MEMO REPORT TO : Ms.Angela Ong REPORT NO.

10-1402
Asst. to the President DATE: February 14, 2010

CC : Mr. W. Keng
President, Century Peak Corp.
FROM : Dr. R. C. Obial
Consultant

SUBJECT : Assessment of Inter-Laboratory Check Assays for Ni and Fe in Laterites of

the Rapid City Project in Dinagat Island
___________________________________________________________________________
1.00 INTRODUCTION

The undersigned was requested by Century Peak Corporation (CPC) to assess Ni and Fe
inter-laboratory check assays of exploration drill core samples from the Rapid City
Project located in Dinagat Island, Surigao del Norte. The objective of the assessment is
to determine the integrity and quality of the assays results generated by the CPC XRF
laboratory.

There were two sets of data provided :

a) Inter-laboratory check assays for CPC, Intertek and NIGS.

b) Assay results of drill samples from Rapid City prospect

2.00 ASSAY METHODS USED:

2.01 CPC XRF Determinations of Elements

CPC has an in-house preparation and analytical

laboratory at the project site in Dinagat Island. The
analytical method employed is XRF utilizing a tabletop
SPECTRO XEPOS model. Samples are prepared as
pressed powder before irradiation in the XRF machine.
Four grams of sample is mixed with 0.91 gm of the
“Fluxana” wax binder. The binder provides the adhesive
force to keep the sample particles together. The sample-
binder is mixed in a beaker, then placed in the binding
receptacle and compressed using a load of 10 tons.

R.C. Obial Assessment of the Rapid City Project Geochemical Assays Page 1
 The samples are irradiated in the XRF analyzer. All
equipment settings and calibrations are done by the
software operating system. For Ni, Fe, Co and Cr
determinations, the time for analysis is 2 minutes per
sample. The more complete suite of elements determined is
composed of Ni, Fe, Fe2O3, Co, P, MgO, SiO2, Al203 and
Cr2O3. For this type of analysis about 5 minutes of analysis is
necessary for each sample. Upon completion of the
analysis, the results are automatically recorded in the
computer.

The XRF is frequently calibrated through a “fused bead” sample provided with the equipment.
However, no systematic QC/QC is emplaced in the laboratory system.

2.02 Intertek Laboratory

The analytical method employed by Intertek is the

XR81L (Intertek method code). The method package
as offered by Intertek includes Ni, Co, Al2O3, SiO3,
Na2O, MgO, Fe2O3, CaO, Cr2O3, TiO2, P2O5, MnO, K2O,
Cu and Zn. The data provided by CPC consisted of
assay results for Fe and Ni. The sample is prepared
as a fused bead utilizing lithium borate as the flux.

The fused bead is irradiated in batches in a laboratory

model XRF. Determinations are usually multi-element
and results are generated digitally. QA/QC samples
are incorporated in each batch.

2.03 National Institute of Geosciences (NIGS)

The NIGS established a mineral laboratory to support research programs of the Department.
The XRF, reportedly is of recent acquisition. NIGS provided the 2nd laboratory to determine by
XRF the CPC inter-laboratory round robin samples. However, the particulars of the XRF method
used at NIGS were not provided.

R.C. Obial Assessment of the Rapid City Project Geochemical Assays Page 2
3.00 INTER-LABORATORY COMPARISON OF Fe AND Ni ASSAYS

The method used for the assay comparisons is the Mean Percent Relative Difference (MPRD). The
assumption of this statistical approach is that each laboratory has its own error : the errors are thus
distributed equally between the two laboratories. The mean of the assays of the two laboratories is
taken as the reference value (“true” value) from where deviations are calculated and expressed as a
percentage of the mean.

3.01 CPC vs. INTERTEK

Twenty samples were subjected to the inter-laboratory determinations for Fe and Ni. The
MPRD plots for CPC and Intertek for Fe and Ni are shown in Figures 1 and 2.

Figure 1

Figure 2

R.C. Obial Assessment of the Rapid City Project Geochemical Assays Page 3
 The MPRD plot in Figure 1 shows most of the Fe determinations were within the ± 5 % band. A
slight bias in favour of Intertek is depicted but is believed to be due to the method difference.
CPC employed a pressed powder method of preparation, while Intertek used a fused bead
pellet, the latter having a better X ray penetration. One sample plotted as an outlier with CPC
assays much higher than that of Intertek, Figure 1. However, the grade level is low.

The Ni MPRD plot in Figure 2 exhibited a similar scatter mostly within the ± 5 % band. However,
the mild bias for Intertek is replicated with some values exceeding the 5% boundary. Two
outliers indicate CPC to be reporting higher results than Intertek.

The overall comparison of CPC and Intertek assays showed acceptable MPRD scatter for Fe and
Ni with slight bias for Intertek. This bias is attributed to better sensitivity of the fused bead
method compared to the pressed powder preparation routinely undertaken by CPC.

3.02 CPC vs. NIGS

The MPRD plots for CPC and NIGS, for Fe and Ni, are shown in Figures 3 & 4. Significant variance
is depicted with outliers in the lower Fe grades: NIGS reporting much higher assays than CPC,
Figure 3. At higher grades, CPC showed two outliers with CPC assays higher in the grade range
of 50-60 % Fe. The wide scatter implies some laboratory errors had taken place. NIGS Fe assays
deserve to be looked into.

The Ni MPRD plot in Figure 4 indicates a close correspondence of the two sets of Ni assays. A
slight bias is shown for CPC but close to the mean. There is one outlier showing CPC Ni assay is
much higher than the equivalent NIGS result. This is likely to be an analytical error.

Figure 3

R.C. Obial Assessment of the Rapid City Project Geochemical Assays Page 4
 Figure 4

3.03 Intertek vs. NIGS

The MPRD plot for Fe is shown in Figure 5. A good correspondence is indicated for values
greater than 40%. However a significant number of outliers with NIGS reporting much higher
values than Intertek at lower Fe grades are depicted. This same pattern of the Fe outliers shown
by the CPC-NIGS comparison, connotes that the NIGS may have committed laboratory errors for
the same samples.

Figure 5

R.C. Obial Assessment of the Rapid City Project Geochemical Assays Page 5
 The MPRD plot for Ni is shown in Figure 6. More than 50% of the samples are outliers beyond
the 5% band. The is a strong bias in favour for Intertek both within and beyond the ± 5 % band ,
i.e. Intertek reporting higher assays for Ni than NIGS. The outliers lie in the range of 1 -2 % Ni,
the grade range of interest in exploration.

Figure 6

4.00 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The overall results of the inter-laboratory check assays with Intertek and NIGS, demonstrated that the
assays for Fe and Ni undertaken by CPC in its in-house laboratory are acceptable. The correlation with
Intertek results is particularly close with slight bias for Intertek. It is believed that this is due to the
analytical method difference, with Intertek employing a fused bead preparation compared to pressed
powder for CPC.

A higher variability was depicted for the CPC-NIGS comparison both for Fe and Ni. The same high
variability is replicated with the Intertek-NIGS comparison. Outliers are prominent suggesting that some
errors may have occurred and may be looked into.

It is recommended that inter-laboratory checks be undertaken by CPC at a frequency of 1 every 20

samples analyzed in the CPC laboratory. This will ensure that acceptable results are generated by the
CPC laboratory. Internally, CPC should include duplicate determinations at a frequency of 1 is to 10
during routine assaying. High Ni values should automatically be repeated to ensure confidence on the
Ni results.

R.C. Obial Assessment of the Rapid City Project Geochemical Assays Page 6
The CPC laboratory has the capability to include XRF determinations for other elements. Chromite
which is also an economic mineral should also be included in the Inter-laboratory check program. Other
elements such Fe2O3, Co, P, MgO, SiO2, Al203 and Cr2O3 should be determined. In the present case, the
fused beads could be run again for the other elements at a lower cost. They should have been analyzed
as a “nickel package”. This should also ensure confidence on the assays of the other elements.

Dr. RUDY C. OBIAL

Consultant

R.C. Obial Assessment of the Rapid City Project Geochemical Assays Page 7