2014 Technical Report on the Margaret Lake Property

TECHNICAL REPORT
MARGARET LAKE PROPERTY
NTS: 75/06, 75N/11
Mackenzie Mining District, Northwest Territories, Canada
63°32’45” N and 109°13’44”W
PREPARED FOR:
MARGARET LAKE DIAMONDS INC
PREPARED BY:
Aurora Geosciences Ltd.

TECHNICAL REPORT
MARGARET LAKE PROPERTY
Northwest Territories, Canada
Effective Date:
March 27, 2014
Prepared for:
MARGARET LAKE DIAMONDS INC.
2050-1055 West Georgia Street
Vancouver, British Columbia
Canada, V6E 3P3
Phone 604-684-2181
Prepared by:
AURORA GEOSCIENCES LTD.
Main Office: 3506 McDonald Drive, Yellowknife, NT, X1A 2H1
Phone: (867) 902.2729 Fax: (867) 920-2739
www.aurorageosciences.com
Author
Gary Vivian, M.Sc., P. Geol.

Margaret Lake Diamonds Inc. Aurora Geosciences Ltd.
Technical Report: Margaret Lake Property i | P a g e
Table of Contents
1 SUMMARY................................................................................................................................................. 4
1.1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................4
1.2 LOCATION AND OWNERSHIP................................................................................................................................4
1.3 GEOLOGY ........................................................................................................................................................5
1.4 HISTORY..........................................................................................................................................................5
1.5 EXPLORATION...................................................................................................................................................6
1.6 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT .......................................................................................................................6
2 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 7
3 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS ................................................................................................................... 8
4 PROPERTY LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................... 8
5 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND PHYSIOGRAPHY .............................14
5.1 CLIMATE........................................................................................................................................................15
5.2 TOPOGRAPHY AND PHYSIOGRAPHY .....................................................................................................................15
5.3 FLORA AND FAUNA..........................................................................................................................................16
6 HISTORY OF MINING AND EXPLORATION ..................................................................................................16
6.1 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................................16
6.2 SUMMARY .....................................................................................................................................................17
6.3 EXPLORATION PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................................17
6.3.1 Canamera Geological Ltd.......................................................................................................................17
6.4 GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYS ....................................................................................................................................17
6.4.1 Airborne Geophysical Surveys................................................................................................................17
6.5 GLACIAL TILL SAMPLING ...................................................................................................................................20
6.6 DRILLING ....................................................................................................................................................25
7 GEOLOGICAL SETTING...............................................................................................................................27
7.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY ..................................................................................................................................27
7.2 PROPERTY GEOLOGY..................................................................................................................................29
7.2.1 Basement...............................................................................................................................................29
7.2.2 Quaternary.............................................................................................................................................31
7.2.3 Structural Geology .................................................................................................................................31
7.3 MINERALIZATION .......................................................................................................................................32
8 DEPOSIT TYPES .........................................................................................................................................32
8.1 KIMBERLITE GEOLOGY................................................................................................................................32
8.1.1 Kimberlite Types.....................................................................................................................................32
8.1.1.1 Tuffisitic Kimberlite Breccia (TK) ................................................................................................................... 32
8.1.1.2 Transitional Tuffisitic Kimberlite (TKt)........................................................................................................... 32
8.1.1.3 Transitional Hypabyssal Kimberlite (HKt)...................................................................................................... 32
8.1.1.4 Hypabyssal Kimberlite (HK)........................................................................................................................... 33
8.1.2 Country Rocks ........................................................................................................................................33
8.1.2.1 Sharp Contacts.............................................................................................................................................. 33

Technical Report: Margaret Lake Property ii | P a g e
8.1.2.2 Brecciated Contacts ...................................................................................................................................... 33
8.1.2.3 Chemically-Altered Contacts......................................................................................................................... 33
8.1.2.4 Chemically-Altered & Disaggregated Contacts ............................................................................................. 34
8.1.2.5 Thermally Metamorphosed Contacts ........................................................................................................... 34
8.1.3 Country Rock Xenoliths ..........................................................................................................................34
9 2014 EXPLORATION PROGRAM.................................................................................................................34
10 DRILLING ..................................................................................................................................................34
11 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSIS AND SECURITY.....................................................................................34
12 DATA VERIFICATION .................................................................................................................................35
13 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING .............................................................................35
14 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES...............................................................................................................35
15 MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES..................................................................................................................35
16 ADJACENT PROPERTIES (ITEM 23) .............................................................................................................35
16.1 KENNADY LAKE (GAHCHO KUE) CLUSTER.............................................................................................................36
16.2 KENNADY NORTH KIMBERLITES..........................................................................................................................36
17 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS (ITEM 25) .......................................................................................37
18 RECOMMENDATIONS (ITEM 26)................................................................................................................38
19 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................41
20 CERTIFICATION OF AUTHOR......................................................................................................................44
21 DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGE.....................................................................................................................45
22 CONSENT..................................................................................................................................................46
List of Figures
FIGURE 4-1 PROPERTY LOCATION MAP ..................................................................................................................................9
FIGURE 4-2. MARGARET LAKE PROPERTY SHOWING ALL TENURE OWNERSHIP IN THE AREA.............................................................10
FIGURE 4-3. MARGARET LAKE PROPERTY WITH SURROUNDING WITHDRAWALS............................................................................12
FIGURE 6-1. 1993 DIGHEM AIRBORNE SURVEY - RESISTIVITY 7200HZ......................................................................................19
FIGURE 6-2. 1993 TOTAL FIELD MAGNETIC AIRBORNE SURVEY ................................................................................................21
FIGURE 6-3. KIMBERLITE INDICATOR MINERAL CHEMISTRY - GARNETS .......................................................................................22
FIGURE 6-4. KIMBERLITE INDICATOR MINERAL CHEMISTRY - CHROME DIOPSIDE ..........................................................................23
FIGURE 6-5. KIMBERLITE INDICATOR MINERAL CHEMISTRY - OLIVINE.........................................................................................24
FIGURE 6-6. MPV 98-20C ON MARGARET LAKE PROPERTY....................................................................................................26
FIGURE 7-1 . REGIONAL GEOLOGY OF THE SE PORTION OF THE SLAVE CRATON ...........................................................................28
FIGURE 7-2. PROPERTY GEOLOGY........................................................................................................................................30

Technical Report: Margaret Lake Property iii | P a g e
List of Tables
TABLE 4-1. CLAIM SUMMARY - MARGARET LAKE PROPERTY....................................................................................................13
TABLE 16-1. MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATE - GAHCHO KUE CLUSTER .........................................................................................36
TABLE 16-2. KELVIN 2013 SUMMER "COMMERCIAL" SIZE DIAMONDS......................................................................................37
TABLE 18-1. PHASE 1: PROPOSED HELICOPTER-BORNE GRAVITY-MAGNETIC SURVEY......................................................................39
TABLE 18-2.PHASE 2: PROPOSED BATHYMETRIC SURVEY.........................................................................................................40

Technical Report: Margaret Lake Property 4 | P a g e
1 SUMMARY
1.1 Introduction
Aurora Geosciences Ltd. (AGL) was commissioned by Margaret Lake Diamonds Inc. (MLD), formerly
JDV Capital Corp., to prepare an independent, Canadian National Instrument 43-101 Technical
Report (NI 43-101), for the Margaret Lake Property, located in the Northwest Territories, Canada.
The Margaret Lake Property is under an option agreement between the original owner and
Optionor, Margaret Lake Diamonds Ltd. and the Optionee, MLD, through an assignment from
Harsbo Minerals Ltd (Harsbo) to MLD of Harsbo’s rights under a December 2013 option agreement
entered into between Harsbo and Margaret Lake Diamonds (the “Underlying Option Agreement”).
This report provides details of diamond exploration conducted to date in order to facilitate the
Margaret Lake Property as a property of merit and suitable for additional exploration work to
locate kimberlite occurrences.
1.2 Location and Ownership
The property is located 300 kilometers east-northeast of Yellowknife, NT in the District of
MacKenzie and centered geographically at 63° 32” 45’ N latitude and 109° 13’ 44’ W longitude or
UTM 588000 and 7047500 N, Zone 12W, NAD 83. The property lies just 78km north of the East
Arm of Great Slave Lake and is bounded to the south by both the Kennady Diamonds and
Debeers/MPV ground packages. The property is a land package comprising nineteen (19) mineral
claims totaling 48,720.2 acres or 19,716.37 hectares. The Margaret Lake Property covers an area
roughly 20kms in an E-W direction by 9kms in an N-S direction. One small western extension
covers and area 13.5kms in an N-S direction and 2.25kms in an E-W direction.
The property is currently held 100% by Margaret Lake Diamonds Ltd but is under option to MLD
through an Assignment Agreement from Harsbo Minerals Ltd under the following terms of the
Underlying Option Agreement:
i) Harsbo (MLD) pays cash in Trust of $115,000 to cover a cash payment owed by Margaret
Lake Diamonds in lieu of assessment work to the value of $102,312.42
ii) Harsbo (MLD) has a work commitment of C$1M to be completed by October 13, 2014.
iii) If Harsbo (MLD) makes this commitment they will have earned 60% interest in the
property.
iv) Harsbo (MLD) has the option of spending an additional $C1M before October 13, 2015 to
earn an additional 10% interest bringing their interest in the property to 70%.
v) Once Harsbo (MLD) is invested to 70%, Margaret Lake Diamonds has the option to sell its
30% interest to Harsbo (MLD) for equivalent of C$3M in shares of Harsbo (MLD) based

upon its share price for previous 10 days prior to Margaret Lake Diamonds notifying Harsbo
(MLD) of its intent to transfer its 30% interest.
1.3 Geology
The Margaret Lake Property covers a portion of the southeastern Slave Geological Province, an
Archean terrane ranging in age from 4.03 Ga to 2.55 Ga (Bleeker et al., 1999). The area consists of
predominantly granitic to granodioritic intrusions, high-grade gneisses and migmatites, along with
primarily sedimentary supracrustal rocks to the east.
The emplacement of kimberlite bodies in the area is believed to have occurred approximately 542
Ma during the Cambrian Period. 87
Rb-87
Sr geochronology indicates that the age of the 5034 pipe is
542.2 ± 2.6 Ma (Heaman et al., 2003). Erosional processes since emplacement have had the
significant effect of stripping the kimberlites down to their root zones, preserving only the
hypabyssal and diatreme facies.
1.4 History
Neither MLD, Harsbo nor Margaret Lake Diamonds have completed any exploration work on this
property.
Essentially all of the work in this area has been completed by the Canamera/MPD joint venture,
then the Monopros/Debeers/MPD joint venture, Gerle Gold and SouthernEra. Exploration activity
on the Margaret Lake Property and surrounding area essentially ceased in 2003, when DeBeers of
the DeBeers/MPV Joint Venture decided to focus its efforts on the Gahcho Kué kimberlite cluster.
Exploration work performed on the Margaret Lake Property has been performed by just a couple of
operators and primarily conducted under the direction of MPD as the 100% owner. Subsequent to
forming the joint venture with DeBeers, all activity has either been undertaken by DCEI directly, or
by contractors under the supervision of DCEI personnel. The commissioned writer was involved in
numerous field operations during the time DCEI was the operator on the surrounding ground to
Gahcho Kue.
Till sampling has been the largest contributor to historical work in the property area. It appears the
original Dighem EM-Mag airborne survey flown at 250m line spacing is the only available hard copy
data. It cannot be found in digital format. There appears to have been one diamond drill hole on
the property.
Certainly, the historical work on the property is limited but significant work has been undertaken
on ground surrounding the Margaret Lake Property which lends to the credence additional work is
required to properly assess both the kimberlite and diamond potential of the property.

1.5 Exploration
Neither MLD, Harsbo nor Margaret Lake Diamonds Ltd has completed any exploration work on this
property.
1.6 Project Development Concept
The focus of the upcoming program on the Margaret Lake Property will concentrate on the
discovery and delineation of diamond-bearing kimberlite intrusive rocks. Up until exploration
activity ceased on the property, no kimberlites had been discovered but kimberlites commonly
occur in clusters, the structural ground preparation underlying the property is extensive and there
appear to be unresolved kimberlite indicator mineral trains.
The proximal location to Gahcho Kue and the recent exploration results from Kennady Diamonds
Ltd has encouraged MLDto be aggressive in an exploration program that would allow them to
identify potential kimberlite bodies within their project area. It is also hoped that economies of
scale can be gained with the operators in the close proximity to the Margaret lake Property.
The proposed program for this year encompasses the flying of the Falcon airborne gravity survey
with magnetics. Follow-up bathymetry to evaluate the airborne gravity under lakes will be
undertaken in the summer. Should there be potential drill targets which can be identified from this
work, some sort of small core drill or RC drill could be transported to the property fairly quickly.
This would require a land use permit of which MLD has initiated with the Mackenzie Valley Land
and Water Board.
The Margaret Lake Property area is underexplored and still hosts untested or unresolved kimberlite
indicator mineral (KIM) trains and poorly identified geophysical anomalies. A budget of C$1.0
million has been proposed for the Margaret Lake Property for 2014.

2 INTRODUCTION
This report was commissioned by Margaret Lake Diamonds Inc (“MLD”) and was prepared by Gary
Vivian, M.Sc., P.Geol (the “Author”). The Author was asked to undertake a review of the available data
and assess the diamond potential for hosting economic diamond occurrences. The MLD ground package
is in close proximity to both the Debeers Canada/Mountain Province Diamonds joint venture on the
Gahcho Kue deposit (currently undergoing permitting to come into production in 2016) and also the
Kennady Diamonds Kelvin/Faraday exploration program which has released very encouraging results
since the summer of 2012. The background information for this report will be based upon previous
work which can be located in the public domain, the documented regional geology of the area and the
known airborne data providing a structural overprint for ground preparation required for kimberlite
emplacement. These data will be used to provide observations and recommendations to an exploration
plan to be executed during the summer of 2014.
The Author was retained to complete this report in compliance with National Instrument 43-101 of the
Canadian Securities Administrators (“NI 43-101”) and the guidelines in Form 43-101 F1 for the purposes
of MLD’s qualifying transaction application to the TSX Venture Exchange (TSXV). The Author is a
“Qualified Person” within the meaning of National Instrument 43-101. This report is intended to be filed
with the TSXV.
A detailed review of the historical exploration records pertaining to the Margaret Lake Property,
available through the Northwest Territories Assessment Report File, and the incorporation of this data
into an exploration plan for 2014 will be undertaken. In the preparation of this report, the Author has
utilized geological maps, geological reports, claim assessment maps and claim maps made public by the
Northwest Territories Geoscience Office and the Geological Survey of Canada. Most of this information
is available online via the Northwest Territories’ SID Database and the Northwest Territories Geoscience
Office. The most significant websites, from which the author drew information, are as follows:
Northwest Territories Geoscience Office: www.nwtgeoscience.ca/
NWT Mining Recorder’s Office: www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/scr/nt/erd/mm/mro/index-eng.asp
NWT Government and Assessment Reports: http://gateway.nwtgeoscience.ca/
Natural Resources Canada: http://apps1.gdr.nrcan.gc.ca/mirage/db_search_e.php
The Author has no reason to doubt the reliability of the information comprised within this report. The
Author has independently reviewed legal title to the Margaret Lake Property described in this NI 43-101
report.
The Author is very familiar with the exploration techniques applied to evaluating the potential of
kimberlite emplacement models. Gary Vivian has been on this property during staking and also
evaluating for potential landing sites using a twin otter on floats during the Kennady Diamonds program
during the summer of 2013. No geological visits to the property have been made.

3 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS
Aurora Geosciences Ltd has provided copies of all the relevant maps, analytical data, presentations,
assessment reports, photographs and documents relating to the property. Reports and memoranda on
the strategy and plans for exploration with a budget have also been reviewed. The Author has no reason
to believe that any of the data supplied by previous explorers in the area or from the NTGO (Northwest
Territories Geoscience Office) is neither incorrect nor incomplete. _4:_RELIANCE_ONThis report is
based upon the author’s personal examination of all available reports in the area of the Margaret Lake
Property. The information, opinions and conclusions contained herein are based on:
• Information available to the Author at the time of preparation of this report;
• Assumptions, conditions, and qualifications as set forth in this report; and
• Data, reports, and other information supplied by any third party source
For the purpose of the report, on February 5, 2014 the Author completed a tenure data search on
Northwest Territories NT Geoviewer website
(http://ntgeoviewer.aandc.gc.ca/geoviewer/Default.aspx?Map=NTMINTEN).All claims that comprise the
Margaret Lake Property are registered in the name of Margaret Lake Diamonds (MLD). While the Author
has reviewed the assignment of mineral claims the transfer of the Margaret Lake Property mineral
claims to MLD has not yet been undertaken in accordance with the Underlying Option Agreement terms.
The Author has also verified with the Mining recorder of the NWT the claims are in the name of MLD
and in good standing. This reliance applies to Section 4 of this technical report (Property Description
and Location). However, the limited research by the Author does not express a legal opinion as to the
ownership status of the mineral claims.
As a principal of Aurora, the Author has written this report and is responsible for all sections of this
report titled – “Technical Report-Margaret Lake Property - Northwest Territories, Canada”. In the
opinion of the Author, there has been no material change to the scientific and technical information
concerning the Margaret Lake Property and as such can be considered current for the purposes of this
report.
As of the date of this report, the Author is not aware of any material fact or material change with
respect to the subject matter of this technical report that is not presented in this report, which the
omission to disclose would make this report misleading.
4 PROPERTY LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Margaret Lake Property lies on the eastern margin of the Slave Craton within the Northwest
Territories, Canada and is located on NTS Map Sheets 75N/06 and 75N/11 (Figure 4.1). The property is
geographically centered at 63° 32” 45’ N latitude and 109° 13’ 44’ W longitude or UTM 588000 and
7047500 N, Zone 12W, NAD 83 and lies just 78km north of the East Arm of Great Slave Lake and is
bounded to the south by both the Kennady Diamonds ground (Figure 4.2).
The property consists of 19 mineral claims (Figure 4.2 and Table 4.1) comprising a total of 48,720.2 acres

or 19,716.37 hectares. Margaret Lake Diamonds originally staked this ground in October of 2011.
Figure 4-1 Property Location Map

Figure 4-2. Margaret Lake Property showing all tenure Ownership in the Area

The Margaret Lake Property is located 300km east-northeast of Yellowknife, NT. The property covers an
area approximately 9km X 22km in an easterly direction. The centre of the property lies some 10km
northeast of Gahcho Kue and some 6 km northwest of the Kelvin kimberlite of Kennady Diamonds. The
property also lies just 78km north of the East Arm of Great Slave Lake which allows for barging materials
from Yellowknife.
There is a spur road which traverses southeast from the Tibbitt-Contwoyto winter road off Mackay Lake
through Munn and Margaret Lakes continuing to Gahcho Kue. This road traverses through the western
portion of the MLD claim block about 3.2km west of the geographic centre of the property (Figure 4.2).
The mineral claims under option to MLD were staked under, and are subject to, the provisions of the
Canada Mining Regulations (CMR) (CRC, 2001). The claims are administered from the Mining Recorder’s
Office of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada in Yellowknife, NT. Mineral claims staked on Crown Land in
the Northwest Territories are valid for a two year period from the date of recording. Within the first
two year period from the recording date, expenditures of $2 per acre per year are required to hold the
claims for the next one year period. A work assessment report must be filed with the Mining Recorder’s
Office so that the value of the work performed can be assessed and the claims retained. A further $2 per
acre per year in exploration expenditures is required to maintain a mineral claim for up to a maximum of
ten years from the original recording date. At this point, subject to a legal survey, a mineral claim can be
converted to a mining lease. Mineral claims can be dropped or allowed to lapse at any point without
incurring further expenditures. Mining leases are valid for an initial term of 21 years subject to an annual
rental fee of $1 per acre. Upon expiry of the initial term, mining leases can be renewed for a second 21
year term with an annual rental fee of $2 per acre. For more details the reader is referred to the CMR
and related amendments (CRC, 2001).
It should be noted that in December 2013, Harsbo paid in lieu to keep the claims in good standing until
October of 2014, at which time a minimum of $6 per acre will be required to continue the claims in good
standing. Filing in lieu of work could happen one more time but after that full assessment work credits
will be the only way to keep the property in good standing.
The property is located within the Akaitcho Territory, lies on the west side of the proposed extension of
the Thaidene Nene National Park Reserve and at present there is no final land claim agreement (Figure
4.3). As such, the property is considered to be located within lands under federal jurisdiction with
surface and subsurface rights administered through AANDC. MLD has sufficient surface rights and legal
access to the property to conduct minimal exploration programs on the property with or without gaining
access to a land use permit.
Land use activities in the Akaitcho Territory are conducted under the Mackenzie Valley Resource
Management Act (MVRMA). The property is not presently subject to a land use permit as exploration
conducted on the property is considered early stage and therefore classified below land use permit
thresholds. In the event of a discovery on the properties, more advanced exploration projects may
require screening by the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board (MVEIRB).
At the present time there are no significant diamondiferous occurrences, resources, reserves or mine

Figure 4-3. Margaret Lake Property with surrounding Withdrawals

Table 4-1. Claim Summary - Margaret Lake Property
Claim Number Claim Name Recording
Date
Claim Acreage NTS
K15831 MLD 1 13-Oct-11 2582.5 75N/11
K15832 MLD 2 13-Oct-11 2582.5 75N/11
K15833 MLD 3 13-Oct-11 2582.5 75N/11, 06
K15834 MLD 4 13-Oct-11 2582.5 75N/06
K15835 MLD 5 13-Oct-11 2530.0 75N/06
K15836 MLD 6 13-Oct-11 2582.5 75N/11
K15837 MLD 7 13-Oct-11 2582.5 75N/11
K15838 MLD 8 13-Oct-11 2582.5 75N/11
K15839 MLD 9 13-Oct-11 2582.5 75N/11
K15840 MLD 10 13-Oct-11 2582.5 75N/11
K15841 MLD 11 13-Oct-11 2582.5 75N/11
K15842 MLD 12 13-Oct-11 2582.5 75N/11
K15843 MLD 13 13-Oct-11 2582.5 75N/11
K15844 MLD 14 13-Oct-11 2582.5 75N/11
K15845 MLD 15 13-Oct-11 2582.5 75N/11
K15846 MLD 16 13-Oct-11 2582.5 75N/11
K15847 MLD 17 13-Oct-11 2582.5 75N/11
K15848 MLD 18 13-Oct-11 2582.5 75N/11
K15849 MLD 19 13-Oct-11 2287.7 75N/11
48,720.2
workings located on the property. There are no known environmental liabilities at the present time.
Potential sites of archaeological significance are considered to be extremely limited as the original
archaeological study for DeBeers and Mountain Province is within a few kilometres of the property

boundary. It is most likely that any potential archaeological sites would be minimally impacted by early
stage exploration activities.
In December of 2013, Harsbo was granted an option, as optionee, on the Margaret Lake property with
Margaret Lake Diamonds Ltd under an option agreement dated December 23, 2013 (the “Underlying
Option Agreement”). Harsbo has been provided the sole and exclusive rights to earn 60% right, title and
interest in and to the Margaret Lake Property by making aggregate cash payments of $102,312.42 to the
Receiver General for Canada (RGFC) on behalf of MLD and incurring an aggregate of C$1M in
expenditures as follows:
a) Cash Payments: Harsbo deposited $115,000 in Trust to have these funds paid to RGFC to cover
payment in lieu of assessment work to keep property in good standing until October 13, 2014.
b) Expenditures: optionee will fund expenditures of C$1M on the property before October 13,
2014 provided administrative expenses are limited to $100,000.
Once these commitments are completed:
c) A further undivided 10% interest can be purchased by the optionee by completing an additional
C$1M expenditure prior to October 13, 2015.
At this time, the optionee will be considered 70% owner of the property.
Pursuant to an assignment agreement dated March, 2014 (the “Assignment Agreement”) with Harsbo
and MLD, MLD has been assigned Harsbo’s interest, outlined by the above noted terms, in and to the
Underlying Option Agreement. This Assignment Agreement provides that Harsbo will assign to MLD all
of Harsbo’s rights and interests under the Underlying Option Agreement by issuing Harsbo 6,000,000
post consolidation shares in the capital of MLD and by assuming Harsbo’s obligations under the
Underlying Option Agreement.
Margaret Lake Diamonds may choose to transfer its 30% interest to MLD for a value of C$3M. This
exchange will occur using the common shares in MLD based upon the volume weighted average price of
MLD’s common shares for the ten (10) trading days immediately preceding the date MLD gives notice to
MLD of its intent to transfer its 30% interest.
5 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE,
AND PHYSIOGRAPHY
The Margaret Lake Property is located approximately 300 km east-northeast of Yellowknife, Northwest
Territories. Access to the property requires fixed wing aircraft using floats, skis and/or wheels
essentially year round. Numerous lakes located within the property boundary are capable of landing
twin otter aircraft in the summer using floats and in the winter using skis. Larger aircraft can be
employed during the winter by plowing an airstrip on the ice. It is most economical to use helicopter
transport once at site. There is a winter road which traverses only 3.2km west of the geographic center

of the property. This winter road is a spur road traversing south from the main Tibbitt to Contwoyto
winter road.
The closest infrastructure is located in Yellowknife, although there is a Hamlet community at Lutsel K’e,
approximately 150km southwest of the property but contains very few amenities. There is a nursing
station at Gahcho Kue for emergencies and they are currently building an all-weather strip at the
Gahcho Kue site. All historic work in the area and on the property has been staged out of Yellowknife.
Exploration can be initiated around the beginning to middle of February, once the winter road is
established and day light hours begin to increase. The exploration season is most efficient until the
middle to end of September when both daylight and weather become insurmountable obstacles for
exploration. It is most common to shut down for approximately 5-6 weeks at the end of May until the
beginning to middle of July to allow the ice to melt from the lakes.
Access encumbrances to the property are not considered significant but should be mentioned. The
Akaitcho Interim Land Withdrawal was instituted to put a halt to exploration in order to provide time for
culminating the Final Akaitcho Territory Land Claim. The final claim has not happened and as such has
had a terrible impact on exploration in the NWT. It has been suggested this interim withdrawal could be
extinguished by March 31 of 2014 but sources suggest this is not likely. This would be the second
extension from the federal government on the Akaitcho Territory land claim.
5.1 Climate
The Margaret lake Property is located some 220kms south of the Arctic Circle and experiences an
extreme and semi-arid polar climate typical of the Taiga Shield Ecozone of Canada (Ecological
Stratification Working Group, 1995). The area can further re classified as belonging to the Taiga Shield
High Subarctic (HS) Ecoregion (ibid). The area is dominated by long and cold winters with cool, nice
summers. The Northwest Territories are classified as a polar semi-desert with limited precipitation,
both in the winter as snow and summer as rain.
Winter temperatures average -25°C to -30°C but extreme temperatures due to wind chill, dropping
below -50°C, are not uncommon. Freeze-up usually occurs around the first week of October and break-
up is usually finished by mid- to late-June. Summers are commonly cool and short, with average
temperatures around +15°C but can reach +30°C for short durations. Exploration has occurred
throughout 12 months of the year, but the most feasible times (daylight hours and temperatures, etc)
extend from late February to late September or mid-October.
Daylight ranges from 4-5 hours during the winter solstice to effectively 24 hours at summer solstice.
The spring and fall (vernal and autumnal) equinoxes occur in March and September, respectively, at
which time the daylight hours equal night time hours.
5.2 Topography and Physiography
The Margaret Lake Property is part of the Barrenlands on the edge of the zone of Continuous

Permafrost. The area is characterized by heath and tundra (low shrubs and alpine-type vegetation) with
occasional knolls, surface outcrops and localized surface depressions, interspersed with lakes. Thin,
discontinuous covers of mineral soil, organic materials and glacial drift overlie shallowly buried bedrock.
Some small stands of stunted spruce occur in the area (Ecological Stratification Working Group, 1995).
The area is characterized by low to moderate relief, ranging from 400 meters to 550 meters ASL (above
sea level). Elongate north-northeast trending outcrop expressions vary in height from a few meters up
to 20 meters. Local topographical relief can be up to 40-50 meters and as such, one can usually see 10’s
of kilometers in any direction. Outcrops are separated by numerous small ponds, lakes and marshy
depressions. In some places, overburden is very extensive and there may be as little as 5% outcrop in an
area, but this can vary widely across the property.
5.3 Flora and Fauna
The local habitat represents the transition from sub-Arctic taiga coniferous forest to treeless tundra.
Year round fauna includes red fox, arctic fox, arctic ground squirrel (sik sik), barrenlands grizzly,
wolverine, ptarmigan and muskox. Migratory species include barrenlands caribou and many species of
birds. During the summer months (mid-June to mid-August), heavy concentrations of biting flies
(mosquito, black flies and horse flies) are present (NWT Department of Environment & Natural
Resources web site).
Vegetation in the area is characteristic of Arctic tundra, with moss, sedges, lichens and dwarf species of
willow and birch. Patchy stands of conifers may be found in low-lying, sheltered areas near streams and
rivers and can be found as far north as Kirk Lake. Trees may reach up to 2 metres in height under ideal
conditions of slope, drainage and insulation.
6 HISTORY OF MINING AND EXPLORATION
The History section has been modified after Johnson et al. (2010), and references therein. Material not condensed
or summarized from this source is referenced accordingly.
6.1 Introduction
Exploration in the Slave Province has typically involved the search for gold and base metals deposits.
This is true in this region, where the volcanic and sedimentary rocks of the Yellowknife Supergroup were
the target of exploration activity around the Walmsley Lake area.
The Margaret Lake Property has never been the focus of gold or base metals exploration programs
according to assessment reports on file with Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada
(AANDC). Exploration for diamonds involves the current activities since the staking of ground by
Inukshuk Capital Corp. in 1992. Mountain Province Mining was a joint venture partner by the end of
1992 and most of their work programs can be fairly well documented and provide a significant part of
the work history in the area.

6.2 Summary
This section provides a summary of exploration work done on or around the old AK Property prior to
2014. The original AK property, a portion of which is currently covered by the Margaret Lake Property,
was staked in 1992..
There has been no work completed by any of Margaret Lake Diamonds, Harsbo or MLD.
Exploration from 1992 to 2014 has consisted of:
• Sampling of glacial drift and outcrop for Kimberlite Indicator Minerals (KIMs)
• Geological mapping
• Electromagnetic (EM) airborne and ground geophysical surveys.
• Micro- and macro-diamond sampling and processing and analysis
• Diamond drilling and specific reverse circulation drilling.
In 2003, almost all of the exploration activity outside of the Gahcho Kue cluster was stopped by DeBeers
in order to concentrate on drilling of the 4 pipes considered to be the “cluster”. Since 2003, only sparse
exploration including till sampling and small ground geophysical grids were completed upon the current
MLD property.
6.3 Exploration Programs
No work was conducted by the original claim staking company, Inukshuk Capital Corp. Exploration
activities were conducted by Canamera Geological Ltd. between 1992 and 1996 under direction of the
original operator, Mountain Province Diamonds Inc. (MPD) and its predecessor company, Mountain
Province Mining Inc. (MPV). From 1997 onward, exploration activities were conducted by DeBeers
Canada Exploration Inc. (DCEI) as the project operator of the Gahcho Kué Joint Venture (GKJV) between
DCEI and MPD. At the time the joint venture agreement was signed, DCEI was known as Monopros Ltd.
Limited public data is available through the GKJV.
6.3.1 Canamera Geological Ltd.
Canamera Geological Ltd. acted as the operator for MPV prior to the Joint Venture with DCEI (Johnson et
al., 2010). Exploration work carried out by Canamera between 1992 and 1994 comprised reconnaissance
and follow-up glacial drift sampling and an airborne electromagnetic (EM) survey. Although reference
has been made to additional exploration work until the end of 1997, most of this data has not been
made public. .
6.4 Geophysical Surveys
6.4.1 Airborne Geophysical Surveys
In July and August of 1993, DIGHEM completed a 5,093 line-km airborne magnetic and EM survey of the
AK Property which covers the current area of the Margaret Lake claims and adjoining KDI and

DeBeers/MPD land packages. Line spacing for the survey was set to 250 meters and this survey is
documented in both Figures 6-1 and 6-2. This is the only public airborne geophysical survey flown over
the Margaret Lake Property that had maps in jpeg format. The data was not submitted as digital data
and there are too many unknowns at this time with the line data to be able to reproduce this survey
with any confidence so the current figures will be used to help explain the geophysical characteristics of
the property.
Figure 6-1 is the calculated resistivity using the Dighem 7200 Hz coplanar data. The low resistivity areas
agree well with the lakes and the lakeshores suggesting these features are representative of surficial
sources. EM data has proven to be very useful in determining EM flow modeling to help determine
whether resistivity anomalies have a bedrock source. A search is underway to see if this data can be
obtained (purchased) digitally to help interpret potential bedrock sources.
Figure 6-2 represents the total field magnetic data collected during the EM survey. All flight lines are
spaced 250m apart. The total field magnetic survey is extremely valuable in documenting structure and
prominent lithological changes.
There are two prominent structural orientations. An east-northeasterly (E-NE) component shows both
magnetic high and magnetic low trending features. Most likely the higher magnetic features represent
Mackay dyke swarms and the magnetic low features most likely represent structural lineaments/faults.
The very prominent NW trending magnetic highs are related to Late Proterozoic Mackenzie diabase
dykes. There is a weak due north trending magnetic high signature which is likely attributable to the Lac
de Gras dyke swarm.
The geophysical response over the claim area indicates the property is primarily underlain by Archean
granitoids (certainly of different facies, green to yellow to light red) while off the property, but just to
the east correlates metasediments of the Yellowknife Supergroup (blue). The Archean granitoid package
comprises two mica granites, granodiorites and mixed granitic gneisses to the east. Multiple mafic dyke
swarms contribute to an active magnetic background. Aside from the original 1993 Dighem airborne
survey which is public information, there have been other heli-borne surveys flown (1995 and 1996) but
the author has not yet been able to locate public data in a digital format.

Figure 6-1. 1993 Dighem Airborne Survey - Resistivity 7200Hz

6.5 Glacial Till Sampling
Hundreds of till samples have been taken over the MLD Property as part of a larger program obtaining
more than a few thousand till samples surrounding the property. It is critical to review regional till
sampling patterns to obtain indicator train directions. The Northwest Territories Geoscience Office
(NTGO) hosts all of the industry filed assessment reports, GSC Open Files, the Kimberlite Indicator
Diamond Database (KIDD) and Kimberlite Indicator Mineral Chemistry (KIMC). These are all critical
components of this report due to the strong dependency on historical work.
I have provided 3 primary maps in which to discuss the kimberlite indicator mineral data. The olivine,
garnet and chrome diopside mineral chemistry is shown on Figures 6-3, 6-4 and 6-5, respectively. It
should be noted that these mineral chemistry maps have been produced using samples retrieved during
spring, summer, fall and winter. There is significant QA/QC required in collecting till samples, specifically
noting lithologies of fragments, grain size, clay quantities, etc and the author has no way of verifying any
of this data as there are no tables describing such QA/QC protocol. It is certainly common practice to
sample frost boils to obtain the best representation of reworked glacial till. A freezing and thawing
action moves fluids through the till column to concentrate sand-sized particles of the underlying tills
near the surface. The year round sampling protocol would induce some inaccuracies in the chemistry of
the samples (like comparing apples to oranges).
The kimberlite indicator mineral till sampling database may not be exhaustive but it does represent the
picked as potential indicators of kimberlite sources. The garnets are not inferred to be crustal garnets
from glaciated volcanic or sedimentary rocks. It is particular to note that many samples are barren. This
is not an unusual feature in this particular area primarily due to the early sample collection protocol.
The known kimberlites in this area, the cluster at Gahcho Kue and the Kelvin and Faraday kimberlites,
indicate an extensive and potentially long mineral train with just a few grains of garnet until you are
proximal to a kimberlite. The author has knowledge of sampling protocol being much better in
subsequent years. Garnet chemistry is noted in the southeast corner of the Margaret Lake Property but
should be verified that this train may be down ice of the Faraday kimberlite complex.
Figure 6-4 shows the chrome diopside mineral chemistry. The same general conclusion can be drawn
from this data as the garnet data set in that very few samples returned chrome diopside. Of particular
interest though are the two samples returning chrome diopside chemistry on the Margaret Lake
Property. Chrome diopside does not withstand significant distances of travel and as such would be
considered fairly proximal to its source. The author continues to remind the reader that additional
sampling is required to verify historical results.
Figure 6-5 shows the olivine mineral chemistry. It is very apparent again that many samples returned no
olivine chemistry on the Margaret Lake Property. Five samples did return olivine chemistry and are
primarily located within the southeastern portion of the property suggesting a potential link to the
Faraday kimberlite complex but this is not a given. Further sampling to verify the olivine chemistry and
the actual ice direction in this area will be critical.

Figure 6-2. 1993 Total Field Magnetic Airborne Survey

Figure 6-3. Kimberlite Indicator Mineral Chemistry - Garnets

Figure 6-4. Kimberlite Indicator Mineral Chemistry - Chrome Diopside

Figure 6-5. Kimberlite Indicator Mineral Chemistry - Olivine

The most prevalent ice direction in this area is west-southwesterly and most till trains are oriented in
this direction. Certainly local variations of broad till dispersion can occur. Additional sampling should
take place in order to verify this till train source trends to the Faraday kimberlite complex. Two
independent samples occur in the northwest and these should be verified with additional sampling.
Olivine chemistry is extremely important in the identification of some of the kimberlties in this area.
A significant conclusion from the till data review is the integrity of the sampling is not high. Winter
sampling will clearly not be sampling the primary targeted till sources (frost boils) like sampling would in
the summer. One cannot write off this property based upon historical till sampling results. The fact
even a few grains have been documented in some samples warrants additional sampling.
6.6 DRILLING
Only one drill hole has been completed upon the MLD property. Monopros Ltd (Canadian subsidiary of
DeBeers) drilled a hole designated as MPV – 98 – 20C at UTM coordinates 583829E and 7044595N, NAD
83. The hole was drilled at azimuth 231 at a dip of -45° and totaled 173m. Hole MPV-98-20C tested an
anomaly with conductive properties on Claim AK 28. This drilling intersected primarily granite from top
to bottom with a little bit of gneiss at depth. The granite was variously metamorphosed. No kimberlite
was intersected and there wasn’t a definitive answer to what was causing the conductivity. The author
assumes the lake sediment bottom could be conductive. This information is referenced from a public
assessment report (NWT Geoscience Office AR #084239).

Figure 6-6. MPV 98-20C on Margaret Lake Property

7 GEOLOGICAL SETTING
7.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY
The Margaret Lake Property lies in the southeastern portion of the Slave Geological Province (Slave), an
Archean cratonic block (Figure 7-1). Bedrock lithologies in the Slave range in age from 4.05 Ga to 2.55 Ga
(Bleeker et al., 1999). The oldest rocks of the Slave are remnants of felsic granitoids and gneisses ranging
between 3.2 Ga to 2.8 Ga (Beals, 1994) and the Acasta gneisses between 4.05 Ga to 3.8 Ga (Bowring &
Williams, 1999).
The Slave Province extends from the area of Great Slave Lake in the south (61°N), to the Coronation Gulf
in the north (69°N). It is bound on the west by the Proterozoic Wopmay Orogeny (117°W), a classic
Wilson-cycle mountain belt created during the collision between the Slave and Bear geological
provinces. To the east it abuts the Churchill Structural Province (Churchill) along the Thelon Tectonic
Zone (TTZ), which lies at approximately 105°W. The southern margin of the Slave is the Great Slave Lake
Shear Zone (GSLSZ), while in the north it dives under the Proterozoic cover rocks of the Kilohigok Basin,
and is truncated by the Bathurst Fault.
The Slave is dominated by ca. 2.73 – 2.63 Ga greenstone and turbidite sequences. These rocks have
been intruded by plutonic suites that range in age from ca. 2.72 – 2.58 Ga. The crust of the Slave is
believed to have amalgamated during a 2.69 Ga collision event between analogous island-arc terranes
(Hackett River) to the east, and a basement complex (Central Slave Basement Complex), along an N-S
suture (Bleeker et al., 1999). Rocks of the Acasta Gneiss in the basement complex are the oldest
recorded in situ on Earth (Bowring et al., 1989).
The Slave has been intruded by a number of mafic dyke swarms. The earliest intrusions have been
ascribed an Early Proterozoic age and typically consist of diabase dykes. These constitute the Malley
(2.23 Ga), MacKay (2.21 Ga) and Lac de Gras (2.03 Ga) swarms (LeCheminant et al., 1996). These dyke
swarms are limited in extent and are postulated to indicate evidence for continental breakup during the
Early Proterozoic (Fahrig, 1987).
The MacKenzie Dyke Swarm intrudes the Slave from NW to SE and is thought to be contemporaneous
with flood basalt eruptions of the Coppermine River Group and associated with the Muskox Intrusive
Complex. This dyke swarm has been assigned a Proterozoic age of 1270 Ma (LeCheminant & Heaman,
1989). These dykes penetrate the entire craton and are related to a short-lived but intense period of
magmatic activity that also produced the Coppermine volcanics and Muskox Intrusive Complex.
Finally, the Late Proterozoic Gunbarrel and Franklin dyke swarms intrude portions of the Slave. The
Gunbarrel event has analogues in the Wyoming Craton and may signal the formation of a western rift
margin in North America approximately 780 Ma, as they extend from the western Slave, through the
Mackenzie Mountains and into the Wyoming Craton (LeCheminant and Heaman, 1994). The gabbroic
Franklin dykes and sills of 723 Ma are related to the eruption of the Natkusiak flood basalts on Victoria
Island above a hot mantle plume (Rainbird, 1993).

Figure 7-1 . Regional Geology of the SE Portion of the Slave Craton

Not much is well known about the Slave subsequent to Late Proterozoic time. Multiple phases of
kimberlite emplacement have occurred throughout the Phanerozoic Era in the Cambrian, Siluro-
Ordovician, Permian, Cretaceous, Jurassic and Eocene periods (Heaman et al., 2003).
Kimberlites in the Lac de Gras area contain marine fossil assemblages typical of the Early to Late
Cretaceous Period, along with spores and pollen assemblages from the Early Tertiary. The marine fossils
are indicative of warm, shallow epicontinental seas while the plant microfossils are typical of terrestrial
lacustrine environments (Stasiuk & Nassichuk, 1996). All surface expression of this geological history has
been completely removed by the effects of repeated continental glaciations.
The effect of multiple ice advances throughout the Pleistocene Epoch of the Quaternary Period has been
the complete removal of evidence of most Phanerozoic geological history. The fossil assemblages
discovered in kimberlites of various ages indicate that the region was covered by Paleozoic, Mesozoic
and Cenozoic deposits which have since been scoured away by continental ice sheets.
7.2 PROPERTY GEOLOGY
7.2.1 Basement
Limited areas of outcrop indicate that the basement geology consists of biotite granitoids and granitic
gneisses that have undergone regional amphibolite facies metamorphism retrograded to greenschist
facies (Figure 7-2). Granitoids range from mildly deformed, medium- to coarse-grained intrusions, to
highly foliated granitic gneiss. Granite pegmatite dykes are observed to intrude all of the Archean rock
types.
East of Kennady Lake, the bedrock geology is more typical of the Yellowknife Supergroup. Greywackes
and phyllites occur with interspersed volcanic tuff and volcaniclastic basalt. The deformation history of
these rocks is intense and complex, with tight to isoclinal folds and axial planar shear zones being
common.

Figure 7-2. Property Geology.

Technical Report: Margaret Lake Property
Two mafic dyke swarms have been identified in the Kennady Lake area. The oldest are east-northeast
trending dykes that are considered to be part of the Early Proterozoic Malley dyke swarm (2.23 Ga).
There are also dykes from the MacKenzie dyke swarm (1270 Ma) in the area that trend north-northwest
(LeCheminant et al., 1996).
Kimberlites in the Kennady Lake area are approximately 540 Ma (Middle Cambrian) in age. This
determination is based upon 87
Rb-87
Sr isotopic dating of phlogopite from the 5034 kimberlite, along with
40
Ar-39
Ar isotopic modeling of the Tuzo, Tesla and Hearne kimberlites (Heaman et al., 2003).
7.2.2 Quaternary
The area has been glaciated repeatedly during the Pleistocene Epoch. Most recently, the Laurentide ice
sheet covered the area and began to recede about 18,000 years B.P. The Kennady Lake area was ice-free
between 9,000-9,500 years B.P. (Dyke and Prest, 1987). Investigations of glacial stratigraphy have not
been able to find evidence of any earlier glacial advances. Glacial drift forms a thin veneer in the area
and consists of unstratified till blankets with glaciofluvial outwash deposits.
Till veneers have few bedrock outcrops but abundant frost boils where cryoturbation has brought
materials to surface for sampling of Kimberlite Indicator Minerals (KIM). The glacial till is predominantly
basal or lodgement till associated with the base of the ice sheets, therefore KIM dispersal distances are
minimal. Sand and reworked glacial till deposits are classified as outwash. There are some eskers in the
area. There are also proglacial sediments consisting of glaciofluvial and glaciolacustrine deposits.
7.2.3 Structural Geology
The granite-gneiss terrane of the area has been intruded by diabase dykes. Granite intrusions tend to be
bordered by gneisses that have been metamorphosed by the intrusions. In the eastern portion of the
area granitoid-gneiss terrane gives way to metasediments typical of the turbidite sequences observed
elsewhere in the Slave (Yellowknife Supergroup). Complex, tight folding and shearing has affected these
greywackes. Minor volcaniclastic lithologies are also present (Thurston, 2003).
There are several groups of demagnetized lineaments with weak to negative magnetic responses. They
could be either dykes or country rock that has been demagnetized along fault or shear zones. They are
classified as:
• Regular, pervasive northeast-trending set
• Regular, pervasive northwest-trending set
• East-west trending set
The northeast-trending structures lie parallel to the orientation of the ca. 2.0-1.8 Ga Great Slave Lake
Shear Zone (Hoffman, 1987) to the south. Younger, second-order structures trend primarily northwest
and may be related to the rifting event that emplaced the MacKenzie dyke swarm (1270 Ma) (
LeCheminant and Heaman,1989).

7.3 MINERALIZATION
Although no diamond mineralization has been reported on the Margaret Lake Property, section 16
describes the current known mineralization on the surrounding properties of both Kennady Diamonds
Ltd and the Gahcho Kue joint venture with DeBeers and Mountain Province.
8 DEPOSIT TYPES
The Kennady Lake kimberlites are similar in form to those of the Kimberley area of South Africa. They
are different from many other Canadian kimberlites such as at Fort à la Corne (Saskatchewan),
Attawapiskat (Ontario) and Lac de Gras (NWT) (Field & Scott-Smith, 1999). The Fort à la Corne
kimberlites preserve the volcanic craters with associated pyroclastic aprons that erupted in an intertidal
environment, which subsequently modified the aprons. These kimberlite crater facies have relatively
large surface areas. The Lac de Gras pipes are preserved as the diatreme facies which lie below the
craters and above the hypabyssal root-zone. The Kennady Lake kimberlites contain minor pyroclastic
kimberlite but are predominantly comprised of root-zone, or hypabyssal facies, transitional to diatreme
facies (Hetman et al., 2004).
8.1 KIMBERLITE GEOLOGY
Much of Section 8.1 has been summarized from the National Instrument 43-101 Technical Report prepared by
Johnson et al. (2010), and references therein, on behalf of the Gahcho Kué Joint Venture partners.
8.1.1 Kimberlite Types
8.1.1.1 Tuffisitic Kimberlite Breccia (TK)
Tuffisitic Kimberlite (TK) is olive-green to light brown in colour (Kurszlaukis and Lorenz, 2008). These
rocks tend to be soft and swell when in contact with water due to the presence of hygroscopic clay
minerals. Olivine is typically present as macrocrysts and xenocrysts which exist as serpentine
pseudomorphs. Xenoliths of country rock, predominantly granite, are ubiquitous
8.1.1.2 Transitional Tuffisitic Kimberlite (TKt)
Transitional tuffisitic kimberlite rocks (TKt) are similar to TK but more competent and darker in colour.
Country rock xenoliths are less abundant but display greater reaction to the host kimberlite. Olivine
macrocrysts and xenocrysts are completely altered to serpentine.
8.1.1.3 Transitional Hypabyssal Kimberlite (HKt)
Transitional Hypabyssal Kimberlites (HKt) are broadly similar to HKt but are dominated by magmatic
groundmass and inhomogeneous textures. The rocks are dark coloured and competent. Granite xenolith
reaction with the kimberlite groundmass is intermediate between HK and TKt, and is typically dark green
to black. Olivine macrocrysts and xenocrysts are completely serpentinized. Groundmass contains
phlogopite, spinel, carbonate, serpentine and perovskite.

8.1.1.4 Hypabyssal Kimberlite (HK)
Hypabyssal kimberlite (HK) consists of fresh, competent, black to dark green rock with uniform
macrocrystic textures. There are two populations of olivine consisting of anhedral, medium-grained
macrocrysts with smaller subhedral to euhedral phenocrysts. The groundmass consists of monticellite,
phlogopite, spinel, primary carbonate, serpentine and perovskite.
8.1.2 Country Rocks
Country rock contacts along kimberlite pipe margins are variable but correlate with the textural variety
of kimberlite. There are five main types based upon geology:
• Sharp contacts
• Brecciated contacts
• Chemically altered contacts
• Chemically altered and disaggregated contacts
• Thermally metamorphosed contacts
8.1.2.1 Sharp Contacts
Present between kimberlite and country rock, they are characterized by minimal broken cores or altered
country rock surrounding the pipe. Sharp contacts are associated with all textural varieties of kimberlite.
8.1.2.2 Brecciated Contacts
Brecciated contacts are characterized by disaggregated country rock that does not contain a kimberlite
component. They are further subdivided into massive breccia zones (MBZ) and pulverized breccia zones
(PBZ).
MBZ typically contains coarser fragments greater than 2 cm in diameter. There is a spatial relationship
between MBZ and pre-existing joint sets. Fragments are typically loose and not cemented. Zone
distribution varies but may correlate with joint density at the kimberlite contact.
PBZ consists of larger particles 2-15 cm in diameter with a matrix of pulverized country rock typically <2
mm in diameter. These breccias are typically cemented and can be either clast- or matrix-supported.
The proportion of fine material is highly variable. Larger fragments typically contain smooth edges with
slight bleaching or alteration of the margins. Degassing and unroofing during kimberlite emplacement
are thought to entrain these zones with the melt.
8.1.2.3 Chemically-Altered Contacts
These are typically minor zones (<5 cm) of alteration along joint surfaces with minimal disaggregation.
Intensity of alteration is variable but generally decreases with distance from the kimberlite contact. They
are most commonly developed around zones of HK and may also contain brecciated country rock.
Removal of quartz may result in rock porosity.

8.1.2.4 Chemically-Altered & Disaggregated Contacts
These zones are typically weaker and more extensive than the chemically-altered contacts. Extensive
chemical alteration may be present, which may produce disaggregation of the country rock. There may
also be minor brecciation with little or no evidence of transport or cementation. Extensive development
occurs in proximity to HK over thicker kimberlite intersections. The brittle cores are typically bleached
along joint sets.
8.1.2.5 Thermally Metamorphosed Contacts
These zones are only associated with hot HK contacts and are typically less than 50 cm wide. They tend
to be weakest adjacent to the kimberlite and there is a corresponding lessening of the effect as one
moves away from the contact. Country rock may be grey or white in colour and may contain significant
serpentine and carbonate veins.
8.1.3 Country Rock Xenoliths
Country rock xenoliths within the kimberlites are dominated by granitoids with lesser amounts of
diabase, gneiss and rarer volcanic rocks. Metasedimentary xenoliths are not present. Xenolith
abundances are variable, particularly in the TK units. The following logging terms are used:
• K = <15% (not a breccia)
• KB = 15% - 50% (breccia)
• KBB = 50% - 75% (breccia)
• KBBB = >75% (breccia)
• KmB = >15% xenoliths 5 – 10 mm (microbreccia)
• K = kimberlite
• B = breccia
• M = microbreccia
9 2014 EXPLORATION PROGRAM
There has been no exploration completed on the Margaret Lake Property by any of Margaret Lake
Diamonds, Harsbo Minerals Ltd or Margaret Lake Diamonds Inc.
10 DRILLING
There has been no drilling completed by MLD, Harsbo or Margaret Lake Diamonds Ltd on the Margaret
Lake Property.
11 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSIS AND SECURITY
None of MLD (Optionee), Harsbo nor Margaret Lake Diamonds Ltd (Optionor) have completed any work

on this property.
12 DATA VERIFICATION
The data provided in this report is all historical. The data has been verified as being critical to this report
in respect to geologic models which might occur on the Margaret Lake Property. Aurora Geosciences
Ltd (AGL) completed the ground acquisition and has been retained to manage the field portion of the
program in 2014. The author has been included in all pertinent discussions pertaining to the property
and the exploration to be conducted on the property, including the relevance of the retrieved data and
recommendations for further work.
As a result of Aurora’s direct involvement in all data acquisition on the property and reporting thereto, it
is the opinion of this author that the data presented in this report adequately meets the requirements
for NI43-101 submission.
13 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING
No mineralogical, metal processing or metallurgical testing has been done on mineralized material from
the Margaret Lake Property.
14 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES
No mineral resource estimates have been performed on any material from the area presently covered
by the Margaret Lake Property, Northwest Territories.
15 MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES
No mineral reserve estimates have been performed on any material from the area presently covered by
the Margaret Lake Property, Northwest Territories.
16 ADJACENT PROPERTIES (ITEM 23)
Mineralization identified in this section has been documented at both the Gahcho Kue Joint Venture
(DeBeers Canada and Mountain Province Diamonds) Kennady Lake project and the Kennady Diamonds
property on their 100% owned Kennady North property. These adjacent properties should provide a
common exploration model on the Margaret Lake property. The author has been unable to personally
verify the mineralization at the Gahcho Kue property but a NI 43-101 compliant resource has been made
public on this property. The Author can verify the diamond numbers on the Kennady Diamonds’
Kennady North property as he was directly involved in the management of this program. The author
wants to be very clear there is no suggestion that any such mineralization currently exists on the
Margaret Lake Property.

Two diamond bearing kimberlite complexes occur on the Kennady Diamonds property just three to six
kms to the southeast of the northeast corner of the MLD property. It appears there is at least one sheet
complex associated with the Kelvin kimberlite and one sheet complex associated with the Faraday
kimberlite. This information has been garnered from press releases of Kennady Diamonds over the past
two years. There is an economic diamond cluster located at Gahcho Kue.
16.1 Kennady Lake (Gahcho Kue) Cluster
All of the kimberlites in the Kennady Lake area (located some 10 kms from the MLD property) are
portions of the deep roots of an intrusive kimberlitic complex, consisting of predominantly hypabyssal
facies, transitional to diatreme facies kimberlite (Kurszlaukis and Lorenz, 2008). There are numerous
interconnecting feeder and precursor dykes. The geometry of the intrusive bodies is complex in places,
leading to the assignment of lobes to simplify diamond valuation work.
The complex structure and geometry is the result of a combination of their Cambrian age (Heaman et
al., 2003) and the effects of weathering processes on the Slave craton over the past 500 Ma since
emplacement. This has produced a deep cross-section of the original kimberlite intrusions, which are
now further masked by lake basins, glacial sediments and country rock.
There is an economic reserve which was released in December of 2010 for Gahcho Kue and is shown
below in Table 15-1 .
Table 16-1. Mineral Reserve Estimate - Gahcho Kue Cluster
Pipe Classification Tonnes (Mt) Carats (Mct) Grade (cpt)
5034 Probable 13.2 23.3 1.77
Hearne Probable 5.4 11.5 2.10
Tuzo Probable 12.6 14.2 1.13
Total Probable 31.3 49.0 1.57
The above-noted reserve estimate was retrieved from the Gahcho Kue Project – Definitive Feasibility
Study – NI 43-101 Technical Report. Northwest Territories, Canada and released on SEDAR December,
2010.
16.2 Kennady North Kimberlites
The current Kennady North kimberlite cluster consists of three intrusions, the Kelvin, Hobbes and
Faraday pipes. The Kelvin-Hobbs kimberlites were originally thought to be two smaller pipes but recent
drilling seems to have determined this kimberlite emplacement is a complex sheet with thicker portions.
The Faraday kimberlite also appears to be a sheet complex as a diatreme has not yet been exposed.

These kimberlites may represent the oldest period of kimberlitic magmatism in the Slave Craton. This
determination is based upon geochronology of the 5034, Hearne, Tuzo and Tesla kimberlite pipes of the
Gahcho Kué cluster indicating a Middle Cambrian (540 Ma) age of emplacement (Heaman et al., 2003).
Most recently, Kennady Diamonds Inc released information from their 2013 summer drill program.
Table 7-2 shows the diamond results from primarily the Kelvin kimberlite.
Table 16-2. Kelvin 2013 Summer "Commercial" Size Diamonds
Sieve Size Fraction in mm
+0.85
1.180
+1.180
-1.700
+1.700
-2.360
+2.360
-3.350
+3.350
-4.750 +4.750 Total
Sample Grade
Carats/Tonne
# of
Diamonds 219 94 43 7 4 0 362
Weight (ct) 2.1069 2.2354 2.0089 2.1726 2.9033 0 11.4271 3.4481
The information was taken from the Kennady Diamonds website from a news release on December 16,
2013 (www.kennadydiamonds.com).
17 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS (ITEM 25)
Much of the Margaret Lake Property consists of transitional sub-Arctic taiga forest to Barrenlands
(moving north of the tree line). Glacial drift in the region consists of thin veneers of either basal
(lodgement) till or glaciofluvial outwash. The basal till tends to be locally derived and minimizes the
transport distances of KIM’s. The property is underlain almost solely by granitic intrusions and some
high-grade metamorphosed granite-gneiss (orthogneiss & paragneiss). At the east side of the property,
the country rock is more typical of the Yellowknife Supergroup, with metasediments and very minor
volcanic or volcaniclastic lithologies metamorphosed at lower grade. The Margaret Lake Property lies
within the southeastern corner of the Slave Geological Province, an Archean craton over 2.5 Ga in age.
The Margaret Lake Property was explored for diamonds primarily between 1992 and 1998. There has
been little to no work since this time on the property. The property comprises 19 mining claims totaling
48,720.2 acres or 19,716.37 hectares.
As mentioned previously, there is an Akaitcho Interim Land Withdrawal lying south of the MLDground
package. The Author has no way of knowing how the Final Land Claim Agreement will look but does not
see any prominent concerns in moving this exploration program forward.
The Thaidene Nene Proposed National Park extension is huge and unrealistic. It is hoped that industry
and First Nations can agree that the proposed extension in front of Parks Canada is unrealisitic. Even if
the final Park Boundary is as laid out, it cannot affect the exploration program of Margaret Lake
Diamonds Inc.
MLD has an Assignment Agreement with Harsbo Minerals Ltd (taking assignment of Harsbo’s interest)
which was the party to the Underlying Option Agreement with Margaret Lake Diamonds Ltd to earn 70%

interest in this property by spending some C$2.1M over the next two years. MLD has an option to
acquire the final 30% interest based upon providing the equivalent share value of C$3M in MLD
common stock to Margaret Lake Diamonds.
There has been no work completed by MLD, Harsbo or Margaret Lake Diamonds on the property. This
report is based upon historical work completed. It is apparent there are unresolved kimberlite indicator
mineral trains and there are significant structures which allow for emplacement of kimberlite bodies.
Due to the age of emplacement (540 Ma) and subsequent erosional processes, the intrusions in the
Kennady Lake area are more typical of the root systems (hypabyssal) of kimberlite magmatic complexes,
preserving some transitional and diatreme phases. The upper diatreme and crater facies observed
elsewhere in Canada are completely missing here (Field and Scott-Smith, 1999). The geometric
relationships are complicated by numerous interconnecting feeder (sheet complexes) and precursor
dykes typical of a kimberlite root zone.
It has been noted that the Gahcho Kué and Kennady North kimberlites are coincident with a northeast-
trending gravity lineament. This is possibly related to structural controls imparted by the Great Slave
Lake Shear Zone to the south (Hanmer, 1987). Numerous questions have arisen in the context of the
more easterly-northeast trending structures which cut the Kelvin-Faraday corridor and how they play a
role in the development of these sheet complexes.
The historical sampling work suggests the property is still host to some unresolved KIM anomalies and
poorly delineated geophysical anomalies due to the 250m spaced airborne survey from 1993. The lack
of indicator mineral geochemistry should not be an alarming concern. A confirmation of samples being
collected in the winter has been ascertained from some of the assessment reports which raises concerns
about the integrity of the till sampling data.
There have been no identified kimberlite occurrences within the property.
18 RECOMMENDATIONS (ITEM 26)
It is recommended that a helicopter-borne gravity and magnetometer survey, follow-up bathymetry and
ground-based mapping/prospecting/sediment sampling be completed as the next stage of exploration.
Initially, the results of the airborne gravity survey would be considered in the context of the existing
datasets including the mapped geology (regional government mapping) and the results of the historical
till sampling. The airborne survey and data review would guide the follow-up bathymetry program
during the summer to evaluate gravity anomalies underlying lakes. It is suggested a ground program
consisting of targeted mapping/prospecting, till sampling, and geophysical surveys overlying land based
targets be completed during the summer.
Should priority drill targets exist, MLD could consider a small drill program to evaluate high priority
targets on the basis they have received their land use permit to do so and their ground follow-up verifies
the drill target selection.

The following is a budget for a two-stage program to complete an airborne geophysical gravity-magnetic
survey during the first phase with proper bathymetric follow-up in the summer as the second phase.
The author also suggests proper ground follow-up to specific targets using till sampling, geological
ground checks and potential geophysical surveys to provide higher resolution of the airborne survey.
Table 18-1. Phase 1: Proposed helicopter-borne gravity-magnetic survey
Airborne gravity/Mag; all inclusive cost includes mobe and demobe $646,213.00
Standby Costs – estimated for weather at $7500 per day for 4 days $30,000.00
Camp Rental of HW Camp; $220/manday X 6 people for 14 days $18,480.00
Cook/First Aid at $650 per day X 14 days $9,100.00
Camp man at $450 per day X 14 days $6,300.00
Grub - $40 per man day X 6 people X14 days $3,360.00
Twin Otter service to camp – 3 mobe, 1 service and 2 demobe @
$4,700/trip
$28,200.00
Two Dash 7 trips with fuel to Kelvin strip $16,600.00
50 Drums Jet A at $355/drum $17,750.00
Helicopter to move fuel to MLD ground – estimated $6,500.00
Expediting @ $85 per hr in town includes truck X 30 hrs $2,550.00
Project Management for Airborne Survey - $900/day X 14 days $12,600.00
Subtotal $797,653.00
Contingency at 5% $39,000.00
GST at 5% $39,000.00
Total Airborne Gravity Budget $875,653.00
Phase 2 includes the bathymetric follow-up in the lakes to evaluate whether gravity targets under water
are real. A strong consideration should be placed on ground follow-up using till sampling, potential
ground checks for land based targets and high resolution ground geophysical surveying to ascertain
orientation of potential kimberlite bodies.

Table 18-2.Phase 2: Proposed Bathymetric Survey
Bathymetric survey : all-inclusive with gear, 2 guys, mobe in, mobe out,
helicopter support from KDI, fuel, grub and accommodations at $5600 per
day X 14 days
$78,400.00
Contingency at 5% $3,900.00
GST at 5% $3,900.00
Total Bathymetric Survey $86,200.00
Additional work for 4 person crew for 1 week of ground checks including a
few till samples and ground geophysics could be completed at same time as
the bathymetric survey and provide more cost savings – estimate 1.5 days
for ground checks and 5 days for geophysics at $5800 per day. All-inclusive
like above.
$40,600.00
It is the opinion of the Author that the proposed two-stage C$1,000,000 one year budget represents the
best exploration strategy to quickly and efficiently advance the property.
Respectfully submitted,
______________________
Gary Vivian, M.Sc., P.Geol.
AURORA GEOSCIENCES LTD.
Dated and signed this 27th
of March, 2014 at Yellowknife, NT.

19 REFERENCES
Beales, P.L., 1994. Mineral deposits of the Slave Province; overlain on geological base map, EGS 1993-8:
NWT Geology Division NAP, Yellowknife.
Bleeker, W., Ketchum, J.W.F. and Davis, W.J., 1999. The Central Slave Basement Complex, Part I: Its
structural topology and autochthonous cover: Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, vol. 36, p. 1083-1109.
Bowring, S.A., Williams, I.S. and Compston, W., 1989. 3.96 Ga gneisses from the Slave Province, NWT,
Canada: Geology vol. 17, p. 971-975.
Brisebois, K., Eggleston, T. and Kozak, A., 2009. Gahcho Kué Kimberlite Project NI 43-101 Technical
Report, Northwest Territories, Canada. SEDAR 43-101 Compliant Technical Report, 186 pp.
Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy & Petroleum (CIM), 2003. Guidelines for the Reporting of
Diamond Exploration Results – Final: CIM Standing Committee, Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy
& Petroleum, posted to http://www.cim.org/committees/diamond_exploration_final.pdf, 6 pp.
Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy & Petroleum (CIM), 2004. Exploration Best Practice
Guidelines: Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy & Petroleum.
Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy & Petroleum (CIM), 2005. CIM Standards on Mineral
Resources and Reserves, Definitions and Guidelines: Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy &
Petroleum.
Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA), 2005. National Instrument 43-101, Standards of Disclosure
for Mineral Projects: Canadian Securities Administrators.
Caro, G. and Kopylova, M.G., 2004. The Hypabyssal 5034 Kimberlite of the Gahcho Kué Cluster, South-
Eastern Slave Craton, Northwest Territories, Canada: A Granite-Contaminated Group-1 Kimberlite: The
Canadian Mineralogist, vol. 42, p. 183-207.
Clement, C.R., Fowler, F.A., Williamson, P.A., Kong, J. and Williams, A.C., 1996. Mountain Province
Mining Inc. Due Diligence Study: An investigation of Pipe 5034 and the AK and CJ Claims. Unpublished
internal DeBeers report.
Dyke, A.S. and Prest, V.K., 1987. Paleogeography of Northern North America, 18,000 – 5,000 years ago:
Geological Survey of Canada, Map 1703A, scale 1:12,500,000.
Ecosystem Classification Group, 2008. Ecological Regions of the Northwest Territories - Taiga Shield.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Government of the Northwest Territories,
Yellowknife, NT, Canada. 146 pp. plus insert map.
Ecological Stratification Working Group, 1995. A National Ecological Framework for Canada. Agriculture
and Agri-Food Canada, Research Branch, Centre for Land and Biological Resources Research and
Environment Canada, State of the Environment Directorate, Ecozone Analysis Branch, Ottawa/Hull.
Report and national map at 1:7,500,000 scale.
Eichenberg, D.J., 1999. Geological Assessment Report - Glacial Sediment Sampling for Mountain
Province Mining Inc on the AK and CJ Claims.

Fahrig, W.F., 1987. The Tectonic Setting of Continental Mafic Dyke Swarms: Failed arm and early passive
margins: In Halls, H.C. and Fahrig, W.F. (eds.) Mafic Dyke Swarms. GAC Special Paper 34, p. 331-348.
Field, M. and Scott-Smith, B., 1999. Contrasting geology and near-surface emplacement of kimberlite
pipes in Southern Africa and Canada: In Proc. Seventh Int. Kimberlite Conf. (J.J. Gurney et al., eds.). Red
Roof Designs, Cape Town, South Africa, p. 214-237.
Griffin, W.L., Doyle, B.J., Ryan, C.C., Pearson, N.J., O’Reilly, S.Y., Natapov, L., Kivi, K., Kretschmar, U.
and Ward, J., 1999. Lithospheric Structure and Mantle Terranes: Slave Craton, Canada. In Proc. Seventh
Int. Kimberlite Conf. (J.J. Gurney et al., eds.). Red Roof Designs, Cape Town, South Africa, p. 299-306.
Heaman, L.M., Kjarsgaard, B. & Creaser, R.A., 2003. The timing of kimberlite magmatism in North
America: Implications for global kimberlite genesis and diamond exploration: Lithos, vol. 71, p. 153-184.
Hetman, C.M., Scott-Smith, B.H., Paul, J.L. and Winter, F., 2004. Geology of the Gahcho Kué kimberlite
pipes, NWT, Canada: root to diatreme magmatic transition zones: Lithos, vol. 76, p. 51-74.
Hoffman, P.F., 1987. Continental transform tectonics: Great Slave Lake Shear Zone (ca. 1.9 Ga),
northwest Canada: Geology, vol. 15, p. 785-788.
Isachsen, C.E., Bowring, S.A. and Padgham, W.A., 1991. U-Pb Geochronology of the Yellowknife
Supergroup at Yellowknife, NWT, Canada: Constraints on its evolution. GAC/MAC Annual Meeting
Program with Abstracts, vol. 16, p. A59.
Johnson, D., Makarenko, M., Meikle, K., Prince-Wright, B, Jakubec, J. and Jones, K. , 2010. Gahcho Kué
Project, Definitive Feasibility Study, NI 43-101 Technical Report, NWT, Canada, 299 pp.
Kurszlaukis, S. and Lorenz, V., 2008. Formation of “Tuffisitic Kimberlites” by Phreatomagmatic
Processes. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, vol. 174, p. 68-80.
Kusky, T.M., 1989. Accretion of the Archean Slave Province. Geology, vol. 17, p. 63-67.
LeCheminant, A.N. and Heaman, L.M., 1989. MacKenzie Igneous Events, Canada: Middle Proterozoic
Hotspot Magmatism Associated with Ocean Opening. Earth & Planetary Sci. Letters, vol. 96, 9. 38-48.
LeCheminant, A.N. and Heaman, L.M., 1994. 779 Ma mafic magmatism in the northwestern Canadian
Shield and northern Cordillera: a new regional time-marker. In Proceedings of the 8th
International
Conference, Geochronology, Cosmochronology and Isotope Geology, Program with Abstracts, US
Geological Survey Circular 1107, Berkley, CA, p. 197.
LeCheminant, A.N., Van Breemen, O. and Buchan, K.L., 1995. Proterozoic dyke swarms, Lac de Gras –
Aylmer Lake area, NWT: Regional distribution, ages and paleomagnetism: GAC/MAC Annual Meeting,
Program with Abstracts, 27 pp.
LeCheminant, A.N., Heaman, L.M., van Breemen, O., Ernst, R.E., Baragar, W.R.A. and Buchan, K.L.,
1996. Mafic magmatism, mantle roots, and kimberlites in the Slave craton. In Searching for Diamonds in
Canada, A.N. LeCheminant, D.G. Richardson, R.N.W. DiLabio and K.A. Richardson (eds.), Geological
Survey of Canada, Open File 3228, p. 161-169.

Lorenz, V. and Kurszlaukis, S., 2007. Root Zone Processes in the Phreatomagmatic Pipe Emplacement
Model and Consequences for the Evolution of Maar-Diatreme Volcanoes. Journal of Volcanology and
Geothermal Research, vol. 159, p. 4-32.
Rainbird, R.H., 1993. The Sedimentary Record of Mantle Plume Uplift Preceding Eruption of the
Neoproterozoic Natkusiak Flood Basalt. Geology, vol. 101, No. 3, p. 305-318.
Rikhotso, C.T., Poniatowski, B.T. and Hetman, C.M., 2003. Overview of the Exploration, Evaluation and
Geology of the Gahcho Kue Kimberlites, Northwest Territories. In Kjarsgaard, B.B. (ed.) Eighth
International Kimberlite Conference, Slave Province and Northern Alberta Field Trip Guidebook.
Geological Survey of Canada, p. 79-86.
Stasiuk and Nassichuk, 1996. Thermal data from petrographic analysis of organic matter in kimberlite
pipes, Lac de Gras, NWT. In Searching for Diamonds in Canada, A.N. LeCheminant, D.G. Richardson,
R.N.W. DiLabio and K.A. Richardson (eds.), Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 3228, p. 147-149.
Stubley, M.P., 2005. Slave Craton: Interpretive bedrock compilation; Northwest Territories Geoscience
Office, NWT-NU Open File 2005-01. Digital files and 2 maps.
Thurston, M.L., 2003. Gahcho Kué, Northwest Territories, Canada – Independent Qualified Person’s
Review and Technical Report, NI 43-101 Technical Report, 109 pp.Corp. 9 pages
Northwest Territories Geoscience Office has provided the following assessment reports during this review:
Hicks,K ., 1994. Geochemical and Geophysical Assessment Report on Mountain Province Inc CJ-AK Property. AR #
083381.
Foulkes, J.P., 1996. Report on Geochemical, Geophysical and Geological Representation Work on Mountain
Provoince nc’s AK Property. Work was done by Canamera Geological. AR # 083580.
Foulkes, J.P. and Jones, B. November 1996. Vol 1 and 2. Summary of Exploration and Evaluation Work (Till
Sampling, Geophysics, Drilling) on the Mountain Province Mining Inc, Glenmore Highlands Inc and Camphor
Ventures Inc AK Property. AR # 083753.
Chartier, T. 1996. Geological, Geochemical and Geophysical Report in Fulfillment of Assessment Requirments on
Gerle Gold Ltd’s LA, Thin, Easy, TCB, Boot, Lobo and Tara Claims in the Doyle Lake Area, NWT. AR # 083807.
Eichenberg, D. 1997. Geological Assessment Report – Summary of Exploration and Evaluation Work for Mountain
Province Mining Inc on the AK Property. This report includes 5 parts on drilling, till sampling and geophysics. AR
#084122.
Eichenberg, D., Hardy, F. and Pfister, S.(Monopros Limited) 1999. Geological Assessment Report on Glacial
Sediment Sampling for Mountain Province Mining Inc on their AK and CJ Properties. AR# 084239.
Poniatowski, B. 2000. Geological Assessment Report – Glacial Sediment Sampling on Mountain Province Mining
Inc and Gerle Gold Limited’s Doyle Lake Property. AR# 084348.

20 CERTIFICATION OF AUTHOR
I, Gary Vivian, of the City of Yellowknife, in the Northwest Territories, Canada,
HEREBY CERTIFY:
1. That my business address is 3506 McDonald Drive, Yellowknife, NT, X1A 2H1
2. This certificate applies to the report titled “Technical Report, Margaret Lake – Northwest Territories,
Canada” and dated March 27, 2014.
3. That I am a graduate of Sir Sandford Fleming College as a Geophysical Technologist, 1976.
4. That I am a graduate of the University of Alberta in Geology:
a. B.Sc. – Specialization Geology, 1983.
b. M.Sc. – Geology, 1987, U of A – The Geology of Blackdome Ag-Au Deposit, BC
5. That I have been practicing Geology since 1983:
a) May 1983 – November 1986 Noranda Exploration Co. Ltd., Bathurst, NB
b) December 1986 – May 1988 Noranda Exploration Co. Ltd., Timmins, ON
c) May 1988 – Present Covello, Bryan and Associates Ltd.
and currently Aurora Geosciences Ltd.,
Yellowknife, NT
6. That I am a registered Professional Geologist in the Northwest Territories and a principal in Aurora
Geosciences Ltd, a professionally licensed geological and geophysical consulting company . I have professional
designation in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and BC. I am also registered with AIPG (American Institute of
Professional Geologists). I have over 35 years of exploration experience concentrating in massive sulphide,
magmatic sulphide, diamond, uranium and precious metal deposition. As such I am a Qualified Person for the
purposes of National Instrument 43-101.
7. As a principal of Aurora, I have written this report. As a staking agent for Margaret Lake Diamonds, I was
involved in the staking of the Margaret Lake Property. I last visited the property on July 24th
of 2013 for one (1)
day while selecting an area for a potential fuel drop off for Kennady Diamonds Ltd. I am responsible for all sections
of this report titled – “Technical Report-Margaret Lake Property - Northwest Territories, Canada”.
8. That I am not aware of any material fact or material change with respect to technical aspects of the report
which is not reflected in the report.
9. That I am independent of the vendor (Harsbo) and the issuer (Margaret Lake Diamonds Inc.) of this
report, the property, and current NSR holder, Margaret Lake Diamonds, as defined by the tests set out in Section
1.5, “Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects”, National Instrument 43-101., and Section 3.2, ‘Mining
Standards Guidelines’ (TSX Venture Exchange Appendix 3F).
10. That I have read “Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects”, National Instrument 43-101 and read
Form 43-101F1. This report has been prepared in compliance with this Instrument and Form 43-101F1.
11. That, as of March 27, 2014, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the Technical Report
contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the technical report not
misleading.
Dated, March 27, 2014 at Yellowknife, NT.
______________________________

21 DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGE
This report titled “Technical Report, Margaret Lake Property - Northwest Territories, Canada” and dated
March 27, 2014 was prepared by and signed by the following author:
_______________________________
President, Aurora Geosciences Ltd
Dated at Yellowknife, Northwest Territories on March 27, 2014

Technical Report: Margaret Lake Property
22 CONSENT
To : The TSX Venture Exchange
P.O. Box 450
3rd
Floor, 130 King Street West
Toronto, ON M5X 1J2
The author consents to the public filing of the Technical Report and to extracts from, or a
summary of, the Technical Report in the written disclosure being filed. The author confirms
he has read the written disclosure being filed and that it fairly and accurately represents
the information in the Technical Report that supports the disclosure.
This consent is dated at Yellowknife, Northwest Territories on April 16, 2014.
(signed) “Gary Vivian”
_____________________________________
Gary Vivian, M.Sc., P.Geol. (NAPEG 1301)
Aurora Geosciences Ltd

2014 Technical Report on the Margaret Lake Property

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (11)

Similar to 2014 Technical Report on the Margaret Lake Property

Similar to 2014 Technical Report on the Margaret Lake Property (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

2014 Technical Report on the Margaret Lake Property