CHALICE MINING LIMITED — Capital/Financing Update 2022

Dec 7, 2022

ASX Announcement

8 December 2022

Promising new sulphide mineralisation at the Hooley Prospect

New intersections from reconnaissance drilling ~5km north of the Gonneville Resource highlight the prospectivity of the >30km long Julimar Complex

==> picture [493 x 25] intentionally omitted <==

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

Highlights
----- End of picture text -----

• « Significant PGE-dominant sulphide mineralisation intersected in initial drilling at the greenfield Hooley Prospect, ~5km north of the current Gonneville Resource at the 100%-owned Julimar NiCu-PGE Project in WA.

• « Sulphide mineralisation intersected in all five reconnaissance holes from three drill sites over ~1.8km of strike length , with significant assay results including[1] :

• « 69m @ 0.9g/t 3E[2] , 0.1% Ni, 0.1% Cu, 0.01% Co (0.6% NiEq) from 312m (HD050), incl:

  • « 3.4m @ 11.5g/t 3E , 0.1% Ni, 0.2% Cu, 0.01% Co ( 4.0% NiEq ) from 370.6m; and

  • « 4.4m @ 0.5g/t 3E, 0.3% Ni, 0.2% Cu, 0.03% Co ( 0.7% NiEq ) from 317m.

• « 40m @ 1.6g/t 3E , 0.2% Ni, 0.2% Cu, 0.02% Co ( 0.9% NiEq ) from 142m (HD055), incl: « 28m @ 2.1g/t 3E , 0.2% Ni, 0.3% Cu , 0.02% Co ( 1.1% NiEq ) from 151m.

• « 14m @ 1.2g/t 3E , 0.1% Ni, 0.1% Cu, 0.01% Co ( 0.6% NiEq ) from 224m (HD055), incl: « 5.3m @ 1.9g/t 3E , 0.2% Ni, 0.2% Cu, 0.02% Co ( 1.0% NiEq ) from 225m.

• « 12m @ 1.2g/t 3E , 0.1% Ni, 0.1% Cu, 0.01% Co ( 0.6% NiEq ) from 283m (HD050), incl:

  • « 6m @ 1.8g/t 3E , 0.1% Ni, 0.2% Cu, 0.01% Co ( 0.9% NiEq ) from 283m (HD050).

• « 5.7m @ 1.1g/t 3E , 0.1% Ni, 0.2% Cu, 0.01% Co ( 0.7% NiEq ) from 255.3m (HD047), incl:

  • « 3.7m @ 1.3g/t 3E , 0.2% Ni, 0.2% Cu, 0.01% Co ( 0.8% NiEq ) from 255.3m.

• « Assays are pending for a further nine holes and downhole EM is currently underway, after which a more definitive interpretation can be made regarding the scale and significance of the newlydiscovered mineralisation.

• « The mineralised intervals have varying precious metal ratios and assays are pending for all other PGEs (rhodium, iridium and osmium).

• « Whilst the geology and mineralisation at Hooley is quite variable, the high-grade mineralisation encountered so far in initial reconnaissance drilling is considered highly encouraging and highlights the prospectivity of this section of the Julimar Complex .

• « Wide-spaced reconnaissance and step-out drilling is continuing at the Hooley, Dampier and Hartog Prospects over ~10km of strike length.

1 Holes were drilled from restricted sites and hence true width is estimated at 70-90% of downhole width. 2 3E = Palladium (Pd) + Platinum (Pt) + Gold (Au).

Registered Office ABN 47 116 648 956

Level 3, 46 Colin Street, West Perth WA 6005, Australia PO Box 428, West Perth WA 6872

info@chalicemining.com @chalicemining www.chalicemining.com chalice-mining

T: +61 8 9322 3960

Overview

Chalice Mining Limited (“Chalice” or “the Company”, ASX: CHN | OTCQB: CGMLF) is pleased to provide an update on exploration activities at its 100%-owned Julimar Nickel-Copper-Platinum Group Element (PGE) Project , located ~70km north-east of Perth in Western Australia.

Exploration activities are continuing across the >30km long Julimar Complex, with two diamond drill rigs currently drilling across the ~10km long Hartog-Baudin strike length and four rigs continuing resource drilling at the Gonneville PGE-Ni-Cu-Co-Au Deposit – current Mineral Resource Estimate (Resource) of 350Mt @ 0.96g/t 3E, 0.16% Ni, 0.10% Cu, 0.015% Co (~0.58% NiEq or ~1.8g/t PdEq)[3] .

Reconnaissance drilling has intersected sulphide mineralisation in all holes drilled into the Julimar Complex to date over a strike length of ~10km. Several wide-spaced holes drilled at the Hooley Prospect, located ~5km north of Gonneville, have intersected PGE-dominant sulphide mineralisation, which is considered a highly encouraging early result.

The host intrusion at Hooley has similar mafic to ultramafic geology and litho-geochemistry to Gonneville and, on this basis, it is inferred to be a continuation of the ‘chonolith’-like Julimar Complex.

Wide-spaced reconnaissance and step-out drilling is continuing at the Hartog, Hooley and Dampier Prospects over a strike length of ~10km. Several large (~5km) sections of the Julimar Complex strike length remain untested between these areas.

Drilling to date supports the interpretation of the Gonneville Intrusion (and the broader Julimar Complex) as having a rare chonolith-like geometry, which is similar to other major ultramafic-mafic orthomagmatic systems worldwide that host some of the world’s largest nickel-copper+/-PGE deposits, including Norilsk-Talnakh and Jinchuan (Barnes et al, 2016[4] ).

Chalice’s strategy at Julimar is to advance development studies and regulatory approvals for a potential mine at Gonneville (on Chalice-owned farmland), in parallel with ongoing exploration activities across the full >30km extent of the Julimar Complex.

Exploration will continue along the Complex targeting extensions to known mineralised zones as well as potential new shallow high-grade zones. It is also possible that different styles of mineralisation (or higher-grade mineralisation) could be intersected along the complex, potentially contributing to the significant long-term value-creation that a world-class mineral district can create.

Chalice's ongoing exploration drilling program in the Julimar State Forest is utilising specialist diamond drill rigs with a small footprint and does not involve any mechanised clearing of vegetation or excavation. Comprehensive flora, fauna and cultural heritage surveys and monitoring are being undertaken according to industry best practice. The low-impact exploration program is strictly governed by a Conservation Management Plan (CMP) approved by the WA Government in late 2021.

Hooley drilling

Reconnaissance exploration drilling along the Julimar Complex has intersected significant PGEnickel-copper-cobalt-gold mineralisation at the Hooley Prospect, located ~5km to the north of the Gonneville Deposit (Figure 1).

Drill holes HD052, HD054 and HD055 were drilled from the same site, while HD050 was drilled along strike from a site ~500m to the north-east. HD047 was drilled from a site ~1.8km along strike of HD055 to the north-east. Significant new drill intersections from these holes include:

• « 40m @ 1.6g/t 3E, 0.2% Ni, 0.2% Cu, 0.02% Co (0.9% NiEq) from 142m (HD055), incl:

3 Refer to the ASX Announcement on 8 July 2022 and Appendix A.

4 Barnes SJ, Cruden A.R, Arndt, A & Saumur, B., 2016. The mineral system approach to magmatic Ni-Cu-PGE sulphide deposits. Ore Geology Reviews 76, 296-316.

2

Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

• « 28m @ 2.1g/t 3E, 0.2% Ni, 0.3% Cu, 0.02% Co (1.1% NiEq) from 151m;

• « 14m @ 1.2g/t 3E, 0.1% Ni, 0.1% Cu, 0.01% Co (0.6% NiEq) from 224m (HD055), incl: « 5.3m @ 1.9g/t 3E, 0.2% Ni, 0.2% Cu, 0.02% Co (1% NiEq) from 225m;

• « 12m @ 1.2g/t 3E, 0.1% Ni, 0.1% Cu, 0.01% Co (0.6% NiEq) from 283m (HD050), incl: « 6m @ 1.8g/t 3E, 0.1% Ni, 0.2% Cu, 0.01% Co (0.9% NiEq) from 283m;

• « 5.7m @ 1.1g/t 3E, 0.1% Ni, 0.2% Cu, 0.01% Co (0.7% NiEq) from 255.3m (HD047), incl: « 3.7m @ 1.3g/t 3E, 0.2% Ni, 0.2% Cu, 0.01% Co (0.8% NiEq) from 255.3m;

• « 69m @ 0.9g/t 3E, 0.1% Ni, 0.1% Cu, 0.01% Co (0.6% NiEq) from 312m (HD050), incl: « 4.4m @ 0.5g/t 3E, 0.3% Ni, 0.2% Cu, 0.03% Co (0.7% NiEq) from 317m; and

• « 3.4m @ 11.5g/t 3E, 0.1% Ni, 0.2% Cu, 0.01% Co (4.0% NiEq) from 370.6m;

• « 4m @ 1.1g/t 3E, 0.2% Ni, 0.2% Cu, 0.02% Co (0.8% NiEq) from 144m (HD052);

• « 2.3m @ 0.8g/t 3E, 0.2% Ni, 0.3% Cu, 0.02% Co (0.7% NiEq) from 168m (HD052);

• « 3.4m @ 1.6g/t 3E, 0.2% Ni, 0.3% Cu, 0.02% Co (1.0% NiEq) from 45.6m (HD054);

• « 3m @ 0.7g/t 3E, 0.2% Ni, 0.3% Cu, 0.02% Co (0.7% NiEq) from 116m (HD054).

==> picture [491 x 437] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 1. South Julimar Complex Plan View – drill holes, geology over airborne magnetics.

3

Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

The PGE-dominant mineralisation at Hooley shows a similar sulphide style and geological setting to that of the Gonneville Deposit, which comprises broad zones of disseminated pyrrhotite +/chalcopyrite +/- pentlandite (1-5%vol sulphides) with localised matrix style sulphides (<30% vol sulphides). The host intrusive has similar mafic to ultramafic geology and litho-geochemistry to the Gonneville intrusion and therefore is inferred to be a continuation of the ‘chonolith’-like Julimar Complex.

Due to drill site access restrictions, several holes have been drilled from each site and therefore not all holes have been drilled orthogonal to the interpreted dip and strike of the mineralisation. The true width of the mineralised zones in these holes is unknown but is likely to be between 70-90% of the downhole width.

HD050 and HD055 are the deepest holes on their respective drill sites and both holes contain a highersulphide content compared with up-dip holes. HD055 also intersected a second zone of weakly mineralised gabbro ~80m below the footwall contact of the Julimar Complex (Figure 2). This intrusive unit has not been intersected in any of the up-dip holes and therefore needs further drilling to understand its significance.

While the results are considered promising, geology and mineralisation is variable between holes completed to date. Results are pending for a further nine holes drilled from these two sites and downhole EM is currently underway in order to refine step-out drilling targets.

==> picture [489 x 337] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 2. Cross section ‘A’ through drill hole HD055 (looking north-east).

Authorised for release by the Disclosure Committee of the Company.

4

Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

For further information please visit www.chalicemining.com or contact:

Corporate Enquiries Media Enquiries Follow our communications Alex Dorsch Nicholas Read LinkedIn: chalice-mining Managing Director & CEO Principal and Managing Director Twitter: @chalicemining Chalice Mining Limited Read Corporate Investor Relations +61 8 9322 3960 +61 8 9388 1474 info@chalicemining.com info@readcorporate.com.au

About the Julimar Nickel-Copper-PGE Project

The 100%-owned Julimar Nickel-Copper-PGE Project is located ~70km north-east of Perth in Western Australia and is surrounded by world-class infrastructure. The Project was staked in early 2018 as part of Chalice’s global search for high-potential nickel sulphide exploration opportunities.

Chalice discovered the Gonneville Deposit in the very first drill hole at the project in March 2020, intersecting shallow high-grade PGE-nickel-copper-cobalt-gold sulphide mineralisation. Gonneville is located on private farmland at the southern end of the newly discovered >30km long Julimar Complex.

In November 2021, Chalice defined a tier-1 scale, pit-constrained maiden Mineral Resource Estimate (Resource) for Gonneville. The maiden Resource confirmed Gonneville is one of the largest recent nickel-copper-PGE sulphide discoveries worldwide, and the largest PGE discovery in Australian history – demonstrating the potential for Julimar to become a strategic, long-life green metals asset.

In July 2022, the Resource for Gonneville was updated to 350Mt @ 0.96g/t 3E, 0.16% Ni, 0.10% Cu, 0.015% Co (~0.58% NiEq or ~1.8g/t PdEq) (refer to ASX Announcement on 8 July 2022 and Appendix A).

The Resource includes a significant higher-grade sulphide component starting from a depth of ~30m, affording the project significant optionality in development and the potential to materially enhance project economics in the initial years of operations.

The Gonneville Resource is interpreted to cover just ~7% of the interpreted Julimar Complex strike length, with initial large scale exploration activities underway over the remaining strike length. As such the region is considered highly prospective for further orthomagmatic Ni-Cu-PGE discoveries.

The majority of the Julimar Complex lies beneath a portion of the Julimar State Forest, a ~29,000ha area administered by the Government of WA under the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. Exploration and mining activities may be permitted within State Forest areas with the concurrence of both the Minister for Environment and Minister for Mines in WA, subject to normal regulatory approval processes.

The Julimar State Forest was the subject of intensive forestry activities until the 1970’s, after which time the area was proposed to be upgraded to a Conservation Park. The proposal has not been progressed, largely because the mineral potential of the area is not sufficiently known and partly because the southern portion of the State Forest is within an existing bauxite mining state agreement (ML 1SA).

Chalice's ongoing exploration drilling program in the Julimar State Forest is utilising specialist diamond drill rigs with a small footprint and does not involve any mechanised clearing of vegetation or excavation. Comprehensive flora, fauna and cultural heritage surveys and monitoring are being undertaken according to industry best practice. The low-impact exploration program is strictly governed by a Conservation Management Plan (CMP) approved by the WA Government in late 2021.

Chalice sees exploration and mining activities within a small portion of the State Forest as an overwhelming net positive to the environment, as the green metals at Julimar play a key role in

Chalice Mining Limited 5

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

enabling decarbonisation technologies, and the vast majority of the ~29,000ha area not impacted by mining could ultimately be upgraded in conservation status.

The significant Julimar discovery has defined the new West Yilgarn Ni-Cu-PGE Province, an almost entirely unexplored mineral province which is interpreted to extend for ~1,200km along the western margin of the Yilgarn Craton. Chalice holds an unrivalled >8,000km2 land position in this exciting new area and is leveraging its competitive ‘first mover’ advantage.

==> picture [483 x 603] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3. Julimar Complex, Gonneville deposit, Project tenure and nearby infrastructure.

6

Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Competent Person’s Statement

The information in this announcement that relates to new Exploration Results in relation to the Julimar Nickel-Copper-PGE Project is based on and fairly represents information and supporting documentation compiled by Mr. Bruce Kendall BSc (Hons), a Competent Person, who is a Member of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists. Mr. Kendall is a full-time employee of the Company as General Manager – Exploration and has sufficient experience that is relevant to the activity being undertaken to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 edition of the Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Minerals Resources and Ore Reserves. Mr Kendall consents to the inclusion in this announcement of all technical statements based on his information in the form and context in which it appears.

The Information in this announcement that relates to prior exploration results for the Julimar Project is extracted from the following ASX announcements:

• « “Seismic Identifies Potential 1.6km Extension of Gonneville” 6 September 2022

• « “Major Northern Extension of Gonneville Intrusion Confirmed”, 19 October 2022

The above announcements are available to view on the Company’s website at www.chalicemining.com. The Company confirms that it is not aware of any new information or data that materially affects the exploration results included in the relevant original market announcement. The Company confirms that the form and context in which the Competent Person’s findings are presented have not been materially modified from the relevant original market announcement.

The Information in this announcement that relates to Mineral Resources has been extracted from the ASX announcement titled “Updated Gonneville Mineral Resource” dated 8 July 2022. This announcement is available to view on the Company’s website at www.chalicemining.com.

The Company confirms that it is not aware of any new information or data that materially affects the information included in the original announcement and that all material assumptions and technical parameters underpinning the estimates in the original release continue to apply and have not materially changed. The Company confirms that the form and context in which the Competent Person’s findings are presented have not been materially modified from the relevant original market announcement. Refer to Appendix A and Appendix B for further information on the Mineral Resource Estimate and metal equivalents.

Forward Looking Statements

This announcement may contain forward-looking statements and forward information, including forward looking statements within the meaning of the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (collectively, forward-looking statements). These forward-looking statements are made as of the date of this announcement and Chalice Mining Limited (the Company) does not intend, and does not assume any obligation, to update these forward-looking statements.

Forward-looking statements relate to future events or future performance and reflect Company management’s expectations or beliefs regarding future events and include, but are not limited to: the impact of the discovery on the Julimar Project’s capital payback; the Company’s strategy and objectives; the realisation of mineral resource estimates; the likelihood of further exploration success; the timing of planned exploration and study activities on the Company’s projects; mineral processing strategy; access to sites for planned drilling activities; and the success of future potential mining operations and the timing of the receipt of exploration results.

In certain cases, forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of words such as, “considered”, “could”, “estimate”, “expected”, “for”, “future”, “inferred”, “is”, “interpretation”, “likely”, “may”, “open”, “optionality”, “plan” or “planned”, “possible”, “potential”, “prospectivity”, “strategy”, “targets” or “targeted”, “will” or variations of such words and phrases or statements that certain actions, events or results may, could, would, might or will be taken, occur or be achieved or the negative of these terms or comparable terminology. By their very nature forward-looking

Chalice Mining Limited 7

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of the Company to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements.

Such factors may include, among others, risks related to actual results of current or planned exploration activities; whether geophysical and geochemical anomalies are related to economic mineralisation or some other feature; whether visually identified mineralisation is confirmed by laboratory assays; obtaining appropriate approvals to undertake exploration activities; metal grades being realised; metallurgical recovery rates being realised; results of planned metallurgical test work including results from other zones not tested yet, scaling up to commercial operations; changes in project parameters as plans continue to be refined; changes in exploration programs and budgets based upon the results of exploration, changes in commodity prices; economic conditions; political and social risks, accidents, labour disputes and other risks of the mining industry; delays or difficulty in obtaining governmental approvals, necessary licences, permits or financing to undertake future mining development activities; changes to the regulatory framework within which Chalice operates or may in the future; movements in the share price of investments and the timing and proceeds realised on future disposals of investments, the impact of the COVID 19 pandemic as well as those factors detailed from time to time in the Company’s interim and annual financial statements, all of which are filed and available for review on the ASX at asx.com.au and OTC Markets at otcmarkets.com.

Although the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual actions, events or results to differ materially from those described in forward-looking statements, there may be other factors that cause actions, events or results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. There can be no assurance that forward-looking statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements.

8

Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Table 1. Significant new drill intersections (Oxide: >0.5g/t Pd, >0.9g/t Pd. Sulphide: >0.3% NiEq, >0.6% NiEq) – Julimar Project.

Hole ID From (m) To (m) Interval (m) Pd (g/t) Pt (g/t) Au (g/t) Ni (%) Cu (%) Co (%) Ni Eq (%)
	Type
HD045 172.0 174.0 2.0 0.42 0.09 0.02 0.12 0.03 0.01 0.35 Sulphide
HD045 226.3 243.6 17.4 0.49 0.11 0.01 0.11 0.10 0.01 0.42 Sulphide
HD045 249.0 252.6 3.6 0.52 0.12 0.02 0.11 0.18 0.01 0.49 Sulphide
HD045 260.2 262.7 2.5 0.53 0.14 0.03 0.09 0.19 0.01 0.51 Sulphide
HD047 255.3 261.0 5.7 0.55 0.23 0.29 0.15 0.18 0.01 0.65 Sulphide
Incl 255.3 259.0 3.7 0.63 0.25 0.42 0.18 0.23 0.01 0.80 Sulphide
HD047 266.0 269.0 3.0 0.14 0.05 0.01 0.09 0.16 0.01 0.31 Sulphide
HD048 51.0 56.0 5.0 0.56 0.17 0.01 0.15 0.09 0.02 0.51 Oxide
HD050 283.0 295.0 12.0 0.55 0.29 0.37 0.11 0.14 0.01 0.61 Sulphide
Incl 283.0 289.0 6.0 0.77 0.34 0.68 0.15 0.20 0.01 0.87 Sulphide
HD050 301.0 305.0 4.0 0.50 0.29 0.02 0.15 0.13 0.02 0.55 Sulphide
Incl 303.0 305.0 2.0 0.73 0.50 0.02 0.16 0.15 0.02 0.71 Sulphide
HD050 312.0 381.0 69.0 0.71 0.12 0.04 0.13 0.12 0.01 0.55 Sulphide
Incl 317.0 321.4 4.4 0.39 0.09 0.03 0.28 0.24 0.03 0.71 Sulphide
and 370.6 374.0 3.4 9.83 1.37 0.31 0.15 0.20 0.01 4.01 Sulphide
HD052 50.0 61.3 11.3 0.63 0.34 0.03 0.09 0.05 0.01 0.46 Oxide
Incl 50.0 52.0 2.0 1.57 0.95 0.07 0.12 0.08 0.02 1.01 Oxide
HD052 62.0 71.0 9.0 0.43 0.40 0.02 0.08 0.04 0.01 0.38 Sulphide
HD052 118.0 132.0 14.0 0.31 0.08 0.03 0.10 0.11 0.01 0.35 Sulphide
HD052 138.2 155.0 16.8 0.29 0.11 0.01 0.15 0.10 0.01 0.39 Sulphide
Incl 144.0 148.0 4.0 0.76 0.31 0.01 0.24 0.17 0.02 0.77 Sulphide
HD052 168.0 175.8 7.8 0.29 0.05 0.05 0.11 0.20 0.01 0.44 Sulphide
Incl 168.0 170.3 2.3 0.55 0.12 0.14 0.22 0.27 0.02 0.74 Sulphide
HD054 32.0 35.0 3.0 0.68 1.22 0.01 0.03 0.12 0.01 0.68 Oxide
HD054 45.6 54.0 8.4 0.65 0.36 0.10 0.14 0.20 0.01 0.68 Oxide
Incl 45.6 49.0 3.4 1.00 0.45 0.17 0.21 0.32 0.02 1.02 Oxide
HD054 87.0 107.0 20.0 0.21 0.06 0.02 0.10 0.09 0.01 0.32 Sulphide
HD054 114.0 141.5 27.5 0.23 0.06 0.02 0.13 0.15 0.01 0.39 Sulphide
Incl 116.0 119.0 3.0 0.49 0.15 0.06 0.22 0.29 0.02 0.72 Sulphide
HD055 133.0 135.6 2.6 0.40 0.22 0.06 0.09 0.16 0.01 0.45 Sulphide
HD055 142.0 182.0 40.0 1.03 0.44 0.12 0.17 0.19 0.02 0.85 Sulphide
Incl 151.0 179.0 28.0 1.33 0.57 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.02 1.07 Sulphide
HD055 199.0 202.0 3.0 1.95 0.67 0.05 0.10 <0.01 0.01 0.95 Sulphide
HD055 211.0 219.0 8.0 0.56 0.24 0.03 0.11 0.08 0.01 0.47 Sulphide
HD055 224.0 238.0 14.0 0.72 0.40 0.07 0.12 0.13 0.01 0.62 Sulphide
Incl 225.0 230.3 5.3 1.24 0.59 0.08 0.19 0.19 0.02 0.97 Sulphide
HD055 344.0 349.0 5.0 0.30 0.07 0.03 0.11 0.11 0.01 0.36 Sulphide
HD055 352.0 354.0 2.0 0.30 0.09 0.05 0.11 0.14 0.01 0.39 Sulphide
HD055 384.0 386.0 2.0 0.50 0.13 0.01 0.09 0.10 0.01 0.40 Sulphide

9

Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Table 2. New drill hole collar, survey data and assaying status – Julimar Project.

Area	Hole ID	Type	Easting (m)	Northing (m)	RL (m)	Depth (m)	Survey type	Azi (°)	Dip (°)	Assay status
Hartog East	HD035	Core	427078	6515407	275	344.9	GPS	92	-60	Reported - NSA
Hartog East	HD036	Core	426377	6513995	257	318.62	GPS	90	-61	Reported - NSA
Hartog East	HD037	Core	426591	6517859	296	311.5	GPS	99	-60	Reported - NSA
Hartog	HD039	Core	424972	6513919	275	336.9	GPS-RTK	93	-55	Reported - NSA
Hartog East	HD040	Core	426876	6518064	298	411.3	GPS	95	-50	Reported - NSA
Hartog East	HD041	Core	426740	6515677	306	257.3	GPS	80	-60	Reported - NSA
Hamelin	HD043	Core	428174	6519358	324	372.5	GPS	150	-54	Reported - NSA
Hartog	HD044	Core	425515	6515736	334	333.3	GPS	121	-66	Reported - NSA
Gonneville	HD045	Core	425132	6513760	268	470.77	GPS-RTK	89	-61	Reported
Hamelin	HD046	Core	427750	6517700	275	312.3	GPS	87	-60	Reported - NSA
Hooley	HD047	Core	427675	6519879	317	369.5	GPS-RTK	153	-79	Reported
Hartog	HD048	Core	424969	6513918	275	420.7	GPS-RTK	315	-55	Reported
Hooley	HD050	Core	426593	6519119	310	459.5	GPS-RTK	136	-79	Reported
Hamelin	HD051	Core	428013	6519150	319	294.57	GPS	51	-75	Reported - NSA
Hooley	HD052	Core	426355	6518620	297	285.6	GPS-RTK	114	-80	Reported
Hartog East	HD053	Core	426496	6514738	288	381.3	GPS	130	-62	Reported - NSA
Hooley	HD054	Core	426358	6518618	297	315.3	GPS-RTK	159	-59	Reported
Hooley	HD055	Core	426357	6518621	297	489.6	GPS-RTK	279	-74	Reported

Chalice Mining Limited 10

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Appendix A Mineral Resource Estimate – Julimar Project

Table 2. Gonneville Mineral Resource Estimate (JORC Code 2012), 8 July 2022.

Domain Cut-off Grade
	Category	Mass	Grade		Contained Metal
		(Mt)	Pd (g/t) Pt (g/t) Au (g/t) Ni (%) Cu (%) Co (%)	NiEq (%) PdEq (g/t)	Pd (Moz) Pt (Moz) Au (Moz) Ni (kt) Cu (kt) Co (kt)	NiEq (kt) PdEq (Moz) - 0.54 - 0.03 - 0.57 93 0.90 6 0.06 99 0.96 1,300 12 610 5.9 1,900 18 0.3 0 35 0.34 35 0.34 1,400 14 650 6.3 2,000 20
Oxide 0.9g/t Pd	Indicated	8.6	1.9 - 0.06 - - -	- 1.9	0.52 - 0.02 - - -
	Inferred	0.4	1.9 - 0.13 - - -	- 2.0	0.03 - 0.00 - - -
	Subtotal	9.1	1.9 - 0.06 - - -	- 1.9	0.55 - 0.02 - - -
	Indicated	14	0.80 0.19 0.03 0.17 0.12 0.024	0.65 2.0	0.37 0.09 0.01 24 17 3
Sulphide 0.4%
	Inferred	1.1	0.64 0.17 0.03 0.14 0.11 0.016	0.55 1.6	0.02 0.01 0 2 1 0
(Transitional) NiEq
	Subtotal	15	0.79 0.19 0.03 0.16 0.12 0.023	0.65 1.9	0.39 0.09 0.01 25 18 4
	Indicated	220	0.73 0.16 0.03 0.16 0.10 0.016	0.59 1.8	5.1 1.1 0.20 360 230 34
Sulphide 0.4%
	Inferred	110	0.71 0.15 0.03 0.16 0.11 0.015	0.58 1.7	2.4 0.52 0.10 170 110 16
(Fresh) NiEq
	Subtotal	320	0.72 0.16 0.03 0.16 0.11 0.015	0.58 1.8	7.5 1.7 0.30 530 340 50
	Indicated	0.03	1.7 0.33 0.08 0.16 0.15 0.016	0.99 3.0	0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.0
Underground MSO	Inferred	2.9	1.8 0.40 0.06 0.27 0.21 0.021	1.2 3.7	0.17 0.04 0.01 7.6 6.0 0.6
	Subtotal	2.9	1.8 0.40 0.06 0.26 0.21 0.021	1.2 3.7	0.17 0.04 0.01 7.6 6.1 0.6
	Indicated	240	0.78 0.16 0.03 0.16 0.10 0.015	0.57 1.8	6.0 1.2 0.22 380 240 37
All	Inferred	110	0.74 0.16 0.03 0.16 0.11 0.015	0.59 1.8	2.6 0.57 0.11 180 120 17
	Total	350	0.77 0.16 0.03 0.16 0.10 0.015	0.58 1.8	8.6 1.8 0.33 560 360 54

Note some numerical differences may occur due to rounding to 2 significant figures. PdEq oxide (Palladium Equivalent g/t) = Pd (g/t) + 1.27x Au (g/t) NiEq sulphide (Nickel Equivalent %) = Ni (%) + 0.33x Pd(g/t) + 0.24x Pt(g/t) + 0.29x Au(g/t) + 0.78x Cu(%) + 3.41x Co(%) PdEq sulphide (Palladium Equivalent g/t) = Pd (g/t) + 0.72x Pt(g/t) + 0.86x Au(g/t) + 2.99x Ni(%) + 2.33x Cu(%) + 10.18x Co(%) MSO optimisation defined reasonable shapes that could be extracted by underground mining methods. Includes drill holes drilled up to and including 18 March 2022.

11

Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Appendix B

Metal Equivalents – Julimar Project

The Gonneville Resource is quoted in both nickel equivalent (NiEq) and palladium equivalent (PdEq) terms to take into account the contribution of multiple potentially payable metals. The cut-off grade for the sulphide domain was determined using NiEq in preference over PdEq, due to the assumed requirement for sulphide flotation to recover the metals.

PdEq is quoted given the relative importance of palladium by value at the assumed prices. Separate metal equivalent calculations are used for the oxide and transitional/sulphide zones to take into account the differing metallurgical recoveries in each zone.

Oxide Domain

Initial metallurgical testwork indicates that only palladium and gold are likely to be recovered in the oxide domain, therefore no NiEq grade has been quoted for the oxide. The PdEq grade for the oxide has been calculated using the formula:

PdEq oxide (g/t) = Pd(g/t) + 1.27x Au(g/t).

• « Metal recoveries based on limited metallurgical test work completed to date: « Pd – 75%, Au – 95%.

• « Metal prices used are consistent with those used in the pit optimisation:

• « US$1,800/oz Pd, US$1,800/oz Au.

Transitional and Fresh Sulphide Domains

Based on metallurgical testwork completed to date for the sulphide domain, it is the Company’s opinion that all the quoted elements included in metal equivalent calculations (palladium, platinum, gold, nickel, copper and cobalt) have a reasonable potential of being recovered and sold.

Only limited samples have been collected from the transitional zone due to its relatively small volume. Therefore, the metallurgical recovery of all metals in this domain are unknown. However, given the relatively small proportion of the transition zone in the Mineral Resource, the impact on the metal equivalent calculation is not considered to be material.

Metal equivalents for the transitional and sulphide domains are calculated according to the formula below:

• « NiEq (%) = Ni(%) + 0.33x Pd(g/t) + 0.24x Pt(g/t) + 0.29x Au(g/t) + 0.78x Cu(%) + 3.41x Co(%);

• « PdEq (g/t) = Pd(g/t) + 0.72x Pt(g/t) + 0.86x Au(g/t) + 2.99x Ni(%) + 2.33x Cu(%) + 10.18x Co(%).

• Metal recoveries used in the metal equivalent calculations are based on rounded average Resource grades for the higher-grade sulphide domain (>0.6% NiEq cut-off): « Pd – 70%, Pt – 70%, Au – 60%, Ni – 55%, Cu – 90%, Co – 55%.

Metal prices used are consistent with those used in the Whittle pit optimisation (based on P20-30 long term analyst estimates):

• « US$1,800/oz Pd, US$1,300/oz Pt, US$1,800/oz Au, US$22,000/t Ni, US$10,500/t Cu and US$75,000/t Co.

12

Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Appendix C JORC Table 1

A-1 Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data

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. • Diamond core was either quarter cored (HQ for Gonneville drilling) half cored (NQ or HQ for exploration drilling) with samples taken over selective intervals ranging from 0.2m to 1.2m (typically 1.0m).
	Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample representivity and the appropriate calibration of any measurement tools or systems used. • Qualitative care taken when sampling diamond drill core to sample the same half of the drill core.
	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. • Mineralisation is easily recognised by the presence of sulphides. Diamond drill core sample intervals were selected on a qualitative assessment of sulphide content
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). • A mixture of diamond drill core size used including NQ (47.6mm), HQ (63.5mm diameter) or PQ (85mm). Triple tube has been used from surface until competent bedrock and then standard tube thereafter. • Core orientation is by an ACT Reflex (ACT II RD) tool
Drill sample recovery	Method of recording and assessing core and chip sample recoveries and results assessed. • Individual recoveries of diamond drill core samples were assessed quantitively by comparing measured core length with expected core length from drillers mark. Generally, core recovery was excellent in fresh rock and approaching 100%. Core recovery in oxide material is often poor due to sample washing out. Core recovery in the oxide zone averages 60%
	Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and ensure representative nature of the samples. • With diamond drilling triple tube coring in the oxide zone is undertaken to improve sample recovery. This results in better recoveries, but recovery is still only moderate to good. • Diamond core samples were consistently taken from the same side of the core

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

13

Chalice Mining Limited

Appendix C JORC Table 1

Criteria	JORC Code explanation Commentary
	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. • There is no evidence of a sample recovery and grade relationship in unweathered material.
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. • All drill holes were logged geologically including, but not limited to; weathering, regolith, lithology, structure, texture, alteration and mineralisation. Logging was at an appropriate quantitative standard for infill drilling and resource estimation.
	Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc) photography. • Logging is considered qualitative in nature. • Diamond drill core is photographed wet before cutting.
	The total length and percentage of the relevant intersections logged. • All holes were geologically logged in full.
Sub-sampling techniques and sample preparation	If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, half or all core taken. • Diamond core was either quarter cored (HQ for Gonneville drilling) or half cored (NQ or HQ and PQ for exploration drilling) with samples taken over selective intervals ranging from 0.2m to 1.2m (typically 1.0m).
	If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc and whether sampled wet or dry. • RC assay samples were collected as two 1m splits from the rig cyclone via a cone splitter. The cone splitter was horizontal to ensure sample representivity. Wet or damp samples were noted in the sample logging sheet. A majority of samples were dry.
	For all sample types, the nature, quality and appropriateness of the sample preparation technique. • Sample preparation is industry standard and comprises oven drying, jaw crushing and pulverising to -75 microns (80% pass).
	Quality control procedures adopted for all sub-sampling stages to maximise representivity of samples. • Field duplicates were collected from diamond drilling at an approximate ratio of one in twenty five. • Diamond drill core field duplicates collected as ¼ core.
	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. • In the majority of cases the entire hole has been sampled and assayed. • Duplicate sample results were compared with the original sample results and there is no bias observed in the data.
	Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grain size of the material being sampled. • Drill sample sizes are considered appropriate for the style of mineralisation sought and the nature of the drilling program.
Quality of assay data and	The nature, quality and appropriateness of the assaying and laboratory • Diamond drill core underwent sample preparation and geochemical analysis byALSPerth.Au-Pt-Pdwas analysed

Chalice Mining Limited 14

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Appendix C JORC Table 1

Criteria	JORC Code explanation Commentary
laboratory tests	procedures used and whether the technique is considered partial or total. by 50g fire assay fusion with an ICP-AES finish (ALS Method code PGM-ICP24). A 34-element suite was analysed by ICP-MS following a four-acid digest (ALS method code ME-ICP61 including Ag, Al, As, Ba, Be, Bi, Ca, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Ga, K, La, Mg, Mn, Mo, Na, Ni, P, Pb, S, Sb, Sc, Sr, Th, Ti, Tl, U, V, W, Zn, Zr. Additional ore-grade analysis was performed as required for elements reporting out of range for Ni, Cr, Cu (ALS method code ME-OG-62) and Pd, Pt (ALS method code PGM-ICP27). • These techniques are considered total digests.
	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. • Not applicable as no data from such tools or instruments are reported
	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. • Certified analytical standards and blanks were inserted at appropriate intervals for diamond core with an insertion rate of >5%. All QAQC samples display results within acceptable levels of accuracy and precision.
Verification of sampling and assaying	The verification of significant intersections by either independent or alternative company personnel. • Significant drill intersections are checked by the Project Geologist and then by the General Manager Exploration. Significant intersections are cross-checked with the logged geology and drill core after final assays are received.
	The use of twinned holes. • No twinning undertaken for drill holes for exploration holes (HD prefix) • At Gonneville (holes with a JD or JRC prefix) eight sets of twinned holes (RC versus Diamond) have been drilled to provide a comparison between grade/thickness variations over a maximum of 5m separation between drill holes. • Palladium assays have been focused on as part of twin hole comparisons for six sets, with no significant grade bias observed. • Two sets of twins have been analysed for Pd, Ni and Cu with no significant grade bias apparent. • Assays correlate well between holes. In detail there is variation for higher grade samples in terms of both location and grade. There is no discernible bias between drill types.

15

Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Appendix C JORC Table 1

Criteria	JORC Code explanation Commentary
	Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data verification, data storage (physical and electronic) protocols. • Primary drill data was collected digitally using OCRIS software before being transferred to the master SQL database. • All procedures including data collection, verification, uploading to the database etc are captured in detailed procedures and summarised in a single document.
	Discuss any adjustment to assay data • No adjustments were made to the lab reported assay data.
Location of data points	Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drill holes (collar and down-hole surveys), trenches, mine workings and other locations used in Mineral Resource estimation. • Drill hole collar locations are initially recorded by Chalice employees using a handheld GPS with a +/- 3m margin of error. • RTK-DGPS collar pick-ups replace handheld GPS collar pick-ups and have +/-20 mm margin of error. • Planned and final hole coordinates are compared after pick up to ensure that the original target has been tested.
	Specification of the grid system used. • The grid system used for the location of all drill holes is GDA94 - MGA (Zone 50).
	Quality and adequacy of topographic control. • RLs for reported holes were derived from RTK-DGPS pick-ups.
Data spacing and distribution	Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results. • Diamond drill hole spacing is variable given the early stage of exploration drilling.
	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. • Results from diamond drilling at Dampier, Hartog, Hann and Hooley are not considered sufficient to assume geological or grade continuity. • At the Gonneville deposit RC and diamond drill hole spacing varies from between 40m x 40 m in the south to 80m x 80m in the north and west of the deposit.
	Whether sample compositing has been applied. • No compositing undertaken for diamond drill core or RC samples.
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. • Diamond drill hole sites at Dampier, Hartog, Hann and Hooley are restricted by access approvals with multiple holes often drilled from a single site. Hence the orientation of the holes is often not orthogonal to the inferred dip and strike of the mineralisation. All quoted intersections are downhole widths. • RC and Diamond drill holes at Gonneville were typically oriented within 15° of orthogonal to the interpreted dip and strike of the known zone of mineralisation. However, several holes were drilled at less

16

Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Appendix C JORC Table 1

Criteria	JORC Code explanation Commentary
	optimal azimuths due to site access constraints or to test for alternative mineralisation orientations. At exploration targets the orientation of any mineralisation intersected is unknown.
	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 not considered to have introduced sampling bias.
Sample security	The measures taken to ensure sample security. • Samples were collected in polyweave bags at the core cutting facility. The polyweave bags have five samples each and are cable tied. • Filled bags were collected into palletised bulk bags at the field office and delivered directly from site to ALS laboratories in Wangara, Perth by a Chalice contractor several times weekly.
Audits or reviews	The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data. • None completed for the Dampier, Hartog, Hann and Hooley drilling programs. • Cube Consulting conducted a site visit and review of the sampling techniques and data as part of the July 2022 Resource Estimate on 12 May 2022. • SRK completed an independent assurance review of the Chalice procedures and documentation in 2021, which continue to apply in 2022, and the appropriateness of Cube Consulting estimation methods employed

A-2 Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
		•	Exploration activities are ongoing over
			E70/5119. The holder CGM (WA) Pty
			Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary of
	Type, reference name/number,		Chalice Mining Limited
	location and ownership including	•	Portions of E70/5119 cover the Julimar
Mineral	agreements or material issues with third		State Forest, in which Chalice has an
tenement and	parties such as joint ventures,		approved Conservation Management
land tenure	partnerships, overriding royalties, native		Plan and Native Vegetation Clearing
status	title interests, historical sites, wilderness		Permit.
	or national park and environmental	•	E70/5119 partially overlaps ML1SA, a
	settings.		State Agreement covering Bauxite
			mineral rights only.
		•	There are no known encumbrances
			other than the ones noted above.

17

Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Appendix C JORC Table 1

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
		•	There are no known impediments to
	The security of the tenure held at the		operating on the tenements where they cover private freehold land.
	time of reporting along with any known impediments to obtaining a licence to operate in the area.	• •	The tenements are in good standing. E70/5119 partially overlaps ML1SA, a
			State Agreement covering Bauxite
			mineral rights only.
		•	There is no previous exploration at
			Gonneville and only limited
			exploration has been completed by
			other exploration parties in the vicinity
			of the targets identified by Chalice to
			date.
		•	Chalice has compiled historical
			records dating back to the early 1960’s
			which indicate only three genuine
			explorers in the area, all primarily
			targeting Fe-Ti-V mineralisation.
		•	Over 1971<1972, Garrick Agnew Pty
			Ltd undertook reconnaissance surface
			sampling over prominent
			aeromagnetic anomalies in a search
			for ‘Coates deposit style’ vanadium
			mineralisation. Surface sampling
			methodology is not described in detail,
			nor were analytical methods specified,
			with samples analysed for V2O5, Ni,
			Cu, Cr, Pb and Zn, results of which are
			referred to in this announcement.
Exploration done by other parties	Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties.	•	Three diamond holes were completed by Bestbet Pty Ltd targeting Fe-Ti-V situated approximately 3km NE of
			JRC001.
		•	Bestbet Pty Ltd undertook 27 stream
			sediment samples within E70/5119.
			Elevated levels of palladium were
			noted in the coarse fraction
			(<5mm+2mm) are reported in this
			release. Finer fraction samples did not
			replicate the coarse fraction results.
		•	A local AMAG survey was flown in 1996
			by Alcoa using 200m line spacing
			which has been used by Chalice for
			targeting purposes.
		•	A local AMAG survey was flown in 1996
			by Alcoa using 200m line spacing
			which has been used by Chalice for
			targeting purposes.
		•	An Alcoa and CRA JV completed
			seven diamond holes in the 1970s targeting a magnetic high to the north of E70/5119 and the east of
			E70/5351testing for vanadium (Boomer
			Hill).
Geology	Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation.	•	The target deposit type is an orthomagmatic Ni-Cu-PGE sulphide

18

Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Appendix C JORC Table 1

Criteria	JORC Code explanation Commentary
	deposit, within the Yilgarn Craton. The style of sulphide mineralisation intersected consists of massive, matrix, stringer and disseminated sulphides typical of metamorphosed and structurally overprinted orthomagmatic Ni sulphide deposits.
Drill hole Information	A summary of all information material to the understanding of the exploration results including a tabulation of the following information for all Material drill holes: 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. • Provided in body of text.
	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. • No material information has been excluded.
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. • Significant intercepts are reported using a length-weighted >0.3% NiEq cut off. A maximum of 4m internal dilution has been applied. • Higher grade internal intervals are reported using a >0.6% NiEq length- weighted cut off. A maximum of 2m internal dilution has been applied. • No top cuts have been applied
	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. • Not applicable
	The assumptions used for any reporting of metal equivalent values should be clearly stated. • Metal price assumptions used in the metal equivalent calculations are: US$1,800/oz Pd, US$1,300/oz Pt, US$1,800/oz Au, US$22,000/t Ni, US$10,500/t Cu, US$75,000/t Co. • Metallurgical recovery assumptions used in the metal equivalent calculation for the oxide material are: Pd – 75%, Au – 95%. • Hence for the oxide material PdEq (g/t) = Pd (g/t) + 1.27 x Au (g/t).

19

Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Appendix C JORC Table 1

Criteria	JORC Code explanation Commentary
	• Metallurgical recovery assumptions used in the metal equivalent calculation for the sulphide (fresh) material are: Pd – 70%, Pt – 70%, Au – 60%, Ni – 55%, Cu – 90%, Co - 55%. • Hence for the sulphide material NiEq = Ni (%) + 0.33x Pd(g/t) + 0.24x Pt(g/t) + 0.29x Au(g/t) + 0.78x Cu(%) + 3.41x Co(%)and PdEq = Pd (g/t) + 0.72x Pt(g/t) + 0.86x Au(g/t) + 2.99x Ni(%) + 2.33x Cu(%) + 10.18x Co(%) • The volume of transitional material is small and considered unlikely to materially affect the overall metal equivalent calculation.
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. • Diamond drill hole sites at Dampier, Hartog, Hann and Hooley are restricted by access approvals with multiple holes often drilled from a single site. Hence the orientation of the holes is often not orthogonal to the inferred dip and strike of the mineralisation. All quoted intersections are downhole widths. • At Gonneville RC and Diamond drill holes were typically oriented within 15° of orthogonal to the interpreted dip and strike of the known zone of mineralisation. However, several holes were drilled at less optimal azimuths due to site access constraints or to test for alternative mineralisation orientations.
	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’). • All widths are quoted down-hole. True widths vary depending on the orientation of the hole and the orientation of 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 a plan view of drill hole collar locations and appropriate sectional views. • Refer to figures in the body of text.
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 exploration holes including those without significant intercepts have been reported. • At Gonneville, all holes drilled outside the July 2022 Gonneville resource envelope have been reported. Reporting of Infill holes within the Gonneville Resource have not been reported as it is not practicable and results are consistent with previous drilling results

Chalice Mining Limited 20

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Appendix C JORC Table 1

Criteria	JORC Code explanation Commentary
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. • A 2D seismic survey was undertaken by HiSeis Pty Ltd in May 2022 along two east-west lines and 1 north-south tie line • The seismic survey was undertaken by a high-power Vibroseis source with geophones placed at 5m intervals along/adjacent to lines. • HiSeis provided processed/filtered data including Pseudo Relief, Cosine Phase, Laplacian Edge Detection and Amplitude Envelope grids which were utilised for the domain and line interpretation • Velocity measurements were collected from core samples to allow a time to depth conversion and calculated acoustic impedance • All meaningful data has been included
Further work	The nature and scale of planned further work (eg. tests for lateral Exts or depth Exts or large-scale step-out drilling). • Diamond drilling will continue to test high-priority targets including EM conductors. Further drilling along strike and down dip may occur at these and other targets depending on results.
	Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions, including the main geological interpretations and future drilling areas, provided this information is not commercially sensitive. • Any potential extensions to mineralisation are shown in the figures in the body of the text.

21

Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF