Artemis Resources Limited — Capital/Financing Update 2016

Feb 10, 2016

==> picture [226 x 66] intentionally omitted <==

ASX Announcement 11 February 2016

Copper hits of up to 4.6% confirm electro‐magnetic anomalies at Carlow Castle project in WA are mineralised

Highlights

• Copper and gold mineralisation intersected at Good Luck and Little Fortune prospects at the Carlow Castle project in the Pilbara

• Results include 9m at 2.7% copper from 67m, 1m at 4.6% copper from 33m and 3m at 2.16% copper from 160m

• Further electro‐magnetic surveys and drilling are warranted to expand the mineralised prospects

Artemis Resources Limited (ASX: ARV) is pleased to announce highly promising assay results from the first five Reverse Circulation (RC) drill holes at the Little Fortune and Goodluck prospects (Figure 1) at the Carlow Castle project in the West Pilbara region of WA.

The drilling at both Little Fortune (Figure 2) and Goodluck (Figure 3) has returned sulphide mineralised intercepts of chalcopyrite and pyrrhotite from the electromagnetic anomaly target zone. Associated with the sulphide mineralisation are variable grades of copper, gold and silver (refer Table 1 and 2), as seen below:

• 9m @ 2.7% Cu, 16.3 g/t Ag, from 67m in LFRC002

• 3m @ 2.16% Cu, 1.22 g/t Au, 16.1 g/t Ag, from 160m in LFRC001

• 1m @ 4.6% Cu, 2.2 g/t Au, 27 g/t Ag, from 33m in LFRC003

• 1m @ 3.4 g/t Au from 32m in LFRC004

• 4m @ 0.42% Cu from 103m in GLRC001

Based on the results from phase 1 RC drilling, Artemis will now be able to expand Fixed Loop EM (FLTEM) surveys targeting copper and gold.

Historic mine workings at Little Fortune are 600m in length (strike) and shallow. The Little Fortune assay results provide information which will allow step out holes along strike and down dip to expand on the LFRC002 result.

Downhole EM (DHEM) is the next exploration step to assist Artemis in designing further exploration drilling.

The Carlow Castle Project is 10km south‐west of Roebourne and currently hosts a JORC (2012) Inferred Mineral Resource of 418,000 tonnes at 3.0 g/t Au and 0.6% Cu , for total contained metal of 40,000 ounces of Au and 2,500 tonnes of Cu[1] . Potential exists to increase this resource with a number of structures identified with shafts and recent prospector activity that have never been drilled. The Little Fortune Prospect 2km to the south could add to this resource.

In accordance with Listing Rule 5.23.2, Artemis confirms that it is not aware of any new information or data that materially affects the information included in the relevant market announcement referred to above, and that in the case of mineral resources that all material assumptions and technical parameters underpinning the estimates in the announcement referred to continue to apply and have not materially changed.

1 As per ASX announcement dated 30 June 2014 “Completion of Gold Project Acquisition – Update on West Pilbara Resource Status”

==> picture [65 x 63] intentionally omitted <==

Artemis Resources Limited ABN: 80 107 051 749 Telephone: +61 2 9078 7670 | Facsimile: +61 2 9078 7661 | Email: info@artemisresources.com.au Level 15, 1 Alfred Street, SYDNEY NSW 2000 | PO Box R933 Royal Exchange, NSW 1225 Australia

www.artemisresources.com.au

==> picture [226 x 66] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [457 x 644] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 1. Artemis West Pilbara Project location map.

2

==> picture [226 x 66] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [454 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [454 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [454 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [454 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [454 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 2. Drill Holes at Little Fortune Prospect

==> picture [457 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [457 x 66] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [457 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [457 x 66] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [457 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3. Drill Hole at Good Luck Prospect

3

==> picture [226 x 66] intentionally omitted <==

	Significant Intercepts from Phase			1 Carlow Castle Area drilling
Hole id	from	to	metres	Cu %	Ni %	Aug/t	Ag g/t
GLRC001	103	107	4	0.42	0.3	‐	1.8
LFRC001	14	15	1	‐	‐	2.4	‐
LFRC001	160	163	3	2.16	‐	1.22	16.1
LFRC002	67	76	9	2.7	‐	0.2	16.3
LFRC003	33	34	1	4.6	‐	2.2	27
LFRC004	79	82	3	1	‐		6
LFRC004	32	33	1	‐	‐	3.4	‐

Table 1. Significant Intercepts from Phase 1 Carlow Castle Area drilling. (Not true width as there is not enough information to determine this)

Hole Id	GDA mN	GDA mE	RL m	Dip	Azimuth	EOH
GLRC001	7698035	507700	33	‐60	180	150
LFRC001	7696878	507493	38	‐60	135	198
LFRC002	7596909	507618	39	‐60	135	92
LFRC003	7696903	507693	36	‐60	135	116
LFRC004	7696883	507577	37	‐60	135	100

Table 2: Drill hole Collar information

4

==> picture [226 x 66] intentionally omitted <==

ABOUT ARTEMIS RESOURCES

Artemis Resources Limited is a resources exploration company with a focus on its prospective West Pilbara (gold, base metals, platinum and platinum group elements) projects in Western Australia. These projects have only recently been consolidated into Artemis and offer significant exploration potential with close proximity to existing infrastructure.

For further information, please contact:

Edward Mead

Managing Director

Phone: +61 8 9480 0459 Email: ed@artemisresources.com.au Web Site: www.artemisresources.com.au

Competent Person Statements

==> picture [222 x 150] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [222 x 151] intentionally omitted <==

The information in this document that relates to Exploration Results is based on information compiled or reviewed by Edward Mead, who is a Member of The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Mr Mead is a Director of Artemis Resources Limited and is a consultant to the Company, and is employed by Doraleda Pty Ltd. Mr Mead has sufficient experience which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity which he is undertaking 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 Mead consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears.

Forward Looking Statements

This report contains forecasts, projections and forward looking information. Such forecasts, projections and information are not a guarantee of future performance and involve unknown risks and uncertainties, many of which are out of Artemis’ control. Actual results and developments will almost certainly differ materially from those expressed or implied. Artemis has not audited or investigated the accuracy or completeness of the information, statements and opinions contained in this presentation. To the maximum extent permitted by applicable laws, Artemis makes no representation and can give no assurance, guarantee or warranty, express or implied, as to, and takes no responsibility and assumes no liability for (1) the authenticity, validity, accuracy, suitability or completeness of, or any errors in or omission from, any information, statement or opinion contained in this report and (2) without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the achievement or accuracy of any forecasts, projections or other forward looking information contained or referred to in this report.

5

==> picture [226 x 66] intentionally omitted <==

JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data

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

		Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
		Sampling		Nature and quality of sampling (eg cut channels,		Reverse Circulation (RC) drilling was carried out on
		techniques		random chips, or specific specialised industry		the Good Luck and Little Fortune prospects, both
				standard measurement tools appropriate to the minerals under investigation, such as down hole gamma sondes, or handheld XRF instruments, etc). These examples should not be taken as limiting the broad meaning of sampling.		located within the Carlow Castle project area. This drilling was designed to obtain drill chip samples from one metre intervals, from which a 2-4 kilogram sub-sample was collected for laboratory multi-
				Include reference to measures taken to ensure		element analysis. Fe, Si, Al, Ti, P, Mn, Ca, K, Na,
				sample representivity and the appropriate		Cl, Cr, As, Ba, Co, Cu, Ni, Pb, S, Sb, Sn, Sr, V, Zn,
				calibration of any measurement tools or systems		Au, Pt, Pd, Ag.
			 	used. Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are Material to the Public Report. In cases where ‘industry standard’ work has been done this would be relatively simple (eg	 	Mineralised zones were identified visually during field logging, and sample intervals selected by the supervising geologist. Samples from each metre were collected in a trailer
				‘reverse circulation drilling was used to obtain 1		mounted cyclone and split using a rig-mounted
				m samples from which 3 kg was pulverised to		three-tier riffle splitter.
				produce a 30 g charge for fire assay’). In other cases more explanation may be required, such as where there is coarse gold that has inherent sampling problems. Unusual commodities or mineralisation types (eg submarine nodules)	 	Field duplicates were taken and submitted for analysis. Substantial historic RC drilling has been completed in the vicinity of the drilling completed by Artemis.
				may warrant disclosure of detailed information.		The most significant work was completed by Open
						Pit Mining Limited (Open Pit) between 1985 and
						1987, and Legend Mining NL (Legend) between
						1995 and 2008. Compilation of this data has been
						completed based on Annual Exploration Reports
						available through WAMEX. Although limited
						information is available regarding procedures
						implemented during this period, work completed by
						Artemis to date has validated much of this historic
						data. It is considered that the historic work was
						completed professionally, and that certain
						assumptions can reasonably be based on results
						reported throughout this period.
		Drilling		Drill type (eg core, reverse circulation, open-hole		Reverse Circulation drilling at Good Luck and Little
		techniques		hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic,		Fortune was completed using a 5¼ inch diameter
				etc) and details (eg core diameter, triple or		face sampling hammer.
				standard tube, depth of diamond tails, face-		No detailed specifications regarding the historic RC
				sampling bit or other type, whether core is		drilling have been identified in historic Legend or
				oriented and if so, by what method, etc).		Open Pit reports.
		Drill sample		Method of recording and assessing core and		Sample recoveries are recorded by the geologist in
		recovery		chip sample recoveries and results assessed.		the field during logging and sampling.
				Measures taken to maximise sample recovery		If poor sample recovery is encountered during
				and ensure representative nature of the		drilling, the supervising geologist and driller
				samples.		endeavor to rectify the problem to ensure maximum
				Whether a relationship exists between sample		sample recovery.
				recovery andgrade and whether sample bias		Visual assessments are made for recovery,

6

==> picture [226 x 66] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
		may have occurred due to preferential loss/gain		moisture, and possible contamination.
		of fine/coarse material.		A cyclone and three-tier riffle splitter were used to
				ensure representative sampling, and were routinely
				inspected and cleaned.
				Sample recoveries during drilling completed by
				Artemis were high, and all samples were dry.
				Insufficient data exists at present to determine
				whether a relationship exists between grade and
				recovery. This will be assessed once a statistically
				representative amount of data is available.
				No information regarding recoveries has been
				identified in the historic Open Pit or Legend data.
Logging		Whether core and chip samples have been		All drill chip samples are geologically logged at 1m
		geologically and geotechnically logged to a level		intervals from surface to the bottom of each
		of detail to support appropriate Mineral		drillhole. It is considered that geological logging is
		Resource estimation, mining studies and		completed at an adequate level to allow appropriate
		metallurgical studies.		future Mineral Resource estimation.
		Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in		Geological logging is considered semi-quantitative
		nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc)		due to the limited geological information available
		photography.		from the Reverse Circulation method of drilling.
		The total length and percentage of the relevant		All RC drillholes completed by Artemis during the
		intersections logged.		current program have been logged in full.
				Historic geological logs are provided in historic
				exploration reports for a majority of the Open Pit
				and Legend drillholes. Analysis of this available
				data is consistent with the geological sequence
				identified in the drilling completed by Artemis, and
				is considered to be of an adequatequality.
Sub-		If core, whether cut or sawn and whether		The RC drilling rig was equipped with a rig-mounted
sampling techniques and sample preparation	 	quarter, half or all core taken. If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc and whether sampled wet or dry. For all sample types, the nature, quality and		cyclone and three-tier riffle splitter, which provided one bulk sample of approximately 20 kilograms, and a representative sub-sample of approximately 2-4 kilograms for every metre drilled.
		appropriateness of the sample preparation		The sample size of 2-4 kilograms is considered to
		technique.		be appropriate and representative of the grain size
		Quality control procedures adopted for all sub-		and mineralisation style of the deposit.
		sampling stages to maximise representivity of		The majority of samples were dry. Where wet
		samples.		sample was encountered, the cleanliness of the
		Measures taken to ensure that the sampling is		cyclone and splitter were closely monitored by the
		representative of the in situ material collected,		supervising geologist, and maintained to a
		including for instance results for field		satisfactory level to avoid contamination and
		duplicate/second-half sampling.		ensure representative samples were being
		Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the		collected.
		grain size of the material being sampled.		Duplicate samples were collected and submitted for
				analysis. No reference standards inserted during
				drilling.
				No details regarding sampling procedures
				implemented during historic drilling have been
				identified.
Quality of		The nature, quality and appropriateness of the		Nagrom Laboratories (Perth) were used for all
assay data and		assaying and laboratory procedures used and		analysis of drill samples submitted by Artemis. The

7

==> picture [226 x 66] intentionally omitted <==

• Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary laboratory whether the technique is considered partial or laboratory techniques below are for all samples tests total. submitted to Nagrom and are considered  For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld appropriate for the style of mineralisation defined XRF instruments, etc, the parameters used in within the Carlow Castle Project area: determining the analysis including instrument  Samples above 2Kg rifle split. make and model, reading times, calibrations  Pulverise to 95% passing 75 microns factors applied and their derivation, etc.  Fire assay (FA50) with ICP finish, Au, Pt, Pd.

  • Fire assay (FA50) with ICP finish, Au, Pt, Pd.

  • XRF001. Fe, Si, Al, Ti, P, Mn, Ca, K, Na, Cl, Cr, As, Ba, Co, Cu, Ni, Pb, S, Sb, Sn, Sr, V, Zn, Au, Pt, Pd, Ag.

• Nature of quality control procedures adopted (eg standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (ie lack of bias) and precision have been established.

• Mixed acid digest with ICP finish (ICP003) for Ag.

• No standards or blanks were used for external laboratory checks by Artemis.

• Duplicates were used for external laboratory checks by Artemis.

• RC Samples submitted by Open Pit Mining Limited were assayed for Au only by Classic Laboratories Pty Ltd, using method EPAS. No further information is available on the Open Pit assay methodology, and original laboratory certificates are not provided with the historic reports.

• RC samples submitted by Legend Mining NL were analysed by Genalysis Laboratory Services Pty Ltd. These methods are considered appropriate for style of mineralisation defined within the Carlow Castle Project area:

  • No information on sample preparation procedures is available

  • o B/AAS Au-Ag-Co-Cu-Fe-Mg-Ni-Zn (Aqua Regia Digest; Flame AAS Finish).

• No details regarding standards, blanks, duplicates, or external laboratory checks have been identified from the historic Open Pit or Legend work.

Verification		The verification of significant intersections by		At least two company personnel verify all significant
of sampling and assaying		either independent or alternative company personnel.		results. All geological logging and sampling information is
		The use of twinned holes.		completed firstly on to paper logs before being
		Documentation of primary data, data entry		transferred to Microsoft Excel spreadsheets.
		procedures, data verification, data storage		Physical logs and sampling data are returned to the
		(physical and electronic) protocols.		Hastings head office for scanning and storage.
		Discuss any adjustment to assay data.		No adjustments of assay data are considered
				necessary.
				No details regarding logging and data management
				procedures relating to the historic Open Pit and
				Legend work have been identified.
Location of		Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate		A Garmin GPSMap62 hand-held GPS was used to
data points		drill holes (collar and down-hole surveys),		define the location of the drillhole collars. Standard
		trenches, mine workings and other locations		practice is for the GPS to be left at the site of the
		used in Mineral Resource estimation.		collar for aperiod of 5 minutes to obtain a steady

8

==> picture [226 x 66] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria JORC Code explanation	Commentary
 Specification of the grid system used.  Quality and adequacy of topographic control.	reading. Collar locations are considered to be accurate to within 5m. Collars will be picked up by DGPS if warranted in the future.  Downhole surveys were captured at 50 metre intervals for the drillholes completed by Artemis.  The grid system used for all Artemis drilling is GDA94 (MGA 94 Zone 50)  Topographic control is obtained from surface profiles created by drillhole collar data.  Historic Legend Mining NL collar locations were reported on the AMG66 coordinate system. Artemis has converted these locations to MGA94 using GIS software (Mapinfo Coordinate Converter) before validating the data against recent GPS pick-ups of historic collar locations and historic drill plans. Legend drillhole locations are considered to be accurate to within +/- 5m.  Open Pit Mining Limited collar locations were reported using local grid co-ordinates. These local grid co-ordinates were converted to MGA94 through registration of drill plans provided in historic reports, within GIS software (MapInfo). A limited number of these collar locations have been validated by recent GPS pick-ups of remnant historic collars on site. This validation has indicated that the registered collar locations are accurate to within +/- 5m.  No information regarding downhole surveys has been identified for the Open Pit or Legend drilling.
Data spacing and distribution  Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results.  Whether the data spacing and distribution is 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.	 Current drillhole spacing is variable and dependent on specific geological, and geophysical targets, and access requirements for each drillhole.  No sample compositing has been used for drilling completed by Artemis. All results reported are the result of 1 metre downhole sample intervals.  The historic drilling completed by Open Pit Mining and Legend Mining was non-systematic, and at a variable spacing. Drillholes were located along known mineralized zones, and often targeted below historic workings.  Open Pit Mining reported all results as 2 metre composites. No details of the methodology used for this compositing is available. Open pit assayed for Au only, with no analysis for Cu completed despite geological logging identifying substantial chalcopyrite over localised intervals.  Legend Mining reported all assay results as single metre down-hole intervals.
Orientation of data in relation to geological structure  Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased sampling of possible structures and the extent to which this is known, considering the deposit type.	 Drillholes were located in order to intersect the target at an angle perpendicular to strike direction. As the target structures were considered to be steep to moderately dipping, all Artemis drillholes

9

==> picture [226 x 66] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria JORC Code explanation	Commentary
 If the relationship between the drilling orientation and the orientation of key mineralised structures is considered to have introduced a sampling bias, this should be assessed and reported if material.	were angled at -60 degrees.  Drilling completed by Open Pit Mining and Legend Mining is generally located to intersect the target structures perpendicular to strike direction.
Sample security  The measures taken to ensure sample security.	 The chain of custody is managed by the supervising geologist who places calico sample bags in polyweave sacks. Up to 10 calico sample bags are placed in each sack. Each sack is clearly labelled with: o Artemis Resources Ltd o Address of laboratory o Sample range  Samples were delivered by Artemis personnel directly to Nagrom Laboratories in Perth.
Audits or reviews  The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data.	 Data is validated upon up-loading into the master database. Any validation issues identified are investigated prior to reporting of results.

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results

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

		Criteria		JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
		Mineral			Type, reference name/number, location and		RC drilling by Artemis was carried out on
		tenement and land tenure status			ownership including agreements or material issues with third parties such as joint ventures, partnerships, overriding royalties, native title		E47/1797 – 100% owned by Artemis Resources Ltd. This tenement forms a part of a broader tenement package that comprises the West
					interests, historical sites, wilderness or national		Pilbara Project.
					park and environmental settings.		This tenement is in good standing and no known
					The security of the tenure held at the time of		impediments exist (see map provided in this
					reporting along with any known impediments to		report for location).
					obtaining a licence to operate in the area.
		Exploration			Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration		The most significant work to have been
		done by other parties			by other parties.		completed historically in the Carlow Castle area, including the Little Fortune and Good Luck
							prospects, was completed by Open Pit Mining
							Limited between 1985 and 1987, and
							subsequently Legend Mining NL between 1995
							and 2008.
							Work completed by Open Pit consisted of
							geological mapping, geophysical surveying (IP),
							and RC drilling and sampling.
							Work completed by Legend Mining Ltd consisted
							of geological mapping and further RC drilling.
							Legend also completed an airborne ATEM
							survey over the project area, with follow up
							ground-based FLTEM surveying. Re-processing
							of this data was completed by Artemis, and was
							critical in developing drill targets for the
							completed RC drilling.

10

==> picture [226 x 66] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
				Compilation and assessment of historic drilling
				and mapping data completed by both Open Pit
				and Legend has indicated that this data is
				compares well with data collected to date by
				Artemis. Validation and compilation of historic
				data is ongoing.
				All exploration and analysis techniques
				conducted by both Open Pit and Legend are
				considered to have been appropriate for the style
				of deposit.
Geology		Deposit type, geological setting and style of		The Good Luck and Little Fortune prospects are
		mineralisation.		both shear-hosted gold and base metal deposits,
				located on the northern margin of the Andover
				Intrusive Complex. Mineralisation is exposed in
				numerous workings at surface along numerous
				quartz rich shear zones. Both oxide and sulphide
				mineralisation is evident at surface associated
				with these shear zones.
				Drilling has indicated a gabbroic hanging wall
				and footwall to mineralization. Au-Cu +/- Ni
				mineralisation is predominantly located within the
				quartz-rich shear zone, although disseminated
				sulphide is noted locally within the host rock. A
				number of drillholes indicate that this shear zone
				is intruded by a felsic porphyry unit, which
				appears to locally stope out the quartz veining.
Drill hole		A summary of all information material to the		Collar information for all drillholes reported is
Information		understanding of the exploration results		provided in the body of this 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.
Data		In reporting Exploration Results, weighting		All intervals reported are composed of 1 metre
aggregation methods		averaging techniques, maximum and/or minimum grade truncations (eg cutting of high		down hole intervals, and are therefore length weighted.
		grades) and cut-off grades are usually Material		No upper or lower cutoff grades have been used
		and should be stated.		in reporting results.
		Where aggregate intercepts incorporate short		No metal equivalent calculations are used in this
		lengths of high grade results and longer lengths		report.
		of low grade results, the procedure used for
		such aggregation should be stated and some

11

==> picture [226 x 66] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
		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 in		True widths of mineralisation have not been
between mineralisation widths and intercept lengths		the reporting of Exploration Results. If the geometry of the mineralisation with respect to the drill hole angle is known, its nature should be reported.		calculated for this report, and as such all intersections reported are down-hole thicknesses. A better understanding of the deposit geometry
		If it is not known and only the down hole lengths		will be achieved on thorough interpretation of the
		are reported, there should be a clear statement		data. True thicknesses may be reported at a later
		to this effect (eg ‘down hole length, true width		date if warranted. Due to the moderately to
		not known’).		steeply dipping nature of the mineralised zones,
				it is expected that true thicknesses will be less
				than the reported down-hole thicknesses.
Diagrams		Appropriate maps and sections (with scales)		Appropriate maps and sections are available in
		and tabulations of intercepts should be included		the body of this announcement.
		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.
Balanced		Where comprehensive reporting of all		Reporting of results in this report is considered
reporting		Exploration Results is not practicable,		balanced.
		representative reporting of both low and high
		grades and/or widths should be practiced to
		avoid misleading reporting of Exploration
		Results.
Other		Other exploration data, if meaningful and		Targeting for the RC drilling completed by
substantive exploration data		material, should be reported including (but not limited to): geological observations; geophysical		Artemis was based on re-processing and interpretation of airborne VTEM and ground-
		survey results; geochemical survey results; bulk		based MLTEM and FLTEM electromagnetic
		samples – size and method of treatment;		surveys, originally completed by Legend Mining.
		metallurgical test results; bulk density,		This work was completed by Southern
		groundwater, geotechnical and rock		Geoscience Consultants (SGC).
		characteristics; potential deleterious or		Based on this review, two EM targets, Chapman
		contaminating substances.		(Good Luck), and Thorpe (Little Fortune) were
				identified as priorities for testing. Drilling was
				designed to test these priority EM conductors as
				modelled bySGC.
Further work		The nature and scale of planned further work		The results at Little Fortune warrant further
		(eg tests for lateral extensions, depth		drilling. As this is a first phase drill program the
		extensions or large-scale step-out drilling).		results to date are excellent.
		Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of		DHEM is required on all drill holes.
		possible extensions, including the main
		geological interpretations and future drilling
		areas, provided this information is not
		commercially sensitive.

12