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 2023

Mar 27, 2023

64649_rns_2023-03-27_55ba3d34-edf3-40fe-9d22-272244bbff3c.pdf

Capital/Financing Update

Open in viewer

Opens in your device viewer

ASX Announcement

28 March 2023

Gonneville Resource increases by ~50% to ~3Mt NiEq

Significant resource growth and upgrade in confidence provides a strong initial open-pit development option for the world-class Julimar Ni-Cu-PGE Project

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

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

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

  • « Updated 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 Ni-Cu-PGE Project , ~70km NE of Perth, WA:

  • « 560Mt @ 0.88g/t 3E[1] , 0.16% Ni, 0.09% Cu, 0.015% Co ( ~0.54% NiEq[2] or ~1.7g/t PdEq[3] ) ;

  • « Containing: 16Moz 3E, 860kt Ni, 520kt Cu, 83kt Co ( ~3.0Mt NiEq or ~30Moz PdEq ).

  • « An additional 260 drill holes have been incorporated in the updated Resource, increasing the contained metal by ~18% in-pit and ~16% in underground category. An additional ~14% increase is from the application of a slightly reduced open-pit cut-off grade (reflecting updated metallurgical and economic parameters).

  • « Recent metallurgical testing has shown improved Pd recovery through addition of flotation tails leaching. This work as well as work investigating improvements to flotation recoveries through staged grinding is ongoing, and therefore not factored into this resource update.

  • « Resources are now defined over a strike extent of ~1.9km , from surface to a depth of ~800m and remain open at depth.

  • « The higher-grade sulphide component of the Resource (>0.6% NiEq cut-off) has increased contained nickel equivalent tonnes by ~27% :

  • « 120Mt @ 1.6g/t 3E, 0.20% Ni, 0.18% Cu, 0.017% Co ( ~0.9% NiEq or ~2.7g/t PdEq);

  • « Containing: 5.8Moz 3E, 230kt Ni, 210kt Cu, 20kt Co ( ~1.0Mt NiEq or ~10Moz PdEq );

  • « This higher-grade component affords the project significant optionality in development and remains the focus for ongoing studies evaluating the initial development phase.

  • « 10m spaced infill drilling over an area of ~150m x ~75m within the expected Starter Pit area has upgraded this area to Measured classification and confirmed the robustness of the Resource model at 40m drill spacing .

  • « The Resource remains open and significant recent step-out drill results outside the updated Resource boundary highlight the potential for considerable further growth:

  • « 193.6m @ 0.8g/t 3E, 0.2% Ni , 0.1% Cu, 0.02% Co ( 0.6% NiEq ) from 403m (HD068), incl:

    • « 16m @ 1.3g/t 3E, 0.3% Ni, 0.1% Cu, 0.03% Co (0.9% NiEq) from 512m ( ~180m step-out ).

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 (%) + 0.32x Pd(g/t) + 0.21x Pt(g/t) + 0.38x Au(g/t) + 0.83x Cu(%) + 3.00x Co(%)

3 PdEq (Palladium Equivalent g/t) = Pd (g/t) + 0.67x Pt(g/t) + 1.17x Au(g/t) + 3.11x Ni(%) + 2.57x Cu(%) + 9.33x Co(%)

Registered Office ABN 47 116 648 956

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

[email protected] @chalicemining www.chalicemining.com chalice-mining

T: +61 8 9322 3960

  • « 168.2m @ 1.0g/t 3E, 0.1% Ni, 0.1% Cu, 0.02% Co (0.6% NiEq) from 988m (JD369), incl:

    • « 32.5m @ 1.9g/t 3E, 0.2% Ni, 0.2% Cu, 0.02% Co (1.0% NiEq) from 1119.5m ( ~600m stepout, the deepest mineralisation intersected at Gonneville to date).

  • « 123.1m @ 1.0g/t 3E, 0.2% Ni , 0.1% Cu, 0.02% Co ( 0.6% NiEq ) from 547.3m (JD366), incl:

    • « 18m @ 1.9g/t 3E, 0.3% Ni , 0.1% Cu, 0.03% Co ( 1.1% NiEq ) from 587m ( ~130m step-out ).

  • « 109m @ 1.0g/t 3E, 0.2% Ni , 0.1% Cu, 0.02% Co (0.6% NiEq) from 365m (JD374), incl:

    • « 10m @ 2.6g/t 3E, 0.2% Ni, 0.1% Cu, 0.02% Co ( 1.1% NiEq ) from 463m ( ~60m step-out ).

  • « Magmatic sulphides continue to be intersected over a strike length of >10km, highlighting the potential for additional Ni-Cu-PGE discoveries along the >30km long Julimar Complex :

  • « The Gonneville Resource occupies just ~7% of the Julimar Complex strike length.

  • « Four rigs are continuing reconnaissance exploration and resource step-out drilling at the Project – assays are pending for 52 drill holes.

  • « Given the growing scale of the Resource and in response to continued strong strategic interest in the Julimar Project, Chalice intends to commence a formal strategic partnering process :

  • « Chalice has been engaging with a range of downstream, trading and end-user parties in relation to securing a potential minority joint venture partner (or partners) for the Project and will now broaden the engagement to include potential mining/operating partners.

  • « Process will explore a broad range of transactions with aim of maximising shareholder value.

  • « Partnering process will continue in parallel with the progression of development studies and has the potential to influence the optimal development plan for Gonneville.

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 Gonneville magmatic PGE-Ni-Cu-Co-Au sulphide deposit, which was initially discovered in early 2020, is located on Chalice-owned farmland. Over the last three years, more than 1,000 drill holes for ~275,000m have been completed to define the deposit which, remarkably, still remains open to the north-west and down-dip.

Since the previous Resource update in July 2022, drilling at Gonneville has largely been focused on infill and extensional drilling at the northern end of the Deposit, as well as extending high-grade shoots at depth. A total of 260 new drill holes have been incorporated into this Resource update.

The drilling and re-modelling have resulted in a ~50% increase in the contained nickel equivalent metal relative to the July 2022 estimate (Figure 1).

This increase is due to:

  • « Extensional drilling defining new mineralisation along strike and down-dip of the previous Resource pit shell.

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

  • « Pit optimisation parameters being updated to incorporate revised long-term metal prices as well as new metallurgical testwork on lower-grade disseminated sulphide mineralisation, and revised processing and mining costs resulting in a slight reduction in the Resource cut-off grade from 0.40% NiEq to 0.35% NiEq. This has also reduced the strip ratio to ~1.6 (previously >2).

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

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

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

2 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

  • « The inclusion of additional mineralisation in the underground category, based on the potential for bulk underground mining (i.e., sub-level caving). The July 2022 Resource only included highgrade underground areas within Mineable Stope Optimiser (MSO) shapes.

Gonneville Resource comparison (Nov-21 to Mar-23)

==> picture [435 x 268] intentionally omitted <==

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

3.5
3.0
0.3
0.3
2.5
1.4
0.4
2.0
0.7
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.6
1.4
0.5 0.9
0.0
MRE1 Nov-21 MRE2 Jul-22 Open pit Underground Reduced cut- MRE3 Mar-23
increase increase off
Measured Indicated Inferred Increase
Nickel Equivalent tonnes contained (Mt NiEq)
----- End of picture text -----

Figure 1. Change in Gonneville Resource from November 2021 to March 2023.

A program of close-spaced RC drilling on a nominal 10m x 10m pattern was completed over an area of ~150m x 75m (within the expected Starter Pit area) to determine the short-range grade variability and confirm the geological interpretation of the high-grade G1/G2 zones. This detailed drilling has upgraded the Resource in this area to Measured classification. Step-out drilling has also continued to evaluate the broader extent of mineralisation, typically on 80-200m spacing.

The Resource includes a mix of oxide, transitional and sulphide mineralisation. The sulphide mineralisation in-pit is reported at two different cut-off grades (0.35% and 0.60% NiEq) to highlight the scale and development optionality the Deposit affords.

The robust nature of the Resource is demonstrated by the grade-tonnage curve (Figure 3), which highlights the significant quantity of pit-constrained sulphide mineralisation at higher cut-off grades. Note that 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. Note that the grade-tonnage curve excludes oxide and underground resource domains.

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 the operation. This remains a focus of the ongoing development studies.

Drilling is continuing at Gonneville outside the Resource, with assays currently pending for 52 drill holes. Two diamond rigs continue to test for extensions of high-grade mineralisation at depth. The Deposit remains open beyond a depth of ~800m, with step-out drilling indicating that mineralisation extends to at least ~1,100m. This points to a significant underground resource growth opportunity.

Commenting on the updated Resource, Chalice Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer, Alex Dorsch, said: “ The ~50% increase in the Gonneville Resource to ~3 million tonnes of nickel equivalent

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

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

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

3 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

is quite a remarkable achievement for the Chalice team given it is barely three years since the discovery of the Julimar Complex. Gonneville is now the 2[rd] largest undeveloped nickel sulphide resource in Australia.

“The latest numbers continue to demonstrate the world-class endowment, scale and quality of the Gonneville Deposit, while also highlighting a compelling picture of upside along the remaining ~28km strike length of the Julimar Intrusive Complex.

“Apart from further increasing the contained metal, this Resource update has also delivered a significant increase in the higher-confidence Indicated Resource component – which now represents ~60% of the open-pit Resource. Importantly, 95% of the Resource above a depth of 200m is now classified as Indicated, which represents a major de-risking step for the Project.

“This uplift in the higher confidence Resource categories includes the tightly spaced drilling that was undertaken in the Starter Pit area to determine the short-range grade variability and confirm the geological interpretation of the high-grade G1/G2 zones. This work has been very successful, resulting in the establishment of Measured Resources in this area and increasing our confidence in the robustness of the overall Resource model at 40m drill spacing.

“The continued growth in the higher-grade sulphide component – both in an expanded open pit optimisation and, significantly, in a wide-open bulk underground category, further enhances the significant development optionality of the Deposit – with the updated March 2023 MRE to be incorporated into the ongoing Scoping Study work.

“Because of the sheer size and quality of the Resource and the significant level of inbound inquiries we have received from a range of downstream, trading and end-user parties, the Board has decided to commence a formal strategic partnering process for the Julimar Project. This process will consider a broad range of potential transactions with the aim of maximising shareholder value and will continue in parallel with the ongoing Scoping Study.

“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. Our multi-pronged exploration campaign will therefore continue over the coming months as we work to unlock the full potential of the 30km long Julimar Complex.

“This means that shareholders and stakeholders can look forward to several parallel news-flow streams in the months ahead – from ongoing development studies, from the strategic partnering process, and from ongoing exploration aimed at further expanding the Resource and unlocking new discoveries.”

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.

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.

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

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

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

4 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

The Julimar Project is favourably located, with access to established 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 602] intentionally omitted <==

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

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

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

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

5 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

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 28[th] March 2023, 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 bulk underground mining methods.

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

  • « Fresh sulphide mineralisation outside the pit is reported at a higher cut-off grade, which takes into account higher mining costs associated with bulk underground mining methods. The cut-off grade used to constrain mineralisation outside the pit is comparable to that used for Mineral Resources at similar bulk underground operations in Australia.

The Resource is reported within a pit shell using long term metal price assumptions of US$1,800/oz Pd, US$1,200/oz Pt, US$1,800/oz Au, US$24,000/t Ni, US$10,500/t Cu, US$72,000/t Co and is reported above a 0.35% NiEq cut-off grade in-pit. Resources outside the pit shell are reported above a sub-level cave underground cut-off grade of 0.4% NiEq.

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 (Measured, Indicated or Inferred) (Table 1).

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

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

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

6 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Table 1. Gonneville Mineral Resource Estimate (JORC Code 2012), 28 March 2023.

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)
Oxide
0.9g/t Pd		 Measured - -
-
-
-
-
-		 -
-		 -
-
-
-
-
-		 -
-
Indicated 7.3 1.9
-
0.06
-
-
-		 -
2.0		 0.45
-
0.01
-
-
-		 -
0.47
Inferred 0.2 1.9
-
0.07
-
-
-		 -
2.0		 0.01
-
0.00
-
-
-		 -
0.02
Subtotal 7.5 1.9
-
0.06
-
-
-		 -
2.0		 0.47
-
0.01
-
-
-		 -
0.49
Sulphide
(Transitional)
0.35%
NiEq		 Measured 0.38 0.82
0.17
0.03
0.19
0.17
0.020		 0.70
2.2		 0.01
-
-
0.72
0.63
0.07		 2.7
0.03
Indicated 14 0.66
0.15
0.03
0.16
0.10
0.018		 0.54
1.7		 0.30
0.07
0.01
22
14
2.5		 77
0.77
Inferred 0.27 0.60
0.16
0.03
0.15
0.12
0.015		 0.54
1.7		 0.01
-
-
0.42
0.32
0.04		 1.5
0.01
Subtotal 15 0.66
0.15
0.03
0.16
0.10
0.018		 0.55
1.7		 0.31
0.07
0.01
23
15
2.6		 81
0.81
Sulphide
(Fresh)
0.35%
NiEq		 Measured 2.3 1.1
0.26
0.03
0.24
0.18
0.019		 0.87
2.7		 0.08
0.02
-
5.4
4.2
0.43		 20
0.20
Indicated 280 0.67
0.15
0.03
0.16
0.09
0.015		 0.53
1.7		 6.0
1.3
0.23
440
260
43		 1500
15
Inferred 200 0.67
0.15
0.03
0.15
0.09
0.015		 0.53
1.6		 4.4
0.96
0.16
310
180
29		 1100
11
Subtotal 480 0.67
0.15
0.03
0.16
0.09
0.015		 0.53
1.7		 10
2.3
0.39
750
440
72		 2600
26
Underground
0.40%
NiEq		 Measured - -
-
-
-
-
-		 -
-		 -
-
-
-
-
-		 -
-
Indicated 1.7 0.75
0.21
0.06
0.14
0.08
0.013		 0.55
1.7		 0.04
0.01
-
2.4
1.4
0.23		 9.5
0.10
Inferred 52 0.78
0.17
0.03
0.16
0.11
0.015		 0.59
1.8		 1.3
0.28
0.05
83
56
7.7		 310
3.1
Subtotal 54 0.78
0.17
0.03
0.16
0.11
0.015		 0.59
1.8		 1.3
0.29
0.06
86
57
7.9		 320
3.2
All Measured 2.7 1.1
0.24
0.03
0.23
0.18
0.019		 0.85
2.6		 0.09
0.02
-
6.2
4.9
0.51		 23
0.23
Indicated 300 0.70
0.15
0.03
0.16
0.09
0.015		 0.54
1.7		 6.8
1.4
0.26
460
280
45		 1600
16
Inferred 250 0.70
0.15
0.03
0.15
0.09
0.015		 0.54
1.7		 5.7
1.2
0.22
390
230
37		 1400
14
Total 560 0.70
0.15
0.03
0.16
0.09
0.015		 0.54
1.7		 13
2.7
0.48
860
520
83		 3000
30

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 (%) + 0.32x Pd(g/t) + 0.21x Pt(g/t) + 0.38x Au(g/t) + 0.83x Cu(%) + 3.00x Co(%) PdEq sulphide (Palladium Equivalent g/t) = Pd (g/t) + 0.67x Pt(g/t) + 1.17 x Au(g/t) + 3.11x Ni(%) + 2.57x Cu(%) + 9.33x Co(%) Underground resources are outside the pit above a 0.40% NiEq cut off grade based on sub-level caving mining method Includes drill holes drilled up to and including 11 December 2022.

==> picture [109 x 21] intentionally omitted <==

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

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

7 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Table 2. Higher-grade sulphide component of Gonneville Resource (in pit and underground), 28 March 2023.

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)
Measured 0.17 1.2
0.24
0.05
0.24
0.25
0.023		 0.97
3.0		 0.01
-
-
0.41
0.43
0.04		 1.7
0.02
High-grade
Sulphide
(Transitional)
0.6%
NiEq		 Indicated 3.4 1.1
0.21
0.04
0.20
0.16
0.020		 0.79
2.5		 0.12
0.02
-
6.6
5.3
0.69		 27
0.27
Inferred 0.07 0.84
0.18
0.03
0.22
0.26
0.019		 0.81
2.5		 -
-
-
0.16
0.18
0.01		 0.57
0.01
Subtotal 3.6 1.1
0.21
0.04
0.20
0.16
0.021		 0.80
2.5		 0.12
0.02
-
7.2
5.9
0.74		 29
0.29
Measured 0.88 2.2
0.47
0.05
0.39
0.35
0.027		 1.6
4.9		 0.06
0.01
-
3.4
3.1
0.24		 14
0.14
High-grade
0.6%		 Indicated 58 1.2
0.26
0.06
0.20
0.18
0.018		 0.87
2.7		 2.3
0.48
0.11
120
100
10		 500
5.1
Sulphide (Fresh)
NiEq		 Inferred 40 1.3
0.26
0.06
0.19
0.18
0.017		 0.87
2.7		 1.6
0.33
0.08
75
73
6.6		 340
3.5
Subtotal 98 1.2
0.26
0.06
0.20
0.18
0.017		 0.88
2.7		 3.9
0.82
0.19
200
180
17		 860
8.7
Underground
0.6%
NiEq		 Measured - -
-
-
-
-
-		 -
-		 -
-
-
-
-
-		 -
-
Indicated 0.4 1.2
0.36
0.12
0.14
0.11
0.014		 0.78
2.5		 0.02
-
-
0.61
0.46
0.06		 3.3
0.03
Inferred 13 1.4
0.27
0.06
0.20
0.20
0.017		 0.93
2.9		 0.58
0.12
0.03
26
26
2.2		 120
1.2
Subtotal 14 1.4
0.28
0.06
0.20
0.19
0.017		 0.93
2.9		 0.60
0.12
0.03
27
26
2.3		 130
1.3
Measured 1.1 2.0
0.43
0.05
0.37
0.33
0.026		 1.5
4.6		 0.07
0.01
-
3.8
3.5
0.28		 15
0.15
Indicated 62 1.2
0.25
0.06
0.20
0.18
0.018		 0.87
2.7		 2.4
0.50
0.11
130
110
11		 530
5.4
All
Inferred 53 1.3
0.26
0.06
0.19
0.19
0.017		 0.89
2.8		 2.2
0.45
0.11
100
99
8.8		 470
4.7
Total 120 1.3
0.26
0.06
0.20
0.18
0.017		 0.88
2.7		 4.7
0.97
0.22
230
210
20		 1000
10

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. PdEq oxide (Palladium Equivalent g/t) = Pd (g/t) + 1.27x Au (g/t) NiEq sulphide (Nickel Equivalent %) = Ni (%) + 0.32x Pd(g/t) + 0.21x Pt(g/t) + 0.38x Au(g/t) + 0.83x Cu(%) + 3.00x Co(%) PdEq sulphide (Palladium Equivalent g/t) = Pd (g/t) + 0.67x Pt(g/t) + 1.17 x Au(g/t) + 3.11x Ni(%) + 2.57x Cu(%) + 9.33x Co(%) Underground resources are outside the pit above a 0.40% NiEq cut off grade based on sub-level caving mining method Includes drill holes drilled up to and including 11 December 2022.

==> picture [73 x 115] intentionally omitted <==

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

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

8 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

==> picture [729 x 433] intentionally omitted <==

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

Gonneville Nickel Equivalent Grade-Tonnage Curve in-pit (on NiEq cut-off grade basis)
800 1.8
1.71
1.65
1.59
700 677 1.52 1.6
1.46
646
1.39
592 1.33 1.4
600
1.26
1.18
1.2
500 1.10
500
1.02
0.95 1.0
0.88
400 381
0.80
0.72 0.8
0.65
300
0.58
0.53 0.6
0.50
0.47 0.48 270
189
200
0.4
136
102
100 79
62 0.2
49
40 33 28 24 21 18 16 14 12
0 0.0
0.20 0.25 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
Cut-Off Grade (% NiEq)
Note: Excludes oxide and underground resource domains Mass (Mt) Grade (% NiEq)
Mass above cut-off (Mt) Average grade (% NiEq)
----- End of picture text -----

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

==> picture [109 x 21] intentionally omitted <==

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

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

9 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

==> picture [724 x 436] intentionally omitted <==

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

10 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

==> picture [727 x 427] intentionally omitted <==

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

11

Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

==> picture [738 x 389] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 6. 3D view (looking NE) of Gonneville sulphide block model and host intrusion.

12 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

==> picture [506 x 438] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 7. 3D view (looking SE) of Gonneville sulphide block model and host intrusion.

13 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

==> picture [739 x 327] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 8. Julimar Complex 3D View (looking NW) – Gonneville Deposit, targets, soil geochemistry over regional magnetics.

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

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

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

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Resource growth potential

Results have been received for an additional five diamond holes at Gonneville drilled beyond the extent of the Resource since the 11[th] of December 2022, when the drilling database was closed for the Mineral Resource update.

These holes continue to confirm mineralisation continues for considerable distance down dip with broad zones of disseminated mineralisation with internal higher-grade zones. Significant intersections include:

  • « 193.6m @ 0.8g/t 3E, 0.2% Ni, 0.1% Cu, 0.02% Co (0.6% NiEq) from 403m (HD068), incl:

  • « 16m @ 1.3g/t 3E, 0.3% Ni, 0.1% Cu, 0.03% Co (0.9% NiEq) from 512m (~180m step-out).

  • « 168.2m @ 1.0g/t 3E, 0.1% Ni, 0.1% Cu, 0.02% Co (0.6% NiEq) from 988m (JD369), incl:

  • « 32.5m @ 1.9g/t 3E, 0.2% Ni, 0.2% Cu, 0.02% Co (1.0% NiEq) from 1119.5m (~600m step-out, the deepest mineralisation intersected at Gonneville to date).

  • « 123.1m @ 1.0g/t 3E, 0.2% Ni, 0.1% Cu, 0.02% Co (0.6% NiEq) from 547.3m (JD366), incl:

  • « 18m @ 1.9g/t 3E, 0.3% Ni, 0.1% Cu, 0.03% Co (1.1% NiEq) from 587m (~130m step-out).

  • « 109m @ 1.0g/t 3E, 0.2% Ni, 0.1% Cu, 0.02% Co (0.6% NiEq) from 365m (JD374), incl:

  • « 10m @ 2.6g/t 3E, 0.2% Ni, 0.1% Cu, 0.02% Co (1.1% NiEq) from 463m (~60m step-out).

Two holes have been drilled into the Hartog Intrusion, which is interpreted to be the fault-offset continuation of the Julimar Complex going north of the Gonneville Intrusion. The holes were collared ~1.5km to the north-west of the updated Resource. Narrow zones of ultramafic geology have been intersected in these holes, with all assays pending.

The updated Resource for Gonneville is interpreted to cover just ~7% of the >30km long Julimar Complex (Figure 7). 100 drill holes have now been completed along the Hartog-Hooley-Dampier target areas across ~10km of strike length, with several significant results (refer to ASX Announcement on 8 December 2022). Assays remain pending for 42 of these holes.

Forward plan

The Company continues to progress development studies for the Gonneville Deposit in parallel to initial exploration activities across the >30km long Julimar Complex. Given the growing scale of the Resource and in response to continued unsolicited strategic interest in the Project, Chalice intends to commence a formal strategic partnership process.

Chalice anticipates that a strategic partner (or partners) with complementary technical, marketing and financial capability may assist with the development of Gonneville and influence the optimal development strategy to maximise shareholder value. Chalice has been engaging with a range of downstream, trading and end-user parties in relation to a potential minority joint venture partner (or partners) and will now broaden the engagement to include potential mining/operating partners.

The partnering process will explore a broad range of transactions according to Chalice and partner preference, with the ultimate aim of maximising shareholder value. It is expected that the optimal development pathway for the project may be influenced by the nature of the partner, or partners, and transaction(s) and, in light of this, the strategic partnering process will continue in parallel with ongoing development studies.

Development studies for the Julimar Project are advancing, with pre-feasibility level work already commencing on metallurgy and waste management. Given the significant increase in the Resource and ongoing metallurgical testwork assessing geo-metallurgical domains, these will be incorporated into the current studies and the Company will determine an expected completion timing in the next few months.

15 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

The following activities are ongoing or planned at the Project:

  • « Exploration drilling at the Hartog-Dampier Targets within the Julimar State Forest – two diamond drill rigs are currently operational and expected to continue for the foreseeable future. Planning is underway for additional exploration drilling within the Hartog-Dampier strike length as well as initial exploration drilling from Baudin to Torres.

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

  • « Metallurgical testwork focusing on grind size-flotation recovery optimisation, oxide and flotation tails leaching options and midstream processing options (to produce a nickel-cobalt MHP). ~50kg of nickel concentrate has been generated for the purposes of ongoing midstream testwork.

  • « Additional study work 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.

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

16 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

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.

17 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

==> picture [726 x 380] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 6. Gonneville 3D view (looking NNE) – local geology and resource pit shell.

18

Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

==> picture [451 x 690] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 7. Gonneville Plan View – local geology and resource pit outline at depth of ~80m.

19 Chalice Mining Limited

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 11 December 2022.

A total of 390 DD holes (including wedges) 639 RC drill holes (including RC pre-collars with DD tails), and 106 shallow AC holes for ~270,000m 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 80m – 160m spacings 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 intersections of both the lithological units and mineralised zones approximate true thickness and hence provide representative samples. AC holes have been drilled vertically which is the optimal sampling orientation for the sub-horizontal oxide mineralisation.

A total of 15 DD holes (including wedges) have been completed subsequent to the holes included in the Resource. A total of ~280,000m of RC and diamond drilling has been drilled to date at the project including exploration holes.

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

20 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.

Local Grid Transformation

This Resource update is estimated in a local grid with strike of the high-grade G zones approximately parallel to local grid north. The local grid is a 40 ⁰ anti-clockwise rotation to MGA94 grid north (ie local grid north is 320º in MGA94) and 1000m has been added to the RL.

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 largely been retained as absent values, as density determinations were not taken for these intervals. However, it was deemed possible to fill in unsampled density values in the high-grade, sulphide-rich “G Zones” based on a multi-linear regression of sampled density values against the well-correlated and more widely informed Co, Ni and S variables.

All wireframes and drill data were rotated 40 ° anti-clockwise and placed in a local grid for estimation and mining studies. This brings the average strike of the mineralisation approximately in line with the local north-south axis.

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, Mg, Cr 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/ Au, Cu, As, S, Mg, Cr and density variable groupings.

21 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

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 the surrounding lower-grade general Ultramafic zone. The latter was divided into a lowto-moderate grade “Main” sub-domain and very low-grade northwest sub-domain for Pd, Pt, Ni, Co and Au.

In addition, a separate Southeastern domain was defined in the southeast of the deposit, where the G Zones are compressed together and display a complex morphology – within this domain, the low grade Ultramafic and G Zone volumes were not distinguished and were thus estimated as a single package. The general Ultramafic zone was split into low and high grade subdomains using an economic composite in Leapfrog for Cu, based on a 0.03% Cu cut-off grade. The Cu cut-off was based on a prominent inflexion in the Cu grade histogram.

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, gabbro 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 to re-mobilisation of mineralisation in the case of the surrounding sediments and granite. The mineralisation modelled outside of the Ultramafic envelope has not been classified as a Mineral Resource for reporting purposes.

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 2% 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 within the dolerite dykes.

OK estimates were run into 10mE x 20mN x 10mRL (local grid) parent blocks, which is approximately half the width of the nominal 40m infill drill spacing in the northing direction. Because of the northsouth strike in local space, the nominally 60 ° easterly inclined drill holes, 1m downhole sample spacing and generally continuous nature of the variograms models for the economic elements, the local easting and RL block dimensions were set at a smaller 10m spacing. LUC estimates, where undertaken, were progressed to smaller 5mE x 10mN x 5mRL (local grid) 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 as they mirror the general shape of the litho-chronological zones identified in the Ultramafic intrusion. 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 Pd, Pt, Ni, Co and Au and S 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. The Southeastern domain was estimated using a one-way soft boundary,

22 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

whereby the volume inside the Southeastern domain was allowed to see the surrounding Ultramafic and G Zone samples, but the Southeastern domain samples were masked during the estimation of blocks outside this domain. The low and high grade Cu domains were estimated independently, using a hard boundary, based on the results of boundary analysis.

Search strategy for primary mineralisation Pd, Pt, Ni, Co, Cu, Au, S, Mg and Cr (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 10 mE x 20 mN x 10 mRL (local grid). 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 and Cu was into a Selective Mining Unit (SMU) block size of 5mE x 10mN x 5mRL (local grid).

Search strategy for secondary mineralisation Pd, Pt, Ni, Co, Cu, Au, S, Mg and Cr (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 10mE x 20mN x 10mRL (local grid). 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, S, Mg and Cr, 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, except for Mg and Cr, which were populated with grades from interpolated domain analogues. None of the non-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 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.

As a final step, Pd, Pt, Ni, Co, Cu, Au, S and density were re-interpolated into a small subset of the block model, defined around a tight 10mE x 10mN drill pattern undertaken by Chalice over the last year over the near-surface portions of the G1 and G2 G Zones. This subset interpolation was undertaken using OK directly into 5mE x 10mN x 5mRL blocks and was stamped over the preceding OK/LUC estimates in this relatively small volume. The tighter drill spacing justifies the direct interpolation into the smaller SMU sized block, and also circumvents the problem of spreading metal too far if using 10mE x 20mE x 10mRL “panel” sized blocks.

Final block values for Pd, Pt, Ni, Co, Cu, Au, S, Mg, Cr 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 (ID[2] ) 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 value in the Gonneville deposit. The ID[2] 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 Measured, Indicated or Inferred based on data quality, sample spacing, mineralisation continuity,

23 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

confidence in the geological interpretations, quality of the grade estimations and metallurgical processing knowledge.

Primary mineralisation within the host Ultramafic intrusion has been classified as a combination of Measured, Indicated and Inferred. Measured, 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 excluding the mostly barren dolerite, and 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 approximately 50m beyond the last drill hole.

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.

The Supergene unit and 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 is on the order of hundreds of metres in the general ultramafic zone and approximately 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.

  • « At the time of the previous July 2022 model, the volume now drilled at a 10m spacing had only been drilled out at a 40m drill spacing. When comparing the much higher confidence updated estimates in this tightly drilled volume with those based on the 40m drilling from July 2022, a change in both tonnage and total NiEq metal of less than 10% is observed. This lends support to the decision to rate 40m drilled areas as Indicated.

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.

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 10m has been classified as Measured. The selection of a 10m drill spacing distance for Indicated was based on:

  • « 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 and are on the order of hundreds of metres in the general Ultramafic zones.

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

A 10m 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.

24 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

All non-ultramafic material (country rock and dykes) has not been classified and the Supergene unit has been considered ineligible to rise to level of the Measured category of confidence due to metallurgical uncertainty.

Reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction

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 and tenure status;

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

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

  • « Fresh sulphide mineralisation outside the pit is reported at a higher cut-off grade which takes into account higher mining costs associated with bulk underground mining methods. The cut-off grade used to constrain mineralisation outside the pit is comparable to that used for Mineral Resources at similar bulk underground operations in Australia.

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 0.35% NiEq was selected for transitional and fresh mineralisation in-pit, as this is close to 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).

Fresh sulphide mineralisation outside the pit shell has been reported above a cut-off grade of 0.40% NiEq. The cut-off grade was derived by taking into account the higher mining costs of a bulk underground mining method (sub level caving) compared with open pit mining costs. No transitional or oxide mineralisation outside the pit shell was included in the Mineral Resource.

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.

Processing options for sulphide mineralisation 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.

Comminution and flotation testwork, together with geometallurgical characterisation, has been completed or is ongoing on 25 sulphide composite samples from several geological domains (including higher-grade and lower-grade samples). It should be cautioned though that variability testwork is continuing in order to generate representative geometallurgical algorithms for all domains.

25 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

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. Recoveries are based on the weighted averaged metal recoveries generated by the whittle optimisation.

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.

Table 3. Metallurgical recoveries – sulphide domain, concentrate enrichment flowsheet (copperPGE concentrate and nickel-cobalt MHP) – rounded to nearest 5%.

Metal Metallurgical recovery >0.35% NiEq cut-off
range (%)
Avg open-pit sulphide Weighted average
Resource grade metallurgical recovery (%)
Palladium 45% to 90% 0.69g/t 60%
Platinum 45% to 90% 0.15g/t 60%
Gold 30% to 90% 0.026g/t 70%
Nickel 40% to 80% 0.16% 45%
Copper 75% to 95% 0.09% 85%
Cobalt1 40% to 80% 0.015% 45%

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 more variable but still 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 is likely to 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:

  • « Production of bulk concentrates at lower grades; and

  • « Leaching of flotation tailings to improve PGE recoveries.

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 previous to Resource estimates (refer to ASX releases dated 9 November 2021 and 8 July 2022) when taking into account the extra drilling, change in input assumptions and differing estimation methodologies (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 for the July 2022 estimate. This did not identify any material issues with the Cube Consulting estimation process.

26 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

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.

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 – 90%.

  • « 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 (%) + 0.32x Pd(g/t) + 0.21x Pt(g/t) + 0.38x Au(g/t) + 0.83x Cu(%) + 3.00x Co(%);

  • « PdEq(g/t) = Pd (g/t) + 0.67x Pt(g/t) + 1.17x Au(g/t) + 3.11x Ni(%) + 2.57x Cu(%) + 9.33x Co(%)

Metal recoveries used in the metal equivalent calculations are based on rounded average Resource grades for the sulphide domain (>0.35% NiEq cut-off):

  • « Pd – 60%, Pt – 60%, Au – 70%, Ni – 45%, Cu – 85%, Co – 45%.

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$1,200/oz Pt, US$1,800/oz Au, US$24,000/t Ni, US$10,500/t Cu and US$72,000/t Co.

27 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Investor Teleconference and Webcast

For more information on this announcement, Chalice Managing Director and CEO, Alex Dorsch, will host a live investor teleconference and webcast at 9.00am (AWST) / 12.00pm (AEDT), Tuesday 28 March 2023.

Webcast

Shareholders and investors who wish to listen to the live webcast and synchronised slide presentation can join via the link below:

https://kapara.rdbk.com.au/landers/bf2a7c.html

Participants in the webcast can ask questions via the “Ask a Question” function.

Teleconference

Brokers, fund managers, analysts and representatives of the media who wish to participate in the Teleconference, including the opportunity to ask questions over the phone, can do so via the following link:

https://s1.c-conf.com/diamondpass/10029815-fh38r5.html

Authorised for release by the Board.

For further information or to view the interactive 3D model of the Julimar Project, please visit www.chalicemining.com, or contact:

Corporate Enquiries

Alex Dorsch Managing Director & CEO Chalice Mining Limited +61 8 9322 3960 [email protected]

Media Enquiries

Follow our communications

Nicholas Read LinkedIn: chalice-mining Principal and Managing Director Twitter: @chalicemining Read Corporate Investor Relations +61 8 9388 1474 [email protected]

28 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Competent Person Statements

The information in this announcement that relates to new Exploration Results in relation to the Julimar Nickel-Copper-PGE Project is based on and fairly represents information and supporting documentation compiled by Mr. Bruce Kendall BSc (Hons), a Competent Person, who is a Member of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists. Mr. Kendall is a full-time employee of the Company, is entitled to participate in Chalice’s Employee Securities Incentive Plan and his associate holds securities in Chalice. Mr Kendall has sufficient experience that is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and activity being undertaken to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 edition of the Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Minerals Resources and Ore Reserves. Mr Kendall consents to the inclusion in this announcement of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears.

The information in this announcement that relates to previously reportd exploration results for the Julimar Nickel-Copper-PGE Project is extracted from the following ASX announcements:

“High-Grade Ni-Cu-Pd Sulphide Intersected at Julimar”, 23 March 2020;

“Updated Gonneville Mineral Resource”, 8 July 2022;

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

“Outstanding Wide High-Grade Intersections Nth of Gonneville”, 23 November 2022;

“Promising New Sulphide Mineralisation at the Hooley Prospect”, 8 December 2022, and

“Julimar Flowsheet Development and Scoping Study Update” 13 December 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’s findings are presented have not been materially modified from the relevant original market announcements.

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 does not hold securities in Chalice. Mr Millad has sufficient experience that is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and the activity being undertaken to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 edition of the Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Minerals Resources and Ore Reserves. Mr 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 does not hold securities in Chalice. Mr Job has sufficient experience that is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and the activity being undertaken to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 edition of the Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Minerals Resources and Ore Reserves. Mr Job consents to the inclusion in the announcement of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears.

Forward Looking Statements

This announcement may contain forward-looking statements and forward information, including forward looking statements within the meaning of the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (collectively, forward-looking statements). These forward-looking statements are

29 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

made as of the date of this announcement and Chalice Mining Limited (the Company) does not intend, and does not assume any obligation, to update these forward-looking statements.

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

In certain cases, forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of words such as, “aim”, “considered”, “could”, “estimate”, “expected”, “for”, “forward”, “future”, “indicates”, “initial”, “intends”, “is”, “likely”, “may”, “open”, “opportunity”, “optionality”, “plan” or “planned”, “points”, “potential”, “promising”, “prospects”, “shown”, “strategy”, “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 forwardlooking statements.

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

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

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 listing rules. It is a requirement of the ASX listing rules that the reporting of exploration results and mineral resources estimates are in accordance with the 2012 edition of the Australasian Code for Reporting of exploration Results, Minerals Resources and Ore Reserves (“JORC Code”).

30 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

The requirements of JORC Code differ in certain material respects from the disclosure requirements of United States securities laws and other reporting regimes. There is no assurance that the Company’s mineral resource estimates and related disclosures prepared under the JORC Code would be the same as those prepared under United States securities law and other reporting regimes. 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 and other reporting regimes.

Mineral Resource Estimates that are not Ore Reserves do not have demonstrated technical feasibility and economic viability. Due to lower certainty, the inclusion of Mineral Resource Estimates should not be regarded as a representation by Chalice that such amounts can 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.

31 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Table 4. Significant new drill intersections (Oxide: >0.5g/t Pd, >0.9g/t Pd. Sulphide: >0.3% NiEq, >0.6% NiEq) – Julimar Project.

Hole ID
From
(m)
To
(m)
Interval
(m)
Pd
(g/t)
Pt
(g/t)
Au
(g/t)
Ni
(%)
Cu
(%)
Co
(%)
Ni Eq (%)
Type
HD068
266.0
268.6
2.6
0.47
0.06
0.06
0.14
0.31
0.02
0.63
Extension
HD068
403.0
596.6
193.6
0.68
0.15
<0.01
0.17
0.09
0.02
0.56
Extension
Incl
448.0
455.0
7.0
0.91
0.19
0.01
0.15
0.09
0.02
0.62
Extension
and
462.0
465.0
3.0
0.63
0.17
<0.01
0.17
0.43
0.02
0.81
Extension
and
476.0
480.0
4.0
0.68
0.11
<0.01
0.20
0.46
0.02
0.88
Extension
and
491.0
500.0
9.0
1.04
0.21
<0.01
0.24
0.14
0.02
0.82
Extension
and
512.0
528.0
16.0
1.09
0.22
<0.01
0.32
0.14
0.03
0.94
Extension
and
566.0
569.0
3.0
1.00
0.22
<0.01
0.20
0.03
0.02
0.66
Extension
and
575.0
590.0
15.0
0.95
0.21
0.01
0.17
0.11
0.02
0.68
Extension
and
593.0
596.6
3.6
1.17
0.26
0.01
0.21
0.06
0.02
0.76
Extension
HD068
614.0
616.9
2.9
0.93
0.19
0.01
0.12
0.01
0.01
0.52
Extension
HD068
637.0
653.2
16.2
0.68
0.14
0.01
0.14
0.09
0.01
0.53
Extension
Incl
638.0
643.0
5.0
0.78
0.15
0.02
0.15
0.19
0.01
0.64
Extension
HD068
673.0
742.9
69.9
0.55
0.12
0.01
0.15
0.06
0.02
0.46
Extension
Incl
685.0
690.0
5.0
0.80
0.18
0.01
0.18
0.07
0.02
0.60
Extension
and
695.0
700.0
5.0
0.77
0.19
0.01
0.19
0.11
0.02
0.66
Extension
and
715.2
717.5
2.3
0.66
0.14
<0.01
0.19
0.15
0.02
0.63
Extension
HD068
777.1
780.3
3.2
0.69
0.15
0.01
0.15
<0.01
0.01
0.45
Extension
JD366
135.9
139.0
3.1
0.96
0.33
0.04
0.12
0.42
0.01
0.90
Infill
JD366
269.0
285.0
16.0
0.30
0.07
0.07
0.12
0.08
0.01
0.37
Infill
JD366
291.0
331.8
40.8
0.48
0.11
0.02
0.12
0.12
0.01
0.46
Infill
JD366
369.2
376.0
6.8
0.45
0.12
0.02
0.10
0.09
0.01
0.40
Extension
JD366
380.8
391.0
10.2
0.57
0.13
0.01
0.11
0.07
0.01
0.43
Extension
JD366
439.0
536.2
97.2
0.54
0.11
0.00
0.16
0.05
0.02
0.45
Extension
Incl
441.0
445.0
4.0
0.98
0.23
0.00
0.19
0.03
0.02
0.65
Extension
and
505.0
509.0
4.0
1.49
0.22
0.00
0.19
0.08
0.02
0.87
Extension
and
519.0
527.0
8.0
0.74
0.14
0.00
0.17
0.15
0.02
0.62
Extension
JD366
547.3
670.4
123.1
0.80
0.21
0.03
0.17
0.11
0.02
0.63
Extension
Incl
587.0
605.0
18.0
1.27
0.58
0.02
0.33
0.15
0.03
1.09
Extension
and
619.0
621.0
2.0
0.68
0.13
0.03
0.18
0.18
0.02
0.65
Extension
and
627.0
636.0
9.0
1.17
0.27
0.07
0.18
0.23
0.02
0.89
Extension
and
639.0
642.0
3.0
0.66
0.12
0.05
0.19
0.19
0.02
0.65
Extension
and
648.9
654.0
5.1
2.02
0.54
0.04
0.15
0.13
0.01
1.10
Extension
and
659.0
670.4
11.4
1.29
0.21
0.11
0.15
0.19
0.02
0.86
Extension
JD369
565.1
574.9
9.8
0.60
0.17
0.01
0.14
0.14
0.02
0.55
Extension
Incl
565.1
570.9
5.8
0.89
0.23
0.02
0.22
0.21
0.02
0.81
Extension
JD369
849.0
892.0
43.0
0.61
0.30
0.03
0.09
0.05
0.01
0.44
Extension
Incl
855.0
857.8
2.8
0.84
0.30
0.04
0.18
0.17
0.02
0.73
Extension
and
865.0
871.0
6.0
1.04
0.38
0.04
0.12
0.07
0.01
0.66
Extension

32 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Hole ID
From
(m)
To
(m)
Interval
(m)
Pd
(g/t)
Pt
(g/t)
Au
(g/t)
Ni
(%)
Cu
(%)
Co
(%)
Ni Eq (%)
Type
and
886.0
891.0
5.0
0.98
0.51
0.06
0.11
0.12
0.01
0.71
Extension
JD369
988.0
1156.2
168.2
0.78
0.19
0.02
0.15
0.11
0.02
0.60
Extension
Incl
1012.0
1015.0
3.0
1.16
0.25
<0.01
0.17
0.09
0.02
0.75
Extension
and
1026.0
1040.0
14.0
0.97
0.22
0.03
0.15
0.16
0.01
0.71
Extension
and
1047.3
1050.0
2.7
0.73
0.13
0.01
0.16
0.28
0.02
0.71
Extension
and
1075.4
1082.0
6.6
1.16
0.46
0.01
0.17
0.10
0.02
0.81
Extension
and
1119.5
1152.0
32.5
1.45
0.33
0.08
0.18
0.22
0.02
0.98
Extension
JD370
258.0
269.0
11.0
0.56
0.62
0.01
0.05
0.03
0.01
0.44
Infill
JD370
300.0
302.2
2.2
0.73
0.16
0.02
0.11
0.61
0.02
0.94
Infill
JD370
384.0
410.0
26.0
0.46
0.11
<0.01
0.12
0.08
0.01
0.40
Extension
Incl
389.0
391.0
2.0
0.61
0.12
0.01
0.20
0.22
0.02
0.67
Extension
JD370
415.0
422.0
7.0
0.33
0.08
<0.01
0.12
0.04
0.01
0.33
Extension
JD370
427.0
539.0
112.0
0.65
0.16
0.01
0.14
0.10
0.01
0.52
Extension
Incl
455.0
459.0
4.0
0.79
0.23
0.01
0.15
0.12
0.02
0.62
Extension
and
491.0
506.0
15.0
0.98
0.20
0.02
0.24
0.18
0.02
0.83
Extension
and
508.3
519.0
10.7
0.94
0.17
0.02
0.17
0.11
0.02
0.67
Extension
and
532.0
534.0
2.0
0.79
0.17
0.01
0.20
0.12
0.02
0.67
Extension
JD370
558.7
578.0
19.3
1.27
0.28
0.05
0.19
0.10
0.02
0.83
Extension
Incl
561.1
571.0
9.9
1.80
0.38
0.05
0.24
0.11
0.02
1.09
Extension
and
575.0
578.0
3.0
0.99
0.24
0.10
0.17
0.19
0.02
0.80
Extension
JD374
194.0
236.9
42.9
0.58
0.14
0.01
0.13
0.08
0.01
0.47
Extension
Incl
210.0
218.0
8.0
1.07
0.22
0.02
0.15
0.14
0.02
0.73
Extension
JD374
323.0
325.0
2.0
1.19
0.51
0.01
0.11
0.06
0.01
0.71
Extension
JD374
338.0
350.0
12.0
0.56
0.10
<0.01
0.20
0.06
0.02
0.53
Extension
JD374
365.0
474.0
109.0
0.79
0.19
0.04
0.17
0.10
0.02
0.62
Extension
Incl
381.0
384.0
3.0
0.85
0.14
0.01
0.19
0.10
0.02
0.65
Extension
and
389.0
396.0
7.0
0.85
0.17
0.02
0.18
0.11
0.02
0.65
Extension
and
401.0
406.0
5.0
0.70
0.14
0.01
0.23
0.07
0.02
0.61
Extension
and
415.0
422.0
7.0
0.71
0.11
0.14
0.19
0.17
0.03
0.71
Extension
and
430.0
433.0
3.0
1.47
0.49
0.68
0.13
0.10
0.02
1.05
Extension
and
441.0
448.0
7.0
0.93
0.10
0.01
0.30
0.14
0.03
0.84
Extension
and
451.0
456.0
5.0
0.80
0.15
0.01
0.23
0.18
0.02
0.74
Extension
and
463.0
473.0
10.0
1.84
0.75
0.06
0.18
0.11
0.02
1.12
Extension

Table 5. New drill hole collar, survey data and assaying status – Julimar Project.

Area Hole ID Type Easting
(m)		 Northing
(m)		 RL
(m)		 Depth
(m)		 Survey
type		 Azi
(°)		 Dip
(°)		 Assay status
Gonneville HD068 DDH 425045 6513751 266 840.5 GPS-RTK 157 -69 Reported
Gonneville JD366 DDH 424945 6513212 265 710.5 GPS-RTK 129 -61 Reported
Gonneville JD369 DDH 424245 6513600 265 1222.2 GPS-RTK 87 -67 Reported
Gonneville JD370 DDH 425090 6513602 262 661.0 GPS-RTK 130 -66 Reported
Gonneville JD374 DDH 425251 6513584 257 531.4 GPS 127 -59 Reported

33 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

34 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

35 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.

36 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

37 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).
•
The resource model has been
estimated in a local grid which has a
40º anti-clockwise rotation with 1,000m
added to the RL
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.

38 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Criteria JORC Code explanation
Commentary
Whether sample compositing has been
applied.
•
No compositing undertaken for
diamond drill core or RC samples.
Orientation of
data in
relation to
geological
structure		 Whether the orientation of sampling
achieves unbiased sampling of possible
structures and the extent to which this is
known, considering the deposit type.
•
RC and Diamond drill holes were
typically oriented within 15° of
orthogonal to the interpreted dip and
strike of the known zone of
mineralisation. However, several holes
were drilled at less optimal azimuths
due to site access constraints or to test
for alternative mineralisation
orientations.
If 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 2023, 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.
•
All drilling has occurred on granted
Exploration Licences. There are no
known impediments to obtaining a
licence to operate

39 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary Commentary
• E70/5119 partially overlaps ML1SA, a
State Agreement covering Bauxite
mineral rights only.
• There is no previous exploration at
Gonneville, and only limited
exploration has been completed by
other exploration parties in the vicinity
of the targets identified by Chalice to
date.
• Chalice has compiled historical
records dating back to the early 1960’s
which indicate only three genuine
explorers in the area, all primarily
targeting Fe-Ti-V mineralisation.
• Over 1971-1972, Garrick Agnew Pty Ltd
undertook reconnaissance surface
sampling over prominent
aeromagnetic anomalies in a search
for ‘Coates deposit style’ vanadium
mineralisation. Surface sampling
methodology is not described in detail,
Exploration done Acknowledgment and appraisal of nor were analytical methods specified,
by other parties exploration by other parties. 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 • Provided in the body of the text.
to the understanding of the exploration
Drill hole
Information		 results including a tabulation of the
following information for all Material
drill holes:
Easting and northing of the drill hole
collar

40 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Criteria JORC Code explanation
Commentary
Elevation or RL (Reduced Level –
elevation above sea level in metres) of
the drill hole collar
Dip and azimuth of the hole
Down hole length and interception
depth hole length.
If the exclusion of this information is
justified on the basis that the
information is not Material and this
exclusion does not detract from the
understanding of the report, the
Competent Person should clearly
explain why this is the case.
•
No material information has been
excluded.
Data
aggregation
methods		 In reporting Exploration Results,
weighting averaging techniques,
maximum and/or minimum grade
truncations (eg. cutting of high grades)
and cut-off grades are usually Material
and should be stated.
•
Significant intercepts are reported
using a length-weighted >0.3% NiEq
cut off. A maximum of 4m internal
dilution has been applied.
•
Higher grade internal intervals are
reported using a >0.6% NiEq length-
weighted cut off. A maximum of 2m
internal dilution has been applied.
•
No top cuts have been applied.
Where aggregate intercepts
incorporate short lengths of high-grade
results and longer lengths of low grade
results, the procedure used for such
aggregation should be stated and
some typical examples of such
aggregations should be shown in
detail.
•
Higher grade intervals are reported
using a >0.9g/t Pd length-weighted cut
off for oxide and >0.6% NiEq length-
weighted cut off. A maximum of 2m
internal dilution has been applied for
intercepts calculated using >0.6% NiEq
cut offs.
The assumptions used for any reporting
of metal equivalent values should be
clearly stated.
•
Metal price assumptions used in the
metal equivalent calculations are:
US$1,800/oz Pd, US$1,200/oz Pt,
US$1,800/oz Au, US$24,000/t Ni,
US$10,500/t Cu, US$72,000/t Co.
•
Metallurgical recovery assumptions
used in the metal equivalent
calculation for the oxide material are:
Pd – 75%, Au – 90%.
•
Hence for the oxide material PdEq
(g/t) = Pd (g/t) + 1.27 x Au (g/t).
•
Metallurgical recovery assumptions
used in the metal equivalent
calculation for the sulphide (fresh)
material are: Pd – 60%, Pt – 60%, Au –
70%, Ni – 45%, Cu – 85%, Co - 45%.
•
Hence for the sulphide material NiEq =
Ni (%) + 0.32x Pd(g/t) + 0.21x Pt(g/t) +
0.38x Au(g/t) + 0.83x Cu(%) + 3x
Co(%)and PdEq = Pd (g/t) + 0.67x
Pt(g/t) + 1.17x Au(g/t) + 3.11x Ni(%) +
2.57x Cu(%) + 9.33x Co(%).
•
The volume of transitional material is
small and considered unlikely to
materially affect the overall metal
equivalent calculation.

41 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Criteria JORC Code explanation
Commentary
Relationship
between
mineralisation
widths and
intercept lengths		 These relationships are particularly
important in the reporting of
Exploration Results.
If the geometry of the mineralisation
with respect to the drill hole angle is
known, its nature should be reported.
•
RC and Diamond drill holes were
typically oriented within 15° of
orthogonal to the interpreted dip and
strike of the known zone of
mineralisation. However, several holes
were drilled at less optimal azimuths
due to site access constraints or to test
for alternative mineralisation
orientations.
If it is not known and only the down
hole lengths are reported, there should
be a clear statement to this effect (eg.
‘down hole length, true width not
known’).
•
All widths are quoted down-hole. True
widths vary depending on the
orientation of the hole and the
orientation of the mineralisation. 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.
•
All holes drilled at Gonneville beyond
the extent of the March 2023
Gonneville Resource envelope since
the closing of the database on 11th
December 2022 have been reported.
Reporting of infill holes within the
Gonneville Resource including those
drilled prior December 11th2022 have
not been reported as it is not
practicable, results have been used in
the Resource update and/or are in line
with results in the resource estimation.
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 and
exploration drilling 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.

42 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary Commentary
Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas • Any potential extensions to
of possible extensions, including the mineralisation are shown in the figures
main geological interpretations and in the body of the text.
future drilling areas, provided this
information is not commercially
sensitive.

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, equipmentand procedureswere

43 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Criteria JORC Code explanation
Commentary
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 geological and
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 has 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.
Similar criteria were applied to wireframe
modelling of high-grade, sulphide-rich
horizons termed “G Zones” within the
Ultramafic host, with a 0.9ppm Pd nominal
cut-off grade applied in conjunction a
maximum “waste” interval of 4m and
minimum zone width of 4m. Occasional
single holes do not meet these criteria and
the wireframe was propagated
nevertheless for the practical sake of
maintaining continuity of the shape.
However, where two or more adjacent
holes didnot meet the criteria,the

44 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Criteria JORC Code explanation
Commentary
wireframe model was not allowed to
propagate. 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 Southeastern domain zone is an area
of highly complex geometry at the
southeastern end of the intrusion, where
the G Zones appear to be compressed
together and it becomes difficult to
separate higher grade G Zones from the
surrounding ultramafic material. The
footwall boundary of the Southeastern
domain zone corresponds with the
footwall contact of the ultramafic intrusion
and is closely associated with the
pyroxenite litho-geochemical zone. The
hanging wall contact of the Southeastern
domain zone was manually interpreted
using the pyroxenite contact as a guide,
as well with respect to the grades of the
economically important elements.
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.
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.

45 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary Commentary
• 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-
The extent and variability of the parallel, sulphide-rich G Zones varies from
Mineral Resource expressed as 5 to 40m. Plan width of the encompassing
Dimensions length (along strike or otherwise),
plan width, and depth below		 sulphide poor zones varies from 100 to
150m. The reported Measured Mineral
surface to the upper and lower limits Resource is within approximately 130m of
of the Mineral Resource. surface. The reported Indicated Mineral
Resource is within approximately 400m
below surface. The reported Inferred
Mineral Resource is within approximately
600m below surface.
• 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.
• All wireframes and drill data were rotated
40° anti-clockwise and placed in a local
grid for estimation and mining studies. This
brings the average strike of the
mineralisation approximately in line with
The nature and appropriateness of the local grid north-south axis.
the estimation technique(s) applied • Prior to estimation of variables, below
Estimation and
modelling
techniques		 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.		 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,
Mg, Cr 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
determinedfor Pd/Pt/Ni/Co/Au, Cu,As, S,

46 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

==> picture [483 x 708] intentionally omitted <==

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

||||
|---|---|---|
|Criteria|JORC Code explanation|Commentary|
|Mg, Cr 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 high sulphide/high Pd zones (G|
|Zones) and the 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 for Pd, Pt, Ni, Co|
|and Au. In addition, a Southeastern|
|domain was defined in the southwest,|
|where the G Zones are compressed|
|together and display a complex|
|morphology – within the Southeastern|
|domain, the low grade Ultramafic and G|
|Zone volumes were not distinguished and|
|were thus estimated as a single package.|
|The general Ultramafic zone was split into|
|low and high-grade subdomains using an|
|economic composite in Leapfrog for Cu,|
|based on a 0.03% Cu cut-off grade. The|
|Cu cut-off was based on a prominent|
|inflexion in the Cu grade histogram. 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 re-mobilisation of mineralisation|
|in the case of the surrounding sediments|
|and granite. The mineralisation modelled|
|outside of the Ultramafic envelope has not|
|been 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.|

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

47 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary Commentary
• 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 using OK. 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 and southeast domain
subdivisions 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.
• Mg was modelled using OK. The domains
used are similar to those for Pd, Pt, Ni, Co
and Au, except that the Southeastern
domain was not used. Mg is observed to
be relatively depleted in the oxide zone,
and hence the domains were split about
the base of oxidation surface for
interpolation. Mg is also slightly depleted
within the G Zones, possibly due to
sulphide replacement of constituent rock
minerals and hence the G Zone domain
versus general ultramafic subdivision was
retained.
• Cr was modelled using OK. It was
observed that Cr is relatively enriched in
the oxide zone and that there is no
significant difference between Cr grades
in the G Zones and surrounding general
ultramafic zones. A relatively simple
domaining scheme was therefore used,
whereby the general ultramafic and G
Zones were rolled together into a single
domain for estimation, with a split about
the base of oxide surface.
• 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. Density is
generally more poorly informed than the
elemental variables, due to only core
being sampledfordensity, but it was

48 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary

deemed possible to fill in unsampled
density values in the high-grade, sulphide-
rich “G Zones” based on a multi-linear
regression of sampled density values
against the well-correlated and more
widely informed Co, Ni and S variables.
• 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 Gaussian space
in order to elucidate the 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. Appropriate substitution
variogram models were used for Mg and
Cr. 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. A general
ultramafic Main-NW sub-domain
estimation boundary was also defined for
Pd, Pt, Ni, Co and Au 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. The Southeastern domain
zone was estimated using a one-way soft
boundary, whereby the volume inside the
Southeastern domain was allowed to see
the surrounding Ultramafic and G Zone
samples, but the Southeasterndomain

49 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary Commentary
samples were masked during the
estimation of non-Southeastern domain
blocks. The low and high grade Cu
domains were estimated independently,
using a hard boundary, based on the
results of boundary analysis. 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.
• Estimation of Pd, Pt, Ni, Co, Cu, Au, As, S,
Mg and Cr 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, and Pd 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, S, Mg and Cr (within Ultramafic unit
and GZones)- A minimumof6 and

50 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary Commentary
maximum of 16 to 20 samples per estimate
into a parent block size of 10 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 and Cu was into a
Selective Mining Unit (SMU) block size of 5
m(E) x 10 m(N) x 5 m(RL).
• Secondary mineralisation Pd, Pt, Ni, Co,
Cu, Au, S, Mg and Cr (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 10 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. 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 10 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 10 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 situatedwithinany givenblock, since

51 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Criteria JORC Code explanation
Commentary
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, S, Mg and Cr,
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,
except for Mg and Cr, which were
populated with grades from interpolated
domain analogues. None of the ex-
ultramafic blocks, whether interpolated or
assigned, 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.
•
As a final step, Pd, Pt, Ni, Co, Cu, Au, S and
density were re-interpolated into a small
subset of the block model, defined around
a tight 10mE x 10mN drill pattern
undertaken by Chalice over the last year
over the near-surface portions of the G1
and G2 G Zones. This subset interpolation
was undertaken using OK directly into 5mE
x 10mN x 5mRL blocks and was stamped
over the preceding OK/LUC estimates in
this small volume. The tighter drill spacing
justifies the direct interpolation into the
smaller SMU sized block, and also
circumvents the problem of spreading
metal too far if using 10mE x 20mE x 10mRL
“panel” sized blocks.
•
Final block values for Pd, Pt, Ni, Co, Cu, Au,
S, Mg, Cr 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 andwhether the
•
The Mineral Resource estimate was
compared to the previous estimate

52 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Criteria JORC Code explanation
Commentary
Mineral Resource estimate takes
appropriate account of such data.
undertaken by Cube Consulting in July
2022.
•
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.Mr Mark Noppé of SRK
undertook periodic high-level reviews of
the estimation process on an in-stream
basis of previous resource estimates.
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, magnesium, chromium 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.
Magnesium is observed to be relatively
depleted in the oxide zone, while the
opposite is true for chromium.
•
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.
•
OK estimates were run into 10mE x 20mN x
10mRL (local grid) parent blocks, which is
approximately half the width of the
nominal 40m infill drill spacing in the
northing direction. Because of the north-
south orebody strike in local space, the
nominally 60° easterly inclined drill holes,
1m downhole sample spacing and
generally continuous nature of the
variograms models for the economic
elements, the local easting and RL block
dimensions were set at a smaller 10m. LUC
estimates, where undertaken, were
progressed to smaller 5mE x 10mN x 5mRL
(local grid) blocks.
Any assumptions behind modelling
of selective mining units.
•
Within the Ultramafic unit exclusive of the
G Zones, the LUC modelling process for Pd,
Ni and Cu has assumed an SMU size of 5 m
E x 10 m N x 5 m RL.
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. Density was also observed to
be well correlated with Ni, Co and S within
the G Zones.

53 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Criteria JORC Code explanation
Commentary
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, Mg, Cr 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. Check 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.

54 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary Commentary
Whether the tonnages are estimated • Tonnages are estimated on a dry basis. No
on a dry basis or with natural moisture data are available.
Moisture moisture, and the method of
determination of the moisture
content.
• Any oxide block within the optimisation pit
shell above a palladium cut-off of 0.9 g/t is
considered as Mineral Resource
amenable to mining by open pit methods.
• Any transitional or fresh block within the
Cut-off
parameters		 The basis of the adopted cut-off
grade(s) or quality parameters
applied.		 optimised pit shell above a nickel
equivalent cut-off of 0.35% is considered
as Mineral Resource amenable to mining
by open pit methods.
• Any transitional or fresh block outside of
the optimised pit shell above a nickel
equivalent cut-off of 0.4% is considered as
Mineral Resource amenable to mining by
bulk underground methods.
• This Mineral Resource estimate is based on
Assumptions made regarding
possible mining methods, minimum
mining dimensions and internal (or, if		 conventional open cut drill, blast, load,
and haul mining methods for the open pit
portion of the resource.
applicable, external) mining dilution. • The pit optimisations prepared to support
It is always necessary as part of the reasonable prospects for eventual
process of determining reasonable economic extraction had appropriate
prospects for eventual economic mining dilution and ore loss applied.
Mining factors extraction to consider potential • The Mineral Resource estimate itself is
or assumptions mining methods, but the reported without mining dilution or ore loss.
assumptions made regarding mining
methods and parameters when
estimating Mineral Resources may
not always be rigorous. Where this is
the case, this should be reported
with an explanation of the basis of
the mining assumptions made.		 • Consideration was given to the possibility
of applying bulk underground mining
methods to the sulphide resource outside
of the optimised pit shell. Appropriate
mining cost and commodity prices have
been used to determine a cut-off grade
for such an underground mining
approach.
• Metallurgical test work on oxide material
conducted includes:
o
Detailed QEMSCAN and XRD
The basis for assumptions or mineralogy on composites.
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.
Metallurgical
factors or		 potential metallurgical methods, but
the assumptions regarding		 • Metallurgical test work on sulphide
material conducted includes:
assumptions metallurgical treatment processes o
Detailed QEMSCAN and XRD
and parameters made when mineralogy on 18 composites and
reporting Mineral Resources may not a further 4 sets of mineralogy of
always be rigorous. Where this is the flotation test products.
case, this should be reported with an o
Comminution testing includes 17
explanation of the basis of the SMC SAG milling tests plus Ball Mill
metallurgical assumptions made. Work Indices.
o
Flotation testwork on a suite of six
ore type composites and four
mining composites comprising

55 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
flotation to produce a copper
concentrate for sale, and a bulk
nickel concentrate for enrichment
in a downstream facility.
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 – 90% and for sulphide are: Pd –
60%, Pt – 60%, Au – 70%, Ni – 45%, Cu – 85%,
Co - 45%.
Assumptions made regarding • The Julimar Project is at a very early stage.
possible waste and process residue Hence environmental considerations for
disposal options. It is always potential mining have not yet been
necessary as part of the process of evaluated in detail. At this stage Chalice is
determining reasonable prospects unaware of any specific environmental
for eventual economic extraction to issues that would preclude potential
consider the potential environmental eventual economic extraction, subject to
impacts of the mining and government approvals.
Environmental
factors or
assumptions		 processing operation. While at this
stage the determination of potential
environmental impacts, particularly
for a greenfields project, may not
always be well advanced, the status
of early consideration of these
potential environmental impacts
should be reported. Where these
aspects have not been considered
this should be reported with an
explanation of the environmental
assumptions made.
Whether assumed or determined. If • Sample density determinations were
assumed, the basis for the carried out using the water displacement
Bulk density assumptions. If determined, the method.
method used, whether wet or dry,
the frequencyof the measurements,

56 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Criteria JORC Code explanation
Commentary
the nature, size and
representativeness of the samples.
•
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 Measured,
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.
•
Primary mineralisation within the host
Ultramafic intrusion has been classified as
a combination of Measured, Indicated
and Inferred. Measured, 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, excluding the mostly
barren dolerite, and 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 approximately 50m beyond
thelastdrill hole.The 80mdrillspacing

57 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary Commentary
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.
o 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 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.
• 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
10m has been classified as Measured. The
selection of a 10m drill spacing distance
for Indicated was based on:
o Variogram ranges of the main
economic grade variable, Pd,
indicating that grade continuity
averages 40m to 50m within the
high Pd/sulphide zones and is on
the order of hundreds of metres in
the general Ultramafic zones.
o Estimation quality metrics, such as
slope of regression and average
distance to sample were
considered during the
classification process.
• A 10m drill spacing is considered by the
Competent Persons as being sufficient to

58 Chalice Mining Limited

ASX:CHN OTCQB:CGMLF

Criteria JORC Code explanation
Commentary
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.
•
All non-ultramafic material (country rock
and dykes) has not been classified and
the Supergene unit has been considered
ineligible to rise to level of the Measured
category of confidence due to
metallurgical uncertainty.
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.
Audits or
reviews		 The results of any audits or reviews of
Mineral Resource estimates.
•
Cube Consulting has undertaken internal
peer reviews. Mr Mark Noppé of SRK
Consulting completed in-stream reviews of
previous Resource Estimates. No external
review has been completed for this
estimate.
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.

59 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 →