Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [358 x 84] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [611 x 204] intentionally omitted <==

NI 43-101 Technical Report for the 2024 Mineral Resource Estimate on the Hat Project, Atlin Mining Division, British Columbia, Canada

Effective Date: July 17, 2024 Report Date: August 30, 2024

Prepared By: EGBC Permit to Practice Number 1001528 William J. Lewis, B.Sc., P.Geo. Chitrali Sarkar, M.Sc., P.Geo. EUR ING Andrew Carter BSc, CEng, MIMMM QMR, MSAIMM, SME

==> picture [131 x 126] intentionally omitted <==

Suite 822, 470 Granville Street Vancouver, BC V6C 1V5 Tel: 1.604.678.9587

601 – 90 Eglinton Ave East, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M4P 2Y3 +1 416 362 5135 | www.micon-international.com

Page

==> picture [174 x 28] intentionally omitted <==

1.0 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 1
1.1 GENERAL ..................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 PROPERTY LOCATION, DESCRIPTION AND OWNERSHIP ........................................................... 2
1.3 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, PHYSIOGRAPHY, LOCAL RESOURCES AND INFRASTRUCTURE ....... 2
1.4 HISTORY ...................................................................................................................................... 3
1.5 GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION .......................................................................... 5
1.5.1 Regional Geology ............................................................................................................... 5
1.5.2 Property Geology ............................................................................................................... 5
1.5.3 Mineralization ..................................................................................................................... 5
1.6 EXPLORATION AND DRILLING PROGRAMS ................................................................................. 6
1.7 METALLURGICAL TEST WORK ..................................................................................................... 6
1.7.1 Metallurgical Test Work ..................................................................................................... 7
1.7.2 Initial Results of Gravity and Flotation Test Work............................................................. 7
1.7.3 Scandium ............................................................................................................................ 8
1.7.4 Metallurgical Recoveries .................................................................................................... 8
1.7.5 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 9
1.8 HAT DEPOSIT MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE .......................................................................... 9
1.8.1 Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 9
1.8.2 Resource Database and Wireframing .............................................................................. 10
1.8.3 Capping Outliers, Compositing and Variography ........................................................... 11
1.8.4 Rock Density ..................................................................................................................... 11
1.8.5 Block Model and Grade Interpolation ............................................................................. 11
1.8.6 Mineral Resource Estimate .............................................................................................. 12
1.8.7 Mineral Resource Grade Sensitivity Analysis .................................................................. 13
1.8.8 Scandium Potential for the Hat Project .......................................................................... 16
1.9 CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................................... 16
1.9.1 Risks and Opportunities................................................................................................... 17
1.10 BUDGET AND FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................ 18
1.10.1 Budget .............................................................................................................................. 18
1.10.2 Further Recommendations .............................................................................................. 19
2.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 22
2.1 TERMS OF REFERENCE ............................................................................................................. 22
2.2 DISCUSSIONS, MEETINGS, SITE VISITS AND QUALIFIED PERSONS ........................................ 23
2.3 SOURCES OF INFORMATION ..................................................................................................... 23
2.4 UNITS OF MEASUREMENT AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................... 24
2.5 PREVIOUS TECHNICAL REPORTS ............................................................................................. 26
3.0 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS ................................................................................. 27
4.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION .................................................................. 28
4.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION ................................................................................. 28
4.2 LAND TENURE, AGREEMENTS, MINERAL RIGHTS AND OWNERSHIP ....................................... 29
4.2.1 Ownership and Property .................................................................................................. 29

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

	Page
4.2.2 Mineral Tenures and Encumbrances ............................................................................... 29
4.3	PERMITTING AND ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITIES .................................................................... 31
4.3.1 Work Permits .................................................................................................................... 31
4.3.2 First Nations ..................................................................................................................... 32
4.3.3 Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA) ........................................................................ 33
4.3.4 Environmental Liabilities ................................................................................................. 34
4.4	ROYALTIES, BACK-IN-RIGHTS AND ENCUMBRANCES .............................................................. 34
4.5	MICON QP COMMENTS ............................................................................................................. 34
5.0	ACCESSIBIILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY 35
5.1	ACCESSIBILITY .......................................................................................................................... 35
5.2	CLIMATE .................................................................................................................................... 36
5.3	PHYSIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................... 36
5.4	INFRASTRUCTURE AND LOCAL RESOURCES ........................................................................... 38
6.0	HISTORY ................................................................................................................ 40
6.1	EXPLORATION HISTORY OF THE HAT PROJECT ...................................................................... 40
6.1.1 1960s to 1970s Exploration Programs ............................................................................. 40
6.1.2 1980 to 2011 Exploration Programs ................................................................................ 41
6.2	MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES ON THE HAT PROJECT ....................................................... 42
6.3	PRODUCTION HISTORY FOR THE HAT PROJECT ..................................................................... 42
7.0	GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION ............................................................ 43
7.1	REGIONAL GEOLOGY ................................................................................................................. 43
7.2	PROPERTY GEOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 43
7.3	MINERALIZATION ...................................................................................................................... 45
8.0	DEPOSIT TYPES ...................................................................................................... 46
8.1	GENERAL DISCUSSION.............................................................................................................. 46
8.2	ALKALIC PORPHYRY DEPOSITS ................................................................................................. 46
9.0	EXPLORATION ........................................................................................................ 48
9.1	DOUBLEVIEW EXPLORATION PROGRAMS ON THE HAT PROJECT .......................................... 48
10.0	DRILLING ............................................................................................................... 49
10.1	DRILLING PROGRAM ................................................................................................................. 49
10.2	MICON QP COMMENTS ............................................................................................................. 54
11.0	SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY ..................................................... 55
11.1	INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 55
11.2	SAMPLE PREPARATION ............................................................................................................. 55
11.3	CORE STORAGE ......................................................................................................................... 56
11.4	ASSAY LABORATORIES AND SAMPLE ANALYSIS ....................................................................... 57
11.4.1 Assay Laboratories ........................................................................................................... 57
11.4.2 Assay Procedures ............................................................................................................. 57
11.5	QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QC) ................................................................ 58
11.5.1 Blank Samples .................................................................................................................. 58

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Page
11.5.2 Standard Samples ............................................................................................................ 59
11.5.3 Duplicate Samples ........................................................................................................... 59
11.6 HAT PROJECT QA/QC SAMPLING DETAILS ............................................................................... 59
11.6.1 Standard Samples ............................................................................................................ 60
11.6.2 Blank Samples .................................................................................................................. 64
11.6.3 Duplicate Samples ........................................................................................................... 73
11.7 MICON QP COMMENTS ............................................................................................................. 77
12.0 DATA VERIFICATION ................................................................................................ 79
12.1 GENERAL DISCUSSION.............................................................................................................. 79
12.2 2024 SITE VISIT .......................................................................................................................... 79
12.3 HAT PROJECT DATABASE DISCUSSION ................................................................................... 86
12.4 MICON QP COMMENTS ............................................................................................................. 86
13.0 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING ............................................... 87
13.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 87
13.2 METALLURGICAL TEST WORK ................................................................................................... 88
13.3 TEST SAMPLES HEAD ASSAYS .................................................................................................. 89
13.4 GRAVITY CONCENTRATION TESTS ........................................................................................... 90
13.5 PRELIMINARY FLOTATION TESTS ............................................................................................. 90
13.6 MINERALOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS .......................................................................................... 92
13.6.1 Cobalt Liberation ............................................................................................................. 93
13.6.2 Copper Losses .................................................................................................................. 93
13.7 SUPPLEMENTARY PGE ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 93
13.8 INITIAL RESULTS OF GRAVITY AND FLOTATION TEST WORK .................................................. 94
13.9 DIRECT ROUGHER – CLEANER FLOTATION TEST ON HEAD COMPOSITE ................................ 94
13.10 SCANDIUM ................................................................................................................................. 96
13.11 METALLURGICAL RECOVERIES ................................................................................................. 98
13.12 CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................................... 98
14.0 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE ................................................................................ 99
14.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 99
14.2 CIM RESOURCE DEFINITIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS ............................................................. 99
14.3 CIM ESTIMATION OF MINERAL RESOURCES BEST PRACTICES GUIDELINES ........................ 101
14.4 METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................................... 101
14.5 RESOURCE DATABASE AND WIREFRAMING ........................................................................... 102
14.5.1 Database ......................................................................................................................... 102
14.5.2 Topography .................................................................................................................... 103
14.5.3 Mineralized Wireframe ................................................................................................... 103
14.6 CAPPING OUTLIERS, COMPOSITING AND VARIOGRAPHY ...................................................... 105
14.6.1 Capping Outlier Values .................................................................................................. 105
14.6.2 Compositing Capped Values .......................................................................................... 105
14.6.3 Variography .................................................................................................................... 109
14.7 ROCK DENSITY ........................................................................................................................ 113
14.8 BLOCK MODEL AND GRADE INTERPOLATION ........................................................................ 113
14.8.1 Block Model .................................................................................................................... 113

Hat Deposit Project

iii

August 30, 2024

Page
14.8.2 Search Strategy and Interpolation ................................................................................ 113
14.9 BLOCK MODEL VALIDATION .................................................................................................... 115
14.9.1 Visual Inspection ............................................................................................................ 115
14.9.2 Statistical Comparisons ................................................................................................. 116
14.9.3 Swath Plots ..................................................................................................................... 116
14.10 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE ............................................................................................. 118
14.10.1 Reasonable Prospects for Economic Extraction ........................................................... 118
14.10.2 Mineral Resource Classification ..................................................................................... 118
14.10.3 Mineral Resource Estimate ............................................................................................ 119
14.10.4 Mineral Resource Estimate Grade Sensitivity Analysis ................................................. 119
14.11 RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE HAT PROJECT MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE ......................... 119
14.12 FACTORS THAT COULD AFFECT THE MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES ............................... 123
14.13 SCANDIUM POTENTIAL FOR THE HAT PROJECT .................................................................... 124
15.0 MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES ............................................................................... 125
16.0 MINING METHODS ................................................................................................ 125
17.0 RECOVERY METHODS ............................................................................................ 125
18.0 PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE .................................................................................. 125
19.0 MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS ........................................................................ 125
20.0 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING, AND SOCIAL OR COMMUNITY IMPACT .......... 125
21.0 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS ............................................................................ 125
22.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ............................................................................................ 125
23.0 ADJACENT PROPERTIES ........................................................................................ 126
23.1 GENERAL INFORMATION ......................................................................................................... 126
23.2 MICON QP COMMENTS ........................................................................................................... 127
24.0 OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION ............................................................ 128
25.0 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................................... 129
25.1 GENERAL INFORMATION ......................................................................................................... 129
25.2 2024 HAT DEPOSIT MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE ............................................................. 129
25.2.1 Methodology .................................................................................................................. 129
25.2.2 Resource Database and Wireframing ............................................................................ 130
25.2.3 Capping Outliers, Compositing and Variography ......................................................... 130
25.2.4 Rock Density ................................................................................................................... 131
25.2.5 Block Model and Grade Interpolation ........................................................................... 131
25.2.6 Mineral Resource Estimate ............................................................................................ 132
25.2.7 Mineral Resource Grade Sensitivity Analysis ................................................................ 133
25.2.8 Scandium Potential for the Hat Project ........................................................................ 136

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

	Page
25.3	RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES .................................................................................................. 136
25.4	CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................ 137
26.0	RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................ 139
26.1	EXPLORATION BUDGET AND OTHER EXPENDITURES ........................................................... 139
26.2	FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................. 139
27.0	DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGE .................................................................................. 142
28.0	REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 143
28.1	GENERAL PUBLICATION AND REPORT REFERENCES ............................................................ 143
28.2	WEBSITE REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 145
29.0	CERTIFICATES OF QUALIFIED PERSONS (AUTHORS) .................................................. 146
	Appendices
APPENDIX 1: GlossaryofMining and Other Related Terms..........................................End of the report

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Page

==> picture [174 x 28] intentionally omitted <==

List of Tables

		List of Tables
Table	1.1	Head Grade of Key Elements .................................................................................................. 7
Table	1.2	Hat Summary Gravity and Flotation Results – Indicated Grades and Recoveries ................ 7
Table	1.3	Hat Project Scandium Recovery Data .................................................................................... 8
Table	1.4	Preliminary Recovery Data ..................................................................................................... 8
Table	1.5	Economic Parameters used to Calculate the CuEq Cut-Off Grade ..................................... 12
Table	1.6	Hat Deposit MRE Based on a 0.2% CuEq Cut-Off ................................................................. 14
Table	1.7	Grade Sensitivity Analysis at Different Cu-Eq (%) Cut-Off Grades for Hat Project ............. 15
Table	1.8	Risks and Opportunities at the Hat Project ......................................................................... 17
Table	1.9	Hat Project, Recommended Budget for Further Work ........................................................ 18
Table	2.1	Qualified Persons, Areas of Responsibility and Site Visits................................................... 23
Table	2.2	List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................. 24
Table	4.1	Summary of the Mineral Tenures which Comprise the Hat Project .................................... 29
Table	10.1	Hat Project Drilling Programs from 2013 to 2023. ............................................................... 49
Table	10.2	Compilation of Selected Significant Drill Hole Intercepts of Mineralization in the Lisle
		Zone ....................................................................................................................................... 51
Table	10.3	Summary of Drill Holes and Core Length without Core Recovery Data .............................. 52
Table	10.4	Different Types of Down-Hole Survey During Drilling Years as of 2023 .............................. 53
Table	11.1	Drill Programs and the Number of QA/QC Samples on a Yearly Basis ................................ 60
Table	11.2	Summary of Standard Samples Used and Grades .............................................................. 60
Table	11.3	Type of Standard Sample based upon the Copper Grade of the Sample ........................... 61
Table	11.4	Summary of the Standard Samples Used by Year ............................................................... 61
Table	11.5	Summary of the Total Number of Failed Standard Samples for each Element ................. 62
Table	11.6	Failed Standard Samples in Each Batch Categorized by Element ...................................... 63
Table	11.7	Summary of the Average Analyses of the Blank Samples between 2013 and 2023 ........... 64

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Page Table 11.8 Percent of the Failed Samples According to the Average Detection Limit ......................... 65 Table 11.9 Summary of the Four Groups of Blank Samples that Failed ............................................... 72 Table 11.10 Percentage Error Ranges ...................................................................................................... 75 Table 11.11 The Percent of the Samples in the Different Error Ranges .................................................. 76 Table 12.1 2021 to 2023 Drill Hole Sample Pulps Selected for Re-Assay .............................................. 82 Table 12.2 Summary of the Details for the Selected Re-Assay Sample Pulps along with the Original and Re-Assay information for Cu, Au, Ag, Co and Sc. ........................................................... 84 Table 13.1 Head Grade of Key Elements ................................................................................................ 88 Table 13.2 Head Assays .......................................................................................................................... 89 Table 13.3 Flotation Test Conditions – Gravity Tails ............................................................................. 90 Table 13.4 Rougher Scavenger Flotation Results .................................................................................. 91 Table 13.5 Cleaner Flotation Results ..................................................................................................... 91 Table 13.6 PMA Analysis Summary ........................................................................................................ 92 Table 13.7 Hat Summary PGE Analyses – Indicated Grades and Recoveries ....................................... 93 Table 13.8 Hat Summary Gravity and Flotation Results – Indicated Grades and Recoveries .............. 94 Table 13.9 Hat Rougher-Cleaner Flotation Results – Indicated Grades and Recoveries ..................... 95 Table 13.10 Hat Scandium Recovery Data ............................................................................................... 96 Table 13.11 Preliminary Recovery Data ................................................................................................... 98 Table 14.1 Hat Project Database .......................................................................................................... 102 Table 14.2 Summary of the Basic Statistics for 2 m Composites ........................................................ 108 Table 14.3 Summary of Block Model Definition .................................................................................. 113 Table 14.4 Summary of Ordinary Kriging Parameters for All Elements for Hat Project ..................... 114 Table 14.5 Global Statistical Comparison Between 2 m Composite Grade and Block Estimated Grade .................................................................................................................................... 116 Table 14.6 Economic Parameters used to Calculate the CuEq Cut-Off grade .................................... 118 Table 14.7 Hat Deposit MRE Based on a 0.2% CuEq Cut-Off ............................................................... 120

Hat Deposit Project

vii

August 30, 2024

Page Table 14.8 Grade Sensitivity Analysis at Different Cu-Eq (%) Cut-Off Grades for Hat Project ........... 122 Table 25.1 Economic Parameters used to Calculate the CuEq Cut-Off Grade for the Hat Project .... 132 Table 25.2 Hat Deposit MRE Based on a 0.2% CuEq Cut-Off ............................................................... 134 Table 25.3 Grade Sensitivity Analysis at Different Cu-Eq (%) Cut-Off Grades for Hat Project ........... 135 Table 25.4 Risks and Opportunities at the Hat Project ....................................................................... 137 Table 26.1 Hat Project, Recommended Budget for Further Work ...................................................... 139

Hat Deposit Project

viii

August 30, 2024

Page

==> picture [174 x 28] intentionally omitted <==

List of Figures

		List of Figures
Figure	4.1	Location Map for the Hat Project ......................................................................................... 28
Figure	4.2	Map of the Mineral Tenures which Comprise the Hat Project ............................................. 30
Figure	5.1	Discovery Helicopters Base in Atlin, BC ............................................................................... 35
Figure	5.2	Helicopter Pad at the Hat Project Camp Site ....................................................................... 36
Figure	5.3	Helicopter View of the Terrain North of the Hat Project ..................................................... 37
Figure	5.4	A View of the Hat Project Camp ............................................................................................ 39
Figure	5.5	ATV Path Connecting the Hat Camp to the Drill Sites ......................................................... 39
Figure	7.1	Hat Project Local Geological Map ........................................................................................ 44
Figure	8.1	Schematic Comparison between Source Rocks and Alteration Zoning Associated with
		Calc-Alkalic and Alkalic Porphyry Deposits .......................................................................... 47
Figure	10.1	Map of the Drill Hole Collars for the Hat Project .................................................................. 50
Figure	10.2	Depth of Each Drill Hole Shown Graphically ........................................................................ 50
Figure	10.3	Graphical Illustration of the Change in the Core Recovery in Various Drill Holes .............. 53
Figure	11.1	View of a Portion of the Core Storage Area at the Hat camp ............................................... 56
Figure	11.2	Assay Changes in the Different Blanks for the Calculated Fixed Thresholds ..................... 67
Figure	11.3	Assay Changes in Six Main Elements and Second Standard Deviation Threshold ............. 69
Figure	11.4	Graphical Illustration of the Number of Duplicate Samples in each Drill Hole .................. 73
Figure	11.5	Scatter Diagrams for the Original Sample Assays versus the Duplicate Sample Assays.... 74
Figure	11.6	Pie Charts for the Error Percentage within Various Ranges ................................................ 75
Figure	11.7	Graphical Representation of the Percentages in Table 11.11 ............................................. 77
Figure	12.1	ATV Trail to Drill Sites with Wooden Boardwalks over Swampy Terrain ............................ 79
Figure	12.2	Overgrown Drill Collars for Holes H011 and H012 ............................................................... 80
Figure	12.3	A View of the Core Shack (right) and the Core Cutting Facilities (left) at the Hat Camp .... 80
Figure	12.4	Part of the Core Storage Area at the Hat Project Camp with Core Shack in Centre
		Background ............................................................................................................................ 81

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Page Figure 12.5 Partial View of the Inside of the Hat Camp Core Shack ....................................................... 81 Figure 12.6 Drill Rig Set-Up on Drill Hole During July, 2024 Site Visit .................................................... 86 Figure 13.1 Polished Section of HAT HO-34-19 Sample Showing Dominant Chalcopyrite (cp) and Pyrite (py) Mineralisation with Associated Chlorite (ct) and Tremolite (tr) ......................... 87 Figure 13.2 Flotation Test Sequence ....................................................................................................... 89 Figure 13.3 Scandium Extraction and Precipitation Data ...................................................................... 97 Figure 13.4 Scandium Separation Precipitates ...................................................................................... 97 Figure 14.1 Plan and Orthogonal View (looking north-east) of Hat Drill Hole Database .................... 103 Figure 14.2 3D Perspective of the Interpreted Mineralized Zone of Hat Project ................................. 104 Figure 14.3 3D View of the Location of the Fault Planes in Hat Deposit .............................................. 104 Figure 14.4 Log Probability and Cumulative Metal Plot for Cu (g/t) Values within the Mineralized Zone ..................................................................................................................................... 105 Figure 14.5 Log Probability and Cumulative Metal Plot for Co (g/t) Values within the Mineralized Zone ..................................................................................................................................... 106 Figure 14.6 Log Probability and Cumulative Metal Plot for Au (g/t) Values within the Mineralized Zone ..................................................................................................................................... 106 Figure 14.7 Log Probability and Cumulative Metal Plot for Ag (g/t) Values within the Mineralized Zone ..................................................................................................................................... 107 Figure 14.8 Variography for Cu .............................................................................................................. 109 Figure 14.9 Variography for Co .............................................................................................................. 110 Figure 14.10 Variography for Au .............................................................................................................. 111 Figure 14.11 Variography for Ag .............................................................................................................. 112 Figure 14.12 A Typical North-South Section (Looking West) Showing the Comparison between Composite and Estimated Grades for CuEq% .................................................................... 115 Figure 14.13 Cu Swath Plot along Easting at 40 m Intervals .................................................................. 116 Figure 14.14 Cu Swath Plot along Northing at 40 m Intervals ................................................................ 117 Figure 14.15 Cu Swath Plot along Depth at 30 m Intervals .................................................................... 117

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Page Figure 14.16 Open Pit Plan View and Block Model ................................................................................. 121 Figure 14.17 Open Pit Section and Block Model ..................................................................................... 121 Figure 14.18 Open Pit Grade -Tonnage Curve for Hat Project ................................................................ 123

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [174 x 28] intentionally omitted <==

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 GENERAL

Doubleview Gold Corp. (Doubleview) has retained Micon International Limited (Micon) to conduct an independent mineral resource estimate (MRE) for the Hat Deposit Project (Hat Project or the Project) in the Province of British Columbia (BC), Canada, and to compile a Canadian National Instrument (NI) 43101 Technical Report disclosing the results of the MRE.

The MRE was completed by Micon, with input from the geological personnel of Doubleview. Micon’s Engineers and Geoscientists British Columbia (EGBC) Permit to Practice Number is 1001528.

William Lewis, P.Geo. and Chitrali Sarkar, P.Geo., who are independent of Doubleview and are Qualified Persons (QPs) within the meaning of NI 43-101, are responsible for the mineral resource estimate disclosed in this report.

A site visit was conducted from July 20 to July 23, 2024, by Mr. Lewis to independently verify the geology, mineralogy, drilling program results and the Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) programs at the Hat Project.

In conducting the mineral resource estimate, Micon’s QPs used the following guidelines, published by the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM):

The CIM Definitions and Standards for Mineral Resources and Reserves, adopted by the CIM council on May 10, 2014.
The CIM Estimation of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves Best Practice Guidelines, adopted by the CIM Council on November 29, 2019.

This report discloses technical information, the presentation of which requires the QPs to derive subtotals, totals and weighted averages that inherently involve a degree of rounding and, consequently, introduce a margin of error. Where these occur, the QPs do not consider them to be material.

The conclusions and recommendations of this report reflect the QP’s best independent judgment in light of the information available to them at the time of writing. Micon and the QPs reserve the right, but will not be obliged, to revise this report if additional information becomes known to them subsequent to the date of this report. Use of this report acknowledges acceptance of the foregoing conditions.

This report is intended to be used by Doubleview, subject to the terms and conditions of its agreement with Micon. That agreement permits Doubleview to file this report as a Technical Report on SEDAR (www.sedarplus.ca) pursuant to provincial securities legislation, or with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the United States.

Neither Micon nor the individual QPs have, nor have they previously had, any material interest in Doubleview or related entities. The relationship with Doubleview is solely a professional association between the client and the independent consultants. This report is prepared in return for fees based

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [174 x 28] intentionally omitted <==

upon agreed commercial rates and the payment of these fees is in no way contingent on the results of this report.

Micon and the QPs are pleased to acknowledge the helpful cooperation of Doubleview management, personnel and consulting field staff, all of whom made any and all data requested available and responded openly and helpfully to all questions, queries and requests for material.

This report supersedes and replaces all prior Technical Reports written for the Hat Project.

1.2 PROPERTY LOCATION, DESCRIPTION AND OWNERSHIP

The Hat Project is located in the Atlin Mining Division, BC, and is wholly owned by Doubleview. The Hat property is located north of Hatchau Lake, 95 km southwest of Dease Lake and 40 km north of Telegraph Creek.

The Hat property is comprised of 10 contiguous mineral tenures which total 5,214 hectares (ha). The centre of the mineral tenures is located at about 345211 East, 6453290 North of Zone 9 of the UTM grid or at 131º 35’ West and 58º 12’ North on the NTS map sheets 104J-012, -013, -022, -023.

Doubleview acquired the Hat Project in 2011, by signing an option agreement with the original owners. Following the signing of the option agreement, in 2011, 2013 and 2018, Doubleview staked additional claims adjacent to the original claims, using the online staking platform “Mineral Titles Online in BC” implemented by the province in 2005. The conditions of the option agreement were fulfilled in 2017, at which time ownership was transferred to Doubleview. The Hat property carries a 2% Net Smelter Return royalty (NSR), payable upon commencement of commercial production.

1.3 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, PHYSIOGRAPHY, LOCAL RESOURCES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Personnel and freight destined for the Hat property are usually transferred through Whitehorse in the Yukon Territories or Smithers/Terrace, BC, through Dease Lake, and are mobilized via a helicopter from a landing area called “Km6” on the Golden Bear Mine Road (also called Muddy Lake Road), which turns off the Telegraph Creek Road at about 81 km from Dease Lake.

Helicopters transfer all personnel and necessities from the landing area to the temporary camp located on the property. Apart from the temporary camp, which can house a small crew for one drill rig and supporting camp personnel, there are no amenities on the property. The temporary camp comprises several wooden structures, including a cookhouse, washhouse, bunkhouses, office, a first aid station and a core shack. Electric power is generated on site with a generator. Core processing facilities, including logging tables, a core photography table and core saws, are located close to the camp. Paths suitable for use by ATVs connect the camp and the drill sites. The helicopter is used for moving the drill to new sites and for transporting core. Personnel may be moved to a drill site via the helicopter, if the site is remote or difficult to access via ATV.

The Hat Project property is situated in northwestern British Columbia with a typical mountainous forest climate regime where temperatures vary between -25°C and 30°C. The district experiences short warm summers and cold winters, with occasional warm spells. Winter snowpack is normally in excess of one and one-half metres. Annual precipitation is about 300 mm. Exploration work can be conducted year-

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [174 x 28] intentionally omitted <==

round, but is primarily conducted from April through November, due to the challenges faced when conducting winter programs.

The Hat property is located on the western side of the Interior Plateau physiographic province of the Canadian Cordillera, near the transition from the relatively subdued topography of the Interior to the rugged Coast Ranges. Elevations rise from 675 masl to about 1300 masl, with the southern parts of the mineral tenures featuring a steep slope from the valley to about 900 m. From this point to the northern elevations, the slopes are gentle and cover the majority of the Hat Project and the centre of recent exploration work.

Several small streams flow across the property and drain into Hatchau Lake and the Hackett River, and there are a few small ponds located on the property.

The Hat property is entirely forested, but with very little merchantable timber. The valley bottom is wooded with cottonwood, alder, birch and swamp spruce trees. The south facing slope is largely covered by poplar trees and spruce, whereas upper slopes have patchy growth of evergreens, both spruce and hemlock. Pine and fir are present but not abundant. Areas of poorly drained, swampy ground, some of which are underlain by permafrost, have thick and tangled growth of willow.

Northwestern BC lacks major infrastructure, due to a small population scattered in a few small towns. Dease Lake, a community of approximately 300, is located along Highway 37, about 95 km northeast of the Hat Project. The town has all main amenities, such as hotels, a general store, post office and a small hospital. The small community of Telegraph Creek has a population of about 100 and is located about 40 km to the southeast.

1.4 HISTORY

The earliest recorded mineral exploration activity in the Hat Project area was conducted in 1963 by an independent prospector from Ontario, who reported the discovery of strong gold values near the eastern side of the present Hat property.

In 1964, Newmont Mining Corp. (Newmont) located a large high intensity magnetic anomaly (by airborne methods) in the present Hat Project area, but not much else is known about the Newmont work.

From 1969 to 1970, Colorado Corporation (Colorado Corp.) owned the Pat claims, which represented the eastern portion of a group of claims known as the Go group or Skyline project and conducted the first comprehensive exploration program of note. Reconnaissance style soil geochemical samples were collected north of Hatchau Lake, following up on favourable bedrock mineralization in the Big Creek area. The results showed background and anomalous Cu values but no significant Pb, Zn or Mo assays. The showing along Big Creek, contained chalcopyrite and magnetite.

During the following year, Skyline Explorations Ltd. (Skyline) changed the claims into the OH claims and explored the area with reconnaissance style soil geochemical samples, collected just north and west of Hatchau Lake. Chalcopyrite mineralization near the diorite – volcanic contact, in the southwestern corner of the modern Hat Project, was observed. Some Cu-Mo soil anomalies were identified.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [174 x 28] intentionally omitted <==

In 1976, United Cambridge Mines Ltd. (United Cambridge) commenced prospecting, sampling, geological mapping and geochemical soil sampling programs in all parts of the Hackett River valley, including Big Creek. Several prominent areas of iron staining that had been explored in the early 1970s were re-examined. The adjacent Star property that was later explored by Prosper Mines Ltd.[1] (Prosper Mines) was discovered. The Hoey discovery area was hand-trenched and chip sampled. Management of United Cambridge subsequently was transferred from Vancouver to Calgary, and it undertook no further effective exploration work.

From 1978 to 1980, Utah Mines Ltd. (Utah Mines) staked the Ski claims. Over the years, extensive soil sampling programs, induced polarization and ground magnetics surveys, detailed geologic mapping and bulldozer trenching were conducted. Copper values of the soil samples in anomalous zones ranged from 300 to 3,000 ppm, with a maximum value of 0.5%. Due to depressed metal prices, Utah Mines dropped the claims.

In 1985, United Cambridge re-staked the claims under the name Moon claims. Again, programs of soil and rock sampling were conducted, with analyses not only of copper, but also gold, molybdenum, lead, zinc, silver, cobalt, arsenic and antimony. The following year, prospecting at the historic showings (‘E’ Gossan Creek, Hoey and “D” showings) resulted in soil or talus fine samples, silt samples and rock samples.

In 1987, airborne magnetic and VLF-EM surveys were flown. The magnetic survey showed a strong response over most of the northern half of the property. In the south, the quiet response was believed to probably reflect sedimentary rock. The VLF-EM was assumed to show geologic structures or sulphides. In 1988, further geochemical surveys were conducted to define drill targets. Trenching was proposed around the northern shore area of Hatchau Lake. The proposal for trenching in this area was rejected and a Heritage Resource Impact assessment was undertaken. The resulting report outlined areas of high, medium and low potential for archaeological sites. No new archaeological sites were recorded during the assessment, and all revisited sites were found to be in the same condition as in 1980, when they were first recorded.

In 1990, the Moon claims were re-staked for United Cambridge. Brief rock geochemical sampling and prospecting was carried out. The claims expired in 1992.

In 1994, Erik Ostensoe and Thomas E. Lisle, as co-owners, staked what is now known as the Hat Project. The claims carried the names Hat and Bob (numbered 1 through 4 respectively). In the following decades, the two prospected, sampled and mapped systematically from the two southern showings ‘Gossan’ and ‘Hoey’ towards the north. By 2008, the potential for a porphyry copper-gold deposit was recognized by the co-owners who had been trying to attract financing and other types of participation by mining companies. In 2011, Doubleview optioned the Hat claims from Ostensoe and Lisle. Besides the two co-owners, Dr. Bob Seraphim became a beneficiary of the option agreement.

1 Prosper Mines Ltd. changed its name to Proper Gold Corp., in 2012, as part of a strategic shift to focus more on gold exploration and development projects.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [174 x 28] intentionally omitted <==

1.5 GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION

1.5.1 Regional Geology

The Hat Project is located in the north flank of the Stikine Arch part of the Intermontane Physiographic Province of the Canadian Cordillera, close to the east side of the Coast Crystalline Intrusions of the Insular and Coastal Physiographic sub-Province. The so-called “Arch” is a structural feature imposed on regional geological terrain, also known as “Stikinia”, that comprises Triassic-Jurassic age volcanic, sedimentary and volcanoclastic formations. Granitic, mafic and ultramafic plutons occur throughout Stikinia, accompanied by Tertiary-age volcanic edifices. Regional geological features with geographic expressions include imbricated north-south oriented fault structures that can be traced over tens, even hundreds, of kilometres.

The Hat Project is located in a complex of volcanic and volcanoclastic rocks that have not been agedated but are believed to be members of the Upper Triassic-age Stuhini Group, a formation that, elsewhere in the district, is host to important porphyry-style and other significant mineral deposits, including the Red Chris, Schaft Creek and, likely, Seabridge’s KSM-Iron Cap-Mitchell and Kerr deposits and Pretium’s (now Newmont’s) Brucejack mine. Stuhini formation volcaniclastic bedded rocks of andesitic composition underlie the Hat property. Members include both air-fall and flow-type units and all are at least mildly affected by low grade regional metamorphism. Intrusive bodies include dioritic to gabbroic units of unknown distribution, and dark, andesitic to basaltic dykes that may be related to Tertiary volcanism in nearby areas.

The Hat Project is situated immediately south of, and in part, is underlain by, basaltic flows of the broad Level Mountain volcanic edifice.

1.5.2 Property Geology

Outcroppings on the property are sparse, with the best exposures being found in the margins of stream channels. Large areas of the property are covered by swamps and willow thickets, without rock exposures. Principal rock units are assigned to the Upper Triassic age Stuhini Group of very variable mixed tuffaceous and volcaniclastic units. The Stuhini Group is vaguely analogous to the Nicola and Takla Groups of rocks of similar age and composition that, elsewhere in British Columbia, are host to important copper and other mineral deposits.

The southeastern portion of the Hat property comprises brown and black, sandy textured, thin-to coarse-bedded argillite and wackes, whereas much of the remainder is tuffaceous to massive andesite. The greater part of diamond drilling has been directed to the Lisle zone discovery area, where chalcopyrite and pyrite mineralization occurs with magnetite in chloritized andesite and coarse-to medium-grained gabbro and in zones of transition from one rock type to the other. Fracturing is common and appears to be related to one or more strong northwest-trending fault structures.

1.5.3 Mineralization

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [174 x 28] intentionally omitted <==

ratio of about 0.9 g/t gold to 1.0% copper. Free gold has not been observed. Chalcopyrite is brassy yellow, varies from very fine-textured to medium-coarse grained and may occur closely mixed with pyrite or, often, in centimetre wide and wider bands, without associated sulphides. A portion of the copper values are located by analysis in sheared dark andesite, in which sulphide (or other) metallic minerals are obscure. Pyrite distribution is erratic: sometimes as thick (up to 40 cm) bands of solid pyrite, and elsewhere as intergrowths with chalcopyrite. Magnetite similarly varies, from disseminations in weakly metamorphosed andesite to strong, almost solid, sections, measurable in tens of centimetres, in chloritized and/or epidotized andesite, and as a substantial component of gabbro.

Although gold and copper are the metals of principal interest, other metals, including silver, cobalt, scandium and platinum group metals, are also present. Doubleview has noted that scandium is present within the Hat deposit. However, at this time, scandium is only noted as a potential economic mineral, as it is believed that the scandium could be recovered using secondary processing methods, for which the metallurgical test work remains to be undertaken.

1.6 EXPLORATION AND DRILLING PROGRAMS

In 2011, on behalf of Doubleview, a program of MMI soil geochemical sampling was conducted. In 2013, a ground induced polarization (IP) survey was conducted, confirming the historic ground IP surveys by Utah Mines. In the same year, diamond drilling was started with 11 holes totalling 2,581.3 m being drilled. During the following years, until 2016, additional drilling programs took place. In 2018, Doubleview signed an option agreement with Hudbay Minerals Canada Ltd. (Hudbay). In 2018, Hudbay conducted ground IP, soil sampling, re-logged existing core and took quarter core samples. The ground IP resulted in a three-dimensional interpretation which helped guide the ensuing drill programs. In 2019, Hudbay terminated the option agreement with Doubleview. In every subsequent year, Doubleview has continued conduct drilling programs.

Most of the drilling at the Hat deposit has been directed to the so-called Lisle Zone where, in early 2014, a significant gold-copper alkalic porphyry-type discovery was announced. Follow-up drilling between 2014 to 2016 and 2019 to 2023 indicates that the Lisle Zone has approximate dimensions of 2.7 km in the east-west direction, and 1.7 km in the north-south direction. Thickness has not been reliably determined and nor has the general outline of the mineralization. Diamond drilling to date totals 31,271 metres in 71 drill holes.

1.7 METALLURGICAL TEST WORK

Doubleview commissioned Coffey Geotechnics Ltd. (Coffey Geotechnics), a Tetra Tech Company (Tetra Tech), to specify and direct quantitative mineralogical and metallurgical test work aimed at establishing the extractability of copper (Cu), cobalt (Co), gold and palladium (Pd) from mineralogical materials from the Hat Copper Porphyry, particularly the extractability of Co for its potential inclusion in the calculation of the Cu equivalent grade. The metallurgical test work program was conducted by Sepro Laboratories (formerly known as Met-Solve Laboratories Inc), Langley, BC under the direction of Tetra Tech.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [174 x 28] intentionally omitted <==

1.7.1 Metallurgical Test Work

Tetra Tech specified a preliminary batch flotation test work program, which was aimed at producing a high-gold, low-cobalt-copper concentrate and a low-gold, high-cobalt-pyrite concentrate. The test work also involved the selection of appropriate sample intervals from the drill core assay database provided by Doubleview and providing sample compositing instructions to the laboratory. Summary head grade information for the composite sample prepared for the test work is shown in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1 Head Grade of Key Elements

Cu(%)	Co(g/t)	Fe(%)	STotal(%)
0.22	199	11.5	2.4
Key: % = percent, Fe = Iron, g/t Table supplied by Tetra Tech.

The test work was conducted by Met-Solve Laboratories of Langley BC on a single composite sample and comprised:

Head assays.
Gravity concentration test.
Rougher flotation tests.
Cleaner flotation tests.
1.7.2 Initial Results of Gravity and Flotation Test Work

The overall results of the initial test work program and metallurgical extraction characteristics are indicated in Table 1.2.

Table 1.2

Hat Summary Gravity and Flotation Results – Indicated Grades and Recoveries

Sample	Metal	Grade	Grade	Recovery (%)	Recovery (%)
		Gravity Tails	Composite	Gravity Tails	Composite
Head	Cu(%)	0.20	0.21	---	---
	Co(ppm)	132	131	---	---
	Au(g/t)	0.36	0.32	---	---
GravityConcentrate	Au(g/t)	11	---	11	---
Copper Concentrates	Cu(%)	27	14	81	76
	Co(ppm)	470	1,160	19	26
	Au(g/t)	7	12	54	64
Pyrite Concentrate	Cu(%)	0.1	0.1	5.0	6.0
	Co(ppm)	2,620	2,530	49	48
	Au(g/t)	3	3	21	23
The Combined Concentrates	Cu(%)	---	---	86	82
	Co(ppm)	---	---	68	74

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [174 x 28] intentionally omitted <==

Sample	Metal	Grade	Grade	Recovery (%)	Recovery (%)
		Gravity Tails	Composite	Gravity Tails	Composite
	Au(g/t)	---	---	86	87

Table supplied by Tetra Tech.

1.7.3 Scandium

The initial test work and analysis also showed that geologic materials derived from the Hat Project contained scandium at elevated levels, above those normally associated with crustal rocks. Test work also showed that most of the scandium reported to the flotation tailings. Supplementary test work focused on the treatment of flotation tailings for the recovery of scandium into an intermediate product suitable as feedstock for a scandium recovery process.

Scandium was recovered from flotation tailings material by extraction in sulphate media at elevated temperatures, followed by removal of metals by stagewise precipitation as hydroxides or phosphates. Results for the most recent test RQ510 are shown in Table 1.3.

Table 1.3

Hat Project Scandium Recovery Data

Element	H.G. (ppm)		Recoveries	Recoveries		Metal Balance
		Stage 1	Stage 2	Stage 3	Stage 4
Sc	10.30	9.10%	0.00%	89.15%	9.71%	107.96%
Al	10,800	2.97%	0.00%	86.19%	13.81%	102.97%
Fe	24,750	94.34%	0.00%	5.20%	5.02%	100.00%

Table supplied by Tetra Tech.

1.7.4 Metallurgical Recoveries

The initial metallurgical test work showed that the recoveries indicated in Table 1.4 below can be achieved. Except for scandium, these are the recovery factors recommended for the purposes of calculating the copper equivalent grade. It is recommended that scandium values be excluded until such time as economic production of scandium trioxide or alternative product from Hat materials has been demonstrated.

Table 1.4 Preliminary Recovery Data

Element	Overall Recovery (%)
Copper	84
Cobalt	78
Gold	89
Silver	68
Scandium	88*

*Estimated from initial precipitation data. Table supplied by Tetra Tech.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [174 x 28] intentionally omitted <==

1.7.5 Conclusions

The objectives of the preliminary metallurgical test work program were achieved, demonstrating the recoverability of cobalt and justifying the inclusion of cobalt in the calculation of copper equivalent grade.

The flotation test work was conducted under standard conditions, using conventional grinds and reagents. It should be possible to demonstrate improvement in selectivity, recovery and grade with further optimisation and development.

Recovery of scandium has the potential to add significant value. Test work to date has demonstrated that scandium can be separated into an intermediate product suitable as feed to a scandium recovery process. Future test work will focus on the recovery of scandium to a saleable product such as a carbonate, oxide or phosphate.

1.8 HAT DEPOSIT MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE

The MRE contained in this Technical Report is the initial MRE for the Hat Project. The MRE was completed by Micon, with input from the geological personnel of Doubleview.

1.8.1 Methodology

The mineralized wireframe models for the Hat Project were prepared using LeapFrog GEO v.2023.2.1 (LeapFrog). Wireframe modelling included the construction of a single mineralized domain, constrained to the extents of the deposit-scale Cu-Au-Ag porphyry unit and capped by overburden, as found in the core-logging information. Geostatistical analyses were carried out using Datamine Snowden Supervisor v.8.15.0.3 (Supervisor). The estimation, block model and grade interpolation, were prepared using LeapFrog EDGE v.2023.2.1 (LeapFrog). Resource-level potentially mineable open pit shapes were created using Datamine Studio Maxi Pit 1.5.16 (Datamine).

The main steps in the methodology were as follows:

Compiling and validating the diamond drill hole databases used for mineral resource estimation. Calculation of the CuEq (in %) to be used as the basis for domaining the mineralized zone.
Interpretation of the mineralized domain, based on lithological and assay information.
Capping of outlier values and compositing the database, for the purpose of geostatistical analysis, and performing variography.
Generating the block model and grade interpolation.
Validating the criteria for mineral resource classification.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [174 x 28] intentionally omitted <==

Assessing the mineral resources with “reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction” by selecting appropriate cut-off grades and producing a reasonable “resource-level” optimized pit-shell.
Generating a Mineral Resource Estimate statement.
Assessing and identifying the factors that could affect the mineral resource estimate.

1.8.2 Resource Database and Wireframing

1.8.2.1 Database

The database consists of 71 diamond drill holes, totalling 31,273.88 m of drill metreage and including 13,961 sample intervals. The database includes validated location, survey and assay results. Drill hole H048, which was drilled during 2022, was abandoned after 27 m and is not included in the Project database. Collar and survey information for 70 drill holes is available in the Project database. The database also includes lithological descriptions taken from drill core logs. However, valid down-hole survey information is missing from 34 drill holes. The database covers the strike length of the mineralized domain with variable drill hole coverage.

1.8.2.2 Topography

The Project topography was provided by Doubleview as a digital terrain model (DTM) in DXF format. The topography was used to clip the overburden zone and the mineralized wireframe (as applicable) to the surface.

1.8.2.3 Mineralized Wireframe

Micon’s QPs have outlined the mineralized domain using Leapfrog software. A preliminary CuEq cut-off grade of 0.1% was considered to construct the wireframe. Internal dilutions below 0.1% CuEq have been considered as the deposit is categorized as a polymetallic Cu, Co, Au and Ag porphyry. An overburden zone was identified at surface, using the lithological information available.

No significant oxidation zone could be identified, and the entire interpreted wireframe has been considered as a single mineralized domain.

Five fault planes have been identified by Doubleview’s geologists as passing through the mineralized zones for Hat Deposit. The planes are northwest oriented and dipping vertically below surface. There is some speculation that the faults might influence the disposition of the mineralization. However, there is insufficient structural information available at this time to confirm this speculation and, as a result, the faults have not been considered to have any influence in the current MRE.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [174 x 28] intentionally omitted <==

1.8.3 Capping Outliers, Compositing and Variography

1.8.3.1 Capping Outlier Values

The Cu, Co, Au and Ag raw assay values were analyzed to determine outlier values which could bias the estimation process. The outlier values were identified for all four elements using Supervisor software. Log probability and Cumulative Metal Plots have also been analyzed.

The capping grade used for Cu, Co, Au and Ag are 48,000 g/t, 1,135 g/t, 4.70 g/t and 15 g/t, respectively.

1.8.3.2 Compositing Capped Values

The intercepts within the identified mineralized zone were then composited to 2 m equal length intervals using capped Cu, Co, Au and Ag assays.

1.8.3.3 Variography

All variographic analyses and modelling were performed in Datamine Studio RM Software. Primary directions and orientations of the variograms were observed in the data and visually in 3D space. These orientations were then examined statistically within the zone, to ensure that they represented the best possible fit of the geology and grade continuity.

1.8.4 Rock Density

A total of 208 samples were collected by Doubleview for density measurement, covering 16 drill holes for the Hat Project. An average density of 2.9 gm/cm[3] has been considered for the mineralized zone. Although an overburden layer has been identified geologically, no density difference was considered between the overburden and mineralized zone at this time. Moreover, no significant oxidized zone exists for the mineralized area of Hat Project.

1.8.5 Block Model and Grade Interpolation

1.8.5.1 Block Model

A block model was constructed to represent the volume and attributes of rock density and grade within the mineralized zones for the Hat Project.

1.8.5.2 Search Strategy and Interpolation

The set of search parameters derived from the variographic analysis were used to interpolate the capped composite grades within the mineralized zone. The interpolation was performed by Ordinary Kriging (OK) in Leapfrog Edge Software.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [174 x 28] intentionally omitted <==

All four elements, Cu, Co, Au and Ag, have been estimated individually within the block model. Three passes have been used to interpolate the Cu grades into the blocks contained within the mineralized zone. However, an additional pass (P4) has been used to interpolate Co, Au and Ag, in order to inform all the blocks with all four elements.

CuEq in % has been calculated using the formula noted below, for input (composites) and output (blocks).

CuEq in % = ([Ag grade_g/t] 240.68/31.1035 + [Au grade_ g/t] 1900.89/31.1035 + 0.0001 [Co grade_ g/t] 220.7822.0462 + 0.0001 [Cu grade_ g/t] 40.8422.0462) / (422.04620.84).

The resource block model was validated using a variety of methods, including visual inspection of the model grades and grade distributions, compared to the informing raw samples, statistical comparisons of informing composites to the model, and swath plots to compare the grade distribution along easting, northing and vertical directions.

1.8.6 Mineral Resource Estimate

1.8.6.1 Reasonable Prospects for Economic Extraction

The CIM Standards require that an estimated mineral resource must have reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction. The mineral resource discussed herein has been constrained by reasonable mining shapes, using economic assumptions appropriate for an open pit mining scenario. The potential mining shapes are preliminary and conceptual in nature.

For the Hat Project, a pit-shell was optimized based on CuEq values calculated using a set of economic parameters, depending on the material and the mining method. The calculated economic cut-off grade of 0.14% CuEq is considered to meet the criterion of potentially economic extraction. However, Doubleview has used an open pit cut-off grade of 0.20% CuEq to report the initial base-case mineral resources in order to clearly demonstrate that the mineral resources meet the criterion for potential economic extraction.

Table 1.5 summarizes the economic parameters used to calculate the CuEq cut-off grade.

Table 1.5

Economic Parameters used to Calculate the CuEq Cut-Off Grade

Description	Values
Au price US$/oz	1,900
Ag price US$/oz	24
Cu price U$/lb	4
Co price U$/lb	22
Au recovery	89.0%
Ag recovery	68.0%
Cu recovery	84.0%
Co recovery	78.0%

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [174 x 28] intentionally omitted <==

Description	Values
Mining Cost U$/t (OP)	2.5
Processing Cost U$/t	6
G&A Cost U$/t	2

1.8.6.2 Mineral Resource Classification

Micon’s QP have classified the mineral resource for Hat Project in the Indicated and Inferred categories. No measured resources are considered at this time, primarily due to:

A circular drilling pattern around each drill pad leading to an uneven distribution of sample points with depth.
Missing survey records for 39% of drill data.
No core recovery information for 22% of drill data.

Micon’s QPs have reviewed the distribution and continuity of the potentially economically extractable material for the current MRE. The QPs have initially identified the Indicated Resources as those blocks having a CuEq grade >= 0.14%, which are informed by samples within 85 m distance, estimated by at least three drill holes, having kriged efficiency >= 0.4 and those blocks estimated during P1 of the interpolation process. This was further refined visually in order to downgrade or upgrade those blocks that would otherwise have created a “Spotted Dog” effect.

1.8.6.3 Mineral Resource Estimate

The MRE for the Hat Project is summarized in Table 1.6. The MRE has an effective date of July 17, 2024. The QPs have classified the initial MRE as Indicated and Inferred mineral resources, based on data density, search ellipse criteria, interpolation parameters and other items discussed previously. The 2024 Hat MRE is considered to be a reasonable representation of the mineral resources for the Hat Project, based on the currently available data and geological knowledge.

1.8.7 Mineral Resource Grade Sensitivity Analysis

Table 1.7 shows the cut-off grade sensitivity analysis for CuEq for the Hat Project MRE. The reader should be cautioned that the figures provided in Table 1.3 should not be interpreted as a mineral resource statement. Micon’s QP have reviewed the MRE cut-off grades used in the sensitivity analysis, and it is the opinion of the QPs that they meet the test for reasonable prospects of eventual economic extraction at varying prices of metals and the other underlying parameters used to calculate the cut-off grade.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Table 1.6 Hat Deposit MRE Based on a 0.2% CuEq Cut-Off

				*Average Grade*	*Average Grade*	*Average Grade*				*Metal Content*	*Metal Content*
Open Pit Model Hat	*Resource* *Category*	Tonnage	CuEq	Cu	Co	Au	Ag	CuEq	Cu	Co	Au	Ag
		Mt	%	%	%	g/t	g/t	million lb	million lb	million lb	thousand oz	thousand oz
In Pit	Indicated	150	0.408	0.221	0.008	0.19	0.42	1,353	733	28	929	2,045
	Inferred	477	0.344	0.185	0.009	0.15	0.49	3,619	1,945	91	2,328	7,575

Notes:

The effective date of the MRE is 17 July 2024.
The Mineral Resource Estimate has been stated using a CuEq cut-off grade for comparison purposes with Doubleview’s previous statements. The CuEq value is primarily driven by the prices of associated minerals. Micon’s QPs recommend that future resource estimates are completed using an NSR calculation.
William Lewis P.Geo., and Chitrali Sarkar M.Sc., P.Geo., of Micon are the QPs responsible for the MRE, as defined in Canadian National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (“NI 43-101”).
The mineral resources disclosed in this report were estimated using the CIM standards for mineral resource and reserve definitions and the CIM best practices guidelines for resource estimation.
The mineral resources reported are contained within the boundaries of a pit-shell derived from the open pit optimizer, assuming surface mining methods with an overall slope angle of 45 degrees and with the original block model re-blocked to 20m x 20m x 20m. Mineralized blocks outside of the pit-shell are not considered to be part of the MRE.
Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
Geological modelling and the MRE have been completed using Leapfrog Geo and Edge software.
An open pit cut-off grade of 0.14% CuEq was calculated for the MRE, using a gold price of US$1,900/oz, a silver price of US$24/oz, a copper price of US$4/lb and a cobalt price of US$22/lb; mining cost US$2.5/t, processing cost US$6/t and G&A costs of US$2/t; gold recovery of 89%, silver recovery of 68%, copper recovery of 84% and cobalt recovery of 78%. However, to further fulfill the criterion for an MRE to meet the definition of potentially economic extraction, Doubleview has used an open pit cut-off grade of 0.20% CuEq to report the initial base-case mineral resources.
EUR ING Andrew Carter B.Sc. CEng. MIMMM, MSAIMM SME of Coffey, Tetra Tech has reviewed the metallurgical test work and is the QP responsible for the metallurgical recoveries and processing costs.
The MRE has been classified according to CIM definitions of Indicated and Inferred Resources. There are no Measured Resources, at this time. The Mineral Resource classification has been visually reviewed to eliminate any ‘Spotted Dog’ effect, commonly seen in computer-generated models.
Ordinary Kriging (OK) interpolation was used with a single block size of 10m x 10m x 10m.
The mineral resource results are presented in-situ within the optimized pit. Mineralized material outside the pit has not been considered as a part of the current MRE.
The tonnes and metal contents are rounded to reflect that the numbers are an estimate and any discrepancies in the totals are due to the rounding effects.

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Table 1.7

Grade Sensitivity Analysis at Different Cu-Eq (%) Cut-Off Grades for Hat Project

Open Pit Model Hat	Resource Category	CuEq cut-off grade	Cumulative Tonnage
					Weighted Average Value					Cumulative Material Content

				CuEq	Cu	Co	Au	Ag	CuEq	Cu	Co	Au	Ag
		%	Mt	%	%	%	g/t	g/t	million lb	million lb	million lb	thousand oz	thousand oz
		0.1	217.17	0.33	0.172	0.008	0.16	0.37	1,576	824	38	1,086	2,591
		0.12	205.60	0.34	0.180	0.008	0.16	0.38	1,547	814	36	1,067	2,515
		0.14	192.39	0.36	0.188	0.008	0.17	0.39	1,509	799	34	1,040	2,417
		0.16	178.31	0.37	0.198	0.008	0.18	0.40	1,463	780	32	1,008	2,300
		0.18	164.32	0.39	0.209	0.008	0.18	0.41	1,410	758	30	971	2,179
	Indicated	0.2	150.49	0.41	0.221	0.008	0.19	0.42	1,353	733	28	929	2,045
In Pit		0.3	92.83	0.51	0.285	0.009	0.24	0.48	1,039	584	18	707	1,421
		0.4	55.91	0.61	0.354	0.009	0.28	0.53	758	437	12	510	960
		0.5	34.27	0.72	0.425	0.010	0.33	0.59	545	321	8	361	651
		0.6	21.16	0.83	0.498	0.011	0.37	0.65	387	232	5	253	441
		0.8	8.14	1.06	0.659	0.012	0.46	0.79	191	118	2	119	208
		0.1	903.19	0.25	0.129	0.008	0.11	0.42	5,008	2,559	153	3,194	12,312
		0.12	812.65	0.27	0.138	0.008	0.12	0.44	4,789	2,471	141	3,060	11,493
		0.14	722.77	0.28	0.148	0.008	0.12	0.45	4,531	2,364	129	2,899	10,571
		0.16	634.85	0.30	0.160	0.008	0.13	0.47	4,240	2,236	116	2,716	9,570
		0.18	550.39	0.32	0.172	0.008	0.14	0.48	3,924	2,091	103	2,517	8,536
	Inferred	0.2	477.38	0.34	0.185	0.009	0.15	0.49	3,619	1,945	91	2,328	7,575
		0.3	223.56	0.46	0.254	0.010	0.21	0.52	2,252	1,251	47	1,477	3,762
		0.4	111.17	0.57	0.323	0.010	0.26	0.52	1,403	792	25	940	1,872
		0.5	59.97	0.68	0.389	0.011	0.32	0.52	902	514	15	612	1,011
		0.6	33.98	0.79	0.452	0.012	0.37	0.53	590	339	9	404	582
		0.8	11.16	1.01	0.584	0.013	0.48	0.56	247	144	3	172	202

Notes:

The reported quantities and grade estimates at different cut-off grades are presented for the sole purpose of demonstrating the sensitivity of the mineral resource model to varying CuEq cut-off grades. Micon’s QP has reviewed the varying CuEq cut-off grades used in the sensitivity analysis, and it is the opinion of the QP that they meet the test for reasonable prospects of eventual economic extraction at the cut-off grades used.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

1.8.8 Scandium Potential for the Hat Project

There are a number of other secondary elements contained within the mineralized deposit located at the Hat Project that may, in time, prove to be potentially economic based upon the multi-element analysis conducted on the drill samples. However, insufficient metallurgical sampling and test work have been conducted on these specific elements, to determine whether or not they will eventually join the elements which comprise the current MRE. Although not all of these elements will be able to be recovered economically, it is believed that scandium will be able to be recovered economically through a “tank leaching” process.

Preliminary metallurgical test work for the Hat Project focused on producing a high-gold, low-cobaltcopper concentrate and a low-gold, high-cobalt-pyrite concentrate. Scandium is primarily associated with pyroxene and amphibole gangue minerals in the deposit and reports to flotation tails. Tests have demonstrated that scandium can be extracted from the tailings using sulphuric acid at an elevated temperature as a lixiviant. Test work has also shown that scandium can be separated into an intermediate scandium – aluminium product that can be processed further for the recovery of a scandium oxide product. Separation of scandium and aluminium will be the focus of the next phase of test work. The concept being developed is that the pyrite concentrate can be used as a source of acid for both cobalt and scandium recovery.

Based on the assumptions contained in the previous paragraph, the scandium potential for the Hat Project is estimated to be:

300 to 500 Mt at an average grade of 40 ppm (0.004%) Sc2O3.

It is emphasised that the scandium potential quantity and grade are conceptual in nature, and that, while scandium grades have been derived from the multi-element analysis conducted on the Hat Project drill core, there is no certainty that further metallurgical test work will determine that scandium can be recovered economically.

1.9 CONCLUSIONS

The initial mineral resource estimate has allowed Doubleview to demonstrate that the Hat Project has reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction. Further exploration and metallurgical test work will be necessary to refine the extent and nature of economic mineralization.

While the current mineral resource estimate was completed using a copper equivalent cut-off grade which included copper, gold, cobalt and silver, Micon’s QPs consider that future mineral resource

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

estimates should be conducted using a more robust NSR calculation to determine the reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction.

Micon’s QPs have reviewed and validated the QA/QC conducted by Doubleview during the exploration programs which form the basis for the 2024 mineral resource estimate, as well as conducting the mineral resource estimate itself. It is the opinion of Micon’s QPs that the exploration programs and the mineral resource estimate itself have both been conducted according to industry best practices, as outlined by the CIM. Therefore, Micon’s QPs believe that the 2024 mineral resource estimate can be used as the basis for further exploration and development work on the Hat Project.

1.9.1 Risks and Opportunities

All mineral resource estimates have a degree of uncertainty or risk associated with them, due to technical, environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-economic, marketing or political factors, among others. All mineral resource estimates also present their own opportunities. Table 1.8 outlines some of the Hat Project risks, their potential impact and possible means of mitigation. Table 1.8 also outlines some of the Hat Project’s opportunities and potential benefits.

Table 1.8 Risks and Opportunities at the Hat Project

Risk	Description and Potential Impact	Possible Risk Mitigation
Local grade continuity issues	Poor grade forecasting.	Undertake further infill drilling to establish continuity of mineralization.
Local density variability	Misrepresentation of the in-situ tonnes, which also affects the in-situ metal content estimate.	It is recommended to develop a procedure of collecting density measurements spatially throughout the deposit at regular intervals in all rock/alteration types and implement their use in future mineralization models.
Geologic Interpretation.	If the geologic interpretation and assumptions (geometry and continuity) used are inaccurate, then there is a potential lack ofgrade or continuity.	Continue infill drilling to upgrade mineral inventory to at least the Indicated category.
Metallurgical recoveries are based on limited test work.	Recovery might be lower that which is currently being assumed or vary with rock type.	Conduct additional metallurgical tests on all rock types.
Difficulty in attracting experienced professionals.	Technical work quality will be impacted and/or delayed.	Refine recruitment and retention planning and/or make use of consultants.
Conceptual mine plans are based on limited geotechnical test work.	Mining methods and dimensions selected might be different from what is currently being assumed.	Incorporate more comprehensive geotechnical data from drilling. Conduct additional geotechnical assessment and analysis.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Risk	Description and Potential Impact	Possible Risk Mitigation
Environmental or social Issues	Mining may not advance due to environmental or social issues	Conduct meetings with all potential stake holders throughout the exploration and advanced development stages. Hire locals wheneverpossible
Opportunities	Explanation	Potential Benefit
Surface exploration drilling. Potential improvement in metallurgical recoveries. Potential improvement in mining assumptions. Potential additional economic minerals	Potential to identify additional prospects and resources.	Adding resources increases the economic value of the Project.
	Additional metallurgical test work can be performed to determine if recovery can be improved through ore sorting, flotation or cyanidation.	Lower capital and operating costs.
	Geotechnical analysis may determine that mining methods and dimensions can be improved.	Improved mining productivity and lower costs.
	Scandium, as well as a few other minerals, have the potential to be recovered economically.	Further metallurgical test work to determine if scandium or other minerals can be recovered economically.

1.10 BUDGET AND FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS

1.10.1 Budget

The work plan and budget presented in Table 1.9 summarize the estimated costs for completing further drilling and metallurgical test work on the Hat Project.

Table 1.9

Hat Project, Recommended Budget for Further Work

Item	Description	Total Cost ($Cdn)
DrillingPrograms	Outside current resource(40,000 m)	20,000,000
	In-fill drilling (40,000 m)	20,000,000
Continuation of Metallurgical Test Work	Design of the test workprograms	150,000
	Laboratorycosts	100,000
Other Items	Environmental baseline studies, consultation and permitting	200,000
	Collection of detailed topographic data(LIDAR)	120,000
	Ore sortingtechnical study	60,000
	Update of the mineral resource estimate	70,000
Total Budget:		40,700,000

Table provided by Doubleview.

It is the opinion of the Micon QPs that all of the work noted in Table 1.9 is warranted. Micon and its QPs appreciate that the nature of the programs and expenditures may change as further studies are undertaken, and that the final expenditures and results may not be the same as originally proposed.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

The Micon QPs are of the opinion that Doubleview’s recommended work program and proposed expenditures are appropriate and well thought out. The Micon QPs believe that the proposed budget reasonably reflects the type and amount of the activities required to advance the Hat Project.

1.10.2 Further Recommendations

Based on the results of the MRE reported herein, Micon’s QPs recommend that Doubleview continues with exploration drilling and metallurgical test work at the Hat Project.

In summary, the following work programs are recommended.

Exploration Recommendations
a) Conduct drilling outside the current MRE in order to potentially expand the mineral resource estimate.
b) Conduct further infill drilling to upgrade the inferred mineral resource classification to indicated.
c) Conduct down-hole surveys on all drill holes as they are drilled. All drill holes should have down-hole surveys conducted on them to support any upgrade to the resource classifications.
d) Complete an alteration model for the Hat deposit and where applicable, relog older drill holes.
e) Complete a structural model for the Hat deposit, as there are a number of major crosscutting faults that need to be added to the next model, as they may change some of the interpretation parameters.
f) Conduct a LIDAR topographic survey on the Hat property to be used as the basis for placement of infrastructure on the site.
g) Increase the QA/QC control sample insertion rate to ensure that industry best practice standards are adhered to.
h) Use one or more blank standards which are free of element concentrations for all economically relevant minerals/elements at the Project.
i) Actively monitor assay sample certificates against the QA/QC data as soon as the certificates are received. This will identify any assay failures quickly, allowing corrective action to be undertaken and any procedural errors or other errors to be addressed without delay.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

j) Introduce check assaying to the QA/QC program, where Hat Project rejects and pulps from the primary assay laboratory are sent to a secondary assay laboratory to check or confirm the accuracy of the first assay.
Metallurgical Recommendations
a) Consider further flotation development and optimization test work. This would be particularly useful in support of a Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA). The work would focus on liberation and grinding optimization, but inclusion of locked cycle testing would also be advantageous, as this can be used for preliminary process design.
b) Continue to focus on production of saleable concentrates and start considering potential markets, off-takers, and smelters for both copper and cobalt concentrates.
c) Track PGE (Pd) deportment during future test work and attempt to improve recovery to copper concentrate. Consider Inductively Coupled Plasma – Optical Emission Spectroscopy (ICP-OES) analysis for PGE as an alternative to INAA as turnaround time on analytical samples will likely be more rapid.
d) Consider potential hydrometallurgical processes for the recovery of cobalt in the event suitable markets for cobalt concentrates cannot be identified. In addition, continue to develop the scandium recovery process, as this is potentially a valuable by-product. Preliminary characterization tests on flotation products could be included as part of a PEA flotation test work program.
e) Undertake a comprehensive PEA level metallurgical test work program to optimize the recovery of Cu, Co, Au, Ag and PGE by flotation, including locked cycle test work, additional quantitative mineralogy on flotation products, as well as hydrometallurgical extraction and recovery of Co and Sc.
f) Further metallurgical test work is necessary to demonstrate that a commercially saleable scandium product can be achieved, as this will allow scandium to be added to the future mineral resource estimates.
g) Review various ore-sorting methods as a way of decreasing processing costs and enhancing the grade of the material being sent to a potential processing plant.
Environmental and Social Recommendations
a) Commencement of environmental baseline studies would be appropriate, with the studies including regular collection of climate related data, lithological characterization based on geochemical samples of rocks, as well as stream flow and water quality sampling.
b) Expansion of the current wildlife management plan to include flora and fauna, particularly caribou and mountain goats. In particular, the recording of any potential endangered flora

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

and fauna needs to be undertaken. This is necessary if potential access corridors are going to be considered for roads or power line access to the Hat Project.

c) Social components of the environmental studies should continue to be maintained and expanded upon. This includes community engagements and consultations, as well as archaeological studies. In particular, potential trap lines and hunting areas of the local indigenous groups need to be discussed.
d) Consider undertaking further archeological studies, especially for those areas that would support road access or powerline access to the site.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 TERMS OF REFERENCE

The MRE was completed by Micon with input from the geological personnel of Doubleview. Micon’s Engineers and Geoscientists British Columbia (EGBC) Permit to Practice Number is 1001528.

When conducting the mineral resource estimate, Micon’s QPs used the following guidelines, published by the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM):

The CIM Definitions and Standards for Mineral Resources and Reserves, adopted by the CIM council on May 10, 2014.
The CIM Estimation of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves Best Practice Guidelines, adopted by the CIM Council on November 29, 2019.

The conclusions and recommendations of this report reflect the QPs best independent judgment in light of the information available to them at the time of writing. Micon and the QPs reserve the right, but will not be obliged, to revise this report and conclusions if additional information becomes known to them subsequent to the date of this report. Use of this report acknowledges acceptance of the foregoing conditions.

This report is intended to be used by Doubleview subject to the terms and conditions of its agreement with Micon. That agreement permits Doubleview to file this report as a Technical Report on SEDAR (www.sedarplus.ca) pursuant to provincial securities legislation, or with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the United States.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

This report supersedes and replaces all prior Technical Reports written for the Hat Project.

2.2 DISCUSSIONS, MEETINGS, SITE VISITS AND QUALIFIED PERSONS

A site visit was conducted from July 20 to July 23, 2024, by William Lewis of Micon, to independently verify the geology, mineralogy, drilling program results and the Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) programs at the Hat Project.

Numerous Google Teams meetings were held between Micon and representatives of Doubleview to discuss the drilling layout, mineral resource parameters, the geological and block models, various aspects of the interpretation of the mineralization, metallurgical test work which has and will need to be conducted, mineralization classification, Quality Assurance/Quality Control and a number of other topics related to the mineral resource estimate.

The QPs responsible for the preparation of this report and their areas of responsibility and site visits are summarized in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1

Qualified Persons, Areas of Responsibility and Site Visits

Qualified Person	Title and Company	Area of Responsibility	Site Visit
William J. Lewis, B.Sc., P.Geo.	Principal Geologist, Micon International Limited	Sections 1 (except 1.7 and 1.8.1 to 1.8.5 and 1.10.2 Metallurgical Recommendations), 2 to 12 (except 12.3), 14.1 to 14.3, 14.10 to 14.13 and 23 to 28 (except 25.2 to 25.2.5 and 26.2 Metallurgical Recommendations)	July 20, 2024 to July 23, 2024
Chitrali Sarkar, M.Sc., P.Geo.	Senior Geologist, Micon International Limited	Sections 1.8.1 to 1.8.5, 12.3 14.4 to 14.9,25.2 to 25.2.5	None
EUR ING Andrew Carter B.Sc. CEng. MIMMM, MSAIMM SME	Metallurgist, Tetra Tech, Geo-Environment & MiningServices	Sections 1.7, 1.10.2 Metallurgical Recommendations, 13 and 26.2 Metallurgical Recommendations	None
NI 43-101 Sections not applicable to this report		15,16,17,18,19,20,21 and 22

2.3 SOURCES OF INFORMATION

Micon’s review of the Hat Project, has been based on published material researched by the QPs, as well as data, professional opinions and unpublished material submitted by the professional staff of Doubleview or its consultants. Much of these data came from reports prepared and provided by Doubleview. The reference sources for this report are identified in Section 28.0.

The descriptions of geology, mineralization and exploration used in this report are taken from reports prepared by various organizations and companies or their contracted consultants, as well as from various government and academic publications. The conclusions of this report use, in part, data available in published and unpublished reports supplied by the companies which have conducted exploration on the property, and information supplied by Doubleview. The information provided to

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

Doubleview was supplied by reputable companies and the QPs have no reason to doubt its validity. Micon has used the information where it has been verified through its own review and discussions.

Some of the figures and tables for this report were reproduced or derived from reports on the property written by various individuals and/or supplied to the QPs by Doubleview. A number of the photographs were taken by Mr. Lewis during his July, 2024 site visit. In cases where photographs, figures or tables were supplied by other individuals or Doubleview, the source is referenced below that item. Figures or tables generated by Micon are generally unreferenced.

2.4 UNITS OF MEASUREMENT AND ABBREVIATIONS

All currency amounts are stated in Canadian dollars, unless otherwise stated. Quantities are generally stated in metric units, the standard Canadian and international practice, including metric tonnes (t) and kilograms (kg) for mass, kilometres (km) or metres (m) for distance, hectares (ha) for area, grams (g) and grams per metric tonne (g/t) for gold and silver grades (g/t Au, g/t Ag). Precious and base metal grades may be expressed in parts per million (ppm) or parts per billion (ppb) and their quantities may also be reported in troy ounces (ounces, oz) for precious metals and in pounds (lbs) for base metals, a common practice in the mining industry.

Table 2.2 provides a list of abbreviations that are used in this report. Appendix 1 contains a glossary of mining and other related terms that are used in this report.

Table 2.2 List of Abbreviations

Name	Abbreviation
Archaeological Impact Assessments	AIAs
Atomic Absorption Spectrometry	AAS
Adsorption/desorption/reactivation	ADR
ALS Minerals or ALS Geochemistry	ALS
Australian Geostats PtyLtd	Australian Geostats
Canadian Institute of Mining,Metallurgyand Petroleum	CIM
Canadian National Instrument 43-101	NI 43-101
Canadian Securities Administrators	CSA
Cavu EnergyMetals Corp.	Cavu Energy
CDN Resource Laboratories Ltd.	CDN Resource
Centimetre(s)	cm
Chartered Professional(s)	CP(s)
Cobalt	Co
CoffeyGeotechnics Ltd.	CoffeyGeotechnics
Colorado Corporation	Colorado Corp.
Committee for Mineral Reserve International ReportingStandards	CRIRSCO
Copper	Cu
Copper equivalent	CuEq
Cubic feetper second	cfs
Degree(s),Degrees Celsius,Degrees Fahrenheit	o,oC, oF

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

Name	Abbreviation
Deswik Stope Optimizer	DSO
Digital elevation model	DEM
DiscoveryHelicopters Ltd.	DiscoveryHelicopters
Dissolved oxygen	DO
Doubleview Capital Corp.	Doubleview Capital
Doubleview Gold Corp.	Doubleview
Electronic Data Gathering,Analysis and Retrieval	EDGAR
Firesteel Resources Ltd.	Firesteel Resources
Gramsper metric tonne	g/t
Gold	Au
Hectare(s)	ha
Hour	h
HudbayMinerals Canada Ltd.	Hudbay
Identification(s)	ID(s)
Inch(es)	in
InductivelyCoupled Plasma – Emission Spectrometry	ICP-ES
InductivelyCoupled Plasma Mass Spectroscopy	ICP-MS
Internal rate of return	IRR
International Electrotechnical Commission	IEC
International Organization for Standardization	ISO
Inverse Distance Squared	ID2
Ion Exchange	IX
Kilogram(s)	kg
Kilometre(s)	km
Krigingneighbourhood analyses	KNA
LaboratoryEquipment Corporation	LECO
Litre(s)	L
London Metal Exchange)	LME
Metre(s)	m
Micon International Limited	Micon
microns	μm
Million(egmillion tonnes,million ounces,millionyears)	M(Mt,Moz,Ma)
Milligram(s)	mg
Millimetre(s)	mm
Mineral resource estimate	MRE
Nearest Neighbour	NN
Netpresent value,at discount rate of 8%/y	NPV,NPV8
Net smelter return	NSR
Newcrest MiningLimited	Newcrest
Newmont MiningCorp.	Newmont
INAA	INAA
North American Datum	NAD
Not available/applicable	n.a.
Notice of Intent	NOI
Ordinarykriging	OK
Ore Research and Exploration PtyLtd.	OREAS

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Name	Abbreviation
Ounces(troy)/ouncesperyear	oz,oz/y
Palladium	Pd
Particle Induced X-ray Emission	PIXE
Particle Mineral Analyses	PMA
Partsper billion, partper million	ppb, ppm
Percent(age)	%
Platinum GroupElements	PGE
Pretivm Resources Inc.’s	Pretivm or Pretium
Prosper Gold Corp.	Prosper Gold
Prosper Mines Ltd.	Prosper Mines
Qualified Person	QP
QualityAssurance/QualityControl	QA/QC
Reverse Circulation	RC
Rhodium	Rh
Scandium	Sc
Silver	Ag
Skyline Explorations Ltd.	Skyline
Solvent Extraction	SX
Specificgravity	SG
Square kilometre(s)	km2
Standard Reference Material(s)	SRM(s)
System for Electronic Document Analysis and Retrieval	SEDAR
Taiga Heritage Consulting Ltd.	Taiga Heritage
Tetra Tech,Inc.	Tetra Tech
Three-dimensional	3D
Tonne(metric),tonnesper day,tonnesper hour	t,t/d,t/h
Tonne-kilometre	t-km
Two-dimensional	2D
United Cambridge Mines Ltd.	United Cambridge
United States Dollar(s)	USD
Universal Transverse Mercator	UTM
US Securities and Exchange Commission	SEC
Utah Mines Ltd.	Utah Mines
Very-Low-FrequencyElectromagnetic	VLF-EM
Year	y

2.5 PREVIOUS TECHNICAL REPORTS

There are no previous NI 43-101 Technical Reports on the Hat Project. However, there are a number of reports written for filing assessment work on the Hat Project with the BC Government. There are also a few metallurgical reports for the Hat Project. These reports are listed in the Section 28 of this Technical Report.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

3.0 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS

In this Technical Report, discussions in Sections 1.0 and 4.0 regarding royalties, permitting, taxation and environmental matters are based on material provided by Doubleview. The QPs and Micon are not qualified to comment on such matters and have relied on the representations and documentation provided by Doubleview for such discussions.

All data used in this report were originally provided by Doubleview. The QPs have reviewed and analyzed these data and have drawn their own conclusions therefrom.

The QPs and Micon offer no legal opinion as to the validity of the title to the mineral concessions claimed by Doubleview and have relied on information provided by Doubleview for the status of the mineral concessions.

Information related to royalties, permitting, taxation and environmental matters has been supplied by Doubleview through personal communication with the QPs.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

4.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION

4.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION

The Hat Project is located in northwestern British Columbia (BC), within the Atlin Mining Division. The property is located north of Hatchau Lake, 95 km southwest of Dease Lake and 40 km north of Telegraph Creek. Figure 4.1 shows the Hat Project location within Northwestern BC.

The centre of the mineral tenures is located approximately at 345211East, 6453290 North of Zone 9 of the UTM grid or at 131º 35’ West and 58º 12’ North on the NTS map sheets 104J-012, -013, -022, -023.

Figure 4.1 Location Map for the Hat Project

==> picture [319 x 414] intentionally omitted <==

Figure provided by Doubleview.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

4.2 LAND TENURE, AGREEMENTS, MINERAL RIGHTS AND OWNERSHIP

4.2.1 Ownership and Property

The Hat property is 100% owned by Doubleview and comprises 10 mineral tenures with a total area of 5,214 hectares. Table 4.1 is a summary of the mineral tenures that comprise the Hat Project. Figure 4.2 is a map showing the location of the mineral tenures.

Table 4.1

Summary of the Mineral Tenures which Comprise the Hat Project

Mineral Tenure Number	Mineral Claim Name	Owner	Mineral Claim Issue Date	Mineral Claim Expiry Date	Area (ha)	Annual Work Requirement ($)
501290	Hat	Doubleview	2005-01-12	2033-07-24	204.53	4,090.60
507814	Bob 2		2005-02-24	2033-07-24	255.74	5,114.80
511709	Hat 3		2005-04-26	2033-07-24	324.01	6,480.20
515549	Hat 4		2005-06-29	2033-07-24	187.59	3,751.80
515550	Bob 1		2005-06-29	2033-07-24	715.87	14,317.40
896518	TopHat	Gold Corp.	2011-09-11	2033-07-24	204.51	4,090.20
1019552	Hat North 1		2013-05-16	2033-07-24	459.99	9,199.80
1019554	Hat North 21		2013-05-16	2033-07-24	664.19	13,283.80
1019557	Hat North 3		2013-05-16	2033-07-24	545.00	10,900.00
1057970	The Ostensoe		2018-01-26	2033-07-24	1,652.12	24,781.80
Total:					5,213.55	96,010.40

Table provided by Doubleview.

4.2.2 Mineral Tenures and Encumbrances

The original Hat mineral claims (501290, 507814, 511709, 515549, 515550) were staked by Erik Ostensoe and Thomas E. Lisle in 1993 and 1994 as Four Post Claims. With the implementation of the online platform Mineral Titles Online in BC, the claims were converted into the new system in 2005. In 2011, Doubleview acquired the original Hat clams by option agreement. Following the signing of the original option agreement, Doubleview staked additional online claims adjacent to the original claims. In 2017, the option agreement was fulfilled, and the claims were transferred to Doubleview. The Hat property carries a 2% Net Smelter Return royalty, effective upon commencement of Commercial production. The right of Doubleview to purchase 1% of the NSR for $1,500,000 on or before the 6th anniversary of the agreement has expired.

The Hat Project mineral claims are subject to provisions of the Mineral Tenure Act and the Mines Act of the province of British Columbia. Claims are administered by the Mineral Title Branch of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation (EMLI) and are subject to various requirements. Most exploration and development work, other than sampling, requires permitting as described in the Mines Acts of BC.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

Figure 4.2 Map of the Mineral Tenures which Comprise the Hat Project

==> picture [404 x 522] intentionally omitted <==

Figure provided by Doubleview.

Claim holders, in order to maintain their titles, are required annually to perform and record their work with the Mineral Title Branch. Eligible exploration and development work with a certain value equal to

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

requirements as per the Mineral Tenure Act Regulation is recorded with the Mineral Titles Branch’s online registry and converted into time, extending the expiry date of each claim, with sufficient work keeping claims in good standing for a maximum of ten years. Exploration and development work must be registered within one year of that work being completed and must take place on the claim(s). Exploration and development work conducted on a claim may be applied to adjoining claims or any claims in a sequence of adjoining claims. To register exploration and developing work, a statement of work is filed online within the anniversary of the claim which states the value, and the time frame of the work performed. The value of exploration and development required to maintain a mineral claim for at least one year is:

a) $5 per hectare for each of the first and second anniversary years.
b) $10 per hectare for the third and fourth anniversary years.
c) $15 per hectare for the fifth and sixth anniversary years.
d) $20 per hectare for each subsequent anniversary year.

Instead of exploration and development work, the claim holder can make a payment to maintain the claim for a minimum of 6 months and a maximum of 12 months. The amount required to maintain the claim by payment is double the value of exploration and development cost.

4.3 PERMITTING AND ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITIES

4.3.1 Work Permits

Mineral exploration work at the Hat Project is conducted in accordance with provisions of Mine Permit No. Mx-1-872 (“the permit”), a multi-year area-based permit, which is administered by and obtained from the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation of British Columbia. This permit had first been issued in 2012 and has since been extended in time and exploration operations. The permitted area covers all of mineral tenures 501290, 507814 and large parts of mineral tenures 1019552, 896518, 515550, 515549 and 511709, as shown in Figure 4.2. This permit currently allows for 40-line km of geophysical ground surveys, 45 helicopter supported drill sites, 2.63 km of new exploration trails and the use of the existing temporary camp. Provisions include a plan for protection and reclamation of the surface of the land and watercourses affected by the exploration operations, to maintain the presence of a first aid attendant with Occupational First Aid Level 3 (with pertinent first aid equipment) during operations, an Emergency Response Plan and an Archaeological Chance Find Procedure. Doubleview conducted several archaeological surveys and filed Archaeological Impact Assessments with the Archaeological Branch of BC to fulfill a special condition of the permit (as of April 20, 2015) regarding new ground disturbances. All areas where drill sites are located at the Hat Project have been assessed and/or inspected by a professional archaeologist.

In addition, there is a Wildlife Management Plan in place to ensure that work can be conducted after October 31 and before July 16 of each year. The far southern portion of the Project’s permitted work area has the additional requirement for a Salmon Ecosystem Management Plan, produced by a

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

qualified professional. This condition will be fulfilled prior to Doubleview conducting operations in that area.

The very southern portion of claim 515549 overlaps with the Indian Reserve Salmon Creek 3 and no work is allowed on the Reserve.

Any changes to the work program, trails, camp or other disturbances, other than those currently permitted, require the written permission of a Mines Inspector of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation of BC.

The permit is subject to a reclamation bond, held by the receiver general of BC, in the amount of CDN $167,050. The reclamation bond is either returned to the permit holder when the permit expires, and all work areas and trails have been properly reclaimed and inspected or the funds are used to undertake this reclamation work by a government appointed contractor. The current permit is valid until March 31, 2025 and a permit extension is in progress.

4.3.2 First Nations

Doubleview has taken all reasonable steps to ensure that proper title to the mineral tenures comprising the Hat property has been obtained and that all grants of such rights thereunder, if any, have been registered with the appropriate public offices. Despite the due diligence conducted by Doubleview, there is no guarantee that title to such mineral claims will not be challenged or impugned. Doubleview’s mineral property interests may be subject to prior unregistered agreements, transfers or aboriginal land claims and title may be affected by undetected defects.

Aboriginal rights may be claimed on Crown properties or other types of tenure with respect to which mining rights have been conferred. Doubleview is not aware of any aboriginal land claims having been asserted or any legal actions relating to native issues having been instituted with respect to any of the land which is covered by the Doubleview’s mineral properties.

The Hat Project is situated in an area that is unceded by two indigenous nations, the Tahltan First Nations and the Taku River Tlingit First Nation.

During Doubleview’s drill program in 2015, six uninvited persons of the Tahltan First Nations arrived via helicopter and caused a halt to the 2015 drill program. As a result of the interruption, Doubleview filed a Notice of Civil Claim in the Supreme Court of British Columbia to recover damages and obtain an injunction against the uninvited persons. Additionally, Doubleview brought an Application in the Supreme Court of British Columbia to obtain a pretrial injunction to prevent future interruption of the drill program. On May 24, 2016, Doubleview was successful in obtaining an injunction to prevent further interruption of the drill program from the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The injunction restrains the named persons of the Civil Claim, as well as any persons acting under the instruction of the named persons or anyone with knowledge of the injunction.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

In July, 2021, Doubleview entered into a Communications and Engagement agreement with the Tahltan Central Government. Doubleview is taking all responsibilities outlined within this agreement very seriously.

In 2011, the Taku River Tlingit and the Province of British Columbia signed the Atlin Taku Land Use Plan (Wóoshtin wudidaa). The Hat property is located in an “Area Specific Resource Management Zone”, called Hackett Camp Island, which “ allows industrial development but contain resource management direction to maintain the specific values for which the zone was identified ”. The very southern portion of the Hat Project, along the Hackett River, crosses a Salmon Ecosystem Management Area. The Hackett River is also a high value spring and fall Grizzly Bear habitat.

During the years that Doubleview has been conducting exploration work at the Hat Project, it has employed indigenous workers and dealt with indigenous-owned companies. Doubleview is doing its best to maintain communications with all stakeholders.

4.3.3 Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA)

On July 23, 2024, Doubleview announced that the results of the field inspections and subsurface testing programs at the Hat Project had been filed with the Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Forests, where the review is in its final stages.

The Archaeological Impact Assessments (AIAs) were conducted by a team of archaeologists from Taiga Heritage Consulting Ltd., (Taiga Heritage) based in Grand Prairie, Alberta, under Section 12 Permits issued by the provincial Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Forests. The team consisted of permitted archaeologists with numerous years of experience working in the boreal forest regions.

The objectives of the assessment were to:

Identify any archaeological resources located within the Project area.
Assess potential impacts from proposed exploration work programs.
Provide management with recommendations based on the results of the permitted field work.
Recommend viable alternatives for managing unavoidable adverse impact.

For the last decade, Doubleview has been committed to conducting responsible work practices which include archaeological surveys and subsurface testing. As such, the following programs have taken place on the Hat Project:

2014 in-field survey, reconnaissance traversing of the Lisle Zone, resulting in an Archaeological Overview Assessment (AOA) report.
2023 mitigation excavation of archaeological site IbTv-04.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

2018, 2020 in-field surveys and shovel testing of the Lisle Zone and additional drill target areas, resulting in an interim AIA for proposed drill sites, as well as an AIA report.
2023 additional in-field survey and shovel testing of the Hat claims for proposed drill sites.

The last two programs comprised over 990 shovel tests over 180 areas of archaeological potential, as well as extensive traversing and helicopter flights over the Project. In total, only four sites were identified for protection under the Heritage Conservation Act (HCA) in the southern portions of the Hat Project. Three of the sites were represented by small lithic scatters (the sites are approximately 10 m in diameter), and one represented an isolated lithic find. These sites are now protected by a 50 m buffer zone. Such sites could represent evidence of either a hunting pattern in the uplands area or a travel corridor that follows the drainages in the uplands.

The results of field surveys and testing concluded that no heritage conservation concerns exist for the currently proposed drilling sites at the Hat Project. However, Doubleview does have a “Chance Find Procedure” in place for any work conducted at the Hat Project. The “Chance Find Procedure” outlines the measures to be taken in the event that an archaeological artifact is located, as follows; 1) the immediate stoppage of work at the find spot and 2) the reporting of such to the BC Archaeology Branch for direction on how to proceed. Additionally, Doubleview is committed to continued dialogue with First Nations regarding Traditional Land Use knowledge and further guidance by the Archaeological Branch.

Currently, two reports have been submitted to the Archaeology Branch – Ministry of Forests for review under permits 2022-470 and 2022-471.

4.3.4 Environmental Liabilities

There has been no prior mining at the Hat Project. To the best of the Micon QP’s knowledge, there are no mining or exploration-related environmental liabilities.

4.4 ROYALTIES, BACK-IN-RIGHTS AND ENCUMBRANCES

The Hat Project carries a 2% Net Smelter Royalty upon commencement of commercial production. Other than as described herein, the Micon QPs are not aware of any other royalties, back-in rights or encumbrances on the Hat Project.

4.5 MICON QP COMMENTS

Micon and the QPs are not aware of any significant factors or risks, other than those discussed in this Technical Report, that may affect access, title or the right or ability to perform work on the property by Doubleview. It is Micon’s and the QPs’ understanding that further permitting and environmental studies will be required, if further exploration, test mining and economic studies demonstrate that the mineralization is sufficient to host a mining operation.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

5.0 ACCESSIBIILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY

5.1 ACCESSIBILITY

The Hat Project is accessed either through Whitehorse, in the Yukon Territories, or Smithers/Terrace, B.C., and then through Dease Lake in Northern B.C. There are flights on a daily basis to Whitehorse from Vancouver and other destinations in Canada. Smithers and Terrace can be accessed from Vancouver on daily flights. During the 2024 Micon site visit, the Project was accessed through Whitehorse and then a 2.5-hour drive south to Atlin B.C., where the Hat Project camp was accessed via a helicopter flight, using a local company, Discovery Helicopters Ltd. (Discovery Helicopters). Figure 5.1 shows the Discovery Helicopters base in Atlin on the return trip from the Hat Project site visit.

Figure 5.1 Discovery Helicopters Base in Atlin, BC

==> picture [392 x 294] intentionally omitted <==

Micon Site Visit.

From Dease Lake, personnel and freight are mobilized via helicopter from a landing area called “Km 6” on the Golden Bear Mine Road (also called Muddy Lake Road), which turns off the Telegraph Creek Road at about 81 km from Dease Lake. The Golden Bear Mine Road leads to a now closed gold mine which is situated 40 km northwest of the Hat property. Helicopters transfer all personnel and necessities from the landing area to the temporary camp located on the Hat Property. Figure 5.2 is a view of the helicopter pad at the Hat Project camp site.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

Figure 5.2 Helicopter Pad at the Hat Project Camp Site

==> picture [388 x 291] intentionally omitted <==

Micon Site Visit.

5.2 CLIMATE

The Hat property is situated in northwestern British Columbia, in a typical mountainous forest climate and temperatures varying between -25°C and 30°C. The district experiences short warm summers and cold winters, with occasional warm spells. Winter snowpack is normally in excess of one and one-half metres. Annual precipitation is about 300 mm. Exploration work, including drilling, may be conducted from April through November and, with challenges throughout the winter.

5.3 PHYSIOGRAPHY

The Hat property is located at the west side of the Interior Plateau physiographic province of the Canadian Cordillera, near the transition from the relatively subdued topography of the Interior to the rugged Coast Ranges. Elevations rise from 675 masl to about 1300 masl in the southern portions of the mineral tenures which features a steep slope from the valley to about 900 m. From this point to the north elevation, the slopes are gentle. This covers the majority of the Project area and has been the centre of recent exploration work.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

The Hat mineral property is situated on the north side of Hatchau Lake and the Hackett River. Several small streams flow across the property which drain into the Hatchau Lake and Hackett River. A few small ponds are present on the property.

The Hat property is wholly forested, but with very little merchantable timber. The valley bottom is wooded with cottonwood, alder, birch and swamp spruce trees; the south facing slope is largely covered by poplar trees and spruce, whereas upper slopes have patchy growth of evergreens, both spruce and hemlock. Pine and fir are present but not abundant. Areas of poorly drained, swampy ground, some of which are underlain by permafrost, have thick and tangled growth of willow.

Wildlife, including moose and black bear and fur-bearing animals, principally beaver, otter, and martin, are present but not abundant.

Figure 5.3 is a helicopter view of the terrain north of the Hat Project, taken on the return trip to Atlin, during the 2024 Micon site visit.

Figure 5.3 Helicopter View of the Terrain North of the Hat Project

==> picture [404 x 304] intentionally omitted <==

Micon Site Visit.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

5.4 INFRASTRUCTURE AND LOCAL RESOURCES

Northwestern BC is deficient in infrastructure, due to a small population scattered in a few small towns. Dease Lake, a community of approximately 300, is located along Highway 37, and about 95 km northeast of the Hat Project. The town has all the main amenities, such as hotels, a general store, post office, a small hospital, etc. The small community of Telegraph Creek has a population of about 100 people and is located about 40 km to the southeast.

Personnel and freight destined for the Hat property usually pass via Whitehorse, Yukon, or Smithers/Terrace, BC, through Dease Lake and are mobilized via helicopter from a landing area called “Km6” on the Golden Bear Mine Road (also called Muddy Lake Road), which turns off the Telegraph Creek Road at about 81 km from Dease Lake. The Golden Bear Mine Road leads to a now closed gold mine which is situated 40 km northwest of the property. Helicopters transfer all personnel and necessities from the landing area to the temporary camp located on the Hat Property. Apart from the temporary camp (Figure 5.4), which can house a small drill crew for one drill rig and supporting camp personnel, there are no amenities on the property. The temporary camp comprises several wooden structures, including a cookery, washhouse, bunkhouses, office, first aid and, a small distance away, a core shack. Electric power is generated on site with a generator. Core processing facilities, including logging tables, core photography table and core saws, are located close to the camp. Paths suitable for use by ATVs connect the camp and drill sites (Figure 5.5). The helicopter is used for moving the drill, core and personnel to a new site.

The sufficiency of space for mining operations, and the sufficient availability of water have not been determined. However, the actual size of the mineral claims is such that there should be sufficient space on the claims to place the infrastructure necessary for a mining operation. While there should be sufficient water sources in the area to support a mining operation, this needs further investigation due to the salmon spawning grounds in the surrounding rivers and streams.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

Figure 5.4 A View of the Hat Project Camp

==> picture [339 x 225] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [61 x 7] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Micon Site Visit.
----- End of picture text -----

Figure 5.5 ATV Path Connecting the Hat Camp to the Drill Sites

==> picture [336 x 252] intentionally omitted <==

Micon Site Visit.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

6.0 HISTORY

6.1 EXPLORATION HISTORY OF THE HAT PROJECT

6.1.1 1960s to 1970s Exploration Programs

Although some prospecting is said to have taken place in the 1930s, the earliest recorded mineral exploration activity in the Hat Project area was conducted in 1963 by an independent prospector from Ontario, John Hoey. Mr. Hoey worked in the Hatchau Lake valley and reported the discovery of strong gold values near the east side of the present Hat property, including grab samples with as much as one ounce per ton gold, taken in the valley of Big Creek near the east side of the present Hat Project. Mr. Hoey was “grubstaked[2] ” by a group of Eastern Canadian mining companies that hired Dr. Robert, “Doctor Bob”, Seraphim to act as their contact person.

In 1964, Newmont Mining Corp. (Newmont) located a large high intensity magnetic anomaly, using airborne methods, in the present Hat Project area.

From 1969 to 1970, Colorado Corporation (Colorado Corp.) owned the Pat claims, which represented the eastern part of a group of claims known as “Go” group or Skyline project, in the area, and conducted the first comprehensive exploration program of note. A total of 432 reconnaissance style soil geochemical samples were collected in the area of upper Big Creek, north of Hatchau Lake, following up on favourable bedrock mineralization in the Big Creek area. The results showed a background of approximately 100 ppm copper values, anomalous values of 300 to 3,000 ppm copper and no significant lead, zinc, or molybdenum assays. The four inches to 2 foot showing along Big Creek, contained chalcopyrite and or magnetite and samples returned up to 0.3 oz/t gold, 0.29 oz/t silver, 4.7% copper.

During the following year, Skyline Explorations Ltd. (Skyline) changed the claims into the “OH” claims and explored the area with a total of 293 reconnaissance style soil geochemical samples, collected just north and west of Hatchau Lake. Chalcopyrite mineralization near the diorite – volcanic contact, in the southwest corner of the modern Hat concession, was observed. Some copper-molybdenum soil anomalies were identified.

In 1976, United Cambridge Mines Ltd. (United Cambridge), a junior Vancouver Exchange company, with “Doctor Bob” as its consulting geological engineer and Thomas E. Lisle as field geologist, commenced prospecting, sampling, geological mapping and geochemical soil sampling programs in all parts of the Hackett River valley, including Big Creek. Several prominent areas of iron staining that had been explored in the early 1970s by prospectors and both junior and senior mining companies, at least two of which had been tested by drilling methods, including “Copper Creek” and “Polar Creek”, were re-

2 Grubstake is an amount of material, provisions, or money supplied to an enterprise (originally a prospector for ore) in return for a share in the resulting profits.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

examined. The adjacent Star property that was later explored by Prosper Mines Ltd.[3] (Prosper Mines) was discovered. The Hoey discovery area was hand-trenched and chip sampled. Management of United Cambridge was subsequently transferred from Vancouver to Calgary, and it did not mount any further effective exploration work.

From 1978 to 1980, Utah Mines Ltd. (Utah Mines) took to the area and staked the Ski claims. Over the years, extensive soil sampling programs (over 1,300 samples), induced polarization and ground magnetics surveys (along 122-line km), detailed geologic mapping and about 200 m of bulldozer trenching were conducted. Copper values of the soil samples in anomalous zones ranged from 300 to 3,000 ppm, with a maximum value of 0.5%. Not all of the collected data was filed with the BC Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, but the later Hat Project vendor, Thomas E. Lisle, was able to obtain access to most of the above quoted data and mapping, which continues to be utilized in guiding the exploration efforts. Due to depressed metal prices, Utah Mines dropped the claims.

6.1.2 1980 to 2011 Exploration Programs

Re-staking took place in 1985 for United Cambridge under the name Moon claims. Again, programs of soil and rock sampling were conducted. This time, analyses comprised not only copper, but also gold, molybdenum, lead, zinc, silver, cobalt, arsenic and antimony. Most notable was a soil sample high of 2% copper and 6,600 ppb gold, taken at the so called Hoey showing northeast of Hatchau Lake. The following year, prospecting at the historic showings (‘E’ Gossan Creek, Hoey and “D” showings) resulted in 165 soil or talus fine samples, 1 silt sample and 34 rock samples. The highest Au values were again sampled at Hoey Prospect, with 1.7 ppm Au in soil and 1.96 ppm Au over 0.5m rock chip sample. The correlation between Au and Cu was observed in many samples. The highest copper value of the program was also found at the Hoey, with 4.8% Cu. The resulting assessment reports of the 2 years of work were authored by Thomas E. Lisle.

In 1987, 202.1 km airborne magnetic and Very-Low-Frequency Electromagnetic (VLF-EM) Surveys were flown. The magnetic survey showed a strong response over most of the northern half of the property, from 400 gammas to 4,500 gammas. In the south, the quiet response was believed to probably reflect sedimentary rock. The VLF-EM was assumed to show geologic structures or sulphides. In 1988, further geochemical surveys were conducted to define drill targets. Trenching was proposed around the northern shore area of Hatchau Lake. The BC Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources rejected the proposal for trenching in this area and a Heritage Resource Impact assessment of the Hackett River and Moon claims area was requested by BC Tourism, Recreation and the Culture’s Resource Management Branch. The resulting report by L. Ham produced a map which outlined areas of high, medium and low potential for archaeological sites. The high is found along the Hackett River, on both sides – north and south side – along the valley, as well as on the north side of the valley from Hatchau Lake eastward along Kennicott Lake. Medium potential is found northwest of the Moon claims. The study included a helicopter overview and foot survey with shovel and trowel testing. No new

3 Prosper Mines Ltd. changed its name to Proper Gold Corp., in 2012, as part of a strategic shift to focus more on gold exploration and development projects.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

archaeological sites were recorded during the assessment. All revisited sites were found to be in the same condition as in 1980 when they were recorded.

In 1990, the Moon claims were re-staked for United Cambridge. Brief rock geochemical sampling and prospecting were carried out. 17 rock and 2 soil samples were taken and analyzed for gold, silver and copper. Gold values of up to 0.087 oz/t and 0.8% copper were recorded from float samples collected above Big Creek. East of Hoey, a sample of 7.05% Cu and 0.072 Au was obtained. The claims expired in 1992.

In 1994, Erik Ostensoe and Thomas (‘Tom’) E. Lisle, as co-owners, staked what is now known as the Hat Project. The claims carried the names Hat and Bob (numbered 1 through 4, respectively). In the following decades, the two geologists prospected, sampled and mapped systematically from the two southern showings ‘Gossan’ and ‘Hoey’ towards the north. Using their own money and some funding from the Prospectors Assistance Program of the BC Ministry of Energy Mines and Petroleum Resources, Lisle and Ostensoe worked in regular intervals at the Hat Project and filed their findings and results with the Ministry, to keep the claims in good standing. During these years of revisiting and researching the Project, both geologists developed a deep and detailed understanding of the geology, and hypotheses of the geological potential were developed. In 1996, conclusions of their work include the note of a potential significant mineralization discovery east of the “Hatchau Lake Stock”, “will likely occur in large epithermal systems.” By 2008, the potential for a porphyry copper-gold deposit was recognized by the co-owners who had been trying to attract financing and other types of participation by mining companies. In 2011, Doubleview Capital Corp., (Doubleview Capital) a newly-formed junior mineral exploration company, optioned the Hat claims from Ostensoe and Lisle. Besides the two co-owners, Dr. Bob Seraphim became a beneficiary of the option agreement.

6.2 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES ON THE HAT PROJECT

No historical mineral resource or reserve estimates are known for the Hat Project.

6.3 PRODUCTION HISTORY FOR THE HAT PROJECT

No historical mining has been conducted at the Hat Project.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

7.0 GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION

7.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY

The Hat Project is located in a complex of volcanic and volcanoclastic rocks that have not been agedated but are believed to be members of the Upper Triassic-age Stuhini Group, a formation that, elsewhere in the district, is host to important porphyry-style and other significant mineral deposits, including Red Chris, Schaft Creek and, likely, Seabridge’s KSM-Iron Cap-Mitchell and Kerr deposits and Pretivm Resources Inc.’s (Pretivm now Newmont’s) Brucejack. Stuhini formation. Volcaniclastic bedded rocks of andesitic composition underlie the Hat Property. Rock members of the Stuhini formation include both air-fall and flow-type units with all at least mildly affected by low grade regional metamorphism. Intrusive bodies include dioritic to gabbroic units of unknown distribution, and dark, andesitic to basaltic dykes that may be related to Tertiary volcanism in nearby areas.

The Project is situated immediately south of, and in part is underlain by, basaltic flows of the broad Level Mountain volcanic edifice.

7.2 PROPERTY GEOLOGY

The Hat Property has been prospected and mapped. Outcroppings are sparse, with best exposures being found in the margins of stream channels, but large areas are swamps and willow thickets, without rock exposures. Principal rock units are assigned to the Upper Triassic age Stuhini Group of very variable mixed tuffaceous and volcaniclastic units. The Stuhini Group is vaguely analogous to the Nicola and Takla Groups of rocks of similar age and composition that, elsewhere in British Columbia, are host to important copper and other mineral deposits. Anderson (1993) reported that, “At least five facies of the Stuhini Group are distinguished in the Iskut River area by age, abundance and composition of the volcanic rocks (e.g., bimodal vs. mafic and intermediate composition), and nature of the intercalated marine strata (e.g., limestone vs. medium- to fine-grained siliciclastic rocks). Coarse-grained clinopyroxene (salite)-phyric flows and tuff make up the mafic volcanic rocks; sparsely feldspar-phyric dacitic crystal-lithic tuff is typical of the felsic volcanic rocks”.

The southeastern part of the Hat property comprises brown and black, sandy textured, thin- to coarsebedded argillite and wackes, whereas much of the remainder is tuffaceous to massive andesite. The greater part of diamond drilling has been focused on the Lisle zone discovery area, where chalcopyrite and pyrite mineralization occur with magnetite in chloritized andesite and coarse- to medium-grained

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

gabbro and in zones of transition from one rock type to the other. Fracturing is common and appears to be related to one or more strong northwest-trending fault structures.

Figure 7.1 is a geological map of the Hat property.

Figure 7.1 Hat Project Local Geological Map

==> picture [305 x 501] intentionally omitted <==

Figure provided by Doubleview.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

7.3 MINERALIZATION

The principal minerals of economic interest are chalcopyrite, pyrite and magnetite. All occur in both the tuffaceous meta-andesite formations and in gabbro. Gold values occur with copper in the apparent ratio of about 0.9 g/t gold to 1.0% copper. Free gold has not been observed. Chalcopyrite is brassy yellow, varies from very fine-textured to medium-coarse grained and may occur closely mixed with pyrite or, often, in centimetre wide and wider bands, without associated sulphides. A portion of the copper values are located by analysis in sheared dark andesite in which sulphide (or other) metallic minerals are obscure. Pyrite distribution is erratic: sometimes as thick (up to 40 cm) bands of solid pyrite, and elsewhere as intergrowths with chalcopyrite. Magnetite similarly varies, from disseminations in weakly metamorphosed andesite to strong, almost solid, sections, measurable in 10s of centimetres, in chloritized and/or epidotized andesite, and as a substantial component of gabbro.

Although gold and copper are the metals of principal interest, other metals, including silver, cobalt, scandium and platinum group metals, also are present. The current mineral resource estimate is based on a copper equivalent (CuEq) estimation, comprised of copper, gold, silver and cobalt.

Doubleview has noted that scandium is present within the Hat deposit. However, at this time, scandium is only noted as a potential economic mineral, as it is believed that the scandium will be recovered using secondary processing methods for which metallurgical test work remains to be undertaken.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

8.0 DEPOSIT TYPES

8.1 GENERAL DISCUSSION

Classification of the Hat property remains uncertain as it only vaguely corresponds to the ever-changing definition of a “porphyry”. Observations suggest that the Hat deposit has similar lithological and alteration characteristics to those found at silica-undersaturated alkalic and sub-alkalic porphyry copper-gold systems in BC (e.g. Mount Polley, Galore Creek, Lorraine). Mineralization appears to be strongly structurally controlled, as evidenced by intermittent fracturing of the core with lengths ranging from 0.5 m to 20 m. Local brecciation (hydraulic and magmatic-hydrothermal breccia) also appears to control the copper mineralization. Hypogene copper mineralization (mainly chalcopyrite) is associated with zones of intense pink-orange potassic alteration (k-feldspar + magnetite).

Mitchinson, D.E., et al (2022) noted that British Columbia has two predominant types of porphyry deposits, calc-alkalic and alkalic, with the designations based upon the lithogeochemical character of the deposit’s host or source intrusive rocks. It was also noted that, while calc-alkalic porphyry deposits are common throughout the world in volcano-magmatic arcs, alkalic porphyry deposits are known to occur in only four regions. The distribution limited to British Columbia, New South Wales in Australia, the Philippines and Greece is generally attributed to the unique subduction settings in which these deposits form. While the distribution of alkalic porphyrys is limited, in those instances in which they meet the criteria to be mined, they are generally lucrative because, in addition to copper, they typically have elevated gold and platinum group elements.

8.2 ALKALIC PORPHYRY DEPOSITS

Alkalic porphyry copper–gold deposits have the following features that distinguish them from the more common calc-alkalic porphyry deposits (as summarized by Bissig and Cooke, 2014):

Copper–gold mineralization is spatially and genetically associated with multiple pulses of volumetrically restricted, but compositionally varied, alkaline porphyry intrusions.
In the core of alkalic porphyry deposits, alteration assemblages include calcic and calc-potassic assemblages.
Calc-potassic alteration can be surrounded by potassic alteration that typically contains abundant biotite and magnetite in basaltic host rocks.
Outward from the potassic zone, both inner and outer propylitic assemblages can be found.
Albite-rich sodic alteration can characterize the shallow part of the system.
Alkalic porphyry deposits, in general, are characterized by a relative scarcity of phyllic (sericitic) alteration, and an almost total lack of clay alteration.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

The obvious alteration footprint of alkalic porphyries is also considerably smaller than that in their calc-alkalic cousins, commonly not extending more than 500 m laterally outward from the mineralizing intrusions.
Mineralization is typically hosted by the potassic and/or calc-potassic alteration zones, and potassic alteration is typically spatially more extensive than copper–gold mineralization.
Sulphides in alkalic porphyry deposits are typically zoned from bornite-rich cores to bornite + chalcopyrite and then pyrite + chalcopyrite zones, with an outer barren zone where pyrite is the dominant sulphide. Overall, the sulphide content, especially pyrite, is low compared to calcalkalic porphyry deposits.
Sulphides may occur as breccia cements, disseminated, or in veins together with gangue minerals.
Quartz gangue is restricted to alkalic porphyry deposits related to silica-saturated magmatism.

Figure 8.1 is a schematic comparison between source rocks and alteration zoning associated with calcalkalic and alkalic porphyry deposits (Mitchinson, D.E., et al 2022).

Figure 8.1

Schematic Comparison between Source Rocks and Alteration Zoning Associated with Calc-Alkalic and Alkalic Porphyry Deposits

==> picture [437 x 284] intentionally omitted <==

Figure from (Mitchinson, D.E., Fournier, D., Hart, C.J.R., Astic, T., Cowan, D.C., and Lee, R.G. Geoscience BC Report 2022-07).

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

9.0 EXPLORATION

9.1 DOUBLEVIEW EXPLORATION PROGRAMS ON THE HAT PROJECT

In 2011, on behalf of Doubleview, 479 MMI soil geochemical samples were taken. In 2013, 15 line-km of ground induced polarization (‘IP’) survey were conducted confirming the historic ground IP surveys by Utah Mines. In the same year, diamond drilling was started. 11 holes totaling 2,581.3 m were drilled. In each of the following years, until 2016, additional diamond drilling took place. In 2018, Doubleview signed an option agreement with Hudbay Minerals Canada Ltd. (Hudbay) and, in 2018, Hudbay conducted 35 line-km of ground IP, took 433 soil samples, re-logged existing core and took 101 quarter core samples. The ground IP resulted in a three-dimensional interpretation which helped in guiding the ensuing drill programs. In 2019, Hudbay terminated the option agreement with Doubleview. Thereafter, in every subsequent year, Doubleview has continued to expand the known deposit by diamond drilling programs.

Most of the drilling at the Hat Project has been directed to the so-called “Lisle Zone” where, in early 2014, a significant gold-copper alkalic porphyry-type discovery was announced. The discovery drill hole, H008, (37.25 m with 0.39% copper and 0.258 ppm gold), was positioned on the basis of the interpretation of moderately strong chargeability readings, coupled with strong magnetic readings. Soil geochemical determinations for copper were moderately elevated relative to the general area, but nearby areas were not completely sampled due to ground conditions of deep muskeg. A historic Utah Mines bulldozer trench is located 50 metres south of the collar of drill hole H008. The inaugural drill holes at the Hat Project were drilled at soil sampled zones with high copper values but these holes didn’t return the expected mineralization. Follow-up drilling in 2014 to 2016 and 2019 to 2023 showed that the Lisle Zone has dimensions of at least 2.7 km in the east-west direction, and 1.7 km north-south. Thickness has not been reliably determined, nor has the general outline of the mineralization. Diamond drilling to date totals 31,274 metres in 71 drill holes.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

10.0 DRILLING

10.1 DRILLING PROGRAM

Drilling completed up to November, 2023 includes a total of 71 drill holes and 31,274 metres of core. Three drill holes were not sampled and are ignored in the database, H010, H044 and H048. Exploration drilling was designed to test defined geophysical anomalies and the 3D model of the deposit, based on the historical drill hole data. All drilling at the Hat Project is NQ diamond drilling, and almost 30% of the drill holes were drilled in 2023. Table 10.1 summarizes the yearly drilling from 2013 to 2023. Figure 10.1 is a map of the location of drill collars for the Hat Project.

Table 10.1

Hat Project Drilling Programs from 2013 to 2023.

Year	Number of Drill Holes	Total Drill Length (m)
2013	11	2,725.5
2014	12	5,124.69
2015	2	552.5
2016	5	2,345.32
2017	-	-
2018	-	-
2019	4	1,842.7
2020	3	2,249.11
2021	4	2,476.3
2022*	10	3,460.31
2023	20	10,497.45
Total:	71	31,273.88

*Note: Drill Hole H048 was abandoned after 27 m and the other 9 holes in the program were completed. Table supplied by Doubleview, June, 2024.

Prior to 2023, collars and azimuths of drill holes were surveyed by handheld GPS and compass, respectively, but the referenced drone photos were used to locate the collar and azimuth of drilling during 2023.

Figure 10.1 is a plan view of the Hat Project, illustrating the location and density of drill holes. All drill holes at the Hat Project were drilled using NQ (47.6 mm core diameter) rods and rigging. The resulting core from each drill hole has been geologically logged for lithology, structure, alteration, intrusions (dykes) and mineralization.

The maximum and minimum depth of the holes drilled thus far is 972.3 m (DDH036) and 21.6 m (DDH010), respectively. Figure 10.2 shows the depth of each drilled holes. The average dip of the 71 drilled holes is -64.5° and numerous azimuths were deployed.

Table 10.2 is a compilation of selected significant drill intercepts of mineralization in the Lisle Zone.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

Figure 10.1 Map of the Drill Hole Collars for the Hat Project

==> picture [472 x 308] intentionally omitted <==

Figure supplied by Doubleview, June, 2024.

Figure 10.2 Depth of Each Drill Hole Shown Graphically

==> picture [485 x 167] intentionally omitted <==

Figure supplied by Doubleview, June, 2024.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Table 10.2

Compilation of Selected Significant Drill Hole Intercepts of Mineralization in the Lisle Zone

Drill Hole	Mineralized Interval	Mineralized Interval	Mineralized Interval	Average Assays over the Core Length	Average Assays over the Core Length	Average Assays over the Core Length	Average Assays over the Core Length	Average Assays over the Core Length
	From (m)	To (m)	Core Length* (m)	Ag (g/t)	Au (g/t)	Co (g/t)	Cu (%)	Sc (g/t)
D008	44	400.7	356.7	0.38	0.18	83.3	0.15	30.5
H009	8.2	70.4	62.2	2.7	0.66	106.5	0.29	27.1
H011	15	407.1	392.1	0.7	0.2	91.9	0.24	27.5
H012	151.0	434.0	283.0	0.25	0.21	89.0	0.18	25.9
H013	70.0	320.0	350.0	0.36	0.09	74.3	0.13	25.3
H016	45.7	416.5	370.8	0.32	0.11	77.7	0.14	31.7
H017	221.0	442.4	221.4	0.44	0.24	92.4	0.28	25.9
H018	9.1	314.0	304.9	0.33	0.16	66.2	0.13	28.4
H019	6.1	434.8	428.7	0.25	0.1	53.5	0.12	24.4
H022	45.5	463.8	418.3	0.37	0.25	88.5	0.25	30.3
H023	56.7	470	413.3	0.5	0.22	89.1	0.25	29.1
H026	4.6	804.1	799.5	0.34	0.09	53.5	0.12	29.2
H027	7.6	369.1	361.5	0.32	0.21	71.5	0.21	27.5
H028	99.6	427.4	327.8	0.64	0.1	58.4	0.15	29.7
H031	53.9	526.6	472.7	0.34	0.14	74.6	0.21	29.6
H033	38.4	243.3	204.9	0.9	0.13	63.6	0.14	29.8
H034	9.0	672.9	663.9	0.45	0.18	79.3	0.26	26.2
H035	9	495	486	0.4	0.12	58.6	0.16	27.7
H036	38.6	914.4	875.8	0.32	0.12	47.4	0.15	28.7
H038	6.1	446.4	440.3	0.47	0.08	69.6	0.11	31.9
H039	321.3	468.0	146.7	0.37	0.15	75.1	0.14	30.5
H040	193.4	470.7	277.3	0.78	0.08	87.0	0.15	28.2
H041	66.0	551	485	0.22	0.1	58.4	0.13	30.3
H043	29.8	281.0	251.2	0.37	0.07	73.3	0.13	30.4
H045	28.0	487.0	459.0	0.49	0.09	87.4	0.15	29.5
H046	44.0	359.1	315.1	0.53	0.10	108.8	0.16	23.8
H047	7.6	351.2	343.6	0.55	0.11	73.9	0.12	30.0
H049	42.8	50.0	7.2	1.04	0.02	774.0	0.16	16.2
H050	64.2	342.3	278.1	0.85	0.11	143.9	0.21	29.0
H051	107.9	152.7	44.8	1.78	0.27	221.4	0.51	24.9
H052	183.0	523.8	340.8	0.36	0.24	132.4	0.27	31.6
H053	156.0	204.6	48.6	0.68	0.15	399.4	0.29	28.7
H054	186.0	469.2	283.2	0.49	0.24	102.2	0.23	26.8
H056	189.0	216.0	27.0	0.67	0.11	74.8	0.2	31.3
H057	84.0	124.7	40.7	0.3	0.31	139.1	0.08	35.6
H058	519.3	645.0	125.8	0.78	0.22	82.7	0.49	33.0
H059	294.0	336.1	42.1	0.46	0.49	105.4	0.08	36.1
H060	217	218	1	0.8	1.00	1365.0	0.81	28.1
H061	170	171	1	1.17	1.66	620.0	0.47	15.2
H062	63	64	1	27.8	4.01	284.0	4.42	16.2

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Drill Hole	Mineralized Interval	Mineralized Interval	Mineralized Interval	Average Assays over the Core Length	Average Assays over the Core Length	Average Assays over the Core Length	Average Assays over the Core Length	Average Assays over the Core Length
	From (m)	To (m)	Core Length* (m)	Ag (g/t)	Au (g/t)	Co (g/t)	Cu (%)	Sc (g/t)
H063	302	303	1	1.37	18.4	2330.0	1.87	4.8
H064	43.5	257.2	213.7	0.25	0.21	7.5	0.07	34.6
H065	54.0	158.4	104.4	0.84	0.25	64.6	0.19	31.9
H066	407.0	504.0	97.0	1.32	0.11	159.5	0.44	22.3
H067	9.0	366.0	357.0	0.33	0.33	128.5	0.21	30.7
H068	488.0	591.0	103.0	0.71	0.2	84.6	0.38	35.3
H069	159.0	412.0	253.0	0.45	0.14	68.8	0.21	22.2
H070	58.0	191.4	133.4	0.49	0.31	93.4	0.2	23.8
H071	298.0	380.0	82.0	0.49	0.18	82.0	0.29	25.1

Figure supplied by Doubleview, June, 2024.

*Note: Due to the drilling direction of the holes the true width if the mineralization is open to interpretation outside a block model.

Core recovery was systematically recorded from the commencement of coring to end of the hole, by reconciling against driller’s depth blocks in each core box. Core recoveries are typically between 90% and 100%, with isolated zones of lower recovery. Table 10.3 identifies the drill holes with no core recovery data.

Table 10.3

Summary of Drill Holes and Core Length without Core Recovery Data

Drill Hole Numbers	Number of Drill Holes	Total Drilling Length (m)
H003	1	141.7
H006 to H013	8	2,607.74
H017 to H022	6	2,578.06
H30	1	150.87
Total:	16	5,478.37

Table supplied by Doubleview, June, 2024.

The average of the measured core recoveries for each hole is between 90% to 100% (except in H023 and H057 to H060 that are between 80 to 85%), including zones of lower recovery associated with fault zones. Core loss is marked in the core box by the drillers at the time of drilling or by the geologists while logging. Figure 10.3 graphically illustrates the changes in the core recovery in various drill holes.

Three types of down-hole survey methods have been utilized at the Hat Project since 2013.

REFLEX EZ-TRAC™
Acid Test
Gyro

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

As of the end of the 2023 drilling program, a total of 39% of the drill core had not been down-hole surveyed and these are summarized by year in Table 10.4.

Figure 10.3 Graphical Illustration of the Change in the Core Recovery in Various Drill Holes

==> picture [436 x 163] intentionally omitted <==

Figure supplied by Doubleview, June, 2024.

Table 10.4

Different Types of Down-Hole Survey During Drilling Years as of 2023

Survey Method	Year	Number of Drill Holes by Year	Total Drilling Length Affected (m) by Year	Percentage (%) of Total Drilling
Acid Tests	2014	8	3,267.58	10%
Total:		8	3,267.58	10%
Reflex-EZ-TracTM	2013	4	1,399.20	4%
	2016	1	953.00	3%
	2019	3	1,731.70	6%
Total:		8	4,083.90	13%
Gyro	2020	2	1,754.11	6%
	2021	4	2,476.30	8%
	2022	2	1,019.00	3%
	2023	12	6,553.95	21%
Total:		20	11,803.36	38%
Missing Survey Records	2013	7	1,326.3	4%
	2014	4	1,857.11	6%
	2015	2	552.5	2%
	2016	4	1392.32	4%
	2019	1	111.00	0.4%
	2020	1	495.00	2%
	2022	7	2,441.13	8%
	2023	8	3,943.50	13%
Total:		34	12,119.04	39%

Table supplied by Doubleview, June, 2024.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

10.2 MICON QP COMMENTS

Micon’s QPs have reviewed the Doubleview drilling programs and have noted the following:

1) The drill holes have not been primarily drilled on a grid pattern but, rather, on a circular pattern which is sub-optimal for drilling coverage. This pattern may benefit Doubleview by not needing to permit a greater number of drill platforms but is sub-optimal for extending semihomogeneous drill coverage throughout the deposit for the purpose of estimating a mineral resource. It also hampers the classification of the mineral resources as it leads to seemingly increasing classifications close to surface but decreasing classifications as the drill holes move away from one another.
2) The high percentage of drill holes which are missing survey records (39%), along with the acid tests taken to measure the dip but not the bearing in 2014, is one of the principal reasons for not classifying any mineral resources as measured, at this time.
3) Sixteen drill holes have no core recovery data. However, unless these drill holes have been lost and are not available, a relog of these holes should allow for a reasonable estimate of the core recovery to be made. While Micon’s QPs believe that the core recovery for these holes should fall within the core recovery parameters exhibited by the other drill holes, the lack of recovery data for 22% of the drill holes is one more reason for not classifying measured resources, at this time.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

11.0 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY

11.1 INTRODUCTION

Doubleview has undertaken the preparation and handling of drill samples with best practices in mind and has continued to refine its practices as the Hat Project has developed and funds were available. There is currently a written core logging and sampling procedure in place to ensure that quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) are maintained.

The sample preparation, analysis and security discussed in this section cover the drill programs from 2013 to 2023.

11.2 SAMPLE PREPARATION

At the time of drilling, the core is placed in sequence by the driller into wooden core boxes which are 1.10 m in length and fit 4 rows of NQ diamond drill core. The driller marks each box with the number of the drill hole, the box number for the drill hole and the from – to – core interval information. Wooden blocks are placed after every run (3 m) and marked with the depth in metres. An aluminum tag is placed on the right side of the core box, which is marked with the drill hole number, box number, and from – to – core interval that is stored in the box.

Doubleview began drilling at the Hat Project in 2013 and some of the early drill holes, H006 to H011, were included in the current MRE. During 2013, core logging occurred at the drill site. The core was logged using handwritten logs and the core was sampled using a core splitter, with half the core returned to the core box and the other half sent for assaying. However, it should be noted that only selected samples were sent for analysis. The remaining core (and half sampled core) remained in the core boxes which were closed with a fitted sheet of plywood and stored in stacks at the drill site.

From the 2014 drilling program, and up to the present day, the drill core has been primarily transported to the core shack located near the Hat camp. The core is logged and photographed in the core shack. Since 2022, the core logging information has been directly typed into a standardized and customized excel logging file. During the core logging process, the geologist marks the sample intervals with a sample tag, based on his/her observations, which is stapled to the box. The sample tag includes the drill hole number, from – to – information for the sample, any QA/QC information related to the control samples (blanks, duplicates or standards) that are added to the sample stream and other important information regarding the sample. The sample information is entered in the drill logging file, in addition to geological information, the location of the drill hole, azimuth, dip, depth and any other relevant information.

For sampling, the drill core is cut in equal halves along the sample length, using a core saw, which is equipped with a diamond drill blade. One half of the drill core is placed in a poly-ethylene sample bag together with the corresponding sample tag; the bag is closed with a zip tie. Samples are placed in a rice bag (to a maximum of 15 – 20 kg per rice bag) which is also closed with a zip tie. The rice bags are labelled with the name of the company, the name of the receiving laboratory, and a bag identifier, which includes the drill hole number and the running bag number. Once the rice bags are ready, the

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

information related to the sample numbers, weight, bag number, and date of shipment from the camp, as well as the helicopter load, is recorded in a file. The file is shared with Doubleview’s head office, where the assay laboratory sample request form is prepared. The sample request form is then shared with the receiving laboratory.

When a sample shipment is flown out of the camp, the bags are counted and, at any point where there is a change in the transportation vehicle, the bags are counted and signed for again. Finally, upon receipt of the rice bags in the receiving laboratory, the bags are opened, and all the samples are checked and recorded in the work order. Any discrepancies or issues are reported to Doubleview’s head office by the receiving laboratory and any issues are investigated immediately.

The other half of the drill core is placed back in the core box as either a witness sample or for potential future use in further studies, if needed.

11.3 CORE STORAGE

The remaining half drill core is stored in boxes located near the core shack at the Hat camp, in what is commonly called “the core yard”. The core boxes are assembled on racks or in laydown areas by drill hole. Figure 11.1 is a view of a portion of the core storage area at the Hat camp.

Figure 11.1 View of a Portion of the Core Storage Area at the Hat camp

==> picture [426 x 240] intentionally omitted <==

Photograph dated October, 2023, courtesy of Farshad Shirvani.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

11.4 ASSAY LABORATORIES AND SAMPLE ANALYSIS

11.4.1 Assay Laboratories

The following is a listing of the independent commercial assay laboratories that have been used for the analysis of the drill core samples.

a) 2013 – all samples were prepared in the preparation laboratories of Bureau Veritas Commodities Canada in Smithers and Whitehorse and final analysis took place in Vancouver, BC (formerly ACME Labs).
b) 2014 – samples H011 to H015 were analyzed at ALS Minerals in North Vancouver, BC. The 2014 drill core samples were prepared in the preparation laboratories of Bureau Veritas Commodities Canada in Smithers or Whitehorse and final analysis took place in Vancouver, BC (formerly ACME Labs). Check assays were analyzed at ALS Minerals in North Vancouver, BC.
c) 2015 and 2016 – drill core samples were sent to MSA LABS (formerly MS Analytical) in Langley, BC, for preparation and analysis.
d) 2019 and 2020 – drill core samples, including drill hole H034, were prepared at MSA LAB’s preparation laboratory in Terrace and then sent to Langley, BC for analysis.
e) 2020 – from H035, drill core samples were prepared and analyzed at Bureau Veritas Commodities Canada in Vancouver, BC.
f) 2021 – drill core samples were prepared at the Bureau Veritas Commodities Canada preparation laboratory in Whitehorse and then sent for analysis to Vancouver, BC
g) 2022 and 2023 – drill core samples were prepared and analyzed at ALS Minerals in North Vancouver, BC.

All assay laboratories, as well as their predecessors, have been ISO Certified as follows:

ALS Limited (ALS Vancouver), ISO/IEC 17025:2017
Bureau Veritas Commodities Canada Ltd. (Vancouver), ISO/IEC 17025:2017, (formerly ACME Labs)
MSA LABS INC., ISO/IEC Standard 17025:2017, (formerly MS Analytical)

11.4.2 Assay Procedures

For the drill core sample preparation, samples were crushed and split and a 250 or 500 gram portion was then pulverized to 85% passing a 200 mesh screen.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

During 2013: a 0.5 gram portion was digested in hot aqua regia, followed by determination of 24 elements by induced coupled plasma ignition and an emission spectrometry (ICP-ES) finish. Gold values were obtained using 30 gram samples, by fire assay methods with an atomic absorption finish. Certain core samples were also processed using a four-acid digestion, followed by ICP-ES determination for 35 other elements.

In 2014, gold assays were determined using fire assay with an atomic absorption (AA) finish. The other 45 elements used a four acid digestion, followed by induced coupled plasma/emission spectrometry (ICP-ES) determination for the finish. Samples with high grade copper content (greater than the ICP upper detection limit of 10,000 ppm) were analyzed by aqua regia and multi-acid digestion, with a AAS analysis.

In 2015, 2016, 2019 and parts of 2020, drill core samples were analyzed for gold by fire assay with an AAS finish, while the other 33 elements were determined using a 4-acid with ICP-AES finish, which also applied to high grade samples.

The remaining drill core of 2020, as well as drill core from 2021, was analyzed using fire assay analysis with an ICP finish. The 45 other elements were analyzed using four acid digestion, followed by induced ICP-MS determination. Samples with high grade copper content (greater than the ICP upper detection limit of 10,000 ppm) were analyzed by 4-acid digestion with ICP-ES finish.

Since 2022, all drill core sample assays have been determined using fire assay with ICP finish. All elements of the platinum group, and the other 48 elements underwent 4-acid ICP-MS assays. Over detection limit copper samples were in addition analyzed by 4-acid ICP-AES.

11.5 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QC)

The QA/QC process is designed to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the assay results by identifying and allowing for the prompt correction of potential sources of error or bias in the sampling and analyzing procedures. The QA/QC process helps in providing a high level of confidence to the sampling and assaying results.

In addition to the sample/rock handling guidelines developed by Doubleview to minimize contamination at the exploration site, the use of QA/QC samples assists in increasing the confidence and the validity of sample data at the laboratory level.

During the sample logging process, after approximately every 20 core samples, one of the three types of QA/QC samples (blank, standard or duplicate) is inserted into in the sampling sequence. The location of QA/QC samples is not fixed at 20 core samples and may change due to the geology and at the discretion of the geologist.

11.5.1 Blank Samples

Blank samples are samples which contain only extremely low levels of the mineral being assayed, or, ideally, no minerals. These samples assist in determining if contamination is occurring at the

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

laboratory. Blank samples are recorded in the database and copies of the blank sample tags are attached to the core box in the sequential sampling sequence.

11.5.2 Standard Samples

Standards are generally samples that are purchased from a specialized laboratory, which have a known grade for the specific elements to be assayed. They can be comprised of high, low or median grades for the specific element which is being analyzed. The purpose of including standards into the sample sequence is to test for calibration errors at the laboratory level and QA/QC reports. The usual procedure is to use different standards with varying grades that best represent the expected grades in the samples being tested. A standard which is returned with a value outside the accepted range (given by the standard source laboratory) could indicate poor homogenization of the sample during the preparation stage, or a calibration error of the equipment/personnel handling the samples. Standard samples are recorded in the database and copies of the sample tags are attached to the core box.

11.5.3 Duplicate Samples

There are two types of duplicate samples employed as part of the QA/QC sampling procedures.

1) Core duplicates are a secondary core splits which generally result in two quarter core samples of similar grade, rather than the normal half core sample. If the core duplicates differ in grade by a large amount, it could indicate contamination, improper sampling procedures, or highlighting a potential nugget effect.
2) Laboratory duplicates are internal testing in the laboratory to provide a second assay for a given sample. Laboratory duplicates are listed in the assay certificates. The sample assay results should be similar and if the laboratory duplicates display a large variance, it may indicate mixing, procedure or calibration errors.

Duplicate samples are recorded in the database and copies of the core duplicate sample tags are attached to the core box.

11.6 HAT PROJECT QA/QC SAMPLING DETAILS

For the years 2013 to 2023, the total percentage of QA/QC samples accounts for 4.9% of the total drill core samples. However, the percentage varies for the different drill programs, with a range from 3.0% to 9.6% on a yearly basis. Table 11.1 summarizes the 2013 to 2023 drill programs and number of QA/QC samples on a yearly basis.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Table 11.1

Drill Programs and the Number of QA/QC Samples on a Yearly Basis

Year	Drilling (m)	Number of Core Samples	QA/QC Sample Numbers	QA/QC Sample Numbers	QA/QC Sample Numbers	QA/QC Sample Percentage
			Blank	Standard	Duplicate
2013	2,725.5	925	8	24	10	4.5%
2014	5,124.69	2,439	6	15	59	3.3%
2015	552.5	200	1	5	3	4.5%
2016	2,345.32	905	5	26	6	4.1%
2017	---	---	---	---	---	---
2018	---	---	---	---	---	---
2019	1,842.7	851	0	43	10	6.2%
2020	2,249.11	945	0	28	0	3.0%
2021	2,476.3	1,025	37	37	24	9.6%
2022	3,460.31	1,714	28	32	25	5.0%
2023	10,497.45	4,957	83	91	77	5.1%
Total:	31,273.88	13,961	168	301	214	4.9%

Table supplied by Doubleview, July, 2024.

11.6.1 Standard Samples

The standard reference material used during the drilling programs were mostly purchased from CDN Resource Laboratories Ltd. (CDN Resource Laboratories), but early drill program standards were originally purchased from WCM Minerals. Table 11.2 summarizes the number of each standard used and its analysis for Cu, Au and Ag. These samples can be categorized, based on the amount of Cu%, into three groups of low, medium and high copper percent:

Low Copper content: Cu% less than 0.40%
Medium Copper content: Cu% between 0.40% to 0.60%
High Copper content: Cu% more than 0.60%

126 samples 69 samples 106 samples

Table 11.2

Summary of Standard Samples Used and Grades

Standard Provider	Certified Standard	Number of Samples Used		Assays	Assays
			Cu %	Au (ppm)	Ag (ppm)
CDN Resource Laboratories	CDN-ME-1812	56	0.99	7.86	97.00
	CDN-ME-1414	51	0.22	0.28	18.20
	CDN-ME-1311	47	0.47	0.84	44.90
	CDN-CM-32	26	0.23	---	1.40
	CDN-CM-47	25	0.72	1.13	69.00
WCM Minerals	CU 165	24	0.31	1.42	31.00
	CU 189	20	0.90	0.84	13.00

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Standard Provider	Certified Standard	Number of Samples Used		Assays	Assays
			Cu %	Au (ppm)	Ag (ppm)
CDN Resource Laboratories	CDN-CM-40	18	0.56	1.31	18.00
	CDN-CM-33	17	0.35	---	2.30
	CND-CM-30	5	0.73	1.30	15.90
	CND-CM-24	5	0.37	0.52	4.10
WCM Minerals	CU 193	4	0.54	0.48	3.00
	CU 187	3	0.38	0.51	12.02

Table supplied by Doubleview, July, 2024.

Table 11.3 summarizes the type of standard sample, based upon the copper grade of the sample.

Table 11.3

Type of Standard Sample based upon the Copper Grade of the Sample

Sample Group	Certified Standard	Number of Samples Used	Cu %
Low Grade	CDN-ME-1414	51	0.22
	CDN-CM-32	26	0.23
	CU 165	24	0.31
	CDN-CM-33	17	0.35
	CND-CM-24	5	0.37
	CU 187	3	0.38
Medium Grade	CDN-ME-1311	47	0.47
	CU 193	4	0.54
	CDN-CM-40	18	0.56
High Grade	CDN-CM-47	25	0.72
	CND-CM-30	5	0.73
	CU 189	20	0.90
	CDN-ME-1812	56	0.99

Table supplied by Doubleview, July, 2024.

Four types of standard samples (produced by WCM Minerals) were used from 2013 to 2016, and these were replaced by CND Resource Laboratories standards after 2016 (Table 11.4).

Table 11.4 Summary of the Standard Samples Used by Year

Certified Standard	2013	2014	2015	2016	2019	2020	2021	2022	2023	Total
CDN-CM-32	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	26	26
CDN-CM-33	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	17	17
CDN-CM-40	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	18	18
CDN-CM-47	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	25	25
CDN-ME-1311	---	---	---	2	16	9	12	5	3	47

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Certified Standard	2013	2014	2015	2016	2019	2020	2021	2022	2023	Total
CDN-ME-1414	---	---	---	4	14	11	11	11	---	51
CDN-ME-1812	---	---	---	3	13	8	14	16	2	56
CND-CM-24	4	1	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	5
CND-CM-30	3	2	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	5
CU 165	11	6	3	4	---	---	---	---	---	24
CU 187	---	---	---	3	---	---	---	---	---	3
CU 189	6	6	2	6	---	---	---	---	---	20
CU 193	---	---	---	4	---	---	---	---	---	4
Total:	24	15	5	26	43	28	37	32	91	301

Table supplied by Doubleview, July, 2024.

Copper, gold, silver and molybdenum assays for the standard reference material were monitored for bias and precision. Standards met the QA/QC requirements if the assayed values were within 3 times the standard deviations (‘3 x St.D.’) of the mean calculated standard value, as stated in the reference material certifications. Failure to meet this requirement resulted in a failed standard. Table 11.5 summarizes the total number of failed standard samples for each element.

Table 11.5 Summary of the Total Number of Failed Standard Samples for each Element

		Number of Failed Samplesper Element	Number of Failed Samplesper Element	Number of Failed Samplesper Element	Number of Failed Samplesper Element
Certified Standard	Number of Samples	Ag	Cu	Mo	Au
CDN-CM-32	26	0	1	0	N/A
CDN-CM-33	17	0	1	0	N/A
CDN-CM-40	18	0	4	1	1
CDN-CM-47	25	0	2	0	0
CDN-ME-1311	47	3	0	N/A	0
CDN-ME-1414	51	1	1	N/A	0
CDN-ME-1812	56	3	1	N/A	0
CDN-CM-24	5	2	0	N/A	0
CDN-CM-30	5	0	0	0	0
CU 165	24	2	0	4	2
CU 187	3	0	0	0	0
CU 189	20	0	0	1	0
CU 193	4	0	0	0	0
Total Samples:	301	11	10	6	3
Failed %		3.7%	3.3%	4.2%	1.2%

Table supplied by Doubleview, July, 2024.

Table 11.5 summarizes the maximum percent of failed samples for each element (4.2%) and the minimum (1.2%). The list of failed standard samples shows that there are just two batches with more than 1 failed standard samples:

Batch SMI15000014 for Ag and Mo in H023 (2 samples each).

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Batch VA23207268 for Cu in H057 and H058 (2 samples).

The other batches have a maximum of 1 failed standard sample each, and the precision of the analysis is considered acceptable.

Table 11.6 summarizes the failed standard samples in each batch categorized by element.

Table 11.6

Failed Standard Samples in Each Batch Categorized by Element

Diamond Drill Hole	Sample Tag	Certificate Number	Failed (Ag)	Failed (Cu)	Failed (Mo)	Failed (Au)
H002	2642511	MA0110-MAR16	1
H023	2620301	SMI15000014	1
H023	2620329	SMI15000014	1
H009	2642714	SMI15000016	1
H045	C0049520	VA22276624	1
H045	C0049740	VA22276625	1
H062	H655930	VA23258497	1
H035	B0029231	VAN20002021	1
H035	B0029291	VAN20002513	1
H039	3824360	WHI21000721	1
H040	3824660	WHI21000723	1			1
H051	3850580	VA23007779		1
H052	C0050610	VA23170677		1
H054	C0051740	VA23173454		1
H055	C0051870	VA23189941		1
H056	C0052140	VA23200765		1
H057	C0052280	VA23207268		1	1
H058	C0052380	VA23207268		1
H060	C0053077	VA23251332		1
H061	H655700	VA23258497		1
H036	B0029501	VAN20002562		1
H006	2326825	SMI13000048			1
H011	2327294	SMI13000441			1
H023	2620264	SMI15000014			1
H023	2620278	SMI15000014			1
H057	C0052280	VA23207268		1	1
H028	127600	YVR1710129			1
H024	2642819	MA0110-MAR16				1
H049	C0051400	VA23173434				1
H059	C0053010	VA23251332				1
H035	B0029381	VAN20002331				1
H036	B0029531	VAN20002563				1
H036	B0029771	VAN21000057				1
H039	3824301	WHI21000721				1

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Diamond Drill Hole	Sample Tag	Certificate Number	Failed (Ag)	Failed (Cu)	Failed (Mo)	Failed (Au)
H040	3824660	WHI21000723	1			1
H026	127060	YVR1610183				1

Table supplied by Doubleview, July, 2024.

11.6.2 Blank Samples

Blank samples were inserted into the sampling stream with one blank sample for every 60 consecutive core samples. A total of 168 blank samples were inserted into the drilling program sampling stream from 2013 to 2023. Since 2013, the blank samples have consisted of a variety of non-mineralized materials as follows:

CDN-BL-10 a commercial blank sample available from CDN Resource Laboratories.
Rock-V.
Industrial Dolomite (different brands).
Industrial sand.

Table 11.7 is a summary of the average analyses of the blank samples between 2013 and 2023, based on the analysis of 168 samples. CDN-BL-10 was considered appropriate for Au (<0.01ppm), Pt (<0.01ppm) and Pd (<0.01ppm).

Table 11.7

Summary of the Average Analyses of the Blank Samples between 2013 and 2023

Blank Sample	Number of Samples	Years Sample Used		Au (ppm)	Ag (ppm)	Co (ppm)	Cu (ppm)	Mo (ppm)	Sc (ppm)
CDN-BL-10	7	2013 to 2014	Minimum	0.003	0.067	3.600	3.600	0.400	6.000
			Maximum	0.014	1.000	13.700	56.900	6.667	14.000
			Mean	0.005	0.233	11.857	46.129	5.310	12.167
Rock-V	13	2013 to 2016	Minimum	0.003	0.067	3.000	6.000	0.300	7.000
			Maximum	0.014	0.667	6.667	22.000	6.667	8.000
			Mean	0.005	0.297	4.182	11.359	1.618	7.083
Dolomite	146	2021 to 2023	Minimum	0.001	0.007	0.400	2.100	0.050	0.300
			Maximum	0.070	0.310	4.500	152.200	1.340	1.500
			Mean	0.003	0.140	1.147	12.621	0.408	0.604
Sand	2	2023	Minimum	0.001	0.030	6.000	12.700	0.290	5.800
			Maximum	0.001	0.040	6.900	14.000	0.410	6.600
			Mean	0.001	0.035	6.450	13.350	0.350	6.200

Table supplied by Doubleview, July, 2024.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Various methodologies are employed to assess sample contamination on-site. The average detection limit across all samples is calculated and then multiplied by a predetermined constant (multiplier) to establish a threshold. The statistic parameters for each element are considered to select the best multiplier. The formula for the threshold is as follows:

1) Threshold = Long Term Average of Detection Limit (‘DL’) x Constant Number.

Table 11.8 provides a summary of the average detection limit, the multiplier for each element, the calculated fixed threshold, and the percentage of failed samples for each element. Figure 11.2 illustrates the graphical representation depicting the variations in the primary elements for the blank samples alongside the established fixed threshold.

2) Threshold = Mean of assay + (2 x St.D.)

Irrespective of the outcomes detailed in the preceding section, an alternate methodology has been employed to analyze contamination. This decision was prompted by the utilization of a number of diverse types of blanks and the considerable variations observed in the reported detection limit by laboratories.

Table 11.8 Percent of the Failed Samples According to the Average Detection Limit

		Fixed Threshold	Percentage of Failed Samples(%)
Average of DL in Au	0.002	0.008	4.2
Multiplier	5
Average of DL in Ag	0.064	0.322	1.2
Multiplier	5
Average of DL in Cu	0.386	19.286	15.5
Multiplier	5
Average of DL in Co	0.186	3.726	13.1
Multiplier	5
Average of DL in Mo	0.233	1.165	7.7
Multiplier	5
Average of DL in Sc	0.471	2.354	12.5
Multiplier	5

Table supplied by Doubleview, July, 2024.

Regardless of the outcomes detailed in the preceding section (maximum of 15.5% for failed samples), a different method was considered to analyze sample contamination. This is due to the usage of a number of different types of blank samples with different matrixes and the different types of sample analyses at different laboratories over the years. This resulted in a range of minimum detection limits for the six elements as follows:

Au: 0.001 to 0.005 ppm.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

Ag: 0.01 to 0.5 ppm.
Cu: 0.1 to 10 ppm.
Co: 0.1 to 1 ppm.
Mo: 0.05 to 10 ppm.
Sc: 0.1 to 2 ppm.

The goal of this method is to make it possible to use the industrial blanks in the analysis of the contamination, similar to those produced by the laboratories and have a certificate like CDN-BL-10. To accomplish this, with the exception of Au in CDN-BL-10 which is equal to 0.01 ppm (according to its certificate), the average of each element in 4 groups of blanks, including CDN-BL-10, Dolomite, Rock-V and sand are calculated and listed in Table 11.7. Subsequently, the calculated average of each element is added to twice the standard deviation of the element. Figure 11.3 provides the graphical illustrations of the fluctuations in the assay of each element within four groups of blanks.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 11.2 Assay Changes in the Different Blanks for the Calculated Fixed Thresholds

==> picture [648 x 165] intentionally omitted <==

Figure supplied by Doubleview, July, 2024.

==> picture [648 x 166] intentionally omitted <==

Figure supplied by Doubleview, July, 2024.

==> picture [648 x 167] intentionally omitted <==

Figure supplied by Doubleview, July, 2024.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [648 x 166] intentionally omitted <==

Figure supplied by Doubleview, July, 2024.

==> picture [648 x 166] intentionally omitted <==

Figure supplied by Doubleview, July, 2024.

==> picture [648 x 166] intentionally omitted <==

Figure supplied by Doubleview, July, 2024.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

Figure 11.3 Assay Changes in Six Main Elements and Second Standard Deviation Threshold

==> picture [227 x 152] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [227 x 151] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [227 x 152] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [227 x 151] intentionally omitted <==

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [231 x 154] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [232 x 154] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [226 x 151] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [235 x 151] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [236 x 151] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [225 x 150] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [238 x 151] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [224 x 151] intentionally omitted <==

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [227 x 151] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [227 x 152] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [227 x 151] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [227 x 152] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [227 x 151] intentionally omitted <==

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [227 x 151] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [228 x 151] intentionally omitted <==

Figure supplied by Doubleview, July, 2024.

Table 11.9 summarizes the review on the blank samples according to “two standard deviations + mean” as the fixed threshold. Two samples (namely 3824961 and C0051360) were excluded from the dolomite blank samples, due to their greater deviation, in order to eliminate their effect in potentially increasing the standard deviation. Consequently, these two samples are classified as failed samples.

Table 11.9 Summary of the Four Groups of Blank Samples that Failed

Description	Percentage of Failed Samples	Percentage of Failed Samples	Percentage of Failed Samples	Percentage of Failed Samples
Blank Sample	CDN-BL-10	Dolomite	Rock-V	Sand
Number of Samples	7	144	13	2
Au	14.3%	4.9%	7.7%	0.0%
Ag	14.3%	0.7%	7.7%	0.0%
Co	0.0%	4.2%	7.7%	0.0%
Cu	0.0%	4.9%	7.7%	0.0%
Mo	0.0%	3.5%	7.7%	0.0%
Sc	0.0%	5.6%	7.7%	0.0%

Table supplied by Doubleview, July, 2024.

Overall, the observed increase in metal content within the blank samples appears to be correlated with the brands industrial materials employed. Consequently, it is recommended to consistently utilize a single brand of material throughout the extent of the drilling program or, at the very least, throughout each individual year. If Doubleview is not using a commercial blank sample, then enough samples should be obtained for Doubleview to send several samples of the material to a number of independent commercial assay laboratories, in order to compile an average grade for the elements noted in Table 11.9. Ideally, all of the elements should exhibit appropriately low values for the elements of interest, but it would not be uncommon for some of the material to exhibit minor contaminants, irrespective of the industrial brand utilized.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

11.6.3 Duplicate Samples

Duplicate samples which are intended to assess the precision of the analysis were systematically inserted into the sampling sequence at intervals of 60 consecutive core samples. The duplicates were obtained by quartering the half-core samples during the core cutting process. Due to the inherent characteristics of the mineralized veins present in the core, it is anticipated that the analytical results obtained from two quarter-core samples may exhibit some variance.

A total of 214 duplicate samples were collected during the drilling programs between 2013 and 2023. The graphical representation (Figure 11.4) illustrates the depth of the drill holes along with the corresponding number of samples obtained from each hole. However, Doubleview did not consistently implement duplicate sampling until 2021, and consequently, a number of drill holes lack duplicate samples.

Figure 11.4 Graphical Illustration of the Number of Duplicate Samples in each Drill Hole

==> picture [463 x 163] intentionally omitted <==

Figure supplied by Doubleview, July, 2024.

Figure 11.5 depicts the comparison between the duplicate and original assay results for six elements (Cu, Ag, Au, Co, Mo, Sc). The smallest variations between the analyses of the two duplicate samples are observed in Sc, while the most significant disparities are observed in Ag.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

Figure 11.5 Scatter Diagrams for the Original Sample Assays versus the Duplicate Sample Assays

==> picture [227 x 179] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [227 x 180] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [227 x 179] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [227 x 180] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [227 x 179] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [160 x 9] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Figure supplied by Doubleview, July, 2024.
----- End of picture text -----

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

The percent of the error in duplicate samples was measured by using the Howarth-Thompson method for error analysis. Figure 11.6 illustrates the percent of the samples with similar error percentages within various ranges summarized in Table 11.10.

Table 11.10 Percentage Error Ranges

Percentage Error Range +/-00% - 10% +/-10% - 20% +/-20% - 30% +/-30% - 50% +/-50% - 75% +/-75% - 100%

Table supplied by Doubleview, July, 2024.

Figure 11.6 Pie Charts for the Error Percentage within Various Ranges

==> picture [227 x 138] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [228 x 136] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [227 x 140] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [228 x 141] intentionally omitted <==

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [227 x 139] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [228 x 137] intentionally omitted <==

Figure supplied by Doubleview, July, 2024.

The assay results for the duplicate samples have met the QA/QC requirements for assaying within an acceptable limit of +/- 20%. Table 11.11 shows the percentage of the samples in each of the error ranges. A total of 99% of the samples passed the requirement for Sc. This is likely due to the nature of the scandium mineralization in the rocks at the Hat deposit. Similarly, 94% of the duplicate samples passed the requirement for Co.

For the other elements, an average of 73% passed the requirement that is considered normal, given the genesis of the mineralization of these elements at the Hat porphyry deposit.

Table 11.11 The Percent of the Samples in the Different Error Ranges

Error Range			Percentage of Samples	Percentage of Samples
	Au	Ag	Cu	Co	Mo	Sc
+/-00% - 10%	53%	55%	60%	78%	55%	97%
+/-10% - 20%	21%	14%	17%	16%	18%	2%
+/-20% - 30%	12%	12%	8%	4%	9%	0%
+/-30% - 50%	11%	12%	13%	1%	15%	0%
+/-50% - 75%	3%	7%	1%	0%	3%	0%
+/-75% - 100%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Total:	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%
+/-00% - 20%	73%	69%	77%	94%	73%	99%
+/-20% - 100%	27%	31%	23%	6%	27%	1%

Table supplied by Doubleview, July, 2024.

Figure 11.7 is a graphical representation of the numbers contained in Table 11.11.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

Figure 11.7 Graphical Representation of the Percentages in Table 11.11

==> picture [471 x 249] intentionally omitted <==

Figure supplied by Doubleview, July, 2024.

11.7 MICON QP COMMENTS

Micon’s QP has reviewed Doubleview’s sample preparation, analysis and security program, as well as the QA/QC program. In general, the sample preparation, analysis and security program follow the CIM Mineral Exploration Practices Guidelines and, as a result, the data obtained from the drilling programs can be used as the basis of a mineral resource estimate.

Micon’s QP has also reviewed Doubleview’s QA/QC procedures which have been implemented during the drilling programs at the Hat Project. While Micon’s QP believes that the QA/QC program is sufficient for the assays to be used as the basis of a mineral resource estimate, given the results discussed in this section, a number of areas could be improved upon, as follows:

Increase the QA/QC control sample insertion rate to ensure that industry best practice standards are adhered to.
Use a blank standard which is free of element concentrations for all economically relevant minerals/elements at the Project.
Incorporate check assays into the QA/QC program, where Hat Project rejects and pulps from the primary assay laboratory are sent to a secondary assay laboratory to check or confirm that the first assay laboratory is adequately preparing and assaying the samples from the Hat Project.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

Actively monitor assay sample certificates against the QA/QC data, as soon as the certificates are received. This will catch any assay failures quickly, allowing corrective action to be undertaken and any procedural errors or other errors to be addressed without delay.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

12.0 DATA VERIFICATION

12.1 GENERAL DISCUSSION

This section outlines the steps undertaken by the Micon QPs to verify the data contained within the mineral resource database, as well as commenting on the site inspection of the Hat Project.

Discussions with Doubleview personnel regarding the Hat Project began in April, 2024, with discussions related to the geology, mineralization, deposit type, parameters for the resource model and potential dates for the site visit. Further discussions were held regarding the variography, mineralization model, block modelling, parameters used for the cut-off grade, and the classification of resources, throughout the period in which the MRE was being developed.

12.2 2024 SITE VISIT

The 2024 site visit was conducted between July 20 and July 23, with July 22 being spent on site. For the site visit, the Hat property was accessed via a helicopter flight from Atlin, BC. William Lewis conducted the site visit, accompanied by Reza Hamedi, a geologist with Doubleview. The purpose of the site visit was to independently verify the exploration, drilling and the QA/QC programs undertaken at the Hat Project since 2013.

During the site visit, a number of old drill sites were visited, as well as the current drill site, although, on the day of the site visit, the drill was not operating. Access to the drill sites from the Hat Project camp is provided via ATV trails cut through the underbrush and the use of wooden boardwalks where the trail crosses swampy ground (Figure 12.1).

Figure 12.2 shows the old overgrown collars for drill holes H011 and H012.

Figure 12.1

ATV Trail to Drill Sites with Wooden Boardwalks over Swampy Terrain

==> picture [251 x 189] intentionally omitted <==

Micon site visit.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

Figure 12.2 Overgrown Drill Collars for Holes H011 and H012

==> picture [277 x 208] intentionally omitted <==

Micon site visit.

Figure 12.3 shows the core shack (right) and the core cutting facilities (left) at the Hat camp. Figure 12.4 shows some of the stacked core storage areas at the Hat camp.

Figure 12.3 A View of the Core Shack (right) and the Core Cutting Facilities (left) at the Hat Camp

==> picture [306 x 230] intentionally omitted <==

Micon site visit, photograph supplied by Doubleview.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

Figure 12.4 Part of the Core Storage Area at the Hat Project Camp with Core Shack in Centre Background

==> picture [285 x 214] intentionally omitted <==

Micon site visit.

Figure 12.5 is a partial view of the inside of the core shack, illustrating the core logging racks along one side of the core shack.

Figure 12.5 Partial View of the Inside of the Hat Camp Core Shack

==> picture [302 x 227] intentionally omitted <==

2024 Micon site visit.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Since there is very little mineralized outcrop exposed on the Hat Project, Micon’s QP selected a number of drill hole sample pulps for re-assay, as summarized in Table 12.1.

Table 12.1

2021 to 2023 Drill Hole Sample Pulps Selected for Re-Assay

Drill Hole ID	Sample Tag Number	Original Assay Laboratory Certificate Number	Original Date Assays Finalized
H036	B0029515	VAN20002563	09-Nov-20
H036	B0029532	VAN20002563	09-Nov-20
H036	B0029556	VAN20002563	09-Nov-20
H037	B0029867	VAN20002769	30-Nov-20
H037	B0029922	VAN20002769	30-Nov-20
H037	A0009626	VAN20002964	30-Dec-20
H038	3824023	WHI21000718	08-Dec-21
H038	3824044	WHI21000718	08-Dec-21
H039	3824242	WHI21000721	21-Dec-21
H039	3824306	WHI21000721	21-Dec-21
H039	3824445	WHI21000722	09-Dec-21
H039	3824468	WHI21000722	09-Dec-21
H040	3824491	WHI21000722	09-Dec-21
H040	3824561	WHI21000722	09-Dec-21
H040	3824592	WHI21000722	09-Dec-21
H040	3824644	WHI2100723	09-Dec-21
H041	3824876	WHI21000724	09-Dec-21
H041	3824912	WHI21000724	09-Dec-21
H043	3850290	VA22178507 - Finalized	01-Jul-22
H058	C0052447	VA23207269	2023-08-23
H058	C0052473	VA23207269	2023-08-23
H058	C0052621	VA23216894	2023-08-29
H059	C0052766	VA23216895	2023-09-05
H059	C0052801	VA23216895	2023-09-05
H060	C0053076	VA23251332	2023-11-04
H060	C0053078	VA23251332	2023-11-04
H061	H655516	VA23251338	2023-10-02
H061	H655523	VA23251338	2023-10-02
H061	H655524	VA23251338	2023-10-02
H062	H655808	VA23277831	2023-10-30
H062	H655951	VA23258497	2023-10-20
H063	H650609	VA23300638	2023-12-09
H063	H650618	VA23300638	2023-12-09
H063	H650625	VA23300638	2023-12-09
H063	H650680	VA23300638	2023-12-09
H064	H650767	VA23300640	2023-12-02
H064	H650774	VA23300640	2023-12-02
H065	H655019	VA23308011	2023-12-13

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Drill Hole ID	Sample Tag Number	Original Assay Laboratory Certificate Number	Original Date Assays Finalized
H065	H655022	VA23308011	2023-12-13
H066	H655209	VA23308011	2023-12-13
H066	H655215	VA23308011	2023-12-13
H067	H656054	VA23330023	2024-01-09
H067	H656072	VA23330023	2024-01-09
H067	H656215	VA23341914	2024-01-09
H068	H656351	VA23331400	2023-12-22
H068	H656386	VA23331400	2023-12-22
H068	H651157	VA23341700	2024-01-04
H068	H651167	VA23341700	2024-01-04
H069	H651221	VA23341700	2024-01-04
H069	H651228	VA23341700	2024-01-04
H069	H651407	VA23341703	2024-01-11
H070	H651515	VA23341703	2024-01-11
H070	H651582	VA23341704	2024-01-16
H071	H651766	VA23341704	2024-01-16
H071	H651787	VA23341704	2024-01-16
H071	H651802	VA23341704	2024-01-16
H071	H651901	VA23341709	2024-01-10
H071	H651907	VA23341709	2024-01-10
H071	H651959	VA23341709	2024-01-10

2024 Micon.

Table 12.2 summarizes the details for the selected re-assay sample pulps, along with the original and re-assay information for Cu, Au, Ag, Co and Sc. These samples were resubmitted to the same two laboratories that conducted the original assays (Bureau Veritas and ALS). Both Bureau Veritas and ALS conduct independent assaying for the mineral industry on a world-wide basis.

A review of the original assays versus the re-assay data indicates there is very little variation or bias in the data. Therefore, Micon’s QPs consider that the original assay data can be used as the basis for a mineral resource estimate.

Doubleview is continuing to conduct exploration and infill drilling, at this time. Figure 12.6 shows the drill rig set up and ready to start drilling during the July, 2024 site visit.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Table 12.2

Summary of the Details for the Selected Re-Assay Sample Pulps along with the Original and Re-Assay information for Cu, Au, Ag, Co and Sc.

Assay Laboratory	Drill Hole ID		Drill Hole Sample Interval	Drill Hole Sample Interval	Drill Hole Sample Interval
							Original Sample Assays						Micon Pulp Samples Re-Assay

		From (m)	To (m)	Assay Interval (m)	Sample Tag Number	Au (ppm)	Ag (ppm)	Co (ppm)	Cu (ppm)	Sc (ppm)	Au (ppm)	Ag (ppm)	Co (ppm)	Cu (ppm)	Cu (%)	Sc (ppm)
Bureau Veritas	H036	231.15	234.15	3	B0029515	0.155	0.3	122.2	1,371.1	22	0.165	0.3	115.1	1,423.3		23
	H036	271.3	274.3	3	B0029532	0.031	<0.1	34.8	385.9	15	0.031	<0.1	32.6	365.4		14
	H036	329	330	1	B0029556	1.538	4.6	198.6	27,110	10	1.389	4.2	183.8	>10,000		9
	H037	16	19	3	B0029867	0.009	<0.1	44.5	14.4	41	0.005	<0.1	45.1	12.7		39
	H037	155.45	157.6	2.15	B0029922	0.007	<0.1	25.6	86.2	18	0.006	0.1	26.3	93.9		20
	H037	655.4	656.6	1.2	A0009626	0.231	0.4	69.1	3,625.3	20	0.247	0.5	70.9	3,699.8		20
	H038	70	72	2	3824023	0.019	<0.1	70.9	37.2	37	0.024	<0.1	68.3	34.6		37
	H038	123.83	125	1.17	3824044	0.01	<0.1	34	88.3	41	0.007	<0.1	32.6	93.6		41
	H039	107.8	108.3	0.5	3824242	0.008	<0.1	31.1	18	27	0.005	<0.1	29.1	15.1		27
	H039	261.2	264.2	3	3824306	0.069	0.1	38	808.9	26	0.080	0.1	35.3	788.5		25
	H039	550	551	1	3824445	0.849	2.1	1005.7	12,300	32	0.858	2.0	952.9	>10,000		32
	H039	607	609.3	2.3	3824468	0.004	<0.1	12.8	13.3	33	<0.002	<0.1	11.6	17.5		32
	H040	55.9	57	1.1	3824491	1.184	2.6	51.5	5,381.2	36	1,262	2.2	50.7	5,387.9		37
	H040	223.3	226.2	2.9	3824561	0.044	0.4	37.3	696.1	24	0.034	0.4	34.6	682.0		24
	H040	292	293	1	3824592	0.287	6.6	503.3	6,121.1	25	0.272	6.2	492.9	6,235.6		25
	H040	403.2	404.2	1	3824644	1.178	9.4	494.5	22,860	17	1.177	8.0	507.8	>10,000		16
	H041	243.5	246.5	3	3824876	0.027	<0.1	40	231.5	28	0.028	<0.1	40.8	246.5		29
	H041	314.7	317.7	3	3824912	0.008	<0.1	19.1	96.4	15	0.006	<0.1	18.8	94.1		16
ALS	H043	160	161	1	3850290	0.543	6.33	622	22,200	13.6	0.565	7.25	609	>10,000	2.24	15.0
	H058	314.5	315.5	1	C0052447	0.08	0.08	126.5	669	51.8	0.099	0.09	119.5	671		50.9
	H058	359	360	1	C0052473	0.395	1.02	93	5,320	25.5	0.413	0.90	86.3	5,140		24.6
	H058	577	578	1	C0052621	0.582	1.54	479	10,500	29.3	0.535	1.65	47.4	>10,000	1.050	31.6
	H059	54	57	3	C0052766	0.242	0.46	52.7	820	44.6	0.207	0.42	54.2	770		43.6
	H059	118	119.6	1.6	C0052801	0.324	0.32	90.1	1,105	38.1	0.634	0.27	99.1	1,070		39.0
	H060	74.7	76	1.3	C0053076	1.875	3.51	201	5,470	32.6	1.700	2.89	205	5,680		31.4
	H060	76	77	1	C0053078	1.82	1.39	1095	1,965	16.7	2.38	1.37	1,185	2,180		18.8
	H061	48.4	51	2.6	H655516	0.016	0.05	64	119.5	42.4	0.22	0.05	66.9	128.0		50.5
	H061	64.25	66	1.75	H655523	0.604	0.59	95.8	1,780	32.2	0.587	0.82	101.5	1,755		36.9
	H061	66	69	3	H655524	0.303	0.18	138	258	32.6	0.318	0.18	136.0	240		37.9
	H062	129	130	1	H655808	0.746	0.61	106.5	2,030	46.5	0.696	0.64	106.0	2,150		44.1
	H062	324	327	3	H655951	0.329	0.06	32	252	20	0.248	0.04	31.6	256		1,680
	H063	141	142.5	1.5	H650609	0.341	0.12	78.3	316	22.5	0.346	0.13	80.8	323		21.8
	H063	162	165	3.0	H650618	0.866	3.16	1030	7,560	9.4	0.924	2.83	1,055	7,410		10.6
	H063	177	179	2.0	H650625	0.845	1.62	578	4,960	16.4	0.917	1.52	583	4,850		16.4
	H063	302	303	1.0	H650680	18.4	1.37	2,330	18,700	4.8	>10.0	1.30	2,410	>10,000	1.890	4.7
	H064	45.35	48	2.65	H650767	0.492	0.31	39.8	503	34.6	0.530	0.29	40.4	509		31.4
	H064	55	56	1.0	H650774	6.78	2.37	168.5	4,010	38.4	6.76	2.35	159.5	3,750		36.8
	H065	54	55	1.0	H655019	2.61	8.7	77.2	16,050	27.9	2.64	7.71	74.3	>10,000	1.645	25.3
	H065	56	57	1.0	H655022	7.46	19.65	146	33,800	21.4	7.36	19.30	139.0	>10,000	3.44	18.8

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Drill Hole ID		Drill Hole Sample Interval	Drill Hole Sample Interval	Drill Hole Sample Interval
						Original Sample Assays						Micon Pulp Samples Re-Assay

	From (m)	To (m)	Assay Interval (m)	Sample Tag Number	Au (ppm)	Ag (ppm)	Co (ppm)	Cu (ppm)	Sc (ppm)	Au (ppm)	Ag (ppm)	Co (ppm)	Cu (ppm)	Cu (%)	Sc (ppm)
H066	29.6	30.65	1.05	H655209	0.025	0.09	45	117.5	37.1	0.026	0.12	53.9	162.5		38.2
H066	45	47.6	2.6	H655215	0.013	0.18	68.3	526	48.5	0.015	0.18	65.4	550		44.8
H067	18	19.7	1.7	H656054	0.011	0.18	40	195	47.6	0.012	0.14	40.7	190.5		42.7
H067	60	63	3.0	H656072	0.004	0.05	17.4	85.6	20.6	0.005	0.02	18.9	82.1		23.5
H067	300	301	1.0	H656215	15.05	6.68	1,410	133,500	1.5	15.40	5.85	1,385	>10,000	13.10	1.9
H068	12	15	3.0	H656351	0.008	0.15	34.9	196.5	34.1	0.009	0.15	39.7	190.0		36.7
H068	99.6	101.35	1.75	H656386	0.005	0.08	31.5	77	25	0.008	0.04	36.0	72.4		26.2
H068	550	551	1	H651157	1.095	1.7	92.8	7,900	31.3	0.934	1.82	97.2	8,340		31.8
H068	563	564	1	H651167	0.808	8.48	435	57,600	11.8	0.823	8.33	442	>10,000	5.85	12.6
H069	55.9	58	2.1	H651221	0.021	0.16	47.3	187	27.7	0.022	0.18	44.1	206		30.1
H069	74	75	1	H651228	0.05	1.02	91.3	1,125	24.4	0.050	1.03	97.4	1,165		28.6
H069	374.95	375.95	1	H651407	0.103	0.15	41.3	1,160	23	0.102	0.14	39.4	1,175		19.9
H070	42	45	3	H651515	0.06	0.11	26	181.5	17.6	0.063	0.13	28.2	196.0		18.3
H070	159	162	3	H651582	0.04	0.08	35	275	16.2	0.031	0.10	35.2	268		15.9
H071	46	48	2	H651766	0.011	0.11	30.1	149.5	22.9	0.011	0.12	30.2	155.5		22.5
H071	102	105	3	H651787	0.039	2.35	61.2	1,595	35.9	0.052	2.21	59.3	1,585		38.2
H071	132	135	3	H651802	0.148	0.09	46.9	209	30.5	0.057	0.10	47.7	209		32.2
H071	302	303	1	H651901	<0.001	0.78	196	3,490	27	0.436	0.83	200	3,710		25.6
H071	308	309	1	H651907	0.364	0.67	113	4,200	26.9	0.385	0.75	113.0	4,410		24.9
H071	396	398	2	H651959	0.032	0.09	26.2	446	20.4	0.030	0.12	26.6	483		20.2

2024 Micon.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 12.6 Drill Rig Set-Up on Drill Hole During July, 2024 Site Visit

==> picture [298 x 224] intentionally omitted <==

Micon site visit, photograph supplied by Doubleview.

12.3 HAT PROJECT DATABASE DISCUSSION

The Hat Project database was provided by Doubleview. The master database contains collar, survey, interval information regarding assays, alteration and lithology. Drilling completed up to November, 2023, is part of the Project database used for the 2024 Hat MRE. The database includes a total of 71 drill holes and 31,273.88 metres of core. Three drill holes were not sampled and are ignored in database i.e. H010, H044 and H048.

The master database also contains basic information about magnetic and geotechnical data derived from the drill holes.

12.4 MICON QP COMMENTS

Micon’s QPs have conducted a review of the exploration and drilling programs undertaken since 2013, including Doubleview’s QA/QC program and database. Based on their review, Micon’s QPs consider that the database generated for the Hat Project is adequate for use as the basis of a mineral resource estimate. The database is also sufficiently reliable to be used as the basis for further work and to conduct further economic studies.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

13.0 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING

13.1 INTRODUCTION

The Hat Project is situated in the Triassic Stikinia Terrane of North-Western BC, Canada, which hosts multiple alkalic copper-gold (Cu-Au) porphyry deposits. Based on core logging interpretations, the HAT deposit has the lithological and alteration features of a silica-undersaturated alkalic Cu-Au porphyry system. This type of mineral deposit is found throughout the western cordillera of North and South America. Historical mineralogical investigations on samples of mineralogical material from the HAT deposit (Read P.B. 1979, 2014, McLeod J.A. 2014 and Payne J.G. 2021) suggested that the mineralogy was indicative of a moderate temperature replacement type deposit and possibly skarn related. Samples showed that strong brecciation of the host rock was followed by episodes of chalcopyritepyrite mineralization. Alteration minerals associated with chalcopyrite and pyrite included chlorite, epidote and tremolite, with minor calcite. The presence of disseminated chalcopyrite in strongly altered diorite in multiple samples suggested that the heat source for the deposit might be a deeperseated intrusive body characteristic of a porphyry system.

Figure 13.1 is a view of a polished section of HAT HO-34-19 sample showing dominant chalcopyrite and pyrite mineralization, with associated chlorite and tremolite.

Figure 13.1 Polished Section of HAT HO-34-19 Sample Showing Dominant Chalcopyrite (cp) and Pyrite (py) Mineralisation with Associated Chlorite (ct) and Tremolite (tr)

==> picture [370 x 277] intentionally omitted <==

Figure supplied by Tetra Tech.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview commissioned Coffey Geotechnics Ltd. (Coffey Geotechnics), a Tetra Tech Company (Tetra Tech), to specify and direct quantitative mineralogical and metallurgical test work aimed at establishing the extractability of copper (Cu), cobalt (Co), gold (Au) and palladium (Pd) from the Hat Copper Porphyry, particularly the extractability of Co for its potential inclusion in the calculation of the Cu equivalent grade. The metallurgical test work program was conducted by Sepro Laboratories (formerly known as Met-Solve Laboratories Inc), Langley, BC under the direction of Tetra Tech.

13.2 METALLURGICAL TEST WORK

Tetra Tech specified a preliminary batch flotation test work program, which was detailed in a technical memorandum of 20 January, 2021, titled “Cobalt Flotation – Metallurgical Test Work Procedure” (782SWIN03511AA-MEM-001A). The test work was aimed at producing a high-gold, low-cobalt-copper concentrate and a low-gold, high-cobalt-pyrite concentrate. The test work also involved the selection of appropriate sample intervals from the drill core assay database provided by Doubleview and providing sample compositing instructions to the laboratory. Summary head grade information for the composite sample prepared for the test work is shown in Table 13.1.

Table 13.1

Head Grade of Key Elements

Cu(%)	Co(g/t)	Fe(%)	STotal(%)
0.22	199	11.5	2.4
Key:% = percent, Fe = Iron, g/t = grams per tonne, S = Sulphur. Table supplied by Tetra Tech.

Met-Solve Laboratories completed the specified test work program between January and April, 2021. The primary test work reference document is the Met-Solve report, “Doubleview Gold Corp, Metallurgical Test work Report for the Hat Project”, dated 18 June 2021.

The test work was conducted on a single composite sample and comprised:

Head assays.
Gravity concentration test.
Rougher flotation tests.
Cleaner flotation tests.

Quantitative microscopy investigations had indicated the presence of relatively coarse gold in association with pyrite, so it was decided to assess the effectiveness of gravity recovery for gold, before commencing the flotation test work.

The test work sample was prepared by crushing and grinding and then splitting into two sub-samples. The first sub-sample was assigned as “Gravity “and the second was assigned “Flotation”. The gravity sample was processed by gravity concentration, with the intention of recovering any coarse gold. The gravity tails and the “Flotation” sample were subjected to the same flotation sequence, illustrated in

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

Figure 13.2, to produce a high-gold, low-cobalt-copper concentrate and a high-cobalt, low-gold-pyrite concentrate. Full details of the procedure were provided in the earlier technical memorandum.

Figure 13.2 Flotation Test Sequence

==> picture [380 x 264] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [116 x 9] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Figure supplied by Tetra Tech.
----- End of picture text -----

13.3 TEST SAMPLES HEAD ASSAYS

The head samples were analyzed by conventional acid digestion methods followed by Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectroscopy (ICP-MS) providing the standard suite of 36 elements. Fire assay was used to determine 4 PGE (platinum group elements) + Au, with Laboratory Equipment Corporation (LECO) combustion analysis for sulphur. A summary of the head assays is provided in Table 13.2.

The assay data for the key elements (Cu, Co, S and Fe) presented in Table 13.2 are comparable to the head grades for the composite sample as calculated from the geological data base (Table 13.1).

Table 13.2 Head Assays

Ag	Al	As	Ba	Be	Bi	Ca	Cd	Co	Cr	Cu	Fe	Au
ppm	%	ppm	ppm	ppm	ppm	%	ppm	ppm	ppm	ppm	%	ppm
2.9	6.71	10.5	595	<05	--	5.1	<0.5	136.5	193	1,958.5	11.6	0.37

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Ga	K	La	Li	Mg	Mn	Mo	Na	Ni	P	Pb	Pt	Sb
ppm	%	ppm	ppm	%	ppm	ppm	%	ppm	ppm	ppm	ppm	ppm
20	1.39	11	<10	4.29	2,289.5	6	1.32	89	899.5	<2	0.01	13

Sc	Sr	Th	Ti	Tl	V	W	Zn	Zr	S	S	S	Pd
ppm	ppm	ppm	%	Ppm	ppm	ppm	ppm	ppm	%	%	%	ppm
29.5	201.5	<8	0.39	<10	247.5	--	116	26.5	2.06	0.05	2.01	<0.01

Key: < = less than, Ag = silver, Al = aluminium, As = arsenic, Ba = barium, Be = beryllium, Bi = bismuth, Ca = calcium, Cd = cadmium, Cr = chromium, Ga = gallium, K = potassium, La = lanthanum, Li = lithium, Mg = magnesium, Mn = manganese, Mo = molybdenum, Na = sodium, Ni = nickel, P = phosphorous, Pb = lead, ppm = parts per million, Pt = platinum, Sb = antimony, Sc = scandium, Sr = strontium, Th = thorium, Ti = titanium, Tl = thallium, V = vanadium, W = tungsten, Zn = zinc, Zr = zirconium. Table supplied by Tetra Tech.

13.4 GRAVITY CONCENTRATION TESTS

Met-Solve completed a single gravity concentration test on the HAT composite sample. The objective of the test was to understand the amenability of gold to gravity concentration, with the intention of producing a gold concentrate on a sample ground to a characteristic particle size of P80 = 75 microns (µm).

The test work indicated that 10.9% of the gold could be recovered to a gravity concentrate product with a grade of 10.8 g/t Au, at a concentration ratio of 250:1. The tails from the gravity concentration tests were then used as the feed for a rougher flotation test.

13.5 PRELIMINARY FLOTATION TESTS

Met-Solve completed rougher and scavenger flotation tests on both a composite head sample and on the gravity tails. The concentrate products were then subjected to multiple stages of cleaning with interstage concentrate regrind, according to the prescribed procedure (Figure 13.2). The flotation test work conditions for both test sequences are summarized in Table 13.3.

Table 13.3

Flotation Test Conditions – Gravity Tails

Circuit	Stage	Grind P80 (µm)	pH	Reagents
Cu	Rougher	75	10.5 - 11	Lime, NaCN, SIPX, MIBC, M-3477
	Cleaner	35 - 50	11
Co - Pyrite	Rougher	75 35 - 50	6.5	H2SO4, CuSO4, PAX, M-3477, MIBC
	Cleaner		6.5

Key: CuSO4 = copper sulphate, H2SO4 = sulphuric acid, MIBC = Methyl Isobutyl Carbamate, NaCN = Sodium Cyanide, PAX = Potassium Amyl Xanthate, SIPX = Sodium Iso-propyl Xanthate. Table supplied by Tetra Tech.

Summary flotation test work results are shown in Table 13.4 and Table 13.5.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Table 13.4 Rougher Scavenger Flotation Results

	Elements	Grade		Recovery (%)	Recovery (%)
		Gravity + Flotation	Flotation	Gravity + Flotation	Flotation
Head	Cu(%)	0.2	0.21	---	---
	Co(ppm)	132	131	---	---
	Au(g/t)	0.36	0.32	---	---
GravityConcentrate	Au(g/t)	10.7	‘---	10.8	‘---
Copper Concentrate	Cu(%)	1.33	0.8	81.3	76.1
	Co(ppm)	226.1	172.9	19.1	26.3
	Au(g/t)	1.75	1.03	54.3	63.6
Pyrite Concentrate	Cu(%)	0.19	0.29	4.7	5.5
	Co(ppm)	1,404.5	1,605	48.6	47.6
	Au(g/t)	1.63	1.87	20.7	22.5
Tails	Cu(%)	0.03	0.05	14.0	15.8
	Co(ppm)	0.48	40	32.3	22.3
	Au(g/t)	0.05	0.05	14.2	11.3

Table supplied by Tetra Tech.

Table 13.5 Cleaner Flotation Results

	Elements	Grade		Recovery (%)	Recovery (%)
		Gravity + Flotation	Flotation	Gravity + Flotation	Flotation
Copper Concentrate	Cu(%)	27.3	13.8	7.8	60.6
	Co(ppm)	470	1160	0.2	8.1
	Au(g/t)	6.91	12.18	1	34.5
Pyrite Concentrate	Cu(%)	0.14	0.13	0.1	0.7
	Co(ppm)	2,620	2,530	1.9	23.6
	Au(g/t)	2.47	2.66	0.6	10.1

Table supplied by Tetra Tech.

The results presented in Table 13.4 demonstrate that it is possible to produce a high-gold, low-cobaltcopper concentrate and a high-cobalt, low-gold-pyrite concentrate from both sequences of tests, gravity and flotation, as well as direct flotation. The results also demonstrate that gravity gold recovery is relatively low and has little effect on the overall gold recovery, as the tails Au grade is the same for both sequences of test at 0.05 g/t.

The results in Table 13.5 indicate that a saleable copper concentrate and a high cobalt pyrite concentrate can be produced by subsequent cleaner flotation steps. Although the cleaner recoveries are not high, it is important to note that this test work program was conducted with the objective of demonstrating the recoverability of Cu and Co into separate concentrates. The test work was conducted under standard, as opposed to fully optimized conditions which will be determined as part of future test work programs. Further mineralogical quantitative evaluation of minerals by scanning

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

electron microscopy (QEMSCAN) investigations of the flotation tails will improve the understanding of the liberation characteristics of both Cu and Co minerals. In addition, future optimization work will aim to improve the selectivity, grades, and recoveries of the economic minerals.

13.6 MINERALOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS

Mineralogical analyses by QEMSCAN Particle Mineral Analyses (PMA), along with a specific mineral search (SMS) for cobalt bearing minerals, was completed by ALS metallurgy. The QEMSCAN analysis was completed on two flotation tailing samples.

Rougher Scavenger Tailings.
Cu 1st Cleaner Tailings.

The results from the PMA analyses are summarized in Table 13.6.

Table 13.6 PMA Analysis Summary

Mineral	Content - %	Content - %
	Cu 1stCleaner Tailings	Rougher Scavenger Tailings
Copper Sulphides	0.33	0.12
Cobalt Minerals	0.02	<0.01
Pyrite	1.69	0.12
Amphibole/Pyroxene	31.90	32.90
Chlorite	24.70	21.20
Feldspars	22.20	26.00
Calcium Carbonates	4.00	4.00
Iron Oxides	3.60	3.60
Quartz	2.70	1.30
Epidote	2.50	4.00
Titanium Minerals	1.40	1.40
Biotite/Phlogopite	1.30	1.80
Muscovite	0.90	1.60
Apatite	0.60	0.50
Others	2.30	1.30
Total	100	100

Table supplied by Tetra Tech.

ALS test work has indicated that both samples:

Comprise non-sulphide gangue minerals, the most predominant being amphibole / pyroxene, chlorite and feldspars.
Copper was contained within copper sulphide minerals, primarily chalcopyrite, with trace amounts of bornite, chalcocite and covellite.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

Cobalt was associated primarily within two forms in the sample:
Within cobalt sulphide minerals.
Within the mineral structure of pyrite.

13.6.1 Cobalt Liberation

It was reported that approximately 22% of the cobalt minerals in the rougher scavenger tailings and approximately 45% of the cobalt minerals in the 1st cleaner tailings were liberated at a particle size of finer than 14 microns (μm).

13.6.2 Copper Losses

It was reported that the copper losses in the rougher scavenger tailings were primarily in the form of coarser binaries with non-sulphide gangue (accounting for 47% of the Cu) and ultrafine (<13 μm) liberated copper sulphide particles (accounting for 42% of the Cu).

The copper losses in the 1st cleaner tailings were primarily in the form of coarser binaries, with nonsulphide gangue (accounting for 30% of the Cu) and ultrafine liberated copper sulphide particles of (about 53% of the Cu).

13.7 SUPPLEMENTARY PGE ANALYSIS

Palladium (Pd) is commonly associated with copper porphyry mineralization and drill hole intercepts have indicated the presence of Pd at low levels. During flotation, the Pd will distribute amongst the various products and a proportion will end up in concentrates, which may represent an additional credit. Consequently, it was decided to check the Pd content of test work samples. The method employed was nickel sulphide fusion, followed by neutron activation analysis (INAA). This method is extremely sensitive and can detect relative atomic abundance of many elements at background levels associated with crustal rocks. The drawback is that fusion samples can remain radioactive for years. There are alternatives, such as ICP-AES and Particle Induced X-ray Emission (PIXE), and these procedures can be considered for future studies. Results for all six PGE analyses are shown in Table 13.7.

Table 13.7

Hat Summary PGE Analyses – Indicated Grades and Recoveries

XN100-Head		PGE Element Assays (ppb)	PGE Element Assays (ppb)	PGE Element Assays (ppb)	PGE Element Assays (ppb)
	Os	Ir	Ru	Rh	Pt	Pd
Head Sample	<2	0.6	5	0.8	---	12
XN301- Cleaner Flotation on Head Composite Sample
Products
Co-Pyr 2ndCleaner Concentrate	<2	3.0	<5	3.9	6	22
Co- Pyr Scavenger Tails	<2	1.9	<5	3.2	6	9

Key: Ir = iridium, Os = osmium, ppb = parts per billion, Rh = rhodium, Ru = ruthenium. Table supplied by Tetra Tech.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

==> picture [203 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

The results show that Pd and Rhodium (Rh) are concentrated in the copper concentrate, although the level of concentration is limited. The inclusion of Pd recovery in future flotation optimization studies is something that might be considered. PGE represents a potential credit as these elements are recovered to anode slimes in the copper refinery.

13.8 INITIAL RESULTS OF GRAVITY AND FLOTATION TEST WORK

The overall results of the initial test work program and metallurgical extraction characteristics are indicated in Table 13.8.

Table 13.8

Hat Summary Gravity and Flotation Results – Indicated Grades and Recoveries

Sample	Metal	Grade	Grade	Recovery (%)	Recovery (%)
		Gravity Tails	Composite	Gravity Tails	Composite
Head	Cu(%)	0.20	0.21	---	---
	Co(ppm)	132	131	---	---
	Au(g/t)	0.36	0.32	---	---
GravityConcentrate	Au(g/t)	11	---	11	---
Copper Concentrates	Cu(%)	27	14	81	76
	Co(ppm)	470	1,160	19	26
	Au(g/t)	7	12	54	64
Pyrite Concentrate	Cu(%)	0.1	0.1	5.0	6.0
	Co(ppm)	2,620	2,530	49	48
	Au(g/t)	3	3	21	23
The Combined Concentrates	Cu(%)	---	---	86	82
	Co(ppm)	---	---	68	74
	Au(g/t)	---	---	86	87

Table supplied by Tetra Tech.

13.9 DIRECT ROUGHER – CLEANER FLOTATION TEST ON HEAD COMPOSITE

Owing to the limited benefits of gravity separation, a rougher-cleaner flotation test was conducted on the head composite sample, to compare with the performance as achieved on the gravity tailings sample. To improve the recovery of Cu and Co to the respective Cu and Co concentrates, the cleaner flotation procedure was adjusted by increasing the SIPX from 5 g/t to 25 g/t and adding 10 g/t AERO 3477 to the Cu/Au circuit. In each cleaner stage of the Co/Pyr circuit, approximately 50 g/t of CuSO4 was added to activate the pyrite. The results of this test are shown in Table 13.9.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Table 13.9

Hat Rougher-Cleaner Flotation Results – Indicated Grades and Recoveries

Product	Weight %
			Assays, %, g/t1, ppm2							Distribution %

		Au1	Ag1	Cu	Co2	Fe	S	Au	Ag	Cu	Co	Fe	S
Cu 2nd Clnr Conc	0.9	12.18	68.0	13.8	1,160.0	28.6	29.2	34.5	29.8	60.6	8.1	2.3	13.9
Cu 2ndClnr Tails	3.6	0.81	8.0	0.42	150.0	12.6	1.8	9.0	13.7	7.1	4.1	3.9	3.3
Cu 1st Clnr Conc.	4.5	3.12	20.2	3.15	355.5	15.8	7.3	43.5	43.6	67.7	12.2	6.1	17.2
Cu 1stClnr Tails	15.5	0.42	<1	0.11	120.0	11.8	1.1	20.2	7.4	8.4	14.1	15.8	8.6
Cu Rghr Conc.	20.0	1.03	5.3	0.80	172.9	12.7	2.5	63.6	51.0	76.1	26.3	21.9	25.8
Co-Pyr 2nd Clnr Conc.	1.2	2.66	10.0	0.13	2,530.0	45.9	54.5	10.1	5.9	0.7	23.6	4.9	34.7
Co-Pyr 2ndClnr Tails	1.0	2.19	8.0	0.38	1,790.0	35.0	37.8	6.6	3.7	1.8	13.3	2.9	19.2
Co-Pyr 1st Clnr Conc.	2.2	2.45	9.1	0.24	2,201.7	41.1	47.1	16.7	9.6	2.5	36.9	7.8	53.9
Co-Pyr 1stClnr Tails	1.7	1.11	6.0	0.37	830.0	21.0	14.3	5.8	4.9	3.0	10.7	3.1	12.6
Co-Pyr Rghr Conc.	3.9	1.87	7.8	0.29	1,605.0	32.3	32.8	22.5	14.5	5.5	47.6	10.9	66.5
Co-Pyr Scavenger Con	3.0	0.27	2.0	0.19	170.0	12.6	1.5	2.5	2.8	2.6	3.8	3.2	2.4
Co-Pyr Scavenger Tails	73.2	0.05	<1	0.05	40.0	10.1	0.1	11.3	31.6	15.8	22.3	64.0	5.3
Calculated Head	100.0	0.32	2.1	0.21	131.3	11.6	1.92	100	100	100	100	100	100
Assayed Head		0.37	2.3	0.20	136.3	11.7	1.96

Table supplied by Tetra Tech.

==> picture [161 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

13.10 SCANDIUM

The initial test work and analysis also showed that geologic materials derived from the Hat Project contained scandium at elevated levels, above that normally associated with crustal rocks. The test work also showed that most of the scandium reported to the flotation tailings. Test work carried out in October, 2023 focused on the treatment of flotation tailings for the recovery of scandium into an intermediate product suitable as feedstock for a scandium recovery process.

Table 13.10 Hat Scandium Recovery Data

Element	H.G. (ppm)		Recoveries	Recoveries		Metal Balance
		Stage 1	Stage 2	Stage 3	Stage 4
Sc	10.30	9.10%	0.00%	89.15%	9.71%	107.96%
Al	10,800	2.97%	0.00%	86.19%	13.81%	102.97%
Fe	24,750	94.34%	0.00%	5.20%	5.02%	100.00%

Table supplied by Tetra Tech.

The test work has demonstrated that 94% of the iron can be rejected as a primary precipitate product and that scandium and aluminium can be recovered into a secondary phosphate precipitate. Total scandium recovery into secondary products was greater than 90%. Metals accountability was generally good with Sc 108%, Al 103%, and Fe 100%. Figure 13.3 graphically illustrates the Sc recovery through RQ510 sequential metal precipitation. Figure 13.4 shows the distribution of the primary metals to the various products.

After recovery of scandium to a secondary precipitate and to recover scandium to a final product such as an oxide, the precipitate must be redissolved in acid media, typically sulphate or chloride. The scandium can then be separated by either ion exchange (IX) or solvent extraction (SX). The scandium is then recovered from the strip solution of IX or SX by precipitation as a salt, such as a hydroxide or carbonate. The hydroxide or carbonate is then converted to the oxide by calcination.

Industry experience indicates that scandium IX recoveries are typically in the range of 90% to 99%, with precipitation efficiencies between 95% and 99%. It is proposed that recoveries of 98% be used in each case as the basis of overall recovery. The overall scandium recovery is then 91.6% x 98% x 98% = 88%. This compares with the more conservative estimate of 56% based on the earlier work.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

==> picture [161 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

Figure 13.3 Scandium Extraction and Precipitation Data

==> picture [410 x 269] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

HAT Project Sc Recovery
RQ510 Sequential Metals Precipitation
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% Solution
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4
Sc Al Fe
Metals Recover (M %)
----- End of picture text -----

Figure supplied by Tetra Tech.

Figure 13.4 Scandium Separation Precipitates

==> picture [403 x 227] intentionally omitted <==

Figure supplied by Tetra Tech.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [161 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

13.11 METALLURGICAL RECOVERIES

The initial metallurgical test work has shown that the recoveries shown in Table 13.11 below can be achieved (refer also Table 13.9). Except for scandium, these are the recovery factors recommended for the purposes of calculating the copper equivalent grade. It is recommended that scandium values be excluded until such time as production of scandium trioxide or an alternative product from Hat materials has been demonstrated.

Table 13.11 Preliminary Recovery Data

Element	Overall Recovery (%)
Copper	84
Cobalt	78
Gold	89
Silver	68
Scandium	88*

*Estimated from initial precipitation data.

Table supplied by Tetra Tech.

13.12 CONCLUSIONS

The objectives of the metallurgical test work program were achieved, demonstrating the recoverability of cobalt. Cobalt values can now be included in the calculation of copper equivalent grade. It may also be possible, with further work, to include PGE, specifically Pd, in the calculation with further work.

The flotation test work has been conducted under standard conditions, using conventional grinds and reagents. It should be possible to demonstrate improvement in selectivity, recovery and grade with further optimisation and development.

From a project development, capital and operating cost, environmental and permitting perspective, it is always preferable to produce concentrates for sale to a smelter. Sale of copper concentrates should not present any difficulty. Sale of a cobalt concentrate may be more difficult, ideally to a smelter that is short of iron and sulphur units. Perhaps a Ni/Cu/PGE smelter in the Sudbury area or an overseas smelter may represent potential off-takers.

If the resource is sufficiently large and potentially long lived, more technologically complex extraction processes, including pyrometallurgical and hydrometallurgical treatment of concentrates, can be considered. Recovery of scandium from flotation tails is a realistic prospect, as an intermediate product suitable as feed to a scandium recovery process has already been produced.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

==> picture [161 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

14.0 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE

14.1 INTRODUCTION

The MRE contained in this section the initial MRE for the Hat Project. The MRE was completed independently by Micon with input from the geological personnel of Doubleview. Micon’s Engineers and Geoscientists British Columbia (EGBC) Permit to Practice Number is 1001528.

William Lewis, P.Geo., and Chitrali Sarkar, P.Geo., who are independent of Doubleview and are Qualified Persons (QPs) within the meaning of NI 43-101, are responsible for the mineral resource estimate disclosed in this report.

14.2 CIM RESOURCE DEFINITIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS

All resources and reserves presented in a Technical Report must follow the current CIM Definitions and Standards for mineral resources and reserves or a similar standard, such as the Australasian JORC Code. The latest edition of the CIM Definitions and Standards was adopted by the CIM council on May 10, 2014, and includes the following resource definitions:

“Mineral Resources are sub-divided, in order of increasing geological confidence, into Inferred, Indicated and Measured categories. An Inferred Mineral Resource has a lower level of confidence than that applied to an Indicated Mineral Resource. An Indicated Mineral Resource has a higher level of confidence than an Inferred Mineral Resource but has a lower level of confidence than a Measured Mineral Resource.”

“A Mineral Resource is a concentration or occurrence of solid material of economic interest in or on the Earth’s crust in such form, grade or quality and quantity that there are reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction.”

“The location, quantity, grade or quality, continuity and other geological characteristics of a Mineral Resource are known, estimated or interpreted from specific geological evidence and knowledge, including sampling.”

“Material of economic interest refers to diamonds, natural solid inorganic material, or natural solid fossilized organic material including base and precious metals, coal, and industrial minerals.”

“The term Mineral Resource covers mineralization and natural material of intrinsic economic interest which has been identified and estimated through exploration and sampling and within which Mineral Reserves may subsequently be defined by the consideration and application of Modifying Factors.”

“Inferred Mineral Resource”

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

==> picture [161 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

“An Inferred Mineral Resource is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity and grade or quality are estimated on the basis of limited geological evidence and sampling. Geological evidence is sufficient to imply but not verify geological and grade or quality continuity.”

“An Inferred Mineral Resource has a lower level of confidence than that applying to an Indicated Mineral Resource and must not be converted to a Mineral Reserve. It is reasonably expected that the majority of Inferred Mineral Resources could be upgraded to Indicated Mineral Resources with continued exploration.”

“An Inferred Mineral Resource is based on limited information and sampling gathered through appropriate sampling techniques from locations such as outcrops, trenches, pits, workings and drill holes. Inferred Mineral Resources must not be included in the economic analysis, production schedules, or estimated mine life in publicly disclosed Pre-Feasibility or Feasibility Studies, or in the Life-of-mine plans and cash flow models of developed mines. Inferred Mineral Resources can only be used in economic studies as provided under NI 43-101.”

“Indicated Mineral Resource”

“An Indicated Mineral Resource is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity, grade or quality, densities, shape and physical characteristics are estimated with sufficient confidence to allow the application of Modifying Factors in sufficient detail to support mine planning and evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit.”

“Geological evidence is derived from adequately detailed and reliable exploration, sampling and testing and is sufficient to assume geological and grade or quality continuity between points of observation.”

“An Indicated Mineral Resource has a lower level of confidence than that applying to a Measured Mineral Resource and may only be converted to a Probable Mineral Reserve.”

“Mineralization may be classified as an Indicated Mineral Resource by the Qualified Person when the nature, quality, quantity and distribution of data are such as to allow confident interpretation of the geological framework and to reasonably assume the continuity of mineralization. The Qualified Person must recognize the importance of the Indicated Mineral Resource category to the advancement of the feasibility of the project. An Indicated Mineral Resource estimate is of sufficient quality to support a Pre-Feasibility Study which can serve as the basis for major development decisions.”

“Measured Mineral Resource”

“A Measured Mineral Resource is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity, grade or quality, densities, shape, and physical characteristics are estimated with confidence sufficient to allow the application of Modifying Factors to support detailed mine planning and final evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit.”

“Geological evidence is derived from detailed and reliable exploration, sampling and testing and is sufficient to confirm geological and grade or quality continuity between points of observation.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

100

==> picture [161 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

A Measured Mineral Resource has a higher level of confidence than that applying to either an Indicated Mineral Resource or an Inferred Mineral Resource. It may be converted to a Proven Mineral Reserve or to a Probable Mineral Reserve.”

“Mineralization or other natural material of economic interest may be classified as a Measured Mineral Resource by the Qualified Person when the nature, quality, quantity and distribution of data are such that the tonnage and grade or quality of the mineralization can be estimated to within close limits and that variation from the estimate would not significantly affect potential economic viability of the deposit. This category requires a high level of confidence in, and understanding of, the geology and controls of the mineral deposit.”

14.3 CIM ESTIMATION OF MINERAL RESOURCES BEST PRACTICES GUIDELINES

When undertaking the mineral resource estimate for the Hat Project, Micon’s QPs have used the CIM Estimation of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves Best Practice Guidelines which were adopted by the CIM Council on November 29, 2019.

14.4 METHODOLOGY

The 2024 Hat MRE discussed herein covers the Hat deposit. The Project area for the deposit covers a length of approximately 2 km in north-south direction, 1.75 km in east-west direction and down to a vertical depth of approximately 1 km below surface.

The mineralized wireframe models for the Hat Project were prepared using LeapFrog GEO v.2023.2.1 (LeapFrog). Wireframe modelling included the construction of a single mineralized domain, constrained to the extents of the deposit-scale Cu-Au-Ag porphyry unit and capped by overburden, as found in the core-logging information. Geostatistical analyses were carried out using Datamine Snowden Supervisor v.8.15.0.3 (Supervisor). The estimation, block model and grade interpolation were prepared using LeapFrog EDGE v.2023.2.1 (LeapFrog). Resource-level potentially mineable open pit shapes were created using Datamine Studio Maxi Pit 1.5.16 (Datamine).

The main steps in the methodology were as follows:

Compiling and validating the diamond drill hole database used for mineral resource estimation. Calculating the CuEq (in %) to be used as a basis for domaining the mineralized zone.
Interpretation of the mineralized domain, based on lithological and assay information.
Capping outlier values and compositing the database, for the purpose of geostatistical analysis and performing variography.
Generating the block model and grade interpolation.
Validating the criteria for mineral resource classification.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

101

==> picture [161 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

Assessing the mineral resources with “reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction” by selecting appropriate cut-off grades and a producing a reasonable “resource-level” optimized pit-shell.
Generating a Mineral Resource Estimate statement.
Assessing and identifying the factors that could affect the mineral resource estimate.

14.5 RESOURCE DATABASE AND WIREFRAMING

The close-out date for the Hat deposit 2024 MRE database is November, 2023. The database was provided by Doubleview and was verified by Micon’s QP, prior to use for geological modelling and resource estimation purposes.

14.5.1 Database

The database consists of 71 diamond drill holes, totalling 31,273.88 m of drilling and including 13,961 sample intervals. The database includes validated location, survey and assay results. Hole H048, which was drilled during 2022, was abandoned after 27 m and is ignored in the Project database. There is collar and survey information present for 70 drill holes in the Project database. All assay values referred in this section are in g/t (unless mentioned otherwise) and can interchangeably be used as ppm. The database also includes lithological descriptions taken from drill core logs. However, valid down-hole survey information is missing from 34 drill holes. The database covers the strike length of the mineralized domain, with variable drill hole coverage. Table 14.1 summarizes the types and amount of data in the database and the portion of the data used for the mineral resource estimate. Figure 14.1 shows the Plan View (left) and Orthogonal View looking north-east (right) of the Hat Drill Hole Database.

Table 14.1 Hat Project Database

Data Type	In Database	Used For the 2024 MRE
Drill Collar	71	65
AssaySamples	13,961	13,287
Core Metreage(m)	31,273.88	29,559.39

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

102

==> picture [161 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

Figure 14.1 Plan and Orthogonal View (looking north-east) of Hat Drill Hole Database

==> picture [468 x 179] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

N
----- End of picture text -----

14.5.2 Topography

14.5.3 Mineralized Wireframe

Micon’s QPs have identified the mineralized domain using Leapfrog software. A preliminary CuEq cutoff grade of 0.1% was considered in constructing the wireframe. Internal dilutions below 0.1% CuEq have been considered, as the deposit is categorized as a polymetallic Cu, Co, Au and Ag porphyry. An overburden zone was identified at surface with the help of lithological information available. Figure 14.2 shows the 3D perspective view of the geological interpretation of the database.

No significant oxidation zone could be identified, so the entire interpreted wireframe has been considered as a single mineralized domain at this time.

Five fault planes have been identified by Doubleview’s geologists as passing through the mineralized zone for Hat Deposit. The planes are northwest oriented and dipping vertically below surface. Figure 14.3 shows the location of those planes in 3D. There is some speculation that the faults might influence the disposition of mineralization. However, there is insufficient structural information available at this moment to confirm this speculation and, as a result, the faults have not been considered to have any influence in the current MRE.

Micon’s QPs suggest performing a detailed structural study to understand whether any displacement of mineralization has occurred along the fault zones and incorporating this information into future MREs.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

103

==> picture [161 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

Figure 14.2 3D Perspective of the Interpreted Mineralized Zone of Hat Project

==> picture [442 x 270] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

N
OVERBURDEN
MINERALIZED ZONE
----- End of picture text -----

Figure 14.3 3D View of the Location of the Fault Planes in Hat Deposit

==> picture [471 x 251] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

N
TOPOGRAPHY
MINERALIZED ZONE
FAULT
PLANES
----- End of picture text -----

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

104

==> picture [161 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

14.6 CAPPING OUTLIERS, COMPOSITING AND VARIOGRAPHY

14.6.1 Capping Outlier Values

The Cu, Co, Au and Ag raw assay values were analyzed to identify the outliers which would have an effect of biasing the overall estimation process. The outlier values were identified for all four elements, using Supervisor software. Log probability and Cumulative Metal Plots have been analyzed for this exercise. Figure 14.4 to Figure 14.7 depict the plots for Cu, Co, Au and Ag assay and the individual raw statistics within the mineralized zone.

The different capping grades used for Cu, Co, Au and Ag are 48,000 g/t, 1,135 g/t, 4.70 g/t and 15 g/t, respectively.

14.6.2 Compositing Capped Values

The intercepts within the identified mineralized zone were then composited to 2 m equal length intervals, using capped Cu, Co, Au and Ag assays. Table 14.2 provides the comparison between raw data, capped uncomposited data and capped composited data within the mineralized zone.

Figure 14.4 Log Probability and Cumulative Metal Plot for Cu (g/t) Values within the Mineralized Zone

==> picture [471 x 233] intentionally omitted <==

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

105

==> picture [161 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

Figure 14.5 Log Probability and Cumulative Metal Plot for Co (g/t) Values within the Mineralized Zone

==> picture [471 x 247] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 14.6 Log Probability and Cumulative Metal Plot for Au (g/t) Values within the Mineralized Zone

==> picture [471 x 243] intentionally omitted <==

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

106

==> picture [161 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

Figure 14.7 Log Probability and Cumulative Metal Plot for Ag (g/t) Values within the Mineralized Zone

==> picture [471 x 246] intentionally omitted <==

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

107

Table 14.2 Summary of the Basic Statistics for 2 m Composites

Description	Elements	Mean (g/t)	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Variance	Minimum (g/t)	Lower Quartile (g/t)	Median (g/t)	Upper Quartile (g/t)	Maximum (g/t)
Raw Data	Cu	1,142.59	3,056.78	2.68	9343928	3.33	170.00	399.50	1,055.00	1,33,500.00
	Co	65.70	94.94	1.44	9013.40	1.10	32.80	45.00	67.00	2,600.00
	Au	0.10	0.37	3.53	0.13	0.00	0.01	0.04	0.09	18.95
	Ag	0.35	1.02	2.92	1.04	0.01	0.05	0.16	0.33	45.90
Capped Uncomposited Data	Cu	1,126.78	2,651.61	2.35	7031025	3.33	170.00	399.50	1,055.00	48,000.00
	Co	64.96	82.46	1.27	6800	1.10	32.80	45.00	67.00	1,135.00
	Au	0.10	0.27	2.66	0.07	0.00	0.01	0.04	0.09	4.70
	Ag	0.34	0.80	2.36	0.65	0.01	0.05	0.16	0.33	15.00
Capped Composited Data	Cu	1,126.91	2,328.10	2.07	5420038	3.33	186.43	434.26	1,135.00	48,000.00
	Co	64.96	72.03	1.11	5188	2.00	33.70	46.24	69.80	1,135.00
	Au	0.10	0.23	2.31	0.05	0.00	0.02	0.04	0.09	4.70
	Ag	0.34	0.71	2.08	0.50	0.01	0.06	0.17	0.33	15.00

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [147 x 40] intentionally omitted <==

14.6.3 Variography

The spatial distribution of Cu, Co, Ag and Ag was evaluated through variographic analysis for the mineralized domain. Spherical variograms were modelled by Doubleview and were validated by Micon’s QPs, prior to using them as search criteria for resource block model. The modelled variograms are presented in Figure 14.8, Figure 14.9, Figure 14.10 and Figure 14.11 for Cu, Co, Au and Ag, respectively.

All variogram analyses and modelling were performed in Datamine Studio RM Software. Primary directions and orientations of the variograms were observed in the data and visually in 3D space. These orientations were then examined statistically, within the mineralized zone, to ensure that they represented the best possible fit of the geology and grade continuity.

Figure 14.8 Variography for Cu

==> picture [340 x 384] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

X: N110, 50
Y: N20, 0
Z: N290, 40
----- End of picture text -----

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

109

==> picture [147 x 40] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

Figure 14.9 Variography for Co

==> picture [471 x 537] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

X: N0, 30
Y: N90, 0
Z: N180, 60
----- End of picture text -----

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

110

==> picture [147 x 40] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

Figure 14.10 Variography for Au

==> picture [499 x 463] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

X: N140, 50
Y: N50, 0
Z: N320, 40
----- End of picture text -----

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

111

==> picture [147 x 40] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

Figure 14.11 Variography for Ag

==> picture [471 x 529] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

X: N140, 0
Y: N50, 0
Z: N0, 90
----- End of picture text -----

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

112

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [147 x 40] intentionally omitted <==

14.7 ROCK DENSITY

A total of 208 samples have been collected for density measurement, covering 16 drill holes, for Hat Project. Doubleview has provided the density database to Micon. An average density of 2.9 gm/cm[3] has been considered for the mineralized zone. Although an overburden layer has been identified geologically, no density difference was considered between the overburden and mineralized zone at this time. Moreover, no significant oxidized zone exists for the mineralized area of the Hat Project.

14.8 BLOCK MODEL AND GRADE INTERPOLATION

14.8.1 Block Model

A block model was constructed to represent the volume and attributes of rock density and grade within the mineralized zones for the Hat Project. A summary of the block model definition is presented in Table 14.3.

Table 14.3 Summary of Block Model Definition

Description	Value
Number of blocks:	234 × 235 × 143 = 7,863,570
Base point:	346500, 6453100, 1190
Block size: (m)	10, 10, 10
Leapfrog Rotation:	null
Azimuth:	0°
Dip:	0°
Pitch:	0°
Boundary size:	2340, 2350, 1430
Minimum X:	346500
Minimum Y:	6453100
Minimum Z:	-240
Maximum X:	348840
Maximum Y:	6455450
Maximum Z:	1190

14.8.2 Search Strategy and Interpolation

The search parameters derived from the variographic analysis were used to interpolate the capped composite grades within the mineralized zone. The search strategy has been primarily provided by Doubleview and Micon’s QP has executed the interpolation by using the Ordinary Kriging (OK) method in Leapfrog Edge Software. The kriging parameters for all elements are presented in Table 14.4.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

113

Table 14.4 Summary of Ordinary Kriging Parameters for All Elements for Hat Project

Pass	Numeric *Values (in g/t)**	Ellipsoid Ranges (m)	Ellipsoid Ranges (m)	Ellipsoid Ranges (m)	Ellipsoid Directions	Ellipsoid Directions	Ellipsoid Directions	Number of Samples	Number of Samples	Drill Hole Limit
		Maximum	Intermediate	Minimum	Dip	Dip Azi.	Pitch	Minimum	Maximum	Max Samples per Hole
P1	Ag_cap	51	53	46	0	0	50	11	25	5
	Au_cap	63	97	80	50	140	90	11	25	5
	Co_cap	33	66	17	30	180	0	11	25	5
	Cu_cap	170	145	95	50	110	90	11	25	5
P2	Ag_cap	77	80	70	0	0	50	10	20	5
	Au_cap	95	144	120	50	140	90	10	20	5
	Co_cap	50	100	25	30	180	0	10	20	5
	Cu_cap	257	215	140	50	110	90	10	20	5
P3	Ag_cap	115	41	105	0	0	50	5	15	5
	Au_cap	142	41	180	50	140	90	5	15	5
	Co_cap	75	150	37	30	180	0	5	15	5
	Cu_cap	385	325	212	50	110	90	5	15	5
P4	Ag_cap	300	300	300	0	0	50	5	15	5
	Au_cap	300	300	300	50	140	90	5	15	5
	Co_cap	300	300	300	30	180	0	5	15	5

*Note: _cap refers to capped composited value.

==> picture [165 x 43] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

CuEq in % has been calculated using the formula noted below, for input (composites) and output (blocks).

CuEq in % = ([Ag grade_g/t] 240.68/31.1035 + [Au grade g/t] 1900.89/31.1035 + 0.0001 [Co grade_ g/t] 220.7822.0462 + 0.0001 [Cu grade_ g/t] 40.8422.0462) / (422.04620.84)._

14.9 BLOCK MODEL VALIDATION

The resource block model was validated using a variety of methods, including visual inspection of the model grades and grade distributions compared to the informing raw samples, statistical comparisons of informing composites to the model and swath plots to compare the grade distribution along easting, northing and vertical directions.

14.9.1 Visual Inspection

The block model was validated using visual comparison of the composite values and the block model values. Different sectional views were considered for this validation for each element individually and for the calculated CuEq %. An example section is presented in Figure 14.12.

Figure 14.12

A Typical North-South Section (Looking West) Showing the Comparison between Composite and Estimated Grades for CuEq%

==> picture [304 x 225] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

N
S
OVERBURDEN
MINERALIZED ZONE BOUNDARY
----- End of picture text -----

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

115

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [165 x 43] intentionally omitted <==

14.9.2 Statistical Comparisons

Ordinary kriging (OK), Inverse Distance Cubed (ID[3] ) and Nearest Neighbour (NN) interpolations were performed to check for local and global bias in the models. All comparisons show reasonable agreement between the input data and the output estimates for the entire block model. Table 14.5 summarizes the global statistical comparison between the 2 m composite grade and block estimated grade.

Table 14.5

Global Statistical Comparison Between 2 m Composite Grade and Block Estimated Grade

Element	2 m Composites	2 m Composites		Block Model	Block Model	Block Model
	Sample Count	Mean (g/t)	Block Count	Estimated Mean (g/t) using OK	Estimated Mean (g/t) using ID3	Estimated Mean (g/t) using NN
Cu		1,126.91		937.45	949.62	952.51
Co		64.96		57.03	57.32	60.79
Au	13,152	0.10	1,002,256	0.08	0.08	0.08
Ag		0.34		0.35	0.35	0.33

14.9.3 Swath Plots

Micon’s QPs have also performed model validation by using swath plots for each element in all the directions. The plots for Cu (as example) are presented in easting, northing and vertical directions in Figure 14.13, Figure 14.14 and Figure 14.15, respectively. The three different methods of interpolation follow a similar trend and the differences in the values are within reasonable limits.

Figure 14.13 Cu Swath Plot along Easting at 40 m Intervals

==> picture [254 x 199] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Block Grade (NN)
Block Grade (ID [3] )
Block Grade (OK)
Block Count
2m Composite grade
----- End of picture text -----

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

116

==> picture [165 x 43] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

Figure 14.14 Cu Swath Plot along Northing at 40 m Intervals

==> picture [317 x 242] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Block Grade (NN)
Block Grade (ID [3] )
Block Grade (OK)
Block Count
2m Composite grade
----- End of picture text -----

Figure 14.15 Cu Swath Plot along Depth at 30 m Intervals

==> picture [326 x 243] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Block Grade (NN)
Block Grade (ID3)
Block Grade (OK)
Block Count
2m Composite grade
----- End of picture text -----

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

117

==> picture [165 x 43] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

14.10 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE

14.10.1 Reasonable Prospects for Economic Extraction

For the Hat Project, a pit-shell was optimized, based on CuEq values calculated using a set of economic parameters, depending on the material and mining method. The calculated economic cut-off grade of 0.14% CuEq met the definition of potential eventual economic extraction. However, Doubleview has used an open pit cut-off grade of 0.20% CuEq to report the initial base-case mineral resources, as this better demonstrated potential eventual economic extraction.

Table 14.6 summarizes the economic parameters used to calculate the CuEq cut-off grade.

Table 14.6

Economic Parameters used to Calculate the CuEq Cut-Off grade

Description	Values
Au price US$/oz	1,900
Ag price US$/oz	24
Cu price U$/lb	4
Co price U$/lb	22
Au recovery	89.0%
Ag recovery	68.0%
Cu recovery	84.0%
Co recovery	78.0%
Mining Cost U$/t (OP)	2.5
Processing Cost U$/t	6
G&A Cost U$/t	2

The metal prices and operating costs were provided by Doubleview and approved by Micon’s QPs as being appropriate to be used for the current MRE. No underground resource has been estimated at this time.

14.10.2 Mineral Resource Classification

Micon’s QP has classified the mineral resources for the Hat Project in the Indicated and Inferred categories. No measured resources are included at this time, primarily due to the following reasons:

A circular drilling pattern around each drill pad leading to an uneven distribution of sample points.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

118

==> picture [165 x 43] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

Missing survey records for 39% of the drill data.
No core recovery information for 22% of drill data.

Micon’s QPs have reviewed the distribution and continuity of the potentially economically extractable material for the current MRE. Micon’s QPs have also initially identified the Indicated Resources as those blocks having a CuEq grade >= 0.14%, which are informed by samples within 85 m distance, estimated by at least 3 drill holes, having a kriged efficiency >= 0.4 and those blocks estimated during Pass 1 of the interpolation process. This was further refined visually, in order to downgrade or upgrade those blocks that would otherwise have created a “Spotted Dog” effect.

14.10.3 Mineral Resource Estimate

The MRE for the Hat Project is summarized in Table 14.7. The MRE has an effective date of July 17, 2024. The QPs have classified the initial MRE as Indicated and Inferred mineral resources, based on data density, search ellipse criteria and interpolation parameters, as discussed above. The 2024 Hat MRE is considered to be a reasonable representation of the mineral resources for the Hat Project, based on the currently available data and geological knowledge. Figure 14.16 and Figure 14.17 depict the Plan and Sectional views respectively, for the optimized open pit-shell and the block model for the Hat Project.

14.10.4 Mineral Resource Estimate Grade Sensitivity Analysis

Table 14.8 shows the cut-off grade sensitivity analysis for CuEq for the 2024 Hat MRE. The reader should be cautioned that the figures provided in Table 14.8 should not be interpreted as a mineral resource statement. Figure 14.18 shows the graphical representation of the relationship between different CuEq cut-off grades and tonnages for the deposit. Micon’s QP has reviewed the MRE cut-off grades used in the sensitivity analysis and it is the opinion of the QP that they meet the test for reasonable prospects of eventual economic extraction at varying metal prices or other underlying parameters used to calculate the cut-off grade.

14.11 RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE HAT PROJECT MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE

The geologic and resource modelling for the Hat deposit has been completed by William J. Lewis, P.Geo., and Chitrali Sarkar, M.Sc., P.Geo., of Micon using Leapfrog Geo and Edge software. Mr. Lewis and Ms. Chitrali Sarkar are the QPs responsible for the 2024 MRE as defined in Canadian National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (“NI 43-101”).

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

119

Table 14.7

Hat Deposit MRE Based on a 0.2% CuEq Cut-Off

Open Pit Model Hat	*Resource* *Category*	Tonnage	*Average Grade*	*Average Grade*	*Average Grade*	*Average Grade*				*Metal Content*	*Metal Content*
			CuEq	Cu	Co	Au	Ag	CuEq	Cu	Co	Au	Ag
		Mt	%	%	%	g/t	g/t	million lb	million lb	million lb	thousand oz	thousand oz
In Pit	Indicated	150	0.408	0.221	0.008	0.19	0.42	1,353	733	28	929	2,045
	Inferred	477	0.344	0.185	0.009	0.15	0.49	3,619	1,945	91	2,328	7,575

Notes:

The effective date of the MRE is 17 July 2024.
The Mineral Resource Estimate has been stated using a CuEq cut-off grade for comparison purposes with Doubleview’s previous statements. The CuEq value is primarily driven by the prices of associated minerals. Micon’s QPs recommend that future resource estimates are completed using an NSR calculation.
William Lewis P.Geo., and Chitrali Sarkar M.Sc., P.Geo., of Micon are the QPs responsible for the MRE, as defined in Canadian National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (“NI 43-101”).
The mineral resources disclosed in this report were estimated using the CIM standards for mineral resource and reserve definitions and the CIM best practices guidelines for resource estimation.
The mineral resources reported are contained within the boundaries of a pit-shell derived from the open pit optimizer, assuming surface mining methods with an overall slope angle of 45 degrees and with the original block model re-blocked to 20m x 20m x 20m. Mineralized blocks outside of the pit-shell are not considered to be part of the MRE.
Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
Geological modelling and the MRE have been completed using Leapfrog Geo and Edge software.
An open pit cut-off grade of 0.14% CuEq was calculated for the MRE, using a gold price of US$1,900/oz, a silver price of US$24/oz, a copper price of US$4/lb and a cobalt price of US$22/lb; mining cost US$2.5/t, processing cost US$6/t and G&A costs of US$2/t; gold recovery of 89%, silver recovery of 68%, copper recovery of 84% and cobalt recovery of 78%. However, to further fulfill the criterion for an MRE to meet the definition of potentially economic extraction, Doubleview has used an open pit cut-off grade of 0.20% CuEq to report the initial base-case mineral resources.
EUR ING Andrew Carter B.Sc. CEng. MIMMM, MSAIMM SME of Coffey, Tetra Tech has reviewed the metallurgical test work and is the QP responsible for the metallurgical recoveries and processing costs.
The MRE has been classified according to CIM definitions of Indicated and Inferred Resources. There are no Measured Resources, at this time. The Mineral Resource classification has been visually reviewed to eliminate any ‘Spotted Dog’ effect, commonly seen in computer-generated models.
Ordinary Kriging (OK) interpolation was used with a single block size of 10m x 10m x 10m.
The mineral resource results are presented in-situ within the optimized pit. Mineralized material outside the pit has not been considered as a part of the current MRE.
The tonnes and metal contents are rounded to reflect that the numbers are an estimate and any discrepancies in the totals are due to the rounding effects.

==> picture [144 x 40] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

Figure 14.16 Open Pit Plan View and Block Model

==> picture [343 x 270] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

BLOCKS OUTSIDE
PIT-SHELL
BOUNDARY
PIT-SHELL BOUNDARY
AT 700 MSL
BLOCKS INSIDE PIT-
SHELL BOUNDARY INDICATED RESOURCE
BOUNDARY
----- End of picture text -----

Figure 14.17 Open Pit Section and Block Model

==> picture [342 x 246] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

S N
INDICATED RESOURCE
BOUNDARY
BLOCKS OUTSIDE
PIT-SHELL OPTIMIZED PIT-SHELL
BOUNDARY
BLOCKS INSIDE
PIT-SHELL
----- End of picture text -----

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

121

==> picture [144 x 40] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

Table 14.8 Grade Sensitivity Analysis at Different Cu-Eq (%) Cut-Off Grades for Hat Project

Open Pit Model Hat	Resource Category	CuEq cut-off grade	Cumulative Tonnage
					Weighted Average Value					Cumulative Material Content

				CuEq	Cu	Co	Au	Ag	CuEq	Cu	Co	Au	Ag
		%	Mt	%	%	%	g/t	g/t	million lb	million lb	million lb	thousand oz	thousand oz
		0.1	217.17	0.33	0.172	0.008	0.16	0.37	1,576	824	38	1,086	2,591
		0.12	205.60	0.34	0.180	0.008	0.16	0.38	1,547	814	36	1,067	2,515
		0.14	192.39	0.36	0.188	0.008	0.17	0.39	1,509	799	34	1,040	2,417
		0.16	178.31	0.37	0.198	0.008	0.18	0.40	1,463	780	32	1,008	2,300
		0.18	164.32	0.39	0.209	0.008	0.18	0.41	1,410	758	30	971	2,179
	Indicated	0.2	150.49	0.41	0.221	0.008	0.19	0.42	1,353	733	28	929	2,045
In Pit		0.3	92.83	0.51	0.285	0.009	0.24	0.48	1,039	584	18	707	1,421
		0.4	55.91	0.61	0.354	0.009	0.28	0.53	758	437	12	510	960
		0.5	34.27	0.72	0.425	0.010	0.33	0.59	545	321	8	361	651
		0.6	21.16	0.83	0.498	0.011	0.37	0.65	387	232	5	253	441
		0.8	8.14	1.06	0.659	0.012	0.46	0.79	191	118	2	119	208
		0.1	903.19	0.25	0.129	0.008	0.11	0.42	5,008	2,559	153	3,194	12,312
		0.12	812.65	0.27	0.138	0.008	0.12	0.44	4,789	2,471	141	3,060	11,493
		0.14	722.77	0.28	0.148	0.008	0.12	0.45	4,531	2,364	129	2,899	10,571
		0.16	634.85	0.30	0.160	0.008	0.13	0.47	4,240	2,236	116	2,716	9,570
		0.18	550.39	0.32	0.172	0.008	0.14	0.48	3,924	2,091	103	2,517	8,536
	Inferred	0.2	477.38	0.34	0.185	0.009	0.15	0.49	3,619	1,945	91	2,328	7,575
		0.3	223.56	0.46	0.254	0.010	0.21	0.52	2,252	1,251	47	1,477	3,762
		0.4	111.17	0.57	0.323	0.010	0.26	0.52	1,403	792	25	940	1,872
		0.5	59.97	0.68	0.389	0.011	0.32	0.52	902	514	15	612	1,011
		0.6	33.98	0.79	0.452	0.012	0.37	0.53	590	339	9	404	582
		0.8	11.16	1.01	0.584	0.013	0.48	0.56	247	144	3	172	202

Notes:

The reported quantities and grade estimates at different cut-off grades are presented for the sole purpose of demonstrating the sensitivity of the mineral resource model to varying CuEq cut-off grades. Micon’s QP has reviewed the varying CuEq cut-off grades used in the sensitivity analysis, and it is the opinion of the QP that they meet the test for reasonable prospects of eventual economic extraction at the cut-off grades used.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

122

==> picture [144 x 40] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

Figure 14.18 Open Pit Grade -Tonnage Curve for Hat Project

==> picture [53 x 14] intentionally omitted <==

14.12 FACTORS THAT COULD AFFECT THE MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES

All estimation models have a degree of uncertainty associated with them, due to the assumptions used in their development. These uncertainties lead to risks in the relative accuracy of the models. In the development of the 2024 MRE model for the Hat Project, Micon’s team members have used industry best practice guidelines and have reasonably mitigated much of the potential risks.

It is the QP’s opinion that the factors set out below could affect the mineral resource estimate.

The geological interpretations and assumptions used to generate the estimation domain.
Mineralization and geologic geometry and continuity of the mineralized zones.
Estimates of mineralization and grade continuity.
The grade interpolation methods and estimation parameter assumptions.
The confidence assumptions and methods used in the mineral resource classification.
The density and the methods used in the estimation of density.
Metal price and other economic assumptions used in the cut-off grade determination.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

123

==> picture [144 x 40] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

Input and design parameter assumptions that pertain to the open pit mining constraints.
Assumptions as to the continued ability to access the test mine site, retain mineral and surface rights titles, maintain the operation within environmental and other regulatory permits, and maintain the social license to operate.
No environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-economic, marketing, political or other relevant factors are known to the QPs that would materially affect the estimation of Mineral Resources, other that those discussed in this report.

14.13 SCANDIUM POTENTIAL FOR THE HAT PROJECT

There are a number of other secondary elements contained within the mineralized deposit located at the Hat Project that may, in time, prove to be potentially economic based upon the multi-element analysis conducted on the drill samples. However, insufficient metallurgical sampling and test work have been conducted on these specific elements to determine whether they will eventually join the elements which comprise the current MRE. In particular, it is believed that scandium may be able to be recovered economically through a “tank leaching” process.

Preliminary metallurgical test work for the Hat Project has focused on producing a high-gold, lowcobalt-copper concentrate and a low-gold, high-cobalt-pyrite concentrate. Scandium is primarily associated with pyroxene and amphibole gangue minerals in the deposit and reports to flotation tails. Tests have demonstrated that scandium can be extracted from the tailings using sulphuric acid at an elevated temperature as a lixiviant. Test work has also shown that scandium can be separated into an intermediate scandium – aluminium product that can be processed further for the recovery of a scandium oxide product. Separation of scandium and aluminium will be the focus of the next phase of test work. The concept being considered is that the pyrite concentrate can be developed as a source of acid for both cobalt and scandium recovery.

In order to determine the scandium potential for the Hat Project, the scandium assays were included in the block model without the application of recoveries or other factors, such as grade capping, being applied. However, the scandium potential for the Hat Project is confined to the resource blocks that meet a cut-off grade of 0.2% CuEq within the open pit shell that currently defines the extent of the MRE. Any blocks that did not meet the 0.2% CuEq within the pit shell that defines the extent of the MRE were not considered to contain recoverable scandium. All mineralized blocks outside the pit shell were also not considered when developing the scandium potential for the Hat Project.

Based on the assumptions contained in the previous paragraph, the scandium potential for the Hat Project is estimated to be:

300 to 500 Mt at an average grade of 40 ppm (0.004%) Sc2O3.

It is emphasised that the scandium potential quantity and grade are conceptual in nature and that, while scandium grades have been derived from the multi-element analysis conducted on the Hat Project drill core, there is no certainty that further metallurgical test work will determine that scandium can be recovered economically.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

124

==> picture [144 x 40] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

TECHNICAL REPORT SECTIONS NOT REQUIRED

The following sections which form part of the NI 43-101 reporting requirements for advanced projects or properties are not relevant to the current Technical Report.

15.0 MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES

16.0 MINING METHODS

17.0 RECOVERY METHODS

18.0 PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE

19.0 MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS

20.0 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING, AND SOCIAL OR COMMUNITY IMPACT

21.0 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS

22.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

125

==> picture [144 x 40] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

23.0 ADJACENT PROPERTIES

23.1 GENERAL INFORMATION

The Hat Project is located in Stikinia terrane in northwestern British Columbia and is one of a large number of mines, former mines, prospects and significant mineral occurrences in that terrain. However, on a local scale, there is only one adjacent neighbour to the west and one to the south-east. The area to the south of the Hat claims which used to belong to the Grizzly claims, is a temporary “No Registration Reserve” with a review date of December 01, 2024, as per the BC Mineral Titles Online website.

The south-eastern claims belong to Robert Weicker. In 2018, a small program of sampling and prospecting was conducted which resulted in anomalous copper and zinc values, as filed in an assessment report with the BC Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation.

The adjacent westerly claims have been explored over the past 65 years which resulting in what’s now called the Star project. From 1958 to 1973, the area was explored by Skyline in conjunction with several joint venture partners. 6 drill holes totaling 1,050m of drilling were drilled on the Copper Creek mineral occurrence. The Pyrrhotite Creek occurrence was drilled by 9 holes, totaling 1,097 m, as noted in later assessment reports. From 1976 to the late 1980s, United Cambridge conducted extensive exploration work in the area, leading to the discovery of the present Star porphyry copper-gold deposit, located 15 km west of the Hat deposit, by T. E. Lisle, a prospector-geologist employed by United Cambridge, in 1978. Various other explorers worked in the area conducting geochemical and geophysical surveys as well as geological mapping. Firesteel Resources Ltd. (Firesteel Resources) optioned the claims from 3 co-owners in 2003. Starting the same year until 2007, Firesteel Resources conducted geochemical surveys, 600 m of trenching in various areas of the project and drilled more than 4,000 m. In 2011, several short localized drill holes utilizing a small backpack drill were drilled, resulting in (19 samples) as well as mapping, geochemical sampling and prospecting were conducted.

In 2013, the property was optioned by Prosper Gold a junior exploration company that, in 2014, conducted airborne magnetic and radiometric surveys, mapping, geochemical surveys and 7,750 m of diamond drilling in 24 drill holes, as filed in assessment reports with the BC Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation. Prosper Gold still holds 51% of the claims while the co-owner of 49% now is Cavu Energy Metals Corp. (Cavu Energy)

The Star deposit is an intermediate calc-alkaline to alkali porphyry deposit with multiple mineralizing intrusive phases that form a steep dipping pipe-like structure (source: notes to accompany a presentation to MEG Short Course, 9/12/2014).

The Star prospect drill holes “…intersected highly altered, strongly veined and pervasively mineralized (pyrite, chalcopyrite and magnetite) medium grained hornblende monzonite and andesite.” Host rocks were “…considered to be Late Triassic in age (218Ma) ...” and “…correlated with the Late Triassic Stuhini Group” (source: Prosper Gold News Release, 18/09/2013”.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

126

==> picture [144 x 40] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

23.2 MICON QP COMMENTS

Micon has not verified the information regarding the mineral deposits and showings described above that are outside the immediate area of the Hat deposit or the property held by Doubleview. The information contained in this section of the report, which was provided by Doubleview, is not necessarily indicative of the mineralization at the Hat deposit.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

127

==> picture [144 x 40] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

24.0 OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION

Other than the information already contained in this Technical Report, there are no other relevant data or information related to the scope of this report for the Hat Project.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

128

==> picture [144 x 40] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

25.0 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS

25.1 GENERAL INFORMATION

This Technical Report outlines the exploration programs and QA/QC programs conducted by Doubleview on the Hat Project and uses the information gathered through exploration and metallurgical test work programs as the basis for the initial mineral resource estimate on the Hat Project.

25.2 2024 HAT DEPOSIT MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE

The MRE contained in this Technical Report is the initial MRE for the Hat Project. The MRE was completed by Micon, with input from the geological personnel of Doubleview.

25.2.1 Methodology

The main steps in the methodology were as follows:

Compiling and validating the diamond drill hole databases used for mineral resource estimation. Calculation of the CuEq (in %) to be used as the basis for domaining the mineralized zone.
Interpretation of the mineralized domain, based on lithological and assay information.
Capping of outlier values and compositing the database, for the purpose of geostatistical analysis, and performing variography.
Generating the block model and grade interpolation.
Validating the criteria for mineral resource classification.
Assessing the mineral resources with “reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction” by selecting appropriate cut-off grades and producing a reasonable “resource-level” optimized pit-shell.
Generating a Mineral Resource Estimate statement.
Assessing and identifying the factors that could affect the mineral resource estimate.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

129

==> picture [144 x 40] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

25.2.2 Resource Database and Wireframing

25.2.2.1 Database

The database consists of 71 diamond drill holes, totalling 31,273.88 m of drill metreage and including 13,961 sample intervals. The database includes validated location, survey and assay results. Drill hole H048 which was drilled during 2022, was abandoned after 27 m and is not included in the Project database. Collar and survey information for 70 drill holes is available in the Project database. The database also includes lithological descriptions taken from drill core logs. However, valid down-hole survey information is missing from 34 drill holes. The database covers the strike length of the mineralized domain with variable drill hole coverage

25.2.2.2 Topography

25.2.2.3 Mineralized Wireframe

No significant oxidation zone could be identified, so the whole interpreted wireframe has been considered as a single mineralized domain at this time.

Five fault planes have been identified by Doubleview’s geologists which are passing through the mineralized zone for Hat Deposit. The planes are northwest oriented and dipping vertically below surface. There is some speculation that the faults might influence the disposition of mineralization. However, there is insufficient structural information available at this moment to confirm this speculation and, as a result, the faults have not been considered to have any influence in the current MRE.

25.2.3 Capping Outliers, Compositing and Variography

25.2.3.1 Capping Outlier Values

The capping grade used for Cu, Co, Au and Ag are 48,000 g/t, 1,135 g/t, 4.70 g/t and 15 g/t, respectively.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

130

==> picture [144 x 40] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

25.2.3.2 Compositing Capped Values

The intercepts within the identified mineralized zone were then composited to 2 m equal length intervals, using capped Cu, Co, Au and Ag assays.

25.2.3.3 Variography

25.2.4 Rock Density

A total of 208 samples were collected by Doubleview for density measurement, covering 16 drill holes for Hat Project. An average density of 2.9 gm/cm[3] has been considered for the mineralized zone. Although an overburden layer has been identified geologically, no density difference was considered between the overburden and mineralized zone at this time. Moreover, no significant oxidized zone exists for the mineralized area of Hat Project.

25.2.5 Block Model and Grade Interpolation

25.2.5.1 Block Model

A block model was constructed to represent the volume and attributes of rock density and grade within the mineralized zones for the Hat Project.

25.2.5.2 Search Strategy and Interpolation

CuEq in % has been calculated using the formula noted below, for input (composites) and output (blocks).

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

131

==> picture [144 x 40] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

CuEq in % = ([Ag grade_g/t] 240.68/31.1035 + [Au grade_ g/t] 1900.89/31.1035 + 0.0001 [Co grade_ g/t] 220.7822.0462 + 0.0001 [Cu grade_ g/t] 40.8422.0462) / (422.04620.84).

25.2.6 Mineral Resource Estimate

25.2.6.1 Reasonable Prospects for Economic Extraction

For Hat Project a pit-shell was optimized based on CuEq values calculated using a set of economic parameters, depending on the material and the mining method. The calculated economic cut-off grade of 0.14% CuEq is considered to meet the criterion of potentially economic extraction. However, Doubleview has used an open pit cut-off grade of 0.20% CuEq to report the initial base-case mineral resources to clearly demonstrate that the mineral resources meet the criterion of potentially economic extraction.

Table 25.1 summarizes the economic parameters used to calculate the CuEq cut-off grade.

Table 25.1 Economic Parameters used to Calculate the CuEq Cut-Off Grade for the Hat Project

Description	Values
Au price US$/oz	1,900
Ag price US$/oz	24
Cu price U$/lb	4
Co price U$/lb	22
Au recovery	89.0%
Ag recovery	68.0%
Cu recovery	84.0%
Co recovery	78.0%
Mining Cost U$/t (OP)	2.5
Processing Cost U$/t	6
G&A Cost U$/t	2

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

132

==> picture [144 x 40] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

25.2.6.2 Mineral Resource Classification

Micon’s QPs have classified the mineral resource for Hat Project in the Indicated and Inferred categories. No measured resources are considered at this time, primarily due to:

A circular drilling pattern around each drill pad leading to an uneven distribution of sample points with depth.
Missing survey records for 39% of drill data.
No core recovery information for 22% of drill data.

Micon’s QPs have reviewed the distribution and continuity of the potentially economically extractable material for the current MRE. The QPs have initially identified the Indicated Resources as those blocks having CuEq grade >= 0.14%, which are informed by samples within 85 m distance, estimated by at least three drill holes, having kriged efficiency >= 0.4 and those blocks estimated during P1 of the interpolation process. This was further refined visually in order to downgrade or upgrade those blocks that would otherwise have created a “Spotted Dog” effect.

25.2.6.3 Mineral Resource Estimate

The MRE for the Hat Project is summarized in Table 25.2. The MRE has an effective date of July 17, 2024. The QPs have classified the initial MRE as Indicated and Inferred mineral resources, based on data density, search ellipse criteria, interpolation parameters and other items discussed previously. The 2024 Hat MRE is considered to be a reasonable representation of the mineral resources for the Hat Project, based on the currently available data and geological knowledge.

25.2.7 Mineral Resource Grade Sensitivity Analysis

Table 25.3 shows the cut-off grade sensitivity analysis for CuEq for the Hat Project MRE. The reader should be cautioned that the figures provided in Table 25.3 should not be interpreted as a mineral resource statement. Micon’s QP have reviewed the MRE cut-off grades used in the sensitivity analysis, and it is the opinion of the QPs that they meet the test for reasonable prospects of eventual economic extraction at varying prices of metals and the other underlying parameters used to calculate the cut-off grade.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

133

Table 25.2

Hat Deposit MRE Based on a 0.2% CuEq Cut-Off

Open Pit Model Hat	*Resource* *Category*	Tonnage	*Average Grade*	*Average Grade*	*Average Grade*	*Average Grade*				*Metal Content*	*Metal Content*
			CuEq	Cu	Co	Au	Ag	CuEq	Cu	Co	Au	Ag
		Mt	%	%	%	g/t	g/t	million lb	million lb	million lb	thousand oz	thousand oz
In Pit	Indicated	150	0.408	0.221	0.008	0.19	0.42	1,353	733	28	929	2,045
	Inferred	477	0.344	0.185	0.009	0.15	0.49	3,619	1,945	91	2,328	7,575

Notes:

The effective date of the MRE is 17 July 2024.
The Mineral Resource Estimate has been stated using a CuEq cut-off grade for comparison purposes with Doubleview’s previous statements. The CuEq value is primarily driven by the prices of associated minerals. Micon’s QPs recommend that future resource estimates are completed using an NSR calculation.
William Lewis P.Geo., and Chitrali Sarkar M.Sc., P.Geo., of Micon are the QPs responsible for the MRE, as defined in Canadian National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (“NI 43-101”).
The mineral resources disclosed in this report were estimated using the CIM standards for mineral resource and reserve definitions and the CIM best practices guidelines for resource estimation.
The mineral resources reported are contained within the boundaries of a pit-shell derived from the open pit optimizer, assuming surface mining methods with an overall slope angle of 45 degrees and with the original block model re-blocked to 20m x 20m x 20m. Mineralized blocks outside of the pit-shell are not considered to be part of the MRE.
Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
Geological modelling and the MRE have been completed using Leapfrog Geo and Edge software.
An open pit cut-off grade of 0.14% CuEq was calculated for the MRE, using a gold price of US$1,900/oz, a silver price of US$24/oz, a copper price of US$4/lb and a cobalt price of US$22/lb; mining cost US$2.5/t, processing cost US$6/t and G&A costs of US$2/t; gold recovery of 89%, silver recovery of 68%, copper recovery of 84% and cobalt recovery of 78%. However, to further fulfill the criterion for an MRE to meet the definition of potentially economic extraction, Doubleview has used an open pit cut-off grade of 0.20% CuEq to report the initial base-case mineral resources.
EUR ING Andrew Carter B.Sc. CEng. MIMMM, MSAIMM SME of Coffey, Tetra Tech has reviewed the metallurgical test work and is the QP responsible for the metallurgical recoveries and processing costs.
The MRE has been classified according to CIM definitions of Indicated and Inferred Resources. There are no Measured Resources, at this time. The Mineral Resource classification has been visually reviewed to eliminate any ‘Spotted Dog’ effect, commonly seen in computer-generated models.
Ordinary Kriging (OK) interpolation was used with a single block size of 10m x 10m x 10m.
The mineral resource results are presented in-situ within the optimized pit. Mineralized material outside the pit has not been considered as a part of the current MRE.
The tonnes and metal contents are rounded to reflect that the numbers are an estimate and any discrepancies in the totals are due to the rounding effects.

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [196 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Table 25.3

Grade Sensitivity Analysis at Different Cu-Eq (%) Cut-Off Grades for Hat Project

Open Pit Model Hat	Resource Category	CuEq Cut- off grade	Cumulative Tonnage
					Weighted Average Value					Cumulative Material Content

				CuEq	Cu	Co	Au	Ag	CuEq	Cu	Co	Au	Ag
		%	Mt	%	%	%	g/t	g/t	million lb	million lb	million lb	thousand oz	thousand oz
		0.1	217.17	0.33	0.172	0.008	0.16	0.37	1,576	824	38	1,086	2,591
		0.12	205.60	0.34	0.180	0.008	0.16	0.38	1,547	814	36	1,067	2,515
		0.14	192.39	0.36	0.188	0.008	0.17	0.39	1,509	799	34	1,040	2,417
		0.16	178.31	0.37	0.198	0.008	0.18	0.40	1,463	780	32	1,008	2,300
		0.18	164.32	0.39	0.209	0.008	0.18	0.41	1,410	758	30	971	2,179
	Indicated	0.2	150.49	0.41	0.221	0.008	0.19	0.42	1,353	733	28	929	2,045
In Pit		0.3	92.83	0.51	0.285	0.009	0.24	0.48	1,039	584	18	707	1,421
		0.4	55.91	0.61	0.354	0.009	0.28	0.53	758	437	12	510	960
		0.5	34.27	0.72	0.425	0.010	0.33	0.59	545	321	8	361	651
		0.6	21.16	0.83	0.498	0.011	0.37	0.65	387	232	5	253	441
		0.8	8.14	1.06	0.659	0.012	0.46	0.79	191	118	2	119	208
		0.1	903.19	0.25	0.129	0.008	0.11	0.42	5,008	2,559	153	3,194	12,312
		0.12	812.65	0.27	0.138	0.008	0.12	0.44	4,789	2,471	141	3,060	11,493
		0.14	722.77	0.28	0.148	0.008	0.12	0.45	4,531	2,364	129	2,899	10,571
		0.16	634.85	0.30	0.160	0.008	0.13	0.47	4,240	2,236	116	2,716	9,570
		0.18	550.39	0.32	0.172	0.008	0.14	0.48	3,924	2,091	103	2,517	8,536
	Inferred	0.2	477.38	0.34	0.185	0.009	0.15	0.49	3,619	1,945	91	2,328	7,575
		0.3	223.56	0.46	0.254	0.010	0.21	0.52	2,252	1,251	47	1,477	3,762
		0.4	111.17	0.57	0.323	0.010	0.26	0.52	1,403	792	25	940	1,872
		0.5	59.97	0.68	0.389	0.011	0.32	0.52	902	514	15	612	1,011
		0.6	33.98	0.79	0.452	0.012	0.37	0.53	590	339	9	404	582
		0.8	11.16	1.01	0.584	0.013	0.48	0.56	247	144	3	172	202

Notes:

The reported quantities and grade estimates at different cut-off grades are presented for the sole purpose of demonstrating the sensitivity of the mineral resource model to varying CuEq cut-off grades. Micon’s QP has reviewed the varying CuEq cut-off grades used in the sensitivity analysis, and it is the opinion of the QP that they meet the test for reasonable prospects of eventual economic extraction at the cut-off grades used.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

135

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [196 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

25.2.8 Scandium Potential for the Hat Project

There are a number of other secondary elements contained within the mineralized deposit located at the Hat Project that may, in time, prove to be potentially economic based upon the multi-element analysis conducted on the drill samples. However, insufficient metallurgical sampling and test work have been conducted on these specific elements, to determine whether they will eventually join the elements which comprise the current MRE. Although not all of these elements will be able to be recovered economically, it is believed that scandium will be able to be recovered economically through a “tank leaching” process.

Based on the assumptions contained in the previous paragraph the scandium potential for the Hat Project is estimated to be:

300 to 500 Mt at an average grade of 40 ppm (0.004%) Sc2O3.

25.3 RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES

All mineral resource estimates have a degree of uncertainty or risk associated with them due to technical, environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-economic, marketing or political factors, among others. All mineral resource estimates also present their own opportunities. Table 25.4 outlines some of the Hat Project risks, their potential impact and possible means of mitigation. Table 25.4 also outlines some of the Hat Projects opportunities and potential benefits.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

136

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [196 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Table 25.4 Risks and Opportunities at the Hat Project

Risk	Description and Potential Impact	Possible Risk Mitigation
Local grade continuity issues	Poor grade forecasting.	Undertake further infill drilling to establish continuity of mineralization.
Local density variability	Misrepresentation of the in-situ tonnes, which also affects the in-situ metal content estimate.	It is recommended to develop a procedure of collecting density measurements spatially throughout the deposit at regular intervals in all rock/alteration types and implement their use in future mineralization models.
Geologic Interpretation.	If the geologic interpretation and assumptions (geometry and continuity) used are inaccurate, then there is a potential lack ofgrade or continuity.	Continue infill drilling to upgrade mineral inventory to at least the Indicated category.
Metallurgical recoveries are based on limited test work.	Recovery might be lower than that which is currently being assumed or vary with rock type.	Conduct additional metallurgical tests on all rock types.
Difficulty in attracting experienced professionals.	Technical work quality will be impacted and/or delayed.	Refine recruitment and retention planning and/or make use of consultants.
Conceptual mine plans are based on limited geotechnical test work.	Mining methods and dimensions selected might be different from what is currently being assumed.	Incorporate more comprehensive geotechnical data from drilling. Conduct additional geotechnical assessment and analysis.
Environmental or social Issues	Mining may not advance due to environmental or social issues	Conduct meetings with all potential stake holders throughout the exploration and advanced development stages. Hire locals wheneverpossible
Opportunities	Explanation	Potential Benefit
Surface exploration drilling.	Potential to identify additional prospects and resources.	Adding resources increases the economic value of the Project.
Potential improvement in metallurgical recoveries.	Additional metallurgical test work can be performed to determine if recovery can be improved through ore sorting, flotation or cyanidation.	Lower capital and operating costs.
Potential improvement in mining assumptions.	Geotechnical analysis may determine that mining methods and dimensions can be improved.	Improved mining productivity and lower costs.
Potential additional economic minerals	Scandium, as well as other minerals, has the potential to be recovered economically.	Further metallurgical test work to determine if scandium or other minerals can be recovered economically.

25.4 CONCLUSIONS

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

137

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [196 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

While the current mineral resource estimate was completed using a copper equivalent cut-off grade which included copper, gold, cobalt and silver, Micon’s QPs consider that future mineral resource estimates should be conducted using a more robust NSR calculation to determine the reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction.

Micon’s QPs have reviewed and validated the QA/QC conducted by Doubleview during the exploration programs which form the basis for the 2024 mineral resource estimate, as well as conducting the mineral resource estimate itself. It is Micon’s QPs opinion that the exploration programs and the mineral resource estimate itself have both been conducted according to industry best practices as outlined by the CIM. Therefore, Micon’s QPs believe that the 2024 mineral resource estimate can be used as the basis for further exploration and development work on the Hat Project.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

138

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [196 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

26.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

26.1 EXPLORATION BUDGET AND OTHER EXPENDITURES

The work plan and budget presented in Table 26.1 summarizes the estimated costs for completing further drilling and metallurgical test work on the Hat Project.

Table 26.1

Hat Project, Recommended Budget for Further Work

Item	Description	Total Cost ($Cdn)
Drilling Programs	Outside current resource(40,000 m)	20,000,000
	In-fill drilling (40,000 m)	20,000,000
Continuation of Metallurgical Test Work	Design of the test workprograms	150,000
	Laboratorycosts	100,000
Other Items	Environmental baseline studies,consultation andpermitting	200,000
	Collection of detailed topographic data(LIDAR)	120,000
	Ore sortingtechnical study	60,000
	Update of the mineral resource estimate	70,000
Total Budget:		40,700,000

Table provided by Doubleview.

It is the opinion of the Micon QPs that all of the work noted in Table 26.1 is warranted. Micon and its QPs appreciate that the nature of the programs and expenditures may change as further studies are undertaken, and that the final expenditures and results may not be the same as originally proposed.

26.2 FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the results of the MRE reported herein Micon’s QPs recommend that Doubleview continues with exploration drilling and metallurgical test work at the Hat deposit.

In summary, the following work programs are recommended.

Exploration Recommendations
a) Conduct drilling outside the current MRE in order potentially to expand the mineral resource estimate.
b) Conduct further infill drilling to upgrade the inferred mineral resource classification to indicated.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

139

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [196 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

c) Conduct downhole surveys on all drill holes, as they are drilled. All drill holes should have down-hole surveys conducted on them to support any upgrade to the resource classifications.
d) Complete an alteration model for the Hat deposit and, where applicable, relog older drill holes.
e) Complete a structural model for the Hat deposit as there are a number of major crosscutting faults that need to be added to the next model, as they may change some of the interpretation parameters.
f) Conduct a LIDAR topographic survey on the Hat property to be used as the basis for placement of infrastructure on the site.
g) Increase the QA/QC control sample insertion rate to ensure that industry best practice standards are adhered to.
h) Use one or more blank standards which are free of element concentrations for all economically relevant minerals/elements at the Project.
i) Actively monitor assay sample certificates against the QA/QC data as soon as the certificates are received. This will identify any assay failures quickly, allowing corrective action to be undertaken and any procedural errors or other errors to be addressed without delay.
j) Introduce check assaying to the QA/QC program where Hat Project rejects and pulps from the primary assay laboratory are sent to a secondary assay laboratory to check or confirm the accuracy of the first assay.
Metallurgical Recommendations
a) Consider further flotation development and optimization test work. This would be particularly useful in support of a Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA). The work would focus on liberation and grinding optimization, but inclusion of locked cycle testing would also be advantageous, as this can be used for preliminary process design.
b) Continue to focus on production of saleable concentrates and start considering potential markets, off-takers, and smelters for both copper and cobalt concentrates.
c) Track PGE (Pd) deportment during future test work and attempt to improve recovery to copper concentrate. Consider Inductively Coupled Plasma – Optical Emission Spectroscopy (ICP-OES) analysis for PGE as an alternative to INAA as turnaround time on analytical samples will likely be more rapid.
d) Consider potential hydrometallurgical processes for the recovery of cobalt in the event suitable markets for cobalt concentrates cannot be identified. In addition, continue to

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

140

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [196 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

develop the scandium recovery process, as this is potentially a valuable by-product. Preliminary characterization tests on flotation products could be included as part of a PEA flotation test work program.

e) Undertake a comprehensive PEA level metallurgical test work program to optimize the recovery of Cu, Co, Au, Ag and PGE by flotation including locked cycle test work, additional quantitative mineralogy on flotation products, as well as hydrometallurgical extraction and recovery of Co and Sc.
f) Further metallurgical test work is necessary to demonstrate that a commercially saleable scandium product can be achieved, as this will allow scandium to be added to the future mineral resource estimates.
g) Review various ore-sorting methods as a way of decreasing processing costs and enhancing the grade of the material being sent to a potential processing plant.
Environmental and Social Recommendations
a) Commencement of environmental baseline studies would be appropriate, with the studies including regular collection of climate related data, lithological characterization based on geochemical samples of rocks as well as streamflow and water quality sampling.
b) Expansion of the current wildlife management plan to include flora and fauna, particularly caribou and mountain goats. In particular, the recording of any potential endangered flora and fauna needs to be undertaken. This necessary if potential access corridors are going to be considered for roads or power line access to the Hat Project.
c) Social components of the environmental studies should continue to be maintained and expanded upon. This includes community engagements and consultations, as well as archaeological studies. In particular potential trap lines and hunting areas of the local indigenous groups need to be discussed.
d) Consider undertaking further archeological studies, especially for those areas that would support road access or power line access to the site.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

141

==> picture [196 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

27.0 DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGE

The independent Qualified Persons for this report are as follows:

MICON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED (EGBC Permit to Practice Number 1001528)

“William J. Lewis” {signed and sealed as of the report date}

William J. Lewis, B.Sc., P.Geo. Principal Geologist

Report Date August 30, 2024. Effective Date: July 17, 2024.

“Chitrali Sarkar” {signed as of the report date}

Chitrali Sarkar, M.Sc., P.Geo. Senior Geologist

Report Date August 30, 2024. Effective Date: July 17, 2024.

COFFEY GEOTECHNICS LTD, A TETRA TECH COMPANY

“Andrew Carter” {signed and sealed as of the report date}

EUR ING Andrew Carter B.Sc. CEng. MIMMM, MSAIMM SME Metallurgist

Report Date August 30, 2024. Effective Date: July 17, 2024.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

142

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [196 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

28.0 REFERENCES

28.1 GENERAL PUBLICATION AND REPORT REFERENCES

Abzalov, M., (2011), Sampling Errors and Control of Assay Data Quality in Exploration and Mining Geology: in Applications and Experiences of Quality Control, Prof. Ognyan Ivanov (Ed.).

Atled Exploration Management Ltd., (1971), Report on the Geochemistry of the OH Mineral Claims, BC Assessment Report 03296.

Banks, Paul, (2015), An Update on harmonization of 2014 CIM Definition Standards, CIM Magazine, Vol. 10, No. 3, May,2015, pp 44 to 46. 41p.

Banks, Paul, (2015), Implementation of 2014 CIM Definition Standards, CIM Magazine, Vol. 10, No. 5, August,2015, pp 32 to 34.

Carter, A., (2024), Hat Project, Preliminary Report on Cost Calculations for Scandium Production., Technical Memo by Tetra Tech for Doubleview, 6 p.

Carter, A., (2023), Scandium Recoveries and Metal Prices to be used in Calculation of Copper Equivalent, Technical Memo by Tetra Tech for Doubleview, 3 p.

CIM Council, (2019), CIM Estimation of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves Best Practices Guidelines, 74 p.

CIM Council, (2018), CIM Mineral Exploration Best Practices Guidelines, 16 p.

CIM Council, (2014), CIM Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves, 9 p.

Harris, P., (2024), Metal Equivalents: A Hot Sticky Mess, Mining Journal 27, March 2024.

Kwiecien, G., and Somogyi-Csizmazia, J., (2024), Archaeological Investigation of IbTv-04 within the Hat Claims Area, Hatchau Lake, N.W. British Columbia, Prepared by Taiga Heritage Consulting Ltd. For Doubleview Gold Corp., 66 p.

Kwiecien, G., and Somogyi-Csizmazia, J., (2024), Archaeological Impact Assessment of the Hat Claims Area, Hatchau Lake, N.W. British Columbia, Prepared by Taiga Heritage Consulting Ltd. For Doubleview Gold Corp., 95 p.

Lisle, T. E., and Ostensoe, E. A., (2008). Report on a soil geochemical survey Hat claims, BC Assessment Report 30372.

Lisle, T. E., (1985), Assessment report on Moon 1 to 4 claims, BC Assessment Report 13939.

McLeod, J.A., (2014), Microscopic Report (4 Sections) for Terracad Geosciences Services Ltd., 3 p.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

143

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [196 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Mitchinson, D.E., Fournier, D., Hart, C.J.R., Astic, T., Cowan, D.C., and Lee, R.G, (2022), Identification of New Porphyry Potential Under Cover in British Columbia, Geoscience BC Central Interior Copper-Gold Research Project Geoscience BC* Report 2022-07, MDRU Publication 457, 100 p.

Natural Resources Canada CANMET-MMSL CCRMP, (Un-dated), Assessment of Laboratory Performance with CCRMP Certified Reference Materials

No Author, (2021), Samples: HO-27: 416.4 m, HO-34-19: Box 126, Box 125A, Box 125B, Thin Section Study, 28 p.

Ostensoe, E., and Woodworth, A., (2020), Technical Report of the 2019 Drilling at Hat Project, Sheslay District, Atlin M.D. Northwestern British Colombia, 323 p.

Ostensoe, E., and Woodworth, A., (2018), Technical Report of the 2016 Drilling at Hat Project, Sheslay District, Atlin M.D. Northwestern British Colombia, 200 p.

Ostensoe, E., (2016), Technical Report of Drilling Hat Project, 95 km Southwest of Dease Lake, Liard M.D. B.C., 576 p.

Payie, G., (2012), Technical Report Hat Property, Sheslay Area, North of Telegraph Creek, Atlin Mining Division. Northwestern British Colombia, Canada, 49 p.

P. H. Sevensma Consultants Ltd., (1970). Pat Claims, "GO" Group - Skyline Project, Geochemical Reconnaissance 1969 – 1970, BC Assessment Report 02554.

Read, P.B., (December, 1979/Revised June, 2014), Petrography of Utah Mines Ltd. Samples 79SNR-47 to 79SNR-364a, 15 p.

Read, P.B., (June, 2014), Petrography Report on Four Samples, Hat Property, Sheslay Valley, West of Telegraph Creek, Northwestern B.C., 6 p.

Schmidt, A., (1978), Linecutting and geochemical surveys on Ski property, BC Assessment Report 06835.

Tajadod, J., and Kwok, D., (2021), Doubleview Gold Corp. Metallurgical Testwork Report for Hat Project, report by Met-Solve Laboratories Inc., 116 p.

Thompson, M. & Howarth, R., (1978), A new approach to the estimation of analytical precision. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, Vol.9, No.1, p.23-30, ISSN 0375-6742.

Vyselaar, J., (1979), Combined linecutting, geochemical and geophysical report, BC Assessment Report 07482.

Wells, K., (2019), 2018 Exploration Program (Ground IP, Soil Geochemistry and Core re-logging) on the Hat Property, Dease Lake, British Colombia, report by Hudbay Minerals Canada Ltd. 765 p.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

144

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [196 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

28.2 WEBSITE REFERENCES

BC Mineral Titles Online, Mineral Titles Online - Province of British Columbia (gov.bc.ca)

Doubleview Gold Corp., https://www.doubleview.ca.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

145

==> picture [196 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Doubleview Gold Corp.

29.0 CERTIFICATES OF QUALIFIED PERSONS (AUTHORS)

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

146

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [196 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHOR William J. Lewis, P.Geo.

As the co-author of this report for Doubleview Gold Corp. entitled “NI 43-101 Technical Report for the 2024 Mineral Resource Estimate on the Hat Project, Atlin Mining Division, British Columbia, Canada” dated August 30, 2024, with an effective date of July 17, 2024, I, William J. Lewis, do hereby certify that:

I am employed as a Principal Geologist by, and carried out this assignment for, Micon International Limited, Suite -

601, 90 Eglinton Avenue East, Toronto, Ontario M4P 2Y3, tel. (416) 362-5135, e-mail wlewis@micon international.com.

I hold the following academic qualifications:
B.Sc. (Geology) University of British Columbia
I am a registered Professional Geoscientist with the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Manitoba (membership # 20480); as well, I am a member in good standing of several other technical associations and societies, including:
Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia (Membership # 20333).
Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of the Northwest Territories (Membership # 1450).
Professional Association of Geoscientists of Ontario (Membership # 1522).
I have worked as a geologist in the minerals industry for over 35 years.
I am familiar with NI 43-101 and, by reason of education, experience and professional registration, I fulfill the requirements of a Qualified Person as defined in NI 43-101. My work experience includes 4 years as an exploration geologist looking for gold and base metal deposits, more than 11 years as a mine geologist in underground mines and 20 years as a surficial geologist and consulting geologist on precious and base metals and industrial minerals.
I have read NI 43-101 and this Technical Report has been prepared in compliance with the instrument.
I have visited the Hat Project for one day between July 20 and July 23, 2024.
This is the first Technical Report I have co-authored for the mineral property that is the subject of this Technical Report.
I am independent of Doubleview Gold Corp. and its subsidiaries according to the definition described in NI 43-101 and the Companion Policy 43-101 CP.
I am responsible for Sections 1 (except 1.7 and 1.8.1 to 1.8.5 and 1.10.2 Metallurgical Recommendations), 2 to 12 (except 12.3), 14.1 to 14.3, 14.10 to 14.13 and 23 to 28 (except 25.2 to 25.2.5 and 26.2 Metallurgical Recommendations) of this Technical Report with Sections 15 through 22 not applicable to this Technical Report.
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 this technical report not misleading.

Report Dated this 30 day of August, 2024 with an effective date of July 17, 2024.

“William J. Lewis” {signed and sealed as of the report date}

William J. Lewis, B.Sc., P.Geo. Principal Geologist, Micon International Limited

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

147

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [196 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHOR Chitrali Sarkar, P.Geo.

I am employed as a Senior Geologist by Micon International Limited, Suite 601, 90 Eglinton Avenue East, Toronto, Ontario M4P 2Y3, tel. (416) 362-5135, e-mail [email protected].
I hold a Master’s Degree in Applied Geology from Indian School of Mines (IIT), India, 2012.
I am a Registered Professional Geoscientist of Ontario (membership # 3584) and am also a member in good standing of the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum.
I am familiar with NI 43-101 and by reason of education, experience and professional registration, fulfil the requirements of a Qualified Person as defined in NI 43-101. My work experience includes more than 10 years in the metal mining industry, including approx. 5 years as an exploration and production geologist in open pit and underground mines and more than 4 years as a resource geologist.
I have read NI 43-101 and this Technical Report has been prepared in compliance with the instrument.
I have not visited the Hat Project.
This is the first Technical Report I have co-authored for the mineral property that is the subject of this Technical Report.
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 this report not misleading.
I am independent of Doubleview Gold Corp. and its subsidiaries according to the definition described in NI 43-101 and the Companion Policy 43-101 CP.
I am responsible for the preparation of Sections 1.8.1 to 1.8.5, 12.3 14.4 to 14.9, 25.2 to 25.2.5 of this Technical Report with Sections 15 through 22 not applicable to this Technical Report.

Report Dated this 30[th] day of August, 2024 with an effective date of July 17, 2024.

“Chitrali Sarkar” {signed as of the report date}

Chitrali Sarkar, P.Geo. Senior Geologist, Micon International Limited

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

148

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [196 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHOR

EUR ING Andrew Carter BSc, CEng, MIMMM QMR, MSAIMM, SME.

I, EUR ING Andrew Carter BSc, CEng, MIMMM QMR, MSAIMM, SME., certify that:

I am Head of Mining UK & Ireland, for Tetra Tech Ltd, with a business address at 3 Sovereign Square, Sovereign Street, Leeds, LS1 4ER, United Kingdom.
This certificate applies to the Technical Report entitled ‘NI 43-101 Technical Report for the 2024 Mineral Resource Estimate on the Hat Project, Atlin Mining Division, British Columbia, Canada” dated August 30, 2024, with an effective date of July 17, 2024 (the Report).
I am a graduate of The University of Leeds, UK, with a B.Sc. in Minerals Processing in 1980.
I am registrant of FEANI (European Federation of National Engineering Associations c2920GB), a Chartered Engineer and registrant of the Engineering Council (UK) #378467, a member of the IMMM (Institute of Materials Minerals & Mining #46421) qualified for Minerals Reporting, a member of the SME (Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration #4112502), and a member of the SAIMM (South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy #19580).
I have practiced my profession in the mining industry continuously since graduation. My relevant experience includes over 43 years in base and precious metal extractive practice including the extraction, hydrometallurgy and pyrometallurgy of gold, silver, platinum group elements, copper, nickel, cobalt, lead, zinc, iron, manganese, vanadium, titanium, uranium and lithium.
I have read the definition of “Qualified Person” set out in “ National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects ” and certify that by virtue of my education, affiliation with a professional association and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a “Qualified Person”.
I am independent of the issuer, Doubleview Gold Corp.
I am responsible for Sections 1.7, 1.10.2 Metallurgical Recommendations, 13 and 26.2 Metallurgical Recommendations of the Report and accept professional responsibility for these sections.
I have had no previous involvement with Doubleview Gold Corp.
I have not made a site inspection of the Hat Project.
As of the effective date of the Report, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the portions of the Report for which I am responsible contain all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed such that the portions of the Report for which I am responsible are not misleading.

Dated this 30[th] day of August, 2024, in Salisbury, Wiltshire, United Kingdom.

“Andrew Carter” {signed as of the report date}

EUR ING Andrew Carter BSc, CEng, MIMMM QMR, MSAIMM, SME.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

149

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [196 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

APPENDIX 1 GLOSSARY OF MINING AND OTHER RELATED TERMS

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

150

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [196 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

The following is a glossary of general mining terms that may be used in this Technical Report.

A

Ag Symbol for the element silver.
Assay A chemical test performed on a sample of ores or minerals to determine the amount of valuable metals contained.
Au Symbol for the element gold.

B

Base metal Any non-precious metal (e.g. copper, lead, zinc, nickel, etc.).
Bulk mining Any large-scale, mechanized method of mining involving many thousands of tonnes of ore being brought to surface per day.
Bulk sample A large sample of mineralized rock, frequently hundreds of tonnes, selected in such a manner as to be representative of the potential orebody being sampled. The sample is usually used to determine metallurgical characteristics.
Bullion Precious metal formed into bars or ingots.
By-product A secondary metal or mineral product recovered in the milling process.

C

Channel sample A sample composed of pieces of vein or mineral deposit that have been cut out of a small trench or channel, usually about 10 cm wide and 2 cm deep.
Chip sample A method of sampling a rock exposure whereby a regular series of small chips of rock is broken off along a line across the face.
CIM Standards CIM Definition Standards on Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves adopted by CIM Council from time to time. The most recent update adopted by the CIM Council is effective as of May 10, 2014.
CIM The Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum.
Concentrate A fine, powdery product of the milling process containing a high percentage of valuable metal.
Contact A geological term used to describe the line or plane along which two different rock formations or rock types meet.
Copper Equivalent CuEq means the percentage of marketable metals or minerals contained in mineralized material, determined by converting all other metals other than copper to equivalent copper on the basis of a market price for such metals at a given time.
Core The long cylindrical piece of rock, about an inch in diameter, brought to surface by diamond drilling.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

151

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [196 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Core sample One or several pieces of whole or split parts of core selected as a sample for analysis or assay.
Cross-cut A horizontal opening driven from a shaft and (or near) right angles to the strike of a vein or other orebody. The term is also used to signify that a drill hole is crossing the mineralization at or near right angles to it.
Cu Symbol for the element copper.
Cut-off grade The lowest grade of mineralized rock that qualifies as ore grade in a given deposit, and is also used as the lowest grade below which the mineralized rock currently cannot be profitably exploited. Cut-off grades vary between deposits depending upon the amenability of ore to gold extraction and upon costs of production.

D

Deposit An informal term for an accumulation of mineralization or other valuable earth material of any origin.

Development drilling

Drilling to establish accurate estimates of mineral resources or reserves usually in an operating mine or advanced project.
Dilution Rock that is, by necessity, removed along with the ore in the mining process, subsequently lowering the grade of the ore.
Dip The angle at which a vein, structure or rock bed is inclined from the horizontal as measured at right angles to the strike.
Doubleview
Doubleview Gold Corp., including, unless the context otherwise requires, the Company's subsidiaries.
Doré A semi refined alloy containing sufficient precious metal to make recovery profitable. Crude precious metal bars, ingots or comparable masses produced at a mine which are then sold or shipped to a refinery for further processing.

E

Epithermal Hydrothermal mineral deposit formed within one kilometre of the earth’s surface, in the temperature range of 50 to 200°C.

Epithermal deposit

A mineral deposit consisting of veins and replacement bodies, usually in volcanic or sedimentary rocks, containing precious metals or, more rarely, base metals.
Exploration Prospecting, sampling, mapping, diamond drilling and other work involved in searching for ore.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

152

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [196 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

F

Face The end of a drift, cross-cut or stope in which work is taking place. Fault A break in the Earth's crust caused by tectonic forces which have moved the rock on one side with respect to the other.

Fold Any bending or wrinkling of rock strata.
Footwall The rock on the underside of a vein or mineralized structure or deposit.
Fracture A break in the rock, the opening of which allows mineral-bearing solutions to enter. A "cross-fracture" is a minor break extending at more-or-less right angles to the direction of the principal fractures.

G

g/t Abbreviation for gram(s) per metric tonne.
g/t Abbreviation for gram(s) per tonne.
Grade Term used to indicate the concentration of an economically desirable mineral or element in its host rock as a function of its relative mass. With gold, this term may be expressed as grams per tonne (g/t) or ounces per tonne (opt).
Gram One gram is equal to 0.0321507 troy ounces.

H

Hanging wall The rock on the upper side of a vein or mineral deposit.
High grade Rich mineralization or ore. As a verb, it refers to selective mining of the best ore in a deposit.
Host rock The rock surrounding an ore deposit.
Hydrothermal Processes associated with heated or superheated water, especially mineralization or alteration.

I

Indicated Mineral Resource

An Indicated Mineral Resource is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity, grade or quality, densities, shape and physical characteristics are estimated with sufficient confidence to allow the application of Modifying Factors in sufficient detail to support mine planning and evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit. Geological evidence is derived from adequately detailed and reliable exploration, sampling and testing and is sufficient to assume geological and grade or quality continuity between points of observation. An Indicated Mineral Resource has a lower level of confidence than that applying to a Measured Mineral Resource and may only be converted to a Probable Mineral Reserve.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

153

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [196 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Inferred Mineral Resource

An Inferred Mineral Resource is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity and grade or quality are estimated on the basis of limited geological evidence and sampling. Geological evidence is sufficient to imply but not verify geological and grade or quality continuity. An Inferred Mineral Resource has a lower level of confidence than that applying to an Indicated Mineral Resource and must not be converted to a Mineral Reserve. It is reasonably expected that the majority of Inferred Mineral Resources could be upgraded to Indicated Mineral Resources with continued exploration.”

Intrusive A body of igneous rock formed by the consolidation of magma intruded into other

K

km Abbreviation for kilometre(s). One kilometre is equal to 0.62 miles.

L

Leaching The separation, selective removal or dissolving-out of soluble constituents from a rock or ore body by the natural actions of percolating solutions.

Level The horizontal openings on a working horizon in a mine; it is customary to work mines from a shaft, establishing levels at regular intervals, generally about 50 m or more apart.

M

Abbreviation for metre(s). One metre is equal to 3.28 feet.

Measured Mineral Resource

A Measured Mineral Resource is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity, grade or quality, densities, shape, and physical characteristics are estimated with confidence sufficient to allow the application of Modifying Factors to support detailed mine planning and final evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit. Geological evidence is derived from detailed and reliable exploration, sampling and testing and is sufficient to confirm geological and grade or quality continuity between points of observation. A Measured Mineral Resource has a higher level of confidence than that applying to either an Indicated Mineral Resource or an Inferred Mineral Resource. It may be converted to a Proven Mineral Reserve or to a Probable Mineral Reserve.

Metallurgy The science and art of separating metals and metallic minerals from their ores by mechanical and chemical processes.

Metamorphic Affected by physical, chemical, and structural processes imposed by depth in the earth’s crust.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

154

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [196 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Mill A plant in which ore is treated and metals are recovered or prepared for smelting; also a revolving drum used for the grinding of ores in preparation for treatment.

Mine An excavation beneath the surface of the ground from which mineral matter of value is extracted.

Mineral A naturally occurring homogeneous substance having definite physical properties and chemical composition and, if formed under favourable conditions, a definite crystal form.

Mineral Concession

That portion of public mineral lands which a party has staked or marked out in accordance with federal or state mining laws to acquire the right to explore for and exploit the minerals under the surface.

Mineralization The process or processes by which mineral or minerals are introduced into a rock, resulting in a valuable or potentially valuable deposit.

Mineral Resource

A Mineral Resource is a concentration or occurrence of solid material of
economic interest in or on the Earth’s crust in such form, grade or quality and quantity that there are reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction. The location, quantity, grade or quality, continuity and other geological characteristics of a Mineral Resource are known, estimated or interpreted from specific geological evidence and knowledge, including sampling. Mineral Resources are sub-divided, in order of increasing geological confidence, into Inferred, Indicated and Measured categories. An Inferred Mineral Resource has a lower level of confidence than that applied to an Indicated Mineral Resource. An Indicated Mineral Resource has a higher level of confidence than an Inferred Mineral Resource but has a lower level of confidence than a Measured Mineral Resource. The term mineral resource used in this report is a Canadian mining term as defined in accordance with NI 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects under the guidelines set out in the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (the CIM), Standards on Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserves Definitions and guidelines adopted by the CIM Council on December 11, 2005, updated as of November 27, 2010 and more recently updated as of May 10, 2014(the CIM Standards).

N

Net Smelter Return

A payment made by a producer of metals based on the value of the gross metal production from the property, less deduction of certain limited costs including smelting, refining, transportation and insurance costs.

NI 43-101

National Instrument 43-101 is a national instrument for the Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects within Canada. The Instrument is a codified set of rules and

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

155

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [196 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

guidelines for reporting and displaying information related to mineral properties owned by, or explored by, companies which report these results on stock exchanges within Canada. This includes foreign-owned mining entities who trade on stock exchanges overseen by the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA), even if they only trade on Over the Counter (OTC) derivatives or other instrumented securities. The NI 43-101 rules and guidelines were updated as of June 30, 2011.

O

Open Pit/Cut A form of mining operation designed to extract minerals that lie near the surface. Waste or overburden is first removed, and the mineral is broken and loaded for processing. The mining of metalliferous ores by surface-mining methods is commonly designated as open-pit mining as distinguished from strip mining of coal and the quarrying of other non-metallic materials, such as limestone and building stone.
Outcrop An exposure of rock or mineral deposit that can be seen on surface that is, not covered by soil or water.
Oxidation A chemical reaction caused by exposure to oxygen that result in a change in the chemical composition of a mineral.
Ounce A measure of weight in gold and other precious metals, correctly troy ounces, which weigh 31.2 grams as distinct from an imperial ounce which weigh 28.4 grams.
oz
Abbreviation for ounce.

P

Plant A building or group of buildings in which a process or function is carried out; at a mine site it will include warehouses, hoisting equipment, compressors, maintenance shops, offices and the mill or concentrator.
Pyrite A common, pale-bronze or brass-yellow, mineral composed of iron and sulphur. Pyrite has a brilliant metallic luster and has been mistaken for gold. Pyrite is the most wide-spread and abundant of the sulphide minerals and occurs in all kinds of rocks.

Q

Qualified Person Conforms to that definition under NI 43-101 for an individual: (a) to be an engineer or geoscientist with a university degree, or equivalent accreditation, in an area of geoscience, or engineering, related to mineral exploration or mining; (b) has at least five years' experience in mineral exploration, mine development or operation or mineral project assessment, or any combination of these, that is relevant to his or her professional degree or area of practice; (c) to have experience relevant to the subject matter of the mineral project and the technical report; (d) is in good standing with a professional association; and (e) in the case of a professional association in a foreign jurisdiction, has a membership designation that (i) requires attainment of a

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

156

Doubleview Gold Corp.

==> picture [196 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

position of responsibility in their profession that requires the exercise of independent judgement; and (ii) requires (A.) a favourable confidential peer evaluation of the individual’s character, professional judgement, experience, and ethical fitness; or (B.) a recommendation for membership by at least two peers, and demonstrated prominence or expertise in the field of mineral exploration or mining.

R

Reclamation The restoration of a site after mining or exploration activity is completed.

S

Shoot A concentration of mineral values; that part of a vein or zone carrying values of ore grade.

Strike The direction, or bearing from true north, of a vein or rock formation measure on a horizontal surface.

Stringer A narrow vein or irregular filament of a mineral or minerals traversing a rock mass. Sulphides A group of minerals which contains sulphur and other metallic elements such as copper and zinc. Gold and silver are usually associated with sulphide enrichment in mineral deposits.

T

Tonne A metric ton of 1,000 kilograms (2,205 pounds).

V

Vein A fissure, fault or crack in a rock filled by minerals that have travelled upwards from some deep source.

W

Wall rocks Rock units on either side of an orebody. The hanging wall and footwall rocks of a mineral deposit or orebody.

Waste Unmineralized, or sometimes mineralized, rock that is not minable at a profit.

Working(s) May be a shaft, quarry, level, open-cut, open pit, or stope etc. Usually noted in the plural.

Z

Zone An area of distinct mineralization.

Hat Deposit Project

August 30, 2024

157

AI assistant

Doubleview Gold Corp. — Regulatory Filings 2024

46538_rns_2024-09-09_4df894f5-9bce-4383-a4a6-b741e90d44f9.pdf

NI 43-101 Technical Report for the 2024 Mineral Resource Estimate on the Hat Project, Atlin Mining Division, British Columbia, Canada

Effective Date: July 17, 2024 Report Date: August 30, 2024