CODA MINERALS LTD - Capital/Financing Update 2021

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

ASX RELEASE 12[th] March 2021

Retraction and Re-release of Release “Assay Results Confirm Huge Lateral Extent of Emmie Bluff Copper-Cobalt Mineralisation”

ASX Code: COD

Coda Minerals Limited (ASX:COD, “Coda” or “the Company”) refers to the release “Assay Results Confirm Huge Lateral Extent of Emmie Bluff Cu-Co Mineralisation” on 22[nd] February 2020.

Following consultation with ASX, the Company has retracted the release and will re-release to exclude Figure 6, a peer comparison which contains information presented that is not in accordance with ASX Compliance Update 19 September 2018 (Update no. 08/2018).

Investors should not rely on the information contained within Figure 6 of the announcement dated 22[nd] February 2020. Please refer only to the updated announcement appended below.

For, and on behalf of the Board of Coda Minerals Ltd .

6 Altona Street West Perth Western Australia, 6005

HoleID	Results
DD20EB0001	Not Assayed
DD20EB0002	No Significant Results
DD20EB0003	Not Assayed
DD20EB0004	1.75m from [email protected]% CuEq (1.45% Cu,24ppm Co and 43.81g/t Ag)
DD20EB0004	2.05m from [email protected]% CuEq (1.76% Cu,1,936ppm Co and 16.89g/t Ag)
DD20EB0004	1.51m from [email protected]% CuEq (1.62% Cu,179ppm Co and 11.88g/t Ag)
DD20EB0005	1.5m from [email protected]% CuEq (0.68% Cu,15ppm Co and 17.17g/t Ag)
DD20EB0005	1.28m from [email protected]% CuEq (0.71% Cu,156ppm Co and 5.87g/t Ag)
DD20EB0006	Not Assayed
DD20EB0007	3.49m from [email protected]% CuEq (1.47% Cu,620ppm Co and 17.45g/t Ag)

Mineralisation Area
	Layer	Volume	Tonnage	Cu	Co Range	Ag Range	Cu Eq.

	Thickness (m)	(m3)	Range (Mt)	Range	(%)	(%)	Range5(%)
				(%)

	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
Upper 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
Tapley Hill Formation
Lower Layer

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	Completed, Results Pending
DD21EB0009	2	706602	6555859	218.7	-88	270	471.8	Completed, Results Pending
DD21EB0010	2	705715	6555250	218.7	-75	90	390.7	Completed, Results Pending
DD21EB0011	2	705937	6555248	218.7	-85	90	432.8	Completed, Results Pending
DD21EB0012	2	706651	6557401	219.6	-60	270	519.5	Completed, Results Pending
DD21EB0013	2	705408	6556132	218.7	-80	90	453.3	Completed, Results Pending
DD21EB0014	2	706490	6556220	218.7	-80	90	468.4	Completed, Results Pending.

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
techniques		random chips, or specific specialised industry		switched over to HQ drill core.
		standard measurement tools appropriate to the	•	Core was logged in the field and rough metal content was measured at
		minerals under investigation, such as down hole		regular intervals with a portable XRF device. XRF measurement intervals
		gamma sondes, or handheld XRF instruments,		varied depending on lithology, from 10m in suspected unmineralised strata to
		etc). These examples should not be taken as		10cm 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 with one exception were drilled with RC precollars to
techniques		hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic,		approximately 150 – 250m, followed by HQ standard tube diamond tails to a
		etc) and details (eg core diameter, triple or		maximum depth of between 400 and 512.8m. The one exception
		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 for the remainder of the hole.
		oriented and if so, by what method, etc).	•	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	•	Recovery of diamond tails was excellent based on minimal core loss.
		and 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		experienced field geologists on RC precollars.
		of 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
	•	The total length and percentage of the relevant		analysis revealed geochemical anomalism.
		intersections logged.

• 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. • A total of 171 samples were taken, including field duplicates and standards, which were inserted at a 1:20 and 1:10 ratio respectively (17 standards, 8 field duplicates), leaving a total of 146 samples. • Core was cut on a sample-by sample-basis according to need in the following manner: `o` Where a field duplicatewas 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 0.2 to 1.6m, with an average of 0.64m per sample. Mineralised samples (i.e. CuEq>0.5) varied in width from 0.2 to 0.86m, with an average of 0.39m 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 DD20EB0002 D20A0019 492.30 493.00 0.70 30 4 <0.2 DD20EB0002 D20A0021 492.30 493.00 0.70 40 5 <0.2 DD20EB0002 D20A0039 507.00 508.00 1.00 4 4 <0.2 DD20EB0002 D20A0041 507.00 508.00 1.00 9 4 <0.2 DD20EB0004 D20A0059 410.20 410.60 0.40 13000 588 14.6 DD20EB0004 D20A0061 410.20 410.60 0.40 12400 567 14.2	• 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. • A total of 171 samples were taken, including field duplicates and standards, which were inserted at a 1:20 and 1:10 ratio respectively (17 standards, 8 field duplicates), leaving a total of 146 samples. • Core was cut on a sample-by sample-basis according to need in the following manner: `o` Where a field duplicatewas 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 0.2 to 1.6m, with an average of 0.64m per sample. Mineralised samples (i.e. CuEq>0.5) varied in width from 0.2 to 0.86m, with an average of 0.39m 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 DD20EB0002 D20A0019 492.30 493.00 0.70 30 4 <0.2 DD20EB0002 D20A0021 492.30 493.00 0.70 40 5 <0.2 DD20EB0002 D20A0039 507.00 508.00 1.00 4 4 <0.2 DD20EB0002 D20A0041 507.00 508.00 1.00 9 4 <0.2 DD20EB0004 D20A0059 410.20 410.60 0.40 13000 588 14.6 DD20EB0004 D20A0061 410.20 410.60 0.40 12400 567 14.2	• 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. • A total of 171 samples were taken, including field duplicates and standards, which were inserted at a 1:20 and 1:10 ratio respectively (17 standards, 8 field duplicates), leaving a total of 146 samples. • Core was cut on a sample-by sample-basis according to need in the following manner: `o` Where a field duplicatewas 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 0.2 to 1.6m, with an average of 0.64m per sample. Mineralised samples (i.e. CuEq>0.5) varied in width from 0.2 to 0.86m, with an average of 0.39m 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 DD20EB0002 D20A0019 492.30 493.00 0.70 30 4 <0.2 DD20EB0002 D20A0021 492.30 493.00 0.70 40 5 <0.2 DD20EB0002 D20A0039 507.00 508.00 1.00 4 4 <0.2 DD20EB0002 D20A0041 507.00 508.00 1.00 9 4 <0.2 DD20EB0004 D20A0059 410.20 410.60 0.40 13000 588 14.6 DD20EB0004 D20A0061 410.20 410.60 0.40 12400 567 14.2	• 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. • A total of 171 samples were taken, including field duplicates and standards, which were inserted at a 1:20 and 1:10 ratio respectively (17 standards, 8 field duplicates), leaving a total of 146 samples. • Core was cut on a sample-by sample-basis according to need in the following manner: `o` Where a field duplicatewas 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 0.2 to 1.6m, with an average of 0.64m per sample. Mineralised samples (i.e. CuEq>0.5) varied in width from 0.2 to 0.86m, with an average of 0.39m 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 DD20EB0002 D20A0019 492.30 493.00 0.70 30 4 <0.2 DD20EB0002 D20A0021 492.30 493.00 0.70 40 5 <0.2 DD20EB0002 D20A0039 507.00 508.00 1.00 4 4 <0.2 DD20EB0002 D20A0041 507.00 508.00 1.00 9 4 <0.2 DD20EB0004 D20A0059 410.20 410.60 0.40 13000 588 14.6 DD20EB0004 D20A0061 410.20 410.60 0.40 12400 567 14.2	• 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. • A total of 171 samples were taken, including field duplicates and standards, which were inserted at a 1:20 and 1:10 ratio respectively (17 standards, 8 field duplicates), leaving a total of 146 samples. • Core was cut on a sample-by sample-basis according to need in the following manner: `o` Where a field duplicatewas 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 0.2 to 1.6m, with an average of 0.64m per sample. Mineralised samples (i.e. CuEq>0.5) varied in width from 0.2 to 0.86m, with an average of 0.39m 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 DD20EB0002 D20A0019 492.30 493.00 0.70 30 4 <0.2 DD20EB0002 D20A0021 492.30 493.00 0.70 40 5 <0.2 DD20EB0002 D20A0039 507.00 508.00 1.00 4 4 <0.2 DD20EB0002 D20A0041 507.00 508.00 1.00 9 4 <0.2 DD20EB0004 D20A0059 410.20 410.60 0.40 13000 588 14.6 DD20EB0004 D20A0061 410.20 410.60 0.40 12400 567 14.2	• 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. • A total of 171 samples were taken, including field duplicates and standards, which were inserted at a 1:20 and 1:10 ratio respectively (17 standards, 8 field duplicates), leaving a total of 146 samples. • Core was cut on a sample-by sample-basis according to need in the following manner: `o` Where a field duplicatewas 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 0.2 to 1.6m, with an average of 0.64m per sample. Mineralised samples (i.e. CuEq>0.5) varied in width from 0.2 to 0.86m, with an average of 0.39m 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 DD20EB0002 D20A0019 492.30 493.00 0.70 30 4 <0.2 DD20EB0002 D20A0021 492.30 493.00 0.70 40 5 <0.2 DD20EB0002 D20A0039 507.00 508.00 1.00 4 4 <0.2 DD20EB0002 D20A0041 507.00 508.00 1.00 9 4 <0.2 DD20EB0004 D20A0059 410.20 410.60 0.40 13000 588 14.6 DD20EB0004 D20A0061 410.20 410.60 0.40 12400 567 14.2	• 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. • A total of 171 samples were taken, including field duplicates and standards, which were inserted at a 1:20 and 1:10 ratio respectively (17 standards, 8 field duplicates), leaving a total of 146 samples. • Core was cut on a sample-by sample-basis according to need in the following manner: `o` Where a field duplicatewas 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 0.2 to 1.6m, with an average of 0.64m per sample. Mineralised samples (i.e. CuEq>0.5) varied in width from 0.2 to 0.86m, with an average of 0.39m 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 DD20EB0002 D20A0019 492.30 493.00 0.70 30 4 <0.2 DD20EB0002 D20A0021 492.30 493.00 0.70 40 5 <0.2 DD20EB0002 D20A0039 507.00 508.00 1.00 4 4 <0.2 DD20EB0002 D20A0041 507.00 508.00 1.00 9 4 <0.2 DD20EB0004 D20A0059 410.20 410.60 0.40 13000 588 14.6 DD20EB0004 D20A0061 410.20 410.60 0.40 12400 567 14.2	• 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. • A total of 171 samples were taken, including field duplicates and standards, which were inserted at a 1:20 and 1:10 ratio respectively (17 standards, 8 field duplicates), leaving a total of 146 samples. • Core was cut on a sample-by sample-basis according to need in the following manner: `o` Where a field duplicatewas 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 0.2 to 1.6m, with an average of 0.64m per sample. Mineralised samples (i.e. CuEq>0.5) varied in width from 0.2 to 0.86m, with an average of 0.39m 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 DD20EB0002 D20A0019 492.30 493.00 0.70 30 4 <0.2 DD20EB0002 D20A0021 492.30 493.00 0.70 40 5 <0.2 DD20EB0002 D20A0039 507.00 508.00 1.00 4 4 <0.2 DD20EB0002 D20A0041 507.00 508.00 1.00 9 4 <0.2 DD20EB0004 D20A0059 410.20 410.60 0.40 13000 588 14.6 DD20EB0004 D20A0061 410.20 410.60 0.40 12400 567 14.2
Hole ID	SampleID	From	To	Interval	Cu	Co	Ag
DD20EB0002	D20A0019	492.30	493.00	0.70 0.70	30 40	4 5	<0.2 <0.2
DD20EB0002	D20A0021	492.30	493.00
DD20EB0002	D20A0039	507.00	508.00	1.00 1.00	4 9	4 4	<0.2 <0.2
DD20EB0002	D20A0041	507.00	508.00
DD20EB0004	D20A0059	410.20	410.60	0.40 0.40	13000 12400	588 567	14.6 14.2
DD20EB0004	D20A0061	410.20	410.60

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
DD20EB0004	D20A0079	421.80	422.36	0.56 0.56	52 67	18 17	4.4 4
DD20EB0004	D20A0081	421.80	422.36
DD20EB0004	D20A0099	435.85	436.50	0.65 0.65	121 58	5 5	0.8 1.6
DD20EB0004	D20A0101	435.85	436.50
DD20EB0005	D20A0119	352.20	352.50	0.30 0.30	6600 7870	11 10	17 17.8
DD20EB0005	D20A0121	352.20	352.50
DD20EB0005	D20A0139	363.8	364.2	0.40 0.40	751 763	186 186	5.8 6.2
DD20EB0005	D20A0141	363.8	364.2
DD20EB0007	D20A0159	454.6	454.88	0.28 0.28	30900 33000	37 31	25.8 28
DD20EB0007	D20A0161	454.6	454.88

Cu Cu	Cu Cu	Ag Ag	Ag Ag	Co Co	Co Co
Measured Expected		Measured Expected		Measured Expected
40100	39300	11.2	11.5	49.9	53
4020	4090	1	1.1	119	113
4010	4090	1	1.1	119	104
4130	4090	1	1.1	119	109
4040	4090	1	1.1	119	117
3950	4090	1	1.1	119	107
3710	4090	1	1.1	119	114
4230	4090	1.2	1.1	119	123
4070	4090	1.2	1.1	119	124
7140	7720	3.2	3.5	631	583
7050	7720	3.2	3.5	631	579
7190	7720	3.2	3.5	631	618
7450	7720	3.4	3.5	631	625
7720	7720	3.6	3.5	631	674
7770	7720	3.6	3.5	631	652
31400	32000	3	3.02	2445	2380
32500 ~~•~~	32000	3	3.02	2445	2360

Criteria	JORC	Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Verification of	•	The verification of significant intersections by	•	Significant intersections have been verified against geological logging,
sampling and		either independent or alternative company		portable 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
		(physical and electronic) protocols.
	•	Discuss any adjustment to assay data.
Location of	•	Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate	•	Drill collar locations (including RL) have been located using handheld GPS,
data points		drill holes (collar and down-hole surveys),		MGA 94 Zone 53.
		trenches, mine workings and other locations used	•	Precise location of drillholes will be determined by an independent surveyor
		in Mineral Resource estimation.		at the completion of the overall drill programme (expected March 2021).
	•	Specification of the grid system used.
	•	Quality and adequacy of topographic control.
Data spacing	•	Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results.	•	Drillholes reported are irregularly spaced, with a mean distance of 984m to
and	•	Whether the data spacing and distribution is		their nearest neighbour, a minimum nearest neighbour distance of 299m
distribution		sufficient to establish the degree of geological		(DD20EB0004 – DD20EB0006) and a maximum of 1,812m (DD20EB0005 –
		and grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral		DD20EB0006).
		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 621m, with an unchanged minimum and a new maximum
	•	Whether sample compositing has been applied.		of 1,107m (DD20EB0001 – MGD 42)
			•	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.

Criteria	JORC	Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Mineral	•	Type, reference name/number, location and ownership including	•	All drilling took place on EL 6265.
tenement and		agreements or material issues with third parties such as joint	•	EL 6265 is owned in a 70:30 relationship by Coda
land tenure		ventures, partnerships, overriding royalties, native title interests,		Minerals Ltd and Terrace Mining Ltd.
status		historical sites, wilderness or national park and environmental	•	Coda Minerals is currently farming in to increase its
		settings.		ownership to a maximum of 75%.
	•	The security of the tenure held at the time of reporting along with any	•	The tenure is in good standing and is considered secure
		known impediments to obtaining a licence to operate in the area.		at the time of this release. No other impediments are
				known at this time.

Criteria	JORC	Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Exploration	•	Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties.	•	Historical exploration of the Emmie Bluff prospect has
done by other				been undertaken by (among others) Mt Isa Mines,
parties				Gunson Resources, Torrens Mining and 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 mineralisation.	•	The Elizabeth Creek project sits in the Stuart Shelf within
				the broader Olympic 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.

Criteria	JORC	Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Data	•	In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging techniques,	•	Cut Off grade for reporting assays is 0.5% CuEq
aggregation		maximum and/or minimum grade truncations (eg cutting of high		calculated as per Footnote 5 in the main body of the
methods		grades) and cut-off grades are usually Material and should be stated.		announcement.
	•	Where aggregate intercepts incorporate short lengths of high grade	•	Due to the narrow nature of the mineralised intercepts,
		results and longer lengths of low grade results, the procedure used for		Coda believes that selective mining of high grade bands
		such aggregation should be stated and some typical examples of such		is likely impractical and would be misleading. All
		aggregations should be shown in detail.		intersects have been reported as length weighted
	•	The assumptions used for any reporting of metal equivalent values		averages, in line with how they would most likely be
		should be clearly stated.		eventually extracted.
			•	Typical example is included below:
				DD20EB0004:2.05m from 408.95 @ 4.09% CuEq
				(1.76% Cu,1,936ppm Co and 16.89g/t Ag)
				From To Length Cu Co Ag CuEq
				408.95 409.30 0.35 30200 5620 27.8 9.764
				409.30 409.60 0.30 24500 2570 17.4 5.534
				409.60 409.90 0.30 19000 1810 13.4 4.072
				409.90 410.20 0.30 17800 1090 14.6 3.088
				410.20 410.60 0.40 13000 588 14.6 2.0056
				410.60 411.00 0.40 5010 316 13.6 0.8802
Relationship	•	These relationships are particularly important in the reporting of	•	Due to drilling conditions, drillholes at Emmie Bluff are
between		Exploration Results.		difficult to keep straight and tend to dip towards -90
mineralisation	•	If the geometry of the mineralisation with respect to the drill hole		degrees as they increase in depth, regardless of starting
widths and		angle is known, its nature should be reported.		dip.
intercept	•	If it is not known and only the down hole lengths are reported, there	•	The main mineralised stratum (Tapley Hill Fm shale) is
lengths		should be a clear statement to this effect (eg ‘down hole length, true		relatively flat lying throughout the prospect area based
		width not known’).		on previously announced seismic results and historical
				drilling. As such, the near-vertical intersects reported are
				believed to be broadly representative of true width.

Criteria	JORC	Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Further work	•	The nature and scale of planned further work (eg tests for lateral	•	The Coda board has approved a total of 17 holes, of
		extensions or depth extensions or large-scale step-out drilling).		which 14 have been completed at the time of this
	•	Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions,		release. Three additional holes are planned, two testing
		including the main geological interpretations and future drilling areas,		seismic anomalies seeking to expand the mineralised
		provided this information is not commercially sensitive.		envelope to the east, while the third is intended to test
				downhole EM anomalism noted in hole DD20EB0002.
				This phase of the programme is expected to be
				completed in March 2021.
			•	Coda has appointed a resource geologist to assess the
				existing drilling and geophysical dataset. The objective of
				this work is to identify necessary drill holes required to
				define a JORC 2012 compliant Inferred Mineral
				Resource. Coda anticipates that this will involve the
				drilling of up to six additional diamond drillholes, which
				it expects to complete in the second quarter of 2021.

Criteria	JORC	Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Orientation of	•	Whether the orientation of sampling achieves	•	Due to drilling conditions, drillholes at Emmie Bluff are difficult to keep
data in		unbiased sampling of possible structures and the		straight and tend to dip towards -90 degrees as they increase in depth,
relation to		extent to which this is known, considering the		regardless of starting dip. This makes orienting of core difficult and largely
geological		deposit type.		ineffective at the prospect.
structure	•	If the relationship between the drilling	•	The main mineralised stratum (Tapley Hill Fm shale) is relatively flat lying
		orientation and the orientation of key		throughout the prospect area based on previously announced seismic results
		mineralised structures is considered to have		and historical drilling. As such, the near-vertical intersects reported are
		introduced a sampling bias, this should be		believed to be broadly representative of true width and are not believed to
		assessed and reported if material.		introduce any meaningful sampling bias.
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 part other than Challenger Geological
				Services had access to the samples between the field and the assay lab.
Audits or	•	The results of any audits or reviews of sampling	•	No audits, umpire assays or reviews were undertaken beyond standard
reviews		techniques and data.		QA/QC procedures.

Criteria	JORC	Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Drill hole	•	A summary of all information material to the understanding of the	•	See Table 1 in body of announcement.
Information		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 tabulations of	•	See map, sections and tables in main body of
		intercepts should be included for any significant discovery being		announcement.
		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 Results is not	•	All assays > 0.5% CuEq reported in this announcement.
reporting		practicable, representative reporting of both low and high grades		Intersects not specifically reported on in this
		and/or widths should be practiced to avoid misleading reporting of		announcement can be assumed to be <0.5% CuEq.
		Exploration Results.
Other	•	Other exploration data, if meaningful and material, should be	•	No other substantive exploration results are considered
substantive		reported including (but not limited to): geological observations;		relevant to this release.
exploration		geophysical survey results; geochemical survey results; bulk samples –	•	The information regarding the Exploration Target
data		size and method of treatment; metallurgical test results; bulk density,		referred to on page 2 is extracted from the report
		groundwater, geotechnical and rock characteristics; potential		entitled Confirmation of Exploration Target and Mineral
		deleterious or contaminating substances.		Resource and Ore Reserve Statement, created on 23
				October 2020 and is available to view on
				https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20201026/pdf/44p31f
				mg5k2579.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.

AI assistant

CODA MINERALS LTD — Capital/Financing Update 2021

64682_rns_2021-03-11_89711f5d-0c06-4603-bd38-f6f346c63fa0.pdf

Assay Results Confirm Huge Lateral Extent of Emmie Bluff Copper – Cobalt Mineralisation

Highlights

Ongoing Drill Programme

Resource Definition

2021 Results

The Emmie Bluff Exploration Target

Confirmatory Statement

Forward Looking Statements

Competent Person’s Statement

Appendix 1: Detailed Technical Information and JORC Table 1

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data

More from CODA MINERALS LTD

CODA MINERALS LTD Capital/Financing Update 2021