ARDEA RESOURCES LIMITED — Capital/Financing Update 2019

Aug 14, 2019

==> picture [40 x 842] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [344 x 44] intentionally omitted <==

Yeoval Copper-Gold Resource Update

ASX & Media Release

15 August 2019

• JORC 2012 Inferred Mineral Resource of 12.8 Mt at 0.38% copper, 0.14 g/t gold, 2.2 g/t silver and 120 ppm molybdenum (0.2% Cu cut off).

ASX Symbol

ARL

Ardea Resources Limited

• The Resource is estimated to contain approximately 48,500 t copper, 58,000 oz gold, 911,000 oz silver and 1,500 t molybdenum metal (0.2% Cu cut off).

Suite 2 / 45 Ord St West Perth WA 6005

PO Box 1433 West Perth WA 6872

• Higher grade zone of 2.5 Mt at 0.65% copper, 0.22 g/t gold, 3.8 g/t silver and 192 ppm molybdenum (0.5% Cu cut off).

Telephone

+61 8 6244 5136

• Significant potential for tonnage increase – mineralisation open in multiple directions.

Email

• Mineralised drill holes outside of the resource area require follow up and inclusion within a future resource estimate.

ardea@ardearesources.com.au

Website

• IP chargeability anomalies associated with mineralisation indicate significant scope to increase resource size.

www.ardearesources.com.au

Directors

• Shallow mineralisation commences within 15 m of surface.

Katina Law Executive Chair

Ardea Resources Limited (Ardea or the Company) is pleased to announce a JORC 2012 Inferred Mineral Resource estimate for its Yeoval porphyry copper-gold deposit in the Lachlan Fold Belt, central New South Wales. A summary of the Mineral Resource estimate at Yeoval is:

Ian Buchhorn Technical Executive Director

Wayne Bramwell Non-Executive Director

Table 1: JORC Inferred Mineral Resource estimate for the Yeoval deposit (0.2% Cu cut-off). All

figures rounded to appropriate significant figures reflecting certainty of data.	figures rounded to appropriate significant figures reflecting certainty of data.	figures rounded to appropriate significant figures reflecting certainty of data.	figures rounded to appropriate significant figures reflecting certainty of data.	figures rounded to appropriate significant figures reflecting certainty of data.
Resource	Tonnes	Copper	Gold	Silver	Molybdenum
category	(Mt)	(%)	(g/t)	(g/t)	(g/t)
Inferred	12.8	0.38	0.14	2.20	120

Issued Capital

Fully Paid Ordinary Shares 109,506,842

Unlisted options exercisable at $0.25 7,793,593

Ardea CEO, Andrew Penkethman commented:

Directors/Employee Performance Rights 5,161,000

“Yeoval is part of Ardea’s Godolphin Resources ASX spinout, scheduled for listing in Q4 2019. The Yeoval Inferred Mineral Resource represents a walk-up drill target where mineralisation is open in several directions. On listing, Godolphin Resources will have the benefits of being a well-funded NSW exploration Company with an Orange-based exploration team. These assets and advances in exploration technologies, provide the Company with an ideal platform to leverage the potential of this highly prospective suite of NSW gold and copper projects.”

ABN 30 614 289 342

==> picture [37 x 842] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [174 x 23] intentionally omitted <==

Yeoval Mineral Resource Summary

Yeoval is a historic copper-gold (Cu-Au) mining area in central western NSW. Work by Ardea has provided confidence around new and historic data to enable estimation of an inferred resource that is expected to serve as the platform from which future exploration by spinout Godolphin Resources will build.

This is the first in a series of announcements that will be made over the coming weeks, concluding Ardea’s extensive work programs on selected NSW projects in preparation for the Godolphin Resources IPO planned for Q4, 2019. These announcements will provide clarity to investors regarding the NSW portfolio and highlight the potential it holds.

==> picture [410 x 546] intentionally omitted <==

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

Yeoval Project
Map area
----- End of picture text -----

Figure 1: Yeoval project location plan in central western NSW.

2

==> picture [37 x 842] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [174 x 23] intentionally omitted <==

Project Location

The Yeoval project is centred around the township of Yeoval in Central NSW about 33 km southwest of Wellington (Figure 1). It is located within the Lachlan Fold Belt which is Australia’s premier domain for porphyry and epithermal gold and base metal deposits. The resource area is located about 3.5 km north of the small township of Yeoval and is readily accessible by well-maintained sealed and unsealed roads. The project area is adjacent to the Molong-Dubbo railway infrastructure and within easy reach of the Mitchell and Newell Highways.

Geology and Geological Interpretation

The regional and project geology is dominated by north-trending Devonian granites and granodiorite rocks of the Yeoval Batholith. The resource area is located at the northern margin of the WNW-trending Lachlan Transverse Zone which is recognised as having a strong association with a number of other significant mineral deposits in Central NSW, such as the world class Cadia Ridgeway and Northparkes copper-gold mining operations.

The Yeoval Batholith consists of a suite of calc-alkaline granite and adamellite, intermediate and basic intrusive rocks with associated andesitic volcanic rocks. The eastern margin of the batholith adjacent to the township of Yeoval exhibits a complex of more dioritic rocks ranging from granodiorite to gabbro and pyroxenite.

This Yeoval intrusive complex formed during a Late Silurian to Early Devonian melting and rifting event that split the Ordovician to Early Silurian Macquarie Arc. Its chemistry is shoshonitic, in common with the Ordovician volcanic rocks that host the Cadia and Northparkes porphyry copper-gold deposits, and a similar mantle source and mineral potential is inferred.

Mineralisation Style

The mineralisation at Yeoval is of a porphyry copper-gold style and consists of chalcopyrite, bornite and molybdenite veined and stockwork porphyritic granodirorite or monzonitic rocks. Mineralisation is pervasive and significant mineralised envelopes have been interpreted above a nominal lower cut-off of 1000 ppm copper. Three main mineralised zones have been interpreted within the project area and extend from the oxide surface some 5–15 metres below the topography to approximately 260 metres below surface. The mineralised domains are open in most directions and contain higher grade zones that are not yet able to be fully defined given the current low drilling density.

Sampling and Sub-Sampling Techniques

Historic RC drilling prior to Ardea acquiring tenure was used to obtain 1 m samples from eight holes for 793 metres. The dry rock chips from the RC holes were riffle split to ensure representativeness of the insitu material. The quality of the split sample is considered appropriate and is used throughout the industry. These samples were then pulverised and assayed as below:

• Cu – Assayed via Atomic Absorption Spectrometry (AAS)

• Mo – Assayed via Aqua Regia soluble and AAS

• Au-Ag – Assayed via Acid Digest and AAS

3

==> picture [37 x 842] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [174 x 23] intentionally omitted <==

Historic diamond drilling prior to Ardea acquiring tenure comprised 37 holes for 7,319 metres. The core was cut in two equal halves with one half sent to the assay laboratory for analysis. Half cut core samples are considered appropriate and used throughout the industry.

Drilling and logging procedures ensured accurate depth measurements which produced samples representative of the in-situ material it was taken form.

Some holes were resampled in 2009 and were quarter cut from the half core that remained form the original Yeoval sampling in 1972-1974.

Altered drill core that had the potential to be mineralised was sampled in accordance with its individual length. The sample lengths varied from 0.5m -1m. Zones thought to be un-mineralised, based on visual assessment, were sampled at 1.5m or 1m lengths.

The samples were pulverised and assayed as below:

• Cu – Assayed via AAS

• Mo – Assayed via aqua regia soluble and AAS

• Au, Ag, Pb, Zn, Ni, Co – Assayed via acid digest and AAS

Previous drilling completed by Hastings (Y1 – Y15 in 1972) and North Broken Hill (Y16 – Y24 in 1975) was compiled into a database and some sections were re-assayed for Cu, Au, Ag and Mo for confirmation purposes.

Historical sampling was not exhaustive with some sections of core thought to be unmineralised, based on visual observation, and were not sampled. These zones tended to be in core logged as post mineralisation intrusive and or well outside of the mineralised domains.

The data set is also not complete for Au, Ag and Mo as small sections of the older drilling have not been completely assayed for these elements.

Drilling Techniques

The database used for the resource estimate consisted of 45 drill holes comprising eight RC drill holes for 793 metres and 37 diamond drill holes for 7,319 metres. Diamond drill holes consisted of BQ, NQ and HQ sized core. Standard core barrels were used with no downhole core orientation undertaken.

Drill holes were completed on a grid of approximately 50 to 70 metre centres drilled predominately east west throughout the main project area. All drill holes were geologically logged.

RC chips were geologically logged at 1m intervals. The logging intervals correspond with the assay sample intervals. The data collected produced enough detail to support a mineral resource estimate.

The diamond drill core was geologically logged with the logging intervals determined by the geology in the core. The assay intervals do not straddle geological intervals and thus the assay represents the grade within the geological unit. The data collected produced enough detail to support a mineral resource estimate.

The holes were drilled with an average -60˚ declination. Downhole surveys were completed at the time of diamond drilling using Eastman style surveys to help track deviation.

Drill collars were picked up by a surveyor or using a handheld GPS. A plan of the drilling and mineralised wire frames follows.

4

==> picture [37 x 842] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [174 x 23] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [492 x 389] intentionally omitted <==

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

West
Domain
Main
Domain East
Domain
----- End of picture text -----

Figure 2: Yeoval resource area location plan showing the mineralised domains and drilling colour coded above 0.2% Cu. Projection GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55, but with the grid truncated by subtracting 6,300,000m from the Northing and 600,000m from the Easting.

Resource Classification

The Yeoval deposit has been classified as an Inferred Mineral Resource according to the definition outlined in the 2012 Edition of the JORC Code. The defined Inferred Mineral Resource, based on various copper cut-off grades, is shown below.

Table 2: Inferred resource estimate and cut-off sensitivity for the Yeoval deposit, reported above different Cu cutoff values. The base case estimate uses a 0.2% Cu cut-off. The tonnage figures have been rounded down to the nearest one hundred thousand. Cu, Au and Ag grades rounded to the nearest second decimal and Mo has been rounded to the nearest g/t.

Cut-off Cu%	Tonnes	Cu%	Aug/t	Ag g/t	Mog/t
0.1	15,900,000	0.34	0.13	1.97	115
0.2	12,800,000	0.38	0.14	2.20	120
0.3	7,300,000	0.48	0.17	2.75	141
0.4	4,500,000	0.56	0.19	3.26	162
0.5	2,500,000	0.65	0.22	3.83	192

5

==> picture [37 x 842] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [174 x 23] intentionally omitted <==

In making this classification, the following factors have been considered:

• The data is of sufficient quantity and quality for an Inferred Mineral Resource classification according to the guidelines in the 2012 Edition of the JORC Code.

• Collar survey methods and down hole surveys are sufficient for the spatial location of the drill holes.

• • The continuity of grades >0.1 % Cu is generally very good.

• The domains (see Figure 2, 3 and 4) that have been constructed seem appropriate in relation to the information available and currently understood model of formation of the copper-gold mineralisation.

• The estimate of all elements has been limited to blocks that have first informing composites less than 50 metres from the block centre (a review of the model shows for the domains interpreted that the mean distance to the nearest composite is 28 meters). This is a reasonable limit to prevent kriging of grades into areas not adequately supported by drilling and is consistent with the resource classification applied.

The result of this estimation does reflect the competent person’s view of the deposit based on the information available. The domains are constrained by geology and do not extend far beyond data limits. The model grades also reflect the raw drill hole composite grades and are not considered to be overestimating the grade in the deposit. The mineralised domains have been intruded by a number of NNEtrending, steeply dipping, post-mineralisation dolerite and felsic dykes. Interpretations of these barren lithologies have been completed and the volume removed from the Mineral Resource estimate. In addition, a base of weathering surface variably extending to 15 metres from the topographic surface has been created and this material also excluded from the Mineral Resource estimate.

==> picture [506 x 265] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3: Yeoval resource area section looking North showing the mineralised domains and drilling colour coded above 0.2% Cu.

6

==> picture [37 x 842] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [174 x 23] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [503 x 292] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 4: Yeoval resource area section looking East showing the mineralised domains and drilling colour coded above 0.2% Cu.

Sample Analysis Method

Resource modelling of the Yeoval Project deposit is based on estimating grades for Cu, Ag, Au and Mo by ordinary kriging. To complete the estimate, the primary consideration was to define the main estimation domains and zones impacting barren or post-mineralising lithologies.

The distribution of copper was reviewed for the project area. Mineralised domains were defined based on a 0.1% copper threshold (see Figure 2 and 3).

The barren intrusive bodies were modelled so that the volume is excluded from the resource estimate. This is considered an important undertaking as, in general, these rocks have not been systematically or comprehensively assayed and it is therefore not valid to include this volume in the estimate.

A summary of the estimation is shown in more detail in Appendix 1, Table 1.

Estimation Methodology

Grade estimation domain wireframes were created by digitising copper grades greater or equal to 0.1% on cross sections oriented parallel to the orientation of the drilling on 25 m spaced cross sections. Using this method, wireframes were created for the East Zone, Main Zone and West Zone (see Figure 2, 3 and 4).

Separate estimation domains for the other elements were not created.

A low grade or barren internal domain contained within the Main Zone domain was interpreted and modelled separately.

Compositing was applied to the assay data with a composite length of 2 m.

7

==> picture [37 x 842] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [174 x 23] intentionally omitted <==

An ordinary kriged resource estimate was completed with grade assigned from 2 m composite samples into a block model with individual dimensions of 10 m x 20 m x 10 m. The arithmetic average of 23 historic bulk density values, 2.7 t/m[3] , was used to report tonnages from the block model in fresh material (see Table 2). A density of 2.7 t/m[3] is consistent with porphyry systems elsewhere within the province.

Cut-off Grade

There are presently no extreme outlier values in the Yeoval dataset, with the maximum copper grade of 5.65% Cu for example. Therefore, for the Yeoval resource estimate, it is considered that at this stage no top cuts have been applied to the data for any of the elements estimated in this study

The resource wireframes were based on digitising sectional outlines on a 0.1% Cu basis. The resource was reported using a cut-off grade of 0.2% Cu. Cut-off grade values have also be reported for 0.1, 0.3, 0.4 and 0.5% Cu (see Table 2).

Mining and Metallurgical Methods and Parameters and Other Modifying Factors

There have been no geotechnical or metallurgical studies completed on drill samples from the Yeoval project area. However, given the similarities in mineralisation styles (disseminated and veined chalcopyrite and bornite) to other central NSW porphyry deposits and that fresh rock is generally within 20m of surface, it has been assumed that the mineralisation would be amenable to conventional open pit mining and mineral processing using flotation techniques.

Additional information on the Yeoval resource estimate is contained in Appendix 1 and Table 1.

==> picture [390 x 273] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 5: Yeoval area IP chargeability plan with the Yeoval resource area highlighted by the black square and drill hole collars shown as white circles.

Project Potential and Work Planned

An Induced Polarisation (IP) study was completed in 2011 by previous tenement holder, Augur Resources Limited, identifying positive chargeability anomalies that correspond well with the known porphyry-hosted

8

==> picture [37 x 842] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [174 x 23] intentionally omitted <==

copper-gold mineralisation at the Yeoval resource area (see Figures 5 and 6). The IP chargeability anomalies have not been followed up by systematic drilling and present future compelling targets for Godolphin Resources.

Figure 6 shows the IP survey area zoomed in around the Yeoval resource area. This information indicates that there is ample scope to extend the known extents of mineralisation at Yeoval as the limited drilling completed to date has not closed off the porphyry mineralisation which is open in every direction. Further, high grade zones have not been followed up sufficiently to define their extents and remain open (see Figure 6).

==> picture [411 x 304] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 6: Yeoval resource area and IP chargeability targets.

The above figure (Figure 6) highlights significant potential to increase the known extents of porphyry mineralisation and also define new areas with highlights including:

• Area “A”: High grade copper intercepts north of the modelled domain. Mineralisation is open and within the IP Chargeability anomaly, thus increasing the likelihood of additional mineralisation.

• Area “B”: Same characteristics and potential as area “A”, but towards the south.

• Area “C”: Located within chargeability anomaly and has high grade copper intercepts not closed off by drilling. Has potential to close the “loop” between current interpreted domains (Main and East).

• Area “D”: Minimal data and has potential to connect areas “A” and “B”.

• Area “E”: Outer extents of mineralisation and definition of alteration mineralogy vectors to zero in on potassic zone mineralisation (if present).

Yeoval represents another compelling exploration opportunity for Godolphin Resources to follow up post ASX listing.

9

==> picture [37 x 842] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [174 x 23] intentionally omitted <==

About Ardea Resources

Ardea Resources (“Ardea” – ASX:ARL) is an ASX listed resources company, with 100% controlled Australian-based projects, prioritising a three-pronged value creation strategy which is:

• development of the Goongarrie Nickel Cobalt Project, which is part of the Kalgoorlie Nickel Project, a globally significant series of nickel-cobalt deposits which host the largest nickel-cobalt resource in the developed world, coincidentally located as a cover sequence overlying fertile orogenic gold targets;

• advanced-stage exploration at WA gold and nickel sulphide targets within the Eastern Goldfields world-class nickel-gold province; and

• the Godolphin Resources Limited demerger of the NSW gold and base metal assets with planned in-specie share distribution, with all projects located within the Lachlan Fold Belt world-class goldcopper province, specifically within the Lachlan Transverse Zone (hosts McPhillamy’s gold and Cadia and Northparkes copper-gold) and splay fault of the Gilmore Suture (hosts Cowal gold).

==> picture [527 x 346] intentionally omitted <==

For further information regarding Ardea, please visit www.ardearesources.com.au or contact:

Ardea Resources:

Andrew Penkethman

Chief Executive Officer, Ardea Resources Limited Tel +61 8 6244 5136

10

==> picture [37 x 842] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [174 x 23] intentionally omitted <==

CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION

This news release contains forward-looking statements and forward-looking information within the meaning of applicable Australian securities laws, which are based on expectations, estimates and projections as of the date of this news release.

This forward-looking information includes, or may be based upon, without limitation, estimates, forecasts and statements as to management’s expectations with respect to, among other things, the timing and ability to complete the Ardea spin-out of Godolphin Resources Limited, the timing and amount of funding required to execute the Company’s exploration, development and business plans, capital and exploration expenditures, the effect on the Company of any changes to existing legislation or policy, government regulation of mining operations, the length of time required to obtain permits, certifications and approvals, the success of exploration, development and mining activities, the geology of the Company’s properties, environmental risks, the availability of labour, the focus of the Company in the future, demand and market outlook for precious metals and the prices thereof, progress in development of mineral properties, the Company’s ability to raise funding privately or on a public market in the future, the Company’s future growth, results of operations, performance, and business prospects and opportunities. Wherever possible, words such as “anticipate”, “believe”, “expect”, “intend”, “may” and similar expressions have been used to identify such forward-looking information. Forward-looking information is based on the opinions and estimates of management at the date the information is given, and on information available to management at such time.

Forward-looking information involves significant risks, uncertainties, assumptions and other factors that could cause actual results, performance or achievements to differ materially from the results discussed or implied in the forward-looking information. These factors, including, but not limited to, the ability to complete the Ardea spin-out of Godolphin Resources Limited on the basis of the proposed terms and timing or at all, fluctuations in currency markets, fluctuations in commodity prices, the ability of the Company to access sufficient capital on favourable terms or at all, changes in national and local government legislation, taxation, controls, regulations, political or economic developments in Australia or other countries in which the Company does business or may carry on business in the future, operational or technical difficulties in connection with exploration or development activities, employee relations, the speculative nature of mineral exploration and development, obtaining necessary licenses and permits, diminishing quantities and grades of mineral reserves, contests over title to properties, especially title to undeveloped properties, the inherent risks involved in the exploration and development of mineral properties, the uncertainties involved in interpreting drill results and other geological data, environmental hazards, industrial accidents, unusual or unexpected formations, pressures, cave-ins and flooding, limitations of insurance coverage and the possibility of project cost overruns or unanticipated costs and expenses, and should be considered carefully. Many of these uncertainties and contingencies can affect the Company’s actual results and could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in any forward-looking statements made by, or on behalf of, the Company. Prospective investors should not place undue reliance on any forward-looking information.

Although the forward-looking information contained in this news release is based upon what management believes, or believed at the time, to be reasonable assumptions, the Company cannot assure prospective purchasers that actual results will be consistent with such forwardlooking information, as there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended, and neither the Company nor any other person assumes responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of any such forward-looking information. The Company does not undertake, and assumes no obligation, to update or revise any such forward-looking statements or forward-looking information contained herein to reflect new events or circumstances, except as may be required by law.

No stock exchange, regulation services provider, securities commission or other regulatory authority has approved or disapproved the information contained in this news release.

Competent Person Statement

The information in this report that relates to Exploration Targets, Exploration Results, Mineral Resources or Ore Reserves is based on information compiled or reviewed by Johan Lambrechts, a Competent Person who is a Member of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists. Mr Lambrechts is a full-time employee of Ardea Resources Limited and has sufficient experience that is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity being undertaken to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 edition of the Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves. Mr Lambrechts consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears.

11

==> picture [37 x 596] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [173 x 23] intentionally omitted <==

JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1 report for the Yeoval Resource in central NSW

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data

(Criteria in this section apply to all succeeding sections.)

Criteria		JORC Code explanation		Commentary	Commentary
Sampling	•	Nature and quality of sampling(eg cut	•	Reverse Circulation Drilling
techniques		channels, random chips, or specific		•	Previous drilling completed by Hastings in 1972 (DHID = Y2) was collated by geologists from Augur Resources in 2009 and carefully compiled into a
		specialised industry standard measurement			database. The work included:
		tools appropriate to the minerals under			o	Converting assay and geological data from feet to meters.
		investigation, such as down hole gamma			o	All assay and geological abbreviated lithology were entered into a geological database.
		sondes, or handheld XRF instruments, etc).			o	Data validation was completed by plotting and physical checking.
		These examples should not be taken as			o	A significant proportion of the drill hole collars had been located and surveyed for spatial location by registered surveyors of hand-held GPS.
		limiting the broad meaning of sampling.
	•	Include referenceto measures taken to			o	RC drilling was used to obtain 1 m samples from 8 holes. These samples were then pulverised and assayed as below:
		ensure sample representivityand the				 Cu – Assayed via Atomic Absorption Spectrometry (AAS)
		appropriate calibration of any measurement				 Mo – Assayed via Aqua Regia soluble and AAS
		tools or systems used.				 Au-Ag – Assayed via Acid Digest and AAS
	•	Aspects of the determination of	•	Diamond Drilling
		mineralisationthat are Material to the Public		•	Previous drilling completed by Hastings in 1972 (DHID = Y1-Y15) and North Broken Hill in 1973 and 1973 (DHID = Y16-Y24) was collated by geologists
		Report.			from Augur Resources in 2009 and carefully compiled into a database. The work included:
	•	In cases where ‘industry standard’ work has			o	Converting assay and geological data from feet to meters.
		been done this would be relatively simple (eg			o	All assay and geological abbreviated lithology were entered into a geological database.
		‘reverse circulation drilling was used to obtain			o	Data validation was completed by plotting and physical checking.
		1 m samples from which 3 kg was pulverised			o	A significant proportion of the drill hole collars had been located and surveyed for spatial location by registered surveyors of hand-held GPS.
		to produce a 30 g charge for fire assay’). In			o	Significant sections of the historic drill core have been re-assayed for Cu, Au, Ag and Mo, and this data was incorporated into the data set.
		other cases more explanation may be
		required, such as where there is coarse gold		•	Diamond drilling was used to obtain samples from 37 holes in accordance with their host lithology.
		that has inherent sampling problems. Unusual			o	E.g.:
		commodities or mineralisation types (eg				 Un-mineralised intervals were sampled at 1.5m or 1m lengths.
		submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure				 Mineralised core was sampled in accordance with its individual length and thus the sample lengths varied from 0.5m -1m.
		of detailed information.			o	The samples were pulverised and assayed as below:
						 Cu – Assayed via AAS
						 Mo – Assayed via Aqua Regia soluble and AAS
						 Au, Ag, Pb, Zn, Ni, Co – Assayed via Acid Digest and AAS
Drilling	•	Drill type (eg core, reverse circulation, open-	•	Reverse Circulation Drilling
techniques		hole hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka,	•	Diamond Drilling
		sonic, etc) and details (eg core diameter,			o	BQ, HQ and NQ core drilled from surface.
		triple or standard tube, depth of diamond tails,			o	Standard tube was used with no core orientation done.
		face-sampling bit or other type, whether core
		is oriented and if so, by what method, etc).

12

==> picture [37 x 596] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [173 x 23] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria		JORC Code explanation		Commentary	Commentary
Drill sample	•	Method of recording and assessing core and	•	1970s
recovery		chip sample recoveries and results assessed.				o	25 diamond drill holes were drilled between 1972 and 1974. Standard procedures were used during the drilling process with “stick-up”
	•	Measures taken to maximise sample recovery					measured at the end of each run and core blocks with written record of run length and core loss (if any) indicated of each block. Core loss was
		and ensure representative nature of the					calculated using the run length (based on the “stick up”) and the physical core in the tray.
		samples.				o	The geologist logging the core would also measure the core and placing meter marks on the core. These meter marks are compared to the
	•	Whether a relationship exists between sample					values on the core blocks to ensure accuracy.
		recovery and grade and whether sample bias	•	2008
		may have occurred due to preferential				o	12 Diamond drill holes were drilled by Augur Resources on the Yeoval prospect.
		loss/gain of fine/coarse material.				o	The same industry standard practices as described above were employed to ensure accurate sample recovery measurement and reporting.
Logging	•	Whether core and chip samples have been	•	RC Chips
		geologically and geotechnically logged to a				o	The RC chips were geologically logged at 1m intervals. The logging intervals correspond with the assay sample intervals. The data collected
		level of detail to support appropriate Mineral					produced enough detail to support a mineral resource estimate.
		Resource estimation, mining studies and				o	100% of the chip intervals were logged.
		metallurgical studies.	•	Diamond		Drill Core
	•	Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative				o	The diamond drill core was geologically logged with the logging intervals being determined by the geology in the core. The assay intervals do
		in nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc)					not straddle geological intervals and thus the assay represents the grade within the geological unit. The data collected produced enough detail
		photography.					to support a mineral resource estimate.
	•	The total length and percentage of the				o	100% of the drill core was logged.
		relevant intersections logged.
Sub-sampling	•	If core, whether cut or sawn and whether	•	RC Chips
techniques and		quarter, half or all core taken.				o	The dry rock chips from the RC holes were riffle split at the rig with the sample bagged for transport to the analytical laboratory.
sample preparation	•	If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc and whether sampled wet or dry.				o o	The quality of the split sample is considered appropriate and is used throughout the industry. The complete sample interval was split as mentioned above to ensure representativeness of the in situ material.
	•	For all sample types, thenature, quality and	•	Diamond Core
		appropriateness of the sample preparation				o	Diamond core was taken from the tube and placed in core trays at the rig.
		technique.				o	Prior to sampling the core was cut in two equal halves with one halve being sent for sampling.
	•	Quality control proceduresadopted for all				o	The cut half core sample is considered appropriate and is used throughout the industry.
		sub-sampling stages to maximise				o	The combination of drill procedures ensuring accurate depth measurements and knowledge of core loss with the geological log prior to cutting
		representivity of samples.					the sample ensures the sample being representative of the in situ material it was taken from.
	•	Measures taken to ensure that the sampling	•	The holes resampled in 2009 were quarter cut from the half core that remained form the original sampling in 1972-1974.
		is representative of the in situ material
		collected, including for instance results for
		field duplicate/second-half sampling.
	•	Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the
		grain size of the material being sampled.
Quality of assay	•	The nature, quality and appropriateness of	•	1972	data:
data and		the assaying and laboratory procedures used		•	Cu	– Assayed via Atomic Absorption Spectrometry (AAS)
laboratory tests		and whether the technique is considered partial or total.		• •	Mo – Assayed via Aqua Regia soluble and AAS Au-Ag – not routinely assayed for this data set.
	•	For geophysical tools, spectrometers,		•	1973-1974 data:
		handheld XRF instruments, etc, the parameters used in determining the analysis including instrument make and model,		• •	Sample preparation and assaying was conducted by NBH Laboratories, Moonta, SA. Cu, Pb, Zn, Ag, Ni, Co, Mo and Au were determined by Acid digest and Atomic Absorption Spectrometry.
		reading times, calibrations factors applied and		•	No	specific data was found regarding the QAQC of the data included in the resource, but the competent person that completed the 2009 resource stated in
		their derivation, etc.			his	report	that the data quality control was to a sufficient standard to warrant resource estimation.
	•	Nature of quality control procedures adopted

13

==> picture [37 x 596] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [173 x 23] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria		JORC Code explanation		Commentary	Commentary
		(eg standards, blanks, duplicates, external
		laboratory checks) and whether acceptable
		levels of accuracy (ie lack of bias) and
		precision have been established.
Verification of	•	The verification of significant intersections by	•	There	is no record of peer review performed on the data sets from either the 1970s or the drill program leading to the resource estimation in 2008.
sampling and		either independent or alternative company	•	The Resource report form 2009			mentions a team of geologists ensuring appropriate QAQC standards.
assaying	•	personnel. The use of twinned holes.
	•	Documentation of primary data, data entry
		procedures, data verification, data storage
		(physical and electronic) protocols.
	•	_Discuss any adjustment to assay data. _
Location of data	•	Accuracy and quality of surveys used to	•	Survey
points		locate drill holes (collar and down-hole		o	The 2009 resource report		mentions that a significant number of the holes used for the estimate were surveyed by registered surveyors or via hand held
		surveys), trenches, mine workings and other			GPS.
		locations used in Mineral Resource	•	DH survey
		estimation.			o	DH surveys	for the estimate were validated by geologists from Augur Resources as well as the competent person of the resource estimate.
	•	Specification of the grid system used.			o	The collars and drill traces have also been validated by Ardea Resources during 2019.
	•	Quality and adequacy of topographic control.	•	Grid system
					o	The drill collars were surveyed into GDA_1994_MGA_Zone_55
					o	The resource modeling was done in a local grid with transformation as below:
							Northing – Minus 6,300,000m
							Easting – Minus 600,000m
			•	Topography
					o	Topography for the resource was created using the elevations of the drill collars used for the estimation.
Data spacing and	•	Data spacing for reporting of Exploration	•	The drill spacing for		the estimated resource is about 50m x 70m with holes drilled predominantly near east-west azimuth.
distribution		Results.	•	The data spacing is		considered adequate to estimate a “bulk-tonnage” porphyry type resource considering its inherent general grade continuity.
	•	Whether the data spacing and distribution is	•	Compositing was applied to the			assay data with a composite length of 2m.
		sufficient to establish the degree of geological
		and grade continuity appropriate for the
		Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve
		estimation procedure(s) and classifications
		applied.
	•	Whether sample compositing has been
		applied.
Orientation of	•	Whether the orientation of sampling achieves	•	Sample Orientation
data in relation to		unbiased sampling of possible structures and			o	The drilling was conducted around the East-West direction. The mineralised zones trend along the North-South direction and predominantly
geological structure	•	the extent to which this is known, considering the deposit type. If the relationship between the drilling				dip sub-vertically.  The sampling is done at right angles to the mineralisation and is not believed to create sampling bias.
		orientation and the orientation of key
		mineralised structures is considered to have
		introduced a sampling bias, this should be
		assessed and reported if material.
Sample security	•	The measures taken to ensure sample	•	The samples and Resource estimate are of historic nature. The digital data was supplied by Augur Resources and thus there is no third party to potentially corrupt
		security.		data.

14

==> picture [37 x 596] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [173 x 23] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria		JORC Code explanation		Commentary
Audits or reviews	•	The results of any audits or reviews of	•	No Audits have been conducted to our knowledge.
		_sampling techniques and data. _

15

==> picture [37 x 596] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [173 x 23] intentionally omitted <==

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results

(Criteria listed in the preceding section also apply to this section.)

Criteria JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary	Commentary	Commentary	Commentary	Commentary
Mineral tenement and land tenure status • Type, reference name/number, location and ownership including agreements or material issues with third parties such as joint ventures, partnerships, overriding royalties, native title interests, historical sites, wilderness or national park and environmental settings. • The security of the tenure held at the time of reporting along with any known impediments to obtaining a licence to operate in the area.	• The Yeoval prospect, on which this resource was calculated lies on Exploration License number 8538 and is held by Ardea Exploration Pty Ltd. • The land is owned by Private land holders north of the township of Yeoval. • There is no Joint venture or any other arrangements pertaining to this project, and also no native title claims over the area. • The security deposit payed by Ardea Resources for EL8538 in March 2017 is $10,000.
Exploration done by other parties • Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties.	EL8538 was granted to Ardea Resources Ltd on 19thMarch 2017 as a 100-block tenement for a period of 3 years. Small scale historical workings consisting of shallow pits and shafts looking for copper and gold are readily observed in the Yeoval mineral field. More recently, 19 companies have undertaken exploration in the area (Table 1), predominantly for gold, base metals and Rare Earth Elements (REE). Work undertaken by previous companies include geological mapping, stream sediment, soil and rock-chip sampling, ground based geophysical surveys and RAB/RC & Diamond drilling. Table 1: Previous exploration over EL8538 Tenement Company Start date End date Elements Units EL1131 BHP Ltd 1/08/1979 1/01/1980 CuPbZn AgAu 144 EL1441 NorandaAustraliaLtd 1/01/1979 1/01/1980 Cu 261 EL1910 Noranda Australia Ltd 1/07/1981 1/07/1984 Au Cu Ag 189 EL1911 NorandaAustraliaLtd 1/07/1982 1/07/1983 CuAu 231 EL2464 International Mining Corporation NL 1/08/1985 1/08/1988 Au CuHg 287 EL2635 Cyprus Gold Australia Corporation 1/08/1986 1/08/1988 Au, Ag 25 EL3133 Cyprus GoldAustralia Corporation 1/07/1988 1/01/1989 CuAu 25 EL3134 Cyprus GoldAustralia Corporation 1/07/1988 1/01/1989 CuAu 65 EL3677 Homestake Gold of Australia Ltd 13/11/1990 19/07/1991 Au Cu 71 EL3857 PekoWallsend OperationsLtd 1/05/1991 1/05/1992 Au CuBi W 32 EL4024 CRA Exploration PtyLtd 14/08/1991 13/08/1995 Au Cu 81 EL4117 CRA Exploration Pty Ltd 11/11/1991 10/11/1993 Au Cu 95 EL4235 CRA Exploration PtyLtd 1/04/1992 31/03/1994 Au Cu 98 EL5128 Woodham, SW. 1/10/1996 1/10/1998 Au Cu 52 EL5503 Malachite Resources NL 7/08/1998 6/08/2000 Au Cu 12 EL6311 Augur ResourcesLtd 27/09/2004 26/09/2016 Au Cu 24 EL7036 Crystal MineralsPtyLtd 24/01/2008 22/10/2014 CuAuPbZn Ag 134 EL7108 Greystoke Mines Pty Ltd 25/08/2008 25/03/2014 Cu Au REE 115 EL7588 MinotaurOperationsPtyLtd 4/08/2010 7/06/2015 Au CuMoREE 51
	Tenement	Company	Start date	End date	Elements	Units
	**EL1131 **	BHP Ltd	1/08/1979	1/01/1980	CuPbZn AgAu	144
	EL1441	NorandaAustraliaLtd	1/01/1979	1/01/1980	Cu	261
	EL1910	Noranda Australia Ltd	1/07/1981	1/07/1984	Au Cu Ag	189
	EL1911	NorandaAustraliaLtd	1/07/1982	1/07/1983	CuAu	231
	**EL2464 **	International Mining Corporation NL	1/08/1985	1/08/1988	Au CuHg	287
	EL2635	Cyprus Gold Australia Corporation	1/08/1986	1/08/1988	Au, Ag	25
	EL3133	Cyprus GoldAustralia Corporation	1/07/1988	1/01/1989	CuAu	25
	**EL3134 **	Cyprus GoldAustralia Corporation	1/07/1988	1/01/1989	CuAu	65
	EL3677	Homestake Gold of Australia Ltd	13/11/1990	19/07/1991	Au Cu	71
	**EL3857 **	PekoWallsend OperationsLtd	1/05/1991	1/05/1992	Au CuBi W	32
	EL4024	CRA Exploration PtyLtd	14/08/1991	13/08/1995	Au Cu	81
	EL4117	CRA Exploration Pty Ltd	11/11/1991	10/11/1993	Au Cu	95
	EL4235	CRA Exploration PtyLtd	1/04/1992	31/03/1994	Au Cu	98
	EL5128	Woodham, SW.	1/10/1996	1/10/1998	Au Cu	52
	EL5503	Malachite Resources NL	7/08/1998	6/08/2000	Au Cu	12
	EL6311	Augur ResourcesLtd	27/09/2004	26/09/2016	Au Cu	24
	EL7036	Crystal MineralsPtyLtd	24/01/2008	22/10/2014	CuAuPbZn Ag	134
	EL7108	Greystoke Mines Pty Ltd	25/08/2008	25/03/2014	Cu Au REE	115
	EL7588	MinotaurOperationsPtyLtd	4/08/2010	7/06/2015	Au CuMoREE	51

16

==> picture [37 x 596] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [173 x 23] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria		JORC	Code explanation	Commentary
Geology	•	Deposit type, geological setting and style of		EL 8538 covers a large portion of the Early Devonian Yeoval Batholith including felsic to mafic intrusives of the Yeoval Intrusive Complex.
		mineralisation.
				The Yeoval Complex is strongly fractionated and comprised of various intermediate intrusive lithologies – granite, quartz monzodiorite, quartz diorite, microgranodiorite,
				granodiorite, diorite and gabbro (Pogson et al 1998). The more fractioned intermediate phases are highly prospective for porphyry copper - molybdenum ± gold
				mineralisation.
				This Yeoval intrusive complex formed during a Late Silurian to Early Devonian melting and rifting event that split the Ordovician to Early Silurian Macquarie Arc. Its
				chemistry is shoshonitic, in common with the Ordovician volcanic rocks that host the Cadia and Northparkes porphyry copper-gold deposits, and a similar mantle source
				and mineral potential is inferred.
				The south-eastern portion of the licence area hosts the Silurian aged Canowindra Volcanics - garnetiferous quartz-feldspar-cordierite tuffs, ashstone and breccias. A
				core of Ordovician sandstone, siltstone and minor limestone from the Kabadah Formation found within the Silurian sediments and volcanics. This area is considered
				prospective for low sulphidation Au-Ag mineralisation similar in style to the Ardea Mt Aubrey gold deposit to the south-west of the area.
				Emplacement of intrusives and extrusives in the Early Devonian which are related to the Boggy Plain Supersuite have given rise to intrusive related mineralisation.
				Numerous copper-gold occurrences are known in the Yeoval Complex. Mineralisation ranges from disseminated chalcopyrite-gold within altered granodiorite (Yeoval,
				Yeoval South) to quartz-magnetite-chalcopyrite veining within structures inferred within the granodiorite, at the Goodrich Mine. The style of the mineral occurrences is
				indicative of a porphyry copper-gold setting. Minor occurrences of copper ± gold mineralisation is present within the microgranite and granite of the Yeoval Complex.
				Minor molybdenum is reported at the Martins Reef Prospect in the south-west of the licence area. Scattered copper-gold prospects also occur within the Silurian and
				Devonian sequences east of the Yeoval Batholith.
				Mineralisation hosted within the Yeoval complex is centred in and around quartz monzonite porphyry complexes which intruded the volcanic centres, composing of pipes,
				dykes and stocks.
Drill hole Information	•	A summary of all information material to the		• The holes used for the estimation of this resource is tabulated below. The holes were logged geologically and assayed as per the descriptions in section 1 of this
		understanding of the exploration results		table 1 report.
		including a tabulation of the following
		information for all Material drill holes:
		o	easting and northing of the drill hole collar
		o	elevation or RL (Reduced Level –
			elevation above sea level in metres) of
			the drill hole collar
		o	dip and azimuth of the hole
		o	down hole length and interception depth
		o	hole length.
	•	If the exclusion of this information is justified
		on	the basis that the information is not
		Material and this exclusion does not detract
		from the understanding of the report, the
		Competent Person should clearly explain why
		this is the case.

17

==> picture [37 x 596] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [173 x 23] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria		JORC Code explanation		Commentary
			•
Data aggregation	•	In reporting Exploration Results, weighting	•	The estimation technique used on this data is Ordinary Kriging
methods		averaging techniques, maximum and/or	•	No top cuts were not applied during this estimate
		_minimumgrade truncations(eg cutting of high _	•	No Aggregate intercepts were created.

18

==> picture [37 x 596] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [173 x 23] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria		JORC Code explanation		Commentary
		grades) and cut-off grades are usually	•	No metal equivalent was used for reporting
		Material and should be stated.
	•	Where aggregate intercepts incorporate short
		lengths of high grade results and longer
		lengths of low grade results, the procedure
		used for such aggregation should be stated
		and some typical examples of such
		aggregations should be shown in detail.
	•	The assumptions used for any reporting of
		metal equivalent values should be clearly
		stated.
Relationship	•	These relationships are particularly important	•	The holes were drilled at an average of -60˚ declination.
between		in the reporting of Exploration Results.	•	The mineralisation is modeled as being near vertical.
mineralisation widths	•	If the geometry of the mineralisation with	•	NOTE: The mineralisation is not being stated as a grade per meter statement, but rather as an interpolated resource block model which alleviates the risk of
and intercept lengths		respect to the drill hole angle is known, its nature should be reported.		misrepresenting the mineralisation due to acute intersection angles between the drill hole and the mineralised unit resulting in exaggerated intersection lengths.
	•	If it is not known and only the down hole
		lengths are reported, there should be a clear
		statement to this effect (eg ‘down hole length,
		_true width not known’). _

19

==> picture [37 x 596] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [173 x 23] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary	Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary	Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
Diagrams • Appropriate maps and sections (with scales) and tabulations of intercepts should be included for any significant discovery being reported These should include, but not be limited to a plan view of drill hole collar locations and appropriate sectional views. •

20

==> picture [37 x 596] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [173 x 23] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary

21

==> picture [37 x 596] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [173 x 23] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary

22

==> picture [37 x 596] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [173 x 23] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary

23

==> picture [37 x 596] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [173 x 23] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary

24

==> picture [37 x 596] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [173 x 23] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria		JORC Code explanation		Commentary	Commentary
Balanced reporting	•	Where comprehensive reporting of all	•	The Reporting of		this resource is considered balanced since
		Exploration Results is not practicable,			o	Sample results were composited to 2 m intervals/composites.
		representative reporting of both low and high			o	Ordinary Kriging was used.
		grades and/or widths should be practiced to			o	No top cuts were used.
		avoid misleading reporting of Exploration

25

==> picture [37 x 596] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [173 x 23] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria		JORC Code explanation		Commentary
		Results.
Other substantive	•	Other exploration data, if meaningful and	•	Multiple companies have held exploration licenses over Yeoval over the years and extensive work has been done. An IP study was completed in 2011 identifying
exploration data		material, should be reported including (but not limited to): geological observations;		very positive chargeability anomalies that correspond well with the mineralization from resource work completed.
		geophysical survey results; geochemical
		survey results; bulk samples – size and
		method of treatment; metallurgical test
		results; bulk density, groundwater,
		geotechnical and rock characteristics;
		potential deleterious or contaminating
		substances.	•

• Further work • The nature and scale of planned further work The mineralisation is open in all directions and exploration efforts for the near future would include: (eg tests for lateral extensions or depth extensions or large-scale step-out drilling). Soil sampling: See image below.

• • Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions, including the main

26

==> picture [37 x 596] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [173 x 23] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
	geological interpretations and future drilling	•	Area “E” aims to confirm the alteration mineralogy around the current porphyry copper zones identified with the aim of vectoring toward the gold-enriched
	areas, provided this information is not		Potassic Zone.
	commercially sensitive.
		Drilling: See image below.
		•	Area “A”: High grade copper intercepts north of the modelled domain. Mineralisation open and within IP Chargeability anomaly, thus increasing the
			likelihood of mineralisation.
		•	Area “B”: Same characteristics and potential as area “A”, but toward the South.
		•	Area “C”: Lies within chargeability anomaly and has HG copper intercepts with open mineralisation. Has potential to close the “loop” between current
			interpreted domains (Main and East).
		•	Area “D”: Minimal data and has potential to connect areas “A” and “B”.
		•

27

==> picture [37 x 596] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [173 x 23] intentionally omitted <==

Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources

(Criteria listed in section 1, and where relevant in section 2, also apply to this section.)

Criteria		JORC Code explanation		Commentary
Database integrity	•	Measures taken to ensure that data has not been		• The data supplied for this resource was compiled by personnel of Augur Resources and supplied to Fredericksen Geological Solutions Pty Ltd.
		corrupted by, for example, transcription or keying errors,		• Fredericksen Geological Solutions Pty Ltd state in the 2009 resource report that_“Augur Resources geologists have maintained quality control and quality_
		between its initial collection and its use for Mineral		assurance processes during the compilation of the historical drilling information and also during the sampling and re-assaying of the available historical drill
		Resource estimation purposes.		core and the recent drilling data set and warrant that the combined dataset is of sufficient standard for reporting the current Mineral Resource estimate.”
	•	Data validation procedures used.		• Fredericksen Geological Solutions Pty Ltd also state in the 2009 resource report that:
				• “Data integrity”
				o “This work as stated by Augur Resource personnel who will be co signing this Mineral Resource estimate is of sufficient quantity and quality
				for an Inferred Mineral Resource classification.”
				o “Collar survey methods and down hole surveys are sufficient for the spatial location of the drillholes.”
Site visits	•	Comment on any site visits undertaken by the	•	The resource report produced by Fredericksen Geological Solutions Pty Ltd does not state any site visits by Mr. Fredericksen. The data supplied was guaranteed
		Competent Person and the outcome of those visits.		by Augur Resources and discussions with senior personnel from Augur Resources formed the basis of the geological information that would otherwise have been
	•	If no site visits have been undertaken indicate why this		obtained by a site visit.
		is the case.	•	The Competent Person for this resource, Johan Lambrechts, has spent considerable time visiting the Yeoval resource site and surrounding district, as he is based
				in the nearby regional city of Orange. He has a strong understanding of the local and regional geology.
Geological	•	Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertainty of ) the	•	The confidence in the geological interpretation is moderately high. The estimation domain wireframes were created by contouring of grades on cross sections
interpretation		geological interpretation of the mineral deposit.		oriented parallel to the orientation of the drilling. A series of 25m spaced cross sections were created and the resulting overall wireframes constructed for the East
	•	Nature of the data used and of any assumptions made.		Zone, Main Zone and West Zone.
	•	The effect, if any, of alternative interpretations on	•	The data used for the interpretation was the drill assay results.
		Mineral Resource estimation.	•	The estimation was carried out on a horizontally adjusted axes of 10° from true north about a single point 53600mE and 77200mN to align the blocks with the
	•	The use of geology in guiding and controlling Mineral		approximate strike of the mineralisation.
		Resource estimation.	•	The understanding of continuity of mineralisation in this resource is currently limited by the amount of information available. With more drill intersections will come
	•	The factors affecting continuity both of grade and		an increased understanding of the continuity of the mineralisation of the Yeoval deposit.
		geology.
Dimensions	•	The extent and variability of the Mineral Resource	•	Western Zone:
		expressed as length (along strike or otherwise), plan		o Strike: 60m
		width, and depth below surface to the upper and lower		o Width: 30m
		limits of the Mineral Resource.		o Depth: 80m
			•	Main Zone:
				o Strike: 245m
				o Width: Max = 100m; Min = 60m
				o Depth: 330m
			•	Eastern Zone:
				o Strike: 210m
				o Width: Max = 120m; Min = 35m
				o Depth: 265m

28

==> picture [37 x 596] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [173 x 23] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria		JORC Code explanation		Commentary
				o
Estimation and	•	The nature and appropriateness of theestimation	•	Estimation Technique:
modelling techniques		technique(s) appliedandkey assumptions, including		o	Ordinary Kriging
		treatment of extremegrade values, domaining,	•	Extremegrades:

29

==> picture [37 x 596] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [173 x 23] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary	Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary	Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary	Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary	Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary	Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary	Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
interpolation parametersandmaximum distance of extrapolation from data points. If a computer assisted estimation method was chosen include a description of computer software and parameters used. • The availability of check estimates, previous estimates and/or mine production records and whether the Mineral Resource estimate takes appropriate account of such data. • The assumptions made regarding recovery of by- products. • Estimation of deleterious elements or other non-grade variables of economic significance (eg sulphur for acid mine drainage characterisation). • In the case of block model interpolation, the block size in relation to the average sample spacing and the search employed. • Any assumptions behind modelling of selective mining units. • Any assumptions about correlation between variables. • Description of how the geological interpretation was used to control the resource estimates. • Discussion of basis for using or not using grade cutting or capping. • The process of validation, the checking process used, the comparison of model data to drill hole data, and use of reconciliation data if available. o No grade capping was employed during this estimation. o See table compiling domain statistics below. Domain Zone Code # of Comps Raw Cu% Min, Max, Mean CV Mean Grade Declustered Cells-20X20X20 Main Zone 101 579 0.006 4.59 0.349 1.29 0.332 WestZone 102 16 0.105 3.66 0.827 1.15 0.736 East Zone 103 287 0.001 2.79 0.321 1.28 0.309 Barren Zone 100 33 0.001 0.118 0.035 0.84 0.037 Domain Zone Code # of Comps Raw Au g/t Min, Max, Mean CV Mean Grade DeclusteredCells - 20X20X20 Main Zone 101 398 0.005 1.07 0.05 2.15 0.05 WestZone 102 16 0.005 1.06 0.14 2.15 0.08 EastZone 103 201 0.005 2.65 0.27 1.54 0.25 Barren Zone 100 33 0.005 0.02 0.01 0.41 0.01 Domain Zone Code # of Comps Raw Ag g/t Min, Max, Mean CV Mean Grade DeclusteredCells - 20X20X20 Main Zone 101 488 0.10 35.2 1.18 2.95 1.26 West Zone 102 16 0.40 48.3 9.26 1.34 7.55 EastZone 103 234 0.10 26.9 2.76 1.61 2.55 Barren Zone 100 28 0.10 1.35 0.14 1.63 0.12 Domain Zone Code # of Comps Raw Mo ppm Grade Min, Max, Mean CV Mean Grade DeclusteredCells - 20X20X20 Main Zone 101 579 0.5 2810 92.7 2.44 100.0 WestZone 102 16 6 2660 722 0.93 525.0 East Zone 103 287 0.5 1840 126 1.93 115 Barren Zone 100 33 3.5 480 85.5 1.60 94.8 • Domaining: o The estimation domain wireframes were created by contouring of grades on cross sections oriented parallel to the orientation of the drilling. A series of 25m spaced cross sections were created and the resulting overall wireframes constructed for the East Zone, Main Zone and West Zone. A low grade or barren internal domain contained within the Main domain was interpreted and modelled separately. • Interpolation parameters: Cu – All domains Mo all Domains Min # Composites 10 10	o No grade capping was employed during this estimation. o See table compiling domain statistics below.
								Mean Grade
				Raw Cu%
	Domain	Zone Code	# of Comps				CV	Declustered
				Min, Max, Mean
								Cells-20X20X20
	Main Zone	101	579	0.006	4.59	0.349	1.29	0.332
	WestZone	102	16	0.105	3.66	0.827	1.15	0.736
	East Zone	103	287	0.001	2.79	0.321	1.28	0.309
	Barren Zone	100	33	0.001	0.118	0.035	0.84	0.037
								Mean Grade
				Raw Au g/t
	Domain	Zone Code	# of Comps				CV	DeclusteredCells -
				Min, Max, Mean
								20X20X20
	Main Zone	101	398	0.005	1.07	0.05	2.15	0.05
	WestZone	102	16	0.005	1.06	0.14	2.15	0.08
	EastZone	103	201	0.005	2.65	0.27	1.54	0.25
	Barren Zone	100	33	0.005	0.02	0.01	0.41	0.01
								Mean Grade
				Raw Ag g/t
	Domain	Zone Code	# of Comps				CV	DeclusteredCells -
				Min, Max, Mean
								20X20X20
	Main Zone	101	488	0.10	35.2	1.18	2.95	1.26
	West Zone	102	16	0.40	48.3	9.26	1.34	7.55
	EastZone	103	234	0.10	26.9	2.76	1.61	2.55
	Barren Zone	100	28	0.10	1.35	0.14	1.63	0.12
								Mean Grade
				Raw Mo ppm Grade
	Domain	Zone Code	# of Comps				CV	DeclusteredCells -
				Min, Max, Mean
								20X20X20
	Main Zone	101	579	0.5	2810	92.7	2.44	100.0
	WestZone	102	16	6	2660	722	0.93	525.0
	East Zone	103	287	0.5	1840	126	1.93	115
	Barren Zone	100	33	3.5	480	85.5	1.60	94.8

30

==> picture [37 x 596] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [173 x 23] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
Max # composites 25 30 Search Type All All Max # PerQuadrant/Octant NA NA Max #per hole 8 8 • Software: o Minesight. • Previous estimates: No JORC 2012 estimates have been previously completed for the Yeoval Project although a previous JORC 2004 estimate of 12.9Mt @ 0.38% Cu, 0.14g/t Au, 120.1g/t Mo and 2.20g/t Ag, above a 0.2% Cu cut-off, was reported by Augur Resources to the ASX on 23 March 2009. Non-JORC compliant estimates of 37Mt at 0.3% copper, 3Mt at 0.7 to 1% copper equivalent and 20Mt at 0.2% copper appear in literature. • Recovery of byproducts: None • Estimation of deleterious elements: None o All estimation parameters are supplied for all elements interpolated. • Block size vs. average sample spacing o Block size - 10m x 20m x 10m o Drill spacing – 25m • Search parameters: Domain Major Minor Vertical Cu GEOCD = 101 C0 0.078 RotN/DipN/DipE C1 0.042 Range 1 53 53 9 345/0/0 C2 0.088 Range 2 22 122 57 Cu GEOCD = 102 C0 0.078 RotN/DipN/DipE C1 0.042 Range 1 53 53 9 30/-75/0 C2 0.088 Range 2 122 122 57 Cu GEOCD = 103 C0 0.078 RotN/DipN/DipE C1 0.042 Range 1 53 53 9 10/-75/0 C2 0.088 Range 2 122 122 57 Cu GEOCD = 100 C0 0.078 RotN/DipN/DipE C1 0.042 Range 1 53 53 9 42/-75/0 C2 0.088 Range 2 122 122 57 Au GEOCD = 100,101 C0 0.6 RotN/DipN/DipE C1 1.0 Range 1 75 75 40 345/-75/0 Au GEOCD = 102 C0 0.6 RotN/DipN/DipE C1 1.0 Range 1 75 75 40 30/-75/0 Au GEOCD = 103 C0 0.6 RotN/DipN/DipE C1 1.0 Range 1 75 75 40 10/-75/0 Ag GEOCD = 100,101 C0 8.6 RotN/DipN/DipE C1 5.8 Range 1 70 13 70 345/-75/0 C2 4.8 Range 2 110 63 110	Max # composites	25	30
	**Search Type **	All	All
	Max # PerQuadrant/Octant	NA	NA
	Max #per hole	8	8

31

==> picture [37 x 596] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [173 x 23] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
Ag GEOCD = 102 C0 8.6 RotN/DipN/DipE C1 5.8 Range 1 70 13 70 30/-75/0 C2 4.8 Range 2 110 63 110 Ag GEOCD = 103 C0 8.6 RotN/DipN/DipE C1 5.8 Range 1 70 13 70 10/-75/0 C2 4.8 Range 2 110 63 110 Mo GEOCD = 101 C0 32 RotN/DipN/DipE C1 13 Range 1 43 10 43 345/-75/0 C2 22 Range 2 100 45 100 Mo GEOCD= 102 C0 32 RotN/DipN/DipE C1 13 Range 1 43 10 43 10/-75/0 C2 22 Range 2 100 45 100 Mo GEOCD= 103 C0 32 RotN/DipN/DipE C1 13 Range 1 43 10 43 10/-75/0 C2 22 Range 2 100 45 100 Mo GEOCD= 100 C0 32 RotN/DipN/DipE C1 13 Range 1 43 10 43 10/-75/0 C2 22 Range 2 100 45 100 • Description of how the geological interpretation was used to control the resource estimates. • Grade capping: o No grade capping was employed during this estimation. • Validation: o The primary validation tools used were domain statistics. The mean estimated grades generally compare favorably with the de-clustered mean grade of the composites for each domain. o In addition “on screen” checks were completed to compare estimated block grades with the 2.0m composite Au grades. There were no issues identified duringthis reviewprocess.	**Ag GEOCD = 102 **	C0	8.6
	RotN/DipN/DipE	C1	5.8	Range 1	70	13	70
	30/-75/0	**C2 **	4.8	Range 2	110	63	110
	Ag GEOCD = 103	C0	8.6
	RotN/DipN/DipE	C1	5.8	Range 1	70	13	70
	10/-75/0	**C2 **	4.8	Range 2	110	63	110
	**Mo GEOCD = 101 **	C0	**32 **
	RotN/DipN/DipE	C1	13	Range 1	43	10	43
	345/-75/0	**C2 **	22	Range 2	100	45	100
	Mo GEOCD= 102	C0	32
	**RotN/DipN/DipE **	**C1 **	13	Range 1	43	10	43
	10/-75/0	**C2 **	22	Range 2	100	45	100
	Mo GEOCD= 103	C0	32
	**RotN/DipN/DipE **	**C1 **	13	Range 1	43	10	43
	10/-75/0	**C2 **	22	Range 2	100	45	100
	Mo GEOCD= 100	C0	32
	**RotN/DipN/DipE **	**C1 **	13	Range 1	43	10	43
	10/-75/0	**C2 **	22	Range 2	100	45	100

32

==> picture [37 x 596] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [173 x 23] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
o	Domain	Zone Code	Mean Declustered Composite Grade	Model Grade
	Cu %	100	0.037	0.035
	Cu %	101	0.332	0.333
	Cu %	102	0.736	0.844
	Cu %	103	0.309	0.322
	Au g/t	100	0.01	0.02
	Au g/t	101	0.05	0.05
	Au g/t	102	0.08	0.11
	Au g/t	103	0.25	0.22
	Ag g/t	100	0.12	0.26
	Ag g/t	101	1.26	1.4
	Ag g/t	102	7.55	7.56
	Ag g/t	103	2.55	2.56
	Mo ppm	100	94.8	100
	Mo ppm	101	100	109
	Mo ppm	102	525	593
	Mo ppm	103	115	119
Moisture • Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or with natural moisture, and the method of determination of the moisture content. • The tonnage was estimated on a dry tonnage basis.
Cut-off parameters • The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters applied. • Cut-off grades of 0.2 % Cu have been used to constrain the Mineral Resources reported. • At this stage no detailed mining studies and economic evaluations have been completed so it is not possible to provide detailed supporting information for the cut- off grades that have been used.
Mining factors or assumptions • Assumptions made regarding possible mining methods, minimum mining dimensions and internal (or, if applicable, external) mining dilution. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider potential mining methods, but the assumptions made regarding mining methods and • No detailed mining studies have been completed. However, given that fresh rock is present within a depth of 20m below surface and the drill core indicates this material competent, it is reasonably assumed that the mineralisation would be amenable to conventional open pit mining.

33

==> picture [37 x 596] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [173 x 23] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria		JORC Code explanation		Commentary
		parameters when estimating Mineral Resources may
		not always be rigorous. Where this is the case, this
		should be reported with an explanation of the basis of
		the mining assumptions made.
Metallurgical factors or assumptions	•	The basis for assumptions or predictions regarding metallurgical amenability. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for	•	There have been no metallurgical studies completed on this project although given the similarities in mineralisation styles (disseminated and veined chalcopyrite and bornite) to other central NSW porphyry deposits and would be amenable to flotation methodologies.
		eventual economic extraction to consider potential
		metallurgical methods, but the assumptions regarding
		metallurgical treatment processes and parameters
		made when reporting Mineral Resources may not
		always be rigorous. Where this is the case, this should
		be reported with an explanation of the basis of the
		metallurgical assumptions made.
Environmen-tal	•	Assumptions made regarding possible waste and	•	There have been no studies or assumptions made regarding environmental factors.
factors or		process residue disposal options. It is always necessary
assumptions		as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider
		the potential environmental impacts of the mining and
		processing operation. While at this stage the
		determination of potential environmental impacts,
		particularly for a greenfields project, may not always be
		well advanced, the status of early consideration of these
		potential environmental impacts should be reported.
		Where these aspects have not been considered this
		should be reported with an explanation of the
		environmental assumptions made.
Bulk density	•	Whether assumed or determined. If assumed, the basis	•	Augur Resources collected 23 samples 10–20cm in length from two diamond drill holes for determination of Bulk Densities. All of these samples are from fresh
		for the assumptions. If determined, the method used,		mineralisation and from a variety of lithological and grade distributions.
		whether wet or dry, the frequency of the measurements,	•	These determinations have not been located spatially and the sample set too small to inform a block model or determine suitable density domains. As such the
		the nature, size and representativeness of the samples.		simple arithmetic average of these determinations 2.7 t/m3has been applied to the block model in the fresh material.
	•	The bulk density for bulk material must have been
		measured by methods that adequately account for void
		spaces (vugs, porosity, etc), moisture and differences
		between rock and alteration zones within the deposit.
	•	Discuss assumptions for bulk density estimates used in
		the evaluation process of the different materials.

34

==> picture [37 x 596] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [173 x 23] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
•				Bulk density de		termination	on Yeoval Project samples
	SAMPLE DESCRIPTION	S.G. Unity	Hole	From	To	**Length cm **	Comments
	12336 12337 12338 12339 12340 12341 12342 12343 12344 12345 12346 12347 12348 12349 12350	2.7 2.73 2.69 2.68 2.69 2.75 2.74 2.8 2.87 2.61 2.7 2.67 2.68 2.72 2.71	YA011 YA011 YA011 YA011 YA011 YA011 YA011 YA011 YA011 YA011 YA011 YA011 YA011 YA011 YA011	24.6 30.8 71.6 94 116.7 144.3 158 161.8 167.2 178.6 182.7 185.3 203.8 227.8 146.7	24.75 31 71.75 94.2 116.85 144.5 158.15 162 167.35 178.8 182.9 185.5 204 228 146.9	0.15 0.2 0.15 0.2 0.15 0.2 0.15 0.2 0.15 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2	Moderately altered granodiorite (GRD) Strongly altered GRD dacite porphyry GRD GRD CP mineralised GRD Sheeted CP veinlets in GRD Dolerite BN + CP mineralised GRD Banded Rhyolite CP mineralised GRD Quartz Feldspar Porphyry Brecciated + carbonate veined GRD CP + Sheeted veined GRD QTZ + Carb veined GRD GP Sericite altered + CHL veined GP CHL altered GP CP veined GP CP mineralised, SIL CHL altered GP GP Crowded quartz feldspar porphyry
	12351 12352 12353 12354 12355 12356 12357	2.68 2.67 2.69 2.7 2.68 2.66 2.65	YA008 YA008 YA008 YA008 YA008 YA008 YA008	43.7 96.4 105.7 133.2 159.8 218.4 265.6	43.9 96.6 105.9 133.4 160 218.6 265.8	0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
	Average	2.7
							Oxidised porphyrytic granodiorite (GP )
	12358	2.56	YA008	21.2	21.3	0.1	Not Used
Classification • The basis for the classification of the Mineral Resources into varying confidence categories. • Whether appropriate account has been taken of all relevant factors (ie relative confidence in tonnage/grade estimations, reliability of input data, confidence in continuity of geology and metal values, quality, quantity and distribution of the data). • Whether the result appropriately reflects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit. • The entire estimated Yeoval Project deposit has been classified as an Inferred Mineral Resources. • In making this classification, the following factors have been considered. • Data integrity o The data is of sufficient quantity and quality for an Inferred Mineral Resource classification as stated by the CP for the estimation in 2009 and also as validated by our own inspections of the data in the model folder. o Collar survey methods and down hole surveys are sufficient for the spatial location of the drill holes • Geological modelling and grade continuity:

35

==> picture [37 x 596] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [173 x 23] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria		JORC Code explanation		Commentary
				o The continuity of grades >0.1 % Cu is generally good.
				o The estimation domains that have been constructed seem appropriate in relation to the currently understood model of formation of the mineralisation.
				o The estimate of all elements has been limited to blocks that have first informing composites less than 50 m from the block center (A review of the model
				shows for the domains interpreted that the mean distance to the nearest composite is 28 meters). This is a reasonable limit to prevent kriging of grades
				into areas not adequately supported by drilling and is consistent with the resource classifications applied.
			•	The result of this estimation does reflect the competent person’s view of the deposit. The domains are constrained by geology and do not extend far beyond
				data limits. The model grades also reflect the raw composite grades and is not over-estimating the grade in the deposit.
Audits or reviews	•	The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral	•	No audits have been performed on this resource.
		Resource estimates.
Discussion of relative	•	Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy	The Yeoval resource is considered accurate and appropriate to represent the inferred category of resource estimates.
accuracy/ confidence		and confidence level in the Mineral Resource estimate using an approach or procedure deemed appropriate by	The data integrity has been validated by the geological team that collected it. Historic data was validated by the same team using the same methods and historical assay
		the Competent Person. For example, theapplication of	data was bolstered by re-sampling holes by means of a multi element suite and more modern equipment. The geological interpretation is also considered appropriate as
		statistical or geostatistical procedures to quantify the relative accuracy of the resource within stated confidence limits, or, if such an approach is not deemed appropriate, a qualitative discussion of the factors that could affect the relative accuracy and	it considers the geological data collected from the drill programs and does not extend long distances away from the data points, thus mitigating the possibility of overestimating the volume of the deposit. The search criteria and variography for the estimation were determined by statistical methods using the data associated with the deposit and is considered relevant. The estimated block model grades correlate well with the de-clustered raw composite data indicating that it reflects the raw data and is thus considered accurate relative to the inferred classification thereof.
		confidence of the estimate.
	•	The statement should specify whether it relates to	The resource estimate is considered global and is based on the data associated with the Yeoval resource.
		globalor local estimates, and, if local, state the relevant tonnages, which should be relevant to	The Yeoval resource has never been mined, apart from desultory small-scale prospector activity.
		technical and economic evaluation. Documentation
		should include assumptions made and the procedures
		used.
	•	These statements of relative accuracy and confidence
		of the estimate should be compared with production
		data, where available.

36