C29 METALS LIMITED — Capital/Financing Update 2021

Nov 23, 2021

24 November 2021

TORRENS PROJECTS, SA - COPPER AND URANIUM EXPLORATION LICENCE APPLICATIONS UPDATE

HIGHLIGHTS

• Exploration Licences include several historical copper mines and diggings within the North Torrens project, along with a uranium prospect

• Limited exploration has been undertaken over the 1,762 km[2] of tenure

• Rock chips up to 8.7% Cu from West Mount prospect, and 210ppm U from Seaham prospect have been recorded

• Historical drill copper intersections at the West Mont prospects include:

• 28m @ 0.34% Cu from 44m (WMRC016)

• 14m @ 0.37% Cu from 14m (WMRC010)

• 2m @ 1.45% Cu from 10m and 6m @ 0.32% Cu from 58m (WMRC007)

• 6m @ 0.36% Cu from 14m (WMRC012)

• The Torrens North area is prospective for:

• Sediment-hosted copper deposits

o Yeelirrie type calcrete-associated uranium deposits

o Mississippi Valley type ("MVT") lead-zinc-copper-silver deposits

o Structurally hosted gold deposits

o IOCG deposits

• The company is seeking the granting of exploration licences by Q2 2022.

C29 Metals Limited (“ C29 ” or the “ Company ”) is pleased to provide shareholders with an update on the two exploration licence applications, ELA 2020/00219 Torrens North and ELA2020/00205 Mount Samuel group, all located in the highly prospective Olympic Dam IOCG Domain of the Gawler Craton region, South Australia. The Company currently has 1,768 km[2] of tenure under application (Figure 1).

Within the licence application areas copper and uranium prospects are known, some of which include historical diggings. Application ELA 2020/00219 has had the most exploration activity historically with six prospects identified.

C29’s Executive Director Mark Major commented : “The historical findings are very encouraging as we start planning our exploration programs for the 2022 period once the tenements are fully granted. The exciting part is that only a small proportion of the North Torrens area was explored and only a very small area was drilled. We are looking forward to unlocking the potential of these exploration prospects once granted.”

==> picture [541 x 55] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [367 x 534] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 1: Location of the C29 Metals held ELA’s, relative to known mines and significant projects.

The tenement applications reside within the Olympic Dam iron oxide copper gold (uranium) (“IOCG”) province of the Stuart Shelf in central South Australia. The IOCG province is a Palaeoproterozoic and Mesoproterozoic tectonic and lithostratigraphic domain that extends for some 700km along the eastern margin of the Gawler Craton (Figure 1).

The Torrens North tenement ELA 2020/00219 is situated approximately 50km north-east of BHP’s Olympic Dam Mine and approximately 30km northeast of the township of Andamooka in South

2

==> picture [541 x 55] intentionally omitted <==

Australia. Torrens North Sub-Project (ELA 2020/00205 part of the Mount Samuel tenement group) is located on the north-eastern side of Lake Torrens, just south of the Torrens North tenement. The Mount Samuel Tenement ELA 2020/00205 separated into four subblocks, mainly located East and South of Lake Torrens (Figure 1).

The Torrens North project (ELA 2020/00219) is considered prospective for several types of economic precious and base metal deposits. Within the dominant Adelaidean and Cambrian sediments of this area, possible types of mineralisation could include:

• Sediment-hosted copper deposits, of the Zambian Copperbelt style or associated with brecciated diapiric structures

• Mississippi Valley type ("MVT") lead-zinc-copper-silver mineralisation systems

• Structurally-hosted gold deposits associated with large fault systems in the Adelaidean sediments.

• Disseminated sediment-hosted gold deposits

• Willemite (zinc silicate) mineralisation similar to the deposits at the Puttapa Mine

• Tertiary silcrete carnotite Uranium (Yeerlirrie) style deposits

Within the Mesoproterozoic basement rocks under the majority of the tenements, the main exploration target is are the Olympic Dam style Cu-Au deposits also known as IOCG’s.

The Torrens North project area is known to host several prospective copper projects. The majority of these are pure copper plays or copper associated with precious metals, including one uranium occurrence. The main 4 prospects are summarised in Table 1 and shown on Figure 2.

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

Figure 2: Torrens North ELA 2020/00219 and subblock ELA2020/00205 location showing known mineral prospects within the area

3

==> picture [541 x 55] intentionally omitted <==

Table 1: Summary geological characteristics of the known dominant prospects within ELA 2020/00219

Prospect	Anomalous Elements	Regolith	Underlying Stratigraphic Unit
Airport Claypan	Cu, Au, Ag, Pd	Claypan with minor outcrop surrounded bysand dunes	Bunyeroo Formation
West Mount	Cu, Au	Mostly thin soils over rock	Umberatana and Wilpena Groups
OK Mine	Cu	Andamooka Limestone	Wonoka Formation
Seaham	U	Uraniferious silcrete horizons	TertiarySediments

West Mount Prospect

West Mount has an area of historical copper workings, where small shafts and pits occur on the eastern flank of West Mount over a strike length of approximately 500m. The mine dumps contain malachite (copper mineral) bearing quartz veins, including breccia. Historical drilling has been limited to the Torrens North area, with several holes recording anomalous copper intersections at the West Mount prospect (Figure 3). Notable intersections include:

• 28m @ 0.34% Cu from 44m (WMRC016)

• 14m @ 0.37% Cu from 14m (WMRC010)

• 2m @ 1.45% Cu from 10m and 6m @ 0.32% Cu from 58m (WMRC007)

• 6m @ 0.36% Cu from 14m (WMRC012)

Specifics of all drill holes provided in Table 2, Significant drilling results are shown in Table 3 and Figure 3. Details can be found in Appendix A. Rock chip samples of up to 8.7% copper were also recorded at the West Mount area. Significant rock chip assay results are shown in Table 4.

==> picture [441 x 308] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3: Location of West Mount prospects and historical drill hole locations showing significant drill results.

4

==> picture [541 x 55] intentionally omitted <==

Seaham Prospect

Considerable areas of Tertiary silcrete outcrop within the Seaham prospect. This area was identified to have favourable conditions for the deposition of secondary uranium mineralisation, and recorded uranium mineralisation in the form of carnotite.

An initial scintillometer traversing exploration revealed the presence of the radioactive silcrete horizon in 1979. The tenure was dropped before drilling could be undertaken in 1980. No drilling has been undertaken.

Assays taken on the initial rock samples ranged from 65ppm upto 210ppm Uranium. No details of the rock locations are known besides a hand drawn mud map presented in the SARIG report ENV03556.

Airport Claypan prospect

Copper mineralisation was discovered at or near Airport Claypan in 1974. The initial find was reported to be a low outcrop of malachite-bearing limestone at the base of a sand dune. During a later search (after 1996) additional copper mineralisation was located along the northern and southern shores of Airport Claypan, as flakes and small cupriferous rock chips. Tasman Resources NL submitted a selection of the flakes and various small rock chips (generally less than 1 cm in size) for microscopic examination. It was noted that the pieces were of four main lithologies: atacamite, atacamite-rich arkosic siltstone, pyritic chert and goethite-dominant chips.

Atacamite is a rare copper rich mineral that resembles the more common copper rich mineral, malachite. The atacamite content of the siltstone was reported to range from absent to >50%, and some of the chips are composed wholly of atacamite. The identification of atacamite was confirmed by X-ray diffraction analysis.

The copper rich flakes occur within gravel along the shores of the claypan as numerous small atacamite and iron oxide rich flakes up to one centimeter in size but usually only a few millimeters or less. Some of the flakes are finely laminated with iron oxide and atacamite rich layers, resembling bedding. The atacamite rich flakes appear to be a natural detrital deposit. The source of the copper minerals remains unexplained.

OK Copper Mine propsect

The OK copper mine prospect is located 1km north of the northern tip of Lake Torrens. It is reported that the old copper workings occur in Andamooka Limestone and that secondary copper mineralisation is hosted in cavities within limestone.

Forward Plan

The Company is currently in the process of changing the ownership of the project and has applied completed the regulatory documentation to continue the transfer of the exploration licences. It is expected that the applications process should be completed by April 2022. The company does not believe nor is it aware of any reasoning that the applications won’t be awarded once the regulatory assessment process is completed.

5

==> picture [541 x 55] intentionally omitted <==

Authorised for release by the Board.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:

David Lees Non-Executive Chairman info@c29metals.com.au +61 (8) 6559 1792

Competent Person’s Statement

The information in this announcement is based on, and fairly represents information compiled by Mark Major, Executive Director of C29 Metals, who is a Member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and is the technical advisor. Mr Major has sufficient experience relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration, and to the activity which he has undertaken, to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the Joint Ore Reserves Committee (JORC) Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves. Mr Major consents to the inclusion in this announcement of the matters based on this information in the form and context in which it appears.

Forward Looking Statements

This report may contain certain “forward-looking statements” which may not have been based solely on historical facts, but rather may be based on the Company’s current expectations about future events and results. Where the Company expresses or implies an expectation or belief as to future events or results, such expectation or belief is expressed in good faith and believed to have a reasonable basis. However, forward looking statements are subject to risks, uncertainties, assumptions, and other factors which could cause actual results to differ materially from future results expressed, projected or implied by such forward-looking statements. Readers should not place undue reliance on forward looking information. The Company does not undertake any obligation to release publicly any revisions to any “forward looking statement” to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this report, or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events, except as may be required under applicable securities laws

6

==> picture [541 x 55] intentionally omitted <==

Table 2: Drilling Collars Location

Drillhole ID	Easting	Northing	Maximum depth (m)	Elevation	Dip	Azimuth	Year	Company
ACRC 2	743755	6664880	77	52	-90	0	2002	Tasman
ACRC 4	744021	6664569	65	60	-90	0	2002	Tasman
ACRC 5	744022	6664563	65	60	-90	0	2002	Tasman
ACRC 6	744878	6665353	119	62	-90	0	2002	Tasman
RC03SF002	712680	6668745	173	85	-90	360	2003	Tasman
RC03SF005	712869	6668756	70	86	-90	360	2003	Tasman
RC03SF006	712869	6668695	70	89	-90	360	2003	Tasman
RC03SF007	712867	6668724	70	89	-90	360	2003	Tasman
RC-DD03SF001	712681	6668721	153		-90	360	2003	Tasman
RC-DD03SF003	712681	6668708	160		-90	360	2003	Tasman
RC-DD03SF004	712676	6668684	99		-90	360	2003	Tasman
SCYW-79 1A	707763	6665410	1450	61	-90	-	1981	Amoco
SFD001	712680	6668723	25	85	-90	0	2002	Tasman
SFD002	711880	6668523	168	77	-90	0	2002	Tasman
SFRC0001	712118	6669192	251	80	-90	0	2002	Tasman
SFRC0002	712369	6669167	179	82	-90	0	2002	Tasman
SFRC0003	711814	6669184	143	75	-90	0	2002	Tasman
SFRC0004	712284	6669195	173	79	-90	0	2002	Tasman
SFRC0005	712380	6669095	167	81	-90	0	2002	Tasman
SFRC0005A	712301	6669164	100	81	-90	0	2002	Tasman
WMRC 1	757632	6673128	59	98	-90	0	2002	Tasman
WMRC 10	758233	6673193	77	103	-90	0	2002	Tasman
WMRC 11	758185	6673182	65	102	-90	0	2002	Tasman
WMRC 12	758190	6673190	65	102	-90	0	2002	Tasman
WMRC 13	757800	6673151	77	105	-90	0	2002	Tasman
WMRC 14	758063	6673178	119	102	-90	0	2002	Tasman
WMRC 15	758206	6673327	65	106	-90	0	2002	Tasman
WMRC 16	758173	6673326	77	105	-90	0	2002	Tasman
WMRC 17	758142	6673319	72	105	-90	0	2002	Tasman
WMRC 18	757984	6673773	65	106	-90	0	2002	Tasman
WMRC 19	757835	6673757	35	109	-90	0	2002	Tasman
WMRC 2	757669	6673131	119	102	-90	0	2002	Tasman
WMRC 20	757739	6673752	65	109	-90	0	2002	Tasman
WMRC 21	758157	6673700	119	119	-90	0	2002	Tasman
WMRC 22	758174	6673782	65	115	-90	0	2002	Tasman
WMRC 23	758165	6673383	45	107	-90	0	2002	Tasman
WMRC 24	757743	6673751	221	109	-90	0	2002	Tasman
WMRC 25	757344	6673737	71	107	-90	0	2002	Tasman
WMRC 3	757829	6673145	65	103	-90	0	2002	Tasman
WMRC 4	758007	6673173	71	99	-90	0	2002	Tasman
WMRC 5	758071	6673178	65	101	-90	0	2002	Tasman
WMRC 6	758170	6673185	65	101	-90	0	2002	Tasman
WMRC 7	758213	6673192	77	103	-90	0	2002	Tasman
WMRC 8	758273	6673195	95	105	-90	0	2002	Tasman

7

==> picture [541 x 55] intentionally omitted <==

	Drillhole ID	Easting	Northing	Maximum depth (m)	Elevation	Dip	Azimuth	Year	Company
	WMRC 9	758380	6673203	77	104	-90	0	2002	Tasman
Table 3: Drilling Collars and Significant Results (>0.2% Cu)

Drillhole ID	Easting	Easting	Northing	Maximum depth (m)	Maximum depth (m)	Elevation	Elevation	Dip	Azimuth	Year	Year	Company
WMRC 9	758380		6673203	77		104		-90	0	2002		Tasman
Table 3: Drilling Collars and Significant Results (>0.2% Cu)
Prospect		Hole ID			Depth From(m)		Depth To(m)				Cu %
West Mount		WMRC0007			8		10				0.42
West Mount		WMRC0007			10		12				1.45
West Mount		WMRC0007			58		60				0.26
West Mount		WMRC0007			60		62				0.40
West Mount		WMRC0007			68		70				0.22
West Mount		WMRC0007			70		72				0.50
West Mount		WMRC0007			72		74				0.24
West Mount		WMRC0008			36		38				0.28
West Mount		WMRC0008			38		40				0.42
West Mount		WMRC0008			44		46				0.36
West Mount		WMRC0008			46		48				0.25
West Mount		WMRC0008			50		52				0.20
West Mount		WMRC0010			14		16				0.45
West Mount		WMRC0010			16		18				0.80
West Mount		WMRC0010			18		20				0.28
West Mount		WMRC0010			20		22				0.43
West Mount		WMRC0010			22		24				0.24
West Mount		WMRC0010			26		28				0.25
West Mount		WMRC0012			0		2				0.21
West Mount		WMRC0012			2		4				0.23
West Mount		WMRC0012			14		16				0.39
West Mount		WMRC0012			16		18				0.48
West Mount		WMRC0012			18		20				0.21
West Mount		WMRC0012			32		34				0.29
West Mount		WMRC0012			34		36				0.34
West Mount		WMRC0016			44		46				0.21
West Mount		WMRC0016			50		52				0.64
West Mount		WMRC0016			52		54				0.59
West Mount		WMRC0016			54		56				0.36
West Mount		WMRC0016			56		58				0.23
West Mount		WMRC0016			60		62				0.68
West Mount		WMRC0016			62		64				0.47
West Mount		WMRC0016			66		68				0.43
West Mount		WMRC0016			68		70				0.42
West Mount		WMRC0021			30		32				0.34
West Mount		WMRC0021			52		54				0.22
West Mount		WMRC0021			56		58				0.23
West Mount		WMRC0023			8		10				0.20
West Mount		WMRC0023			10		12				0.57
West Mount		WMRC0023			32		34				0.27

NB: Lengths shown for mineralisation are downhole lengths and not true thicknesses.

8

==> picture [541 x 55] intentionally omitted <==

Table 4: Rock Chip samples with Significant Cu (>3000 ppm) from West Mount area.

Sample No	Easting MGA94	Northing MGA94	Date Sampled	Au (ppb)	Co **ppm **	Cu **ppm **	Description
WM0710	758153.1	6673714	10-Apr-02	4	12	3355	None taken
WM0716	758130.1	6673714	10-Apr-02	3	5	29082	None taken
WM0717	758126.1	6673714	10-Apr-02	0	3	5223	None taken
WM0718	758110.1	6673714	10-Apr-02	0	3	6141	None taken
WM0719	758105.1	6673714	10-Apr-02	1	6	8064	None taken
WM0736	758146.1	6673684	10-Apr-02	0	16	3407	None taken
WM0738	758133.1	6673684	10-Apr-02	4	62	3437	None taken
WM0739	758128.1	6673684	10-Apr-02	4	10	13676	None taken
WM0740	758127.1	6673684	10-Apr-02	0	7	4658	None taken
WM0792	758150.1	6673757	10-Apr-02	0	25	7138	None taken
WM0795	758126.1	6673746	10-Apr-02	1	37	4321	None taken
WM0805	758122.1	6673698	10-Apr-02	3	25	4088	None taken
WM0988	757465.1	6674238	15-Nov-02	30	5	41400	None taken
WM0999	757034.1	6677054	15-Nov-02	10	22	87800	None taken
WM1034	757030.1	6677057	1-Jan-02		11	6035	None taken
WM1035	757031.1	6677057	1-Jan-02		9	6399	None taken
WM1036	757032.1	6677056	1-Jan-02		39	46687	None taken
WM1039	757015.1	6677049	1-Jan-02		10	9760	None taken
WM1040	757015.7	6677048	1-Jan-02		10	6941	None taken
WM1041	757016.2	6677046	1-Jan-02		10	8528	None taken
WM1042	757016.8	6677044	1-Jan-02		10	6549	None taken
WM1043	757017.3	6677043	1-Jan-02		9	6284	None taken
WM1044	757017.9	6677041	1-Jan-02		9	5244	None taken
WM1045	757018.4	6677039	1-Jan-02		11	5275	None taken
WM1047	757019.5	6677036	1-Jan-02		14	3468	None taken
WM1088	758193.1	6673761	8-Aug-01	8	10.5	48000	Siderite with Cu
WM1089	758140.1	6673722	8-Aug-01	8	11.5	54200	Gossan with Cu inpit
WM1090	758122.1	6673704	8-Aug-01	7	26	6250	Quartz with Cu in upper n workings
WM1092	758163.1	6673559	8-Aug-01	19	35	38400	Countryrockpit
WM1094	758172.1	6673481	8-Aug-01	3	130	4300	Quartz breccia
WM1095	758245.1	6673158	8-Aug-01	2	17.5	7150	Quartz breccia & Cu in s workings
WM1096	758138.1	6673394	8-Aug-01	5	240	3950	Quartz on SE of knob

9

==> picture [548 x 62] intentionally omitted <==

Appendix A: JORC Code, 2012 Table 1

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Sampling techniques	• Nature and quality of sampling (e.g. cut channels, random chips, or specific specialised industry standard measurement tools appropriate to the minerals under investigation, such as down hole gamma sondes, or handheld XRF instruments, etc). These examples should not be taken as limiting the _broad meaning of sampling. _	• Sampling was undertaken using industry-standard practices utilising mostly reverse circulation (RC) drilling and diamond drilling (DD). • Rock chip samples were taken randomly at outcrops.
	• Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample representivity and the appropriate calibration of any measurement tools or systems used.	• Given the historical nature of the drilling and other geochemical sampling, no information is available about sample representivity and calibration.
	• Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are Material to the Public Report.	• The drilling was completed by composite sampling normally 2 -4m with resampling to single metres for anomalous zones. • Rock samples were random and are not material.
	• In cases where ‘industry standard’ work has been done this would be relatively simple (e.g. ‘reverse circulation drilling was used to obtain 1 m samples from which 3 kg was pulverised to produce a 30 g charge for fire assay’). In other cases more explanation may be required, such as where there is coarse gold that has inherent sampling problems. Unusual commodities or mineralisation types (e.g. submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed information.	• From the information reviewed, it appears that drilling and sampling was conducted using industry-standard techniques. • Where information was available in historical reports, samples were taken from a rig-mounted cyclone. Composite samples were generally via a spear sampled. In general, the target was for samples weighing approximately 2.5kg.
Drilling techniques	• Drill type (e.g. core, reverse circulation, open-hole hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc) and details (e.g. core diameter, triple or standard tube, depth of diamond tails, face- sampling bit or other type, whether core is oriented and if so, by what method, etc).	• Most of the drilling was based on reverse circulation (RC) drilling and diamond drilling (DD). • From the information reviewed, it appears that drilling was conducted using industry-standard techniques.
Drill sample recovery	• Method of recording and assessing core and chip sample recoveries and results assessed. • Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and ensure representative nature of the samples. • Whether a relationship exists between sample recovery and grade and whether sample bias may have occurred due to preferential loss/gain of fine/coarse material.	• Given the historical nature of the drilling, no information is available about sample recoveries for specific drill programs • No bias was noted between sample recovery and grade.
Logging	• Whether core and chip samples have been geologically and geotechnically logged to a level of detail to support appropriate Mineral Resource estimation, mining studies and metallurgical studies. • Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc) photography. • The total length and percentage of the relevant intersections logged.	• Logs for the drill holes were generally of reasonable quality. • Qualitative logging of lithology, alteration, mineralisation, regolith and veining was undertaken at various intervals.
Sub- sampling	• If core, whether cut or sawn and whetherquarter, half or all core taken.	• Limited data is available for subsampling techniques.

==> picture [541 x 56] intentionally omitted <==

techniques and sample preparation	• If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc and whether sampled wet or dry. • For all sample types, the nature, quality and appropriateness of the sample preparation technique. • Quality control procedures adopted for all sub-sampling stages to maximise representivity of samples. • Measures taken to ensure that the 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. _	• Sampling appears to have been carried out using industry-standard practise. • No QA/QC procedures have been reviewed on for the historical sampling. • The sample size is considered appropriate for the material being sampled.
Quality of assay data and laboratory tests	• The nature, quality and appropriateness of the assaying and laboratory procedures used and whether the technique is considered partial or total. • For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF instruments, etc, the parameters used in determining the analysis including instrument make and model, reading times, calibrations factors applied and their derivation, etc. • Nature of quality control procedures adopted (e.g. standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (ie lack of bias) and precision have been established.	• Where information has been provided in SARIG reports, the analytical techniques appear appropriate for the stage of exploration being conducted using industry-standard techniques. • Uranium assays were tested in AMDEL Adelaide, using analysis code B1/1. • Rock and drill samples selected by Tasman Resources we assayed by AMDEl using Au by AA9, rest by analysis code B/AAs.
Verification of sampling and assaying	• The verification of significant intersections by either independent or alternative company personnel. • The use of twinned holes. • Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data verification, data storage (physical and electronic) protocols. • Discuss any adjustment to assay data.	• No twinned holes were identified from the data reviewed, although given the early stage of exploration this is to be expected. • No adjustments have been made to original assay data.
Location of data points	• Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drill holes (collar and down-hole surveys), trenches, mine workings and other locations used in Mineral Resource estimation. • Specification of the grid system used. • Quality and adequacy of topographic control.	• Most of the drilling was undertaken using MGA grid and while not reported, it is believed that hole locations were measured by hand-held GPS. • No field validation has been undertaken. • Topographic control is considered adequate for the early stage of exploration.
Data spacing and distribution	• Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results. • Whether the data spacing and distribution is sufficient to establish the degree of geological and grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve estimation procedure(s) and classifications applied. • Whether sample compositing has been applied.	• Drillhole spacing is highly variable over the project with sporadic drilling only surrounding the historical workings. • There has been insufficient sampling and no significant results to date to support the estimation of a resource. It is unknown if additional exploration will result in the definition of a Mineral Resource. • Assays have been composited into significant intersections.
Orientation of data in relation to geological structure	• Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased sampling of possible structures and the extent to which this is known, considering the deposit type. • If the relationship between the drilling orientation and the orientation of key mineralised structures is considered to	• No orientation-based sampling bias is known at this time.

11

==> picture [541 x 56] intentionally omitted <==

	have introduced a sampling bias, this should be assessed and reported if material.
Sample security	• The measures taken to ensure sample security.	• Details of measures taken for the chain of custody of samples is unknown for the previous explorers' activities.
Audits or reviews	• The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data.	• No Audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data have been undertaken.

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Mineral tenement and land tenure status	• Type, reference name/number, location and ownership including agreements or material issues with third parties such as joint ventures, partnerships, overriding royalties, native title interests, historical sites, wilderness or national park and environmental settings. • The security of the tenure held at the time of reporting along with any known impediments to obtaining a licence to operate in the area.	• The Torrens North Project comprises two exploration licence applications (ELA 00219 and 00205) which collectively cover 1,768km2in the World Class Olympic Dam IOCG Domain in Gawler Craton of South Australia. • The Torrens North tenement ELA00219 is located approximately 30km northeast of the township of Andamooka in South Australia on the north-eastern side of Lake Torrens. • The applications are in the name of Phoenix Minerals Pty Ltd, which is owned 100% by C29 Metals Pty Ltd.
Exploration done by other parties	• Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties.	• Copper minerals were found in 1974 near a small claypan, known locally as Airport Claypan Prospect (Gray, 1997). • Copper and Uranium minerals were identified near the Mulgaria homestead – preville hut area, later called the Seaham prospect area in 1979, by Seaham explorations Pty Ltd. Rock samples were the focus of the exploration methods. • In 1981, Amoco Minerals Australia Co. (“Amoco”) drilled hole SCYW-79 1A approximately 45 km northeast of Olympic Dam. It failed to reach basement and ended at 1450m in tillite and quartzo-feldspathic sandstone of the lower part of the Umberatana Group (Adelaidean). • During 1986 and 1988, the Electricity Trust of South Australia (“ETSA”) drilled a series of coal exploration holes that were aligned along a broad traverse, 65 km long and east-west trending. Some holes ended in probable Adelaidean rocks, the rest ended in the overlying Bulldog Shale or Algebuckina Sandstone. No assays are reported. • Tasman Resources NL (“Tasman”) has explored the current tenement area between 2005 and 2013. Tasman used a wide range of remote sensing geochemical and geophysical methods. These include mobile metal ion (“MMI”) and rock chip analysis, aeromagnetic interpretation, radiometric survey and induced polarisation (“IP”) surveys. IP traverses were completed to confirm drill targets. In most instances, drilling was only undertaken where chargeability anomalies inferred sulphide mineralisation. Tasman drilled 44 drillholes

12

==> picture [541 x 56] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		(mostly RC holes) for 4,322m on the current tenement between 2002 and 2003. 29 of these drillholes was around West Mount and Airport Clay Prospects. • All exploration reported and associated SARIG report numbers included SARIG ENV09288, ENV9710, ENV9786 and ENV03556.
Geology	• Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation.	• The project lies within the Olympic Dam iron oxide copper gold (uranium) (“IOCG”) province of the Stuart Shelf in central South Australia. The IOCG province is a Palaeoproterozoic and Mesoproterozoic tectonic and lithostratigraphic domain. Locally surface exposures within the project area are dominated by sedimentary rocks that were deposited in four broad periods: Quaternary/Tertiary, Mesozoic (the Eromanga Basin), Cambrian (the Arrowie Basin) and Adelaidean (the Adelaide Geosyncline and Stuart Shelf). • The Lake Torrens Project is prospective for several types of economic precious and base metal deposits. Within the Adelaidean and Cambrian sediments they include, in approximate order of importance: • Sediment-hosted copper deposits, in particular of the Zambian Copperbelt style, or associated with brecciated diapiric structures. • Yeelirrie type calcrete uranium depositis. • Mississippi Valley type ("MVT") lead- zinc-copper-silver mineralisation. • Structurally-hosted gold deposits associated with large fault systems in the Adelaidean • sediments. • Disseminated sediment-hosted gold deposits. • Willemite (zinc silicate) mineralisation similar to the deposits at the Puttapa Mine. Within the Mesoproterozoic basement rocks the main exploration target is: • Olympic Dam style Cu-Au deposits
Drill hole Information	• A summary of all information material to the understanding of the exploration results including a tabulation of the following information for all Material drill holes: o easting and northing of the drill hole collar o elevation or RL (Reduced Level – elevation above sea level in metres) of the drill hole collar o dip and azimuth of the hole o down hole length and interception depth o hole length. • If the exclusion of this information is justified on the basis that the information is not Material and this exclusion does not detract from the understanding of the report, the Competent Person should clearly explain _why this is the case. _	• All drill hole collar locations and significant drill results have been identified in Table 2 and 3 of this announcement. • No relevant data has been excluded from this Report.

13

==> picture [541 x 56] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Data aggregation methods	• In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging techniques, maximum and/or minimum grade truncations (e.g. cutting of high grades) and cut-off grades are usually Material and should be stated. • Where aggregate intercepts incorporate short lengths of high grade results and longer lengths of low grade results, the procedure used for such aggregation should be stated and some typical examples of such aggregations should be shown in detail. • The assumptions used for any reporting of metal equivalent values should be clearly _stated. _	• Significant intersections (>0.2% Cu) have been calculated with no edge dilution and a minimum of 1m downhole length. • No top cuts have been applied. • No metal equivalent values are reported.
Relationship between mineralisation widths and intercept lengths	• These relationships are particularly important in the reporting of Exploration Results. • If the geometry of the mineralisation with respect to the drill hole angle is known, its nature should be reported. • If it is not known and only the down hole lengths are reported, there should be a clear statement to this effect (e.g. ‘down _hole length, true width not known’). _	• Only downhole lengths are reported. • The exact geometry of the mineralisation is not known as such true width is not known.
Diagrams	• Appropriate maps and sections (with scales) and tabulations of intercepts should be included for any significant discovery being reported These should include, but not be limited to a plan view of drill hole collar locations and appropriate sectional views.	• Appropriate plans are included in this announcement.
Balanced reporting	• Where comprehensive reporting of all Exploration Results is not practicable, representative reporting of both low and high grades and/or widths should be practiced to avoid misleading reporting of Exploration Results.	• All drill holes information including collar location is included. • Significant exploration drill results (>0.2% Cu) are included in this Report. • All significant exploration rock chip samples are presented in this report.
Other substantive exploration data	• Other exploration data, if meaningful and material, should be reported including (but not 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.	• To date, only exploration drilling, rock chip geochemistry and geophysical surveys (and associated activities) have been undertaken on the project. No other modifying factors have been investigated at this stage.
Further work	• The nature and scale of planned further work (e.g. tests for lateral extensions or depth extensions or large-scale step-out drilling). • Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions, including the main geological interpretations and future drilling areas, provided this information is not commercially sensitive.	• Further work will include systematic exploration drilling. • Appropriate plans are included in this announcement. • Future exploration activities will be determined once the licence are granted; but will include geophysical studies, drilling, and geochemical surveys

14