Artemis Resources Limited — Capital/Financing Update 2017

Jan 8, 2017

==> picture [223 x 66] intentionally omitted <==

Artemis Resources Limited ARBN: 80 107 051 749

Level 3, IBM Building, 1060 Hay Street, West Perth, WA Australia, 6006

ASX / Media Announcement

9 January 2017

ARTEMIS COMMENCES WORK AT WEERIANA GOLD PROJECT DESIGNED TO INCREASE RESOURCES FROM 70,000 OUNCES – KARRATHA, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

HIGHLIGHTS:

PO Box R933 Royal Exchange NSW Australia, 1225

Phone: +61 2 9078 7670 Facsimile: +61 2 9078 7661 Email: info@artemisresources.com.au Website: artemisresources.com.au

• Weerianna has a current JORC (2012) compliant Inferred Mineral Resource of 1Mt at 2.2 g/t Au for total contained metal of 70,000 ounces of Au.

• The current resource outcrops at surface and remains open at depth and along strike.

• Best drill intersections to date include:

• 45 metres @ 3.1 g/t Au from 28 metres, WRC133

• 19 metres @ 4.05 g/t Au from 1 metres, WRC36

• 16 metres @ 15.35 g/t Au from 15 metres, WRC116

Directors:

Executive Chairman David Lenigas

Executive Directors Ed Mead Alex Duncan-Kemp

Non-Executive Directors George Frangeskides Campbell Baird

Company Secretary: Guy Robertson

Corporate Information ASX Code: ARV

• 9 metres @ 21.5 g/t Au from 87 metres, WRC140

• Extensive trenching programme commenced to test the core 600 metres gold mineralised zone over much wider widths of 250-400 metres.

• Artemis believes that the trenching will support a second perpendicular orientation of gold mineralisation previously unidentified from drilling.

• If this second orientation is validated, a significant drill programme will be required potentially significantly improving the economics of the deposit by increasing the ounces per vertical metre.

• Weerianna is located only 35 km from the Radio Hill Plant, which Artemis has an option to acquire.

David Lenigas, Artemis’s Chairman, commented;

“Weerianna is a significant and under explored asset of the Company, close to excellent infrastructure and we believe there is considerable scope to rapidly increase the size of this gold deposit. This project could prove valuable as potential plant feed for the nearby Radio Hill plant, which Artemis has under option to acquire for $3.5 million.”

Artemis Resources Limited (“ Artemis ” or “ the Company ”) ( ASX: ARV ) is pleased to announce that it has commenced a 1,975 metre trenching programme at its Weerianna Gold Project , located near Karratha in Western Australia, designed to increase the known 70,000 ounces of JORC complaint Inferred Resources.

1 | P a g e

==> picture [88 x 842] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [122 x 37] intentionally omitted <==

The Weerianna Gold Project [M47/223] is 80% owned by Artemis and is located 25 km east of Karratha and 5 km west of Roebourne in Western Australia and adjacent to the Karratha – Roebourne highway (Figure 1). It is also conveniently located only 35 km by road from the Radio Hill Plant. The company has an exclusive option to buy the fully permitted AGIP 425,000 tpa Radio Hill nickel and copper operations, processing plant and associated mining and exploration tenements for a total consideration of $3.5 million[1] .

The Weerianna Gold Project hosts a JORC (2012) compliant Inferred Mineral Resource of 1Mt at 2.2 g/t Au for total contained metal of 70,000 ounces of Au[2] . The current resource outcrops at surface and remains open at depth and along strike.

Best drill intersections exceeding 2 metres at 4 g/t gold to date at Weerianna refer to Table 1. These results are from between proposed trenches WT2 and WT3 in Figure 2.

Table 1: Drill intersections exceeding 2 metres at 4 g/t gold .

Hole No	Local	Grid	Azimuth	EOH	From	To	Interval	Grade
WRC	Easting	Northing	(o)	(m)	(m)	(m)	(m)	(g/tAu)
14	10800	9975	333	65	34	42	8	4.05
17	10800	10010	333	60	47	51	6	4.09
19	10900	10030	153	60	14	18	4	7.66
36	10850	10041	152	46	1	20	19	4.05
38	10795	10021	152	60	19	27	8	7.10
39	10795	10021	152	39	31	36	5	9.71
47	10800	10031	332	37	16	23	7	5.96
53	10875	10040	152	49	8	11	3	6.21
61	10777	10011	152	60	17	22	5	10.17
62	10776	10031	332	60	32	35	3	5.18
66	10725	10026	332	60	37	39	2	4.18
68	10675	10071	332	60	9	11	2	4.72
75	10199	10099	152	44	9	12	3	4.35
83	10496	10100	152	60	43	49	6	4.26
116	10523	10069	332	60	15	31	16	15.35
121	10302	9862	152	60	30	32	2	5.63
123	10198	9890	152	60	1	11	10	4.15
129	10540	9905	332	60	37	41	4	4.47
133	10550	10060	152	119	28	73	45	3.31
				and	90	107	17	3.43
134	10550	9930	332	120	8	11	3	4.26
				and	53	55	2	4.02
137	10752	9940	332	119	87	91	4	5.35
138	10650	9980	332	120	29	38	9	5.25
140	10700	9980	332	120	87	96	9	21.50
142	10550	10062	333	80	29	32	3	6.63
146	10502	10020	332	120	90	96	6	4.49

The 2017 Weerianna trenching programme (Figure 2) will comprise 6 long trenches totalling 1,975

1 ASX Announcement dated 16th December 2016

2 ASX Announcement dated 26th June 2014

2 | P a g e

==> picture [88 x 842] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [122 x 37] intentionally omitted <==

metres, ranging from 250 metres to 450 metres in length, across the 1,200 metres of known strike length with priority being given to the first 3 trenches totalling 875 metres, the core 600 metres of strike.

This trenching programme is looking to advance the inferred resource to a higher JORC category and to refine the geological model, by looking at structural controls on gold mineralisation near surface. This can then be extrapolated through the gold deposit.

Gold mineralisation at Weerianna outcrops at surface and is associated with quartz veining within chlorite-serpentinite schists, with variable degrees of silicification and carbonate alteration. Previous drilling has only focused on one orientation and a new interpretation of the geological model has indicated that two orientations to gold mineralisation are potentially present. The one orientation of gold mineralisation being drilled forms the basis of the 70,000 oz gold resource.

Artemis believes that the trenching will support the second perpendicular orientation of gold mineralisation. If this second orientation is validated, a significant drill programme will be required and this will significantly improve the economics of the deposit by increasing the ounces per vertical metre.

The contractors commenced work on the 9 January 2017 with initial results expected within the next few weeks.

Figure 1: Artemis’s Tenements and Projects near Karratha (incl. Fox Resources Tenements)

==> picture [422 x 347] intentionally omitted <==

3 | P a g e

==> picture [88 x 842] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [122 x 37] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 2: Weerianna Gold Project (Previous drilling and Proposed Trenching)

==> picture [449 x 318] intentionally omitted <==

CONTACTS

For further information on this update or the Company generally, please visit our website at www.artemisresources.co.au or contact:

Investors / Shareholders Media Mr. Ed Mead David Tasker Executive Director Professional Public Relations Telephone: +61 407 445 351 Telephone: +61 433 112 936 Email: emgeocorp@gmail.com Email: David.tasker@ppr.com.au

BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON ARTEMIS RESOURCES

Artemis Resources Limited is a resources exploration and development company with a focus on its prospective West Pilbara (gold, base metals, platinum and platinum group elements) (Figure 1) and Mt Clement-Paulsens (gold) projects in Western Australia. On 16 December 2016, Artemis announced the signing of a binding conditional agreement (“Agreement”) with Fox Resources Limited (“Fox”) for a 3 month exclusive option to buy their fully permitted AGIP 425,000 tpa Radio Hill nickel and copper operations, processing plant and associated mining and exploration tenements with significant existing JORC 2004 and 2012 compliant resources of Nickel, Copper and Zinc situated within a 15 km radius of the Radio Hill plant, for a total consideration of $3.5 million. The Radio Hill Plant is located 35 km south of Karratha in the Pilbara Region of Western Australia.

4 | P a g e

==> picture [88 x 842] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [122 x 37] intentionally omitted <==

COMPETENT PERSONS STATEMENT

The information in this document that relates to Exploration Results and Exploration Targets 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 AND IMPORTANT NOTICE

This report contains forecasts, projections and forward looking information. Although the Company believes that its expectations, estimates and forecast outcomes are based on reasonable assumptions it can give no assurance that these will be achieved. Expectations, estimates and projections and information provided by the Company 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.

Investors should make and rely upon their own enquiries before deciding to acquire or deal in the Company’s securities.

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.

5 | P a g e

==> picture [88 x 842] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [122 x 37] intentionally omitted <==

Table 2: Drill hole collars for Weerianna in Local Grid. Also refer to Figure 2 for drill hole collar locations. (Local Grid to be validated in conjunction with trenching programme)

HOLE	Local Grid East (m)	Local Grid North (m)	Local Grid RL (m)	DEPTH	Local Grid AZIMUTH (°)	DIP
				(m)		(°)
WDH001	10916.06	9950.42	32.6	108	180	-60
WDH002	10787.35	10015.53	29.49	128	180	-60
WDH032	10895	10080.4	27.16	135	180	-60
WDH103	10850	10121.9	25.82	180	180	-60
WDH106	10949.6	10069.8	26.07	141	180	-60
WPH1	10750	10040	30	61	351	-60
WPH2	10900	9970	30	70	108	-60
WPH3	10960	10000	30	79	153	-60
WRC001	9798.8	10164	25.5	75	183	-60
WRC002	9999.5	10194.4	25.14	33	179	-60
WRC003	10001.8	10017	28.18	78	358	-60
WRC004	10200.1	10025.5	29.33	72	181	-60
WRC005	10199.2	10155	25.73	75	181	-60
WRC006	10300.1	10099.8	27.26	66	180	-60
WRC007	10300.2	10059.1	27.99	48	181	-60
WRC008	10300.1	10019.9	29.75	48	182	-60
WRC009	10305.6	9874.6	32.63	48	179	-60
WRC010	10301.2	9849.4	33.45	48	181	-60
WRC011	10505	10079.4	26.94	48	181	-60
WRC012	10710.3	10049.8	28.45	48	1	-60
WRC013	10700.3	9935.2	34.5	54	3	-60
WRC014	10799.7	9975.9	31.19	65	1	-60
WRC015	10800.4	10211.2	23.71	48	1	-60
WRC016	10800	10050.7	28.04	72	2	-60
WRC017	10799	10010.9	29.6	78	1	-60
WRC018	10897	10059.8	27.33	78	181	-60
WRC019	10899.8	10030.3	28.56	60	181	-60
WRC020	10899.8	10000.3	29.78	60	182	-60
WRC021	10899.8	9970.3	31.5	60	182	-60
WRC022	10893.7	9940.1	33.04	30	181	-60
WRC023	10599.7	10035.8	29.13	42	181	-60
WRC024	11500.2	10165.2	19.54	77	58	-60
WRC025	11000	9979.3	27.86	66	180	-60
WRC026	10999.9	9999.1	27.03	60	180	-60
WRC027	11000	10019.1	26.73	60	180	-60
WRC028	10999.9	10039.1	26.26	54	180	-60
WRC029	10940	10005.3	28.84	66	180	-60
WRC030	10939.7	10019.9	28.11	54	180	-60
						6

==> picture [88 x 842] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [122 x 37] intentionally omitted <==

HOLE	Local Grid East (m)	Local Grid North (m)	Local Grid RL (m)	DEPTH	Local Grid AZIMUTH (°)	DIP
				(m)		(°)
WRC031	10954.9	10039.7	27.03	60	180	-60
WRC033	10849.7	9980.9	30.45	60	180	-60
WRC034	10849.9	10000.8	29.37	60	180	-60
WRC035	10850	10020.7	28.59	66	180	-60
WRC036	10850.1	10040.8	28.01	46	180	-60
WRC037	10850.3	10060.9	27.51	60	180	-60
WRC038	10794.8	10001.6	30.13	60	180	-60
WRC039	10794.8	10020.8	29.14	39	180	-60
WRC040	10794.8	10041.4	28.4	60	180	-60
WRC041	10795	10061.3	27.77	54	180	-60
WRC042	10750	10001.1	29.84	66	180	-60
WRC043	10750.4	10021.4	29.47	44	180	-60
WRC044	10750.5	10041.7	28.79	60	180	-60
WRC045	10750.8	10061.7	28.14	62	180	-60
WRC046	10794.6	9980.8	30.95	60	180	-60
WRC047	10800.4	10031.2	28.61	37	360	-60
WRC048	11049.5	9979.7	25.67	69	180	-60
WRC049	11049.7	9999.8	25.06	60	180	-60
WRC050	11052.7	10019.9	24.77	60	180	-60
WRC051	11052.1	10039.6	24.94	60	180	-60
WRC052	10925.5	10030.8	27.9	57	180	-60
WRC053	10875.1	10040.2	28.26	49	180	-60
WRC054	10875.3	10060.2	27.59	62	180	-60
WRC055	10825	9991.1	30.4	60	180	-60
WRC056	10825.2	10010.8	29.66	63	180	-60
WRC057	10825.3	10031.1	28.69	60	180	-60
WRC058	10825.5	10051.1	27.9	60	180	-60
WRC059	10825.5	10070.8	27.18	60	180	-60
WRC060	10780.1	9991.1	30.53	60	180	-60
WRC061	10777.3	10010.8	29.72	60	180	-60
WRC062	10775.9	10031.2	29	60	360	-60
WRC063	10776.2	10050.9	28.23	60	360	-60
WRC064	10725	9990.7	30.88	60	180	-60
WRC065	10725.1	10010.5	29.99	66	180	-60
WRC066	10725.1	10026.2	29.48	60	360	-60
WRC067	10698.6	10030.5	29.15	60	360	-60
WRC068	10675.3	10070.9	28.11	60	360	-60
WRC069	10675.3	10050.6	28.78	60	360	-60
WRC070	10675.1	10030.7	29.52	60	360	-60

7 | P a g e

==> picture [88 x 842] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [122 x 37] intentionally omitted <==

HOLE	Local Grid East (m)	Local Grid North (m)	Local Grid RL (m)	DEPTH	Local Grid AZIMUTH (°)	DIP
				(m)		(°)
WRC071	10624.1	10070.8	28.15	60	360	-60
WRC072	10624.6	10050.5	28.79	60	360	-60
WRC073	10198.9	10059.3	28.11	59	180	-60
WRC074	10198.7	10079	28.1	63	180	-60
WRC075	10198.6	10099.1	27.45	44	180	-60
WRC076	10399.4	10039.8	28.11	44	180	-60
WRC077	10399.4	10059.7	27.63	70	180	-60
WRC078	10399.2	10079.4	27.43	64	180	-60
WRC079	10399.2	10099.7	27.26	58	180	-60
WRC080	10494.7	10020.3	28.11	60	180	-60
WRC081	10495.1	10039.9	27.7	60	180	-60
WRC082	10495.3	10059.9	27.21	60	180	-60
WRC083	10496	10100.4	26.56	60	180	-60
WRC084	10496.2	10120	26.29	55	180	-60
WRC085	10699.6	10010.2	29.97	60	180	-60
WRC086	10700.2	9990.4	31.39	60	180	-60
WRC087	10499.2	10049.5	27.59	64	360	-60
WRC088	10502	10139.8	25.96	48	360	-60
WRC089	10502	10119.3	26.35	48	360	-60
WRC090	10494.2	9982.2	28.48	65	360	-60
WRC091	10548.4	9960	30.28	50	360	-60
WRC092	10564.2	9994	29.55	60	360	-60
WRC093	10599.4	9899.2	34.32	65	360	-60
WRC094	10599.5	9919.6	33.37	60	360	-60
WRC095	10148.8	10120	26.09	60	180	-60
WRC096	10198.9	10120	26.53	65	180	-60
WRC097	10249.4	10119.8	26.79	65	180	-60
WRC098	10249.7	10099.6	27.19	65	180	-60
WRC099	10299.2	10119.9	26.93	50	180	-60
WRC100	10326.6	10097.9	27.05	65	180	-60
WRC101	10278	10037.5	28.96	65	180	-60
WRC102	10800.3	10091.7	26.82	60	180	-60
WRC104	10899.8	10111	25.72	60	180	-60
WRC105	10925.3	10100.2	26	64	180	-60
WRC107	10899.7	9935.8	34.05	60	180	-60
WRC108	10852.3	9922	34.84	60	180	-60
WRC109	10951.7	9963.1	30.56	65	180	-60
WRC110	10951.9	9982.9	29.26	60	180	-60
WRC111	10975.7	9969.4	29.35	65	180	-60

8 | P a g e

==> picture [88 x 842] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [122 x 37] intentionally omitted <==

HOLE	Local Grid East (m)	Local Grid North (m)	Local Grid RL (m)	DEPTH	Local Grid AZIMUTH (°)	DIP
				(m)		(°)
WRC112	10978.1	9949.6	30.61	65	180	-60
WRC113	10850.4	9941.6	33.46	60	180	-60
WRC114	10475	10070.1	27.07	65	360	-60
WRC115	10475.2	10049.8	27.56	60	360	-60
WRC116	10523.2	10069.2	27.21	60	360	-60
WRC117	10525.6	10049.4	27.6	65	360	-60
WRC118	10399.8	9870.3	31.41	60	180	-60
WRC119	10356.8	9880.7	31.86	60	180	-60
WRC120	10356.6	9900.6	30.87	60	180	-60
WRC121	10302.5	9861.7	32.81	60	180	-60
WRC122	10198.8	9849.3	34.16	60	180	-60
WRC123	10197.5	9889.9	33.17	60	180	-60
WRC124	10197	9907.5	33.24	60	180	-60
WRC125	11540.3	10137.7	19.71	60	353	-60
WRC126	11729.5	10240.4	18.16	60	360	-60
WRC127	11538.6	10177.5	19.6	60	360	-60
WRC128	9754.1	9625.8	39.38	60	360	-60
WRC129	10540.1	9905.5	30.73	60	360	-60
WRC130	10256.2	9904	32.07	60	180	-60
WRC131	10154.5	9891.8	32.16	60	180	-60
WRC132	10249.7	10073.7	27.74	56	180	-60
WRC133	10850	10060	29	119	180	-60
WRC134	10550	9930	30.5	120	0	-60
WRC135	10800	9940	32.5	120	0	-60
WRC136	10800	9980	31	120	0	-60
WRC137	10752	9940	29.5	119	0	-60
WRC138	10750	9980	29.5	120	0	-60
WRC139	10700	9940	34.5	120	0	-60
WRC140	10700	9980	31.5	120	0	-60
WRC141	10555	9860	31.5	144	0	-60
WRC142	10550	10062	27.5	80	0	-60
WRC143	10500	9860	29.5	101	0	-60
WRC144	10500	9900	29.5	80	0	-60
WRC145	10500	9940	29	80	0	-60
WRC146	10502	10020	28	120	0	-60
WRC147	10600	9940	29	120	0	-60

9 | P a g e

==> picture [88 x 842] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [122 x 37] intentionally omitted <==

APPENDIX

JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1: Weerianna

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		Reverse circulation drilling was used to obtain 1m drill
techniques		cut channels, random chips, or specific		chip samples from which a sample was collected for
		specialised industry standard		submission to the laboratory for analysis. Diamond
		measurement tools appropriate to the		drillholes were sampled at 1m intervals and half core
		minerals under investigation, such as		splits sent to the laboratory.
		down hole gamma sondes, or		Samples from each RC interval were collected in a
		handheld XRF instruments, etc). These		cyclone and split using a 3 level riffle splitter. Wet
		examples should not be taken as		samples were grab sampled for assay and the residual
		limiting the broad meaning of		sample left to dry for later resampling if gold values
		sampling.		were returned in the initial grab sample.
		Include reference to measures taken		Several drill campaigns were conducted and samples
		to ensure sample representivity and		submitted under different conditions:
		the appropriate calibration of any		 WRC001-WRC024: Composite samples over 4m
		measurement tools or systems used.		were submitted for Au (20gm AAS) at SGS
		Aspects of the determination of		Laboratories, Perth. Anomalous 4m composite
		mineralisation that are Material to		samples were then re-run by fire assay of the
		the Public Report.		individual 1m samples.
		In cases where ‘industry standard’		 WRC025-WRC046 had 1m samples sent to SGS
		work has been done this would be		Labs for analysis by AAS determination on 20gm
		relatively simple (eg ‘reverse		samples after aqua regia digestion. Samples > 0.5
		circulation drilling was used to obtain		g/t Au were repeated by fire assay using a 50gm
		1 m samples from which 3 kg was		sample.
		pulverised to produce a 30 g charge		 WRC047-WRC086 were subject to a similar
		for fire assay’). In other cases more		laboratory analysis as above, with initial AAS
		explanation may be required, such as		determination after aqua regia digestion, followed
		where there is coarse gold that has		by fire assay analysis on samples >0.5 g/t Au.
		inherent sampling problems. Unusual		Samples returning >5 g/t Au were re-checked by
		commodities or mineralisation types		fire assay using a re-split from the original coarse
		(eg submarine nodules) may warrant		residue.
		disclosure of detailed information.		 WRC087-WRC132 had 1m samples sent to AAL for
				analysis by 50gm fire assay.
				 Analysis procedure for WRC133-WRC147 is not
				detailed in technical reports, however, it is
				believed that 1m samples were submitted for
				50gm fire assay.
Drilling		Drill type (eg core, reverse circulation,		According to historical annual reports, RC drilling
techniques		open-hole hammer, rotary air blast,		utilised a nominal 4½ inch diameter face-sampling
		auger, Bangka, sonic, etc) and details		hammer.
		(eg core diameter, triple or standard		Diamond drillholes were drilled using the HQ triple tube
		tube, depth of diamond tails, face-		method.
		sampling bit or other type, whether
		core is oriented and if so, by what
		_method, etc). _
Drill sample		Method of recording and assessing		Recoveries for diamond holes (DDH) were recorded by
recovery		core and chip sample recoveries and		the geologist in the field at the time of drilling/logging.
		results assessed.		Recoveries for diamond holes are variable but generally
		Measures taken to maximise sample		poor.
		recovery & ensure representative		As only 5 diamond holes were drilled, analysis was not
		nature of the samples.		conducted to determine any relationships between
		Whether a relationship exists between		sample recovery and grade.
		sample recovery and grade and
		whether sample bias may have

10 | P a g e

==> picture [88 x 842] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [122 x 37] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
		occurred due to preferential loss/gain
		of fine/coarse material.
Logging		Whether core and chip samples have		Systematic logging describes the drillhole lithology and
		been geologically and geotechnically		quartz veining to a level of detail to support appropriate
		logged to a level of detail to support		Mineral Resource estimation.
		appropriate Mineral Resource		Qualitative logging of samples included (but was not
		estimation, mining studies and		limited to) lithology, mineralogy, veining and
		metallurgical studies.		weathering.
		Whether logging is qualitative or		Quantitative information was not available at the time
		quantitative in nature. Core (or		of resource estimation.
		costean, channel, etc) photography.		Every metre (100%) of RC and DD drilling was
		The total length and percentage of		geologically logged and sampled.
		the relevant intersections logged.
Sub-		If core, whether cut or sawn and		Details of core sampling have not yet been found in
sampling		whether quarter, half or all core		historical reports but will be covered in due diligence.
techniques		taken.		All RC samples were collected in a cyclone and split
and sample preparation		If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc and whether sampled wet or dry.		using a 3 level riffle splitter to maximise and maintain a consistent and representative sample. The majority of samples were dry. Wet RC samples were grab sampled.
		For all sample types, the nature,		RC sampling methods were to industry standard and
		quality and appropriateness of the		appear appropriate for the style of mineralisation.
		sample preparation technique.		Limited field duplicates and coarse residue resplits were
		Quality control procedures adopted		collected and analysed.
		for all sub-sampling stages to		A sample size of 2-4kg was collected and considered
		maximise representivity of samples.		appropriate and representative for the grain size and
		Measures taken to ensure that the		style of mineralisation
		sampling 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		The nature, quality and		Samples dried, jaw and roll crushed, split and
assay data		appropriateness of the assaying and		pulverised in a steel mill. Assays from earlier RC holes
and		laboratory procedures used and		analysed by AAS determination on 20gm sample after
laboratory tests		whether the technique is considered partial or total. For geophysical tools, spectrometers,		aqua regia digestion. Samples >0.5g/t Au repeated by fire assay on 50g charge. Assays from later RC holes were determined by 50g fire assay.
		handheld XRF instruments, etc, the		Assay and lab techniques were industry standard at the
		parameters used in determining the		time of collection and appropriate for the style of
		analysis including instrument make		mineralisation.
		and model, reading times, calibrations		No geophysical or hand-held tools were reported as
		factors applied and their derivation,		being utilised for the drilling programs in question.
		etc.		Limited field duplicates and coarse residue resplits
		Nature of quality control procedures		were collected and analysed.
		adopted (eg standards, blanks,
		duplicates, external laboratory
		checks) and whether acceptable levels
		of accuracy (ie lack of bias) and
		precision have been established.
Verification		The verification of significant		A very small number of coarse residue samples (40)
of sampling		intersections by either independent or		were submitted to an umpire laboratory for
and		alternative company personnel.		independent analysis. The dataset was considered too
assaying	 	The use of twinned holes. Documentation of primary data, data		small for meaningful conclusions to be derived. No twinning of holes has been conducted to date,
		entry procedures, data verification,		according to historical reports.
		data storage (physical and electronic)		Limited verification was performed by Geostat Services
		protocols.		at the time of resource estimation in 2014.

11 | P a g e

==> picture [88 x 842] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [122 x 37] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
		Discuss any adjustment to assay data.		No adjustments of assay data have yet been discovered
				in historical reports.
Location of		Accuracy and quality of surveys used		Drilling was performed prior to 2000 and as such, hole
data points		to locate drill holes (collar and down-		locations were surveyed by local contract surveyors, and
		hole surveys), trenches, mine		assumed to be accurate.
		workings and other locations used in		Downhole surveys using camera in rods for RC holes
		Mineral Resource estimation.		WRC133-146. Other RC holes to be reviewed in due
		Specification of the grid system used.		diligence. Downhole surveys using Eastman camera for
		Quality and adequacy of topographic		4 diamond holes WDH002, 032, 103, 106.
		control.		Grid system used is MGA 94 (Zone 50), with conversion
				of coordinates to a local grid for resource estimation
				and planning.
				Topography surface generated from surveyed drill
				collars.
Data		Data spacing for reporting of		Holes drilled on a total of 18 drill sections with an
spacing		Exploration Results.		average 25m spacing along-strike and 20m across-strike.
and		Whether the data spacing and		Data spacing is considered sufficient for the
distribution		distribution is sufficient to establish		establishment and classification of an Inferred resource
		the degree of geological and grade		with respect to this style of mineralisation.
		continuity appropriate for the Mineral		WRC001-WRC024: Composite 4m samples were
		Resource and Ore Reserve estimation		submitted for analysis. Anomalous 4m composite
		procedure(s) and classifications		samples were then re-run by fire assay of the individual
		applied.		1m samples. All later RC holes were not composited and
		Whether sample compositing has		were sampled at 1m intervals.
		been applied.
Orientation		Whether the orientation of sampling		Most drill holes are planned to intersect the interpreted
of data in		achieves unbiased sampling of		mineralised structures/lodes as close to a perpendicular
relation to		possible structures and the extent to		angle as possible (subject to physical access).
geological structure		which this is known, considering the deposit type. If the relationship between the drilling		Drilling orientation and subsequent sampling is unbiased in its representation of reported material.
		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		The measures taken to ensure sample		As the drilling was undertaken from 1986-1996, detailed
security		security.		documentation of chain of custody was not widespread
				industrystandard at that time.
Audits or		The results of any audits or reviews of		Comparisons were made between aqua regia and fire
reviews		sampling techniques and data.		assay (repeat) methods on WRC025 to WRC086 to
				assess reliability. It was considered that fire assays are
				reliable and should replace aqua regia assays for
				resource modelling and other applications.
				Comparison of 628 repeats with original samples show a
				close and acceptable reconciliation.
				It is acknowledged that there could be variability
				imposed by the use of three different laboratories over
				the various programs and minor variations in sampling,
				preparation and analysis methods.

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		M47/223 – 100% held by Western Metals
tenement and		ownership including agreements or material		Pty Ltd
		issues with thirdparties such asjoint ventures,		Artemis owns 80% of Western Metals.

12 | P a g e

==> picture [88 x 842] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [122 x 37] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
land tenure		partnerships, overriding royalties, native title		The tenement is in good standing and no
status		interests, historical sites, wilderness or national		known impediments exist (see map
		park and environmental settings.		elsewhere in this report for location).
		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.
Exploration		Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration		Noranda drilled three percussion holes
done by other		by other parties.		(WPH1-3) in the period 1978-1985.
parties				Between 1986 and 1988, a large RC drilling
				campaign involving 132 RC holes (WRC01-
				132) was completed. Five diamond
				drillholes were also drilled using HQ triple
				tube for a total of 462m. In 1988 Noranda
				became Pioneer Minerals, then Plutonic
				Gold in 1990; which was subsequently
				taken over in 1998 by Homestake Gold
				Mining.
				In 1990, Homestake completed a
				preliminary sectional resource estimate of
				238,300t @ 3.49g/t Au, using a 1g/t Au
				lower cut-off and a specific gravity of 2.0
				down to a depth of 50-60m. This was
				followed by a further 15 RC drillholes
				(WRC133-147) drilled in 1996/97 to test the
				depth and strike extent of the known
				mineralisation.
Geology		Deposit type, geological setting and style of		The geological setting of the Weerianna
		mineralisation.		gold deposit is within a chert-ultramafic
				schist sequence between two basaltic
				terrains. Mineralisation at Weerianna is
				associated with quartz veins within
				chlorite-serpentinite schists with variable
				degrees of silicification and carbonate
				alteration.
Drill hole		A summary of all information material to the		Drillhole details are listed in Table 2 in the
Information		understanding of the exploration results		report above.
		including a tabulation of the following		Details are provided in local grid co-
		information for all Material drill holes:		ordinates. The MGA equivalents are being
		o easting and northing of the drill hole collar		confirmed during the due diligence period.
		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		No exploration results are reported in this
aggregation		averaging techniques, maximum and/or		announcement.
methods		minimum grade truncations (eg cutting of high		Exploration results have been reported
		grades) and cut-off grades are usually Material		previously in historical annual reports as
		and should be stated.		length-weighted averages. An example
		Where aggregate intercepts incorporate short		would be from WRC-17 as follows:
		lengths of high grade results and longer lengths
		of low grade results, the procedure used for		From (m) To (m) Au_Ave

13 | P a g e

==> picture [88 x 842] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [122 x 37] intentionally omitted <==

	Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
			such aggregation should be stated and some		47	48	9
			typical examples of such aggregations should be
			shown in detail.		48	49	4.805
			The assumptions used for any reporting of
			metal equivalent values should be clearly		49	50	1.46
			stated.
					50	51	1.07
				Weighted average=
				((1x9)+(1x4.805)+(1x1.46)+(1x1.07))/(1+1+1+1)
				=	4m at 4.09 g/t Au
					No metal equivalents are used for
					reporting.
	Relationship		These relationships are particularly important in		Specific exploration results and intercept
	between		the reporting of Exploration Results.		lengths are not provided in this release.
	mineralisation		If the geometry of the mineralisation with		Where possible,	drillholes were aligned to
	widths and		respect to the drill hole angle is known, its		intersect the mineralisation		as close to
	intercept lengths		nature should be reported. If it is not known and only the down hole lengths are reported, there should be a clear statement		perpendicular as possible, thus reflecting close to true width.
			to this effect (eg ‘down hole length, true width
			_not known’). _
	Diagrams		Appropriate maps and sections (with scales) and		A planview of drillhole collar locations and
			tabulations of intercepts should be included for		schematic cross	section are	shown below.
			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.

14 | P a g e

==> picture [88 x 842] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [122 x 37] intentionally omitted <==

	Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
	Balanced		Where comprehensive reporting of all		It is not practical to report all exploration
	reporting		Exploration Results is not practicable,		results.
			representative reporting of both low and high		Exploration results of all drilling have been
			grades and/or widths should be practiced to		reported in historical annual reports where
			avoid misleading reporting of Exploration		the length-weighted average has exceeded
			Results.		1g/t Au. Holes where no significant assays
					have been returned have also been
					reported.
	Other		Other exploration data, if meaningful and		No other significant exploration work has
	substantive		material, should be reported including (but not		been done by Artemis or Western Metals
	exploration		limited to): geological observations; geophysical		Pty Ltd to date.
	data		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		Subject to completion of the proposed
			(eg tests for lateral extensions, depth extensions		acquisition, Artemis will plan to undertake
			or large-scale step-out drilling).		initial review of all existing data for the
			Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of		project and define a work program to
			possible extensions, including the main		assess the exploration potential and design
			geological interpretations and future drilling		additional drilling to confirm and expand
			areas, provided this information is not		the existing resource.
			commercially sensitive.		The resource is open at depth, and also
					between the respective mineralisation
					zones. Diagrams will be provided once
					Artemis has completed its reviews and
					planning.

15 | P a g e

==> picture [88 x 842] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [122 x 37] intentionally omitted <==

Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources

(Criteria listed in section 1 also apply to this section.)

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Database		Measures taken to ensure that data has not		An Access 2007 database and Excel files
integrity		been corrupted by, for example, transcription or		were supplied to Geostat Services for use in
		keying errors, between its initial collection and		the 2009 resource estimate.
		its use for Mineral Resource estimation		Data validaton steps included, but were not
		purposes.		limited to the following:
		Data validation procedures used.		- Validation through database
				constraints eg
				overlapping/missing intervals,
				intervals exceeding maximum
				depth, missing assays.
				- Validation through 3D
				visualisation in 3D software to
				check for any obvious collar,
				downhole survey, or assay
				import errors.
				Limited random checks were conducted
				between reported assays in annual reports
				with those supplied to Geostat.
Site visits		Comment on any site visits undertaken by the		Geostat did not undertake a site visit, as the
		Competent Person and the outcome of those		original intention of the resource estimate
		visits.		was for a private company and not for
		If no site visits have been undertaken indicate		public release.
		why this is the case.
Geological		Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertainty of )		The confidence in the geological
interpretation		the geological interpretation of the mineral		interpretation is considered to be relatively
		deposit.		good.
		Nature of the data used and of any assumptions		Detailed geological logging and surface
		made.		mapping allow extrapolations of
		The effect, if any, of alternative interpretations		mineralisation intersections from section to
		on Mineral Resource estimation.		section.
		The use of geology in guiding and controlling		The Mineral Resource is relatively robust
		Mineral Resource estimation.		and well-defined from existing drillholes,
		The factors affecting continuity both of grade		and as such, alternative interpretations will
		and geology.		result in similar tonnage and grade.
				Geological boundaries generally correspond
				well with the spatial locations of the
				mineralisation.
				Quartz vein zones associated with
				schistosity are interpreted to be the key
				factors affectingmineralisation continuity.
Dimensions		The extent and variability of the Mineral		Four mineralisation zones comprise the
		Resource expressed as length (along strike or		deposit with an overall E-W trend and steep
		otherwise), plan width, and depth below surface		dip of approximately -80° towards grid
		to the upper and lower limits of the Mineral		south.
		Resource.		The combined mineralisation zones extend
				over 600m along strike, with maximum
				down-dipextent of 110m.
Estimation		The nature and appropriateness of the		The Mineral Resource was estimated using
and modelling		estimation technique(s) applied and key		ordinary kriging (OK) interpolation in Surpac
techniques		assumptions, including treatment of extreme		mining software.
		grade values, domaining, interpolation		Four distinct mineralisation zones comprise
		parameters and maximum distance of		the deposit with an overall E-W trend and
		extrapolation from data points. If a computer		steep dip of approximately -80° towards
		assisted estimation method was chosen include		grid south. 16 wireframes were delineated
		a description of computer software and		from sectional outlines to represent all
		parameters used.		mineralisation within these zones. Each

16 | P a g e

==> picture [88 x 842] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [122 x 37] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
		The availability of check estimates, previous		wireframe was treated as a separate
		estimates and/or mine production records and		interpolation domain, with interpolation of
		whether the Mineral Resource estimate takes		grades limited to blocks within each domain
		appropriate account of such data.		(wireframe).
		The assumptions made regarding recovery of		A top-cut of either 10 or 20 g/t Au was
		by-products.		applied to selected lodes where the
		Estimation of deleterious elements or other		coefficient of variation was high and/or
		non-grade variables of economic significance		there was a large variance present.
		(eg sulphur for acid mine drainage		A minimum of 4 composites and a
		characterisation).		maximum of 25 composites were used in
		In the case of block model interpolation, the		interpolation of grades into blocks.
		block size in relation to the average sample		A block model of parent cell size 4m (N) x
		spacing and the search employed.		12.5m (E) x 5m (RL) sub-celled to 1m x
		Any assumptions behind modelling of selective		6.25m x 2.5m was used for resource
		mining units.		estimation.
		Any assumptions about correlation between		Search ellipses for initial interpolation of
		variables.		grades comprised 50m x 25m x 10m. A
		Description of how the geological interpretation		second subsequent interpolation pass was
		was used to control the resource estimates.		employed with expanded search ellipses in
		Discussion of basis for using or not using grade		order to fill blocks in areas of sparse drill
		cutting or capping.		density within the lodes.
		The process of validation, the checking process		2 earlier non-JORC compliant resource
		used, the comparison of model data to drill hole		estimates were available for comparison,
		data, and use of reconciliation data if available.		albeit with smaller datasets and were
				consistent given the drilling at the time in
				comparison with the current Geostat
				estimate.
				No assumptions have been made regarding
				recovery of by-products.
				No estimation of any deleterious elements
				has been made.
				A combination of assays and lithology were
				used to define the wireframe envelopes,
				with a cut-off of approximately 0.5 g/t Au to
				separate mineralisation from waste.
				The resource estimate was validated by
				visual validations on screen, global
				statistical comparisons of input composite
				grades and block grades, and local
				grade/depthgraphical relationships.
Moisture		Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry		Tonnages are estimated on a dry basis.
		basis or with natural moisture, and the method
		of determination of the moisture content.
Cut-off		The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or		A nominal cut-off of 1.0g/t Au corresponds
parameters		quality parameters applied.		with the visual mineralisation as
				determined by quartz veining within
				schistosity and effectively maps the
				mineralised zones. This cut-off was also
				chosen to reflect reasonable prospect for
				economic extraction at the appropriate
				gradepopulation.
Mining factors		Assumptions made regarding possible mining		The mining scenario of the deposit as
or		methods, minimum mining dimensions and		shown to be economically viable would
assumptions		internal (or, if applicable, external) mining		likely be a small open pit. Geostat has not
		dilution. It is always necessary as part of the		fully assessed the potential mining
		process of determining reasonable prospects for		parameters. Further studies are planned to
		eventual economic extraction to consider		address possible mining scenarios given
		potential mining methods, but the assumptions		current economic factors.
		made regarding mining methods and

17 | P a g e

==> picture [88 x 842] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [122 x 37] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	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		The basis for assumptions or predictions		Geostat is not aware of specific
factors or		regarding metallurgical amenability. It is always		metallurgical testwork to date at
assumptions		necessary as part of the process of determining		Weerianna.
		reasonable prospects for eventual economic		It is thought that simple CIL/CIP gold
		extraction to consider potential metallurgical		recovery methods may be appropriate but
		methods, but the assumptions regarding		is yet to be confirmed.
		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.
Environmental		Assumptions made regarding possible waste		No assumptions at this stage in regards to
factors or		and process residue disposal options. It is		environmental factors or assumptions have
assumptions		always necessary as part of the process of		been made.
		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,		An assumed density of 2.2t/m3(oxide),
		the basis for the assumptions. If determined, the		2.6t/m3(transitional) and 2.8t/m3(primary)
		method used, whether wet or dry, the frequency		was used to estimate resource block
		of the measurements, the nature, size and		tonnage for all lodes. These are considered
		representativeness of the samples.		to be in line with regional estimates.
		The bulk density for bulk material must have		No bulk density measurements have been
		been measured by methods that adequately		conducted to date. This is planned as a
		account for void spaces (vugs, porosity, etc),		priority to validate current assumed
		moisture and differences between rock and		densities.
		alteration zones within the deposit.		A digital terrain model (DTM) has been used
		Discuss assumptions for bulk density estimates		to discriminate between the oxide,
		used in the evaluation process of the different		transitional and primary boundaries and is
		materials.		based on geological logging of the drill
				holes.
Classification		The basis for the classification of the Mineral		Mineral Resources have been classified in
		Resources into varying confidence categories.		the Inferred category in accordance with
		Whether appropriate account has been taken of		the JORC Code 2012 guidelines.
		all relevant factors (ie relative confidence in		Classification of the resource involved
		tonnage/grade estimations, reliability of input		several criteria, including drillhole spacing,
		data, confidence in continuity of geology and		sampling density, sampling locations, lode
		metal values, quality, quantity and distribution		geometry, QAQC, bulk density and
		of the data).		confidence in grade continuity.
		Whether the result appropriately reflects the		Lodes were classified as Inferred on the
		Competent Person’s view of the deposit.		basis of the above criteria and this is
				considered appropriate given the existing
				data.
				The resource estimate and classification

18 | P a g e

==> picture [88 x 842] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [122 x 37] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
				result reflects the view of the Competent
				Person.
Audits or		The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral		No audits or reviews of the Geostat
reviews		Resource estimates.		resource have been conducted to date.
				Artemis plans to conduct a full review of
				the Mineral Resource.
Discussion of		Where appropriate a statement of the relative		The relative accuracy of the Mineral
relative		accuracy and confidence level in the Mineral		Resource is reflected in the classification of
accuracy/		Resource estimate using an approach or		the Mineral Resource in the Inferred
confidence		procedure deemed appropriate by the Competent Person. For example, the application		category as per the guidelines of the 2012 JORC Code.
		of statistical or geostatistical procedures to		Relative accuracy and confidence has been
		quantify the relative accuracy of the resource		assessed through validation of the model as
		within stated confidence limits, or, if such an		outlined above.
		approach is not deemed appropriate, a		The Mineral Resource statement reflects
		qualitative discussion of the factors that could		the assumed accuracy and confidence as a
		affect the relative accuracy and confidence of		global estimate.
		the estimate.		Details of historical production and the
		The statement should specify whether it relates		exact location of extraction are not
		to global or local estimates, and, if local, state		available and hence are not appropriate to
		the relevant tonnages, which should be relevant		compare to this most recent resource
		to technical and economic evaluation.		estimate.
		Documentation should include assumptions
		made and the procedures used.
		These statements of relative accuracy and
		confidence of the estimate should be compared
		withproduction data, where available.

19 | P a g e