CODA MINERALS LTD - Capital/Financing Update 2021

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

ASX RELEASE 26[th] April 2021

ASX Code: COD

Significant New Drilling Results Strengthen and Extend CopperCobalt Mineralisation at Emmie Bluff

New assays of up to 4.71% copper equivalent demonstrate potential to extend high-grade zones within the Exploration Target while also extending the overall mineralised footprint

Highlights

Final assay results received from Phase 2 of the Emmie Bluff drill programme
Drilling continues both to validate the Emmie Bluff Exploration Target[1] and extend the mineralised envelope to the north-east
Continuing the pattern seen in previous drilling, every hole drilled within the defined Exploration Target area has encountered significant copper-cobalt mineralisation
New intercept of 3m @ 4.71% CuEq[2] demonstrates potential to extend high-grade pods in the core of the Exploration Target
Phase 3, the final stage of drilling required to deliver a maiden JORC Mineral Resource, on track to commence in early May 2021

Coda Minerals Limited (ASX:COD, “Coda” or “the Company”) is pleased to report the final round of assay results from its two-phase, 17-hole diamond drill programme at the Emmie Bluff prospect, part of the Elizabeth Creek Project located in the Olympic Copper Province in South Australia (see Figure 1).

Emmie Bluff is an advanced shale-hosted Cu-Co-Ag prospect which forms part of Coda’s extensive portfolio of copper assets in this highly prospective region. Coda is the operator and majority owner of the Elizabeth Creek Project, holding a 70% interest alongside Torrens Mining (ASX: TRN) with 30%.

The most recent round of assays includes some of the highest-grade intercepts encountered at Emmie Bluff to date. The best assays from the most recent round include:

DD21EB0012: 2.24m[3] @ 3.19% CuEq (1.82% Cu, 1,139ppm Co and 24 g/t Ag) DD21EB0013: 3m @ 4.71% CuEq (2.85% Cu, 1,545ppm Co and 27 g/t Ag) DD21EB0014: 2.13m @ 3.53% CuEq (2.08% Cu, 1,212ppm Co and 28 g/t Ag)

1 The information related to the Emmie Bluff Exploration Target is extracted from the report entitled “Confirmation Statements JORC” created on 26[th] October 2020 and is available to view on https://www.codaminerals.com/wpcontent/uploads/2020/10/20201026_Coda_ASX-ANN_Confirmation-Statements-JORC.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

2 Cu Eq = Cu % + (Co ppm*0.0012). Please see Coda Announcement “Appendix to the Annual Report 2020 – Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve Statement”, released 31/07/2020, available at https://www.codaminerals.com/wpcontent/uploads/2020/08/Coda_Announcement_Resource-and-Reserve-statement-2020_Typeset.pdf for derivation.

3 Hole Penetrated mineralised stratum at a dip of approximately 67°. True width of mineralisation is approximately 2.06m.

6 Altona Street E: [email protected] West Perth Western Australia, 6005 ABN 49 625 763 957

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

==> picture [595 x 83] intentionally omitted <==

The Cu-Co sulphide mineralisation at Emmie Bluff typically occurs on both the upper and lower contacts of the host Tapley Hill Formation black shale. The new assay results, from holes DD21EB0012, DD21EB0013 and DD21EB00014, include the following significant intercepts at a 0.5% copper equivalent (CuEq) cut-off (Table 1, below):

Table 1 – All mineralised intersections from holes DD21EB0008 and DD21EB0009, 0.5% CuEq cut-off.

	0.5% CuEq Cut Off
DD21EB0012	2.24m4@ 3.19% CuEq (1.82% Cu, 1,139ppm Co and 24 g/t Ag) from 497.11m.
DD21EB0012	0.83m4@ 0.64% CuEq (0.41% Cu, 195ppm Co and 7 g/t Ag) from 499.94m.
DD21EB0012	0.75m4@ 1.08% CuEq (0.5% Cu, 488ppm Co and 5 g/t Ag) from 501.08m.

DD21EB0013	3m @ 4.71% CuEq (2.85% Cu, 1,545ppm Co and 27 g/t Ag) from 400.47m.
DD21EB0013	2.31m @ 0.63% CuEq (0.48% Cu, 124ppm Co and 2985g/t Ag) from 441.3m.

DD21EB0014	2.13m @ 3.53% CuEq (2.08% Cu, 1,212ppm Co and 28 g/t Ag) from 445.25m.

These new assays, together with previously announced results[6] , continue to strongly validate the Emmie Bluff Exploration Target and support the Company’s goal of completing a maiden JORC 2012 Mineral Resource Estimate for the deposit in Q3 2021.

The Emmie Bluff Exploration Target comprises 46 to 77 million tonnes at an estimated grade of between 0.5 and 2.3% CuEq (see Table 4 and its accompanying notes). The Exploration Target area stretches over 4.5 square kilometres and to date, every hole drilled within the defined Exploration Target area has encountered mineralisation. The Company notes that the potential grade and tonnage is conceptual in nature and there has been insufficient exploration to estimate a Mineral Resource and it is uncertain if further exploration will result in the estimation of a Mineral Resource.

The Company is encouraged by results to date and is currently pursuing an aggressive exploration programme aimed at delivering a JORC 2012 Compliant Mineral Resource Estimate in Q3 2021.

Work continues to evaluate the potential for extensions to the mineralisation, especially to the south-east, where historical drilling has identified the presence of Tapley Hill Formation shale. Coda has commissioned a study into the structural geology of Emmie Bluff, which may assist in targeting future drilling in this area.

Coda CEO Chris Stevens said: “ The consistent drilling results generated within the Exploration Target area have further reinforced our confidence in the scale and robustness of the mineralisation at Emmie Bluff. In particular, the strong results from hole DD21EB0012 confirm the potential both to extend the mineralised envelope beyond the bounds of the Exploration Target and show the potential for excellent grades in these extensions.

“With our final assays now received, our focus is firmly on our third phase of drilling, which will commence next month – paving the way for a maiden Inferred Mineral Resource Estimate by late next quarter.”

4 Hole penetrated mineralised stratum at approximately 67°. True widths of intercepts are approximately 2.06m, 0.76m and 0.69m.

5 Results reported as per lab analysis. Assay result has been highlighted by QA/QC procedures and has been identified for reassay. See Table 1 for full details.

6 Please see previous announcement “Retraction and Re-release of Release “Assay Results Confirm Huge Lateral Extent of Emmie Bluff Copper-Cobalt Mineralisation” and “Latest Assay Results Confirm Extent, Grade and Continuity of Copper-Cobalt Mineralisation at Emmie Bluff”, released to the market on 12 March 2021 and 22 March 2021 respectively. Announcements available at https://www.codaminerals.com/wpcontent/uploads/2021/03/20210312_Coda_ASX-ANN_RETRACTION-AND-RE-RELEASE_Assay-Results-Confirm-Huge-Lateral-Extent-of-Emmie-Bluff.pdf and https://www.codaminerals.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/20210322_Coda_ASX-ANN_Emmie-Bluff-Assays-Further-Validate-ExplorationTarget_RELEASE.pdf.

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

HoleID	Collar Location	Results
		Upper Lode
DD20EB0001	Outside Exploration Target	Not Assayed
DD20EB0002	Outside Exploration Target	No Significant Results
DD20EB0003	Outside Exploration Target	Not Assayed
DD20EB0004	Within Exploration Target	1.75m from 405.9 @ 1.48% CuEq (1.45% Cu, 24ppm Co and 43.81g/t Ag)
DD20EB0004	Within Exploration Target	2.05m from 408.95 @ 4.09% CuEq (1.76% Cu, 1,936ppm Co and 16.89g/t Ag)
DD20EB0005	Within Exploration Target	1.5m from 351.9 @ 0.7% CuEq (0.68% Cu, 15ppm Co and 17.17g/t Ag)
DD20EB0006	Outside Exploration Target	Not Assayed
DD20EB0007	Within Exploration Target	3.49m from 454.2 @ 2.22% CuEq (1.47% Cu, 620ppm Co and 17.45g/t Ag)
DD21EB0008	Within Exploration Target	1.83m from 419.96m @ 1.74% CuEq (1% Cu, 615ppm Co, 10.3g/t Ag).
DD21EB0008	Within Exploration Target	0.38m from 423.18m @ 0.69% CuEq (0.39% Cu, 245ppm Co, 8.8g/t Ag).
DD21EB0009	Within Exploration Target	3.77m from 440.63m @ 2.1% CuEq (1.16% Cu, 784ppm Co, 13.8g/t Ag).
DD21EB0009	Within Exploration Target	1.02m from 444.74m @ 1.26% CuEq (0.91% Cu, 302ppm Co, 6.9g/t Ag).
DD21EB0010	Outside Exploration Target	Not Assayed
DD21EB0011	Outside Exploration Target	Not Assayed
DD21EB0012	Outside Exploration Target	2.24m7from 497.11m @ 3.19% CuEq (1.82% Cu, 1,139ppm Co and 24 g/t Ag).
DD21EB0012	Outside Exploration Target	0.83m6499.94m @ 0.64% CuEq (0.41% Cu, 195ppm Co and 7 g/t Ag) from.
DD21EB0012	Outside Exploration Target	0.75m6from 501.08m @ 1.08% CuEq (0.5% Cu, 488ppm Co and 5 g/t Ag).
DD21EB0013	Within Exploration Target	3m from 400.47m @ 4.71% CuEq (2.85% Cu, 1,545ppm Co and 27 g/t Ag).
DD21EB0014	Within Exploration Target	2.13m from 445.25m @ 3.53% CuEq (2.08% Cu, 1,212ppm Co and 28 g/t Ag).
		Lower Lode
DD20EB0004	Within Exploration Target	1.51m from 434.34 @ 1.83% CuEq (1.62% Cu, 179ppm Co and 11.88g/t Ag)
DD20EB0005	Within Exploration Target	1.28m from 364.85 @ 0.9% CuEq (0.71% Cu, 156ppm Co and 5.87g/t Ag)
DD21EB0008	Within Exploration Target	0.37m from 437.35 @ 0.68% CuEq (0.49% Cu, 145ppm Co, 4.6g/t Ag).
DD21EB0009	Within Exploration Target	0.39m from 446.61m @ 0.85% CuEq (0.54% Cu, 259ppm Co, 2.4g/t Ag).
DD21EB0009	Within Exploration Target	0.44m @ 2.63% CuEq (0.92% Cu, 1420ppm Co, 2.6g/t Ag) from 447.77m.
DD21EB0013	Within Exploration Target	2.31m from 441.3m @ 0.63% CuEq (0.48% Cu, 124ppm Co and 298 g/t Ag).

Mineralisation Area	Layer Thickness (m)	Volume (m3)	Tonnage Range (Mt)	Cu Range (%)	Co Range (%)	Ag Range (%)	Cu Eq. Range9(%)
Tapley Hill Formation Upper Layer	1.7 - 6.1	14,271,000	28.7 – 47.8	0.9 - 1.6	0.04 - 0.06	11 – 19	1.4 – 2.3
Tapley Hill Formation Lower Layer	0.8 - 4.7	8,642,000	17.4 – 29.0	0.3 - 0.6	0.02 - 0.03	5 – 18	0.5 – 0.9
Total	0.8 - 6.1	22,913,000	46.1 – 76.8	0.3 - 1.6	0.02 - 0.06	5 - 19	0.5 – 2.3

HoleID	Phase	Easting	Northing	EOH(RC)	Dip	Azi	EOH(DD)	Comments
DD20EB0001	1	708140	6553048	212.7	-80	270	490.08	Results released
DD20EB0002	1	708025	6554312	251.3	-80	280	512.85	Results released
DD20EB0003	1	707260	6554861	251.4	-90	273	456.77	Results released
DD20EB0004	1	705461	6555872	-	-80	90	456.8	Results released
DD20EB0005	1	704128	6557375	155.7	-75	90	390.9	Results released
DD20EB0006	1	705158	6555872	220.5	-80	90	414	Results released
DD20EB0007	1	706583	6556580	218.7	-80	270	479.4	Results released
DD21EB0008	1	706331	6556140	218.7	-88	90	460	Results released
DD21EB0009	2	706602	6555859	218.7	-88	270	471.8	Results released
DD21EB0010	2	705715	6555250	218.7	-75	90	390.7	Results released
DD21EB0011	2	705937	6555248	218.7	-85	90	432.8	Results released
DD21EB0012	2	706651	6557401	219.6	-60	270	519.5	Results released
DD21EB0013	2	705408	6556132	218.7	-80	90	453.3	Results released
DD21EB0014	2	706490	6556220	218.7	-80	90	468.4	Results released
DD21EB0015	2	707014	6556335	218.7	-85	90	465.84	Results released
DD21EB0016	2	708480	6555353	218.7	-85	90	501.9	Results released
DD21EB0017	2	708210	6554280	302.7	-75	180	475	Results released

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
IHAD7	704430	6557930	-90	0	465.9
MGD 1	706687.9	6554811	-90	0	435.66
MGD 55	704100	6555500	-90	0	1107.3
MGD 57	705350	6556700	-90	0	1242.9
PEB 64	704838.9	6555982	-90	0	401
SAE 12	705879	6555682	-90	0	446.3
SAE 13	706969	6556872	-90	0	477.6
SAE 14	705429	6558162	-90	0	498.44
SAE 15	704459	6556812	-90	0	400.81
SAE 16	705929	6554722	-90	0	357.8
SAE 17	706519	6555292	-90	0	435.2
SAE 18	706439	6555362	-90	0	426.7
SAE 19	706579	6555512	-90	0	429.7
SAE 20	706309	6555212	-90	0	417.85
SAE 21	705799	6556302	-90	0	452.3
SAE 22	705279	6556962	-90	0	435.6
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
DD18EB0001	706110	6555382	-90	0	441.88
DD19EB0001	706378	6555681	-60	90	467.5
DD18EB0002	706122	6555939	-90	0	444.04
DD19EB0002a	705792	6556452	-90	0	456.9

Criteria	JORC	Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Sampling	•	Nature and quality of sampling (eg cut channels,	•	RC precollars of varying depths were drilled before drilling technique switched
techniques		random chips, or specific specialised industry		over to HQ drill core.
		standard measurement tools appropriate to the	•	Core was logged in the field and rough metal content was measured at regular
		minerals under investigation, such as down hole		intervals with a portable XRF device. XRF measurement intervals varied
		gamma sondes, or handheld XRF instruments,		depending on lithology, from 10m in suspected unmineralised strata to 10cm
		etc). These examples should not be taken as		in areas of suspected mineralisation.
		limiting the broad meaning of sampling.	•	Sampling intervals were selected by field geologist based on logging and XRF
	•	Include reference to measures taken to ensure		results.
		sample representivity and the appropriate	•	Understanding of the mineralising system based on historical drilling and the
		calibration of any measurement tools or systems		XRF results allowed large parts of the holes to remain unsampled. Typically,
		used.		sampling as restricted to the Tapley Hill Formation shale, and the material
	•	Aspects of the determination of mineralisation		immediately above and below its upper and lower contacts.
		that are Material to the Public Report.
	•	In cases where ‘industry standard’ work has been
		done this would be relatively simple (eg ‘reverse
		circulation drilling was used to obtain 1 m samples
		from which 3 kg was pulverised to produce a 30 g
		charge for fire assay’). In other cases more
		explanation may be required, such as where there
		is coarse gold that has inherent sampling
		problems. Unusual commodities or mineralisation
		types (eg submarine nodules) may warrant
		disclosure of detailed information.

Criteria		JORC	Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Drilling		•	Drill type (eg core, reverse circulation, open-hole	•	All drill holes excluding holes DD20EB0004 and DD21EB0017 were drilled with
techniques			hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic,		RC precollars to approximately 150 – 250m, followed by HQ standard tube
			etc) and details (eg core diameter, triple or		diamond tails to a maximum depth of between 400 and 519.5m.
			standard tube, depth of diamond tails, face-	•	DD20EB0004 was drilled as diamond from surface, commencing as PQ until
			sampling bit or other type, whether core is		50.9m, then changing over to HQ diamond for the remainder of the hole.
			oriented and if so, by what method, etc).	•	DD21EB0017 was drilled RC from surface to 302.7m, then changing over to NQ
					diamond for the remainder of the hole.
				•	Core was oriented by Ezymark core orientation tool.
Drill	sample	•	Method of recording and assessing core and chip	•	RC precollars are not believed to be relevant to the mineralising system at
recovery			sample recoveries and results assessed.		Emmie Bluff and were not assessed for recovery.
		•	Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and	•	Recovery of diamond tails was consistently excellent, with minimal core loss.
			ensure representative nature of the samples.	•	No relationship is believed to exist between sample recovery and grade.
		•	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 have been	•	Basic stratigraphic logging has been carried out by appropriately trained and
			geologically and geotechnically logged to a level of		experienced field geologists on RC precollars.
			detail to support appropriate Mineral Resource	•	Detailed qualitative geological logging has been carried out by appropriately
			estimation, mining studies and metallurgical		trained and experienced field geologists on all diamond core. Quantitative
			studies.		logging by means of portable XRF has been undertaken on an as needed basis
		•	Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in		in areas of prospectivity, typically utilising a 0.5m interval with interval
			nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc)		reduction down to 0.2, 0.1 or 0.05m in areas of known prospectivity (i.e. the
			photography.		upper and lower contacts of the Tapley Hill Fm shale) or where coarser analysis
		•	The total length and percentage of the relevant		revealed geochemical anomalism.
			intersections logged.

•	Sample intervals were defined by field geologists based on portable XRF results	Sample intervals were defined by field geologists based on portable XRF results
	and detailed geological logging.
•	Core was then transported by road to 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.
•	In the batch of samples discussed primarily in this announcement, a total of
	125 samples were taken, including field duplicates and standards, which were
	inserted at a 1:20 and 1:10 ratio respectively (10 standards, 7 field duplicates),
	leaving a total of 108 samples.
•	Core was cut on a sample-by sample-basis according to need in the following
	manner:
	`o` Where a field duplicate was notrequired:¼ core for assay, ¼ core for
	retention by Coda on site for future review, ½ core for future
	metallurgical work (currently being held in cold storage).
	`o` Where a field duplicatewasrequired:¼ core for assay, ¼ core for
	duplicate assay, ¼ core for retention by Coda on site for future review,
	¼ core for future metallurgical work (currently being held in cold
	storage).
•	Samples varied in width from 0.21 to 1.25m, with an average of 0.64m per
	sample. Mineralised samples (i.e. CuEq>0.5) varied in width from 0.25	to
	0.72.m, with an average of 0.40m per sample. Full details regarding the CuEq
	calculation can be found in the body of the document.
•	Field duplicates were taken based on sample numbers ensuring random
	selection of mineralised and unmineralized material:
Hole	ID SampleID From To Interval Cu Co Ag
DD21EB0012 D20A0299 496.3 496.66 0.36 32 8 <0.2
DD21EB0012 D20A0301 496.3 496.66 0.36 100 10 <0.2
DD21EB0012 D20A0319 502.17 502.47 0.3 48 19 0.4
DD21EB0012 D20A0321 502.17 502.47 0.3 111 19 0.4

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary	Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
DD21EB0013 D20A0339 DD21EB0013 D20A0341 DD21EB0013 D20A0359 DD21EB0013 D20A0361 DD21EB0013 D20A0379 DD21EB0013 D20A0381 DD21EB0014 D20A0399 DD21EB0014 D20A0401 DD21EB0014 D20A0419 DD21EB0014 D20A0421 All results in ppm	DD21EB0013	D20A0339	403.47	404	0.53 0.53	1620 1960	113 121	8.4 8.4
	DD21EB0013	D20A0341	403.47	404
	DD21EB0013	D20A0359	420.11	421	0.89 0.9	141 139	27 23	2.4 2.4
	DD21EB0013	D20A0361	420.1	421
	DD21EB0013	D20A0379	437	438	1 1	58 82	55 52	4.4 4
	DD21EB0013	D20A0381	437	438
	DD21EB0014	D20A0399	445.97	446.27	0.3 0.3	32200 30400	1700 1590	71.6 68.2
	DD21EB0014	D20A0401	445.97	446.27
	DD21EB0014	D20A0419	455.56	455.86	0.3 0.3	120 226	16 16	<0.2 <0.2
	DD21EB0014	D20A0421	455.56	455.86

Criteria JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary	Commentary	Commentary	Commentary	Commentary
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 (eg standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (ie lack of bias) and precision have been established.	• Assays were undertaken by Bureau Veritas in Adelaide SA. • Quartered core was crushed, split and pulverised before being digested with a mixture of nitric, perchloric and hydrofluoric acids. This digest approximates a total digest in most samples. • Al, Ca, Fe, Mg, Mn and S were determined by ICP-AES, Ag, As, Bi, Ce, Co, Cu, La, Ni, Pb, Th, Y, Zn, Zr.were determined by ICP-MS. • These techniques were determined in consultation with the assay laboratory and are considered appropriate for the deposit type. • Field duplicates and standards were inserted at a 1:20 and 1:10 ratio respectively (10 standards, 7 field duplicates over 125 total samples). • Average absolute error for target elements was 635 ppm (Cu), 0.10 ppm (Ag) and 45 ppm (Co). See below: Cu % Cu % Ag ppm Ag ppm Co ppm Co ppm Measured Expected Measured Expected Measured Expected 0.38% 0.41% 1 1.1 111 119 0.38% 0.41% 1 1.1 112 119 0.37% 0.41% 1 1.1 110 119 0.38% 0.41% 1.2 1.1 120 119 0.38% 0.41% 1.2 1.1 121 119 0.75% 0.77% 3.4 3.5 612 660 3.13% 3.20% 3 3.02 2520 2445 3.35% 3.20% 3 3.02 2360 2445 3.13% 3.20% 3 3.02 2320 2445 3.16% 3.20% 2.8 3.02 2360 2445 3.33% 3.20% 3 3.02 2320 2445 3.37% 3.20% 2.8 3.02 2450 2445 3.22% 3.20% 2.8 3.02 2450 2445 ~~•~~
	Cu %	Cu %	Ag ppm	Ag ppm	Co ppm	Co ppm
	Measured	Expected	Measured	Expected	Measured	Expected
	0.38%	0.41%	1	1.1	111	119
	0.38%	0.41%	1	1.1	112	119
	0.37%	0.41%	1	1.1	110	119
	0.38%	0.41%	1.2	1.1	120	119
	0.38%	0.41%	1.2	1.1	121	119
	0.75%	0.77%	3.4	3.5	612	660
	3.13%	3.20%	3	3.02	2520	2445
	3.35%	3.20%	3	3.02	2360	2445
	3.13%	3.20%	3	3.02	2320	2445
	3.16%	3.20%	2.8	3.02	2360	2445
	3.33%	3.20%	3	3.02	2320	2445
	3.37%	3.20%	2.8	3.02	2450	2445
	3.22% ~~•~~	3.20%	2.8	3.02	2450	2445

Criteria		JORC	Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Verification	of	•	The verification of significant intersections by	•	Significant intersections have been verified against geological logging, portable
sampling and			either independent or alternative company		XRF results, and distributed to field geologists for further review.
assaying			personnel.	•	No adjustments have been made to assay data except to composite for
		•	The use of twinned holes.		simplicity in this release.
		•	Documentation of primary data, data entry	•	No twin holes have been undertaken at this prospect.
			procedures, data verification, data storage	•	Unusually high Ag assays were identified in these results and noted in this
			(physical and electronic) protocols.		release. These results will be investigated for accuracy via umpire assays. Coda
		•	Discuss any adjustment to assay data.		does not believe that the potential inaccuracy materially impacts the overall
					release nor the economic potential of the Emmie Bluff prospect as a whole.
				•	If umpire assays determine the result to be inaccurate, Coda will inform the
					market.
Location	of	•	Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drill	•	Drill collar locations (including RL) have been located using handheld GPS, MGA
data points			holes (collar and down-hole surveys), trenches,		94 Zone 53.
			mine workings and other locations used in Mineral	•	Precise location of drillholes will be determined by an independent surveyor at
			Resource estimation.		the completion of the overall drill programme (expected March 2021).
		•	Specification of the grid system used.
		•	Quality and adequacy of topographic control.

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 relationship by Coda Minerals Ltd and Terrace
land	tenure		with third parties such as joint ventures,		Mining Ltd.
status			partnerships, overriding royalties, native title	•	Coda Minerals is currently free-carrying Terrace until a total of 8.62 million
			interests, historical sites, wilderness or national		dollars is spent, at which point an unincorporated joint venture will be formed
			park and environmental settings.		to manage the tenure.
		•	The security of the tenure held at the time of	•	The tenure is in good standing and is considered secure at the time of this
			reporting along with any known impediments to		release. No other impediments are known at this time.
			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).

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary	Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
Data aggregation methods • In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging techniques, maximum and/or minimum grade truncations (eg cutting of high grades) and cut-off grades are usually Material and should be stated. • 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. • • •	Cut Off grade for reporting assays is 0.5% CuEq calculated as per Footnote 1 in the main body of the announcement. Due to the narrow nature of the mineralised intercepts, Coda believes that selective mining of high grade bands is likely impractical and would be misleading. All intersects have been reported as length weighted averages, in line with how they would most likely be eventually extracted. Typical example is included below: DD20EB00013:3m from 400.47m @ 4.71% CuEq (2.85% Cu, 1,545ppm Co and 27 g/t Ag). From To Length Cu ppm Co ppm Ag ppm CuEq% 400.47 400.72 0.25 10700 137 10 1.23% 400.72 401.11 0.39 48300 3470 45.2 8.99% 401.11 401.51 0.4 42000 1280 45.2 5.74% 401.51 401.96 0.45 48500 3300 47 8.81% 401.96 402.37 0.41 24500 1480 17.6 4.23% 402.37 402.75 0.38 18600 1010 15.6 3.07% 402.75 403.07 0.32 17700 648 15.2 2.55% 403.07 403.47 0.4 6630 134 12.8 0.82%
	DD20EB00013:3m from 400.47m @ 4.71% CuEq (2.85% Cu, 1,545ppm Co and 27 g/t Ag).
	From To Length Cu ppm Co ppm Ag ppm CuEq%
	400.47 400.72 0.25 10700 137 10 1.23% 400.72 401.11 0.39 48300 3470 45.2 8.99% 401.11 401.51 0.4 42000 1280 45.2 5.74% 401.51 401.96 0.45 48500 3300 47 8.81% 401.96 402.37 0.41 24500 1480 17.6 4.23% 402.37 402.75 0.38 18600 1010 15.6 3.07% 402.75 403.07 0.32 17700 648 15.2 2.55% 403.07 403.47 0.4 6630 134 12.8 0.82%
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 (eg ‘down hole length, true width not known’). • •	Due to drilling conditions, drillholes at Emmie Bluff are difficult to keep straight and tend to dip towards -90 degrees as they increase in depth, regardless of starting dip. The main mineralised stratum (Tapley Hill Fm shale) is relatively flat lying throughout the prospect area based on previously announced seismic results and historical drilling. As such, the near-vertical intersects reported are believed to be broadly representative of true width, except where otherwise noted (i.e. hole DD21EB0012).

Criteria	Criteria	JORC	Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Data	spacing	•	Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results.	•	Drillholes are irregularly spaced, with a mean distance of 537m to their
and		•	Whether the data spacing and distribution is		nearest neighbour, a minimum nearest neighbour distance of 193m
distribution			sufficient to establish the degree of geological and		(DD20EB0002 – DD21EB0017) and a maximum of 1,759m (DD20EB0005 –
			grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral		DD21EB0013).
			Resource and Ore Reserve estimation	•	If nearby historic holes are included, the mean distance to their nearest
			procedure(s) and classifications applied.		neighbour falls to 433m, with an unchanged minimum and a new maximum
		•	Whether sample compositing has been applied.		of 1,356m (DD21EB0017 – MGD 42).
				•	Holes DD21EB0013 and DD21EB0014 are 1,093m apart on a rough E/W axis.
					Hole DD21EB0012 is approximately 1,191m NNE of hole DD21EB0014.
				•	Physical compositing has not been applied to samples.
				•	Coda does not believe that the results reported in this release are sufficient to
					estimate a Mineral Resource and has not attempted to do so.
Orientation of		•	Whether the orientation of sampling achieves	•	Due to drilling conditions, drillholes at Emmie Bluff are difficult to keep straight
data	in relation		unbiased sampling of possible structures and the		and tend to dip towards -90 degrees as they increase in depth, regardless of
to	geological		extent to which this is known, considering the		starting dip. This makes orienting of core difficult and largely ineffective at the
structure			deposit type.		prospect.
		•	If the relationship between the drilling orientation	•	The main mineralised stratum (Tapley Hill Fm shale) is relatively flat lying
			and the orientation of key mineralised structures		throughout the prospect area based on previously announced seismic results
			is considered to have introduced a sampling bias,		and historical drilling. As such, the near-vertical intersects reported in holes
			this should be assessed and reported if material.		DD21EB0013 and DD21EB0014 are believed to be broadly representative of
					true width and are not believed to introduce any meaningful sampling bias.
				•	DD21EB0012 penetrated the mineralised stratum at an angle of approximately
					67 degrees. The true width of the mineralised intersections are noted in
					footnotes in the body of the release.
Sample		•	The measures taken to ensure sample security.	•	Samples were taken by representatives of Coda Minerals or Challenger
security					Geological Services from the field to a core cutting facility in Adelaide, and then
					on to the assay lab. No third party other than Challenger Geological Services
					had access to the samples between the field and the assay lab.

Criteria		JORC	Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Audits	or	•	The results of any audits or reviews of sampling	•	No audits, umpire assays or reviews were undertaken beyond standard QA/QC
reviews			techniques and data.		procedures.

Criteria		JORC	Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Geology		•	Deposit type, geological setting and style of	•	The Elizabeth Creek project sits in the Stuart Shelf within the broader Olympic
			mineralisation.		Copper Province in South Australia. Specifically, mineralisation is hosted in the
					dolomitic shales and dolarenites of the Neoproterozoic Tapley Hill Formation.
					This formation unconformably overlies the Meso/Palaeoproterozoic Pandurra
					Formation due to local uplifting associated with the Pernatty Upwarp. This
					unconformity, as well as structures associated with the Pernatty Upwarp,
					represent the most likely fluid flow pathways associated with the
					emplacement of metal bearing sulphides.
				•	Emmie Bluff mineralisation closely resembles mineralisation in the MG14 and
					Windabout resources found approximately 40 kilometres to the south, also
					within the broader Elizabeth Creek tenure. It is considered to fall within the
					broad “Zambian-style” family of sediment hosted copper deposits.
Drill	hole	•	A summary of all information material to the	•	See Table 4 and Table 5 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.

Criteria	JORC	Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Diagrams	•	Appropriate maps and sections (with scales) and	•	See map, sections and tables in main body of announcement.
		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.
Balanced	•	Where comprehensive reporting of all Exploration	•	All assays > 0.5% CuEq reported in this announcement. Intersects not
reporting		Results is not practicable, representative reporting		specifically reported on in this announcement can be assumed to be <0.5%
		of both low and high grades and/or widths should		CuEq.
		be practiced to avoid misleading reporting of
		Exploration Results.
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		geological observations; geophysical survey	•	The information regarding the Exploration Target referred to in this
data		results; geochemical survey results; bulk samples –		announcement is extracted from the report entitled Confirmation of
		size and method of treatment; metallurgical test		Exploration Target and Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve Statement, created
		results; bulk density, groundwater, geotechnical		on 23 October 2020 and is available to view on
		and rock characteristics; potential deleterious or		https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20201026/pdf/44p31fmg5k2579.pdf. The
		contaminating substances.		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.

AI assistant

CODA MINERALS LTD — Capital/Financing Update 2021

64682_rns_2021-04-25_98793be3-171e-4b43-86b0-328799f2d86d.pdf

Significant New Drilling Results Strengthen and Extend CopperCobalt Mineralisation at Emmie Bluff

Highlights

Previously Announced Results

The Emmie Bluff Exploration Target

Investors:

Media:

About Coda Minerals

Confirmatory Statement

Forward Looking Statements

Competent Person’s Statement

Appendix 1: Core Photos

DD21EB0013

DD21EB0014

Appendix 2: Detailed Technical Information and JORC Table 1

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results

More from CODA MINERALS LTD

CODA MINERALS LTD Capital/Financing Update 2021