significant factors and risks that may affect
access, title, or the right or ability to perform work on the property.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 4-27
PLATREEF PROJECT
5.0
5.1
ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES,

INFRASTRUCTURE, AND PHYSIOGRAPHY
Accessibility
The Project is located approximately 280 km northeast of Johannesburg. Year-round
access is by four-lane, paved, all-weather road to Mokopane (formerly Potgietersrus).
From Mokopane the access continues as a two-lane, paved, all-weather national
highway. The highway passes through the Project. Access to drill sites and other
areas within the Project is by gravel all-weather roads or by unpaved tracks.
The closest major international airport is Johannesburg, about a four-hour drive from
Mokopane, and the regional hub is at Polokwane (formerly Pietersburg) 56 km to the
north of Mokopane.
Limpopo Province has a developed rail network, connecting with lines that lead to
Zimbabwe in the north, Maputo in Mozambique to the east and south to Gauteng
Province. The closest railhead to the Project is in Mokopane.
5.2
Climate
The climate is semi-arid, with precipitation occurring as rain. Average annual rainfall is
around 300 mm. Over 90% of the annual rainfall occurs between the months of
October and March. The highest monthly averages typically occur in November and
December; however, Golder Associates (2011) noted the highest monthly rainfall as
112 mm in January 1923.
High daily temperatures occur throughout the year; the mean maximum monthly
temperatures range from 21C to 33C, with a maximum recorded temperature of
39C. During the winter months the temperature may drop to around 0C, although
freezing is extremely rare. The mean minimum monthly temperature ranges from 6C
to 20C.
Golder Associates (2011) noted that at Mokopane winds originate from the north
(17.5% of the time) and from the northnorthwest (14.5% of the time). Wind speeds
are low to moderate, with a low percentage (19.46%) of calm conditions (<1 m/s).
It is expected that any future mining operations will be able to be conducted yearround.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 5-1
PLATREEF PROJECT
Electrical energy, telephone service, and other infrastructure components are available
in Mokopane. Mokopanes town centre is located approximately 11 km from the centre
of the Project. Large-scale infrastructure, such as high-voltage electrical lines and
large volumes of water, are situated within moderate distances from the Project. The
main line of the national railroad system passes approximately 6 km east of the
Project.
5.2.1
Local Labour Resources

There is a moderate level of mining activity within a 100 km radius around the farms.
A large, unskilled labour force lives in urban areas near and on the farms. These
people can be trained for many job assignments if a project is developed, as is
demonstrated by Ivanplats employment of approximately 80 staff from the Mokopane
area. Some skilled trade positions and professional staff will have to be recruited from
outside the area.
Adequate town-site facilities and infrastructure exist to support an influx of personnel.
Housing may have to be constructed or subsidised for some positions.
5.2.2
Power Supply
The results of a 2007 study (Pienaar and Erwee) indicated that extension of the
existing national power grid transmission and distribution systems from the Eskom
substations to the project area was feasible and could be undertaken following
completion of an agreement between Eskom and Ivanplats. An agreement was
entered into with Eskom to supply a permanent 70MVA of power from an expansion of
the national grid which will bring an additional high voltage line near the project.
As power is required for the initial mine development (shaft sinking), prior to the
completion date of the permanent supply from 4,800 MW Medupi Power Station
currently under construction, an agreement for 5MVA of temporary construction power
was concluded with Eskom. This power will be supplied from a local sub-station close
to Mokopane.
Any power requirements prior to the supply of temporary construction power will be
supplied by diesel generated sets.
Based on these studies and discussions, Amec is of the opinion that there is a
reasonable expectation that the electrical need for any proposed project development
can be met.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 5-2
PLATREEF PROJECT
Based on these studies and discussions, AMEC is of the opinion that there is a
reasonable expectation that the electrical need for any proposed project development
can be met.
5.2.3
Water Supply
The Limpopo province and the Mokopane area in particular, are considered to be
particularly water-poor resource areas and various studies were commissioned to
determine the most likely water supply sources for the project.
Ivanplats is a participant in the Olifants River Water Resource Development Project
(ORWRDP) which is designed to deliver water for domestic and industrial (mining)
purposes to the Eastern and Northern limbs of the bushveld complex. Ivanplats is also
a member of the Joint Water Forum (JWF) which facilitates and co-ordinates
discussions with the various participants in the water scheme. These participants
were required to indicate their projected water requirements from the scheme in order
for the total capacity to be determined. This was done, and the capacity required is
made up of 62 ML/day for domestic use and 78 ML /day for industrial projects i.e. a
total of 140 ML/day.
Under the ORWRDP, a pipeline is to be constructed between Flag Boshielo dam on
the Olifants River to Pruissen and from there to the North of Mokopane including the
Platreef and other projects (Figure 5-1). Ivanplats continued participation will require
contributions to the costs of pipeline construction. These costs will be in relation to the
number of participants in the final agreement.
The Department of Water Affairs (DWA) has stated that all water for the Northern Limb
(including any potential mining operation on the Platreef Project) would be supplied
through the ORWRDP. A number of possible water sources to augment the supply
system have been investigated, and most promising is acid mine drainage (AMD) from
the Witbank coalfields. Another possible source is the transfer of water from The Vaal
river system. Either of these sources will be treated and pumped into the Olifants
River. Another potential short-term source of water is ground water in the Project
area. Ground water sources have been identified and Ivanplats has applied for wateruse licenses from the DWA (Figure 5-2).
The QPs are of the opinion that between these sources, there is a reasonable
expectation that the water supply needs for any proposed Project development can be
met. The bulk of the long-term water supply is likely to be from the Flag Boshielo dam
via the Pruissen pipeline, with additional support from borehole sources. This
assumption will be reviewed during more detailed Project studies.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 5-3
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 5-1: Location Plan Flag Boshielo Dam and Proposed Water Pipeline
Note: Figure courtesy Ivanplats, 2013
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 5-4
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 5-2: Water Bore Location Plan
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 5-5
PLATREEF PROJECT
5.2.4
Highway Re-Alignment
The N11 national highway connects Mokopane with the South Africa/Botswana border.
The current road runs directly through the Turfspruit and Macalacaskop farms, and
serves the operating Mogalakawena (formerly Anglo Platinum PPL) mine and the
Lonmins Akanani Project. The road may need to be re-aligned away from the
footprint of any future open pit. Re-alignment is not expected to be required for
underground operations.
5.3
Physiography
The Rietfontein, Macalacaskop, and Turfspruit farms are located in a broad valley on
flat terrain with a gradual westerly slope. There is very little topographic relief on the
farms; however, to the east and west of the farms, semi-parallel, northsouth-trending,
high ridges flank the valley floor. A portion of the eastern ridge system trends onto the
Rietfontein farm, adjacent to Turfspruit. Figure 5-3 is a photograh taken in the Project
area illustrating the general topography.
The elevation on the farms ranges from a maximum of about 1,140 masl in northern
Turfspruit to about 1,060 masl on Macalacaskop.
The land on the farms has been disturbed by settlements and farming. Subsistence
farming and urban development covers the majority of all the farms. Some land has
been allowed to lie fallow and is being reclaimed by bush, comprising shrubs and small
trees. There are no remnant forests or other significant vegetation.
5.4
Sufficiency of Surface Rights

There is sufficient suitable land area available within the prospecting licences for any
future tailings disposal, mine waste disposal, and installations such as a concentrator,
smelter, and related mine infrastructure.
Should an open-pit operation be developed, AMEC notes that it is likely that a portion
of the mine disturbances associated with the development and mining of the open-pit
Mineral Resource would project beyond the current Ivanplats licence boundaries, onto
the adjacent Tweefontein Farm.
Arrangements would have to be made with adjacent landowners and mineral rights
holders in this instance. The QPs consider that there is a reasonable expectation that
such agreements could be successfully negotiated.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 5-6
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 5-3: Project Physiography
Note: Figure courtesy Ivanplats, 2012. Drill rigs show scale. Rigs are testing Zone 1.
5.5
In the opinion of the QPs:
Mining activities, whether open pit or underground, should be capable of being

conducted year-round
There is sufficient suitable land available for any future tailings disposal, mine
waste disposal, and installations such as a concentrator, smelter, and related mine
infrastructure within the prospecting licences
A number of studies were completed by Ivanplats during the early 2000s on

aspects of Project development, in particular on water and electricity availability. A
review of these studies, and assessment of the current and likely power and water
sources, manpower availability, and transport options indicates that there are
reasonable expectations that sufficient labour and infrastructure is available or
under construction to support declaration of Mineral Resources
Should an open-pit operation be envisaged, then there will likely be mine

disturbances associated with the development and mining of the open-pit Mineral
Resource projecting beyond the current Project boundary, particularly onto
Tweefontein Farm.
Arrangements would have to be made with adjacent
landowners in this instance. The QPs consider that there is a reasonable
expectation that such agreements can be successfully negotiated
The QPs have assumed that sufficient long-term water supply will be available to
the Project from the Pruissen pipeline scheme, and such a supply can be
supplemented from underground sources
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 5-7
PLATREEF PROJECT
6.0
HISTORY
During the 1970s, regional exploration was undertaken over the Platreef by
Rustenberg Platinum Holdings Limited (Rusplats), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Anglo
American Platinum Corporation (Amplats). Rusplats reportedly drilled several widelyspaced drill holes along the Platreef on Turfspruit and Macalacaskop farms. This
drilling followed-up earlier work by the predecessor of Amplats during the 1960s. No
data from either of these programs were available to AMEC for this Report.
Ivanplats acquired a prospecting permit for both Turfspruit and Macalacaskop farms in
February 1998, and subsequently Ivanplats entered into a joint venture (JV) with
Atlatsa over the Rietfontein farm in 2001.
Work completed by Ivanplats consists of geological mapping, airborne and ground
geophysical surveys, limited trenching, percussion drilling over the Platreef sub-crop,
core drilling, petrography, density determinations, metallurgical testwork and
preliminary engineering and design studies. These studies and Mineral Resource
estimates were performed in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011.
Ivanplats contracted Hatch Engineering in 2003 (Hatch: 2003a, 2003b, 2003c, 2003d;
Matyas, 2003) to provide a conceptual-level study for a greenfield NiPGE
concentrator/smelter. The study considered the smelter would treat an average of
1,200 t/d of concentrate. An update to the report assessed smelting of 1,850 t/d of
concentrate.
Between June 2003 and December 2003, Mineral Development Services Ltd. (MDS)
of South Africa (Lawrence, 2003) reviewed metallurgical testwork undertaken to June
2003, developed conceptual flow sheets, and prepared mechanical equipment lists for
a concentrator. MDS (2003, 2004) also developed preliminary (35%) capital and
operating cost estimates.
In 2003 to 2004, Ivanplats completed a second overall study on the Platreef Project.
This internal study (African Minerals, 2004) was used to assess the amenability of the
deposit to open-pit mining (AMEC, 2003a, 2004a, 2004b). Figures 6-1 and 6-2 show
three-dimensional views of the conceptual ultimate pits. Results of the work indicated
that the mineralization on the Turfspruit/Rietfontein farms was more likely to support a
mining operation than the mineralization on the Macalacaskop farm.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 6-1
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 6-1: Conceptual Pit Designed to Depth of Approximately 500 m
Note: Grid squares on plan are 500 m x 500 m; Figure prepared by AMEC, 2003
Figure 6-2: Conceptual Pit Designed to Depth of Approximately 560 m
Note: Grid squares on plan are 500 m x 500 m; Figure prepared by AMEC, 2003
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 6-2
PLATREEF PROJECT
AMEC considers the studies to be useful as background support when considering

reasonable prospects for economic extraction for open-pit Mineral Resources in
Section Error! Reference source not found. of this Report.
Following news of AfriOres success in deep drilling to the north at Akanani (Witley,
2006), Ivanplats commenced a deep drilling program in 2007, to test for mineralization
down-dip within the Turfspruit farm and to investigate the continuity and grade in an
area targeted as having potential to be mined by underground methods. The drill
program identified the area of mineralization currently known as the Flatreef, and
supported estimation of mineral resources amenable to underground mining methods.
The initial estimates were updated multiple times in internal documentation between
2007 and 2011, and the 2011 update was publicly disclosed in Parker et al. (2012).
This Report presents a new Mineral Resource estimate update that supersedes the
2011 update and will be used as the basis for a Preliminary Economic Assessment
that is currently underway.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 6-3
PLATREEF PROJECT
7.0
GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION

Information on the Project regional setting and context is summarized from Parker
et.al., (2012). The project-level geology section has largely been prepared by or draws
on the work of Ivanplats personnel, specifically Dr. Danie Grobler and Shane Neilsen.
7.1
Regional Geology
Within the Kaapvaal Craton, the ~2.06 Ga Bushveld Igneous Complex (BIC) intrudes
the Transvaal Supergroup, forming the worlds largest layered intrusion and the worlds
largest source of platinum (Cawthorn, 1999). The Eastern and Western Limbs of the
BIC are well exposed and researched, whereas understanding ot the Northern Limb,
host to the Platreef Project, is still evolving.
Typically the BIC consists of a maficultramafic layered suite, a granite suite, and a
package of predominantly felsic volcanic rocks. The Rustenburg Layered Suite (RLS)
hosts major deposits of platinum group elements (PGEs), chromite, vanadium and
nickel (Figure 7-1). The suite has been subdivided into a number of zones described
from the basal units to the top; descriptions are abstracted from Kinnaird et al., (2005),
and Cawthorn (1999 and 2005):
The Marginal Zone (MZN) Norites with variable proportions of accessory

clinopyroxene, quartz, biotite and hornblende, indicating magma contamination
from the underlying sediments. This unit is not always present
Lower Zone (LZ) upper and lower peridotites separated by a central harzburgite
Critical Zone (CZ) Lower Critical Zone comprises orthopyroxenitic cumulates;

Upper Critical Zone consists of packages of chromitite, harzburgite, pyroxenite,
norite and anorthosite. The CZ hosts PGEAuNiCu and chromite deposits in
several different chromitite layers, known as reefs, the most significant being the
Merensky and the Upper Group 2 (UG2) reef of the Eastern and Western Limbs.
These range on average from 0.4 to 1.5 m thickness, and PGEs typically range
from 4 to 10 g/t (Cawthorn, 2005)
Main Zone (MZ) a succession of gabbronorites with occasional anorthosite and

pyroxenite bands
Upper Zone (UZ) gabbroic succession.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 7-1
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 7-1: Regional Geological Plan of the Bushveld Complex
Note: Modified after Viljoen and Schrmann, 1998, section line represents location of section in Figure 7-2.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 7-2
PLATREEF PROJECT
7.2
Northern Limb
The Northern Limb (formerly Potgietersrus Limb) of the BIC hosts the Platreef
mineralization on the Project. Figure 7-2 shows a schematic section through the BIC
that has been modified by Ivanplats to illustrate the interpreted Merensky Reef
analogue within the Project area.
Structurally, the Northern Limb is separated from the rest of the BIC by a craton-wide
linear structure called the ThabazimbiMurchison Lineament (TML). In the area
around Mokopane the near-surface expressions of the lineament are the Zebediela
and PlanknekYsterberg faults (Figure 7-3). In broad terms, Upper Zone and Main
Zone rocks in the Northern Limb are similar to those in the Eastern and Western Limbs
across the TML, but the underlying PGE-bearing mafic-ultramafic rocks of the RLS in
the Northern Limb are much thinner, and form a poorly understood composite intrusion
with contact-style mineralization adjacent the floor rocks, termed the Platreef. Recent
work by Ivanplats geologists provides evidence for a detailed stratigraphic correlation
between the Platreef and its mineralized zones, and the well-known mineralized
stratigraphy of the Upper Critical Zone and its Merensky and UG2 reefs, south of the
TML.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 7-3
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 7-2: Schematic Cross Section through Bushveld Igneous Complex
Note: Figure courtesy Ivanplats, 2012; modified after Kruger, 2005. Figure is schematic and not to scale. Section line illustrated is shown on Figure 71.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 7-4
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 7-3: Geological Plan of the Northern Limb of the BIC
Note: Figure courtesy Ivanplats, 2013, modified after van der Merwe (1976).
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 7-5
PLATREEF PROJECT
7.2.1
Lithologies
South of the Planknek-Ysterberg fault, the lower part of the Northern Limb stratigraphy
and its mineralized zones have been correlated with Upper Critical Zone (UCZ) rocks
(Maier et al., 2008).
North of the Planknek-Ysterberg fault, PGENiCu mineralization occurs within the
Platreef, a moderately to steeply west-dipping, <100m to 200-400m thick, composite
maficultramafic intrusion emplaced into Transvaal Supergroup metasedimentary
rocks and (to the north) into Archean granitegneiss (Kinnaird, 2005)
Crude internal stratigraphy within the Platreef has been documented but has been
difficult to correlate between properties. Where present it takes the form of a lower,
usually heterogeneous and less well mineralized zone of variable lithologies including
pyroxenite, harzburgite, norite, gabbronorite and xenoliths or rafts of variably digested
and metamorphosed Transvaal Supergroup rocks; an overlying well-mineralized zone
comprised mainly of pyroxenite and locally harzburgite; and an upper, generally poorly
mineralized pyroxenite (Kinnaird, 2005 and references therein; Comline et al, 2007).
Interpretation of Platreef lithologies, stratigraphy, and mineralization is hampered by
widespread contamination of the mafic-ultramafic magmas through the
digestion/assimilation process, particularly in the lower heterogeneous (contaminated)
zone. Previous subdivision of the mineralized upper Platreef in the Project area
(Parker et al., 2012) distinguished an Upper Top Loaded Zone (UTLZ) and a Lower
Top Loaded Zone (LTLZ), mainly within the B-Pyroxenite (BP).
In 2012, Ivanplats staff demonstrated that high-grade PGENiCu mineralization is
consistently hosted within an unconformable, non-cumulate, pegmatoidal, mafic to
ultramafic sequence, commonly bound by chromitite stringers and containing coarsegrained to pegmatoidal sulphides. Overlying this pegmatoidal package is a barren
feldspathic pyroxenite unit of variable thickness. A separate mineralized zone, of
disseminated, medium- to coarse-grained sulphides, is perched near the top of this
non-pegmatoidal feldspathic pyroxenite. This mineralization was previously identified
as the Upper and Lower Top-Loaded Zones.
Although generally thicker, these two zones share many similarities with the M1 and
M2 mineralized zones of the Merensky Reef (Davey, 1992; Lea, 1996), and the host
sequence of lithologies corresponds directly to the Merensky Cyclic Unit (MCU)
(Grobler et al., 2012). Hanging wall and footwall lithologies correspond to those
described for the Merensky Reef in the northern part of the Western Limb (Viljoen
1994 and 1999; Viljoen et al., 1986a; Viljoen et al, 1986b; Viring and Cowell 1999).
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 7-6
PLATREEF PROJECT
7.2.2
Structure
Emplacement of the BIC is generally considered to be associated with anorogenic
magmatism caused by intracratonic rifting (Friese, 2012). The Eastern Limb is
compartmentalized by several northeast-trending faults, whose map patterns indicate
they influenced the development of the Marginal, Lower, and Critical Zones.
In the Northern Limb, similar compartmentalization is suggested by the presence of
northeast to north-south faults that appear to separate sub-basins with different
internal stratigraphy (Figures 7-2, 7-3). Details of this require a better understanding
and correlation of stratigraphy within the Northern Limb. Pre-Bushveld fold structures
may also have influenced the development of the Platreef and, in general, of the
Northern Limb stratigraphy (Friese, 2003a; Friese and Chunnett, 2004; Nex, 2005).
7.2.3
Mineralization
The Platreef, which extends northward from Mokopane for at least 30 km, is defined as
a NiPGECuAu-bearing maficultramafic package with a hanging wall of MZ
gabbronorite and a footwall of Transvaal Supergroup meta-sedimentary rocks in the
south and Archaean granite gneiss in the north (Kinnaird, 2005). This definition
includes the mineralization on the Project, but excludes mineralization in Main Zone
gabbronorites north of the Drenthe farm, or south of Mokopane where mineralization
occurs in recognizably layered rocks of the Critical Zone (Kinnaird, 2005, Maier et al.,
2008).
Sulphide mineralization concentrated in the lower parts of the Platreef typically has
Pt/Pd ratios of less than 1, whereas the upper portion of the Platreef may have ratios
>1, and locally >2. PGE studies on the Platreef by Kinnaird et al, (2005) noted a poor
correlation between PGE and sulfur. The study concluded that PGE mineralization was
not simply controlled by segregating sulphide melt but rather the addition of semimetals to the magma as a result of contamination. This produced a complex PGE
assemblage including tellurides, bismuthides, and arsenides, in addition to PGE
sulphides.
Chromitite layers or stringers have been observed throughout the strike length of the
Platreef, but tend to be discontinuous (White, 1994; Holwell and McDonald, 2006;
Yudovskaya and Kinnaird, 2010). Platreef chromitites have been interpreted as
chromite-rich zones in pyroxenite, rather than continuous, persistent stratigraphic
layers as in the Critical Zone south of the TML (McDonald and Holwell, 2011).
Correlation of the Platreef mineralized zones with the reefs of the Upper Critical Zone
south of the TML has been suggested (Vermaak and van der Merwe, 2002; Maier et
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 7-7
PLATREEF PROJECT
al., 2008) but remains contentious. Maier et al, (2008) argued that Platreef-type
mineralization relates to a marginal setting whereby mineralization is focused along the
margin of the Bushveld intrusion, at the base of the Rustenburg Layered Suite in a
contact-style manner.
7.3
7.3.1
Project Geology
Overview
The generalized geology of the Project area is shown in Figure 7-4. Historically, the
bulk of scientific and exploration work on the Bushvelds Northern Limb has been
performed on the near-surface, generally steeply dipping, part of the Platreef that is
amenable to open-pit mining methods.
The floor of the Platreef (contact with Lower Zone or Transvaal) shows steep dips to
depths of 900 m (elevation 200 masl) . There is a strong right-angle bend at the south
end of Figure 7-5, reflecting a possible fault offset between the Turfspruit and
Macalacaskop basins of Kinnard (2005). Below the 200 m elevation is a zone of more
gentle dips with local discontinuities that probably also reflect faulting. This area of
near constant elevation has been called the Flatreef.
As shown in Figure 7-6, the top of the Platreef (contact with Main Zone) broadly
reflects the topography of the floor contact, but is smoother, particularly the Flatreef
(G1). There are two depressions that may have been influenced by the floor contact
(G3, G4); these are the locus of potholes (see discussion in Section 7.3.4) with
thickened TCU. The G2 area does not appear as a depression related to the floor
contact, but there is a slight sag in the top contact (see Figure 7-6) and thickened TCU
below (See Figures 7-15, 7-19, 7-20).
The change in dip of the Platreef at approximately 200 masl in the floor, 400 masl in
the top, is accompanied by fundamental changes in geology. Unlike the steeply
dipping up-dip area, the Platreef footwall here comprises apparently uncontaminated
pyroxenite, harzburgite, and dunite of Lower Zone affinity. In this area it was first
recognized that a cyclic magmatic stratigraphy exists and can be correlated from drill
hole to drill hole within the upper portion of the Platreef. This upper portion contains
well-developed, stratigraphically-constrained zones of chromitite and pegmatoid
associated with elevated PGE grades (Grobler et al., 2012). Ivanplats geologists
correlate these strata named by them the Turfspruit Cyclic Unit (TCU) with the Upper
Critical Zone south of the TML.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 7-8
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 7-4: Project Geology Plan
Note: Figure courtesy Ivanplats, 2013. Figure also shows the sub-outcrop position of the TCU units on the eastern side of the Turfspruit farm; P faults
are Pongola normal dip slip, K faults are Kibaran normal dip slip, and V faults are Ventersdorp dextral strike slip
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 7-9
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 7-5: Perspective View, Platreef Floor Looking NorthNortheast
200
G2
G3
0
G4
Elev.
North
East
G1
BottomofPlatreef
Note: Figure prepared by AMEC and Ivanplats, 2013. Contours in masl. View is from data available to December 2011. G1 = Flatreef, with
projection from gravity survey in 2012; G2, G3, G4 label areas where TCU is thickened.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 7-10
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 7-6: Perspective View, Platreef Top, Looking North-Northeast
G2
400
G3
G4
North
Elev.
East
G1
TopofPlatreef
Note: Figure prepared by AMEC and Ivanplats, 2013. Contours in m. View is from data available to December 2011. G1 = Flatreef, with projection
from gravity survey in 2012; G2, G3, G4 label areas where TCU is thickened.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 7-11
PLATREEF PROJECT
A geographical demarcation of the Project area into five zones has been developed
and is shown in Figure 7-7. The zones are based on different exploration target areas
rather than on geological criteria.
Mineralized intercepts for the Flatreef are shown in Table 7-1 and are based on the
drill holes shown in Figure 7-8. Grade shells were used to constrain grade estimation
(see Section 14.2). They are also useful to demonstrate the distribution of
mineralization. Table 7-2 shows the average true thicknesses of grade shells for the
TCU.
7.3.2
20122013 Geological Re-interpretation and Correlation with Upper Critical Zone

A new subdivision and nomenclature termed the Turfspruit Cyclic Unit (TCU) was
proposed for the upper Platreef on Turfspruit (Grobler and Nielsen, 2012; Grobler et
al., 2012). Re-interpretation of historical drill holes has allowed the extension of this
interpretation across the entire Project area, including the shallow mineralization
considered potentially amenable to open-pit mining methods that is located towards
the eastern boundary of Turfspruit. Although large areas show major contamination in
this area, the cyclic stratigraphy remains recognizable, and the sub-outcrop position of
the TCU has been established (refer to Figure 7-4). The general stratigraphic
sequence, as recently developed in the Project area is depicted in Figure 7-9.
The cyclic magmatic sequence now recognized within the Project area has been
subdivided into five major cyclic units, and correlated with Upper Critical Zone (UCZ)
south of the TML (Grobler et al., 2012). The units include from top to bottom:
Norite Cycles 1 (NC1) as hanging wall to the TCU; this unit is an analogue of the
Bastard Cyclic Unit (BCU), containing the Giant Mottled Anorthosite (GMA) at its
top
Turfspruit Cyclic Unit (TCU), the main mineralized cyclic unit; this unit is analogous
to the Merensky Cyclic Unit (MCU) that contains the Merensky anorthosite and
pyroxenite
Norite Cycles 2 (NC2) as footwall to the TCU; this unit is an analogue of the
Merensky footwall in the Western and Eastern BIC
Pseudo Reef Cyclic Units (PSR) that are restricted to large regional pothole
depressions and are analogous to the Pseudo Reefs of the Swartklip Facies
(Northwestern BIC) found in the interval between the Merensky Reef and UG2 reef
UG2 Cyclic Unit (UG2CU) is an analogue to the UG2 Cyclic Unit of the Western
and Eastern Limbs, exhibiting many similarities including leader triplets chromitite
stringers.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 7-12
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 7-7: Project Zones Plan
Note:
Figure courtesy Ivanplats, 2013; position of cross sections shown in Figure 7-8 and 7-15 are shown.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 7-13
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 7-8: Cross Section along Dip Section 11 Showing TCU (red)
Note: Figure courtesy Ivanplats 2012; drill intercepts calculated by AMEC are provided in Table 7-3. Location of section line is indicated in Figure 7-6.
At the southwestern end of the section the TCU and UG2CU are both shown.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 7-14
PLATREEF PROJECT
Table 7-1:
DHID
ATS068
ATS126
UMT328
UMT258
UMT256
UMT235
UMT234
UMT233
UMT232
UMT231
UMT230
UMT229
UMT278
UMT067
UMT376
UMT377
UMT341D1
UMT094
UMT345
Intercepts Grading > 2 g/t and > 3 g/t 3PE Located on Section Shown in
Figure 7-8
From (m)
199.30
333.91
687.59
865.00
836.93
850.00
810.00
843.00
835.00
815.00
803.00
807.43
780.00
758.28
703.18
700.00
694.00
1256.99
1429.00
2 g/t 3PE Composites

Drilled Length (m) % Ni
7.06
0.36
5.88
0.33
15.41
0.29
21.00
0.26
4.07
0.42
15.00
0.27
26.06
0.38
14.00
0.38
18.00
0.38
11.65
0.42
10.00
0.38
9.57
0.22
15.00
0.39
11.98
0.46
14.82
0.32
7.00
0.25
17.00
0.32
31.51
0.25
11.00
0.30
3 g/t 3PE Composites
Drilled Length (m) % Ni
3.04
0.53
Pd (g/t)
2.26
1.19
1.26
1.73
2.55
1.83
2.32
1.98
1.66
1.85
2.10
1.44
2.35
3.12
2.24
2.18
1.49
1.76
1.33
Au (g/t)
0.33
0.22
0.27
0.50
0.78
0.29
0.32
0.29
0.26
0.22
0.22
0.16
0.27
0.31
0.34
0.36
0.35
0.24
0.50
3PE (g/t)
4.90
3.01
2.66
4.29
6.24
3.96
4.75
4.32
3.98
3.67
4.00
3.31
4.69
5.55
4.65
5.27
3.44
3.74
3.74
DHID
From (m)
To (m)
% Cu Pt (g/t) Pd (g/t)
ATS068
199.30
202.34
0.30
3.95
3.36
ATS126
No 3g/t 3PE intercept
UMT328
699.00
703.00
4.00
0.39
0.23
1.16
1.56
UMT258
865.00
882.00
17.00
0.16
0.29
2.32
1.95
UMT256
836.93
841.00
4.07
0.42
0.26
2.91
2.55
UMT235
850.00
861.09
11.09
0.33
0.21
2.39
2.22
UMT234
810.00
836.06
26.06
0.38
0.20
2.12
2.32
UMT233
843.00
856.00
13.00
0.38
0.21
2.05
1.98
UMT232
835.00
851.26
16.26
0.39
0.20
2.17
1.72
UMT231
815.00
821.44
6.44
0.47
0.23
2.19
2.42
UMT230
803.00
812.00
9.00
0.39
0.18
1.73
2.19
UMT229
807.43
812.18
4.75
0.17
0.08
2.44
1.51
UMT278
780.00
793.00
13.00
0.39
0.19
2.27
2.52
UMT067
758.28
770.26
11.98
0.46
0.21
2.12
3.12
UMT376
708.33
716.00
7.67
0.49
0.25
2.99
3.52
UMT377
700.00
706.00
6.00
0.25
0.12
2.92
2.33
UMT341D1
695.00
706.00
11.00
0.33
0.16
1.72
1.57
UMT094
1257.82
1275.79
17.97
0.26
0.13
2.44
2.45
UMT345
1430.00
1440.00
10.00
0.30
0.14
1.97
1.40
Notes: Lengths approximate true thicknesses as most holes are drilled subperpendicular to the Platreef.
Au (g/t)
0.51
3PE (g/t)
7.82
0.35
0.58
0.78
0.34
0.32
0.29
0.26
0.28
0.23
0.22
0.29
0.31
0.43
0.39
0.37
0.30
0.51
3.07
4.85
6.24
7.95
4.75
4.32
4.15
4.89
4.16
4.17
5.08
5.54
6.94
5.65
3.66
5.20
3.88
Table 7-2:
To (m)
206.36
339.79
703.00
886.00
841.00
865.00
836.06
857.00
853.00
826.65
813.00
817.00
795.00
770.26
718.00
707.00
711.00
1288.50
1440.00
% Cu
0.21
0.21
0.17
0.16
0.26
0.17
0.20
0.21
0.20
0.21
0.17
0.09
0.19
0.22
0.16
0.12
0.16
0.12
0.14
Pt (g/t)
2.32
1.60
1.14
2.06
2.91
1.84
2.12
2.05
2.06
1.60
1.67
1.70
2.07
2.12
2.06
2.72
1.61
1.75
1.91
Average Grade Shell True Thicknesses
Nested Grade Shell
Indicated
(Zone 1, 100 x 100 m spacing)
Inferred
(Zones 2, 3)
3 g/t 3PE
17.1 m
12.9 m
2+3 g/t 3PE
24.3 m
18.0 m
1+2+3 g/t 3PE

29.1 m
Note: Computed where grade shell is present and at least 3 m thick
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 7-15
23.6 m
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 7-9: Proposed Cyclic Stratigraphic Framework
Note: Figure courtesy Ivanplats, 2012. PTP is an unmineralized ortho pyroxenite locally present at the base of the
TCU.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 7-16
PLATREEF PROJECT
The main difference between the UCZ cyclic units on Turfspruit and those in the
Eastern and Western Limbs is their greater thickness, particularly with regards the
TCU.
Figure 7-10 shows the correlation suggested by Ivanplats staff between the TCU and
cyclic units located on the Eastern and Western Limbs of the BIC.
Contamination by Transvaal sediments can occur within any of the stratigraphic
horizons; however, it is predominantly confined to the units below the TCU.
Contamination hampers footwall stratigraphic identification and is grouped into
Contaminated Zone (CZ) where dominant. To date, no evidence of the existence of
Lower Critical Zone lithologies have been found within the Turfspruit area, although
Lower Zone mafic to ultramafic rocks have been intersected in many deep holes within
the Project area.
Turfspruit Cyclic Unit (TCU)
The TCU is the best-developed cyclical unit recognized in the Project area and hosts
the principal mineralized reefs. The TCU is in general subdivided from the base
upwards into the following zones:
1. Mineralized pegmatoidal harzburgite and/or pegmatoidal olivine-bearing pyroxenite
(T2 Lower), locally with a chromitite stringer on its bottom contact
2. Mineralized pegmatoidal orthopyroxenite, commonly with a thin (~0.5 cm)
chromitite stringer marking its upper contact (T2 Upper)
3. Non-mineralized non-pegmatoidal medium-grained feldspathic pyroxenite (T1),
with a generally non-pegmatoidal mineralized zone near its top (T1m)
4. Mottled anorthosite--norite on the hanging wall contact (T1).
The pegmatoidal T2 Lower harzburgite exhibits a poikilitic texture whereby large
orthopyroxene oikocrysts enclose smaller olivine chromite grains. Higher PGE and
Ni-Cu grades (>4 g/t PGE, >0.4% Ni, >0.2% Cu) are commonly associated with the
pegmatoid and chromitite, although mineralization also persists into both the over- and
underlying rocks. Pt/Pd ratios also tend to be higher (>1.0) in association with
chromitite and pegmatoid. The T2 Upper + Lower pegmatoidal zone averages ~4 to
>20m in thickness.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 7-17
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT
Figure 7-10: Revised Stratigraphic Interpretation, Turfspruit Cyclic Unit
Toward chromite
stringer (UG2
analogue?)
Toward chromite
stringer (UG2
analogue?)
Note: Figure courtesy Ivanplats, modified by AMEC, 2012
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 7-18
PLATREEF PROJECT
The T1 pyroxenite is medium to coarse-grained, variably feldspathic, and usually

comprises the thickest unit within the TCU, averaging ~15 m, but thickening to as
much as 85 m in places (Nielsen and Grobler, 2012). The T1 pyroxenite contains the
mineralized T1 (T1m) zone, which consists of disseminated, medium to coarse-grained
sulphides hosted within the typically non-pegmatoidal feldspathic pyroxenite, locally
containing chromitite stringers. The T1m contact is gradational with adjacent weakly to
un-mineralized T1 pyroxenite. The basal 12 m of the T1 (directly above the T2
contact) is commonly weakly to moderately mineralized, and may contain millimetrethick chromitite leaders.
7.3.3
Delineation of New Platreef Regional Facies and Sub-Facies

Wagner (1929) divided the rocks of the Upper Critical Zone in the Western Limb of the
BIC into two regional facies, the Swartklip facies to the north and the Rustenburg
facies to the south of the Pilanesberg. The distinction was based on regional
lithological and thickness variations and the presence of olivine-bearing layers in the
Swartklip facies. Subsequently, based on the morphology of pothole structures and
thickness variations of the Merensky Reef, four sub-facies have been recognised in
the Rustenburg facies and two in the Swartklip facies (Viljoen et al., 1986a; Viljoen,
1999).
Consistent with the revised interpretation and correlation with the Upper Critical Zone
(UCZ), the UCZ recognized in the Project area is proposed to represent a new regional
facies, the Giant Pegmatoidal facies (Grobler et al., 2013). Establishment of the
Giant Pegmatoidal facies is based on the significant thickness difference of the
mineralized pegmatoidal T2 reef (~4 to >20 m), compared to the much thinner
pegmatoidal Merensky Reef (~ 1 m) (Grobler et al., 2013).
Four magmatic sub-facies are currently recognized within the Giant Pegmatoidal
facies, and were defined in an attempt to describe the T1m and T2 mineralized zones
(Figure 7-11). These facies are based on the distribution and development of the
different lithological units that represent the TCU and are expected to be applicable to
the entire Project area. The distribution and morphology of these sub-facies are
comparable to that of potholes described in the Merensky Reef south of the TML,
and is described further in the next section.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 7-19
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 7-11: Sub-facies Distribution of the Giant Pegmatoidal Facies across Zone 1 and
Zone 3
Note: Figure courtesy Ivanplats, 2013, after Grobler et al., 2013. Shaft noted on figure is the planned location of a
proposed exploration shaft. Refer to Section 7.3.5 for a discussion of the faulting indicated on the plan.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 7-20
PLATREEF PROJECT
The stratigraphy of the UCZ as described above is depicted in Table 7-3 and
Table 7-4. A comparison is made between the new UCZ stratigraphy, the previous
ModPak distinctions used by Ivanplats from 2010 to 2012 (Parker et al., 2012), the
historical Platreef interpretation and the recognised eastern and western Bushveld
stratigraphy. Table 7-5 summarises the stratigraphic column and provides generalised
rock compositions for each stratigraphic unit. Table 7-5 summarizes the regional and
sub-facies descriptions.
7.3.4
Geological Features of the UCZ in Project Area

Three distinct geological features (Figure 7-12) are recognized within the Project area
and include the following:
A double reef package within the northeastern part of Zone 1 (informally termed
the Bikkuri Reef)
Three different areas (G2, G3, G4) where UCZ lithologies show significant
thickening into what appear to be large depressions or pothole depressions, at
least two of which (G3, G4) are possibly controlled by existing pre-Bushveld fold
structures and/or faults. On the other hand in detail potholes can reflect magmatic
(thermal) erosion on a local scale, as shown in Figure 7-13. Such erosion may
have occurred at G2.
Presence of a flat-lying portion of the TCU again related to structural control.
Figure 7-14 shows an isopach map of the thickness of the 2+3 g/t grade shell. The
thickest zones correlate with the depressions described below. The axis of the
Flatreef tends to have the thinnest zones. The contour patterns, particularly in the well
drilled inset portion of Figure 7-14 are consistent with the pothole topography shown in
Figure 7-13. In addition to and in advance of underground exploration, a detailed
seismic survey will help to determine accurately the dimensions and amplitudes of
potholes.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 7-21
PLATREEF PROJECT
Table 7-3: Stratigraphic Correlations Summary

Platreef (White, 1994; Kinnaird et al., 2005)
Modpak (Parker et al., 2012)
Turfspruit (Grobler and Nielsen, 2012)
Upper Zone
Upper Zone
Upper Zone
Upper Zone
Main Zone
Main Zone (MZ)
Main Zone
Main Zone
Unconformity
Unconformity
Norite Cycle 1
Disturbed Zone
Bastard Anorthosite (BAN)
Disturbed Zone (DZ)
NC1
Bastard Reef (BAR)

Mottled Anorthosite (MAN)
C Pyroxenite
B pyroxenite (BP)
T1
Pegmatoidal B pyroxenite (PBP)
T2U
Harzburgite (HA)
T2L
B Pyroxenite
TCU
Unconformity
A Pyroxenite
Pyroxenites and harzburgites (PXHA)
Norite Cycle 2
NC2
Pseudo Reef
PSR
UG2 Hanging wall

Malmali subgroup
UG2 Chromitite
Contaminated Zone (CZ)
UG2CU
UG2 Footwall
Unconformity
Lower Zone
Lower Zone (LZ)
Lower Zone
Lower Zone
Marginal Zone
Marginal Zone (MZN)
Marginal Zone
Marginal Zone
Transvaal
Transvaal
Transvaal
Transvaal (FL)
Note: Contaminated Zone can occur at any stratigraphic level below the TCU
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 7-22
PLATREEF PROJECT
Table 7-4: Upper Critical Zone (UCZ) on Turfspruit and Macalacaskop (Grobler et al., 2013)
Turfspruit UCZ
NC1
NC1CU
TCU
Lithology
Petrographic Description
Interlayered sequence of
anorthosite, norite and feldspathic
pyroxenite
Comprises cyclical units of GN, AN, N, FPX and locally chromite.
Feldspathic pyroxenite
MAN
Mottled anorthosite
An anorthosite containing globules of pyroxene ranging in from mm

sized spotted to cm sized mottled anorthosite.
020
T1
Composed of 20% plagioclase feldspar; 80% orthopyroxene, with

minor clinopyroxene. Medium to coarse grained, with pyroxene
cumulates. Weak talc-tremolite-chlorite, as well as biotite alteration.
050
T1m
Mineralized feldspathic pyroxenite
Portion of the T1 feldspathic pyroxenite that contains fine- to mediumgrained sulphides.
010
T2U
Orthopyroxenite
Poikilitic pegmatoidal orthopyroxenite, typically with a chrome stringer

marking the top contact. Composed of >70% orthopyroxene, <10%
clinopyroxene, <10% plagioclase and <10% olivine.
025
T2L
Harzburgite
Composed of >40% to <90% olivine; >10% to <40% orthopyroxene and

<10% clinopyroxene and plagioclase <10%. Often has a characteristic
poikilitic texture.
Interlayered sequence of
anorthosite, norite and feldspathic
pyroxenite
PSRCU
PSR
Harzburgite (Tarentaal)
UG2HW
LZ
Bastard Cyclic Unit
BAR
NC2
BIC UCZ
0100
Mineralised FPX located within the NC1, with a thin chrome stringer
often developed on the basal contact.
NC2CU
UG2CU
Thickness (m)
Comprises cyclical units of AN, N, FPX and occasional Cr stringer in

AN. Sporadically mineralised.
05
Merensky Cyclic
Unit
030
Unconformity
0100
Footwall Norite 1-12
Composed of feldspathic harzburgite with subhedral plagioclase grains.

Well mineralised with base metal sulphides (Ni and Cu) and less PGEs.
0200
Pseudo Reef
Composed of medium-grained cumulus orthopyroxene and

intercumulus plagioclase with minor cumulus clinopyroxene, massive
igneous texture.
0-150
UG2
Chromitite
Fine to medium-grained chromitite band. Subhedral to euhedral

chromitite band consists of orthopyroxenes, clinopyroxene and
plagioclase grains.
01.5
UG2FW
Olivine orthopyroxenite
Composed of medium-grained abundant intercumulus plagioclase and

rounded cumulus olivine commonly enclosed by oikocrysts of
clinopyroxene, crudely layered poikilitic igneous texture.
Orthopyroxenite, harzburgite and

dunite
Composed of orthopyroxenite, harzburgite and dunite. Fine to medium

grained orthopyroxenite with interstitial plagioclase is characterized by
very fine-grained disseminated sulphides.
LZ
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 7-23
UG2 Cyclic Unit
050
Unconformity
0200
Lower Zone
PLATREEF PROJECT
Turfspruit UCZ
Lithology
Petrographic Description
Thickness (m)
CZ
CZ
Parapyroxenite, calc-silicate,
hornfels, quartzite xenoliths
A mixture of parapyroxenite (a mixture of metamorphosed

metasediments, pyroxenite and serpentinite) and calc-silicate (a
partially melted dolomite with inter-bedded chert). Associated with
massive sulphide bodies.
0350
TVL
TVL
Quartzite, hornfels, dolomite
Very fine to fine-grained metasedimentary rocks.
0250
Table 7-5: Facies and Sub-Facies Description

Facies
Giant
Pegmatoidal
Facies (GPF)
Sub-Facies
Abbreviation
Bikkuri Reef
BRS
Normal Reef
NRS
Flatreef
FRS
Pothole Reef
PRS
Note: Table after Grobler et al., 2013
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 7-24
Description
Surprise reef intersected at shallower than expected depths and
forming a double reef package on the eastern side of Zone 1.
Reef exhibiting more normal thicknesses.
Noritic footwall stratigraphy with a well-developed UG2 Cyclic Unit
Flat-lying anomalously thick T2 reef.
Thickening of lithologies into large depression structures.
Development of olivine-bearing harzburgitic units at or near the base
of the TCU.
Footwall of thick Pseudo Reef pyroxenite and feldspathic
harzburgite.
BIC UCZ
Transvaal
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 7-12: Geophysical Plan, Falcon Gravity Data Showing Major Geological Fea
G3
G2
G4
G1
Note: Figure courtesy Ivanplats, 2013. G1 represents the Flatreef; G2, G3 and G4 represent areas with thickened TCU; blue dashed perimeter indicates location of
Bikkuri Reef.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 7-25
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 7-13: Pothole Structures, Karee Platinum Mine (Rustenburg Area)
Note: Photographs from van der Merwe and Cawthorn, 2005. Photographs show the occurrence of pothole
structures at the base of the UG2 chromitite reef. Note human figures standing inside pothole structure in
photograph on the right, which provide scale.
Figure 7-14: Isopach Map of the 2+3 g/t Grade Shell (units m)
Note: Figure courtesy Ivanplats, 2013. Based on UMT-TCU model and gravity survey. G1 represents the Flatreef;
G2, G3, G4 are areas with thickened TCU.
Project No.: 172476
Page 7-26
PLATREEF PROJECT
The largest feature recognized within the TCU is a depression (G2) that occurs
within the eastern part of Zone 1, where significant thickening of the NC1 and the
upper (T1) stratigraphic layer of the TCU occur. This depression contains a distinct
thickening of the T1 feldspathic pyroxenite. A second similar depression (only
partly drilled) is present towards the northwestern edge of Zone 1 (G3). However,
in this case, thickening of the both the TCU as well as its footwall units (still in the
Platreef) appear to have occurred. A third depression (G4) occurs mainly in the
Zone 2 area in the southern part of the Turfspruit. Features related to these
structures appear to be reminiscent of regional pothole structures as described
from other parts of the BIC (Viljoen et al., 1986a; Viljoen et al., 1986b; Viring and
Cowell, 1999). Smaller potholes appear to be present within the Flatreef based
on the distribution of T2 Lower olivine-bearing lithologies. The regional pothole and
normal sub-facies are very similar to those recognized and described from the
Western and Eastern Limbs of the BIC.
A further, unique, feature recognized within Zone 1 is the Flatreef portion of the
Platreef, initially recognized as being flat-lying compared to the steeper-dipping
reefs within the Zone 4 area (the portion of the deposit where mineral resources
amenable to open pit mining are located). Ongoing studies suggest that intrusion
of the TCU appears to have been partially controlled by pre-Bushveld folds and
faults evident in the Transvaal Supergroup sedimentary rocks. The presence of
identical centimetre to metre scale primary cyclic magmatic layering in both steep
and flat-dipping parts of the Project area suggests that post-Bushveld faulting tilted
originally flatlying zones to current steep orientations in the up-dip area, while the
Flatreef maintained more or less its original geometry. The Flatreef in essence
appears to contain better-mineralized T2 mafic to ultramafic units compared to the
surrounding areas, where the T1m and T2 reefs occur in closer proximity to each
other. Juxtaposition of different T2 lithologies (possibly normal and pothole subfacies) is difficult to model at the current drill spacing, but may be due to strike-slip
displacement across fault structures.
Figure 7-15 is a cross-section through the mineralized zone and illustrates the
different sub-facies recognized across the Turfspruit drilled extent. Structural
displacement is evident on cross-sections and plan views on distribution plots of
the different facies (refer to Section 7.3.4 for a discussion of Ivanplats structural
interpretation of the Flatreef area.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 7-27
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 7-15: Cross-section along Dip Section 7 through Zone 1 Turfspruit Cyclic Unit.
Note: Figure courtesy Ivanplats, 2013. Figure displays the occurrence of the different sub-facies within the interpreted Giant Pegmatoidal Facies. Each strip log at
the tope of the figure corresponds with the geology observed in the drill section below. Cross section location shown in Figure 7-7.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 7-28
PLATREEF PROJECT
7.3.5
Structure
Ivanplats has used the regional structural interpretations of Friese (2012) as a
framework to guide structural interpretations in the Project area.
Five major groups of faults have been recognized regionally in the Bushveld according
to their relative timing, orientation, and kinematics (Table 7-6, after Friese, 2012). On
the Project, Ivanplats geologists have interpreted the Pongola (P), Kibaran (K) and
Ventersdorp (V) fault sets mainly in Zone 1 where there is detailed drilling. Fault
interpretations were generated by Ivanplats staff, using a combination of contour
mapping and dip direction data (Figure 7-16, Figure 7-17) with Figure 7-18 providing a
summary plan. This information provides the Project-wide framework for a conceptual
model of the structural anomaly locally termed the Flatreef in Zone 1. Current
interpretations show that the mineralization in the Flatreef area has been both
upfaulted and downthrown. This is illustrated in the sections included as Figure 7-19
to Figure 7-21. Figure 7-18 shows the locations of the section lines.
7.3.6
Mineralogy of PGE-Base Metal Mineralization in the Project Area

There are six separate mineralized zones found throughout the Upper Critical Zone on
the Project (refer to Table 7-5). The T1m and T2 are by far the best developed and
shows good continuity across the property.
The other mineralized zones mostly contain erratic mineralization and disrupted
continuity along strike and dip.
The primary magmatic mineralization on Turfspruit 241KR, in general, exhibits the
same geological characteristics as described for the Merensky Reef within the Upper
Critical Zone of the BIC.
Although much thicker than the normal Merensky Reef, the Turfspruit T1 and T2 reefs
are much less affected by contamination from sedimentary xenoliths than most of the
other units below. The Pseudo- and UG2 Reefs found stratigraphically below the TCU
usually are less continuous, being disrupted by sedimentary xenoliths and associated
contamination/alteration.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 7-29
PLATREEF PROJECT
Table 7-6:
Name
Azimuth
Summary of Structural Features in the Bushveld and Project Area
Dip
Type
Sense
Age
Features
Comment
Association
<40 cm brittle ductile tectonite

with thin calcite veins,
occasional granitic healing
Displaced by all three

other fault groups, 10
- 35 m of net vertical
displacement, dextral
strike-slip reactivation
Granite
dykes
Pongola
Extensional
Faults
NW
Steep
Normal
Extensional
Murchison Orogeny
(2.98 2.96 Ga)
Group 2
Thrusts
SE
Shallow
Thrust
Reverse
Ubendian Orogeny and

syn-Bushveld Complex
(2.1 1.86 Ga)
Semi-ductile, thin (3 - 60 cm),

quartz veins and
serpentinization on thrust
planes
Subsidiary
compressive
structures
Shallow
Layerparallel
Reverse
followed by
normal
reactivation
Ubendian Orogeny and

syn-Bushveld Complex
(2.1 1.73 Ga)
Semi-ductile, thin (3 - 60 cm),

quartz veins and
serpentinization on thrust
planes
Flexural slip thrusts

common on
stratigraphic contacts
Kibaran Orogeny
(1.35 1.2 Ga)
Intensely sheared fracture

surfaces with brittle-ductile
tectonite infill and thin calcite
veins
Major basement
detachments with
undulating dips
Cross-cut by reactivated Pongola and
Ventersdorp
orientated faults.
Reactivation synBushveld Complex of

Limpopo Orogeny rifts.
(1.15 1.1 Ga)
Intensely deformed country

rock now present as <50 cm
thick ductile tectonite with
slickenside features on fault
surfaces, thin calcite veins and
serpentinization
Prominent regional
structures, 75 m of
net vertical
displacement. First
and second order
shears form largescale dextral strikeslip duplexes
Group 1
Thrusts
Kibaran
Extensional
faults
Ventersdorp
Shear Zones
NW
NE
Steep
Sub
vertical
Normal
StrikeSlip
Extensional
Dextral
followed by
sinistral
reactivation
From Freise (2012).
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 7-30
Granite sills
Granite and
dolerite
dykes
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 7-16: ContourDip Direction Plan, Flatreef (Zone 1) Area
Note: Figure courtesy Ivanplats, 2013. Zone 1 boundaries are shown in black; contours and dips related to the T1 Main Zone contact as per drilling
data.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 7-31
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 7-17: Inset Plan, Flatreef (Zone 1) Area
Note: Figure courtesy Ivanplats, 2013. Backdrop is the Falcon gravity survey based elevation contour plan for the
Main Zone-Platreef isosurfaceshown as RL in metres above sea level. Grey perimeter is Area1. Ventersdorp dextral
strike-slip faults are indicated as red lines, Pongola normal dip-slip faults as pale blue or grey lines, and Kibaran normal
dip-slip faults as green lines. Drill collars indicated as filled black circles.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 7-32
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 7-18: Simplified Structural Plan Showing Locations of Wire-Frame Drill Sections
Note: Figure courtesy Ivanplats, 2013. . Ventersdorp dextral strike-slip faults are indicated as red lines, Pongola
normal dip-slip faults as blue lines, and Kibaran normal dip-slip faults as green lines. Drill collars indicated as filled blue
boxes.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 7-33
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 7-19: TCU Dip Section 7, Looking Northwest
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 7-34
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 7-20: TCU Dip Section 7 (inset), Looking Northwest
Note: Figure courtesy Ivanplats, 2013.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 7-35
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 7-21: T1 Wireframe, Dip Section 11, Looking Northwest
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 7-36
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
PGM and Base-metal Sulphide Occurrence

Unless otherwise referenced, the remainder of this section is based on work
conducted on the ATS and AMK deposits by Hutchison (2003), and Hutchison and
Kinnaird (2005); and is summarized from the UMT model report (AMEC, 2010). Much
of the work described here was confirmed by mineralogy conducted in association with
metallurgical testwork (see Section 13.3).
Within the Platreef, both base metal sulphides and PGMs occur as disseminations.
The sulphides range from 5 m to less than 2 cm in size and may form within primary
silicates, often as oriented intergrowths, or interstitial to the primary silicates, or within
the alteration assemblage of talc, tremolite and serpentine. Much of the sulphide
component appears to be associated with intergranular quartzofeldspathic veinlets,
and chalcopyrite is also common in irregular veinlets and infilling small fractures.
There are a wide variety of PGE phases, mainly as tellurides, arsenides, and
antimonides of Pd, Pt, Rh, Ag, and variable amounts of Bi occurring as bismuthoantimonides and complex bismuthotellurides. PGMs occur as small micrometre-sized
(typically less than 5 m) satellite grains around composite sulphide grains, or they are
dispersed within the primary silicate phases unrelated to any sulphides. PGMs also
occur in alteration assemblages dominated by talc, tremolite and serpentine. Less
commonly, PGMs occur as inclusions within the disseminated and net-textured
sulphides. There appear to be several phases of sulphide formation. An early phase
is dominated by irregular blebs of disseminated pyrrhotite and pentlandite, and a later
phase exists where chalcopyrite is more abundant, and the sulphides are associated
with quartzfeldspathic material, both interstitial to primary silicates and thin veinlets.
Figure 7-22 shows core with sulphides in drill hole UMT083 at approximately 1,323 m
drill depth. Figure 7-23 shows photomicrographs of four Platreef samples.
Base-Metal Sulphides
Within the Platreef at Macalacaskop and Turfspruit farms, sulphide contents range
modally from less than 1% to more than 25%; rare sections of core may have massive
sulphides over a scale of tens of centimetres. Textures vary from centimetre-sized
blebs to sub-millimetre grains, composed of pyrrhotite, pentlandite and chalcopyrite, to
irregular intergranular monomineralic grains composed of pyrrhotite or pentlandite.
Veins and net-textured mineralization predominantly consisting of pyrrhotite are
common in the peridotites (harzburgites), pyroxenites and hornfelses.
Project No.: 165023

September 2012
Page 7-37
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 7-22: Core Photograph from UMT083 at 1,323 m Depth, Illustrating Sulphide Mineralization
Note: The yellowish mineral is chalcopyrite; the dull purplish mineral is pyrrhotite; the light cream mineral with higher reflectance and some cleavage is
pentlandite. Core photographs courtesy Ivanplats, 2011
Project No.: 165023

September 2012
Page 7-38
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 7-23: Transmitted and Reflected Light Photomicrographs of Four Platreef Samples
Cpy chalcopyrite
Pld pentlandite
PGM platinum group mineral
Po pyrrhotite
Opx orthopyroxene
Transmitted
Reflected
Reflected
Reflected
Project No.: 165023

September 2012
Plag plagioclase
Ol
olivine
Bt
biotite
Qtz quartz
Amph amphibole
Page 7-39
PLATREEF PROJECT
Samples from drill holes show a number of textures, the most frequent being large
fractionated blebs together with smaller disseminated monomineralic grains.
The sulphides occur typically as disseminated grains, varying in size from a few
micrometres (mainly in serpentinized peridotite and calc-silicate rocks) to 2 cm blebs.
The base metal sulphides are, in places, intergrown with secondary silicate replacing
primary silicates, and in secondary hydrothermal veins traversing the primary or
secondary silicates.
In 2010, a mineralogical study of three Platreef UMT metallurgical samples indicated
most base-metal sulphides were liberated at a 75 m grind (Duarte and Theron, 2010).
Platinum Group Minerals (PGMs)
The distribution of the discrete PGMs within the Platreef tends to be broadly controlled
by stratigraphic position, with the uppermost part of the Platreef commonly carrying the
highest PGE grades. On a hand-specimen scale the distribution can be erratic. Some
samples are poorly mineralized, and others contain numerous grains, often with similar
PGM minerals clustered together. The majority of the PGM grain sizes in the Platreef
and footwall are very small (less than 10 m to 5 m), with few exceptions where grain
sizes range between 20 m and 60 m.
Based on work done by Armitage et al. (2002) and internal research by Ivanplats, the
PGMs identified can be classed as:
High-temperature alloys; high-temperature semi-metalloids (arsenides and

antimonoarsenides)
lower-temperature semi-metalloids (antimonides, tellurides, bismuthotellurides)
Lower-temperature semi-metalloids (antimonides, tellurides, bismuthotellurides)
Lower-temperature alloys (PtPdGePb, PdAu, and AuAg alloys).
The recognized textural and mineralogical associations of PGM alloys are in base
metal sulphides, on the rims of base metal sulphides, oxides, primary silicates, and
alteration silicates.
7.3.7
Mineralized Units
The mineralized units in the Project area are summarized in Table 7-7.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 7-40
PLATREEF PROJECT
Table 7-7: Mineralization of Different Cyclic Units on Turfspruit and Macalacaskop, Northern Limb
Cyclic unit
Mineralized Zone
Description
NC1CU
BAR
Fine to medium grained magmatic sulphides hosted in feldspathic pyroxenite. BMS are
predominantly chalcopyrite, pentlandite and pyrrhotite.
T1
Medium to coarse grained magmatic sulphides grains hosted in feldspathic pyroxenite.
T2
Very coarse grained magmatic sulphides hosted in pegmatoidal orthopyroxenite and

pegmatoidal poikilitic harzburgite. The top of the mineralized zone is commonly marked by a
chromite stringer.
PSRCU
PSR
Medium to coarse grained magmatic sulphide hosted in pyroxenite and feldspathic harzburgite.
High percentage of base metal (Ni and Cu) is associated with this unit.
UG2CU
UG2
Fine grained sulphides hosted in chromitite. Associated with high grade PGEs
Platreef contact style mineralization
Massive sulphide bodies hosted on the Bushveld - Transvaal contact. Predominantly Ni and Cu
rich with minor PGEs
TCU
Other
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 7-41
PLATREEF PROJECT
Mineralization within the TCU

The main mineralized zone of primary magmatic nature occurs within pegmatoidal T2
rocks at the base of the TCU (Figure 7-24). The vertical distribution of mineralization
generally takes the following form:
In Normal Reef facies (refer to Table 7-6), the pegmatitic harzburgite (T2
Lower) is absent and mineralization is contained mainly within the pegmatitic
pyroxenite (T2 Upper). However, mineralization typically persists a variable
distance below the T2 Upper into the underlying pyroxenite-norite-anorthosite
NC2 cyclic unit.
In Pothole Reef facies, mineralization is continuous between T2 Upper

pegmatitic pyroxenite and T2 Lower pegmatitic poikilitic feldspathic harzburgite
and/or pegmatitic olivine-bearing pyroxenite (T2 Lower). The T2 Upper + T2
Lower mineralization generally shows good lateral continuity.
A third scenario occurs when the T2 Upper is in contact with contaminated

footwall lithologies (Contaminated Zone), however with careful observation
these may be interpreted as either one of the T2 Lower or NC2 units.
The T2 reef is marked at its top contact by an abrupt change in grain size and texture,
usually marked by a chromitite stringer of variable thickness. The sulphide grains also
show an increase in grain size across the contact, becoming medium to coarsegrained, within both the T2 Upper and T2 Lower.
An interval of feldspathic pyroxenite (T1) barren of NiCuPGE mineralization is
generally found above the T2 pegmatoid. The thickness of this interval can vary
between 0 m and 85 m, depending on the structural setting (Nielsen and
Grobler, 2012).
The T1m is a mineralized zone that is perched near the top of the T1 feldspathic
pyroxenite. It is an approximately 4.5 m thick zone and contains between 1% and 5%
sulphides. Chromitite stringers are only occasionally associated with the zone and
tend to occur within the zone rather than marking the top and bottom as seen in the
T2. Where present, the PGE mineralization is extremely elevated and shows high
(> 1) Pt:Pd ratios.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 7-42
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 7-24: TCU Mineralization Shown in Typical TCU Lithologies
Note: figure courtesy Ivanplats, 2013. Black minerals are serpentinized olivine.
Davey (1992) and Lea (1996) also describe two zones of PGE enrichment associated
with the Merensky Cyclic Unit in the eastern Bushveld, the M1 pyroxenite and M2
pegmatoid. Figure 7-25 shows a comparison of the Merensky Reef and the TCU.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 7-43
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 7-25: Comparison of Merensky Reef and the TCU
Note: Left photograph by Anthony Naldrett of mine face from Rustenburg District, supplied by Ivanplats 2012; in this
photograph, the pegmatoid is shown in white and black and the chromitite stringers are dark gray. Right photograph by
Ivanplats, 2012 of the Platreef within the Project area. Two dark lines are visible in the Platreef core that are not the
chromitite stringer as identified in the core labelling; the top line is a geotechnical break in the core, the basal, thicker
line, is a pen line drawn on the core by the logging geologist.
7.4
The Ivanplats geological team have used the detailed drilling (nominal 100 m spacing
in Zone 1) to great advantage during the past year. Perhaps the greatest advance has
been the detailed comparison between the TCU and the Merensky Cyclic Unit and
establishment of correlative subunits in uncontaminated (with Floor units) located in
the northwest portion of Zone 1.
An additional benefit of the detailed drilling has been the recognition of the structural
regime and interpretation of faults that explain offsets in the subunits on crosssections. These faults tie in with three sets that have been established in the region.
The enhanced geological interpretation will support both Mineral Resource estimation
and conceptual mine planning using selective methods.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 7-44
PLATREEF PROJECT
In the opinion of the QPs, knowledge of the deposit settings, lithologies, mineralization
style and setting, and structural and alteration controls on mineralization within the
AMK, ATS and UMT deposits are sufficient to support Mineral Resource estimation.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 7-45
PLATREEF PROJECT
8.0
DEPOSIT TYPES
Two main PGE deposit types occur within the Bushveld Complex:
Relatively narrow (maximum 1 m wide) stratiform layers (reefs) that occur towards
the top of the Upper Critical Zone, typically some 2 km above the base of the
intrusion (Merensky Reef-style), mainly found in the Western and Eastern Limbs.
These narrow zones have been the principal targets for mining in the past;
however, more recently wider zones with more irregular footwall contacts have
been mined (termed potholes); and
Contact-style mineralisation at the base of the intrusion (Platreef-type) occurs

mainly in the North Limb.
In general within the Northern Limb, the Platreef comprises a variably layered,
composite noritepyroxeniteharzburgite intrusion that lies at the base of the Bushveld
Complex, in contact with metasedimentary and granitic floor rocks. McDonald and
Holwell (2011) reviewed the major literature on the Platreef and Northern Limb, and
have concluded:
The Platreef remains a complex and enigmatic deposit
Stratigraphic relationships with other stratiform orebodies such as the Merensky

and UG2 Reefs have been suggested but are not clear
The extent to which the Northern Limb was connected to the rest of the complex
across the ThabazimbiMurchison Lineament (refer to Figure 7-1 where this is
shown as the TML fault) remains to be established
The Platreef represents a complex of sills intruded into basement granite-gneiss,

Transvaal Supergroup sediments or pre-Platreef Lower Zone intrusions
Intrusive relationships of the Main Zone gabbronorites, into solidified and deformed
Platreef, removes the Main Zone as a source of metals for the Platreef
Mineral chemistry, bulk geochemistry, and Sr, Nd, and Os isotope geochemistry of
the Platreef are most consistent with an ultramafic (Critical or Lower zone)
component
Platreef Nd values and 187Os/188Os initial isotope ratios overlap clearly with the
Merensky Reef but not the Upper Critical Zone
Conventional and mass-independent S isotopes suggest a primary mantle source

of S that was overprinted by the addition of local crustal S where Platreef intruded
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 8-1
PLATREEF PROJECT
pyrite-rich shales. Assimilation of S is viewed as an ore-modifying process, not as

the primary trigger for mineralization.
Two emplacement models are considered to be the most likely to explain the
mineralization (McDonald and Holwell, 2011):
8.1
Platreef sulphides may have been derived from the same magma(s) that formed
the Merensky Reef in the central part of each Bushveld limb and which were
injected up and out along intrusion walls as the chamber expanded
Alternatively, the sulphides may have formed in pre-Platreef staging chambers for
Lower Zone intrusions where they were upgraded by repeated interactions with
batches of Lower Zone magma. The sulphides were subsequently expelled as a
crystal-sulphide mush by an early pulse of Main Zone magma that broke into and
spread through the earlier Lower Zone magma chambers.
The text in the previous section reflects study of norites, pyroxenites and harzburgites
contaminated with floor rocks that occur on the steep (northeast) limb to depths of
700 m. In places (flatter embayments) thin massive sulphide zones occur at the
contact between mafic and ultramafic intrusives and the metalsediments of the floor.
Drilling in 2010 on Ivanplats Turfspruit 241 KR property north of Mokopane discovered
an area where the Platreef changes from steeply west-dipping to gently-dipping or flatlying. This Flatreef is under-lain by ultramafic rocks of Lower Zone affinity, where
contamination from floor rocks is lessened, and stratigraphic correlation of lithologies
in the uppermost Platreef is possible. Following a 2012 re-logging program completed
by Ivanplats, the Flatreef can be considered as a Merensky-reef analogue. Current
Ivanplats interpretations have the host sequence of lithologies corresponding directly
to the Merensky Cyclic Unit (MCU). Hanging wall and footwall lithologies correspond
to those described for the Merensky Reef in the northern part of the Western Limb.
The QPs consider that the mineralization delineated at the Turfspruit, Macalacaskop
and Rietfontein farms is typical of Platreef-style mineralization within the Northern Limb
of the Bushveld Complex. As a result of the Ivanplats interpretations, the QPs
consider that exploration programs using the Merensky-reef analogue are appropriate
to the deposit style.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 8-2
PLATREEF PROJECT
9.0
9.1
EXPLORATION
Grids and Surveys
Drill-hole coordinates were given in the Hartebeesthoek 1994 LO29 national
coordinate system.
Origin: the co-ordinates of the origin are defined on the South African National Coordinate System at +4,324.66Y, +2,669,596.48X, LO 29E, WGS84 reference
ellipsoid, Hartebeesthoek Datum. The origin is defined as x = +10 000.00 and y =
+1000.0;
Co-ordinate axis: The system is defined as a normal Cartesian co-ordinate

system. The Y-axis is a line extending from the origin increasing to the north. The
line is oriented northsouth. The X-axis is a line extending from the origin
increasing to the east. The line is oriented eastwest. The Y-axis is perpendicular
to the X-axis;
Measurement of angles: Angles are measured in a counter-clockwise direction

from the X-axis
9.2
0: East (+ X-axis)
90: North (+ Y-axis)
180: West (- X-axis)
270 : South (- Y-axis); and
Height datum: The height datum will be mean sea level as indicated by
benchmark BMA2 at the intersection of the 00 and N7 geological gridlines.
BMA2:= 1155.36 m
Geological Mapping
Original detailed geological outcrop mapping was completed by Ivanplats personnel in
2002 at 1:5,000 scale and was supported by trenching and percussion drilling in areas
with no outcrop. A geological map combining the field mapping with drill-hole
information was included as Figure 7-4.
9.3
Geochemical Sampling
Geochemical sampling of surface trenches proved to be ineffective in delineating
stratigraphic control on mineralisation.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 9-1
PLATREEF PROJECT
A detailed geochemical study based on the stratigraphic interpretation outlined in

Section 7.2 and Section 7.3, and concentrating on selected borehole intersections is
currently underway.
9.4
Geophysics
Since Project inception, geophysical survey methods have included aeromagnetics,
gravity gradiometer and a number of downhole geophysical methods. The down-hole
methods include: caliper; self-potential (SP)/point resistance (PR); electrode-arrayfocussed resistivity (EAL); magnetic susceptibility (Msus); temperature/conductivity;
fall-waveform-sonic (FWFS); acoustic televiewer (ATV); optical televiewer (OTV);
induced polarization (IP); density; neutron; induction and vertical seismic profile (VSP).
The various down-hole geophysical surveys were conducted from 2008 to 2012 within
a total of 27 boreholes. The most recent down-hole geophysical survey work was
conducted for GT008 that was drilled within the area selected as the site of the
exploration bulk sample shaft.
In early 2012 Ivanplats acquired 130 km2 of Falcon gravity data that were geologicallyconstrained and inverted by N. Williams of Ivanhoe Australia Ltd., through the use of
proprietary algorithms.
The Falcon airborne gravity gradiometer system was
developed by BHP Minerals (now BHP Billiton) to aid in the discovery of mineral
deposits. All rights were purchased by Fugro Airborne Surveys in 2009.
A >2.97 g/cm3 three-dimensional (3D) isosurface was generated, representing the
depth to density contrast of the geological contact between the gabbronorite of the
Main Zone and the T1 pyroxenite of the Turfspruit Cyclic Unit (Figure 9-1).
The Falcon data supplements previous geophysical work conducted in the project area
and indicates that the Flatreef could potentially extend to the south of Zone 1 for
>3 km.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 9-2
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 9-1: Geologically-constrained Falcon Gravity Inversion Interpretation
Note: Figure courtesy Ivanplats, and sourced from Williams (2012). Inversion sliced along NE oriented section. Image shows computed depth to
3
>2.97 g/cm isosurface which maps the gabbronorite/pyroxenite contact and thereby depicts the approximate structure of the mineralised reef horizon.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 9-3
PLATREEF PROJECT
9.5
Petrology, Mineralogy, and Research Studies

Mineralogical studies based on samples from the TCU including the mineralised T1
and T2 reefs are currently being planned. In addition, researchers from the University
of the Witwatersrand have taken selected samples of the various reefs and host
lithologies of the entire UCZ stratigraphy including the Lower Zone intersected below
the TCU. Detailed geochemical and mineralogical studies are currently being
performed on those.
An MSc research student from Cardiff University is currently completing a
mineralogical and geochemical study on samples selected across the TCU
stratigraphy from uncontaminated rock in selected drill holes from Zone 3.
9.6
Geotechnical Studies
A number of geotechnical studies have been conducted in the Zone 1 area. These
studies include:
A scoping study by SRK Consulting Ltd (SRK) whereby a review of the

geotechnical conditions likely to be encountered during underground mining
operations was completed. The study comprised the geotechnical logging of 8
exploration boreholes, equating to some 1,515.10 m of core and the classification
of the rock mass in terms of Laubscher's (1990) Mining Rock Mass Classification
System and the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute's Q-System (Barton et al, 1974)
A Platreef decline/boxcut study by SRK that provides an interpretation of four

geotechnical holes and one UMT borehole
A bulk sampling study by SRK (assisted by Ivanplats) that was conducted at the
shaft location on borehole GT008. The study included geotechnical logging, rock
mass classification, laboratory rock testing of GT008 and comparison to borehole
UMT 258 located to the east of the shaft. Additional aspects of the report included
a desk study of the potential stress regime and preliminary support
recommendations for the shaft based on the Q-system rock mass rating and the
Rock Wall Condition factor
An ancillary geotechnical logging programme (including holes logged

geotechnically as part of a prefeasibility study) whereby a total of 51 UMT
boreholes located in Zone 1, equating to 11,994.41 m has been logged
geotechnically with focus primarily on 50 m of hanging wall, the TCU mineralization
and 50 m of footwall
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 9-4
PLATREEF PROJECT
A point load testing programme was also conducted on the same particular zones
mentioned above for 143 UMT boreholes and two geotechnical holes, equating to
approximately 12,126 point load tests
Soil horizon distribution analysis for Zone 1
Structural logging of oriented core as well as analyses of the data and comparison
with down-hole geophysical data using DIPS software
A civil geotechnical study by SRK for the civil work pertaining to the shaft. A total of
3 geotechnical boreholes (GT009GT011) extending to a depth of approximately
30m were drilled and logged as well as the excavation and logging of four test pits
(PTP001PTP004) directly around the shaft position
A geotechnical investigation by Geoid Geotechnical Engineers to provide

foundation design recommendations for the proposed shaft area boundary wall.
The study included the excavation of four test pits (PTP005PTP008) located on
each corner of the proposed wall position, geotechnical logging, digital connectivity
(DC) probing tests and soil laboratory testing.
Additional information on the geotechnical drill programs is included in Section 10.8.

Call and Nicholas completed geotechnical evaluations in 20032004 in the area where
Mineral Resources amenable to open-pit mining methods have been estimated.
9.7
9.7.1
Hydrological Studies
Surface Water
The study area falls within the catchment area of the Mogalakwena River and consists
of quaternary catchments A61F and A61G. The Mogalakwena River flows to the
northwest and is characterised by the presence of wetlands along its drainage course
on both Turfspruit and Macalacaskop farms. The Rooisloot stream, a significant
tributary of Mogalakwena River crosses both farms flowing to the southwest and
joining the Mogalakwena River in the southern part of Turfspruit. The farm Rietfontein
2KS is mountainous in the northeast with the surface drainage forming the headwaters
of the westerly-flowing Klein-Sandsloot River which flows into the Dithokeng River and
through a dam located to the north of Tshamahanzi village. The Ngwadise stream,
also a tributary of the Mogalakwena River, flows across the southern part of
Macalacaskop. The Dorps River drainage, in which the Gert Combrinck dam is
located, is the headwaters of the Ngwaditse stream. For consistency this stream is
called the Dorps River throughout the monitoring process.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 9-5
PLATREEF PROJECT
The work undertaken by Golder Associates included:
The 24 hour rainfall depths for different recurrence intervals were generated for
use in infrastructure design
Daily rainfall and average monthly evaporation records were produced using
rainfall from the Potgietersrus (SKL) and Potgietersrus (POL) and Mokopane
rainfall stations, and evaporation from the A6E002, A6E007 and A6E001 station
maintained by the Department of Water Affairs (DWA)
Hourly wind data measured at the Mokopane Weather Station were assessed and
wind roses produced for the area. The data collected at this station were not
considered to be fully representative of conditions on site, particularly on
Rietfontein 2KS
The water quality and flow data collected by the Department of Water Affairs
(DWA) were sourced and assessed. According to the quality codes on the DWA
website, the flow records for the flow station A6H033 on the Nyl River are only
accurate from June 2005 to November. The available water-quality data were
patchy, and limited water quality variables were measured
The 50 year and 100 year flood peaks and flood lines were determined for the
rivers crossing the Project area. These include the Rooislot, Dorps, Dithokeng,
Tshama Rivers as well as the Mogalakwena River flowing to the west of the
Project area.
A monitoring programme was set up to collect flow and water quality data on the
Project area. A first round of water quality sampling and flow measurements was
carried out in September 2011. The results show that the water has a high total
dissolved solid (TDS) count, largely due to evaporation from maturation ponds treating
sewage effluent on the Dorps River.
The water quality results show high
concentrations of dissolved manganese, aluminium and iron as well as fluoride. The
monitoring programme was then continued monthly from December 2011 and is ongoing. Currently the rivers are dry with only the Dorps Rivers flowing due to effluent
from the industrial areas upstream of monitoring point.
9.7.2
Ground Water
In August 2012 Golder Associates completed an investigation of the groundwater
hydrogeological baseline in the Platreef area which includes Turfspruit, Macalacaskop,
and Rietfontein farms.
Work undertaken in the investigation included:
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 9-6
PLATREEF PROJECT
A study of available hydrogeological reports and database information from the

Department of Water Affairs (DWA) in Polokwane and Pretoria as well the drilling
and testing that was conducted in early 2011 for the water resource assessment
study
A hydrocensus survey of municipal and selected private boreholes located within

the three farms forming the baseline study area. Water levels were measured at
unequipped or open boreholes, and groundwater samples were collected from 81
boreholes, which included 35 private boreholes
Field data were compared with available data to validate such information as listed
coordinates, equipment, and alternative numbers
Geophysical surveying, drilling and pump testing of 22 monitoring boreholes
A groundwater quality assessment
Establishment of the initial groundwater monitoring network programme
The hydrogeological regime in the project area is made up of two main aquifer types,
i.e. primary and secondary. The two farms Turfspruit and Macalacaskop are mainly
underlain by intergranular and fractured aquifers, associated with the Rustenburg
Layered Suite. Rietfontein to the north is underlain by sedimentary rocks of the
Transvaal Sequence (sandstone, shale and dolomite) and basement granite which
forms the hills of the northern boundary.
The primary aquifer is present within the alluvium in the Mogalakwena River where
alluvial thicknesses of up to 20 m occur and borehole yields in excess of 10 L/s have
been established. Minor alluvium occurrences are associated with Rooisloot River
drainage. Boreholes in the Rooisloot Alluvial Aquifer are drilled to depths between 35
and 45 m. Water levels as shallow as 2 m are present. Calculated aquifer
transmissivity values range between 315 and 404 m/day. The aquifer storage
coefficient for both the alluvial and weathered bedrock aquifer is 2.7 x 10.
The intergranular and fractured aquifers within the Platreef prospecting area are
associated with the Rustenburg Layered Suite (RLS). The main secondary aquifer
occurs at a shallow depth of less than 45 m. Water strike depths in the weathered
bedrock range from 12 to 20 m, with strike yields between 0.1 to 1.0 L/s, and in the
fractured bedrock water strikes range from 20 42 m with strike yields between 1 and
10 L/s. The average saturated thickness of the main aquifer zone is 17.6 m. Seasonal
water level fluctuations due to direct rainfall recharge are expected. Intrusive dykes
may act as boundaries to lateral groundwater flow.
A minor fractured aquifer is present at depth >45 m with strike depth varying from 45 to
156 m and yields between 0.1 and 0.2 L/s. Slug testing of six deep core holes indicate
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 9-7
PLATREEF PROJECT
very low hydraulic conductivities, between 1 x 10 m/d and 1 x 10 m/d, considered

representative of the igneous rock matrix. Inspection of core samples indicates
insignificant fracturing at the mineralized contact zone at a depth of some 800 m.
The study has confirmed the presence of limited groundwater occurrence in
Rietfontein underlain by dolomite and granite.
The general flow direction for groundwater is from northeast to southwest and
eventually following the Mogalakwena River. Groundwater elevations (1220 mamsl)
are highest on the farm Rietfontein underlain by granite and lowest (1030 mamsl) on
the farm Turfspruit associated with the Rooisloot Alluvial Aquifer. This represents a
hydraulic head of 190 m across the study area.
Groundwater serves as the main source of water supply for the various rural
communities residing on three farms. Dispersed boreholes are in use throughout the
area, with the highest volume abstracted for domestic water supply from the Rooisloot
alluvial aquifer on the farm Turfspruit. The WARMS database indicates no registered
water use for the three farms.
The total current abstraction from groundwater supplied from governmental boreholes
located within these three farms is estimated to 5,270 m/day (76 boreholes).
Abstraction from 43 private boreholes is estimated at 86 m/ day.
The borehole use/status and nitrate water quality distribution indicates that increased
nitrate concentrations correlate with the locality of rural communities in the study area.
Long-term monitoring of groundwater levels and groundwater quality is essential to
establish a history of the status of the natural groundwater regime. The monitoring
network includes all the groundwater boreholes drilled during the investigation which
will provide a comprehensive coverage of the groundwater conditions of the three
farms forming the Project area. Routine manual monthly readings of the groundwater
levels commenced in March 2012 in all 26 boreholes. To provide a continuous record
of water level changes, electronic water level loggers were installed in December 2011
in 13 of the 26 monitoring boreholes. Quarterly groundwater water quality sampling
commenced in March 2012 from 14 boreholes. The samples are submitted to UIS
Laboratories in Pretoria for chemical analysis of physical parameters, macro
determinants and trace elements.
9.8
Metallurgical Studies
A description of metallurgical studies is presented in Section 13.0.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 9-8
PLATREEF PROJECT
9.9
Exploration Potential
The Platreef mineralization remains open along strike and down-dip. There is
excellent opportunity to expand the extent of known mineralization with further drilling,
based on the Falcon information in Figure 9-2. In particular Zone 5 has significant
Flatreef exploration potential, as identified by the Falcon geophysical data, as current
drilling is on a 400 x 800 m grid spacing.
9.10
In the opinion of the QPs, the exploration programs completed to date are appropriate
to the style of the mineralization within the Project area.
The exploration programs conducted by Ivanplats are appropriate to support Mineral
Resource estimation and a Preliminary Economic Assessment (in progress).
Continued field work will be required to support any future pre-feasibilty study and
exploration shaft design and sinking.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 9-9
PLATREEF PROJECT
10.0
10.1
DRILLING
Drill Programs
Drilling on the Project has been undertaken in two major phases; the first from 2001 to
2003 is termed the open-pit program (designated AMK at Macalacaskop and ATS at
Turfspruit/Reitfontein). The open-pit program drill holes are located in Zone 4 (see
Figure 10-1). The second phase ran from 2007 to 2012 and is termed the
underground program(s), designated UMT, and nearly all drilling is on Turfspruit.
These drill holes are situated in Zones 1 to 3 and Zone 5.
From the 954 core drill holes (excluding re-drilled mother holes and all deflections) a
total of 624,248 m were drilled and completed by 26 October 2012; this included 555
holes (194,591 m) from the open-pit program and 399 holes (429,657 m) from the
underground program (refer to Figure 7-6 for a drill hole location plan).
Subsequently, following a notice from the Department of Mineral Resources (DMR)
regarding community concerns over compensation issues, 29 holes and any further
exploration drilling activities were put on hold in October 2012.
10.1.1
Zone 4
Drill-hole prefixes for the open-pit program are prefixed AMK; ARF; ATM; ATS; DTS;
GT(001 to 003); ITS; PA; PUM; PUT; STM and STT. Most drill holes were collared as
vertical drill holes with the exceptions of nine AMK drill holes which were completed at
45 to 60 inclinations and three ATS geotechnical holes completed at a 50
inclination. Drill holes were drilled nominally on a 100 m northsouth-oriented local
grid, whilst the ATS initial drill spacing is approximately 120 m to 140 m and generally
follows an eastnortheast-oriented drilling grid which conforms to the street plan in the
Tshamahansi Township.
In addition to the exploration drilling, a cross-pattern of 21 vertical drill holes (30 m
spacing) was completed for geostatistical purposes. A mining simulation drill grid was
completed at a 10 m x 10 m drill spacing (DTS drill holes), and an infill program (ITS
drill holes) was completed to increase the drill density to approximately 100 x 75 m or
75 x 75 m.
10.1.2
Zones 1 to 3
Several drilling campaigns have been completed since 2007 in these zones. Ivanplats
initial underground drill campaign at Zone 2 in 2007 was to test for mineralisation
down-dip of Zone 4 and was completed in 2009. In April 2011, Ivanplats initiated a
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 10-1
PLATREEF PROJECT
program to expand the geological knowledge around the Flatreef and to perform infill
drilling in Zone 1 to approximately 100 x 100 m spacing. The latest drill campaign was
halted in October 2012.
From 2007 to 2012 a total of 425,918 m were drilled from 394 drill holes. Drill holes
were collared as vertical until UMT105, after that, holes were dirlled at an 85
inclination with the exception of UMT330 which had a 60inclination. Drill-hole spacing
is nominally 400 x 400 m or 400 x 200 m with local 200 x 200 m coverage and 100 x
100 m coverage in much of Zone 1. There are a few areas where the spacing is
somewhat wider and/or irregular (400 m to 500 m between holes).
10.1.3
Zone 5
In October 2012, further exploration drilling for the purpose of extending the geological
knowledge of the Flatreef area to the south of Zone 3 ceased due to community
concerns over compensation issues. Three drill holes were completed together with
their respective three deflections, whilst two drill holes were suspended. A total of
3,739 m were drilled with all holes collared at 85 and completed on a nominal drill
spacing of 400 x 800 m.
10.2
Drill Methods
All drilling has been completed by diamond drill coring methods. Drill programs have
been completed primarily by contract drill crew, supervised by Ivanplats geological
staff.
10.2.1
Zone 4
Drilling was conducted between 2001 and 2003 by Rosond Drilling (an international
contract drilling company). Drill rig types included Longyear-44, Longyear-38, Boyles37, Tone-TEL and Rocor/Diamech-262. Wire-line equipment extracted NQ2 (50.5 mm
diameter) and HQ (63.3 mm diameter) core, and a limited amount of geotechnical
drilling was completed with oriented NQ3 (44.9 mm diameter) core from stabilized
triple-tube core barrels. Metallurgical sample holes were completed with TNW-size
(60.3 mm diameter) core. Completed holes were capped using a 1.5 m length of
sealed steel pipe welded to the drill hole casing.
10.2.2
Zones 1 to 3 and Zone 5

Drilling of the underground deposit began in 2007 with Zone 2 ending in 2011, whilst
drilling in Zone 1 and 3 is on-going, and Zone 5 is the latest explored area. All drilling
extracts NQ (48 mm) or BQ (36 mm) sized diamond drill core. The holes were all
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 10-2
PLATREEF PROJECT
near-vertical at their collars, but with depth the holes tend to incline less steeply. For
the UMT holes the average hole length is 1,043 m; the minimum hole length is 212 m,
and the maximum hole length is 1,973 m.
The underground drill program has shown the Platreef extending to at least a depth of
1,525 m and is 300 m to 600 m thick at Turfspruit. The average depth to the floor
rocks (below the base of Platreef) is approximately 1,200 m, and the depth to the floor
rocks ranges from 300 m to 1,500 m.
Completed holes were capped using a 1.5 m length of sealed steel pipe welded to the
drill hole casing with drill hole labels inscribed on the drill caps.
10.3
Geological Logging
Standardised geological core logging conventions were used to capture information
from the drill core. Detailed geological logging of drill core was completed daily by
geologists onto log sheets. There has been an improvement in the style of logging
from the historic work on the open-pit drilling program (Zone 4) to the current
underground drilling program of Zone 5. The improvement in core logging provides a
more accurate and detailed information of data.
Platreef staff performed core handling from drill site to storage. Each core box was
photographed using a digital camera. The photographs are stored on a network server
and duplicate CD-ROM media. After geological logging, sample intervals were marked
on the core, and drill core was sawn longitudinally for sampling.
After sampling, the remaining half core is archived in one metre-length galvanizedplate core boxes. Storage facilities consist of lockable brick and corrugated steel
sheds where the core boxes are placed on two metre-high pre-fabricated core racks
for ease of access.
The QPs have reviewed the local geology, including core logging and interpretations
and finds them to have been done in a professional manner that can support Mineral
Resource estimation and project development.
10.3.1
Zone 4
Geological core logging involved the recording of lithology; grain size; type and degree
of alteration (low, medium or high); type and visible percentage of sulphide
(pentlandite, pyrrhotite, chalcopyrite, and pyrite); relative sulphide ratios and structural
data. Data captured include lithology by standardised abbreviation; alteration by type
and relative degree; biotite alteration as a modal percentage and visible sulphide types
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 10-3
PLATREEF PROJECT
as a total modal percentage. Structural data were noted, core axis angles taken and
RQD data captured at maximum 10 m intervals for each drill hole.
Logs were then independently double-entered into Excel spreadsheets and upon
validation stored in an Access database.
10.3.2
Zone 1 to 3 and Zone 5

The detailed information recorded includes lithology; stratigraphic unit; texture; grain
size; (bottom) contact type; angle to the core axis; alteration and structure which are all
mandatory entries, whilst there is an option for geologist to record a comment(s).
Logs were then captured by a geologist into a Fusion database (a product of
Datamine) and independently checked by the onsite database manager.
10.4
Geotechnical Logging
Geotechnical logging has been undertaken on core drilled in Zone 1.
The
geotechnical logging is conducted as per the Ivanplats logging procedures for both
orientated and non-orientated core. Geotechnical logging for both orientated and nonorientated core includes:
Percentage recovery
Percentage RQD
Run fracture frequency/m per drilling interval
Rock type description
Determination of geotechnical zones
Determination of discontinuity distributions, types, condition (micro and macro),

weathering, alteration and infill
Determination of rock competency between solid rock and matrix material
Estimated rock strength
Rock mass classification (namely Q-system and MRMR).
To determine the orientation of discontinuities from oriented core, the core is re-fitted
and oriented (with reference to the downloaded orientation tool data). The alpha and
beta angles of discontinuities are then determined using a goniometer, thus allowing
for the dip and dip direction to be calculated. The orientations of the borehole from
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 10-4
PLATREEF PROJECT
down-hole surveys are taken into consideration during the discontinuity orientation
calculation.
Results have been assessed using DIPS software to determine
discontinuity sets.
10.5
Recovery
The core recovery within the first few metres of boreholes (approximately 5 m) is poor
in most cases due to the associated soil horizon classified as overburden. Poor
recovery occasionally extended to about 30 m depth due to the weathering of bedrock.
However in the majority of instances, core recovery improved considerably once
drilling reached the Main Zone hanging-wall, reef horizon (T1 and T2) and footwall
rocks and was commonly 100%. The recoveries only show a substantial decrease
within faulted/sheared zones.
10.6
Collar Surveys
A contracted certified land surveyor (Mr. Louis Nel) used a differential Trimble GPS
system to conduct collar surveys on all completed holes. Stations were tied in with
survey stations established by the National Survey General Directorate.
Drill-hole coordinates were given in the Hartebeesthoek 1994 LO29 national
coordinate system.
10.7
Down-hole Surveys
There are 34 drill holes in Zone 4 without down-hole surveys. All unsurveyed drill
holes are vertical and range in depth from 7 to 583 m. The ATS and AMK drill holes
were down-hole surveyed using multi-shot Reflex and Maxibor instruments. Multiple
survey shots were taken at 3 to 6 m intervals down hole.
Down-hole deviation surveys for the UMT drilling were completed by independent
down-hole survey technicians using gyroscopic (gyro) and/or electronic multi-shot
(EMS) instruments. Surveys are recorded down-hole at 3 to 5 m intervals. In Zones 1
to 3 and Zone 5, 30 drill holes are without surveys. UMT001 to UMT106 were drilled
vertically, while UMT107 to UMT394 were drilled either at -85 or -90. Where both an
EMS and a gyro survey were completed, the gyro survey was assumed to be more
accurate and therefore in most cases was used in the geological model. There are 76
instances where the EMS has been selected, due to erroneous or uncompleted gyro
surveys.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 10-5
PLATREEF PROJECT
10.8
Geotechnical Drilling
A total of 11 drill holes (GT001 to GT011) were drilled for geotechnical purposes.
GT001 to GT003 were initially drilled as part of open pit geotechnical studies in the
early 2000s, and subsequently GT004 to GT008 were drilled for the underground
study within Zone 1. As part of the civil geotechnical study of the shaft, three drill
holes (GT009 to GT011) were drilled in October 2012 to depths of approximately 30 m,
and four test pits were excavated.
Additional geotechnical data is currently being obtained from 66 UMT exploration drill
holes within Zone 1. These 66 drill holes were geotechnically logged from 50 m above
to 50 m below the reef horizon.
10.9
Hydrogeological Drilling
The initial hydrogeological drilling program of 12 drill holes (GPR001 to GPR012) on
the Turfspruit and Macalacaskop farms was completed in February 2011. Seven
months later (October 2011) four closely-spaced drill holes were drilled on Turfspruit at
the site of the proposed decline portal. These four drill holes were drilled to depths
below the proposed decline depth of 30 m to investigate the near surface occurrence
of groundwater, depth of weathering, and depth of fracturing that could affect the
portal. In three of the four drill holes significant airlift yields (8-10 L/s) were
encountered. Between November 2011 and February 2012 a further 14 drill holes
(GPR013 to GPR026) were drilled with the aim to provide additional monitoring drill
holes on the Turfspruit 241KR farm, and to expand drilling program on the Rietfontein
2KS farm.
During July and August 2012 four additional hydrological monitoring boreholes (BH005
to BH008) were drilled to 60200 m depths at the proposed vertical exploration bulk
sampling shaft, located 400 m northwest of the decline portal drill holes. Final air-liftyields ranged from 0.9 to 4 L/s, and no water intercepts were encountered deeper than
40 m.
All hydrological GPR-numbered holes were drilled with a minimum diameter of
165 mm; cased and developed (except for GPR003 which was backfilled) as required
for the assessment of aquifer characteristics and parameters. A cement grout sanitary
seal of 5 m was inserted in the annulus of each borehole, and the boreholes were
disinfected, capped, and locked.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 10-6
PLATREEF PROJECT
10.10 Proposed Shaft Location Geotechnical Evaluation

SRK Consulting, as part of the ongoing PEA, evaluated the proposed site of the bulksample exploration shaft from a geotechnical perspective. On current plans, the bulk
sample will be taken from approximately 780 m depth; SRK was requested to evaluate
potential shaft conditions to this depth and to provide shaft support recommendations.
A single, triple tube, rotary-cored, vertical borehole (GT008) was drilled at the centre of
the proposed production shaft position. The hole was geotechnically logged to a final
depth of 1,225.97 m, which was 74.03 m short of the planned 1,300 m hole completion
depth. This was due to extremely poor ground conditions being encountered at the
end of hole.
The primary aim of the borehole logging was to:
Classify the rock mass, over the full depth of the borehole, using Laubscher's
(1990) Mining Rock Mass Rating Classification System and Barton et al's (1974)
Norwegian Geotechnical Institutes Q-System
Identify any potentially adverse ground conditions that may impact the stability of
the production shaft
Provide data with respect to the sub-surface geology, ground conditions and
support recommendations.
Laboratory testing was carried out on selected, representative samples collected from
borehole GT008; testing comprised:
Uniaxial Compressive Tests
Uniaxial Compressive Tests with Elastic Modulus and Poisson's Ratio
Brazilian Tensile Strength Tests
Base Friction tests based on direct shear tests on saw-cuts.
Analysis and interpretation consisted of:
A qualitative description of the sub-surface geology, based on the geotechnical

borehole log
The interpretation of the weathering regime, based on the geotechnical borehole

log
The interpretation of the jointing with depth, including micro-condition, macrocondition, joint infill and joint alteration
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 10-7
PLATREEF PROJECT
The quantification of the quality of the rock mass with depth
The provision of support recommendations with depth.
Based on this work, SRK concluded that the rock mass in the area selected is both
competent and of a suitable quality for the sinking of the vertical bulk-sample shaft to a
depth of approximately 800 m. Rock bolts and grout were recommended for the two
rock classes identified:
Q-value between 4 and 10: bolts (untensioned and grouted) 1.01.5 m long and
shotcrete 23 cm thick
Q-value between 10 and 40: bolts (tensioned and grouted) 1.52.0 m long and
chain link mesh.
SRK also noted that ground conditions in the resource area are variable and that,
consequently, extrapolation of sub-surface ground conditions, even over relatively
short horizontal distances, is not recommended specifically with respect to major
infrastructure.
10.11 Metallurgical Drilling

At ATS a number of core holes were drilled to obtain metallurgical samples; however,
the actual number is not certain. Other metallurgical samples have been obtained
from exploration drill holes.
10.12 Summary of Drill Intercepts

Example drill intercepts showing mineralization typical grades and thicknesses is
included as Table 10-1.
10.13 Comments on Section 10

In the opinion of the QPs, the quantity and quality of the lithological, geotechnical,
collar and down-hole survey data collected in the exploration and infill drill programs
are sufficient to support Mineral Resource estimation as follows:
Core logging meets industry standards for PGEAuNiCu exploration
Collar surveys and down-hole surveys have been performed using industrystandard instrumentation
Recovery from core drill programs is acceptable to allow reliable sampling to

support Mineral Resource estimation
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 10-8
PLATREEF PROJECT
Table 10-1: Drill Intercept Summary Table

Top of Interval
Drill Hole
Length
Elev.
Easting
Ni
(%)
Northing
Cu
(%)
Pt
(g/t)
Pd
(g/t)
Au
(g/t)
3PE
(g/t)
ATS Area where Mineral Resources amenable to open pit mining methods are estimated
ARF020
8.70
1131.0
13373.9
5293.5
0.44
0.15
1.60
1.52
0.51
3.63
Includes
2.77
1131.0
13373.9
5293.5
0.62
0.20
2.42
2.27
1.02
5.72
ARF020
5.92
1010.7
13373.9
5293.5
0.21
0.11
1.37
0.82
0.17
2.37
Includes
1.93
1010.7
13373.9
5293.5
0.15
0.09
2.64
1.28
0.23
4.15
ARF043
16.27
947.6
13253.4
5466.1
0.63
0.51
0.63
1.39
0.25
2.26
Includes
5.12
936.6
13253.2
5466.0
0.29
0.51
1.35
1.64
0.38
3.37
ATS046
42.26
717.5
12976.3
5336.4
0.42
0.49
0.99
1.49
0.28
2.75
Includes
12.61
688.4
12976.2
5336.5
0.57
0.69
1.87
2.79
0.48
5.14
AMK Area where Mineral Resources amenable to open pit mining methods are estimated
AMK030
39.80
990.5
13800.0
2500.0
0.34
0.17
0.94
1.23
0.22
2.39
Includes
4.03
957.6
13800.0
2500.1
0.32
0.14
1.15
1.68
0.28
3.11
AMK051
32.78
915.2
13583.7
2602.8
0.27
0.11
0.80
0.84
0.14
1.78
2.64
Includes
4.00
896.4
13583.7
2602.7
0.31
0.11
1.16
1.30
0.19
AMK081
33.34
794.1
13500.4
2794.5
0.26
0.16
1.11
1.38
0.19
2.69
Includes
13.73
794.1
13500.4
2794.5
0.35
0.20
1.47
1.77
0.25
3.49
UMT Area where Mineral Resources amenable to underground mining methods are estimated
UMT026
16.97
-113.8
11759.9
5063.9
0.18
0.08
2.13
1.31
0.27
3.71
Includes(1)
3.11
-113.8
11759.9
5063.9
0.27
0.15
6.38
3.45
0.66
10.48
Includes (2)
3.81
-118.4
11759.3
5063.7
0.36
0.13
3.55
2.62
0.46
6.63
UMT026
23.17
-155.2
11755.6
5062.2
0.36
0.15
1.12
1.76
0.22
3.10
9.15
-155.2
11755.6
5062.2
0.43
0.13
1.59
2.51
0.29
4.39
Includes
UMT039
46.39
246.7
9955.3
6780.7
0.31
0.13
2.39
2.96
0.28
5.63
Includes (1)
7.85
246.7
9955.3
6780.7
0.49
0.18
3.20
4.37
0.36
7.92
Includes (2)
9.39
249.5
9954.2
6780.3
0.43
0.19
3.48
4.38
0.44
8.29
UMT056
37.82
324.6
10341.0
5604.1
0.44
0.20
2.24
2.11
0.30
4.65
includes 11.69
322.6
10341.0
5604.0
0.50
0.20
5.05
4.15
0.54
9.74
UMT217
20.84
312.1
10214.5
5547.8
0.27
0.12
2.38
1.96
0.29
4.63
Includes 15.20
312.1
10214.5
5547.8
0..31
0.14
3.085
2.47
0.38
5.93
Includes
UMT281
Includes
8.46
293.3
10211.8
5347.0
0.34
0.15
4.65
3.67
0.42
8.73
12.22
277.8
10791.1
5525.1
0.25
0.15
1.14
1.079
0.18
2.39
3.30
7.11
272.2
10790.1
5525.0
0.30
0.19
1.63
1.44
0.23
21.61
334.9
9944.7
5988.1
0.33
0.19
1.70
1.75
0.26
3.71
Includes 19.73
329.4
9944.0
5987.8
0.35
0.20
1.80
1.85
0.26
3.91
Includes
329.4
9944.0
5987.8
0.41
0.24
2.31
2.40
0.40
5.06
UMT312
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
9.40
Page 10-9
PLATREEF PROJECT
Depending on the inclination of the drill hole, and the dip of the mineralization, drill
intercept widths are approximately equivalent to true widths for most UMT drill
holes. Drill orientations are generally appropriate for the mineralization style. In
the open- pit areas, vertical holes have been spaced closely enough (ATS) so that
the geological units and trends to grade can be defined. Elsewhere, the spacing of
the holes is wider, and their angle with the Platreef approaches 45. Ivanplats
should consider drilling angle holes when infilling the more steeply-dipping sections
of the Platreef
Drill orientations are shown in the example cross-sections included in Sections

Error! Reference source not found. and 14.0 and can be seen to appropriately
test the mineralization. The sections display typical drill-hole orientations for the
deposits
Drill-hole intercepts as summarized in Table 10-1 appropriately reflect the nature of

the PGEAuNiCu mineralization.
Sampling methodologies are discussed in Section 11.0, and comments on the

sampling protocols are outlined in Section 11.9
Metallurgical recoveries are discussed in Section 13.0, and comments on the

recoveries are outlined in Section 13.5.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 10-10
PLATREEF PROJECT
11.0
SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES, AND SECURITY

From the time of Ivanplats initiation of the Project to date, Project staff members
employed by Ivanplats were responsible for the following:
11.1
Sample collection
Core splitting
Sample despatch to the analytical laboratory
Sample storage
Sample security.
Sampling Methods
The limited geochemical sampling of trenches, performed early in the exploration
program, was superseded by core drill data; therefore geochemical sampling is not
discussed further in this Report.
Drill core is sawn in half using a wet saw. A study completed during 2011 by AMEC
(Long, 2011c), which reviewed the differences between recovered and assayed fines
lost during sawing found no significant difference in the grades of the elements of
interest in the fines compared to their associated core samples.
11.1.1
Assay Sampling
AMK and ATS Sampling
For the open-pit resource drilling between 2001 and 2003, assay sampling began
where the geologists observations indicated the top of bedrock. Before Q4 2001,
some Platreef drill intervals lacking visual mineralization were not submitted for assay.
This practice was reviewed in 2002, and additional core intervals were subsequently
sampled.
Prior to May 2003, unsampled drilled intervals were limited primarily to soil, oxidized
bedrock, and non-prospective hanging wall and footwall rocks. In addition, a small
number of xenoliths within the Platreef Complex were deemed barren from geological
observations and were assigned assay values of zero for resource estimation
purposes. Beginning in May 2003, oxidized bedrock has been assay sampled, and a
remedial assay sampling program including the oxidized portion of drill holes was
completed by May 2003.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 11-1
PLATREEF PROJECT
The sampling of drill core was completed by Ivanplats employees at the Platreef
project offices in Mokopane.
A sample length of one metre was initially selected for efficient sample handling and
preparation. In May 2003, the nominal sample length was increased to 2.5 m, based
on recommendations by Francois-Bongarcon (2002).
Dr Francois-Bongarcon
determined that a sample length of 2.5 m would not significantly degrade the assay
quality, and Set Point Laboratories determined that the larger samples could be
effectively prepared for assay.
The depth from the drill-hole collar for each sample was recorded in an electronic
spreadsheet. Each sample was given a unique identification code. Sample
boundaries were marked on the drill core, and the core was sawn longitudinally in half.
Ivanplats employees bagged the half-core intervals and assigned a drill-hole identifier
and sample number to each sample.
UMT Sampling
For underground drilling of the UMT deposit, assay sampling was initiated 5 m above
the Platreef (in the Main Zone) and extended 20 m into the Floor rocks. All drill core
within the Platreef was sampled for assaying.
Sampling is completed by Ivanplats employees at the Platreef project offices in
Mokopane. Prior to sampling, core loss and core measurements are checked and
confirmed by a geologist. The nominal sample length is 1 m, with a maximum of
1.25 m and a minimum of 0.3 m. Samples are broken at lithological contacts. The
sample boundaries, lithological breaks and insertion points for blank samples are
marked on the core by a geologist.
The sampling supervisor marks the 1 m sample boundaries (start and end) within
lithological boundaries. After mark-up, a photograph of each core box is taken. The
photograph includes notations for box number, start and end depths, and the
photographers name. After photography, the core is transferred to the core sawing
area.
At the cutting area, a cut line is marked on the core. The drill core is cut bottom-up
(downhole to uphole direction). The cut core is placed back in the core box, and the
box is placed in the sun to dry. Once dry, the core is moved to a sampling bay.
Each sample is assigned a unique identification number, and each sample batch is
assigned a unique number. Sample batches consist of 200 to 220 samples and
include 10 standard reference materials (SRMs) and 10 blanks. Sample information
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 11-2
PLATREEF PROJECT
is written into sample books, and sample bags are marked with sample numbers.
Insertion points for standards and blanks are selected. A sample tag and two sample
labels (with identical numbers) are placed in the bag of the corresponding sample
number. Prior to sampling, the sample bags are inspected to ensure the sample bag,
sample tag and sample labels are the same for each bag. An Excel spreadsheet is
constructed that includes the drill hole ID, laboratory ID and sample number.
Sampling is completed by at least two people. Sample weights are captured in the
Excel file for the sample batch. Photographs are taken of each sample displaying the
bag sample number and the sample tags and labels inside the sample bag. Sampling
is conducted in sets of 10 samples, and after every tenth sample, the samples are
inspected to ensure sample numbers are correct, the Excel spreadsheet corresponds,
and the sample bags are not damaged.
11.2
Metallurgical Sampling
SGS performed metallurgical test work in 2010. SGS used a conventional (lead
collector) fire assay for PGE assays, and a peroxide fusion for its assay of base
metals. Most Platreef samples do not have sulphur contents high enough to warrant a
peroxide fusion rather than a lithium borate one, which is the more commonly-used
fusion method on samples with less than 10% sulphur. Three sample pulps of head
samples were obtained from SGS and submitted to Ultra Trace along with blindinserted SRMs.
Ivanplats supplied samples of drill-core to Xstrata Process Support (XPS) in 2011 for
use in two phases of scoped metallurgical and mineralogical testwork. The analytical
work was performed by ALS Chemex at their Vancouver laboratory. Analysis of Pt,
Pd, Au and Rh was performed using fire assay. The Pt, Pd and Au were determined
by lead collection with cupellation to a low-temperature prill, followed by acid
dissolution and ICP finish (ALS Chemex method PGM-ICP23). The Rh was separately
assayed using a specialist gold collection fire assay method and ICP-MS finish (ALS
Chemex method MS25). The base metals were determined by a sodium peroxide
fusion followed by acid dissolution and ICP finish (ALS Chemex method MEICP81).
In August 2012, material for a Phase 2 sample was selected and sent to Mintek
Laboratories. Samples were selected using the representative distribution method
recommended by Jorge Oliviera of Xstrata Process support (XPS). Three separate
zones were selected for sampling, under the guidance of Dr. Mike Bryson (Mintek),
based on the following parameters;
Proximity to proposed shaft
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 11-3
PLATREEF PROJECT
Structurally favourable reef (flat-lying)
Connectivity and quality of mineralization
Once the spatial zones were selected, all samples within 2g/t 3PGE composites within
the zone were tabulated in Excel. Due to sample length variability, samples were
normalized using the length weighted average function. The normalized 3PGE and Ni
grades were rounded to 1,000 ppm and 0.1% respectively. These rounded values
were then categorized into histogram bins.
Various sample distribution statistics were calculated to ensure that a representative
sub-sample could be collected. The sample numbers were cross-checked with
previous metallurgical sample work to check if NQ core was still available. A new
table was created and samples were added individually from all available drill holes
until the appropriate distribution was achieved. Sample mass was estimated under the
assumption that 1.0 metre of NQ core weighs 1.1 kg
The primary distribution parameters were 3PGE grade, Ni grade and rock type. Given
the recent results of metallurgical work at XPS, it was decided to keep the grade
distribution even, but favour samples with higher Pt/Pd ratios. A consequence of this is
that the sample is slightly biased towards material from the top of the composite.
Two sources of error in the selection method are known. Firstly, the rounding and
categorizing of data into sample bins and secondly, the assumption of uniform sample
weight. These factors are not expected to have a significant influence on the overall
result of this work
11.3
11.3.1
Density Determinations
AMK and ATS Bulk Density
At AMK bulk densities were determined for wet and dry rock fragments representing
the major lithologies (Table 11-1). The wet determinations include moisture content
within the rock. In order to quantify the moisture content, the samples were placed into
a drying oven and then sealed in wax. The difference between the two determinations
is negligible; this result is consistent with the observed lack of porosity. To be
consistent with previously reported wet tonnages, the wet (i.e. unsealed)
determinations have been used for tonnage calculations.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 11-4
PLATREEF PROJECT
Table 11-1: Average Bulk Densities for AMK Area

Wet (Unsealed) Determinations
Rock Group
No.
Main Zone
Platreef
Xenolith
Serpentinized Peridotite
Footwall and Lower Zone
11
69
29
11
9
Average of
Wet Density
3
g/cm
2.85
3.04
2.80
3.06
3.13
Dry (Wax Coat) Determinations
Weighted
Average
3
g/cm
No.
3.07
2.84
3.06
9
60
26
9
7
Average of
Dry Density
3
g/cm
2.84
3.03
2.75
3.04
3.10
Weighted
Average
3
g/cm
3.07
2.80
3.04
At ATS, bulk density samples were selected to ensure high-quality coverage, both
spatially and lithologically. Samples from various geographic areas and important
lithological units were selected from the sawn half-core. Pieces selected were
approximately 10 cm long. About 1,088 samples selected from 230 different drill holes
were analyzed. Table 11-2 shows mean densities by rock type used for tonnage
estimations in the ATS area.
11.3.2
UMT Bulk Density

Bulk density determinations from the underground drilling were completed by
Ivanplats geological staff. Sample lengths of 0.18 m were taken of sawn half-core at a
nominal 5 m spacing from each drill hole. The density samples were determined by
weight in air and weight in water using the formula:
Specific Gravity = Ma / (Ma-Mw)
where
Ma = Mass in Air; and

Mw = Mass in Water
The database contains over 40,000 density determinations that were recorded from
2007 to 2012 from the underground UMT exploration drilling program. These
particular densities are of the rock types representative of the stratigraphic and
lithological units used within the geological model.
The different stratigraphic units are shown in Table 11-3, where the proportions of the
samples for each broad stratigraphic unit are displayed. More than half the samples
taken across the lease area are from the Main Zone (MZ) gabbronorite (GN). A total
of 3,005 samples have been taken within the Turfspruit Cyclic Unit (TCU) which is the
main focus for Mineral Resource calculations, and over 12,500 density samples from
the footwall of the TCU.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 11-5
PLATREEF PROJECT
Table 11-2: Average Bulk Densities for ATS Area

Average
Density
3
g/cm
1.76
Lithology
Soil
Main Zone
Serpentinite
Hornfels
Norite/pyroxenite
Floor
Comments
From Glover, T.J., Pocket Ref, 2nd ed., Sequoia
Publishing, Littleton, CO
Based on measurements
2.89
3.01
2.85
2.99
2.85
Table 11-3: Stratigraphic Unit Density

Total
Ave
2.99
Hanging wall
Bikkuri
TCU
Footwall
MZ
NC1
MAN
Total
B1
B2
Total
T1
T2
NC2
CZ
LZ
2.90
2.98
2.84
3.12
3.12
3.13
3.15
3.18
3.11
3.06
3.1
3.17
Min
2.05
2.37
2.58
2.52
2.6
2.6
2.62
2.57
2.58
2.57
2.61
2.05
2.60
Max
4.45
3.5
3.49
3.02
3.37
3.37
3.37
3.60
3.60
3.42
3.46
4.45
3.42
Std dev
0.17
0.1
0.15
0.07
0.15
0.16
0.13
0.13
0.11
0.16
0.17
0.17
0.19
# of
Samples
40,168
22,756
918
176
263
189
74
3,005
1,878
1127
317
9,816
457
Abbreviations used in this table are explained in Table 7-4.
The separate lithologies from the entire stratigraphy are shown in Table 11-4. The
more felsic rocks understandably have a lower SG with the GN averaging 2.91; the
orthopyroxenite (OPX) and the feldspathic pyroxenite (FPX) average 3.19. The SG
decreases as olivine is added to the system. This is counterintuitive, but is due to the
serpentinization of the olivine. Within the TCU the SG decreases with the increase of
the olivine content. The olivine bearing orthopyroxenite (OLOPX) averages 3.10 and
the HA averages 2.99. The granite veins (GRV) have the lowest SG of any of the rock
(2.66) and occur throughout the stratigraphy.
Table 11-4: Lithological Density
Total
GN
GRV
AN
FPX
OPX
OLOPX
HA
PAPX
PAHA
CR
PX
Ave
2.99
2.91
2.66
2.84
3.19
3.19
3.10
2.99
.12
3.08
3.30
3.16
Min
2.05
2.37
2.44
2.43
2.68
2.78
2.60
2.52
2.05
2.27
3.09
2.13
Max
4.45
Std dev
# of Samples
40,168
3.55
3.48
3.24
3.60
3.41
3.98
3.41
4.45
3.6
3.44
4.3
0.07
0.11
0.07
0.08
0.10
0.19
0.14
0.17
0.16
0.14
0.16
20,153
1,195
591
2,447
593
423
628
3,713
831
1,413
Figure 11-1 shows a idealised strip log with the associated densities and two horizons
of large density contrast are marked A and B.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 11-6
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 11-1: Idealized Density Strip Log
A: ~ +0.3
B: ~ -0.15
There is a ~0.3 density contrast across the MZ/NC1/MAN and the T1 contact.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 11-7
PLATREEF PROJECT
11.4
Within the T2 the most significant difference is between the OPX or T2U (SG range
of 3.193.18) and the HA or T2L (2.963.04). When the T2 is combined, the
overall average SG is 3.11.
Analytical and Test Laboratories

To date, laboratories utilized for the Platreef Project include the primary laboratories
Set Point Laboratories (Set Point; Johannesburg, RSA) and Ultra Trace Laboratory
(Ultra Trace; Perth, Australia); the check laboratories Lakefield (Lakefield
Johannesburg; Johannesburg, RSA) and Genalysis Laboratory Services (Genalysis;
Perth, Australia and Johannesburg, RSA).
Metallurgical laboratories include G&T Metallurgical (G&T Metallurgical; Kamloops,
BC, Canada), SGS Metallurgical Services (SGS; Johannesburg, RSA), Xstrata
Process Support (XPS; Falconbridge, ON, Canada), and Mintek laboratories in
Johannessburg, RSA.
All of these listed laboratories were, and are, independent of Ivanplats.
Set Point had no accreditations during the time period it performed assays of Platreef
samples. Set Point was accredited to ISO17025 in 2003 and 2004. Set Point has
participated in Geostats, Australia round-robin assessments since 2000.
Ultra Trace was registered with the Australian National Association of Testing
Authorities (NATA number 14492) and was registered for the analysis of nickel ores by
ICP methods and also by XRF. In 2007, Ultra Trace became a subsidiary of Amdel
Limited (Amdel; head office: Port Melbourne, Australia). Amdel has adopted the ISO
9001 Quality Management Systems, and is a member of Bureau Veritas, an
international group specialized in the inspection, analysis, audit, and certification, and
management systems in relation to regulatory or voluntary standards.
Lakefield Johannesburg (now a subsidiary of SGS and renamed SGS Johannesburg)
was not accredited before December 2002, but uses the same protocols and
procedures as its sister laboratory, Lakefield Research, in Canada. Lakefield
Johannesburg was actively working on obtaining ISO accreditation during the time
period covered by its assaying of Platreef samples and became accredited to ISO
10725 in December 2002. Lakefield Johannesburg participated in proficiency testing
during the time-frame covered by its check assay work on Platreef drilling samples,
including the CANMET laboratory evaluation for PGEs and base metals.
Genalysis Perth is an accredited NATA laboratory (NATA number 3244). The terms of
accreditation included most analyses performed for Platreef. The laboratory was
accredited to AS ISO/IEC 170251999 and included the management requirements of
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 11-8
PLATREEF PROJECT
ISO 9002:1994. The Perth facility is accredited in the field of Chemical Testing for the
tests shown in the Scope of Accreditation issued by NATA. The South African facility
holds ISO/IEC 17025:2005 accreditation for specified analytical techniques.
Genalysis also participates in a number of regular international, national and internal
proficiency round-robins and client specific proficiency programs.
G&T Metallurgical has ISO 9001:2000 registration (KPMG certificate number 1613).
Their registration certifies provision of consultancy services to the mining industry
including metallurgical, mineralogical, and assay testing procedures.
SGS in Johannesburg has ISO 9001 and 14001, OHASA 18001, and SA 8000
accreditation.
XPS is not accredited with ISO for metallurgical testing. They reportedly use a series
of internal quality controls that assure 95 percent confidence in the results. This
system was audited by Six Sigma and passed those criteria, although no official
certificate was issued. Assaying reported by XPS is done by ALS Chemex which is
registered to ISO 9001:2008. ALS Chemex also has accreditation from the Standards
Council of Canada (CAN-P-4E, ISO/IEC 17025:2005), and General Requirements for
Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories, and the Program for
Accreditation of Laboratories in Canada (PALCAN) handbook (CAN-P-1570).
In late 2010, Acme Laboratories (Acme) of Vancouver, Canada, became the check
laboratory. The laboratory holds ISO/IEC 17025:2005 accreditation for specified
analytical techniques. In the third quarter of 2011, Ultra Trace could no longer
accommodate all of the Projects greatly increased sample production. Some samples
were therefore submitted to Genalysis and Set Point Laboratories, both in
Johannesburg, and ALS Chemex in Vancouver.
Mintek is a South African National Accreditation System accredited testing laboratory
and holds ISO/IEC 17025:2005 accreditation for specified analytical techniques.
11.5
Sample Preparation and Analysis

Sample preparation for all samples was completed by Set Point. Set Point analyzed
samples until capacity was reached in 2002. From November 2002 all prepared
samples were analyzed by Ultra Trace.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 11-9
PLATREEF PROJECT
11.5.1
AMK and ATS Sample Preparation

Prior to May 2003, sample bags were transported by a private freight contractor to Set
Point in Johannesburg. After May 2003, sample preparation was completed at Set
Points new facility in Mokopane, and samples were delivered the same day they were
loaded for transport.
Initial sample preparation by Set Point included crushing and pulverizing the entire
sample to a nominal grind of 60% passing 200 mesh (75 m) using a jaw crusher, a
rolls crusher, and Labtechnics LM-2 pulverizers. In March 2002 a more stringent grind
of 90% passing 150 mesh (106 m) was established.
In August 2002, long grinding times began to outstrip the capacity of the Set Point
preparation laboratory. Consequently, a splitting step was introduced between the
sample crushing and the final pulverization. Francois-Bongarcon (2002) specified a
criterion of 95% passing (p95) 10 mesh (1.7 mm). This was the desired average, and
to implement it, a lower control limit of 90 percent passing 1.7 mm was specified. This
has resulted in a test average, excluding failures that trigger re-grinding, of about 94
percent passing 1.7 mm.
The p95 -1.7 mm coarse reject was saved. For every 20th sample, a split of the coarse
reject was inserted into the sample stream and a CRD suffix (designating coarsereject duplicate) was added to the sample name. These served as a quality check of
the splitting protocol.
Set Point completed four screen tests of coarse reject samples each shift. The
average of the four tests is recorded and was considered to constitute a failure
(warranting corrective steps) if the mean fell below 90% passing 1.7 mm. In addition,
approximately 2% of the coarse rejects were sent to Lakefield Johannesburg to check
compliance of crush size specifications.
Upon receipt at Ultra Trace, approximately 2% of the sample pulps are tested by wetscreening a portion through a 106 m screen. If more than one sample in the
submission fails the test, the entire submission is repulverized, and the same samples
are re-tested to confirm the grind criterion has been achieved.
All pulp rejects and coarse rejects are returned to the Platreef facilities in Mokopane.
11.5.2
UMT Sample Preparation

After sampling, the UMT samples are loaded on a truck and transported to the Set
Point Laboratory in Mokopane for sample preparation. The samples are loaded in the
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 11-10
PLATREEF PROJECT
presence of a supervisor and QA/QC coordinator. The transportation department

records the number of samples, sample numbers and date of delivery in a chain of
custody book. The receiving personnel at the laboratory sign the chain of custody.
The Set Point preparation laboratory checks the sample numbers against the sample
submission form. Each sample is weighed, and the sample weight is reported to
Platreef. Samples are crushed to 10 mm using a Keegor crusher and milled to 1.7 mm
using a Labtechnics mill (LM2); the sample mass requires that the sample be divided
into two or three portions for this brief milling (approximately 15 seconds). The
portions are then blended back together by passing through a riffle splitter three times.
A sample from every 20th sample is tested by screening through a 1.7 mm screen. If
the specification is not met (90 percent passing 1.7 mm), the sample is re-crushed,
and two nearby samples (between the failing sample and the preceding and following
tested samples) are randomly selected and tested. If one of these fails, the entire
corresponding group of samples is re-crushed, and the crush time of that crusher
adjusted.
The samples are split in half using a riffle splitter. One split is packaged and returned
to the Platreef office. The second split is milled to 90% passing 106 m. A split of the
pulp sample (200 g) is repacked for shipment to assay laboratory. All materials are
returned to Platreef.
After return to the Project, the pulps packed for submission are placed in numerical
order, standard and certified reference material (SRM and CRM) samples are inserted
into the sequence, and pulps are boxed for shipment to Ultra Trace. From the fourth
quarter of 2011, samples have also been shipped to Genalysis (Johannesburg) and
ALS Chemex (Vancouver) and Acme (Vancouver).
During 2012, Genalysis and Ultratrace were used as both primary and check
laboratories on work performed, with Ultratrace re-assaying Genalysis samples and
vice-versa.
11.5.3
AMK and ATS Sample Analysis

Samples were assayed by Set Point until 2002 when the capacity was exceeded.
After November 2002, all samples were submitted to Ultra Trace for analysis after
sample preparation was completed at Set Point.
Set Point analysis initially included Au, Pt, Pd, Rh, Cu, Ni, S, Cr, Co, V, Rb, Sr, and Sc.
Au, Pt, and Pd were assayed by fire assay with a lead collector. The dissolved bead
was analyzed by inductively-coupled plasma (ICP). Rhodium (Rh) was determined in
a separate fire assay utilizing a gold inquart. The other elements were determined by
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 11-11
PLATREEF PROJECT
X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis of a pressed pellet of sample pulp mixed with a
binding agent. The sulphur and Rh assays were discontinued in October 2002 due to
their expense and believed limited usefulness at the time.
Ultra Trace performed a similar fire assay to determine Au, Pt and Pd by using an ICP
mass spectrometer (MS) finish that provided a lower detection limit of 1 ppb. Ultra
Trace did not assay for Rh. Ultra Trace determined Cu and Ni by multi-acid digestion
sufficiently robust to provide dissolution of all minerals (total metal assay). For a
short time, other metals were assayed by XRF using the same protocol as Set Point.
In December 2002, the assay suite was reduced to Au, Pt, Pd, Cu, and Ni.
After May 2003, a separate protocol for oxidized samples was introduced. This
involved relatively few samples showing signs of oxidation: Ni and Cu were analyzed
via aqua regia (partial) digestion and standard total acid digestion. Fire assays were
used to analyze Au, Pt, and Pd.
11.5.4
UMT Sample Analysis

Ultra Trace used a multi-acid digestion followed by ICP-OES reading to determine total
Ni, Cu, Cr, and sulphur. Samples were also assayed for sulphur using a LECO
furnace (controlled combustion of sample pulp with infrared reading of SO2 gas); the
LECO and ICP sulphur results show close agreement. Lead flux (collector) fire assays
with an ICP-MS finish were used to determine Pt, Pd, and Au.
Set Point used the following assay methods (laboratory codes included in
parentheses):
Fire assay lead collection followed by ICP-MS for Au, Pt and Pd (Code 416)
Total Acid Digestion followed by ICP-OES for Cu; Ni (Code 255)
S by Leco (Code 255)
Fire assay Pd collector followed by ICP-MS for Au, Pt, Rh (415)
NiS Collection for Au, Pt, Pd, Rh, Ir, Ru, Os (419)
Ultra Trace used the following analytical methods
Fire assay lead collection followed by ICP MS for Au, Pt and Pd (Doc 600)
Total acid digestion followed by ICP OES for Cr; Cu; Ni and S (Doc 200)
Small-scale aqua regia digestion followed by ICP OES for Cr, Cu, Ni, S (AR201)
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 11-12
PLATREEF PROJECT
Genalysis used the following analytical methods:
11.5.5
Fire assay lead collection followed by ICP MS for Au, Pt and Pd (method code
FA25/MS]
Aqua regia digestion followed by ICP/OES for Cu, Cr, Ni, S (method code
AR01/OM)
Multi acid digestion followed by ICP OES for Cu, Cr, Ni, S (method code 4A/OM)
Check Sample Analysis

Check sampling at ALS Chemex used a fire assay technique followed by ICP MS for
Au, Pt and Pd (ALS method PGM-MS24). A four-acid-mixed acid digest followed by
ICP-MS was completed to determine a 48-element suite (ME-MS61). Sulphur assays
were performed using a LECO furnace (S-IR08).
Genalysis in Perth used the following analytical methods (laboratory codes included in
parentheses):
Fire assay lead collection followed by ICP-MS for Au, Pt and Pd (FA25/MS)
Multi acid digestion followed by ICP-OES for Cu, Cr, Ni, S (4A/OM)
Sieve test as indicated by individual sample breakdown (SV02).
In contrast, the Johannesburg branch of Genalysis used the following methods on

selected samples:
NiS fire assay for Au, Pt, Pd, Rh, Ru, Os, Ir (NS25/MS)
Pd Collector fire assay for Rh (FA25P/OE)
ACME used the following protocols:
3B03 - Lead fire assay followed by ICP MS Au, Pt, Pd
Group 1E Four-acid digestion followed by ICP OES (Al, Ca, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mg, Ni,
S)
Group 1D01 - Aqua regia digestion followed by ICP OES (Al, Ca, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mg,
Ni, S)
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 11-13
PLATREEF PROJECT
11.6
11.6.1
Quality Assurance and Quality Control

AMK and ATS QA/QC
Control Samples
All laboratories used in the Platreef Project exercise quality control in the form of
duplicates, SRMs and blanks. These controls are included in each assay report.
After November 2001, Platreef inserted blind quality-control materials with each
submission. The insertion frequency ranged from 3% to 6%. The controls included inhouse prepared SRMs with best values determined by round-robin submission to five
reputable independent commercial laboratories located on three continents: Lakefield
and Set Point (RSA), Genalysis and Ultra Trace (Australia), and G&T (Canada).
All control results were analyzed for Au, Pt, Pd, Cu, and Ni. Failures were identified,
and pulps from batches associated with failures were re-assayed. Platreef blind
duplicate results (Set Point only) were analyzed to identify outliers and sample misorderings.
Blanks
Blank material used during drilling of AMK and ATS drill holes consisted of unsampled
drill core of barren basement rock drilled at the end of each drill hole. Two to 10 m of
basement rock was routinely drilled to obtain a reliable contact depth. The basement
rock reliably returned Au, Pt and Pd results of less than 20 ppb, but had low
concentrations of Cu and Ni (low hundreds of ppm).
One or two blanks were submitted per drill hole. These were placed between samples
visually identified as mineralized, in order to detect contamination during preparation.
Results of blanks were compared to the results of the preceding sample number,
under the presumption that in most cases this sample would precede the blank
through the same crusher and pulverizer. No trend of the blank grade compared to
that of the preceding sample was seen, except for a brief period when the blank did
show a slight upward trend in grade (low tens of ppb for PGMs) with respect to grade
of the preceding sample. Although the effect was too small to impact Mineral
Resource estimation, it was investigated. It was found that technicians had stopped
cleaning the spoon used to transfer pulp when splitting the pulp samples for shipping.
When cleaning recommenced, the correlation ceased.
After a new project geologist elected to increase sample interval lengths of some rock
types up to 6 m, blanks started to show episodic high results. AMEC investigated and
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 11-14
PLATREEF PROJECT
found that this was caused by the need to use two or more trays for drying the sample
in the preparation laboratory when the sample interval exceeded about 1.5 m. There
was only one sample tag, and trays were getting mixed up. In conjunction with the Set
Point laboratory manager, AMEC introduced additional safeguards to prevent this, and
blanks returned to normal performance.
Blank results indicate that contamination and sample mix-ups were sufficiently rare as
to present no risk to Mineral Resource estimations.
Standard Reference Materials (SRMs)
Very few SRMs were commercially available for PGEs, and the decision was made to
formulate in-house SRMs.
Initial Platreef SRMs were constructed from a selection of pulp rejects. After the
change in preparation protocol in August 2002, coarse rejects were used to make 20
50 kg of SRM material. These SRMs from the coarse rejects were prepared and
tested for homogeneity by SGS Lakefield Laboratories in Johannesburg. Materials
showing inadequate homogeneity were re-milled or discarded. Each reference
material was rotary split multiple times to produce single-use packets of approximately
80 g. The packets were thoroughly randomized to prevent any slight variations in
grade (introduced during the splitting process) producing misleading shifts in the
obtained average results over different time periods.
The round-robin consisted of submitting multiple packets of each reference material to
a minimum of five independent commercial assay laboratories well-versed in assaying
for the elements of interest. The best value is taken as the median of the population of
each laboratorys mean. Using the median counters the effect of any extreme results
produced by one laboratory, and eliminates the need to reject any laboratorys results.
Packets of SRMs were routinely inserted into every sample submission. Because the
preparation and assay laboratory are run by separate companies, the insertions are
blind to the assay laboratory. The SRMs provide a reliable check on laboratory
performance.
Check Assays
Check assays were performed at Lakefield until June 2002. After June 2002, check
assays were performed by Genalysis Laboratory (Genalysis) in Perth, Australia. The
check assay program included the same assay suite as the original assays. In
addition, the check assays used a less robust aqua regia digestion for Ni and Cu.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 11-15
PLATREEF PROJECT
In addition to the blind controls, every 20th sample pulp was submitted to an
independent laboratory for check assay. Blind reference materials were included in
each of these submissions. These results were analysed and combined with the
control analysis to identify samples for re-assay.
A separate program to validate the routine method of analysis for PGE (fire assay by
lead collection) included assaying 2% of samples by nickel sulphide collector.
11.6.2
UMT QA/QC
Control Samples
As is prevalent throughout the industry, all laboratories employed by the Project use
their own quality-control materials (blanks, pulp duplicates, standards) within each
laboratory process batch. Laboratories routinely re-ran batches that failed their quality
control requirements. Batches, which vary in size, typically include two duplicates, one
or two blanks and a laboratory reference material. Results of laboratory quality
controls are included in the laboratory reports. These results are informative because
they show what the laboratory considers to be acceptable performance; batches
showing inadequate performance are re-run, and the original assays are not part of
laboratory final reports.
Blanks
Blanks utilized natural rock materials that have less than 5 ppb concentrations of Au,
Pt, and Pd, but have copper concentrations of 10 to 20 ppm and Ni concentrations of
20 to 30 ppm. Blanks underwent preparation steps and therefore provide an upper
limit on levels of contamination caused by preparation.
More than 1,700 blind blanks were included within the Ultra Trace submissions in
20102011. Very high levels in a blank for several elements would indicate sample
mix-ups. None of the inserted blanks showed very high levels for multiple elements,
although approximately 20 samples (<0.5%) showed moderately elevated levels for
several elements, which might be ascribed to either a sample mix-up or to
contamination during preparation. Excluding one anomalous Au result of 74 ppb, Au
results for blanks did not exceed 15 ppb. No Pt or Pd results exceeded 70 ppb, and
excluding two samples with anomalously high levels of Au and Pt and Pd, no blank
result exceeded 40 ppb for Pt or Pd. Average blank results for Au, Pt, and Pd are all
less than 3 ppb. The maximum Cu and Ni blank results are 122 and 548 ppm
respectively. Excluding the highest blank Ni result, which had elevated results for Cu,
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 11-16
PLATREEF PROJECT
Cr and S, the highest Ni result in a blank is 250 ppm. Performance on blanks is

adequate for Mineral Resource estimation purposes.
Certified Reference Materials (CRMs)
The Project inserted coarse reject duplicates, field blanks, and packets of CRMs in
order to independently monitor laboratory performance. Coarse reject samples were
created by the preparation laboratory by routinely making a sample from the coarse
reject of every 20th sample, and assigning it the same sample number as its duplicate
pair, with the addition of a suffix CRD.
All sample submissions included packets of certified reference materials (CRMs)
purchased from commercial African Mineral Standards (AMIS, Johannesburg), and/or
in-house SRMs made from composites of drill sample coarse rejects that were
prepared by SGS (Johannesburg), with best values assigned by AMEC based upon
round-robin results. Details are provided in Reid (2011) and Long (2010). In-house
SRMs were phased out as appropriate materials became available from AMIS.
Fifteen CRMs and SRMs were used extensively enough to compare Ultra Traces
mean results of each for comparison to best values. Excluding outliers that triggered
follow-up investigation (for control insertion mix-ups) and in very rare cases remedial
re-assaying of some laboratory batches, the average of the Ultra Trace results is within
ten percent of the certified value for the major elements of interest (Ni, Pt, Pd, Au, Cu)
and in most cases for the added element, sulphur. Ultra Trace results for Cr are much
lower than the AMIS certified values (based upon fusion or XRF pellet analysis),
indicating that the multi-acid digestion method is not adequate for this element. This is
a known problem with acid digestion for Cr.
Check Assays
Approximately 5% of drill sample pulps previously assayed by Ultra Trace were
forwarded, along with blind CRMs and blanks, to Genalysis. Genalysis performed the
same assay suite, plus aqua regia digestions for Ni and Cu. Agreement was usually
adequate and, in all cases where it was not, samples were re-assayed by both
laboratories to resolve the problems. The assay database was routinely updated
where remedial assaying was performed.
In 2010, Genalysis began to exhibit some systematic errors in its acid digestion
assays, likely attributable to introduction of new heating blocks. The problem was
eventually resolved, but the decision was taken to suspend sending check assays to
Genalysis. Sample pulps were instead submitted to Acme Laboratories, Vancouver.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 11-17
PLATREEF PROJECT
Prior to suspending submissions to Genalysis, the Project used Genalysis aqua regia
results to estimate, for each rock type, the fraction of total Ni likely to be in sulphide
minerals that could potentially be recovered by the flotation process. However,
inserted controls showed increased batch-to-batch variations in aqua regia results, and
Genalysis stated that their results should be considered semi-quantitative for this
method.
The Project selected some mineralized samples to undergo an additional nickel
sulphide collector fire assay to validate the conventional lead collector fire assay
results for Pt and Pd, and to determine the grade of other PGMs, particularly Rh. NiS
fire assays return lower Au results and are not regarded as reliable for Au. Pt and Pd
results were on average slightly higher (about five percent) compared to the lead
collector fire assays.
11.7
Databases
The drill-hole data are maintained in a Fusion database, created by Century Systems
Technologies Inc. The Fusion database is maintained at the Platreef Project site. All
available drill-hole data including data from the AMT and ATS drill campaigns have
been captured in the database.
In March 2013, a project commenced to migrate the data in the Fusion database to an
acQuire database.
11.7.1
AMT and ATS Data Entry

All geological information from drilling logs was double-entered into the computer by
two different individuals. A relational database was used to compare the two files and
to identify entry errors. Each non-matching dual entry was checked, and the correct
entry identified for the final database.
All assay reports were transmitted from the laboratory to Platreef via email or
electronic bulletin boards. The transmitted files are imported into an Excel template
and checked for proper formatting, extraction of duplicate data and header information,
and for reasonableness checks using various metal ratios. The checks identified
records with missing or erroneous entries sourced at the laboratory.
Data were managed in Access and in SQL Server. Back-ups of data onto hard media
(CD, DVD) were routinely performed. Some back-ups are stored in Ivanplats offices
in Johannesburg.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 11-18
PLATREEF PROJECT
11.7.2
UMT Database
The data acquisition procedure includes filing of hard copies of drill-hole data after the
data have been captured in the SQL Fusion database (co-ordinate surveys, total depth,
downhole surveys, updated drill hole logs and assay certificates). An additional
database administrator and additional database entry clerks were employed and
trained to assist with the increased amount of data from current and planned drill
programs. The Fusion 6.6 SQL logs authorized changes to data, thereby creating an
audit trail. The changes are date- and time-stamped along with the name of the
person who made the changes.
11.8
Sample Security
AMT and ATS pulp rejects and coarse rejects are returned to the Platreef offices in
Mokopane, where they are stored in warehouses. Access to the warehouses is
restricted to Ivanplats employees with the appropriate security clearance. The
compound containing the offices and warehouses is guarded on a 24-hour basis.
Pulps sent to Ultra Trace are stored at Ultra Trace, with the exception of those pulps
selected for check assays, which were in most cases exhausted after conducting
checks.
11.9
The sample preparation, sample analyses, data entry and security have been done to
industry-standards for large exploration and development projects.
Ivanplats
personnel involved in these activities have been well-trained to maintain the integrity of
samples and their analyses. The QPs are of the opinion that the quality of the PGE,
Au, Ni, Rh and Cu analytical data are sufficiently reliable (also see discussion in
Section 12.0) to support Mineral Resource estimation as follows:
Data are collected following industry-standard sampling protocols
Sample collection and handling of core were undertaken in accordance with

industry-standard practices, with procedures to limit potential sample losses and
sampling biases
Sample intervals in core, vary from 1 m to 2.5 m intervals in the AMK and ATS
areas, and are 1 m intervals in the UMT area; the sample intervals are considered
to be adequately representative of the mineralization
Bulk density determination procedures are consistent with industry-standard

procedures, and there are sufficient bulk density determinations to support tonnage
estimates
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 11-19
PLATREEF PROJECT
Sample preparation for samples that support Mineral Resource estimation has
followed similar procedures since 2001. The preparation procedure is in line with
industry-standard methods for PGEAuNiRhCu deposits
Core drill programs were analyzed by independent laboratories using industrystandard methods
Typically, Platreef drill programs included insertion of blank, duplicate and SRM
samples
Data that were collected were subject to validation, using in-built program triggers
that automatically checked data on upload to the database
Verification is performed on all digitally-collected data on upload to the main

database, and includes checks on surveys, collar co-ordinates, lithology data, and
assay data. The checks are appropriate, and consistent with industry standards
Sample security has relied upon the fact that the samples were always attended or
locked in the on-site sample preparation facility
Chain-of-custody procedures consist of filling out sample submittal forms that are
sent to the laboratory with sample shipments to make certain that all samples are
received by the laboratory
Current sample storage procedures and storage areas are consistent with industry
standards.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 11-20
PLATREEF PROJECT
12.0
DATA VERIFICATION
Several reviews of the database have been made since 2002. These include AMEC
reviews and those performed by independent consultants. The most recent database
audit was performed by AMEC during 2012 to ensure its suitability for resource
estimation.
12.1
McDonald Speijers Audit (2002, 2004)

Ivanplats contracted McDonald Speijers (MS), an Australian mining consultancy, to
review the technical aspects of the Platreef project in 2002 and 2004 (McDonald and
Speijers, 2003 and 2004). After the first review, MS stated that the sampling and
assay programs were in general appropriate to the type of mineralization, the QA/QC
program was consistent with good industry standards, and mineral resource modelling
construction was very thorough and competent. MS also recommended incorporation
of the geological interpretation into the resource models, as the data became
available. This was done in the next model update (model Q). They also
recommended further improvements in modeling via mineralized zone interpretations.
These modeling recommendations have been implemented where data are available
to support them.
12.2
External Review of ATS Model (2003)

Dr J.M. Rendu (2003) completed a peer review of the inverse-distance weighted grade
model for ATS that was available in March 2003. He found the model formed a
reasonable basis for the evaluation and reporting of mineral resources and concluded
that the model could be used as a basis for preliminary studies.
12.3
AMEC AMK and ATS Database Reviews (2007, 2010)

In addition to automated data verification procedures, spot inspections of the drill logs
were completed. There was a period of time where barren gaps in the drill core were
unsampled and unlogged. These gaps were re-examined, and the uncut core portions
were identified and logged. Unsampled intervals were either sampled or assigned
grades equal to zero.
AMEC completed a database audit in June 2007 for all available drilling at that time
(DaSilva, 2007). Under the supervision of AMEC, Ivanplats personnel completed a
5% random check of the ATS and AMK exploration database and a 100% check of
collar coordinate surveys of holes used in resource estimation. The records selected
for inspection were checked against primary sources of information (assay certificates,
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 12-1
PLATREEF PROJECT
drill logs, survey certificates). No issues that could affect Mineral Resource estimation
were noted.
12.4
AMEC Site Visits

During the April 2010 site visit (Kuhl, 2010), AMEC undertook the following:
Compared database entries against supporting documents for collar, survey,

density and geology coding for five UMT drill holes.
Provided suggestions for improvement of database procedures
Performed field checks for nine drill-hole collars using a Garmin GPS unit.
No significant errors were noted that could affect Mineral Resource estimation.
Dr Harry Parker visited the project site in March 2011 and reviewed logging of Modpak
in 12 drill holes (Parker, 2011). The Modpak interpretations have since been
superceded by the geological interpretations discussed in Section 7.3. Mr Kuhl also
visited site in JulyAugust 2011, and observed drilling operations and reviewed
Modpak logging.
Mr. Kuhl later visited the project between 25 January and 2 February 2012. During
this site visit, the new geological interpretation for the TCU and was reviewed in both
cross-section and drill core. Mr. Kuhl also visited drilling locations.
Dr. Harry Parker visited the site from 16 to 22 November 2012. He inspected core and
checked new logging units in nine holes; he verified collar coordinates for 10 holes
using a hand-held GPS unit; he also collected 20 witness samples from holes drilled
since March 2011 and personally supervised their splitting and bagging for submission
to sample preparation at Set Point (Mokopane). Dr. Parker also reviewed the
structural interpretation.
Mr. Kuhl visited the Project between 25 November and 12 December 2012. During
this site visit, the geological interpretation for the TCU and was reviewed in both crosssection and drill core, preliminary exploration data analysis was completed, and work
began on constructing the geological model. Mr. Kuhl retrieved 20 witness samples
from Set Point (Mokopane) and supervised the packageing and shipment to Ultra
Trace Laboratory
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 12-2
PLATREEF PROJECT
12.5
12.5.1
AMEC 2012 Database Reviews

August 2012 Review
In August 2012, AMEC compared the collar, down-hole, geology logs and assay data
(Au, Pt, Pd, Ni and Cu) from the previously-audited database (August 2010) to the
August 2012 database as a check on data integrity (Yennamani, 2012). The additional
drill holes reviewed were completed after the database close-out date for the Mineral
Resource estimate. The review noted:
Some discrepancies between the original collar survey documents and the
database; further investigation was recommended to resolve the differences
Minor errors with downhole survey and lithology data; these were corrected in the
database by Ivanplats staff.
Minor issues related to the import of sample results from samples submitted for reassays were found during database audit check; these were corrected in the
database by Ivanplats staff.
AMEC considered that at the close of the review, that 99% of the Ivanplats assay
database conformed to assay certificates from the laboratories and found that the
assay database is acceptable to support future Mineral Resource estimation.
12.5.2
December 2012 Review

In December 2012, AMEC compared the down-hole, geology logs and assay data (Au,
Pt, Pd, Ni and Cu) from the previously-audited database (August 2012) to as a check
on data integrity (Yennamani, 2013). Eight new drill hole collars were added to the
December 2012 database; information was checked on five of these holes. Collar
data were unavailable for review. No issues were noted with the down-hole surveys or
assay certificates. Minor discrepancies were noted with lithology coding in the
database when compared to the logs; these were sent to Ivanplats staff for correction.
The assay database was considered acceptable to support future Mineral Resource
estimation.
12.6
12.6.1
Quality Assurance and Quality Control Results

AMK and ATS QA/QC
The open-pit resource drilling program was one of the largest sampling and assaying
programs executed in South Africa at the time.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 12-3
PLATREEF PROJECT
The original sample preparation protocol greatly exceeded usual industry practice; the
entire sample of half core was pulverized. A change of protocol to produce a 10 mesh
product and then pulverise a split of that product was considered. This is the most
typical protocol used for sample preparation. A sampling expert evaluated the
protocol, which is a best practice. The controls on that protocol (coarse reject
duplicates, daily screen tests and second-party screen tests) exceed industry
standards.
Initial assaying was typical of that obtained in South Africa. Improvements were made,
commencing in 2001, with the introduction of blind standards, blanks, extensive check
assays and remedial assays. Check assays on samples assayed prior to 2001 have
not identified any problems prior to these improvements. Samples identified as having
inaccurate results were re-assayed. The re-assays are subjected to the same quality
control. This approach exceeds industry standards.
Ivanplats rigorous data entry and validation programs were above industry-standard.
In 2010, AMEC attempted to again review QA/QC data for the open-pit resource
drilling, but was unable to do so because the data were being migrated from an old
server to a new database. However, as the original QA/QC program was set up by
AMEC, and AMEC personnel made periodic visits to check on implementation during
2001 to 2003, AMEC is of the opinion that the resource drilling results for the area
amenable to be mined using open-pit methods are valid to support Mineral Resource
estimation.
All final assay results are suitable for use in Mineral Resource estimation.
12.6.2
UMT QA/QC
AMEC obtained and reviewed the available QA/QC data for the UMT drilling. Blanks,
duplicates, and CRMs are checked when results return and if results are not within
established limits, re-analysis of samples in the vicinity of the failing controls are
requested. The data are not accepted unless re-assays produce acceptable results.
Overall, a small number of reports have been rejected, including reports by ALS
Chemex, and results from some of these jobs are pending. A few failed batches by
Ultra Trace have been remediated.
AMEC noted:
All Ultra Trace means on SRMs are within 5% of recommended values for the five
elements of economic interest (Ni, Cu, Pt, Pd, Au). Results are sufficiently
accurate for Mineral Resource estimation for all five elements of economic interest
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 12-4
PLATREEF PROJECT
Generally the results for Au, Pt and Pd blanks were satisfactory. Significantly
poorer performance was noted for Cu and even more so for Ni results. The
apparent poor performance for Cu may be a consequence of a low bias in Set
Point Cu assays (used to certify the blank material). Nickel values were of concern
because approximately 80% of samples exceeded the 8 ppm value stated by Set
Point. AMEC is unsure of the cause for this issue, but suggests additional samples
of the blank material be submitted for assay in order to better determine the Cu
and Ni content of the blank. SRMs with low Cu and Ni content should accompany
these samples
Genalysis results for Cu, Pt, Pd and Au were in line with the SRMs, but Genalysis
showed a low bias for Ni. The bias varies from batch to batch but is about 8% to
12% low overall. Results in the >6,000 ppm Ni grade range show good
agreement. There are 13 pairs of results where Ni is greater than 6,000 ppm Ni,
and these do not agree well between laboratories. There are not enough data in
this range to be conclusive. AMEC recommended that all samples with Ni results
greater than 10,000 ppm undergo an additional check assay by XRF fusion, which
is likely to be more reliable in this grade range.
In mid-2010, approximately 5% of pulps were selected from pulps stored at Ultra

Trace. The submission included certified reference materials. Data review indicated
that:
Acme results are approximately 10% higher for PGM fire assays compared to Ultra
Trace results. Inserted CRMs in both Ultra Trace and Acme submissions indicate
this can be accounted for by a slight low bias in the Ultra Trace results and a slight
high bias in the Acme PGM results. The Ultra Trace results likely slightly
underestimate PGMs by approximately 5% and therefore have very low risk of
being biased high.
Acme produced mean sulphur grades that are 20% higher than Ivanplats average
by one method it used, and 20% lower than Ivanplats average by the other.
Taken together, these two methods average to agree with Ivanplats average
result.
Ivanplats supplied results from coarse reject duplicate samples for Au, Pt, Pd, Ni, and
Cu assays. Successful or passing duplicates were identified by calculating the
Absolute Value of the Relative Difference (AVRD).
AMEC evaluates the duplicate samples by calculating the AVRD, equal to the absolute
value of the pair difference divided by the pair mean. Evaluating the AVRD of the
coarse reject duplicates indicated that AVRD for Au, Pd, Cu and Ni met the 90th
percentile goal of 20%: AVRD values are 20%, 11%, 7% and 5%, respectively. Pt
exceeded the threshold, with AVRD values of 28% at the 90th percentile. AMEC noted
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 12-5
PLATREEF PROJECT
that Ivanplats were not submitting pulp duplicates as part of their QA/QC program, and
recommended that Ivanplats use Ultra Traces reported pulp-duplicate results to
assess the precision of pulp duplicates.
12.6.3
QA/QC Drilling Completed Between March 2011 and June 2012

AMEC performed a review on the QA/QC data available for drilling completed between
March 2011 and June 2012. Results were:
Approximately 3,100 blanks were passed through preparation and assay during the
period. Three clusters of low-grade contamination were found in three different drill
holes (UMT 146, 155, and 181) all assayed by Genalysis. Indications were that the
contamination likely occurred during sample preparation. The level of contamination is
too low to have any impact on the future use of the samples in Mineral Resource
estimation.
The Projects increased drilling rate necessitated using Genalysis and Set Point
laboratories, in addition to UltraTrace. AMEC separated the results by laboratory and
calculated each laboratorys median result for each element of interest for each AMIS
Certified Reference Material. Results showed acceptable agreement between the
laboratories.
Multi-acid digestion results show good accuracy by all laboratories for copper and
nickel but pronounced low biases by Genalysis and UltraTrace for Cr. Set Point does
not report Cr results. The Cr assays are not accurate by multi-acid digestion. Reliable
Cr results most likely would require a fusion followed by reading by XRF. The low bias
seen here is consistent with that seen previously in UltraTrace results.
Except for Cr, which is not used in the resource estimations, accuracy of these
elements is sufficient by all laboratories for use in estimation of Mineral Resources.
12.7
AMEC Witness Samples

Three groups of witness samples have been collected at Platreef by AMEC, in April
2010, February 2011 and November 2012. The purpose of collecting these samples is
to confirm the presence of mineralization.
12.7.1
April 2010
AMEC collected 20 witness samples in 2010 by selecting individual sample intervals of
varying Ni grade. The selected sample intervals were re-sawn, and quarter core
samples were prepared and submitted to SGS Lakefield. There were some large
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 12-6
PLATREEF PROJECT
differences, particularly for Pt, but differences in mean grade were not statistically
significant. Follow-up evaluation involving re-assaying of original and new quarter core
coarse rejects and pulps by both SGS and Ultra Trace laboratories revealed that the
differences stemmed from differences in the grades of the original (half core) and
witness (quarter core) samples. AMEC (Long and Parker, 2011) concluded a larger
number of samples were required in order to achieve a reliable verification of the
original assays or if large differences were found, showing them to be statistically
significant.
12.7.2
February 2011
AMEC (Long, 2011a) first identified diamond drill holes (UMT prefix) having
mineralized intercepts of PGEs (Au, Pt and Pd). These were divided into ten groups
based upon their drill-hole number, to provide grouping by similar time periods. There
were approximately seven drill holes in each group. A drill hole was randomly selected
from each group. The best mineralized intercepts were identified in each drill hole.
The intercepts were compared to available information on sample intervals that had
been re-sampled, including AMECs previous witness samples, material taken for
metallurgical study, and material collected for mineralogical studies. In cases where a
mineralized interval had already been sampled, a different drill hole was selected. The
follow up selection was made so that the selected drill holes had collar locations
spread across the entire mineralized extent of the project drilling.
In order to reduce the impact of core shifting within a core box, mineralized intervals
were assayed in their entirety. A minimum of two core boxes of samples was
maintained, with as many as five core boxes used in some cases. Enough core boxes
were selected so that lower-grade intervals (near background) would be included.
Once a core box was selected, all of the core in the box was quartered, and all the
quartered core sampled, except for the partial samples in the first and last core box
selected for each drill hole.
Quarter core samples were prepared in the same way as routine samples: dried,
weighed, crushed to greater than a control limit of 90% passing 10 mesh (using a jaw
crusher for primary crushing and about 10 seconds in an LM2 as secondary crushing,
and a criterion that an average sample achieves 95% passing 10 mesh), then split in a
riffle splitter once or twice to obtain a sample pulp with a nominal weight of 500 g. The
pulp split was then pulverized in an LM2 to a criterion of >90% passing 106 m.
Pulverization was checked by screen tests.
All samples were submitted to Ultra Trace for the current standard suite of analysis:
Au, Pt, and Pd by Pb fire assay (sample weights approximately 40 g) with ICP/MS
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 12-7
PLATREEF PROJECT
finish (2 ppb detection limit); Cu, Ni, and Cr by multi-acid digestion followed by
ICP/OES (1 ppm detection limit); and S by Leco furnace (50 ppm detection limit).
For the 260 samples collected, very close agreement was obtained between original
and quarter core samples for Cu, Ni, and S, and adequate agreement was obtained for
Au. There was no preferential sampling of sulphides in the original (half core)
samples.
Pt and Pd returned lower average results in the quarter core sampling compared to the
original sampling, and these differences are statistically significant by a two-tailed
students t-test at the 5% level. This means there is less than a 5% chance that a resampling of the half core population would result in the mean observed in the quarter
core witness samples. However, the results of the inserted CRMs indicated that the Pt
and Pd results had a low (but within the acceptable range) bias for Pt and Pd, or
around 5%, and the CRMs associated with the original results for these samples did
not.
After applying a correction to the Pt results for the low bias shown by CRM results, the
difference between the original and new results was no longer statistically significant.
However, the correction applied for a low bias shown by CRMs for Pd is smaller, and
the data have less variance; consequently the difference between the original and reassay results remains statistically significant after applying a correction.
The second witness sampling program conducted in February 2011 showed that the
original sampling was appropriately done for Ni, Cu, S and Au. Statistically significant
low biases were found for Pt and Pd. Approximately half of these biases could be
explained by low but acceptable bias in the CRMs returned for the batch of witness
samples. Adjusting the witness data for these biases, the adjusted values are in
reasonable agreement with the original samples.
12.7.3
2013
A third set of witness samples were taken in November 2012, and assay results
received in January 2013.
Original and witness assay values were compared for Pt, Pd, Au, Ni, Cu, Cr and S and
graphed. The resulting charts do not suggest any obvious sample mix-ups or outliers
that are not a consequence of variation in grade.
Comparison of means of witness samples to means of original results show agreement
within 5% for base metals, sulphur, and Pd, but not for Au and Pt. The original Au
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 12-8
PLATREEF PROJECT
mean is 19% lower than the witness sample mean and the original Pt mean is 14%
higher than the witness sample mean.
Paired students t-tests on each element found no significant differences between
means at the p<.05 level. A non-parametric statistical test, the Sign Test, was
performed on the Au and Pt results; this showed the percentage of occurrences where
the original result of a pair was less than the witness sample result was not statistically
significantly different from the expected 5050 distribution expected by chance (at the
p < .05 level). In the case of Pt, nine out of 20 pairs had a lower Pt result for the
original assay.
A separate evaluation of the Pd-spike method for Rh analysis was performed on a
subset of 22 samples (plus three duplicate samples). This is comparison showed that
the addition of the Pd to the conventional fire assay did not affect the Au and Pt
results, with means agreeing within 3%. A comparison of a much smaller subset
where there were original fire assays by NiS fusion covered five samples plus two
duplicate samples. The mean of the Pd spike method was about 4% lower than the
NiS fusion result. The number of pairs is too few for a meaningful statistical test, but
the agreement in means suggests this method is likely working sufficiently well for
estimating Rh content in Platreef samples. Additional data from sample pulps assayed
by both methods are needed to further substantiate this interpretation.
12.8
Verification of Grind-Assay Function

AMEC selected 92 pulp samples of pyroxenite and harzburgite for screening at 75 m,
because metallurgical test data available in 2011 indicated that there may be
enhanced 3PE grades related to the grinding of pulps, particularly for harzburgite.
XPS recommended a grind of 80% passing -75 m. Long (2011b) concluded that over
90% of harzburgite sample pulps are likely to achieve the recommended grind quality.
Hence no modification of the grind protocol was recommended, nor was remedial work
or further investigation considered warranted.
12.9
Comparison of UltraTrace and MINTEK assays

AMEC is currently conducting a comparison of UltraTrace assays on exploration
samples to Mintek assays on pulp duplicates of the same samples. This is designed
to produce assurance that the Mintek head assays, on which metallurgical recovery
equations depend, conform to the UltraTrace assays which are the basis for the
Mineral Resource estimates.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 12-9
PLATREEF PROJECT
12.10 Comments on Section 12

AMEC has been involved in the Platreef Project since 2001 and has conducted
continuous monitoring of data collection and data entry. Minor problems have been
identified and resolved by improving procedures at the site. In the QPs opinion
sufficient verification has been conducted to provide assurance that the data collected
are suitable for use as a basis for Mineral Resource estimation.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 12-10
PLATREEF PROJECT
13.0
13.1
MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING

Previous Metallurgical Testwork
This section summarizes metallurgical work performed on the Platreef resource from
October 2001 to February 2012.
Since 2001, there have been a number of metallurgical test work campaigns and
conceptual flow sheet designs carried out for the treatment of Platreef mineralized
material. Metallurgical test work has focused on maximising the recovery of platinum
group elements (PGEs) and base metals, mainly nickel, whilst producing an
acceptably high grade concentrate suitable for further processing and/or sale to a third
party.
Up until 2006 metallurgical test work was carried out mainly on lower grade shallow
material from the potentially large open-pit area. Flotation recoveries and concentrate
grades were generally low, resulting in the necessity for further processing on site via
combinations of smelting, converting and magnetic separation, hydrometallurgical
treatment was also considered.
In 2008, with the advent of the deep drilling exploratory program, test work was
performed on high-grade composite samples. The high-grade test work results were
promising and indicated that there was a strong possibility of increasing concentrate
grade and recovery.
13.1.1
AMK and ATS Drill Samples

Mineralized samples from the open-pit portion of the Platreef project were collected for
metallurgical testwork between October 2001 and June 2003. The testwork was
performed by G&T Metallurgical Services Ltd. in Kamloops, Canada (G&T
Metallurgical) and was supervised by Mr Christopher Kaye of AMEC.
The
metallurgical flotation testwork program results were presented in a series of internal
memoranda and are summarized below.
Based on the testwork, concentrator recovery formulae were developed for
serpentinized and non-serpentinized mineralization, respectively:
Nickel recovery = ((9.3*Ln(Ni head grade)+99.1) * % non-serpentine mineralization) +
((9.3 *Ln(Ni head grade)+84.9) * % serpentine mineralization)
Copper recovery= ((10.3*Ln(Ni head grade)+93.3)* % non-serpentine mineralization) +
((10.3*Ln(Ni head grade)+92.6)* % serpentine mineralization)
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 13-1
PLATREEF PROJECT
Platinum recovery= ((4.8*Ln(Ni head grade)+80.9)* % non-serpentine mineralization) +

((4.8*Ln(Ni head grade)+80.1)* % serpentine mineralization)
Palladium recovery= ((8.9*Ln(Ni head grade)+83.5)* % non-serpentine mineralization)
+ ((8.9*Ln(Ni head grade)+84.2)* % serpentine mineralization)
Gold recovery= ((11.9*Ln(Ni head grade)+78.5)* % non-serpentine mineralization) +
((11.9*Ln(Ni head grade)+79.4)* % serpentine mineralization).
A millconcentratesmelter process was advanced. A design commensurate with the
detail required for a pre-feasibility study and costing for a millconcentratesmelt
process was performed by Mr Kaye in 2003.
13.1.2
MDS/Mintek ATS Sample Testwork

In 2004, Ivanplats contracted MDS/Mintek to complete a new series of metallurgical
tests for optical characterization (Mintek, 2003c) and to support engineering studies
(Mintek, 2003a; Mintek, 2003b; Mintek, 2003d; and MDS, 2004). The overall
performances predicted by AMEC and those achieved by MDS/Mintek were found to
be comparable for both recovery and concentrate grade.
13.1.3
UMT Testwork
SGS Lakefield Testwork
Exploratory flotation tests were performed at SGS Lakefield on low-grade and highgrade composite samples during 2007 and 2008.
The high-grade sample
(approximately 0.4% Ni, 0.2% Cu and 1.6 g/t 3PE (Pt + Pd + Au) test results indicated
that, with optimization, there was a strong probability of significantly improving the
testwork results compared to the testwork results that were returned based on
samples from the conceptual open-pit portion of the Project.
A metallurgical test program was undertaken at SGS Laboratories in Johannesburg
during the second half of 2010 with the objective of establishing the metallurgical
response during froth flotation and to postulate a preliminary process design. Tests
included a grind optimisation exercise program, reagent scouting tests and locked
cycle tests, and results indicated that a saleable concentrate could be generated.
Subsequent to the flotation testwork, a mineralogical analysis was performed on the
locked cycle cleaner tailings to determine the form of the unrecovered PGEs and to
postulate methods for recovery improvement. The optimum grind size was indicated
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 13-2
PLATREEF PROJECT
to be not more than 70% passing 75 m. PGE recoveries were expected to improve if
the rougher flotation tails were reground after the initial base-metal sulphide recovery
at a coarser grind. Due to the disassociation of PGEs with sulphides and virtually no
PGE sulphides present, the reagent suite used after the regrind was expected to be
able to be customized to specifically target the PGEBi, BiTe, As and Sb metalloids.
The circuit envisaged was one common in the South African PGE industry, and is
known as an MF2 circuit (mill then float and second stage mill and float again).
Xstrata Process Support Testwork
A metallurgical testwork campaign was commenced in 2011 by Xstrata Process
Support (XPS) in Ontario, Canada.
Five geometallurgical units from the TCU, then called the Upper Unit TLZ, were
subject to preliminary grind assay evaluation with material ground to 50, 60, 80 and
90% mass passing 75 m in the first phase of testing. The relationship of these five
units to the current stratigraphic interpretation is included as Figure 13-1.
Figure 13-1: Mapping Old to New Geometallurgical Units
Note: Figure courtesy Ivanplats, 2013. UBP = Upper B Pyroxenite; LBP = Lower B Pyroxenite; HA = Harzburgite; PBP
= Pegmatoidal B Pyroxenite
Two of these units (T2U and T2L, then known as Lower B Pyroxenite and Harzburgite)
demonstrated significant responses in fire-assay PGE grade to the degree of
pulverization, in that the 80% and 90% passing 75 m treatment groups reported
significantly higher Pt, Pd and Au (3PE) grades than their coarser treatment
counterparts. The Lower B Pyroxenite (T2U) data show that, for palladium, a grade
peak occurs at a pulverization state of 60% mass passing 75 m. The Harzburgite
(T2L) data show that, for both Pt and Pd, a grade peak occurs at a pulverization state
of 80% mass passing 75 m, consistent with the overall 3PE data.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 13-3
PLATREEF PROJECT
Baseline flotation tests were undertaken. Rougher recoveries were obtained from
elevated mass pulls ranging from 13.9% to 28.8%. Given the low levels of sulphides in
the samples, these mass pulls indicated positive gangue flotation was occurring, a
phenomenon that would present challenges in cleaning. The low rougher concentrate
grades obtained from the baseline tests were considered to be due to the gangue
flotation problem.
The second XPS testwork phase was based on a master composite prepared from
core from the Flatreef area. A series of depressant optimization tests were performed.
Depramin 267, a carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) was selected as the main test
depressant, at a dosage rate of 250 g/t. Comparative testing was done with Depramin
C and SenDep 369 at this same addition rate. The platinum response to these tests
showed a relative improvement in Pt rougher recovery of approximately 3.72% by
increasing the dosage of Depramin 267 from 100 to 250 g/t milled. This response was
accompanied by a reduction in overall mass pull from 17.7% to 15.4%. When a
300 g/t dose was applied, the overall platinum recovery declined from the maximum
achieved with a 250 g/t dose. However, there was an associated drop in mass
recovery, and the recovered concentrate grades increased, which showed that gangue
was being depressed. It is likely that the depressed gangue carried locked PGM to
tails.
Grind optimisation and reagent dosing testwork using an MF2 platform was completed
on the rougher and scavenger circuit. Three sets of grinding parameters were used,
and tests included modifications to flotation times and reagent type and dosage. The
70/90 (a primary grind of 70% passing 75 m followed by a secondary grind of 90%
passing 75 m) circuit recovery was improved further by collector changes and
increasing the scavenger flotation time. The rougher and scavenger concentrates
from this work were studied by QEMSCAN to determine the processing characteristics.
At least one of the three strategies employed, the addition of copper sulphate to the
second grind, the deepening of the second grind to 90% passing 75 m, or the
extension of scavenger flotation time from 10 to 15 minutes, was responsible for
improved performance in reducing 4PE grades in the scavenger tail. Consequently,
the MF2 70/90 float test was configured on the grounds that equivalent
additions/changes to the rougher circuit would further improve the recovery
performance. The reconfiguration resulted in 4PE grade and recovery gains in both
the rougher and the scavenger floats. There was a noticeable improvement in the 4PE
grades arising from the scavenger float, but there was a small decrease in nickel
recovery performance.
A modified flotation reagent strategy was applied while retaining the 70/90 grinding
strategy. The main improvement compared to the previous test was in regard to 4PE
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 13-4
PLATREEF PROJECT
recovery in the rougher float which improved from 63% to 75%. The scavenger stage
4PE recovery reduced from 20% to 12%. This suggests the addition of Senkol 9
Collector to the rougher stage has had a beneficial impact. However, the recovery
improvement was accompanied by an increase in mass pull of 11% (greater than a
50% relative increase) due to increased flotation of siliceous gangue. Only one test
has been carried out under these conditions, and no rationalization of reagents or
optimization of reagent addition rates was attempted. The large number of reagents in
use suggests that further optimization is required in a future test program.
13.2
Current Metallurgical Testwork

This section summarizes testwork available from March 2012 to February 2013.
As mentioned above, in 2010 a flotation test work program on high-grade samples was
completed at the SGS laboratories in Johannesburg. The results have indicated that a
potentially saleable concentrate can be produced and forms the basis for the process
plant design for the scoping study. Further work was undertaken at the SGS Lakefield
laboratories in Canada on the Master II Composite (MC II) sample in late 2012. The
MC II sample makeup by lithology is as indicated in Figure 13-2.
Figure 13-2: Master Composite Rock type Percentages (New Geometallurgical Units)
In 2012 the resource was geologically re-assessed, and samples of three new
geometallurgical units were supplied to Mintek. These units were designated T1, T2
Upper (T2U) and T2 Lower (T2L). Figure 13-1 summarizes the relationships between
the new and old metallurgical units. These lithologies are currently subject to flotation
test work, which is in progress. Comminution work has been delayed because the test
facility is awaiting receipt of comminution samples. The notes on comminution
included in this section are based on test work completed at Mintek in the third quarter
of 2012. Preliminary and interim flotation results have been received from Mintek.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 13-5
PLATREEF PROJECT
Comminution tests indicated that the mineralized material is competent with respect to
SAG milling and that a crusher and ball mill circuit will be the preferred option. The
ball mill work index results are in the range 18 to 21 kWh/t. This indicates that the
Platreef material is hard to very hard.
The latest Mintek flotation test work has shown that the plant feed is amenable to
treatment by conventional flotation without the need for re-grinding. Flotation
recoveries are lower than expected. This is due to a non-floating PGM population
locked in gangue at sizes of 10 m or finer and amounting to approximately 1015% of
the contained PGMs, as determined by mineralogical analysis.
Although this phase of the test work is preliminary it did indicate that an effective flow
sheet will involve several stages of cleaner flotation with recycle of the re-cleaner and
re-re-cleaner stage tailings. All of the geometallurgical units and the two blends
produced acceptable smelter-grade final concentrates at acceptable recoveries.
Calculation to simulate the effect of recycles from open circuit tests indicated a
concentrate containing 123 g/t PGE at a recovery of 85% on a composite sample,
which was estimated to be comparable to the as-mined run-of-mine mineralized
material (selective base case using Mineral Resources estimated at UMT-TCU; see
Table 14-15).
Any future processing plant is likely to consist of a relatively standard flotation
concentrator targeted at producing a saleable concentrate.
13.3
Mineralogy
In this section the following abbreviations are used: PGE = platinum group elements;
PGM = platinum group minerals; BMS = base metal sulphides. The grind size of the
samples submitted for mineralogical work was 80% -75 m.
13.3.1
Introduction
Representative samples of the MC II composite and the new geometallurgical units
(T1, T2U, T2L) were submitted for mineralogical examination. The investigations were
aimed at PGM species identification and did not undertake a study of the overall
lithology of the sample.
13.3.2
PGM Search
PGM search analyses were carried out to provide PGM species identification, grain
size distribution, liberation characteristics and gangue associations of PGM-bearing
particles detected in the sample.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 13-6
PLATREEF PROJECT
The PGM mode of occurrence was classified into one of six pre-defined mode of
occurrence classes, as described in Table 13-1 and illustrated in Figure 13-3.
Table 13-1: PGM-Bearing Particle Mode of Occurrence Classes
PGM Mode of Occurrence
Class
Description
Liberated PGM
SL
PGM associated with BMS only (i.e. a binary PGM-BMS particle)
AG
PGM attached to silicate or oxide gangue (i.e. PGM exposed at particle

perimeter)
SAG
PGM associated with BMS attached to silicate or oxide gangue (i.e. BMS
exposed at particle perimeter)
SG
PGM associated with BMS locked within silicate or oxide gangue (i.e. no
exposure of PGM or BMS at particle perimeter)
PGM locked within silicate or oxide gangue (i.e. no exposure of PGM at

particle perimeter)
Note: PGM = platinum group metals; BMS = base metal sulphides
G
Figure 13-3: PGM-Bearing Particle Mode of Occurrence Classes
Note: Figure from Mintek (2013).
PGM grain areas were used to calculate a liberation index for each PGM-bearing
particle. This measure of PGM grain liberation is calculated by dividing the area of
potentially floatable component (PGM + BMS) by the total area of the particle (PGM +
BMS + gangue). The resultant figure will range between 0 and 1, the latter indicating
either a liberated PGM grain, or a binary particle containing PGM and BMS only. In
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 13-7
PLATREEF PROJECT
contrast, the liberation index of a PGM grain totally enclosed within a BMS-barren
silicate particle (low probability of flotation) will approach zero.
The PGM mode of occurrence and liberation index data can be used in conjunction to
determine the probability of recovery of each PGM-bearing particle.
Several PGM-bearing particles were detected in the sample. Mineral identification,
grain size, liberation, and mode of occurrence data were gathered from each PGMbearing particle detected.
PGM Types
The PGM species detected are presented in Table 13-2 and Figure 13-4. PGEbismuth tellurides are the dominant PGM species present (~32 to 51 volume percent).
Lesser amounts of PGEarsenides, PGEsulphides and PGEalloys were also
detected.
Table 13-2: PGM Types Detected in the Sample (Summary of volume %)
Summary of Volume %
MC II
T1
T2U
T2L
PGE-bismuth tellurides
42.8
51.3
33.6
32.4
PGE-arsenides
17.2
6.1
12.2
19.6
PGE-sulphides
19.5
26.4
20.6
11.3
11.2
29.8
21.5
PGE-alloys*
9.4
Note: * this also includes Sb alloys.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 13-8
PLATREEF PROJECT
PGMVolume%
Figure 13-4: PGM Types Detected in the Samples
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
T2L
T2U
T1
MCII
Note: Figure prepared by AMEC and based on 2013 data from Mintek.
PGM Grain-Size Distribution

The grain-size distribution of PGM grains detected is presented in Table 13-3 and
Figure 13-5. Grain sizes are expressed in equivalent circle diameter (ECD), which is
defined as the diameter of a circle with the same area as the measured PGM grain.
Note that the grain-size data presented have been obtained from measurements on
sectioned grains (i.e. in two dimensions only), and although stereological corrections
have been applied to the data, grain sizes reported are not comparable to true 3D
grain sizes.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 13-9
PLATREEF PROJECT
Table 13-3: PGM Grain-Size Distribution

Size Class (m ECD)
MC II
T1
T2U
T2L
03
11.6
15.8
21.3
14.7
36
37.1
25.5
31
23
69
42.3
28.4
12.7
29.9
9 12
30.2
23.1
6.1
12 - 15
11.8
26.3
Totals
100
100
100
100
Note: Figures in the table for MCII, T1, T2U and T2L are presented as a volume percent distribution.
Figure 13-5: PGM Grain-Size Distribution
PGMVolume%
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 3m
3 6m
6 9m
9 12m
12 15m
MCII
T1
T2U
T2L
PGM Mode of Occurrence

The PGM mode of occurrence data is presented in Table 13-4 and Figure 13-6. Table
13-4 also shows the number of PGM grains in each mode of occurrence class that are
smaller than 3 m ECD, as these PGMs are likely to be slower-floating than those
larger than 3 m.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 13-10
PLATREEF PROJECT
Table 13-4: PGM Mode of Occurrence PGM % by Volume

Mode of Occurrence Class
MC II
T1
T2U
T2L
54.6
61.3
58.6
62.3
SL
3.1
0.5
2.1
19.5
AG
28.9
29.6
28.1
13.8
SAG
5.1
4.2
4.8
0.5
SG
0.1
0.3
8.3
4.3
6.1
3.9
Totals
100
100
100
100
Figure 13-6: PGM Mode of Occurrence
70
PGMVolume%
60
50
40
30
20
T2L
T2U
T1
10
0
L
SL
MCII
AG
SAG
SG
All of the samples have a similar amount of fully liberated PGM material. On average
this is 60% within the limits of 55% to 63% by volume.
The T2L material has a lower attachment to gangue, at 14%, compared to the other
samples, where the attachment was between 28% to 30%.
The T2L sample has a greater content of binary PGMBMS particles at 20%,
compared to the other samples at between 0.5% and 3%.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 13-11
PLATREEF PROJECT
PGM Liberation Index

PGM liberation index data, is presented in Table 13-5. PGM-bearing particles with
liberation indices of >0.4 are likely to comprise the fast-floating fraction of the sample.
A proportion of the particles with liberation indices of <0.2 will be lost to the tailings, as
their probability of flotation is low.
Table 13-5: PGM Liberation Index Data PGM by Volume %
Index
MC II
T1
T2U
T2L
< 0.2
29.5
34.5
32.3
13.1
0.20.4
6.4
1.3
2.1
5.1
0.40.6
5.8
2.3
0.60.8
0.6
0.81.0
57.7
61.9
60.7
81.8
Totals
100
100
100
100
The liberation index data indicate that the PGM minerals are more liberated in the T2L
sample, at 82%, than the others at 58% to 62% (Figure 13-5).
Figure 13-7: PGM Liberation Index Data
PGMVolume%
100
80
60
40
T2L
T2U
T1
20
0
<0.2
0.2 0.4
0.4 0.6
MCII
0.6 0.8
0.8 1.0
Potential PGM Recovery Prediction

Minteks mineralogy division PGM flotation predictor software, known by the acronym
MNL, which predicts potential PGM recovery from mineralogical information
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 13-12
PLATREEF PROJECT
determined by the automated scanning electron microscope (SEM) system, was used
to evaluate the PGM data obtained.
A prediction of the potential PGM recovery of the composite sample, based on the
physical properties of the PGM-bearing particles detected during the autoSEM
analysis is presented in the full reports. In summary, the MC II sample indicated a
maximum expected recovery in the rougher stage of approximately 87%, whilst the T1,
T2U and T2L samples showed expected rougher recoveries of 90%, 90% and 93%
respectively.
The reasons for the PGM losses, as determined by the flotation predictor software, are
presented in Table 13-6 and Figure 13-6. These results have been normalised to
100%.
Table 13-6: Predicted Reasons for PGM Losses to Tailings
Reason for Loss
MC II
T1
T2U
T2L
Locked in gangue
63.5
45.2
64.8
56.9
Particle too large
Low liberation factor
36.1
53.6
34.6
41.3
PGM/BMS particles too small
0.4
1.2
0.7
1.7
Totals
100
100
100
100
Note: Figures for MC II, T1, T2U and T2L are in volume percent.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 13-13
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 13-8: Predicted Reasons for PGM Losses to Tailings
50
40
30
20
10
0
MCII
T1
PGMVolume%
70
60
T2U
T2L
The major reason for the PGMs being lost to tailings is poor liberation with the majority
of the PGM locked in gangue or attached to large gangue particles; the latter leads to
a low particle liberation index. Subjecting the rougher tails to a re-grind and secondary
flotation (scavenger) stage may lead to improved PGM recovery, although this may be
of questionable benefit for the new geometallurgical units, since their recoveries are
already at or above 90%.
13.3.3
Base Metal Sulphide Analysis

A representative portion of the sample was screened into four size fractions:
+75 m
-75 m + 38 m
-38 m + 5 m
-5 m
Note: the -5 m size fraction sieving was made possible by the use of specialist screens manufactured using
electroforming technology.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 13-14
PLATREEF PROJECT
The specific mineral search (SMS) mode on a QEMSCAN instrument was used to
detect BMS minerals for characterisation. In a SEM backscattered electron (BSE)
image, the higher the average atomic number of a mineral, the brighter the backscatter
electron intensity will be. As a result of this phenomenon, BMS minerals will appear
brighter than non-sulphide gangue in the backscattered electron image, and can thus
be targeted for analysis by setting an appropriate BSE intensity threshold on the
automated SEM. The SMS analysis thus ignores gangue particles that are not
associated with BMS minerals, allowing more particles of interest (i.e. BMS-bearing) to
be analysed in a particular time frame, and consequently improving the statistical
validity of the results obtained. Gangue that was associated with BMS minerals was
mapped and measured to provide mineral association and liberation characteristics of
the BMS minerals. Automated energy dispersive spectrometry (EDS) was used to
identify the minerals, by comparing the EDS analyses gathered from the sample to a
set of standard mineral EDS spectra.
Base Metal Sulphide Modal Analysis
A QEMSCAN SMS analysis was performed on the sample. Relative proportions of
BMS minerals present, as well as their liberation, grain size, and mineral association
characteristics were determined by the analysis.
The relative proportions of the BMS minerals present, normalised to 100%, are
presented in Table 13-7 and Figure 13-9. Oxide nickel was found to be entrained in
silica. It will not be practicable to recover silica-hosted nickel in a flotation circuit.
Table 13-7: BMS Modal Proportions
Mineral
MC II
T1
T2U
T2L
Other BMS
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.3
Pyrite
1.6
0.8
0.4
Chalcopyrite
19.7
19.2
19.9
20.6
Pentlandite
38.2
30.1
35.5
38.6
Pyrrhotite
40.1
49.6
44
39.6
100
100
Total
100
100
Note: Figures for MC II, T1, T2U, and T2L are in percent.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 13-15
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 13-9: BMS Modal Proportions
PGMVolume%
50
40
30
20
Pyrrhotite
Pentlandite
Chalcopyrite
Pyrite
OtherBMS
10
0
MCII
T1
T2U
T2L
Pyrrhotite and pentlandite are the major BMS minerals in the sample; pyrrhotite
comprises approximately 40 to 50 mass % of the total BMS content, and pentlandite
comprises approximately 30 to 39 mass % of the total BMS content. Chalcopyrite
comprises ~20 mass % of the BMS present. Minor amounts of pyrite were also
detected. The trace amounts of sphalerite and galena detected were grouped together
into an other sulphides class.
Base Metal Sulphide Liberation
Based on the liberation results for the PGMs and the BMS grain size distributions, it
must be assumed that the trends of mineral particle size and liberation degree for the
T1, T2U and T2L samples are comparable to those reported for the MC II sample.
A large proportion of all major BMS minerals present are better than 80% liberated (i.e.
at least 80% of the particle is comprised of BMS). In terms of flotation response, this is
advantageous where PGM particles are associated with BMS grains.
Base Metal Sulphide Grain Size Distribution
Grain size distribution data for each of the major BMS minerals are presented in Figure
13-10, Figure 13-11 and Figure 13-12Note: Figure prepared by AMEC and based on 2013 data from
Mintek.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 13-16
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 13-12. Note that the grain size data presented have been obtained from
measurements on sectioned grains (i.e. in two dimensions only), and although
stereological corrections have been applied to the data, grain sizes reported are not
comparable to true 3D grain sizes.
Figure 13-10: Pentlandite Grain Size Distribution
BMSPentlanditeMass%
60
50
40
30
0 10m
10 25m
25 38m
38 53m
53 75m
>75m
20
10
0
MCII
T1
T2U
T2L
BMSChalcopyriteMass%
Figure 13-11: Chalcopyrite Grain Size Distribution
60
50
40
30
0 10m
10 25m
25 38m
38 53m
53 75m
>75m
20
10
0
MCII
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
T1
T2U
T2L
Page 13-17
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 13-12: Pyrrhotite Grain Size Distribution
BMSPyrrhotiteMass%
50
40
30
20
0 10m
10 25m
25 38m
38 53m
53 75m
>75m
10
0
MCII
T1
T2U
T2L
It is noticeable that the MC II sample and the T2L sample have consistently greater
proportion of -10 m material and a lesser proportion of +38 m material than either
the T1 or T2U samples. Particles that are <10 m are problematic to float making the
recovery of these micro-fine particles difficult.
BMS Mineral Association
Mineral association is calculated by the QEMSCAN data processing software.
Exposed surface refers to the number of pixels (normalised to percentage) between
a particular mineral and the epoxy mounting medium. The data show that the major
BMS minerals (pentlandite, chalcopyrite and pyrrhotite) have a high degree of exposed
surface.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 13-18
PLATREEF PROJECT
ExposedSurfaceAssociation%
Figure 13-13: BMS Mineral Associations Exposed Surfaces
100
80
60
40
Pentlandite
20
Chalcopyrite
Pyrrhotite
MCII
T1
Pyrite
T2U
T2L
13.3.4
Conclusions
The major PGM species present are PGE-bismuth tellurides, PGE-arsenides and PGE
sulphides. PGM recovery by flotation at the grind size of the submitted sample (80%
-75 m) is estimated to be between 85% and 93%. Most of the predicted PGM losses
are due to PGM grains still locked in gangue, or attached to relatively large gangue
grains. Secondary grind and flotation stages would possibly liberate these PGMs and
consequently improve recoveries, but whether this can be done economically would
need to be taken into account.
Major BMS minerals present are pentlandite, chalcopyrite and pyrrhotite. All of
these BMS species are well liberated at the grind size of the submitted sample.
The findings here are in general agreement with earlier mineralogical evaluations
(reported previously) in that:
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
The majority of PGMs are formed with bismuth and other amphoteric elements.
The particle sizes of the PGMs are generally (7090%) less than 10 m.
There is generally a high degree of liberation of both the PGM and BMS
particles, in excess of 90%.
Page 13-19
PLATREEF PROJECT
13.4
Flotation Test Work Summary

Two metallurgical test programmes were undertaken: one by SGS Lakefield in Canada
and one by Mintek in Johannesburg. SGS worked on the Master Composite II (MC II).
Mintek did some check comparison tests on the MC II sample and then concentrated
on the three new geo-met unit samples; T1, T2U and T2L.
The head assays for the MC II sample are presented in Table 13-8 and the assays for
the T1, T2U and T2L samples are summarised in Table 13-9.
Table 13-8: Master Composite II Head Assays
Sample
Master Composite II Sample: Head Assays
SGS *
Pt (g/t)
Pd (g/t)
Rh (g/t)
Au (g/t)
3PGE+Au
(g/t)
Cu (%)
Ni
(%)
S (%)
1.958
1.965
NA
0.294
4.217 as
2PGE+Au
0.181
0.366
0.856
0.23
0.39
0.96
Mintek
1.73
1.99
0.104
0.247
4.071
Note *: calculated head from tests, assay head not done; NA: not available
Table 13-9: Head Assays of Phase II Geometallurgical Units

T1 Head Assays
Average
Pt (g/t)
Pd (g/t)
Rh (g/t)
Au (g/t)
3PGE+Au (g/t)
Cu (%)
Ni (%)
S (%)
2.52
2.26
0.12
0.35
5.25
0.20
0.40
0.98
T2U Head Assays
Average
Pt (g/t)
Pd (g/t)
Rh (g/t)
Au (g/t)
3PGE+Au (g/t)
Cu (%)
Ni (%)
S (%)
2.02
2.03
0.13
0.32
4.50
0.25
0.46
1.02
Rh (g/t)
Au (g/t)
3PGE+Au (g/t)
Cu (%)
Ni (%)
S (%)
T2L Head Assays

Pt (g/t)
Pd (g/t)
Average 2.08
2.47
0.16
0.29
5.00
0.25
0.51
1.05
Note: Due to the ongoing nature of the testwork, the Mintek Phase I work was based on MC II, whereas the Phase II
work was based on the new geometallurgical units. Refer to Figure 13-2 for the makeup of the Phase II sample.
13.4.1
SGS Lakefield Test Work Master Composite II

The work was initiated to check the effect of effect of a specific reagent suite.
Accordingly, no exploratory work was done to determine optimum grind nor optimum
reagent suite and conditions. The work concentrated on the production of a final
cleaner concentrate at a saleable grade and an economic recovery.
Calibration Grind
A standard grind was undertaken on the sample, which gave a P80 of 166 m after 45
minutes grinding. A grind time of 90 minutes was selected for the remainder of the test
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 13-20
PLATREEF PROJECT
work. Each test was checked for size analysis: this was done on the rougher tailings
and not the as-ground head.
The grinds were conducted on 2 kg charges at 65% solids in a laboratory rod mill,
using a high chromium steel charge and a mild steel shell.
Batch Cleaner Tests
A series of six batch rougher/cleaner tests were undertaken to investigate the
reagents. The flow sheet used was as depicted in Figure 13-14 for the locked cycle
test.
Figure 13-14: Locked Cycle Test Flow Sheet
Note: Figure from SGS, 2012
The conditions are summarised in Table 13-10. The results summary is given in Table
13-11.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 13-21
PLATREEF PROJECT
Table 13-10: Summary of Batch Cleaner Tests Conditions

Test
Purpose
Reagents addition rate g/t

SiPX
3477
HP 700
CuSO4
Oxalic
Acid
DETA
Thiourea
CMC
F1
Baseline
92.5
92.5
75.0
250
15.0
F2
As F1, Reagent 1 acid and DETA to

replace CuSO4
92.5
92.5
77.5
280
70
15.0
F3
As F1, Reagent 1 and Reagent2 to

replace CuSO4
92.5
92.5
77.5
280
70
85.0
F4
As F1, CMC in first cleaner
92.5
92.5
75.0
250
102.5
F5
As F4, magnetic separation before

flotation
92.5
92.5
75.0
250
45.0
F6
As F3, oxalic only
92.5
92.5
77.5
330
175.0
Table 13-11: Summary of Batch Cleaner Tests Results

Test
Mass %
Final Concentrate Assay
Final Concentrate Recovery %
2PGE+ Au
g/t
Ni %
Cu %
S%
2PGE+ Au
NI
Cu
F1
2.8
103
7.99
4.88
22.4
70.6
61.3
73.3
67.7
F2
2.2
154
10.0
6.62
20.4
73.4
59.0
79.6
49.2
F3
2.3
143
9.92
5.86
16.9
77.3
62.1
77.8
61.6
F4
4.0
80
5.83
3.52
16.8
75.3
62.3
73.6
72.9
F5
3.0
92.9
6.73
4.18
18.8
67.2
56.3
68.0
65.0
F6
2.7
107
7.98
5.16
20.6
71.5
58.9
77.5
64.4
The grinding conditions were: time at 90 minutes, P80 average was 79.5 m, in the
range of 73 m (test F5) to 83 m (tests F2, F4, F6) with F1 at 76 m and F3 at
79 m, the pH averaged 8.7 (natural pH) and the Ep was generally above +120 mV
(test F1 was +80 mV).
Best results, in terms of rougher concentrate recovery and final concentrate grade and
recovery, were obtained in tests F2 and F3 respectively. A 3PGE (Pt+Pd+Au) grade of
154 g/t 3PGE at 73.4% recovery was obtained in F2 while F3 achieved 143 g/t 3PGE
at 77.3% recovery. The use of a magnetic fraction in test F5 skewed the results: if the
magnetic fraction is added to the cleaner concentrate, the overall recovery is 76.4%
3PGE at a grade of 26.0 g/t 3PGE.
Figure 13-15 presents the resulting graderecovery curves.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 13-22
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 13-15: GradeRecovery Curves
Note: Figure from SGS, 2012
Locked Cycle Test

A single 6-cycle locked cycle test was conducted using the conditions from test as
shown in the flow sheet presented earlier in Figure 13-14. Except for Au and Pt,
stability was reached after cycle C, and the projected metallurgical balance was
calculated using cycles C through F. The metallurgical projection, summarised in
Table 13-12, indicated a final concentrate grading 123 g/t 3PGE at 82.9% recovery.
Table 13-12: Locked Cycle Test Metallurgical Projection
Mass
Product Assay
3PGE g/t
Ni %
Cu %
S%
Distribution
3PGE %
Ni %
Cu %
S%
3 Cleaner
Concentrate
2.8
122.9
8.69
5.11
22.4
82.9
69.8
83.2
73.4
Rougher Concentrate
15.6
24.2
1.81
1.03
4.75
90.6
80.4
92.6
86.2
1 Cleaner Scavenger
Tail
12.8
2.50
0.29
0.13
0.86
7.7
10.6
9.3
12.8
Rougher Tail
84.4
0.47
0.08
0.015
0.14
9.4
19.6
7.4
13.8
Head (calculated)
100.0
4.19
0.35
0.17
0.86
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
rd
st
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 13-23
PLATREEF PROJECT
The optimum conditions identified in test F3 and used in the locked cycle test are outlined
below:
13.4.2
SIPX (92.5 g/t) and AERO 3477 (92.5 g/t) as collectors (SIBX is typically used in
the industry)
Senfroth HP700 (75 g/t) as frother (this is believed to be a mixture of pine oil and
TEB)
Additinoal promoters (see Table 13-10) were added to the primary grind (200 g/t
and 50 g/t, respectively) and to a conditioning stage prior to the 1st cleaning stage
(80 g/t and 20 g/t, respectively)
CMC (7LT used in this case) added in the cleaning stages only (105 g/t total), with
the majority added to the 1st cleaning stage (70 g/t)
A rougher retention time of 30 minutes
A 1st cleaner retention time of 5 minutes with a 3 minute scavenger
Second and 3rd cleaner retention times of 4 minutes each
Flotation was conducted at a natural pH of 8.8.

Mintek Test Work Geometallurgical Units T1, T2U, T2L
In order to determine the milling time required to achieve a specific grind, three point
rod-milling curves were constructed for the three geo-metallurgical unit samples.
Grind optimisation test work was carried out in order to determine the optimum grind
for the subsequent tests. In total three rougher flotation tests were carried out at 40%,
60% and 80% passing 75 m using a reagent suite from the prior SGS Lakefield test
work, summarised in Table 13-13.
Table 13-13: Flotation Conditions Used for Grind Optimisation Tests
Stage
Mill
Reagent Addition Rates (g/t)

SiPX
3477
Senfroth
Thiourea
Oxalic Acid
Condition
(minutes)
Flotation
(minutes)
200
50
Milling
time
25
25
35
25
25
10
Rougher Circuit
Rougher RC1
Rougher RC2
Rougher RC3
Rougher RC4
Rougher RC5
25
25
10
Total
75
75
55
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
1
200
Page 13-24
50
15
30
PLATREEF PROJECT
The grind optimisation test results are shown in Figure 13-16, Figure 13-17 and
Figure 13-18.
Figure 13-16: T1 Grind versus Recovery
100
MetalRecovery%
95
90
85
4E
80
Cu
75
Ni
70
65
60
0
20
40
60
80
100
Grind:%75m
Note: Figure from SGS (2012)
Figure 13-17 T2U Grind versus Recovery

100
MetalRecovery%
95
90
85
4E
80
Cu
75
Ni
70
65
60
0
20
40
60
Grind:%75m
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 13-25
80
100
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 13-18: T2L Grind versus Recovery

100
MetalRecovery%
95
90
85
4E
80
Cu
75
Ni
70
65
60
0
20
40
60
80
100
Grind:%75m
For the T1 sample depicted in Figure 13-16, the highest recovery of 96.8% 3 PGE +
Au was achieved at a grind size of 60% passing 75 m. The 3E+Au recovery was
slightly lower (not significant) with finer grinding. Base metals and S showed
insignificant changes to recovery between 60% and 80% passing 75 m.
For the T2U sample illustrated in Figure 13-17, the highest recoveries for 3 PGE + Au
and S were at the finest grind: these were 96.9% and 95.4% respectively. The base
metal recoveries showed very little difference between the 60% and 80% grinds.
The T2L sample in Figure 13-18 showed similar 3 PGE + Au results to the T2U
sample, with small differences in the absolute recovery values. The S recoveries were
markedly less than the T2U material, perhaps indicating a significantly lower
pyrrhotite/pyrite content.
Based on the foregoing, a standard base grind of 80% -75 m was selected for the
flotation test work. This was expected to give the maximum 3 PGE + Au recoveries
without significant recovery losses of the base metals and S.
The rougher test work was extended to the testing of the three geometallurgical units
into cleaner tests in open circuit configuration. Variations in conditions were also
applied, using different grinding media, changes to the flotation reagent suite and
reagent conditioning times. The results of the various different conditions were
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 13-26
PLATREEF PROJECT
inconclusive in that insufficient tests at each variable were done to give a statistically
significant result.
A grade recovery curve plotted from the individual test stages was produced and is
presented below as Figure 13-19. It indicates that the results from the T2U and T2L
are comparable and that the T1 material appears to have an advantage at lower
concentrate grades.
Figure 13-19: 4PE Grade Recovery Curves
4EGradeRecoveryCurves
4EGrade(g/t)
180.0
160.0
T1Test1
140.0
T1Test2
120.0
T2UTest1
100.0
80.0
T2UTest2
60.0
T2LTest1
40.0
T2LTest2
20.0
0.0
70.0
75.0
80.0
85.0
90.0
95.0
100.0
4ERecovery(%)
The individual test results are summarised in Table 13-14.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 13-27
50:50T2U:T2LTest1
PLATREEF PROJECT
Table 13-14: Individual Test Results

Geomet Unit
Element
Assay Head
Grade (g/t %)
Actual
Recovery
%
T1
Pt
Pd
Rh
Au
4E
Cu
Ni
Pt
Pd
Rh
Au
4E
Cu
Ni
Pt
Pd
Rh
Au
4E
Cu
Ni
Pt
Pd
Rh
Au
4E
Cu
Ni
Pt
Pd
Rh
Au
4E
Cu
Ni
2.52
2.26
0.12
0.35
5.25
0.20
0.40
2.02
2.03
0.13
0.32
4.50
0.25
0.46
2.08
2.47
0.16
0.29
5.00
0.25
0.51
2.05
2.13
0.13
0.28
4.59
0.24
0.48
2.15
2.10
0.12
0.29
4.66
0.23
0.46
76.01
75.57
80.08
54.58
74.38
0.00
0.00
78.11
79.61
84.33
63.50
78.03
65.36
70.22
79.70
79.88
81.44
71.72
79.43
74.64
63.22
77.17
78.84
88.21
67.69
77.64
63.30
74.38
80.81
79.77
85.66
65.78
79.21
64.55
75.25
Open circuit, batch
T2U
Open circuit, batch
T2L
Open circuit, batch
50:50 T2U, T2L

Open circuit, batch
15% T1, 42.5% T2U, 42.5% T2L

Open circuit, batch
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 13-28
PLATREEF PROJECT
13.4.3
Locked Cycle Test Work on two blends of T1 & T2 Geometallurgical Units

Two 6-cycle locked cycle tests were conducted on two blends consisting of 50% T2U
and 50% T2L, 12%T1 and 42.5%T2U & 42.5%T2L. The reagent additions and
conditions are given in Table 13-15.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 13-29
PLATREEF PROJECT
Table 13-15: Locked Cycle Conditions Blend

Feed:
Ivanplats: 50% T2U & 50% T2L & 42.5%T2U , 42,5%T2L.
Mill:
Milled 2 kg charge for 109 minutes using Stainless steel rods
Grind:
P80 ~ 75 m
Float Conditions
Stage
Mill
Reagents [g/t] (1% solution)
Time [min]
SIPX
3477
Senfroth
Oxalic
Thiourea
Sendep
Mill
Condition
Float
200
50
109
Rougher Circuit
Rougher 1
25
25
35
Rougher 2
25
25
10
10
Rougher 3
25
25
10
15
Cleaner 1
10
10
Cleaner Scav.
2.5
2.5
ReCleaner Stage
2.5
2.5
ReReCleaner Stage
2.5
2.5
7.5
Total
93
93
78
Cleaner Circuit
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
80
Page 13-30
20
2
50
280
70
25
10
85
PLATREEF PROJECT
The results in terms of grades and recoveries are given in Table 13-16 and Table 1317. In both cases the blends performed well, and a good saleable product was
produced. The blend of 42.5%T2U and 42.5%T2L is presented as an early-stage
approximation of what a future plant may be able to produce.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 13-31
PLATREEF PROJECT
Table 13-16: Locked Cycle Blends by Major Element

Grade
12%T1, 42,5%T2U and 42,5%T2L
Recovery
Mass
4E
Cu
Ni
4E
Cu
Ni
(%)
(g/t)
(g/t)
(g/t)
(%)
(%)
(%)
3.23
119.19
5.92
10.75
85.21
86.76
73.62
Table 13-17: Locked Cycle Blends by Element

Grade
Recovery
Mass
Pt
Pd
Rh
Au
4E
Cu
Ni
Total S
Pt
Pd
Rh
Au
4E
Cu
Ni
Total S
(%)
(g/t)
(g/t)
(g/t)
(g/t)
(g/t)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
12%T1, 42,5%T2U and 42,5%T2L
3.23
52.26
57.96
3.70
5.26
119.19
5.92
10.75
23.34
85.41
86.99
94.57
64.63
85.21
86.76
73.62
75.03
50% T2U and 50% T2L
3.07
56.56
60.96
3.98
5.08
126.57
6.71
11.35
19.73
84.24
85.41
89.22
62.75
83.79
86.88
69.40
55.99
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 13-32
PLATREEF PROJECT
13.4.4
Mintek Test Work Analysis of the Concentrate by ICP-MS

The final concentrate from the locked cycle blend that comprised a mix of 42.5%T2U
and 42.5%T2L, was analysed by ICP-MS, and the results are reported in Table 13-18.
The trace elements are reported as relatively low.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 13-33
PLATREEF PROJECT
Table 13-18: ICP-MS on Final Concentrate

Sample Name
Ti
As
Se
Sr
Li
Cd
Sn
Sb
Te
Ba
Hg
Pb
Bi
Th
Ag
Re
Cl
Fluoride
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
Ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
Lock cycle (15%:42.5% and 42.5%)
60.3
7.1
13.5
60.7
2.6
0.77
0.24
3.2
2.1
1.9
48.1
2.4
0.55
35.4
18.3
0.58
0.34
11.4
0.21
79.1
<100
Lock cycle (15%:42.5% and 42.5%)
60.3
6.9
16
60.5
2.7
0.74
0.22
3.2
2.2
1.8
47.5
2.3
0.52
35.4
17.9
0.58
0.36
11.9
0.21
84.7
<100
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 13-34
PLATREEF PROJECT
13.4.5
Mintek Test Work Analysis of the Concentrate by XRD

Table 13-19 provides a summary of the X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis of the
concentrate by chemical formula.
Table 13-19: XRD on Concentrate
Mineral
Ideal Mineral Formula
Locked cycle conc.
Talc
Mg3Si4O10(OH)2
6.7
Mica
KMg3Si3AlO10(F,OH)2
6.8
Amphibole
(Ca,Na) 2(Mg,Fe,Al) 5(Al,Si) 8O 22 (OH) 2
5.3
Chlorite
(Mg5Al)(AlSi3)O10(OH)8
0.2
Chalcopyrite
CuFeS2
21.3
Pentlandite
(Fe,Ni)9S8
15.2
Pyrrhotite
Fe1-xS
22.7
Plagioclase
NaAlSi3O8
10.3
Pyroxene
MgSiO3
11.5
Mineral
Ideal Mineral Formula
Locked cycle conc.
Talc
Mg3Si4O10(OH)2
minor
Mica
KMg3Si3AlO10(F,OH)2
minor
Amphibole
(Ca,Na) 2(Mg,Fe,Al) 5(Al,Si) 8O 22 (OH) 2
minor
Chlorite
(Mg5Al)(AlSi3)O10(OH)8
trace
Chalcopyrite
CuFeS2
intermediate
Pentlandite
(Fe,Ni)9S8
intermediate
Pyrrhotite
Fe1-xS
intermediate
Plagioclase
NaAlSi3O8
minor
MgSiO3
minor
Pyroxene
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 13-35
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 13-20: Mineral Relative Abundance

25
RelativeAbundance(%)
20
15
10
Mineral
Note: Figure from Mintek, 2012.
13.5
Recovery Estimates
Table 13-20 summarises the actual and predicted recoveries on the individual
geometallurgical units and blends. The individual units were open cycle tests and the
blends were closed cycle. The open cycle recoveries are predictions based on the
recoveries encountered in the closed locked cycle tests and a ratio applied
accordingly.
Concentrate grades of over 100 g/t PGEs are easily achievable at these recoveries.
Therefore at this level of study, it is expected that economic recoveries are possible
using conventional flotation technology.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 13-36
PLATREEF PROJECT
Table 13-20: Preliminary Recovery Predictions for Individual Geometallurgical Units and
Blends
Assay Head
Grade
(g/t or %)
Actual
Recovery
(%)
Predicted
Recovery
(%)
Geometallurgical Unit
Element
T1
Pt
2.52
80.34
Pd
2.26
82.40
Closed circuit, calxculated
T2U
T2L
50:50 T2U, T2L

Locked cycle test
15% T1, 42.5% T2U, 42.5% T2L

Locked cycle test results
These figures are used for supporting
reasonable prospects of economic extraction
in Section 14
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Rh
0.12
88.41
Au
0.35
53.63
4E
5.25
80.01
Cu
0.20
79.04
Ni
0.40
63.90
Pt
2.02
82.55
Pd
2.03
86.81
Rh
0.13
93.10
Au
0.32
62.39
4E
4.50
83.94
Cu
0.25
73.41
Ni
0.46
71.19
Pt
2.08
84.24
Pd
2.47
87.11
Rh
0.16
89.91
Au
0.29
70.47
4E
5.00
85.44
Cu
0.25
83.84
Ni
0.51
64.09
Pt
2.05
84
84.24
Pd
2.13
85
85.41
Rh
0.13
89
89.22
Au
0.28
63
62.75
4E
4.59
84
83.79
Cu
0.24
68
67.95
Ni
0.48
77
76.82
Pt
2.15
85
85.41
Pd
2.10
87
86.99
Rh
0.12
95
94.57
Au
0.29
65
64.63
4E
4.66
85
85.21
Cu
0.23
73
72.51
Ni
0.46
76
76.28
Page 13-37
PLATREEF PROJECT
The following parameters (Table 13-21) have been used to develop recovery
equations for use in establishing reasonable prospects for economic extraction for the
TCU (see Section 14.6). These were effective 1 March 2013. AMEC and Ivanplats
are continuing to analyse test work, and the equations may change in the course of the
preparation of the PEA that is underway.
Table 13-21: Recovery Equation Parameters
Geomet Type/Element
tnf
tref
fref
T1 Nickel
0.073279
0.116918
0.40
6.43571
Mass Pull
4.685
T1 Copper
0.031727
0.047062
0.20
3.46085
4.685
T1 Platinum
0.135729
0.368503
2.52
48.39300
4.685
T1 Palladium
0.100332
0.332375
2.26
43.35971
4.685
T1 Gold
0.054304
0.126175
0.35
5.12227
4.685
T1 Rhodium
0.000012
0.011705
0.12
2.42901
4.685
T2U Nickel
0.079183
0.158592
0.46
10.41055
4.399
T2U Copper
0.040378
0.073807
0.25
6.06675
4.399
T2U Platinum
0.131450
0.446363
2.02
53.97145
4.399
T2U Palladium
0.093328
0.415265
2.03
55.33821
4.399
T2U Gold
0.053148
0.118887
0.32
6.95946
4.399
T2U Rhodium
0.000013
0.020963
0.13
3.72972
4.399
T2L Copper
0.100295
0.180211
0.51
9.47005
4.423
T2L Copper
0.038440
0.069479
0.25
5.15458
4.423
T2L Nickel
T2L Platinum
0.161180
0.457729
2.08
46.15549
4.423
T2L Palladium
0.148556
0.465267
2.47
56.93663
4.423
T2L Gold
0.039136
0.100455
0.29
5.43975
4.423
T2L Rhodium
0.000115
0.030570
0.16
3.67649
4.423
Notes:
tnf = tailings grade non floatable;
tref = reference tailings grade;
fref = reference feed grade;
c = reference concentrate grade;
Mass Pull = Weight % recovered to concentrates
To determine recovery, it is first necessary to calculate the tailings grade:

Tail Grade = tnf + [(tref-tnf)/fref][Head Grade]
Then:
Recovery = [(c)(Head Grade-Tail Grade)]/[(Head Grade)(c-Tail Grade)]
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 13-38
PLATREEF PROJECT
13.6
Metallurgical Variability
A full suite of variability test work has not yet been conducted; however, the
geometallurgical units chosen and the recommended blends are expected to be
representative of the deposit as a whole for the purposes of the planned PEA.
Confirmatory work and further drilling would be required to fully quantify the variability
across the deposit area.
13.7
Deleterious Elements
The ICP-MS and semi-quantitative XRD data clearly indicate a clean concentrate with
low trace metal values and low chrome values. It is therefore not expected that
penalties of any significance would apply to any saleable concentrate that may be
produced from the Project area.
13.8
Further test work will be required to obtain design parameters for the design of the
process plant. These would include:
Further test work on grindrecovery relationships
Flotation kinetics and the identification of fast and slow floating minerals
Opportunities to optimise any future flotation circuit configuration
Opportunities to optimise an appropriate reagent suite
Identifying the mode of occurrence of the recovery losses with the objective of
identifying alternate process routes: e.g. separation on size and targeting areas of
recovery loss
Variability test work.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 13-39
PLATREEF PROJECT
14.0
14.1
MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES

Introduction
There are three types of Mineral Resources for the Platreef Project:
Mineral Resource that is amenable to underground selective mining methods. This

consists of material within and adjacent to grade shells in the TCU, and is all below
the 650 m elevation. This Mineral Resource has been updated using revised
geological interpretation and incorporation of extensive additional drilling in Zone 1
and some new drilling in Zone 2 and Zone 3. The Mineral Resource amenable to
selective underground mining methods is supported by the UMT-TCU model.
Mineral Resource that is amenable to underground mass mining methods. In the

31 March 2011 Mineral Resource estimate, this included the mineral resource
amenable to underground selective mining. The resource model has not been
updated, but has been trimmed so as to now be mutually exclusive from the
Mineral resource that is amenable to underground selective mining. The Mineral
Resources amenable to underground mass mining are below the 650 m elevation.
Within the trimmed Mineral Resources there has been limited additional drilling.
The Mineral Resources amenable to mass underground mining is supported by the
UMT-MM model, formerly referred to as the UMT bulk model.
Mineral Resource that is amenable to open-pit mining. The model has not been
updated, as there has been no new drilling. The stated Mineral Resources are
unchanged and have an effective date of 31 March 2011. Mineral Resources
amenable to open-pit mining are situated above the 650 m elevation
Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources were estimated for the UMT-TCU area.
Recognition of lithological controls (TCU stratigraphy) on grade has enabled
declaration of Inferred Mineral Resources at wider drill spacings than would normally
be possible. Additional infill drilling in Zone 1 permitted the declaration of Indicated
Mineral Resources in that portion of the Project area.
Additional drilling down-dip permitted the expansion of the Inferred Mineral Resource
in the UMT-TCU portion of the deposit. Additional down-dip/lateral potential could
support estimation of additional Mineral Resources with additional drilling.
The UMT-TCU deposit is the main focus of the Project moving forward. The UMTTCU Mineral Resource estimate and is now considered the base case. The UMT-MM
underground deposit is an additional case.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 14-1
PLATREEF PROJECT
The computer resource models for the Mineral Resource amenable to open pit mining
methods (AMK and ATS models) were built by AMEC in 2002 and 2003. The Mineral
Resource estimate for the UMT-MM model was completed in March 2011. This
update for the UMT-TCU represents what was previously considered the Mineral
Resource amenable to selective mining methods, and was completed in March 2013.
The limits of Platreef Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource for the UMT-MM area
and the Mineral Resources amenable to open pit mining are shown on Figure 14-1.
The Mineral Resource areas that are amenable to open-pit mining are shown in red
(ATS) and green (AMK). The limits of the Inferred Mineral Resources for the UMT-MM
model are shown in blue. The limits of the UMT-TCU area Mineral Resource estimate
are shown in Figure 14-2. The UMT-TCU resource area is formed of the denselydrilled Area 1 (predominantly Zone 1), and the less densely drilled Area 2
(predominantly Zones 2 and 3).
14.2
UMT-TCU Resource Model

The UMT-TCU model is located on Turfspruit farm. Mineralization is considered
amenable to selective underground mining methods. The UMT-TCU resource model
update was limited to that portion of the UMT area defined by the stratigraphic
sequence referred to as the TCU. The UMT-TCU model in analogous to what was
previously (Parker et al., 2012) referred to as the higher-grade selectively-minable
model and is now considered to be the Base Case moving forward.
The UMT-TCU model is contained within an envelope defined to include the TCU
stratigraphic sequences. The upper surface of the envelope was set at 25 m above
the top of the NC1. The lower surface of the envelope was set at 75 m below the
bottom of the T2L stratigraphic horizon.
14.2.1
Drill Hole Data

The drilling cut-off date for the UMT model was 26 October 2012. The Platreef
database contains 954 core drill holes (excluding re-drilled pilot holes and all
deflections). A total of 624,248 m were drilled and completed by 26 October 2012 and
this includes 555 holes (194,591 m) from the open-pit program and 399 holes
(429,657 m) from the underground program (refer to Figure 10-1).
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 14-2
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 14-1: Mineral Resource Areas for the UMT-MM and Open Pit
Note: Figure prepared by AMEC, 2013.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 14-3
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 14-2: UMT-TCU Mineral Resource Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource Areas
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 14-4
PLATREEF PROJECT
A total of 399 UMT drill holes (429,657 m) were used in the Mineral Resource model
update. All UMT drill holes have been re-logged for consideration of the TCU. The
UMT-TCU model includes 34 drill holes (38,537 m) from the open-pit area that have
been re-logged for the TCU geology.
14.2.2
Geological Model (UMT-TCU)

Geological interpretations for the UMT-TCU area were developed by Ivanplats
personnel. The re-logging work summarized in the lithological variable STRAT
(Table 14-1) is the basis for the geological model. A numeric model code (MCODE)
was assigned to each lithology.
Two-dimensional gridded-seam models were completed for five stratigraphic horizons
used in the construction of the geological model (NC1, MAN, T1, T2U and T2L).
Wireframe surfaces were constructed from the gridded seam models of the NC1,
MAN, T1, T2U and T2L.
14.2.3
High-Grade Shells UMT-TCU

Ivanplats personnel identified nested 3PE (Pt + Pd + Au) grade shells using a
minimum of of 3 m of 1 g/t 3PE, 2 g/t 3PE and 3 g/t 3PE. Three PE grade shells were
used rather than 4PE because rhodium assaying was incomplete at the time the shells
were constructed. The grade shells were constructed as a tool for constraining grade
estimates.
The nested grade shells were identified in two mineralized zones (T1MZ and T2MZ).
The T1MZ grade shells are associated with the T1 stratigraphic unit. The T2MZ grade
shells are associated with the T2 stratigraphic units (T2U and T2L). Two-dimensional
gridded-seam models were completed for the T1MZ and T2MZ grade shells.
Wireframe surfaces were constructed from the gridded seam models of the T1MZ and
T2MZ seam models.
Grade shell codes (GCODES) were used to identify blocks within and outside the
grade shells. The GCODES are summarized in Table 14-2.
14.3
Mineralization Adjacent to the TCU Mineralized Zones

There is scattered mineralization adjacent to the TCU mineralized zones that is locally
continuous. Ivanplats plans to use floating stope software in scoping studies.
Mineralization adjacent to the TCU mineralized zones may be included in the resultant
stopes; hence there is a need to estimate grades in blocks in an envelope around the
TCU mineralized zones.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 14-5
PLATREEF PROJECT
Table 14-1: Model Package Description

Modpak
(UMT-MM)
UNIT
(UMT-MM)
ZCODE (UMTMM)
DZ
UDZ
22
BP
UBP
23
(Top
HA
UHABP
Loaded Zone)
PXHA
UPXHA
TCU
NC1
20
21
T1
22
T2U
25
26
T2L
26
24
FW
27
CZ
UCZ
27
FW
27
HF
HF
28
FW
27
HA
UHA
29
FW
27
DZ
LDZ
32
BP
LBP
33
Lower Unit
PXHA
LPXHA
34
(Bottom
LPX
LLPX
35
Loaded Zone)
HABP
LHABP
36
CZ
LCZ
37
HA
LHA
39
FL
FL
40
Table 14-2: Summary of GCODE for TCU and Bikurri (All Elements)
Grade Shell
UMT-TCU
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
MCODE (UMTTCU)
MAN
Platreef:
Floor
(not estimated)
STRAT (UMTTCU)
Grade Shell
GCODE
T1MZ 1g 3PE
101
T1MZ 2g 3PE
102
T1MZ 3g 3PE
103
NC1
MAN
T1
T2MZ 1g 3PE
201
T2MZ 2g 3PE
202
T2MZ 3g 3PE
203
T2
FW
Page 14-6
PLATREEF PROJECT
14.3.1
Compositing and Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA) for UMT-TCU Model

The resource model update occurs within the stratigraphic sequence referred to as the
Turfspruit Cyclic Unit discussed in Section 7. The drill hole database was composited
to 1 m length composites within the UMT-TCU model envelope. The compositing was
controlled by the nested grade shells and the TCU stratigraphic units.
EDA was completed using box plots, histograms, probability plots and contact profiles.
EDA (discontinuities in grade profiles near contacts) suggested the grade shells and
stratigraphic boundaries should be considered hard boundaries. Figure 14-3 displays
the contact profile between the T2MZ 1 g/t 3PE and T2MZ 2 g/t 3PE shells.
Rhodium anslyses are only partially complete on the assay database and rhodium to
platinum regressions were constructed to estimate the rhodium content for samples
missing rhodium analysis. Rhodium to platium ratios were calculated for each assay
interval with rhodium assays. The Rh/Pt rations were binned by platinum cutoff and
the regression equation was calculated.
Figures 14-4 and 14-5 show rhodium as a function of platinum regression for the T2U
and T2L respectively. Table 14-3 summarizes the proportions of assays with rhodium
analysis within the grade shells and by stratigraphic unit. The proportion of rhodium
assays exceeds 50% within the 2 g/t 3PE shell and exceeds 60% in the in T2U and
T2L.
14.3.2
Block Model and Grade Estimation

The UMT-TCU block model was constructed over the area of UMT drilling (Figure 146). Blocks were oriented parallel to the national coordinate system. The block model
used a parent block size of 20 m x 20 m x 1 m. Sub-celling was 10 m x 10 m x 0.5 m.
The geological stratigraphic units and grade shells were coded to the blocks. After
estimation, the final resource model blocks were regularized to 10 m x 10 m x 2 m.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 14-7
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 14-3: Contact Profile for Platinum between 1g and 2g 3PE Shells
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 14-8
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 14-4: Rhodium Regression for the T2U
Figure 14-5: Rhodum Regression for the T2L
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 14-9
PLATREEF PROJECT
Table 14-3: Proportions of Rhodium Assays by Strat Code and Grade Shell
STRAT
Assays
Rh
Analysis
HW
9052
1091
12.1
NC1
6470
236
3.6
MAN
825
108
13.1
T1
13526
5124
37.9
T2U
4098
2473
60.3
T2L
4167
2506
60.1
FW
72080
4871
6.8
FW
110218
16409
14.9
Grade Shell
Assays
Rh
Analysis
T1MZ 1 g/t
1024
401
39.2
T1MZ 2 g/t
613
351
57.3
T1MZ 3 g/t
923
564
61.1
T2MZ 1 g/t
2577
967
37.5
T2MZ 2 g/t
3349
1791
53.5
T2MZ 3g/t
5088
3348
65.8
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 14-10
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 14-6: Extents of the UMT-TCU Resource Model, Showing Estimation Areas
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 14-11
PLATREEF PROJECT
Block Grade Estimation

Inverse distance to the third power (ID3) interpolation was used to estimate Platreef
grades into blocks in the UMT-TCU model. Kriging was used in Estimation Area 1
within the T1MZ and T2MZ. Variograms (using the correlogram method) were
completed by grade shell and combined shells. Figures 14-7 and 14-8 are examples
of platinum down-hole and directional variograms.
To eliminate the effects of the 24 structural domains discussed in Section 7, the
estimation was completed by hanging the T1MZ and T2MZ at the 1000 m elevation.
Nearest-neighbour (NN) models representing declustered composite distributions were
generated for validation checks. This allows the effect of discontinuities at fault
boundaries to be removed.
Grade Estimation UMT-TCU
T1MZ
Grade estimation in the T1MZ included block and composite matching by GCODE. To
eliminate the effects of the structural domains discussed in Section 7, the elevation of
the center of the 1 g/t 3PE grade shell was transformed to the 1000 m elevation.
Model blocks and composites were transformed accordingly.
Estimation was
completed by kriging and inverse distance to the third power (ID3) in Estimation Area 1
and by ID3 in Estimation Area 2 (Zones 2 and 3). A nearest-neighbor estimate was
completed for model validation. After grade estimation, all blocks and composites
were back-transformed back to the original elevation.
T2MZ
Grade estimation in the T2MZ included block and composite matching by GCODE and
MCODE Matching in Pass1. In Pass2, matching was only by GCODE. To eliminate
the affects of the structural domains discussed in Section 7, the elevation of the center
of the 1 g/t 3PE T2MZ grade shell was transformed to the 1,000 m elevation. Model
Blocks and Composites were transformed accordingly. Estimation was completed by
kriging and ID3 in Estimation Area 1 and by ID3 in Estimation Area 2. A nearestneighbor estimate was completed for model validation. After grade estimation, all
blocks and compostes to transformed back to the original elevation.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 14-12
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 14-7: Down Hole Correlogram Model for Platinium Showing Nugget.
Figure 14-8: Directional Correlogram Model for Ptatinium at Azimuth 60
T1 and NC1
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 14-13
PLATREEF PROJECT
Grade estimation in the T1, NC1, and MAN stratigraphic units not within the nested
grade shells were estimated by matching blocks and composites by MCODE. These
blocks were estimated after transformation with respect to the the T1MZ virtual
elevation of 1,000 m. Estimation was completed by ID3. A NN estimate was
completed for model validation.
T2 and FW
Grade estimation in the T2 and FW stratigraphic units and not within the nested grade
shells were estimated by matching blocks and composites by MCODE. These blocks
were estimated after transformation with respect to the T2MZ virtual elevation of 1000
m. Estimation was completed by ID3. A NN estimate was completed for model
validation.
Estimations were completed in Datamine using expanding search volumes. Search
volumes are summarized in Table 14-4.
Outlier Restriction
No grade capping was implemented within the nested grade shells. An outlier
restriction was applied in the host rocks outside the grade shells. The outlier
thresholds were selected from probability plots of 1 m composites and are summarized
in Table 14-5. All boundaries were considered hard.
Blocks not estimated were given the mean grade of the Stratigraphic unit. The mean
grades used are summarized in Table 14-6. Unestimated blocks were generally
located along fault block boundaries. Unestimated blocks within the FW stratigraphy
were in areas of wide spaced drilling.
Regularization
Upon completion of the estimation, the UMT-TCU block model was regularized from
the 20 m x 20 m x 1 m (sub-celled to 10 m x 10 m x 0.5 m) to a 10 m x 10 m x 2 m (no
sub-cells) model. The 10 m x 10 m x 2 m regularized model permitted better
resolution along the faulted boundaries and softened the hard boundaries used in the
grade estimation.
14.3.3
Bulk Density
Densities were also coded to the blocks by stratigraphic unit using the mean density
values for each stratigraphic unit (Table 14-7).
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 14-14
PLATREEF PROJECT
Table 14-4: Search Strategy for Grade Estimation (All Elements)

Search Distances
Min
Max
Max/
Samples
Samples
DH
250
50
15
500
100
15
1500
300
15
Search
Volume
250
500
1500
Table 14-5: Outlier Restriction Thresholds

Zone
Ni(%)
Cu (%)
Pt (%)
Pd (g/t)
Au (g/t)
Rh (g/t)
Grade
0.25
0.25
1.00
1.50
0.25
0.10
Distance
150 m
150 m
150 m
150 m
150 m
150 m
Table 14-6: Mean Grades to Fill Blocks Not Estimated

Zone
GCODE
T1MZ 1g
0.121
0.224
0.616
0.511
0.211
0.029
Area 1
T1MZ 2g
0.135
0.255
1.413
0.949
0.284
0.560
T1MZ 3g
0.186
0.358
2.432
2.026
0.523
0.119
T1MZ 1g
0.124
0.228
0.609
0.561
0.177
0.032
T1MZ 2g
0.133
0.264
1.193
0.988
0.279
0.063
Area 2
Cu(%)
Ni(%)
Pt(ppm)
Pd(ppm)
Au(ppm)
Rh(ppm)
T1MZ 3g
0.183
0.358
2.284
1.909
0.454
0.108
Area 1
T1
0.040
0.103
0.199
0.159
0.073
0.011
Area2
T1
0.037
0.095
0.163
0.120
0.061
0.009
T2MZ 1g
0.113
0.238
0.650
0.750
0.119
0.047
Area 1
T2MZ 2g
0.137
0.283
1.046
1.184
0.187
0.074
T2MZ 3g
0.188
0.386
2.460
2.532
0.333
0.172
T2MZ 1g
0.114
0.232
0.741
0.759
0.125
0.053
T2MZ 2g
0.142
0.288
1.022
1.133
0.185
0.073
Area 2
T2MZ 3g
0.191
0.396
2.203
2.210
0.338
0.156
Area 1
T2
0.079
0.175
0.393
0.456
0.076
0.033
Area 2
T2
0.074
0.149
0.291
0.338
0.064
0.027
All
NC1
0.025
0.055
0.065
0.069
0.023
0.008
All
MAN
0.007
0.016
0.032
0.026
0.007
0.002
All
FW
0.076
0.132
0.291
0.364
0.059
0.024
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 14-15
PLATREEF PROJECT
Table 14-7: Bulk Density Values

Zone
14.3.4
Mean Density
CV
Maximum
SG
Minimum
SG
HW
2.91
0.04
4.47
2.04
NC1
2.98
0.05
4.28
2.09
MAN
2.84
0.03
3.18
2.42
T1
3.19
0.04
4.33
2.58
T2U
3.19
0.04
3.80
2.30
T2L
3.04
0.05
4.34
2.33
FW
3.10
0.06
4.45
2.05
Mineral Resource Classification

Mineral Resources have been classified using the CIM Definition Standards for Mineral
Resources and Mineral Reserves (CIM, 2010):
A Mineral Resource is a concentration or occurrence of diamonds, natural solid
inorganic material, or natural solid fossilized organic material including base and
precious metals, coal, and industrial minerals in or on the Earths crust in such form
and quantity and of such a grade or quality that it has reasonable prospects for
economic extraction. The location, quantity, grade, geological characteristics and
continuity of a Mineral Resource are known, estimated or interpreted from specific
geological evidence and knowledge.
An Inferred Mineral Resource is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity
and grade or quality can be estimated on the basis of geological evidence and limited
sampling and reasonably assumed, but not verified, geological and grade continuity.
The estimate is based on limited information and sampling gathered through
appropriate techniques from locations such as outcrops, trenches, pits, workings, and
drill holes.
An Indicated Mineral Resource is that part of the Mineral Resource for which quantity,
grade or quality, densities, shape and physical characteristics, can be estimated with a
level of confidence sufficient to allow the appropriate application of technical and
economic parameters, to support mine planning and evaluation of the economic
viability of the deposit. The estimate is based on detailed and reliable exploration and
testing information gathered through appropriate techniques from locations such as
outcrops, trenches, pits, workings and drill holes that are spaced closely enough for
geological and grade continuity to be reasonably assumed.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 14-16
PLATREEF PROJECT
UMT-TCU Model
Inferred mineral resources are declared where the drill hole spacing is 400 m to 800 m
(predominately Area 2). The Inferred Mineral Resources are permitted at a wider drill
hole spacing because of the well defined geology of the TCU. In Area 1, much of the
FW stratigraphic unit is classified Inferred Mineral Resources because many of the
tails of the drill holes were not sampled due to the focus on the TCU. It is expected
that once these drill holes are sampled, a higher conficence category may be able to
be assigned to the estimated Mineral Resources. Figure 14-9 displays the regions of
Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources on a typical cross section.
14.3.5
UMT-TCU Model Validation

Model validation included visual inspection of block grades relative to composite
grades on cross-sections and level plans. Statistical comparisons consisting of box
plots and grade profiles tabulated in different directions (swaths) for each metal by
stratigraphic unit and grade shell were constructed to compare the Kriged (where
present), ID3 grade estimates, NN estimates and 1 m composites.
Visual Validation and Box Plots
Block grades (ID3) were compared to composite grades (for each metal) by visual
inspection on cross-sections, long sections and level plans. In general, the composite
grades were honoured in the block distributions. Representative cross sections for
3PE and Ni are presented in Figure 14-10 and Figure 14-11 respectively (section
lines A-A).
The global means and grade distributions for each metal from the ID3 model, NN
model and 5 m composites checked within reasonable levels, suggesting the ID2
model is globally un-biased.
Swath Plots
Swath plots (width of 200 m) of the ID3 model, NN model and 1 m composites were
completed for Cu, Ni, Pt, Pd, Au and Rh.
Overall, swath plots display reasonable comparisons between the ID3 estimates to
their respective NN estimates; however, locally there are some differences, particularly
in areas with limited drilling.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 14-17
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 14-9: Surface Defining Lower Extent of Indicated Mineral Resources
Note: Figure prepared by AMEC, 2013
Figure 14-10: Section AA Displaying 3PE Block and Composite Grades
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 14-18
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 14-11: Section AA Displaying Ni Block and Composite Grades
Note: Figures prepared by AMEC, 2013
AMEC commonly focuses swath plot analysis on blocks classified as Measured and
Indicated. Model validation was completed for Estimation Areas 1 (Indicated) and 2
(Inferred) and no local bias were observed.
The platinum swath plot for the T2MZ 2 g/t shell is presented in Figure 14-12.
Comments on the UMT-TCU Model
As currently configured the UMT-TCU model covers the TCU Stratigraphic units and
includes what was formerly referred to as the selectively-mineable model. The UMTTCU model also includes estimation of grades in blocks adjacent to the TCU, up to
25 m on the hangingwall effectively to the barren Main Zone gabbro norite, and up
to 75 m into the FW usually stops short of the Floor of the Platreef.
Additional drilling is required in the Inferred area (Area 2) to better define the
stratigraphic units and the fault domains. Additional geological work is required to
decipher the stratigraphy in the FW unit in both Areas 1 and 2. Upon the completion of
the geological interpretation in the FW of the UMT-TCU model, an update of the UMTMass Model can be completed. There will then be one model for the UMT area.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 14-19
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 14-12: Platinum Swath Plot for T1MZ 2 g/t Shell
Note: Figure prepared by AMEC, 2013
Local bias is expected in Area 2 because of the wide-spaced drilling and large search
distances required for grade estimation. Additional drilling should permit better grade
estimations in Area 2.
Future models should consider a 10 m x 10 m block size.
14.4
UMT-MM Model
Inferred Mineral Resources were estimated for UMT-MM Model in March 2011 (Parker
et al., 2012). Recognition of lithological controls (referred to as the ModPak) on grade
has enabled declaration of Inferred Mineral Resources at wider drill spacings than
would normally be possible. The UMT-MM Model is partially included in the update of
the UMT-TCU model. That portion of the UMT-Bulk Model included in UMT-TCU
Model has been identified, and this portion of the UMT-Bulk resources has been
removed from the resource tabulation. The limits of the UMT-Bulk Inferred Mineral
Resource are shown on Figure 14-1 and generally are beneath the UMT-TCU mineral
resource (see Figure 14-17).
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 14-20
PLATREEF PROJECT
14.4.1
Geological Model
Geological interpretations for the UMT area were developed by Ivanplats and AMEC
personnel. The re-logging work summarized in the lithological variable Modpak (refer
to Table 14-1) is the basis for the UMT-MM geological model. A zone code (Zcode)
was assigned to each lithology. Table 7-4 summarizes the correlation between the
stratigraphic designations between the UMT-MM and UMT-TCU models.
Wireframe surfaces were constructed for the bottom of MZ (Main Zone-undisturbed),
UDZ (Upper Disturbed Zone), UBP (Upper B-Pyroxenite), UPXHA (Upper PyroxeniteHarzburgite)/Top of Lower Unit, LDZ (Lower Disturbed Zone), LBP (Lower BPyroxenite), and LPXHA (Lower Pyroxenite-Harzburgite). A wireframe model of the
top of Floor was also built.
Wireframe solids were constructed for discontinuous and/or discordant Modpak units
including BPHA (Harzburgite associated with bottom of B Pyroxenite), HA (Harzburgite
not associated with B-Pyroxenite), CZ (Contaminated Zone, calc-silicates) and HF
(Hornfels).
14.4.2
High-Grade Shells
A review of the drill hole assays relative to the geological interpretation and preliminary
statistics indicated the need to use additional controls besides lithology for block-grade
estimation. For this stage of the Project, and because drilling is widely spaced, grade
shells were chosen as the appropriate tool for constraining grade estimates.
High-Grade Shell UMT-MM Model
A grade shell (built as a wireframe model) based on a 1 g/t 3PE cut-off (3PE = Pt + Pd
+ Au) applied to 5 m composites (termed 5m1g shell) was built. This grade shell was
used to tag blocks falling within the shell relative to the block centroid. Blocks within
the 5m1g shell were coded as high-grade (HG), and blocks outside the shell were
coded as low-grade (LG). The grade shell is typically in close association with the B
Pyroxenite and Harzburgite contact as defined by the ModPak geological
interpretation.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 14-21
PLATREEF PROJECT
14.4.3
Exploratory Data Analysis and Grade Estimation Domains

Compositing and EDA for UMT-MM Model
Five-metre length composites, controlled by the geological surfaces and wireframes
were constructed. Composites that were less than 2.5 m in length were stitched onto
the previous up-hole composite. Composites were tagged as either HG for inside the
5m1g shell or LG for outside of the shell.
Exploratory data analysis (EDA) was completed on 5 m composites. Histograms and
probability plots for each metal were used to determine capping level thresholds
(Table 14-8).
Outlier restriction grade thresholds and distances (Table 14-9) were determined from a
review of cross-sections (after a preliminary grade estimation run). The capping levels
and outlier restrictions shown apply to both the LG and HG composites.
The capping and outlier restriction resulted in reduction in the estimated metal in its
capped/outlier-restricted model of 2% of the Ni and Cu, 12% of the Pt and Pd and 3%
of the Au compared to an uncapped inverse distance model. Inspection of preliminary
sections and plans showed a propensity for unreasonable overextension of high PGE
grades in the uncapped model. This is typical for models supported by wide-spaced
data, and AMEC views its capping and outlier restriction as appropriate.
Box plots for each metal were used to assess mineralization ranges and domain
associations. These plots show higher mean grades for Harzburgite than for any other
lithology. Contact profiles were used to determine soft/hard contacts and composite
sharing between the Zcode domains for grade estimation. Statistics were reviewed to
determine sample sharing for Pt, Pd and Au in the LG zone (Table 14-10) and HG
zone (Table 14-11).
14.4.4
UMT-MM Block Model and Grade Estimation

The UMT-MM block model was constructed over the area of UMT drilling (refer to
Figure 14-1). The blocks were oriented parallel to the mine grid coordinates. The
overall model parent block size was 50 m x 50 m x 50 m, with the parent block size
within the Platreef for grade estimation being 25 m x 25 m x 5 m. The geological
surfaces and wireframes, and grade zones (HG for bulk model and nested shells for
selective model) were coded to the blocks, allowing sub-celling along the contacts to a
minimum size of 5 m x 5 m x 1 m. Densities were also coded to the blocks using the
average values by zone code (refer to Table 11-3).
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 14-22
PLATREEF PROJECT
Table 14-8: Composite Capping Levels for UMT-MM Model

Zone
MZ
Zone Code
Ni (%)
Cu (%)
Pt (g/t)
Pd (g/t)
Au (g/t)
10
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
UDZ
22
0.35
0.22
No Cap
1.20
0.35
UBP
23
0.70
0.32
4.00
3.00
0.65
UPXHA
24
1.00
0.60
2.50
2.50
0.50
UHABP
26
No Cap
0.35
2.50
3.00
0.50
UCZ
27
0.40
0.25
1.50
1.80
0.40
HF
28
0.28
0.40
0.90
1.10
No Cap
LDZ
32
0.40
0.30
0.60
No Cap
No Cap
LBP
33
0.45
0.30
No Cap
1.50
No Cap
LPXHA
34
0.90
0.70
3.50
2.00
0.50
LLPX
35
0.70
0.40
No Cap
1.50
0.40
LHABP
36
No Cap
0.35
No Cap
2.20
0.40
LCZ
37
0.38
0.28
No Cap
No Cap
0.28
LHA
39
No Cap
No Cap
No Cap
No Cap
No Cap
FL
40
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
Note: NE = Not Estimated
Table 14-9:
Metal
Outlier Restriction Thresholds for UMT MM-Mineable Model

Distance Threshold
Grade Threshold
Ni
150 m
0.40 %
Cu
150 m
0.30 %
Pt
100 m
1.0 g/t
Pd
100 m
1.0 g/t
Au
100 m
0.30 g/t
Note: Composite grade is capped beyond distance threshold.
Table 14-10: Grade Estimation Composite Sharing for LG Zone UMT- MM Model
Zone
(Block)
Zcode
(Block)
Ni
Sharing
Cu
Sharing
Pt (LG)
Sharing
Pd (LG)
Sharing
Au (LG)
Sharing
UDZ
22
23
UBP
23
24
22, 24
22, 24, 26
24
26
UPXHA
24
23
23, 32
23, 32
23, 32
32
UHABP
26
23
23
UCZ
27
28
23, 24
HF
28
27
LDZ
32
24, 33
LBP
33
32
32
32
LPXHA
34
35, 37
35
24, 35, 37
35, 37
36, 37
LLPX
35
34
34
34
34
34
LHABP
36
34
34
34
27
LCZ
37
34
(1) Zcode = Zone Code. See Table 14-1.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
28
Page 14-23
24, 33
24
PLATREEF PROJECT
Table 14-11: Grade Estimation Composite Sharing for HG Zone UMT-MM Model
Zone
(Block)
Zcode
(Block)
Ni
Sharing
Cu
Sharing
Pt (HG)
Sharing
Pd (HG)
Sharing
Au (HG)
Sharing
UDZ
22
23, 26
23, 26
UBP
23
22, 26
22, 26
26
UPXHA
24
27
27
32
UHABP
26
22, 23
22, 23
23
UCZ
27
24
24
28
HF
28
LDZ
32
33, 34, 35, 36, 37
33, 34, 35
33
LBP
33
33, 34, 35, 36, 37
32, 34, 35
32
36, 37
LPXHA
34
33, 34, 35, 36, 37
33, 35, 37
LLPX
35
33, 34, 35, 36, 37
32, 33, 34
34
LHABP
36
33, 34, 35, 36, 37
37
34, 37
33, 34, 35, 36, 37
36
34, 36
LCZ
37
(1) Zcode = Zone Code. See Table 14-1.
Figure 14-13 to 14-16 show representative sections through the UMT mass mining
model. The sections show nickel and 3PE grades in drill holes and blocks. The
dashed line shows the lower boundary of the UMT-TCU resource model discuss
above.
Figure 14-17 shows the blocks remaining for Mineral Resource reported in in the UMT
mass mining model after clipping out blocks (gray) that are covered by the UMT-TCU
model.
14.5
Open-Pit Resource Models

A summary is provided below; a more detailed description is provided in the
September 2012 Technical Report.
The methodologies used for creating the block models and estimating Mineral
Resources amenable to open-pit methods at AMK and ATS are similar.
Mineralization within the AMK deposit was modelled in 2003 and is referenced as the
Version L model (methodology used is described in Parker and Francis, 2002). The
ATS resource model (Version Q model) was developed during 2002 and 2003 (AMEC
2003b). This model was used in conceptual studies (AMEC 2004c), which were used
to support ATS open-pit Mineral Resources.
The drill-hole locations and open-pit resource model limits are also shown on Figure
14-1.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 14-24
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 14-13: UMT Mass Mining Model Cross-Section A-A (Looking Northwest) Showing Ni%
Note: Figure generated by AMEC, 2012
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 14-25
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 14-14: UMT Mass Mining Model Cross-Section A-A (Looking Northwest) showing 3PE (g/t)
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 14-26
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 14-15: UMT Mass Mining Model Cross-Section B-B (Looking Northwest) Showing Ni%
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 14-27
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 14-16: UMT Mass Mining Model- Cross-Section B-B (Looking Northwest) Showing 3PE (g/t)
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 14-28
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 14-17: UMT-MM Inferred Mineral Resources Below UMT-TCU Model
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 14-29
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
14.5.1
Geological Models (Open Pit)

At both AMK and ATS, the hanging wall of the Platreef intrusive sequence is the Main
Zone gabbronorite, and the footwall is the Transvaal Formation. Within the Platreef
norites and pyroxenites (NPX), hornfels xenoliths (XE) of the Transvaal Formation and
higher grade serpentinized peridotitepyroxenite (SP) layers have been identified.
Hanging wall and footwall contacts were modelled as wireframe surfaces at ATS and
AMK. The XE and SP units were modeled as wireframes for ATS. For AMK, these
units were modelled probabilistically using indicator variables.
14.5.2
EDA and Grade Estimation Domains (Open Pit)

Grade estimation plans were developed by reviewing drill hole data on cross-sections
and level plans, and a series of statistical plots (on 5 m composites and NN estimates)
including box plots, histograms, probability plots, contact plots and variograms.
Summaries of the observations made from this work are included in this section.
AMK Resource Area
The Platreef in the AMK model area is divided into two subzones. The main
mineralized zone is Subzone 1 that occurs at the base of the Platreef and is
predominantly ultramafic rocks (pyroxenites and serpentinized peridotites). Subzone 2
is spatially limited and occurs above Subzone 1; it is dominated by norites and
gabbros and is not part of the Mineral Resource estimate.
Within Subzone 1, SP is the highest-grade lithology with the lowest-grade variability of
the Platreef lithologies. NPX lithologies are lower-grade with similar variability to SP,
particularly for platinum. XE is the lowest-grade unit with generally high grade
variability. There is local mineralization within XE, particularly in dolomite. The low
variability and levelling out at the top end of the grade distributions indicates an upper
limit on grade, making it unnecessary to cap (or top-cut) the distributions before grade
estimation. Such limits are commonly found where the geochemical environment
constrains enrichment; i.e., there is equilibrium and no remobilization/concentration by
secondary processes.
Contact grade profiles between the three groups in Subzone 1 indicated use of hard
contacts for grade estimation was appropriate.
In general, correlations between the metals are very strong and linear, indicating
origination from a high-temperature mono-sulphide solid-solution that exsolved
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 14-1
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
pyrrhotite, chalcopyrite, pentlandite, and PGMs as it cooled with little evidence of

significant metal zoning.
ATS Resource Area
ATS was divided into four spatial domains (from southeast to northwest: South,
Middle, Embayment, and North) based on metal ratios and mineralization widths.
Each domain was partitioned by a continuous to locally disrupted hornfels and/or
marginal zone norite (MZN). The hornfels may have partitioned the magmas and/or
prevented mixing or interaction of the magma with the floor. Each domain was
subdivided into serpentinized peridotite (SP) and norites and pyroxenites (NPX).
Grade capping for the five metals was considered unnecessary because of the lowgrade variability suggested by the CVs.
Minor grade discontinuities were identified at geological zone contacts. Geological
zones with similar average grades were grouped for grade estimation. Hard
boundaries were used for each of the regions and domains, except for XE.
Variograms (using the correlogram method) were estimated using Sage2001
software for Cu, Ni, Au, Pt, Pd and dollar values inside each zone and hornfels unit
using 5 m composites. Most variograms proved noisy and difficult to model; this was
particularly true for zones with few composites.
14.5.3
Block Model and Grade Estimation (Open-Pit)

The estimation methodology for the AMK and ATS models was developed to improve
local grade estimates without compromising global grade distributions. Grade
estimates within the Platreef were completed for Cu, Ni, Au, Pt, and Pd using inverse
distance to an appropriate power (IDP). The power value was adjusted such that the
CVs of block grade distributions reasonably matched selective mining unit (SMU)
targets. The variance of the block distribution is inversely proportion to the power used
in inverse distance interpolation. The CVs of the SMU distributions were estimated
using the volumevariance relationship which states that the variance is inversely
proportional to the volume of support. Conceptual mining engineering studies
completed on the ATS deposit determined a 15 m x 15 m x 10 m selective mining unit
(SMU) was likely to be appropriate for the deposit.
For both models, the blocks were oriented parallel to the local mine grid, with domain
coding and grade estimates completed on a whole block basis (i.e., no sub-celling).
The proportion of each block below the topographic surface was stored.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 14-2
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
No allowances were made in the open-pit models for external dilution; or contact
boundary loss/waste dilution. Outside the Platreef, the lack of sulphides and generally
low-grade assays permit a reasonable assumption that these blocks can be assigned
as waste.
Data available at the time ATS and AMK were studied indicated that only sulphide
copper and nickel were recoverable by metallurgical treatment processes; therefore,
nickel and copper values are reported on a sulphide head grade basis with no
allowance made for metallurgical recovery.
AMK Resource Model
A block size of is 25 m x 25 m x 5 m was used for the AMK model. A single pass
estimation run was made for each grade (Table 14-13). Block model Ni and Cu
grades were adjusted by sulphide regressions before final reporting. Preliminary
estimations were completed using ordinary kriging (OK), but the estimates were
considered to be too smoothed for reporting global Mineral Resources.
A block size of is 25 m x 25 m x 5 m was used for the AMK model. A single-pass
estimation run was made for each metal. Search ellipsoids and inverse distance
power varied with domain (refer to Table 14-12). An octant search requiring a
minimum of three octants with a maximum of two composites per octant was imposed
for data selection. A block grade must be estimated with a minimum of six and a
maximum of 24 composites.
Figures 14-18 and 14-19 show nickel and platinum grades for a section through the
AMK deposit.
ATS Resource Model
A block size of 15 m x 15 m x 10 m was selected. Grades were estimated within the
four regions, and three lithological domains (SP, XE, and NPX) of the Platreef. The
same estimation plan was used for each element (Table 14-13). A three-pass setup
was used for the estimation of grades with each pass having a progressively larger
search ellipsoid; most blocks were estimated in Pass 1.
A sampling and assay program of the drill core from oxidized Platreef rocks was
completed in late 2003, and a wireframe model of the oxidized and soil horizon was
constructed. The average depth of oxidation is 30 m. Preliminary metallurgical results
of oxidized material are not encouraging, and oxidized material is treated as waste.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 14-3
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
Table 14-12: AMK Inverse Distance Estimation Parameters

Domain
SP
XE
ID Power
2.5
1.4
Ellipsoid Orientation(deg)
Search Distances (m)
Strike
Dip
37
311
36 NW
21 SW
200
200
200
200
30
30
NPX
6.0
311
21 SW
200
200
30
Note: The lengths of the search ellipsoid axes are shown in terms of rotated X, Y, Z, with Z being the pole to the
equatorial plane of the ellipsoid
Figure 14-18: AMK Sulphide Ni (%) Block Estimates and Composites Section 2500N
(Version L Model, 2003)
Note: Section Looking North. Figure generated by AMEC, 2003
Figure 14-19: AMK Pt (g/t) Block Estimates and Composites Section 2500N (Version L
Model, 2003)
Note: Section Looking North. Figure generated by AMEC, 2003
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 14-4
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
Table 14-13: ATS Inverse Distance Parameters

Domain
ID
Power
Orientation(deg)
Pass 1 (m)
Pass 3 (m)
Pass 2 (m)
Strike
Dip
North
SP
0.9
308
35 SW
150
150
25
250
250
25
300
300
50
XE
1.4
320
26 SW
150
150
25
250
250
25
300
300
50
NPX
5.0
308
35 SW
150
150
25
250
250
25
300
300
50
SP
2.0
311
41 SW
150
150
25
250
250
25
300
300
50
XE
1.4
320
26 SW
150
150
25
250
250
25
300
300
50
NPX
4.4
311
41 SW
150
150
25
250
250
25
300
300
50
SP
3.5
308
38 SW
150
150
25
250
250
25
300
300
50
XE
1.4
320
26 SW
150
150
25
250
250
25
300
300
50
NPX
4.4
308
38 SW
150
150
25
250
250
25
300
300
50
50
Middle
Embayment
South
SP
2.5
48
25 SW
150
150
25
250
250
25
300
300
XE
1.4
320
26 SW
150
150
25
250
250
25
300
300
50
NPX
2.5
48
25 SW
150
150
25
250
250
25
300
300
50
Note: The lengths of the search ellipsoid axes are shown in terms of rotated X, Y, Z with Z being the pole to the
equatorial plane of the ellipsoid
Figures 14-20 and 14-21 show nickel and platinum grades for a section through the
ATS deposit
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 14-5
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 14-20: ATS Sulphide Ni (%) Block Estimates and Composites Cross-Section
5850N (Version Q Model, 2003)
Looking North
Figure 14-21: ATS Pt (g/t) Block Estimates and Composites Cross Section 5850N
(Version Q Model, 2003)
Looking North
Note: Figures generated by AMEC, 2003
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 14-6
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
14.5.4
Density (Open Pit Models)

Bulk densities measured on drill core at site were used in tonnage estimates
(Table 14-14). Section Error! Reference source not found. contains the description
of the density sampling and measurement methodology.
14.5.5
Comments on Open-Pit-Models
Although the AMK model dates from 2003, it is suitable for conceptual studies. It does
not contain allowances for block boundary loss or waste dilution at contacts.
Eventually the AMK model should be connected with the UMT model to the north.
The ATS model is acceptable for preliminary mine planning, but will be locally
inaccurate. The model will be high-biased in areas estimated to be high-grade and
low-biased in areas estimated to be low-grade. The bias has been mitigated to some
extent by infill drilling in the area where the drill spacing was reduced to 75 m x 75 m
or 75 m x 100 m spacing. Additional infill drilling will be required to improve accuracy
of grade estimation. The ATS model does not contain allowance for block boundary
dilution or waste dilution at contacts, including the hanging wall and footwall of the
Platreef and the contacts between XE (hornfels) and NPX or XE and SP.
Currently the TCU stratigraphic units are being correlated up-dip from the UMT-TCU
model into the open pit area (ATS Model) and along strike southwesterly into the AMK
area. Re-logging of ATS drill holes have identified the TCU sequence, though highly
contaminated, in the open pit area. Though the Mineral Resource amenable to open
pit mining is not presently the focus of the Platreef project, the reinterpretation of the
geology in the open pit area will provide better information may increase the UMT-TCU
resource above the current 650 elevation.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 14-7
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
Table 14-14: Density Values for Tonnage Estimations

Rock
Density (g/cm )
AMK
Platreef
3.07
Xenolith
2.80
Serpentinized Peridotite
3.04
ATS
14.5.6
Main Zone
2.89
Serpentinite
3.01
Hornfels
2.85
Norite/Pyroxenite
2.99
Floor
2.85
Mineral Resource Classification (Open-Pit Models)

All Mineral Resources declared for AMK are in the Inferred category. Drill spacing is
nominally on a 100 m grid, with Mineral Resources projected up to 200 m beyond
drilling. At this spacing there is broad-scale continuity in grade and lithological
domains, but on a local basis there is sufficient uncertainty as to domain position and
grade to prevent classification of the Mineral Resources as Indicated.
Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources reported for ATS are located above the
650 m elevation. Indicated Mineral Resources are drilled at 100 m x 75 m (locally
75 m x 75 m) spacings; at both of these spacings continuity of lithological domains and
grade can be assumed. Inferred Mineral Resources are drilled at 100 to 200 m
spacings.
14.6
14.6.1
Reasonable Prospects of Economic Extraction

Assumptions Made to Assess Reasonable Prospects for Economic Extraction
AMEC undertook a conceptual analysis to assess reasonable prospects for economic
extraction for declaration of Mineral Resources. Underground mining methods
considered are conventional, mechanized mining methods that have a reasonable
safety factor.
Commodity Prices
AMEC considers that consensus long-term commodity prices should be used in
declaration of Mineral Reserves and for purposes of financial analyses. Prices being
used in conceptual studies that are in progress are $8.81/lb for Ni, $2.73/lb for Cu,
$1,699/troy ounce for Pt, $667/troy ounce for Pd, and $1,315/troy ounce for Au. For
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 14-8
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
rhodium, AMEC has used $2,065/troy ounce, which is based on the average of two
values obtained from technical reports filed on Sedar ($1,875, $2,255).
On Site Operating Costs
For the selectively-mineable higher-grade scenario, a production rate of 3 Mt/a was
assumed. Mining costs for some form of selective mining were estimated at
approximately $40/t. Process and G+A costs for this case were estimated at an
average of $12.50/t.
For the MM underground scenario, mining costs could vary from $9 to $35/t depending
on whether block caving or some form of sub-level mining is used. For the MM
underground case and open-pit case, a production rate of 10 Mt/a was assumed.
Process and general and administrative (G+A) costs were estimated at an average of
$12/t.
Process Recoveries
For the selective high-grade option, process recoveries are based on equations shown
in Table 13-21. Typical recoveries for a T2U block are shown in Table 14-15.
For the open-pit cases, the process recoveries are taken from Section 13.1.1. These
equations are based on Ni(s) and Cu(s) for nickel and copper.
For the MM underground case, the process recoveries are taken from Section 13.1.1
(serpentinite) regardless of the block lithology. This is a conservative assumption,
given limited testwork. The equations are applied to total nickel (Ni).
Smelter Payables
AMEC assumed that a smelter would pay for 82% of the metals contained in the
concentrates. This assumption is based on a survey made by Kramer (2012). It is
likely to cost an average of $22t of concentrates (approximately $1/t of mineralized
material) for road-freight to transport concentrates to a smelter, which for the purposes
of assessing reasonable prospects, was assumed to be Rustenburg, in RSA.
There is some risk that if PGE concentrate grades are low, smelters would also levy
treatment charges; on the other hand, it is envisioned that Platreef concentrates would
be low in chromium, which might make them attractive to smelters whose feedstock
primarily comes from Merensky and UG2 reef concentrates. AMECs conceptual
analysis does not include treatment charges.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 14-9
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
Table 14-15: Typical Metallurgical Recoveries for a T2U Block

Ni
Cu
Pt
Pd
Au
Rh
Block Grade
0.297 %
0.108 %
2.998 g/t
2.931 g/t
0.244 g/t
0.152 g/t
Recovery
56.8 %
49.8 %
80.9 %
81.7 %
58.6 %
84.4 %
Platreef concentrates could also be marketed to smelters outside RSA.

Royalty
The royalty has been assumed as 5% of smelter payables.
NSR (Net Smelter Return)
The NSR calculation assumes the smelter payables.
14.7
Mineral Resource Statement

Mineral Resource statements for Mineral Resources amenable to underground mining
methods (UMT) and Mineral Resources amenable to open pit mining methods (ATS
and AMK) are tabulated in this section.
Mineral Resources are reported on a 100% basis. Attributable ownership is discussed
in detail in Section 4.0.
The following considerations were taken into account when making the decision to use
a 650 m elevation to demarcate the base-case limit between Mineral Resources
amenable to open pit mining methods and Mineral Resources amenable to
underground mining methods:
The ATS and UMT models overlap; therefore, a method for differentiating Mineral
Resources amenable to open-pit or underground mining methods was required.
Selecting the elevation is difficult at the current state of project knowledge. Various
open-pit cases have been evaluated over the years resulting in pits bottoming at
between the 660 m and 450 m elevation (540 m to 700 m vertical depths). The
two cases run (and detailed) in 2003 (AMEC, 2003) bottomed at about the 660 m
and 590 m elevations. The Indicated and some Inferred Mineral Resources lie
within these pits
In the ATS and AMK deposits, metallurgical recoveries were stated on a sulphide
nickel basis, and the open-pit Mineral Resource models have sulphide nickel and
copper. For the UMT deposit, metallurgical recoveries were stated on a total nickel
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 14-10
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
basis, and the underground Mineral Resource models use total nickel and copper.
The distinction between sulphide and total nickel is necessary to perform the
assessments of reasonable prospects of economic extraction for mineralization
within the AMK, ATS and UMT deposits
At elevations lower than 650 m, the open-pit models do not extend the entire way
across the Platreef, and at elevations higher than 650 m, the underground models
do not extend the entire way across the Platreef.
Future mining studies are likely to provide a reassessment of reasonable prospects of

economic extraction for open-pit and underground scenarios. This may involve
redefinition of the demarcation between Mineral Resources amenable to open pit or
underground mining methods.
14.7.1
Mineral Resources Amenable to Underground Mining Methods

There are two mining scenarios that could exploit mineralization at depth within the
Platreef:
Selective mining within and adjacent to TCU mineralized zones.
Mass mining
The selectively-mineable option is considered the Base Case for the purposes of this
Report.
AMEC reviewed the potential to mass-mine lower-grade material, and presents the
results as an additional and mutually exclusive case.
AMEC notes that conceptual mining studies are underway, and the preferred option
could change, or a mixture of the two options could emerge as the recommended
route for Project development.
Other considerations are:
Concentrator and site G+A costs must be covered for reporting Mineral Resources
Mining costs have been considered in setting the cut-off ($38/t for the selective
case, and for the bulk case from $9/t to $35/t depending on whether block caving
or some method of sub-level mining were used.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 14-11
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
14.7.2
Base Case: Mineral Resource Statement (Estimate Assuming Selective

Underground Mining Methods)
The TCU and adjacent blocks above T1, between T1 and T2 and below T2 contain
higher-grade mineralization that could be mined using selective methods such as longhole open-stoping, drift/cut and bench, drift-and-fill, bench-and-fill or cut-and-fill.
Table 14-16 shows Mineral Resources lying within and adjacent to the TCU
mineralized zones.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 14-12
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
Table 14-16: Mineral Resource Statement for Mineral Resources amenable to Selective
Mining Methods; Effective Date 13 March 2013, Harry M. Parker RM.SME.
Indicated Mineral Resources
Tonnage and Grades
Cutoff 4PE
Mt
Pt (g/t)
Pd (g/t)
Au (g/t)
Rh (g/t)
4PE (g/t)
Ni (%)
Cu (%)
3 g/t
137.0
2.273
2.314
0.347
0.153
5.086
0.375
0.185
2 g/t
214.4
1.830
1.886
0.290
0.124
4.129
0.341
0.168
1 g/t
387.0
1.275
1.339
0.214
0.087
2.916
0.282
0.139
Cutoff 4PE
Pt (Moz)
Pd (Moz)
Au (Moz)
Rh (Moz)
4PE (g/t)
Ni (Mlbs)
Cu (Mlbs)
3 g/t
10.0
10.2
1.5
0.7
22.4
1,133.4
558.4
2 g/t
12.6
13.0
2.0
0.9
28.5
1,610.3
794.2
1 g/t
15.9
16.7
2.7
1.1
36.3
2,408.4
1,189.3
Pt (g/t)
Pd (g/t)
Au (g/t)
Rh (g/t)
4PE (g/t)
Ni (%)
Cu (%)
Contained Metal
Inferred Mineral Resources

Tonnage and Grades
Cutoff 4PE
Mt
3 g/t
211.4
2.085
2.063
0.336
0.143
4.627
0.378
0.183
2 g/t
415.0
1.565
1.592
0.268
0.108
3.534
0.331
0.163
1 g/t
1054.8
0.960
1.018
0.175
0.068
2.221
0.254
0.130
Cutoff 4PE
Pt (Moz)
Pd (Moz)
Au (Moz)
Rh (Moz)
4PE (Moz)
Ni (Mlbs)
Cu (Mlbs)
3 g/t
14.2
14.0
2.3
1.0
31.4
1,763.6
855.2
2 g/t
20.9
21.2
3.6
1.4
47.2
3,030.7
1,488.6
1 g/t
32.6
34.5
5.9
2.3
75.3
5,916.7
3,022.2
Contained Metal
Notes:
(1)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Resources estimated assuming mass-mining methods. The 2 g/t 4 PE cutoff is considered the Base Case for
scoping studies in progress; the 3 g/t cutoff is also being considered.
Mineral Resources are stated from approximately -200 m to 650 m elevation.
The grade shells were determined using assumed commodity prices of Ni: $8.81/lb, Cu: $2.73/lb,
Pt: $1,699/oz, Pd: $667/oz, Au: $1,315/oz, Rh: $2.065/oz. It has been assumed that payable metals would be
82% from smelter/refinery and that mining costs (average $40/t) and process, G&A, and concentrate transport
costs (average $12.5/t for a 3 Mt/a operation) would be covered. The process recoveries vary with block grade
but typically would be 85-90% for Pt, Pd and Rh; 65% for Au and 60% for Ni and 80% for Cu.
Indicated Mineral Resources are drilled on approximately 100 X 100m spacing; Inferred Mineral Resources are
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 14-13
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
AMEC tested the Mineral Resources for reasonable prospects for extraction. At a 2 g/t
4PE cutoff grade 80 to 85% of the blocks will generate an NSR/t of $50 or higher,
meaning they will pay mining, process and G+A costs. An NSR/t of $50 is being
considered by Ivanplats in scoping studies (in progress), with long-hole open stoping
being the primary mining method. All of the blocks above a 1 g/t 4PE cut-off generate
an NSR of $10/t, meaning they will cover nearly all process and G+A costs.
AMEC compared the tonnages, grades and contained metal in Table 14-16 to the
tonnages, grades and contained metal stated in Ivanplats press release dated 5
February 2013. At the 2 g/t and 3 g/t 4PE cutoff grades being considered for scoping
studies the AMEC tonnages and grades confirm those stated by Ivanplats. At the 1 g/t
cutoff grade there has been some reclassification of Indicated to Inferred related to
AMECs classification of material in the footwall of the TCU that is sparsely sampled as
Inferred Mineral Resources.
Table 14-17 shows the Inferred Mineral Resources lying within the Nested 1 g/t, 2 g/t
and 3 g/t 3PE grade shells. This case illustrates what high-grade mineralization is
present within the 1 g/t, 2 g/t and 3 g/t 3PE grade shells.
For the selectively-mineable underground base case, cut-offs for constraining grade
shells have been presented in terms of 3PE, because the majority of the value is
attributable to PGEs and gold. The Mineral Resources within the 1+2+3 g/t 3PE
(nominal cut-off grade of 1 g/t 3PE), 2+3 g/t 3PE (nominal cut-off grade of 2 g/t 3PE) or
3 g/t 3PE (nominal cut-off grade of 3 g/t 3PE) grade shells have been estimated so
that scoping mining studies could be performed using multiple options. The grade
shells were constructed using 3PE = Pt+Pd+Au because rhodium assaying was
incomplete at the time. Rhodium was subsequently assayed or estimated using
regression, and its estimates are presented in tables below, along with a 4PE estimate
(Pt+Pd+Au+Rh).
Table 14-18 tabulates the Mineral Resources that are adjacent to the grade shells.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 14-14
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
Table 14-17: Mineral Resources Within Grade Shells Assuming Selective Underground
Mining Methods, Effective Date 13 March 2013, Harry M. Parker RM.SME.
Tonnage and Grades, Indicated Mineral Resources
Grade Shells
Mt
Pt (g/t)
Pd (g/t)
Au (g/t)
Rh (g/t)
3 g/t
121.1
2.335
2.376
0.353
0.157
4PE
(g/t)
5.221
Ni (%)
Cu (%)
Cutoff
Mt
% of
G.S.
96%
0.379
0.187
3 g/t
115.9
2 + 3 g/t
203.9
1.828
1.899
0.291
0.123
4.141
0.342
0.169
2 g/t
190.6
93%
1 + 2 + 3 g/t
264.6
1.568
1.637
0.257
0.107
3.568
0.320
0.157
1 g/t
262.0
99%
Rh
(Moz)
0.6
4PE
(g/t)
20.3
Cu
(Mlbs)
1011.4
Cu
(Mlbs)
498.4
% of
G.S.
96%
Contained Metal, Indicated Mineral Resources

Grade Shells
Pt
(Moz)
9.1
3 g/t
Pd
(Moz)
9.2
Au
(Moz)
1.4
2 + 3 g/t
12.0
12.4
1.9
0.8
27.1
1539.4
758.2
1 + 2 + 3 g/t
13.3
13.9
2.2
0.9
30.4
1866.2
914.0
4PE
(g/t)
4.741
Ni (%)
Cu (%)
Cutoff
Mt
0.388
0.187
3 g/t
177.5
Tonnage and Grades, Inferred Mineral Resources

Grade Shells
Mt
Pt (g/t)
Pd (g/t)
Au (g/t)
Rh (g/t)
3 g/t
184.7
2.130
2.116
0.348
0.146
2 + 3 g/t
355.2
1.625
1.639
0.279
0.111
3.655
0.339
0.165
2 g/t
328.9
93%
1 + 2 + 3 g/t
548.4
1.306
1.323
0.230
0.090
2.950
0.301
0.147
1 g/t
540.0
98%
4PE
(g/t)
28.2
Ni
(Mlbs)
1580.2
Cu
(Mlbs)
762.7
Contained Metal, Inferred Mineral Resources

Grade Shells
Pt
(Moz)
12.6
3 g/t
Pd
(Moz)
12.6
Au
(Moz)
2.1
Rh
(Moz)
0.9
2 + 3 g/t
18.6
18.7
3.2
1.3
41.7
2653.6
1288.9
1 + 2 + 3 g/t
23.0
23.3
4.1
1.6
52.0
3639.8
1776.5
Notes:
(1)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Resources estimated assuming mass-mining methods. The grade shell rows are also not additive. The 3 g/t
3PE shell is included in the 2 + 3 g/t 3 PE shell, which is in turn included in the 1 + 2 + 3 g/t 3PE shell.
The grade shells were determined using assumed commodity prices of Ni: $8.81/lb, Cu: $2.73/lb,
but typically would be 85-90% for Pt, Pd and Rh; 65% for Au and 60% for Ni and 80% for Cu. The Mineral
Resources within the 1+2+3, 2+3 or 3 g/t 3PE grade shells have been estimated (at nominal cut-off grades of 1,
2 and 3 g/t 3PE respectively) to show sensitivity to cut-off grade and to provide multiple options for
consideration in future mining studies. No allowances for mining recovery and external dilution have been
applied.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 14-15
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
Table 14-18: Mineral Resources Adjacent to Grade Shells Assuming Selective

Underground Mining Methods, Effective Date 13 March 2013, Harry M.
Parker RM.SME. and Timothy O. Kuhl, RM.SME.
2 g/t 4PE Cutoff Grade, Indicated Mineral Resource
Mineralized
Mt
Pt (g/t)
Pd (g/t)
Zone
HW
1.70
1.37
1.12
Au (g/t)
Rh (g/t)
4PE (g/t)
Ni (%)
Cu (%)
0.34
0.07
2.90
0.25
0.12
Middle
6.91
1.30
1.13
0.22
0.09
2.74
0.22
0.10
FW
6.09
1.18
1.15
0.16
0.08
2.57
0.25
0.14
Total
14.70
1.26
1.14
0.21
0.08
2.69
0.23
0.12
2 g/t 4PE Cutoff Grade Inferred Mineral Resource

Mineralized Zone
Mt
Pt (g/t)
Pd (g/t)
Au (g/t)
Rh (g/t)
4PE (g/t)
Ni (%)
Cu (%)
HW
2.2
0.77
0.88
0.20
0.04
1.89
0.24
0.15
Middle
8.7
1.32
1.12
0.24
0.08
2.76
0.23
0.11
FW
44.0
1.03
1.21
0.17
0.08
2.49
0.27
0.15
Total
54.9
1.06
1.18
0.18
0.08
2.51
0.26
0.14
Notes:
(1)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
14.7.3
HW = above T1MZ, Middle = between T1MZ and T2MZ, FW = below T1MZ

Resources estimated assuming selective mining within grade shells and mass-mining methods.
The Mineral Resources were determined using assumed commodity prices of Ni: $8.81/lb, Cu: $2.73/lb,
but typically would be 85-90% for Pt, Pd and Rh; 65% for Au and 60% for Ni and 80% for Cu. No allowances
for mining recovery and external dilution have been applied.
Mineral Resource Statement for Mineralization Amenable to Underground Mining

Methods (Estimate Assuming Mass-Mining Methods)
The Mineral Resources amenable to mass underground mining methods have been
revised for transfer of much of the previous Upper Unit Top Loaded Zone to the
Mineral Resources amenable to selective underground mining methods.
Table 14-19 shows a tabulation of the Mineral Resources amenable to underground
mining, and estimated assuming mass-mining methods for the Platreef Project. The
metallurgical laboratories (SGS Johannesburg, XPS Falconbridge Ontario and Mintek
Johannesburg) report on a total nickel basis; therefore, this Mineral Resource is
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 14-16
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
reported on a total nickel basis. Inferred Mineral Resources are reported at 0.15% Ni
cut-off grade. This cut-off grade is justified using the commodity price assumptions
discussed in Section Error! Reference source not found.. The Mineral Resources
menable to mass mineable methods are all located in areas of wide spaced drilling
(typically 400 x 400 m spacing). Only Inferred Mineral Resources are declared.
Comments on Mineral Resources Estimated Assuming Underground Mass
Mining Methods
The geological logging and interpretation is the foundation for the underground
resource model. Recognition of lithological controls on grade has enabled declaration
of Inferred Mineral Resources at a wider spacing than would otherwise be possible.
The Inferred Mineral Resource boundary is shown on Figure 14-2. The drill hole
spacing is 400 m x 400 m or 400 m x 200 m, with local 200 m x 200 m coverage.
Around the margins, the boundary is nominally 200 m from the closest drill hole. The
bulk-mineable resource also includes material in Zone 1, where not all holes reached
the footwall and the spacing was effectively 400 X 400 m.
The geometry of the Platreef in the Mineral Resource area that is amenable to
underground mining methods is relatively complex, both in terms of thickness (150 m
to 650 m) and dip (0 to 75). Selection of mining methods and preparation of stope
layouts is likely to require trade-off studies.
The declared Mineral Resources at the 0.15% Ni cut-off will provide an NSR/t of
approximately $30. This should cover average mining, processing and G+A costs.
The resource model has been constructed using relatively wide-spaced data, and is
therefore suitable for planning using bulk underground methods such as block caving,
sub-level caving or sub-level open stoping. The degree of smoothing in the block
model results from block size and estimation plans used, which reflects the currentlyavailable data. The model is not suitable for planning a high-grade option using more
selective mining methods typical of vein mining such as narrow open stoping or cutand-fill mining.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 14-17
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
Table 14-19: Inferred Mineral Resources (at 0.15% Ni (total) Cut-Off) Assuming
Underground Mass Mining Methods, Effective Date 13 March 2013, Harry M.
Parker RM. SME. and Timothy O. Kuhl, RM. SME.
Tonnage and Grades
Property
Mt
Pt (g/t)
Pd (g/t)
Au (g/t)
3PE (g/t)
% Ni
% Cu
Turfspruit
1,870
0.40
0.49
0.09
0.98
0.21
0.13
40
0.28
0.39
0.09
0.76
0.21
0.14
1,910
0.40
0.49
0.09
0.98
0.21
0.13
Property
Pt (Moz)
Pd (Moz)
Au (Moz)
3PE (Moz)
Ni (Mlbs)
% (Mlbs)
Turfspruit
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
8,740
5,520
Macalacaskop
Total
(3PE =Pt + Pd + Au)
Contained Metal
Macalacaskop
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
190
120
Total
24.4
24.4
24.4
24.4
8,930
5,650
Notes:
(1)
Mineral Resources are reported on a 100% basis
(2)
Mineral Resources are stated from the 650 m elevation downward to approximately -400 m elevation. The 2011
block model has been trimmed to exclude the 2013 block model for selectively mineable Mineral Resources.
(3)
The cut-off grade (0.15% Ni) assumes commodity prices of Ni: $8.810/lb, Cu: $2.73/lb, Pt: $1,699/oz, Pd:
$667/oz, Au: $1,315/oz. It has been assumed that payable metals would be 82% from smelter/refinery and that
a mix of block cave and sub-level mining costs (averaging $20/t, and ranging from $9/t to $35/t), and process,
G&A, and concentrate transport costs (average of $12/t) would be covered for a conceptual 10 Mt/a operation.
Process recoveries are taken from metal-specific equations for serpentinite. Nickel is presented as an example
where nickel recovery = ((9.3 *Ln (Ni head grade) + 84.9).
(4)
Mineral Resources at the 0.15% Ni cut-off grade occur in continuous zones; there are a relatively minor number
of blocks inside these zones that are below cut-off and have been excluded.
(5)
Inferred Mineral Resources are based on an area drilled on approximately 400 m x 400 m (locally 400 m x
200 m and 200 m x 200 m) spacing.
(6)
14.7.4
Mineral Resources Amenable to Open-Pit Mining Methods

The Mineral Resources amenable to open-pit mining methods have not been updated
from the last Technical Report (September 2012).
Mineral Resources that could be exploited by open-pit mining methods include Platreef
mineralization at ATS and AMK.
About half of the Mineral Resources that could be extracted using open-pit mining
methods are classified as Inferred Mineral Resources. Infill drilling has been
completed for a portion of ATS at a nominal drill hole spacing of 75 m x 100 m (refer to
Figure 14-2), and this area has been classified as Indicated Mineral Resources.
Inferred Mineral Resources are estimated outside the area of the infill drilling and
above the 650 m elevation (or to an approximate depth below topography of 500 m).
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 14-18
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
Grade and lithological continuity at the infill drilling density appear to be reasonably
predictable. No Indicated Mineral Resources exist outside of the area of infill drilling
because the drill hole spacing is often too wide to assume continuity of lithology (and
thereby grade, which depends on lithology) between points of observation.
A 0.10% sulphide Ni cut-off was selected to declare Mineral Resources that are
amenable to open pit mining methods, as the total precious and base metals grade of
the blocks above this cut-off grade are considered to cover projected conceptual
operating costs.
Table 14-20 provides a tabulation of Mineral Resources for the Platreef Project that
could be mined using open pit methods.
Table 14-20: Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources at 0.1 % Sulphide Nickel Cut-off
that are Amenable to Open-Pit Mining Methods, Effective Date 31 March
2011, Harry M. Parker, RM.SME. and Timothy O. Kuhl, RM.SME.
Property/Deposit
Mt
% Ni
% Cu
Pt
Pd
Au
3PE
Sulphide
Sulphide
(g/t)
(g/t)
(g/t)
(g/t)
470
0.20
0.14
0.34
0.45
0.09
0.87
40
520
0.21
0.20
0.17
0.14
0.28
0.33
0.41
0.44
0.09
0.09
0.78
0.86
260
0.16
0.10
0.41
0.47
0.10
0.97
ATS Indicated
Turfspruit 241-KR
Rietfontein 2-KS
Total ATS Indicated
ATS Inferred
Turfspruit 241-KR
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
260
0.16
0.10
0.41
0.47
0.10
0.97
250
0.17
0.11
0.52
0.55
0.10
1.18
Indicated
520
0.20
0.14
0.33
0.44
0.09
0.86
Inferred
510
0.16
0.10
0.46
0.51
0.10
1.07
Rietfontein 2-KS
Total ATS Inferred
AMK Inferred
Macalacaskop
Total Open Pit (AMK +
ATS)
3PE = Pt + Pd + Au
Notes:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)

Mineral Resources are stated from 650 metre elevation to surface (approximately 500 metres depth extent). A
selective mining unit (SMU) of 15 m x 15 m x 10 m has been assumed. External dilution has not been applied.
At a 0.1% sulphide nickel cut-off grade, the mineralization is continuous.
The 0.1% sulphide Ni cut-off grade is based on assumed costs and metal prices. Commodity prices were
assumed to be Ni: $9.20/lb, Cu: $3.00/lb, Pt: $1785/oz, Pd: $650/oz, Au: $1,265/oz.
Concentrator, G&A and concentrate transport costs are estimated to average $11/t for a conceptual 10 Mt/a
operation. Mining costs are estimated at an average of $5/t.
Indicated Mineral Resources are based on an area drilled on approximately 75 m x 100 m spacings.
Inferred Mineral Resources are based on an area drilled on approximately 120 m x 140 m spacings.
Totals may not sum due to rounding.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 14-19
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
Comments: Mineral Resources Amenable to Open-Pit Mining Methods

Mineral Resources should at least pay for concentrator, site G+A and concentrator
transport costs, which are assumed to be approximately $11/t. An $11/t NSR cut-off is
approximately equivalent to a 0.05% sulphide nickel cut-off.
There has been little metallurgical testwork on samples below 0.15% sulphide nickel
(AMEC, 2003); hence base-case Mineral Resources for the mineralization that may be
amenable to open-pit extraction methods are declared at a 0.10% sulphide nickel cutoff grade. This cut-off grade is approximately equivalent to an NSR cut-off grade of
$25/t (ATS) to $30/t (AMK).
The current drill hole spacing for Indicated Mineral Resources (75 m x 100 m) is
sufficient to assume continuity of geology and mineralization between points of
observation. The drill hole spacing will need to be reduced in order to support a
feasibility study. The aim would be to increase the overall resource estimation
confidence for the deposit, with the intention of improving the classification of some or
all of the Mineral Resources from Indicated to Measured, and potentially from Inferred
to Indicated.
Additional detailed drilling is required to evaluate the effect of block boundary loss and
external dilution at contacts between the Platreef and floor rocks, norite/pyroxenite and
xenoliths, and serpentinized pyroxenite and xenoliths. This could result in a downside
impact on grade and/or tonnage of Mineral Resources, which is not able to be
predicted with the current data. Alternatively the ability to mine more selectively on a
local basis should be studied, and this could have a positive impact on future Project
economics.
Under the CIM Definition Standards (CIM, 2010), a Mineral Resource must have
reasonable prospects for economic extraction. The Inferred Mineral Resources at both
Turfspruit and Macalacaskop lie within 500 m of the surface and are potentially
accessible by open-pit mining methods. The Indicated Mineral Resources have been
shown to fall within a conceptual pit shell. Part of the Inferred Mineral Resources lies
below the conceptual pit shell. Scoping studies are required to define the interface
between the open-pit and underground methods, and there is a risk that a portion of
the Inferred Mineral Resources may be shown to be sub-economic.
14.8
Exploration Targets
Beyond the current Mineral Resources, mineralization is open to expansion to the
south and west. Two exploration targets have been identified (Figure 14-22).
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 14-20
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 14-19: Exploration Targets
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 14-21
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
Target 1 is based on results from three step-out holes released 12 November 2012
and is estimated to contain up to an additional 31 to 62 million tonnes grading 3.36 to
5.03 g/t 4PE, 0.26% to 0.38% nickel and 0.13% to 0.19% copper over an area of 2.5
square kilometres.
Target 2 surrounds the declared Mineral Resources and contains an estimated
additional 50 to 220 million tonnes grading 2.9 to 4.1 g/t 4PE, 0.24% to 0.32% nickel
and 0.12% to 0.16% copper over an area of 7.6 square kilometres. The tonnage and
grades are based on intersections of mineralization in adjacent drill holes within the
Inferred Mineral Resources.
AMEC cautions that the potential quantity and grade of these exploration targets is
conceptual in nature. There has been insufficient exploration and/or study to define
these exploration targets as a Mineral Resource. It is uncertain if additional
exploration will result in these exploration targets being delineated as a Mineral
Resource.
Technical operations on site are focused on re-logging of shallow drillholes to extend
the new geological model of mineralization over the entire Platreef property. Drilling
operations were curtailed in November 2012 following notice from the Department of
mineral Resources (DMR) due to community concerns over compensation issues.
Discussions are ongoing with the DMR and all key stakeholders.
Beyond these Exploration Target areas is approximately 37.5 km2 of unexplored
ground on the property under which the Platreef is projected to lie. It is not possible to
estimate a range of tonnages and grades for this ground. There is excellent potential
for mineralization to significantly increase with further step-out drilling to the southwest
14.9
Comments on Section 14.0

Permitting, environmental, legal and socio-economic issues which may impact the
Mineral Resource estimates are discussed in Section 4.13.
Infrastructure
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 14-22
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
considerations which may also impact the Mineral Resource estimates are discussed
in Section 5.6.
Taxation considerations that are broadly applicable to the project are outlined in
Section 4.2.4; taxation specific to the Project would be determined during more
detailed studies. A general discussion of risk factors, appropriate to a Project that has
a Mineral Resource estimate, is included in Section 25.
include:


For the UMT deposits metallurgical sampling has focussed on higher grade TCU
composites. The testing of lower grade material within and adjacent to the TCU
has not been done

mineralization layers may result in changes to the metallurgical recovery and
extraction
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 14-23
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
studies to evaluate underground options for project development.
To support these studies AMEC recommends the following:
Relogging ATS and AMK holes consistent with the new geological interpretation
Re-modelling ATS and AMK using the UMT litho-stratigraphic units and
interpolation using total nickel and copper
Combining the ATS, AMK and UMT (bulk mineable) resource models into a single
model or if not feasible, separate models defined on a common basis
Revising metallurgical recovery equations for ATS and AMK so they are on a total
nickel basis.
This will put all models on the same litho-stratigraphic and assay (total) basis.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 14-24
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
15.0
MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES

This Section is not relevant to this Report.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 15-1
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
16.0
MINING METHODS
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 16-1
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
17.0
RECOVERY METHODS
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 17-1
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
18.0
PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 18-1
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
19.0
MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS

Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 19-1
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
20.0
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING, AND SOCIAL OR

COMMUNITY IMPACT
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 20-1
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
21.0
CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS

Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 21-1
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
22.0
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 22-1
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
23.0
ADJACENT PROPERTIES
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 23-1
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
24.0
OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION

Ivanplats has commissioned a number of firms to complete initial studies in support of
a planned Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) on the Project. The current status
of these supporting documents is summarized below.
Mining studies are focusing on resource blocks with NSRs above $50/t. Long-hole
stoping and benching and drifting with fill methods were selected. These studies are
being undertaken by AMEC with support from Stantec and SRK. No interim results
are available, with the exception of the initial geotechnical assessment, which is
included in Section 9.6.
The studies will:
Review throughput tonnage rate assumptions used to evaluate reasonable

prospects for extraction (4, 8 and 12 Mt/a) and assess other throughput levels
Evaluate and design appropriate mining methods, applicability, productive

capacity, and associated resources of the deposit
Consider the most appropriate mining methods
Assess the underground haulage (conveyor or truck) and infrastructure access

(shaft) that would best suit the selected mining methods
From these initial assessments, the selected throughput rate, mining method, and
access and haulage criteria will be used to develop the PEA.
Given the thickness of mineralization and the potential for base metal credits, Ivanplats
is currently considering a mine plan that will incorporate cost-efficient, conventional
mechanized mining which will in turn support high safety standards.
Metallurgical testwork has been performed at SGS Johannesburg, XPS, and Mintek
during 20102012 and is ongoing in 2013 at Mintek and SGS Johannesburg. A
conceptual flowsheet was developed consisting of three stages of crushing, ball milling
and classification, rougher, scavenger flotation and two stages of cleaner flotation,
tailings handling, and concentrate thickening, filtration and storage. Preliminary results
from this testwork have been used to prepare the Mineral Resource estimate in
Section 14.0.
In February 2011, Ivanplats commissioned Digby Wells, an environmental consulting
firm based in South Africa, to develop a detailed scope of work to provide Ivanplats
with appropriate baseline data that could be used to support an application for a
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 24-1
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
mining licence. The Mining licence application will be submitted to the Department of
Mineral Resources in Q2 2013. The studies are on-going.
Golder Associates have been evaluating the hydrological and hydrogeological baseline
information available for surface water and groundwater. Golder Associates has
completed preliminary (and interim) reports; information available from the preliminary
work completed is discussed in Section 9.7.
Several potential sites for tailings disposal were identified. Sites reviewed are located
in unpopulated areas. Geotails Pty Ltd has completed the following in support of
tailings dam design:
Fatal-flaw analysis of three potential sites, and completion of a ranking matrix for
each site from an engineering perspective
General tailings facility layout plan and preliminary construction design
Preliminary water balance assessment
Consideration of storm waters and likely required diversion structures
Preliminary closure considerations
Additional work was recommended, and includes geotechnical assessments of the site
selected for the purposes of the planned PEA, condemnation drilling, determination of
potential borrow sources, development of seepage and groundwater models in the
preferred site area, and assessments of the geological and geochemical
characteristics of the tailings material.
An exploration shaft is currently proposed that would be used to obtain sufficient
material from each of the two main geometallurgical mineralization types known to run
pilot-plant flotation tests on each, and on a blend of the two materials. A Bulk Sample
Application was lodged with the Department of Mineral Resources in September 2012.
Additional information would be obtained from the shaft, including:
Obtain a bulk sample to determine the differences between the actual mined
grades, and the predicted grades
Conduct pilot plant testwork and facilitate process flowsheet development
Confirm geological continuity
Detailed structural / joint set mapping
In-situ stress measurement.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 24-2
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
In early 2012, Ivanplats commissioned a set of studies that will evaluate, from both
technical and economic perspectives, the following smelter or hydrometallurgical
technology options:
Pyrometallurgical plant
Flash smelting furnace to produce a Cu/Ni/PGM mixed matte
Submerged arc AC furnace to produce a Cu/Ni/PGM mixed matte
ConRoast process to produce a Cu/Ni/PGM mixed alloy
Hydrometallurgical plant
PlatSol process to produce nickel oxide and copper sulphide with PGM
Kell process to produce PtCl4
Ni electrowon (EW) and Cu cementation (BCL option) to produce nickel

cathode and copper sulphide with PGM
A number of production scenarios are to be included in the evaluations, including

selling of the basic concentrate from concentrate from an on-site concentrator plant,
construction of a hydrometallurgical plant on site, toll smelting, or potential creation of
a joint venture vehicle to undertake custom smelting.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 24-3
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
25.0
INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS

Permitting, environmental, legal and socio-economic issues taxation and infrastructure
considerations which may also impact the Mineral Resource estimates are typical of
advanced-stage exploration and development projects in Southern Africa. It is the
QPs opinion that there is a reasonable expectation that Ivanplats and various
stakeholders can reach agreement to develop the Project.
include:


Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 25-1
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
For the TCU deposits metallurgical sampling has focused on higher grade
composites approximating the average grade of the deposit assuming the base
case cut-off of 2 g/t 4PE is applied. The testing of lower grade material within and
adjacent to the TCU, or very high grades within the TCU, has not currently been
done

mineralization layers may result in changes to the metallurgical recovery sand
extraction
studies to evaluate open-pit and underground options for project development. The
planned exploration shaft will provide access to the TCU, will provide the means of
taking a bulk sample, will enable trial mining, and will allow assessment of the shortscale variability of mineralization/waste contacts.
Project No.: 172476

March 2013
Page 25-2
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
26.0
RECOMMENDATIONS
Ivanplats has provided AMEC with a two-phase work program; the first phase of which
is focused on drilling. The second phase, which will be conducted concurrently with
the first, is the sinking of an exploration shaft.
26.1.1
Phase 1
Ivanplats has identified an area shown on Figure 26-1 that it refers to as Zone 1. Due
to the relatively higher vertical thickness (nominally 20 m to 30 m) of the combined
2 g/t and 3 g/t 3PE grade shells in this area, it represents a potentially attractive locale
to base initial mining studies. Ivanplats is also investigating Zone 5, which is located to
the southwest of Zone 1.
Zone 1: Drilling proposed will continue to test the down-dip extensions to the
Area1 mineralization as far as the interpreted Kgobudi Fault. Drilling will also be
undertaken to provide geotechnical, metallurgical and infill data in the area of the
proposed exploration shaft.
Zone 5 contains the Southwest Extension exploration target. The proposed drilling
target is a potential structurally-controlled continuation of the "Flatreef". Infill
drilling will also be undertaken in Zone 3, downdip of Zone 1.
Additional targets are likely to be generated from relogging of drill core in Zone 2.
The relogging of the 2008 and 2009 UMT drilling in this area have been completed.
A summary of the proposed drilling is included as Table 26-1.

Drill programs assume the following all-inclusive drill costs:
2013: $204/m
2014: $235/m
Variations in the metreage costs between years includes factoring for costs increases
allocated at 10%, and additional costs in 2013 to cover the proposed geotechnical and
metallurgical drilling requirements.
The Phase 1 program has an overall estimated total budget of $16 M.
26.1.2
Phase 2
The planned exploration shaft has an approximate budget estimate of $176 M.
Project No.: xxxxxx

March 2013
Page 26-1
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
Figure 26-1: Proposed Drill Plan for 20132014
Project No.: xxxxxx

March 2013
Page 26-2
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
Table 26-1: Proposed Drill Program

Total
Metres
Exploration/Geology drilling
(Zone 1 and 3)
Number of
holes
10 (incl
deflections)
Geotechnical drilling
10
10,000
Year
2013
(full year)
2014
(6 months)
Description
Exploration drilling
(Zone 5)
10 (incl
deflections)
20 (incl
deflections)
4 (incl
deflections)
Metallurgy drilling (HQ)

50 m Infill Zone 1
12,000
30,000
6011
Total
54
70,011
Exploration drilling
(Zone 1 and 3)
20
18,000
Total
20
18,000
Grand Total
77
92,011
The two programs total as follows
Phase 1: 16 M
Phase 2: 176 M
Totals: $192 M
Project No.: xxxxxx

March 2013
12,000
Page 26-3
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
27.0
REFERENCES
African Minerals Pty Ltd., 2004: Platreef Project Prefeasibility Study: African Minerals
Limited Pty Ltd., March 2004.
AMEC, 2003a: Platreef Project First Interim Report: AMEC E&C, Phoenix, AZ, USA:
unpublished internal report by AMEC to African Minerals Pty Ltd.
AMEC, 2003b: Resource Report, ATS (Version Q), Platreef Project: unpublished
internal report by AMEC to Ivanhoe Nickel and Platinum, Ltd., November 2003.
AMEC, 2004a: Mine Planning for a 35 kt/d Open Pit: AMEC E&C, Phoenix, AZ, USA:
AMEC, 2004b: Mine Planning for a 70 kt/d Open Pit: AMEC E&C, Phoenix, AZ, USA:
AMEC, 2004c: Platreef Project, Version R Geology and Resources Report: AMEC
E&C, Phoenix, AZ, USA: unpublished internal report by AMEC to African Minerals
Pty Ltd., November 2004.
AMEC, 2007: Draft Report, 2007 (updated 2010) Preliminary Assessment: AMEC
E&C, Phoenix AZ, USA, unpublished internal report by AMEC to Ivanhoe Nickel
and Platinum Ltd.
AMEC, 2010a: UMT Model Documentation UMT Bulk Model and UMT HG Model:
unpublished internal report by AMEC to Ivanhoe Nickel and Platinum Ltd., October
2010.
AMEC, 2010b: Platreef Project 2010 Resource Update Report, unpublished internal
report by AMEC to Ivanhoe Nickel and Platinum Ltd., 1 December 2010.
AMEC, 2011: Platreef UMT Drilling QA/QC Review, unpublished internal report by
AMEC to Ivanhoe Nickel and Platinum Ltd., April, 2011.
Armitage, P. E., McDonald, I., Edwards, S.J. and Manby, G.M., 2002: Platinum-group
Element Mineralization in the Platreef and Calc-silicate Footwall at Sandsloot,
Potgietersrus District, South Africa: Transactions of the Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy Bulletin, Vol 111, p. B36B45.
Aurecon, 2011: Development Of A Reconciliation Strategy For The Olifants River
Water Supply System, Final Reconciliation Strategy Report no.: P WMA
04/B50/00/8310/14: report prepared for the Department of Water Affairs, Republic
Project No.: xxxxxx

March 2013
Page 27-1
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
of South Africa, dated December 2011 and approved 23 March 2012, accessed 7
May 2012,
http://www.dwaf.gov.za/Projects/OlifantsRecon/documents/ORRS%20Final%20Str
ategy%20Report.pdf
Ballhaus, C., 2006: Potholes of the Merensky Reef at Brakspruit Shaft, Rustenburg
Platinum Mines; Primary Disturbances in the Magmatic Stratigraphy: Economic
Geology October 1988, vol 83 no. 6; pp. 11401158
Barton, N.R., Lien, R. and Lunde, J. 1974: Engineering Classification of Rock Masses
for the Design of Tunnel Support: Rock Mechanics, Vol 6 (4), pp. 189239.
Bateman Metals Ltd., 2003: African Minerals M3027 Magnetic Separation Plant
Report, unpublished internal memorandum to African Minerals Pty Ltd.
Bateman Metals Ltd., 2004: Matte Handling Capital Costs 40% Feasibility Study for
a Magnetic Separation Plant, Report No. M3027: unpublished internal
memorandum from Bateman Metals Ltd to African Minerals Pty Ltd.
Bates, R.L., and Jackson, J.A., Editors, Glossary of Geology, Second Edition,
American Geological Institute, Falls Church, Virginia, 1980.
Bor-ming, J., Morin, N., and Mac, J., 1990: Direct Dating of Stromatolitic Carbonates
from the Schmidtsdrift Formation (Transvaal Dolomite), South Africa, with
Implications on the Age of the Ventersdorp Supergroup: Geology: Vol. 18, No. 12,
pp. 12111214.
Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM), 2003: Estimation of
Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves, Best Practice Guidelines: Canadian
Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum, November 23, 2003,
http://www.cim.org/committees/estimation2003.pdf.
Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM), 2010: CIM Standards
for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves, Definitions and Guidelines:
Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum, November 2010,
http://www.cim.org/UserFiles/File/CIM_DEFINITON_STANDARDS_Nov_2010.pdf
Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA), 2011: National Instrument 43-101,
Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects, Canadian Securities Administrators.
Cawthorn, R.G., 1999: The Platinum and Palladium Resources of the Bushveld
Complex: in Platinum in South Africa, South African Journal of Science Vol 95,
November/December 1999, pp. 481489, posted to Johnson Matthey website,
Project No.: xxxxxx

March 2013
Page 27-2
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
accessed 23 April 2012,

http://www.platinum.matthey.com/uploaded_files/publications/Cawthorn.pdf
Cawthorn, R.G., 2005: Exploration For Platinum-Group Elements Deposits: Short
Course delivered on behalf of the Mineralogical Association of Canada in Oulu,
Finland, 67 August 2005, ed. J. Mungall, Mineralogical Association of Canada
Short Course Series Volume 35, 19 p.
Comline, S., et al., 2007: The Geology and Controls of Platreef Mineralization at the
Akanani Project. An Interim Report, Confidential Lonmin Platinum Memorandum.
Cooper, A., 2013. Geotechnical Characteristics of Turfspruit 241KR, Zone 1,
MINN7059 Research Project for M(Eng), Unpublished.
Davey, S.R., 1992: Lateral variations within the upper Critical Zone of the Bushveld
Complex on the farm Rooikoppies 297JQ, Marikana, South Africa. SAJG, Vol. 95,
No. 3/4, p141-149.Da Silva, H., 2007: Platreef Data Check, AMEC E&C, Phoenix,
AZ, USA: unpublished internal report by AMEC to African Minerals Pty Ltd.
De Bruyn, C., 2008: State, Limpopo Miners Sign Water-Scheme Agreement: news
article posted to Mining Weekly.com, accessed 9 October 2010,
http://www.miningweekly.com/article/state-limpopo-miners-sign-waterschemeagreement-2008-05-26-1
Department of Water Affairs, 2010a: De Hoop Dam: Progress Report Prepared By
South African Department Of Water Affairs, presented to the Parliamentary
Monitoring Group, 7 May 2010, accessed 15 November 2010,
http://www.pmg.org.za/report/20100507-follow-meeting-department-water-andenvironmental-affairs-dwa-oversig
Department of Water Affairs, 2010b: Olifants River Water Resources Development
Project (Phase 2) Progress Report to the Project Strategy Committee Meeting No
29 on 16 November 2010: report prepared by South African Department of Water
Affairs, 16 November 2010.
Department of Water Affairs, 2012: Response to the State of the Nation Address:
Strategic Water Infrastructure Projects: accessed 8 March 2012,
http://d2zmx6mlqh7g3a.cloudfront.net/cdn/farfuture/mtime:1330691950/files/docs/1
20228response_0.pdf
Project No.: xxxxxx

March 2013
Page 27-3
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
Duarte K., and Theron, S.J., 2010: Mineralogical Characterisation of Three Platreef
Samples, SGS Mineral logical Report No. MIN 0410/057, SGS South Africa (Pty)
Ltd., 62pp.
Els, M., 2003: Interim Environmental Baseline Report for the Platreef Project: WSP
Walmsley Volume 1 Main Report W603/2, Sandton, Republic of South Africa and
Update of the Executive Summary of the August 2003 Environmental Baseline
Report for the Platreef Project S0242, September 2007: unpublished report
prepared by WSP Walmsley, Sandton, Republic of South Africa for Ivanplats
Eriksson, P.G., Altermann, W., Catuneanu, O., van der Merwe, R., and Bumby, A.J.,
2001: Major Influences on the Evolution of the 2.67 2.1 Ga Transvaal Basin,
Kaapvaal Craton: Sedimentary Geology, Vol 141142, p. 205231.
Francois-Bongarcon, D., 2002: Platreef Project - South Africa - A Study of Sampling
and Sample Preparation, AMEC: unpublished internal report by AMEC to African
Minerals Pty Ltd., August 2002.
Friese, A.E.W., 2003: The structural geology of the PPL concession area, with
implications for the tectono-magmatic evolution of the northern limb of the
Bushveld Igneous Complex: SRK Consulting Technical Report for Potgietersrust
Platinum Limited, Report No. 186322/2, p. 158.
Friese, A., 2012: Platreef Mine 1 Area - Structural Geology, Terra Explora Consulting,
Internal Report to Ivanplats Pty Ltd, p. 209.
Friese, A., and Chunnett, G., 2004: Tectono-magmatic development of the northern
limb of the Bushveld Igneous Complex, with special reference to the mining area of
Potgietersrus Platinums Limited. Geoscience Africa 2004, Abstract Volume,
University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, p. 209-210.
Geoid Geotechnical Engineers, 2012: Geotechnical Investigation Report for the
Proposed 1.8 km Boundary Wall on Turfspruit 241KR, Mokopane, Report Number
GGE/12035, November 2012, 57 p.
Golder Associates, 2012: Platreef Project: Hydrogeological Baseline of Turfspruit
241KR, Macalacaskop 243KR and Rietfontein 2KS, Report Number 1161614111095-6, August 2012, 289 p.
Grobler, D.F., and Nielsen, S.A., 2012: Upper Critical Zone (Merensky Reef UG2)
Correlates within the Platreef, Turfspruit 241KR, Northern Limb, Bushveld Igneous
Project No.: xxxxxx

March 2013
Page 27-4
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
Complex: unpublished internal company report, Platreef Resources Pty Ltd., 27

February 2012, 31 p.
Grobler, D.F., Nielsen, S.A., and Broughton, D., 2012: Upper Critical Zone (Merensky
Reef-UG2) correlates within the Platreef on the Turfspruit 241KR, Northern Limb,
Bushveld Complex: 5th Platreef Workshop. Mokopane, 9th 11th November,
2012.
Grobler, D.F., Dunnett, T., Simonotti, N.M.E.M., and Brits, J.A.N., 2013: Up-date on
the geology and stratigraphy of Turfspruit 241KR and Macalacaskop 243KR:
Ivanplats Pty Ltd Internal Report, January 2013.
Harmer, R.E., 2000: New precise dates on the acid phase of the Bushveld and their
implications. Abstract. Workshop on the Bushveld Complex, Burgersfort, 1821
November, 2000.
Hatch Ltd., 2003a: Smelter Capital Costs Final Report for Scoping Study by Hatch
Ltd: unpublished internal memorandum from Hatch to African Minerals Pty Ltd., 17
October 2003.
Hatch Ltd., 2003b: Smelter Operating Costs Final Report for Scoping Study by
Hatch: unpublished internal memorandum from Hatch to African Minerals Pty Ltd.
October 17, 2003
Hatch Ltd., 2003c: Effect of Revised Concentrate Characteristics PR314435.002:
unpublished internal memorandum from Hatch to African Minerals Pty Ltd., 24
October 2003.
Hatch Ltd, 2003d: Final Report for Scoping Study PR314435.001, unpublished
internal memorandum to African Minerals Pty Ltd., October 2003
Hatch Ltd., 2004: Smelter Capacity Expansion Hatch Engineering Report No
PR314435.003: unpublished internal memorandum from Hatch Ltd. to African
Minerals Pty Ltd., 26 March 2004.
Howell, D.A., and McDonald, I., 2006. Petrology, geochemistry and the mechanisms
determining the distribution of platinum-group element and base metal sulphide
mineralization in the Platreef at Overysel, northern Bushveld Complex, South
Africa. Miner Deposita DOI 10.1007/s00126-006-0083-5.
Hutchinson, D., 2003: End of Year Report Petrographic Study on Samples Taken
from Turfspruit 241KR and Macalacaskop 342KR: unpublished internal report to
Ivanplats dated 29 October 2003.
Project No.: xxxxxx

March 2013
Page 27-5
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
Hutchison, D., and Kinnaird, J., 2005: Complex Multistage Genesis for the NiCu
PGE Mineralization in the Southern Region of the Platreef, Bushveld Complex,
South Africa: Applied Earth Science, Transactions of the Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy Bulletin, Vol 114, December 2005, 17 p.
Intec Ltd.,2002: Platreef Nickel Concentrate Laboratory Validation Trial of the Intec
Process: Results and Analysis: unpublished internal memorandum from Intec to
African Minerals Pty Ltd. November 2002
Itochu Corporation, 2011: Participation in the exploration and development of PGMs
Up-front investment to secure a stable supply of PGMs: unpublished news
release posted to Itochu Corporation website, 3 June 2011, accessed 7 May 2012,
http://www.itochu.co.jp/en/news/2011/110603.html
Jones, R.T., 1999: Platinum Smelting in South Africa, South African Journal of Science
95, November/December 1999, pp 525-534
Kinloch, E.D., 1982: Regional Trends in Platinum Group Mineralogy of the Critical
Zone of the Bushveld Complex, South Africa: Economic Geology, Vol 77. p. 1328
1347.
Kinloch, E.D. and Peyerl, W., 1990: Platinum-group Minerals in Various Rock Types
of the Merensky Reef: Genetic Implications: Economic Geology, Vol 85, p. 537
555.
Kinnaird, J., 2005: Geochemical Evidence for Multiphase Emplacement in the
Southern Platreef: Applied Earth Science, Transactions of the Institute of Mining
and Metallurgy Bulletin, Vol 114, December 2005, 18 p.
Kinnaird, J., Hutchinson, D., Schrmann, L., Nex, P., and de Lange, R., 2005:
Petrology and Mineralization of the Southern Platreef: Northern Limb of the
Bushveld Complex, South Africa: Mineralium Deposita, Vol 40, No 5, Dec 2005
Kruger, F.J., 2005: Filling the Bushveld Complex Magma Chamber: lateral expansion,
roof and floor interaction, magmatic unconformities and the formation of gigantic
chromitite, PGE and Ti-V magnetite deposits: Mineralium Deposita, Vol. 40: pp
451-472
Kuhl, T.O., 2010: Platreef Data Check April 2010: unpublished internal report from
AMEC to Ivanplats, November 2010
Project No.: xxxxxx

March 2013
Page 27-6
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
Kuhl, T., 2011: Platreef Site Visit, August 2011: unpublished internal report from
AMEC to Ivanplats, November 2011
Laubscher, D.M., 1990: A Geomechanics Classification System for Rating of Rock
Mass In Mine Design: Journal of the South African Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy, Vol 90 (10), pp. 257273.
Lawrence, S., 2003: African Minerals Ltd. Platreef Project Metallurgical Report:
Project Number M1005: MDS Ltd, Johannesburg, Republic of South Africa:
unpublished internal report, African Minerals Pty Ltd.
Lea, S.D., 1996: The geology of the Upper Critical Zone, northeastern Bushveld
Complex: South African Journal of Geology, Vol. 99, No. 3, p. 263-284.
Leppan Beech, Inc. Attorneys, 2009: unpublished legal opinion from Leppan Beech
Attorneys regarding Integrity of Prospecting Right Protocol 06/2006 with two
annexes to Ivanhoe Nickel and Platinum Ltd.
Liber, Mutis, 2004: Report No. 109 Desktop Review - Review of Hydrometallurgical
Process Alternatives for Platreef Flotation Concentrates, unpublished internal
memo.
Liber, Mutis, 2006: Report No. 111 Testwork Program - Hydrometallurgical Process
Alternatives for Platreef Flotation Concentrate, unpublished internal memo.
Long, S., 2002: Assessment of Nickel and Copper Assays by Aqua Regia: AMEC
E&C, Phoenix, AZ, USA: unpublished internal memo by AMEC to African Minerals
Pty Ltd.
Long, S.D., and Parker, H.M., 2011: Follow-up Investigation of AMEC Witness
Samples at Platreef Project: unpublished internal report from AMEC to Ivanplats,
February 2011.
Long, S.D., 2011a: AMEC Witness Samples at Platreef Project, Group 2: unpublished
internal report from AMEC to Ivanplats, April 2011.
Long, S.D., 2011b: Sieve Tests of Selected Platreef Drill Samples: unpublished
internal report from AMEC to Ivanplats, October 2011
Long, S.D., 2011c: Evaluation of Material Lost during Core Sawing: unpublished
internal AMEC memorandum from Scott Long to Harry Parker, 23 April 2011
Project No.: xxxxxx

March 2013
Page 27-7
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
Maier, W.D., de Klerk, L., Blaine, J., Manyeruke, T., Barnes, S-J., Stevens, M.V.A.,
and Mavrogenes, J.A., 2008: Petrogenesis of Contact-style PGE Mineralization in
the Northern Lobe of the Bushveld Complex: Comparison of Data from the Farms
Rooipoort, Townlands, Drenthe and Nonnenwerth: Mineralia Deposita, vol 43, pp.
255280.
Mainza, A.N. and Powell, M.S., 2006: ROM Ball Mills a Comparison with AG/SAG
Milling, Proceedings SAG 2006, Vancouver, Canada.
Matukane, A.M., 2010: Bulk Water Supply in Limpopo: unpublished presentation by
the Department of Water Affairs at Integrating Infrastructure Delivery towards
2030 Summit, Peter Mokaba Stadium, 5-6 October 2010, accessed 1 December
2010,
http://www.dpw.limpopo.gov.za/docs/presentations/Matukane%20PREMIER%20IN
TERGOVERNMENTAL%20FORUM%202010-10-06%20STRAT%20Workshop.ppt
Matyas, A., 2003: African Minerals Ltd. - Effect of Revised Concentrate
Characteristics: Hatch, Mississauga, Canada: unpublished internal memorandum
from Hatch to African Minerals Pty Ltd.
McDonald, I., and Holwell, D.A., 2011: Geology of the Northern Bushveld Complex
and the Setting and Genesis of the Platreef Ni-Cu-PGE Deposit: Economic
geology, Vol. 17, p. 297-327.
McDonald, J., and Speijers, D., 2003: Platreef Project - Technical Overview of
Geology and Resources: McDonald Speijers South Perth, Western Australia:
unpublished internal memorandum from McDonald Speijers to African Minerals Pty
Ltd.
McDonald, J. and Speijers, D., 2004: Platreef Project Technical Note: McDonald
Speijers South Perth, Western Australia: unpublished internal memorandum from
McDonald Speijers to African Minerals Pty Ltd.
Mineral Services International Limited, 2002: Report on the Extended Gravity Survey
covering the Platreef Resources Licenses, Potgietersrus, South Africa, Mineral
Services International Limited, Cape Town, Republic of South Africa: unpublished
internal memorandum from MSI to African Minerals Pty Ltd.
Mineral Development Services, Ltd., 2003: Concentrator Capital Costs Metallurgical
Report Revision 0 by Mineral Development Services, Ref: M1005: unpublished
internal memorandum from Mineral Development Services to African Minerals Pty
Ltd., 4 December 2003.
Project No.: xxxxxx

March 2013
Page 27-8
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
Mineral Development Services, Ltd., 2004: Letter from Mineral Development Services,
to Robin Jones: unpublished internal letter from Mineral Development Services to
African Minerals Pty Ltd., 28 May 2004.
Mine Quarry Engineering Services (MQES), 2002: Platreef Project, Smelter Trade Off
Study, unpublished internal memorandum, July 2002.
Mintek, 2003a: Testwork to Support a Prefeasibility Study of a Platreef Ore Report
CC3755, Mintek, Johannesburg, Republic of South Africa: unpublished internal
memorandum from Mintek to African Minerals Pty Ltd.
Mintek, 2003b: Further Testwork to Support a Prefeasibility Study of a Platreef Ore
Report CC3756, Mintek, Johannesburg, Republic of South Africa: unpublished
internal memorandum from Mintek to African Minerals Pty Ltd.
Mintek, 2003c: Optical Characterisation of Platreef Borehole Core Samples:
unpublished internal memorandum from Mintek to African Minerals Pty Ltd.,
September 2003.
Mintek, 2003d: Final Report on Testwork Completed: unpublished internal
memorandum from Mintek to African Minerals Pty Ltd., December 2003.
Misra, K.C., 2000: Understanding Mineral Deposits: Kluwer Academic Publishers,
845 p.
Nel, L., 2010: Co-ordinate Conversion from the South African Co-ordinate System to
the Platreef local co-ordinate system, letter to Sello Kekana, Platreef Resources.
Nielsen. S.A., and Grobler, D.F., 2012: The Turfspruit Cyclic Unit: Ivanplats Pty Ltd
Internal Report.
Parker, H., and Francis, K., 2002, Platreef Memorandum 12 - AMK Resource Model
Built July 2002 using Version B Database, AMEC internal memo, August 2002.
Parker, H., 2010a: Interim Open-Pit Mineral Resource Estimate for the Platreef Project
of Ivanhoe Nickel & Platinum Ltd., AMEC Report, June 2010.
Parker, H., 2010b: Interim Underground Mineral Resource Estimate for the Platreef
Project of Ivanhoe Nickel & Platinum Ltd., Rev.1, AMEC Report, October 2010.
Parker, H., 2011: Platreef Site Visit (14-15 March 2011 Report, unpublished AMEC
report to Ivanplats, April 2011.
Project No.: xxxxxx

March 2013
Page 27-9
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
Parker, H., and Kuhl, T., 2011: Updated High-Grade Selectively Mineable
Underground Mineral Resource Estimate for the Platreef Project of Ivanhoe Nickel
& Platinum Ltd., February 2011.
Parker, H.M., Kuhl, T., and David, D., 2012: NI 43-101 Technical Report on Mineral
Resources, Platreef Project, Limpopo Province, Republic of South Africa: report for
Ivanplats Ltd published on www.sedar.com.
Pienaar and Erwee Engineers Pty Ltd., 2002: Report on Power Supply to Proposed
Mining Development on Turfspruit and Macalacaskop, Pienaar and Erwee
Engineers Pty Ltd., Pietersburg, Republic of South Africa: unpublished internal
memorandum from Pienaar & Erwee to African Minerals Pty Ltd.
Pienaar and Erwee Engineers Pty Ltd., 2007: Draft Updated Report on Power Supply
to Proposed Mining Development on Turfspruit and Macalacaskop, Pienaar and
Erwee Engineers Pty Ltd., Polokwane, Republic of South Africa: unpublished
internal memorandum from Pienaar & Erwee to Ivanplats Nickel and Platinum SA
(Pty) Ltd., November 2007.
Platreef Resources Pty Ltd., 2011: Platreef Project: Scoping Study Section 15
Marketing Study; draft version: unpublished internal report prepared by Platreef
Resources, November, 2011
Pyromet, 2007: Costing for Ivanhoe Nickel and Platinum: Standalone Smelter
unpublished internal memorandum from Pyromet to Ivanhoe Nickel and Platinum,
August 2007.
Reid, D., 2010: Platreef Project Rh Study: AMEC E&C, Reno, NV, USA:
unpublished internal memo by AMEC to African Minerals Pty Ltd.
Reid, D., 2011: Platreef Project QAQC Review, internal report from AMEC to Ivanhoe
Nickel and Platinum Pty Ltd, April 2011.
Rendu, J.M., 2003: Review of the Platreef Project Resource Evaluation Methodology:
JM Rendu Report AMEC-2003-PT1, Denver, CO, USA: unpublished internal
memorandum to African Minerals Pty Ltd
Roberts, M.D., Reid, D.L., Miller J.A., Basson, I.J. Roberts, M., and Smith, D., 2006:
The Merensky Cyclic Unit and its impact on footwall cumulates below Normal and
Regional Pothole reef types in the Western Bushveld Complex: Mineralium
Deposita Vol 42, pp. 271292
Project No.: xxxxxx

March 2013
Page 27-10
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
Rule, C., 2006: The development of a Process Flowsheet for the new Anglo Platinum,
PPRust North Concentrator, Incorporating HPGR Technology, Proceedings SAG
2006, Vancouver, Canada.
Scott-Russell, H., Matyas, A., and Candy, I., 2003: African Minerals Ltd. Scoping
Study Final Report, Hatch, Mississauga, Canada: unpublished internal
memorandum from Hatch to African Minerals Pty Ltd.
SGS Lakefield Research, 2002: The Application of the Platsol Process to PGE
Flotation Concentrates, LR10489-001: unpublished internal memorandum from
SGS Lakefield to African Minerals Pty Ltd., December 2002.
SRK Consulting, 2011: Platreef Project, Geotechnical Scoping Level Study, Document
No. 434885/1, November 2011, 29 p.
SRK Consulting, 2012a: Geotechnical Close-out Report for the Proposed Platreef Box
Cut and Decline, Limpopo Province, South Africa, Report Number 440901/1,
February 2012, 36 p.
SRK Consulting, 2012b: Geotechnical Report for Platreef Resources (Pty) Ltd Bulk
Sample Application. Report Number 450790/1, August 2012. 32p
SRK Consulting, 2013: Civil Geotechnical Investigation for Platreef Shaft Area, Report
Number. 450790/Civil Geotech, February 2013, 49 p.
Synergy Global Consulting Limited, 2007: Ivanplats Project, Social and Community
Due Diligence: unpublished report prepared by Synergy Global Consulting Limited
for Rio Tinto, 13 September 2007.
U.S. Department of the Interior, A Dictionary of Mining, Mineral, and Related Terms,
compiled and edited by Paul W. Thrush and the Staff of the Bureau of Mines, 1968.
Van der Merwe, M.J., 1976: The layered sequence of the Potgietersrus limb of the
Bushveld Complex: Economic Geology, Vol. 71, p. 1337-1351.
Vermaak, C.F., and van der Merwe, M.J., 2002: The platinum mines and deposits of
the Bushveld Complex, South Africa: MINTEK, p. 118.
Viljoen, M.J., 1994: A review of regional variations in facies and grade distribution of
the Merensky Reef, western Bushveld Complex, with some mining implications:
Proc. 15th CMMI Congress, S. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall., p. 183-194.
Project No.: xxxxxx

March 2013
Page 27-11
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
Viljoen, M.J., 1999: The nature and origin of the Merensky Reef of the western
Bushveld Complex based on geological facies and geophysical data: SAJG, Vol.
102, No. 3, p. 221-239.
Viljoen, M.J., Theron, J., Underwood, B., Walters, B.M., Weaver, J., and Peyerl, W.,
1986a: The Amandelbult Section of the Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd, with
Reference to the Merensky Reef: In Mineral Deposits of Southern Africa, Vol. I &
II, Geol Soc S. Afr, p. 1041-160.
Viljoen, M.J., De Klerk, W.J., Coetze., and Peyerl, W., 1986b: The Union Section of
Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd, with Reference to the Merensky Reef: In Mineral
Deposits of Southern Africa, Vol. I & II, Geol Soc S. Afr. p. 1061-1090.
Viljoen, M.J., and Schrmann, L.W., 1998: The Mineral Resources of South Africa:
Handbook 16, Council for Geoscience, pp. 471482 and p. 536.
Viring, R.G., and M.W. Cowell., 1999. The Merensky Reef on Northam Platinum
Limited. SAJG, Vol. 102, No. 3, p. 192-208.
Wagner, P.A., 1929: The Platinum Deposits and Mines of South Africa. Oliver and
Boyd, Edenburgh, Scotland, p. 588.
White, J.A., (1994). The Potgietersrus prospectus-Geology and exploration history,
XVth CMMI Congress, Vol. 3, p. 173-181.
Williams, N., 2012. Platreef FALCON gravity inversions, Internal Ivanplats
Memorandum
Witley, J.C., 2006, National Instrument NI43-101 Technical Report, AfriOre Limited:
Akanani Platinum Project, Limpopo Province, RSA, Snowden, 79pp.
WSP Walmsley, 2007: Volume 1 Main Report W603/2, Sandton, Republic of South
Africa and Update of the Executive Summary of the August 2003 Environmental
Baseline Report for the Platreef Project S0242, September 2007: unpublished
report prepared by WSP Walmsley, Sandton, Republic of South Africa for Ivanplats
Xstrata Process Support, XPS, 2011: Ivanhoe Platreef: Phase I Geomet Unit
Characterisation, unpublished interim report prepared for Mr Steve Amos, AMEC
Minproc, March 2011.
Yennamani, A., 2012: Platreef Report 4 September 2012: unpublished report
prepared by AMEC E&C Services for Ivanplats, 4 September 2012, in draft
Project No.: xxxxxx

March 2013
Page 27-12
IVANPLATS LIMITED
PLATREEF PROJECT
Yudoskaya, M., Kinnaird. J., Naldrett, A.J., Rodionov, N., Antonov, A., Simakin, S., and
Kuzmin, D., 2013: Trace elements study and age dating of zircon from chromitites
of the Bushveld Complex (South Africa): Miner Petrol. DOI 10.1007/s00710-0130269-3.
Project No.: xxxxxx

March 2013
Page 27-13

Platreef PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Platreef PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ivanplats Limited

CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON

AMEC E&C Services, Inc.

AMEC E&C Services, Inc.

CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON

AMEC E&C Services, Inc.

AMEC E&C Services, Inc.

CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON

Tel: +27 (0) 12 259 0792

Fax: +27 (0)86 688 3797 E-mail: [email protected] website:

Michael M. Valenta Pr. Eng (Int) FSAIMM

Tel: +27 (0) 12 259 0792

Fax: +27 (0)86 688 3797 E-mail: [email protected] website:

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

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 2-1

RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS .......................................................................... 3-1

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION ........................................................ 4-1

Project No.: 172476

4.2.5 Royalties ........................................................................................... 4-4

ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND

HISTORY ................................................................................................................. 6-1

GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION ................................................. 7-1

Project No.: 172476

7.2.1 Lithologies ......................................................................................... 7-6

DEPOSIT TYPES ..................................................................................................... 8-1

EXPLORATION ........................................................................................................ 9-1

DRILLING ............................................................................................................... 10-1

Project No.: 172476

Proposed Shaft Location Geotechnical Evaluation .................................... 10-7

SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES, AND SECURITY .................................... 11-1

DATA VERIFICATION............................................................................................ 12-1

Project No.: 172476

MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING .............................. 13-1

MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES..................................................................... 14-1

Project No.: 172476

14.5.6 Mineral Resource Classification (Open-Pit Models) ....................... 14-8

MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES ........................................................................ 15-1

MINING METHODS ............................................................................................... 16-1

RECOVERY METHODS ........................................................................................ 17-1

PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE ............................................................................. 18-1

MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS ................................................................ 19-1

ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING, AND SOCIAL OR COMMUNITY

CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS .................................................................... 21-1

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 22-1

ADJACENT PROPERTIES .................................................................................... 23-1

OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION ................................................. 24-1

INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................ 25-1

RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................... 26-1

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 27-1

Project No.: 172476

Project No.: 172476

Project No.: 172476

Project No.: 172476

Project No.: 172476

The TCU and immediately adjacent mineralization can be mined by mechanized

Project No.: 172476

Metallurgical testwork on TCU composites has shown that a saleable metallurgical

Property Description and Location

Project No.: 172476

Mineral Rights, Royalties and Agreements

Project No.: 172476

Environment and Socio-Economics