Technical Report - Sao Francisco Mine - July 27, 2009

AURA MINERAL INC.

AMENDED AND RESTATEDTECHNICAL REPORT ON THESO FRANCISCO MINE,MATO GROSSO STATE, BRAZIL

NI 43-101 Report

Authors:Chester M. Moore, P.Eng.Normand L. Lecuyer, P.Eng.

May 20, 2009Readdressed June 17, 2009

Amended July 27, 2009

SCOTT WILSON ROSCOE POSTLE ASSOCIATES INC.

Scott Wilson Mining

SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com

Aura Minerals Inc. So Francisco Mine, Technical Report NI 43-101 Dated May 20, 2009; readdressed June 17, 2009, amended July 27, 2009 Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 SUMMARY.................................................................................................................. 1-1Executive Summary ................................................................................................... 1-1Economic Analysis .................................................................................................... 1-7Technical Summary ................................................................................................. 1-12

2 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 2-1

3 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS ........................................................................... 3-1

4 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION........................................................ 4-1

5 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY........................................................................................................... 5-1

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

7 GEOLOGICAL SETTING ........................................................................................... 7-1Regional Geology ...................................................................................................... 7-1Local Geology............................................................................................................ 7-3

8 DEPOSIT TYPES......................................................................................................... 8-1

9 MINERALIZATION .................................................................................................... 9-1

10 EXPLORATION....................................................................................................... 10-1

11 DRILLING................................................................................................................ 11-1

12 SAMPLING METHOD AND APPROACH............................................................ 12-1

13 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY ................................. 13-1Sample Security ....................................................................................................... 13-5

14 DATA VERIFICATION .......................................................................................... 14-1

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

16 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING......................... 16-1Metallurgical Testing ............................................................................................... 16-5Plant Production....................................................................................................... 16-5

17 MINERAL RESOURCE AND MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES.................... 17-1Mineral Resources ................................................................................................... 17-1Geological Interpretation ......................................................................................... 17-4Assay Composites.................................................................................................... 17-5Grade Capping ......................................................................................................... 17-5Mineral Reserves ................................................................................................... 17-21

18 OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION ............................................ 18-1


Aura Minerals Inc. So Francisco Mine, Technical Report NI 43-101 Dated May 20, 2009; readdressed June 17, 2009, amended July 27, 2009 Page ii

19 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS.......................................................................... 19-1Mining Operations ................................................................................................... 19-1Markets .................................................................................................................. 19-12Contracts ................................................................................................................ 19-12Environmental Considerations............................................................................... 19-13Taxes ...................................................................................................................... 19-14Capital and Operating Cost Estimates ................................................................... 19-14Manpower .............................................................................................................. 19-17Economic Analysis ................................................................................................ 19-18

20 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS.......................................................... 20-1Exploration............................................................................................................... 20-1Geology and Mineral Resources.............................................................................. 20-1Mineral Reserves and Life of Mine Plan ................................................................. 20-2Mineral Processing................................................................................................... 20-3Capital and Operating Costs .................................................................................... 20-3Economic Analysis .................................................................................................. 20-4

21 RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................................... 21-1

22 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 22-1

23 DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGE ........................................................................... 23-1

24 CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON ............................................................ 24-1

25 APPENDIX 1............................................................................................................ 25-1

LIST OF TABLES PAGE

Table 1-1 Base Case Pre-Tax Cash Flow Summary...................................................... 1-9Table 1-2 Sensitivity Analyses .................................................................................... 1-11Table 1-3 Mineral Resources (December 31, 2008).................................................... 1-15Table 1-4 Probable Mineral Reserves (December 31, 2008)....................................... 1-16Table 1-5 Capital Expenditures ................................................................................... 1-19Table 1-6 Operating Costs ........................................................................................... 1-20Table 10-1 Exploration Summary................................................................................ 10-1Table 11-1 Exploration Intersections 2008.................................................................. 11-1Table 16-1 2008 Plant Production ............................................................................... 16-6Table 17-1 Indicated Mineral Resource Estimate (December 31, 2008)..................... 17-2Table 17-2 Inferred Mineral Resource Estimate (December 31, 2008)....................... 17-3Table 17-3 Summary of Assay Records ...................................................................... 17-7Table 17-4 Summary of Assay Composites................................................................. 17-8Table 17-5 Variography Summary ............................................................................ 17-12


Aura Minerals Inc. So Francisco Mine, Technical Report NI 43-101 Dated May 20, 2009; readdressed June 17, 2009, amended July 27, 2009 Page iii

Table 17-6 Mineral Resource Classification Parameters........................................... 17-16Table 17-7 Mineral Resources (December 31, 2008) .............................................. 17-19Table 17-8 Comparison of Mineral Resource Estimates ........................................... 17-20Table 17-9 Mineral Resources (in Addition to Mineral Reserves)............................ 17-21Table 17-10 Probable Mineral Reserves (December 31, 2008)................................. 17-22Table 19-1 Previous Production to December 2008 .................................................... 19-3Table 19-2 Base Case Life of Mine Plan ..................................................................... 19-7Table 19-3 Mine Equipment ...................................................................................... 19-11Table 19-4 2008 Contractor Haulage Cost ................................................................ 19-12Table 19-5 Sales Contract Power Rates..................................................................... 19-13Table 19-6 Capital Expenditures ............................................................................... 19-15Table 19-7 2009 Operating Cost Breakdown ............................................................ 19-16Table 19-8 Operating Costs ....................................................................................... 19-17Table 19-9 Manpower................................................................................................ 19-18Table 19-10 Base Case Pre-Tax Cash Flow SumMary ............................................. 19-21Table 19-11 Sensitivity Analyses .............................................................................. 19-23

LIST OF FIGURES PAGE

Figure 1-1 Sensitivity Analysis.................................................................................... 1-10Figure 4-1 Location Map ............................................................................................... 4-2Figure 4-2 Mining Concessions and Exploration Claims .............................................. 4-3Figure 7-1 Regional Geology......................................................................................... 7-2Figure 11-1 2008 Drill Hole Locations........................................................................ 11-4Figure 11-2 Cross-Section 550S .................................................................................. 11-5Figure 13-1 Sample Preparation Flow Sheet Grade Control Samples...................... 13-4Figure 16-1 General Flow Sheet .................................................................................. 16-4Figure 17-1 Histograms of Samples HGZ, LGZ, and Saprolite Zones .................... 17-9Figure 17-2 Indicator Selection HGZ, LGZ, and Saprolite Zones ......................... 17-11Figure 17-3 Block Model Grades on Cross Section 550 S ........................................ 17-14Figure 17-4 Grade Distribution.................................................................................. 17-15Figure 17-5 Resource Classification.......................................................................... 17-18Figure 17-6 Mineral Resource and Reserve Pits........................................................ 17-23Figure 17-7 Production Reconciliation...................................................................... 17-25Figure 17-8 GLO Reconciliation ............................................................................... 17-26Figure 19-1 Final Pit Design........................................................................................ 19-2Figure 19-2 Historic Ore Production ........................................................................... 19-3Figure 19-3 Plan View of the Open Pit........................................................................ 19-5Figure 19-4 Longitudinal Section Pit and Surface Profiles ...................................... 19-9Figure 19-5 Sensitivity Analysis................................................................................ 19-22


Aura Minerals Inc. So Francisco Mine, Technical Report NI 43-101 Dated May 20, 2009; readdressed June 17, 2009, amended July 27, 2009 Page iv

LIST OF APPENDIX FIGURES & TABLES PAGE

Table 25-1 Exploration and Mining Claims and Permits ........................................... 25-1


Aura Minerals Inc. So Francisco Mine, Technical Report NI 43-101 Dated May 20, 2009; readdressed June 17, 2009, amended July 27, 2009 Page 1-1

This amended and restated technical report has been issued to correct an addition

error in Table 17-1 (carried through to Tables 1-3, 17-7 and 17-8) in the technical report

dated May 20, 2009, and readdressed June 17, 2009 and entitled Technical Report on the

So Francisco Mine, Mato Grosso State, Brazil prepared for Aura Minerals Inc. in

accordance with National Instrument 43-101, a copy of which was filed on SEDAR by

Aura Minerals Inc. on July 23, 2009. The sum of the GLO and DLO at US$900 gold per

ounce amounts to 45,150,000 tonnes, instead of the 41,150,000 tonnes previously stated.

1 SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Scott Wilson Roscoe Postle Associates Inc. (Scott Wilson RPA) was retained by

William Wulftange, Corporate Director, Technical Compliance, of Yamana Gold Inc.

(Yamana), to carry out an audit of the Mineral Reserves and Mineral Resources and to

prepare an independent Technical Report on the So Francisco Mine (So Francisco, or

the Project) of Serra da Borda Minerao e Metalurgia S.A. (SBMM), located in Mato

Grosso State in Brazil. The purpose of this independent Technical Report is to provide

support information for the disclosure of Mineral Reserves and Mineral Resources at the

property. This Technical Report conforms to NI 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for

Mineral Projects.

This Technical Report has been readdressed to Aura Minerals Inc. (Aura Minerals)

following a binding letter agreement dated June 9, 2009, between Aura Minerals and

Yamana whereby Aura Minerals will acquire So Francisco from Yamana subject to

appropriate consents and completion of a minimum financing by Aura Minerals.

Aura Minerals is a Canadian-based company focused on the acquisition, exploration,

development, and operation of mining properties in North and South America. Along

with the So Francisco operation, Aura Minerals is in the process of acquiring from

Yamana two other producing gold mines, San Andrs in Honduras and So Vicente in



Brazil. The Company holds 100% of the Aranzazu Project, a past producing copper-

gold-silver mine in Mexico which Aura Minerals plans to re-start in 2010, and 100% of

the Serrote da Laje copper-gold-iron project, located in Alagoas State, Brazil, currently at

the feasibility and permitting stage. The Company also controls several early stage gold

and base metals properties in Northern Brazil. Aura Minerals shares trade on the

Toronto Stock Exchange.

Currently, the major assets and facilities associated with So Francisco are:

An open pit mine. From 2006 to the end of 2008, So Francisco treated some

25.3 million tonnes of material at an average grade of 0.53 g/t Au. Currently, the mine produces approximately 600,000 tonnes of ore per month made up of approximately 375,000 tonnes of run-of-mine dump leach ore and 225,000 tonnes of higher-grade crushed ore.

A crushing plant, a gravity recovery circuit, heap leach pads with carbon recovery system which produces gold dor, and a hydrogen peroxide cyanide destruction circuit.

Mine and plant infrastructure including office buildings, shops, and equipment. On-site accommodations, recreation facilities, and cafeteria for the workforce. A controlled solution discharge system including Pregnant, Intermediate, and

Barren ponds and a Security dam for where excess solutions, generally during the rainy season, are collected and neutralized by hydrogen peroxide prior to final discharge.

Scott Wilson RPA has had no prior involvement with the operations described in this

report.

CONCLUSIONS EXPLORATION

Although potential for discovery of additional gold ounces remains at depth below the

deposit, no exploration is planned at So Francisco in 2009.

GEOLOGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES

The So Francisco deposit is a shear hosted and structurally controlled lode gold

deposit which appears to be epigenetic and composed of one centimetre to five

centimetres wide, sericitic quartz veins containing free gold. It occurs in a hydrothermal



alteration zone within the basal Fortuna Formation which is composed of fine to coarse

grained meta-arenites, with locally reddish metapelites and occasionally oligomictic

metaconglomerates. The gold occurs as free gold and frequently as coarse nuggets

measuring several millimetres in diameter with the quartz, as laminations along the

fracture planes, and within limonite boxwork after pyrite and arsenopyrite. The ore is

divided into two types - GLO (Gravity Leach Ore) and DLO (Dump Leach Ore) -

depending on gold content and processing method.

The 2008 So Francisco Mineral Resources estimated by Yamana using a long term

$900 gold price total 41.2 million tonnes of Indicated Mineral Resources at an average

grade of approximately 0.69 g/t Au inclusive of the Mineral Resources which have been

converted to Mineral Reserves. Using a long term $900 gold price, the deposits are

estimated to contain some 751,000 tonnes of Inferred Mineral Resources at an average

grade of approximately 0.8 g/t Au. The Inferred Resources are in addition to the reported

Mineral Reserves. With the exception of not using a minimum width which is not

critical, these resource estimates, in Scott Wilson RPAs opinion, are prepared in

accordance with CIM definitions and are NI 43-101 compliant.

An inverse distance squared estimate was independently completed on the $900

resource pit using verified grade shells. The results were compared with the Yamana

indicator kriged totals. As predicted by Yamana, it is apparent that direct interpolation

does not produce satisfactory results. When reconciled against production, the Yamana

estimate is a more accurate estimate than the inverse distance squared estimate,

containing fewer tonnes and ounces of gold and appearing to restrict the spread of gold

from the scattered high grade values in the deposit.

MINERAL RESERVES AND LIFE OF MINE PLAN

The 2008 So Francisco Mineral Reserves reported by Yamana total 31.9 million

tonnes of Probable Mineral Reserves at an average grade of 0.71 g/t Au.



Scott Wilson RPA notes that the reserves are in accordance with the CIM definitions

and are considered NI 43-101 compliant. The Mineral Reserves have been estimated

using a cut-off grade of 0.45 g/t Au for GLO and 0.15 g/t Au for DLO.

The reported Mineral Reserve estimate is reasonable for the remaining Life of Mine

(LOM) Plan.

From 2009 to 2013, it is planned to mine approximately 7.3 million tonnes per year at

average grades ranging from 0.27 g/t Au to 1.26 g/t Au. In 2013, production drops to

approximately 4.3 million tonnes per year due to ore depletion.

In Scott Wilson RPAs opinion, the Mine Call Factor (MCF) currently employed at

the mine is not within an acceptable range, and should be improved in order to support

the assumptions used for Mineral Reserve evaluation and mine planning purposes. A

new block model and more accurate pit sampling will allow a better comparison of long

term model (mineral reserves) and the short term model (block model based on pit

samples). Complete sampling of all crushed material will also improve the estimate of

gold in the material sent to the heaps. Both of these measures will enable better

reconciliation of the Mineral Reserve estimate and the actual gold production.

However, any conclusions regarding the amount of gold contained in the mine

production compared to the reserve estimate must take into account that the mine

production is derived from calculations of the amount of gold and recovery in the heaps.

This may not be a reliable estimate since the grade of the portion of the crushed material

dumped on the heap and the actual gold recovery in the heap are not determined by

sampling.

MINERAL PROCESSING

Plant adjusted production for 2008 totalled 7,430,903 tonnes grading 0.459 g/t Au

resulting in the recovery of 75,937 ounces of gold for an overall calculated recovery of

69.2%. The monthly processed tonnage remained fairly constant at an average of

670,000 tonnes per month from January to August and dropped to approximately 520,000

tonnes per month for the remainder of the year. This occurred during the transition



period during the switch to contractor haulage from owner operated trucks. Head grade

varied between 0.39 g/t Au and 0.57 g/t Au depending on source of feed from the mine.

The overall feed grade for 2008 was 0.459 g/t Au.

CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS

Yamana provided Scott Wilson RPA with capital cost for the LOM, and operating

cost estimates for 2009 to 2013.

Major capital items include sustaining development, equipment replacement, plant

expansion, building costs, and closure. Scott Wilson RPA reviewed the total capital cost

estimate, which amounts to US$24.5 million, and finds it to be appropriate.

Budget operating costs were reviewed, and used as the basis for projecting costs for

the LOM. Based on the comparison of budget estimates with actual costs from 2008, the

operating cost estimates were found to be appropriate, but additional operating costs will

be incurred for removal of additional waste. The average operating cost over the LOM,

including mining, processing and G&A, is estimated to be $8.57 per tonne leached but

will increase to $9.14 per tonne leached when the additional waste is accounted for.

RECOMMENDATIONS Scott Wilson RPA concurs with capital expenditures of $24.5 million estimated by

Yamana for the period 2008-2013. This estimate consists of:

Machinery and equipment costs IT and communications Furniture and office equipment Building costs Technical studies Reclamation and closure costs

No exploration drilling is planned at So Francisco in 2009.

Other Scott Wilson RPA recommendations include:



Complete analysis of duplicate core samples from diamond drill holes. Generally, drill core duplicates are introduced for less than one in 100 samples and they should be carefully selected to represent different ore types, alternation styles, and rock competency.

Complete analysis of coarse crush duplicates, core duplicates, and pulp

duplicates and consider the results prior to completion of the resource estimation database. This information will allow the assessment of sample preparation, sample size, and accuracy of the primary laboratory.

Replace the current grade control drills with blasthole chip sampling and

logging as suggested by Smee and Associates Consulting Ltd. (Smee) in its internal report for Yamana in 2008. Due to problems with the grade control sampling, fine material was lost at the top of the holes and from the stack on the drill, and some holes returned very little sample. The blastholes are drilled on a 3.5 m x 4.0 m grid and would provide much denser and therefore superior grade and geology information for grade control requirements.

Carry out an initial study to compare the accuracy of analyzing the complete

pile of blasthole cuttings versus 15 kg and one kilogram sample splits. Smee recommended that pie sampling boxes be used to sample the resulting piles of drill cuttings. This methodology is expected to produce 15 kg samples, which would be split to one kilogram size in order to improve the sample preparation time in the laboratory. Scott Wilson RPA concurs with the Smee recommendation, but recommends an initial sample size study.

Enclose the core compound in a security fence and restrict access to

appropriate employees. Purchase DHLogger QA/QC package to allow automatic updates and

verification of the incoming assay information. Install a belt sampling system in the crushing plant in order to determine the

grade of crushed material sent to the gravity circuit and directly to leach piles.

Investigate a capping strategy for gold values in the block model since reconciliation of the High Alteration Zone (HGZ) model with mine production shows the model is predicting higher grades than are achieved in practice.

Use samples from at least two drill holes for a Measured Resource

classification and reduce the search volume for the Measured Resource category to 10 m x 20 m x 5 m.

Include pit mapping and grade control sampling results into future resource

estimates in order to increase confidence in the grade estimates and resource classification for material immediately below the current pit floor.



Complete an initial desktop review of pit slopes at the earliest time, to assess potential savings by reducing the stripping required.

Examine the use of larger excavators and trucks which may prove attractive as

haul distances increase. Investigate an increase in the production drilling pattern size in waste

(presently 5.5 m x 4.5 m) and the resulting fragmentation limits to permit more effective haulage to the waste dumps. The use of larger trucks may also prove attractive as haul distances increase, in an effort to maintain or reduce haulage costs.

Use most recently forecast long term LOM costs in future reserve calculations

instead of the current yearly costs. Review the mine plan to make the necessary adjustments based on a revised

pit plan and production schedule and adjust the LOM cash flow to reflect the effects of the tonnes and grades of material in the revised mine plan.

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

A pre-tax Cash Flow Projection has been provided by Yamana from the LOM

production schedule and capital and operating cost estimates, and is summarized in Table

1-1. Scott Wilson RPA generated a cash flow projection incorporating the additional

waste removal required for the LOM. Scott Wilson RPA recommends that Yamana

adjust the LOM cash flow to reflect the cost of the anticipated additional waste removal.

A summary of the key criteria is provided below.

ECONOMIC CRITERIA REVENUE

The base case is mining approximately 75,000 tonnes per day mining (ore + waste) from the open pit (23.3 million tonnes per year). The requirement to move additional waste tonnage will increase the daily rates to approximately 23,300 tonnes for the ore and 58,500 tonnes for the waste for a total of 81,800 tonnes per day.

Global metallurgical recovery averaging 76%.

o GLO+Gravity recovery of 81%. o DLO recovery of 58%.



Royalty of 1.0% of metal sales to the government and 0.5% to the land owner. Weighted average metal price: US$754 per ounce gold. This is the three year

trailing average price as of April 2, 2009. Revenue is recognized at the time of production.

COSTS

Mine life: 4.4 years. Life of Mine production plan as summarized in Table 19-1. Mine life capital totals US$24.5 million. The base case average operating cost over the mine life is US$8.57 per tonne

(GLO+DLO) leached. The average operating cost over the LOM period will increase by $0.55 per tonne once the additional waste removal is added into the cash flow model.

CASH FLOW ANALYSIS Using the data provided by Yamana, the base case undiscounted pre-tax cash flow is

$115 million. With the addition of 10.7 million tonnes of waste, and considering the

Project on a stand-alone basis, the undiscounted pre-tax cash flow totals $97 million over

the mine life.

The total base case cash cost is $482 per ounce of gold. The mine life capital unit

cost is $55 per ounce, for a total production cost of $537 per ounce of gold. The total

cash cost including the additional waste is $515 per ounce of gold. The mine life capital

unit cost is $55 per ounce, for a resulting total production cost of $570 per ounce of gold.

Average annual gold production during operation is 127,000 ounces per year.

The NPV at a 7.5% discount rate is $100 million or $85 million after including the

additional waste.

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total /2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Average

MiningOre 000 t 7,678 6,960 6,960 5,993 4,291 31,882 Gold Grade g/t 0.74 0.78 0.78 0.68 0.46 0.71

waste tpd 50.12 50.61 50.61 55.85 38.48 50.65 Waste 000 t 15,687 15,840 15,840 17,480 4,521 69,368Total Material (Ore + Waste) 000 t 23,364 22,800 22,800 23,473 8,812 101,249

Stripping Ratio (GLO & DLO combined) 2.0 2.3 2.3 2.9 1.1 2.2 (GLO carrying all the waste) 4.4 4.4 4.4 7.0 5.7 4.9

ProcessTonnes Leached 000 t 7,678 6,960 6,960 5,993 4,291 31,882 Gold Grade g/t 0.74 0.78 0.78 0.68 0.46 0.71

GLO 000 t 3,600 3,600 3,600 2,500 797 14,097 g/t 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.26

DLO 000 t 4,078 3,360 3,360 3,493 3,494 17,785 g/t 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27

Total Contained Gold 000 ozs 181.6 175.3 175.3 131.9 62.9 727

Recovery % 73.3% 73.9% 73.9% 72.7% 67.9% 73%GLO+Gravity % 78.4% 80.7% 80.9% 84.4% 89.2% 81%

DLO % 58.3% 58.3% 58.3% 58.3% 58.3% 58%

Global Recovery % 74.5% 77.0% 77.1% 78.3% 74.2% 76%

Payable GoldGravity Circuit 000 ozs 9.0 23.8 24.5 32.5 17.1 107

GLO 000 ozs 105.5 94.1 93.6 53.0 11.7 358 DLO 000 ozs 20.8 17.1 17.1 17.8 17.8 91

Total Payable Gold 000 ozs 135.2 135.0 135.1 103.3 46.6 555

RevenueAu Price 754 754 754 754 754 754

Gross Revenue 000 US$ 101,971 101,778 101,894 77,909 35,172 418,723Royalties 000 US$ 1.5% 1,530 1,527 1,528 1,169 528 6,281

Net Revenue 000 US$ 100,441 100,251 100,366 76,740 34,644 412,442

Operating CostsMining US$/t moved 1.43 1.66 1.77 1.85 1.91 1.70

US$/t leached 4.35 5.44 5.80 7.25 3.92 5.39 000 US$ 33,411 37,848 40,356 43,425 16,831 171,871

Processing US$/t leached 1.68 2.00 2.14 1.96 1.55 1.89 000 US$ 12,931 13,891 14,899 11,761 6,654 60,136

G&A US$/t leached 1.13 1.27 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.29 000 US$ 8,676 8,839 9,535 8,210 5,879 41,139

Total Operating Cost 000 US$ 55,017 60,578 64,790 63,397 29,363 273,146

Unit Cash Costs US$/t leached 7.17 8.70 9.31 10.58 6.84 8.57 US$/oz 407 449 479 614 629 482

Operating CashflowOperating Margin 000 US$ 45,424 39,673 35,575 13,343 5,281 139,296

Unit Operating Margin US$/t leached 5.92 5.70 5.11 2.23 1.23 4.37 US$/oz 360 357 321 188 179 311

Capital CostsTotal Capital Cost 000 US$ 2,788 3,929 4,056 2,836 10,922 24,531

Unit Capital Costs US$/t leached 0.36 0.56 0.58 0.47 2.55 0.77 US$/oz 22 35 37 40 370 55

CashflowNet Pre-Tax Cashflow 000 US$ 42,636 35,744 31,519 10,507 (5,641) 114,765 Cumulative Pre-Tax Cashflow 000 US$ 42,636 78,380 109,899 120,406 114,765

EconomicsPre-Tax NPV discounted at 2.5% MUS$ $109

5.0% MUS$ $1047.5% MUS$ $10010.0% MUS$ $9612.5% MUS$ $92

TABLE 1-1 BASE CASE PRE-TAX CASH FLOW SUMMARYAura Minerals Inc. So Francisco Mine


Aura Minerals Inc. So Francisco Mine, Technical Report NI 43-101 Dated May 20, 2009; readdressed June 17, 2009; amended July 27, 2009 Page 1-9



SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS Project risks can be identified in both economic and non-economic terms. Key

economic risks were examined by running cash flow sensitivities:

Gold price Head Grade Recovery Operating costs (Total Cash Cost) Capital costs

NPV sensitivity over the base case has been calculated for -20% to +20% variations.

The sensitivities are shown in Figure 1-1 and Table 1-2.

FIGURE 1-1 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

$180

20% 10% BaseCase +10% +20%

MUS$

AuPrice HeadGradeGLO RecoveryGLO HeadGradeDLO RecoveryGravity RecoveryDLO CapitalCost OperatingCost



TABLE 1-2 SENSITIVITY ANALYSES Aura Minerals Inc. So Francisco Mine

Parameter Variables Units -20% -10% Base +10% +20%

Gold Price $/oz 603 679 754 829 905

GLO Head Grade g/t 1.01 1.13 1.26 1.39 1.51

GLO Recovery 000 ozs 286 322 358 394 429

DLO Head Grade g/t 0.22 0.24 0.27 0.30 0.33

DLO Recovery 000 ozs 73 82 91 100 109

Gravity Recovery 000 ozs 85 96 107 118 128

Total Cash Cost $/oz 386 434 482 531 579

Capital Cost $/oz 44 49 55 60 66

NPV Units -20% -10% Base +10% +20%

Gold Price Million $ 31 66 100 134 168

GLO Head Grade Million $ 45 73 100 127 155

GLO Recovery Million $ 55 77 100 122 145

DLO Head Grade Million $ 89 94 100 105 111

DLO Recovery Million $ 89 94 100 105 111

Gravity Recovery Million $ 97 98 100 101 103

Total Cash Cost Million $ 145 122 100 78 55

Capital Cost Million $ 104 102 100 98 96

As indicated by the sensitivity chart and table, the project is most sensitive to the gold

price, head grade, and operating costs, followed by the GLO ore recovery. Therefore all

efforts to accurately determine the head grade and to help reduce the operating costs

would be necessary in order to optimize the economics of the So Francisco mine

operation.



TECHNICAL SUMMARY

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION, LOCATION AND TENURE The So Francisco property is located close to the Bolivian border in the western

portion of the State of Mato Grosso in west central Brazil (1450W latitude and 5937S

longitude). It is approximately 560 km west of Cuiab, the state capital city. The

property consists of two contiguous mining permits covering some 16,368.34 ha that

were granted in 1982 by the Departamento Nacional de Produo Mineral (DNPM). The

DNPM process numbers for the permits are 860938/1982 and 860937/1982. The

permitting process for the Project has been completed and all the relevant licences for the

operation of the So Francisco Mine are in place. There are no apparent environmental

liabilities or non-compliance issues for the property.

ACCESS AND SITE INFRASTRUCTURE The So Francisco Mine is readily accessible from Cuiab by highways BR-070/174

or by chartered flights from Cuiab to a 1.25 km paved airstrip at So Vicente, some

50km by road from So Francisco, or a gravel runway at So Francisco. Cuiab is

serviced by several daily scheduled air flights from several Brazilian cities. The town of

Pontes e Lacerda with a population of some 40,000 inhabitants is the closest full service

community where modern education, medical, shopping, and banking facilities are

available.

A power line has been constructed to connect the mine to the national grid and water

is readily available from local streams and groundwater.

HISTORY Gold was first discovered in the area in the 1700s and mining at So Francisco began

the use of African slaves. The district reportedly produced and shipped some 60 to 70

tonnes of gold to Portugal between 1720 and 1830. Artisanal miners, garimpeiros,

began mining in the area in the mid-1970s, and Santa Elina Gold Corporation (Santa

Elina) began acquiring mineral concessions in 1977. In 1983, Santa Elina commenced a



placer operation at So Vicente, followed by a flotation and gravity concentration

operation from 1995 to 1997. A total of some 186,810 ounces of gold were reportedly

produced by these two operations.

Santa Elina and Echo Bay Mines Ltd. carried out additional exploration of the area

that included detailed drilling, followed by mineral resource/reserve estimates, and

associated pre-feasibility studies in 1996 and 1997. The So Vicente operation was shut

down in 1997 due to high operating costs.

In 2002, Santa Elina re-examined the studies based on reduced costs due to currency

devaluation. In 2004, a shaft and three trenches were excavated to obtain bulk samples

for metallurgical testing, including large column tests and pilot-plant sized gravity

concentration tests. Operations by Yamana started in 2006. Total production for the So

Francisco Mine by Yamana to the end of 2008 is approximately 262,000 ounces of gold

recovered from production of 25,259,000 tonnes of ore grading an average of 0.53 g/t Au.

GEOLOGY AND MINERALIZATION The geological setting for the So Francisco Project is the Aguape Mobile and Mafic

Arc Belt. This major crustal scale shear zone separates the Archean Amazon Craton

from the Proterozoic Paragua Craton. The belt extends for more than 600 km in a north-

northwest direction and is characterized by a prominent mountain range composed of a

1,200 m thick sequence of Proterozoic clastic sediments known as the Aguapei Group

which hosts the gold mineralization.

The So Francisco deposit is a shear hosted and structurally controlled lode gold

deposit which appears to be epigenetic and composed of one centimetre to five

centimetres wide, sericitic quartz veins containing free gold. It occurs in a hydrothermal

alteration zone within the basal Fortuna Formation which is composed of fine to coarse

grained meta-arenites, with locally reddish metapelites and occasionally oligomictic

metaconglomerates. The gold occurs as free gold and frequently as coarse nuggets

measuring several millimetres in diameter with the quartz, as laminations along the



fracture planes, and within limonite boxwork after pyrite and arsenopyrite. The ore is

divided into two types - GLO and DLO - depending on gold content and processing

method.

MINERAL RESOURCES AND MINERAL RESERVES For this report, Scott Wilson RPA has reviewed the Mineral Resource and Mineral

Reserve estimates of the So Francisco Mine, as reported by Yamana as of December 31,

2008. Scott Wilson RPA carried out a number of checks to verify the various procedures

and numerical calculations used in the estimates. This included detailed tracing of the

methodology of estimating tonnage and grade of resource and reserve blocks. With few

exceptions, Scott Wilson RPA found that values and compilations of gold grades were

accurately recorded and calculated as provided in block models and on cross-sections.

Scott Wilson RPA, however, notes that, although not material, a minimum thickness was

not applied to the mineralized structure in the estimation of Mineral Resources.

As part of this audit, Scott Wilson RPA carried out an independent estimate of the

deposit to allow for comparison of the SBMM/Yamana estimates with the Scott Wilson

RPA estimates, based on the surface data and wireframes provided. It is Scott Wilson

RPAs opinion that, except for the classification of the resources, the Yamana estimate is

a more conservative estimate containing fewer tonnes and ounces of gold. The Yamana

methodology appears to restrict the spread of gold from the scattered high grade values in

the deposit.

Table 1-3 contains the Mineral Resource estimates for the So Francisco Mine as of

December 31, 2008.



TABLE 1-3 MINERAL RESOURCES (DECEMBER 31, 2008) Aura Minerals Inc. So Francisco Mine

Gold Price (US$/oz) Classification Tonnes

Grade (g/t Au) Gold (oz)

800 Indicated 41,172,000 0.72 948,000 Inferred 410,000 0.8 11,000

900 Indicated 45,150,000 0.69 1,007,000 Inferred 751,000 0.8 19,000

1,000 Indicated 53,074,000 0.66 1,127,000 Inferred 1,880,000 0.7 37,000

1,200 Indicated 65,255,000 0.61 1,276,000 Inferred 24,900,000 0.7 580,000

Notes: 1. Totals may not add correctly due to rounding. 2. CIM definitions were followed for Mineral Resources. 3. Mineral Resources were estimated using a GLO cut-off grade of 0.45 g/t Au and a DLO

cut-off grade of 0.15 g/t Au. 4. Mineral Resources using the $900 gold price were estimated based on a long term total

recovery of 58% for DLO and 81% for GLO. Mineral Resources are based on a unit mining cost of $1.70/t, a GLO processing cost of $2.75/t, a DLO processing cost of $1.22/t, and a unit G&A cost of $1.29/t.

5. No minimum mining width was used. 6. No cutting of high assay values was used. 7. Indicated Mineral Resources are inclusive of resources used to estimate Mineral

Reserves. 8. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic

viability.

Yamana compiled the LOM Plan schedule using Indicated Resources (Table 1-3).

The process uses various software programs including Whittle 4D and a scheduling

package, to determine and optimize the material converted to Mineral Reserves within an

open pit. Detailed mine plans, gold price, ore types, mining and metallurgical recoveries,

and cost information are considered during this process.

Mining factors such as dilution and recovery are used to produce diluted tonnes and

grades and the economic value of each potential mining area is calculated using a forecast

long-term gold price of US$700 per ounce. These economic values are weighed against

forecast costs and metallurgical recoveries for each potential mining area and the

resulting economically viable mine areas are totalled to produce the Mineral Reserves.



Table 1-4 contains the Mineral Reserves for the So Francisco Mine as of December

31, 2008.

TABLE 1-4 PROBABLE MINERAL RESERVES (DECEMBER 31, 2008) Aura Minerals Inc. So Francisco Mine

Ore Type Tonnes Grade (g/t Au) Gold (oz)

GLO 14,097,000 1.26 572,000 DLO 17,785,000 0.27 156,000

Total Mineral Reserves 31,882,000 0.71 727,000

Notes: 1. Totals may not add correctly due to rounding. 2. CIM definitions were followed for Mineral Reserves. 3. Mineral Reserves are estimated at a GLO cut-off grade of 0.45 g/t Au and a DLO cut-off

grade of 0.15 g/t Au. 4. Mineral Reserves are estimated using an average long-term gold price of US$700 per

ounce and total recovery of 58% for DLO and 81% for GLO. 5. Mineral Resources are based on a unit mining cost of $1.70/t, a GLO processing cost of

$2.75/t, a DLO processing cost of $1.22/t, and a unit G&A cost of $1.29/t. 6. A selective mining unit of 10 m x10 m x10 m was used. 7. Bulk density is 2.60 t/m3.

MINING OPERATIONS Mining at the So Francisco property is by the open pit method. The pit is accessed

via a standard access road or ramp 15 m wide at a -8% grade which provides access to the

various benches. The mine produced approximately 54,000 tonnes per day during 2008

which was made up of 8,000 tonnes per day of GLO, 12,400 tonnes per day of DLO, and

33,500 tonnes of waste. The open pit operations work two shifts per day at 10 hours per

shift, with a six day work week, for 313 days per year, and the crusher circuit operates

approximately 16 hours per day, seven days per week. The mine operation is designed to

send approximately a steady feed of GLO, on a daily basis, to the gravity circuit (the

highest grade material) while the run-of-mine DLO material goes directly to the leach pad

together with the higher grade crushed DLO. The ore is hauled by 30 tonne haul trucks

provided by a contractor (Fagundes Engenharia e Minerao Ltda).

Production drilling is carried out with 5.5 inch diameter holes and patterns for waste

and ore of 5.5 m x 4.5 m and 3.5 m x 4.5 m, respectively. Standard bench height is 10 m,

with one metre of sub-grade drilling for floor control. The bottom seven metres of the



blastholes are loaded with emulsion type explosives, and a three metre stemmed collar is

left at the top of the hole. The overall average stripping ratio is 2.2:1 waste to ore. Ore

and waste haulage is currently carried out by a contractor (Fagundes Engenharia e

Minerao Ltda.) using 30-tonne trucks.

Mining over the five year mine life is planned to produce some 555,300 ounces of

gold from 14.1 million tonnes of GLO and 17.7 million tonnes of DLO. In total, some

69.4 million tonnes of waste will be removed for an average stripping ratio of 2.2:1 in the

base case. Daily production will average approximately 23,300 tonnes of ore and 50,700

tonnes of waste over the base case LOM period.

MINERAL PROCESSING The So Francisco mineral processing system is made up of a gravity concentration

circuit combined with a multi-lift, heap leach operation. The higher grade ore, or GLO,

has a cut-off grade of 0.45 g/t Au, and the marginal, or DLO, ranges in grade between

0.15 g/t Au and 0.45 g/t Au. A portion of the GLO (above 0.6 g/t Au) is processed by

crushing, gravity concentration followed by heap leaching of the tailings product from the

circuit. Ore grading between 0.45 g/t Au and 0.6 g/t Au is crushed prior to leaching.

Marginal ore is processed by run-of-mine (ROM) heap leaching.

Crushing includes a three-stage open-circuit system, with an additional fourth stage

closed-circuit, fine-crush system for the higher grade ore. Approximately 2.7 million

tonnes of GLO and 4.5 million tonnes of DLO were processed in 2008. Approximately

2.1 million tonnes of the GLO was processed through a gravity concentrating circuit with

the discharge being sent to the heap leach.

At the heap leach area, both crushed and ROM ore are stacked using trucks and

bulldozers. The leach pad is a multi-lift, single-use type pad. The basic components of

the leach pad include a compacted earth foundation, a compacted soil sub-base, a 1.5 mm

thick geomembrane liner, a cushion layer of material on top of the geomembrane, and a

series of perforated plastic drainpipes, which are placed on top of the geomembrane,



under the cushion layer during stacking, to collect leach solutions. Following stacking of

the crushed and ROM ore, both ore types are irrigated with leach solution and the

resulting gold-bearing solutions are collected in a pregnant solution pond prior to further

processing for recovery of gold.

A carbon Adsorption/Desorption/Recovery (ADR) facility is used for gold recovery.

The ADR facility includes a train of five, cascade-type, open-top up-flow carbon

adsorption columns, a carbon desorption system, a carbon acid wash circuit, a precious

metals recovery circuit that utilizes electrowinning, and a complete smelting system for

gold production. Gravity plant concentrates and the loaded cathode material from the

carbon recovery plant are combined and smelted to produce a dor product.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS The environmental licence for the So Francisco Mine operation is valid until

November 2009. Licences are posted on the government website, www.sema.mt.gov.br.

There are apparently no environmental liabilities or non-compliance issues for the

property.

The current mine budget includes approximately $12 million for reclamation and

closure and about $10 million of this amount is scheduled for the last year of the mine

life.

CAPITAL AND OPERATING COST ESTIMATES Capital costs over the mine life are estimated to be US$24.5 million (Table 1-5).

Major capital items include sustaining development, equipment replacement, plant

expansion, building cost, and closure.



TABLE 1-5 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES Aura Minerals Inc. So Francisco Mine

Area Total ($ 000)

Mine Development -

Mineral Rights -

Machinery and Equipment Cost 8,446

Trucks and Vehicles -

IT & Communication 154

Furniture and Office Equipment 51

Building Cost 3,163

Other Land Acquisition -

Technical Studies 921

Reclamation and Closure 11,796

Total Capital 24,531

The average operating cost over the mine life, including mining, processing and

G&A, was estimated by Yamana to be $8.57 per tonne leached (Table 1-6) but will

increase by approximately US$0.55 per tonne when the additional waste is accounted for.

An updated mine plan and production schedule is required to address this issue.



TABLE 1-6 OPERATING COSTS Aura Minerals Inc. So Francisco Mine

Area Mine Life Average/Total

Waste (tonnes leached) 69,368 GLO (tonnes mined/leached) 14,097

DLO (tonnes mined/leached) 17,785

Total tonnes leached 31,882 Mine

All Material ($/t moved) 1.70 GLO + Waste ($/GLO t leached) 10.05

DLO ($/DLO t leached) 1.70

Mine Average ($/Total tonnes leached) 5.39 Plant

GLO ($/GLO t leached) 2.79

DLO ($/DLO t leached) 1.22

Plant Average ($/Total tonnes leached) 1.89

G&A ($/Total tonnes leached) 1.29

Total Operating Cost ($/Total tonnes leached) 8.57



2 INTRODUCTION Scott Wilson Roscoe Postle Associates Inc. (Scott Wilson RPA) was retained by

William Wulftange, Corporate Director, Technical Compliance, of Yamana Gold Inc.

(Yamana), to carry out an audit of the Mineral Reserves and Mineral Resources and to

prepare an independent Technical Report on the So Francisco Mine (So Francisco) of

Serra da Borda Minerao e Metalurgia S.A. (SBMM), located in Mato Grosso State in

Brazil. The purpose of this independent Technical Report is to provide support

information for the disclosure of Mineral Reserves and Mineral Resources at the

property. This Technical Report conforms to NI 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for

Mineral Projects.

This Technical Report has been readdressed to Aura Minerals Inc. (Aura Minerals)

following a binding letter agreement dated June 9, 2009, between Aura Minerals and

Yamana whereby Aura Minerals will acquire So Francisco from Yamana.

Aura Minerals is a Canadian-based company focused on the acquisition, exploration,

development, and operation of mining properties in North and South America. Along

with the So Francisco operation, Aura Minerals is in the process of acquiring from

Yamana two other producing gold mines, San Andrs in Honduras and So Vicente in

Brazil. The Company holds 100% of the Aranzazu Project, a past producing copper-

gold-silver mine in Mexico which Aura Minerals plans to re-start in 2010, and 100% of

the Serrote da Laje copper-gold-iron project, located in Alagoas State, Brazil, currently at

the feasibility and permitting stage. The Company also controls several early stage gold

and base metals properties in Northern Brazil. Aura Minerals shares trade on the

Toronto Stock Exchange.

Currently, the major assets and facilities associated with So Francisco are:

An open pit mine. From 2006 to the end of 2008, So Francisco treated some

25.3 million tonnes of material at an average grade of 0.53 g/t Au. Currently, the mine produces approximately 600,000 tonnes of ore per month made up of



approximately 375,000 tonnes of run-of-mine dump leach ore and 225,000 tonnes of higher-grade crushed ore.

A crushing plant, a gravity recovery circuit, heap leach pads with carbon recovery system which produces gold dor and a hydrogen peroxide cyanide destruction circuit.

Mine and plant infrastructure including office buildings, shops, and equipment. On-site accommodations, recreation facilities, and cafeteria for the workforce. A controlled solution discharge system including Pregnant, Intermediate, and

Barren ponds and a Security dam for where excess solutions, generally during the rainy season, are collected and neutralized by hydrogen peroxide prior to final discharge.

Scott Wilson RPA has had no prior involvement with the operations described in this

report.

SOURCES OF INFORMATION The Qualified Persons for this report are Messrs. Normand L. Lecuyer, P. Eng.,

Principal Mining Engineer with Scott Wilson RPA, and Chester M. Moore, P. Eng.,

Principal Geologist with Scott Wilson RPA. In preparation of this report, Lecuyer and

Moore reviewed technical documents and reports on So Francisco supplied by SBMM

and Yamana. The key technical documents reviewed by Scott Wilson RPA for this report

are So Francisco Mine Serra da Borda Minerao e Metalurgia SBMM NI 43-101

Technical Report plus on-site technical presentations from So Francisco personnel.

Messrs. Lecuyer and Moore visited the operations on December 8 to 10, 2008, and

reviewed technical information such as previous technical reports, legal status of mine

holdings, assay results, drill sections and level plans, mine and plant production, Life of

Mine Plan, environmental, manpower, and health and safety aspects at the current

operations. While at the site, and in subsequent communications, Messrs. Lecuyer and

Moore held discussions with technical personnel knowledgeable about the So Francisco

operations including:

Mr. William H. Wulftange, Corporate Director, Technical Compliance, with Yamana.

Mr. Alessandro Henrique Medeiros Silva, Corporate Manager, Mineral Reserves with Yamana.



Mr. Paulo Roberto Bergmann Moreira, General Manager of So Francisco Mine with Yamana.

Mr. Tetsuo Oishe, Geology and Planning Coordinator with SBMM. Mr. Luiz E. C. Pignatari, Mine Engineer with SBMM. Mr. Alexandre de Souza, Geologist with SBMM. Mr. Marcos Dias Alvim, Mine Geologist with SBMM. Mr. Paulo Ferlucio, Mine Engineer with SBMM. Mr. Kleber Silva Goncalves, Mine Engineer with SBMM. Ms. Viviane de Melo Borges, Process Engineer with SBMM. Ms. Poliana Cardoso Brando, Laboratory Coordinator at So Francisco with

Yamana.

Chester Moore is responsible for all sections of the Technical Report, except Section

19 and parts of sections 17, 20, and 21 not covered by Normand Lecuyer. Normand

Lecuyer is responsible for Section 19 and parts of sections 17, 20, and 21 of the

Technical Report not covered by Chester Moore.

The documentation reviewed, and other sources of information, are listed at the end

of this report in Section 22 References.



LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Units of measurement used in this report conform to the SI (metric) system. All

currency in this report is US dollars (US$) unless otherwise noted.

micron kPa kilopascal C degree Celsius kVA kilovolt-amperes F degree Fahrenheit kW kilowatt g microgram kWh kilowatt-hour A ampere L litre a annum L/s litres per second bbl barrels m metre Btu British thermal units M mega (million) C$ Canadian dollars m2 square metre cal calorie m3 cubic metre cfm cubic feet per minute min minute cm centimetre MASL metres above sea level cm2 square centimetre mm millimetre d day mph miles per hour dia. diameter MVA megavolt-amperes dmt dry metric tonne MW megawatt dwt dead-weight ton MWh megawatt-hour ft foot m3/h cubic metres per hour ft/s foot per second opt, oz/st ounce per short ton ft2 square foot oz Troy ounce (31.1035g) ft3 cubic foot oz/dmt ounce per dry metric tonne g gram ppm part per million G giga (billion) psia pound per square inch absolute Gal Imperial gallon psig pound per square inch gauge g/L gram per litre RL relative elevation g/t gram per tonne s second gpm Imperial gallons per minute st short ton gr/ft3 grain per cubic foot stpa short ton per year gr/m3 grain per cubic metre stpd short ton per day hr hour t metric tonne ha hectare tpa metric tonne per year hp horsepower tpd metric tonne per day in inch US$ United States dollar in2 square inch USg United States gallon J joule USgpm US gallon per minute k kilo (thousand) V volt kcal kilocalorie W watt kg kilogram wmt wet metric tonne km kilometre yd3 cubic yard km/h kilometre per hour yr year km2 square kilometre



3 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS This report has been prepared by Scott Wilson Roscoe Postle Associates Inc. (Scott

Wilson RPA) for Aura Minerals Inc. (Aura Minerals). The information, conclusions,

opinions, and estimates contained herein are based on:

Information available to Scott Wilson RPA at the time of preparation of this report;

Assumptions, conditions, and qualifications as set forth in this report; and Data, reports, and other information supplied by Yamana and other third party

sources.

For the purpose of this report, Scott Wilson RPA has relied on property information

provided in a title opinion issued by Aura Minerals counsel in Brazil. Scott Wilson RPA

has not researched property title or mineral rights for the So Francisco Mine and

expresses no opinion as to the ownership status of the property.

Scott Wilson RPA has relied on Yamana for guidance on applicable taxes, royalties,

and other government levies or interests, applicable to revenue or income from the So

Francisco Mine.

Except for the purposes legislated under provincial securities laws, any use of this

report by any third party is at that partys sole risk.



4 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION The So Francisco property is located close to the Bolivian border in the western

portion of the State of Mato Grosso in west central Brazil (Figure 4-1). It is

approximately 560 km west of Cuiab, the state capital. Coordinates for the Project are

1450W latitude and 5937S longitude.

The So Francisco property consists of two contiguous mining permits and two

adjacent exploration claim applications covering some 36,308.34 ha. The two mining

permits were granted in 1982 by the Departamento Nacional de Produo Mineral

(DNPM) and the DNPM process numbers for the permits are 860938/1982 and

860937/1982. The mining permit has been approved for 860938/1982 and the permit for

860937/1982 is being processed. All these areas are shown in Figures 4-2. The

permitting process for the Project has been completed and all the relevant licences for the

operation of the So Francisco Mine are in place. A process to consolidate all the

required operational licences into one Principal Licence is currently underway.

A list of the mining permits and exploration claims in the Sao Francisco property as

of November 2008 is included in Appendix 1. The exploration claims are renewable on a

three year basis and have annual fees of approximately $0.90/ha.

The environmental licence for the So Francisco Mine operation is valid until

November 2009. Licences are posted on the government website, www.sema.mt.gov.br.

There are no apparent environmental liabilities or non-compliance issues for the property.

NorthAtlanticOcean

SouthAtlanticOcean

Gois

Rondnia

Mato Grosso

do Sul

Acre

Amazonas

Rio de JaneiroSo Paulo

Tocantins

Brasilia

72W60

48

12S

24S

0

36W

B R A Z I L

Mato

Grosso

Par

SouthAmerica

B R A Z I L

PacificOcean

NorthAtlanticOcean

SouthAtlanticOcean

SO FRANCISCOMINE

55W60W

10S

15S

0

0

100

1000

Metres

Kilometres

200 300

500

400

N

June 2009 Source: Yamana Gold Inc., 2009.

So Francisco Mine

Location Map

Aura Minerals Inc.

Mato Grosso State, Brazil

Figure 4-1

SC

OT

TW

ILS

ON

RP

A

4-2

ww

w.sco

ttwilso

n.co

m

860937/82

860938/82

866609/94

867146/93

210,000 E8,3

55,7

00

N

So Francisco

Mine

Mining Concession

Legend:

Applied for Exploration Concession

Applied for Mining Concession

Other Concession

0 2 10

Kilometres

4 6 8

N


So Francisco Mine

Mining Concessions andExploration Claims

Aura Minerals Inc.


Figure 4-2

4-3




5 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY

The So Francisco Mine is readily accessible from Cuiab by highways BR-070/174

or by chartered flights from Cuiab to a 1.25 km paved airstrip at So Vicente located

some 50km to the North of So Francisco and connected by gravel road, or a gravel

runway at So Francisco. Cuiab is serviced by several daily scheduled air flights from

several major Brazilian cities.

The climate at the project site is tropical wet-and-dry (Aw in Kppen Classification),

typical of the central part of Brazil, with hot, rainy summers and dry winters. The annual

average temperature is 24C, with maximum and minimum absolute temperatures of 40C

and 0C, respectively. The summer rainy period starts in December and continues

through to March. The dry season is from May to September. The total annual

precipitation ranges from 1,300 mm to 2,400 mm, with an annual average of 1,700 mm.

The mine operates year round in this climate.

The So Francisco Project is located within the municipality of Vila Bela da

Santissima Trindade. A total of four communities are close-by the Project. They are

Vila Bela da Santissima Trindade, Nova Lacerda, Conquista dOeste and Pontes e

Lacerda. The town of Pontes e Lacerda with a population of some 40,000 inhabitants is

the closest full service community where modern education, medical, shopping and

banking facilities are available.

A power line connects the mine to the national grid and water is readily available

from local streams and groundwater.

The physiography of the mine area is characterized by the Serra da Borda mountain

range part of the Aguapei Mobile Belt and Mafic Arc that follows the Brazil-Bolivia

border. In the vicinity of the Project, the range forms a prominent ridge some 800 m in



elevation that strikes approximately N30W and is some 20 km wide. The ridge stands

out from the plains (at approximately 200 m elevation) with a gentle slope on the western

side towards Bolivia and a vertical, to near vertical, cliff-like escarpment on the east side.

The cliff-like escarpment extends for more than 200 km along the mountain

range/Aguapei Mobile Belt.



6 HISTORY Gold was first discovered in the area in the 1700s and mining at So Francisco began

with the use of African slaves. The district reportedly produced and shipped some 60 to

70 tonnes of gold to Portugal between 1720 and 1830. A portion of the So Francisco

concession area has been set aside as a national archaeological site.

Garimpeiros began mining in the area in the mid-1970s and Santa Elina Gold

Corporation (Santa Elina) began acquiring mineral concessions in 1977. In 1983, Santa

Elina commenced a placer operation at So Vicente, followed by a flotation and gravity

concentration operation from 1995 to 1997. A total of some 186,810 ounces of gold were

reportedly produced by these two operations. The So Vicente operation was shut down

in 1997 due to high operating costs.

In 2002, Santa Elina re-examined prefeasibility studies completed in 1996 and 1997

based on reduced costs due to currency devaluation. In 2003, Watts, Griffis, and McOuat

Limited conducted a review of the property and produced a Preliminary Feasibility

Study. In 2004, a shaft and three trenches were excavated to obtain bulk samples for

metallurgical testing, including large column tests and pilot-plant sized gravity

concentration tests.

From 2006 to 2008, SBMM has produced 25,259,265 tonnes grading an average of

0.53 g/t Au and has recovered 262,081 oz of gold.



7 GEOLOGICAL SETTING REGIONAL GEOLOGY

The regional geological setting for the So Francisco Project and the numerous gold

occurrences that comprise the Santa Elina gold belt is the Aguape Mobile and Mafic Arc

Belt. This major crustal scale shear zone separates the Archean Amazon Craton from

the Proterozoic Paragua Craton. The belt extends for more than 600 km in a north-

northwest direction and is characterized by a prominent mountain range composed of a

1,200 m thick sequence of Proterozoic clastic sediments known as the Aguapei Group,

which hosts the gold mineralization. The Aguape Group is a sequence of texturally and

mineralogically super-mature sediments that unconformably overlie the central part of the

Amazon Craton. The sediments consist of predominantly meta-arenites with lesser

amounts of metapelites and even less common lenses of meta-conglomerate. Southward

along the belt, the lower part of the Aguape Group contains inter-bedded volcanic units,

basic sills and dykes (Figure 7-1).

Structurally, the Aguape Group has been subjected to northwest-southeast

compressional forces that folded the eastern edge into broad, to tightly folded, anticlinal-

synclinal sequences paralleling the axis of the mobile belt. Faulting, fracturing and

shearing have also developed parallel to and across this fold axis.

The known bedrock gold occurrences in Mato Grosso State are separated into two

districts: the So Vicente/Borda district, the northern district, and the Pontes e Lacerda

district, the southern district (south from So Francisco).

Older Units

Legend:

Granitoids

Younger Units

Mafic/Ultramafic Igneous Rocks

Mobilised Sunsas/Aguapei GroupVibosi Group

Cratonic Sunsas Group

Shear Zone

Faults

0 50 250

Kilometres

100 150 200

N

June 2009 Source: Yamana Gold Inc, 2009.

So Francisco Mine

Regional Geology

Aura Minerals Inc.


Figure 7-1

7-2




LOCAL GEOLOGY

The So Francisco deposit occurs in the Fortuna Formation (the basal unit of the

Aguapei Group) which is composed of fine to coarse grained meta-arenites, with locally

reddish metapelites and occasionally oligomictic metaconglomerates. The

metaconglomerates are composed of quartz pebbles and quartz grains set in a siliceous-

arenaceous matrix. Preliminary sedimentary structures such as cross-bedding, graded

bedding and ripple marks are commonly observed.

Compressional forces from the northeast and southwest resulted in folding, faulting,

shearing, and fracturing of the rocks and produced a series of broad anticlines and

synclines, which are traceable over several kilometres.

The hydrothermal alteration zone (HAZ) that contains the mineralization is a

relatively regular, steeply dipping tabular body which has yet to be defined by drilling at

depth. Observed alteration in the HAZ consists of silicification with occasional sericite

and chlorite alteration.

The So Francisco geological model defines three main zones: 1) a saprolite zone; 2)

a higher grade zone that encloses the core of the deposit starting below the saprolite and

continuing down dip; and 3) the overall HAZ where erratic and mostly lower grade

mineralization exists (although there are significant areas with higher grades). The

richest mineralization, occurring within the HAZ, is fairly continuous along the

northwestern strike, plunges at a low angle towards the northwest, and dips about 65o to

the northeast.

It has been verified that it is possible to visually identify the main high-grade zone of

the deposit. This zone is distinct and marked by the combination of quartz veins and

pyrite (either fresh or oxidized/leached). An increase in the volume concentration of

these elements is directly associated with a concentration of nuggets and consequent



increase in gold grade. The orange-to-red colour acquired by the host rock in the areas of

larger sulphide concentration is another distinctive factor of higher grades.



8 DEPOSIT TYPES So Francisco is a shear hosted and structurally controlled lode gold deposit which

appears to be epigenetic and composed of narrow, one centimetre to five centimetre wide,

sericitic quartz veins containing free gold. The veins and vein systems/stockworks are

both parallel to and crosscut the bedding planes and appear to be separate or multiple, but

closely related, mineralizing events.



9 MINERALIZATION Gold mineralization at So Francisco occurs in epigenetic, quartz-filled shear zones

generally along the foliation that is oriented parallel to the axis of the anticlinal-synclinal

folds and in later, flat to shallow dipping quartz veins and in-filled shear zones that cut

the primary bedding of the host rocks. The gold always occurs as free gold, frequently as

coarse nuggets measuring several millimetres in diameter with the quartz, as laminations

along the fracture planes, and within limonite boxwork after pyrite and arsenopyrite.

Pyrite and arsenopyrite commonly occur at depth and form the gangue minerals in the

unweathered sulphide horizons. A significant nugget effect is present.

The highest elevation of the mineralization is 800 MASL and the lowest is 450

MASL. The deposit is 1,800 m long, 150 m wide, and 350 m deep (still open at depth).



10 EXPLORATION Modern day exploration at So Francisco has occurred periodically from 1990

through to the present. Exploration activities up to the end 2007 are summarized by

Mello and Petter (2008) and are listed in Table 10-1.

TABLE 10-1 EXPLORATION SUMMARY Aura Minerals Inc. So Francisco Mine

Year Company Work Done Metres Objective

1990 Santa Elina Diamond Drilling 1,102.35 Exploration

1993 - 1995 Santa Elina Diamond Drilling 30,239.63 Infill Drilling

1996 Santa Elina/ Echo Bay Diamond Drilling 6,649.26 Infill, Exploration, Metallurgical Drilling

1997 Santa Elina/ Echo Bay Diamond/RC Drilling 12,199.10 Infill Drilling

1997 - 1998 Santa Elina/ Echo Bay Metallurgical Testing Heap Leach Viability

2003 - 2004 Yamana Diamond Drilling 15,029.90 Targeted Infill Drilling

Bulk Sampling/Pilot Plant Establish Grade and Continuity

Pre-feasibility Study Establish Mineral Reserves

2005 Yamana Diamond Drilling 10,232.40 Infill/Upgrade Drilling

2006 Yamana Diamond Drilling 4,620.25 Define Zone Extensions

2007 Yamana Diamond Drilling 7,684.10 Infill/Deep Exploration

2008 Yamana Diamond Drilling 2,823.25 Infill/Deep Exploration

Total Drilling 90,580.24



11 DRILLING Systematic testing of the gold bearing zone was started by Santa Elina in 1990 and

continues to the present by SBMM. To the end of December 2008, some 90,580 m of

drilling has been completed. This includes 2,823.25 m in nine drill holes which was

completed in 2008. The 2008 drilling was infill drilling targeted at deeper extensions of

higher grade mineralization at the southeast and northwest end of the orebody (Figure 11-

1). Selected intersections from the 2008 drilling are listed in Table 11-1.

TABLE 11-1 EXPLORATION INTERSECTIONS 2008 Aura Minerals Inc. So Francisco Mine

Drill Hole From (m) To (m) Length (m) g/t Au Sector SF-504 144.00 146.00 2.00 1.62 Main

162.00 178.00 16.00 1.06 Main including 164.00 166.00 2.00 2.32 172.00 174.00 2.00 4.49 206.00 210.00 4.00 0.73 Main

SF-505 122.00 124.00 2.00 1.23 Main 138.00 154.00 16.00 1.12 Main including 150.00 152.00 2.00 7.59 176.00 186.00 10.00 0.48 Main 240.00 250.00 10.00 1.33 SW including 240.00 242.00 2.00 5.96

SF-506 151.85 154.00 2.15 0.56 Main 170.00 174.00 4.00 0.74 Main

SF-507 158.00 162.00 4.00 0.34 Main 210.00 214.00 4.00 0.75 SW 240.00 246.00 6.00 0.54 SW 276.00 278.00 2.00 0.68 SW

SF-508 88.00 144.00 56.00 0.33 Main including 112.00 132.00 20.00 0.60 256.00 262.00 6.00 0.93 SW including 260.00 262.00 2.00 1.83 324.00 330.00 6.00 1.08 SW including 324.00 326.00 2.00 2.28 364.00 368.00 4.00 0.90 SW

SF-509 130.00 140.00 10.00 0.92 Main 308.00 310.00 2.00 5.18 SW



Drill Hole From (m) To (m) Length (m) g/t Au Sector SF-510 94.00 100.00 6.00 0.44 Main

124.00 134.00 10.00 13.67 Main including 132.00 134.00 2.00 64.60

186.00 224.00 38.00 0.30 SW including 186.00 200.00 14.00 0.53 240.00 274.00 34.00 0.66 SW including 240.00 254.00 14.00 1.25

294.00 296.00 2.00 0.65 SW 330.00 336.00 6.00 0.38 SW

including 330.00 332.00 2.00 0.92 346.00 350.00 4.00 2.28 SW including 346.00 348.00 2.00 4.26

SF-511 42.00 50.00 8.00 0.50 Main including 46.00 48.00 2.00 1.03 186.00 190.00 4.00 10.15 SW including 188.00 190.00 2.00 19.91

SF-512 220.00 232.00 12.00 0.68 SW including 226.00 228.00 2.00 1.83 298.00 302.00 4.00 0.72 SW including 300.00 302.00 2.00 1.04

Notes: 1. Gold values are uncut. 2. Above values are core lengths and are not reported as a true thickness of

mineralization.

Cross-section 550S (Figure 11-2) illustrates the relative positions of the Main and SW

zones as intersected by drill hole SF-510.

The procedures used during the diamond drilling programs are as follows:

The collar locations of all drill holes are surveyed and marked by SBMM crews. A Reflex Maxibor II survey instrument is used to provide control information on

the directional deviation (both azimuth and inclination) at three metre intervals of each hole.

The drill program is completed using HQ (63.5 mm diameter) core as mandated

by the need to obtain large drill samples that more fairly represent the actual in situ gold grades.

Lithologic logging is done on drill core and geotechnical observations are made

by company geologists. All information is recorded on handwritten logs depicting all downhole data including assay values. This includes:



o Marking lithologic contacts; o Descriptive geology; o Recording of mineralization, e.g., sulphide content, quartz veins, visible

gold; o Intensity of various alteration types, e.g., sericite, hematite, kaolin; o Structural features, such as foliation, fracture and brecciated zones; o Core angles; o Core diameter; o Core recovery; o Downhole inclination; o Rock quality designation (RQD) measurements; o Maintaining a photographic record of the core with a digital camera.

Scott Wilson RPA is of the opinion that the logging and recording procedures are

comparable to industry standards.

The drill contractor used on the property was Rede Engenharia e Sondagens Ltda.

213500 214000 8356000 214500 8355500

214500 2150008357500 215500 83565008357000 216000 8356000

21

60

00

21

55

00

2

1

4

0

0

0

21

35

00

83

57

50

0

Laterite

Lithology

Legend:

Metaconglomerate

Metasandstone

Metasandstone Conglomerate

Metapelite

Strong Alteration

Hydrothermal Alteration

Weak Alteration

So Francisco Drill Holes - until 2007

Drill Holes

Drill Holes - 2008

0 100 500 Metres200 300 400

N


So Francisco Mine

2008 Drill Hole Locations

Aura Minerals Inc.


Figure 11-1

SC

OT

TW

ILS

ON

RP

A

11-4

ww

w.sco

ttwilso

n.co

m

[email protected]/t Au (124-134)Incl. [email protected]/t Au (132-134)[email protected]/t Au (186-224)

Incl. [email protected]/t Au (186-200)

[email protected]/t Au (240-274)Incl. [email protected]/t Au (200-254)

[email protected]/t Au (294-296)



SW NE

SF-510

SF-317SF-207

SF-209SF-212

SF-214

SF-310

6.0m@31g/t Au (94-100)

400m

500m

700m

800m

400m

500m

600m

700m

800m

300m 300m

600m

Saprolite

Lithology

Legend:

Metaconglomerate

Metasandstone (undifferentiated)

Metasandstone interbedded with Metapelite

Feldspatic Metasandstone (silicified)

Diamond Drill Hole

Geological Contact

HydrothermalAlteration

Assemblage:

Quartz VeinFresh/Oxidized PyriteSericiteHematiteKaolin

{RESERVE PIT RESOURCE PIT (2008)

SF-490

Strong Hydrothermal Alteration

Mineralization

Weak Hydrothermal Alteration

0 50

Metres

100 150 200

June 2009 Source: Yamana Gold Inc, 2009.

So Franci

Technical Report - Sao Francisco Mine - July 27, 2009

Documents

technical summary

local geology

sample security

metallurgical testing

executive summary

technical report ni

theso francisco

aura minerals