CHALICE MINING LIMITED — Regulatory Filings 2014

Jul 28, 2014

29 July 2014

==> picture [488 x 123] intentionally omitted <==

ASX Announcement

Chalice Files Updated 43-101 Technical Report

Chalice Gold Mines Limited (ASX: CHN, TSX: CXN) (“Chalice” or the “Company”) advises that it has filed an updated and revised Technical Report and Mineral Resource estimate (Table 1) on the Company’s Cameron Gold Camp Project in Canada with the Canadian securities regulators.

The report has been prepared in accordance with Canadian National Instrument 43-101 and forms part of the Company’s ongoing disclosure obligations for its listing on the Toronto Stock Exchange and is also in accordance with JORC Code (2012 Edition).

A copy of the report can be obtained from SEDAR at www.sedar.com or from the Company’s website at www.chalicegold.com.

Cameron Gold Camp Project Background

The Cameron Gold Camp Project is an advanced exploration project located in the southern part of western Ontario approximately 80 kilometres south-east of the town of Kenora. The Project currently consists of two project areas namely Cameron and West Cedartree, both owned 100% by the Company. The Cameron gold deposit lies within the Cameron project area whilst Dubenski and Dogpaw are located 8-10km west of the Cameron deposit on the West Cedartree tenements (Figure 1).

The combined Mineral Resources for the three deposits comprising the Cameron Gold Camp Project at cut-off grades appropriate to location for open cut and underground mining are summarised in Table 1.

This revised Mineral Resource estimate for the Cameron Gold Camp Project updates and replaces previously reported Mineral Resources announced by previous project owners Coventry Resources Inc. for the Cameron and Dubenski gold deposits dated 5 July, 2012 (JORC 2004 compliant) and the Dogpaw gold deposit dated 13 May, 2013 (JORC 2012 compliant).

The data, interpretation and techniques utilised in the estimates for the Mineral Resources are summarised in Appendix 1.

1

Table 1: Cameron Gold Camp Project Mineral Resource Statement at cut-off grades appropriate to location for open cut and underground mining

Deposit	Description	Cut-off Gold **g/t **	Class	Tonnes	Gold g/t	Gold Oz
Cameron	Open Cut	0.5g/t	Measured	2,872,000	2.3	212,400
	RL>=750m		Indicated	5,417,000	1.76	306,600
			Inferred	881,000	2.07	58,600
			TOTAL	9,170,000	1.96	577,600
	Underground	1.75g/t	Measured	157,000	2.77	14,000
	RL<750m		Indicated	559,000	3.23	58,100
			Inferred	5,709,000	2.78	510,300
			TOTAL	6,425,000	2.82	582,400
Dubenski	Open Cut	1.00g/t	Measured
	RL>=180m		Indicated	806,000	2.28	59,100
			Inferred	392,000	1.44	18,200
			TOTAL	1,198,000	2.01	77,300
Dogpaw	Open Cut	0.5g/t	Measured
	RL>=210m		Indicated	247,000	3.02	24,000
			Inferred	64,000	2.26	4,700
			TOTAL	311,000	2.86	28,700
ALL			Measured	3,029,000	2.33	226,900
			Indicated	7,029,000	1.98	447,500
			Inferred	7,046,000	2.61	591,300
			TOTAL	17,104,000	2.30	1,265,700

*Mineral Resources are not Ore Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. All figures are rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimate.

Qualifying and Competent Person Statement

The information relating to the Mineral Resource estimates reported herein for the Cameron Gold Camp Project is derived from the sections of the Technical Report dated 28 July 2014 prepared for Chalice Gold Mines Limited by Mr. Peter Ball of Datageo Geological Consultants who is a Chartered Professional and Member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Mr Peter Ball is a consultant to the Company and is an independent Qualified Person as that term is defined in National Instrument 43-101. Mr. Ball has sufficient experience that is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity being undertaken to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 edition of the Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Minerals Resources and Ore Reserves, and is a Qualified Person under National Instrument 43-101 – ‘Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects’. The Qualified Person has verified the data disclosed in this release, including sampling, analytical and test data underlying the information contained in this release. Mr. Ball consents to the inclusion in the announcement of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears.

The information in this report that relates to Exploration Results in relation to the Cameron Gold Camp Project (within the Technical Report dated 28 July 2014) is based on information compiled by Dr Doug Jones, a full-time employee and Director of Chalice Gold Mines Limited, who is a Member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and is a Chartered Professional Geologist. Dr Jones has sufficient experience in the field of activity being reported to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 edition of the Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Minerals Resources and Ore Reserves, and is a Qualified Person under National Instrument 43-

2

101 – ‘Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects’. The Qualified Person has verified the data disclosed in this release, including sampling, analytical and test data underlying the information contained in this release. Dr Jones consents to the release of information in the form and context in which it appears here.

==> picture [489 x 342] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 1: Location of the Cameron Gold Camp Project and the Cameron, Dubenski and Dogpaw deposits

==> picture [96 x 58] intentionally omitted <==

BILL BENT Managing Director

For further information, please contact:

Bill Bent, Managing Director Tim Goyder, Executive Chairman Chalice Gold Mines Limited Telephone +61 9322 3960

Forward Looking Statements

This document may contain forward-looking information within the meaning of Canadian securities legislation and forward-looking statements within the meaning of the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (collectively, “forward-looking statements”). These forward-looking statements are made as of the date of

3

this document and Chalice Gold Mines Limited (the Company) does not intend, and does not assume any obligation, to update these forward-looking statements, except as required by law or regulation.

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, statements with respect to the estimation of mineral reserves and mineral resources, the realisation of mineral reserve estimates, the likelihood of exploration success, the timing and amount of estimated future production, costs of production, capital expenditures, success of mining operations, environmental risks, unanticipated reclamation expenses, title disputes or claims and limitations on insurance coverage.

In certain cases, forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of words such as plans, expects or does not expect, is expected, budget, scheduled, estimates, forecasts, intends, anticipates or does not anticipate, or believes, or variations of such words and phrases or statements that certain actions, events or results may, could, would, might or will be taken, occur or be achieved or the negative of these terms or comparable terminology. By their very nature forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of the Company to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. Such factors include, among others, risks related to actual results of exploration activities; changes in project parameters as plans continue to be refined; future prices of mineral resources; possible variations in ore reserves, grade or recovery rates; accidents, labour disputes and other risks of the mining industry, as well as those factors detailed from time to time in the Company’s interim and annual financial statements, all of which are filed and available for review on SEDAR at sedar.com. 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.

4

Appendix 1

Cameron Gold Camp Project – data, interpretation and estimate techniques; JORC 2012 Compliance tables.

The data and interpretation utilised and the resultant mineral resource estimate for the three Deposits is summarised as follows: -

• Geology and Mineralisation Interpretation

• The Cameron Gold Deposit consists of: -

  • Two main and numerous smaller steeply dipping quartz lodes/zones which outcrop and occur within a mafic host which is sometimes sheared. These zones occur over a strike length of 1Km and to a depth of 700m and vary from 5m to 30m in true width

• gold mineralisation comprises two main styles, the majority being disseminated sulphide replacements, quartz-sulphide stockwork and quartz breccia veins with a minor amount in recently identified quartz-carbonate-chlorite veins which usually contains visible gold.

• o The Dubenski Gold Deposit consists of:-

  • four steeply dipping quartz zones which outcrop and occur within a felsic sheared and altered host - tuff and lapilli tuff or sericite schist. These zones occur over a strike length of 400m and to a depth of 200m and vary from 5m to 25m in true width

  • gold in association with disseminated pyrite, with higher-grade zones corresponding with strong silicification. Although gold is strongly associated with pyrite and silica, not all pyrite carries gold and not all silicified zones are auriferous. Visible gold is common.

• The Dogpaw Gold Deposit consists of: -

  • ten steeply dipping zones which outcrop and occur within a mafic and ultramafic intrusive host. These zones occur over a strike length of 220m and to a depth of 200m and vary from 2m to 8m in true width.

  • gold in association with silicified and carbonised veins and/or replacement zones which contain up to 10% pyrite. Gold content is locally very variable ranging up to +100g/t. The mineralisation appears to be fracture controlled and potentially related to movement along shearing upon which may have produced fracturing in the host.

• For all deposits the zones of mineralisation are wireframed into solid representations

• Drill Information and Sampling

• The Cameron Gold Deposit has been: -

  • drilled from surface and underground using mostly NQ sized diamond drilling. The total metres within the immediate vicinity of the Deposit is 116,697m contained in 951 holes

  • Recent drilling procedures (2010 onwards) are well documented and comply with industry standards, core recovery is good, and the core is logged and mineralised intervals and surrounding material is sampled by mechanical core cutting. QAQC practises include the use of standards, blanks and duplicates

  • previous drilling, again diamond and mostly NQ sized, is less well documented and contained little to no QAQC information. Core from this drilling is available and a resampling program was undertaken to confirm grade

  • Bulk sampling from the underground development has occurred

• The Dubenski Gold Deposit has been: -

  • drilled from surface and underground using mostly NQ sized diamond drilling although only surface holes were used in this assessment. A total of 106 holes (13,057m) were selected for mineral reource estimation.

  • drilling is diamond and mostly NQ sized, and is not well documented and contained no QAQC information. Core from this drilling is available and a re-sampling program was undertaken to confirm grade

• The Dogpaw Gold Deposit has been: -

  • drilled from surface using mostly NQ sized diamond drilling. A total of 93 holes occur within the immediate vicinity of the Deposit with total metres of 10,745m.

  • the drilling is not well documented and contained no QAQC information. Core from this drilling is available and a re-sampling program was undertaken to confirm grade

5

 Sample Preparation and Analysis

• For all Deposits: -

  • Industry standard techniques are used to prepare and analyse the core samples at an accredited commercial laboratory.

  • Gold is determined by fire assay methods

  • ¼ core re-sample provided samples to assay to compare and subsequently support the assay information upon which the mineral resource estimate is based.

  • Pre Coventry drilling programs contained very little docuemented QAQC hence the need for the ¼ core re-sample program

• For the Cameron Gold Deposit: -

  • Routine QAQC standards and blanks has been included with the Coventry diamond drilling at a rate of 1 of each per 20 routine sample; results mostly supportive of the assay information and preparation techniques adopted

  • Core duplicates are regularly included and provide very good correlation with the original assays

  • pulp and rejects analytical comparison provides support for the gold assay grades used for the mineral resource estimate.

• Estimation Methodology

• For all deposits: -

  • The drill hole information is composited within the mineralisation interpretation to the most common sample length within the dataset, at the Cameron Gold Deposit sampled and un-sampled material is composited separately

  • Grade is estimated for the larger zones by ordinary kriging based on an established grade continuity models determined by variography with top-cuts and search restrictions applied as necessary.

  • The estimation is constrained by hard boundaries representing the interpretation and estimated into block models with a parent size of 5mE x 10mN x 5mRL (Cameron Gold Deposit), 10mE x 5mN x 10mRL (Dubebnski Gold Deposit) and 10mE x 2mN x 10mRL (Dogpaw Gold Deposit).

  • Zones with less data are either estimated by inverse distance techniques or have an assigned grade.

  • Density is modelled into the same blocks using supplied specific gravity information

• Validation and Classification (all deposits)

• The block estimates are validated against the composites both globally and spatially

• The block estimates are classified according to geological confidence, data density, kriging variance and location

• Reporting

• Cameron Gold Deposit: -

  • Reporting cut-offs have been determined by economic studies of viability of open cut and underground mining – see next point. These studies have indicated that open cut mining to a depth of approximately 250m below surface (the open cut zone) is viable at a cut-off of 0.5g/t in some parts of the Deposit. Beneath this (the underground zone) underground mining using sub-level open stoping with access from a decline in the pit identified viable mineral resource at a cut-off of 1.75g/t Au in some parts of the Deposit.

  • The studies assumed the project infrastructure is located at the Cameron Gold Camp Project site.

• Dubenski Gold Deposit: -

  • A reporting cut-off has been determined by assumptions and the results of studies (see below) on the grade required for open cut mining with a process facility located at the Cameron Gold Camp Project site. The cut-off of 1g/t produces an average grade of 2g/t which is felt appropriate.

• Dogpaw Gold Deposit: -

  • A reporting cut-off has been determined by assumptions made on the grade required for open cut mining with a process facility located at the Cameron Gold Camp Project site. The cut-off of 0.5g/t produces an average grade in excess of 2g/t which is felt to be the minimum required.

• For all deposits the reporting of mineral resource at the cut-offs indicated is total within the zones indicated

 Mining and Metallurgy

6

• Cameron Gold Deposit : -

• metallurgical test work (2013) determined a process recovery of up to 91.5% using grind P80 of 75 μm and direct cyanide leaching based on core from the project. More recent test work (2014) indicated that at the same grind size cyanide–in-leach processing would recover 92.5% of the gold with only moderate cyanide usage of 0.2 kg/t with lime consumption of 1.2 kg/t. This compared to direct cyanide leaching at the same grind having a higher recovery (up to 95%) but much higher cyanide consumptions (1.0 kg/t) whilst only slightly lower lime consumption of 0.9 kg/t.

• Open pit mining - optimisation using 7% dilution and 3% mining loss based on a 2.5mEx5mNx5mRL selective mining unit including all categories of the mineral resource and the following costs: -

  • Contract mining costs ranging from US7.18/bcm (at surface) to US$9.64/bcm (200m depth);

  • processing costs US$15.40/ore tonne;

  • refining costs US$4/oz;

  • General and Admin US$3.00/tonne;

  • Grade Control US$1.21/tonne;

  • Royalty 1% of oz produced.

• Underground mining - assessment using a mineable shape optimiser and a sub-level open stope mining method at a mining cost of US$50/tonne with 85% mining recovery; all others costs and process as for the open cut.

• Dubenski Gold Deposit: -

• Mining studies indicate that open cut methods and current assumptions would require a diluted grade of 1.8g/t Au for economic extraction for transport and process at Cameron Gold Camp Project location.

• metallurgical test work has determined a process recovery of in excess of 92% using a fine grind and cyanide extraction.

• Dogpaw Gold Deposit: -

• No mining studies undertaken, requirements assumed the same as for neighbouring Dubenski Gold Deposit.

• No metallurgical test work has conducted by given the mineralisation is similar to Dubenski Gold Deposit it is likely that a fine grind will produce a process recovery of in excess of 90% from cyanide leaching.

Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resource

Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resource	Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resource	Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resource
Criteria	Explanation	Comments
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.	Cameron Gold Deposit:previous companies audited the digital data by re-entering assay information for up to 50% of the sample and found very few errors which were corrected. DataGeo carried out an audit of approximately 10% of the Coventry drill holes in the database which intersected the Deposit and found no major errors. Dubenski and Dogpaw Gold Deposits: review and checks on collar location and down hole survey information were carried out by the DataGeo as part of the field visit and the results were acceptable. Drill data was randomly audited by comparing data held in the database to copies of the field and assay sheets and this was found to be acceptable.

7

	• Data validation procedures used.	Coventry entered all information provided into an Access database and did spot checks on accuracy when the project data was received. Coventry uses a digital data transfer and validation system for the field data that it has generated consisting of recording data directly on computerised logging sheets with built in validation code checking, the sample despatch sheets are also computerised and together with the logging this information is merged with the assay certificate data using a Coventry in house data base system with a dedicated manager. Chalice audited the drill data as part of its due diligence process.
Site visits	• Comment on any site visits undertaken by the Competent Person and the outcome of those visits.	A visit was made in the period 21st to 24th September 2011 during which 2 days were spent at the site and 1 day each in the laboratory in Thunder Bay and in the Toronto Office. A second site visit was made between the 20th to 22nd July 2012. During the site visits the geological aspects of the deposits were reviewed including visiting surface exposure. Also drill hole collar locations were reviewed and the core inspected. DataGeo found the geological aspects of the project consistent with the documentation of the modelled outcome.
	• If no site visits have been undertaken indicate why this is the case.	not applicable
Geological interpretation	• Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertainty of) the geological interpretation of the mineral deposit.	The confidence in the geological interpretation for all deposits is considered good as it is supported by surface exposure and close spaced drilling. At depth there is less data and thus more uncertainty in extent of the deposits - this is reflected in the classification applied in this part of the deposits. Overall this style of deposits is well represented in nearby deposits/prospects within similar geological settings.
	• Nature of the data used and of any assumptions made.	Only physical data obtained in the field was utilised.
	• The effect, if any, of alternative interpretations on Mineral Resource estimation.	The application of hard boundaries to reflect the position of the mineralised zones and extent of the mineralised margin is supported by the field and drilling observations. At this time no other physical expression of the mineralisation in global terms would appear to be appropriate. At the Cameron Gold Deposit the method of dealing with un-sampled core appears appropriate and has been compared to domaining these areas of mostly un-sampled data within mineralisation and re-estimating with similar results.
	• The use of geology in guiding and controlling Mineral Resource estimation.	The presence of appropriate lithology and alteration provides the geological control and this combined with presence of gold is used to constrain the interpretation.
	• The factors affecting continuity both of grade _andgeology. _	The mineralisation is subject to thickness variation along strike and down dip and this combined with the natural variability of gold distribution affects the continuityof the mineralisation.

8

Dimensions	• The extent and variability of the Mineral Resource expressed as length (along strike or otherwise), plan width, and depth below surface to the upper and lower limits of the Mineral Resource.	Cameron Gold Deposit: the overall mineralisation occurs over a 1000m strike length (with variable grade tenor). The two largest zones which represent 93% of the mineralisation by volume and are defined by 87% of the composite data vary between 5m to 30m (true thickness) across strike and extend to a depth up to 700m below surface.Dubenski Gold Deposit: the mineralisation occurs over a 400m strike length, to a depth of 200m below surface and ranges between 5 and 25m in true thickness, averaging 15m. Dogpaw Gold Deposit:the veins occur over a 220m along strike (discontinuous) and vary individually between 2m to 8m (true thickness) across strike and extend to a depth averaging of 200m below surface. The surrounding shear system occurs for 260m along strike,upto 30m across strike and to the same depth as the veins.
Estimation and modelling techniques	• The nature and appropriateness of the estimation technique(s) applied and key assumptions, including treatment of extreme grade values, domaining, interpolation parameters and maximum distance of extrapolation from data points. If a computer assisted estimation method was chosen include a description of computer software and parameters used.	Cameron Gold Deposit: the larger zones (in terms of composites) were estimated using ordinary kriging. Zones with fewer samples were estimated using inverse distance to the power of 3 or if very few composites were available a grade assigned from the composites top-cut if necessary. Gold estimation was carried out in VulcanTMapplication. The surrounding shear was estimated using ordinary kriging. Specific gravity was estimated using inverse distance methods. The composites were created within each mineralised zone separately for sampled and un-sampled core and for the surrounding shear in total. These composites were input to the grade estimation and within the mineralisation octants were used to control margins between un-sampled and sampled composites within the same zone. Estimation was restricted to those composites which were within the zone/shear being estimated. Top-cuts were applied to the composites (if required) based on statistical analysis, it is acknowledged that top-cutting did not always normalise grade populations and as such search restrictions were adopted on samples at the top-cut grade. Estimated blocks were informed a three step strategy with orientation set to the orientation of the zone/shear being estimated. The initial (primary) search was 20m x 15m x 5m in strike, dip and across dip-strike plane. This search range was expanded by double the length for blocks not informed in the primary search. This strategy informed 85% of the blocks within the zone to be estimated.Dubenski Gold Deposit:the larger zones (in terms of composites) were estimated using ordinary kriging given the presence of a grade continuity model. Zones with fewer composites had grade estimated using inverse distance techniques to the power of 3 and the smallest zone had a grade assigned from the composites. Gold estimation was carried out in VulcanTM application. Specific gravity was estimated using inverse distance methods. The composites were created within each zone and input to the grade estimation was restricted to those composites which were within the zone being estimated. Top-cuts were applied to the composites based on statistical analysis if required and for zone min02 which contained the highest grade composites which were top-cut to 20g/t had their influence restricted to 15m along strike, 10m down dip and 5m perpendicular to the dip-strike plane. Estimated blocks were informed a three step strategy with orientation set to the orientation of the vein being estimated. The initial (primary) search was 20m x 10m x 5m in strike, dip and across dip-strike plane. This search range was expanded by double the length for blocks were not informed in the primary search. This strategy informed 85% of the blocks within the zones to be estimated.Dogpaw Gold Deposit:the larger veins (in terms of composites)were estimated usinginverse distance to thepower of

9

		3 given their relatively discontinuous nature along strike and size. Veins with few composites had a grade assigned from the composites top-cut if necessary. Gold estimation was carried out in VulcanTM application. The surrounding shear was estimated using ordinary kriging. Specific gravity was estimated using inverse distance methods. The composites were created within each vein and the shear and input to the grade estimation was restricted to those composites which were within the vein/shear being estimated. Top-cuts were applied to the composites based on statistical analysis. Estimated blocks were informed a three step strategy with orientation set to the orientation of the vein/shear being estimated. The initial (primary) search was 20m x 15m x 5m in strike, dip and across dip-strike plane. This search range was expanded by double the length for blocks were not informed in the primary search. This strategy informed 85% of the blocks within the veins to be estimated.
	• The availability of check estimates, previous estimates and/or mine production records and whether the Mineral Resource estimate takes appropriate account of such data.	Cameron Gold Deposit: Historically mineral resource estimates have targeted a potential underground operation of low tonnage at higher grade. Coventry's approach given the price of gold (2011) was to look at least initially at bulk mining (open cut or underground) mining operations thus no comparison was able to be made to previous resource estimates. No significant production has occurred although there was a bulk sample exercise conducted from the underground workings. This exercise stockpiled material on surface whilst crushing some for grade assessment. It is difficult to collate the results of this exercise. A alternative check estimate was generated using more traditional down hole compositing including both sampled and un-sampled data estimation into a variably sized block model. This provided similar results for the areas of highest confidence.Dubenski Gold Deposit: No production is recorded. A shaft was sunk in the hanging wall and a crosscut made towards the mineralisation to establish drill position but there is no record sampling from this development. Previous estimates have occurred on more localised areas which in general terms are comparable to the mineral estimate.Dogpaw Gold Deposit:no significant production has occurred. One area was trial mined and a 500 ton sample was extracted to processing. The entire area excavated to obtain this sample has been excluded from the reporting. Previous estimates have occurred which in gross contained metal terms are supportive of the mineral estimate but these are not documented and targeted small tonnes at highgrade.
	• The assumptions made regarding recovery of by- products.	There are no by-products

10

	• Estimation of deleterious elements or other non-grade variables of economic significance (eg sulphur for acid mine _drainage characterisation). _	There are no deleterious elements
	• In the case of block model interpolation, the block size in relation to the average sample spacing and the search employed.	Cameron Gold Deposit: the block model was constructed using blocks which were 10mN (along strike) x 5mE (across strike) by 5m in the vertical plane. The choice of block size is acknowledged as a compromise given variable drill spacing within the deposit. The alternate estimate used blocks up to 5m E x 30m N x 10m RL and the overall result was similar.Dubenski Gold Deposit:the block model was constructed using blocks which were 10mE (along strike) x 5mN (across strike) by 10m in the vertical plane.Dogpaw Gold Deposit:The block model was constructed using blocks which were 10mE (along strike) x 2mN (across strike) by 10m in the vertical plane. Forall modelssub-celling to ½ the block size in each direction was adopted to ensure accurate volume representation and grade estimation was to the parent block size.
	• Any assumptions behind modelling of selective mining units.	not applicable
Estimation and modelling techniques (continued)	• Any assumptions about correlation between variables.	not applicable
	• Description of how the geological interpretation was used to control the resource estimates.	Hard boundaries were applied to the mineralised zones defined by concentration in gold grade and being within the appropriate lithology. For theCameron and Dogpaw Gold Depositsshear zones surrounding the mineralisation were included based on extent of alteration and gold grade. Grade was estimated within these boundaries.
	• Discussion of basis for using or not using grade cutting or capping.	Statistical analysis indicated that some zones and the surrounding shears had elevated coefficients of variation and thus to minimise the influence of outlier grades top-cuts were applied. In addition where these top-cut did not normalise the population search restrictions were applied. For theCameron Gold Depositstatistical separation was applied to sampled and un-sampled zones if appropriate and/or practical.
	• The process of validation, the checking process used, the comparison of model data to drill hole data, and use of reconciliation data if available.	Volume validation was carried out by comparison of the solids representing the mineralisation to the block model. Grade validation was carried by both global comparison of the average estimated grade to the average input grade and spatially for the largest zones only by comparison of the estimated grades to the input grades by position. Also visual comparison was used.
Moisture	• Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or with natural moisture, and the method of determination of the moisture content.	The tonnages were estimated using specific gravity determined by wet and dry measurements, and then modelling the result within the block model.

11

Cut-off parameters	• The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters applied.	Cameron Gold Deposit: mining studies have identified 0.5g/t Au as the cut-off to define material for potential open cut extraction and 1.75g/t Au for potential underground extraction.Dubenski Gold Deposit:the same mining study identified cut-off of 1g/t Au to define material for potential open cut extraction.Dogpaw Gold Deposit: no studies have been undertaken but given the deposit is near Dubenski and of higher grade and similar dimensions a cut-off of 0.5g/t Au is thought appropriate (given the higher grade)to identifymaterial withpotential for open cut extraction.
Mining factors or assumptions	• Assumptions made regarding possible mining methods, minimum mining dimensions and internal (or, if applicable, external) mining dilution. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider potential mining methods, but the assumptions made regarding mining methods and parameters when estimating Mineral Resources may not always be rigorous. Where this is the case, this should be reported with an explanation of the basis of the mining assumptions made.	For all deposits the mineral resource has been estimated using parameters targeting bulk mineralisation suitable for open cut and large scale underground extraction. Studies on resource viability for Cameron and Dubenski Gold Depositshave been based on: -
		1. Open pit mining - optimisation using 7% dilution and 3% mining loss based on a 2.5mEx5mNx5mRL selective mining unit including all categories of the mineral resource with the costs of Contract mining ranging from US7.18/bcm (at surface) to US$9.64/bcm (200m depth); processing US$15.40/ore tonne; refining US$4/oz; General and Admin US$3.00/tonne; Grade Control US$1.21/tonne and a Royalty1% of ozproduced.
		2. Underground mining - assessment using a mineable shape optimiser and a sub-level open stope mining method at a mining cost of US$50/tonne; mining recovery was 85% to represent loss in pillars etc;all others costs andprocess as for the open cut.
		For theCameron Gold Depositthe same metallurgical assumptions (see below) and a gold price of US$1,392/oz have been used and indicated that open cut mining to a depth of 250m below surface and that underground mining using sub-level open stoping beneath that is viable in certain parts of the Deposit. The appropriate cut- offs for reporting the mineral resource are as stated above. For the Dubenski Gold Deposit mining of this deposit will be by open cut methods given the deposit's proximity to the surface. Scoping studies for this deposit as part of the Cameron Gold Camp Project indicates mining to a depth of approximately 90m at a cut-off grade of 0.53g/t Au would provide material for transport to the processing site. DataGeo considers it appropriate therefore to report the mineral resource to a depth of 150m below the surface and at a cut- off of 1g/t Au to ensure that all material likely to the economically mined and process is reported.Dogpaw Gold Deposit:mining of this deposit will be by open cut methods given the deposit's proximity to the surface and similar characteristics to neighbouring Deposits which indicate economic viability. The reporting cut-off adopted is 0.5g/t Au to provide an adequate in situ grade and the resource is reported to a depth of 150m.

12

Metallurgical factors or assumptions	• The basis for assumptions or predictions regarding metallurgical amenability. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider potential metallurgical methods, but the assumptions regarding metallurgical treatment processes and parameters made when reporting Mineral Resources may not always be rigorous. Where this is the case, this should be reported with an explanation of the basis of the metallurgical assumptions made.	metallurgical test work on theCameron and Dubenski Gold Depositshas indicated that using a conventional fine grind and cyanide extraction a recovery of 91.5% is likely to be achieved. The test work was conducted on core from each deposit. More recent work on the Cameron Gold Deposit has indicated that at a grind of 75um a recovery of 92.5% will be achieved using cyanide in leach techniques. No test work has been conducted on the Dogpaw Gold Deposit.
Environmental factors or assumptions	• Assumptions made regarding possible waste and process residue disposal options. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider the potential environmental impacts of the mining and processing operation. While at this stage the determination of potential environmental impacts, particularly for a greenfields project, may not always be well advanced, the status of early consideration of these potential environmental impacts should be reported. Where these aspects have not been considered this should be reported with an explanation of the environmental assumptions made.	Again studies by Coventry have indicated that there are unlikely to be environmental or social issues which would preclude permitting of the project. The management of waste rock and process residue will be handled in dumps and dams adjacent to the Cameron Gold Deposit.
Bulk density	• Whether assumed or determined. If assumed, the basis for the assumptions. If determined, the method used, whether wet or dry, the frequency of the measurements, the nature,	Specific gravity has been determined from more than 12,000 core samples throughout the Cameron Gold Deposit, 1684 from the Dubenski Gold Deposit and 353 from the Dogpaw Gold Deposit. All measurements used weight in air and weight in water technique. The results were modelled using inverse distance techniques into the block model.

13

	size and representativeness of the samples.
	• The bulk density for bulk material must have been measured by methods that adequately account for void spaces (vugs, porosity, etc), moisture and differences between rock and alteration zones within the deposit.	The rocks do not display significant porosity given the setting is mafic or felsic volcanics, any voids produced at the time of emplacement have been filled by quartz.
	• Discuss assumptions for bulk density estimates used in the evaluation process of the different materials.	The material is consistent as evidenced by the consistency in the specific gravity information.
Classification	• The basis for the classification of the Mineral Resources into varying confidence categories.	The classification is based on physical observation of the mineral system at surface supported by consistently spaced drilling information at depths to 700m below surface. Shortcomings in down hole positional control have been offset by the amount of drilling data with supportable assay information. Higher confidence areas have more supporting data, areas of lower geological support reflect a lower classification.
	• 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).	The input data particularly in the first 300m (for the Cameron Gold Deposit) and first 100m (Dubenski and Dogpaw Gold Deposits) from the surface is consistent and closely spaced enough to support the projection of the geological interpretation at depth where the mineralisation is supported by less closely spaced information. This is combined with the surface exposures of large part of the system. Recent and infill drilling programs have successfully intersected mineralised predicted by the initial programs. The estimated grade correlates reasonably well with the input data given the nature of the mineralisation.
	• Whether the result appropriately reflects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit.	The Mineral Resource estimate reflects the Competent Persons understanding of the Deposit.
Audits or reviews.	• The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral Resource estimates.	External audits are known to have been conducted by Chalice on the Cameron Gold Deposit mineral resource estimate and antidotal evidence available to DataGeo indicates that the results of such were supportive.

14

	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 procedures have been adopted to quantify relative accuracy are deemed unnecessary given the mineral resource is volume and sample constrained. The confidence in the mineral resource is defined by the classification adopted as per the guidelines of the 2012 JORC code.
		• 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 theprocedures used.	The statement relates to global estimates of tonnes and grade.
		• These statements of relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate should be compared with production data, where available.	Cameron Gold Deposit: the bulk sample taken from underground is, based on the information available, difficult to collate with the model. There is no production data.Dogpaw Gold Deposit:the excavation completed was small and has no supportable data apart from gross recovered figures thus difficult to reconcile.

15