CAPRICORN METALS LTD - Capital/Financing Update 2023

15 December 2023

ASX ANNOUNCEMENT

ASX: CMM

==> picture [160 x 128] intentionally omitted <==

MT GIBSON GOLD PROJECT GOLD RESOURCE INCREASES TO 3.24 MILLION OUNCES

HIGHLIGHTS

Resource

Mt Gibson Gold Project (MGGP) Mineral Resource Estimate (MRE) increases by 18% to 3,244,000 ounces from 2,755,000 ounces.
Continued drilling at MGGP since grant of tenure in December 2021 has grown the MRE by 1.16 million ounces of gold (56%) in just two years.
Updated MRE includes 2,655,000 ounces of gold in the Indicated category, a 549,000 ounce (26%) increase from the November 2022 MRE. This provides a strong basis for an update to the 1.45 million ounce Ore Reserve Estimate later in FY24.
Average vertical depth of MRE shell is only 170 metres, presenting continued opportunity to increase resources and convert Inferred with further drilling over the 8km of resource strike.
Strong results continue to be received from ongoing drilling with assays received after the cut off date for the updated MRE, including 22 metres at 4.82g/t from 229 metres and 14 metres at 2.23g/t from 252 metres. These results will be included in the next resource update.
Updated MGGP MRE increases Capricorn group gold resources to 5.5 million ounces.

Project Update

Capricorn has submitted an EPBC Act referral for the development of the MGGP, based on comprehensive environmental assessment work over the last two and a half years. The referral will be assessed by the regulator to determine the permitting pathway for the proposed development of the project.
Capricorn has obtained regulatory approval to construct a new camp for the proposed mining operations. On the basis of this approval the Company has ordered the 400 room accommodation units and associated infrastructure buildings required for the mining operation. The units are expected to start being delivered to site over four months, commencing in December 2023. The total cost of purchase and installation of $30 million is in line with DFS estimate and is scheduled to be spent over the 2024 calendar year.

This is the first major commitment in Capricorn’s strategy to expedite project design and long lead purchasing in parallel with progressive receipt of development and environmental permits where it is expected to be advantageous to the ultimate development timeframe to do so.

==> picture [465 x 50] intentionally omitted <==

Updated Mineral Resource Estimate

The Capricorn Board is pleased to announce that the more than 90,000 metres of RC and DD drilling completed and assayed at the wholly owned MGGP since the November 2022 MRE has delivered a substantial increase in the MRE from 2,755,000 ounces to 3,244,000 ounces.

Highlights of the resource update include:

JORC 2012 compliant MRE 120.8 million tonnes at 0.8 g/t for 3,244,000 ounces.
Provides a strong basis for an update to the 1.45 million ounce Ore Reserve Estimate targeted for FY24:
82% (2,655,000 ounces) of the MRE is now in the Indicated category.
Drill density within the Indicated resource averages 25 x 25 metres.
High-grade nature of some of the new intercepts at the base of the MRE suggest the potential for underground studies:
Average vertical depth of MRE optimisation shell over the 8 kilometres of resource strike is only 170 metres (max 340 metres).
The Indicated-Inferred boundary surface has an average depth of 160 metres.

Mineral Resource Estimate

Capricorn has completed an updated JORC 2012 compliant Mineral Resource Estimate for the MGGP. A summary of the MRE is provided below:

			Indicated	Indicated	Indicated	Inferred	Inferred	Inferred	Total Mineral Resources	Total Mineral Resources	Total Mineral Resources
Material Type	Type	Cut-Off	Tonnes (Mt)	Gold Grade (g/t)	Gold Metal (koz)	Tonnes (Mt)	Gold Grade (g/t)	Gold Metal (koz)	Tonnes (Mt)	Gold Grade (g/t)	Gold Metal (koz)
Laterite	Open Pit	0.4	1.0	0.5	17	0.8	0.5	14	1.8	0.5	31
Oxide	Open Pit	0.4	9.1	0.8	242	0.3	0.7	7	9.4	0.8	249
Transitional	Open Pit	0.4	10.8	0.8	281	0.7	0.7	15	11.4	0.8	296
Fresh	Open Pit	0.4	73.9	0.9	2,115	24.2	0.7	553	98.2	0.8	2,668
Total	Total		94.8	0.9	2,655	26.0	0.7	588	120.8	0.8	3,244

Notes: 1.Mineral Resources are estimated using a gold price of A$2300/ounce.

2.Mineral Resources are estimated using a cut-off grade above 0.4g/t Au.

3.The above data has been rounded to the nearest 100,000 tonnes, 0.1 g/t gold grade and 1,000 ounces.

Errors of summation may occur due to rounding.

The updated MRE is an increase of 489 Koz (18%) from the November 2022 MRE and increases Capricorn group resources to 5.5 million ounces as shown below:

			Indicated	Indicated		Inferred	Inferred	Inferred	Total Mineral Resources	Total Mineral Resources	Total Mineral Resources
Deposit	Type	Cut-Off	Tonnes (Mt)	Gold Grade (g/t)	Gold Metal (koz)	Tonnes (Mt)	Gold Grade (g/t)	Gold Metal (koz)	Tonnes (Mt)	Gold Grade (g/t)	Gold Metal (koz)
KGP4	Open Pit	0.3 <	80.4	0.7	1,880	17.0	0.6	349	97.4	0.7	2,228
MGGP	Open Pit	0.4	94.8	0.9	2,655	26.0	0.7	588	120.8	0.8	3,244
Total	Total		175.2	0.8	4,535	43.0	0.7	937	218.2	0.8	5,472

Notes 1. Mineral Resources are estimated using a gold price of A$2200/ounce at KGP and A$2300/ounce at MGGP.

Mineral Resources are estimated using a cut-off grade between 0.3g/t and 0.4g/t Au.
The above data has been rounded to the nearest 100,000 tonnes, 0.1 g/t gold grade and 1,000 ounces. Errors of summation may occur due to rounding.
As reported 19th April 2023

Potential for Further Resource and Reserve Growth

Drilling during 2023 has been focussed on infilling Inferred areas of the November 2022 MRE that demonstrated potential to become open-pit Ore Reserves, particularly at depth along the two Orion Ore Reserve pits. Additionally there has been drilling following up more isolated strong intercepts from the initial 2022 drilling programme. This drilling has resulted in the growth of resources in areas such as Comanche as shown in the most recent (20 October 2023) exploration update.

Continued drilling at MGGP since grant of tenure in December 2021 has grown the MRE by 1.16 million ounces of gold (56%) in two years. Importantly the Indicated category of the MRE is 2,655,000 ounces of gold, a 549,000 ounce (26%) increase from the November 2022 MRE.

Emergence of Underground Potential

Recent drilling at the extremities of and below MRE shells has continued to return high grade results, particularly at the Orion pit. Results include:

14m @ 12.85g/t from 208m incl 5m @ 30.38g/t
17m @ 9.16 g/t from 228m incl 4m @ 35.78g/t
20m @ 5.11 g/t from 238m incl 5m @ 12.99g/t
20m @ 4.50 g/t from 284m incl 8m @ 6.71g/t

Drilling will continue in these areas in the coming quarters targeting extension of higher-grade areas. The strategy will continue to be drilling incrementally deeper and along strike from current intercepts to maximise the prospects for continued success and the value proposition of drilling. This will allow the Company to understand the structure, geometry & extent of high grade zones with a view to developing an underground model in medium term.

Recent Drilling Results

Assays have been received from 57 holes (10,173 metres) of the ongoing RC resource definition and extension drilling since the October 2023 exploration update continue to return exceptional results including:

Received after cut-off date for Resource Estimate (ie not included in MRE)

16 metres @ 1.00g/t from 26 to 42m
8 metres @ 1.55g/t from 47 to 55m
22 metres @ 4.82g/t from 229 to 251m
14 metres @ 2.23g/t from 252 to 266m

Included in Resource Estimate Database

8 metres @ 4.71g/t from 221 to 229m
14.56 metres @ 3.99g/t from 310 to 324.56m
7 metres @ 6.49g/t from 59 to 66m
33 metres @ 2.27g/t from 212 to 245m
30 metres @ 5.00g/t from 254 to 284m
29 metres @ 2.23g/t from 270 to 299m
20 metres @ 2.55g/t from 51 to 71m
30 metres @ 2.74g/t from 56 to 86m

The assay results received after the cut-off date for the MRE will be included in the next update of the MRE in 2024.

As noted above, the strong results that continue to be returned and the shallow average depth of resource shells encourages Capricorn to continue resource extension drilling, parallel with Ore Reserve, development studies and permitting.

A comprehensive table of significant results is included in Appendix 1.

Project Update

Significant progress continues to be made on the project in parallel with the resource extension drilling. Progress in the current quarter includes:

Submission of the EPBC Act referral. The referral is the culmination of the comprehensive environmental assessment work completed by Capricorn at the MGGP over the last two and a half years and will be the basis on which the regulator will determine the permitting pathway for the proposed development of the project.
Capricorn has obtained regulatory approval to construct a new camp for the proposed mining operations. On the basis of this approval the Company has ordered the 400 room accommodation units and associated infrastructure buildings required for the operation for a total commitment of $15 million. The new units are expected to start being delivered to site over four months, commencing in December 2023. The total accommodation village purchase and installation cost is expected to be in the order of $30 million (in line with DFS estimate) and is scheduled to be spent over the 2024 calendar year.

Capricorn Executive Chairman Mark Clark commented:

“The increase in the Mt Gibson gold resource to 3.2 million ounces is a fantastic validation of the quality of the project we acquired just over two years ago. The shallow average depth of the resource and the emergence of strong underground potential gives us confidence that the project will continue to grow. We have taken further significant steps on the project by submitting our environmental permitting referral and committing to the purchase and installation of the accommodation village. This is part of Capricorn’s strategy to expedite work in parallel with permitting where it is advantageous to the ultimate development schedule to do so.”

This announcement has been authorised for release by the Capricorn Metals Ltd board.

For further information, please contact: Mr Kim Massey Chief Executive Officer E : [email protected] T : +61 8 9212 4600

Selected Cross Sections showing recent drilling and 2022 & 2023 MRE shells

==> picture [291 x 221] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [78 x 7] intentionally omitted <==

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

Cross section: Orion
----- End of picture text -----

==> picture [289 x 219] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [75 x 7] intentionally omitted <==

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

Cross section: Orion
----- End of picture text -----

==> picture [287 x 217] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [91 x 9] intentionally omitted <==

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

Cross section: Lexington
----- End of picture text -----

Mineral Resource Estimation Methodology and Data

The following information is provided as an addendum to meet the requirements under ASX Listing Rule 5.8.1. This information is provided in detail in the attached JORC Table 1 (Appendix 2).

The MGGP is part of a large-scale Archaean aged gold mineralised system. The tenements are located at the southern extremity of the Retaliation Greenstone Belt, in the SW portion of the YalgooSingleton Greenstone Belt in the Murchison Province of the Yilgarn Craton. Primary mineralisation is present as lenses of sulphide bearing schist, predominantly within altered mafic rocks. Gold mineralisation has developed on at least three parallel, 50m thick, steeply east dipping units. Laterite mineralisation has developed over the structures close to surface. The main laterite zone extends 3,000m along strike and 500m across. It ranges from 2m to 8m in vertical thickness, although a large portion of the laterite Resource is depleted by historical mining and backfilled with waste.

The primary mineralisation extends below the laterite zone for a further vertical depth of 950m. The transition/fresh rock boundary is about 40 to 60m below surface. The primary mineralisation has 3 main sub-parallel zones and several smaller zones. Overall these zones extend for 8,000m along strike (N-S) and up to 1,000m across.

Drilling Techniques

Excluding RAB and Auger drillholes (which are excluded from the MRE) there is a total of 195,588 metres of Capricorn RC and DD (CMM) drilling and 499,164 metres of historical drilling within the constraints of the MGGP resource. This consists of 33 CMM diamond holes (DD) (6,584m), 1,250 CMM Reverse Circulation holes (RC) (189,004m), 566 historical DD holes (92,122m), 3,404 historical RC drillholes (254,047m) and 3,884 historical Aircore drillholes (AC) (152,995m).

The drilling database consists of AC, RC and diamond drillholes with holes drilled at approximate spacings of 25m (Y) x 25m (X) or 50m (Y) x 25m (X). Deeper holes and wider spaced drilling targeting along strike, down-dip and down-plunge extensions of the MGGP mineralisation have also been completed outside of the classified resource area and included in the model. However, currently this material remains unclassified, not reported and is a target for future resource development drilling.

Pleasingly the CMM drilling validates the historical database, matching the historical drilling for location and tenor of intercepts.

Sampling and Sub-Sampling Techniques

Capricorn Drilling

CMM RC drilling at MGGP was completed by Topdrill with a 140mm hole diameter and 2kg - 3kg samples split from dry 1m bulk samples. The sample was collected through a cyclone and cone splitter. Once drilling reached fresh rock a fine spray of water was used to suppress dust and limit the loss of fines thorough the cyclone chimney. RC field duplicates were collected at a ratio of 1:40 and collected at the same time as the original sample through the B chute of the cone splitter. Matrix matched CRMS and OREAS certified reference material (CRM) were inserted at a ratio of 1:40. The grade ranges of the CRM’s were selected based on grade populations and economic grade ranges.

CMM diamond drilling was completed at MGGP by Topdrill with triple tube HQ core sampled as quarter core. No field duplicates were sampled for the DD, and CRMS and OREAS certified reference material (CRM) were inserted at a ratio of 2:25. The grade ranges of the CRM’s were selected based on grade populations and economic grade ranges.

Historical Drilling

Historical drilling at the MGGP was completed by multiple companies between the 1970’s and 2008 using a combination of RC, DD, AC, Auger (AUG) and RAB. AUG and RAB have been excluded from the Mineral Resource estimate. The methods of collection for the historical data are unknown.

Sample weight and collection methods are unknown. Sample condition is not logged for the majority of intervals. Sample quality is unknown for the historical drilling. It is unknown if DD sampling was quarter, half or whole core. Non-core sampling sub sampling techniques are not known. Sample condition is not recorded for the majority of intervals, with only a minor amount of the logged values being recorded as wet. Sample preparation techniques are not known.

Sample Analysis Method

CMM RC drilling samples were submitted to MinAnalytical and ALS laboratories in Perth. 1m RC samples were assayed by a FA50AAS 50gm fire assay which is a total assay. 11,771 samples were prepared and processed at ALS and MinAnalytical with a 50g pulp sent to the accredited ALS/Minanalytical laboratory in Vientiane in Laos for FA50AAS 50gm fire assay analysis.

CMM DD samples were submitted to Minanalytical and ALS laboratories in Perth. 1m samples were assayed by a FA50AAS 50gm fire assay which is a total assay.

Historical RC, AC and diamond core samples were sent to Ultratrace, ALS, Genalysis and Analabs laboratories, where the samples were analysed for Au using the fire assay technique. Further details of this process are unknown due to the historical nature of the dataset.

Field duplicates and certified reference material (CRM) data are present in the database for historical drilling although only a minor amount, and not likely to be representative of the whole project. Details of collection and increment are not available.

Estimation Methodology

Three-dimensional wireframes were created to constrain the mineralisation and were imprinted to the block model. Surpac software was used for the wireframing of the mineralisation wireframes and the weathering profiles. The MGGP mineralisation wireframe models were built using sectional interpretation and visualisation of the mineralisation in three-dimensions. The sectional mineralisation strings were defined with a cut-off grade of 0.1g/t Au. There are three main domains and a minor Laterite domain. Geological logging from drillholes has been used to aid the mineralisation interpretation. Geological continuity has been assumed along strike and down-dip.

A block model was created to encompass the MGGP mineralisation. 5m X by 10m Y by 5m Z is the parent block size, with sub-blocking to 1.25m only in the Z direction to reflect the flat lying geometry of the laterite portion of the deposit. Variography was undertaken on domains using Snowden Supervisor software and that variography was used to undertake Kriging neighborhood analysis to optimise the block size, search distances and min/max sample numbers used. Search ellipses were also developed from the variography. The block model grades were estimated using ordinary kriging grade interpolation techniques constrained within the mineralisation wireframes. All work was completed in the MGA 94 grid co-ordinate system. The laterite portion of the estimate only utilised CMM drilling to ensure that the resulting estimate only used in situ data. The estimation was completed in three passes with the following parameters:

Pass 1: 16/64 min and max samples using an octant search, 25m search distance in the major direction, maximum of 4 samples used per hole, and a maximum of 1 adjacent octant failing to have the required composites. Block size estimated into is 5m/10m/5m XYZ.

Pass 2: 16/64 min and max samples using an octant search, 50m search distance in the major direction, maximum of 4 samples used per hole, and a maximum of 1 adjacent octant failing to have the required composites. Block size estimated into is 5m/10m/5m XYZ.

Pass 3: 8/64 min and max samples using an octant search, 100m search distance in the major direction, maximum of 4 samples used per hole, and a maximum of 1 adjacent octant failing to have the required composites. Block size estimated into is 10m/20m/10m XYZ.

Top-cuts were applied to sample composites, with a high grade restriction utilised to limit the influence of higher grade data, particularly outside of the high grade zones. The high-grade restriction is an indicator estimate completed at 1 g/t.

Bulk density values and weathering profiles were adopted from values derived from measurements made on the CMM drilled diamond core, and values in historical technical reports. Average densities for oxidation profiles were assigned to the block model. Values of 2.2 t/m[3] for laterite, 1.80 t/m[3] for oxide, 2.3 t/m[3] for transitional and 2.75 t/m[3] for fresh were used, and are all typical for Archean greenstone lithologies.

The block model was validated using various techniques. These techniques consisted of visual checking, domain assay Vs block model grade and Swath plots.

Resource Classification Criteria

The Measured, Indicated and Inferred classification reflects the relative confidence in the estimate, the confidence in the geological interpretation, the drilling spacing, input data, the assay repeatability and the continuity of the mineralisation.

The classification methodology adopted in the estimate uses category 1 and 2 from the 3-pass octant search strategy (outlined above) to guide interpretation of a classification surface where Indicated is above the surface and Inferred below. This results in a geologically sensible classification based on data density and geological continuity. The drill density in the Indicated classification averages 25 x 25 metres. The drill density in the Inferred classification ranges from 25 x 25 metres to 100 x 100 metres. No Measured category has been applied in the estimate.

This classification reflects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit.

Mining and Metallurgical Methods and Parameters

A contractor-operated open-pit mining option is the basis for the cut-off grade. Ore and waste would be paddock blasted on 5m benches and subsequently excavated as 2.5m flitches utilising a conventional excavator and truck mining fleet to facilitate moderate ore excavation selectivity.

Available test work and historical production indicate that high recoveries are achievable through a standard CIL plant. A gold recovery value of 93% was used in the generation of the open pit MRE reporting shell.

Forward Looking Statements

This announcement 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 of belief as to future events or results, such expectation or belief is expressed in good faith and believed to have a reasonable basis. The detailed reasons for that conclusion are outlined throughout this announcement and all material assumptions are disclosed.

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.

Such risks include, but are not limited to resource risk, metals price volatility, currency fluctuations, increased production costs and variances in ore grade or recovery rates from those assumed in mining plans, as well as governmental regulation and judicial outcomes.

For a more detailed discussion of such risks and other factors, see the Company’s Annual Reports, as well as the Company’s other filings. 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 announcement, or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events, except as may be required under applicable securities laws.

Competent Persons Statement

The information in this report that relates to Exploration Results is based on information compiled or reviewed by Mr. William Higgins who is a full-time employee of the Company. Mr. Higgins is a current Member of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists and has sufficient experience, which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and types of deposit under consideration and to the activities undertaken, to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the “Australasian Code of Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves”. Mr. Higgins consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on the information in the form and context in which it appears.

The information in this report that relates to Mineral Resources is based on information compiled by Mr. Jarrad Price who is Resource Geologist and an employee of the Company. Mr. Jarrad Price is a current Member of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists and has sufficient experience, which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and types of deposit under consideration and to the activities undertaken, to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the “Australasian Code of Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves”. Mr. Price consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on the information in the form and context in which it appears.

The information relating to the Ore Reserve for the Mt Gibson Gold Project Gold Project was contained in the Company’s ASX announcement dated 19 April 2023 entitled “MGGP PFS Confirms 1.45Moz Maiden Ore Reserve” The detailed information relating to the Ore Reserves and Mineral Resources for the Karlawinda Gold Project was contained in the Company’s ASX announcement dated 27 July 2023 entitled “Quarterly Exploration and Annual Resource/Reserve Update”.

The Company confirms that it is not aware of any new information or data that materially affects the information included in the ASX announcements dated 19 April 2023, and 27 July 2023 and all material assumptions and technical parameters underpinning the estimates in the relevant market announcements continue to apply and have not materially changed. The Company confirms that the form and context in which the Competent Persons’ findings are presented have not materially changed from previous market announcements. The reports are available to view on the ASX website and on the Company’s website at www.capmetals.com.au

Appendix 1 – Significant Results

Hole ID	Easting	Northing	Dip/Azimuth	From (m)	To (m)	Width (m)	Grade
CMRC0312D	517333.098	6712079.622	-51.62/131	221	229	8	4.71
CMRC0672D	516190.509	6708681.168	-55.79/265	26	42	16	1
CMRC0672D	516190.509	6708681.168	-55.79/265	47	55	8	1.55
CMRC0672D	516190.509	6708681.168	-55.79/265	229	251	22	4.82
CMRC0704D	516364.409	6709353.434	-52.71/268	7	8	1	15.85
CMRC0704D	516364.409	6709353.434	-52.71/268	310	324.56	14.56	3.99
CMRC0704D*	516364.409	6709353.434	-52.71/268	356	360	4	3.05
CMRC0821	516287.55	6706584.367	-57.16/272	82	84	2	5.62
CMRC0824	516275.258	6706630.692	-58.08/270	68	72	4	8.64
CMRC0825	516297.238	6706632.748	-56.36/272	63	71	8	2.17
CMRC0825	516297.238	6706632.748	-56.36/272	94	102	8	1.55
CMRC0828	516841.94	6710660.418	-60.06/309	59	69	10	3.48
CMRC0828	516841.94	6710660.418	-60.06/309	275	294	19	1.39
CMRC0828*	516841.94	6710660.418	-60.06/309	306	312	6	4.35
CMRC0829	516818.1	6710610.469	-56.99/301	59	66	7	6.49
CMRC0831	516789.281	6710628.181	-61.06/304	212	245	33	2.27
CMRC0832	516793.318	6710566.867	-56.14/306	71	81	10	2.35
CMRC0832	516793.318	6710566.867	-56.14/306	254	284	30	5
CMRC0833	516790.64	6710538.451	-60.74/304	270	299	29	2.23
CMRC0836	516890.636	6711030.406	-54.19/305	111	118	7	1.6
CMRC0836	516890.636	6711030.406	-54.19/305	132	139	7	5.03
CMRC0837	516848.619	6710872.231	-58.65/306	43	45	2	5.22
CMRC0837	516848.619	6710872.231	-58.65/306	116	118	2	12.75
CMRC0837	516848.619	6710872.231	-58.65/306	145	152	7	1.83
CMRC0839	516890.645	6710731.369	-57.99/301	72	75	3	7.78
CMRC0839	516890.645	6710731.369	-57.99/301	166	173	7	1.77
CMRC0839	516890.645	6710731.369	-57.99/301	282	288	6	1.73
CMRC0841	516826.255	6710549.346	-56.25/308	51	71	20	2.55
CMRC0841	516826.255	6710549.346	-56.25/308	81	87	6	2.7
CMRC0841	516826.255	6710549.346	-56.25/308	90	96	6	3.82
CMRC0841	516826.255	6710549.346	-56.25/308	131	138	7	2.37
CMRC0841	516826.255	6710549.346	-56.25/308	189	194	5	2.61
CMRC0841	516826.255	6710549.346	-56.25/308	301	304	3	4.87
CMRC0842	516828.97	6710517.702	-58.02/310	56	86	30	2.74
CMRC0842	516828.97	6710517.702	-58.02/310	95	105	10	1.29
CMRC0842	516828.97	6710517.702	-58.02/310	163	174	11	2.18
CMRC0842	516828.97	6710517.702	-58.02/310	291	299	8	1.25
CMRC0843	516696.699	6710399.771	-62.45/306	41	47	6	1.79
CMRC0846*	516351.731	6708798.936	-66.5/278	194	196	2	5.35
CMRC0850	516330.77	6706737.44	-56.75/274	96	104	8	3.81
CMRC0854	516328.483	6705001.47	-61.82/274	57	59	2	5.31
CMRC2035D	516181.229	6708656.659	-65.11/271	252	266	14	2.23

*** denotes intercept outside current MRE shell**

Appendix 2 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
*Sampling* *techniques*	• Nature and quality of sampling (eg 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. • Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample representivity and the appropriate calibration of any measurement tools or systems used. • Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are Material to the Public Report. • In cases where ‘industry standard’ work has been done this would be relatively simple (eg ‘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 (eg submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed information.	CMM RC drilling at MGGP was completed by Topdrill, 2kg - 3kg samples are split from dry 1m bulk samples. The sample was collected through a cyclone and cone splitter. Once drilling reached fresh rock a fine spray of water was used to suppress dust and limit the loss of fines thorough the cyclone chimney. RC Field duplicates were collected at a ratio of 1:40 and collected at the same time as the original sample through the B chute of the cone splitter. Matrix matched CRMS and OREAS certified reference material (CRM) were inserted at a ratio of 1:40. The grade ranges of the CRM’s were selected based on grade populations and economic grade ranges. Samples were sent to the laboratory where they were pulverised to produce a 50 g charge for fire assay. CMM Diamond Drilling was completed at MGGP by Topdrill with triple tube HQ core sampled as quarter core. No field duplicates were sampled for the DD, and CRMS and OREAS certified reference material (CRM) were inserted at a ratio of 2:25. Historical drilling at the MGGP has been completed by multiple companies between the 1970’s and 2008 using a combination of Reverse Circulation (RC), diamond drilling (DD), aircore (AC), Auger (AUG) and RAB. AUG and RAB have been excluded from the Mineral Resource estimate. The methods of collection for the historical data are unknown. Sample weight and collection method are unknown for the historical drilling. Sample condition is not logged for the majority of intervals. Sample quality in unknown for the historical drilling. The majority of samples are recorded as being assayed by fire assay. Field duplicates and certified reference material (CRM) for historical drilling data are present in the database although only a minor amount, and not likely to be representative of the whole project. Details of collection and increment are not available.
*Drilling* *techniques*	• Drill type (eg core, reverse circulation, open-hole hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc) and details (eg 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).	CMM RC: Topdrill Drilling drill rig was used to drill the RC drill holes: Hole diameter was 140mm. CMM DD: Topdrill Sandvik DE840 Truck Mounted Drill Rig was used to drill the DD drill holes. Hole diameter is HQ triple tube, orientation tools used are Axis Champ North Seeking Gyro tool RC and AC drilling bit and blade diameters are unknown for the historical drilling. Diamond drilling hole diameter is listed mainly as NQ and HQ, orientation tools unknown for historical drilling.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
*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.	CMM RC: Once drilling reached fresh rock a fine spray of water was used to suppress dust and limit the loss of fines thorough the cyclone chimney. At the end of each metre the bit was lifted off the bottom to separate each metre drilled. The majority of samples were of good quality with ground water having minimal effect on sample quality or recovery. There is no obvious relationship between sample recovery and grade. CMM DD: Core recoveries were typically 100%, with isolated zones of lower recovery HISTORICAL: The method of recording and assessing core and chip sample recoveries and results is unknown. Core recoveries are present in the database for some of the DD holes which show mostly high recovery. The measures taken to maximise sample recovery and ensure representative nature of the samples are unknown. Sample condition is only logged for a small portion of the drilling, with minimal intervals logged as wet. The majority of intervals do not have sample condition logged. It is unknown if bias exists 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.	CMM RC: Reverse circulation chips were washed and stored in chip trays in 1m intervals for the entire length of each hole. Chip trays were stored on site in a sealed container. Chips were visually inspected and logged by an on-site geologist to record lithology (including rock type, oxidation state, weathering, grain size, colour, mineralogy, and texture), alteration, mineralisation, veining, structure, sample quality (dry/wet, contamination) and approximate water flow down hole. Mineralisation, veining and water flow were quantitative or semi-quantitative in nature; the remainder of logging was qualitative. CMM DD: Logging processes include lithology, weathering, alteration, mineralisation, veining, RQD and core recovery and structure. Structural data for selected points has been collected as alpha and beta angles in core. These data are converted to Dip and Dip direction after loading to the database. Intervals for density measurement were identified while logging. All core was photographed both dry and wet after logging. Logging is both qualitative and quantitative or semi-quantitative in nature. HISTORICAL: Logging processes are unknown for the historical drilling, although lithological logging has been validated by CMM drilling. Logging field in the database show that lithology, weathering, alteration, mineralisation, veining, RQD and core recovery and structure were logged. Some XRF measurements were also taken. Logging is both qualitative and quantitative or semi-quantitative in nature.
*Sub-sampling* *techniques and* *sample* *preparation*	• If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, half or all core taken. • If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc and whether sampled wet or dry. • For all sample types, the nature, quality and appropriateness of the sample preparation technique.	CMM RC: RC holes samples were split from dry, 1m bulk samples via a cone splitter directly from the cyclone. RC Field duplicates were collected at a ratio of 1:40 and collected at the same time as the original sample through the B chute of the cone splitter. Matrix matched CRMS and OREAS certified reference

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	• 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.	material (CRM) were inserted at a ratio of 1:40. The grade ranges of the CRM’s were selected based on grade populations and economic grade ranges. The duplicates and CRM’s were submitted to the lab using unique sample ID’s. 2kg – 3kg RC samples are submitted to the laboratory. Samples are oven dried at 105°C then jaw crushed to -10mm followed by a Boyd crush to a nominal -2mm. Samples were rotary split to 2.5kg. Samples were then pulverised in LM5 mills to 85% passing 75μm under sample preparation code SP3000 which consists of a 5-minute extended preparation for RC/Soil/RAB. The extended time for the pulverisation is to improve the pulverisation of samples due to the presence of garnets in the samples. All the samples were analysed for Au using the FA50AAS technique which is a 50g lead collection fire assay. This sample preparation technique is appropriate for the MGGP; and is standard industry practice for a gold deposit. CMM DD: Sampling was completed at quarter core. Core was cut and sampled at the Mt Gibson core yard. Sample intervals were 1.0m for the HQ sized diamond core. Samples were collected in pre numbered Calico and grouped for dispatch to ALS laboratory for FA50AAS and 4 acid digest multielement ME-MS61. No field duplicates were sampled for the DD, and CRMS and OREAS certified reference material (CRM) were inserted at a ratio of 2:25. HISTORICAL: It is unknown if DD sampling was quarter, half or whole core. Non-core sampling sub sampling techniques are not known. Sample condition is not recorded for the majority of intervals, with only a minor amount of the logged values being recorded as wet. Sample preparation techniques are not known. Field duplicates and certified reference material (CRM) data are present in the database although only a minor amount, and not likely to be representative of the whole project. Details of collection and increment are not available. Sample sizes are unknown.
*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 (eg standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (ie lack of bias) and precision have been established.	CMM RC: Drilling samples were submitted to MinAnalytical laboratory and ALS in Perth. 1m RC samples were assayed by a FA50AAS 50gm fire assay which is a total assay. 11,771 samples were prepared and processed in Perth ALS and MinAnalytical with a 50g pulp sent to the accredited ALS/Minanalytical laboratory in Vientiane in Laos for FA50AAS 50gm fire assay analysis. RC Field duplicates were collected at a ratio of 1:40 and collected at the same time as the original sample through the B chute of the cone splitter. Matrix matched CRMS and OREAS certified reference material (CRM) were inserted at a ratio of 1:40. The grade ranges of the CRM’s were selected based on grade populations and economic grade ranges. CMM DD: Drilling samples were submitted to Minanalytical laboratory and ALS in Perth. 1m samples were assayed by a FA50AAS 50gm fire assay which is a total assay. No field duplicates were sampled for the DD,and CRMS and OREAS certified reference material(CRM)were inserted at a

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		ratio of 2:25. The grade ranges of the CRM’s were selected based on grade populations and economic grade ranges. HISTORICAL: The majority of drilling is recorded as being assayed using fire assay at Ultratrace, ALS, Genalysis and Analabs. This is considered appropriate for the deposit type. Field duplicates and certified reference material (CRM) data are present in the database although only a minor amount, and not likely to be representative of the whole project. Details of collection and increment are not available.
*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.	CMM: Logging and sampling were recorded directly into a Micromine Geobank template, which utilises lookup tables and in file validation on a Toughbook by the geologist on the rig. Validated data was sent to the database administrator in Perth who then carried out independent verifications using Maxwell’s Datashed. Assay results when received were plotted on section and were verified against neighbouring holes. QAQC reports were generated on a hole-by-hole basis by the database administrator as results were received. HISTORICAL: CMM drilling has verified the historical data throughout the entire resource area. Logging and sampling procedures of the historical data are unknown.
*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.	CMM: The collar positions have been picked up with DGPS by qualified surveyors in MGA94 grid system. HISTORICAL: Drillhole collar position accuracy is unknown. Being that it is an inherited historical dataset there are no details on the collar survey or downhole survey methods. The majority of downhole surveys in the database are listed as not recorded, with some listed as being a single shot camera, and surveys are generally 30m or 50m increments downhole. As the drillhole data and historic mined pits are all spatially cohesive it is assumed that accuracy of the data is to within +/- 5m, and to be validated by CMM drilling and site visits. CMM drilling has validated the positions of the historical intercepts. Drillhole location data was initially captured in the MGA94 grid system and this is also used for resource estimation work. The natural surface topography was modelled using a DTM generated from airborne survey, this includes waste dumps and some in-pit waste dumping. Also available are pit surveys of the mining voids at the end of historical mining to enable depletion of the CMM resource. The pit surveys and topography surface were checked in Google Earth for accuracy. Horizontal point accuracy is expected to be <5m and vertical accuracy to 0.5m. The reference datum was GDA94 and the projection was MGA Zone 50. Topographic control appears to be of good quality and is considered adequate for resource estimation.
*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.	RC and DD Samples were collected and analysed for each metre down the hole. Samples were collected and analysed for each metre down the hole. RC hole spacing was between 50m N x 50m E and 25m N x 25m E, sufficient for resource estimation.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	• Whether sample compositing has been applied.	DD holes were spaced across the project area with locations picked for geotechnical or metallurgical purposes Sample compositing is common in the historical data, particularly at 3m, but the majority of samples in the database are 1m.
*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 have introduced a sampling bias, this should be assessed and reported if material.	Drill lines are oriented across strike, running east-west in the southern half of the project and at 300 degrees in the northern half. The orebody dips at 80 degrees to the east for the majority of the project, with some steep west dip at the very northern end of the project. The drillholes have been drilled at inclination of -60 and -90 degrees. The orientation of the drilling is suitable for the mineralisation style and orientation of the MGGP mineralisation.
*Sample security*	• The measures taken to ensure sample security.	Calico sample bags are sealed into green bags/polyweave bags and cable tied. These bags were then sealed in bulka bags by company personnel and dispatched by third party contractor. In-company reconciliation is completed with laboratory assay returns. Sample security measures taken on the historical data are unknown.
*Audits* or *reviews*	• The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data.	The Competent Person for Exploration Results reported here has visited the project areas where sampling has taken place and has reviewed and confirmed the sampling procedures No external audits or reviews have been completed on sampling techniques.

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results

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

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 resource is located across mining tenements held by wholly owned Capricorn subsidiaries METROVEX PTY LTD and CRIMSON METALS PTY LTD; being M 59/772, E 59/2450, E 59/2594, E 59/2606, G 59/11, G 59/12, G 59/13, G 59/14, G 59/15, G 59/16, G 59/17, G 59/18, G 59/48, G 59/70, L 59/140, L 59/45, L 59/46, L 59/53, M 59/328, M 59/402, M 59/403, M 59/404, P 59/2286, P 59/2287, P 59/2290, P 59/2291, P 59/2306, P 59/2309, P 59/2310. All of the tenements are subject to a 1% NSR royalty to Avenger Projects Ltd, including gold production above 90,000 ounces. A royalty is also payable to St Barbara Limited on all gold production in excess of 20,000 ounces (excluding production from historic waste dumps and tailings) at the rate of $10 per ounce, applicable to leases M 59/328, M 59/402, M 59/403, M 59/404, G 59/11, G 59/12, G 59/13, G 59/14, G 59/15, G 59/16, G 59/17, G 59/18, L 59/45, L 59/46, L 59/53 No other known impediments exist to operate in the area.
*Exploration* *done by other* *parties*	• Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties.	The Mt Gibson Gold Deposit (Mt Gibson) has a history of minor gold production dating back to the 1930’s when prospectors operated small gold workings at Paynes-Crusoe and Tobias Find. While the area was subject to previous prospecting and company exploration in smaller leaseholdings, the Mt. Gibson Gold Project was first held in more-or-less its present configuration and extent by Reynolds

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		Australia, who commenced exploration in the early 1980’s. Soil and laterite sampling resulted in several significant gold and base metal anomalies being defined; follow up rotary air blast (RAB), air core (AC), reverse circulation (RC) and diamond drilling programs outlined significant economic laterite and oxide resources. A joint venture between Reynolds Australia Metals and Forsayth Mining Limited (with FML as the operator) began operations in 1986, mining and processing 6.5 million tonnes of laterite ores defined by FML in 1984, followed later by oxide and sulphide ores defined by drilling beneath the laterite orebodies. The project was sold by Reynolds to Camelot Resources in 1995. Continuing exploration resulted in the discovery of further oxide resources, mainly on the Taurus Trend, and the underground quartz-sulphide deposit at Wombat. These resources were subsequently mined and processed, all mining being completed at the end of 1997 and final milling of low grade stockpiles completed in June of 1998. A 4Mt dump leach remained in operation until November 1998, producing 68,868 ounces of gold. Including the dump leach, a total of 16,477,882 tonnes of ore was processed during the life of the operation, for 868,478 ounces of gold at an overall average grade of 1.64g/t Au.
*Geology*	• Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation.	The Mt Gibson Gold Project tenements are located at the southern extremity of the Retaliation Greenstone Belt, in the SW portion of the Yalgoo-Singleton Greenstone Belt in the Murchison Province of the Yilgarn Craton. The tenements are mostly covered by a veneer of alluvial quartz sands and laterite gravels, with sporadic greenstone subcrop and outcrop, increasingly exposed in the north of the project area. The mineralised laterite gravels are situated slightly down-slope from the lode deposits on the Gibson trend. Regionally, the greenstone belt has been metamorphosed to middle amphibolite facies and hosts a number of Au-Cu deposits and prospects, including Golden Grove, 90km to the northwest of Mt.Gibson. The lode style mineralisation at Mt. Gibson is predominantly hosted by three main trends: The Gibson Trend The majority of the known and mined mineralisation is hosted by this trend. It is hypothesised to have originally been a gold-copper-zinc rich Volcanogenic Hosted Massive Sulphide (VHMS) deposit that has been overprinted by a later hydrothermal gold mineralising event. This mineralised shear zone has an arcuate north-south to northeasterly strike (trending more north-easterly in the north) and extends for more than seven kilometres from the southern granite contact to beyond the Hornet ore body. The so-called “Mine Sequence” is around 400 metres wide and consists of a parcel of sheared, metamorphosed and chlorite-biotite-muscovite altered mafic volcanics. Numerous felsic porphyries intrude the Mine Sequence. Mineralisation is hosted within multiple sets of elongate lodes with strong strike continuity, which anastomose and pinch-swell along strike and to depth. The main lode systems include Hornet, Enterprise, Orion and S2. The Taurus Trend The north-westerly trending Taurus Trend lies west of and diagonal to the Gibson Trend. Mineralisation is intimately associated with an apparently continuous felsic unit emplaced into the northwest trending shear and was discovered late in the life of the mining operation. It is characterised bydiscontinuous ore bodies,and stronglymineralisedquartz-sulphide veining. The ore bodies on this

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		trend include Sheldon and Wombat which, although not as continuous in strike as the ore bodies on the Gibson Trend, show a higher gold tenor. The Highway Trend The Highway Trend is a northeast trending shear zone, hosted by a mafic sequence in the western terrain, 11km northwest of the main mining area. This trend hosts the Highway ore body, and the Phoenix and Aquarius Prospects. It shares many of the characteristics of the Gibson trend, but it appears to lack the VHMS mineralising event and has generally been regarded as a predominantly low-grade system, although work from previous explores suggest it may have greater persistence and significance than previously thought and hence justifies further attention. The project area also hosts a number of BIF and quartz hosted small mineral occurrences including Paynes-Crusoe and MacDonald’s Find.
*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 relevant drillhole information can be found in section 1 – “Sampling techniques”, “Drilling techniques” and “Drill Sample Recovery” and the significant intercepts table.
*Data* *aggregation* *methods*	• In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging techniques, maximum and/or minimum grade truncations (eg 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.	Reported intercepts include a minimum of 1g/t Au value over a minimum length of 1m with a maximum 3m length of consecutive internal waste. The intercepts reported are those filtered to only include intercepts above 10 gram-metres as they are deemed the significant results of the project. No upper cuts have been applied. Intercepts above the historical mined pits have been removed from the reported intercepts. No upper cuts have been applied to the reported intercepts. No metal equivalent values are used.
*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 (eg ‘down hole length, true width not known’).	The mineralisation dips steeply to the east, and drilling is generally orientated at 60 degrees to the west, meaning intercepts are roughly perpendicular to mineralisation in the majority of cases. Some vertical holes drilled from the base of mined pits and are therefore at a high degree to the mineralisation.
*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 aplan view of drill hole collar locations and appropriate sectional views.	Refer to the diagrams in the body of this report.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
*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.	The accompanying document is considered to be a balanced report with a suitable cautionary note. Previously unreported in-situ significant drill assay results above 1g/t (filtered above 10 gram-metres) used in this Mineral Resource estimation have been reported in this document.
*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.	No other material information or data to report.
*Further work*	• The nature and scale of planned further work (eg 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 includes further resource infill RC and DD drilling and studies on underground potential.

Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources

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

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
*Database* *integrity*	• Measures taken to ensure that data has not been corrupted by, for example, transcription or keying errors, between its initial collection and its use for Mineral Resource estimation purposes. • Data validation procedures used.	Historical drillhole data used to complete this study was received in the form of an access database. Internal validations were completed with no issues noted. Drilling completed by CMM has been collected in the field by geologists and field assistants using Geobank, with in-built Validation. Once hole information was finalised on site the information was emailed to the CMM Database Administrator to load into Datashed SQL database.
*Site visits*	• Comment on any site visits undertaken by the Competent Person and the outcome of those visits. • If no site visits have been undertaken indicate why this is the case.	The competent person has made a site visit to the MGGP as part of this study. All exploration and resource development drilling programmes are subject to review by experienced senior CMM technical staff. These reviews have been completed from the commencement of drilling and continue to the present in recent drilling operations, enabling the competent person to inspect/verify mineralisation controls.
*Geological* *interpretation*	• Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertainty of) the geological interpretation of the mineral deposit. • Nature of the data used and of any assumptions made. • The effect, if any, of alternative interpretations on Mineral Resource estimation. • The use of geology in guiding and controlling Mineral Resource estimation. • The factors affecting continuity both of grade and geology.	The geological model is simple in nature and there is currently sufficient drilling to map the stratigraphic units and laterite zone. The model has been validated with infill drilling and site visits to inspect the current mined pits. A 3D geological model was constructed in Surpac from geological logging and structural measurements. The geological drillhole logging has been used to guide mineralisation envelopes and subsequent mineralisation wireframe modelling. Geological continuity has been assumed along strike and down-dip based on the drilling data. In general, continuity both geologically and grade-wise is good. Grades and thickness are more consistent down-dip than along strike.
*Dimensions*	• The extent and variability of the Mineral Resource expressed as length (along strike or otherwise), plan width, and depth below surface to the upper and lower limits of the	The MGGP mineralisation wireframes have been projected down-dip based on wider spaced drilling intercepts;however,this extrapolation has been removed from the resource estimate bylimitingthe

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	Mineral Resource.	reported tonnes and grade to within a conceptual optimal pit shell ($2,200/oz Au). The main laterite zone extends 3000m along strike and 500m across. It ranges from 2m to 8m in vertical thickness, although a large portion of the laterite Resource is depleted by historical mining and backfilled with waste. The primary mineralisation extends below the laterite zone for a further vertical depth of 950m. The transition/fresh rock boundary is about 40 to 60m below surface. The primary mineralisation has 3 main sub-parallel zones and several smaller zones. Overall these zones extend for 8000m along strike (N-S) and up to 1000m across.
*Estimation and* *modelling* *techniques*	• The nature and appropriateness of the estimation technique(s) applied and key assumptions, including treatment of extreme grade values, domaining, interpolation parameters and maximum distance of extrapolation from data points. If a computer assisted estimation method was chosen include a description of computer software and parameters used. • The availability of check estimates, previous estimates and/or mine production records and whether the Mineral Resource estimate takes appropriate account of such data. • The assumptions made regarding recovery of by-products. • Estimation of deleterious elements or other non-grade variables of economic significance (eg sulphur for acid mine drainage characterisation). • In the case of block model interpolation, the block size in relation to the average sample spacing and the search employed. • Any assumptions behind modelling of selective mining units. • Any assumptions about correlation between variables. • Description of how the geological interpretation was used to control the resource estimates. • Discussion of basis for using or not using grade cutting or capping. • The process of validation, the checking process used, the comparison of model data to drill hole data, and use of reconciliation data if available.	The MRE has been estimated using Ordinary Kriging (OK) with no change of support. The OK estimation was constrained within Au mineralisation domains generated in Surpac. These were defined from the resource drilling and guided by geological logging. OK is considered an appropriate grade estimation method for the MGGP mineralisation given drilling density and mineralisation style, which has allowed the development of robust and high confidence estimation constraints and parameters. The grade estimate is based on 1m down-the-hole composites of the resource dataset created in Surpac each located by their mid-point co-ordinates and assigned a length weighted average gold grade. 1m composite length was chosen because it is a multiple of the most common sampling interval (1.0 metre). Statistical analysis identified a high-grade population which was flagged in the model using an indicator estimate at 1g/t Au. This enabled a high-grade restriction to be used involving those flagged blocks being estimated by a composite file within that flagged area cut to a higher upper-cut. The remaining portions of the domain are estimated with the total domain composite file cut to a lower uppercut. The high-grade restriction and high-grade cuts (as described below) have been applied to composites to limit the influence of higher-grade data. Statistical and geostatistical analysis was completed on the domain coded composite file (1m composites). This included exploration data analysis, boundary analysis and grade estimation trials. The variography applied to grade estimation has been generated using Snowden Supervisor. These investigations have been completed on each ore domain separately. No check estimates have been completed as part of the study, although the CMM Mineral Resource estimate compares very closely to historical production when reported at the lower cuts mined to and above the historical mined surfaces. No by-products are present or modelled. No deleterious elements have been estimated or are important to the project economics\planning at MGGP. Block dimensions are 5m (east) by 10m (north) by 5m (elevation) (with sub-blocking in the Z direction to 1.25m to better suit the flat lying laterite mineralisation) and was chosen as it approximates SMU for the deposit, and a quarter to half the drill hole spacing. The laterite portion of the estimation only uses CMM drilling to ensure that only in situ data informs the MRE. The oxide/fresh interpolation utilised 3 estimation passes, with category 1 adopting a 25m octant search,16 minimum/64 maximum composites used and a maximum of 4 compositesper drill hole,

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		with only 1 adjacent octant allowed to fail the search criteria. Category 2 uses a 50m search distance, 16 minimum/64 maximum composites, 4 maximum per hole and 1 adjacent octant allowed to fail the criteria. Category 3 uses a 100m search distance, 8 minimum/64 maximum composites, 4 maximum per hole and 1 adjacent octant allowed to fail the criteria, with category 3 being estimated into a doubled block size as well. The laterite portion of the deposit is estimated into the sub-blocked Z size of 1.25m and uses a vertical constraint of 3m on the search ellipse. The search on each category is orientated to align to the orientation of the mineralisation of each specific domain using dynamic anisotropy. No selective mining units were assumed in this estimate. No correlated variables have been investigated or estimated. The grade estimate is based on mineralisation constraints which have been interpreted based on a lithological logging and weathering interpretation, and a nominal 0.1g/t Au lower cut-off grade. The mineralisation constraints have been used as hard boundaries for grade estimation wherein only composite samples within that domain are used to estimate blocks coded as within that domain. Statistical investigations have been completed to test the change in statistical and spatial characteristics of the domains grouped by weathering showing there to be little variation between profiles, hence they have been estimated inclusively. A review of the composite data captured within the mineralisation constraints was completed to assess the need for high grade cutting (capping). This assessment was completed both statistically and spatially to determine if the high-grade data clusters or were isolated. On the basis of the investigation it was decided to utilise a high-grade restriction, and appropriate high-grade cuts were applied to all estimation domains. The grade estimate was checked against the input drilling/composite data both visually on section (cross and long section) and in plan, and statistically on swath plots.
*Moisture*	• Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or with natural moisture, and the method of determination of the moisture content.	Tonnages have been estimated on a dry basis.
*Cut-off* *parameters*	• The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters applied.	The MRE is reported at a cutoff grade of 0.4g/t for all material types. This is determined from standardised parameters used to generate the open pit MRE reporting shell, and also takes into account potential mining practices.
*Mining* *factors* *or assumptions*	• Assumptions made regarding possible mining methods, minimum mining dimensions and internal (or, if applicable, external) mining dilution. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider potential mining methods, but the assumptions made regarding mining methods and 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.	Currently a contractor-operated open-pit mining option is the basis for the cut-off grade. Ore and waste would be paddock blasted on 5m benches and subsequently excavated as 2.5m flitches utilising a conventional excavator and truck mining fleet to facilitate moderate ore excavation selectivity.
*Metallurgical* *factors* or *assumptions*	• The basis for assumptions or predictions regarding metallurgical amenability. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider potential metallurgical methods, but the assumptions regarding metallurgical treatment processes and parameters made when reporting	Historical production data and available test work indicate that high recoveries are able to be achieved through a standard CIL plant. A gold recovery value of 93% was used in the generation of the open pit MRE reporting shell.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	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* *factors* or *assumptions*	• Assumptions made regarding possible waste and process residue disposal options. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider the potential environmental impacts of the mining and processing operation. While at this stage the determination of potential environmental impacts, particularly for a greenfields project, may not always be well advanced, the status of early consideration of these potential environmental impacts should be reported. Where these aspects have not been considered this should be reported with an explanation of the environmental assumptions made.	Waste rock from open pit operations would be placed in a waste rock landform adjacent to open pit operations, progressively contoured and revegetated throughout mine life. Process plant residue would be disposed of in a surface tailings storage facility (TSF). Adoption of an upstream, central decant design would utilise mine waste material for dam wall construction and facilitate water recovery to supplement process water requirements. It is expected that sufficient volumes of oxide material, able to be made sufficiently impermeable, will be available in the overburden stream to enable acceptable TSF construction.
*Bulk density*	• Whether assumed or determined. If assumed, the basis for the assumptions. If determined, the method used, whether wet or dry, the frequency of the measurements, the nature, size 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.	Bulk density values and weathering profiles were adopted from values derived from measurements made on the CMM drilled diamond core, and historical values found during due diligence of available documents. Mean density values were applied to the CMM resource model. Values of 2.2 t/m3for laterite, 1.80 t/m3for oxide, 2.3 t/m3for transitional and 2.75 t/m3for fresh were used and are all typical for Archean greenstone lithologies.
*Classification*	• The basis for the classification of the Mineral Resources into varying confidence categories. • Whether appropriate account has been taken of all relevant factors (ie relative confidence in tonnage/grade estimations, reliability of input data, confidence in continuity of geology and metal values, quality, quantity and distribution of the data). • Whether the result appropriately reflects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit.	The Measured, Indicated and Inferred classification reflects the relative confidence in the estimate, the confidence in the geological interpretation, the drilling spacing, input data, the assay repeatability and the continuity of the mineralisation. The classification methodology adopted in the estimate uses category 1 and 2 from the 3-pass octant search strategy to guide interpretation of a classification surface where Indicated is above the surface and Inferred below. This results in a geologically sensible classification based on data density and geological continuity. The drill density in the Indicated classification averages 25 x 25 metres. The drill density in the Inferred classification ranges from 25 x 25 metres to 100 x 100 metres. No Measured category has been applied in the estimate. This classification reflects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit.
*Audits* or *reviews*	• The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral Resource estimates.	The resource model has been reviewed for fatal flaws internally, although no audit has been completed on the MRE.
*Discussion* of *relative* *accuracy/* *confidence*	• Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and confidence level in the Mineral Resource estimate using an approach or procedure deemed appropriate by the Competent Person. For example, the application of statistical or geostatistical procedures to quantify the relative accuracy of the resource within stated confidence limits, or, if such an approach is not deemed appropriate, a qualitative discussion of the factors that could affect the relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate. • The statement should specify whether it relates to global or local estimates, and, if local, state the relevant tonnages, which should be relevant to technical and economic evaluation. Documentation should include assumptions made and the procedures used. • These statements of relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate should be	The confidence level is reflected in the classification of the estimate. Mineralisation modelled but outside the $2,300/oz Au reporting shell has been excluded from the estimate. The Mineral Resource estimate is an undiluted global estimate. The CMM Mineral Resource estimate compares very closely to historical production when reported at the lower cuts mined to and above the historical mined surfaces.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	compared withproduction data, where available.
Section 4 Estimation and Reporting of Ore Reserves (Criteria listed in section 1, and where relevant in sections 2 and 3, also apply to this section.)
Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
*Mineral* *Resource* *estimate* *for* *conversion* to *Ore Reserves*	• Description of the Mineral Resource estimate used as a basis for the conversion to an Ore Reserve. • Clear statement as to whether the Mineral Resources are reported additional to, or inclusive of, the Ore Reserves.	No Ore Reserve being reported
*Site visits*	• Comment on any site visits undertaken by the Competent Person and the outcome of those visits. • If no site visits have been undertaken indicate why this is the case.	No Ore Reserve being reported
*Study status*	• The type and level of study undertaken to enable Mineral Resources to be converted to Ore Reserves. • The Code requires that a study to at least Pre-Feasibility Study level has been undertaken to convert Mineral Resources to Ore Reserves. Such studies will have been carried out and will have determined a mine plan that is technically achievable and economically viable, and that material Modifying Factors have been considered.	No Ore Reserve being reported
*Cut-off* *parameters*	• The basis of the cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters applied.	No Ore Reserve being reported
*Mining* *factors* *or assumptions*	• The method and assumptions used as reported in the Pre-Feasibility or Feasibility Study to convert the Mineral Resource to an Ore Reserve (i.e. either by application of appropriate factors by optimisation or by preliminary or detailed design). • The choice, nature and appropriateness of the selected mining method(s) and other mining parameters including associated design issues such as pre-strip, access, etc. • The assumptions made regarding geotechnical parameters (eg pit slopes, stope sizes, etc), grade control and pre-production drilling. • The major assumptions made and Mineral Resource model used for pit and stope optimisation (if appropriate). • The mining dilution factors used. • The mining recovery factors used. • Any minimum mining widths used. • The manner in which Inferred Mineral Resources are utilised in mining studies and the sensitivity of the outcome to their inclusion. • The infrastructure requirements of the selected mining methods.	No Ore Reserve being reported
*Metallurgical* *factors* or *assumptions*	• The metallurgical process proposed and the appropriateness of that process to the style of mineralisation. • Whether the metallurgical process is well-tested technology or novel in nature. • The nature, amount and representativeness of metallurgical test work undertaken, the	No Ore Reserve being reported

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	nature of the metallurgical domaining applied and the corresponding metallurgical recovery factors applied. • Any assumptions or allowances made for deleterious elements. • The existence of any bulk sample or pilot scale test work and the degree to which such samples are considered representative of the orebody as a whole. • For minerals that are defined by a specification, has the ore reserve estimation been based on the appropriate mineralogy to meet the specifications?
*Environmental*	• The status of studies of potential environmental impacts of the mining and processing operation. Details of waste rock characterisation and the consideration of potential sites, status of design options considered and, where applicable, the status of approvals for process residue storage and waste dumps should be reported.	No Ore Reserve being reported
*Infrastructure*	• The existence of appropriate infrastructure: availability of land for plant development, power, water, transportation (particularly for bulk commodities), labour, accommodation; or the ease with which the infrastructure can beprovided, or accessed.	No Ore Reserve being reported
*Costs*	• The derivation of, or assumptions made, regarding projected capital costs in the study. • The methodology used to estimate operating costs. • Allowances made for the content of deleterious elements. • The derivation of assumptions made of metal or commodity price(s), for the principal minerals and co- products. • The source of exchange rates used in the study. • Derivation of transportation charges. • The basis for forecasting or source of treatment and refining charges, penalties for failure to meet specification, etc. • The allowances made for royaltiespayable, both Government andprivate.	No Ore Reserve being reported
*Revenue factors*	• The derivation of, or assumptions made regarding revenue factors including head grade, metal or commodity price(s) exchange rates, transportation and treatment charges, penalties, net smelter returns, etc. • The derivation of assumptions made of metal or commodity price(s), for the principal metals, minerals and co-products.	No Ore Reserve being reported
*Market* *assessment*	• The demand, supply and stock situation for the particular commodity, consumption trends and factors likely to affect supply and demand into the future. • A customer and competitor analysis along with the identification of likely market windows for the product. • Price and volume forecasts and the basis for these forecasts. • For industrial minerals the customer specification, testing and acceptance requirements prior to a supply contract.	No Ore Reserve being reported
*Economic*	• The inputs to the economic analysis to produce the net present value (NPV) in the study, the source and confidence of these economic inputs including estimated inflation, discount rate, etc. • NPV ranges and sensitivity to variations in the significant assumptions and inputs.	No Ore Reserve being reported
*Social*	• The status of agreements with key stakeholders and matters leading to social licence to operate.	No Ore Reserve being reported
*Other*	• To the extent relevant, the impact of the following on the project and/or on the estimation	No Ore Reserve being reported

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	and classification of the Ore Reserves: • Any identified material naturally occurring risks. • The status of material legal agreements and marketing arrangements. • The status of governmental agreements and approvals critical to the viability of the project, such as mineral tenement status, and government and statutory approvals. There must be reasonable grounds to expect that all necessary Government approvals will be received within the timeframes anticipated in the Pre-Feasibility or Feasibility study. Highlight and discuss the materiality of any unresolved matter that is dependent on a thirdparty on which extraction of the reserve is contingent.
*Classification*	• The basis for the classification of the Ore Reserves into varying confidence categories. • Whether the result appropriately reflects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit. • The proportion of Probable Ore Reserves that have been derived from Measured Mineral _Resources(if any). _	No Ore Reserve being reported
*Audits* or *reviews*	• The results of any audits or reviews of Ore Reserve estimates.	No Ore Reserve being reported
*Discussion* of *relative* *accuracy/* *confidence*	• Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and confidence level in the Ore Reserve estimate using an approach or procedure deemed appropriate by the Competent Person. For example, the application of statistical or geostatistical procedures to quantify the relative accuracy of the reserve within stated confidence limits, or, if such an approach is not deemed appropriate, a qualitative discussion of the factors which could affect the relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate. • The statement should specify whether it relates to global or local estimates, and, if local, state the relevant tonnages, which should be relevant to technical and economic evaluation. Documentation should include assumptions made and the procedures used. • Accuracy and confidence discussions should extend to specific discussions of any applied Modifying Factors that may have a material impact on Ore Reserve viability, or for which there are remaining areas of uncertainty at the current study stage. • It is recognised that this may not be possible or appropriate in all circumstances. These statements of relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate should be compared with production data, where available.	No Ore Reserve being reported

AI assistant

CAPRICORN METALS LTD Capital/Financing Update 2023

64670_rns_2023-12-14_2fd568a2-1838-46e8-a1ee-40a896b92d99.pdf

ASX ANNOUNCEMENT

ASX: CMM

HIGHLIGHTS

Resource

Project Update

Updated Mineral Resource Estimate

Mineral Resource Estimate

Potential for Further Resource and Reserve Growth

Emergence of Underground Potential

Recent Drilling Results

Received after cut-off date for Resource Estimate (ie not included in MRE)

Included in Resource Estimate Database

Project Update

Capricorn Executive Chairman Mark Clark commented:

Mineral Resource Estimation Methodology and Data

Drilling Techniques

Sampling and Sub-Sampling Techniques

Capricorn Drilling

Historical Drilling

Sample Analysis Method

Estimation Methodology

Resource Classification Criteria

Mining and Metallurgical Methods and Parameters

Forward Looking Statements

Competent Persons Statement

Appendix 1 – Significant Results

Appendix 2 JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results

Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources

AI assistant

CAPRICORN METALS LTD — Capital/Financing Update 2023

64670_rns_2023-12-14_2fd568a2-1838-46e8-a1ee-40a896b92d99.pdf

ASX ANNOUNCEMENT

ASX: CMM

HIGHLIGHTS

Resource

Project Update

Updated Mineral Resource Estimate

Mineral Resource Estimate

Potential for Further Resource and Reserve Growth

Emergence of Underground Potential

Recent Drilling Results

Received after cut-off date for Resource Estimate (ie not included in MRE)

Included in Resource Estimate Database

Project Update

Capricorn Executive Chairman Mark Clark commented:

Mineral Resource Estimation Methodology and Data

Drilling Techniques

Sampling and Sub-Sampling Techniques

Capricorn Drilling

Historical Drilling

Sample Analysis Method

Estimation Methodology

Resource Classification Criteria

Mining and Metallurgical Methods and Parameters

Forward Looking Statements

Competent Persons Statement

Appendix 1 – Significant Results

Appendix 2 JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results

Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources

More from CAPRICORN METALS LTD

CAPRICORN METALS LTD Capital/Financing Update 2023