CODA MINERALS LTD — Capital/Financing Update 2021

Aug 22, 2021

==> picture [596 x 134] intentionally omitted <==

ASX RELEASE 23 August 2021 ASX Code: COD

High-Grade Assays Confirm Bornite Zone at Emmie Bluff Deeps

High-grade copper and gold intercepts in DD21EB0018 wedge holes drilled to the southeast and west show strong grade improvement, indicative of a proximal mineralising structure.

Highlights

• Outstanding assay results in two wedge holes drilled from parent hole DD21EB0018, confirm IOCG-style copper-gold mineralisation at Emmie Bluff Deeps:

• Wedge 1: 17.1m @ 1.2% Cu, 0.3 g/t Au, 1.3g/t Ag from 824m

o Wedge 2 Upper: 24.0m @ 2.2% Cu, 0.3 g/t Au, 8.9g/t Ag from 815m;

Including:

• 3.0m @ 4.2% Cu, 0.3 g/t Au, 10.5 g/t Ag from 830m

• Wedge 2 Lower: 12.9m @ 3.5% Cu, 0.6 g/t Au, 25.4 g/t Ag from 902m;

Including:

• 3.2m @ 4.9% Cu, 1.3 g/t Au, 41.8 g/t Ag from 905m and

• 2.9m @ 4.8% Cu, 0.3 g/t Au, 33.8 g/t Ag from 911m

• Peak grades of 15.3% Cu and 4.49g/t Au in Wedge 2 (in the lower zone), and 3.37% Cu and 1.55g/t Au in Wedge 1 confirm potential for high copper and gold grades in the mineralised system.

• The new assay data validate both field logging and Coda’s broader exploration model, providing strong directional evidence for the source of the mineralising fluids.

• More than 35m of mineralisation grading in excess of 1% copper was intersected in parent hole DD21EB0018, with peak grades of 5.39% Cu within the higher-grade bornite zones and 1.19 g/t Au in the main chalcopyrite zone (See release on 28 July 2021).

• Drilling is continuing with two new surface diamond drill holes to test mineralising structure well advanced with news flow expected in coming weeks.

• Coda’s strong cash balance of ~$21 million underpins ongoing exploration.

Coda Minerals Limited (ASX: COD, “Coda”, or “the Company”), in conjunction with joint venture partner Torrens Mining Limited (ASX: TRN), a listed gold and copper company (“Torrens”), is pleased to report assays from drill-holes DD21EB0018W1 and DD21EB0018W2, both of which are “wedge” holes, drilled from positions at approximately 500m depth down the parent hole, DD21EB0018.

==> picture [77 x 78] intentionally omitted <==

E: info@codaminerals.com ABN 49 625 763 957

6 Altona Street West Perth Western Australia, 6005

==> picture [595 x 84] intentionally omitted <==

Assay results from copper sulphide mineralisation intersected by the parent hole were released to ASX on 28[th] July 2021[1] , These results included a best intersection of 28.1m at 1.21% Cu, 0.37g/t Au and 2.3g/t Ag from 810.8m , including 4.8m at 2.16% Cu, 0.63g/t Au and 4.3g/t Ag from 816.8m.

DD21EB0018, the first hole in the Company’s deep IOCG drill programme, was drilled to test the Emmie Bluff Deeps IOCG target, which forms part of Coda’s broader Elizabeth Creek Project in the heart of the Olympic Copper Province in South Australia (see Figure 5).

Coda is the operator and majority owner of the Elizabeth Creek Project, holding a 70% interest. Torrens holds the remaining 30% interest.

Summary of Results

The two wedge holes encountered copper-gold sulphide mineralisation broadly consistent with the previously released geological logs (see ASX release of 22 July 2021). A summary image is included as Figure 2 and the highest-grade intersections are as follows:

Hole ID	From	To	Interval	Cu%	Au g/t	Ag g/t	Mo ppm
DD21EB0018W1	820.56	822.60	2.04	1.76	1.09	5.40	1030
DD21EB0018W1	824.07	839.16	17.13	1.18	0.31	1.34	555
DD21EB0018W2	815	839	24.00	2.17	0.29	8.85	225
	Including:
	830.06	833.05	2.99	4.24	0.28	10.47	135
	838.36	839.00	0.64	7.75	0.48	9.89	112
DD21EB0018W2	896.96	897.96	1.00	0.73	0.09	3.20	24
DD21EB0018W2	902.15	914.43	12.88	3.46	0.64	25.38	457
	Including:
	904.56	907.77	3.21	4.94	1.28	41.75	569
	911.49	914.43	2.94	4.84	0.30	33.78	580

Sections of diamond drill core which were considered to be most prospective were prioritised for rapid turnaround of processing and assaying. Further assays will be received in the coming weeks and may include minor additional mineralised intersections. Significantly, peak grades of 15.3% Cu and 4.49 g/t Au were encountered in Wedge 2 (in both cases in the lower mineralised zone), while peaks of 3.37% Cu and 1.55 g/t Au were encountered in Wedge 1.

1 See release “ Assay Results Validate IOCG Mineralisation at Emmie Bluff Deeps ”, released to the market 28th July 2021, available at https://www.codaminerals.com/investors/.

==> picture [78 x 78] intentionally omitted <==

E: info@codaminerals.com ABN 49 625 763 957

6 Altona Street West Perth Western Australia, 6005

==> picture [595 x 84] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [506 x 158] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 1 Photograph of NQ3 diamond drill core (nominal diameter 45.1mm) showing blebby bornite (the purple colour) sulphide mineralisation in DD21EB0018W2, from 824.64m

Commenting on the assays, Coda’s CEO Chris Stevens said: “These exceptional results further refine and de-risk our exploration program. Building on the previously released assays from our first diamond hole, they give us further encouragement that we are closing-in on a large-scale IOCG deposit at Emmie Bluff Deeps. Wedge 2, in particular, is significantly more intensely mineralised than the parent hole, validating our exploration model. These are also the best-ever assays received from the Emmie Bluff IOCG prospect over many years of drilling by previous explorers.

“Our geological hypothesis is that these wedge holes have intersected more of the ‘apron’ of relatively flat-lying mineralisation that we believe surrounds a sub-vertical mineralising structure located close to DD21EB0018. These new assays demonstrate directionality through increasing copper grade and together with recent drilling data, assist in vectoring us toward a main mineralising structure.

“Our job now is to follow that vector with the drill rig and, in conjunction with ongoing geophysical work, to narrow down our target envelope. Our goal is to locate what we believe is a large, brecciated structure hosting high grade copper-gold mineralisation across a substantial vertical thickness. From that perspective, we are particularly excited by the lower borniterich zone encountered in Wedge 2. Around 90 vertical metres separates the top of the upper zone and the base of the lower zone in this hole. That width provides a strong indication that any mineralising structure that we encounter in the area will be at least that vertically extensive.

“Multiple drilling rigs are operating at Emmie Bluff Deeps, with two new surface drill-holes in progress and already well advanced, we anticipate further news flow over the next two to three weeks.”

==> picture [78 x 78] intentionally omitted <==

E: info@codaminerals.com ABN 49 625 763 957

6 Altona Street West Perth Western Australia, 6005

==> picture [595 x 84] intentionally omitted <==

Planned and Ongoing Work

Since the Company’s last major announcement on 28 July 2021 the Company drilled two holes to test the area to the northeast of the first parent hole. DD21EB0018W3 (i.e., Wedge 3) was drilled to the northeast of the parent hole DD21EB0018. DD21EBD0001 (Surface hole 2) was drilled commencing 470m to the north of the parent hole, terminating 350m to the north northeast of the parent hole. Both holes encountered complex structures and strong haematite alteration and are currently being prepared for assay. Data from these holes, particularly structural data, provides further refinement to the exploration model and assists in targeting further drilling that increases the potential of discovering significant mineralisation.

DD21EBD0001 was an especially challenging hole from a technical perspective and failed to reach the original planned proximity to the parent hole due in large part to the significant broken ground encountered associated with major faulting. In addition, loss of water return due to the encountered structures has effectively prevented wedging from this parent hole. This information, combined with the strong alteration intensity gradient and high-grade copper mineralisation encountered in Wedge 2 supports the current hypothesis that the mineralising structure is located to the southeast of existing drilling.

To that end, drilling is continuing with two surface holes currently in progress:

• DD21EBD0002, a vertical drill-hole collared approximately 300m ESE of DD21EB0018; and

• DD21EBD0003, an angled drill-hole, drilling at 80 degrees due north and collared approximately 300m south of DD21EB0018.

IOCG deposits in the Gawler Craton are often laterally constrained and, as such, these holes are designed to step out cautiously from known mineralisation, targeting vertical extension via mineralising structures. Both holes have been designed to allow maximum flexibility for additional wedge holes to be drilled based on results of each hole. The new surface holes are expected to reach target depth at approximately 250m east and 150m south respectively from the upper, bornite-rich mineralised zone in DD21EB0018W2 within 7 to 10 days.

Drill-hole locations are provided in the detailed map in Figure 3.

Assay Results in Detail

The assay results released here correlate very closely to the previously announced visually observed mineralised zones intersected by wedge holes DD21EB0018W1 and DD12EB0018W2 (see Figure 2). Preliminary interpretation of these results suggests a strong positive correlation between increasing copper and gold grades.

Mineralisation within DD21EB0018W1 is dominated by chalcopyrite, within a narrow 2.04m wide upper zone, and a lower 15.09m wide main zone. The main zone hosts the majority of the higher gold grades, with 7 of the 8 samples recording assays above 0.5g/t Au being located between 829m and 835.68m, including the peak grades of 0.62m at 0.75 g/t from 829m and 0.51m @ 0.75g/t Au from 835.17m.

Gold also generally shows moderate correlation with silver throughout, however the peak silver grade of 1.49m at 6.8g/t Ag was encountered at 820.56m down-hole, in the smaller upper chalcopyrite zone.

The mineralisation in DD21EB0018W2 occurs in two distinct zones. The upper mineralised zone is dominated by bornite and covellite and the lower mineralised zone is dominated by bornite, with the highest-grade assays reporting within the lower zone.

Peak gold assays of 0.4m @ 4.49g/t Au from 903.37m and 1.2m @ 1.12g/t Au from 904.56m occur within the lower mineralised zone, A total of 17 samples returned grades above 0.5g/t Au, with these samples associated with the margins of the upper mineralised zone and the core of the lower mineralised zone.

Radionuclides encountered so far at Emmie Bluff are low compared to other regional IOCG deposits, with peak uranium (U) and thorium (Th) grades of 90.5 ppm and 26.7ppm respectively in DD12EB0018W1, with average grades of 29.6 ppm U and

==> picture [78 x 78] intentionally omitted <==

E: info@codaminerals.com ABN 49 625 763 957

6 Altona Street West Perth Western Australia, 6005

==> picture [595 x 84] intentionally omitted <==

11.4 ppm Th through the mineralised chalcopyrite zone. DD12EB0018W2 returned peak uranium and thorium grades of 147ppm and 26.3ppm respectively, with slightly lower average grades of 37.9ppm U and 7.6ppm Th through the upper bornite-covellite mineralised zone, compared with average grades of 62.8ppm U and 9.0ppm Th in the lower bornite mineralised zone.

The continued low levels of radionuclides encountered at Emmie Bluff Deeps is considered to be a further positive for the Project, given the deleterious challenges typically faced by copper producers in dealing with these elements during mineral processing.

Anomalous Molybdenum (Mo) was identified by portable XRF during initial logging, and assays have subsequently identified areas of elevated Mo. While at the current early stage of exploration Coda does not believe it has encountered materially relevant molybdenum grades from an economic perspective, the Company will monitor Mo grades in future drilling and remains optimistic about the potential for further exploration for molybdenum.

==> picture [78 x 78] intentionally omitted <==

E: info@codaminerals.com ABN 49 625 763 957

6 Altona Street West Perth Western Australia, 6005

==> picture [842 x 84] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [691 x 399] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 2 Simplified (cartoon) showing Emmie Bluff Deeps assay results in context with recently released wedge holes.

E: info@codaminerals.com

==> picture [78 x 78] intentionally omitted <==

6 Altona Street West Perth Western Australia, 6005 ABN 49 625 763 957

==> picture [595 x 84] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [505 x 348] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3 Emmie Bluff Deeps drillholes >600m, showing hole traces for Coda’s planned or completed holes/wedges.

==> picture [78 x 78] intentionally omitted <==

E: info@codaminerals.com ABN 49 625 763 957

6 Altona Street West Perth Western Australia, 6005

==> picture [842 x 84] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [686 x 387] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 4 Emmie Bluff Deeps interpreted cross section, as released to the market on 22 July 2021. Assays released today broadly corroborate the Copper Sulphide Zones detailed on this section. Additional drilling is required to confirm the interpreted fault in the red outlined area of interest. Identification of Hiltaba suite granite is preliminary and may be subject to change following dating work currently underway.

6 Altona Street E: info@codaminerals.com West Perth Western Australia, 6005 ABN 49 625 763 957

==> picture [78 x 78] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [595 x 84] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [427 x 517] intentionally omitted <==

`

Figure 5 The Elizabeth Creek Copper-Cobalt Project in South Australia

==> picture [78 x 78] intentionally omitted <==

E: info@codaminerals.com ABN 49 625 763 957

6 Altona Street West Perth Western Australia, 6005

==> picture [595 x 84] intentionally omitted <==

—

This announcement has been authorised for release by the Board of Coda Minerals Ltd

Further Information:

Chris Stevens Steve Shedden Chief Executive Officer Managing Director Coda Minerals Limited Torrens Mining Limited info@codaminerals.com steve@torrensmining.com

Media:

Nicholas Read Read Corporate nicholas@readcorporate.com.au

About Coda Minerals

Coda Minerals Limited (ASX: COD) is a minerals exploration company focused on the discovery, and development of base metals, precious metals, and battery minerals.

Coda is primed to unlock the value of its highly prospective Elizabeth Creek Copper Project, which is located in the heart of the Olympic Copper, Province Australia’s most productive copper belt.

The Elizabeth Creek Copper Project is centred 100km south of BHP’s Olympic Dam mine 15km from BHP’s Oak Dam West Project and 50 km west of OZ Minerals’ Carrapateena copper-gold project. The project includes JORC 2012-compliant Indicated Mineral Resources at the Windabout and MG14 deposits, which together host a combined 159,000 tonnes of contained copper and 9,500 tonnes of contained cobalt. The project also includes Coda’s Emmie Bluff prospect, which has a JORC compliant Zambian-style copper-cobalt Exploration Target, and demonstrated IOCG potential.

Coda has already commenced extensive exploration activities at Elizabeth Creek, which has earned the Company a majority interest in the project (70%). Coda holds the rights and interests to earn up to 75% interest in the project in Joint Venture with Torrens Mining Limited (ASX:TRN).

Coda has a dual strategy for success at Elizabeth Creek. Firstly, it is working to further define and extend known Zambianstyle copper-cobalt resources across multiple prospects, including Emmie Bluff, Powerline, MG14 North and Hannibal. Secondly, it is implementing a substantial drill programme at Emmie Bluff Deeps to evaluate the potential rapidly and efficiently for a Tier-1 IOCG system following a major mineralised intercept in June 2021.

The company listed on the ASX in October 2020 after a successful, heavily oversubscribed IPO which is funding an aggressive exploration campaign across the Elizabeth Creek project tenure. Further information may be found at www.codaminerals.com

About Torrens Mining

Torrens Mining Limited (ASX: TRN) is an Australian company exploring for gold, copper and cobalt and other metals. Torrens is positioned for value growth through its diversified portfolio of prime gold exploration assets in the Victorian Goldfields, its 30% stake in the advanced and active Elizabeth Creek Copper-Cobalt and IOCG Project in South Australia in joint venture with Coda Minerals Limited and, pending the grant of exploration licences, at the formerly producing high-grade copper-gold Laloki Project in Papua New Guinea (PNG). Further information may be found at www.torrensmining.com

==> picture [78 x 78] intentionally omitted <==

E: info@codaminerals.com

6 Altona Street West Perth Western Australia, 6005

ABN 49 625 763 957

==> picture [595 x 84] intentionally omitted <==

Forward Looking Statements

This announcement contains ‘forward-looking information’ that is based on the Company’s expectations, estimates and projections as of the date on which the statements were made. This forward-looking information includes, among other things, statements with respect to the Company’s business strategy, plans, development, objectives, performance, outlook, growth, cash flow, projections, targets and expectations, mineral reserves and resources, results of exploration and related expenses. Generally, this forward-looking information can be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology such as ‘outlook’, ‘anticipate’, ‘project’, ‘target’, ‘potential’, ‘likely’, ‘believe’, ‘estimate’, ‘expect’, ‘intend’, ‘may’, ‘would’, ‘could’, ‘should’, ‘scheduled’, ‘will’, ‘plan’, ‘forecast’, ‘evolve’ and similar expressions. Persons reading this announcement are cautioned that such statements are only predictions, and that the Company’s actual future results or performance may be materially different. Forward-looking information is subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause the Company’s actual results, level of activity, performance or achievements to be materially different from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking information.

Competent Person’s Statement

The information in this report which relates to exploration results is based on information compiled by Mr. Matthew Weber, who is an employee of the company. Mr Weber is a Member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and has sufficient relevant experience to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activities undertaken to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the Joint Ore Reserves Committee (JORC) Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves. Mr Weber consents to the inclusion in this report of the matters based on the information compiled by him, in the form and context in which it appears.

==> picture [78 x 78] intentionally omitted <==

E: info@codaminerals.com ABN 49 625 763 957

6 Altona Street West Perth Western Australia, 6005

==> picture [595 x 84] intentionally omitted <==

Appendix 1: Assay Results

Assays disclosed in this reported are presented in the Table 1 (below) using a 0.3% Cu cut-off grade, which was determined based on comparison with nearby geologically comparable IOCG deposits and after considering current commodity prices. Given the strong correlation between copper and gold, and the lack of metallurgical testwork undertaken on the deposit, no attempt has been made to calculate a copper equivalent grade.

All elements which Coda believes have the potential to be economically relevant are included in the table below. Aggregated results may include internal dilution of no more than 1m of contiguous material below the 0.3% Cu cut-off grade.

Table 1 Material assays from wedge drillholes DD21EB0018W1 and DD21EB0018W2.

Hole ID	From	To	Interval	Cu%	Au g/t	Ag g/t	Mo ppm
DD21EB0018W1	820.56	822.60	2.04	1.76	1.09	5.40	1030
DD21EB0018W1	824.07	839.16	17.13	1.18	0.31	1.34	555
DD21EB0018W2	815	839	24.00	2.17	0.29	8.85	225
	Including:
	830.06	833.05	2.99	4.24	0.28	10.47	135
	838.36	839.00	0.64	7.75	0.48	9.89	112
DD21EB0018W2	896.96	897.96	1.00	0.73	0.09	3.20	24
DD21EB0018W2	902.15	914.43	12.88	3.46	0.64	25.38	457
	Including:
	904.56	907.77	3.21	4.94	1.28	41.75	569
	911.49	914.43	2.94	4.84	0.30	33.78	580

==> picture [78 x 78] intentionally omitted <==

E: info@codaminerals.com ABN 49 625 763 957

6 Altona Street West Perth Western Australia, 6005

==> picture [595 x 84] intentionally omitted <==

Appendix 2: Detailed Technical Information and JORC Table 1

Table 2 Completed and ongoing drillholes at Emmie Bluff Deeps at the time of publication.

HoleID	Easting	Northing	PQ	HQ3	NQ	Dip	Azi	EOH(DD)	Comments
DD21EB0018	703586	6555453	160	501	1041.6	-90	000	1041.6	Results received
DD21EB0018W1	703586	6555453		501	945.6	-82	277	945.6	Results received
DD21EB0018W2	703586	6555453		495	983.9	-74	120	983.9	Results received
DD21EB0018W3	703586	6555453		487.6	1048.6	-77	77	1048.6	Results Pending
DD21EBD0001	703578	6555923	154.5	374.6	988.1	-80	160	988.1	Results Pending
DD21EBD0002	703876	6555356	200.9	400.1		-90	000	Ongoing	Results Pending
DD21EBD0003	703638	6555153	200			-80	000	Ongoing	Results Pending

Table 3 Referenced Historic drillholes at Emmie Bluff Deeps

HoleID	Easting	Northing	Dip	Azi	EOH
IHAD2	705450	6557500	-90	0	1158.8
IHAD5	705119	6557882	-90	0	1152.8
IHAD6	704806	6558260	-90	0	1116.7
MGD 55	704100	6555500	-90	0	1107.3
MGD 57	705350	6556700	-90	0	1242.9
MGD 68	705002	6554502	-90	0	1043.6
MGD 69	703012	6556018	-90	0	1076.1
SAE 1	701879	6554852	-90	0	818
SAE 3	704379	6555352	-90	0	1221
SAE 4	704179	6556172	-90	0	1172.5
SAE 5	706029	6557322	-90	0	914.4
SAE 6	705029	6556222	-90	0	1200
SAE 7	701779	6554402	-90	0	1221.7

==> picture [78 x 78] intentionally omitted <==

E: info@codaminerals.com ABN 49 625 763 957

6 Altona Street West Perth Western Australia, 6005

==> picture [842 x 84] intentionally omitted <==

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data

(Criteria in this section apply to all succeeding sections.)

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary

Sampling techniques • Nature and quality of sampling (e.g. cut channels, random chips, or specific specialised industry standard measurement tools appropriate to the minerals under investigation, such as down hole gamma sondes, or handheld XRF instruments, etc). These examples should not be taken as limiting the broad meaning of sampling. • Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample representivity and the appropriate calibration of any measurement tools or systems used. • Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are Material to the Public Report. • In cases where ‘industry standard’ work has been done this would be relatively simple (e.g. ‘reverse circulation drilling was used to obtain 1 m samples from which 3 kg was pulverised • • • • • •

Core was logged in the field and approximate metal content was measured at regular intervals with a portable XRF device at measurement intervals of between 1 and 0.5m. Sampling intervals were selected by field geologists based on logging and XRF results. Understanding of the mineralising system was based on historical drilling and the parent hole (DD21EB0018), as well as the XRF results, allowed large parts of the holes to remain unsampled. Typically, sampling is restricted to areas of strong hydrothermal alteration, particularly haematisation. The holes have been selectively sampled in order to rapidly send the parts of the hole with the most potential for copper mineralisation to the assay lab for rapid turnaround. Additional samples are being prepared for sample submissionper the table below. Hole ID From To Status DD21EB0018W1 0 676 Not Sampled DD21EB0018W1 676 819.63 Sampled,Assays Pending DD21EB0018W1 819.63 842.28 Sampled,Assayed DD21EB0018W1 842.28 872 Sampled,Assays Pending DD21EB0018W1 872 EOH Not Sampled DD21EB0018W2 0 648.11 Not Sampled DD21EB0018W2 648.11 813 Sampled,Assays Pending DD21EB0018W2 813 841.72 Sampled,Assayed DD21EB0018W2 841.72 896 Sampled,Assays Pending DD21EB0018W2 896 916.07 Sampled,Assayed DD21EB0018W2 916.07 EOH Not Sampled Handheld XRF instruments are extremely susceptible to sampling location bias, which can introduce considerable error. For this reason, Coda treats the results from the handheld XRF as indicative of the presence of metals only and has chosen not to release the results as they are not considered sufficiently accurate and may mislead as to the true nature of the intersected material. Coda’s field personnel prepared the core from DD21EB0018 for transport to Adelaide, where it was cut and sampled for assay by Challenger Geological Services. Portable XRF readings were taken in the field using an Olympus Vanta M tool applied directly to the core at either single or half metre intervals, depending on prior results or visual identification of potentialgrade bythe fieldgeologist. The sample was notprepared except bystandard cleaningof

==> picture [78 x 78] intentionally omitted <==

6 Altona Street E: info@codaminerals.com West Perth Western Australia, 6005 ABN 49 625 763 957

==> picture [842 x 84] intentionally omitted <==

• Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary to produce a 30 g charge for fire core by driller’s offsiders. XRF readings were taken at ambient winter daytime temperature for assay’). In other cases more Woomera in South Australia, between 10 and 25 degrees Celsius. explanation may be required, • The device was used in 3-beam mode, scanning for a total of 30, 30 and 20 seconds for the two 40 such as where there is coarse KV beams and the final 50KV beam respectively. The device is designed to minimise drift over time, and is less than 12 months old, and so has not been calibrated since leaving the factory. The results

• gold that has inherent sampling have not been corrected or otherwise adjusted.

• problems. Unusual • Minor QA/QC is performed during reading, including duplicates and a series of standards and blanks

• commodities or mineralisation taken at the start of each recording cycle.

• types (e.g. submarine nodules) • Sampling of DD21EB0018W3 and DD21EBD0001 has not yet been completed.

• may warrant disclosure of detailed information.

• Drilling • Drill type (e.g. core, reverse • DD21EB0018 was drilled from surface to 160m using PQ diamond bits, reducing to HQ3 to 501m, techniques circulation, open-hole hammer, and continued to end of hole using NQ. rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, • Wedge holes DD21EB0018W1 and DD21EB0018W2 were wedged from their parent hole using a sonic, etc) and details (e.g. core casing wedge from 501m and 495m respectively, and drilled with navigational and standard NQ diameter, triple or standard diamond drilling until appropriate dip deviation was achieved, at which point drilling reverted tube, depth of diamond tails, completely to NQ diamond until EOH. Flexibarrels were used to attempt to increase deviation. face-sampling bit or other type, • The holes achieved EOH Dips and azimuths as per the below table whether core is oriented and if Hole ID Depth Dip Azimuth Comment so, by what method, etc). DD21EB0018W1 501 -89.66 38.22 Wedge Point

•	The holes achiev	ed EOH D	ips and az	imuths as	per the below table
•	Hole ID	Depth	Dip	Azimuth	Comment
	DD21EB0018W1	501	-89.66	38.22	Wedge Point
	DD21EB0018W1	637	-80.32	283	Minimum Dip
	DD21EB0018W1	945.6	-82.11	293.87	End of Hole
	DD21EB0018W2	495	-89.64	30	Wedge Point
	DD21EB0018W2	983.8	-65.95	135.77	End of Hole,Minimum Dip
	Core was oriented using a		n EziMark core orientation tool.

E: info@codaminerals.com

==> picture [78 x 78] intentionally omitted <==

6 Altona Street West Perth Western Australia, 6005 ABN 49 625 763 957

==> picture [842 x 84] intentionally omitted <==

		Criteria	JORC	Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
		Drill sample	•	Method of recording and	•	Recovery of diamond tails while coring was consistently excellent, with minimal core loss, except
		recovery		assessing core and chip sample		where navigation drilling was undertaken. Core recovery is not possible when this method of drilling
				recoveries and results assessed.		is undertaken. Navigational drilling was restricted to the Pandurra Formation sediments, which
			•	Measures taken to maximise		significantly postdate the mineralised basement and are not considered relevant to the IOCG
				sample recovery and ensure		mineralising system.
				representative nature of the	•	No relationship is believed to exist between sample recovery and grade.
				samples.
			•	Whether a relationship exists
				between sample recovery and
				grade and whether sample bias
				may have occurred due to
				preferential loss/gain of
				fine/coarse material.
		Logging	•	Whether core and chip samples	•	Detailed qualitative geological logging of all diamond core has been carried out by appropriately
				have been geologically and		trained and experienced field geologists. Quantitative logging by means of portable XRF has been
				geotechnically logged to a level		undertaken on an as needed basis in areas of prospectivity, typically utilising a 1m interval with
				of detail to support appropriate		interval reduction down to 0.5m in areas of suspected mineralisation.
				Mineral Resource estimation,	•	For the purposes of describing mineral (particularly sulphide) abundance, the following descriptors
				mining studies and metallurgical		have been used:
				studies.		Trace:Logged occasionally by field geologists within the logged interval, but not sufficient to
			•	Whether logging is qualitative		estimate a percentage. Typically, <0.5% mineral abundance.
				or quantitative in nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc) photography.		Minor:Logged regularly by field geologists but does not make up a significant amount of the rock volume. Typically <5% mineral abundance. Moderate:Easily noted and logged by field geologists, makes up a significant amount of rock volume but is not a dominant component. Estimated to fall within a range of 5-15% mineral
			•	The total length and percentage		abundance.
				of the relevant intersections		Intense:Very easily noted by field geologists, makes up a significant percentage of the rock
				logged.		volume and is a dominant component (15 – 50% mineral abundance).
						Volumes beyond 50% would be better represented as massive or near-total replacement of host
						rock rather than expressed as an intensityof alteration or sulphidation.
6		Altona Street		E: info@codaminerals.com
West Perth
Western Australia, 6005				ABN 49 625 763 957

==> picture [842 x 84] intentionally omitted <==

Sub- sampling techniques and sample preparation • If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, half or all core taken. • If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc and whether sampled wet or dry. • For all sample types, the nature, quality and appropriateness of the sample preparation technique. • Quality control procedures adopted for all sub-sampling stages to maximise representivity of samples. • Measures taken to ensure that the sampling is representative of the in situ material collected, including for instance results for field duplicate/second-half sampling. • Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grain size of the material being sampled.	• Sample intervals were defined by field geologists based on portable XRF results and detailed geological logging. • Core was then transported by road to Challenger Geological Services in Adelaide where the core was cut by means of an Almonte core saw (where competent enough to do so), or by brick saw where it was not. • DD21EB0018W1 has been cut and sampled in line with the table above, with DD21EB0018W2 still awaiting some cutting. Submission to the laboratory for assay is pending for some of the remaining core. • The results reported in this release relate solely to the portion of the two holes that was preferentially sampled and fast-tracked to assay. A total of 133 samples were submitted across both holes, including field duplicates and standards, which were inserted at a 1:20 and a 1:10 ratio respectively (7 field duplicates, 14 standards), leaving a total of 112 samples. • Core was cut on a sample-by-sample basis according to need in the following manner: o Where a field duplicatewas not required:½ core for assay, ½ core for retention by Coda onsite for future review. o Where a field duplicatewas required:¼ core for assay, ¼ core for duplicate assay, ½ core retention by Coda on site for future review. • Samples varied in length from 0.23m to 2.14m, with an average of 0.64m per sample. • Field duplicates were taken based on sample numbers ensuring random selection of mineralised and unmineralised material. Hole ID SampleID From To Interval Cu Co Au Ag Mo DD21EB0018W1 D21G0449 825.12 825.66 0.54 7680 112 0.17 0.6 595 DD21EB0018W1 D21G0451 825.12 825.66 0.54 8550 118 0.19 0.6 603 DD21EB0018W1 D21G0469 834.66 835.17 0.51 33700 42 0.75 1.2 355 DD21EB0018W1 D21G0471 834.66 835.17 0.51 30300 47 1.41 1.2 306 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0684 815.00 816.00 1.00 3600 48 0.10 2.8 43.5 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0686 815.00 816.00 1.00 4680 49 0.09 6.6 41.5 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0704 824.64 825.12 0.48 23100 42 0.06 3.8 46.5 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0707 824.64 825.12 0.48 23300 31 0.35 3.8 56 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0724 835.62 836.53 0.91 19700 52 0.42 5.0 747 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0726 835.62 836.53 0.91 18000 60 0.50 4.8 774 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0744 902.15 902.56 0.41 33400 19 0.46 12.4 43.5 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0746 902.15 902.56 0.41 34300 19 0.69 15.8 44.5	• Sample intervals were defined by field geologists based on portable XRF results and detailed geological logging. • Core was then transported by road to Challenger Geological Services in Adelaide where the core was cut by means of an Almonte core saw (where competent enough to do so), or by brick saw where it was not. • DD21EB0018W1 has been cut and sampled in line with the table above, with DD21EB0018W2 still awaiting some cutting. Submission to the laboratory for assay is pending for some of the remaining core. • The results reported in this release relate solely to the portion of the two holes that was preferentially sampled and fast-tracked to assay. A total of 133 samples were submitted across both holes, including field duplicates and standards, which were inserted at a 1:20 and a 1:10 ratio respectively (7 field duplicates, 14 standards), leaving a total of 112 samples. • Core was cut on a sample-by-sample basis according to need in the following manner: o Where a field duplicatewas not required:½ core for assay, ½ core for retention by Coda onsite for future review. o Where a field duplicatewas required:¼ core for assay, ¼ core for duplicate assay, ½ core retention by Coda on site for future review. • Samples varied in length from 0.23m to 2.14m, with an average of 0.64m per sample. • Field duplicates were taken based on sample numbers ensuring random selection of mineralised and unmineralised material. Hole ID SampleID From To Interval Cu Co Au Ag Mo DD21EB0018W1 D21G0449 825.12 825.66 0.54 7680 112 0.17 0.6 595 DD21EB0018W1 D21G0451 825.12 825.66 0.54 8550 118 0.19 0.6 603 DD21EB0018W1 D21G0469 834.66 835.17 0.51 33700 42 0.75 1.2 355 DD21EB0018W1 D21G0471 834.66 835.17 0.51 30300 47 1.41 1.2 306 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0684 815.00 816.00 1.00 3600 48 0.10 2.8 43.5 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0686 815.00 816.00 1.00 4680 49 0.09 6.6 41.5 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0704 824.64 825.12 0.48 23100 42 0.06 3.8 46.5 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0707 824.64 825.12 0.48 23300 31 0.35 3.8 56 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0724 835.62 836.53 0.91 19700 52 0.42 5.0 747 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0726 835.62 836.53 0.91 18000 60 0.50 4.8 774 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0744 902.15 902.56 0.41 33400 19 0.46 12.4 43.5 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0746 902.15 902.56 0.41 34300 19 0.69 15.8 44.5	• Sample intervals were defined by field geologists based on portable XRF results and detailed geological logging. • Core was then transported by road to Challenger Geological Services in Adelaide where the core was cut by means of an Almonte core saw (where competent enough to do so), or by brick saw where it was not. • DD21EB0018W1 has been cut and sampled in line with the table above, with DD21EB0018W2 still awaiting some cutting. Submission to the laboratory for assay is pending for some of the remaining core. • The results reported in this release relate solely to the portion of the two holes that was preferentially sampled and fast-tracked to assay. A total of 133 samples were submitted across both holes, including field duplicates and standards, which were inserted at a 1:20 and a 1:10 ratio respectively (7 field duplicates, 14 standards), leaving a total of 112 samples. • Core was cut on a sample-by-sample basis according to need in the following manner: o Where a field duplicatewas not required:½ core for assay, ½ core for retention by Coda onsite for future review. o Where a field duplicatewas required:¼ core for assay, ¼ core for duplicate assay, ½ core retention by Coda on site for future review. • Samples varied in length from 0.23m to 2.14m, with an average of 0.64m per sample. • Field duplicates were taken based on sample numbers ensuring random selection of mineralised and unmineralised material. Hole ID SampleID From To Interval Cu Co Au Ag Mo DD21EB0018W1 D21G0449 825.12 825.66 0.54 7680 112 0.17 0.6 595 DD21EB0018W1 D21G0451 825.12 825.66 0.54 8550 118 0.19 0.6 603 DD21EB0018W1 D21G0469 834.66 835.17 0.51 33700 42 0.75 1.2 355 DD21EB0018W1 D21G0471 834.66 835.17 0.51 30300 47 1.41 1.2 306 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0684 815.00 816.00 1.00 3600 48 0.10 2.8 43.5 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0686 815.00 816.00 1.00 4680 49 0.09 6.6 41.5 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0704 824.64 825.12 0.48 23100 42 0.06 3.8 46.5 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0707 824.64 825.12 0.48 23300 31 0.35 3.8 56 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0724 835.62 836.53 0.91 19700 52 0.42 5.0 747 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0726 835.62 836.53 0.91 18000 60 0.50 4.8 774 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0744 902.15 902.56 0.41 33400 19 0.46 12.4 43.5 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0746 902.15 902.56 0.41 34300 19 0.69 15.8 44.5	• Sample intervals were defined by field geologists based on portable XRF results and detailed geological logging. • Core was then transported by road to Challenger Geological Services in Adelaide where the core was cut by means of an Almonte core saw (where competent enough to do so), or by brick saw where it was not. • DD21EB0018W1 has been cut and sampled in line with the table above, with DD21EB0018W2 still awaiting some cutting. Submission to the laboratory for assay is pending for some of the remaining core. • The results reported in this release relate solely to the portion of the two holes that was preferentially sampled and fast-tracked to assay. A total of 133 samples were submitted across both holes, including field duplicates and standards, which were inserted at a 1:20 and a 1:10 ratio respectively (7 field duplicates, 14 standards), leaving a total of 112 samples. • Core was cut on a sample-by-sample basis according to need in the following manner: o Where a field duplicatewas not required:½ core for assay, ½ core for retention by Coda onsite for future review. o Where a field duplicatewas required:¼ core for assay, ¼ core for duplicate assay, ½ core retention by Coda on site for future review. • Samples varied in length from 0.23m to 2.14m, with an average of 0.64m per sample. • Field duplicates were taken based on sample numbers ensuring random selection of mineralised and unmineralised material. Hole ID SampleID From To Interval Cu Co Au Ag Mo DD21EB0018W1 D21G0449 825.12 825.66 0.54 7680 112 0.17 0.6 595 DD21EB0018W1 D21G0451 825.12 825.66 0.54 8550 118 0.19 0.6 603 DD21EB0018W1 D21G0469 834.66 835.17 0.51 33700 42 0.75 1.2 355 DD21EB0018W1 D21G0471 834.66 835.17 0.51 30300 47 1.41 1.2 306 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0684 815.00 816.00 1.00 3600 48 0.10 2.8 43.5 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0686 815.00 816.00 1.00 4680 49 0.09 6.6 41.5 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0704 824.64 825.12 0.48 23100 42 0.06 3.8 46.5 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0707 824.64 825.12 0.48 23300 31 0.35 3.8 56 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0724 835.62 836.53 0.91 19700 52 0.42 5.0 747 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0726 835.62 836.53 0.91 18000 60 0.50 4.8 774 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0744 902.15 902.56 0.41 33400 19 0.46 12.4 43.5 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0746 902.15 902.56 0.41 34300 19 0.69 15.8 44.5	• Sample intervals were defined by field geologists based on portable XRF results and detailed geological logging. • Core was then transported by road to Challenger Geological Services in Adelaide where the core was cut by means of an Almonte core saw (where competent enough to do so), or by brick saw where it was not. • DD21EB0018W1 has been cut and sampled in line with the table above, with DD21EB0018W2 still awaiting some cutting. Submission to the laboratory for assay is pending for some of the remaining core. • The results reported in this release relate solely to the portion of the two holes that was preferentially sampled and fast-tracked to assay. A total of 133 samples were submitted across both holes, including field duplicates and standards, which were inserted at a 1:20 and a 1:10 ratio respectively (7 field duplicates, 14 standards), leaving a total of 112 samples. • Core was cut on a sample-by-sample basis according to need in the following manner: o Where a field duplicatewas not required:½ core for assay, ½ core for retention by Coda onsite for future review. o Where a field duplicatewas required:¼ core for assay, ¼ core for duplicate assay, ½ core retention by Coda on site for future review. • Samples varied in length from 0.23m to 2.14m, with an average of 0.64m per sample. • Field duplicates were taken based on sample numbers ensuring random selection of mineralised and unmineralised material. Hole ID SampleID From To Interval Cu Co Au Ag Mo DD21EB0018W1 D21G0449 825.12 825.66 0.54 7680 112 0.17 0.6 595 DD21EB0018W1 D21G0451 825.12 825.66 0.54 8550 118 0.19 0.6 603 DD21EB0018W1 D21G0469 834.66 835.17 0.51 33700 42 0.75 1.2 355 DD21EB0018W1 D21G0471 834.66 835.17 0.51 30300 47 1.41 1.2 306 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0684 815.00 816.00 1.00 3600 48 0.10 2.8 43.5 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0686 815.00 816.00 1.00 4680 49 0.09 6.6 41.5 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0704 824.64 825.12 0.48 23100 42 0.06 3.8 46.5 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0707 824.64 825.12 0.48 23300 31 0.35 3.8 56 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0724 835.62 836.53 0.91 19700 52 0.42 5.0 747 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0726 835.62 836.53 0.91 18000 60 0.50 4.8 774 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0744 902.15 902.56 0.41 33400 19 0.46 12.4 43.5 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0746 902.15 902.56 0.41 34300 19 0.69 15.8 44.5	• Sample intervals were defined by field geologists based on portable XRF results and detailed geological logging. • Core was then transported by road to Challenger Geological Services in Adelaide where the core was cut by means of an Almonte core saw (where competent enough to do so), or by brick saw where it was not. • DD21EB0018W1 has been cut and sampled in line with the table above, with DD21EB0018W2 still awaiting some cutting. Submission to the laboratory for assay is pending for some of the remaining core. • The results reported in this release relate solely to the portion of the two holes that was preferentially sampled and fast-tracked to assay. A total of 133 samples were submitted across both holes, including field duplicates and standards, which were inserted at a 1:20 and a 1:10 ratio respectively (7 field duplicates, 14 standards), leaving a total of 112 samples. • Core was cut on a sample-by-sample basis according to need in the following manner: o Where a field duplicatewas not required:½ core for assay, ½ core for retention by Coda onsite for future review. o Where a field duplicatewas required:¼ core for assay, ¼ core for duplicate assay, ½ core retention by Coda on site for future review. • Samples varied in length from 0.23m to 2.14m, with an average of 0.64m per sample. • Field duplicates were taken based on sample numbers ensuring random selection of mineralised and unmineralised material. Hole ID SampleID From To Interval Cu Co Au Ag Mo DD21EB0018W1 D21G0449 825.12 825.66 0.54 7680 112 0.17 0.6 595 DD21EB0018W1 D21G0451 825.12 825.66 0.54 8550 118 0.19 0.6 603 DD21EB0018W1 D21G0469 834.66 835.17 0.51 33700 42 0.75 1.2 355 DD21EB0018W1 D21G0471 834.66 835.17 0.51 30300 47 1.41 1.2 306 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0684 815.00 816.00 1.00 3600 48 0.10 2.8 43.5 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0686 815.00 816.00 1.00 4680 49 0.09 6.6 41.5 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0704 824.64 825.12 0.48 23100 42 0.06 3.8 46.5 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0707 824.64 825.12 0.48 23300 31 0.35 3.8 56 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0724 835.62 836.53 0.91 19700 52 0.42 5.0 747 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0726 835.62 836.53 0.91 18000 60 0.50 4.8 774 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0744 902.15 902.56 0.41 33400 19 0.46 12.4 43.5 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0746 902.15 902.56 0.41 34300 19 0.69 15.8 44.5	• Sample intervals were defined by field geologists based on portable XRF results and detailed geological logging. • Core was then transported by road to Challenger Geological Services in Adelaide where the core was cut by means of an Almonte core saw (where competent enough to do so), or by brick saw where it was not. • DD21EB0018W1 has been cut and sampled in line with the table above, with DD21EB0018W2 still awaiting some cutting. Submission to the laboratory for assay is pending for some of the remaining core. • The results reported in this release relate solely to the portion of the two holes that was preferentially sampled and fast-tracked to assay. A total of 133 samples were submitted across both holes, including field duplicates and standards, which were inserted at a 1:20 and a 1:10 ratio respectively (7 field duplicates, 14 standards), leaving a total of 112 samples. • Core was cut on a sample-by-sample basis according to need in the following manner: o Where a field duplicatewas not required:½ core for assay, ½ core for retention by Coda onsite for future review. o Where a field duplicatewas required:¼ core for assay, ¼ core for duplicate assay, ½ core retention by Coda on site for future review. • Samples varied in length from 0.23m to 2.14m, with an average of 0.64m per sample. • Field duplicates were taken based on sample numbers ensuring random selection of mineralised and unmineralised material. Hole ID SampleID From To Interval Cu Co Au Ag Mo DD21EB0018W1 D21G0449 825.12 825.66 0.54 7680 112 0.17 0.6 595 DD21EB0018W1 D21G0451 825.12 825.66 0.54 8550 118 0.19 0.6 603 DD21EB0018W1 D21G0469 834.66 835.17 0.51 33700 42 0.75 1.2 355 DD21EB0018W1 D21G0471 834.66 835.17 0.51 30300 47 1.41 1.2 306 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0684 815.00 816.00 1.00 3600 48 0.10 2.8 43.5 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0686 815.00 816.00 1.00 4680 49 0.09 6.6 41.5 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0704 824.64 825.12 0.48 23100 42 0.06 3.8 46.5 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0707 824.64 825.12 0.48 23300 31 0.35 3.8 56 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0724 835.62 836.53 0.91 19700 52 0.42 5.0 747 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0726 835.62 836.53 0.91 18000 60 0.50 4.8 774 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0744 902.15 902.56 0.41 33400 19 0.46 12.4 43.5 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0746 902.15 902.56 0.41 34300 19 0.69 15.8 44.5	• Sample intervals were defined by field geologists based on portable XRF results and detailed geological logging. • Core was then transported by road to Challenger Geological Services in Adelaide where the core was cut by means of an Almonte core saw (where competent enough to do so), or by brick saw where it was not. • DD21EB0018W1 has been cut and sampled in line with the table above, with DD21EB0018W2 still awaiting some cutting. Submission to the laboratory for assay is pending for some of the remaining core. • The results reported in this release relate solely to the portion of the two holes that was preferentially sampled and fast-tracked to assay. A total of 133 samples were submitted across both holes, including field duplicates and standards, which were inserted at a 1:20 and a 1:10 ratio respectively (7 field duplicates, 14 standards), leaving a total of 112 samples. • Core was cut on a sample-by-sample basis according to need in the following manner: o Where a field duplicatewas not required:½ core for assay, ½ core for retention by Coda onsite for future review. o Where a field duplicatewas required:¼ core for assay, ¼ core for duplicate assay, ½ core retention by Coda on site for future review. • Samples varied in length from 0.23m to 2.14m, with an average of 0.64m per sample. • Field duplicates were taken based on sample numbers ensuring random selection of mineralised and unmineralised material. Hole ID SampleID From To Interval Cu Co Au Ag Mo DD21EB0018W1 D21G0449 825.12 825.66 0.54 7680 112 0.17 0.6 595 DD21EB0018W1 D21G0451 825.12 825.66 0.54 8550 118 0.19 0.6 603 DD21EB0018W1 D21G0469 834.66 835.17 0.51 33700 42 0.75 1.2 355 DD21EB0018W1 D21G0471 834.66 835.17 0.51 30300 47 1.41 1.2 306 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0684 815.00 816.00 1.00 3600 48 0.10 2.8 43.5 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0686 815.00 816.00 1.00 4680 49 0.09 6.6 41.5 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0704 824.64 825.12 0.48 23100 42 0.06 3.8 46.5 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0707 824.64 825.12 0.48 23300 31 0.35 3.8 56 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0724 835.62 836.53 0.91 19700 52 0.42 5.0 747 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0726 835.62 836.53 0.91 18000 60 0.50 4.8 774 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0744 902.15 902.56 0.41 33400 19 0.46 12.4 43.5 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0746 902.15 902.56 0.41 34300 19 0.69 15.8 44.5	• Sample intervals were defined by field geologists based on portable XRF results and detailed geological logging. • Core was then transported by road to Challenger Geological Services in Adelaide where the core was cut by means of an Almonte core saw (where competent enough to do so), or by brick saw where it was not. • DD21EB0018W1 has been cut and sampled in line with the table above, with DD21EB0018W2 still awaiting some cutting. Submission to the laboratory for assay is pending for some of the remaining core. • The results reported in this release relate solely to the portion of the two holes that was preferentially sampled and fast-tracked to assay. A total of 133 samples were submitted across both holes, including field duplicates and standards, which were inserted at a 1:20 and a 1:10 ratio respectively (7 field duplicates, 14 standards), leaving a total of 112 samples. • Core was cut on a sample-by-sample basis according to need in the following manner: o Where a field duplicatewas not required:½ core for assay, ½ core for retention by Coda onsite for future review. o Where a field duplicatewas required:¼ core for assay, ¼ core for duplicate assay, ½ core retention by Coda on site for future review. • Samples varied in length from 0.23m to 2.14m, with an average of 0.64m per sample. • Field duplicates were taken based on sample numbers ensuring random selection of mineralised and unmineralised material. Hole ID SampleID From To Interval Cu Co Au Ag Mo DD21EB0018W1 D21G0449 825.12 825.66 0.54 7680 112 0.17 0.6 595 DD21EB0018W1 D21G0451 825.12 825.66 0.54 8550 118 0.19 0.6 603 DD21EB0018W1 D21G0469 834.66 835.17 0.51 33700 42 0.75 1.2 355 DD21EB0018W1 D21G0471 834.66 835.17 0.51 30300 47 1.41 1.2 306 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0684 815.00 816.00 1.00 3600 48 0.10 2.8 43.5 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0686 815.00 816.00 1.00 4680 49 0.09 6.6 41.5 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0704 824.64 825.12 0.48 23100 42 0.06 3.8 46.5 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0707 824.64 825.12 0.48 23300 31 0.35 3.8 56 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0724 835.62 836.53 0.91 19700 52 0.42 5.0 747 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0726 835.62 836.53 0.91 18000 60 0.50 4.8 774 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0744 902.15 902.56 0.41 33400 19 0.46 12.4 43.5 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0746 902.15 902.56 0.41 34300 19 0.69 15.8 44.5	• Sample intervals were defined by field geologists based on portable XRF results and detailed geological logging. • Core was then transported by road to Challenger Geological Services in Adelaide where the core was cut by means of an Almonte core saw (where competent enough to do so), or by brick saw where it was not. • DD21EB0018W1 has been cut and sampled in line with the table above, with DD21EB0018W2 still awaiting some cutting. Submission to the laboratory for assay is pending for some of the remaining core. • The results reported in this release relate solely to the portion of the two holes that was preferentially sampled and fast-tracked to assay. A total of 133 samples were submitted across both holes, including field duplicates and standards, which were inserted at a 1:20 and a 1:10 ratio respectively (7 field duplicates, 14 standards), leaving a total of 112 samples. • Core was cut on a sample-by-sample basis according to need in the following manner: o Where a field duplicatewas not required:½ core for assay, ½ core for retention by Coda onsite for future review. o Where a field duplicatewas required:¼ core for assay, ¼ core for duplicate assay, ½ core retention by Coda on site for future review. • Samples varied in length from 0.23m to 2.14m, with an average of 0.64m per sample. • Field duplicates were taken based on sample numbers ensuring random selection of mineralised and unmineralised material. Hole ID SampleID From To Interval Cu Co Au Ag Mo DD21EB0018W1 D21G0449 825.12 825.66 0.54 7680 112 0.17 0.6 595 DD21EB0018W1 D21G0451 825.12 825.66 0.54 8550 118 0.19 0.6 603 DD21EB0018W1 D21G0469 834.66 835.17 0.51 33700 42 0.75 1.2 355 DD21EB0018W1 D21G0471 834.66 835.17 0.51 30300 47 1.41 1.2 306 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0684 815.00 816.00 1.00 3600 48 0.10 2.8 43.5 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0686 815.00 816.00 1.00 4680 49 0.09 6.6 41.5 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0704 824.64 825.12 0.48 23100 42 0.06 3.8 46.5 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0707 824.64 825.12 0.48 23300 31 0.35 3.8 56 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0724 835.62 836.53 0.91 19700 52 0.42 5.0 747 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0726 835.62 836.53 0.91 18000 60 0.50 4.8 774 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0744 902.15 902.56 0.41 33400 19 0.46 12.4 43.5 DD21EB0018W2 D21G0746 902.15 902.56 0.41 34300 19 0.69 15.8 44.5
	Hole ID	SampleID	From	To	Interval	Cu	Co	Au	Ag	Mo
	DD21EB0018W1	D21G0449	825.12	825.66	0.54	7680	112	0.17	0.6	595
	DD21EB0018W1	D21G0451	825.12	825.66	0.54	8550	118	0.19	0.6	603
	DD21EB0018W1	D21G0469	834.66	835.17	0.51	33700	42	0.75	1.2	355
	DD21EB0018W1	D21G0471	834.66	835.17	0.51	30300	47	1.41	1.2	306
	DD21EB0018W2	D21G0684	815.00	816.00	1.00	3600	48	0.10	2.8	43.5
	DD21EB0018W2	D21G0686	815.00	816.00	1.00	4680	49	0.09	6.6	41.5
	DD21EB0018W2	D21G0704	824.64	825.12	0.48	23100	42	0.06	3.8	46.5
	DD21EB0018W2	D21G0707	824.64	825.12	0.48	23300	31	0.35	3.8	56
	DD21EB0018W2	D21G0724	835.62	836.53	0.91	19700	52	0.42	5.0	747
	DD21EB0018W2	D21G0726	835.62	836.53	0.91	18000	60	0.50	4.8	774
	DD21EB0018W2	D21G0744	902.15	902.56	0.41	33400	19	0.46	12.4	43.5
	DD21EB0018W2	D21G0746	902.15	902.56	0.41	34300	19	0.69	15.8	44.5
6 Altona Street West Perth Western Australia, 6005 E: info@codaminerals.com ABN 49 625 763 957

==> picture [842 x 84] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary	Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
	DD21EB0018W2	D21G0764	913.50	914.43	0.93	35100	17	0.09	36.4	114
	DD21EB0018W2	D21G0766	913.50	914.43	0.93	42900	17	0.08	26.8	85

E: info@codaminerals.com

==> picture [78 x 78] intentionally omitted <==

6 Altona Street West Perth Western Australia, 6005

ABN 49 625 763 957

==> picture [842 x 84] intentionally omitted <==

Quality of assay data and laboratory tests • The nature, quality and appropriateness of the assaying and laboratory procedures used and whether the technique is considered partial or total. • For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF instruments, etc, the parameters used in determining the analysis including instrument make and model, reading times, calibrations factors applied and their derivation, etc. • Nature of quality control procedures adopted (e.g. standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (i.e. lack of bias) and precision have been established.	• Assays of drill core from hole DD21EB0018W1 and DD21EB0018W2 were undertaken by Bureau Veritas in Adelaide SA. • Halved core was crushed, split and pulverised before being digested and refluxed with a mixture of nitric, perchloric, hydrofluoric and hydrochloric acids. This extended digest approximates a total digest in most samples. • Most elements were determined by ICP-OES and ICP-MS, depending on accuracy required. The exception was Au, which was determined by fire assay. • These techniques were determined in consultation with the assay laboratory and are consider appropriate for the deposit type. • Field duplicates and standards were inserted at a 1:20 and a 1:10 ratio respectively (14 standards, 7 field duplicates over 133 total samples). • Average absolute error for target elements was 153.2 ppm Cu, 12.3 ppm Co, 0.039 ppm Au, 0.057 ppm Ag, and 3.5 ppm Mo. Insufficient sample (I.S.) was reported where insufficient sample was available to provide sufficient analyte for the laboratory to analyse for gold. Cu % Measured Cu % Expected Co ppm Measured Co ppm Expected Au ppm Measured Au ppm Expected Ag ppm Measured Ag ppm Expected Mo ppm Measured Mo ppm Expected 0.0004 0.0003 4 4.22 - 0.002 <0.2 0.041 6.5 6.97 0.0004 0.0003 4 4.22 - 0.002 <0.2 0.041 7.5 6.97 2.45 2.53 713 705 - 1.54 4 4.04 364 376 2.58 2.53 730 705 - 1.54 4 4.04 373 376 2.54 2.53 670 705 1.55 1.54 4.2 4.04 369 376 0.268 0.26 16 14.9 - 0.243 0.8 0.778 99 99 0.291 0.293 195 203 0.18 0.176 0.4 0.450 63 65 0.298 0.293 197 203 0.19 0.176 0.4 0.450 64 65 0.296 0.293 209 203 0.19 0.176 0.4 0.450 69 65 0.298 0.293 196 203 I.S. 0.176 0.4 0.450 64 65 0.300 0.293 201 203 I.S. 0.176 0.4 0.450 63 65 0.0048 0.0047 12 14 <0.01 <0.003 <0.2 0.065 4.5 3.2 0.0046 0.0047 14 14 0.01 <0.003 <0.2 0.065 6.5 3.2 0.0048 0.0047 13 14 0.01 <0.003 <0.2 0.065 5 3.2 0.0048 0.0047 13 14 0.02 <0.003 <0.2 0.065 5 3.2 0.0052 0.0047 13 14 0.01 <0.003 <0.2 0.065 5.5 3.2 1.42 1.47 952 899 0.810 0.801 2.6 - 306 310 1.41 1.47 882 899 0.820 0.801 2.6 - 300 310	• Assays of drill core from hole DD21EB0018W1 and DD21EB0018W2 were undertaken by Bureau Veritas in Adelaide SA. • Halved core was crushed, split and pulverised before being digested and refluxed with a mixture of nitric, perchloric, hydrofluoric and hydrochloric acids. This extended digest approximates a total digest in most samples. • Most elements were determined by ICP-OES and ICP-MS, depending on accuracy required. The exception was Au, which was determined by fire assay. • These techniques were determined in consultation with the assay laboratory and are consider appropriate for the deposit type. • Field duplicates and standards were inserted at a 1:20 and a 1:10 ratio respectively (14 standards, 7 field duplicates over 133 total samples). • Average absolute error for target elements was 153.2 ppm Cu, 12.3 ppm Co, 0.039 ppm Au, 0.057 ppm Ag, and 3.5 ppm Mo. Insufficient sample (I.S.) was reported where insufficient sample was available to provide sufficient analyte for the laboratory to analyse for gold. Cu % Measured Cu % Expected Co ppm Measured Co ppm Expected Au ppm Measured Au ppm Expected Ag ppm Measured Ag ppm Expected Mo ppm Measured Mo ppm Expected 0.0004 0.0003 4 4.22 - 0.002 <0.2 0.041 6.5 6.97 0.0004 0.0003 4 4.22 - 0.002 <0.2 0.041 7.5 6.97 2.45 2.53 713 705 - 1.54 4 4.04 364 376 2.58 2.53 730 705 - 1.54 4 4.04 373 376 2.54 2.53 670 705 1.55 1.54 4.2 4.04 369 376 0.268 0.26 16 14.9 - 0.243 0.8 0.778 99 99 0.291 0.293 195 203 0.18 0.176 0.4 0.450 63 65 0.298 0.293 197 203 0.19 0.176 0.4 0.450 64 65 0.296 0.293 209 203 0.19 0.176 0.4 0.450 69 65 0.298 0.293 196 203 I.S. 0.176 0.4 0.450 64 65 0.300 0.293 201 203 I.S. 0.176 0.4 0.450 63 65 0.0048 0.0047 12 14 <0.01 <0.003 <0.2 0.065 4.5 3.2 0.0046 0.0047 14 14 0.01 <0.003 <0.2 0.065 6.5 3.2 0.0048 0.0047 13 14 0.01 <0.003 <0.2 0.065 5 3.2 0.0048 0.0047 13 14 0.02 <0.003 <0.2 0.065 5 3.2 0.0052 0.0047 13 14 0.01 <0.003 <0.2 0.065 5.5 3.2 1.42 1.47 952 899 0.810 0.801 2.6 - 306 310 1.41 1.47 882 899 0.820 0.801 2.6 - 300 310	• Assays of drill core from hole DD21EB0018W1 and DD21EB0018W2 were undertaken by Bureau Veritas in Adelaide SA. • Halved core was crushed, split and pulverised before being digested and refluxed with a mixture of nitric, perchloric, hydrofluoric and hydrochloric acids. This extended digest approximates a total digest in most samples. • Most elements were determined by ICP-OES and ICP-MS, depending on accuracy required. The exception was Au, which was determined by fire assay. • These techniques were determined in consultation with the assay laboratory and are consider appropriate for the deposit type. • Field duplicates and standards were inserted at a 1:20 and a 1:10 ratio respectively (14 standards, 7 field duplicates over 133 total samples). • Average absolute error for target elements was 153.2 ppm Cu, 12.3 ppm Co, 0.039 ppm Au, 0.057 ppm Ag, and 3.5 ppm Mo. Insufficient sample (I.S.) was reported where insufficient sample was available to provide sufficient analyte for the laboratory to analyse for gold. Cu % Measured Cu % Expected Co ppm Measured Co ppm Expected Au ppm Measured Au ppm Expected Ag ppm Measured Ag ppm Expected Mo ppm Measured Mo ppm Expected 0.0004 0.0003 4 4.22 - 0.002 <0.2 0.041 6.5 6.97 0.0004 0.0003 4 4.22 - 0.002 <0.2 0.041 7.5 6.97 2.45 2.53 713 705 - 1.54 4 4.04 364 376 2.58 2.53 730 705 - 1.54 4 4.04 373 376 2.54 2.53 670 705 1.55 1.54 4.2 4.04 369 376 0.268 0.26 16 14.9 - 0.243 0.8 0.778 99 99 0.291 0.293 195 203 0.18 0.176 0.4 0.450 63 65 0.298 0.293 197 203 0.19 0.176 0.4 0.450 64 65 0.296 0.293 209 203 0.19 0.176 0.4 0.450 69 65 0.298 0.293 196 203 I.S. 0.176 0.4 0.450 64 65 0.300 0.293 201 203 I.S. 0.176 0.4 0.450 63 65 0.0048 0.0047 12 14 <0.01 <0.003 <0.2 0.065 4.5 3.2 0.0046 0.0047 14 14 0.01 <0.003 <0.2 0.065 6.5 3.2 0.0048 0.0047 13 14 0.01 <0.003 <0.2 0.065 5 3.2 0.0048 0.0047 13 14 0.02 <0.003 <0.2 0.065 5 3.2 0.0052 0.0047 13 14 0.01 <0.003 <0.2 0.065 5.5 3.2 1.42 1.47 952 899 0.810 0.801 2.6 - 306 310 1.41 1.47 882 899 0.820 0.801 2.6 - 300 310	• Assays of drill core from hole DD21EB0018W1 and DD21EB0018W2 were undertaken by Bureau Veritas in Adelaide SA. • Halved core was crushed, split and pulverised before being digested and refluxed with a mixture of nitric, perchloric, hydrofluoric and hydrochloric acids. This extended digest approximates a total digest in most samples. • Most elements were determined by ICP-OES and ICP-MS, depending on accuracy required. The exception was Au, which was determined by fire assay. • These techniques were determined in consultation with the assay laboratory and are consider appropriate for the deposit type. • Field duplicates and standards were inserted at a 1:20 and a 1:10 ratio respectively (14 standards, 7 field duplicates over 133 total samples). • Average absolute error for target elements was 153.2 ppm Cu, 12.3 ppm Co, 0.039 ppm Au, 0.057 ppm Ag, and 3.5 ppm Mo. Insufficient sample (I.S.) was reported where insufficient sample was available to provide sufficient analyte for the laboratory to analyse for gold. Cu % Measured Cu % Expected Co ppm Measured Co ppm Expected Au ppm Measured Au ppm Expected Ag ppm Measured Ag ppm Expected Mo ppm Measured Mo ppm Expected 0.0004 0.0003 4 4.22 - 0.002 <0.2 0.041 6.5 6.97 0.0004 0.0003 4 4.22 - 0.002 <0.2 0.041 7.5 6.97 2.45 2.53 713 705 - 1.54 4 4.04 364 376 2.58 2.53 730 705 - 1.54 4 4.04 373 376 2.54 2.53 670 705 1.55 1.54 4.2 4.04 369 376 0.268 0.26 16 14.9 - 0.243 0.8 0.778 99 99 0.291 0.293 195 203 0.18 0.176 0.4 0.450 63 65 0.298 0.293 197 203 0.19 0.176 0.4 0.450 64 65 0.296 0.293 209 203 0.19 0.176 0.4 0.450 69 65 0.298 0.293 196 203 I.S. 0.176 0.4 0.450 64 65 0.300 0.293 201 203 I.S. 0.176 0.4 0.450 63 65 0.0048 0.0047 12 14 <0.01 <0.003 <0.2 0.065 4.5 3.2 0.0046 0.0047 14 14 0.01 <0.003 <0.2 0.065 6.5 3.2 0.0048 0.0047 13 14 0.01 <0.003 <0.2 0.065 5 3.2 0.0048 0.0047 13 14 0.02 <0.003 <0.2 0.065 5 3.2 0.0052 0.0047 13 14 0.01 <0.003 <0.2 0.065 5.5 3.2 1.42 1.47 952 899 0.810 0.801 2.6 - 306 310 1.41 1.47 882 899 0.820 0.801 2.6 - 300 310	• Assays of drill core from hole DD21EB0018W1 and DD21EB0018W2 were undertaken by Bureau Veritas in Adelaide SA. • Halved core was crushed, split and pulverised before being digested and refluxed with a mixture of nitric, perchloric, hydrofluoric and hydrochloric acids. This extended digest approximates a total digest in most samples. • Most elements were determined by ICP-OES and ICP-MS, depending on accuracy required. The exception was Au, which was determined by fire assay. • These techniques were determined in consultation with the assay laboratory and are consider appropriate for the deposit type. • Field duplicates and standards were inserted at a 1:20 and a 1:10 ratio respectively (14 standards, 7 field duplicates over 133 total samples). • Average absolute error for target elements was 153.2 ppm Cu, 12.3 ppm Co, 0.039 ppm Au, 0.057 ppm Ag, and 3.5 ppm Mo. Insufficient sample (I.S.) was reported where insufficient sample was available to provide sufficient analyte for the laboratory to analyse for gold. Cu % Measured Cu % Expected Co ppm Measured Co ppm Expected Au ppm Measured Au ppm Expected Ag ppm Measured Ag ppm Expected Mo ppm Measured Mo ppm Expected 0.0004 0.0003 4 4.22 - 0.002 <0.2 0.041 6.5 6.97 0.0004 0.0003 4 4.22 - 0.002 <0.2 0.041 7.5 6.97 2.45 2.53 713 705 - 1.54 4 4.04 364 376 2.58 2.53 730 705 - 1.54 4 4.04 373 376 2.54 2.53 670 705 1.55 1.54 4.2 4.04 369 376 0.268 0.26 16 14.9 - 0.243 0.8 0.778 99 99 0.291 0.293 195 203 0.18 0.176 0.4 0.450 63 65 0.298 0.293 197 203 0.19 0.176 0.4 0.450 64 65 0.296 0.293 209 203 0.19 0.176 0.4 0.450 69 65 0.298 0.293 196 203 I.S. 0.176 0.4 0.450 64 65 0.300 0.293 201 203 I.S. 0.176 0.4 0.450 63 65 0.0048 0.0047 12 14 <0.01 <0.003 <0.2 0.065 4.5 3.2 0.0046 0.0047 14 14 0.01 <0.003 <0.2 0.065 6.5 3.2 0.0048 0.0047 13 14 0.01 <0.003 <0.2 0.065 5 3.2 0.0048 0.0047 13 14 0.02 <0.003 <0.2 0.065 5 3.2 0.0052 0.0047 13 14 0.01 <0.003 <0.2 0.065 5.5 3.2 1.42 1.47 952 899 0.810 0.801 2.6 - 306 310 1.41 1.47 882 899 0.820 0.801 2.6 - 300 310	• Assays of drill core from hole DD21EB0018W1 and DD21EB0018W2 were undertaken by Bureau Veritas in Adelaide SA. • Halved core was crushed, split and pulverised before being digested and refluxed with a mixture of nitric, perchloric, hydrofluoric and hydrochloric acids. This extended digest approximates a total digest in most samples. • Most elements were determined by ICP-OES and ICP-MS, depending on accuracy required. The exception was Au, which was determined by fire assay. • These techniques were determined in consultation with the assay laboratory and are consider appropriate for the deposit type. • Field duplicates and standards were inserted at a 1:20 and a 1:10 ratio respectively (14 standards, 7 field duplicates over 133 total samples). • Average absolute error for target elements was 153.2 ppm Cu, 12.3 ppm Co, 0.039 ppm Au, 0.057 ppm Ag, and 3.5 ppm Mo. Insufficient sample (I.S.) was reported where insufficient sample was available to provide sufficient analyte for the laboratory to analyse for gold. Cu % Measured Cu % Expected Co ppm Measured Co ppm Expected Au ppm Measured Au ppm Expected Ag ppm Measured Ag ppm Expected Mo ppm Measured Mo ppm Expected 0.0004 0.0003 4 4.22 - 0.002 <0.2 0.041 6.5 6.97 0.0004 0.0003 4 4.22 - 0.002 <0.2 0.041 7.5 6.97 2.45 2.53 713 705 - 1.54 4 4.04 364 376 2.58 2.53 730 705 - 1.54 4 4.04 373 376 2.54 2.53 670 705 1.55 1.54 4.2 4.04 369 376 0.268 0.26 16 14.9 - 0.243 0.8 0.778 99 99 0.291 0.293 195 203 0.18 0.176 0.4 0.450 63 65 0.298 0.293 197 203 0.19 0.176 0.4 0.450 64 65 0.296 0.293 209 203 0.19 0.176 0.4 0.450 69 65 0.298 0.293 196 203 I.S. 0.176 0.4 0.450 64 65 0.300 0.293 201 203 I.S. 0.176 0.4 0.450 63 65 0.0048 0.0047 12 14 <0.01 <0.003 <0.2 0.065 4.5 3.2 0.0046 0.0047 14 14 0.01 <0.003 <0.2 0.065 6.5 3.2 0.0048 0.0047 13 14 0.01 <0.003 <0.2 0.065 5 3.2 0.0048 0.0047 13 14 0.02 <0.003 <0.2 0.065 5 3.2 0.0052 0.0047 13 14 0.01 <0.003 <0.2 0.065 5.5 3.2 1.42 1.47 952 899 0.810 0.801 2.6 - 306 310 1.41 1.47 882 899 0.820 0.801 2.6 - 300 310	• Assays of drill core from hole DD21EB0018W1 and DD21EB0018W2 were undertaken by Bureau Veritas in Adelaide SA. • Halved core was crushed, split and pulverised before being digested and refluxed with a mixture of nitric, perchloric, hydrofluoric and hydrochloric acids. This extended digest approximates a total digest in most samples. • Most elements were determined by ICP-OES and ICP-MS, depending on accuracy required. The exception was Au, which was determined by fire assay. • These techniques were determined in consultation with the assay laboratory and are consider appropriate for the deposit type. • Field duplicates and standards were inserted at a 1:20 and a 1:10 ratio respectively (14 standards, 7 field duplicates over 133 total samples). • Average absolute error for target elements was 153.2 ppm Cu, 12.3 ppm Co, 0.039 ppm Au, 0.057 ppm Ag, and 3.5 ppm Mo. Insufficient sample (I.S.) was reported where insufficient sample was available to provide sufficient analyte for the laboratory to analyse for gold. Cu % Measured Cu % Expected Co ppm Measured Co ppm Expected Au ppm Measured Au ppm Expected Ag ppm Measured Ag ppm Expected Mo ppm Measured Mo ppm Expected 0.0004 0.0003 4 4.22 - 0.002 <0.2 0.041 6.5 6.97 0.0004 0.0003 4 4.22 - 0.002 <0.2 0.041 7.5 6.97 2.45 2.53 713 705 - 1.54 4 4.04 364 376 2.58 2.53 730 705 - 1.54 4 4.04 373 376 2.54 2.53 670 705 1.55 1.54 4.2 4.04 369 376 0.268 0.26 16 14.9 - 0.243 0.8 0.778 99 99 0.291 0.293 195 203 0.18 0.176 0.4 0.450 63 65 0.298 0.293 197 203 0.19 0.176 0.4 0.450 64 65 0.296 0.293 209 203 0.19 0.176 0.4 0.450 69 65 0.298 0.293 196 203 I.S. 0.176 0.4 0.450 64 65 0.300 0.293 201 203 I.S. 0.176 0.4 0.450 63 65 0.0048 0.0047 12 14 <0.01 <0.003 <0.2 0.065 4.5 3.2 0.0046 0.0047 14 14 0.01 <0.003 <0.2 0.065 6.5 3.2 0.0048 0.0047 13 14 0.01 <0.003 <0.2 0.065 5 3.2 0.0048 0.0047 13 14 0.02 <0.003 <0.2 0.065 5 3.2 0.0052 0.0047 13 14 0.01 <0.003 <0.2 0.065 5.5 3.2 1.42 1.47 952 899 0.810 0.801 2.6 - 306 310 1.41 1.47 882 899 0.820 0.801 2.6 - 300 310	• Assays of drill core from hole DD21EB0018W1 and DD21EB0018W2 were undertaken by Bureau Veritas in Adelaide SA. • Halved core was crushed, split and pulverised before being digested and refluxed with a mixture of nitric, perchloric, hydrofluoric and hydrochloric acids. This extended digest approximates a total digest in most samples. • Most elements were determined by ICP-OES and ICP-MS, depending on accuracy required. The exception was Au, which was determined by fire assay. • These techniques were determined in consultation with the assay laboratory and are consider appropriate for the deposit type. • Field duplicates and standards were inserted at a 1:20 and a 1:10 ratio respectively (14 standards, 7 field duplicates over 133 total samples). • Average absolute error for target elements was 153.2 ppm Cu, 12.3 ppm Co, 0.039 ppm Au, 0.057 ppm Ag, and 3.5 ppm Mo. Insufficient sample (I.S.) was reported where insufficient sample was available to provide sufficient analyte for the laboratory to analyse for gold. Cu % Measured Cu % Expected Co ppm Measured Co ppm Expected Au ppm Measured Au ppm Expected Ag ppm Measured Ag ppm Expected Mo ppm Measured Mo ppm Expected 0.0004 0.0003 4 4.22 - 0.002 <0.2 0.041 6.5 6.97 0.0004 0.0003 4 4.22 - 0.002 <0.2 0.041 7.5 6.97 2.45 2.53 713 705 - 1.54 4 4.04 364 376 2.58 2.53 730 705 - 1.54 4 4.04 373 376 2.54 2.53 670 705 1.55 1.54 4.2 4.04 369 376 0.268 0.26 16 14.9 - 0.243 0.8 0.778 99 99 0.291 0.293 195 203 0.18 0.176 0.4 0.450 63 65 0.298 0.293 197 203 0.19 0.176 0.4 0.450 64 65 0.296 0.293 209 203 0.19 0.176 0.4 0.450 69 65 0.298 0.293 196 203 I.S. 0.176 0.4 0.450 64 65 0.300 0.293 201 203 I.S. 0.176 0.4 0.450 63 65 0.0048 0.0047 12 14 <0.01 <0.003 <0.2 0.065 4.5 3.2 0.0046 0.0047 14 14 0.01 <0.003 <0.2 0.065 6.5 3.2 0.0048 0.0047 13 14 0.01 <0.003 <0.2 0.065 5 3.2 0.0048 0.0047 13 14 0.02 <0.003 <0.2 0.065 5 3.2 0.0052 0.0047 13 14 0.01 <0.003 <0.2 0.065 5.5 3.2 1.42 1.47 952 899 0.810 0.801 2.6 - 306 310 1.41 1.47 882 899 0.820 0.801 2.6 - 300 310	• Assays of drill core from hole DD21EB0018W1 and DD21EB0018W2 were undertaken by Bureau Veritas in Adelaide SA. • Halved core was crushed, split and pulverised before being digested and refluxed with a mixture of nitric, perchloric, hydrofluoric and hydrochloric acids. This extended digest approximates a total digest in most samples. • Most elements were determined by ICP-OES and ICP-MS, depending on accuracy required. The exception was Au, which was determined by fire assay. • These techniques were determined in consultation with the assay laboratory and are consider appropriate for the deposit type. • Field duplicates and standards were inserted at a 1:20 and a 1:10 ratio respectively (14 standards, 7 field duplicates over 133 total samples). • Average absolute error for target elements was 153.2 ppm Cu, 12.3 ppm Co, 0.039 ppm Au, 0.057 ppm Ag, and 3.5 ppm Mo. Insufficient sample (I.S.) was reported where insufficient sample was available to provide sufficient analyte for the laboratory to analyse for gold. Cu % Measured Cu % Expected Co ppm Measured Co ppm Expected Au ppm Measured Au ppm Expected Ag ppm Measured Ag ppm Expected Mo ppm Measured Mo ppm Expected 0.0004 0.0003 4 4.22 - 0.002 <0.2 0.041 6.5 6.97 0.0004 0.0003 4 4.22 - 0.002 <0.2 0.041 7.5 6.97 2.45 2.53 713 705 - 1.54 4 4.04 364 376 2.58 2.53 730 705 - 1.54 4 4.04 373 376 2.54 2.53 670 705 1.55 1.54 4.2 4.04 369 376 0.268 0.26 16 14.9 - 0.243 0.8 0.778 99 99 0.291 0.293 195 203 0.18 0.176 0.4 0.450 63 65 0.298 0.293 197 203 0.19 0.176 0.4 0.450 64 65 0.296 0.293 209 203 0.19 0.176 0.4 0.450 69 65 0.298 0.293 196 203 I.S. 0.176 0.4 0.450 64 65 0.300 0.293 201 203 I.S. 0.176 0.4 0.450 63 65 0.0048 0.0047 12 14 <0.01 <0.003 <0.2 0.065 4.5 3.2 0.0046 0.0047 14 14 0.01 <0.003 <0.2 0.065 6.5 3.2 0.0048 0.0047 13 14 0.01 <0.003 <0.2 0.065 5 3.2 0.0048 0.0047 13 14 0.02 <0.003 <0.2 0.065 5 3.2 0.0052 0.0047 13 14 0.01 <0.003 <0.2 0.065 5.5 3.2 1.42 1.47 952 899 0.810 0.801 2.6 - 306 310 1.41 1.47 882 899 0.820 0.801 2.6 - 300 310	• Assays of drill core from hole DD21EB0018W1 and DD21EB0018W2 were undertaken by Bureau Veritas in Adelaide SA. • Halved core was crushed, split and pulverised before being digested and refluxed with a mixture of nitric, perchloric, hydrofluoric and hydrochloric acids. This extended digest approximates a total digest in most samples. • Most elements were determined by ICP-OES and ICP-MS, depending on accuracy required. The exception was Au, which was determined by fire assay. • These techniques were determined in consultation with the assay laboratory and are consider appropriate for the deposit type. • Field duplicates and standards were inserted at a 1:20 and a 1:10 ratio respectively (14 standards, 7 field duplicates over 133 total samples). • Average absolute error for target elements was 153.2 ppm Cu, 12.3 ppm Co, 0.039 ppm Au, 0.057 ppm Ag, and 3.5 ppm Mo. Insufficient sample (I.S.) was reported where insufficient sample was available to provide sufficient analyte for the laboratory to analyse for gold. Cu % Measured Cu % Expected Co ppm Measured Co ppm Expected Au ppm Measured Au ppm Expected Ag ppm Measured Ag ppm Expected Mo ppm Measured Mo ppm Expected 0.0004 0.0003 4 4.22 - 0.002 <0.2 0.041 6.5 6.97 0.0004 0.0003 4 4.22 - 0.002 <0.2 0.041 7.5 6.97 2.45 2.53 713 705 - 1.54 4 4.04 364 376 2.58 2.53 730 705 - 1.54 4 4.04 373 376 2.54 2.53 670 705 1.55 1.54 4.2 4.04 369 376 0.268 0.26 16 14.9 - 0.243 0.8 0.778 99 99 0.291 0.293 195 203 0.18 0.176 0.4 0.450 63 65 0.298 0.293 197 203 0.19 0.176 0.4 0.450 64 65 0.296 0.293 209 203 0.19 0.176 0.4 0.450 69 65 0.298 0.293 196 203 I.S. 0.176 0.4 0.450 64 65 0.300 0.293 201 203 I.S. 0.176 0.4 0.450 63 65 0.0048 0.0047 12 14 <0.01 <0.003 <0.2 0.065 4.5 3.2 0.0046 0.0047 14 14 0.01 <0.003 <0.2 0.065 6.5 3.2 0.0048 0.0047 13 14 0.01 <0.003 <0.2 0.065 5 3.2 0.0048 0.0047 13 14 0.02 <0.003 <0.2 0.065 5 3.2 0.0052 0.0047 13 14 0.01 <0.003 <0.2 0.065 5.5 3.2 1.42 1.47 952 899 0.810 0.801 2.6 - 306 310 1.41 1.47 882 899 0.820 0.801 2.6 - 300 310
	Cu % Measured	Cu % Expected	Co ppm Measured	Co ppm Expected	Au ppm Measured	Au ppm Expected	Ag ppm Measured	Ag ppm Expected	Mo ppm Measured	Mo ppm Expected
	0.0004	0.0003	4	4.22	-	0.002	<0.2	0.041	6.5	6.97
	0.0004	0.0003	4	4.22	-	0.002	<0.2	0.041	7.5	6.97
	2.45	2.53	713	705	-	1.54	4	4.04	364	376
	2.58	2.53	730	705	-	1.54	4	4.04	373	376
	2.54	2.53	670	705	1.55	1.54	4.2	4.04	369	376
	0.268	0.26	16	14.9	-	0.243	0.8	0.778	99	99
	0.291	0.293	195	203	0.18	0.176	0.4	0.450	63	65
	0.298	0.293	197	203	0.19	0.176	0.4	0.450	64	65
	0.296	0.293	209	203	0.19	0.176	0.4	0.450	69	65
	0.298	0.293	196	203	I.S.	0.176	0.4	0.450	64	65
	0.300	0.293	201	203	I.S.	0.176	0.4	0.450	63	65
	0.0048	0.0047	12	14	<0.01	<0.003	<0.2	0.065	4.5	3.2
	0.0046	0.0047	14	14	0.01	<0.003	<0.2	0.065	6.5	3.2
	0.0048	0.0047	13	14	0.01	<0.003	<0.2	0.065	5	3.2
	0.0048	0.0047	13	14	0.02	<0.003	<0.2	0.065	5	3.2
	0.0052	0.0047	13	14	0.01	<0.003	<0.2	0.065	5.5	3.2
	1.42	1.47	952	899	0.810	0.801	2.6	-	306	310
	1.41	1.47	882	899	0.820	0.801	2.6	-	300	310
6 Altona Street West Perth Western Australia, 6005 E: info@codaminerals.com ABN 49 625 763 957

==> picture [842 x 84] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary	Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
	1.48	1.47	959	899	0.800	0.801	2.8	-	301	310
Verification of sampling and assaying • The verification of significant intersections by either independent or alternative company personnel. • The use of twinned holes. • Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data verification, data storage (physical and electronic) protocols. • Discuss any adjustment to assay data.	• Significant intersections have been verified against geological logging, portable XRF results, and have been distributed to field geologists for further review. • Neither DD21EB0018W1 nor DD21EB0018W2 have been twinned in the traditional sense, but both are wedge holes from a central parent. The variation in visual appearance of alteration and mineralisation thickness and intensity between the three holes means that the wedges cannot be used for verification purposes, except of gross stratigraphy, which is broadly consistent across the three holes. • Primary drill data was collected digitally by the field geologist using logging templates in Excel, before being transferred a master Excel database. • No adjustments have been made to assay data except to composite for simplicity in this release.
Location of data points • Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drill holes (collar and down-hole surveys), trenches, mine workings and other locations used in Mineral Resource estimation. • Specification of the grid system used. • Quality and adequacy of topographic control.	• Drill collar locations (including RL) have been located using handheld GPS, MGA 94 Zone 53. • Historical drillhole locations have been extracted from the South Australian Resources Information Gateway (SARIG). • Precise locations of drillholes will be determined by an independent surveyor at the completion of the overall drill programme.

E: info@codaminerals.com

==> picture [78 x 78] intentionally omitted <==

6 Altona Street West Perth Western Australia, 6005 ABN 49 625 763 957

==> picture [842 x 84] intentionally omitted <==

	Criteria		JORC	Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
	Data spacing		•	Data spacing for reporting of	•	Data to date consists of publicly available historical data and data received by Coda as part of its
	and			Exploration Results.		ongoing drill programme (See Table 2 and Table 3).
	distribution		•	Whether the data spacing and	•	No sample compositing has been applied, except in the reporting of results as detailed elsewhere
				distribution is sufficient to		in this table.
				establish the degree of	•	Coda does not believe that sufficient information exists to estimate a Mineral Resource and has not
				geological and grade continuity		attempted to do so.
				appropriate for the Mineral
				Resource and Ore Reserve
				estimation procedure(s) and
				classifications applied.
			•	Whether sample compositing
				has been applied.
	Orientation		•	Whether the orientation of	•	To date, Coda does not believe that it has sufficient data to comment on the orientation of major
	of data	in		sampling achieves unbiased		structures or the overall trend of the mineralisation at Emmie Bluff Deeps, nor the relationship
	relation geological structure	to		sampling of possible structures and the extent to which this is	•	between those features and the orientation of its drill holes. It is anticipated that further drilling will assist in clarifying these questions and will allow Coda to
				known, considering the deposit		comment on their materiality.
				type.
			•	If the relationship between the
				drilling orientation and the
				orientation of key mineralised
				structures is considered to have
				introduced a sampling bias, this
				should be assessed and
				reported if material.
	Sample		•	The measures taken to ensure	•	Samples were taken by representatives of Coda to the transport company’s yard in Roxby Downs
	security			sample security.		where they were couriered by truck to Challenger Geological Services in Adelaide, for core cutting,
						then on to the assay lab, also in Adelaide. No additional third party, other than Challenger Geological
						Services and the transport company, had access to the samples between the field and the assay lab.
6	Altona Street			E: info@codaminerals.com
West Perth
Western Australia,			6005	ABN 49 625 763 957

==> picture [842 x 84] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria		JORC	Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Audits	or	•	The results of any audits or	•	No audits, umpire assays or reviews have yet been undertaken.
reviews			reviews of sampling techniques
			and data.

E: info@codaminerals.com

==> picture [78 x 78] intentionally omitted <==

6 Altona Street West Perth Western Australia, 6005

ABN 49 625 763 957

==> picture [842 x 84] intentionally omitted <==

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results

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

Criteria		JORC	Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Mineral		•	Type, reference name/number, location and	•	All drilling took place on EL 6265.
tenement and			ownership including agreements or material issues	•	EL 6265 is owned in a 70:30 unincorporated Joint Venture by Coda Minerals
land status	tenure		with third parties such as joint ventures, partnerships, overriding royalties, native title		Ltd and Terrace Mining Pty Ltd (a wholly owned subsidiary of Torrens Mining Limited).
			interests, historical sites, wilderness or national	•	The tenure is in good standing and is considered secure at the time of this
			park and environmental settings.		release. No other impediments are known at this time.
		•	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.
Exploration		•	Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by	•	Historical exploration of the Emmie Bluff prospect has been undertaken by
done by other			other parties.		(among others) Mt Isa Mines, Gunson Resources, Torrens Mining and
parties					Gindalbie Metals (Coda’s predecessor company).
				•	With the exception of data from Gindalbie Metals, all historical results used to
					guide Coda’s exploration has been obtained from the Geological Survey of
					South Australia via the South Australian Resources Information Gateway
					(SARIG).
Geology		•	Deposit type, geological setting and style of	•	The Elizabeth Creek project, of which Emmie Bluff Deeps is a part, sits in the
			mineralisation.		Stuart Shelf within the broader Olympic Copper Province in South Australia.
				•	Emmie Bluff Deeps mineralisation appears to be hosted in metasiltstones and
					sandstones of the Paleoproterozoic Wandearah Formation, and appears to be
					closely associated with intruded Hiltaba suite granites. Mineralisation consists
					of copper sulphides precipitated into these sedimentary units as part of a
					complex hydrothermal fluid dominated by iron in the form of haematite.
				•	Emmie Bluff Deeps mineralisation appears to closely resemble Iron Oxide
					Copper Gold mineralisation known from several deposits in the immediate
					area such as Olympic Dam and Carrapateena.

6 Altona Street E: info@codaminerals.com West Perth Western Australia, 6005 ABN 49 625 763 957

==> picture [78 x 78] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [842 x 84] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria		JORC	Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Drill	hole	•	A summary of all information material to the	•	See Table 2 and Table 3 in body of announcement.
Information			understanding of the exploration results including
			a tabulation of the following information for all
			Material drill holes:
			o easting and northing of the drill hole collar
			o elevation or RL (Reduced Level – elevation
			above sea level in metres) of the drill hole
			collar
			o dip and azimuth of the hole
			o down hole length and interception depth
			o 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.

E: info@codaminerals.com

==> picture [78 x 78] intentionally omitted <==

6 Altona Street West Perth Western Australia, 6005

ABN 49 625 763 957

==> picture [842 x 84] intentionally omitted <==

• Data • In reporting Exploration Results, weighting aggregation averaging techniques, maximum and/or minimum methods grade truncations (e.g. cutting of high grades) and cut-off grades are usually Material and should be stated.

• Where aggregate intercepts incorporate short lengths of high grade results and longer lengths of low grade results, the procedure used for such aggregation should be stated and some typical examples of such aggregations should be shown in detail.

• The assumptions used for any reporting of metal equivalent values should be clearly stated.

E: info@codaminerals.com

	•	•	Significant intercepts are reported using a 0.3% Cu cut-off grade. Calculations of these
			intervals take the length weighted average of the assay results using a 0.3% Cu lower
			cut-off grade and allowing no more than 1m of contiguous material of below the 0.3%
	•		Cu cut-off grade as internal dilution. Where <1m of unmineralized (sub-0.3% Cu) material separates <1m of mineralised (i.e.
			> 0.3% Cu) material at the top or bottom of a larger mineralised intercept, this material is excluded from aggregation and is reported separately.
	•		Selection of the 0.3% Cu value as a cut-off grade was determined based on comparison
			with nearby geologically comparable deposits and after considering current
			commodity prices. Given the strong correlation between copper and gold, and the lack
			of metallurgical test work undertaken on the deposit, no attempt has been made to
			calculate a copper equivalent grade.
	•		Typical example of an aggregate intercept is included below:
			DD21EB0018W2:12.88m @ 3.46% Cu, 0.64g/t Au, 25.38g/t Ag and 0.05% Mo
		From To Length Cu ppm Co ppm Au ppm Ag ppm Mo pppm
		902.15 902.56 0.41 33400 19 0.46 12.4 43.5
		902.56 903.63 1.07 27300 23 0.4 17.2 229
		903.63 904.56 0.93 21100 42 0.34 10.8 351
		904.56 905.25 0.69 26900 65 1.05 17.8 478
		905.25 905.76 0.51 27800 157 1.19 15.2 534
		905.76 906.77 1.01 72100 68 0.45 51.4 430
		906.77 907.37 0.60 48400 61 0.87 76.8 1010
		907.37 907.77 0.40 60000 32 4.49 40 457
		907.77 908.61 0.84 17600 41 0.7 13.2 578
		908.61 909.13 0.52 21800 28 0.44 16.6 547
		909.13 909.66 0.53 19900 27 0.61 15.2 757
		909.66 910.20 0.54 27400 33 0.67 19.2 250
		910.20 910.98 0.78 23000 73 0.55 16 234
		910.98 911.49 0.51 19800 84 0.73 133.6 487
		911.49 912.04 0.55 51900 121 0.73 36.8 541

==> picture [78 x 78] intentionally omitted <==

6 Altona Street West Perth Western Australia, 6005 ABN 49 625 763 957

==> picture [842 x 84] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary	Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
	912.04	912.91	0.87	65200	81	0.37	37.6	304
	912.91	913.50	0.59	41700	59	0.14	21.2	1760
	913.50	914.43	0.93	35100	17	0.09	36.4	114
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. • If it is not known and only the down hole lengths are reported, there should be a clear statement to this effect (e.g. ‘down hole length, true width not known’).	• To date, Coda does not believe that it has sufficient data to comment on the orientation of major structures or the overall trend of the mineralisation at Emmie Bluff Deeps, nor the relationship between those features and the orientation of drilling to date, beyond the hypotheses put forward in graphics and text in the body of the announcement, which remain speculative until further drilling can be completed. • It is anticipated that further drilling will assist in clarifying these questions and will allow Coda to comment on their materiality.
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.	• See map, sections and tables in main body of announcement.
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.	• Coda has provided a detailed description of the material encountered and, where available, provided representative photographs of relevant mineralisation. • All assays >0.3% Cu are reported in this announcement. Intersects not specifically reported on in this announcement can be assumed to be <0.3% Cu. • Coda believes that this announcement represents an accurate and balanced reporting of the information it has to date. More information will be made available to the market as soon as practical upon its receipt by the company.

E: info@codaminerals.com

==> picture [78 x 78] intentionally omitted <==

6 Altona Street West Perth Western Australia, 6005

ABN 49 625 763 957

==> picture [842 x 84] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC	Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Other	•	Other exploration data, if meaningful and material,	•	No other substantive exploration results are considered relevant to this
substantive		should be reported including (but not limited to):		release.
exploration data		geological observations; geophysical survey results; geochemical survey results; bulk samples –	•	The Exploration Target referred to in this announcement refers to the Emmie Bluff Exploration Target, which covers the Zambian-style mineralisation
		size and method of treatment; metallurgical test		overlying the IOCG style mineralisation encountered at Emmie Bluff Deeps.
		results; bulk density, groundwater, geotechnical		Information regarding this Exploration Target is extracted from the report
		and rock characteristics; potential deleterious or		entitled Confirmation of Exploration Target and Mineral Resource and Ore
		contaminating substances.		Reserve Statement, created on 23 October 2020 and is available to view at:
				https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20201026/pdf/44p31fmg5k2579.pdf.
			•	The company confirms that it is not aware of any new information or data that
				materially affects the information included in the original market
				announcement and that all material assumptions and technical parameters
				underpinning the estimates in the relevant market announcement continue to
				apply and have not materially changed. The company confirms that the form
				and context in which the Competent Person’s findings are presented have not
				been materially modified from the original market announcement.
Further work	•	The nature and scale of planned further work (e.g.	•	Figure 3 and Figure 4, in the body of the announcement represents Coda’s best
		tests for lateral extensions or depth extensions or		current understanding of the area of greatest prospectivity at Emmie Bluff
		large-scale step-out drilling).		Deeps, being the area which exhibits an anomalous gravity response but lacks
	•	Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible		an anomalous magnetic response in airborne geophysics.
		extensions, including the main geological	•	Ongoing and planned work in the short term is detailed in the body of the
		interpretations and future drilling areas, provided		announcement. Longer term, Coda will undertake additional drilling as is
		this information is not commercially sensitive.		appropriate based on ongoing drill results.
			•	Coda currently anticipates a programme of approximately 5 parent drillholes
				from surface and 10 associated wedge holes, with potential for significant
				additional drilling if warranted by results.

6 Altona Street E: info@codaminerals.com West Perth Western Australia, 6005 ABN 49 625 763 957

==> picture [78 x 78] intentionally omitted <==