Skip to main content

AI assistant

Sign in to chat with this filing

The assistant answers questions, extracts KPIs, and summarises risk factors directly from the filing text.

Sign up Log in

CHALICE MINING LIMITED Capital/Financing Update 2022

Jul 7, 2022

64649_rns_2022-07-07_98bfbf90-5ccd-4cc4-9ae1-3691a6e3ca7d.pdf

Capital/Financing Update

Open in viewer

Opens in your device viewer

ASX Announcement

8 July 2022

Gonneville Resource increased to 11Moz Pd+Pt+Au (3E), 560kt Ni, 360kt Cu and 54kt Co (~2Mt NiEq or 20Moz PdEq)

Further resource growth and upgrade into the higher confidence Indicated category provides strong foundation for world-class Julimar ‘green metals’ Project

==> picture [493 x 26] intentionally omitted <==

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

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

  • « Updated Indicated and Inferred, open-pit and underground mineral resource estimate (Resource) completed for the Gonneville PGE-Ni-Cu-Co-Au deposit (Deposit), located on Chalice-owned farmland within the 100%-owned Julimar Project, ~70km NE of Perth, WA:

  • « 350Mt @ 0.96g/t 3E[1] , 0.16% Ni, 0.10% Cu, 0.015% Co ( ~0.58% NiEq[2] or ~1.8g/t PdEq[3] ) ;

  • « Containing 11Moz 3E, 560kt Ni, 360kt Cu, 54kt Co ( ~2.0Mt NiEq or ~20Moz PdEq );

  • « Significant increase in geological confidence with ~70% of the Resource now in the Indicated category (up from ~45%) following extensive infill drilling;

  • « ~90% of the Resource above a depth of 250m is now classified as Indicated.

  • « The higher-grade sulphide component of the Resource (>0.6% NiEq cut-off in-pit plus underground) has also increased to:

  • « 82Mt @ 1.7g/t 3E, 0.21% Ni, 0.20% Cu, 0.020% Co ( ~1.0% NiEq or ~2.9g/t PdEq);

  • « Containing 4.5Moz 3E, 180kt Ni, 170kt Cu, 16kt Co ( ~790kt NiEq or ~7.7Moz PdEq );

  • « Resources are defined from a depth of ~30m to ~700m and remain open down-dip;

  • « This higher-grade component affords the project significant optionality in development and could potentially materially enhance project economics in the initial years of operations.

  • « The Resource remains open to the north along strike and at depth, with the potential for further material growth:

  • « Two rigs are continuing step-out drilling down-plunge at Gonneville, where >800m of potential high-grade plunge extent on farmland is yet to be fully tested;

  • « Four rigs are currently drilling along strike to the north of the Resource at the Hartog-Dampier targets – the Gonneville Resource covers just ~7% of the Julimar Complex;

  • « Recent sulphide intersections at the Dampier Target highlight the potential for additional NiCu-PGE discoveries along the >30km long Julimar Complex .

  • « Gonneville Scoping Study for an initial stage of mine development at the Project is progressing well and expected to be completed in Q3 2022 .

1 3E = Palladium (Pd) + Platinum (Pt) + Gold (Au), with an average in-situ ratio of ~4.8:1:0.18 (Pd:Pt:Au)

2 NiEq (Nickel Equivalent %) = Ni (%) + 0.33x Pd(g/t) + 0.24x Pt(g/t) + 0.29x Au(g/t) + 0.78x Cu(%) + 3.41x Co(%) 3 PdEq (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(%)

==> picture [10 x 9] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [13 x 12] intentionally omitted <==

Registered Office ABN 47 116 648 956 Level 3, 46 Colin Street West Perth, Western Australia PO Box 428, West Perth 6872

[email protected] www.chalicemining.com

@chalicemining chalice-mining

T: +61 8 9322 3960

Overview

Chalice Mining Limited (“Chalice” or “the Company”, ASX: CHN | OTCQB: CGMLF) is pleased to report an updated Mineral Resource Estimate (Resource) for the Gonneville Deposit (Deposit), the first discovery at its 100%-owned Julimar Nickel-Copper-Platinum Group Element (PGE) Project , located ~70km north-east of Perth in Western Australia.

The large-scale PGE-Ni-Cu-Co-Au Deposit is entirely located within Chalice-owned farmland and remains open to the north and at depth.

Since the maiden Resource was reported in November 2021, drilling at Gonneville has largely been focussed on shallow infill, to improve the confidence level of the Resource from the Inferred category to Indicated. The proportion of Indicated category resources has increased from ~45% to ~70% of the total. Step-out drilling has also continued to evaluate the broader extent of mineralisation.

The drilling and remodelling has resulted in a ~5% increase in the Resource mass and contained nickel equivalent metal relative to the maiden estimate. This increase is largely due to:

  • « The Resource pit shell increasing in size in the northern portion of the deposit as a result of infill and extensional drilling;

  • « The Resource pit shell expanding along its western edge, due to extensional drilling in the west of the deposit undertaken since the last resource;

  • « The inclusion of mineralisation in an underground category, outside the pit shell, within Mineable Stope Optimiser (MSO) shapes (maiden Resource was constrained to a pit shell only);

  • « Pit optimisation parameters being updated to incorporate the latest consensus long-term metal prices as well as new metallurgical testwork on lower-grade disseminated sulphide mineralisation.

Gonneville Resource comparison (Nov-21 to Jul-22)

==> picture [457 x 274] intentionally omitted <==

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

400
5.2% 0.9%
350
300
110
250
180
200
150
240
100
150
50
0
MRE 1 Nov-21 Open-pit growth Underground MRE 2 July-22
Indicated Inferred Increase
Mass (Mt)
----- End of picture text -----

Figure 1. Change in Gonneville Resource from November 2021 to July 2022.

==> picture [109 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

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

2
----- End of picture text -----

2 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

The Resource includes a mix of oxide, transitional and sulphide mineralisation. The sulphide mineralisation is reported at two different cut-off grades to highlight the scale and development optionality the Deposit affords.

The robust nature of the Resource is demonstrated by grade-tonnage curve (Figure 3), which highlights the significant quantity of pit-constrained sulphide mineralisation at higher cut-off grades. Note, the grade-tonnage curve for the Resource includes material classified as Inferred, where data is insufficient to allow the geological grade and continuity to be confidently interpreted.

The significant higher-grade component of the Resource provides excellent optionality for any future development and could potentially materially improve project economics in the initial years of operation. This is a key focus of the project Scoping Study, which is due to be completed in Q3 2022.

Drilling is continuing at the ~1.9km x 0.9km deposit outside the Resource, with assays currently pending for 90 drill holes. Two diamond rigs continue to test for extensions of high-grade mineralisation at depth.

Gonneville remains open at the Julimar State Forest boundary to the north, where four rigs are continuing an initial drill program at the Hartog-Dampier targets. The Deposit also remains open beyond a depth of ~700m.

Commenting on the updated Resource, Chalice Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer, Alex Dorsch, said: “ The work we have completed since publishing our maiden Resource in November last year continues to demonstrate the world-class endowment, scale and quality of the Gonneville Deposit.

“Apart from further increasing the contained metal, this Resource update has resulted in a significant increase in the higher-confidence Indicated Resource – which now represents ~70% of the total. Importantly, 90% of the resource above a depth of 250m is now classified as Indicated, which represents a major de-risking step for the Project.

“The Indicated component of the Resource will underpin the Scoping Study, which is progressing well and due for completion in Q3 2022.

“The continued growth in the higher-grade sulphide component – both in an expanded open pit optimisation and, significantly, in our first reported underground Resource, further enhances the significant development optionality of the Deposit.

“It is also evident from recent exploration results that there is enormous growth potential both at depth at Gonneville and along the effectively untested Julimar Complex to the north. While we already have a tier-1 scale deposit which has the potential to underpin a world-class, long-life green metals project, the resource base is expected to continue to grow.

“The exciting early results reported yesterday at the Dampier Target reinforce the potential for further Ni-Cu-PGE discoveries along the Julimar Complex”

Project location and history

The 100%-owned Julimar Nickel-Copper-PGE Project is located ~70km north-east of Perth in Western Australia. The greenfield Project was staked in early 2018 as part of Chalice’s global search for highpotential nickel sulphide exploration opportunities.

Chalice interpreted the possible presence of an unrecognised, >30km long mafic-ultramafic layered intrusive complex at Julimar based on high-resolution regional magnetics (the Julimar Complex). An initial RC drill program commenced in Q1 2020 at the southern end of the Julimar Complex on private farmland (due to access constraints) and resulted in the discovery of high-grade PGE-nickel-coppercobalt-gold sulphide mineralisation near surface. The first hole discovery at the project was named Gonneville.

==> picture [109 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

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

3
----- End of picture text -----

3 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

The discovery of Gonneville and the Julimar Complex established the newly defined West Yilgarn NiCu-PGE Province in Western Australia, an almost completely untested mineral province which is interpreted to extend for ~1,200km along the western margin of the Yilgarn Craton.

The Julimar Project is favourably located, with world-class road, rail, port and high-voltage power infrastructure nearby, plus access to a significant ‘drive-in, drive-out’ mining workforce in the Perth surrounds (Figure 2).

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

Figure 2. Julimar Complex, Gonneville Deposit, Project tenure and nearby infrastructure.

==> picture [109 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

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

4
----- End of picture text -----

4 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Gonneville Resource overview

Chalice engaged Cube Consulting (Cube) to prepare an updated mineral resource estimate (Resource) for Gonneville. The Resource has been reported in accordance with the JORC Code (2012), is effective 8[th] July 2022, and is shown in full in Table 1.

Cube considers that data collection techniques are consistent with good industry practice and are suitable for use in the preparation of a Resource to be reported in accordance with the JORC Code. Available quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) data supports the use of the input data provided by Chalice.

The Resource is considered to have reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction (RPEEE) on the following basis:

  • « The Deposit is located in a favourable mining jurisdiction, with no known impediments to land access or tenure status;

  • « The volume, orientation and grade of the Resource is amenable to mining extraction via traditional open pit and underground mining methods;

  • « Current geo-metallurgical recovery vs grade formulae based on available preliminary metallurgical test work and nominal metal concentrate offtake payment terms were used in a Whittle pit optimisation to generate the resource pit shell and in a MSO to generate underground constraints.

The Resource is reported within a pit shell and within underground MSO shapes using metal price assumptions of 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 and is reported above a 0.4% NiEq cut-off grade in-pit and within selective mining shapes underground.

The metal prices used were determined from long-term consensus analyst estimates from S&P Global Market Intelligence (typically for 2025), selecting a rounded figure within the P20-P30 range of the distribution (i.e., 20-30% of the distribution of consensus analyst estimated metal prices were above the selected figures).

Chalice and Cube believe this is a reasonable approach, considering the potential mine life and considerations for reporting Mineral Resources in accordance with the JORC Code.

The Resource is reported according to domain (oxide, transitional, fresh or underground) as well as codified confidence levels (Indicated or Inferred) (Table 1).

==> picture [73 x 114] intentionally omitted <==

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

5
----- End of picture text -----

5 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Table 1. 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.

==> picture [108 x 21] intentionally omitted <==

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

6
----- End of picture text -----

6 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Table 2. Higher-grade sulphide component of Gonneville Resource (in pit and underground), 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)
High-grade
Sulphide
(Transitional)
0.6%
NiEq		 Indicated 4.8 1.3
0.31
0.04
0.20
0.18
0.038		 0.99
3.0		 0.20
0.05
0.01
10
9
2		 48
0.46
Inferred 0.2 1.1
0.26
0.06
0.18
0.18
0.019		 0.82
2.4		 0.01
0.00
0.00
0
0
0		 2
0.02
Subtotal 5.1 1.3
0.30
0.05
0.20
0.18
0.037		 0.98
3.0		 0.21
0.05
0.01
10
9
2		 50
0.48
High-grade
Sulphide
(Fresh)
0.6%
NiEq		 Indicated 52 1.3
0.29
0.06
0.21
0.19
0.019		 0.94
2.8		 2.2
0.49
0.11
110
99
10		 490
4.8
Inferred 22 1.3
0.29
0.08
0.21
0.23
0.018		 0.98
2.9		 0.94
0.20
0.05
46
52
4		 220
2.1
Subtotal 74 1.3
0.29
0.07
0.21
0.20
0.019		 0.95
2.9		 3.1
0.69
0.16
160
150
14		 710
6.9
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		 0.3
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		 35
0.34
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		 35
0.34
Indicated 57 1.3
0.29
0.06
0.21
0.19
0.020		 0.95
2.9		 2.4
0.54
0.11
120
110
12		 540
5.2
All Inferred 25 1.4
0.30
0.07
0.21
0.23
0.018		 1.00
3.0		 1.1
0.24
0.06
54
58
5		 250
2.5
Total 82 1.3
0.29
0.07
0.21
0.20
0.020		 0.97
2.9		 3.5
0.78
0.17
180
170
16		 790
7.7

Note some numerical differences may occur due to rounding to 2 significant figures.

This higher-grade component is contained within the reported global Mineral Resource. 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.

==> picture [108 x 21] intentionally omitted <==

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

7
----- End of picture text -----

7 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

==> picture [721 x 382] intentionally omitted <==

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

Gonneville Nickel Equivalent Grade-Tonnage Curve in-pit (on NiEq cut-off grade basis)
550 2.5
499
500
450 435 1.9
1.9 2.0
1.8
1.8
400 1.7
1.7
1.6
1.6
350 339 1.5
1.4
1.4 1.5
1.3
300 1.3
1.2
1.1
250 235 1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
200
0.8
0.7
150 0.6 157
0.5
0.5
108
0.5
100 79
63
52
44
50 38 33 29 26 23 20 18 16 15 13 12 11 10
0 0.0
0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.25 1.30 1.35 1.40
Grade (NiEq %)
Mass (Mt)
----- End of picture text -----

Cut-off Grade (NiEq%)

Tonnes NiEq %

Figure 3. Gonneville NiEq grade-tonnage curve for pit-constrained sulphide mineralisation on a NiEq cut-off grade basis.

==> picture [108 x 21] intentionally omitted <==

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

8
----- End of picture text -----

8 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

==> picture [721 x 450] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 4 . 3D view (looking ENE) of Gonneville block model (all domains) and Resource pit shell.

==> picture [108 x 21] intentionally omitted <==

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

9
----- End of picture text -----

9 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

==> picture [721 x 428] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 5. 3D view (looking NE) of Gonneville higher-grade sulphide block model (>0.6% NiEq) and Resource pit shell.

10

Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

==> picture [721 x 389] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 6. 3D view (looking NE) of Gonneville Indicated and Inferred category blocks (sulphide domains only).

11

Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

==> picture [736 x 325] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 7. Julimar Complex 3D View (looking NW) – Gonneville Deposit, targets, soil geochemistry over regional magnetics.

==> picture [240 x 135] intentionally omitted <==

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

12 Chalice Mining Limited
----- End of picture text -----

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

==> picture [721 x 400] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 8. 3D view (looking E) of Gonneville higher-grade sulphide block model (>0.8% NiEq) and host intrusion.

13 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Resource growth potential

The updated Mineral Resource for Gonneville is interpreted to cover just ~7% of the >30km long Julimar Complex (Figure 7). Drilling has commenced testing a series of co-incident EM-gravity-soil targets north of Gonneville along the Julimar Complex, with four diamond rigs currently operating.

Initial diamond drill testing of the greenfield Dampier Target, located 10km north of Gonneville, has generated promising early visual results. A ~15m to 80m wide zone of disseminated sulphides (avg. 1- 3% sulphide), with locally abundant matrix sulphides (up to 20-30% sulphide), has been intersected in ultramafic-mafic intrusive rocks (pyroxenite, lesser gabbro/peridotite) in three wide-spaced holes (HD009, 010 & HD013).

This is the first significant indication of orthomagmatic sulphide mineralisation outside of the Gonneville Deposit itself and is considered an encouraging result, which demonstrates the highly prospective nature of the largely untested >30km long Julimar Complex, with several nearby targets located along strike now prioritised for immediate drilling.

Forward plan

The next major milestone for the Julimar Project is the Gonneville Scoping Study, which is targeted for completion in Q3 2022. The Company continues to progress development studies for the Gonneville Deposit in parallel to initial exploration activities across the >30km long Julimar Complex.

The following activities are ongoing or planned at the Project:

  • « Exploration drilling at the Hartog-Dampier Targets within the Julimar State Forest – four diamond drill rigs are currently operational and expected to continue for the foreseeable future. Existing approvals allow multiple holes to be drilled from each of the ~70 planned sites.

  • « Moving Loop Electromagnetic (MLEM) and Down-hole EM surveys are continuing across the Julimar Complex.

  • « Resource definition and exploration RC/diamond drilling at the Gonneville Deposit – three rigs are operational, largely focused on wide-spaced extensional/exploration drilling which is expected to continue for an extended period.

  • « Processing of the initial 2D seismic survey of the Gonneville-Hartog area is underway, which was acquired to assess the overall architecture of the intrusive complex at depth – results are expected in Q3.

  • « Mine development studies to support a Scoping Study for the initial development stage of the Gonneville Deposit.

  • « Baseline surveys of ground water, surface water, flora, fauna and dieback, as part of a long-term baseline and monitoring program to support engineering studies and environmental assessments (ongoing).

Technical overview

The following is a material information summary relating to the Resource, consistent with ASX Listing Rule 5.8.1 requirements. Further details are provided in JORC Code Table 1, which is included as Appendix A.

Geology and geological interpretation

The Gonneville Deposit is the first major PGE-rich orthomagmatic sulphide discovery in Australia. The deposit is hosted within an Archaean age mafic-ultramafic intrusive complex, known as the Julimar Complex, which is interpreted to be >30km long.

14 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Gonneville is located within a ~1.9km x 0.9km x >0.8km section of the Julimar Complex, known as the Gonneville Intrusion, which has a north-north-east strike, maximum thickness of approximately 650m, and 45° west-north-west dip.

The Gonneville Intrusion is composed predominantly of serpentinised olivine peridotite / harzburgite (serpentine-magnetite-amphibole-chromite) with lesser intervals of pyroxenite (amphibole-chlorite), gabbro and leucogabbro (clinozoisite-amphibole) divided into a series of eight litho-geochemical domains (Figure 9). The litho-geochemical domains broadly parallel the strike and dip of the Gonneville Intrusion and are interpreted to represent discrete magma influxes and associated fractionation units. The intrusion is crosscut by a later granite body, which broadly parallels the dip and strike orientation of the mafic-ultramafic package. Crosscutting the entire intrusive package is a series of sub vertical, north-east to north-west striking, dolerite dykes. Both the granite body and dolerite dykes are un-mineralised with respect to Ni-Cu-PGE. A package of meta-sedimentary rocks surrounds the Gonneville intrusion.

Although texturally the intrusive rock-types within the complex are moderately well preserved, permitting the use of igneous terminology, all rock units have been replaced by mineral assemblages characteristic of upper greenschist to lower amphibolite facies metamorphism.

The Gonneville Intrusion is bounded to the west (Hanging wall) by felsic gneiss/metasediment and to the east (Footwall) by a succession comprising metasediments (sulphidic pelite) and amphibolite of uncertain parentage.

Primary Ni-Cu-PGE sulphide mineralisation occurs principally within the ultramafic domains of the Gonneville Intrusion and to a lesser extent in gabbro subunits. Mineralisation is present as sub-parallel sulphide-rich zones (>20% sulphides), typically 5–40 m wide, that occur within broader intervals (~100– 150 m wide) of weakly disseminated sulphides. The orientation of the higher-grade mineralised sulphide zones suggests an association with the litho-chronological domains within the intrusion (Figure 10).

There are four typical sulphide ore types recognised at Gonneville:

  • « Massive sulphides: >75% (by volume) sulphide,

  • « Matrix sulphides: 40% to 75% sulphide; also referred to as net-textured, typically occurs as interconnected pyrrhotite-pentlandite-chalcopyrite mineralisation with silicate gangue,

  • « Stringer sulphides: 10% to 75% sulphide. Stringer sulphide mineralisation is typically observed around faults or lithological contacts, and

  • « Disseminated sulphides: <40% sulphide. Disseminated sulphide mineralisation occurs as either heavily disseminated chalcopyrite or disseminated/blebby sulphides with 0.5 cm to 1.0 cm diameter sulphide blebs with variable pyrrhotite, chalcopyrite and pentlandite contents.

Although the ratio between the primary sulphide phases changes between, and within, the sulphiderich and sulphide-poor zones, sulphide mineralisation consists of a consistent assemblage of pyrrhotite-pentlandite-chalcopyrite +/- pyrite. Sulphide content and metal grade are well correlated, with higher sulphide concentration corresponding to higher metal content.

The weathering profile in the area extends to approximately 30–40 m below surface. A welldeveloped laterite and saprolite profile is present which contains elevated PGE grades from near surface to a depth of approximately 25m. There is a narrow transition zone between the oxide and sulphide zones, which is generally <15m thick.

15 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

==> picture [721 x 445] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 9. Gonneville 3D view (looking NNE) – local geology and resource pit shell.

Chalice Mining 16 Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

==> picture [467 x 681] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 10. Gonneville Plan View – local geology and resource pit outline at depth of ~80m.

Chalice Mining 17 Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Drilling techniques

The drilling database for the Deposit includes data collected by diamond (DD), reverse circulation (RC) and air-core (AC) drilling techniques. The drilling database has been compiled from holes drilled by the Company between 12 March 2020 and 18 March 2022.

A total of 287 DD holes (including wedges) 478 RC drill holes (including RC pre-collars with DD tails), and 106 shallow AC holes for 211,000m were included in the resource.

Nominal drill hole spacing at Gonneville is ~40m over the majority of the deposit. The 40m spaced infill drilling has been undertaken to a depth of ~200m. Deeper extensional drilling has been carried out typically on an 80m spacing at irregular intervals throughout the intrusion. The vast majority of DD and RC holes have been drilled towards the east at a dip of -60° and hence provide representative samples. AC holes have been drilled vertically which is the optimal sampling orientation for the subhorizontal oxide mineralisation.

A total of 55 RC holes (including RC pre-collars with diamond tails) and 61 DD holes (including wedges) have been completed subsequent to the holes included in the Resource. A total of ~235,000m has been drilled to date at the project.

Sampling and sub-sampling

Diamond drill core was predominantly HQ diameter with a small number of NQ2 diameter holes drilled. Quarter core samples for HQ and half core samples for NQ were taken for analysis over intervals ranging from 0.2m to 1.2m (typically 1.0m) based on geology, with the same quarter of the drill core consistently sampled. Field duplicates were collected as ¼ core samples. Individual recoveries of diamond core samples were recorded on a quantitative basis. Generally sample weights were comparable and any bias is considered negligible. Core recovery was excellent, generally >95%.

RC drilling samples were collected as 1m samples from a rig mounted cone splitter. Two 1m assay samples were collected with one sample being sent to the laboratory and the other either kept for reference or used as a duplicate.

AC drilling samples were collected as 1m samples from a rig mounted cone splitter. A single 1m assay sample was collected and sent to the laboratory. The remainder of the sample was bagged and either kept for reference or used as a duplicate.

Samples were collected in polyweave bags either at the drill rig (RC and AC samples) or at the core cutting facility (DD samples). The polyweave bags contain five samples each and are cable tied; samples potentially containing fibrous minerals were segregated into separate bags.

Filled bags were collected into palletised bulka bags at the field office and delivered directly from site to ALS laboratories in Wangara, Perth by a Chalice contractor several times weekly. Cer ti fied Reference Materials (CRMs) and blank material were inserted in the sample stream to monitor analy ti cal bias and carry-over contamina ti on, respec ti vely. No unresolved issues were identified through this monitoring.

Sampling analysis and methods

DD, RC and AC samples underwent sample preparation and geochemical analysis by ALS Perth. AuPt-Pd was analysed by 50g fire assay fusion with an ICP-AES finish (ALS Method code PGM-ICP24). A 48-element suite was analysed by ICP-MS following a four-acid digest (ALS method code ME-MS61) for holes up to and including JD023 and JRC122.

Later holes were analysed using four-acid digest for 34 elements (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 analysis was performed on higher grade material as required for

18 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

elements reporting out of range for Ni, Cr, Cu (ALS method code ME-OG-62) and Pd, Pt (ALS method code PGM-ICP27).

Selected samples were sent to Intertek Genalysis for analysis of other PGEs (Ru, Rh, Os, Ir). These were analysed using nickel sulphide collection fire assay with a 1ppb detection limit (IntertekGenalysis method code NS25/MS). Results for these are all routinely low with maximum values of 75ppb, 333ppb, 21ppb, 92ppb respectively and hence Gonneville contains no appreciable quantities of these metals.

Certified reference materials (CRMs), duplicates and blanks were inserted at rates of approximately 1:10 for all samples. Samples from ~5% of the samples >0.1g/t Pd were sent to Intertek Genalysis laboratory in Perth for cross laboratory checks. All QA/QC samples display results within acceptable levels of accuracy and no significant carry over contamination was observed.

Sample density determinations were carried out on site using the water displacement method. Incompetent oxide core samples from the weathering profile were wax-coated prior to density determination. Density determinations were carried out on all fresh rock core samples, and representative oxide samples resulting in ~80% of total drilled diamond core intervals having had density determinations completed. These were then used to assign a bulk density to the block model using a combination of assignment by geological domain, and spatial estimation from sample density determinations from de-surveyed drill holes.

Resource estimation methodology

All geological wireframe interpretations used in the Resource were constructed by Chalice using a combination of Leapfrog and Micromine software. Geological wireframes provided by Chalice include weathering, lithological, litho-geochemical and supergene/dispersion zone interpretations. Block modelling and grade estimation was carried out by Cube Consulting using Surpac and Isatis software. Statistical analysis was carried out by Cube Consulting using Geoaccess Professional and Isatis software. Prior to estimation, variables with below detection limit assays were assigned a positive value equal to half of the detection limit for the relevant grade variable. Intentionally unsampled intervals were retained as absent grade values. The vast majority of the intentionally unsampled intervals occur outside of the host intrusion lithology, and therefore have no bearing on the grade estimates. Absent density values have been retained as absent values, as density determinations were not taken for these intervals.

All drillhole samples were flagged according to the geological domain interpretations provided by Chalice. Sample populations were statistically analysed to derive geostatistical domain groupings for Pd, Pt, Ni, Co, Cu, Au, As, S and density. Statistical analysis included comparison of global grade distributions, derivation of statistical correlations between grade variables and contact analysis of grade variables across the various geological domains. From this analysis, estimation domains were determined for Pd/Pt/Ni/Co/Cu/Au, As, S and density variable groupings.

For primary Pd, Pt, Ni, Co, Cu, Au mineralisation located within the Ultramafic intrusion, grade interpolation was undertaken using Ordinary Kriging (OK) within high sulphide/high Pd zones (G Zones) and surrounding lower-grade general Ultramafic zone. The latter was divided into a low-tomoderate grade “Main” sub-domain and very low-grade northwest sub-domain. The OK interpolations for the economically material Pd, Ni and Cu variables were subsequently postprocessed to derive a Localised Uniform Conditioning (LUC) final grade estimate in the Ultramafic volume outside of the higher grade mineralised G Zones. OK estimates for the granite, dolerite and sediment lithologies were also undertaken, but using restrictive high-grade distance limiting parameters to curtail the propagation of rare high-grade samples. These high-grade samples are believed to be due mainly to xenoliths of Ultramafic material in the case of the granite, and dolerite dykes, and re-mobilisation of mineralisation into the surrounding sediments. The mineralisation modelled outside of the Ultramafic envelope has not been classified as a Mineral Resource for reporting purposes.

19 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

For the secondary mineralisation, most notably in the supergene horizon, grade interpolation was undertaken using OK.

Indicator kriging was used to model the geometry of dyke material that was logged in the drill holes, typically represented by short and discontinuous intercepts, but which fell outside of the dyke Leapfrog wireframes. This additional dyke volume comprises approximately 3% of the total volume within the estimated Ultramafic intrusion envelope. Detection limit grades were assigned for all elemental variables and density was assigned based on density sample statistics.

OK estimates were run into 20mE x 20mN x 10mRL parent blocks, which is approximately half the width of the nominal 40m infill drill spacing. LUC estimates, where undertaken, were progressed to smaller 10mE x 10mN x 5mRL blocks.

A variable variogram and search ellipse orientation strategy was implemented using Isatis’ Dynamic Anisotropy (DA) functionality during grade interpolation to honour the local undulations in the mineralisation orientation. The hangingwall and footwall surfaces for the G Zones were used to define the DA within the envelope of the Ultramafic intrusion in the primary zone. In the secondary zone, including the Supergene unit, the topographic, bottom of complete oxidation and top of fresh surfaces were used for DA.

Once estimation domains for grade interpolation were defined, composited drill hole sample populations were statistically analysed to derive grade capping values. Grade capping was observed to have an immaterial impact on global grades. Boundary/contact analysis showed that the G Zones have hard boundaries with respect to the surrounding, lower-grade general Ultramafic zone and so hard grade boundaries were applied to this contact for grade interpolation. A general ultramafic Main-NW sub-domain estimation boundary was also defined for economic element and sulphur interpolation, based on a large change in the grade distribution, and was treated as soft during interpolation, although different capping, variogram and search parameters were implemented either side of this boundary.

Search strategy for primary mineralisation Pd, Pt, Ni, Co, Cu, Au and S (within Ultramafic unit and high grade Pd/sulphide zones): A minimum of 6 and maximum of 16 to 20 samples per estimate into a parent block size of 20 mE x 20 mN x 10 mRL. The maximum limit was allowed to be exceeded in cases where samples are situated within any given block, since the condition was set whereby the OK would by default use all samples within the block. The maximum number of samples per drillhole was limited by using anisotropic distances for sample selection in combination with a maximum of 4 to 5 samples per search ellipse quadrant. A single search pass was used. Block discretisation scheme was 5pts(E) x 5pts(N) x 2pts(RL). LUC post-processing of Pd, Ni, Cu and S was into a Selective Mining Unit (SMU) block size of 10mE x 10mN x 5mRL.

Search strategy for secondary mineralisation Pd, Pt, Ni, Co, Cu, Au and S (within the Ultramafic, G Zones and Supergene unit): A minimum of 3 to 6 and maximum of 12 to 16 samples per estimate into a parent block size of 20mE x 20mN x 10mRL. The maximum limit was allowed to be exceeded in cases where samples are situated within any given block, since the condition was set whereby the OK would by default use all samples within the block. The maximum number of samples per drillhole was limited by using anisotropic distances for sample selection in combination with a maximum of 4 to 5 samples per search ellipse quadrant. A single search pass was used. The block discretisation scheme was 5pts(E) x 5pts(N) x 2pts(RL).

For Pd, Pt, Ni, Co, Cu, Au and S, un-estimated blocks have been assigned grades equal to the mean estimated block grade per estimation domain within the Ultramafic and high Pd/sulphide zones. Outside of the Ultramafic envelope, un-estimated blocks were assigned half detection limit for each grade variable. None of the ex-ultramafic blocks, whether interpolated or assigned, have been classified as Mineral Resource.

Density was modelled using OK within the transitional + fresh portion of the Ultramafic intrusion, granite, gabbro, dyke and sediment lithologies. Constant density assignments were made in the

20 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

oxide zone, where the paucity of data did not justify using geostatistical interpolation. For unestimated blocks, default density values were assigned based on applicable sample statistics.

Final block values for Pd, Pt, Ni, Co, Cu, Au, S and density were validated by way of visual review of plans and cross sections (block model and drill samples presented with same colour legend), swath plots, and comparison of estimation domain mean grades with the input grade distribution data. Simple Inverse Distance Squared (ID2) check estimates were also run for Pd, Ni and Cu within the Supergene, Ultramafic and G Zone domains, which account for the overwhelming majority of the economic mineralisation in the Gonneville deposit. The ID2 check estimates were comparable to the main OK/LUC estimates.

Classification criteria

The Resource has been classified following due consideration of all criteria contained in Section 1, Section 2 and Section 3 of JORC Code 2012 Table 1. The Resource has been classified as either Indicated or Inferred based on data quality, sample spacing, mineralisation continuity, confidence in the geological interpretations, quality of the grade estimations and metallurgical processing knowledge. No Measured material has been defined for this Resource Estimate.

Primary mineralisation within the host Ultramafic intrusion has been classified as a combination of Indicated and Inferred. Indicated and Inferred wireframe volumes were developed from sectional interpretation strings, and model cells then coded with Resource Classification codes directly from the wireframe volumes.

All fresh and transitional material within the Ultramafic intrusion envelope informed by a reasonably consistent drill spacing of 80m has been classified as Inferred, except around the periphery of the drilling pattern, where extrapolation results in lower quality estimates and Pd grade variography has informed a decision to limit the extrapolation of the Inferred material to between 40m and 50m.

The 80m drill spacing corresponds to the nominal exploration drill hole spacing used for the deposit.

An 80m drill spacing is considered by the Competent Persons as being sufficient to imply, but not verify, geological and grade continuity for the deposit style.

All fresh and transitional material within the Ultramafic intrusion, excluding the mostly barren granite, and dolerite dyke units, informed by a consistent drill spacing of 40m has been classified as Indicated. The selection of a 40m drill spacing distance for Indicated was based on:

  • « Results from a simulation-based drill hole spacing study carried out for the deposit indicating that the resource definition drill-out be conducted on a 40m x 40m drill spacing.

  • « Variogram ranges of the main economic grade variable, Pd, indicating that grade continuity does not exceed 40m to 50m within the high Pd/sulphide zones.

  • « Estimation quality metrics, such as slope of regression and average distance to sample were considered during the classification process.

A 40m drill spacing is considered by the Competent Persons as being sufficient to allow estimation of the deposit physical characteristics with sufficient confidence to allow the application of Modifying Factors in sufficient detail to support mine planning and evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit.

With the exception of the Supergene unit, which has been classified as per the fresh and transitional material, the erratically mineralised secondary zone has been classified as Inferred within the bounds of the Ultramafic envelope and is unclassified outside of the envelope.

Reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction

The Resource is considered to have reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction (RPEEE) on the following basis:

21 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

  • « The deposit is located in a favourable mining jurisdiction, with no known impediments to land access and tenure status;

  • « The volume, orientation and grade of the Mineral Resource is amenable to mining extraction via traditional open pit mining methodologies;

  • « Available metallurgical test work indicates that the Mineral Resource is amenable to metallurgical extraction via flotation and/or leaching.

Cut-off grades

A cut-off grade of 0.9g/t Pd has been used for all oxide material.

The cut-off grade for transitional and sulphide material was selected using nickel equivalent (NiEq) to take into account the contribution of multiple potentially payable metals. Metal equivalent formulae are discussed in more detail below.

A cut-off grade of 0.4% NiEq was selected for transitional and fresh mineralisation in-pit, as this is the approximate marginal economic cut-off grade estimated by the Whittle shell optimisation.

The grade-tonnage plots generated for all sulphide material (Indicated and Inferred) within the optimised pit shell (Figure 3 and Figure 4) were then used to select a suitable higher cut-off grade of 0.60% NiEq for the ‘higher-grade sulphide component’ (Table 2).

Mineralisation outside the pit shell has been reported within selective mining shapes created by Datamine’s Mineable Stope Optimiser software (MSO). The MSO optimisation defined reasonable shapes that could be extracted by underground mining methods.

Mining and metallurgical methods and parameters

Leaching test work on oxide material using a variety of lixiviants has shown similar levels of leach extraction of palladium for each, typically 70% to 80%. Work is ongoing to optimise reagent consumption and to assess methods for recovery of the palladium from solution. Engineering studies are continuing to confirm potential capital and operating costs.

Limited testwork has been completed on the transitional domain because of the limited amount of transitional material currently available. Preliminary work indicates the need to further define the degree of oxidation with some transitional material to be reclassified as more suitable for treatment by leaching.

Comminution and flotation testwork, together with geometallurgical characterisation, has been completed on 15 sulphide composite samples from several geological domains (including highergrade and lower-grade samples). It should be cautioned though that variability testwork is continuing in order to generate representative geometallurgical algorithms for all domains.

Processing options include the generation of separate copper and nickel concentrates, each containing PGEs and suitable for potential sale to smelters, together with local enrichment of lower grade nickel concentrates to produce higher grade intermediate products for potential sale to battery producers.

Data from this work has been used to inform metallurgical recovery assumptions for the Resource. Recoveries for each major element vary with grade and define a recovery algorithm. This algorithm has been used to define a metallurgical recovery value for each element in each resource block based on the grade. The range of recoveries and average predicted recoveries for each metal using a concentrate enrichment flowsheet are provided in Table 3.

The flotation data is based on locked cycle flotation tests whilst the recoveries from enrichment are based on indicative testing on a Julimar concentrate sample and published data for similar approaches.

22 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Table 3. Metallurgical recoveries – sulphide (fresh) domain, concentrate enrichment flowsheet (copper-PGE concentrate and nickel-cobalt MHP).

Metal
Metallurgical
>0.4% NiEq cut-off		 >0.6% NiEq cut-off
recovery range (%)
Avg
Resource
grade
Predicted
metallurgical
recovery (%)
Avg
Resource
grade
Predicted
metallurgical
recovery (%)
Palladium
55% to 90%
0.72g/t
60%
1.31g/t
67%
Platinum
55% to 90%
0.16g/t
61%
0.29g/t
68%
Gold
30% to 65%
0.03g/t
62%
0.07g/t
62%
Nickel
40% to 80%
0.16%
49%
0.21%
55%
Copper
88% to 95%
0.11%
90%
0.20%
92%
Cobalt1
40% to 80%
0.02%
49%
0.02%
55%

1 Cobalt is associated with nickel and hence recoveries reflect the nickel grade

Recoveries are robust at higher grades and good quality copper and nickel concentrates can be produced.

Copper and PGE recoveries are robust at lower grades, however more work is required to optimise flotation recovery of nickel and cobalt (and corresponding PGEs which report to the nickel concentrate) at lower grades. This may entail some form of concentrate enrichment to produce higher grade intermediates in order to maximise recovery, a flowsheet which is currently being investigated. Other investigations underway include:

  • « Detailed mineralogy to better understand the deportment of nickel and cobalt other than in pentlandite. Non-sulphide nickel content in composites tested to date indicates a range of 1020% and as such further mineralogical investigation is required;

  • « Finer grinding to improve concentrate grades and recovery of associated PGE’s; and

  • « Production of bulk concentrates at lower nickel grades (further discussions underway with potential offtake customers to determine terms).

Recovery algorithms will continue to be updated using geometallurgical approaches to refine understanding and definition of variability.

Independent review and audit

No independent audit has been completed on the Resource, however, the results of this Resource are consistent with the maiden MRE (refer to ASX release dated 9 November 2021) when taking into account the extra drilling, change in input assumptions and differing estimation methodology (previously Categorical Indicator Kriging).

Chalice also engaged Mark Noppé, Corporate Consultant with SRK Consulting and an expert in resource estimation, to complete an assurance review of Chalice and CSA Global procedures, as well as the mineral resource estimation process. This did not identify any material issues with the Cube Consulting estimation process.

Metal equivalents

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.

23 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

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) + 1.27 x 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 long term consensus analyst estimates):

  • « US$1,800/oz Pd, US$1,300/oz Pt, US$1,800/oz Au, US$22,00/t Ni, US$10,500/t Cu and US$75,000/t Co.

Authorised for release by the Disclosure Committee.

For further information or to view the interactive 3D model of the Julimar Project, 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 [email protected] [email protected]

24 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Competent Persons and Qualifying Persons Statement

The information in this announcement that relates to 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 and is entitled to participate in the Chalice Performance Rights Plan. Mr Kendall 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, and is a Qualified Person under National Instrument 43-101 – ‘Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects’. The Qualified Person has verified the data disclosed in this release, including sampling, analytical and test data underlying the information contained in this release. Mr Kendall consents to the inclusion in the announcement of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears.

The information in this announcement that relates to Mineral Resources in relation to the Julimar Nickel-Copper-PGE Project is based on and fairly represents information and supporting documentation compiled by Mike Millad and Mike Job. Mr Millad is a full time employee and director of Cube Consulting and is a member in good standing of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists (#5799). Mr Millad 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, and is a Qualified Person under National Instrument 43-101 – ‘Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects’. Mr Millad consents to the inclusion in the announcement of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears. Mr Job is a full time employee and director of Cube Consulting and is a Fellow in good standing of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (#201978). Mr Job 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, and is a Qualified Person under National Instrument 43-101 – ‘Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects’. Mr Job consents to the inclusion in the announcement of the matters 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:

  • « “Significant high-grade PGE-Cu-Au extensions at Julimar”, 18 November 2020; and,

  • « “New Results Highlight Underground Potential at Julimar”, 2 March 2022.

  • « “New Mineralised Zone Intersected at Dampier Target”, 7 July 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 announcements. The Company confirms that the form and context in which the Competent Person and Qualified Person’s findings are presented have not been materially modified from the relevant original market announcements.

Forward Looking Statements

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

25 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

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 exploration success; the timing of planned exploration activities on the Company’s projects; access to sites for planned drilling activities; and the success of future potential mining operations; the timing of the receipt of exploration results.

In certain cases, forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of words such as, “affords”, “believe”, “considered”, “continue”, “could”, “estimate”, “expected”, “for”, “future”, “interpreted”, “likely”, “looking”, “may”, “open”, “optionality”, “plan” or “planned”, “potential”, “provides”, “robust”, “targets”, “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 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; 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; grade or recovery rates; 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 SEDAR at sedar.com, ASX at asx.com.au and OTC Markets at otcmarkets.com. The Company also refers to the “Key Risks” section of its institutional capital raise presentation released to the ASX on 24 May 2022.

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.

Mineral Resources Reporting Requirements

As an Australian Company with securities listed on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX), Chalice is subject to Australian disclosure requirements and standards, including the requirements of the Corporations Act 2001 and the ASX. Investors should note that it is a requirement of the ASX listing rules that the reporting of mineral resources in Australia is in accordance with the JORC Code and that Chalice’s mineral resource estimates comply with the JORC Code.

The requirements of JORC Code differ in certain material respects from the disclosure requirements of United States securities laws. The terms used in this announcement are as defined in the JORC Code. The definitions of these terms differ from the definitions of such terms for purposes of the disclosure requirements in the United States.

26 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

As a designated reporting issuer in the province of Ontario, Chalice is also subject to certain Canadian disclosure requirements and standards, including the requirements of NI 43-101. The Julimar Project is a material mineral project for the purposes of NI43-101. The confidence categories assigned under the JORC Code were reconciled to the confidence categories in the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM) Definition Standards – for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves May 2014. As the confidence category definitions are the same, no modifications to the confidence categories were required.

Mineral Resources that are not Ore Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. Due to lower certainty, the inclusion of Mineral Resources should not be regarded as a representation by Chalice that such amounts can necessarily be economically exploited, and investors are cautioned not to place undue reliance upon such figures. No assurances can be given that the estimates of Mineral Resources presented in this announcement will be recovered at the tonnages and grades presented, or at all.

27 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Appendix A 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.
•
HQ diamond core was quarter cored
and NQ2 was half cored with samples
taken over selective intervals ranging
from 0.2m to 1.2m (typically 1.0m).
•
Reverse Circulation (RC) drilling
samples were collected as 1m samples
from a rig mounted cone splitter.
•
Aircore (AC) drilling samples were
collected as 1m samples.
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.
•
For RC, two 1m assay samples were
collected as a split from the rig cyclone
using a cone splitter with the same split
consistently sent to the laboratory for
analysis.
•
For AC, one 1m assay sample was
collected as a split from the rig cyclone
using a cone splitter with the same split
consistently sent to the laboratory for
analysis.
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. In diamond
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).
•
Drilling has been undertaken by
diamond, Reverse Circulation (RC) and
Aircore (AC) techniques.
•
Diamond drill core is predominantly HQ
size (63.5mm diameter). Limited NQ2
(47.6mm diameter) drilling and PQ
(85mm) has also been completed.
Triple tube has been used from surface
until competent bedrock and then
standard tube thereafter.
•
Core orientation is by an ACT Reflex
(ACT III RD) tool
•
RC Drilling uses a face-sampling
hammer drill bit with a diameter of 5.5
inches (140mm).
•
AC drilling used a bladed 100mm bit
and was only used in the oxide

28 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Criteria JORC Code explanation
Commentary
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%
•
Individual recoveries for RC composite
samples were recorded on a
qualitative basis. Sample weights were
observed to be slightly lower through
transported cover whereas drilling
through bedrock yielded samples with
more consistent weights. Two separate
studies were completed where all the
sample was weighed and compared
with the expected weight. These
indicated that as with the diamond
core, sample recovery in the oxide is
moderate and good in the fresh rock
•
Individual recoveries for AC composite
samples were recorded on a
qualitative basis. Bag weighing was
completed on every 5th hole to verify
the recovery and provide a basis on
which to estimate the sample recovery
in other holes.
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 and RC samples were
consistently taken from the same split
on the cyclone
•
AC drilling was focused on sample
recovery by using low air pressure. Bag
weighing was completed on every 5th
hole to verify the recovery
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.
•
Paired statistical analyses comparing
AC, RC and DD samples show that
there isn’t a statistically significant
difference between these sample
types. RC grades are observed to be
slightly higher than DD grades, but
mostly in the <0.1ppm Pd range, which
means that the impact on the resource
would be immaterial. All three sample
typesweretherefore considered

29 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Criteria JORC Code explanation
Commentary
compatible for use in the grade
interpolation.
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.
•
For fresh rock, diamond core was sawn
in half and one-half quartered and
sampled over 0.2-1.2m intervals (mostly
1m). In the oxide zone where core
could not be reliably cut, diamond
core was split with a chisel and the
equivalent of quarter core sampled.
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.
•
AC assay samples were collected as
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. There was a higher percentage
of wet samples than in the RC drilling,
but a review of the assay results do not
indicate any downhole smearing of
samples
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
AC, RC and diamond drilling at an
approximate ratio of one in twenty five.
•
Diamond drill core field duplicates
collected as ¼ core.
•
RC Field duplicates were collected
from selected sulphide zones as a
second 1m split directly from the cone
splitter.
•
AC field duplicates were selected
randomly from the bulk sample.

30 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Criteria JORC Code explanation
Commentary
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
laboratory
tests		 The nature, quality and appropriateness
of the assaying and laboratory
procedures used and whether the
technique is considered partial or total.
•
Diamond drill core, RC and AC
samples underwent sample
preparation and geochemical analysis
by ALS Perth. Au-Pt-Pd was analysed
by 50g fire assay fusion with an ICP-AES
finish (ALS Method code PGM-ICP24).
A 48-element suite was analysed by
ICP-MS following a four-acid digest
(ALS method code ME-MS61) for holes
up to and including JD023 and JRC122.
Later holes including all AC holes were
analysed using four-acid digest for 34
elements (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 such tools or
instruments were used
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, blanks
and duplicates were inserted at
appropriate intervals for diamond, RC
and AC drill samples with an insertion
rate of >10%. Approximately 5% of
>0.1g/t Pd assays were sent for cross
laboratory checks. 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.
•
Eight sets of twinned holes (RC versus
Diamond)have beendrilledto provide

31 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Criteria JORC Code explanation
Commentary
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.
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.
•
Diamond, RC and AC drill hole collar
locations are initially recorded by
Chalice employees using a handheld
GPS with a +/- 3m margin of error and
then picked up with an RTK-DGPS.
•
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.
•
Drill hole spacing varies from between
40m x 40 m in the south to 80m x 40m in
the north and west.
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 the drilling to date are
considered sufficient to assume
geological or grade continuity
appropriate for Mineral Resource
estimation procedure(s) and
classifications.
Whether sample compositing has been
applied.
•
No compositing undertaken for
diamond drill core or RC samples.
Orientation of
data in
relation to		 Whether the orientation of sampling
achieves unbiased sampling of possible
•
RC and Diamond drill holes were
typically oriented within 15° of
orthogonal totheinterpreted dip and

32 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Criteria JORC Code explanation
Commentary
geological
structure		 structures and the extent to which this is
known, considering the deposit type.
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 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 either at the drill rig (RC and AC
samples) or at the core cutting facility
(diamond samples). 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.
•
Cube Consulting conducted a site visit
and review of the sampling techniques
and data as part of this 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
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.
•
Exploration activities are ongoing over
E70/5118 and 5119 and the tenements
are in good standing. The holder CGM
(WA) Pty Ltd is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Chalice Mining Limited
with no known encumbrances.
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.
•
Current drilling is on private land all of
which is owned by the Company.
•
E70/5119 partially overlaps ML1SA, a
State Agreement covering Bauxite
mineral rights only.
Exploration done
by other parties		 Acknowledgment and appraisal of
exploration by other parties.
•
There is no previous exploration at
Gonneville and only limited
exploration has been completed by
otherexplorationpartiesin thevicinity

33 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary Commentary
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.
• Three diamond holes were completed
by Bestbet Pty Ltd targeting Fe-Ti-V
situated approximately 3km NE of
JRC001. No elevated Ni-Cu-PGE
assays were reported.
• 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.
• The target deposit type is an
orthomagmatic Ni-Cu-PGE sulphide
deposit, within the Yilgarn Craton. The
Geology Deposit type, geological setting and
style of mineralisation.		 style of sulphide mineralisation
intersected consists of massive, matrix,
stringer and disseminated sulphides
typical of metamorphosed and
structurally overprinted
orthomagmatic Ni sulphide deposits.
A summary of all information material to • Not applicable for this report. No
the understanding of the exploration previously unreleased exploration
results including a tabulation of the results included.
following information for all Material drill
holes:
Drill hole Easting and northing of the drill hole
collar
Information 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.

34 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary Commentary
If the exclusion of this information is • No material information has been
justified on the basis that the excluded.
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.
In reporting Exploration Results, • Significant intercepts are reported
Data
aggregation
methods		 weighting averaging techniques,
maximum and/or minimum grade
truncations (eg. cutting of high grades)
and cut-off grades are usually Material		 using a >0.5g/t Pd length-weighted
cut off for oxide and >0.4% NiEq
length-weighted cut off for sulphide
material. A maximum of 4m internal
and should be stated. dilution has been applied.
• Higher grade intervals are reported
using a >0.9g/t Pd length-weighted
cut off for oxide and >0.6% NiEq
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.		 length-weighted cut off. Some
intercepts are also reported above a
>0.8% NiEq length-weighted cut off
where the grade is very high or the
intercept is deep and beyond the
optimised pit shell used to constrain
the Mineral Resource estimate. A
maximum of 2m internal dilution has
been applied for intercepts
calculated using >0.6% NiEq or >0.8%
NiEq cut offs.
• 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).
The assumptions used for any reporting
of metal equivalent values should be
clearly stated.		 • 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		 These relationships are particularly
important in the reporting of Exploration
Results.		 • RC and Diamond drill holes were
typically oriented within 15° of
orthogonal to the interpreted dip and
strike of the known zone of
intercept lengths mineralisation. However, several holes
were drilled at less optimalazimuths

35 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Criteria JORC Code explanation
Commentary
If the geometry of the mineralisation
with respect to the drill hole angle is
known, its nature should be reported.
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. For
low grade intercepts (> 0.40% NiEq)
true width approximates downhole
width. For high grade intercepts
(>0.6% NiEq) true width is generally
between 80 and 100% of the
downhole width.
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.
•
No new exploration intercepts
reported.
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.
•
Not applicable. All meaningful data
relating to the Mineral Resource has
been included
Further work The nature and scale of planned further
work (eg. tests for lateral extensions or
depth extensions or large-scale step-out
drilling).
•
Diamond and RC 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.
•
Scoping study work has commenced
including additional metallurgical
testwork, mining studies, tailings
studies and waste rock
characterisation etc.
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.

36 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

A-3 Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources

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.
•
OCRIS data logging software is used by
Chalice for front end data collection
and has in-built validation for all
geological logging and sampling.
•
All logging, sampling and assay files are
stored in a SQL Server database using
DataShed (industry standard drill hole
database management software).
•
User access to the database is regulated
by specific user permissions. Only the
Database Manager can overwrite data.
•
All data has passed a validation process;
any discrepancies have been checked
by Chalice personnel before being
updated in the database.
Data validation procedures used.
•
Cube Consulting completed validation
checks on the drill hole data extraction
provided by Chalice for use in the
Mineral Resource Estimate.
•
Multiple collar entries, potentially suspect
collar and downhole survey results,
absent survey or assay data,
overlapping intervals, negative sample
lengths, out of range assay values and
sample intervals which extended
beyond the hole depth defined in the
collar table were reviewed.
•
Only minor validation issues were
detected which were communicated to
Chalice and corrected prior to the
preparation of the Mineral Resource
estimate.
Site visits Comment on any site visits undertaken
by the Competent Person and the
outcome of those visits.
•
A site visit to the Julimar Project was
completed by Mike Job (Principal
Geologist/Geostatistician at Cube
Consulting) and Mike Millad (Principal
Geologist/Geostatistician at Cube
Consulting) on 12 May 2022, and an
inspection of the ALS sample
preparation and analytical laboratories
was undertaken by Mike Job on 2 June
2022. Mike Job and Mike Millad assume
Competent Persons status for the Mineral
Resource estimate.
•
During the Julimar site visit, the drilling,
sampling, geological logging, density
measurement and sample storage
facilities, equipment and procedures
were witnessed, and discussions held
with Chalice representatives. The
facilities and equipment were
appropriate, and the procedures were
well-designed and being implemented
consistently. The sample preparation
and analytical laboratories were well
equipped and were operated to a very
high standard. In the Competent
Persons’opinion,the geologicaland

37 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Criteria JORC Code explanation
Commentary
analytical data being produced is
appropriate for use in a Mineral
Resource Estimate.
If no site visits have been undertaken
indicate why this is the case.
•
Not applicable (see above)
Geological
interpretation		 Confidence in (or conversely, the
uncertainty of ) the geological
interpretation of the mineral deposit.
•
The location and orientation of the
primary Ni-Cu-PGE mineralisation within
the Ultramafic host unit are reasonably
well understood and have been
developed over the course of the drill-
out phase of the project.
•
Geological controls on the
supergene/dispersion zone material are
reasonably simple and well understood.
•
Confidence in the orientations of the
barren Dolerite dyke lithology is variable
over the footprint of the deposit, due to
the geological complexity shown by this
lithology unit. However, volumetrically
the unit is considered as having been
appropriately captured in the
geological interpretation and by
geostatistical interpolation of minor
dolerite intervals not captured in the
Leapfrog wireframes generated by
Chalice. Work on improving definition of,
and confidence in, the Dolerite lithology
by Chalice is ongoing.
Nature of the data used and of any
assumptions made.
•
Sample intercept logging and assay
results from drill core and RC samples
form the basis for the geological
interpretations.
•
A criterion of > 0.9ppm Pd have been
used by Chalice to construct the
supergene/dispersion zone mineralised
zone wireframe. The logged oxide-
transition boundary in the weathering
profile was taken into account when
developing the interpretation. A
minimum intersection width of 2m was
applied. The same criteria were applied
to wireframe modelling of high-grade,
sulphide-rich horizons termed “G Zones”
within the Ultramafic host. The G Zones
are broadly concordant with litho-
geochemical domain boundaries
defined using geochemical thresholds
within the Ultramafic body, which are
reflective of the evolution of the magma
and other igneous processes. The G
Zones are also considered to be reliable
guides to the overall orientation and
geometry of mineralisation continuity.
The effect, if any, of alternative
interpretations on Mineral Resource
estimation.
•
Alternative interpretations are likely to
materially impact on the Mineral
Resource estimate on a local, but not
global, basis.

38 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Criteria JORC Code explanation
Commentary
The use of geology in guiding and
controlling Mineral Resource
estimation.
•
The litho-geochemical domains within
the host Ultramafic unit are known to
have an association with the orientation
of the primary mineralisation zones (i.e.
the G Zones). The grades of the
economic elements and geological
interpretations for these features have
been incorporated into the resource
estimation approach via the
development of trend surfaces informing
a variable variogram and search ellipse
orientation strategy (Dynamic Anisotropy
(DA)).
The factors affecting continuity both
of grade and geology.
•
The deposit represents part of a large
layered intrusion. Sulphide content and
metal grade are well correlated, with
higher sulphide concentration generally
corresponding to higher metal content
within the Ultramafic intrusion.
•
On a global scale the mineralisation
displays good geological and grade
continuity, which is largely governed by
magmatic fractionation processes within
the host intrusion. On a local scale
geological and grade continuity is
disrupted by the presence of variably
oriented barren dolerite dykes and
granite inclusions, both of which post-
date and therefore overprint the
mineralisation.
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 Mineral
Resource.
•
The main part of the Mineral Resource
within the Ultramafic extends for a strike
length of approximately 1.8km and is 600
to 800 m thick. Plan width of the sub-
parallel, sulphide-rich G Zones varies
from 5 to 40m. Plan width of the
encompassing sulphide poor zones
varies from 100 to 150m. The reported
Indicated Mineral Resource is within
approximately 400m below surface. The
reported Inferred Mineral Resource is
within approximately 600m below
surface.
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.
•
All geological wireframe interpretations
used in the Resource were constructed
by Chalice using a combination of
Leapfrog and Micromine software.
Geological wireframes provided by
Chalice include weathering, lithological,
litho-geochemical and
supergene/dispersion zone
interpretations. Block modelling and
grade estimation was carried out by
Cube Consulting using Surpac and Isatis
software. Statistical analysis was carried
out by Cube Consulting using
Geoaccess Professional and Isatis
software.
•
Prior to estimation of variables, below
detection limitassayswere assigned a

39 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary Commentary
positive value equal to half of the
detection limit for the relevant grade
variable. Intentionally unsampled
intervals were retained as absent grade
values. The vast majority of the
intentionally unsampled intervals occur
outside of the host intrusion lithology,
and therefore have no bearing on the
grade estimates. Absent density values
have been retained as absent values, as
density determinations were not taken
for these intervals.
• All drillhole samples were flagged
according to the geological domain
interpretations provided by Chalice.
Sample populations were statistically
analysed to derive geostatistical domain
groupings for Pd, Pt, Ni, Co, Cu, Au, As, S
and density. Statistical analysis included
comparison of global grade distributions,
derivation of statistical correlations
between grade variables and contact
analysis of grade variables across the
various geological domains. From
analysis, estimation domains were
determined for Pd/Pt/Ni/Co/Cu/Au, As, S
and density variable groupings.
Information regarding the in-situ mineral
chemistry of the various mineral species
for the deposit is currently not available.
Mineral speciation was therefore not
incorporated into the definition of the
geostatistical domains.
• For primary Pd, Pt, Ni, Co, Cu, Au
mineralisation located within the
Ultramafic intrusion, grade interpolation
was undertaken using Ordinary Kriging
(OK) within the G Zones and surrounding
lower-grade general Ultramafic zone.
The latter was divided into a low-to-
moderate grade “Main” sub-domain
and very low-grade northwest sub-
domain. The OK interpolations for the
economically material Pd, Ni and Cu
variables were subsequently post-
processed to derive a Localised Uniform
Conditioning (LUC) final grade estimate
in the Ultramafic volume outside of the
G Zones. OK estimates for the granite,
gabbro, dyke and sediment lithologies
were also undertaken, but using
restrictive high-grade distance limiting
parameters to curtail the propagation of
rare high-grade samples. These high-
grade samples are believed to be due
mainly to xenoliths of Ultramafic material
in the case of the granite, gabbro and
dykes, and re-mobilisation of
mineralisation into especially the
surrounding sediments. The
mineralisation modelled outside of the
Ultramafic envelopehasnotbeen

40 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary Commentary
classified as a Mineral Resource for
reporting purposes.
• Indicator kriging was used to model the
geometry of dyke material that was
logged in the drill holes, typically
represented by short and discontinuous
intercepts, but which fell outside of the
dyke Leapfrog wireframes. This
additional dyke volume comprises
approximately 2.8% of the total volume
within the estimated Ultramafic intrusion
envelope. Detection limit grades were
assigned for all elemental variables and
density was assigned based on density
sample statistics.
• Arsenic only occurs in very low
abundances and was modelled using
OK throughout. In contrast to the
economic elements, As is of higher
grade in the southeast of the Ultramafic
intrusion, and of lower grade to the north
of this, hence a Main-SE subdivision was
implemented.
• Sulphur was modelled initially using OK
and then post-processed using LUC in
the Ultramafic volume outside of the G
Zones. S estimation domains differed
slightly from the economic elements, in
that the litho-geochemical units were
split about the top-of-fresh surface
whereas the economic elements were
split about the base of complete
oxidation surface. The Main vs northwest
subdivision of the fresh Ultramafic zone
was used for S modelling, similar to the
economic elements. S was also
interpolated using OK in the granite,
gabbro, dyke and sediment lithologies,
with appropriate high grade distance
limits applied. It is noteworthy that in the
immediate hangingwall and footwall of
the Ultramafic intrusion, within the
sediment lithological unit, S grades are
elevated, which may have
environmental implications for waste
disposal.
• Density was modelled using OK within
the transitional + fresh portion of the
Ultramafic intrusion, granite, gabbro,
dyke and sediment lithologies. Constant
density assignments were made in the
oxide zone, where the paucity of data
did not justify using geostatistical
interpolation.
• All of the estimated variables were
modelled independently using OK in the
Supergene enrichment zone.
• Variogram models for Pd, Pt, Ni, Cu, Au,
As and S were produced by first
transforming the composite grades to
Gaussianspaceinorder to elucidatethe

41 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary Commentary
true underlying spatial structure, before
back-transforming to real space for use
in interpolation. Ni and Co are strongly
correlated and therefore the Ni
variograms were used to interpolate Co.
For the density variable, statistical and
spatial variability is low within individual
estimation domains, and hence
variogram models could be produced
directly in real space. The variography is
generally characterised by strong
anisotropy between the semi-
major/major axis plane of mineralisation
(parallel to the tabular mineralised
zones) and the perpendicular, shorter-
range minor axis. Practical ranges for the
main economic elements in the plane of
mineralisation is generally of the order of
100m, while in the high-grade G Zones it
is most often between 40m and 50m.
Variogram modelling was undertaken
on capped grade values.
• Once estimation domains for grade
interpolation were defined, composited
drill hole sample populations were
statistically analysed to derive grade
capping values. It was observed that
grade capping for the economic
elements had an immaterial impact on
the global grade. Boundary/contact
analysis showed that the G Zones have
hard boundaries with respect to the
surrounding, lower-grade Ultramafic
zone and so hard grade boundaries
were applied to this contact. The Main-
NW sub-domain contact for economic
element and S interpolation was treated
as soft during interpolation, although
different capping, variogram and
search parameters were implemented
either side of this boundary. In addition
to the grade caps, distance based
grade thresholds were also chosen and
implemented for interpolation those
zones where mineralisation is highly
discontinuous (i.e. granite, gabbro, dyke
and sediment). This was based on
observed inflexions in the grade
histograms that are interpreted as
representing the onset of the anomalous
high grade sub-population. Again it is
noted that these largely barren zones
have not been classified as resources,
and were modelled only to provide
some indication in the block model of
where these patches of mineralisation
occur.
• Density bottom and top truncations
have been applied, based on
examination of density histograms,
therefore completely excluding the
outliers from the estimation process.

42 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary Commentary
• Estimation of Pd, Pt, Ni, Co, Cu, Au, As
and S was subsequently undertaken by
OK for the primary and secondary
mineralisation. As previously mentioned,
the OK estimates were progressed to
LUC estimates for Cu, Ni, Pd and S in the
transitional + fresh portion of the
Ultramafic intrusion outside of the G
Zones. Geostatistical interpolation of
density was restricted to the transitional
+ fresh zones, with assignments being
made in the oxide zone. A variable
variogram and search ellipse orientation
strategy was implemented using Isatis’
DA functionality during grade
interpolation to honour the local
undulations in the mineralisation
orientation. The hangingwall and
footwall surfaces for the G Zones were
used to define the DA within the
envelope of the Ultramafic intrusion in
the primary zone. The Ultramafic contact
was used for DA in the granite and
sediment units. Constant rotations were
used in the two gabbro units, as these
have relatively uniform dip and strike.
The dyke hangingwall surfaces were
used to inform the DA parameters within
the dyke units. In the secondary zone,
including the Supergene unit, the
topographic, bottom of complete
oxidation and top of fresh surfaces were
used for DA.
• Search and block plans were as follows:
• Primary mineralisation Pd, Pt, Ni, Co, Cu,
Au and S (within Ultramafic unit and G
Zones) - A minimum of 6 and maximum
of 16 to 20 samples per estimate into a
parent block size of 20 m(E) x 20 m(N) x
10 m(RL). The maximum limit was
allowed to be exceeded in cases where
samples are situated within any given
block, since the condition was set
whereby the OK would by default use all
samples within the block. The maximum
number of samples per drillhole was
limited by using anisotropic distances for
sample selection in combination with a
maximum of 4 to 5 samples per search
ellipse quadrant. A single search pass
was used. Block discretisation scheme
was 5 pts(E) x 5 pts(N) x 2 pts(RL). LUC
post-processing of Pd, Ni, Cu and S was
into a Selective Mining Unit (SMU) block
size of 10 m(E) x 10 m(N) x 5 m(RL).
• Secondary mineralisation Pd, Pt, Ni, Co,
Cu, Au and S (within the Ultramafic, G
Zone and Supergene unit)used a
minimum of 3 to 6 and maximum of 12 to
16 samples per estimate into a parent
block size of 20 m(E) x 20 m(N) x 10
m(RL).Themaximum limit was allowedto

43 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary Commentary
be exceeded in cases where samples
are situated within any given block,
since the condition was set whereby the
OK would by default use all samples
within the block. The maximum number
of samples per drillhole was limited by
using anisotropic distances for sample
selection in combination with a
maximum of 4 to 5 samples per search
ellipse quadrant. A single search pass
was used. The block discretisation
scheme was 5 pts(E) x 5 pts(N) x
2 pts(RL).
• For the primary and secondary zone As,
a minimum of 3 to 6 and maximum of 12
to 20 samples per estimate were used
into a parent block size of 20 m(E) x 20
m(N) x 10 m(RL). The maximum number
of samples per drillhole was limited by
using anisotropic distances for sample
selection in combination with a
maximum of 3 to 5 samples per search
ellipse quadrant. A single search pass
was used. High grade distance limiting
was implemented in addition to grade
capping in the largely barren units. The
block discretisation scheme was 5 pts(E)
x 5 pts(N) x 2 pts(RL).
• For the primary zone density, a minimum
of 4 and maximum of 16 samples per
estimate were used into a parent block
size of 20 m(E) x 20 m(N) x 10 m(RL). The
maximum number of samples per
drillhole was limited by using anisotropic
distances for sample selection in
combination with a maximum of 4
samples per search ellipse quadrant. The
maximum limit was allowed to be
exceeded in cases where samples are
situated within any given block, since
the condition was set whereby the OK
would by default use all samples within
the block. A single search pass was
used. The block discretisation scheme
was 5 pts(E) x 5 pts(N) x 2 pts(RL).
• For Pd, Pt, Ni, Co, Cu, Au, and S un-
estimated blocks have been assigned
grades equal to the mean estimated
block grade per estimation domain
within the Ultramafic and G Zones.
Outside of the Ultramafic envelope, un-
estimated blocks were assigned half
detection limit for each grade variable.
None of these assigned blocks have
been classified as Mineral Resource.
• For As un-estimated blocks have been
assigned half detection limit.
• For density, un-estimated blocks,
inclusive of all secondary estimation
domains, were assigned values based
on applicable sample statistics.

44 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Criteria JORC Code explanation
Commentary
•
Final block values for Pd, Pt, Ni, Co, Cu,
Au, S and density were validated by way
of visual review of plans and cross
sections (block model and drill samples
presented with same colour legend),
swath plots, and comparison of
estimation domain mean grades with
the input grade distribution data. Simple
Inverse Distance Squared (ID2) check
estimates were also run for Pd, Ni and Cu
within the Supergene, Ultramafic and G
Zone domains, which account for the
overwhelming majority of the economic
mineralisation in the Gonneville deposit.
The ID2 check estimates were
comparable to the main OK/LUC
estimates.
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 Mineral Resource estimate was
compared to the previous estimate
undertaken by CSA in October 2021.
•
No previous mining has taken place at
the project, and production data is not
available to reconcile against the block
model estimates.
•
The Mineral Resource model has been
peer reviewed internally at Cube
Consulting, and Mr Mark Noppe of SRK
has undertaken periodic high-level
reviews of the estimation process on an
in-stream basis.
The assumptions made regarding
recovery of by-products.
•
Gonneville is a polymetallic deposit, and
the assumption based on metallurgical
testwork to date has been made that all
reported constituents are recovered and
are able to be sold.
Estimation of deleterious elements or
other non-grade variables of
economic significance (eg. sulphur for
acid mine drainage characterisation).
•
Sulphur and arsenic have been
estimated. As is observed to generally
be of very low grade, while S is notably
enriched in the immediate hangingwall
and footwall sediments of the Ultramafic
intrusion, and especially so on the
footwall side.
•
No other deleterious variables have
been estimated but to date there are no
indications of any deleterious elements
in concentrate samples.
In the case of block model
interpolation, the block size in relation
to the average sample spacing and
the search employed.
•
A 20 m E x 20 m N x 10 m RL parent cell
size was used for grade estimation. Infill
drilling has been undertaken to
approximately 40 m spacing in the
upper section of the deposit. The block
size therefore represents approximately
half the drillhole spacing.
Any assumptions behind modelling of
selective mining units.
•
Within the Ultramafic unit exclusive of the
G Zones, the LUC modelling process for
Pd, Ni, Cu and S has assumed an SMU
size of 10 m E x 10 m N x 5 m RL.

45 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Criteria JORC Code explanation
Commentary
Any assumptions about correlation
between variables.
•
The high degree of observed correlation
between Ni and Co grade meant that
Ni variograms were used for Co
interpolation. These elements are mostly
bound together in pentlandite, hence
the close relationship.
Description of how the geological
interpretation was used to control the
resource estimates.
•
The litho- geochemical domains within
the host Ultramafic unit are known to
have an association with the orientation
of the primary mineralisation zones (i.e.
the G Zones). Geological interpretations
for these features, along with logged
sulphide content from drill hole
intersections, have been incorporated
into the resource estimation approach
via the development of trend surfaces
informing a variable search ellipse
orientation strategy (Dynamic
Anisotropy).
•
The geological interpretation for the
supergene/dispersion zone has been
used to constrain the resource estimate
for the reported weathering zone
material. a variable search ellipse
orientation strategy (Dynamic
Anisotropy) was employed to capture
local undulations in the
supergene/dispersion zone during grade
estimation.
Discussion of basis for using or not
using grade cutting or capping.
•
The need for grade capping was
assessed for all estimated variables on a
per estimation domain basis prior to
estimation.
•
Histograms and log-probability plots
were used to review composited sample
grade distributions graphically.
Additionally, a visual inspection was
carried out in Surpac for potential
clustering of very high-grade sample
data prior to selecting a capping value.
•
Capping values, where deemed
necessary, were applied to the
composited sample grades.
•
In addition to the grade caps, high
grade distance limiting was
implemented for high grade sub-
populations in the largely barren
domains.
•
Bottom and top truncations were
applied to density composites on a per
estimation domain basis.
The process of validation, the
checking process used, the
comparison of model data to drill hole
data, and use of reconciliation data if
available.
•
Final block values for Pd, Pt, Ni, Co, Cu,
Au, As, S and density were validated by
way of visual review of plans and cross
sections (block model and drill samples
presented with same colour legend),
swath plots, and comparison of
estimation domain mean grades with
theinputgrade distributiondata. Check

46 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary Commentary
ID2 estimates were undertaken for Pd, Ni
and Cu. The block model reflected the
tenor of the grades in the drillhole
samples both globally and locally.
• No previous mining has taken place at
the project, and production data is not
available to reconcile against the block
model estimates.
Whether the tonnages are estimated • Tonnages are estimated on a dry basis.
Moisture on a dry basis or with natural moisture,
and the method of determination of		 No moisture data are available.
the moisture content.
• Any oxide block within the optimisation
pit shell above a palladium cut-off of 0.9
Cut-off
parameters		 The basis of the adopted cut-off
grade(s) or quality parameters
applied.		 • g/t is considered as Mineral Resource.
Any transitional or fresh block within the
optimised pit shell above a nickel
equivalent cut-off of 0.4% is considered
as Mineral Resource.
• This Mineral Resource estimate is based
Assumptions made regarding possible on conventional open cut drill, blast,
mining methods, minimum mining load, and haul mining methods.
dimensions and internal (or, if
applicable, external) mining dilution. It
is always necessary as part of the		 • The pit optimisations prepared to
support reasonable prospects for
eventual economic extraction had
Mining factors
or assumptions		 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		 • appropriate mining dilution and ore loss
applied.
The Mineral Resource estimate itself is
reported without mining dilution or ore
loss.
Resources may not always be rigorous. • Floating stope optimisation defined
Where this is the case, this should be reasonable shapes that could be
reported with an explanation of the extracted by underground mining
basis of the mining assumptions made. methods. Appropriate mining cost and
commodity prices have been used.
• Metallurgical test work on oxide material
conducted includes:
o
Detailed QEMSCAN and XRD
mineralogy on composites.
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		 o
Approximately 60 laboratory
batch leach tests using a variety
of reagent suites to assess
potential extraction.
o
Metallurgical test work on
Metallurgical
factors or		 potential metallurgical methods, but
the assumptions regarding		 sulphide material conducted
includes:
assumptions metallurgical treatment processes and o
Detailed QEMSCAN and XRD
parameters made when reporting mineralogy on 12 composites
Mineral Resources may not always be and a further 4 sets of
rigorous. Where this is the case, this mineralogy of flotation test
should be reported with an products.
explanation of the basis of the o
Comminution testing includes 17
metallurgical assumptions made. SMC SAG milling tests plus Ball
Mill Work Indices.
o
Flotation testwork on a suite of
six ore type composites and four
mining composites comprising

47 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary Commentary
over 200 individual tests, over 20
locked cycle tests (LCT).
o
LCT results were used as a basis
for estimating metallurgical
recovery.
o
Recovery of intermediate
products (enriched Cu/PGE
concentrate and Ni/Co MHP)
from concentrate enrichment of
low grade nickel concentrates
has been estimated using pilot
plant data from similar projects
and a scouting test on a sample
from Julimar.
o
The base case assumption is for
sequential flotation to produce
copper and nickel
concentrates. A saleable
copper concentrate is readily
achievable even from very low
Cu head grades. A saleable
nickel concentrate has been
produced in tests at low head
grades. Palladium recovery was
predominantly into the copper
concentrate. Cobalt is
mineralogically associated with
nickel and can be assumed to
behave in a similar manner.
• Metallurgical recoveries used in the pit
optimisation are based on testwork
completed to date. Recovery
algorithms calculated for each element
were used as inputs into the pit
optimisation.
• For the purposes of metal equivalent
calculations, metallurgical recovery
assumptions for the oxide material are:
Pd – 75%, Au – 95% and for sulphide are:
Pd – 70%, Pt – 70%, Au – 60%, Ni – 55%,
Cu – 90%, Co - 55%.
Assumptions made regarding possible • The Julimar Project is at a very early
waste and process residue disposal stage. Hence environmental
options. It is always necessary as part considerations for potential mining have
of the process of determining not yet been evaluated in detail. At this
reasonable prospects for eventual stage Chalice is unaware of any specific
economic extraction to consider the environmental issues that would
potential environmental impacts of preclude potential eventual economic
the mining and processing operation. extraction, subject to government
Environmental While at this stage the determination approvals.
factors or of potential environmental impacts,
assumptions 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.

48 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Criteria JORC Code explanation
Commentary
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.
•
Sample density determinations were
carried out using the water
displacement method.
•
Incompetent oxide core samples from
the weathering profile are wax-coated
prior to density determination.
•
Density standards are employed in the
density determination process.
•
Sample density determinations were
carried out on all fresh rock core
samples, and representative oxide
samples resulting in ~80% of total drilled
diamond core intervals having had
density determinations completed.
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.
•
Incompetent oxide core samples are
wax-coated prior to density
determination.
Discuss assumptions for bulk density
estimates used in the evaluation
process of the different materials.
•
Sample density determinations were
used to assign a bulk density value to
the block model using a combination of
assignment by geostatistical domain,
and spatial estimation from density
determinations from de-surveyed
drillholes.
•
Model tonnages are subsequently
estimated on a dry basis.
Classification The basis for the classification of the
Mineral Resources into varying
confidence categories.
•
The Resource has been classified
following due consideration of all criteria
contained in Section 1, Section 2 and
Section 3 of JORC Code 2012 Table 1.
The Resource has been classified as
either Indicated or Inferred based on
data quality, sample spacing,
mineralisation continuity, confidence in
the geological interpretations, quality of
the grade estimations and metallurgical
processing knowledge. No Measured
material has been defined for this
Resource Estimate.
•
Primary mineralisation within the host
Ultramafic intrusion has been classified
as a combination of Indicated and
Inferred. Indicated and Inferred
wireframe volumes were developed
from sectional interpretation strings, and
model cells then coded with Resource
Classification codes directly from the
wireframe volumes.
•
All fresh and transitional material within
the Ultramafic intrusion envelope
informed by a reasonably consistent drill
spacing of 80 m has been classified as
Inferred, except around the periphery of
the drilling pattern, where extrapolation
results in lower quality estimates and Pd
gradevariographyhasinformed a

49 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Criteria JORC Code explanation
Commentary
decision to limit the extrapolation of the
Inferred material to between 40m and
50m.
•
The 80m drill spacing corresponds to the
nominal exploration drill hole spacing
used for the deposit.
•
An 80m drill spacing is considered by the
Competent Person as being sufficient to
imply, but not verify, geological and
grade continuity for the deposit style.
•
All fresh and transitional material within
the Ultramafic intrusion, excluding the
mostly barren granite, gabbro and dyke
units, informed by a consistent drill
spacing of 40 m has been classified as
Indicated. The selection of a 40 m drill
spacing distance for Indicated was
based on:
o
Results from a simulation-based
drill hole spacing study carried
out for the deposit indicating
that the resource definition drill-
out be conducted on a 40 m x
40 m drill spacing.
o
Variogram ranges of the main
economic grade variable, Pd,
indicating that grade continuity
does not exceed 40 m to 50 m
within the G Zones.
o
Estimation quality metrics, such
as slope of regression and
average distance to sample
were considered during the
classification process.
•
A 40 m drill spacing is considered by the
Competent Person as being sufficient to
allow estimation of the deposit physical
characteristics with sufficient confidence
to allow the application of Modifying
Factors in sufficient detail to support
mine planning and evaluation of the
economic viability of the deposit.
•
With the exception of the Supergene
unit, which has been classified as per the
fresh and transitional material, the
erratically mineralised secondary zone
has been classified as Inferred within the
bounds of the Ultramafic envelope and
is unclassified outside of the envelope.
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).
•
Appropriate account has been taken of
all relevant criteria including data
quality, sample spacing, mineralisation
continuity, confidence in the geological
interpretations, quality of the grade
estimations and the availability of
Modifying Factors.
Whether the result appropriately
reflects the Competent Person’s view
of the deposit.
•
The Mineral Resource appropriately
reflects the Competent Person’s views of
the deposit.

50 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Criteria JORC Code explanation
Commentary
Audits or
reviews		 The results of any audits or reviews of
Mineral Resource estimates.
•
In addition to Cube Consulting internal
peer reviews, in-stream reviews have
been undertaken by Mr Mark Noppe of
SRK Consulting.
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 Mineral Resource accuracy is
communicated through the
classification assigned to this Mineral
Resource. The Resource has been
classified in accordance with the JORC
Code (2012 Edition) using a qualitative
approach.
•
All factors that have been considered
have been adequately communicated
in Section 1 and Section 3 of this table.
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.
•
The Mineral Resource statement relates
to a global tonnage and grade
estimate. Grade estimates have been
made for each block in the block
model.
These statements of relative accuracy
and confidence of the estimate
should be compared with production
data, where available.
•
No previous mining has taken place at
the project, and production data is not
available to reconcile against the block
model estimates.

51 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

More from CHALICE MINING LIMITED

Major Shareholding Notification 2026
May 21
Major Shareholding Notification 2026
May 13
Investor Presentation 2026
May 13
Investor Presentation 2026
May 6
Interim / Quarterly Report 2026
Apr 29
Major Shareholding Notification 2026
Apr 9
Share Issue/Capital Change 2026
Apr 8
Investor Presentation 2026
Apr 8
Share Issue/Capital Change 2026
Apr 6
Regulatory Filings 2026
Apr 6
View all filings →