Artemis Resources Limited — Capital/Financing Update 2018

Jan 21, 2018

ASX / Media Announcement

==> picture [171 x 63] intentionally omitted <==

19 January 2018

Artemis Resources Limited ARBN: 80 107 051 749

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

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

Directors:

Executive Chairman David Lenigas

Executive Directors Ed Mead Alex Duncan-Kemp

Non-Executive Director Sheikh Maktoum al Hasher Maktoum

Company Secretary: Guy Robertson

Corporate Information ASX Code: ARV

First of the Cobalt/Copper/Gold JORC Resources at Carlow Castleamended - Karratha, Western Australia-

Highlights:

• The first of the Cobalt/Copper/Gold deposits (Quod Est) at Carlow Castle - JORC 2012 Resource.

• The second and larger of the deposits drilled to date (Carlow Castle South) JORC resource will be available by the end of January 2018.

• Many new Cobalt/Copper/Gold targets now identified over 50km[2] .

• Quod Est (the smallest deposit) has a JORC 2012 Indicated and Inferred compliant global resource of 557,000 tonnes @1.0g/t Au, 0.2% Co & 0.5% Cu.

• Quod Est deposit remains open at depth.

• Best intercepts included:

• ➢ ARC002: 63-67m: 4m @ 1.13% Co, 10.71 g/t Au, 4.44% Cu

• ➢ ARC005:48-54m: 6m @ 1.94% Co, 4.14 g/t Au, 1.67% Cu

• ➢ ARC006: 52-58m: 6m @ 1.94% Co, 3.4 g/t Au, 1.36% Cu ➢ ARC007: 10-14m: 4m @ 1.79% Co, 5.89 g/t Au, 1.89% Cu.

• Conversion of the approved Exploration Licences to Mining Leases is underway.

• Diamond drilling for detailed pit geotechnical and metallurgical analysis will commence at the end of January 2018.

• Radio Hill plant upgrades going to plan.

• Carlow Castle is only 30km north-east of Artemis’s Radio Hill Plant site and is conveniently connected by gazetted roads.

David Lenigas, Artemis’ Executive Chairman, commented;

“We believe that Carlow Castle has the potential to be a significant new Cobalt province in Australia based upon recent exploration results as described below and we are pleased to report the first of what is aimed to be several JORC Code compliant resources on our 100% owned Carlow Castle (Cobalt/Gold/Copper) Project near Karratha. With the world cobalt prices now at US$75,000 a tonne (nearly AUD $100,000 a tonne) and our Quod Est deposit having global resource grades of 0.2% Co or greater the potential economics are very attractive. We expect to complete the next JORC Code compliant resource on the much larger Carlow Castle South deposit by the end of the month and are working hard on all fronts to have Carlow Castle ready and available to provide plant feed for our Radio Hill Plant from July. The latest geochemistry programme, covering 50 km[2] , has also serenpiditiously identified a large number of new high priority Cobalt/Gold/Copper targets ready for drilling. We are already receiving interest from international “Cobalt trading houses” for Artemis’s conflict-free Cobalt.”

1 | P a g e

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

==> picture [105 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Artemis Resources Limited (“ Artemis ”) ( ASX: ARV ) is pleased to provide the first of an anticipated number of JORC Code (2012) compliant resources with the Quod Est deposit at the Carlow Castle (Cobalt/Gold/Copper) Project, located about 20 km southeast of Karratha in the Western Pilbara Region of Western Australia.

Carlow Castle is located only 30 km north-east of Artemis’ Radio Hill processing plant, via gazetted roads. Work has also commenced on converting the portion of Exploration Licence E47/1797 covering the deposits to Mining Leases.

A diamond drilling programme is planned for geotechnical analysis for detailed open pit planning purposes and for advanced metallurgical recovery optimisation and plant operating cost planning.

The Co-Au-Cu mineralisation at Quod Est and Carlow Castle South is hosted in chloritic shear zones within the predominantly Archean mafic sequence. The ore zones appear partially oxidised above 20m with sulphides extending to depth, the primary sulphides are chalcopyrite, cobatite and pyrite; the presence of chalcocite in some samples indicates supergene enrichment in the upper portions of the sulphide zone.

Figure 1: Quod Est and Carlow South areas and geology.

==> picture [462 x 320] intentionally omitted <==

The structural environment of the area is complex; Quod Est strikes north-south and dips steeply to the east (Figure 3) whereas Carlow South strikes east-west and dips steeply to the north. A SAM (Sub Audio Magnetics) geophysical survey is in progress to help resolve the interpretation of the structural system.

JORC Code (2012) compliant resources on the much larger Carlow Castle South deposit are currently being estimated and will be available later this month.

The refurbishment and upgrade works at the Radio Hill Plant are progressing well. The Company is working to have the planned works, including the addition of a 70-100 tonne per hour gravity gold recovery circuit, completed and fully operational by the end of June 2018. The Company is also undertaking studies to increase the overall capacity of the plant to over one million tonnes per annum.

Significant drillhole intersections are listed in Table 1 with a full listing previously contained in ASX announcement 20[th] June 2017 High Grade Cobalt – ‘Four New Targets Identified’.

2 | P a g e

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

==> picture [105 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Table 1: Significant Intersections in Quod Est.

Hole Number	From (m)	To (m)	Interval (m)	Cobalt %	Gold **g/t **	Copper %
ARC001	31	36	5	0.62	2.8	2.15
ARC002	63	67	4	1.13	10.71	4.44
ARC003	15	18	3	0.66	1.02	0.56
ARC004	32	35	3	0.98	0.86	1.86
ARC006	52	58	6	1.94	3.4	1.36
ARC007	10	14	4	1.79	5.89	1.89
ARC008	32	43	11	0.79	14.07	3.41
ARC009	10	17	7	0.08	0.82	0.47
ARC011	17	21	4	0.82	3.35	3.62
ARC012	10	13	3	0.5	0.08	0.05
ARC012	17	18	1	0.06	2.44	3.09
ARC013	51	52	1	0.07	1.36	1.44
ARC013	63	65	2	0.01	2.45	1.44
ARC014	57	59	2	0.2	0.88	0.56
ARC014	88	89	1	0.03	4.25	2.46
ARC015	21	25	4	0.04	4.32	1.79
ARC016	41	44	3	0.39	0.3	0.77
ARC017	34	35	1	0.1	0.45	0.68
ARC018	28	30	2	0.1	0.88	0.34
ARC022	37	38	1	0.03	1.06	0.12
ARC031	86	96	10	0.63	4.12	0.69
ARC032	83	87	4	0.27	0.75	0.08
ARC034	130	134	4	0.2	0.52	NSI
ARC033a	39	61	22	0.7	5.9	2.62
ARC005	48	54	6	1.43	4.14	1.67

Twenty Five (25) drillholes (selected holes in Table 1) within Quod Est indicate six potentially economic lodes (Figure 1) from surface to a current vertical extent of about 120 m.

Figure 2: Isometric view of the Quod EST lode system.

==> picture [231 x 219] intentionally omitted <==

Al Maynard & Associates (“AM&A”) estimated a total resource (Table 2) within the lode wireframes (Figure 2) which are based on 0.5 metal content lower cut-off of 557,000 tonnes at 1.0 g/t Au 0.2%,

3 | P a g e

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

==> picture [105 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Co, 0.5% Cu , made up of an Indicated resource of 343,100 tonnes at 1.2 g/t Au, 0.2% Co, 0.5% Cu and an Inferred resource of approximately 214,000 tonnes at 0.6 g/t Au, 0.1% Co, 0.3% Cu.

Considering the potential commercial value of all three elements and the proximity to the Company’s processing plant at Radio Hill and the preliminary metallurgical testwork results previously announced in ASX announcement 19[th] June 2017 “Cobalt Metallurgy Tests Prove Positive Carlow Castle Project”, the project warrants detailed, systematic assessment .

Table 2: AM&A Resource estimate. (Phil Jones, 2018).

Category	Thousand Tonnes	Au(g/t)	Co(%)	Cu(%)	Ag (g/t)
Indicated	343	1.2	0.2	0.5	1.4
Inferred	214	0.6	0.1	0.3	1.0
TOTAL	557	1.0	0.2	0.5	1.2

The same resource at a grade of 1.0 g/t Au, 1.0% Cu and at 0.05% Co is provided for comparison in Table 3:

Table 3: AM&A Resource estimate at selected Au, Cu and Co lower cut-offs (Phil Jones, 2018)

Au RANGE	Thousand Tonnes	Au(g/t)	Co(%)	Cu(%)	Ag (g/t)
>1.0	156	2.6	0.4	1.1	2.6
<1.0	401	0.3	0.1	0.2	0.7
TOTAL	557	1.0	0.2	0.5	1.2
Co Range	Thousand Tonnes	Au(g/t)	Co(%)	Cu(%)	Ag (g/t)
>500ppm	266	1.5	0.3	0.6	1.6
<500ppm	292	0.5	0.0	0.3	0.9
TOTAL	557	1.0	0.2	0.5	1.2
Cu Range	Thousand Tonnes	Au(g/t)	Co(%)	Cu(%)	Ag (g/t)
>1%	73	3.4	0.4	1.6	4.0
<1%	485	0.6	0.1	0.3	0.8
TOTAL	557	1.0	0.2	0.5	1.2

Note : Figures have been rounded and totals may reflect small rounding errors.

The Resource estimate was compiled by Mr. Philip Jones of AM&A using MineMap© software. The mineralisation was digitised on cross sections, snapping to the drill intercepts, using a lower cut-off where the total of Au grams per tonne plus Cu% plus 10*Co% is >0.5. This generic metal content factor was used to define the mineralised envelope because the copper, cobalt and gold are strongly associated with each other and are all potentially economically recoverable.

Sample intervals within the interpreted lode below the designated 0.5 metal content were included within the lode wireframe where in this internal dilution did not drop the total intersection below 0.5 and where it provided improved continuity with other adjacent drill intersections of the lode.

The mineralised zones on each cross-section and long-section were then linked by wireframes to produce “solids” as per Figures 2 and 3. The base of oxidation was triangulated from the drill hole geology logs. Separate wireframes were produced for the Oxide and Primary zones in each of the mineralised shears.

This resource estimate was based on data supplied by Artemis Resources consisting of drill collar coordinates, down-hole surveys, down-hole lithology logs, down-hole density measurements, sample recovery data and assay data. The data was reviewed by AM&A who found the quality of the drilling, sample collection and assays met all the expected industry standards.

4 | P a g e

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

==> picture [105 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

A total of 743 density measurements (averaged over 1 m) were collected from 14 of the Artemis drill holes using a downhole gamma/caliper/density/resistivity logger by Downhole Services Group. Of these measurements 52 were in mineralised intervals with >0.5 g/t Au. The average density of the 10 partially-moderately weathered mineralised measurements was 2.65 while the 42 fresh mineralised samples averaged 2.99. Because the less dense, strongly weathered mineralisation near to the surface was not measured due to the spacing of the drill collars, a conservative overall bulk density of 2.5 was used for weathered mineralisation and 3.0 for the fresh ore.

Figure 3: Cross section at 7,698,895N +/- 5m showing digitised mineralised zones with holes colour coded by generic metal content (Au ppm + Cu%+10*Co%).

==> picture [334 x 348] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3: Long section showing colour coded Au ppm only.

==> picture [391 x 225] intentionally omitted <==

5 | P a g e

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

==> picture [105 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 4: Long section showing colour coded Co ppm only.

==> picture [470 x 272] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 5: Resource categories – Green = Indicated, Orange = Inferred.

==> picture [323 x 399] intentionally omitted <==

6 | P a g e

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

==> picture [105 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

The Indicated and Inferred Resources (Figure 5) extend over a strike length of 220 m with AM&A having classified the reported resources at Quod Est within the portion drilled on a 20 m x 20 m grid down to -50 m RL as Indicated and the remainder as Inferred according to the JORC Code (2012).

Soil Sampling Programme

Subsequent to the Quod Est and Carlow Castle South drilling, Artemis has completed a soil sampling program covering >50 km[2 ] surrounding Carlow Castle and extending through the Sing Well area.

The soil samples were collected at a 15 cm depth within the soil profile on a spacing of 100 m along lines 400 m apart. These were sieved to -2 mm and analysed using the ALS Global partial extraction Ionic leach technique providing low level detection limits and not requiring sample preparation or handling.

The data has been normalised for regolith and lithological variations within the area based on the GSWA 1:100,000 Roebourne mapsheet. Numerous gold, cobalt, copper and palladium targets have been identified, Figures 6, 7, 8 and 9. All data searches have ascertained this area has never been previously geochemically sampled, nor has there been any multi-element data available for the area.

The normalisation process requires the assay value as a ratio to the background, assumed to be the 25[th] percintile of the data, for each individual regolith or geological unit. This results in a value which is unit-less and the results are presented on a percentile basis.

Figure 6: Gold Geochemistry showing extensive targets east of Carlow Castle and around Sing Well.

==> picture [426 x 298] intentionally omitted <==

The gold geochemistry indicates strong agreement with structural features from the Roebourne 1:100,000 GSWA mapsheet. The identified anomalism to the north of Carlow Castle is entirely new as the area has undergone extremely limited exploration.

Cobalt shows strong correlation with structural trends, whereas copper shows major anomalies in the Good Luck/Little Fortune Area.

7 | P a g e

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

==> picture [105 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 7: Cobalt Geochemistry showing targets east and south of Carlow Castle.

==> picture [430 x 300] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 8: Copper Geochemistry showing targets south east of Carlow Castle in the Good Luck area.

==> picture [439 x 307] intentionally omitted <==

Palladium confirms an area of anomalism to the southwest in one of the few areas where multielement geochemistry has been completed previously.

8 | P a g e

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

==> picture [105 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 9: Palladium Geochemistry showing target areas south west of Carlow Castle.

==> picture [443 x 310] intentionally omitted <==

CONTACTS:

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

Investors / Shareholders

Edward Mead Executive Director Telephone: +61 407 445 351 Email: ed.mead@artemisresources.com.au

9 | P a g e

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

==> picture [105 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Artemis’ tenement package in the Karratha Region of Western Australia

==> picture [451 x 397] intentionally omitted <==

COMPETENT PERSONS STATEMENT:

The information in this document that relates to Resource estimation is based on information compiled or reviewed by Philip Jones, who is a Member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Mr Jones is a consultant to the Company, and is a consultant to Al Maynard & Associates (AM&A). Mr Jones 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 Jones consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears

COMPETENT PERSONS STATEMENT:

The information in this document that relates to Exploration Results and Exploration Targets is based on information compiled or reviewed by Allan Younger, who is a Member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Mr Younger is a consultant to the Company, and is employed by Indigo Geochemistry Pty Ltd. Mr Younger 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 Younger consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears.

10 | P a g e

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

==> picture [105 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON ARTEMIS RESOURCES:

Artemis Resources Limited is a resources exploration and development company with a focus on its prospective Karratha (gold, cobalt, base metals, platinum group elements and iron ore) and the Mt Clement Paulsens (gold) project in Western Australia.

Artemis owns the fully permitted ~500,000 tpa Radio Hill nickel and copper operations and processing plant located 35 km south of Karratha. JORC Code 2004 compliant resources of gold, nickel, copper PGE's and zinc, all situated within a 40 km radius of the Radio Hill plant and on 1,838 km[2] form the newly consolidated assets of Artemis Resources. Artemis is currently refurbishing and upgrading the Radio Hill processing plant and is targeting on having it operational in June 2018.

Artemis have signed Definitive Agreements with Novo Resources Corp. (“Novo”), which is listed on Canada’s TSX Venture Exchange (TSXV:NVO), and pursuant to the Definitive Agreements, Novo has satisfied its expenditure commitment, and earned50% of gold (and other minerals necessarily mined with gold) in conglomerate and/or paleoplacer style mineralization in Artemis’ tenements within 100 km of the City of Karratha, including at Purdy’s Reward (“the Gold Rights”). The Gold Rights do not include (i) gold disclosed in Artemis’ existing (at 18 May 2017) JORC Code compliant Resources and Reserves or (ii) gold which is not within conglomerate and/or paleoplacer style mineralization or (iii) minerals other than gold. Artemis’ Mt Oscar tenement is excluded from the Definitive Agreements.

The Definitive Agreements cover 38 tenements/ enement applications that are 100% owned by Artemis. Pursuant to Novo’s successful earn-in, three 50:50 joint ventures have been formed between Novo’s subsidiary, Karratha Gold Pty Ltd (“Karratha Gold”) and three subsidiaries of Artemis (KML No 2 Pty Ltd, Fox Radio Hill Pty Ltd, and Armada Mining Pty Ltd). The joint ventures are managed as one by Karratha Gold. Artemis and Novo will contribute to further exploration and any mining of the Gold Rights on a 50:50 basis. Further definitive agreements covering approximately 19 Artemis tenements/tenement applications that are already subject to third party interests are expected to be signed once all necessary third-party consents have been obtained

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.

11 | P a g e

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

==> picture [105 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Table 4: Search Parameters applied in block model.

	X	Y	Z
Max	507000	7699000	60
Min	506800	7698700	-100
Cell dimensions	2	2	1
Number	100	150	160
Search radii (confined by wireframes)	50	50	100
Algorithm	Inverse distance cubed
Strike	0
Dip	0
Plunge	0

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	Commentary	Commentary
Sampling	• Nature and quality of sampling	•	Reverse Circulation (RC) drilling was
techniques	(eg cut channels, random chips,		carried out on the Carlow Castle Co-Cu-
	or specific specialised industry		Au Project. This drilling was designed to
	standard measurement tools		obtain drill chip samples from one metre
	appropriate to the minerals under		intervals, from which a 2-4 kilogram sub-
	investigation, such as down hole		sample was collected for laboratory multi-
	gamma sondes, or handheld		element analysis including:
	XRF instruments, etc). These		Ag,Al,As,Ba,Be,Bi,Ca,Cd,Co,Cr,Cu,Fe,G
	examples should not be taken as		a,K,La,Mg,Mn,Mo,Na,Ni,P,Pb,S,Sb,
	limiting the broad meaning of		Sc,Sr,Th,Ti,Tl,U,V,W, Zn.
	sampling.	•	All samples were analysed using a
	• Include reference to measures		portable XRF instrument (Niton &
	taken to ensure sample		Innovex). Initial methodology trialing the
	representivity and the		units has been to make a single randomly
	appropriate calibration of any		placed measurement on the drill sample
	measurement tools or systems		bag. For more intensive evaluation a
	used.		minimum of 4 measurements at regular
	• Aspects of the determination of		intervals around the sample bag will be
	mineralisation that are Material to		required. Optimum sampling time
	the Public Report.		appears to be 90 seconds per
	• In cases where ‘industry		measurement.
	standard’ work has been done	•	Mineralised zones were identified visually
	this would be relatively simple		during field logging, and sample intervals
	(eg ‘reverse circulation drilling		selected by the supervising geologist.
	was used to obtain 1 m samples	•	Samples from each metre were collected
	from which 3 kg was pulverised		through a rig-mounted cyclone and split
	to produce a 30 g charge for fire		using arig-mounted static cone splitter.

12 | P a g e

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

==> picture [105 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
	assay’). In other cases more	•	Field duplicates were taken and
	explanation may be required,		submitted for analysis.
	such as where there is coarse	•	Substantial historic drilling has been
	gold that has inherent sampling		completed in the vicinity of the drilling
	problems. Unusual commodities		completed by Artemis. The most
	or mineralisation types (eg		significant work was completed by
	submarine nodules) may warrant		Consolidated Gold Mining Areas (1969),
	disclosure of detailed		Open Pit Mining Limited (Open Pit)
	information.		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.
		•	Soil samples were collected from 15cm
			depth and sieved to -2mm, 0.25kg of
			material was collected at eachsite.
Drilling	• Drill type (eg core, reverse	•	Reverse Circulation drilling at Carlow
techniques	circulation, open-hole hammer,		Castle was completed by a track-
	rotary air blast, auger, Bangka,		mounted Schramm T450 RC drilling rig
	sonic, etc) and details (eg core		using a 5¼ inch diameter face sampling
	diameter, triple or standard tube,		hammer.
	depth of diamond tails, face-
	sampling bit or other type,
	whether core is oriented and if
	_so, by what method, etc). _
Drill sample	• Method of recording and	•	Sample recoveries are recorded by the
recovery	assessing core and chip sample		geologist in recovery core and chip
	recoveries and results assessed.		sample recoveries in the field during
	• Measures taken to maximise		logging and sampling.
	sample recovery and ensure	•	If poor sample recovery is encountered
	representative nature of the		during drilling, the supervising geologist
	samples.		and driller endeavor to rectify the
	• Whether a relationship exists		problem to ensure maximum sample
	between sample recovery and		representative nature of the recovery.
	grade and whether sample bias	•	Visual assessments are made for
	may have occurred due to		recovery, moisture, and possible
	preferential loss/gain of		contamination.
	fine/coarse material.	•	A cyclone and static cone splitter were
			used to grade and whether sample bias
			ensure representative sampling, and
			were routinely inspected and cleaned.
		•	Sample recoveries during drilling
			completed by Artemis were high, and
			majority of samples were dry.
		•	There are no known relationships
			betweengrade and samplerecovery.
Logging	• Whether core and chip samples	•	All drill chip samples are geologically
	have been geologically and		logged at 1.0 m intervals from surface to
	geotechnically logged to a level		the bottom of each drillhole. It is
	of detail to support appropriate		considered that geological logging is
	Mineral Resource estimation,		completed at anadequatelevelto allow

13 | P a g e

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

==> picture [105 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
	mining studies and metallurgical		appropriate future Mineral Resource
	studies.		estimation. Geological logging is
	• Whether logging is qualitative or		considered semi-quantitative due to the
	quantitative in nature. Core (or		limited geological information available
	costean, channel, etc)		from the Reverse Circulation method of
	photography.		drilling. All RC drillholes completed by
	• The total length and percentage		Artemis during the current program have
	of the relevant intersections		been logged in full.
	logged.	•	General regolith data; colour, moisture
			grain size were recorded at each soil
			sample site.
Sub-sampling	• If core, whether cut or sawn and	•	The RC drilling rig was equipped with a
techniques	whether quarter, half or all core		rig-mounted cyclone and static cone
and sample	taken.		splitter, which provided one bulk sample
preparation	• If non-core, whether riffled, tube		of approximately 20-30 kilograms, and a
	sampled, rotary split, etc and		representative sub-sample of
	whether sampled wet or dry.		approximately 24 kilograms for every
	• For all sample types, the nature,		metre drilled.
	quality and appropriateness of	•	The sample size of 2-4 kilograms is
	the sample preparation		considered to be appropriate and
	technique.		representative of the grain size and
	• Quality control procedures		mineralisation style of the deposit.
	adopted for all sub-sampling	•	The majority of samples were dry. Where
	stages to maximise representivity		wet sample was encountered, the
	of samples.		cleanliness of the cyclone and splitter
	• Measures taken to ensure that		were closely monitored by the
	the sampling is representative of		supervising geologist, and maintained to
	the in situ material collected,		a satisfactory level to avoid
	including for instance results for		contamination and ensure representative
	field duplicate/second-half		samples were being collected.
	sampling.	•	Duplicate samples were collected and
	• Whether sample sizes are		submitted for analysis. Reference
	appropriate to the grain size of		standards were inserted during drilling.
	the material being sampled.	•	Duplicate and starndard reference
			samples were submitted with the soil
			samples.
Quality of	• The nature, quality and	•	ALS (Perth) were used for all analysis of
assay data	appropriateness of the assaying		drill samples submitted by Artemis. The
and	and laboratory procedures used		laboratory techniques below are for all
laboratory	and whether the technique is		samples submitted to ALS and are
tests	considered partial or total.		considered appropriate for the style of
	• For geophysical tools,		mineralisation defined within the Carlow
	spectrometers, handheld XRF		Castle Project area:
	instruments, etc, the parameters	o	Samples above 3 kg riffle split.
	used in determining the analysis	o	Pulverise to 95% passing 75 microns
	including instrument make and	o	50 gram Fire Assay (Au-AA26) with ICP
	model, reading times,		finish - Au.
	calibrations factors applied and	o	4 acid Digest ICP-AES Finish (ME-
	their derivation, etc.		ICP61) –
	• Nature of quality control		Ag,Al,As,Ba,Be,Bi,Ca,Cd,Co,Cr,Cu,Fe,G
	procedures adopted (eg		a,K,
	standards, blanks, duplicates,		La,Mg,Mn,Mo,Na,Ni,P,Pb,S,Sb,Sc,Sr,Th,
	external laboratory checks) and		Ti, Tl,U,V,W,Zn.
	whether acceptable levels of	o	Ore Grade 4 Acid Digest ICP-AES Finish
	accuracy (ie lack of bias) and		(MEOG62)
	precision have been established.	•	Standards were used for external
			laboratory checks by Artemis.
		•	Duplicates were used for external
			laboratory checks by Artemis.
		•	Portable XRF (pXRF) analysis was
			completed using both Niton&Innovex

14 | P a g e

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

==> picture [105 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
			units. XRF analysis was completed on
			the single metre sample bulk drill ample
			retained on site. Further statistical
			analysis will be completed to better
			determine the accuracy and precision of
			the pXRF unit based on laboratory assay
			results.
		•	Portable XRF results are considered
			semi quantitative and act as a guide to
			mineralised zones and sampling.
		•	Soil samples were analysed using
			ALSGlobal Ionic Leach™ ultra-low level
			partial leach analytical technique.
		•	The full suite of 60 elements were
			determined.
Verification of	• The verification of significant	•	At least two company personnel verify all
sampling and	intersections by either		significant results.
assaying	independent or alternative	•	All geological logging and sampling
	company personnel.		information is completed firstly on to
	• The use of twinned holes.		paper logs before being transferred to
	• Documentation of primary data,		Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. Physical
	data entry procedures, data		logs and sampling data are returned to
	verification, data storage		the Hastings head office for scanning
	(physical and electronic)		and storage.
	protocols.	•	No adjustments of assay data are
	• Discuss any adjustment to assay		considered necessary.
	_data. _
Location of	• Accuracy and quality of surveys	•	A Garmin GPSMap62 hand-held GPS
data points	used to locate drill holes (collar		was used to define the location of the
	and down-hole surveys),		drillhole collars. Standard practice is for
	trenches, mine workings and		the GPS to be left at the site of the collar
	other locations used in Mineral		for a period of 5 minutes to obtain a
	Resource estimation.		steady reading. The collars of all the
	• Specification of the grid system		holes were subsequently picked up with
	used.		DGPS with an accuracy of within 1 cm.
	• Quality and adequacy of	•	Downhole surveys were captured at 30
	topographic control.		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.
		•	Sopil sample points were located using
			handheld gps.
Data spacing	• Data spacing for reporting of	•	Current drillhole spacing is variable and
and	Exploration Results.		dependent on specific geological, and
distribution	• Whether the data spacing and		geophysical targets, and access
	distribution is sufficient to		requirements for each drillhole.
	establish the degree of	•	No sample compositing has been used
	geological and grade continuity		for drilling completed by Artemis. All
	appropriate for the Mineral		results reported are the result of 1.0
	Resource and Ore Reserve		metre downhole sample intervals.
	estimation procedure(s) and	•	AM&AA believe that the spacing of the
	classifications applied.		drilling along the shears at Carlow Castle
	• Whether sample compositing has		Quod Est is sufficient for an Indicated
	been applied.		and Inferred resource estimate.
		•	Soil sample spacing was appropriate for
			first passidentificationoftargets.
Orientation of	• Whether the orientation of	•	The drill holes were located in order to
data in	sampling achieves unbiased		intersect the target at anangle

15 | P a g e

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

==> picture [105 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
relation to	sampling of possible structures		perpendicular to strike direction. As the
geological	and the extent to which this is		target structures were considered to be
structure	known, considering the deposit		steep to moderately dipping, all Artemis
	type.		drillholes were angled at -55 or -60
	• If the relationship between the		degrees.
	drilling orientation and the	•	The intersection angle of the drilling with
	orientation of key mineralised		respect to the mineralisation was
	structures is considered to have		variable, making most drill intersections
	introduced a sampling bias, this		longer than the true width of the
	should be assessed and reported		mineralisation. The resource modelling
	if material.		software uses the data in 3D and so
			compensates for the wider apparent
			thicknesses.
Sample	• The measures taken to ensure	•	The chain of custody is managed by the
security	sample security.		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 to the transport company in
			Karratha and shrink wrapped onto
			pallets.
		•	The transport company then delivers the
			samples directly to thelaboratory.
Audits or	• The results of any audits or	•	Data is validated upon up-loading into
reviews	reviews of sampling techniques		the master database. Any validation
	and data.		issues identified are investigated prior to
			reporting of results.

16 | P a g e

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

==> picture [105 x 39] 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
Mineral	• Type, reference name/number,	•	The resource lies entirely within E
tenement and	location and ownership including		47/1797-1 and is due to expire on
land tenure	agreements or material issues		6/5/2018 after being extended from
status	with third parties such as joint		6/5/2013. Artemis Resources Ltd,
	ventures, partnerships, overriding		through its wholly owned subsidiary
	royalties, native title interests,		KML No. 2 Pty Ltd, purchased the
	historical sites, wilderness or		tenement from Legend Mining Ltd on
	national park and environmental		the 12th June 2012.
	settings.	•	This tenement forms a part of a broader
	• The security of the tenure held at		tenement package that comprises the
	the time of reporting along with		West Pilbara Project.
	any known impediments to	•	This tenement is in good standing and
	obtaining a licence to operate in		no known impediments exist (see map
	the area.		provided in this report for location).
		•	Soil sampling spread across E47/1797,
			E47/1745, E47/1746, E47/3719,
			P47/1619, P47/1621, P47/1622; all part
			of Artemis’ West Pilbara Project.
Exploration	• Acknowledgment and appraisal	•	The most significant work to have been
done by other	of exploration by other parties.		completed historically in the Carlow
parties			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.
		•	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	•	The Carlow Castle Co-Cu-Au prospect
	and style of mineralisation.		includes a number of mineralised shear
			zones, located on the northern margin of
			the Andover Intrusive Complex.
			Mineralisation is exposedin numerous

17 | P a g e

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

==> picture [105 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
			workings at surface along numerous
			quartz rich shear zones. Both oxide and
			sulphide mineralisation is evident at
			surface associated with these shear
			zones. Sulphide mineralisation
			appears to consist of Chalcopyrite,
			chalcocite, cobaltite and pyrite
Drill hole	• A summary of all information	•	Collar information for all drillholes
Information	material to the understanding of		reported is provided in the body of this
	the exploration results including a		report.
	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,	•	All intervals reported are composed of
aggregation	weighting averaging techniques,		1.0 metre down hole intervals, and are
methods	maximum and/or minimum grade		therefore length-weighted.
	truncations (eg cutting of high	•	No upper or lower cut off grades have
	grades) and cut-off grades are		been used in reporting results.
	usually Material and should be	•	No metal equivalent calculations are
	stated.		used in this report.
	• 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	•	True widths of mineralisation have not
between	particularly important in the		been calculated for this report, and as
mineralisation	reporting of Exploration Results.		such all intersections reported are
widths and	• If the geometry of the		down-hole thicknesses.
intercept	mineralisation with respect to the	•	Due to the moderately to steeply dipping
lengths	drill hole angle is known, its		nature of the mineralised zones, it is
	nature should be reported.		expected that true thicknesses will be
	• If it is not known and only the		less than the reported down-hole
	down hole lengths are reported,		thicknesses.
	there should be a clear statement	•	The resource modelling was carried out
	to this effect(eg ‘down hole		in3Dand allapparentwidths accounted

18 | P a g e

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

==> picture [105 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
	length, true width not known’).		for in the estimation method.
Diagrams	• Appropriate maps and sections	•	Appropriate maps and sections are
	(with scales) and tabulations of		available in the body of this
	intercepts should be included for		announcement.
	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	•	Reporting of results in this report is
reporting	of all Exploration Results is not		considered balanced.
	practicable, 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	•	No other exploration data other than
substantive	meaningful and material, should		local geology maps were considered in
exploration	be reported including (but not		the resource estimate.
data	limited to): geological
	observations; 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	•	The results at the Carlow Castle Co-Cu-
	further work (eg tests for lateral		Au project warrant further drilling. As
	extensions or depth extensions		this is a first phase drill program the
	or large-scale step-out drilling).		results to date are considered highly
	• Diagrams clearly highlighting the		satisfactory.
	areas of possible extensions,
	including the main geological
	interpretations and future drilling
	areas, provided this information
	is not commercially sensitive.

19 | P a g e

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

==> picture [105 x 39] 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	• Measures taken to ensure that	•Data used as received but checked for
integrity	data has not been corrupted by,	Hole ID and sample interval errors by
	for example, transcription or	MineMap © software. Some RC sample
	keying errors, between its initial	assays in database were checked against
	collection and its use for Mineral	laboratory spread sheets and no errors
	Resource estimation purposes.	were found.
	• _Data validation procedures used. _
Site visits	• Comment on any site visits	•Allen Maynard from AM&A has visited the
	undertaken by the Competent	site to verify the general site layout,
	Person and the outcome of those	available outcropping geology and drill
	visits.	hole collar locations using a hand-held
	• If no site visits have been	gps
	undertaken indicate why this is
	_the case. _
Geological	• Confidence in (or conversely, the	•The mineralisation is controlled by shears
interpretation	uncertainty of) the geological	dipping steeply to the east. The
	interpretation of the mineral	mineralisation cannot be mapped at the
	deposit.	surface due to soil cover however can be
	• Nature of the data used and of	confidently interpreted from drilling data.
	any assumptions made.	Some supergene effects may have
	• The effect, if any, of alternative	remobilised and possibly enriched some
	interpretations on Mineral	of the mineralisation in the upper oxidised
	Resource estimation.	zone.
	• The use of geology in guiding
	and controlling Mineral Resource
	estimation.
	• The factors affecting continuity
	_both of grade and geology. _
Dimensions	• The extent and variability of the	•The modelled mineralisation strikes
	Mineral Resource expressed as	approximately 220 m north-south and with
	length (along strike or otherwise),	multiple lodes spanning a zone up to 35 m
	plan width, and depth below	east-west. The mineralisation is not
	surface to the upper and lower	properly closed off along strike or down
	limits of the Mineral Resource.	dip.
Estimation	• The nature and appropriateness	•The resource modelling was done with
and modelling	of the estimation technique(s)	MineMap © software by interpolating
techniques	applied and key assumptions,	grades into a digital block model using an
	including treatment of extreme	Inverse Distance Cubed (ID3) algorithm
	grade values, domaining,	confined by wire framing of the >0.5 Au
	interpolation parameters and	ppm + Cu% +10*Co% mineralised zones
	maximum distance of	with 50 m search radii along and across
	extrapolation from data points. If	strike and 100 m up and down diponly
	a computer assisted estimation	within the wireframes.
	method was chosen include a	•AM&A considers that these modelling
	description of computer software	parameters are appropriate for an
	and parameters used.	Indicated and Inferred resource of the
	• The availability of check	type and style of mineralisation being
	estimates, previous estimates	modelled.
	and/or mine production records
	and whether the Mineral
	Resource estimate takes
	appropriate account of such data.
	• The assumptions made
	regarding recovery of by-

20 | P a g e

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

==> picture [105 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	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 ifavailable. _
Moisture	• Whether the tonnages are	•All tonnes and grades are on a dry basis.
	estimated on a dry basis or with
	natural moisture, and the method
	of determination of the moisture
	_content. _
Cut-off	• The basis of the adopted cut-off	•The resource modelling was confined by
parameters	grade(s) or quality parameters	wire framing of the >0.5 Au ppm + Cu% +
	applied.	10*Co% mineralised zones.
Mining factors	• Assumptions made regarding	•No mining factors were considered for the
or	possible mining methods,	resource estimate although it was
assumptions	minimum mining dimensions and	assumed that it is most likely that if the
	internal (or, if applicable,	deposit is eventually mined it will be
	external) mining dilution. It is	mined using the open pit mining method
	always necessary as part of the	with possible underground mining
	process of determining	methods in the deeper ore sections.
	reasonable prospects for
	eventual economic extraction to
	consider potential mining
	methods, but the assumptions
	made regarding mining methods
	and 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	•Only basic gravity and
factors or	predictions regarding	floatation/cyanidation testing was done on
assumptions	metallurgical amenability. It is	representative samples collected from the
	always necessary as part of the	mineralised zone. This testing showed
	process of determining	that gravity and cyanidation will recover
	reasonable prospects for	most of the contained gold.
	eventual economic extraction to
	considerpotential metallurgical

21 | P a g e

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

==> picture [105 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	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. _
Environmenta	• Assumptions made regarding	•No environmental factors were considered
l factors or	possible waste and process	however the tenement has sufficient
assumptions	residue disposal options. It is	suitable area to accommodate a small
	always necessary as part of the	mining and processing operation including
	process of determining	provision for waste disposal.
	reasonable prospects for	•There are no obvious especially
	eventual economic extraction to	environmentally sensitive areas in the
	consider the potential	vicinity of the deposit although the usual
	environmental impacts of the	impact studies and government
	mining and processing operation.	environmental laws and regulations will
	While at this stage the	need to be complied with.
	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.	•A bulk density of 2.5 was used in the
	If assumed, the basis for the	assumed oxide zone and 3.0 in the
	assumptions. If determined, the	primary zone. These values are based on
	method used, whether wet or dry,	down hole readings of a density probe
	the frequency of the	and typical, if slightly conservative, for the
	measurements, the nature, size	rock types found at Quod Est.
	and representativeness of the
	samples.
	• 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. _
Classification	• The basis for the classification of	•Considering the spacing of the drill
	the Mineral Resources into	intersections, quality of the drilling and
	varying confidence categories.	sampling and the degree of understanding
	• Whether appropriate account has	of the geological controls on the
	been taken of all relevant factors	mineralisation, AM&A have classified the
	(ie relative confidence in	reported resources at Quod Est within the
	tonnage/grade estimations,	portion drilled on a 20 m x 20 m grid down
	reliability of input data,	to -50 m RL as Indicated and the
	confidence in continuity of	remainder as Inferred according to the
	geology and metal values,	JORC Code(2012)..

22 | P a g e

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

==> picture [105 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	quality, quantity and distribution	•AM&A believes that these classifications
	of the data).	to be appropriate.
	• Whether the result appropriately
	reflects the Competent Person’s
	_view of the deposit. _
Audits or	• The results of any audits or	•No audits or reviews of the Mineral
reviews	reviews of Mineral Resource	Resource Estimates have been made.
	_estimates. _
Discussion of	• Where appropriate a statement	•AM&A have classified the reported
relative	of the relative accuracy and	resources at Quod Est within the portion
accuracy/	confidence level in the Mineral	drilled on a 20 m x 20 m grid down to -50
confidence	Resource estimate using an	m RL as Indicated and the remainder as
	approach or procedure deemed	Inferred according to the JORC Code
	appropriate by the Competent	(2012).
	Person. For example, the	•These resource classifications
	application of statistical or	appropriately consider the relative
	geostatistical procedures to	accuracy of the estimates. The Indicated
	quantify the relative accuracy of	resource estimate relies on drill hole
	the resource within stated	sampling and other geological data of
	confidence limits, or, if such an	sufficient quality, amount and its
	approach is not deemed	distribution is such as to allow confident
	appropriate, a qualitative	interpretation of the geological framework
	discussion of the factors that	and to assume continuity of
	could affect the relative accuracy	mineralisation.
	and confidence of the estimate.	•The quality of the data is considered to be
	• The statement should specify	reasonable for a resource estimate with
	whether it relates to global or	adequate reporting of the QA/QC.
	local estimates, and, if local,	•All quoted estimates are global for the
	state the relevant tonnages,	deposit.
	which should be relevant to	•No mine production has been recorded at
	technical and economic evaluation. Documentation	the deposit.
	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. _

23 | P a g e