1. Drill Hole Data Analysis

Table: Summary of Holes in the Fry Lake Project area and surroundings

This table provides location, depth, azimuth, dip, and historical drill company details for multiple drill holes.

Key Observations

• Drilling Coverage:

  • Drilling spans from 1970 to 1992.
  • Drilling was conducted by multiple companies (Rockmere Lake Exploration, Sherritt Gordon, Casabar Resources, Major General Resources).
  • Some holes are very shallow (<50m), which may not fully test deeper structures.
  • Deeper holes (e.g., McV-91-01 at 240.5m, McV-91-02 at 313.3m) suggest potential deeper mineralization.

• Significant Drill Areas:

  • Fry-McVean Shear: Key drill locations with confirmed gold intersections.
  • Fry Lake Stock: Some drill holes encountered copper and zinc anomalies.
  • Relyea Porphyry: Very little drilling, indicating unexplored potential.

• Key Risks:

  • Data Gaps: Several holes lack complete assay results (e.g., 1970s-1980s drill holes).
  • Shallow Drill Depths: Many holes may not fully test deep mineralization.
  • Older Data: Some holes date back 50 years and may not meet JORC standards.

Conclusion:

• Fry-McVean Shear is the most prospective zone based on drilling.
• Additional deeper drilling is needed for resource estimation.
• Unverified historical drill data is a concern—modern infill drilling is required.

2. Gold Assay Results Analysis

Table: Analytical Results, threshold ≥160ppb Au

This table presents gold assay results from historic drilling, showing gold content (ppb and g/t) per depth interval.

Key Observations

• Best Gold Intercepts:

  • 19.9 g/t Au (609, Hole 84-1, 23.6m depth)
  • 14.4 g/t Au (626, Hole 84-3, 20.2m depth)
  • 9.64 g/t Au (627, Hole 84-3, 20.3-21.0m depth)
  • 8.86 g/t Au (621, Hole 84-2, 22.4-22.9m depth)

• Moderate Grade Intercepts:

  • 1.6 g/t Au (32049, Hole McV-92-5, 95.0-96.5m depth)
  • 1.0 g/t Au (28421, Hole McV-91-3, 119.7-121.2m depth)

• Low-Grade Intercepts:

  • Several results between 0.5–1.0 g/t Au, which are only economic in bulk mining scenarios.

Key Risks

• Nugget Effect?:
  • The highest grades (19.9 g/t, 14.4 g/t, 9.6 g/t) are at shallow depths (~20m).
  • Possible small high-grade zones but not enough drilling to confirm continuity.
• Sparse High-Grade Zones:
  • Only a few intervals >5 g/t Au.
  • Many sub-1 g/t Au intervals, requiring bulk tonnage mining potential.
• Assay Quality & JORC Compliance:
  • Old assays may not meet modern QA/QC standards.
  • Re-sampling and re-assaying needed to confirm grades.

Conclusion:

• Potential for high-grade mineralization in small pockets.
• Bulk tonnage mining feasibility remains unclear.
• Significant additional drilling is required.

3. Geophysical Data Analysis

Figure: 2016 VTEM survey over Fry-McVean Shear claims

Key Observations

• VTEM survey shows a conductive anomaly along Fry-McVean Shear.
• Gold drill intersections align with this anomaly, confirming a potential mineralized zone.
• Conductors also extend beyond known drilling, indicating further targets.

Key Risks

• VTEM alone does not confirm gold presence:
  • Conductors could be caused by sulfides, graphite, or other geological factors.
  • Need ground truthing (drilling, soil sampling) to confirm correlation.

Conclusion:

• VTEM is a strong indicator but not direct evidence of gold.
• Additional geophysical surveys (IP, magnetics) could refine targets.

4. Historical Sampling and Surveys

Summary of Soil & Rock Sampling

• 5 rock samples collected by Ontario Geological Survey:
  • No gold assays conducted.
  • Samples include mafic and felsic metavolcanics + a felsic intrusion.
• Humus sampling results (100m spaced N-S traverses):
  • Up to 6 ppb Au detected.
  • Possible NW gold trends parallel to Fry-McVean Shear.

Key Risks

• Limited Sampling:
  • 5 rock samples are insufficient for meaningful interpretation.
  • Soil results are low (6 ppb Au is weak for surface gold anomaly detection).

Conclusion:

• Rock sampling was not systematic—more work needed.
• Humus sampling indicates potential gold dispersion but is not conclusive.

5. JORC Compliance and Exploration Gaps

JORC Code, 2012 Edition - Section 1 & 2 (Sampling, Reporting, and Compliance)

Key Observations

• JORC Compliance Issues:

  • Most data is historical, with unknown QA/QC measures.
  • Unclear whether all drill holes have been re-logged or validated.

• Key Exploration Gaps:

  • No reported bulk density measurements.
  • No systematic metallurgical testing.
  • Limited modern infill drilling to validate historic results.

Key Risks

• JORC-compliant mineral resource estimate is NOT available.
• Without modern re-assay and verification, investors cannot fully trust historic data.

Conclusion:

• Project is still in early-stage exploration.
• JORC-compliant drilling, assays, and QA/QC programs must be implemented.

Final Data Insights (Positive & Negative)

✅ Positive Aspects

1. High-Grade Gold Intercepts Exist:

   • Up to 19.9 g/t Au, indicating potential bonanza-grade zones.

2. VTEM Conductors Suggest Further Targets:

   • Geophysical anomalies align with gold intersections, supporting drill targets.

3. Underexplored Area with Expansion Potential:

   • Only limited modern exploration conducted.
   • Unexplored deeper zones remain.

❌ Negative Aspects

1. Low Average Gold Grade:

   • Many assays are <1.0 g/t Au, requiring bulk tonnage potential to be viable.

2. Historic Drill Data May Not Meet Modern Standards:

   • No confirmation that QA/QC protocols were followed.
   • JORC-compliant resource estimate is required.

3. No Systematic Sampling in Key Zones:

   • Rock sampling was minimal (only 5 samples analyzed).
   • No large-scale soil sampling surveys conducted.

4. Geophysical Data Alone Does Not Confirm Gold:

   • Conductive anomalies could be non-gold-bearing sulfides or graphite.

5. Lack of Resource Estimate & Economic Studies:

   • No clear mine plan, metallurgy data, or economic feasibility study.

Final Verdict on Data Quality

• Data shows strong exploration potential but lacks verification & resource estimation.
• High-grade intercepts are promising but not yet continuous over economic volumes.
• RMX must conduct infill drilling, modern assays, and JORC-compliant resource definition before investment confidence increases.

Current Status: HIGH-RISK EXPLORATION PROJECT
Best-case scenario: Further drilling confirms continuous high-grade gold zones.
⚠️ Worst-case scenario: Gold grades remain low and discontinuous, reducing economic viability.