Technical Report: Commerce Resources Corp. (January 2011)

Blue River Ta-Nb Project

NI 43-101 Technical ReportBlue River, British Columbia

Prepared for:

Commerce Resources Corporation

Prepared by:

Albert Chong, P.Geo

Tomasz Postolski, P.Eng

Effective Date: 31 January 2011

Project No. 162230

AMEC Americas Limited 111 Dunsmuir Street, Suite 400 Vancouver, B.C. V6B 5W3 Tel (604) 664-4315 Fax (604) 669-9516 www.amec.com

CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON

Albert Chong, P.Geo. AMEC Americas Limited

111 Dunsmuir Street, Suite 400 Vancouver, B.C. V6B 5W3

Phone: (604) 664-4116 E-mail: [email protected]

I, Albert Chong, P.Geo., am employed as a Senior Geologist with AMEC Americas Limited.

This certificate applies to the Technical Report titled “Blue River Ta-Nb Project, Blue River, B.C., NI

43-101 Technical Report” and dated 31 January 2011 (the “Technical Report”)

I am a Professional Geoscientist in the Province of British Columbia (P.Geo. #23773). I graduated

from McMaster University, Canada with a B.Sc. degree in Geology, and from the University of

Tasmania, Australia with a M.Sc. degree in Exploration Geoscience.

I have practiced my profession for 25 years since graduation. I have been directly involved in green

fields and brown fields exploration, mining operations, consulting, and resource estimation of base

metal, precious metal and rare metal deposits.

As a result of my experience and qualifications, I am a Qualified Person as defined in National

Instrument 43–101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (NI 43–101).

I visited the Blue River property from July 11 to 16, 2010.

I am responsible for Sections 2 to 16, Sections 18, 19, 22, 23, and those portions of the Summary,

Interpretation and Conclusions, and Recommendations (Sections 1, 20, and 21) that pertain to these

sections of the Technical Report.

I am independent of Commerce Resources Corporation as independence is described by Section

1.4 of NI 43–101.

I have been involved with the Blue River Ta-Nb Project since January 2010 as part of data

verification, geology and preparation of the Technical Report.

I have read NI 43–101 and this report has been prepared in compliance with that Instrument.

As of the date of this certificate, 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.

“Signed and sealed”

Albert Chong, P.Geo.

Dated: 02 February 2011

AMEC Americas Limited 111 Dunsmuir Street, Suite 400 Vancouver, B.C. V6B 5W3 Tel (604) 664-4315 Fax (604) 669-9516 www.amec.com

CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON

Tomasz Postolski, P.Eng. AMEC Americas Limited

111 Dunsmuir Street, Suite 400 Vancouver, B.C. V6B 5W3

Phone: (604) 664-6096 E-mail: [email protected]

I, Tomasz Postolski, P.Eng., am employed as a Senior Geostatistician with AMEC Americas Limited.

This certificate applies to the Technical Report titled “Blue River Ta-Nb Project, Blue River, B.C., NI

43-101 Technical Report” dated 31 January 2011 (the “Technical Report”)

I am a Professional Engineer in the Province of British Columbia (P.Eng. #34784). I have graduated

from The University of Mining and Metallurgy, Krakow, Poland with a Magister Inzynier degree in

Geological Engineering, and from the University of British Columbia with a Master of Applied

Science degree also in Geological Engineering. I have completed the Citation Program in Applied

Geostatistics at the Centre for Computational Geostatistics at the University of Alberta.

I have 17 years of consulting, mine operations, and academic experience specializing in

geostatistical ore resource estimation and geological evaluation of gold, copper, rare earth metals

and other mineral deposits in Canada and abroad.

As a result of my experience and qualifications, I am a Qualified Person as defined in National

Instrument 43–101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (NI 43–101).

I did not visit the Blue River property.

I am responsible for Section 17 and those portions of the Summary, Interpretation and Conclusions,

and Recommendations (Sections 1, 20, and 21) that pertain to this section of the Technical Report.

I am independent of Commerce Resources Corporation as independence is described by Section

1.4 of NI 43–101.

I have been involved with the Blue River Ta-Nb Project in February 2010 conducting geostatistical

drill hole spacing study and again since July 2010 preparing the Mineral Resource estimate and the

Technical Report.

I have read NI 43–101 and this report has been prepared in compliance with that Instrument.

As of the date of this certificate, 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.

“Signed and sealed”

Tomasz Postolski, P.Eng.

Dated: 02 February 2011

IMPORTANT NOTICE

This report was prepared as a National Instrument 43-101 Technical

Report by AMEC Americas Limited (AMEC). The quality of

information, conclusions, and estimates contained herein is consistent

with the level of effort involved in AMEC’s services, based on: i)

information available at the time of preparation, ii) data supplied by

outside sources, and iii) the assumptions, conditions, and qualifications

set forth in this report. This report is intended to be used by

Commerce Resources Corporation (Commerce), subject to the terms

and conditions of its contract with AMEC. That contract permits

Commerce to file this Technical Report with Canadian Securities

Regulatory Authorities pursuant to provincial securities legislation.

Except for the purposes legislated under provincial securities law, any

use of this report by any third party is at that party’s sole risk.

Prepared by: “Signed and Stamped”

Albert Chong, P.Geo

“Signed and Stamped”

Tomasz Postolski, P.Eng

Reviewed by: “Signed and Stamped”

Greg Gosson, Ph.D, P.Geo

Approved by: “Signed”

Arndt Brettschneider, Manager Geology & Mining

COMMERCE RESOURCES CORPORATION

BLUE RIVER TA-NB PROJECT

BLUE RIVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA

NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

Project No.: 162230 TOC i 31 January 2011

C O N T E N T S

1.0 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Principal Findings ............................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Project Location and Access ........................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Mineral Tenure, Surface Rights, and Permits ................................................................. 1-1 1.4 Geology, Deposit Type, and Mineralization..................................................................... 1-2 1.5 History, Exploration, and Drilling ..................................................................................... 1-2 1.6 Sample Preparation and Analysis ................................................................................... 1-2 1.7 Data Verification .............................................................................................................. 1-3 1.8 Processing and Metallurgical Testwork ........................................................................... 1-3 1.9 Market Study ................................................................................................................... 1-3 1.10 Commodity Price ............................................................................................................. 1-4 1.11 Mineral Resource Estimation........................................................................................... 1-4 1.12 Mineral Resource Statement ........................................................................................... 1-4 1.13 Exploration Potential ........................................................................................................ 1-5 1.14 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 1-6 1.15 Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 1-7

2.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Qualified Persons ............................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Site Visit ........................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Effective Dates ................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.4 Sources of Information and Data ..................................................................................... 2-2 2.5 Technical Report Sections and Required Items under NI 43-101 ................................... 2-2

3.0 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS .............................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Mineral Tenure ................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.2 Permitting and Environment ............................................................................................ 3-1 3.3 Market Analysis ............................................................................................................... 3-1

4.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION ............................................................................ 4-1 4.1 Property Area and Location ............................................................................................. 4-1 4.2 Mineral Tenure ................................................................................................................ 4-1 4.3 Surface Rights ................................................................................................................. 4-1 4.4 Permitting and Environmental Liabilities ......................................................................... 4-4 4.5 Royalties, Payments, and Agreements ........................................................................... 4-4 4.6 Location of Known Mineralization .................................................................................... 4-4 4.7 Comment on Section 4 .................................................................................................... 4-5

5.0 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Accessibility ..................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Climate ............................................................................................................................. 5-1 5.3 Local Resources .............................................................................................................. 5-1 5.4 Infrastructure ................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.5 Physiography ................................................................................................................... 5-2 5.6 Comment on Section 5 .................................................................................................... 5-2

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





Project No.: 162230 TOC ii 31 January 2011

6.1 Previous Work ................................................................................................................. 6-1 6.2 Commerce Exploration .................................................................................................... 6-2 6.3 Commerce Mineral Resource Estimates ......................................................................... 6-2

7.0 GEOLOGICAL SETTING ............................................................................................................. 7-1 7.1 Regional Geology ............................................................................................................ 7-1 7.2 Local Geology .................................................................................................................. 7-3 7.3 Blue River Project Geology ............................................................................................. 7-3

7.3.1 Metasedimentary Rocks ..................................................................................... 7-3 7.3.2 Intrusive Rocks ................................................................................................... 7-4 7.3.3 Structural Geology and Metamorphism ............................................................ 7-14 7.3.4 Geochronology ................................................................................................. 7-15

7.4 Fir and Verity Geology ................................................................................................... 7-16 7.4.1 Fir Carbonatite Geology ................................................................................... 7-16 7.4.2 Verity Carbonatite ............................................................................................. 7-16

7.5 Comment on Section 7 .................................................................................................. 7-17

8.0 DEPOSIT TYPES ......................................................................................................................... 8-1 8.1 Comment on Section 8 .................................................................................................... 8-3

9.0 MINERALIZATION ....................................................................................................................... 9-1 9.1 Blue River Mineralization ................................................................................................. 9-1

9.1.1 Carbonatite Mineralization .................................................................................. 9-1 9.1.2 Fenite Mineralization .......................................................................................... 9-3

9.2 Fir and Verity Mineralization ............................................................................................ 9-3 9.2.1 Fir Mineralization ................................................................................................ 9-3 9.2.2 Verity Mineralization ........................................................................................... 9-3

9.3 Comment on Section 9 .................................................................................................... 9-4

10.0 EXPLORATION .......................................................................................................................... 10-1 10.1 Data Compilation ........................................................................................................... 10-1

10.1.1 Historical Data Compilation .............................................................................. 10-1 10.1.2 Current Data Compilation ................................................................................. 10-1

10.2 Grids and Surveys ......................................................................................................... 10-2 10.3 Mapping ......................................................................................................................... 10-2 10.4 Geochemistry (stream sediment, soil, and rock) ........................................................... 10-2

10.4.1 Stream-Sediment Sampling ............................................................................. 10-3 10.4.2 Soil Sampling .................................................................................................... 10-3 10.4.3 Rock Sampling ................................................................................................. 10-5

10.5 Geophysical Surveys ..................................................................................................... 10-5 10.6 Drilling ............................................................................................................................ 10-6 10.7 Bulk Density ................................................................................................................... 10-6 10.8 Exploration Potential ...................................................................................................... 10-6

10.8.1 Blue River Exploration Targets ......................................................................... 10-6 10.8.2 Other Targets ................................................................................................... 10-6

10.9 Other Studies ................................................................................................................. 10-7 10.9.1 Bulk Samples .................................................................................................... 10-7 10.9.2 Academic Research ......................................................................................... 10-7 10.9.3 Environmental Geochemistry ........................................................................... 10-7 10.9.4 Geotechnical ..................................................................................................... 10-8 10.9.5 Tailings Location ............................................................................................... 10-8 10.9.6 Timber Assessment .......................................................................................... 10-9





Project No.: 162230 TOC iii 31 January 2011

10.10 Comment on Section 10 ................................................................................................ 10-9

11.0 DRILLING ................................................................................................................................... 11-1 11.1 Drill Campaigns ............................................................................................................. 11-1 11.2 Drilling Equipment ......................................................................................................... 11-2 11.3 Core Drilling ................................................................................................................... 11-2

11.3.1 Core Drilling Strategy ....................................................................................... 11-2 11.3.2 Core Sizes ........................................................................................................ 11-3 11.3.3 Collar Surveys .................................................................................................. 11-3 11.3.4 Downhole Surveys ............................................................................................ 11-3 11.3.5 Oriented Drill Core ............................................................................................ 11-3 11.3.6 Core Handling ................................................................................................... 11-3 11.3.7 Core Recovery .................................................................................................. 11-4

11.4 Planned Drill Programs .................................................................................................. 11-4 11.5 Comment on Section 11 ................................................................................................ 11-4

12.0 SAMPLING METHOD AND APPROACH .................................................................................. 12-1 12.1 Comment on Section 12 ................................................................................................ 12-3

13.0 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES, AND SECURITY ........................................................ 13-1 13.1 Sample Preparation ....................................................................................................... 13-1 13.2 Sample Analysis ............................................................................................................ 13-1 13.3 Quality Control ............................................................................................................... 13-2

13.3.1 Assessment of Accuracy with SRM Control Samples ...................................... 13-2 13.3.2 Assessment of Accuracy with Secondary Lab Pulp Checks ............................ 13-5 13.3.3 Assessment of Precision with Duplicates ......................................................... 13-8 13.3.4 Assessment of Contamination Using Blanks.................................................. 13-15

13.4 Density ......................................................................................................................... 13-16 13.5 Security ........................................................................................................................ 13-18 13.6 Comment on Section 13 .............................................................................................. 13-18

14.0 DATA VERIFICATION ................................................................................................................ 14-1 14.1 Database Data Entry Check .......................................................................................... 14-1 14.2 Site Visit ......................................................................................................................... 14-2

14.2.1 Drill Collar Location Check ............................................................................... 14-2 14.2.2 Logging and Sampling Facilities ....................................................................... 14-2 14.2.3 Core Storage .................................................................................................... 14-3 14.2.4 Inspection of Drill Core and Verification of Mineralization ................................ 14-3

14.3 Comment on Section 14 ................................................................................................ 14-4

15.0 ADJACENT PROPERTIES ........................................................................................................ 15-1

16.0 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING .................................................. 16-1 16.1 Head Samples for Initial Testing ................................................................................... 16-2 16.2 Phase I Testing .............................................................................................................. 16-2 16.3 Phase II Testing ............................................................................................................. 16-5 16.4 Review of Concentrate Treatment Options ................................................................... 16-7 16.5 Accuracy of Assaying .................................................................................................... 16-7 16.6 Comment on Section 16 ................................................................................................ 16-8

17.0 MINERAL RESOURCE AND MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES ............................................. 17-1 17.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 17-1 17.2 Assay Data and Capping ............................................................................................... 17-1





Project No.: 162230 TOC iv 31 January 2011

17.3 Composites .................................................................................................................... 17-1 17.4 Exploratory Data Analysis ............................................................................................. 17-2 17.5 Contact Analysis ............................................................................................................ 17-4 17.6 Variography ................................................................................................................... 17-4 17.7 Carbonatite Solid Modeling ........................................................................................... 17-5 17.8 Block Model Dimensions ............................................................................................... 17-5 17.9 Assignment of Lithology and Specific Gravity to Blocks ............................................... 17-6 17.10 Block Model Grade Estimate ......................................................................................... 17-6 17.11 Block Model Validation .................................................................................................. 17-7

17.11.1 Visual Validation ............................................................................................... 17-7 17.11.2 Global Grade Bias Check ................................................................................. 17-9 17.11.3 Local Grade Bias Check (Swath Plots) .......................................................... 17-10 17.11.4 Selectivity Check ............................................................................................ 17-11

17.12 Preliminary Results from 2010 Drilling ........................................................................ 17-13 17.13 Mineral Resource Classification .................................................................................. 17-14 17.14 Reasonable Prospects for Economic Extraction ......................................................... 17-16

17.14.1 Market Study .................................................................................................. 17-16 17.14.2 Commodity Price ............................................................................................ 17-17 17.14.3 Physical Assumptions..................................................................................... 17-18 17.14.4 Operational Considerations ............................................................................ 17-18 17.14.5 Economic Assumptions .................................................................................. 17-18 17.14.6 Economic Cut-off ............................................................................................ 17-19

17.15 Mineral Resource Statement ....................................................................................... 17-19

18.0 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR TECHNICAL REPORTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROPERTIES AND PRODUCTION PROPERTIES .................................................................. 18-1

19.0 OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION ......................................................................................... 19-1

20.0 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................ 20-1

21.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................................. 21-1 21.1 Comment on Section 20 ................................................................................................ 21-2

22.0 DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGE ................................................................................................ 22-1

23.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 23-1

T A B L E S

Table 1-1: Blue River Project Estimated Mineral Resources; Effective Date 30 June, 2010,

Tomasz Postolski, P. Eng., Qualified Person ..................................................................... 1-5 Table 2-1: Site Visit and Sections of Responsibility ............................................................................. 2-1 Table 2-2: Form 43-101F1 Prescribed Items in Relation to Report Contents ..................................... 2-3 Table 6-1: Blue River Exploration History Summary ........................................................................... 6-1 Table 11-1: Drill Campaign Summary .................................................................................................. 11-1 Table 11-2: Upper Fir Deposit Trench and Bulk Samples ................................................................... 11-2 Table 12-1: Selected Ta and Nb Composite Values in Carbonatite .................................................... 12-2 Table 13-1: Primary Analysis Lower Detection Limits ......................................................................... 13-2 Table 13-2: Control Samples and Insertion Rates by Year ................................................................. 13-2 Table 13-3: “Robert” Standard Reference Material “Best Values” ....................................................... 13-3





Project No.: 162230 TOC v 31 January 2011

Table 13-4: Pulp Check Bias in Percent .............................................................................................. 13-8 Table 13-5 Field Duplicate Precision by Year ................................................................................... 13-10 Table 13-6: Specific Gravity Measurements for Blue River Rock Types ........................................... 13-17 Table 14-1: AMEC Site Visit Confirmation of Mineralization ................................................................ 14-4 Table 15-1: List of Adjacent Property Claims....................................................................................... 15-1 Table 16-1: Results from F81............................................................................................................... 16-6 Table 16-2: Results of a Sequential Hydrochloric Acid Leach of Flotation “Middling” ......................... 16-7 Table 17-1: Capped Assays vs. 2.5m Composites Statistics Inside Carbonatites .............................. 17-1 Table 17-2: Composite Statistics in Carbonatite .................................................................................. 17-2 Table 17-3: Ta2O5 and Nb2O5 Correlogram Parameter in Carbonatite ................................................ 17-5 Table 17-4: Block Model Dimensions .................................................................................................. 17-5 Table 17-5: Estimation Parameters for Ta2O5 and Nb2O5 ................................................................... 17-6 Table 17-6: Mean Grades for NN, OK and ID3 Models ....................................................................... 17-9 Table 17-7: Blue River Project Estimated Mineral Resources; Effective Date 30 June, 2010,

Tomasz Postolski, P.Eng, Qualified Person ................................................................... 17-20 Table 17-8: Blue River Project Sensitivity of Estimated Mineral Resources to Tantalum Price;

Effective Date 30 June, 2010, Tomasz Postolski, P.Eng, Qualified Person .................. 17-21 Table 21-1: Recommendations Summary ........................................................................................... 21-1

F I G U R E S

Figure 4-1: Location Map ...................................................................................................................... 4-2 Figure 4-2: Blue River Mineral Tenure Map .......................................................................................... 4-3 Figure 7-1: Tectonic Belts of British Columbia and Carbonatite Occurrences ...................................... 7-2 Figure 7-2: Local Geology Map ............................................................................................................. 7-5 Figure 7-3: Deposit Area Surface Geology Map ................................................................................... 7-6 Figure 7-4: Drill Collar and Vertical Section Locations .......................................................................... 7-9 Figure 7-5: Lower Road Longitudinal Section 352800 E .................................................................... 7-10 Figure 7-6: Geology Section 5796737 N ............................................................................................. 7-11 Figure 7-7: Geology Section 5796425 N ............................................................................................. 7-12 Figure 7-8: Folding Indicators (Hole F08-150 121.8 m to 129.8 m) .................................................... 7-13 Figure 7-9: Folding Indicators (Hole F08-150: 143.5 m and 147.0 m) ................................................ 7-13 Figure 7-10: Folding Indicators (Hole F08-151: 204.0 m to 204.5 m) ................................................... 7-14 Figure 9-1: Tantalum and Niobium Rich Mineralogy within Carbonatite ............................................... 9-3 Figure 10-1: Soil Geochemistry Map ..................................................................................................... 10-4 Figure 13-1: SRM BR-01 Control Chart ................................................................................................ 13-3 Figure 13-2: 2008 “Robert” SRM Ta Performance ................................................................................ 13-4 Figure 13-3: 2008 “Robert” SRM Nb Performance ............................................................................... 13-4 Figure 13-4: 2009 “Robert” SRM Ta Performance ................................................................................ 13-5 Figure 13-5: 2005 Pulp Check Sample Ta RMA Plots .......................................................................... 13-6 Figure 13-6: 2005 Pulp Check Sample Nb RMA Plots ......................................................................... 13-6 Figure 13-7: 2008 Acme Pulp Check Sample Ta RMA Plots ................................................................ 13-7 Figure 13-8: 2008 Acme Pulp Check Sample Nb RMA Plots ............................................................... 13-7 Figure 13-9: Min-Max Plot – Ta Precision for Field Duplicates Between 2006 and 2009 .................... 13-9 Figure 13-10: Min-Max Plot – Nb Precision for Field Duplicates Between 2006 and 2009 .................... 13-9





Project No.: 162230 TOC vi 31 January 2011

Figure 13-11: 2008 Pulp Duplicate Failure Min Max Ta Chart .............................................................. 13-11 Figure 13-12: 2008 Pulp Duplicate ARD vs. Grade Ta Chart ............................................................... 13-11 Figure 13-13: 2008 Pulp Duplicate Failure Min Max Nb Chart ............................................................. 13-12 Figure 13-14: 2008 Pulp Duplicate ARD vs. Grade Nb Chart ............................................................... 13-12 Figure 13-15: 2008 Pulp Duplicate RMA Ta Chart................................................................................ 13-13 Figure 13-16: 2008 Pulp Duplicate RMA Nb Chart ............................................................................... 13-13 Figure 13-17: 2009 Pulp Duplicate RMA Ta Chart................................................................................ 13-14 Figure 13-18: 2009 Pulp Duplicate ARD vs. Grade Ta Chart ............................................................... 13-14 Figure 13-19: 2009 Pulp Duplicate RMA Nb Chart ............................................................................... 13-15 Figure 13-20: 2009 Pulp Duplicate ARD vs. Grade Nb Chart ............................................................... 13-15 Figure 13-21: Blank Control Chart for Tantalum Analyses ................................................................... 13-16 Figure 13-22: Blank Control Chart for Niobium Analyses ..................................................................... 13-16 Figure 14-1: Drill Hole Collar Identification ............................................................................................ 14-3 Figure 16-1: Sample BS-2F – Gravity Separation (Different Grinds) .................................................... 16-3 Figure 16-2: Sample BS-2G – Gravity Separation (Different Grinds) ................................................... 16-3 Figure 16-3: Rougher and Cleaners by Centrifugal Gravity Concentration .......................................... 16-4 Figure 16-4: Upgrading by Wilfley & Mozley Units ................................................................................ 16-5 Figure 17-1: Ta2O5 Histograms and Probability Plot Within Carbonatite .............................................. 17-3 Figure 17-2: Nb2O5 Histograms and Probability Plot Within Carbonatite .............................................. 17-4 Figure 17-3: Ta2O5 ID3 Model Within Carbonatite – plan 1146.25 ....................................................... 17-7 Figure 17-4: Ta2O5 ID3 Model Within Carbonatite – section N5796932.5 ............................................ 17-8 Figure 17-5: Nb2O5 ID3 Model Within Carbonatite – plan 1146.25 ....................................................... 17-8 Figure 17-6: Nb2O5 ID3 Model Within Carbonatite – section N5796932.5 ........................................... 17-9 Figure 17-7: Swath Plot for Ta2O5 ID3 Model ...................................................................................... 17-10 Figure 17-8: Swath Plot for Nb2O5 ID3 Model ..................................................................................... 17-11 Figure 17-9: Herco Grade – Tonnage Curves for Ta2O5 ID3 Model ................................................... 17-12 Figure 17-10: Herco Grade – Tonnage Curves for Nb2O5 ID3 Model ................................................... 17-13 Figure 17-11: Lithology in 2010 Drill Holes vs. Current Solids – Section N5796902.5 ......................... 17-14 Figure 17-12: Resource Classification - Plan 1,161.25 ......................................................................... 17-15 Figure 17-13: Resource Classification – Section N 5,796,882.5 .......................................................... 17-16

A P P E N D I C E S

Appendix A: List of Claims





Project No.: 162230 TOC vii 31 January 2011

U N I T S O F M E A S U R E

Centimetre ...................................................................................................... cm Cubic centimetre ............................................................................................. cm

3

Cubic metre .................................................................................................... m3

Cubic yard ....................................................................................................... yd3

Degree ............................................................................................................ ° Degrees Celsius ............................................................................................. °C Dry metric ton ................................................................................................. dmt Gram ............................................................................................................... g Grams per litre ................................................................................................ g/L Grams per tonne ............................................................................................. g/t Greater than .................................................................................................... > Hectare (10,000 m

2) ....................................................................................... ha

Kilo (thousand)................................................................................................ k Kilogram .......................................................................................................... kg Kilometre ......................................................................................................... km Less than ........................................................................................................ < Litre ................................................................................................................. L Metre ............................................................................................................... m Metres per second .......................................................................................... m/s Metric ton (tonne)............................................................................................ t Micrometre (micron)........................................................................................ µm Milligram ......................................................................................................... mg Milligrams per litre........................................................................................... mg/L Millilitre ............................................................................................................ mL Millimetre ........................................................................................................ mm Million .............................................................................................................. M Million tonnes .................................................................................................. Mt Minute (plane angle) ....................................................................................... ' Minute (time) ................................................................................................... min Month .............................................................................................................. mo Niobium ........................................................................................................... Nb Ounce ............................................................................................................. oz Parts per billion ............................................................................................... ppb Parts per million .............................................................................................. ppm Percent ........................................................................................................... % Pound(s) ......................................................................................................... lb Second (plane angle) ..................................................................................... " Second (time) ................................................................................................. s Short ton (2,000 lb) ......................................................................................... st Short ton (US) ................................................................................................. t Short tons per day (US) .................................................................................. tpd Short tons per hour (US) ................................................................................ tph Short tons per year (US) ................................................................................. tpy Specific gravity ................................................................................................ SG Square centimetre .......................................................................................... cm

2

Square foot ..................................................................................................... ft2

Square inch ..................................................................................................... in2





Project No.: 162230 TOC viii 31 January 2011

Square kilometre............................................................................................. km2

Square metre .................................................................................................. m2

Tantalum ......................................................................................................... Ta Thousand tonnes ............................................................................................ kt Tonne (1,000 kg) ............................................................................................ t Tonnes per day ............................................................................................... t/d Tonnes per hour ............................................................................................. t/h Tonnes per year.............................................................................................. t/a Week ............................................................................................................... wk Yard ................................................................................................................ yd Year (annum) .................................................................................................. a Year (US) ........................................................................................................ yr

C O N V E R S I O N F A C T O R S

1 ppm Ta = 1.2211 ppm Ta2O5

1 ppm Nb = 1.4305 ppm Nb2O5

One tonne is the equivalent of 2,204.6 lbs.

Dollars are expressed in United States currency (USD).

Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates are provided in the NAD83 datum of Canada, Zone 11.





Project No.: 162230 Page 1-1 31 January 2011

1.0 SUMMARY

AMEC Americas Limited (AMEC) was commissioned by Commerce Resources

Corporation (Commerce), to provide a Preliminary Assessment (PA) of Commerce’s

wholly-owned Blue River tantalum and niobium Project (the Project) located in the

Province of British Columbia. As part of the on-going PA, AMEC completed an

independent Qualified Person’s review and prepared an updated mineral resource

estimate. This report (Report) documents the updated mineral resource estimate for the

Upper Fir and Bone Creek areas, collectively herein called the Blue River deposit.

1.1 Principal Findings

Total Indicated Mineral Resources are 36.35 million tonnes grading 195 ppm Ta2O5

and 1,700 ppm Nb2O5

Total Inferred Mineral Resources are 6.40 million tonnes grading 199 ppm Ta2O5 and

1,890 ppm Nb2O5

For the purpose of assessing reasonable prospects for economic extraction the

following assumptions were made:

○ Underground room and pillar mining methods would be used

○ Metallurgical recovery of 65.4% and 68.2% for Ta2O5 and Nb2O5 respectively

○ $32.00/tonne mining and backfilling cost

○ $17.00/tonne processing and refining cost

○ $2.70/tonne General and Administration

○ $317/kg price of tantalum

○ $46/kg price of niobium

1.2 Project Location and Access

The Project is located near the community of Blue River, British Columbia, approximately

250 km north of the city of Kamloops and approximately 90 km south of the town of

Valemount on Highway 5. Services for mining operations are available at Prince George,

Kamloops, and Vancouver, British Columbia, or Edmonton, Alberta.

1.3 Mineral Tenure, Surface Rights, and Permits

The Project comprises 2-post, 4-post, and mineral cell claims encompassing just over

1,000 km2 of mineral rights within the Kamloops Mining Division. Surface rights are

currently defined by the Mineral Tenure Act of British Columbia and allow claim holders to

enter and occupy the surface of a claim or lease for the purposes of mineral exploration,






development, or production. All work is controlled through an established permitting

process. Commerce holds appropriate exploration permits and reclamation bonds.

1.4 Geology, Deposit Type, and Mineralization

Carbonatites represent a diverse carbonate-rich, igneous rock type commonly designated

as magmatic segregation deposits. They result from the intrusion, cooling, and

crystallization of a primary (magmatic) Ca-Fe-Mg rich carbonate melt, often with some late

stage hydrothermal activity that can alter their host rocks. Almost all the known carbonatite

occurrences are either intrusive or subvolcanic intrusive rocks. They are comprised of

significant and variable amounts of calcite, dolomite, or siderite of igneous origin.

Carbonatites can contain economic or anomalous concentrations of incompatible elements

such as rare earth elements, niobium-tantalum, zirconium-hafnium, iron-titanium-

vanadium, uranium-thorium and industrial minerals such as apatite, vermiculite, magnetite,

and barite.

The Blue River deposit is hosted within a carbonatite sill swarm with an average thickness

of 30 m and a strike length of 1,000 m. The carbonatite is part of Late Proterozoic

supracrustal rocks which lie on the north-eastern margin of the Shuswap Metamorphic

Complex within the Omineca terrane. Mineralization comprises niobium and tantalum

bearing minerals that have crystallized in carbonatite by primary magmatic concentration

and in fenite formed by metasomatic alteration of the host metasedimentary rocks.

Primary economic minerals are ferrocolumbite and pyrochlore.

1.5 History, Exploration, and Drilling

The Blue River area has been the subject of intermittent exploration since the discovery of

vermiculite bearing carbonatite rock in 1949. Commerce acquired the property in 2000

and initiated exploration for new carbonatite deposits which culminated in the discovery

and delineation of the Upper Fir and Bone Creek carbonatites. Diamond drilling is the

most extensively used exploration tool at Blue River. There are a total of 215 drill holes

within the Upper Fir, Bone Creek and Fir (Lower) carbonatites comprising 41,115 m of HQ

and NQ diameter drill holes.

1.6 Sample Preparation and Analysis

Sampling was on average 1 m length half core, logged and sawn at a facility in the

community of Blue River. Samples were shipped to Acme Analytical Laboratories or

PRA/Inspectorate Laboratories for preparation. Analyses were completed at Acme

Analytical Laboratories. Between 2005 and 2008, Ta and Nb were analysed by ICP-MS

following a lithium metaborate / tetraborate fusion and nitric acid digestion. Analysis in

2009 was by X-Ray fluorescence methods following a lithium metaborate fusion.






1.7 Data Verification

Commerce implemented an industry-acceptable quality control program to manage

logging, sampling, and analysis. Check samples for initial sample batches identified

discrepancies. In 2008 Commerce prepared matrix-matched standard reference material

control samples to monitor accuracy and initiated insertion of intra-lab pulp duplicates in

addition to secondary pulp check control samples. Primary lab precision and accuracy has

been poor but no significant biases are apparent for the bulk of results. AMEC completed

a database verification check and concludes the collar coordinates, down-hole surveys,

lithologies, and assay databases are sufficiently free of error and that the data are suitable

to support mineral resource estimation.

1.8 Processing and Metallurgical Testwork

A mineral processing method using a standard grind-flotation procedure to make a

concentrate of ferrocolumbite-pyrochlore is assumed for Blue River material. Metallurgical

testing indicates a mineral concentrate assaying about 30% combined Nb-Ta pentoxide

within the recovery range of 65% to 70% is possible. The proposed process is similar to

that being used commercially at Iamgold’s Niobec Mine in Quebec. This concentrate

would be further processed to produce marketable separate Ta and Nb products. The

proposed processes are mature, are already used industrially, and consist of reducing the

concentrate to metals as either carbide or ferroalloys in a standard aluminothermic, or

carbothermic, or silicothermic furnace followed by chlorinating the alloys and distilling the

product to separate high purity metal chlorides, TaCl5 and NbCl5. Recoveries from

concentrate to pure chlorides are expected to be 97%. Both Ta and Nb chloride products

are then readily converted and marketed as high purity oxides Ta2O5 and Nb2O5

respectively. These results are suitable to support the mineral resource classification of

the deposit.

1.9 Market Study

Commerce has prepared assessments of the tantalum and niobium markets which outline

their supply and demand. The tantalum assessment was prepared by a tantalum market

expert. Although not independent of Commerce, his analysis reflects the general

consensus of other analysts regarding the tantalum market expressed in publicly available

information. The niobium market assessment was prepared by an independent niobium

expert and reflects the publicly available general consensus of analysts for the niobium

market.

As the Project is still at an early evaluation stage, Commerce has not initiated requests for

expression of interests in the proposed Blue River products and has not negotiated any

purchase or off-take agreements.






1.10 Commodity Price

The proposed mineral process route by Commerce refines the Blue River concentrate to

high purity oxides Ta2O5 and Nb2O5. For tantalum price, tantalum metal scrap was used

as a reasonable proxy for price of high purity Ta2O5. For niobium, high purity Nb2O5 is

marketed as such and also traded as Nb metal, or ferroalloy.

Cut-off grade assumptions of US$317/kg tantalum and US$46/kg niobium, sold as high

purity Ta2O5 and Nb2O5 are used to constrain the Mineral Resources. These prices are

slightly higher than market information (beginning of Q4 2010) of US$280/kg of tantalum

metal and US$44/kg of Nb metal. AMEC considers the slightly higher price assumption is

appropriate and is consistent with industry practices of using more optimistic assumptions

regarding inputs for resource estimation than what would be used for estimating mineral

reserves.

The base case price for tantalum metal scrap is reasonable for constraining Mineral

Resources based on recent market conditions, but it should be noted it is significantly

higher than historical prices. There is a risk that using current price assumptions may not

reflect the long term price of Ta and Nb, particularly in the present volatile market

conditions.

1.11 Mineral Resource Estimation

Ta2O5 and Nb2O5 were estimated using an inverse distance to the power of 3 method for

the carbonatite domains. Capped drill core assays were composited down the hole to a

fixed length of 2.5 m honouring geology boundaries. A four pass interpolation approach

was used with each successive pass having greater search distances. A hard boundary

was used, meaning that composites from outside the carbonatite were ignored in the

interpolation process.

The model was validated by comparing composites to block grades on screen, declustered

global statistics checks, local bias checks using swath plots, and finally model selectivity

checks.

Eighty per cent of the carbonatite blocks are classified as Indicated. Fourteen per cent of

the carbonatite blocks are classified as Inferred, and six per cent of the block model in

carbonatite is unclassified.

1.12 Mineral Resource Statement

The Mineral Resources were classified in accordance with the 2005 Canadian Institute of

Mining, Metallurgy, and Petroleum (CIM) Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and






Mineral Reserves, incorporated by reference into NI 43-101. Table 1-1 shows the

estimated Mineral Resources for the Project.

Table 1-1: Blue River Project Estimated Mineral Resources; Effective Date 30 June, 2010,

Tomasz Postolski, P. Eng., Qualified Person

Ta Price Confidence Mass Ta2O5 Nb2O5 Ta2O5 Nb2O5

[US$/kg] Category [tonnes] [ppm] [ppm] [1000s of kg] [1000s of kg]

317 Indicated 36,350,000 195 1,700 7,090 61,650

Inferred 6,400,000 199 1,890 1,300 12,100

Notes:

1. Assumptions include US$317/kg Ta, US$46/kg Nb, 65.4% Ta2O5 recovery, 68.2% Nb2O5 recovery, US$32/tonne

mining cost, US$17/tonne process and refining cost. Mining losses = 0% and dilution = 0%.

2. Mineral resources are amenable to underground mining methods and have been constrained using a “Stope

Analyzer”.

3. An economic cut-off was based on the Ta and Nb values per block which is variable based on the location of blocks

used in the mineral resource estimate. A block unit value cut-off ranged from $52 to $59.

4. Discrepancies in contained oxide values are due to rounding.

5. In situ contained oxide reported.

The Mineral Resource estimate is supported by base case price assumptions for Ta and

Nb which are significantly higher than historic average prices. A review of publicly

available market analysts’ opinions shows a general agreement that current political and

market conditions support the probability of sustained higher prices.

Underground mining methods are envisioned (room and pillar or variants), and the mining

recovery may vary from 65 to 85% depending on the success in which pillars can be mined

on retreat and/or fill is utilized.

1.13 Exploration Potential

The Upper Fir carbonatite has exploration potential northward of known deposit extents

based on soil sample results. Additional resource definition drilling is warranted.

The Bone Creek and Fir carbonatite has exploration potential along, and across strike

based on soil sample anomalies. Additional in-fill soil sampling is warranted prior to

diamond drilling.

The soil sample geochemistry program highlights the need for additional soil sampling at

the Mt. Cheadle area. Soil sampling and prospecting at the RD occurrence near Mud

Lake, and the Roadside occurrence near Paradise, support follow-up work in the form of

soil sampling, geological reconnaissance mapping and prospecting.






1.14 Conclusions

Commerce and its contractor Dahrouge have executed a professional work program that

has resulted in the delineation of a tantalum and niobium resource.

The Blue River Mineral Resources have the following characteristics:

The mineralization is hosted by a poly-folded carbonatite sill swarm averaging 30 m

thick and 1,100 m long

Close-spaced drilling has confirmed local continuity of the carbonatite

Tantalum and niobium occur in ferrocolumbite and pyrochlore minerals and are

amenable to conventional flotation and refining processes with estimated recoveries of

65% to 70%

The mineral resource estimate is based on information of reasonable quality

Flat to moderate dips of the deposit allow large-scale room-and pillar mining.

The risk factors are:

The base case mineral resource estimate is supported by current Ta and Nb prices

which are significantly higher than historic average prices and may not reflect long term

prices. Market analysts are in general agreement that current political and market

conditions support the probability of sustained higher prices, but this may not occur.

The proposed refining methods have been used in commercial applications but have

not been demonstrated in test work of Blue River material.

Mining recovery is assumed at 70% but could be lower and dilution increased in areas

with moderate dips greater than 10°.

An extensional faulting event has potential for displacements of greater than 10 m in

the carbonatite. Such offsets would likely impact deposit geometry and future mine

designs.

Uranium and thorium are present in the resource and waste rocks. Any radon

produced in the mine and process plant is likely manageable with ventilation, dust

control, and monitoring. Expected capex and opex costs will not be significantly

increased as a result of these safety measures.

Exploration programs completed on the Blue River Project have met their objective of

identifying tantalum and niobium mineralization that has reasonable prospects of economic

extraction.






1.15 Recommendations

AMEC recommends a work program for an estimated total cost of $4.35 M in Canadian

currency. The recommendations are based on the stated Mineral Resource estimate and

the assumed commodity price assumptions.

The program involves completing the on-going Preliminary Assessment and updating the

mineral resource block model with 2010 drilling data and interpretations. Looking forward,

a program is recommended based on field work and supporting studies to prepare for

more advanced studies.

The field based component of the recommendations includes 8,250 m of HQ diameter

diamond drilling, a staged re-assay program, metallurgical testwork, soil geochemistry

surveys, analyses, geo-metallurgy studies, structural geology studies, marketing studies,

core farm security improvements, manpower and field support costs. A Mineral Resource

update is recommended upon completion of the recommended field program.






2.0 INTRODUCTION

Commerce Resources Corporation (Commerce) commissioned AMEC Americas Limited

(AMEC) to provide an independent Qualified Person’s review and NI 43-101 Technical

Report (Report) for the Blue River tantalum-niobium Project (the Project). The Report was

prepared to support a Mineral Resource estimate on the Upper Fir and Bone Creek

deposits of the Project.

2.1 Qualified Persons

The following professionals served as the Qualified Persons (QPs) responsible for the

preparation of the Report as defined in National Instrument 43-101, Standards of

Disclosure for Mineral Projects, and in compliance with Form 43-101F1:

Mr. Albert Chong, P.Geo., Senior Geologist (AMEC, Vancouver)

Mr. Tomasz Postolski, P.Eng, Senior Geostatistician (AMEC, Vancouver)

The QPs have been assisted in the preparation of this report by Mr. Greg Kulla, P.Geo.

(data verification), Mr. Tony Lipiec, P.Eng. (process and metallurgy), Mr. Ramon Mendoza,

P.Eng., (reasonable prospects for economic extraction), and Mr. Graham Wood, M.Sc.,

M.B.A. (commodity pricing).

2.2 Site Visit

Mr. Chong completed a data verification site visit to the Project during July 11 to 16, 2010.

Outcrops, surface geology, drill hole collars, diamond drilling, logging, and sampling

protocols were inspected. Independent quarter-core samples were collected to verify

presence of the tantalum and niobium mineralization. Mr. Ramon Mendoza, P.Eng.

assisted Mr. Chong during the site visit regarding sites amenable for locating potential

infrastructure. Sections of responsibility are summarized in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1: Site Visit and Sections of Responsibility

Qualified Person Site Visit Sections of Responsibility

Albert Chong, P.Geo. July 11 to 16, 2010 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,

16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23

Tomasz Postolski, P.Eng. No visit 1, 17, 20, 21

2.3 Effective Dates

The effective date of the Report is 31 January 2011, which represents the date of the

most recent scientific or technical information included in the Report.






The effective date of the Mineral Resource estimate is 30 June 2010, which represents

the date at which the drill hole database was closed.

Commerce initiated a drill program 1 July 2010. These holes were not used in preparing

the Mineral Resource estimate. AMEC inspected the lithology logged for these holes but

complete assay data for these holes was not available as of the effective date of this

report.

There were no material changes to the scientific and technical information of the Project

between the effective date of the Report and the signature date of the Report.

2.4 Sources of Information and Data

AMEC sourced information from reference documents as cited in the text and summarized

in Section 22 of this Report.

Two technical reports were previously filed on the Project by Commerce:

Gorham. J. (2007). Technical Report on the Upper Fir Ta-Nb Bearing Carbonatite 20-June-

2007, 48 p. plus appendices.

Stone, M., and Selway, J., 2010. Independent Technical Report, Blue River Property, Blue

River, British Columbia, Canada. 116 p.

A portion of the background information and technical data for this Report was obtained

from the above reports. Additional information was requested from, and provided by

Commerce.

2.5 Technical Report Sections and Required Items under NI 43-101

Table 2-2 relates the sections as shown in the contents page of this Report to the

Prescribed Items in Form 43-101F1.






Table 2-2: Form 43-101F1 Prescribed Items in Relation to Report Contents

NI 43-101

Item

Number NI 43-101 Heading

Report

Section

Number Report Section Heading

Item 1 Title Page Cover page of Report

Item 2 Table of Contents Table of contents

Item 3 Summary Section 1 Summary

Item 4 Introduction Section 2 Introduction

Item 5 Reliance on Other Experts Section 3 Reliance on Other Experts

Item 6 Property Description and Location Section 4 Property Description and Location

Item 7 Accessibility, Climate, Local

Resources, Infrastructure and

Physiography

Section 5 Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources,

Infrastructure and Physiography

Item 8 History Section 6 History

Item 9 Geological Setting Section 7 Geological Setting

Item 10 Deposit Types Section 8 Deposit Types

Item 11 Mineralization Section 9 Mineralization

Item 12 Exploration Section 10 Exploration

Item 13 Drilling Section 11 Drilling

Item 14 Sampling Method and Approach Section 12 Sampling Method and Approach

Item 15 Sample Preparation, Analyses and

Security

Section 13 Sample Preparation, Analyses and

Security

Item 16 Data Verification Section 14 Data Verification

Item 17 Adjacent Properties Section 15 Adjacent Properties

Item 18 Mineral Processing and Metallurgical

Testing

Section 16 Mineral Processing and Metallurgical

Testing

Item 19 Mineral Resource and Mineral

Reserve Estimates

Section 17 Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve

Estimates

Item 20 Other Relevant Data and Information Section 19 Other Relevant Data and Information

Item 21 Interpretation and Conclusions Section 20 Interpretation and Conclusions

Item 22 Recommendations Section 21 Recommendations

Item 23 References Section 23 References

Item 24 Date and Signature Page Section 22 Date and Signature Page

Item 25 Additional Requirements for

Technical Reports on Development

Properties and Production Properties

Section 18 Additional Requirements for Technical

Reports on Development Properties and

Production Properties

Item 26 Illustrations Illustrations are incorporated in Report

under appropriate section number,






3.0 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS

3.1 Mineral Tenure

The AMEC QPs have not reviewed the mineral tenure, nor independently verified the legal

status, ownership of the Project area or underlying property agreements. AMEC has fully

relied upon, and disclaims responsibility for, information derived from legal experts for this

information through the following document:

Letter from Clark Wilson LLP titled Commerce Resources Corp. – Mineral Claim Title

Opinion to Mr. Greg Kulla, dated October 29, 2010

Information from this letter and memos has been used in Section 4 of this Report.

3.2 Permitting and Environment

The AMEC QPs have not reviewed the permitting requirements, nor independently verified

the permitting status of the Project area. AMEC has fully relied upon, and disclaims

responsibility for information derived from experts for this information through the following

document:

Letter from Sage Resource Consultants Ltd. titled Commerce Resources Corp. Upper Fir

Deposit Preliminary Economic Assessment – Independent Professional Opinion on

Environmental Permitting and Liability Issues to Mr. Greg Kulla and dated September 29,

2010.

Information from this letter and memos has been used in Section 4 of this Report.

3.3 Market Analysis

The AMEC QPs have relied on tantalum and niobium market analyses derived from

experts for this information through the following documents:

Confidential memo from Dr. Axel Hoppe titled “Ap#6 Introduction to Tantalum

Markets_Finalpdf_2June09.pdf” received 18 October 2010

Confidential memo from Michel Robert titled “Niobium_v3jh.doc” received 18 October 2010

Confidential memo from Michel Robert titled “Niobium_v3jh.doc” received 19 October 2010

Dr. Hoppe is an internationally acknowledged leader in the tantalum field and is Chairman

of the Board of Directors for Commerce Resources.






Mr. Robert has extensive experience in niobium markets and is independent of the

company.

Information from these memos has been used in Section 17 of this Report.






4.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION

4.1 Property Area and Location

The Project is located within the North Thompson River valley of east-central British

Columbia 25 to 60 km north and northeast of the community Blue River, British Columbia

(Figure 4-1). The NTS sheets which cover the Project are: 83D.004-.006; 83D.014-.016;

83D.024-.027; 83D.034-.037; 83D.045-.047. The Project is centered at approximately 52°

19' N latitude and 119° 10' W longitude.

4.2 Mineral Tenure

The Project comprises 249 2-post claim, 4-post claim, and mineral cell title submission

(MCX) mineral claims in good standing that encompass just over 1,000 km2

(105,373.23 ha) within the Kamloops Mining Division. These claims are wholly owned by

Commerce. The claim boundaries are shown in Figure 4-2 and a table listing claim details

is included in Appendix A. The Project’s 2011 annual work assessment cost is $ 834,607.

An additional $ 42,149 is required for filing fees.

Property boundaries are established in accordance with the Mineral Tenure Act of British

Columbia. Commerce has staked the claims by a combination of ground and on-line

staking. McElhanney Associates Land Surveying Limited of Vancouver B.C. has installed

differential GPS control points. Two-post and 4-post claims were established through a

legacy system of ground staking which involved physically establishing claim posts on the

ground. MCX claims are established using the Government of British Columbia’s Mineral

Titles Online (MTO) staking system. MTO is an Internet-based mineral titles administration

system that allows mineral exploration industry to acquire and maintain mineral titles by

selecting the area on a seamless digital GIS map of British Columbia. The electronic

Internet map allows selection of single or multiple adjoining grid cells. Cells range in size

from approximately 21 hectares (457 m x 463 m) in the south to approximately 16 hectares

at the north of the province. All boundaries are oriented north-south and east-west

4.3 Surface Rights

The Mineral Tenure Act of British Columbia provides for a recorded claim holder to use,

enter and occupy the surface of a claim or lease for the exploration and development or

production of minerals or placer minerals, including the treatment of ore and concentrates,

and all operations related to the exploration and development or production of minerals or

placer minerals and the business of mining. Access to surface rights held by third parties

typically requires compensation. No mining activity may be initiated until the recorded

claim holder receives the permit under section 10 of the Mines Act.






Two of Commerce’s mineral claims (530510 and 530511) along the North Thompson River

overlap surface rights owned by other parties. The overlapped area may require

negotiations in the future for land use purposes. AMEC is not aware of any known material

issues regarding access and land use for the claims.

Figure 4-1: Location Map

Note: Figure courtesy of Dahrouge Consulting Ltd (Dahrouge). Grid is in metres for UTM NAD83 Zone 11.






Figure 4-2: Blue River Mineral Tenure Map

Note: Figure courtesy of Dahrouge. Grid is in metres for UTM NAD83 Zone 11.






4.4 Permitting and Environmental Liabilities

There are no known environmental or permitting issues particular or unique to the Upper

Fir and Bone Creek deposits.

Commerce currently holds a multi-year Mineral and Coal Exploration Activities and

Reclamation Permit, permit number MX-15-138, which was issued by the British Columbia

Ministry of Energy Mines and Petroleum Resources under the Mines Act in September

2001 and most recently amended in June 2010. This permit grants permission for

Commerce to continue carrying out exploration activities that will support the ongoing

economic evaluation of the Upper Fir and Bone Creek deposit. The permit is valid until

31 December 2012 after which time an application to amend the permit will need to be

prepared and submitted, if required. There are no foreseeable reasons that additional

permit amendments would not be approved by the British Columbia Ministry of Energy

Mines and Petroleum Resources for continued exploration activities.

Associated with permit MX-15-138 is a reclamation security bond in the amount of

$83,000. This bond is currently posted as Safekeeping Agreements held by both BMO

and the B.C. Ministry of Finance. Commerce’s current reclamation practice is to reclaim

areas disturbed during mineral exploration on an ongoing basis as they become available,

thereby limiting their environmental liability.

4.5 Royalties, Payments, and Agreements

There are no known royalties, back-in rights, agreements, or encumbrances attributed to

the claims.

4.6 Location of Known Mineralization

Locations of known tantalum-niobium enriched carbonatite mineralization are noted in

Figure 4-1. Two main clusters of carbonatite occurrences are known at the Project. The

first cluster hosts the Fir, Upper Fir and Bone Creek deposits and is located between Bone

and Gum Creeks. The second cluster hosts the Verity, Mill, Serpentine, plus Roadside

deposits and is located approximately 7 km further north and occurs between Serpentine

and Mill Creeks.






4.7 Comment on Section 4

AMEC concludes:

Commerce owns 100% of the property mineral rights.

Commerce has paid annual claim-holding fees for the property.

Commerce holds a valid mineral exploration permit for the property.

The property is not subject to any known environmental liabilities.

The property is not subject to any royalties, back-in rights, agreements, or

encumbrances.






5.0 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES,

INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY

5.1 Accessibility

The Project is located 23 km north of the community Blue River, British Columbia,

approximately 250 km north of the city Kamloops and approximately 90 km south of the

town of Valemount. The property is accessed from B.C. Highway 5 (Yellowhead Highway)

via a 4 km well groomed gravel road.

The Upper Fir and Bone Creek deposits can be reached from the Bone and Gum Creek

forestry service road which branches from Highway 5 approximately 23 km north of Blue

River. The east side of the property can be reached by forest service roads along the west

side of Kinbasket Lake and up Howard Creek. Logging roads on Serpentine, Bone,

Hellroar and Mud Creeks allow four-wheel drive and quad bike access to most of the

property. Access to remaining portions of the property is by helicopter.

5.2 Climate

In July, the average daily temperature is 16.4°C and the average rainfall accumulation is

97.5 mm for Blue River (Environment Canada Climate Normals 1971-2000 web site:

http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.html). In January, the average

daily temperature is -9°C and the average snowfall accumulation is 109 cm for Blue River.

The average snow depth is 83 cm in February. Local rainfall and snowfall accumulations

on parts of the property may be much higher due to elevation and orographic effects.

Drilling is feasible from mid May through early to mid October. Snowfall can exceed 10 m

making winter drilling very expensive and difficult, but not impossible.

5.3 Local Resources

The city of Kamloops currently supports mining operations at the New Afton and Highland

Valley mines, and mineral exploration for the surrounding area. Services for mining

operations are reasonably available at Prince George, Vancouver or Edmonton.

5.4 Infrastructure

Power transmission lines, rail, paved, and gravel roads are all adjacent to the Project near

the Yellowhead Highway. The Yellowhead Highway runs sub-parallel to the North

Thompson River. The community of Blue River has a municipal airport for light aircraft and

helicopter support.

http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.html






The main line of the Canadian National Railway passes through the western part of the

property. Sidings currently exist at Lempriere (16.5 km north) and Blue River (23.7 km

south of the Upper Fir deposit). The flat area immediately north of Bone Creek may be

suitable for a siding and is 4.9 km from the Upper Fir deposit.

The BC Hydro 136,000 volt supply line for the North Thompson valley also passes through

the west side of the property adjacent to the rail line. An 18 megawatt Bone Creek run-of-

river hydroelectricity project is under construction near the Project by Transalta Corp.

5.5 Physiography

The Project topography ranges from 700 m to 3,100 m elevation above sea level and is

located largely along the steep, west-facing slopes of the Monashee Mountains, to the east

of the North Thompson River.

The highest peak, Mt. Lempriere, is 3,183 m. Ice fields, glaciers and nevé dominate the

higher elevations on the property. Significant major tributaries feeding into the North

Thompson River in the area include Serpentine Creek, Pyramid Creek, Gum Creek, Bone

Creek, Hellroar Creek and Mud Creek.

Mountain slopes are typically covered by thick undergrowth consisting of grasses, buck

brush, devil’s club, and shrubs of willow, alder, rhododendron, huckleberry, currants,

gooseberry, thimbleberry, and raspberry. White spruce is common in replanted logging

areas. Former trails and flat wet areas are typically overgrown by dense alder and willow.

Areas not subjected to recent logging are covered by dense stands of hemlock, cedar, fir

and white pine. Within the area, the tree line is at approximately 2,000 m elevation. Except

for the Paradise Lake, Felix, Howard Creek and Gum Creek localities, all other

carbonatites are below the tree line, and outcrop exposure is generally poor.


AMEC concludes:

There is sufficient area within the defined Project to accommodate mining-related

infrastructure such as a plant, mine, or waste rock facilities.

The physiography and climate are reasonable to enable future mining.

There is sufficient potential availability of manpower, power, water, communications

facilities, and infrastructure for transportation of supplies to support any future mine.

Area within the Project amenable for potential wet tailings facilities is limited. This is a

minor to moderate logistical risk for the Project which may be mitigated through other

options such as dry stacked tailings, underground disposal, or facilities external to the

existing Property boundary.






6.0 HISTORY

The following has been taken largely from Stone and Selway (2010), Aaquist (1981a,b,c),

McCrea (2001, 2002), Dahrouge (2001a, 2001b), Dahrouge and Reeder (2001, 2002),

Smith and Dahrouge (2002a, 2003), Davis (2006), Rukhlov and Gorham (2007), Gorham

(2008), and Mariano (1982).

6.1 Previous Work

The Blue River area has been the subject of intermittent exploration since the discovery of

vermiculite bearing carbonatite rock in 1949. A summary of exploration activities on the

Project is described below and summarized in Table 6-1.

Table 6-1: Blue River Exploration History Summary

Year Company Exploration

1949-1951

Oliver E.

French

Staking and prospecting; Discovered vermiculite-bearing

carbonatite near Blue River, discovered uranpyrochlore in

dolomitic carbonatite

1952-1955 St. Eugene

Optioned property, geologic mapping, prospecting,

stripping, trenching, and sampling

1967-1968 Vestor

Staking, reconnaissance surface mapping in the area south

of Paradise Lake

1976 J. Kruszewski Re-staked the area as the Verity and AR claims

1977-1978

J. Kruszewski /

E. Meyers

Magnetometer and scintillometer surveys, trenching and

sampling

1980 AMC

Optioned property, discovery of Fir and Bone Creek

carbonatites

1980-1982 AMC

3,954.2 m of NQ diamond drilling at Verity, Mill, Fir and

Bone Creek

1989 Diegel et al.

Government survey discovered two new carbonatite

localities near Serpentine Creek and Gum Creek

2000-Present Commerce

Surface mapping, trenching, soil sampling, geophysics,

diamond drilling, metallurgical testing, bulk sampling

Abbreviations: St. Eugene = St. Eugene Mining Corporation Ltd.; Vestor = Vestor Exploration Ltd; AMC = Anschutz

(Canada) Mining Ltd.; Commerce = Commerce Resources Corp.

Mr. Oliver E. French first discovered vermiculite-bearing carbonate rock near Blue River in

1949, leading to the staking of several claims in 1950 over what became known as the

Verity carbonatite. Zonalite Corporation conducted the first examination of the property but

did not prove economic potential for vermiculite. In 1951 French discovered

uranpyrochlore in dolomitic carbonatite. Having optioned the property, St. Eugene Mining






Corporation Ltd. conducted geologic mapping, prospecting, stripping, trenching, and

sampling between 1952 and 1955. In 1976, J. Kruszewski re-staked the area as the AR 1

to 3 claims, and optioned the Verity claim from E. French. In October 1977, 4.9 line km of

magnetometer and scintillometer surveys, as well as 4.2 line km of scintillometer surveys

only were conducted in the area of the Verity and Mill showings near the mouth of

Paradise Creek. During the summer of 1978, the uranium exploration program known as

“Paradise Creek Uranium-Columbium Prospect” was completed by E. Meyers for J.

Kruszewski. This program consisted of excavating and sampling of six trenches in the

Verity-Mill showing area near Paradise Creek

In 1980, Anschutz (Canada) Mining Ltd. (AMC) optioned the property and initiated

extensive exploration programs focused on tantalum and niobium potential. This resulted

in discovery of several new occurrences throughout the property, including the Fir and

Bone Creek carbonatites. During 1980-1981, Anschutz completed 3,954.2 m of NQ

diameter diamond drilling at the Verity, Mill, Fir and Bone Creek deposits. A tantalum-

niobium resource was estimated at Verity as part of an economic assessment of the

property, but the company abandoned the property due to a market drop in tantalum price.

The carbonatites and alkaline rocks of the Blue River area have also been described by

the following government and academic workers: Rowe (1958), Campbell (1968), Currie

(1976), Ghent et al. (1977), Meyers (1977), Simony et al. (1980), Pell and Simony (1981),

White (1982, 1985), Raeside and Simony (1983), Pell (1987, 1991, 1994), Pell and Hoy

(1989), and Diegel et al. (1989). Two new carbonatite occurrences were discovered by

government geologists in 1989 near Serpentine Creek and Gum Creek during detailed

mapping and sampling surveys.

6.2 Commerce Exploration

In 2000, Commerce acquired the Property and confirmed known tantalum mineralization at

the Fir and Verity carbonatites, and explored for new carbonatite deposits. During the

summer of 2002, the Upper Fir Carbonatite showing was discovered and defined by drilling

between 2005 and 2008.

6.3 Commerce Mineral Resource Estimates

During 2001 and 2002, Commerce commissioned preliminary Mineral Resource estimates

on limited data for the Verity and Fir carbonatite deposits (McRae, 2001, 2002).

During 2009-2010, Commerce commissioned Caracle Creek International Consulting Inc.

(CCIC) to prepare a mineral resource estimate for the Upper Fir. This estimate was based

on the interpretation of 168 Upper Fir drill holes completed between during 2005 to 2008.

As part of the estimate, the Verity and Fir Mineral Resource estimates were audited. CCIC

concluded the Verity and Fir estimates could not be verified, and therefore should not be






relied upon. An initial NI 43-101 compliant Mineral Resource estimate for the Upper Fir

tantalum and niobium rich carbonatite was completed in early 2010 by CCIC (Stone and

Selway, 2010).

During 2010, Commerce commissioned AMEC to complete a Preliminary Assessment

(PA) study which is on-going. As part of the PA, the Upper Fir Mineral Resources were

updated and initial Bone Creek Mineral Resources were established using drill holes

completed during 2005 to 2009 and new geological interpretations of the data.






7.0 GEOLOGICAL SETTING

Carbonatites represent a diverse, carbonate-rich, igneous rock type commonly designated

as magmatic segregation deposits. They result from the intrusion, cooling, and

crystallization of a primary (magmatic) Ca-Fe-Mg rich carbonate melt, often with some late

stage hydrothermal activity that can alter their host rocks. Almost all the known carbonatite

occurrences are either intrusive or subvolcanic intrusive rocks. The susceptibility of

carbonatites to chemical erosion in the atmosphere has resulted in their poor preservation

throughout Earth’s history.

Carbonatites are comprised of significant and variable amounts of calcite, dolomite, or

siderite of igneous origin. They can contain economic or anomalous concentrations of

incompatible elements such as: rare earth elements, niobium-tantalum, zirconium-hafnium,

iron-titanium-vanadium, uranium-thorium; and industrial minerals such as apatite,

vermiculite, magnetite, and barite.

7.1 Regional Geology

The regional geology is taken largely from Currie (1976), Pell (1987 and 1994), Gorham

(2007), and Stone and Selway (2010).

British Columbia is divided into three discrete areas hosting carbonatites and alkaline rocks

(Figure 7-1):

Eastern Area: the Foreland Belt, east of the Rocky Mountain Trench

Central Area: the eastern edge of the Omineca Belt

Western Area: the core of the Omineca Belt.

The Eastern Area hosts northwest to southeast trending carbonatite occurrences. They

are often associated with syenite intrusions. Most of the Eastern Area carbonatites have

relatively high niobium and rare earth element (REE) levels, and little or no tantalum.

Some known Eastern Area carbonatite or carbonatite-associated properties are: Aley,

Prince, Ice River and Rock Canyon Creek.

The Central Area carbonatite intrusions occur along the eastern edge of the Omineca Belt.

The carbonatites of the Omineca Belt commonly have high concentrations of niobium but

low REE values. Known carbonatite complexes include the Blue River and Mud Lake

areas.

The Western Area includes both intrusive and extrusive carbonatites and syenitic gneisses

in the core of the Omineca Belt. Examples are Mount Copeland, Mount Grace, and Three

Valley Gap.






Figure 7-1: Tectonic Belts of British Columbia and Carbonatite Occurrences

Note: Adapted after Pell (1994).

The age of emplacement for carbonatites and alkaline rocks of the Eastern and Central

Areas is Devonian-Mississippian (ca. 330 – 380 Ma). Some occurrences from the core, or

Western Area of the Omineca Belt might be older (ca. 570 to 770 Ma).

Central Area

Western Area

Omineca Belt Carbonatite Areas






All of the alkaline and carbonatite complexes and their host rocks within the Omineca Belt

rocks were deformed and metamorphosed during the Jurassic-Cretaceous Columbian

Orogeny and have been subjected to upper amphibolite facies metamorphism.

7.2 Local Geology

The local geology is taken largely from Digel et al. (1998).

The Project is located in the Central Area within the north-eastern margin of the Shuswap

Metamorphic Complex. The area is composed of polyfolded, metamorphosed Late

Proterozoic (ca. 700-550 Ma) supracrustal rocks and is bounded on the east and west by

steep Eocene west-side down normal faults in the southern Rocky Mountain Trench to the

east and the North Thompson valley to the west. The Malton gneissic complex lies to the

north.

The supracrustal rocks are part of a belt dominated by the Late Proterozoic Horsethief

Creek Group and the overlying Kaza Group. The belt is continuous from the northern

Selkirk Mountains in the southeast, through the Monashee Mountains, and into the Cariboo

Mountains in the northwest. The Blue River carbonatites are hosted in the Mica Creek

assemblage of the Horsethief Creek Group (Figure 7-2).

7.3 Blue River Project Geology

The following descriptions have been summarized from Kraft (2010), Chudy (2010),

Raeside and Simony (1983), and Simonetti (2008).

7.3.1 Metasedimentary Rocks

Two units of the Mica Creek assemblage underlie much of the study area. The units are at

least 1,000 m thick and comprise the lower pelite unit, and the stratigraphically overlying

semipelite–amphibolite unit (Figure 7-3). The Mica Creek metasedimentary rock types

include: biotite gneiss; muscovite-biotite schist and gneiss; garnet-muscovite biotite schist

and gneiss; calc-silicate biotite gneiss; amphibolites; garnet amphibolites; and calc-

amphibolite.

The high intensity of deformation precludes determination of tops in metasedimentary

rocks, thus relative ages of individual units are not clear. Layering in the gneiss is

interpreted as relict bedding, not metamorphic segregation.






Gneisses and Schists

Metamorphosed quartzo-feldspathic biotite gneiss is the most abundant lithology at

surface. The biotite gneiss is ubiquitous and is inter-layered with all other lithologies on the

property.

Outcrops are moderately weathered with characteristic 0.2 to >1 m thick layers of uniform,

massive, medium grained quartz-feldspar-biotite±muscovite divided by recessive schistose

bands or fine partings. Fresh surfaces have a uniform, equigranular, salt and pepper

texture of quartz, feldspar and biotite. Muscovite occurs as thin schistose partings from

trace to abundant amounts. Sub-one mm diameter red garnet occurs in varying amounts.

These units are interpreted to represent deformed and moderately re-crystallized turbidite.

Calc-silicate bearing biotite gneiss has pale green bands a few centimetres thick likely

related to microscopic trace actinolite +/- diopside.

Amphibolites

The amphibolite units occur as lenses within all gneiss and schist units. They are typically

medium grained, massive to moderately foliated amphibolites and can contain red garnets

(almandine) typically < 1 cm in diameter. Plagioclase and hornblende occur in varying

proportions forming rocks ranging from tonalite to hornblendite composition (<10%

hornblende to >90% hornblende respectively). Weak mineral lineations are present as

observed by the alignment of hornblende. Rare banding is observed at centimetre scale.

Locally, calc-amphibolite units are distinguished by an increase in mineral grain size, a

strong contrasting black and white colour, local presence of garnets, and effervescent

reaction with dilute hydrochloric acid. The amphibolites units are interpreted as

metamorphosed mafic sills, dikes, and possibly subaqueous flows.

7.3.2 Intrusive Rocks

Ultramafic Rocks

Ultramafic rocks associated with the carbonatites include fine- to medium-grained

pyroxenites and cumulate pyroxene-hornblendites. The ultramafic units likely represent a

metamorphosed ultramafic intrusion associated with mafic volcanism (amphibolite) roughly

the same age as the intruded metasediments (Figure 7-3).






Figure 7-2: Local Geology Map

Note: Figure courtesy of Dahrouge.






Figure 7-3: Deposit Area Surface Geology Map







Carbonatite

The Blue River carbonatite is approximately 330 million years old (and possibly older)

according to U-Pb geochronology data. The carbonatite was emplaced as dikes or sills

into the metasedimentary rocks prior to regional deformation and metamorphism

(c.a. 200 Ma).

The carbonatite forms sill-like bodies with average thicknesses of 30 m, ranging between

5 m to about 90 m thick, and with strike lengths ranging between 50 m to 1,100 m (Figure

7-4, Figure 7-5, Figure 7-6 and Figure 7-7). Bedding parallel foliation in metasedimentary

gneisses and the contacts of carbonatite intrusions, generally strike 335° and 155° with

shallow to moderate northeast and southeast dips.

Both dolomitic carbonatites and calcitic carbonatite occur at Blue River. Dolomitic

carbonatites are often referred to as magnesio-carbonatite, or rauhaugite, or beforsite.

Coarse-grained, calcitic carbonatites are also often referred to as calcio-carbonatite or

sövite.

Dolomitic and calcitic carbonatites usually form separate bodies but can occur together

within single intrusions. At Blue River, dolomitic carbonatite typically makes up the cores

of the carbonatite bodies. Crosscutting or gradational relationships can be observed from

one variety of carbonatite into another.

Dolomitic and calcitic carbonatites are medium to coarse-grained and have secondary

tectonically-imposed textures. A cataclastic (porphyroclastic) texture is common in all the

carbonatites. Most exposures display layering defined by varying quantities of accessory

minerals. Accessory minerals include amphibole, pyroxene, phlogopite, olivine, magnetite,

apatite, pyrite/pyrrhotite, ilmenite, zircon, and various tantalum and niobium bearing

minerals.

Contacts between carbonatite and the host metasediments are typically sharp and mantled

by zones of metasomatized host rock, known as fenite (Figure 7-7).

Fenite

The following general description of fenites is from the website:

http://umanitoba.ca/geoscience/faculty/arc/fenite. Fenites were described in the Fen area

of Norway and are Na- and K-rich silicate rocks developed at the contact of alkaline

igneous intrusions and their surrounding country rocks. Fenites are not necessarily

confined to the intrusive contact and may develop at a significant distance from the

intrusion through interaction of the country rock with percolating fluids, or inside the

intrusion through reaction of xenoliths with their entraining magma. Fenites typically

comprise potassium feldspar, albite, aegirine, various sodic amphiboles and, in some

http://umanitoba.ca/geoscience/faculty/arc/fenite






cases, nepheline. A variety of more exotic silicate, phosphate and oxide minerals can be

found in these rocks.

At Blue River, the fenite rocks commonly, but not always, envelope the carbonatite rocks

and can extend up to 50 m from the carbonatite intrusions (Figure 7-5 to 7-7). The

metasedimentary host rocks are characterized by foliated calcite-richterite-biotite

(± apatite, ± vermiculite) rock. Of lesser importance are contact metasomatic veins

commonly less than 1 m thick that are comprised of amphibole-pyroxene (± vermiculite

± carbonate).






Figure 7-4: Drill Collar and Vertical Section Locations

Note: See Figure 7-5 for the Lower Road longitudinal section; see Figure 7-6 for section 5796737 N; see Figure 7-7 for

section 5796425 N. Bulk sample locations are noted at BS1, BS2 and BS3.






Figure 7-5: Lower Road Longitudinal Section 352800 E

Note: The figure illustrates the carbonatite geometry and its north-south geological continuity. View is to the east.

Section influence is +/- 25 m. Carbonatite = blue coloured domains; fenite = dashed green outlines; undifferentiated

metasediments = non-filled area below topography. Drill hole 2 m composites are colour coded for Ta2O5 grade in

ppm.

100 m

North South

Fenite

Upper Fir

Carbonatite

Bone Creek

Carbonatite

Undifferentiated

metasediments

Ta2O5






Figure 7-6: Geology Section 5796737 N

Note: Illustrates the carbonatite geometry, its east-west geological continuity, and relationship between drilled

thickness versus true thickness. View is to the north. Section influence is +/- 25 m. Carbonatite = blue coloured

domains; fenite = dashed green outlines; undifferentiated metasediments = non-filled area below topography. Drill hole

2 m composites are colour coded for Ta2O5 grade in ppm.

West East

Bone Creek

Carbonatite

Upper Fir

Carbonatite

Amphibolite

Fenite

Undifferentiated

metasediments 100 m

Ta2O5






Figure 7-7: Geology Section 5796425 N

Note 1: Illustrates the carbonatite geometry, east-west geological continuity, folding, and relationship between drilled

thickness versus true thickness. View is to the north. Section influence is +/- 25 m. Carbonatite = blue coloured

domains; fenite = dashed green outlines; undifferentiated metasediments = non-filled area below topography. Drill hole

2 m composites are colour coded for Ta2O5 grade in ppm.

Fold indicators in core intersections observed in holes F08-150 and F08-151 (Figure 7-7:

locations A, B, and C) are shown in Figures 7-8 to 7-10 respectively.

West East

Upper Fir

Carbonatite

Fenite

Fenite

Undifferentiated

metasediments 100 m

(A)

(B)

(C)

Ta2O5






Figure 7-8: Folding Indicators (Hole F08-150 121.8 m to 129.8 m)

Notes: Left: Hole F08-150: 121.8m to 129.8m. HQ diameter diamond drill core. Hole was drilled vertical.

Compositional layering (L) of biotite-quartz gneiss is typically at a high angle to the core axis indicating a sub-horizontal

attitude when related to the sub-vertical dip of the drill hole. A ptygmatic fold is also observed (T). Top of hole is

towards the top left of photo.

Right: Hole F08-150: 125m. Indications of folding include asymmetric parasitic folds with short and long limbs (P)

bracketed by sub-horizontal compositional layering. Centimetre scale ptygmatic folds (T) are noted.

Figure 7-9: Folding Indicators (Hole F08-150: 143.5 m and 147.0 m)

Note: Left: F08-150: 143.5 m. Right: F08-150: 147.0 m. Indications of folding include high and low angle layering

indicating possible fold closures. Top of hole is towards the top left of photos.

P

T

L, T






Figure 7-10: Folding Indicators (Hole F08-151: 204.0 m to 204.5 m)

Note: F08-151: 204.0 m to 204.5 m (top to bottom). Folding indicators include repetition of carbonatite to biotite-quartz

gneiss and back into carbonatite. Upper carbonatite in figure has a contact at a high angle to core axis indicating that it

is a flat lying contact (upper right dashed line). Middle gneiss has a trend of compositional layering with high - to low -

to high angles relative to core axis (middle curved dashed line and lower middle dashed line). Black box highlights a

possible fold closure which gives a characteristic bulls-eye appearance to the layering. Top of hole is towards the top

left of photo.

Pegmatite Dykes

Pegmatite dykes and pods up to 500 m long and 15 m thick crosscut all lithologies

throughout the property. At least some of the pegmatites are folded. Among the

pegmatites, two mineralogically distinct types exist: (1) two-mica (± garnet, ± tourmaline)

granitic pegmatites, and (2) syenitic pegmatites with minor biotite (± amphibole,

± pyroxene).

7.3.3 Structural Geology and Metamorphism

The structural geology is summarized largely from Kraft (2010), Ghent et al. (1977),

Simony et al. (1980), and Raeside and Simony (1983).

The style of structural deformation at the Project directly impacts the carbonatite geometry.

A deformation model was developed on behalf of Commerce by J. Kraft during 2009 and

early 2010. The structural deformation model was confirmed and enhanced by field work

completed by J. Kraft during July and September of 2010. The following descriptions

include the 2010 supporting observations and interpretations.

Carbonatite

Carbonatite

Towards top of hole

Towards bottom of hole






Regionally, three phases of compressional deformation have been mapped throughout

most of the region, from the northern Selkirk Mountains into the Cariboo Mountains. At the

Project, at least two additional deformation events are observed.

The first deformation event (D1) produced large recumbent folds (F1) with limbs

approximately 50 km long and an associated early foliation (S1). Features from F1 are not

observed within the immediate deposit area.

The second deformation event (D2) is associated with peak, mid-amphibolite facies

metamorphism with an associated foliation (S2). In general the S1 and S2 foliations can

rarely be distinguished from one another in the field and are mapped as S1+S2. D2 has

created boudinage, or pinch and swell features attributed to competency contrasts

between rock type layers.

The third deformation event (D3) is characterized by centimetre to decametre scale

recumbent folds (F3) that deform the S2 foliation. Axial planar schistosity that deforms

S1+S2, within micaceous lithologies such as fenite, are known as S3. The style and

attitude of F3 folds are variable, but axial planes are generally southwest-dipping.

The fourth deformation event (D4) is characterized by inclined, southwest trending folds

that re-fold larger F3 folds in the deposit area. Open to tight upright folds with easterly to

southeasterly hinges occur sporadically. D4 is suggested to include thrust faulting with top

to the south west vergence.

The fifth deformation event (D5) is described as a brittle extensional event characterized

by normal faults with slickensides, weak quartz-pyrite alteration of wall rocks, and cross-

cutting relationships with D4 structures.

Folding is observed in waste rocks adjacent to the carbonatite in outcrop, in drill core, and

is interpreted for carbonatite intercepts on large scale geological sections. Within

carbonatite, compressional deformation with weak southeasterly elongation is suggested

by zones with cataclastic to mylonitic foliation (Chudy, pers. comm.) and weakly to

moderately developed mineral lineations defined by amphiboles. Carbonatite bodies are

folded at metres to deposit scale, however their thickness and massive (non-layered)

nature makes observation of folding indicators within the carbonatite comparatively difficult

to observe in outcrop or drill core.

7.3.4 Geochronology

The geochronology is summarized largely from Pell (1994), Simonetti (2008), and Gervais

(2009).

A uranium-lead date of about 325 Ma was obtained from zircons from the Verity

carbonatite. A lead-lead date of 332.5 +/- 5.7 Ma age was obtained from zircons for the






Upper Fir carbonatite. A preliminary uranium-lead date of 328 +/- 30 Ma was obtained

from zircons from the Mud Lake area carbonatite.

Zircons separated from syenites at Paradise Lake yielded a uranium-lead age of about

340 Ma and lead-lead ages of about 351 and 363 Ma. Ongoing research on U/Th/Pb

dating of zircons and monazites from the property shows a complex thermal history,

indicating that the age of emplacement of the Blue River area carbonatites may be older

than initial results have shown.

7.4 Fir and Verity Geology

The geology for the Fir and Verity carbonatite occurrences are described due to their past

and current exploration activities. This section has been taken largely from the British

Columbia Geological Survey website.

7.4.1 Fir Carbonatite Geology

The Fir showing is located 1.25 km north of the Bone Creek carbonatite. Carbonatite

consisting of dolomitic and lesser calcitic carbonatite occurs as sills within the quartz-

hornblende-mica schist of the Semipelite Amphibolite division of the Horsethief Creek

Group. Other lithologies include amphibole-biotite schist, biotite-muscovite gneiss and

amphibole-biotite-garnet gneiss.

The Fir carbonatite likely strikes 400 m in a northerly direction based on outcrop

exposures. A 2 m exposure of dolomitic carbonatite was located 400 m north of the

discovery outcrops. Dolomitic outcrops are coarsely crystalline and typically weather

white. Accessory minerals in the carbonatites include apatite, amphibole, olivine,

magnetite, pyrite, pyrrhotite, pyrochlore and columbite. The dolomitic carbonatite is almost

devoid of biotite and magnetite. Three distinct textures were observed: breccias

composed of tightly packed dolomite fragments within a finely crystalline dolomite

groundmass; a porphyritic texture with ghost dolomitic crystals in a fine grained matrix; and

a massive texture with local banding of accessory minerals.

7.4.2 Verity Carbonatite

The Verity carbonatite is located about 40 km north of the community Blue River. The

Verity carbonatite has the most varied stratigraphy of all the carbonatites in the area and is

similar texturally and compositionally to the Paradise and Lempriere carbonatite showings.

The Verity carbonatite consists of banded dolomitic and calcitic carbonatite that locally

intrude each other. It occurs as a 15 to 30 m thick sill within quartz-hornblende-mica schist

of the Horsethief Creek Group. It can be traced up the hillside for 800 m to the east-






northeast. It potentially continues to the Paradise showing located about 4,500 m to the

east-northeast.

A tectonic breccia showing hairline fractures is common in the dolomitic carbonatite. A

banded texture caused by layering of the accessory minerals apatite, amphibole, olivine,

magnetite, vermiculite, biotite, pyrite, pyrrhotite, pyrochlore, columbite, and zircon is

common in calcitic carbonatite and less developed in the dolomitic carbonatite. Coarse

olivine and apatite in calcitic dolomite form bands 1 to 5 cm thick. Magnetite occurs as

discontinuous lenses in calcitic carbonatite layers up to 20 cm in diameter.


AMEC concludes:

The geological setting, lithological and structural controls at Blue River are reasonably

well understood.






8.0 DEPOSIT TYPES

The mineralization identified to date at the Project is consistent with magmatic, carbonatite

associated deposits. Carbonatite associated deposits are classified as either magmatic,

replacement, or residual. Global examples of magmatic carbonatite complexes, or

deposits include Oka, Niobec, and St. Honore (Quebec), Kovdor (Russia), Iron Hill

(Colorado) and Gardiner (Greenland) (Mitchell, 2010). Examples of replacement

carbonatite deposits are Rock Canyon (B.C.), Bayan Obo (China), and Palabora (South

Africa). Araxa and Catalao (Brazil) are classified as residual carbonatite deposits due to

the degree of lateritic weathering. Carbonatites are the main source of niobium +/-

tantalum, and important sources of rare earth elements.

Magmatic carbonatite deposits have the following common features (Birkett and Simandl,

1998).

Commodities: niobium, tantalum, rare earth elements, phosphate, vermiculite, copper,

titanium, strontium, fluorine, thorium, uranium, magnetite.

Geological setting: Carbonatites intrude all types of rocks and are emplaced at a

variety of depths. Carbonatites occur mainly in a continental environment, rarely in

oceanic environments (Canary Islands) and are generally related to large-scale, intra-

plate fractures, grabens or rifts that correlate with periods of extension and may be

associated with broad zones of uplift.

Age of Mineralization: Carbonatite intrusions are early Precambrian to Recent in age;

they appear to be increasingly abundant with decreasing age. In British Columbia,

carbonatites are mostly upper Devonian, Mississippian or Eocambrian in age.

Host Rocks: Host rocks are varied, including calcite carbonatite (sövite), dolomite

carbonatite (beforsite), ferroan or ankeritic calcite-rich carbonatite (ferrocarbonatite),

magnetite-olivine-apatite ± phlogopite rock, nephelinite, syenite, pyroxenite, peridotite

and phonolite. Carbonatite lava flows and pyroclastic rocks are not known to contain

economic mineralization. Country rocks are of various types and metamorphic grades.

Deposit Form: Carbonatites are small, pipe-like bodies, dikes, sills, small plugs or

irregular masses. The typical pipe-like bodies have sub-circular or elliptical cross

sections and are up to 3-4 km in diameter. Magmatic mineralization within pipe-like

carbonatites is commonly found in crescent-shaped and steeply-dipping zones.

Metasomatic mineralization occurs as irregular forms or veins. Residual and other

weathering-related deposits are controlled by topography, depth of weathering and

drainage development.

Deposit Mineralogy:

○ Magmatic: bastnaesite, pyrochlore, columbite, apatite, anatase, zircon,

baddeleyite, magnetite, monazite, parisite, fersmite.






○ Replacement/Veins: fluorite, vermiculite, bornite, chalcopyrite and other sulphides,

hematite.

○ Residual: anatase, pyrochlore and apatite, locally crandallite-group minerals

containing rare earth elements.

Gangue Mineralogy: Calcite, dolomite, siderite, ferroan calcite, ankerite, hematite,

biotite, titanite, olivine, quartz.

Alteration: A fenite halo (alkali metasomatized country rocks) commonly surrounds

carbonatite intrusions; alteration mineralogy depends largely on the composition of the

host rock. Most fenites are zones of desilicification with addition of Fe3+, Na and K.

Ore Controls: Intrusive form and cooling history control primary igneous deposits

(fractional crystallization). Tectonic and local structural controls influence the forms of

metasomatic mineralization. The depth of weathering and drainage patterns control

residual pyrochlore and apatite deposits, and vermiculite deposits.

Many features of the mineralization identified within the Project to date are analogous to

magmatic carbonatite deposits, in particular the Oka (Husereau Hill) and St. Honore

deposits, Quebec.

Key features of the Blue River deposits supporting a magmatic carbonatite model are:

Commodities: niobium and tantalum.

Geological Setting: occurs along the eastern portion of the Omineca Crystalline Belt

and hence its tectonic setting is along a large scale zone with associated uplift.

Age of Mineralization: data yields results of about 330 Ma which is consistent with

other British Columbia carbonatite deposits.

Host Rocks: dolomite and calcite-rich carbonatite intrusion rocks.

Deposit Form: the Blue River carbonatites occur as sills and dykes.

Deposit Mineralogy: ferrocolumbite and pyrochlore.

Gangue Mineralogy: dolomite, calcite, amphibole (richterite), quartz, pyroxene,

phlogopite, olivine, magnetite, apatite, pyrite/pyrrhotite, ilmenite, and zircon.

Alteration: Fenite halos occur around most carbonatites at Blue River.

Ore Controls: The Blue River carbonatites have been deformed by multiple episodes

of folding and faulting. The internal cooling history of the deposit is not clear.







AMEC concludes:

A polyfolded sill-like carbonatite model suitably describes the Blue River deposits.

The deposit concepts being applied as the basis for exploration planning at the Project

are reasonable.






9.0 MINERALIZATION

The discussion in this section is summarized largely from observations during AMEC’s site

visit, and from Stone and Selway (2010), Chudy (2008 and 2010), Woolley and Kempe

(1989), Aaquist (1982a), and Mariano (2000).

Blue River mineralization comprises niobium and tantalum bearing minerals that have

co-crystallized in carbonatite by primary magmatic concentration and in fenite formed by

metasomatic alteration of enclosing host rocks. The mineralization has the same or similar

geometry and structural controlling features as the carbonatite on a deposit scale. See

Section 7.3.2, Section 7.3.3, Figure 7.3, Figure 7.5, Figure 7.6 and Figure 7.7 for a

discussion on the geometry of the Blue River deposit.

9.1 Blue River Mineralization

9.1.1 Carbonatite Mineralization

This sub-section describes the Blue River carbonatite niobium and tantalum mineralization.

There are two principal and one minor niobium or tantalum bearing minerals known at the

Project. The minerals are:

ferrocolumbite: (Fe,Mn,Mg)(Nb,Ta)2O6,

pyrochlore: (Ca,Na,U)2(Nb,Ti,Ta)2O6(OH,F), and

fersmite: (Ca,Ce,Na)(Nb,Ta,Ti)2(O,OH,F)6.

Ferrocolumbite

Ferrocolumbite occurs predominantly in medium to coarse-grained, granoblastic dolomitic

carbonatites which typically form thin intervals (<6 m) or occur at margins of thicker

intervals of carbonatite. Ferrocolumbite forms subhedral to anhedral, sometimes strongly

poikilitic, individual grains or agglomerates of grains (Figure 9-1).

Mineral liberation analyses show that the majority (~80%) of liberated grains are less than

110 μm in diameter. Locally, individual grains and agglomerates of ferrocolumbite may

exceed 2 cm in diameter.

Ferrocolumbite grains from marginal zones may contain large amounts of tiny inclusions

such as thorite (Th-silicate), monazite (La, Ce-phosphate) and pyrochlore. Ferrocolumbite

may also occur sporadically as inclusions in apatite and amphibole. It is often associated

with layers and micro-veins of apatite that fill the interstices between anhedral ferroan-

dolomite grains.






Element abundances in Upper Fir ferrocolumbite average 67.8% Nb2O5, 9.3% Ta2O5 and

1.6% TiO2 with a Nb2O5 / Ta2O5 ratio of about 12.

Pyrochlore

Pyrochlore occurs predominantly in the fine-grained and porphyroblastic dolomitic

carbonatite which is commonly developed in the central portions of carbonatite intervals

greater than 10 m thick. Such zones are less abundant or absent in thinner carbonatite

intersections. Pyrochlore is the only tantalum mineral in the calcitic carbonatites where it

occurs in accessory amounts. Black and brownish-yellow coloured varieties of pyrochlore

are present.

The majority of the pyrochlore occur as liberated grains in the dolomitic matrix. The vast

majority (~ 85%) of pyrochlore forms subhedral to anhedral, rounded grains less than

200 μm in diameter. There are local larger grains and agglomerates (Figure 9-1), as well

as accumulations or veins less than a few tens of centimetres in width with high pyrochlore

abundance. This style of mineralization can result in high tantalum values (> 450 ppm Ta).

Pyrochlore also occurs as inclusions in amphiboles (richterite), fluorapatite, and inclusions

in ferrocolumbite. In some rare cases the pyrochlore grains can be coated with a thin film

of pyrrhotite or pyrite.

Element abundances in Upper Fir pyrochlore average 35.7% Nb2O5, 20.4% Ta2O5,

5.5% TiO2 and 15.4% UO2 with a Nb2O5/Ta2O5 ratio of about 1.8. The UO2 / Ta2O5 ratio

averages about 0.8.

Fersmite

Fersmite occurs as anhedral inclusions in apatite and is considered a minor economic

mineral at the Project.

Mineral Zoning

Mineral zoning or distribution, of ferrocolumbite and pyrochlore within the carbonatites is

not clear due to the variable thicknesses and polyfolded geometry of the carbonatite.

Further work is required to improve the understanding of the mineral zoning and to locate

potential material types defined by metallurgical testwork.






Figure 9-1: Tantalum and Niobium Rich Mineralogy within Carbonatite

Note: Hole F08-150 162.0 m. Carbonatite host rock with dark red-brown opaque mineral ferrocolumbite intergrown

with semi-transparent yellowish mineral pyrochlore which has a vitreous lustre. The dark green mineral is an

amphibole named richterite. Left: Agglomerates of ferrocolumbite +/- pyrochlore can reach up to 5 mm in diameter

,but do not form a significant portion of the total of these minerals.

9.1.2 Fenite Mineralization

Mineralization in the fenite is dominantly ferrocolumbite, concentrated in apatite-rich layers.

Ilmenite with ferrocolumbite inclusions appear to be a subdominant source of both niobium

and tantalum. Niobium and tantalum grades within fenite at Blue River are considered to

be sub-economic, but locally will provide grade-bearing mining dilution material.

9.2 Fir and Verity Mineralization

This section has been taken largely from the British Columbia Geological Survey website.

9.2.1 Fir Mineralization

Tantalum and niobium mineralization in the Fir carbonatite occurs in the minerals

pyrochlore and columbite. The Fir carbonatite has the highest background niobium and

tantalum values of all carbonatites in the area. Tantalum averages greater than 0.015 per

cent. Sampling of the discovery outcrops returned assays of 1.02 per cent Nb2O5, 0.06 per

cent Ta2O5, and 6.31 per cent P2O5. A sample from drill core returned values of 0.18 per

cent tantalum and 8.51 per cent phosphate.

9.2.2 Verity Mineralization

Tantalum and niobium mineralization in the Verity carbonatite occurs in the minerals

pyrochlore and columbite. The pyrochlore and columbite crystals occur as octahedrons up






to 4 cm diameter. Calcitic carbonatite at the Verity occurrence also contains greater than 4

per cent phosphate and has abundant apatite relative to other nearby carbonatites at the

Project. Rare earth elements are thought to be hosted in fluorine-rich carbonate.


AMEC concludes:

The geological controls and extent of the mineralization is reasonably well understood

The drill sections show that carbonatite thickness, and hence the mineralization

thickness varies locally

Mineral zoning work is required to better understand the distribution of niobium,

tantalum, and potential material types within the carbonatite

Blue River is a tantalum and niobium rich carbonatite which also has associated

uranium and thorium. Uranium and thorium are present in low levels in the resource

and waste rocks. The estimated blocks within the carbonatite have a mean grade of

41 ppm uranium and 6 ppm thorium. Any radon produced in a mine and process plant

at Blue River would likely be manageable with ventilation, dust control, and monitoring.






10.0 EXPLORATION

Exploration work conducted at the Project has been completed, on behalf of Commerce,

by Dahrouge Geological Consulting Ltd. (Dahrouge), an independent consulting firm based

in Edmonton, Alberta.

The following summary of exploration potential at the Project is based upon discussions

with Dahrouge Geological Consulting geologists and is summarized from the following

reports: Stone and Selway (2010), Gorham (2008), plus Gorham, Ulry and Brown (2009).

10.1 Data Compilation

10.1.1 Historical Data Compilation

Prior to commencement of on-ground exploration in 2001, a review of historical data was

compiled by Dahrouge for Commerce. This work comprised collation of the following:

Review existing government mapping, thesis driven mapping, and structural studies of

the Horsethief Creek Group

Review of publicly available assessment reports

Compilation of AMC data on the Verity and Fir deposits

Identification of target drill holes for twinning.

The collated data was used to identify areas that were considered more prospective within

the Project.

10.1.2 Current Data Compilation

Prior to, and during, completion of the Mineral Resource update reported herein, the

following data capture and compilation work was completed by Dahrouge for Commerce:

Implemented and updated a diamond drilling database (2009 to June 2010)

Re-coded geology within the database (2010)

Re-mapped surface outcrops for structural geology features and developed a

preliminary deformation history interpretation (2009-2010)

Reviewed analytical QAQC data based on 2005 to 2009 drill core samples

Reviewed check analysis programs based on 2008 and 2009 core pulps and coarse

rejects.






10.2 Grids and Surveys

All surveys to date are in UTM NAD83 Zone 11 coordinates.

In 2007, orthophotography and Lidar surveys were flown to create a 1:2,000 base map of

the Upper Fir area. A topography map with 2 m contour intervals was created by Eagle

Mapping Ltd.

Drill collar surveys in 2006 and 2007 were initially determined by handheld GPS units. In

2008 and 2009, drill collar surveys were measured by conventional theodolite surveys.

The mineral resource estimate drill collar data comprises the 2008-2009 survey data.

In 2010, all legacy drill collars that could be clearly identified were re-surveyed using

differential GPS, including 2010 drill collars. Differential GPS control points were set up at

6 independent locations in the Upper Fir area. The 2010 differential GPS collar data were

not used for the current model and will require updating in the database and next model

update.

10.3 Mapping

Geological and structural mapping has been completed at 1:2,500 scale on a continuous

basis since 2006. The mapping area coverage is between Bone and Gum Creeks; and

from the North Thompson River to the ridge top located about three km east on the slope

that is known locally as either Fir or Cedar Mountain. The mapping area includes the Fir,

Upper Fir and Gum carbonatites plus the nearby Hodgie Zone.

Natural outcrops are best exposed at the top of the ridge and along the steep south slope

above Gum Creek. Most of the exposure on the property was created by construction of

roads, trails and drill pads.

10.4 Geochemistry (stream sediment, soil, and rock)

Geochemical sampling programs commenced in 2001. Program objectives were to:

Test areas of interest from the geological interpretations

Test existing mineral occurrences and reports of surface indicators of mineralization.

Quality control of the data was maintained by Dahrouge. Data processing was completed

using Microsoft Excel.






10.4.1 Stream-Sediment Sampling

Reconnaissance stream sediment sampling was completed during 2001 to 2003, and 2006

to 2007. During 2008, 531 stream sediment samples were collected and analysed for the

streams throughout the entire property. The key exploration pathfinder elements at Blue

River are tantalum, niobium, and rare earth elements. Detailed sample analysis using

microscopic mineral characterization was utilized, focusing on identifying pyrochlore,

apatite, richterite, and monazite as pathfinders.

During the 2009 field season a total of 20 stream pan concentrate samples was taken in

the Fir and Mud Creek areas to follow up on creek-mouth areas inaccessible during the

2008 field season. Samples were analyzed at Acme Laboratories of Vancouver B.C.

primarily for tantalum, niobium, rare earth elements, phosphate, and carbonate using

Acme’s 4B02 package (lithium metaborate fusion-ICP-MS technique).

Several samples anomalous in tantalum and niobium indicate that the Fir carbonatite likely

extends further south. Anomalous samples on the north side of Mud Creek indicate that

the Mud Creek carbonatite, discovered in 2008, is potentially more extensive than initially

believed.

10.4.2 Soil Sampling

Soil sampling has proven the best way to follow up stream pan concentrate sampling in the

Blue River area as the niobium-tantalum bearing ferrocolumbite and pyrochlore are

residual in soils. The key exploration pathfinder elements from soil sampling are tantalum

and niobium. During the 2002 follow-up on an anomalous stream sediment sample led to

the discovery of the Upper Fir carbonatite.

Reconnaissance soil sampling was completed during 2001 to 2003, and 2006 to 2007.

During the 2008 season, 4,181 soil samples were collected from several area grids (Figure

10-1). Sample grids typically have 200 m spaced lines and samples are taken at 25 m

intervals. Soil sampling in 2009 followed up on 2008 stream or soil sampling anomalies.

Sample grids were laid out at Switch Creek, and in the area of the Fir deposit to test lateral

extensions of known carbonatite showings. The Hellroar soil sampling grid is located

approximately 8 km south of the study area near Hellroar Creek. Sampling on the Hellroar

soil grid occurred during 2008 and 2009 to follow up on tantalum anomalies from stream

sediment samples.

A total of 1,694 samples were taken by Dahrouge and analyzed by Acme Laboratories of

Vancouver, B.C. using Acme’s 4B02 package (lithium metaborate fusion-ICP-MS

technique). Tantalum and niobium results yielded several potential targets for more

detailed sampling and exploration work (Figure 10-1).






Figure 10-1: Soil Geochemistry Map







Targets shown on Figure 10-1 from soil sampling at the Project in order of importance are:

Upper Fir Extension target: strong tantalum anomalies on 4 adjacent lines north-

northwest of Bulk Sample Pit #2 indicate that the carbonatite subcrop likely extends

north, past the current drill coverage.

Bone Creek Extension target: strong tantalum anomalies on two widely spaced lines

centered at UTM 5,797,000 N indicate a near surface carbonatite body that is on strike

with the Bone Creek carbonatite.

Fir Exploration target: strong tantalum anomalies on widely spaced lines located north,

south and above the known Fir showing indicate possible extensions of the Fir

carbonatite.

Mt. Cheadle Exploration target: a large diffuse tantalum anomaly, with several spikes,

stretching over 2 km is located north of Gum Creek and along strike from the Upper Fir

carbonatite.

3050 Road target: Strong tantalum anomalies on lines to the north and east of current

drilling on the Upper Fir deposit near 3050 Road indicate another carbonatite body

may be located above the known extents of the deposit.

10.4.3 Rock Sampling

Rock samples from various new and known localities were taken during 2009 prospecting

to test or verify the presence and abundance of tantalum-niobium mineralization. A total of

100 in situ bedrock grab, chip, and channel samples were taken at the Paradise,

Roadside, Howard Creek, Gum Creek, and Mud Creek area carbonatites. The locations of

these carbonatites are shown in Figure 4-1.

Analytical result highlights are as follows. The upper five metres of the Roadside

carbonatite had 5 continuous chip samples that averaged 1,373 ppm Nb and 101 ppm Ta.

At the Paradise carbonatite, the best channel sample assay result was 82 ppm Ta and

375 ppm Nb for one sample over a 1 m continuous interval.

Southeast of Mud Creek, a new carbonatite called the “RD” occurrence was discovered

during the 2009 regional prospecting program. This carbonatite is approximately on strike

with the Mud Creek carbonatite and may be part of the same system. Grab samples from

the RD carbonatite ranged up to a maximum of 118 ppm Ta and 4,703 ppm Nb.

10.5 Geophysical Surveys

No geophysical surveys were conducted by Commerce in 2009 other than ground

scintillometer surveys at soil sampling stations. The scintillometer readings were part of a

permit compliance requirement to report U and Th values of all exploration work. The






surveys tested for possible radiometric responses from pyrochlore-bearing carbonatite float

or sub-crop. While some Ta and Nb bearing carbonatite has been found in this manner,

the carbonatites of the Upper Fir system yields relatively low radiometric signatures

averaging 225 counts per second (cps). Drill core geochemistry collected from 7,377 2005

to 2008 Upper Fir samples show averages of 38 ppm U and 7 ppm Th, supporting the low

averaged cps for these carbonatite systems.

10.6 Drilling

Drill programs are discussed in Section 11 of this Report.

10.7 Bulk Density

Density is discussed in Section 13 of this Report.

10.8 Exploration Potential

10.8.1 Blue River Exploration Targets

The Upper Fir carbonatites have exploration potential north of known extents based on soil

sample results. Additional resource definition drilling is warranted.

The Bone Creek and Fir carbonatites have exploration potential along, and across strike

based on soil sample anomalies in tantalum and niobium. Additional expansion and in-fill

soil sampling is warranted prior to diamond drilling to refine and prioritize the existing

anomalies.

10.8.2 Other Targets

The soil geochemistry program results show a tantalum and niobium anomaly that is open

south of the current Mt. Cheadle exploration soil grid (Figure 10-1). The southward

expansion of this soil grid will define the surface extent of this anomaly and aid in

identifying near surface carbonatite drill targets.

Rock sampling and prospecting at the RD occurrence near Mud Lake, and the Roadside

occurrence near Paradise, provide encouragement for follow-up work in the form of soil

sampling, mapping and prospecting.






10.9 Other Studies

10.9.1 Bulk Samples

A bulk sample program was undertaken in the fall of 2008 by Dahrouge on behalf of

Commerce as part of on-going evaluation of the Upper Fir carbonatite. Approximately

2,000 tonnes from a 10,000 tonnes permitted volume were extracted from three bulk

sample pits (BS-1, BS-2, and BS-3) and placed into 75 to 150 tonne stockpiles comprised

largely of minus 50 cm carbonatite muck. The stockpiles have been stored on a well-

drained pad at the property for later metallurgical testing.

For each pit area, geological mapping was completed along with sampling of blast hole

material and channel samples of the bench walls. Both primary igneous and metamorphic

textures and structures were revealed in the sample pits. Microscopic examination of

oxide phases in the bulk sample material indicates that pyrochlore is the dominant ore

mineral in pit BS-1 with the exception of benches at the upper and lower contacts.

Pit BS-1 is dominantly fine to medium-grained, granular apatite-bearing dolomitic

carbonatite. Pits BS-2 and BS-3 are dominantly light-grey coarse-grained, porphyroclastic

apatite-bearing dolomitic carbonatite. Crosscutting veins of dark-green actinolite-calcite-

diopside up to 20 cm wide are common. Contacts in each pit are marked by approximately

1 m of fenite, with contorted layers of dolomitic carbonatite up to 10 cm thick.

Material from the 2008 bulk sampling program appears to provide a sufficient range of

tantalum and niobium grades to represent the Upper Fir carbonatite mineralization for

initial metallurgical testing.

Both pits, BS-1 and BS-2, have been stabilized. The bulk sampling permit expired on

December 31st, 2009 and has not been renewed.

10.9.2 Academic Research

Doctoral and post-doctoral studies on the geology, petrology and ore microscopy of the

carbonatite mineralization at Blue River are underway at the University of British Columbia.

These studies are scheduled for completion in 2012.

10.9.3 Environmental Geochemistry

In 2007, Commerce retained MESH Environmental Inc to initiate geochemical

characterization evaluations for the Upper Fir carbonatite deposit. The primary objectives

of the characterization program were to develop a baseline geochemical dataset for the

various lithological units in the deposit area and to identify potential geochemical issues

associated with anticipated waste rock.






The waste rock geochemical characterization program has been carried out in two phases.

Phase 1 of the study, included a sampling and static test analytical program on drill core

and surface outcrop samples (MESH, 2008). Phase 2 of the program included additional

sampling of drill cores and static testwork on the expanded waste rock sample database

(MESH, 2009).

10.9.4 Geotechnical

In 2007, Commerce retained Westrek Geotechnical Services Ltd. (Westrek) to conduct a

slope stability assessment of the Upper Fir area. This work consisted of a detailed

literature review, compilation, and a site examination (Smith, 2008).

In 2009, Westrek completed a geotechnical review of access roads and trails, drill sites

and bulk sample sites at the Upper Fir deposit area. Site inspections were completed by

Westrek to review work and make recommendations for the 2010 field season.

In 2010, Westrek assessed conditions for proposed drill access plus reviewed reclamation

and slope stabilization work completed in 2009. The recommendations and completed

work included lowering of some ditch blocks, reducing slopes in cut banks at some points,

additional seeding and barricading of some steeper slopes. Some deepening of ditches

and additional cross ditches, or culverts were recommended and installed.

AMEC initiated geotechnical site investigations during June – August of 2010 as part of the

on-going PA. Geotechnical data was collected from 6 HQ diameter oriented diamond drill

holes by Dahrouge on behalf of Commerce, and under the direction of AMEC. This data

included documenting rock type description, faults, shear zones, total core recovery, rock

quality designation, rock weathering and strength, plus fracture and joint characterization.

10.9.5 Tailings Location

In 2009, Commerce commissioned two tailings storage studies with Klohn Crippen Berger

Ltd. of Vancouver, British Columbia. The first study included a two day site visit and desk-

top study comprising the area within a 20 km radius of the Upper Fir deposit. This study

considered a variety of factors such as topography, drainage, and precipitation plus

considered various scenarios regarding volume and character of tailings. Five potential

sites were identified and ranked. The follow-up site visit narrowed this choice to one

preferred site and one alternate site.

The second study was similar to the first study noted above, but the desktop study portion

reviewed and ranked 5 possible sites within 20 km of the town Valemount.

During March and April of 2010, AMEC initiated preliminary desktop tailings location

screening assessments for storage of conventional slurry tailings. During September






2010, a third desktop screening study was initiated regarding the storage of slurry tailings,

expanding the study area north to the town of Valemount. In December 2010, AMEC

initiated a conceptual assessment for surface storage of filtered tailings at locations

proposed in the initial Klohn Crippen Berger 2009 study. The studies are part of the on-

going PA.

10.9.6 Timber Assessment

In 2009, Commerce retained Bushtech BC of Hope, British Columbia to lay out access for

a permit amendment, complete a timber assessment, and an application for an Occupant’s

Licence to Cut (OLTC) in the area northwest of the Upper Fir deposit. The field study,

layout report and the OLTC application was completed during September 2009.


AMEC concludes:

The exploration program at Blue River has delineated a tantalum and niobium bearing

polyfolded carbonate sill complex

The exploration procedures used to delineate the deposit are appropriate for the

deposit and were executed in a professional manner

All exploration work was carried out under the supervision of Dahrouge Geological

Consulting Ltd.






11.0 DRILLING

Drill programs were completed by contract drill crews, typically supervised by Dahrouge

geologists on behalf of Commerce. Core drilling was utilized for deposit delineation

purposes.

11.1 Drill Campaigns

Table 11-1 lists the diamond drilling campaigns at the Upper Fir and Bone Creek deposits.

There are a total of 215 drill holes within the Upper Fir, Bone Creek and Fir (Lower)

carbonatites comprising 41,115 m of HQ and NQ diameter drill holes.

Table 11-2 lists 3 bulk sample pits (BS-1, BS-2, and BS-3, Figure 7-4) and 4 trenches

(TR0, 0A, 1, and 1A) which have been sampled. These were only used for geology

interpretation and domain modeling, not grade interpolation.

Table 11-1: Drill Campaign Summary

Category Deposit Operator Year # Holes Series Type

#

Metres

#

Samples

%

Samples

Resource Bone

Creek

Commerce 2005 4 CF05-01 to

CF05-04

HQ 300 14

0%

Resource Upper

Fir

Commerce 2005 4 CF0505 to

CF0508

HQ 505 44 1%

Resource Upper

Fir

Commerce 2006 17 CF0601 to

CF0617

HQ 3,021 1,139 14%

Resource Upper

Fir

Commerce 2007 18 F0718 to F0735 HQ 4,310 1,053 13%

Resource Upper

Fir

Commerce 2008 118 F08-36 to F08-

153

HQ 23,723 5,126 62%

Resource Upper

Fir

Commerce 2009 22 F09-154 to F09-

176

HQ 5,587 842 10%

Resource Subtotal 183 37,446 8,218 100%

Historical Bone

Creek

AMC 1980-1981 17 BC-1 to BC-17 NQ 697 na-

Historical Fir AMC 1981 4 BC1-18 to BC-21 NQ 829 na-

Target Fir

(twins)

Commerce 2001-2002 11 F-01 to F-11 HQ 2,144 na-

Target Subtotal 32 3,670

Total Drilling 215 41,115

Abbreviations: AMC = Anschutz Mining Corp.

Note: The Commerce 2010 campaign comprises 54 HQ diameter drill holes totalling 12,949 m. These holes were not

completed during the database audit or block modeling for this mineral resource estimate. Assay data for the 2010

sampling are still pending.






Table 11-2: Upper Fir Deposit Trench and Bulk Samples

Category Deposit Operator Year

Number Series Type

#

(m)

Metallurgy Upper Fir Commerce 3 BS01 to BS03 Bulk Sample 138

Exploration Upper Fir Commerce 4 TR0,0A,1,1A Trench-Chip 73

11.2 Drilling Equipment

Road building on the hillside is used to establish drill pads. Drill roads were created by

Scott McDonald of Spaz Logging Ltd., Valemount B.C. Equipment included a D7 Cat

bulldozer, a Volvo 230 excavator, and a 30 tonne rock truck. Blasting was by Leaverite

Drilling and Blasting Ltd. of Clearwater, B.C.

The diamond drills are operated by R.J. Beaupre Drilling Ltd. of Princeton, B.C. The drill

models were a Boyles 56 and a Longyear 50, both capable of drilling HQ diameter holes to

depths of 2,000 m.

All road building and diamond drilling is supervised by Dahrouge on behalf of Commerce.

11.3 Core Drilling

Core drilling by Commerce commenced in 2005 and continues to the present. As of

30 June 2010, there are 183 resource holes within the Upper Fir and Bone Creek

carbonatite areas comprising 37,446 m of HQ diameter core drilling and a total of 8,221

samples.

11.3.1 Core Drilling Strategy

The holes are collared on 3 primary drill roads (Upper, Middle, and Lower roads) that are

oriented sub-parallel to the Upper Fir carbonatite along the hillside. Set-ups are spaced

about 50 m apart along drill roads (Figure 7-4 and Figure 7-5). The majority of the known

portions of the Upper Fir deposit are defined on 50 m centres. The at-depth Bone Creek

carbonatite has only been intersected by a limited number of drill holes (Figure 7-6 and

Figure 7-7).

The drill hole orientations appear to be oriented sub-perpendicular to the carbonatites

based on Figure 7-5 to Figure 7-7. The relationship between sample length and true

thickness varies with the dip of holes. True thicknesses are slightly less than drilled

intercepts.






11.3.2 Core Sizes

Core holes are typically HQ diameter (96 mm) producing core with a diameter of

(63.5 mm). Hole diameter reduction due to poor ground conditions generally are not an

issue at the Project. Drill hole orientations have typical azimuths of vertical, 090°, or 270°

and inclinations that range from vertical to -60°. Drill hole depths range from a minimum of

32 m and a maximum of 388 m, averaging about 200 m.

11.3.3 Collar Surveys

The drill hole collars are spotted in the field with a hand-held GPS and lined up with a

Brunton compass. Drill hole collars were initially surveyed using a Garmin 60 CSx

handheld GPS unit and later surveyed accurately using a laser theodolite system by Steve

Mosdell of Align Surveys of Louis Creek, B.C.

11.3.4 Downhole Surveys

Vertical holes were generally not surveyed down hole. The dip and azimuth of inclined drill

holes were typically tested at three points in each hole using Flexit Single Shot down-hole

orientation tools. The instruments record magnetic inclination, azimuth, temperature and

magnetic susceptibility at each survey depth.

The Flexit instruments were calibrated at the start of each field season for 2005 – 2009 drill

holes.

11.3.5 Oriented Drill Core

No oriented drill holes were drilled prior to the June 30, 2010 diamond drilling cut-off date

for this Mineral Resource estimate. At the request of AMEC, as part of the on-going PA,

6 drill holes comprised of 1,271 m of HQ diameter oriented core were completed after the

diamond drilling cut-off date of 30 June 2010.

11.3.6 Core Handling

Core was obtained using wire-line methods and was washed prior to placement in core

trays. Wooden core trays were placed near the core barrel so that the core was placed in

the tray in the same orientation as it came out of the barrel. Rubble, which was rarely

encountered, was piled to about the length of the whole core that its volume would

represent. Trays were marked with drill hole name and box number. The end of every run

is marked by a wooden block depth marker.






The core trays are transported by pick-up truck down to the core logging facility at the

community of Blue River, B.C.

11.3.7 Core Recovery

Core recovery was determined prior to sampling. Typically, recovery measurements were

completed before detailed logging was initiated. Standard core recovery forms were

usually completed for each hole by the field assistant or geologist.

AMEC visually observed that the core recovery for the 2010 drill core was very good within

the waste and carbonatite rocks (typically >95%). The only area that may have core

recovery issues would be within the fenite rocks located in the immediate hanging wall to

the carbonatite.

11.4 Planned Drill Programs

Additional diamond drilling is anticipated to increase the confidence of the existing

resource. The lower portions of the Upper Fir carbonatite and selected areas of the Bone

Creek carbonatite require additional definition drilling.


AMEC concludes:

The quantity and quality of the lithological, geotechnical, collar, and down-hole survey

data collected in the core drill programs is sufficient to support Mineral Resource

estimation.

Drill intersections are typically greater than the true width of the mineralization due to

the orientation of the drill holes. Drill hole orientations are generally appropriate for the

mineralization style.

Collar surveys were performed using industry-standard instrumentation.

Down-hole surveys accurately represent the trajectories of the inclined core holes.

The core recoveries from core drill programs are good.

The drill hole spacing is suitable for delineating this style of mineralization.






12.0 SAMPLING METHOD AND APPROACH

Commerce has collected stream sediments, soils, outcrop grabs and chips, and bulk rock

samples from the Blue River property. These samples were used to guide exploration but

were not used in preparing the Mineral Resource estimate. A description of the sampling

method and approach for these samples is provided in a previous technical report (Selway

and Stone, 2010).

Commerce has a database of 215 drill holes. Of the 215 holes, there are 183 drill holes

totalling 37,446 m of HQ diameter core, and 8,218 samples within the Mineral Resource

area. Of the 215 holes, Commerce drilled 11 holes in the Fir carbonatite area which are

not part of this Mineral Resource update. Of the 215 holes, 21 legacy holes were drilled by

operators prior to Commerce’s involvement in the project. No sample intervals are present

in the database for the 21 legacy holes and hence these holes have not been used to

estimate grades in this Mineral Resource update, but they were used to interpret geology.

An additional 54 holes, totalling 12,949 m of HQ drill core were drilled in 2010. The 2010

holes were not used in the preparation of the Mineral Resource estimate. Results of this

drilling are discussed in Section 17.12

All work on the core since 2005 was completed under the supervision of Dahrouge on

behalf of Commerce.

Samples were collected from an area approximately 1,600 m north-south by 1,000 m

east-west. Sampling is from a combination of vertical and inclined holes drilled from

common collar locations. This results in a drill hole or sample spacing which increases

with depth. Average spacing between drill hole intercepts in the resource area is 50 m.

Core sampling method and approach has been consistent through the 2005 to 2010 drill

programs. Core was boxed onsite and delivered each day to a core facility in Blue River

where the core was logged and sawn. Core logging involved both geotechnical and

geological information. Geotechnical logging involved measuring core recovery per run,

rock quality designation (RQD), fracture roughness and orientation. Core recovery and

RQD was generally good for most core, typically greater than 95% recovery. The

geological logging included observations of colour, lithology, texture, structure,

mineralization, and alteration. All drill core was photographed prior to splitting.

The sampling procedure used to collect core at Blue River is as follows:

The entire carbonatite intersection and shoulder samples on each side of the

intersection are sampled.

Samples intervals, generally 1 m in length, are marked on the core by a geologist.

Sample intervals are assigned a unique sample number.






The geological contacts are generally respected.

Specific gravity measurements for the carbonatite are collected approximately once

every 3 m.

Carbonatite samples are checked at regular intervals with a GR-130 miniSPEC gamma

ray spectrometer for the presence of U and Th.

Core is sawn in half by diamond saw.

Half of the core is sent for analysis.

Half of the core is retained for reference or further sampling.

A summary of relevant sample intervals and results are shown in Table 12-1. Figures 7-6

and 7-7 in this Report illustrate the relationship between intersected thickness and true

thickness of the carbonatite. In general, intersected thicknesses are slightly longer than

true thickness.

Table 12-1: Selected Ta and Nb Composite Values in Carbonatite

Hole No

Depth

From

(m)

Depth

To

(m)

Intercept

Thickness

(m)

Ta2O5

(ppm)

Nb2O5

(ppm) Hole No

Depth

From

(m)

Depth

To

(m)

Intercept

Thickness

(m)

Ta2O5

(ppm)

Nb2O5

(ppm)

F0718 34.5 76.4 41.9 158 2,488 F08-084 110 162 52 125 2,045

F0718 113.5 141.7 28.2 153 1,266 F08-084 185 202.3 17.3 93 2,439

F0718 210.9 215.9 5 199 1,396 F08-084 214.3 223.4 9.1 197 1,042

F0718 218.4 221.5 3.1 148 1,173 F08-084 249.6 253.8 4.2 167 892

F0719 34.8 37.3 2.5 182 3,528 F08-084 262.3 268 5.7 197 1,626

F0719 39.8 105 65.2 214 2,258 F08-085 122.1 176.4 54.3 114 309

F0719 112.1 138.3 26.2 174 1,472 F08-085 203 256.7 53.7 190 1,541

F0719 231.8 236.8 5 126 940 F08-147 143.1 164.1 21 103 2,893

F0719 239.3 240.8 1.5 136 1,750 F08-147 190.9 203.9 13 175 1,837

F0720 38.4 86.4 48 120 2,032 F08-150 129.7 136.8 7.1 222 3,149

F0720 146.7 158.5 11.8 129 1,456 F08-150 150.8 165.8 15 165 3,184

F0720 244.1 248.8 4.7 150 1,240 F08-150 190 202.1 12.1 247 2,110

F0727 16.4 17.5 1.1 14 906 F08-151 133.8 139.4 5.6 242 2,737

F0727 109.3 142.1 32.8 211 2,255 F08-151 188.2 207.8 19.6 246 2,626

F0727 222.6 225.8 3.2 167 945 F08-151 216.3 221.3 5 126 1,653

F0728 27.3 30 2.7 13 745 F08-151 223.8 243.5 19.7 271 1,911

F0728 93 150.4 57.4 188 1,417 F08-152 168 173.4 5.4 122 1,321

F0729 13.7 17.3 3.6 32 1,243 F08-152 208.9 221.6 12.7 240 1,753

F0729 132.7 137.9 5.2 141 1,293 F08-152 230.3 252.2 21.9 176 1,058

F0730 75.1 149.5 74.4 163 1,583 F09-169 78.4 126.9 48.5 232 651

F0731 79.8 173.2 93.4 172 1,518 F09-169 156.1 198.6 42.5 171 1,085

F08-064 95.7 130.4 34.7 172 1,754







AMEC concludes:

The sampling procedures are suitable for this style of deposit

No drilling, sampling or recovery factors are apparent that could materially impact the

accuracy, and reliability of the results

The sampling method has resulted in samples of reasonable quality which show no

material biases and are considered representative of the mineralization present in the

Blue River deposits.






13.0 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES, AND SECURITY

Commercial analytical labs are generally not set up to provide a high level of accuracy and

precision at the lower range of the economically significant grades of Ta and Nb that exist

in the Blue River deposit. The ability to assess accuracy and precision was difficult

because of this. However, Acme has worked closely with Commerce to improve the

accuracy and precision for the Blue River samples. The assessment that follows uses a

combination of techniques to provide an opinion on the reliability of the Blue River sample

results. Although some issues were identified, the samples are considered suitable to

support resource estimation.

13.1 Sample Preparation

Between 2005 and 2008 sawn core samples were shipped to Acme Analytical Laboratories

in Vancouver where the entire sample was crushed in a jaw crusher to 70% passing

10 mesh (2 mm) and a 250 g riffle split sample of the crushed material was pulverized in a

mild steel ring and puck mill to 85% passing 200 mesh (75 microns).

Split core samples from the 2009 drill program were shipped to PRA/Inspectorate

Laboratories in Richmond, B.C. where the entire sample was crushed to 80% passing 10

mesh and a 300 g split of the crushed material was pulverized to 100% passing 200 mesh.

13.2 Sample Analysis

Between 2005 and 2008 primary samples were analyzed at Acme by packages 4A and 4B.

Package 4A allows reporting of total abundances of the major oxides and several minor

elements using a 0.2 g sample analyzed by ICP-emission spectrometry following a lithium

metaborate/ tetraborate fusion and dilute nitric digestion. Package 4B provided reporting

of rare earth and refractory elements determined by ICP mass spectrometry following a

lithium metaborate / tetraborate fusion and nitric acid digestion of a 0.2 g pulp. Primary

samples from the 2009 drill program were initially analyzed at Global Discovery Laboratory

in Vancouver and later at Acme by packages 8X, 4A, and 4B. Package 8X is an X-Ray

fluorescence analysis following a lithium metaborate fusion.

Table 13-1 lists the posted laboratory lower detection limits for the primary sample analysis

procedures.






Table 13-1: Primary Analysis Lower Detection Limits

* Acme certificates reported below detection limits at 5 and 10 ppm Ta

Acme, GDL, and PRA/Inspectorate are well recognised ISO certified laboratories.

13.3 Quality Control

Quality control procedures used by Commerce to monitor laboratory results have evolved

over the life of the project. Between 2005 and 2007 there was minimal insertion of blank,

duplicate, or standard reference material (SRM) control samples. During this period,

analysis of several pulp check samples was completed at 4 different laboratories. In 2008

the control sample insertion rate was increased to an average of 3% for each of blanks,

quarter core field duplicates, and SRM control samples. In 2009 control sample insertion

rates were increased to an average of 5% per control sample type and included pulp

duplicates. Control sample and insertion rates are summarized in Table 13-2.

Table 13-2: Control Samples and Insertion Rates by Year

13.3.1 Assessment of Accuracy with SRM Control Samples

In 2005 a SRM control sample, BR-01, was prepared for Commerce by Acme, using

sample material from the nearby Verity Carbonatite. This SRM was inserted by Acme into

primary sample batches submitted between 2005 and 2008.

Figure 13-1 summarizes the Ta results returned for all primary lab analysis of BR-01. The

average of all results (best value) is 117 ppm Ta. The moving average (green line) shows

the control sample results were generally within ±5% of the best value. Less than 5% of

the results exceed ±2 standard deviations.

Ta

(ppm)

Nb

(ppm)

Acme 4A na 5

Acme 4B 0.1 0.1

Acme 8X 100* 100*

Lower Detection Limit

YearNo. of primary

samples

1/4 core field

duplicates

insertion

rate

pulp

duplicates

insertion

rate

"Robert"

SRMS

insertion

rate

"BR"

SRMs

insertion

rateBlanks

insertion

rate

pulp

checks

insertion

rate

2009 794 49 6.2% 48 6.0% 49 6.2% 0 0.0% 34 4.3% 49 6.2%

2008 5882 591 10.0% 268 4.6% 68 1.2% 206 3.5% 222 3.8% 232 3.9%

2007 1017 72 7.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 49 4.8% 63 6.2% 373 36.7%

2006 1140 4 0.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 48 4.2% 102 8.9%

2005 58 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 5.2% 0.0% 58 100.0%






Figure 13-1: SRM BR-01 Control Chart

In 2008, fifteen SRMs were prepared for Commerce by Process Research Associates

(PRA) by pulverizing core samples from within the resource area to 100% passing 200

mesh. Three samples of each standard were sent to 6 labs, for Ta, and 7 labs for Nb

analysis. Analytical procedures included XRF/fusion and XRF/pellet, ICP-AES, ICP-MS,

ICP-M, and INAA. Results were compiled by PRA. The results indicate that, with the

exception of a few higher grade Nb samples, the Blue River Standards do not achieve

typical tolerance thresholds for certified standards. This may be in part due to the difficulty

in assessing low grade Ta and Nb. “Robert” standards 3, 4, 6, 7, 13, and 15 are

considered suitable for use for assessing Nb grades greater than 900 ppm. Standards 8, 9,

10, 12, and 14 are considered acceptable for assessing Ta grades greater than 170 ppm.

A summary of SRM “Robert SRM” Best Values is provided in Table 13-3.

Table 13-3: “Robert” Standard Reference Material “Best Values”

80859095

100105110115120125130135140145150

2005

2007

2007

2007

2007

2007

2008

2008

2008

2008

2008

2008

2008

2008

2008

2008

2008

2008

2008

2008

2008

2008

2008

2008

2008

Sta

nd

ard

BR

-01

, T

a 4

B p

pm

In order Assayed, by Batch & Sample

Acme BR01 Standard Excludes outliers

Data

Mean +/- 2

std.dev.s

Best Value

Moving Average

1.05 x Best

0.95 x Best

High Clusters

Low Clusters

Tantalum in ppm Niobium in ppm

Standard Best Value Count STDEV STDEV/BV 95%CI 95%CI/BV Standard Best Value Count STDEV STDEV/BV 95%CI 95%CI/BV

1 - - - - - 1 - - - - -

2 14 3 2 17% ±6 43% 2 349 7 35 10% ±32 9%

3 74 4 11 15% ±18 24% 3 3,048 7 90 3% ±83 3%

4 122 5 14 11% ±17 14% 4 3,907 7 126 3% ±117 3%

5 107 4 9 9% ±15 14% 5 120 6 12 10% ±13 11%

6 172 5 16 10% ±20 12% 6 2,297 7 93 4% ±86 4%

7 179 5 14 8% ±17 10% 7 1,753 7 78 4% ±72 4%

8 175 5 9 5% ±11 6% 8 244 7 31 13% ±29 12%

9 193 5 12 6% ±15 8% 9 313 7 31 10% ±29 9%

10 221 5 12 5% ±14 7% 10 956 7 100 10% ±92 10%

11 265 5 17 7% ±21 8% 11 421 7 45 11% ±41 10%

12 241 5 14 6% ±17 7% 12 1,478 7 92 6% ±85 6%

13 280 5 23 8% ±28 10% 13 1,744 7 81 5% ±74 4%

14 256 5 16 6% ±20 8% 14 282 7 37 13% ±35 12%

15 377 5 25 7% ±31 8% 15 2,524 7 102 4% ±95 4%






Figure 13-2 shows all but two “Robert” SRM Ta results returned for 2008 core analysis by

Acme (ICP-MS) were within ±10% of the best values. Only 4 out of 10 Nb results were

within ±10% of the best values Figure 13-3.

Figure 13-2: 2008 “Robert” SRM Ta Performance

Figure 13-3: 2008 “Robert” SRM Nb Performance

Figures 13-4 shows a negative bias for “Robert” SRM Ta values for 2009 core analysed

by Acme XRF (fusion) methods. No bias was observed for Nb.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

ST

D-0

5

ST

D-0

6

ST

D-0

7

ST

D-0

8

ST

D-0

9

ST

D-0

9

ST

D-0

9

ST

D-1

0

ST

D-1

0

ST

D-1

5

Ta

pp

m

Standard Name

2008 Acme "Robert" Standards

ACME Ta ppm Best Value Ta ppm Greater or less than 10% BV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000S

TD

-05

ST

D-0

6

ST

D-0

7

ST

D-0

8

ST

D-0

9

ST

D-0

9

ST

D-0

9

ST

D-1

0

ST

D-1

0

ST

D-1

5

Ta

pp

m

Standard Name

2008 Acme "Robert" Standards Nb

ACME Ta ppm Best Value Ta ppm Greater or less than 10% BV






Figure 13-4: 2009 “Robert” SRM Ta Performance

13.3.2 Assessment of Accuracy with Secondary Lab Pulp Checks

Pulp checks were submitted to secondary labs by Commerce for all drill campaigns.

Secondary lab pulp checks are used to assess primary lab accuracy by checking for

biases between the labs. AMEC uses Reduced to Major Axis (RMA) charts to assess for

bias between two independent variables such as check samples. The RMA plots show a

y=x line (red), a linear fit line (grey), an RMA fit line (green), an RMA fit line equation

(y=mx+b), the correlation of the paired data (R2), and the bias relative to the x axis

variable.

2005 pulp check samples were analyzed for Ta and Nb by Global Discovery Laboratories

in Vancouver using an XRF (fusion) method. An RMA chart of the primary and check

results shows a 44% negative bias and an 11% positive bias for primary lab Ta and Nb

respectively (Figure 13-5 and 13-6).

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

ST

D-0

2

ST

D-0

2

ST

D-0

2

ST

D-0

4

ST

D-0

4

ST

D-0

6

ST

D-0

6

ST

D-0

6

ST

D-0

9

ST

D-0

9

ST

D-0

9

ST

D-0

9

ST

D-0

9

ST

D-1

3

ST

D-1

3

ST

D-1

3

ST

D-1

5

2009 Acme "Robert" Standards Ta

STD ACME Assayed Value STD Expected Value Assayed Value GT ±10% Expected Value






Figure 13-5: 2005 Pulp Check Sample Ta RMA Plots

Figure 13-6: 2005 Pulp Check Sample Nb RMA Plots

Figures 13-7 and 13-8 are Ta and Nb RMA charts that show there is no significant bias for

samples collected in 2008 after removal of outliers.

R² = 0.9197

y = 1.4357x - 8.4025

0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0

600.0

0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0

2005 GDL Pulp Checks Ta ppm

Sample Pairs

y=x

RMA

GD

L X

RF

(F)

Ta p

pm

Acme ICP-MS Ta ppm

-43.57%Bias=

R² = 0.9515

y = 0.8835x - 143.72

0.0

500.0

1000.0

1500.0

2000.0

2500.0

3000.0

3500.0

4000.0

0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 3000.0 3500.0 4000.0

2005 GDL Pulp Checks Nb ppm

Sample Pairs

y=x

RMA

GD

L X

RF

(F)

Nb

pp

m

Acme ICP-MS 4B Nb ppm

11.65%Bias=






Figure 13-7: 2008 Acme Pulp Check Sample Ta RMA Plots

Figure 13-8: 2008 Acme Pulp Check Sample Nb RMA Plots

Table 13-4 is summary of calculated biases between primary and secondary lab results

by year and indicates there was improvement in accuracy between 2005 and 2009. The

pulp check sample analyses were not systematically performed between 2005 and 2008,

R² = 0.8862

y = 0.9602x + 1.8076

0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0

600.0

700.0

0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 700.0

2008 PRA0906710 Pulp Checks Ta ppm

Sample Pairs

y=x

RMA

Acm

e

ICP

-MS

Ta p

pm

Acme ICP -MS Ta ppm

3.98%Bias=

R² = 0.9545

y = 0.95x + 21.295

0.0

500.0

1000.0

1500.0

2000.0

2500.0

3000.0

3500.0

4000.0

4500.0

5000.0

0.0 1000.0 2000.0 3000.0 4000.0 5000.0

2008 PRA0906710 Pulp Checks Nb ppm

Sample Pairs

y=x

RMA

Acm

e

ICP

-MS

Nb

pp

m

Acme ICP -MS Nb ppm

5.00%Bias=






and SRMs were not consistently included with the checks. Therefore the results are

considered an indicator of lab bias, but are not on their own definitive. The pulp check

results indicate that there was improvement in agreement between labs between 2005

and 2009.

Table 13-4: Pulp Check Bias in Percent

Year Ta Bias Nb Bias Check Lab

2005 -43.6 11.65 GDL

2006 -1.9 - Becquerel

2007 -6.6 36.8 ActLab

2007 -0.6 22 ALS

2008 -3.4 -9.4 GDL

2008 4.0 5.0 Acme

2009 -0.21 2.61 Starck

13.3.3 Assessment of Precision with Duplicates

Between 2006 and 2009, 716 quarter-core field duplicates were submitted as control

samples to support primary assay result. Duplicates are used to assess for sampling bias

and the ability of the lab to reproduce their results. A duplicate result is considered a

failure if the absolute relative difference (ARD) between the pairs exceeds a given

threshold. ARD is calculated using the following formula;

ARD % = absolute (original value – duplicate value) / ((original value +

duplicate value) / 2) * 100

ARD and AVRD (absolute value relative difference) are used interchangeably in Figures in

this report. Field duplicate pairs returning an ARD of <30% and pulp duplicate pairs

returning an ARD <10% (error limit), at least nine times out of ten are an industry standard

acceptable failure rate of acceptable precision of assays for use in resource estimation.

Min-Max plots are used to assess the ARD failure rate. On these plots the minimum of a

paired value is plotted on the X axis and the maximum paired value is plotted on the Y

axis. The red squares indicate paired duplicates with an ARD greater than the error limit.

The error limit is shown as the red line. The error limit is a hyperbolic function to

accommodate for lower precision at lower grades. Good precision is generally not

achieved for results returning less than 10 times the lower detection limit.

Figures 13-9 and 13-10 show field duplicate pairs sampled between 2006 and 2009 have a

7.2% and a 18.8% failure rate for Ta and Nb respectively.






Figure 13-9: Min-Max Plot – Ta Precision for Field Duplicates Between 2006 and 2009

Figure 13-10: Min-Max Plot – Nb Precision for Field Duplicates Between 2006 and 2009

0

500

1000

1500

2000

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Max

Min

2006-2009 Field Duplicate Pairs 4B Ta ppm

y=x

Error Limit

Failures

Percent Failures

7.2%

2006-2009 Field Duplicate Pairs 4B Ta ppm

AVRD

30%

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

0 5000 10000 15000 20000

Max

Min

2006-2009 Field Duplicate Pairs 4B Nb ppm

y=x

Error Limit

Failures

Percent Failures

18.8%

2006-2009 Field Duplicate Pairs 4B Nb ppm

AVRD

30%






Table 13-5 summarizes field duplicate precision failure rate by year.

Table 13-5 Field Duplicate Precision by Year

Field Duplicate Precision Failure Rate

Ta (%) Nb (%)

2007 (ICP) 5.6 33.3

2008 (ICP) 5.2 16.8

2009 (XRF-F) 19.6 17.9

All but the 2007 and 2008 Ta results are above the acceptable 10% failure rate threshold.

Ta precision failure rate increased in 2009, which is coincident with a move to XRF (fusion)

analysis. A better assessment of precision would be to use pulp duplicate pairs, so the

results are not considered a definitive assessment of precision.

In 2008, 268 pulps were resubmitted to Acme for ICP-MS analysis. Min-Max plots shown

in Figures 13-11 and 13-13 indicate excessive failure rates suggesting analytical precision

was not under control for Ta or Nb.

ARD is commonly related to grade. As sample grades approach the lower detection limits

of the given analytical procedure, the ARD typically increases. A Practical Detection Limit

(PDL) for an analytical procedure is the grade at which the ARD exceeds 100%. The PDL

is generally greater than the lower detection limits reported by laboratories for a given

analytical procedure. Figures 13-12 and 13-14 show the ARD relative to grade and

indicate the ARD generally exceeds the 10% threshold for both Ta and Nb at all grades.

Neither of these figures shows a clear PDL which is possible if the selected pulp duplicates

had grades well above the lower detection limit. Despite the apparent imprecision, Figures

13-15 and 13-16 show that there is no significant bias between the duplicate pairs for Ta or

Nb.






Figure 13-11: 2008 Pulp Duplicate Failure Min Max Ta Chart

Figure 13-12: 2008 Pulp Duplicate ARD vs. Grade Ta Chart

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Max

Min

PRA0906209B 2008 Acme Pulp Duplicate Pairs ICP-MS Ta ppm

y=x

Error Limit

Failures

Percent Failures

51.9%


AVRD

10%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00

AR

D







Figure 13-13: 2008 Pulp Duplicate Failure Min Max Nb Chart

Figure 13-14: 2008 Pulp Duplicate ARD vs. Grade Nb Chart

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Max

Min

PRA0906209B 2008 Acme Pulp Duplicate Pairs ICP-MS Nb ppm

y=x

Error Limit

Failures

Percent Failures

46.3%


AVRD

10%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

0.00 1000.00 2000.00 3000.00 4000.00 5000.00

AR

D







Figure 13-15: 2008 Pulp Duplicate RMA Ta Chart

Figure 13-16: 2008 Pulp Duplicate RMA Nb Chart

In 2009 Commerce initiated an extensive re-assay program which culminated in a decision

to move to XRF (fusion) analysis for Ta and Nb. Analysis of pulp duplicates from these

tests showed that despite Ta and Nb detection limits being reported down to 5 and 10

R² = 0.6335

y = 0.9371x - 9.9785

0.0

200.0

400.0

600.0

800.0

1000.0

1200.0

1400.0

0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0 800.0 1000.0 1200.0 1400.0

PRA0906209B Acme - Acme Pulp Checks Ta ppm

Sample Pairs

y=x

RMA

Acm

e I

CP

-MS

Ta p

pm

Acme ICP-MS Ta ppm

6.29%Bias=

R² = 0.8448

y = 0.9309x + 10.542

0.0

1000.0

2000.0

3000.0

4000.0

5000.0

6000.0

7000.0

8000.0

0.0 1000.0 2000.0 3000.0 4000.0 5000.0 6000.0 7000.0 8000.0

PRA0906209B Acme - Acme Pulp Checks Nb ppm

Sample Pairs

y=x

RMA

Acm

e I

CP

-MS

Nb

pp

m

Acme ICP-MS Nb ppm

4.72%Bias=






ppm, the PDL was much higher. Forty-eight pulp duplicates were inserted with the primary

assay submission of 2009 core. Figure 13-17 to Figure 13-20 show there is an excessive

failure rate for Ta pairs but an acceptable failure rate for Nb. The PDL may be near 50

ppm for both.

Figure 13-17: 2009 Pulp Duplicate RMA Ta Chart

Figure 13-18: 2009 Pulp Duplicate ARD vs. Grade Ta Chart

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Max

Min

2009 ACME 8x (XRF-F) Pulp Duplicate Pairs Ta ppm

y=x

Error Limit

Failures

Percent Failures

46.9%


AVRD Threshold

10%

assumed 10ppm PDL

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

0 100 200 300 400 500

AR

D


Ta ppm






Figure 13-19: 2009 Pulp Duplicate RMA Nb Chart

Figure 13-20: 2009 Pulp Duplicate ARD vs. Grade Nb Chart

13.3.4 Assessment of Contamination Using Blanks

Three hundred and sixty-seven coarse blanks were submitted over the duration of the

assay programs. In general the Ta and Nb values returned for the blanks are at or near

detection limits suggesting little or no carry-over contamination (Figures 13-21 and 13-22).

Sporadic carry-over contamination is indicated and could be a result of sample swaps or

poorly prepared blanks. The abrupt jump in the Ta values in 2009 reflects a change in the

lower detection limit as a result of Commerce switching from ICP-MS to XRF(F).

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

Max

Min

2009 ACME XRF(F) Pulp Duplicate Pairs Nb ppm

y=x

Error Limit

Failures

Percent Failures

4.1%


AVRD Threshold

10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

AR

D


Nb ppm






Figure 13-21: Blank Control Chart for Tantalum Analyses

Figure 13-22: Blank Control Chart for Niobium Analyses

13.4 Density

Commerce regularly collected density measurements using a water displacement method.

Five to 10 cm pieces of whole core were weighed with a balance beam scale and then

were placed into a beaker of water. The volume of water displaced was measured with a

clear plastic ruler to approximate the volume of the core. Density was calculated using:

Weight of core / volume of water displaced

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1802

00

6

20

06

20

06

20

06

20

07

20

07

20

07

20

07

20

08

20

08

20

08

20

08

20

08

20

08

20

08

20

08

20

08

20

08

20

08

20

08

20

08

20

08

20

09

20

09

20

09

Blanks ICP-MS 4B Ta ppm

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

20

06

20

06

20

06

20

06

20

07

20

07

20

07

20

07

20

08

20

08

20

08

20

08

20

08

20

08

20

08

20

08

20

08

20

08

20

08

20

08

20

08

20

08

20

09

20

09

20

09

Blanks ICP-MS 4B Nb ppm






No check samples were completed.

AMEC recommended a check on the density data and additional measurements for waste

rock types. A water immersion specific gravity (SG) method was used in addition to the

water displacement method. For the water displacement checks an ASTM approved

cylinder with 2 mm graduations was used. For the water immersion method core was

placed on a scale, weighed (weight in air), submerged in a bucket of water, and then

weighed again (weight in water). SG was calculated using:

Specific gravity = (core weight in air) / (core weight in air – core weight in water)

Four hundred and twenty-five pieces of whole and half-sawn HQ diameter drill core

measuring at least 10 to 20 cm long were checked. The samples chosen covered the

spatial and time aspects of the different Commerce drill campaigns.

Thirty-nine of the 425 samples were sent to MetSolve Laboratories Inc. of Burnaby, B.C.

for measurement of SG by a wax coated water immersion method to assess for possible

water porosity. Original water displacement, check water displacement, and check water

immersion measurements were compared to the 39 MetSolve wax coated water immersion

SG measurements.

Original water displacement density measurements had poor correlation

Check water displacement density measurements had adequate correlation

Check water immersion SG measurements had excellent correlation.

Based on this, the 425 water immersion check measurements were used to calculate SG

values for each major rock type at Blue River. The means are used as constants to

support the Mineral Resource update.

Table 13-6: Specific Gravity Measurements for Blue River Rock Types

Domain Count Min Max Mean StDev CV

Gneiss 81 2.69 3.16 2.82 0.09 0.03

Amphibolite 30 2.93 3.19 3.05 0.07 0.02

Fenite+CalcAmphibolite 55 2.87 3.16 2.97 0.05 0.02

Carbonatite 168 2.85 3.24 3.01 0.08 0.03

Pegmatite 44 2.57 2.68 2.62 0.02 0.01

Other 29 2.81 3.20 3.03 0.10 0.03

Fault Zone (mixed) 17 2.54 3.06 2.85 0.15 0.05

Total 424 2.54 3.24 2.92 0.15 0.05






13.5 Security

The core is delivered by the drillers in the back of a pick-up truck to the Commerce field

office in Blue River. The boxes are laid out in order on saw horses and inspected by the

project manager. The core is logged by Dahrouge geologists. The core logging supervisor

completes spot checks for quality on a daily basis. The core storage, logging and

sampling facilities are not secured. Samples are placed in pails and stored in the locked

quonset hut for security prior to shipping. The core samples are commercially transported

via Monashee Painting and Services of Blue River, B.C. to the preparatory laboratory.

Sample sheet manifests are submitted with the core samples. The manifests include

information on the operator, sample preparation laboratory, and a sample list. Sample

rejects returned from the lab are stored in the quonset hut.


AMEC and Commerce have carefully examined the sample preparation and analysis of

Blue River core. The principal findings of this work are as follows:

Significant inter-lab grade biases are evident for Ta and Nb in the initial sampling

Acceptable inter-lab biases were achieved through the remaining sampling programs

SRM control samples indicate acceptable levels of accuracy are occasionally achieved

for Ta and Nb. Where acceptable levels are not achieved the SRM results suggest a

low bias for the primary results may exist

Poor precision is evident for Ta and Nb results collected in 2008 and 2009. However

no consistent bias is evident

The Blue River sample results show imprecision but no consistent bias and are

considered suitable for use in mineral resource estimation. Caution should be applied

in assigning a high level of confidence to the results until precision and accuracy

issues are resolved.






14.0 DATA VERIFICATION

14.1 Database Data Entry Check

The resource database that was used for the 2010 resource estimate is stored in a

Gems™ database format. In the drill hole resource database, there are 183 drill holes

used in the mineral resource update consisting of 183 collar records, 510 hole orientation

records, 8,218 assays records, and 8,434 lithology records. AMEC performed a data entry

verification check of the database to assess frequency of data entry errors using original

source documentation. A data entry error rate of less than 1.0% is considered an industry

acceptable level of accuracy.

Drill Collar Coordinate Checks

All drill collar coordinates are collected in UTM NAD 83 Zone 11 coordinate system.

Nineteen randomly selected drill collar records, representing 10% of all drill collar records

were examined. No errors were noted.

All drill collar elevations were compared to the topographic surface used in the resource

estimation. No discrepancies were noted.

Down-Hole Deviation Checks

Fifty-two holes have collar orientation measurements only. The remainder have at least

two down-hole measurements. Holes with measurements have been surveyed using a

Flexit Single Shot down-hole orientation tool. The Flexit data are down-loaded

electronically and then hand-entered into the Gems™ database. Spacing between

measurements averages 90 m and ranges from 0.9 m to 327 m.

Eighty-four randomly selected down-hole survey records, representing 5% of all the down-

hole survey records were checked. Minor errors were noted.

The magnetic declination applied to down-hole surveys was checked against the

Geological Survey of Canada’s magnetic declination for the area and was confirmed.

AMEC checked the down-hole survey records for indications of excessive bends in the drill

hole trace. “Kinkcheck” is a proprietary software program that calculates deviation

between consecutive down-hole survey measurements and compares to an allowable

tolerance set by the QP. Deviations in excess of allowable tolerance are flagged. No

unusual “kinks” were noted.






Lithology Checks

AMEC checked 1,740 lithology records, representing 21% of all lithology records. Twenty

errors were noted which represents a 1.1% error rate for the geology table. The errors

were reported to Dahrouge, who subsequently checked and fixed the errors.

Assay Data Checks

AMEC performed a data entry check on 100% of the Ta and Nb assay records. Database

records were compared to assay certificates. One error was noted.

14.2 Site Visit

14.2.1 Drill Collar Location Check

AMEC checked the location of 20 drill collars from 10 setups for the 2006 to 2009 drilling

campaigns using a hand-held Garmin GPS Map 60 CSX unit. All holes checked were

within ±8 m and most were within ±3 m. The drill hole locations with discrepancies greater

than 3 m were related to disturbance of markers from drill road construction.

Upon completion of a drill hole, 4" x 4" wooden posts are placed into the hole. The drill

hole collar casings are in some cases still in place. Steel plates with the drill hole names

have been cemented into the ground adjacent to the hole collars making hole identification

relatively easy (Figure 14-1).

14.2.2 Logging and Sampling Facilities

The core is logged and sampled by Dahrouge employees in an open field behind the Blue

River field office.

Core is half sawn with a 10" diamond blade. The samples are cut along the length of the

sample, and perpendicular to the core at the end of each sample interval. The saw is

cleaned with fresh running water at the end of each sample. The sludge at the bottom of

the saw basin is cleaned and placed into a separate sample bag for possible check

sampling. After the core is cut, half is placed in a uniquely numbered plastic bag and half

is placed back into the core box. Sample identification tags are inserted into the sample

bags. The sample bags are secured with plastic zip ties and then placed into 5 gallon

pails. Dahrouge has arranged for sample bar-tag labels employing a system which can be

used by the primary laboratory Acme-Vancouver.

The pails are labelled on the exterior surface with list of samples contained within the pail.

The empty bags for QA/QC blanks and SRMs are typically placed at the top of the pail for

filling by the sample preparation lab.






Figure 14-1: Drill Hole Collar Identification

Note: The drill hole names are etched onto the red steel plate that has been cemented into the ground. Holes have

had 4” x 4” wooden stakes inserted into the drill collar to mark their locations.

14.2.3 Core Storage

The archived drill core is stored cross piled on wooden pallets in an unsecured grass field

on private property in Valemount. The storage area is adjacent a side road near the edge

of the town. For the winter season, pallets are covered with tarps for protection.

Core boxes are labelled by magic marker and with aluminium tape labels stapled to the

core box ends. The labels note hole number, box number, and distance down hole.

Sample locations have been marked on the core boxes with crayon markers.

The pulp and coarse rejects are stored in a quonset hut within sealed plastic buckets or

wooden crates comprised of rice bags having individual plastic sample bags.

14.2.4 Inspection of Drill Core and Verification of Mineralization

Fifteen quarter-core samples were collected at site by AMEC. The samples were

submitted to Acme in Vancouver for preparation and analysis by Package 4B ICP-MS

methods. A comparison of AMEC results with matched interval results reported in the






resource database is summarized in Table 14-1. The check sample results support the

grades reported in the resource database.

Table 14-1: AMEC Site Visit Confirmation of Mineralization

AMEC Quarter Core Samples Original Half Core Samples

DHID From (m) To (m) Ta (ppm) Nb (ppm) Ta (ppm) Nb (ppm)

CF0612 103.3 104.3 131 328 121 360

CF0612 104.3 105.3 146 367 194 506

CF0612 105.3 106.3 287 1,305 365 1,494

CF0612 106.3 107.3 146 565 122 466

CF0612 108.2 109.2 112 392 43 128

F0728 133.0 134.0 141 1,734 75 910

F0728 134.0 135.0 64 553 128 1,261

F0728 135.0 136.0 244 2,404 421 4,405

F08-150 129.7 131.0 143 1,727 210 4,739

F08-150 133.0 134.0 118 1,566 101 1,365

F08-150 134.0 135.0 189 2,667 181 2,742

F08-150 158.0 159.0 134 2,034 86 1,559

F08-151 192.0 193.0 140 798 143 744

F08-151 194.3 195.0 187 2,084 219 2,887

F08-151 195.0 196.0 78 1,786 91 2,040

Average 151 1,354 167 1,707


AMEC concludes:

Based on the database verification performed by AMEC, the collar coordinates, down-

hole surveys, lithologies, and assays are considered sufficiently free of error and that

the data are suitable to support Mineral Resource estimation.






15.0 ADJACENT PROPERTIES

The Commerce Blue River claim boundaries surround 7 adjacent claims owned by

prospectors (Figure 4-1 and Table 15-1). These claims are centred on the Mud Lake

carbonatite outcrop showings located at about 52° 8' 5" N, 119° 10' 35" W. Exploration

work on the adjacent claims is at an early stage.

Table 15-1: List of Adjacent Property Claims

Claim Number Owner

597901 Kelly Brent Funk

525503 Darrel Wayne Davis

590258 Duane Paul Hennig

599718 Luis Alberto Botto

599637 Dwayne Edward Kress





AMEC has not verified any information related to carbonatite mineralization on the

adjacent claims. The mineralization on the adjacent claims is not necessarily indicative of

the carbonatites or mineralization found at Commerce’s Blue River Project.






16.0 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING

Testwork began in 2009 and continued into 2010 to develop a process flowsheet for the

Blue River Project. The testwork was based on material produced from two bulk samples,

BS-2F and BS–2G. Mineralogical analysis was performed to obtain knowledge on the

occurrence of the tantalum and niobium within the material. Given the complexities with

assaying for the tantalum, a fair amount of effort also went into developing the appropriate

routine for the assaying of samples.

The testwork primarily took place in two Phases;

Phase I – concentrated on the recovery of the tantalum-niobium minerals by gravity

although grinding and mineralogy were also performed.

Phase II – concentrated on the recovery and upgrading of the tantalum-niobium

minerals by flotation.

A large amount of work was performed in Phase I that showed gravity could concentrate

the material to a low-grade product but that upgrading increasingly gave lower levels of

benefit as grade was sought. Grinding work done at this time showed a material which

had low to moderate hardness. Mineralogical work completed before and during this

period showed that the tantalum was not present as tantalite but rather as pyrochlore

minerals which limits recovery by the gravity route.

Phase II saw the employment of the flotation technology similar to that being used for

niobium carbonatites at the Niobec Mine in Quebec, Canada. There was immediate

success in the first phases of the work. Although there are several stages to the

concentration, the overall level of equipment, risk and complexity to produce a saleable or

treatable concentrate are lower than the gravity route. Process development work is

continuing in this area, but for this report, the process suggested by Test F81 has been

chosen as the basis of initial concentration design as recoveries were good (approx. 70%

for Ta) for this type of ore and due to a combined grade of 10% Ta-Nb being achieved. It

is expected that with further work, a combined grade of 30% Ta-Nb should be achievable.

In both phases, the emphasis of concentration techniques was to create a material which

would be easily upgraded by hydrometallurgical methods, pyrometallurgical methods, or a

combination of both. This led to an in-depth review of those technologies for the

production of high value intermediate products and final products. There is confidence that

the concentrate could be reduced to metal by the aluminothermic process. Subsequently

there would be chlorination of the granulated metal alloy product and distillation of the

anhydrous metal chloride products to produce high purity Nb and Ta chlorides. Tantalum

chloride is the precursor to capacitor grade Ta powder,that can be marketed as such.

However, both Ta and Nb chlorides can be hydrolyzed and calcined to generate high purity

oxide products for other applications.






16.1 Head Samples for Initial Testing

In 2009, two bulk samples BS-2F and BS–2G weighing approximately 200 tonnes total

were contract-crushed to a particle size of <1 inch diameter. After crushing, each group of

samples was homogenized separately by a standard coning and quartering procedure.

The well mixed samples were bagged into one tonne bags and put into storage. One

tonne of each sample was delivered to MetSolve Laboratory in Burnaby B.C to air dry and

further reduce the size to -10 mesh for bench testing.

The mineralogical examinations of all the bulk samples taken during the 2009 exploration

program is presented in the report “Mineral Characterization of Bulk Samples from Bulk

Sample Pits 1, 2 and 3, Upper Fir Carbonatite” by Thomas Chudy and dated 2009.

Additional mineralogical examinations were performed on some of the test products during

the mineral processing investigations.

The head assays for the two bulk samples were (using XRF) :

Sample Ta (ppm) Nb (ppm)

BS-2F 194 1300

BS -2G 114 764

16.2 Phase I Testing

Grinding size

Each sample was subjected to gravity separation tests at five different grind sizes of 80%

passing 500 µm, 230 µm, 100 µm, 74 µm and 45 µm to determine the liberation size using

a centrifugal concentrator. A standard 7 pass procedure was used to simulate continuous

concentrator action.

This work indicates that the liberation size for both samples is coarser than P80 of 76 µm.

The relative position of the curves (Figure 16-1 and 16-2) indicates that effective liberation

for gravity is likely achievable at a grind size slightly coarser than 120 µm. The results for

niobium are similar.






Figure 16-1: Sample BS-2F – Gravity Separation (Different Grinds)

Figure 16-2: Sample BS-2G – Gravity Separation (Different Grinds)

Assaying of the individual size fractions of the tails from the BS-2G tests indicate that there

are still a few locked particles between 74 and 106 µm when ground to P80 112 µm but

that material coarser than 150 µm does not contain any tantalum. Given the natural size

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Re

co

ve

ry (

%)

Grade Ta (ppm)

BS-2F - Gravity SeparationTantalum Grade/Recovery Curves

P80 500 um

P80 233 um

P80 112 um

P80 76 um

P80 45 um

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Re

co

ve

ry (

%)

Grade Ta (ppm)

BS-2G - Gravity SeparationTantalum

P80 650 um

P80 250 um

P80 120 um

P80 76 um

P80 45 um






distribution obtained in grinding, this implies that effective liberation for processing, is about

P80 of 125 µm for gravity treatment and slightly coarser for flotation (P80 up to 160 µm).

These numbers are in line with independent findings from the mineralogical examination of

all bulk samples of the 2009 exploration program.

Roughing & Cleaning Gravity Concentration

With the establishment of the grind size and initial gravity results, it was decided to

progress with the gravity concentration work. The two samples were treated with a

centrifugal concentrator, using ten (10) consecutive stages for rougher concentration

followed by three (3) cleaning stages of the combined rougher concentrates. Four different

grind sizes were tested for each sample. All results were similar, with recoveries falling off

quickly in cleaning and inability to raise the grades any higher than Ta 3,500 ppm

(0.35% Ta). Results from sample BS-2G are shown on Figure 16-3.

Figure 16-3: Rougher and Cleaners by Centrifugal Gravity Concentration

Large batch samples of 60 kg were tested using the Falcon Centrifugal Gravity

Concentrator in ten consecutive stages to produce a rougher and a scavenger concentrate

at a grind size of P80 100 µm. The rougher concentrate only was screened to produce

three size fractions as follows:

+74 µm

37 to 74 µm

-37 µm.

Each fraction was then cleaned by gravity using a Wilfley shaking table, with a medium

size deck. Results were similar to the above gravity separation using centrifugal separator

only with no improvement in recoveries or grades. These fractions were also tested using

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

Ta R

eco

very

, %

Ta Grade, ppm

Ta Grade Recovery Curve

P80 116um

P80 83 um

P46 um

P80 238 um






a Mozley Table Concentrator to determine the upgrading characteristics of the products.

Results showed that while it would be possible to increase the grades by up to six times at

the lab level, the recoveries would drop accordingly. The results are shown in Figure 16-4.

Figure 16-4: Upgrading by Wilfley & Mozley Units

Tests were also performed to determine the benefits of de-sliming, de-sulphidization, etc.

These procedures were incorporated into the testwork but essentially it was felt that

concentration by gravity as the primary method was not the optimum choice.

16.3 Phase II Testing

Flotation Tests

A series of tests were performed by MetSolve using varying desliming procedures followed

by flotation with various combinations of reagents. Results were not successful, with

recoveries generally below 15%.

A few tests were then performed using the flotation procedures used at the Niobec Mine.

The first tests were immediately successful with higher recoveries and grades in the

roughers than the gravity method. While the rougher stage gave good results, the cleaning

stage was problematic due primarily to non-optimized conditions at this preliminary stage

of testing. Cleaning tests were performed and it was shown that a total oxide grade of

more than 30% combined Nb2O5 and Ta2O5 is achievable although not at high recoveries.

Until such time as the procedures have been well established and stabilized and are

reproducible on larger test weights, the recoveries indicated should be considered semi-

quantitative and indicative of the possibilities.

Once improved desliming equipment was purchased, a series of desliming tests were

performed to determine the best range of operating parameters which indicated optimum

ranges are similar to Niobec. Tests were then performed to optimize the kinetics of the

rougher tantalum niobium flotation. It has been shown that control of the pH through the

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

100 1,000 10,000 100,000

Ta

Re

co

ve

ry (

%)

Grade Ta (ppm)

Gravity Concentration

Mozley Characterization

Wilfley Table






stages is critical. Also important is the formulation of the main collector, a tallow diamine

acetate. Previously available as a commercial product, Duomac-T, it is no longer available

and current practitioners such as Niobec, now purchase the two main reagents (the amine

and acetic acid) and prepare the collector at site.

Process development work is continuing in this area, but for this report, the process

suggested by Test F81 (see Table 16-1) has been chosen as the basis of initial

concentration design as recoveries were good (approx. 70% Ta) for this type of ore and

due to a combined grade of 10% Ta-Nb being achieved. It is expected that with further

work, a combined grade of 30% should be achievable.

Table 16-1: Results from F81

Mass Assay Recovery

Products Ta Nb S Ta Nb S

% ppm ppm % % % %

Cyclone Overflow #1 16.5 49 338 0.35 6.9 7.4 9.0

Cyclone Overflow #2 7.1 73 410 0.41 4.4 3.8 4.5

Carbonate Concentrate 28.0 25 151 0.17 5.9 5.6 7.3

Pyrrhotite Concentrate 1.7 152 275 27.38 2.2 0.6 73.5

Magnetic product 0.1 56 395 21.59 0.0 0.0 2.3

Stage 5 Pyrochlore Cleaner Con 0.6 12839 86732 1.14 69.8 72.7 1.1

Stage 5 Pyrochlore Cleaner Tail 0.4 228 1816 0.15 0.7 0.9 0.1









Total Pyrochlore Rougher

Concentrate 25.1 367 2492 0.07 78.7 82.3 2.8

Flotation Tails 21.5 10 10 0.02 1.8 0.3 0.7

Calculated Feed 117 760 0.64 100 100 100

Assayed Feed 113 764

Results of preliminary dilute hydrochloric acid leaching tests indicated that low to

intermediate grade gravity and flotation products can be upgraded significantly with

negligible loss of Ta+Nb. The final upgrading flowsheet will be based on an economic

comparison between pay metal losses from physical beneficiation and the cost of acid plus

stabilization/disposal of the leach products.






The following table presents results of a four stage hydrochloric acid (pH 2, pH 1.2,

6N/1h/100C, 6N/5h/100C) on a flotation middling product. Most of the weight loss (>80%)

was achieved in the first two stages, clearly indicating the technical feasibility of upgrading

by acid leaching with negligible solution loss of Ta+Nb. The final leach residue assay is

>50% Ta+Nb. The stages 3 and 4 strong acid leaches were designed to investigate the

possibility of dissolving Ta+Nb, but the minerals appear to be entirely resistant to this

relatively aggressive leach.

Table 16-2: Results of a Sequential Hydrochloric Acid Leach of Flotation “Middling”

Products Weight Assay (ppm) Distribution (%)

(g) Ta Nb Ta Nb

Stage 1 Filtrate 180.0 0.002 0.00 0.0001 0.000004

Stage 2 Filtrate 220.0 0.031 0.34 0.001 0.002

Stage 3 Filtrate 255.0 0.024 0.63 0.001 0.003

Stage 4 Filtrate 210.0 1.491 12.27 0.056 0.053

Filter Cake 10.7 51,813 453,168 99.9 99.9

Calculated Head 26,824 234,609 100.0 100.0

Assayed Head 20.0 27,663 245,813

16.4 Review of Concentrate Treatment Options

In both phases, the emphasis of concentration techniques is to create a material which

would be easily upgraded by hydrometallurgical methods, pyrometallurgical methods, or a

combination of both. This has led to an in-depth review of those technologies for the

production of high value intermediate products and final products. There is confidence that

the concentrate could be reduced to metal by the aluminothermic process. Subsequently

there would be chlorination of the granulated metal alloy product and distillation of the

anhydrous metal chloride products to produce high purity Nb and Ta chlorides. Tantalum

chloride is the precursor to capacitor grade Ta powder, so would be marketed in this form.

Niobium chloride can be sold as a chemical precursor. Both Ta and Nb chloride products

can be readily converted and marketed as high purity oxides Ta2O5 and Nb2O5

respectively.

16.5 Accuracy of Assaying

A review of all calculated and measured feed assay results for tests using sample BS-2G

was performed to check on the accuracy of the chemical analysis and the tests results. It

was decided to continue the assaying of low values, such as tailings, in duplicate on

separate aliquots; this procedure will continue as these assays could introduce a large

variance to results.







Metallurgical testwork has shown that it is possible to concentrate the tantalum and

niobium minerals into a concentrate suitable for extraction of the metals into saleable

products. The first step of the process uses typical grinding followed by flotation. The

secondary treatment or metal extraction of the material is possible by existing methods.

These results are suitable to support the classification of the deposit in the resource

category.






17.0 MINERAL RESOURCE AND MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES

17.1 Introduction

The resource block model was constructed inside carbonatite only. All surrounding

lithologies including fenite carry fairly low Ta2O5 and Nb2O5 grade and are considered sub-

economic. Generally assay data exists only for carbonatite. There are some assay values

for fenite and other wall rocks but not in sufficient numbers to create a block model for

these lithologies.

17.2 Assay Data and Capping

The resource model was constructed inside carbonatite using 183 diamond drill holes.

Collar, survey, lithology and assay files were exported from the database as csv files,

imported into MineSight® commercial mine modeling software, and combined into a

drillhole assay file.

AMEC conducted grade capping on original samples that are mostly 1 m long. Capping

was required to limit the influence of outliers. The choice of capping was based on visual

inspection of histograms and probability plots. The amount of capping was small; top-cuts

of 1,000 ppm Ta2O5 and 10,000 ppm Nb2O5 were used in carbonatite. Only 4 Ta2O5

samples and 8 Nb2O5 samples were capped resulting in an expected metal removal of

0.12% Ta2O5 and 0.26% Nb2O5.

17.3 Composites

Capped drill core assays were composited down the hole to a fixed length of 2.5 m.

Compositing of Ta2O5 and Nb2O5 was performed in MineSight®

software honouring

geologic boundaries. Composites with length less than 1.25 m were merged with the

previous composite. AMEC confirmed that the compositing produced Ta2O5 and Nb2O5

means the same as pre-compositing means and that compositing resulted in a reduced

variability as indicated by lower CV (CV=coefficient of variation ; CV=standard deviation /

mean). This exercise demonstrated that no bias was introduced during compositing. Table

17-1 shows a summary of this check for carbonatite.

Table 17-1: Capped Assays vs. 2.5 m Composites Statistics Inside Carbonatites

Variable

assay capped

mean

assay capped

CV

2.5 m

Composites

mean

2.5 m

Composites

CV

Mean diff (from

assays capped

to comps)

Ta2O5 183.3 0.47 183.3 0.36 0.0%

Nb2O5 1394.9 0.88 1394.6 0.76 0.0%






17.4 Exploratory Data Analysis

Exploratory data analysis (EDA) was performed on the composites to better understand

the data used in the resource estimation. This type of investigation reveals the underlying

characteristics of the data. Table 17-2 contains a summary of univariate statistics for

Ta2O5 and Nb2O5 in carbonatite.

Table 17-2: Composite Statistics in Carbonatite

Area/Variable No. Mean Min Max Std. Dev. CV

Carbonatite

Ta2O5 2,989 183.3 0.1 596.8 65.9 0.36

Nb2O5 2,989 1,394.6 110.5 8,329.2 1,064.7 0.76

Note CV is the Coefficient of Variation and is equal to the standard deviation divided by mean

Figures 17-1 and 17-2 show arithmetic and log histograms and probability plots of Ta2O5

and Nb2O5 composites in carbonatite. Both distributions are skewed, and Nb2O5

distribution is approximately lognormal. The coefficients of variation are low and support

the use of linear grade interpolation methods such as kriging or inverse distance methods.






Figure 17-1: Ta2O5 Histograms and Probability Plot Within Carbonatite






Figure 17-2: Nb2O5 Histograms and Probability Plot Within Carbonatite

17.5 Contact Analysis

AMEC calculated contact profiles on assay data in MineSight®

software to analyze grade

behaviour at lithology boundaries. There were sharp differences in grade for each of the

variables on the carbonatite and fenite boundary, meaning that values from outside the

carbonatite should be disregarded in the interpolation process of Ta2O5 and Nb2O5 grade

inside the carbonatite.

17.6 Variography

Variogram / correlogram are tools used to quantify spatial continuity of a variable in a

deposit. AMEC used both in-house software and commercially available Sage2001

software to produce variogram maps and to construct down-the-hole and directional






correlograms for carbonatite composites. Ta2O5 and Nb2O5 correlograms were created

within the entire carbonatite zone. Two spherical models were used to fit the experimental

correlograms; a summary of their parameters is shown in Table 17-3.

Table 17-3: Ta2O5 and Nb2O5 Correlogram Parameter in Carbonatite

Metal C0*

1st

Structure 2nd

Structure

Rotation (°) Range (m) Rotation (°) Range (m)

C1* Z Y Z X Y Z C2* Z Y Z X Y Z

Ta2O5 0.306 0.549 -55 4 -7 18.1 28.8 11.9 0.145 -55 4 -7 118.4 154.4 32.8

Nb2O5 0.138 0.297 -75 1 -10 12.0 17.9 7.7 0.565 -75 1 -10 212.6 258.2 61.7

*C0 – nugget effect; C1-contribution of the 1st structure to the sill; C2-contribution of the 2nd

structure to the sill; sill has been

standardized to value of 1.

The first rotation uses a left hand rule around positive Z axis, the second rotation is a right

hand rule around positive X axis and finally the third rotation is a right hand rule around

positive Y axis. The nugget effect (C0) was modelled from the down-hole correlograms.

17.7 Carbonatite Solid Modeling

Geological interpretations were provided by Commerce to AMEC as 3D solids in DXF

format. The solids were created by Dahrouge geologists for the major lithologies with the

exception of gneiss which was left as a default. The carbonatite solids were provided as

39 structural (different strike, dip and / or pitch) domains. AMEC reviewed the geological

interpretations and 3D solids. Minor modifications were made to the solids to provide a

better agreement with the drilling and geological interpretation.

17.8 Block Model Dimensions

The block model consists of regular blocks and no rotation was used. The block model

framework parameters are listed in Table 17-4.

Table 17-4: Block Model Dimensions

Axis Origin* Block Size (m) No. of Blocks Model Extension (m)

X 352,350 5 250 1,250

Y 5,795,850 5 390 1,950

Z 925 2.5 244 610

Note: *Origin is defined as the bottom southwest corner of the model, located at the lowest combined northing and

easting coordinates and the lowest elevation






17.9 Assignment of Lithology and Specific Gravity to Blocks

Blocks in the block model were coded by lithology solids, and the volume of each lithology

solid was compared with the volume of the blocks inside a particular solid. A block was

tagged by a particular solid code if at least 50% of the block volume belonged to this solid.

The block model and corresponding lithology solid volumes compare within ±1%.

Resource block model specific gravity was not estimated; instead it was assigned to all

blocks in the block model (including blocks outside of carbonatite) as follows:

3.01 value was assigned to all blocks in carbonatite

2.97 value was assigned to all blocks in fenite

2.82 value was assigned to all blocks in gneiss

3.05 value was assigned to all blocks in amphibolites

2.62 value was assigned to all blocks in pegmatite.

All the above specific gravity values were derived as described in Section 13.4.

17.10 Block Model Grade Estimate

Ta2O5 and Nb2O5 grade was estimated in the carbonatite using both Ordinary Kriging (OK)

and Inverse Distance to power 3 (ID3) interpolation methods. A four pass interpolation

approach was used with each successive pass having greater search distances. A hard

boundary was used, meaning that composites from outside the carbonatite were ignored in

the interpolation process. Estimation was done separately within each limb of the

carbonatite folds. Thirty-nine different limbs / structural domains were identified and used

in the estimation process. They differ in the orientation of the search ellipse. Table 17-5

shows the estimation search parameters for Ta2O5 and Nb2O5.

Table 17-5: Estimation Parameters for Ta2O5 and Nb2O5

Domain Pass

Search Ellipse

Min. No.

Comp

Max. No.

Comp

Max. Comp. /Hole

Rotation (°) Ranges(m)

Z X Z X Y Z

Common to all domains

1 differ

by domain

differ by

domain

differ by

domain

50 50 10 5 8 2

2 100 100 10 3 8 2

3 150 150 10 2 8 2

4 300 300 50 2 8 2






The rotation angles of the search ellipse are the same for each pass, but they are different

for each of the 39 structural domains. They reflect average strike, dip, and pitch of each

fold limb / domain.

17.11 Block Model Validation

The block model grades were validated by visual inspection comparing composites to

block grades on screen, declustered global statistics checks, local biases checks using

swath plots, and finally model selectivity checks.

17.11.1 Visual Validation

AMEC completed a visual inspection of composites and blocks in vertical sections and

plan views. Figures 17-3 to 17-6 show colour-coded Ta2O5 or Nb2O5 composites and

corresponding ID3 block models on plan and in section. The model generally honours

both Ta2O5 and Nb2O5 data well, and grade extrapolation is well-controlled where sufficient

data exists.

Figure 17-3: Ta2O5 ID3 Model Within Carbonatite – plan 1146.25






Figure 17-4: Ta2O5 ID3 Model Within Carbonatite – section N5796932.5

Figure 17-5: Nb2O5 ID3 Model Within Carbonatite – plan 1146.25






Figure 17-6: Nb2O5 ID3 Model Within Carbonatite – section N5796932.5

17.11.2 Global Grade Bias Check

The OK and ID3 block models were checked for global bias by comparing the average

grade (with no cut-off) from these models with that obtained from nearest-neighbour (NN)

model estimates (Table 17-6). The nearest-neighbour estimator produces a theoretically

globally unbiased estimate of the average value when no cut-off grade is imposed and is a

good basis for checking the performance of the different estimation methods. Table 17-6

shows that global biases are well below the recommended AMEC guidelines of ±5%

(relative difference).

Table 17-6: Mean Grades for NN, OK and ID3 Models

Model Ta2O5 Nb2O5

Nearest Neighbour 185.1 1,394.8

Inverse Distance (ID3) 185.6 1,377.5

Ordinary Kriging (OK) 185.6 1,391.6

% Diff (ID3 – NN)/NN 0.3% -1.2%

% Diff (OK – NN)/NN 0.3% -0.2%

AMEC also estimated the impact of outlier capping on the estimated global mean of the

model. A comparison of global means of capped and uncapped OK and ID3 models






showed the amount of metal removed by capping is minor (0.1% for Ta2O5 and 0.3%

Nb2O5).

17.11.3 Local Grade Bias Check (Swath Plots)

Checks for local biases were performed for Ta2O5 and Nb2O5 by creating and analyzing

local trends in the grade estimates using swath plots. This was done by plotting the mean

values from the NN estimate versus the OK / ID3 estimates in east-west, north-south and

vertical swaths or increments. Swath intervals are 50 m in both the northerly and easterly

directions, and 10 m vertically. Swath plot checks using only Indicated blocks for the ID3

Ta2O5 model are shown on Figure 17-7. Figure 17-8 shows corresponding swath plots for

Nb2O5.

Figure 17-7: Swath Plot for Ta2O5 ID3 Model






Figure 17-8: Swath Plot for Nb2O5 ID3 Model

In the upper row of the swath plots, the black line represents the ID3 model grades, the red

line represents the NN model grades, and the blue line represents the composite grades.

In the lower row of swath plots, these lines represent the number of blocks contained in

each swath, and the number of composites. Because the NN model is declustered, it is a

better reference model to validate the resource block model. Composites are not

declustered and only provide an indicative check. Swath plot checks, conducted by

AMEC, show that there are no local biases between ID3 / OK and NN models for

estimated Ta2O5 and Nb2O5 in carbonatite.

17.11.4 Selectivity Check

Selectivity analysis for Ta2O5 and Nb2O5 was completed using the Discrete Gaussian

Model for change of support from composite size units to an SMU size. This was done

using AMEC in-house software (Herco). The aim of this analysis is to assess if the

estimated resource reasonably represents the recoverable resources (represented by

Herco curves) relative to the proposed mining method. The selectivity analysis assumed a

10 m by 10 m by 5 m block as the smallest selective mining unit (SMU) for Blue River.

The results of the Herco analysis are generally discussed in terms of smoothness. An

over-smoothed model may over estimate the tonnes and under estimate the grade. The

model with an appropriate amount of smoothing will follow the Herco grade and tonnage

curves for values corresponding to different economic, or grade cut-offs.






The Herco analyses were undertaken using only Indicated blocks in order to obtain a good

understanding of the model selectivity, or smoothness. Inferred blocks are often

extrapolated and are not recommended for use in this analysis. Herco grade–tonnage

curves checks using only Indicated blocks for ID3 Ta2O5 model are shown on Figure 17-9.

Figure 17-10 shows corresponding Herco checks for Nb2O5. On both graphs, the upward

trending blue line represents the ID3 model grades, while the paired red line represents the

Herco model grades. The downward trending blue line represents the ID3 model tonnage,

while the paired red line represents the Herco model tonnes.

The Herco selectivity analyses show that the Ta2O5 and Nb2O5 ID3 models are properly

smoothed. The ID3 model produces slightly higher average grades of Ta2O5 and Nb2O5

compared to the OK models above cut-off grades of 140 ppm Ta and 900 ppm Nb. The

ID3 model was chosen for tabulating the Blue River Mineral Resources as the OK model is

considered too smooth.

Figure 17-9: Herco Grade – Tonnage Curves for Ta2O5 ID3 Model






Figure 17-10: Herco Grade – Tonnage Curves for Nb2O5 ID3 Model

17.12 Preliminary Results from 2010 Drilling

Preliminary results from 54 holes, totalling 12,949 m of HQ drill core, drilled in 2010 were

provided to AMEC for review after completion of the resource estimation. Only lithology

information from these holes was available. Assays for these holes are expected early in

2011. The intercepts from these holes were compared on screen against the 3D

carbonatite model used in the resource estimation and generally confirm the geologic

interpretation. Some discrepancies were observed which warrant local re-interpretation.

Some holes expand carbonatite volume and some holes reduce it where the carbonatite /

wall rock contact is off by 5 m to 10 m (Figure 17-11).






Figure 17-11: Lithology in 2010 Drill Holes vs. Current Solids – Section N5796902.5

Note: Carbonatite = blue coloured domains; fenite = dashed green outlines; undifferentiated

metasediments = non-filled area below topography. Drill hole projection ± 10 m

17.13 Mineral Resource Classification

The Mineral Resources have been defined taking into account the CIM Definition

Standards (2005).

Based on a grade drill hole spacing study AMEC established the following criteria for

classification of Mineral Resources at Blue River:

Inferred Mineral Resources:

Minimum one hole

Distance to the closest composite less than 110 m

Indicated Mineral Resources:

Minimum two holes

Distance to the closest composite less than 50 m

Distance to the second closest composite less than 70 m






Measured Mineral Resources:

Minimum three holes

Distance to the closest composite less than 30m

Distance to the second closest composite less than 40m

Drill hole spacing in the Upper Fir carbonatite is locally sufficient to support Measured

resources. However, the current mineral resource classification at Blue River is restricted

to Indicated or Inferred, based on the following:

concerns of analytical precision and accuracy for the sample dataset,

local discrepancies in the model identified with the 2010 drilling

lack of metallurgical testwork on the final stage of the proposed metallurgical process

Eighty per cent of the carbonatite blocks are classified as Indicated. Fourteen per cent of

the carbonatite blocks are classified as Inferred. Six per cent of the block model in

carbonatite is unclassified. Blocks that fall into the unclassified category are within

carbonatite solids that were intersected typically by one isolated drill hole. The geological

continuity and volume of those solids cannot be reasonably assumed.

Figure 17-12 and Figure 17-13 show examples of the resource classification.

Figure 17-12: Resource Classification - Plan 1,161.25

Note: The following block colour scheme is used in the figure: Green – Indicated; Yellow – Inferred; Red

– Unclassified; drill hole projection ± 2.5 m






Figure 17-13: Resource Classification – Section N 5,796,882.5

Note: The following block colour scheme is used in the figure: Green – Indicated; Yellow – Inferred; Red

– Unclassified; drill hole projection ± 30 m; view north.

17.14 Reasonable Prospects for Economic Extraction

To assess reasonable prospects for economic extraction, AMEC considered the concept of

mining the Blue River deposit utilizing variations of room and pillar methods under a

conceptual scenario that considers mining and processing at a rate of 7,500 tonnes per

day. Mining and economic parameters were adjusted from AMEC’s experience with

analogous deposits and mining methods.

17.14.1 Market Study

Commerce has prepared assessments of the tantalum and niobium markets which outline

the supply and demand for tantalum and niobium. The tantalum assessment was

prepared by a tantalum market expert, although he is not independent of Commerce. His

analysis reflects the general consensus of other analysts regarding the tantalum market

expressed in publicly available information. The niobium assessment was prepared by an

independent niobium expert and also reflects the general consensus of analysts in publicly

available information for the niobium market.

As the Project is still at an early evaluation stage, Commerce has not initiated requests

from potential buyers for expression of interests from potential buyers of the proposed Blue

River products and has not negotiated any purchase or off-take agreements.






17.14.2 Commodity Price

Tantalum

Tantalum is commonly quoted in two separate forms:

Ta2O5 in tantalite concentrate: a non-refined, tantalum-bearing concentrate of variable

composition and trace element content

Tantalum metal scrap (99.9% pure Ta): this form of tantalum product receives a

premium price in the market relative to tantalite concentrate

Over the last six years tantalite concentrate prices ranged from US$75/kg contained Ta2O5

to US$100/kg contained Ta2O5 (US$35/lb to US$45/lb). In the same period tantalum metal

scrap prices ranged from US$110/kg Ta to US$180/kg Ta metal (US$50/lb to US$80/lb).

In 2010, prices rose dramatically in response to changing market conditions including

reduced production, increased concerns about conflict-tantalum production in Africa,

depletion of known strategic stockpiles, and curtailed exports from China. In mid-October

2010 the price for Ta2O5 in tantalite concentrate was US$195/kg and for tantalum metal

scrap was US$280/kg.

The higher price for tantalum metal scrap compared to the price for Ta2O5 in concentrate is

considered a proxy to the added value Commerce should recognize by refining the Blue

River concentrate to high purity Ta2O5.

In AMEC’s opinion, the base case price for tantalum metal scrap is reasonable for

constraining Mineral Resources based on recent market conditions, but notes it is

significantly higher than historical prices. There is a risk that using current price

assumptions may not reflect the long term price of Ta and Nb, particularly in the present

volatile market conditions.

Niobium

Niobium generally trades as Nb metal, or ferroalloy, and the price has remained relatively

constant at US$44/kg Nb metal (US$20/lb Nb) over the last several years. A base case

price of US$46/kg Nb metal was assumed.

Comment on Price Assumptions

The cut-off grade assumptions at US$317/kg tantalum metal and US$46/kg niobium metal

are slightly more optimistic than current price assumptions of US$280/kg tantalum metal

price and US$44/kg niobium metal price. AMEC considers the slightly higher price

assumption is appropriate and is consistent with industry practices of using more optimistic






assumptions regarding inputs for resource estimation than what would be used for

estimating mineral reserves.

17.14.3 Physical Assumptions

Tantalum-niobium mineralization is hosted in carbonatite

Continuous mineralization is found in moderately flat and wide carbonatite bodies with

modest dips.

Mineralized areas 20 to 70m in height are expected in several zones

Steep topography provides access to the mineralized areas in the form of adits on the

hillsides

Fair to good rock conditions are expected in the majority of the deposit

Identified faulted zones may require wider pillars to avoid unstable mining conditions.

17.14.4 Operational Considerations

Underground mining method envisaged is room and pillar with backfill in most areas

70% of the resources could be recovered by mining with 30% of the resource expected

to remain as unrecoverable pillars for stability considerations

A bulk mining method with minimum stope size of 10m x10m rooms with 15m height is

assumed in order to attain a relatively high production rate of 7,500 tonnes per day

A more selective method with stopes size of 10m x 10 m rooms with 5m height is

assumed to capture material located on the thinner edges of the mineralized zones

An external dilution factor was not considered during this estimation

The concentration method considered is flotation followed by a refining process on site;

global recoveries to obtain metal grade products were assumed at 65% for tantalum

and 68% for niobium.

17.14.5 Economic Assumptions

Most of the operating cost assumptions were extrapolated from previous studies prepared

by AMEC (all figures in USD):

Mining and backfilling cost $32.00/tonne

Processing and refining cost $17.00/tonne

General and Administration $ 2.70/tonne

Base case scenario price of tantalum $317/kg Ta

Price of Niobium $46/kg Nb






17.14.6 Economic Cut-off

Block Unit Value

The block model was adapted to represent the two payable metal contents in terms of

Block Unit Value (BUV) in $/t using the following formula:

BUV = (Ta2O5 grade in ppm * Ta recovery factor * Ta price in $/g *

proportion of 2Ta:Ta2O5) + (Nb2O5 grade in ppm * Nb recovery factor * Nb

price in $/g * proportion of 2Nb:Nb2O5)

For the base case scenario:

BUV = (Ta2O5 * 0.654 * 0.317 * 0.819) + ( Nb2O5 * 0.682 * 0.046 * 0.699 )

Considering the direct operating costs, a cut-off value of $52/t was considered for the

material to be mined by the bulk method and a cut-off value of $59/t for the material to be

mined by the selective method.

The tool “Stope Analyzer” from Vulcan® was utilized to identify the blocks that exceed the

cut-off value while complying with the aggregation constraint of the specified minimum

stope size. This tool “floats” a stope with the specified dimensions and flags each block

when the average block unit value of the contained blocks within a stope exceeds the

designated cut-off value.

For constraining resources deemed to be mined by underground methods, the use of this

tool as an alternative to a conventional economic grade-shell provides an advantage based

on the ability to aggregate blocks into the minimum stope dimensions and the automatic

elimination of outliers that do not comply with this condition.

17.15 Mineral Resource Statement

The Mineral Resources were classified in accordance with the 2005 CIM Definition

Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves, whose definitions are

incorporated by reference into NI 43-101.

Table 17-7 shows the estimated Mineral Resources. The Indicated Mineral Resources are

36.35 million tonnes containing 195 ppm Ta2O5 and 1,700 ppm Nb2O5. Inferred Mineral

Resources are 6.40 million tonnes containing 199 ppm Ta2O5 and 1,890 ppm Nb2O5.






Table 17-7: Blue River Project Estimated Mineral Resources; Effective Date 30 June,

2010, Tomasz Postolski, P.Eng, Qualified Person

Ta price

[US$/kg]

Confidence

Category

Mass

[tonnes]

Ta2O5

[ppm]

Nb2O5

[ppm]

Contained

Ta2O5

[1000s of kg]

Contained

Nb2O5

[1000s of kg]

317 Indicated 36,350,000 195 1,700 7,090 61,650

Inferred 6,400,000 199 1,890 1,300 12,100

Notes:

1. Assumptions include US$317/kg Ta, US$46/kg Nb, 65.4% Ta2O5 recovery, 68.2% Nb2O5 recovery, US$32/tonne

mining cost, US$17/tonne process and refining cost. Mining losses = 0% and dilution = 0%.


Analyzer”.

3. An economic cut-off was based on the Ta and Nb values per block which is variable based on the location of blocks

used in the Mineral Resource estimate. A block unit value cut-off ranged from $52 to $59.



This Mineral Resource estimate is supported by a base case price assumption of

US$317/kg Ta, which is significantly higher than historic average prices. Market analysts

are in general agreement that current political and market conditions support the

probability of the current prices being sustained, but this may not occur.

Table 17-8 shows the sensitivity of the Blue River Mineral Resources to tantalum metal

price. Sensitivities are based on a fluctuating metal price but could also represent

fluctuating mining or processing costs or metallurgical recoveries or a combination of all of

these factors.






Table 17-8: Blue River Project Sensitivity of Estimated Mineral Resources to Tantalum

Price; Effective Date 30 June, 2010, Tomasz Postolski, P.Eng, Qualified

Person

Ta price

[US$/kg]

Confidence

Category

Mass

[tonnes]

Ta2O5

[ppm]

Nb2O5

[ppm]

Contained

Ta2O5

[1000s of kg]

Contained

Nb2O5

[1000s of kg]

470 Indicated 51,130,000 188 1,410 9,610 72,300

Inferred 8,100,000 192 1,700 1,600 13,800

381 Indicated 44,430,000 192 1,530 8,530 68,020

Inferred 7,300,000 196 1,780 1,400 13,000

317 Indicated 36,350,000 195 1,700 7,090 61,650

Inferred 6,400,000 199 1,890 1,300 12,100

272 Indicated 29,990,000 197 1,850 5,910 55,480

Inferred 5,500,000 201 2,010 1,100 11,100

238 Indicated 25,130,000 197 2,000 4,950 50,240

Inferred 4,900,000 202 2,110 1,000 10,400

Notes:

1. Ta price was varied and all other assumptions remain the same as base case.

2. Base case is in bold.


Analyser”.



The Mineral Resources have been assessed for reasonable prospects for economic

extraction using assumptions based on similar deposits. Economic viability of the Mineral

Resource can only be demonstrated by Pre-Feasibility and Feasibility Studies, and there is

no assurance that the stated resources can be upgraded in confidence and converted to

mineral reserves. Further, since underground mining methods are envisioned (room and

pillar or variants), the mining recovery may vary from 65% to 85% depending on the

success in which pillars can be mined on retreat and/or fill is utilized.






18.0 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR TECHNICAL REPORTS ON

DEVELOPMENT PROPERTIES AND PRODUCTION PROPERTIES

This section is not relevant as the Project is not a development or production property.






19.0 OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION

AMEC is not aware of any other relevant data or required information for inclusion to make

the report more understandable and not misleading.






20.0 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS

Commerce and its contractor Dahrouge have executed a professional work program that

has resulted in the delineation of a tantalum and niobium resource.

The Blue River Mineral Resources have the following characteristics:

The mineralization is hosted by a polyfolded carbonatite sill swarm averaging 30 m

thick and 1,100 m long.

Close-spaced drilling has confirmed local continuity of the carbonatite.

Tantalum and niobium occur as ferrocolumbite and pyrochlore which are amenable to

conventional flotation and proven refining processes with estimated recoveries of 65%

to 70%.

Optimization of the supply and pricing of reagents for the refining process may support

lower operating cost assumptions.

The Mineral Resource estimate is based on information of reasonable quality.

There are reasonable prospects for economic extraction.

Flat to moderate dips, allow large-scale room-and pillar mining

Geotechnical work completed to date is suitable to support a pre-feasibility study.

The risk factors are:

The base case Mineral Resource estimate is supported by current price assumptions

which are significantly higher than historic average prices. Market analysts are in

general agreement that current political and market conditions support the probability

of the current prices being sustained, but this may not occur.

Metallurgical testing has not yet been able to demonstrate a 35% Ta2O5 concentrate

grade as a feed for the refining stage.

The proposed refining methods have been used in commercial applications but have

not been demonstrated in test work of Blue River material.

Mining recovery is assumed at 70% but could be lower and dilution increased in areas

with moderate dips greater than 10°.

The existence of extensional faults may have caused unrecognized displacements of

greater than 10 m in the carbonatite. Such offsets would certainly impact deposit

geometry and future mine designs.

Uranium and thorium are present in the resource and waste rocks. Any radon

produced in the mine and process plant is likely manageable with ventilation, dust






control, and monitoring. Expected capex and opex costs will not be significantly

increased as a result of these safety measures.

Exploration programs completed on the Blue River Project have met their objective of

identifying tantalum and niobium mineralization that has reasonable prospects of economic

extraction. Additional work required to assess potential mining and milling methods that

are suitable to the local geology and mineralization style and that can support an economic

mining operation is on-going.






21.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

AMEC recommends a work program for an estimated total cost of CDN$4.35 M. The

recommendations are based on the stated Mineral Resource estimate and the assumed

commodity price assumptions. A summary of recommended work and estimated costs is

shown in Table 21-1.

The recommended program involves completing the on-going PA and updating the Mineral

Resource block model with 2010 drilling data and interpretations. Recommendations also

includes field work and supporting studies to prepare for more advanced studies.

The field work includes 8,250 m of HQ diameter diamond drilling, a re-sampling program,

metallurgical testwork, soil geochemistry surveys, analyses, geo-metallurgy studies,

structural geology studies, marketing studies, core farm security improvements, manpower

and field support costs. A mineral resource update is recommended upon completion of

the recommended field program.

Limitations on classification confidence applied to the current Resource estimate due to

precision and accuracy concerns could be removed through a re-assay program. A staged

re-assay program on remaining pulps or rejects is recommended. An initial program should

focus on re-assaying samples within an area where the first 3 to 5 years of mining is likely

to occur. This recommendation assumes improvements recently achieved in the laboratory

for assaying tantalum and niobium are maintained.

Table 21-1: Recommendations Summary

Topic Estimated Cost

Complete on-going PA $ 100,000

Geologic Interpretation, Data Reviews, and Mineral Resource Update (2010 drilling) $ 120,000

2011 Field Based and Studies Program

Project Management, Claims, Socio-Economic, and Office Based Work $ 670,000

2011 Drilling: Upgrade Inferred or Indicated for Mine Plan (Years 1 to 3) $ 1,010,000

2011 Drilling: Test for Fault Offsets $ 1,070,000

Assay QAQC Re-sampling Program $ 20,000

Metallurgical Testwork $ 350,000

Non-drilling Manpower, Field Costs, Transport, Safety $ 520,000

Geo-metallurgical and Structural Geology Studies $ 150,000

Soil Geochemistry Analyses $ 30,000

Core Farm Security $ 80,000

Marketing Studies $ 50,000

Geologic Interpretation, Data Reviews, and Mineral Resource Update (2011 drilling) $ 180,000

Total $ 4,350,000







The Project is subject to Commerce’s management objectives, market conditions, and

commodity prices. Based on the assumed commodity price assumptions and the stated

Mineral Resource estimate, it is AMEC’s opinion that all or significant portions of the

recommendations are reasonable for the Project.






22.0 DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGE

The effective date of this Technical Report, addressed to Commerce Resources

Corporation, and entitled “Blue River Ta-Nb Project, Blue River, British Columbia,

NI 43-101 Technical Report” is 31 January 2011.

On behalf of AMEC Americas Limited.

“Signed”

Michael Radcliffe

Operations Manager, Mining & Metals

AMEC Americas Limited

Dated: 31 January 2011






23.0 REFERENCES

Aaquist, B. (1982a). Blue River Carbonatites, British Columbia, Final Report. B.C. Min.

Energy, Mines Petr. Res. Ass. Rept. 10 274, 30 p.

Aaquist, B. (1982b). Assessment Report Blue River Carbonatites, British Columbia,; B.C.

Min. Energy Mines Petr. Res. Ass. Rept. 11 130, 15 p.

Aaquist, B. (1982c). Assessment Report on Verity First 1,2,3, Claims, Blue River British

Columbia. B.C. Min. Energy Mines Petr. Res. Ass. Rept. 10 955.

Birkett, T.C. and Simandl, G.J. (1999): Carbonatite-associated Deposits: Magmatic,

Replacement and Residual; in Selected British Columbia Mineral Deposit Profiles,

Volume 3, Industrial Minerals, G.J. Simandl, Z.D. Hora and D.V. Lefebure, Editors,

British Columbia Ministry of Energy and Mines.

Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM), (2005). CIM Standards for

Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves, Definitions and Guidelines: Canadian

Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum, December 2005,

http://www.cim.org/committees/CIMDefStds_Dec11_05.pdf

Chudy, T. (2008). Mineralogical Report on samples from the Upper Fir Carbonatite, Blue

River, British Columbia. PART A: Petrographic description; PART B: Mineral

Liberation Analysis. December 2008.

Chudy, T. (2010). The niobium-tantalum mineralization in the Upper Fir carbonatite: a

summary of current knowledge. 4 p.

Currie, K.L. (1976). The Alkaline Rocks of Canada. Geol. Surv. Can., Bull. 239, 228 p.

Dahrouge, J. (2001a). 2000 Geologic Mapping and Sampling on the Verity Property. B.C.

Min. Energy, Mines Petr. Res. Ass. Rept 26550, 7 p.

Dahrouge, J. (2001b). 2000 Geologic Mapping and Sampling on the Fir Property. B.C. Min.

Energy, Mines Petr. Res. Ass. Rept 26549, 7 p.

Dahrouge, J. and Reeder J. (2001). 2001 Geologic Mapping, Sampling and Geophysical

Surveys on the Mara Property. B.C. Min. Energy, Mines Petr. Res. Ass. Rept.

26733, 14 p.

Dahrouge, J. & Reeder J. (2002). 2001 Geologic Mapping, Sampling and Geophysical

Surveys on the Fir Property. B.C. Min. Energy, Mines Petr. Res. Ass. Rept. 26781,

9 p.






Davis, C. (2006). 2005 Diamond Drilling and Exploration at the Blue River Property. B.C.

Min. Energy Mines Petr. Res. Ass. Rept, 10 p.

Diegel, S.G., Ghent, E.D., and Simony, P.S. (1989). Metamorphism and Structure of the

Mount Cheadle area, Monashee Mountains. In Current Research, Part E, Geol.

Surv. Can., Paper 89-1E, pp. 95-100.

Ghent, E.D., Simony, P.S., Mitchell, W., Perry, J., Robbins, D. and Wagner, J. (1977).

Structure and Metamorphism in the Southeast Canoe River area, British Columbia.

In Report of Activities, Part C, Geological Survey of Canada, Paper 77-1C, pp. 13-

17.

Gervais, F. (2009). Personal Communication to John Gorham.

Gorham. J. (2007). Technical Report on the Upper Fir Ta-Nb Bearing Carbonatite 20-June-

2007, 48 p. plus appendices.

Gorham, J. (2008). Report on 2007 Diamond Drilling and Exploration at the Blue River

Property 20-June-2008, 48 p. plus appendices and maps.

Gorham, J., Ulry, B. And Brown, J., (2009) 2008 Diamond Drilling and Exploration at the

Blue River Property, Kamloops Mining Division B.C Ministry of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources, Assessment Report 31174, 79 p (plus appendices and

maps)..

Klohn, Crippen Berger, (2009a). Blue River-Upper Fir Deposit Tailings and Waste Rock

Scoping Study; Prepared for Commerce Resources Corp.

Klohn, Crippen Berger, (2009b). Valemount Tailings Storage Options Scoping Study;

Prepared for Commerce Resources Corp.

Kraft, J. (2010). Structural geology of the Upper Fir carbonatite deposit, Blue River, British

Columbia. Confidential report for Dahrouge Geological Consulting Ltd. and

Commerce Resources Corp., 15 p.

Mariano, A.N. (1982). Petrology, Mineralogy and Geochemistry of the Blue River

Carbonatites. Confidential report, 130 p.

Mariano, A.N. (2000). Personal communication to J. Dahrouge.

MESH Environmental Inc. (2008). Static test characterization of rock units from the Upper

Fir deposit, Blue River tantalum-niobium project. Confidential report prepared for

Commerce Resources, August 2008.






MESH Environmental Inc. (2009). Static test characterization of rock units from the Upper

Fir deposit, Blue River tantalum-niobium project. Phase 2 static test report.

Confidential report prepared for Commerce Resources, April 2009.

McCrea, J. (2001). Summary Report on the Blue River Carbonatite Property, East-Central

British Columbia. Prepared for Commerce Resources Corp., 34 p.

McCrea, J. (2002). Fir Carbonatite Property, Resource Estimate. Prepared for Commerce

Resources Corp.

Mitchell, R.H., 2010b. Niobium mineralization in carbonatites: parageneses and origins.

In International Workshop of Geology of Rare Metals, edited by Simandl, G.J. and

Lefebure, D.V., extended abstracts volume, November 9-10, 2010, Victoria,

Canada British Columbia Geological Survey, Open File 2010-10, pp 13-14.

Pell, J. (1987). Alkaline Ultrabasic Rocks in British Columbia: Carbonatites, Nepheline

Syenites, Kimberlites and Related Rocks. B.C. Min. Energy, Mines Petr. Res.

Open File 1987-17, 109 p.

Pell, J. (1994). Carbonatites, Nepheline Syenites, Kimberlites and Related Rocks in British

Columbia. B.C. Min. Energy, Mines, Petr. Res., Bulletin 88, 136 p.

Pell, J. and Hoy, T. (1989). Carbonatites in a Continental Margin Environment - the

Canadian Cordillera. In Pp. 200 – 220: Carbonatites: Genesis and Evolution (K.

Bell, ed.). Unwin Hyman, London, UK.

Raeside, R.P. and Simony, P.S. (1983). Stratigraphy and Deformational History of the

Scripp Nappe, Monashee Mountains, British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Earth

Sciences, 20, pp. 639-650.

Rukhlov, A and Gorham, J. (2007) 2006 Diamond Drilling and Exploration at the Blue River

Property B.C., Min. Energy, Mines Petr. Res. Ass. Rept. 29024, 383 p. with

appendices.

Simonetti, A. (2008). Personal communication to John Gorham.

Simony, P.S., Ghent, E.D., Craw, D, Mitchell, W., and Robbins, D.B. (1980). Structural and

Metamorphic Evolution of the Northeast Flank of the Shuswap Complex, Southern

Canoe River Area, British Columbia. Geological Society of America, Memoir 153,

pp. 445-461.

Smith, M. and Dahrouge, J. (2002a). 2001 Diamond Drilling on the Fir Property. B.C. Min.

Energy, Mines Petr. Res. Ass. Rept. 26911, 13 p. with appendices.






Smith, M. and Dahrouge, J. (2003). 2002 Diamond Drilling and Exploration on the Blue

River Property. B.C. Min. Energy, Mines Petr. Res. Ass. Rept. 27131, 20 p. with

appendices.

Smith, T (2008). Terrain stability study for the development of an environmental baseline

for the Fir Property near Blue River B.C. Confidential report prepared for

Commerce Resources Corp.

Stone, M., and Selway, J., 2010. Independent Technical Report, Blue River Property, Blue

River, British Columbia, Canada. 116 p.

White, G.P.E. (1985). Further notes on carbonatites in central British Columbia, B.C.

Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, Geological Fieldwork, 1984,

Paper 1985-1, pp. 95-100.

Woolley, A.R. and Kempe, D.R.C. (1989). Carbonatites: Nomenclature, Average Chemical

Compositions, and Element Distribution. In Pp. 1 – 37: Carbonatites, Genesis and

Evolution (K. Bell, ed.). Unwin Hyman, London.





Project No.: 162230 Appendix 31 January 2011

A P P E N D I X A

List of Claims






Tenure Number Claim Name Ownership

Tenure Type

Tenure Sub-Type

Map Number Issue Date Good To Date Area (ha)

374665 FIR 3 100% Mineral Claim 083D025 2000/feb/16 2019/mar/31 25.000

374670 FIR 8 100% Mineral Claim 083D035 2000/feb/16 2019/mar/31 25.000

380034 MARA 5 100% Mineral Claim 083D045 2000/aug/18 2019/mar/31 25.000

382164 FIR 11 100% Mineral Claim 083D035 2000/oct/28 2019/mar/31 500.000

506262 100% Mineral Claim 083D 2005/feb/08 2019/mar/31 98.623





506270 100% Mineral Claim 083D 2005/feb/08 2019/mar/31 1,225.766



































Tenure Type

Tenure Sub-Type








530510 LIGHTNING 100% Mineral Claim 083D 2006/mar/24 2019/mar/31 494.525

530511 LIGHTNING 2 100% Mineral Claim 083D 2006/mar/24 2019/mar/31 395.741

530513 LIGHTNING 3 100% Mineral Claim 083D 2006/mar/24 2019/mar/31 217.556

537452 PYRAMID 1 100% Mineral Claim 083D 2006/jul/20 2019/mar/31 493.795



550560 MUD 10 100% Mineral Claim 083D 2007/jan/29 2019/mar/31 495.976




550568 MUD15 100% Mineral Claim 083D 2007/jan/29 2019/mar/31 178.524

550603 ARIANE1 100% Mineral Claim 083D 2007/jan/30 2019/mar/31 493.608












550621 4512124519227380 100% Mineral Claim 083D 2007/jan/30 2019/mar/31 474.593


550623 ARIANE 14 100% Mineral Claim 083D 2007/jan/30 2019/mar/31 494.343













Tenure Type

Tenure Sub-Type


550636 ARIANE 20 100% Mineral Claim 830 2007/jan/30 2019/mar/31 493.708










550648 ARIANE 30 1 100% Mineral Claim 083D 2007/jan/30 2019/mar/31 494.394


550651 ARIANE 32 100% Mineral Claim 083D 2007/jan/3D 2019/mar/31 493.274
































Tenure Type

Tenure Sub-Type






550700 ARIANE 63 100% Mineral Claim 083D 2007/jan/3D 2019/mar/31 494.066
















550886 HELLROAR 100% Mineral Claim 083D 2007/feb/01 2019/mar/31 435.471

550887 HELLROARS 100% Mineral Claim 083D 2007/feb/01 2019/mar/31 475.246

550888 BAT OUT OF HELL 100% Mineral Claim 083D 2007/feb/01 2019/mar/31 475.396

550889 THE MONSTER IS LOOSE 100% Mineral Claim 083D 2007/feb/01 2019/mar/31 475.203

565127 PROSPER 1 100% Mineral Claim 083D 2007/aug/28 2019/mar/31 475.099


565129 PROPSER 3 100% Mineral Claim 083D 2007/aug/28 2019/mar/31 494.798








565139 PROSPER 11 ' 100% Mineral Claim 083D 2007/aug/28 2019/mar/31 494.798










Tenure Type

Tenure Sub-Type


565144 PROSPER 15 100% Mineral Claim 830 2007/aug/28 2019/mar/31 475.184

























565171 SHADOWI 100% Mineral Claim 083D 2007/aug/28 2019/mar/31 495.650

565172 SHADOW 2 100% Mineral Claim 083D 2007/aug/28 2019/mar/31 436.167


















Tenure Type

Tenure Sub-Type


565184 SHADOW 13 100% Mineral Claim 083D 2007/auq/28 2019/mar/31 495.942



565187 FALKOR 1 100% Mineral Claim 083D 2007/aug/28 2019/mar/31 456.085











565198 FALKOR 12 100% Mineral Claim 830 2007/au•/28 2019/mar/31 495.497

565199 MINI 100% Mineral Claim 083D 2007/aug/28 2019/mar/31 39.701







565206 MINI 2 100% Mineral Claim 083D 2007/aug/28 2019/mar/31 39.694

565207 FALKOR 18 100% Mineral Claim 083D 2007/au /28 2019/mar/31 437.056





















Tenure Type

Tenure Sub-Type





588427 WASTED 1 100% Mineral Claim 083D 2008/jul/18 2011/jul/31 494.294




589537 FELIX1 100% Mineral Claim 083D 2008/aug/05 2019/mar/31 496.396













798362 JOIN 100% Mineral Claim 083D 2010/jun/25 2011/jun/25 177.980

Technical Report: Commerce Resources Corp. (January 2011)

Investor Relations

Transcript of Technical Report: Commerce Resources Corp. (January 2011)