CARNABY RESOURCES LIMITED — Capital/Financing Update 2017

Jul 6, 2017

ASX Announcement 7 July 2017

==> picture [69 x 87] intentionally omitted <==

Swedish Project Area Expanded; High Grade Cobalt & Base Metals

Highlights

• Gladhammar and Tunaberg licence areas in Sweden significantly expanded to 56km[2] (5,573ha)

• Recent Berkut sampling at Gladhammar returned up to 0.24% cobalt and 3.9% copper

• High grade base metal intersections identified in historical drilling:

• 7.8% copper over 1.95m at Gladhammar (GLA1005, 1.95m from 103.12m)

Fast Facts

Shares on Issue: 47.3M Market Cap: ~$8.0M Cash (current): ~$4.2M

Board and Management Neil Inwood, Managing Director Justin Tremain, Non-Exec Chairman Paul Payne, Non-Exec Director

Ben Cairns, General Manager Aaron Bertolatti, Company Secretary

• 9.9% zinc and 2.3% lead at Tunaberg (TUN005, 0.4m from 86.9m)

• High grade base metal intercepts not assayed for cobalt

• Applications lodged at Gladhammar of 36km[2] (3,589ha) cover interpreted highly prospective quartzite contact, magnetic anomalies and historic workings

• Field work underway at Skuterud Project in Norway in preparation for maiden drilling later in the year

Berkut Minerals Ltd (Berkut) is pleased to announce that the first of multiple applications lodged by Berkut to expand the Gladhammar Project area (Figure 1) has been approved. Both the Gladhammar and Tunaberg Projects are located at the south-eastern end of the Southern Bergslagen Metallogenic zone, approximately 100km and 200km respectively south-west of Stockholm. The granted and applied for licence areas in Sweden now stand at 56km[2] .

Berkut has identified historical drilling and assay data from both the Gladhammar and Tunaberg properties which include:

Company Highlights

• 100% ownership of European cobalt projects in Norway and Sweden

• Historic mined cobalt grades up to 2%

• Combined Norwegian and Swedish ground position of approx. 55.7km[2] (5573ha) covering historic cobalt mine workings and base metals

• Strategically located within proximity to operating cobalt refineries and European markets

• Tight capital structure | Only 31.1M non-escrowed shares

• Well funded | Strong cash position

• Gladhammar: 0.21% cobalt (GLA0509, 1m from 86m) and up to 7.8% copper at (GLA005, 1.95m from 103.12m – see Table 1);

• Tunaberg: 9.9% zinc and 2.3% lead (TUN005, 0.4m from 86.9m – see Table 3).

This historic drilling was not targeted towards cobalt mineralisation and the Tunaberg drilling was not assayed for cobalt by previous workers.

Registered Office 78 Churchill Avenue Subiaco Western Australia 6008 T: +61 8 9320 2320 F: +61 8 9321 3909

www.berkutminerals.com.au

1

==> picture [474 x 151] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [474 x 152] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 1 - Scandinavian Project Locations

About Gladhammar and Tunaberg

The Gladhammar and Tunaberg Projects are centred around historic mines. Iron ore mines opened at Gladhammar in the 16[th] century, with copper ore being mined from the 17[th] century and cobalt from the 18[th] century, continuing intermittently until 1892. At Tunaberg, cobalt and copper mining have been undertaken intermittently from the 15[th] to 18[th] centuries. The company focus in both of these areas is on the strike extensions or repeats to the historic mining zones.

Gladhammar

Berkut recently undertook a reconnaissance field visit to Gladhammar which included a review of historic data held by the Swedish Geological Survey at their Malä archives. This review revealed that drilling undertaken by a previous explorer also included a number of diamond drill holes in the current Berkut licence, Gladhammar nr 201. Seven diamond drill holes were completed within the Gladhammar nr 201 licence (Table 1), principally targeting gold mineralisation. Two of these holes encountered potential extensions to historic cobalt mineralisation and returned up to 0.21% cobalt (GLA0509, 1m from 86m) and up to 7.8% copper at (GLA005, 1.95m from 103.12m) (Figure 6).

Based upon Burkut’s recent field review, the diamond holes near historic workings were not optimally sited and whilst they were weakly anomalous in cobalt and copper it appears that narrow high grade gold mineralisation appears to have been the target. Several of these zones were inspected in the Swedish Geological Survey (SGU) core library in Malä and a hand held XRF device was used to validate the tenor of the reported analytical results (refer Figure 2 below).

==> picture [596 x 31] intentionally omitted <==

2

==> picture [426 x 321] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 2 – Bornite and chalcocite copper mineralisation in historical core from Gladhammar Project Spot hand held XRF reading in background (XRF reading is a point measurement and does not represent an average grade of the sample). This interval assayed 16.8% copper over 76cm (GLA1005 from 103.12m)

Airborne geophysical data recently acquired and re-processed by Berkut (200m line spacing 30m sensor height) highlights a strong magnetic feature associated with the historic mineralisation which strikes WNW-ESE through the Gladhammar Project area. Reconnaissance mapping undertaken by Berkut confirms a strong association with magnetite bearing quartzite and high-grade cobalt mineralisation. Magnetite bearing ore analysed with a hand held XRF (point sample only) returned 0.59% cobalt and 3.17% copper with low arsenic (refer Figure 4). This linear magnetic feature will provide a focus to Berkut’s exploration activities within the Gladhammar Project area.

Field samples were collected from both insitu outcrop and from spoil from historic mining operations. Assay samples were generated from a composite of material with identified mineralisation or associated features. Samples were prepared by ALS Chemex at their Pitea facility and assayed by at the ALS assay hub in Ireland. Assay methodology is referred to in the accompanying JORC table. Samples were located using hand held GPS.

==> picture [596 x 31] intentionally omitted <==

3

==> picture [54 x 69] intentionally omitted <==

Table 1: Gladhammar Project Significant Intercepts from Historical Drilling (> 0.2% Co, or >0.5% Cu/Pb/Zn)

Table 1: Gladhammar Project Significant Intercepts from Historical Drilling (> 0.2% Co, or >0.5% Cu/Pb/Zn)	Table 1: Gladhammar Project Significant Intercepts from Historical Drilling (> 0.2% Co, or >0.5% Cu/Pb/Zn)	Table 1: Gladhammar Project Significant Intercepts from Historical Drilling (> 0.2% Co, or >0.5% Cu/Pb/Zn)	Table 1: Gladhammar Project Significant Intercepts from Historical Drilling (> 0.2% Co, or >0.5% Cu/Pb/Zn)	Table 1: Gladhammar Project Significant Intercepts from Historical Drilling (> 0.2% Co, or >0.5% Cu/Pb/Zn)	Table 1: Gladhammar Project Significant Intercepts from Historical Drilling (> 0.2% Co, or >0.5% Cu/Pb/Zn)	Table 1: Gladhammar Project Significant Intercepts from Historical Drilling (> 0.2% Co, or >0.5% Cu/Pb/Zn)	Table 1: Gladhammar Project Significant Intercepts from Historical Drilling (> 0.2% Co, or >0.5% Cu/Pb/Zn)	Table 1: Gladhammar Project Significant Intercepts from Historical Drilling (> 0.2% Co, or >0.5% Cu/Pb/Zn)	Table 1: Gladhammar Project Significant Intercepts from Historical Drilling (> 0.2% Co, or >0.5% Cu/Pb/Zn)	Table 1: Gladhammar Project Significant Intercepts from Historical Drilling (> 0.2% Co, or >0.5% Cu/Pb/Zn)	Table 1: Gladhammar Project Significant Intercepts from Historical Drilling (> 0.2% Co, or >0.5% Cu/Pb/Zn)	Table 1: Gladhammar Project Significant Intercepts from Historical Drilling (> 0.2% Co, or >0.5% Cu/Pb/Zn)	Table 1: Gladhammar Project Significant Intercepts from Historical Drilling (> 0.2% Co, or >0.5% Cu/Pb/Zn)	Table 1: Gladhammar Project Significant Intercepts from Historical Drilling (> 0.2% Co, or >0.5% Cu/Pb/Zn)	Table 1: Gladhammar Project Significant Intercepts from Historical Drilling (> 0.2% Co, or >0.5% Cu/Pb/Zn)	Table 1: Gladhammar Project Significant Intercepts from Historical Drilling (> 0.2% Co, or >0.5% Cu/Pb/Zn)	Table 1: Gladhammar Project Significant Intercepts from Historical Drilling (> 0.2% Co, or >0.5% Cu/Pb/Zn)	Table 1: Gladhammar Project Significant Intercepts from Historical Drilling (> 0.2% Co, or >0.5% Cu/Pb/Zn)
Hole Id	Easting (SWERF 99)	Northing (SWERF 99)	RL	Max. Depth		Dip	Azimuth		From		Length		Co %	Cu %		Au g/t	Ag g/t	Comments
GLA0509	1,536,959	6,399,670	91	221.6		‐50	200		186		1		0.21	0.56		0.21	10	Did not intersect main cobalt trend
GLA0510	1,536,624	6,399,930	91	179.4		‐50	200				No significant intercepts							Field investigations indicates not drilled in optimal trendposition
GLA0511	1,536,722	6,399,875	85	69.2		‐50	200				No significant intercepts							Field investigations indicates not drilled in optimal trendposition
GLA1005	1,537,140	6,399,366	82	219.5		‐50	34		100		8		0.05	2.8		0.2	8	Did not intersect main cobalt trend
				including					103.12		1.95		0.08	7.8		0.2	13	Bornite and chalcocite rich zone ‐ east of cobalt trend
GLA1006	1,537,086	6,399,271	80	347.8		‐50	32				No significant intercepts							Did not intersect main cobalt trend
GLA1007	1,536,948	6,399,378	71	289.0		‐49	37				No significant intercepts							Did not intersect main cobalt trend
GLA1008	1,536,840	6,399,384	67	330.5		‐48	27				No significant intercepts							Did not intersect main cobalt trend
Downhole lengths stated, relationship to true mineralisation width is not known.
					Table 2: Gladhammar Rock Field										Samples
Sample ID	Easting (SWERF 99)	Northing (SWERF 99)	RL		Co %			Cu (%)		Au (g/t)		Ag (g/t)						Comments
GLA001	584,903	6,398,403	‐		0.24			0.22		0.08		5			Waste spoilgrab sample
GLA002	584,487	6,398,726	‐		0.004			1.01		0.60		18			Waste spoilgrab sample
GLA003	584,340	6,398,576	‐		0.013			0.03		0.34		6			Waste spoilgrab sample
GLA004	584,340	6,398,576	‐		0.0005			3.86		0.28		6			Waste spoilgrab sample
GLA005	583,773	6,400,312	‐		0.002			0.03		0.03		1			Rail cutting– alongregional magnetic/cobalt trend
GLA006	583,771	6,400,310	‐		0.002			0.02		0.03		0			Rail cutting– alongregional magnetic/cobalt trend
GLA007	583,764	6,400,307	‐		0.003			0.03		0.32		1			Rail cutting– alongregional magnetic/cobalt trend
GLA008	586,566	6,398,543	‐		0.002			0.001		<0.001		0			Waste spoilgrab sample
GLA009	586,536	6,398,564	‐		0.002			0.003		<0.001		0			Waste spoilgrab sample

==> picture [842 x 30] intentionally omitted <==

4

==> picture [341 x 256] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3 - Magnetite bearing ore from the Gladhammar Project area, hand held XRF point sample, cobalt 0.59% and copper 3.17% (note low arsenic of 0.065%).

==> picture [493 x 183] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [493 x 183] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 4 - Gladhammar local geology and interpreted magnetic trends. Red stars indicate known cobalt occurrences.

==> picture [596 x 31] intentionally omitted <==

5

Tunaberg

Field investigation has identified historic diamond drilling within the Tunaberg Project area. This drilling was undertaken by Boliden and BHP in 1948 to 1996 respectively, targeting base metals (lead, zinc and silver) and drill samples were not assayed for cobalt. Berkut is in the process of identifying the core from some of these historical holes located in the SGU core archives in Malä for possible assaying for cobalt..

Numerous workings were located within the Tunaberg Project area clustered on an interpreted synformal fold hinge in which skarn style mineralisation was noted. The previous base metal focus of past explorers presents Berkut with an opportunity to effectively explore the Tunaberg region for cobalt mineralisation from a grass roots level, with the advantage of additional geochemical vectors.

Field reconnaissance has indicated the project area is amenable to outcrop mapping and surface geochemistry, having only limited occurrences of glacial till, and this will form the first stage of exploration at the project. Work programs going forward will focus initially on regional targeting using the historical drilling results, surface geochemistry and ground geophysics during the summer and autumn, with drill targets to be generated for the winter drilling season.

==> picture [540 x 98] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [540 x 97] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [540 x 97] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [540 x 98] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 5 - Tunaberg Project -

==> picture [596 x 31] intentionally omitted <==

6

Corporate Update

With the recent appointment of Mr Neil Inwood as Managing Director, Mr Ben Cairns has moved from the role of CEO to General Manager Geology.

Competent Persons Statement

‐ The information in this document that relates to exploration results is based upon information compiled by Mr Ben Cairns, a full time employee and shareholder of Berkut Minerals Limited. Mr Cairns is a Member of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists (AIG) and has sufficient experience which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity which he is undertaking to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the December 2012 edition of the “Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves” (JORC Code). Mr Cairns consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based upon the information in the form and context in which it appears.

==> picture [596 x 31] intentionally omitted <==

7

==> picture [540 x 100] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [540 x 101] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [540 x 101] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [540 x 100] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 6 - Gladhammar geology with historic cobalt drill locations

==> picture [596 x 31] intentionally omitted <==

8

==> picture [54 x 69] intentionally omitted <==

			Table 3: Tunaberg Project
			Significant Intercepts from Historical Drilling (>0.5% Cu/Pb/Zn)
Hole Id	Easting (SWERF 99)	Northing (SWERF 99)	Max. Depth	Dip	Azimuth	From	Length	**Aug/t **	**Ag g/t **	Cu %	Pb %	Zn %	Comments
TUN001	606,911	6,501.887	81.71	‐50	180	9.76	1.77	0.54	21.2	0.01	0.98	1.40	Interval not closed
						21.48	3.57	NSR	2.68	NSR	0.03	1.41	Interval not closed
TUN002	607,842	6,502,725	78.46	‐45	180	17.04	5	‐	4	‐	0.18	1.28	Interval not closed
						54.41	1.74	‐	3	‐	‐	1.15	Interval not closed
TUN003	607,878	6,502,811	99.57	‐45	180	17.03	1.17	0.6	15	0.03	0.61	5.48	Interval not closed
						44.00	0.2	‐	4	‐	‐	8.67	Interval not closed
						62.04	2.69	0.8	79	NSR	6.89	1.46	Interval not closed
						85.20	0.38	0.6	51	‐	2.92	2.37	Interval not closed
TUN004	607,850	6,502,965	120.18	‐45	180	14.17	0.9	‐	2	‐	0.88	1.38	Interval not closed
						52.40	0.41	‐	2	‐	‐	1.38	Intervalpartlyclosed
						56.55	0.6	‐	1	‐	‐	6.42	Intervalpartlyclosed
TUN005	607,759	6,502,781	97.13	‐50	115	86.90	0.4	0.5	‐	‐	2.34	9.87
TUN006	607,926	6,502,849	97.67	‐50	135	29.21	0.17	‐	2	‐	0.08	5.36	Interval not closed
TUN007	607,399	6,502,763	105.78	‐50	135	24.32	0.35	0.2	13	‐	0.58	‐	Interval not closed
						26.74	1.94	0.1	5	‐	0.60	‐	Interval not closed
						54.94	0.39	0.2	16	‐	1.79	‐	Interval not closed
TUN008	607,290	6,502,538	99.38	‐50	135								No assaysheets available
TUN009	607,690	6,502,790	104.80	‐50	120	60.06	0.75	0.4	28	‐	1.59	‐	Interval not closed
TUN010	Unknown	Unknown											No assaysheets available
TUN011	Unknown	Unknown				80.26	1.86	‐	8	‐	0.95	1.64	Interval not closed
TUN012	607,898	6,502,811	83.06	‐60	160	3.47	1.45	‐	3	‐	0.39	4.50	Interval not closed
						10.5	2.02	‐	1	‐	0.05	6.44	Interval not closed
						21.50	0.15	‐	48	‐	3.00	3.49	Interval not closed
						44.59	0.21	‐	11	‐	0.23	3.40	Interval not closed
						64.09	0.1	0.1	8	‐	0.05	13.00	Interval not closed
TUN013	607917	6,502,832	90.34	‐60	160	41.56	0.35	‐	2	‐	0.07	4.52	Interval not closed
						62.82	0.58	‐	6	‐	0.12	4.80	Interval not closed
						80.51	0.7	0.15	14	‐	0.29	1.51	Interval not closed
TUN014	607,629	6,502,887	102.35	‐60	160	7.66	9.76	‐	7	‐	1.09	1.64	Interval not closed
					including	7.66	4.86	0.04	8	‐	1.13	2.96
				and including		7.66	2.07	0.04	18	‐	1.64	4.46

==> picture [842 x 30] intentionally omitted <==

9

==> picture [54 x 69] intentionally omitted <==

			Table 3: Tunaberg Project
			Significant Intercepts from Historical Drilling (>0.5% Cu/Pb/Zn)
Hole Id	Easting (SWERF 99)	Northing (SWERF 99)	Max. Depth	Dip	Azimuth	From	Length	**Aug/t **	**Ag g/t **	Cu %	Pb %	Zn %	Comments
TUN015	607,672	6,502,890	81.72	‐60	160	19.71	1.29	0.3	32		0.64	4.07
						24.82	0.72	0.1	14		0.23	2.07
						59.21	0.48	0.3	32		0.64	4.07	Interval not closed
						61.27	0.52	0.1	14		0.23	2.07	Interval not closed
T1D1	Unknown	Unknown											No assaysheets available
TBD1	6,503,325	6,502,364	148.3	‐70	150								No assaysheets available
TBD2	6,503,247	6,502,286	287	‐80	0								No assaysheets available
T6D1	6,503,378	6,502,426	200.1	‐60	180	78.00	34	na	na	0.05	0.15	0.94
Tun‐01	6,503,870	6,502,924	147.1	‐45	150								No assaysheets available
Tun‐02	6,503,880	6,502,929	170	‐75	150	44	2	na	na	0.01	0.33	0.77
						70	2	na	na	0.01	0.08	0.51
TUN‐3	6,503,729	6,502,775		‐45	330	18	2	na	na	0.02	0.23	0.88
						40	4	na	na	0.02	0.55	0.77
TUN‐4	6,503,750	6,502,792		‐45	330	21	2	na	na	0.02	0.93	0.17
						29	2	na	na	0.01	0.22	0.69	not sampledpast 31m
Tun‐5b	6,502,940	6,501,975	100	‐70	150								No assaysheets available
Tun‐6	6,503,196	6,502,232	150	‐70	330			No significant intercepts
Tun‐07	6,502,361	6,501,389	128.4	‐60	150	64	2	na	na	0.01	0.06	1.76
						112	6	na	na	0.02	1.02	1.07
Tun‐09	6,501,295	6,500,353	150.65	‐45	360			No significant intercepts
TUN‐10	6,501,569	6,500,636	150	‐45	360								No assaysheets available
TUN‐12	6,502,125	6,501,219	150.15	‐45	180	122	4	na	na	0.03	0.10	0.92
Na – not analysed for element. Interval not closed – Historical workers did not sample either side of the Downhole lengths stated,relationshipto true mineralisation width is not known.									analysed interval. Elevation not given in original records. ‘‐‘indicates no assay.

==> picture [842 x 30] intentionally omitted <==

10

Appendix One | JORC Code, 2012 Edition | ‘Table 1’ Report

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.	 Where reporting historical assay grades or quantities this ASX Release refers to historical drilling records from the Swedish Geological Survey  Berkut undertook field investigations to confirm collar locations where possible in June 2017.  A hand held XRF machine (Niton XL3t) was used to take spot readings of hand samples. Multiple readings were taken on the best exposed sample face to assist in minimising sampling bias. The hand held device was calibrated using commercially available certified reference material  Hand samples collected as composite samples from within 5m of the recorded sample location. Samples were selected based on mineralogy.
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).	 Diamond drilling was used on both the Gladhammar and Tunaberg projects. The core diameter at Tunaberg was 46mm (~NQ) and is nominally BQ in size at Gladhammar. It is unknown at this stage if orientation surveys were undertaken .
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.	 The results relate to historical sampling results. Drill recoveries were not recorded at either project.  It is not possibel to confirm the relationship bewteen sample recovery and grade. Visual observation of select Gladhammar core indicates generally good core recovery.
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.	 The Gladhammar core was sampled appropriately for potential resource estimation. The Tunaberg core was sampled by reputable companies at the time of drilling. Assay inetrvals were selected based on interpreted geology.  The core was logged in full.
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.  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 beingsampled.	 Diamond drill results were based upon ½ core samples for Gladhammar. The results from Tunaberg are believed to have been from ½ core; however detailed records are not availabel to confirm this.
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,theparameters used in determiningthe analysis including	 The Gladhammar core was analysed by ALS Chemex, ME- ICP41 for multi-elements and lead collection fire assay with AAS finish for gold. Tunaberg core collected by BHP was assayed by reputable commercial laboratories (SGS and

==> picture [596 x 31] intentionally omitted <==

11

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	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.	Chemex). It is unknown which laboratory assayed the 1940’s era Tunaberg core.  It is unknown what QAQC procedures were used for the historical assaying.  Berkut hand samples were prepared at the ALS Chemex faciity in Pitea and assayed at the ALS assay hub in Ireland. Determination was undertaken with a mixed four acid digest ICP-MS finish. Gold was determined lead collection fire assay.
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 anyadjustment to assaydata.	 Historical sampling and assay verification processes are unknown. Berkut used a handheld XRF to spot analyse select core intervals from Gladhammar at the Malä archives; with empirically equivalent base metal results noted with respect to the documented assays.
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.	 Drill holes and rock samples were recorded against the SWERF99 grid system.  Only national based topographic control (~5m accuracy) has been used to date.  The historical downhole oientation systems used are unknown.  
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.	 The Gladhammar historical diamond core holes primarly targeted gold mineralisation and may not reflect the cobalt potential of the targeted area. Drill hole spacing was in the order of 100’s of metres to > 1km.  Drill hole spacing at the Tunaberg deposit was in the range of 100’s of m to > 1lkm. A regular drill grid does not appear to have been used.  Berkut obtained select spoil samples from the base of historical workings. They indicate the style of mineralisation present but are not indicative of mineralsation thickness or continuity.
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.	 The orientation of the drilling is understood, but not verified and generally appears to have been across mineralisation.
Sample security	 The measures taken to ensure sample security.	 Sample security for the historic samples is unknown.
Audits or reviews	 The results of any audits or reviews of  sampling techniques and data.	 No audits or reviews of the historical sampling was identified. Berkut checked several drill holes from the Gladhammar prospect for geology, mineralisation tenor (utilising a hand-held XRF), sample interval, and core recovery. No material issues were identified.

==> picture [596 x 31] intentionally omitted <==

12

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results

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

Criteria	Explanation	Commentary
Mineral tenement and land tenure status	 Type, reference name/number, location and ownership including	 The licences are held 100% either direclty by Berkut or through its 100% owned subsidiary Kobald Mineral Holdings Pty Ltd.  The granted licences at Gladhammar are Gladhammar nr 201 and Gladhammar nr 202, Gladhammar nr 203 to 205 are still in application.,  The Tunaberg licences are Tunaberg nr 201 and Tunaberg nr 202. There are no current material impediments to immediate exploration mapping and field sampling operations. The immediate vicinity of the historical Tunaberg mining centre within Tunaberg nr 201, is an established tourist destination and not suitable for exploration activities; however the expanded tenement position is considered prospective and explorable for both cobalt and base metal mineralisation.  It is noted that if mining operations commence at the small mining licence within Gladhammar nr 201 , then a 1km buffer zone will come into effect around the mining concession. Given the age of the mining concession this does not limit exploration activities however should Berkut decide to convert the exploration licence to a mining concession at a later date the buffer zone around the pre-exisiting concession will be considered.. There is communication infrastructure adjacent to the centre of Gladhammar nr-201, which may impact the approval of anyfuture miningaplications in the immediate area..
	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.
Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties.	 Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties.	 The company is in the process of assessing exploration by other parties by compiling and assessing historical records. The Gladhammar area has been explored by Wiking Minerals, which established a small, low grade, gold resource within the small excised mining lease within Gladhammar nr 201
Geology	 Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation.	 Both the Tunaberg and Gladhammar districts in Sweden contain historic, cobalt-dominant mine workings from the 15th to 19th centuries. Tunaberg was mined for copper from the 15th century and cobalt from the 18th century. The mineralisation type is Co-Cu and Cu-Co skarns, hosted in an Early Proterozoic metatuffite formation with intercalated skarn-altered marbles. Gladhammar was mined for cobalt and copper from the 16th to 19th centuries. Mineralisation consists mainly of cobaltite, chalcopyrite, pyrite and magnetite within sheared quartzites.
Drill hole Information	 A summary of all information material to the understanding of the	 See tables included in this announcement
	exploration results including a tabulation of the following information for all Material drill holes:  easting and northing of the drill hole collar  elevation or RL (Reduced Level – elevation above sea level in metres) of the drill hole collar  dip and azimuth of the hole  down hole length and interception depth  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 clearlyexplain whythis is the case.
Data aggregation methods	 In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging techniques, maximum and/or minimum grade truncations (eg cutting of high	 Results have been quoted above a nominal 0.5% base metal grade threshold. Intervals were averaged using length-weighted averaging.

==> picture [596 x 31] intentionally omitted <==

13

Criteria	Explanation	Commentary
	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 clearlystated.
Relationship between mineralisation widths and intercept lengths	 These relationships are particularly important in the reporting of	 Due to the unknown relationship between the drillhole orientation and mineralisation trend, downhole lengths, and not true widths are stated.
	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’).
Diagrams	 Appropriate maps and sections (with scales) and tabulations of	 Included in body of report as deemed appropriate by the competent person for the stage of exploration the company is currently at.
	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.
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 known significant assay results have been tabulated. Holes with no significant assays have been noted.
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 contaminatingsubstances.	 Meaningful observations are included in the body of the 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.	 The company plans to compile historic production records and exploration results from the projects and then carry out geological mapping and sampling  The company is in early stages of assessment of the project and is not in a position to provide detailed diagrams showing potential extensions at this time.

==> picture [596 x 31] intentionally omitted <==

14