CONICO LTD — Capital/Financing Update 2022

Jan 31, 2022

ASX Announcement

1[st] February 2022

Ryberg 2021 Drilling and Geophysical Results

Introduction

==> picture [10 x 9] intentionally omitted <==

• This announcement details findings from the 2021 Ryberg Project field season, including drilling and the regional magnetic-radiometric geophysical survey.

==> picture [10 x 8] intentionally omitted <==

• The Ryberg Project is 100% owned by Longland Resources Ltd (a wholly owned subsidiary of Conico Ltd), located on the east coast of Greenland and covers an area of 4,521km[2] . The results of the field season justify that Ryberg is an emerging mineral province containing multiple deposits styles that are synonymous with a large igneous province.

Highlights

Sortekap Prospect:

==> picture [10 x 9] intentionally omitted <==

• Drill Geochemistry: Three drill-holes were completed with the majority of assays received. Multiple zones of stringer and vein sulphide, hosted in ultramafic rocks were intersected in SODD001. The presence of mineralised veins lends strong support to further drilling targeting larger concentrations of sulphide melt. Vein-hosted gold was intersected in SODD003. Better intersections included:

==> picture [10 x 9] intentionally omitted <==

SODD001 (Sortekap)

• 11m @ 0.12% Ni & 0.008% Co from 81m

• 11m @ 0.11% Ni & 0.007% Co from 129m

• 8m @ 0.11% Ni & 0.008% Co from 158m

• 12m @ 0.12% Ni & 0.009% Co from 169m

• 28m @.0.18% Ni & 0.011% Co from 187m

• Including 15m @ 0.23% Ni & 0.013% Co from 195m

• 5m @ 0.15% Ni & 0.007% Co from 221m

• 3m @ 0.17% Ni & 0.008% Co from 234m

==> picture [10 x 8] intentionally omitted <==

SODD003 (Sortekap)

• 1m @ 1.8g/t Au from 12m

==> picture [10 x 9] intentionally omitted <==

• Regional geophysics: The magnetic survey has identified the presence of a likely crustal-

• scale structure (deep seated fault) located near Sortekap. This has implications for nickel mineralisation, with en echelon faults perhaps acting as conduits for sulphide melts. A magnetic high is present at Sortekap and is coincident with mafic and ultramafic rocks that cover an area of 5km[2] . Further assays are awaited for all three drill-holes.

==> picture [9 x 9] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [9 x 7] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [9 x 7] intentionally omitted <==

Conico Ltd ABN 49 119 057 457 Level 15, 197 St George’s Terrace Perth, WA 6000 Australia

+61 (0)8 9282 5889 info@conico.com.au www.conico.com.au

@conico_ltd @ConicoLtd conico-limited

==> picture [199 x 48] intentionally omitted <==

Miki Prospect:

==> picture [10 x 8] intentionally omitted <==

• Regional geophysics: The geophysical survey identified two extensive zones of high magnetism that coincide with known occurrences of ultramafic xenoliths (hosted within the Miki Dyke gabbro) and/or surface geochemical anomalies (from historic surface sampling). It is likely that the magnetic highs are represented by ultramafic material that has been transported to surface by the Miki Dyke when it erupted. These locations have not been drill tested and are priorities for this year’s field activities.

==> picture [10 x 9] intentionally omitted <==

• Drill Geochemistry: Geochemical data from the 2021 drill programme confirms that sulphides intercepted were dominantly unmineralised pyrrhotite and responsible for the electromagnetic conductors. The pyrrhotite is hosted in basement gneiss and is unrelated to the copper/nickel sulphides hosted in the Miki Dyke. It is concluded that the electromagnetic targets were a distraction, and that mineralisation of interest remains untested by drilling.

Cascata Prospect:

==> picture [10 x 8] intentionally omitted <==

• Drill Geochemistry: In drill-hole CADD001, two mineralised areas within the black shales intercepted at ~150m and 180m depths with sulphide mineralisation pervasively replacing black shale. These horizons show increased (relative to background) concentrations in copper, zinc, and lead. However, it is the extreme enrichment in tin (389 ppm - against ~2.3 ppm crustal values) and tungsten (75 ppm - against ~1.25 ppm crustal values) that gives more clues into the nature of the mineralising fluids suggesting metal transport from a relatively proximal magmatic source. Assay results for the layered gabbro intrusion at the base of CADD001 and for all of CADD002, are awaited.

==> picture [10 x 9] intentionally omitted <==

• Regional geophysics: This survey represents the first geophysical coverage of any kind over Cascata, with interpretation identifying the location of prospective volcano-sedimentary units. The area of interest is extensive and short-term efforts will focus on identifying the limits of the newly identified layered gabbro intrusion, referred to as the ‘Aurora Layered Intrusion’.

New Prospects

==> picture [10 x 8] intentionally omitted <==

• Pyramid: the most obvious magnetic features in the dataset are two very strong magnetic highs that persist for over 1km depth. Field observation and geophysical interpretation suggest they are magmatic intrusions (from a single feeder) hosted in sediments that have undergone significant alteration. Pyramid is regarded as a high-priority target to be drilltested this year.

==> picture [10 x 9] intentionally omitted <==

• Quest: an interpreted mafic/ultramafic intrusion with potential to host precious and base metal mineralisation. Historic float samples around the intrusion returned “ remarkable ” chromium and nickel anomalism.

==> picture [10 x 8] intentionally omitted <==

• Qiterpiaaneq: a broad area covering ~15km[2] interpreted to be a likely magma chamber and possible layered intrusion with potential to host PGEs, gold, and base metals.

2 Conico Ltd ASX: CNJ F:BDD

==> picture [199 x 48] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [10 x 9] intentionally omitted <==

• Crustal-Scale Structures: trending NE-SW, likely associated with the break-up of the North Atlantic. Possible graben structures interpreted with a width of ~38km, extending NE-SW through the Ryberg Project area. The northern crustal-scale feature is proximal to Sortekap and is referred to as the Sortekap Fault.

==> picture [423 x 459] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 1 Location map for Conico’s Greenland Projects (blue) and granted licences operated by other explorers (orange).

3 Conico Ltd ASX: CNJ F:BDD

==> picture [199 x 48] intentionally omitted <==

1. Introduction

1.1. 2021 Field Season Overview

Drilling occurred at the Miki, Sortekap and Cascata Prospects with the majority of assay results now received, and the balance awaited. The Company drilled 9 holes at Miki (MIDD001-MIDD009), 3 holes at Sortekap (SODD001-SODD003) and 2 holes at Cascata (CADD001-CADD002). This was accomplished using 3 x diamond drill rigs and a compliment of staff stationed onboard an accommodation vessel in J.C. Jacobsen Fjord.

In addition to drilling, the first regional geophysical survey to ever occur was flown via helicopter. The survey collected magnetic, radiometric and elevation data and was conducted at 200m line spacing in an E-W orientation (with N-S tie lines every 2,000m), except at the Miki and Sortekap Prospects where spacing was tightened to 100m (with N-S tie lines every 1,000m). Flight height was a nominal 25m and a total distance of 24,315 km was flown.

==> picture [387 x 226] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 2 The NRG survey helicopter on the helipad at Ryberg.

4 Conico Ltd ASX: CNJ F:BDD

==> picture [199 x 48] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [426 x 469] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3 Prospects within the Ryberg Project area on top of recently acquired Total Magnetic Intensity.

5 Conico Ltd ASX: CNJ F:BDD

==> picture [199 x 48] intentionally omitted <==

2. Existing Prospects

2.1. Sortekap

2.1.1. Summary

The Sortekap Prospect (Figure 3) contains mafic and ultramafic lithologies that were drilled with 3 diamond drill-holes in 2021, targeting an induced polarisation (IP) anomaly interpreted to represent a low angled fault. The drilling intersected stringer and vein sulphide mineralisation containing anomalous nickel, copper and cobalt within ultramafic rocks, and vein-hosted gold mineralisation in amphibolite. The three holes drilled at Sortekap are still awaiting assays, these are 71 samples for SODD001, 262 samples for SODD002 and 88 samples for SODD003. The regional magnetic-radiometric survey was flown over Sortekap at 100m spacing, identifying the presence of a crustalscale feature in the form of a deep-seated fault and a magnetic anomaly at Sortekap that coincides with ultramafic lithologies that are prospective for nickel.

2.1.2. Sortekap Drill Geochemistry

Assay results have identified broad zones of anomalous nickel concentrations >0.1% in CADD001 and gold mineralisation in CADD003. The assays are detailed in Table 1 and

Annex 1.

==> picture [392 x 130] intentionally omitted <==

Table 1 Selected Sortekap intersections at a 0.1% Ni and/or 1g/t Au cut-off, minimum width 1m and maximum 4m internal dilution. Including Co, Cu and S as co-elements.

The majority of the rocks hosting nickel mineralisation contain elevated chromium (>0.2% Cr), magnesium oxide (>30% MgO) and low silica (<20% Si) which are common characteristics of ultramafic lithologies. The intercept containing 15m @ 0.23% Ni from 195m drilled depth also has 0.02% copper and 1.4% sulphur suggesting the presence of pentlandite (nickel sulphide), chalcopyrite (copper sulphide) and pyrrhotite. These are all common minerals in nickel sulphide deposits, with pyrrhotite readily identified in drillcore by the naked eye and is magnetic (Figures 4 & 5). When the sulphur content decreases, so too does the endowment of nickel, copper, and cobalt, indicating that these elements are present in sulphides and not within silicate minerals.

6 Conico Ltd ASX: CNJ F:BDD

==> picture [199 x 48] intentionally omitted <==

The mineralised stringer and vein sulphides are encouraging as they indicate the migration of a magmatic sulphide melt. This, coupled with the presence of ultramafic lithologies, is an ideal setting for nickel sulphide accumulation and structural measurements taken from the drill core, in conjunction with the magnetic and IP geophysical data are being interrogated to determine optimal drill location for this year’s proposed drilling.

Gold was identified in drill-hole CADD003, with three occurrences of >0.1g/t gold that are detailed in Table 1. The best gold intercept to date is 1m @ 1.8g/t Au from 12m drilled depth, with the gold most likely present in a quartz vein(s) (Figure 6) hosted in amphibolite. The interval is being re-sampled to determine the gold grade of the quartz vein without dilution from surrounding host rock.

==> picture [389 x 153] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 4 Vein style sulphide mineralisation in CADD001 from 195.1m depth.

==> picture [388 x 183] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 5 Vein style sulphide mineralisation in CADD001 from 195.6m depth.

7 Conico Ltd ASX: CNJ F:BDD

==> picture [199 x 48] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [392 x 153] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 6 Tray 3 for CADD003 with the interval containing 1.8g/t highlighted in green.

2.1.3. Sortekap Geophysics

The Sortekap Prospect was flown at 100m line spacing and is located ~1.5km north of the interpreted crustal-scale structure referred to as the Sortekap Fault that strikes NESW and dips to the south (Figure 7). This fault has a dip-slip displacement of ~1km (offset to the south) and sinistral strike-slip displacement of ~4km. The fault likely formed during the opening of the North Atlantic, when Greenland separated from northern Europe, and may possibly represent the northern end of a graben structure that is ~38km wide and trending NE-SW (refer to paragraph 2.4).

The geology at Sortekap is dominated by ultramafic and amphibolite units that are situated on the hanging wall (south) of a low angle fault (en echelon to the Sortekap Fault?) identified by the IP survey. Footwall (northerly) geology is dominated by basement gneiss. The newly acquired magnetic data shows a strong magnetic anomaly in the vicinity of Sortekap which is likely caused by the presence of magnetite that is created when ultramafic rocks undergo serpentine alteration. SODD001 was drilled into a magnetic high, while SODD002 & SODD003 were drilled slightly south in a magnetic low, that is interpreted to represent the presence of a reversely polarised N-S trending mafic dyke (was intercepted in SODD002 from 44.7m to 126.5m). A second N-S trending reversely polarised dyke passes to the east of Sortekap Prospect, both are likely part of the same event that produced the Miki Dyke. The magnetic high dictates the area of interest for nickel mineralisation, covering an area of ~5km[2] (Figure 7).

8 Conico Ltd ASX: CNJ F:BDD

==> picture [199 x 48] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [424 x 463] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 7 The Sortekap Prospect, with 2021 drill collars on background of Total Magnetic Intensity (TMI). The nearby crustal-scale feature (Sortekap Fault) is indicated by a white dashed line.

9 Conico Ltd ASX: CNJ F:BDD

==> picture [199 x 48] intentionally omitted <==

2.2. Miki

2.2.1. Summary

The Miki Prospect (Figure 3) is prospective for magmatic sulphide mineralisation with previous exploration activities identifying copper and nickel mineralisation associated with palladium, gold, and cobalt in outcrop. Mineralisation is present as blebs and globules within and on the margin of the gabbroic Miki Dyke. Previous electromagnetic (EM) surveys identified targets that were drilled in 2021, with geochemical results confirming the sulphides intersected as dominantly un-mineralised pyrrhotite hosted in basement gneiss that is not associated to mineralisation encountered in the Miki Dyke. As such, the Miki Dyke remains untested by drilling and new insights from the regional geophysical survey have identified magnetic anomalies of interest that are considered a priority for this year’s field program.

2.2.2. Miki Drill Geochemistry

Geochemical assay data received for the drill-holes at Miki have confirmed that sulphides present are un-mineralised pyrrhotite, hosted in basement gneiss. These locations were drilled after a ground-borne electromagnetic (EM) survey conducted in 2020 identified conductive targets deemed worthy of drilling. At the target depths pyrrhotite was encountered and explain the EM conductors, however they are not related to copper and nickel sulphide mineralisation identified at surface within and on the margins of the Miki Dyke. Therefore, the Miki Dyke remains untested by drilling and the existing EM data will be reinterpreted based on the results of the 2020 drilling and geophysical program.

2.2.3. Miki Geophysics

The Miki Dyke was flown at tighter 100m line spacing and is exhibited clearly in the magnetic data, expressed as a magnetic low due to it being reversely polarised (Figure 8). At its southern most extent it has a width of ~1.2km, narrowing to the north. The location of the 2021 drill program is offset to the east of the dyke, within a narrow magnetic zone running parallel and coinciding with the modelled electromagnetic (EM) plates.

Within the dyke are two zones of interest,

(1) a ~500m long strongly magnetic ridge, with a second ~150m long strongly magnetic ridge to the northeast, and

(2) a ~1.6km long magnetic ridge on the northern extremity of the Miki Dyke. These features were not drilled in 2021 and are likely to represent locations where deeper ultramafic rocks have been transported upward by the later Miki Dyke, as observed in the field (Figure 9).

10 Conico Ltd ASX: CNJ F:BDD

==> picture [199 x 48] intentionally omitted <==

In each zone, historic surface sampling identified elevated levels of copper, nickel, cobalt, and palladium hosted in magmatic sulphide blebs and globules. These zones are considered priority targets and are proposed to be drill tested this year.

==> picture [425 x 468] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 8 The Miki Prospect, with the Miki Dyke represented by magnetic lows (deep blue) oriented NNE-SSW. The magnetic ridges (magnetic highs in red) are indicated, as are drill collars and traces from 2021 drilling. Background is Total Magnetic Intensity (TMI).

11 Conico Ltd ASX: CNJ F:BDD

==> picture [199 x 48] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [429 x 287] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 9 Ultramafic xenoliths within the Miki Dyke, hammer for scale.

2.3. Cascata

2.3.1. Summary

The Cascata Prospect was newly identified in 2021 with the discovery made during field reconnaissance (Figure 3). It consists of volcano-sedimentary units with lenses of massive sulphide and a deeper gabbroic layered mafic intrusion, referred to as the ‘Aurora Intrusion’. Two drill-holes were completed with assays pending for the bottom of CADD001 (containing the Aurora Intrusion) and for all of CADD002. No geophysical data existed for Cascata prior to the data mentioned in this announcement.

2.3.2. Cascata Drill Geochemistry

Whole rock major element geochemistry of the sequence intercepted by drill CADD001 correlates to the observed sequence that corresponds to black shales and tuffs occasionally crosscut by igneous rocks.

Of interest are two mineralised areas within the black shales intercepted at ~150m and 180m depth with a substantial increase in iron (> 25% and 19% iron, respectively) associated to sulphur (>10% and 9%, respectively) compatible with the presence of iron as sulphide. This is confirmed by visual observation of coarse sulphide mineralisation pervasively replacing the black shale (Figure 10). These mineralised horizons show increased (relative to background) concentrations in copper (264ppm), zinc (230ppm) and lead (289ppm). However, it is the extreme enrichment in tin (389ppm - against ~2.1

12 Conico Ltd ASX: CNJ F:BDD

==> picture [199 x 48] intentionally omitted <==

ppm crustal values) and tungsten (75ppm - against ~1.9ppm crustal values) that gives more clues into the nature of the mineralising fluids suggesting metal transport from a relatively proximal magmatic source, considering that both elements are relatively immobile.

==> picture [407 x 153] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 10 Coarse grained sulphides (highlighted in green) hosted in black shales. The photo shows hole depth 151.3m – 155.75m in CADD001.

Assays are pending for the Aurora Intrusion, a layered gabbroic intrusion intersected at the base of CADD001 and for the entirety of CADD002. For the Aurora Intrusion, first pass analysis will be for copper and palladium which when plotted, can be used as an indicator for the likelihood and location of a mineralised reef horizon(s).

2.3.3. Cascata Geophysics

The magnetic data has identified volcano-sedimentary units and mafic sills/flows that are known to be present at this location. Magnetic data is not always well suited to identifying prospective localities for mafic volcano-sedimentary hosted massive sulphide (VHMS) however it is useful for constraining the area of interest where the volcano-sedimentary sequence is present (Figure 11).

The gabbroic layered mafic intrusion (LMI) ‘Aurora’ identified in the 2021 drilling is not readily identifiable in the magnetic data due to the intrusion being obscured by overlying sedimentary and volcanic units. The discovery drill-hole is however located ~2km south of an interpreted crustal-scale structure and the LMI may have been emplaced via this conduit.

13 Conico Ltd ASX: CNJ F:BDD

==> picture [199 x 48] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [423 x 460] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 11 The Cascata Prospect, with 2021 drill collars shown and background of Total Magnetic Intensity (TMI).

14 Conico Ltd ASX: CNJ F:BDD

==> picture [199 x 48] intentionally omitted <==

3. New Prospects

3.1. Pyramid

The Pyramid locality (Figure 3) contains the two most prominent features in the magnetic survey, consisting of two very strong magnetic highs (Figure 12). The main southern anomaly has an amplitude of 10,000 nT, while the smaller anomaly to the northwest has an amplitude of 3,000 nT. They are located on a peninsula situated ~10km SE of the Sortekap Prospect (where drilling intersected nickel sulphide and gold mineralisation in 2021).

==> picture [422 x 464] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 12 The Pyramid Prospect, with magnetic highs and nearby crustal-scale feature (white dashed line) indicated. The background image is Total Magnetic Intensity (TMI).

15 Conico Ltd ASX: CNJ F:BDD

==> picture [199 x 48] intentionally omitted <==

The majority of the peninsula consists of sediments; however, the locations of the magnetic anomalies differ significantly and are initially interpreted as igneous intrusions. The magnetic data shows a zone of magnetite destruction immediately to the west of the larger southern intrusion that may indicate a zone of hydrothermal alteration. Aerial reconnaissance photos of Pyramid were taken in 2021 (Figure 13) with visual observation suggesting the presence of oxidising minerals. No surface sampling or drilling has occurred to date.

Figure 13 The Pyramid Prospect, looking NW. Note the dark geology in the foreground that is likely to be the intrusive, relative to the lighter brown colour of the sediments in the background. A significant rust zone is present in the centre right of the photo.

During the geophysical data interpretation process (refer paragraph 2.4) the magnetic data was simulated to be captured at 1km flight height to remove near surface features, thereby leaving only stronger features behind such as crustal-scale features and revealing the persistence of the Pyramid Intrusion (Figure 14). A single intrusion at depth and two at surface, suggests that the intrusion bifurcated as it neared surface.

16 Conico Ltd ASX: CNJ F:BDD

==> picture [199 x 48] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [423 x 115] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [423 x 344] intentionally omitted <==

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

Pyramid Intrusion
----- End of picture text -----

Figure 14 Image of the Total Magnetic Intensity (TMI) upward continued by 1km height with a linear colour stretch overlain with interpreted major boundaries. The location of the Pyramid Intrusions is obvious and is highlighted.

17 Conico Ltd ASX: CNJ F:BDD

==> picture [199 x 48] intentionally omitted <==

3.2. Quest

Located in the SW of the Project area, at the head of J.C. Jacobsen Fjord, Quest is a feature identified in the magnetic data that is interpreted to represent an intrusion (Figures 3 & 15). Its surface expression is roughly circular with a diameter of ~700m (therefore an area of ~1.5km[2] ) and appears bound by N-S trending dykes on its east and west margins.

The anomaly is within a surface depression and may represent an eroded mafic-ultramafic intrusion that is considered prospective for precious and base metals. Historic stream sediment sampling in the vicinity (Figure 16, Table 2 & Annexure 4) was conducted by Platinova Resources Ltd in 1991, with their findings detailed in a field report that states:

“…extensive Cr, Ni, Cu anomalous zone from the west side of Schelderup Gletscher to the north-west end of Jacobsen Fjord” , and “The most remarkable feature is the Cr and Ni enhancement in Jacobsen Fjord, relatively to Ryberg and Nansen Fjord areas.”.

Platinova’s field sampling locations and anomalies are shown in Figure 16.

==> picture [376 x 186] intentionally omitted <==

Table 2 Historic stream sediment geochemistry results from Platinova Resources Ltd (1991).

18 Conico Ltd ASX: CNJ F:BDD

==> picture [199 x 48] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [423 x 466] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 15 The Quest Prospect is represented by the magnetic low (deep blue) and is bound by its east and west by dykes that are interpreted to have been emplaced along faults. Background is Total Magnetic Intensity (TMI).

19 Conico Ltd ASX: CNJ F:BDD

==> picture [199 x 48] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [424 x 464] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 16 The Quest Prospect (red) with satellite imagery as background and the sample location map from Platinova Resources Ltd (1991) overlayed, showing anomalous float sample locations for chromium, copper, and nickel.

3.3. Qiterpiaaneq

A large intrusion has been identified within the magnetic data, located in the central east of the Project area, and is referred to as the Qiterpiaaneq Prospect (Figure 3). The intrusion is interpreted to have an area of 15km[2] (3.5 km x 4.5 km), with its large dimensions suggesting it may represent a magma chamber. It lies adjacent to an interpreted crustal-scale structure, adding further support to the interpretation that it is an intrusion that migrated up a major structure (Figure 17).

20 Conico Ltd ASX: CNJ F:BDD

==> picture [199 x 48] intentionally omitted <==

The intrusion is emplaced at the interface between a basement gneiss, and overlying sediments which is typical for other magma chambers in the vicinity. To the east of the interpreted intrusion, Landsat 8 infrared bands indicate the presence of distinct clayrich zones in the host lithologies which may indicate alteration associated with its emplacement. If Qiterpiaaneq does represent a magma chamber, then it is prospective for PGEs, gold, and base metal mineralisation.

==> picture [411 x 453] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 17 The Qiterpiaaneq Prospect is circled (black dashed line) and an interpreted crustal-scale feature (white dashed line). Background is Total Magnetic Intensity (TMI).

21 Conico Ltd ASX: CNJ F:BDD

==> picture [199 x 48] intentionally omitted <==

3.4. Crustal-Scale Structures

The presence of regional crustal-scale structures has been known for some time, but their precise location and direction of movement has been ambiguous due to the lack of regional geophysics. In the interpretation process the magnetic data was simulated to be captured at 1km flight height to remove near surface features, thereby leaving only stronger features behind such as crustal-scale features (Figure 14).

Three NE-SW trending crustal-scale features are interpreted to be present, oriented subparallel with the coastline (Figure 18). The structural features are likely associated with the break-up of Greenland from north-western Europe during the opening of the North Atlantic.

The northern most structure is interpreted to be a normal fault, dipping to the southeast with a throw of 800-1,000m (Wager 1947). A strike-slip component is also evident, with a sinistral displacement of approximately 4km. This structure is referred to as the Sortekap Fault and is located just to the south of the 2020 Induced Polarisation (IP) geophysical survey and 2021 drill programme.

The middle and southern most crustal-scale structures do not display evidence of strikeslip movement and likely also dip to the south. In between each of the structures are an interpreted series of half grabens with the blocks tilted to the N-W. Conversely, the southernmost structure may be a normal fault dipping to the north in which case it marks the southern extent of a graben (with the Sortekap fault being the northern extent) that is ~38km wide and extends through the project area. Ground truthing is required to confirm which interpretation is correct.

22 Conico Ltd ASX: CNJ F:BDD

==> picture [199 x 48] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [425 x 463] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 18 Crustal-scale features (white dashed lines) on top of Total Magnetic Intensity (TMI).

23 Conico Ltd ASX: CNJ F:BDD

==> picture [199 x 48] intentionally omitted <==

4. 2022 Field Season

The 2021 drilling program together with the broad ranging geophysical survey has highlighted multiple prospects for a wide range of mineralisation styles that are worthy of follow up. Furthermore, field activities to date have highlighted the prospectivity of this largely unexplored terrane.

The Company is now embarking on detailed planning for the 2022 field season that will contemplate, budget permitting, follow up exploration on the targets detailed in this announcement.

In addition, Conico is also looking to embark on a drilling program at Mestersvig this year that will follow up on numerous high-grade rock chip assays, targets from the ground gravity survey and high-grade zinc intersections from historic drilling campaigns.

The Company is also examining various funding options for both Ryberg and Mestersvig and will update the market in due course.

For and on behalf of the board,

Guy T Le Page, FFIN, MAusIMM

Director

Guy Le Page is a director of Conico and was authorized to sign this announcement. For any queries regarding this announcement please contact Guy Le Page on +61 (8) 6380 9200.

24 Conico Ltd ASX: CNJ F:BDD

==> picture [199 x 48] intentionally omitted <==

Disclaimer

The interpretations and conclusions reached in this report are based on current geological theory and the best evidence available to the authors at the time of writing. It is the nature of all scientific conclusions that they are founded on an assessment of probabilities and, however high these probabilities might be, they make no claim for complete certainty. Any economic decisions that might be taken based on interpretations or conclusions contained in this report will therefore carry an element of risk.

This report contains forward-looking statements that involve a number of risks and uncertainties. These forward-looking statements are expressed in good faith and believed to have a reasonable basis. These statements reflect current expectations, intentions or strategies regarding the future and assumptions based on currently available information. Should one or more of the risks or uncertainties materialise, or should underlying assumptions prove incorrect, actual results may vary from the expectations, intentions and strategies described in this report. No obligation is assumed to update forward-looking statements if these beliefs, opinions, and estimates should change or to reflect other future developments.

Competent Person´s Statements

The information contained in this report relating to exploration results for the Greenland projects is based on information compiled or reviewed by Thomas Abraham-James, the CEO of Longland Resources Ltd. Mr. Abraham-James has a B.Sc. Hons (Geol) and is a Chartered Professional (CPGeo) and Fellow of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (FAusIMM). Mr. Abraham-James has sufficient experience of relevance to the styles of mineralisation and the types 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 Reserve Committee (JORC) “Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves". Mr. AbrahamJames consents to the inclusion in this report of the matters based on information in the form and context in which it appears.

25 Conico Ltd ASX: CNJ F:BDD

==> picture [199 x 48] intentionally omitted <==

Annexure 1: Significant Drill Results (>0.1% Ni and/or 1.0g/t Au, including internal dilution up to a maximum of 4m)

==> picture [426 x 313] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [426 x 313] intentionally omitted <==

Annexure 2: Collar Coordinates for all 2021 Ryberg Diamond Drill-Holes

26 Conico Ltd ASX: CNJ F:BDD

==> picture [199 x 48] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [429 x 219] intentionally omitted <==

27 Conico Ltd ASX: CNJ F:BDD

==> picture [199 x 48] intentionally omitted <==

Annexure 3: Drill Sections for all 2021 Ryberg Diamond Drill-Holes

==> picture [430 x 455] intentionally omitted <==

Green = >0.1% Ni Yellow = >0.1g/t Au Red = <0.1% Ni and/or <0.1g/t Au Purple = No assays

28 Conico Ltd ASX: CNJ F:BDD

==> picture [199 x 48] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [427 x 120] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [427 x 120] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [427 x 121] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [427 x 120] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [427 x 120] intentionally omitted <==

Green = >0.1% Ni Yellow = >0.1g/t Au Red = <0.1% Ni and/or <0.1g/t Au Purple = No assays

29 Conico Ltd ASX: CNJ F:BDD

==> picture [199 x 48] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [425 x 112] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [425 x 113] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [259 x 142] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [259 x 142] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [259 x 142] intentionally omitted <==

Green = >0.1% Ni Yellow = >0.1g/t Au Red = <0.1% Ni and/or <0.1g/t Au Purple = No assays

30 Conico Ltd ASX: CNJ F:BDD

==> picture [199 x 48] intentionally omitted <==

Annexure 4: JORC Code, 2012

Section 1: Sampling Techniques and Data

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.		•2021 Geophysics:The survey was flown by NRG using their Xplorer system which is a specialised industry standard measure- ment tool for the capture of magnetic, ra- diometric and elevation data. Data was acquired with a single sensor AEA univer- sal helistinger, NRG RDAS II acquisition sys- tem sampling at 20Hz, NRG RDAC II mag- netometer counter recording at 20Hz, Scintrex CS3 magnetometer sensor re- cording at 20Hz, Bartington fluxgate mag- netometer recording at 20Hz with a band- width of 0.3KHz, Radiation Solutions gamma-ray spectrometer with a measur- ing range of 0 – 3MeV, sodium iodide radi- ometric detector recording at 2Hz, Free Flight radar altimeter recording at 20Hz (accuracy at 0-10m = ±0.3m, 10-762m = ±0.5m), and SF-01 laser altimeter with a res- olution of 1cm recording at 20Hz. •2021 Diamond Drilling:Holes were drilled to variable depth dependent upon obser- vation from the supervising geologist. • Diamond drill-core is BTW diameter and was cut in half by a diamond saw on-site and half core sent to a laboratory for anal- ysis. •1991 Stream Sediment Sampling:No comment can be made as these details are not included in Platinova Resources Ltd’s report.
	Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample representivity and the appropriate calibration of any measurement tools or systems used.		•2021 Geophysics:A base station magne- tometer was used, when the diurnal varia- tion is greater than a 3.0 nT (peak to peak) deviation from a long chord equivalent to a period of one minute, the part of the sur- vey flown during that period must be re- flown. • A figure of merit was performed by car- rying out a series of rolls, pitches and yaws while flying parallel to both traverse and tie-line orientations at high altitude in the same magnetic latitude as the survey area. A high pass filter is used to remove long-wavelength geological response leaving the magnetic response which is primarily due to the residual response of the aircraft after compensation. The sum- mation of manoeuvre noise in four direc- tions must be less than 2 nT. • Several lines flown over a well-controlled magnetic feature are used to establish the lag and relationship between GPS and magnetic readings (parallax). • All data was verified by a third-party consultant only a weekly basis, with any in- consistent data re-flown.
			• The radar altimeter is calibrated at the start of every survey. •2021 Diamond Drilling:Sampling was undertaken using Longland Resources’

31 Conico Ltd ASX: CNJ F:BDD

==> picture [199 x 48] intentionally omitted <==

sampling protocols and QAQC procedures.

• 1991 Stream Sediment Sampling: No comment can be made as these details are not included in Platinova Resources Ltd’s report.

		sampling protocols and QAQC procedures. •1991 Stream Sediment Sampling:No comment can be made as these details are not included in Platinova Resources Ltd’s report.	sampling protocols and QAQC procedures. •1991 Stream Sediment Sampling:No comment can be made as these details are not included in Platinova Resources Ltd’s report.
	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 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 (e.g., submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed information.		•2021 Geophysics:The geophysical interpretation is based on data from the survey data and determination of mineralisation can only be made by field inspection. •2021 Diamond Drilling: Diamond drilling was used to obtain 42.5mm diameter core that was visually inspected by the supervising geologist with samples of interest halved (sample widths vary between 0.3m and 1.0m) then sent to a laboratory. The laboratory crushed, split, and pulverised to produce a 30g charge for assay. •1991 Stream Sediment Sampling:No comment can be made as these details are not included in Platinova Resources Ltd’s report.
Drilling techniques	Drill type (e.g., core, reverse circulation, open-hole hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc) and details (e.g., core diameter, triple or standard tube, depth of diamond tails, face- sampling bit or other type, whether core is oriented and if so, by what method, etc.).		•2021 Geophysics:Not applicable. •2021 Diamond Drilling:BTW diameter (42.5mm) drill core using standard tube. Down-hole surveys were taken using the Reflex Gyro Sprint-IQ and Reflex EZ-Trac. Core orientations were taken using the Reflex ACT III. •1991 Stream Sediment Sampling:Not applicable.
Drill sample recovery	Method of recording and assessing core and chip sample recoveries and results assessed.		•2021 Geophysics:Not applicable. •2021 Diamond Drilling:Diamond drillers measure core recoveries for every drill run completed using either 3m or 10ft core barrels. The core recovery is also physically measured by a technician using a tape measure for every “run”. •1991 Stream Sediment Sampling:Not applicable.
	Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and ensure representative nature of the samples.		•2021 Geophysics:Not applicable. •2021 Diamond Drilling: The drillers utilised their expertise and drill additives to maximise sample recovery. Diamond drill core by its nature collects relatively uncontaminated samples. All core is cleaned before sampled. •1991 Stream Sediment Sampling:No comment can be made as these details are not included in Platinova Resources Ltd’s report.
	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.		•2021 Geophysics:Not applicable. •2021 Diamond Drilling: There was no significant loss of material in the reported mineralised intervals. •1991 Stream Sediment Sampling:Not applicable.

32 Conico Ltd ASX: CNJ F:BDD

==> picture [199 x 48] intentionally omitted <==

Logging	Whether core and chip samples have been geologically and geotechnically logged to a level of detail to support appropriate Mineral Resource estimation, mining studies and metallurgical studies.		•2021 Geophysics:Not applicable. •2021 Diamond Drilling:Drill-holes were logged for lithology, alteration, mineralisation, structure, weathering, wetness, and obvious contamination by a geologist. Data is then captured in a database appropriate for mineral resource estimation. •1991 Stream Sediment Sampling:Not applicable.
	Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc.) photography.		•2021 Geophysics:Not applicable. •2021 Diamond Drilling:All core logging is qualitative. Photos have been taken for all trays of drill core. •1991 Stream Sediment Sampling:Not applicable.
	The total length and percentage of the relevant intersections logged.		•2021 Geophysics:Not applicable. •2021 Diamond Drilling:In their entirety. •1991 Stream Sediment Sampling:Not applicable.
Sub- sampling techniques and sample preparation	If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, half or all core taken.		•2021 Geophysics:Not applicable. •2021 Diamond Drilling:Cut in half using a core saw with a diamond blade. •1991 Stream Sediment Sampling:Not applicable.
	If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc and whether sampled wet or dry.		•2021 Geophysics:Not applicable. •2021 Diamond Drilling:Not applicable. •1991 Stream Sediment Sampling:Not applicable.
	For all sample types, the nature, quality, and appropriateness of the sample preparation technique.		•2021 Geophysics:Not applicable. •2021 Diamond Drilling:The sample prep- aration technique is judged appropriate for the sample type and mineralisation style being tested. - All core was marked up for sampling by qualified geologists prior to core cutting. Sample lengths range from 0.3 to 1.0m. Sample prepara- tion comprised industry standard oven drying, crushing, and pulverising. Homog- enised pulp material was used for assay- ing. •1991 Stream Sediment Sampling:No comment can be made as these details are not included in Platinova Resources Ltd’s report.
	Quality control procedures adopted for all sub-sampling stages to maximise representivity of samples.		•2021 Geophysics:Not applicable. •2021 Diamond Drilling:No sub-sampling occurred. •1991 Stream Sediment Sampling:No comment can be made as these details are not included in Platinova Resources Ltd’s report.
	Measures taken to ensure that the		•2021 Geophysics: Not applicable.

33 Conico Ltd ASX: CNJ F:BDD

==> picture [199 x 48] intentionally omitted <==

	sampling is representative of the in- situ material collected, including for instance results for field duplicate/second-half sampling.		• 2021 Diamond Drilling: No field duplicates or second half sampling occurred. •1991 Stream Sediment Sampling:No comment can be made as these details are not included in Platinova Resources Ltd’s report.
	Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grain size of the material being sampled.		•2021 Geophysics:Not applicable. •2021 Diamond Drilling:Halved 42.5mm drill core is deemed appropriate for this early-stage reconnaissance drilling. No detailed grain size analysis of mineralised intersections has occurred; therefore, no further comment can be made. •1991 Stream Sediment Sampling:No comment can be made as these details are not included in Platinova Resources Ltd’s report.
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.		•2021 Geophysics:Not applicable. •2021 Diamond Drilling:Samples were assayed by independent certified commercial laboratories (Intertek Group plc and SGS laboratories). The laboratories are experienced in the preparation and analysis of base and precious metal sulphide ores. Samples analysed at Intertek via (1) lead collection fire assay ICP-MS for precious metals which is considered total and (2) four acid digestion with MS for the other elements and is considered near total. Samples analysed at SGS via (1) lead collection fire assay ICP-OES for precious metals which is considered total and (2) sodium peroxide fusion with ICP-OES for the other elements and is considered total. •1991 Stream Sediment Sampling:No comment can be made as these details are not included in Platinova Resources Ltd’s report.
	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.		• The different survey data was collected simultaneously using NRG’s Xplorer system. Flight lines were oriented E-W at a spacing of 200m (except at the Miki and Sortekap Prospects where spacing was 100m), with tie lines-oriented N-S at a spacing of 2,000m (except at the Miki and Sortekap where spacing was 1,000m). Total flight distance was 24,215-line km flown at a nominal altitude of 20-25m. Data was acquired with a single sensor AEA universal helistinger, NRG RDAS II acquisition system sampling at 20Hz, NRG

34 Conico Ltd ASX: CNJ F:BDD

==> picture [199 x 48] intentionally omitted <==

			RDAC II magnetometer counter recording at 20Hz, Scintrex CS3 magnetometer sensor recording at 20Hz, Bartington fluxgate magnetometer recording at 20Hz with a bandwidth of 0.3KHz, Radiation Solutions gamma-ray spectrometer with a measuring range of 0 – 3MeV, sodium iodide radiometric detector recording at 2Hz, Free Flight radar altimeter recording at 20Hz (accuracy at 0-10m = ±0.3m, 10- 762m = ±0.5m), and SF-01 laser altimeter with a resolution of 1cm recording at 20Hz. • 2021 Diamond Drilling: Not applicable. •1991 Stream Sediment Sampling: Not applicable.
	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.		•2021 Geophysics:Not applicable. •2021 Diamond Drilling: Internal laboratory checks were used, and an acceptable level of accuracy was achieved (i.e., 2 standard deviations). •1991 Stream Sediment Sampling:No comment can be made as these details are not included in Platinova Resources Ltd’s report.
Verification of sampling and assaying	The verification of significant intersections by either independent or alternative company personnel.		•2021 Geophysics:All data was verified by ExploreGeo Pty Ltd, an independent geophysical consultancy. • 2021 Diamond Drilling: Significant intersections have been verified by alternative qualified company personnel. •1991 Stream Sediment Sampling:No comment can be made as these details are not included in Platinova Resources Ltd’s report.
	The use of twinned holes.		•2021 Geophysics:Not applicable. •2021 Diamond Drilling:No twinned holes were drilled. •1991 Stream Sediment Sampling:Not applicable.
	Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data verification, data storage (physical and electronic) protocols.		• 2021 Geophysics: All data was transmitted directly from the geophysical contractor to the independent geophysicist via internet transfer. Backups were kept on site by the contractor on laptop and external hard drive. •2021 Diamond Drilling:All drill data was captured on site using company laptops and GPS. Drill data was entered into Microsoft Excel and has since been exported to a Maxwell DataShed industry specific database. While on site, all data was backed up daily onto a cloud server and external hard drive. Hardcopy data such as daily drill sheets were scanned and backed up onto the cloud and external hard drive. After returning from site, all data was uploaded to the

35 Conico Ltd ASX: CNJ F:BDD

==> picture [199 x 48] intentionally omitted <==

			Company’s server and backed up on the cloud. •1991 Stream Sediment Sampling:No comment can be made as these details are not included in Platinova Resources Ltd’s report.
	Discuss any adjustment to assay data.		•2021 Geophysics:Not applicable. •2021 Diamond Drilling:No adjustments have been made. •1991 Stream Sediment Sampling:Given the absence of detailed historical infor- mation relating to the assay data, no ad- justment to the assay data has been made. The data has been reported as it was recorded in the original documenta- tion.
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.		•2021 Geophysics:Not applicable. •2021 Diamond Drilling:Drill hole collar lo- cations were recorded using a Garmin handheld GPS which has an accuracy of <8m. Down-hole surveys were recorded using either a Reflex Gyro Sprint-IQ tool or Reflex EZ-Trac. •1991 Stream Sediment Sampling:No accurate survey data exists, only approximate locations indicated on a scanned topographic map.
	Specification of the grid system used.		•2021 Geophysics:UTM WGS84 Zone 25N. •2021 Diamond Drilling:UTM WGS84 Zone 25N. •1991 Stream Sediment Sampling:No grid system is reported as being used.
	Quality and adequacy of topographic control.		• 2021 Geophysics: Topographic information was sourced from the Greenland Mapping Project (GIMP) digital elevation model (30m accuracy). •2021 Diamond Drilling:Topographic information was sourced from the Greenland Mapping Project (GIMP) digital elevation model (30m accuracy). •1991 Stream Sediment Sampling:There is no mention of topographic control in the Platinova Resources Ltd report.
Data spacing and distribution	Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results.		•2021 Geophysics:Flight lines were oriented E-W at a spacing of 200m (except at the Miki and Sortekap Prospects where spacing was 100m), with tie lines-oriented N-S at a spacing of 2,000m (except at the Miki and Sortekap where spacing was 1,000m). Total flight distance was 24,215- line km flown at a nominal altitude of 20- 25m. •2021 Diamond Drilling:Drill-holes are not located in a grid pattern; they were

36 Conico Ltd ASX: CNJ F:BDD

==> picture [199 x 48] intentionally omitted <==

			selected based on specific technical and access controls. •1991 Stream Sediment Sampling:The Platinova Resources Ltd report indicates that stream sediment samples were taken where streams were present.
	Whether the data spacing, and distribution is sufficient to establish the degree of geological and grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve estimation procedure(s) and classifications applied.		•2021 Geophysics:Not applicable. •2021 Diamond Drilling:The data spacing is not deemed to be sufficient for this criterion. Drill spacing was based on geological criteria and is exploratory in nature. •1991 Stream Sediment Sampling:The data spacing is not deemed to be sufficient for this criterion. Stream sediment spacing was based on the presence of streams and is exploratory in nature.
	Whether sample compositing has been applied.		•2021 Geophysics:Not applicable. •2021 Diamond Drilling:No sample compositing was applied. •1991 Stream Sediment Sampling:No comment can be made as these details are not included in Platinova Resources Ltd’s report.
Orientation of data in relation to geological structure	Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased sampling of possible structures and the extent to which this is known, considering the deposit type.		•2021 Geophysics:The survey flight lines were flown E-W, which is adjacent to most geological structures under investigation and therefore considered to be unbiased. •2021 Diamond Drilling:The orientation of the drilling is approximately perpendicular to the strike and dip of the geophysi- cal/lithological target and therefore should not be biased.
			•1991 Stream Sediment Sampling:Not applicable.
	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.		•2021 Geophysics:Not applicable. •2021 Diamond Drilling:There are no known biases caused by the orientation of the drill holes. •1991 Stream Sediment Sampling:Not applicable.
Sample security	The measures taken to ensure sample security.		•2021 Geophysics:Three hard drives containing the geophysical data were distributed, then loaded to a secure server when in Iceland. •2021 Diamond Drilling:Samples were taken from the field to storage on the charter vessel where the core processing facilities were. From there they were either flown or shipped to Iceland on a private charter. They were then transported by courier directly to Intertek, or via secure shipping container to SGS. •1991 Stream Sediment Sampling:No comment can be made as these details are not included in Platinova Resources Ltd’s report.

37 Conico Ltd ASX: CNJ F:BDD

==> picture [199 x 48] intentionally omitted <==

Audits or reviews	The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data.		•2021 Geophysics:The raw geophysical data collected by the contractor was reviewed by Kim Frankcombe of ExploreGeo Pty Ltd. •2021 Diamond Drilling:No audits or re- views of the sampling techniques and data have been undertaken. •1991 Stream Sediment Sampling:No audits or reviews of the sampling techniques and data have been undertaken.

38 Conico Ltd ASX: CNJ F:BDD

==> picture [199 x 48] intentionally omitted <==

Section 2: Reporting of Exploration Results

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Mineral tenement and land tenure status	Type, reference name/number, location and ownership including agreements or material issues with third parties such as joint ventures, partnerships, overriding royalties, native title interests, historical sites, wilderness or national park and environmental settings.	• The Ryberg Project is wholly within Mineral Exploration Licences 2017/06 and 2019/38, located on the east coast of Greenland. They are held 100% by Longland Resources Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of Conico Ltd.
	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.	• The tenure is secure and in good standing at the time of writing. There are no known impediments.
Exploration done by other parties	Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties.	• Previous exploration was conducted by Platinova Resources Ltd, Platina Resources Ltd and the University of Leicester. This consists of outcrop/stream sampling and geochemistry.
Geology	Deposit type, geological setting, and style of mineralisation.	• Deposit types: magmatic sulphide, orogenic gold, and volcano-sedimentary hosted massive sulphide. • Geological setting: The project area is located within the North Atlantic Igneous Province (NAIP), a Tertiary volcanic centre that covered an area of approximately 1.3 million km2 in continental flood basalts (6.6 million km3 in volume), making it one of the largest volcanic events in history. Volcanism is associated with the opening of the North Atlantic, and presence of a mantle plume (what is now the Icelandic hotspot). The project area represents an erosional interface where the flood basalts have been removed, revealing the basement geology beneath. The project area is adjacent to a triple junction (failed rift) and consists of Archaean orthogneiss, Tertiary gabbro/flood basalt, and Cretaceous-Tertiary sediments (rift valley basin). Approximately 70% of the geology within the sedimentary basin has been intruded by Tertiary sills that are feeders to the overlying plateau basalts. There are also feeder dykes and layered mafic intrusions – it is likely that there is also a large ultramafic body present at depth, evidence for this is in the form of ultramafic xenoliths brought to surface by magma conduits. • Style of mineralisation: (1) massive/disseminated/vein magmatic copper and nickel sulphides with appreciable cobalt, palladium, and gold. (2) gold in quartz veins. (3) massive sulphide

39 Conico Ltd ASX: CNJ F:BDD

==> picture [199 x 48] intentionally omitted <==

			VHMS.
Drill hole Information	A summary of all information material to the understanding of the exploration results including a tabulation of the following information for all Material drill holes: - easting and northing of the drill hole collar - elevation or RL (Reduced Level – elevation above sea level in metres) of the drill hole collar - dip and azimuth of the hole - down hole length and interception depth - hole length.		•2021 Geophysics:Not applicable. •2021 Diamond Drilling:Refer to Table 1 and Annexes 1, 2 & 3. •1991 Stream Sediment Sampling:Refer to Table 2 and Annex 4. Only assays are available and approximate locations (Figure 16).
	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.		•2021 Geophysics:Not applicable. •2021 Diamond Drilling:This is not the case. •1991 Stream Sediment Sampling:Much of this data does not exist due to the historic nature of the stream sediment sampling and not being recorded in the field report that the Company has in its possession.
Data aggregation methods	In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging techniques, maximum and/or minimum 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.		•2021 Geophysics:No data aggregation occurred. •2021 Diamond Drilling:Reported assays in the body of the report have been length weight averaged and use a cut-off of >0.1% nickel or 1.0g/t gold, over a minimum intercept length of 1.0m with a maximum of 4m internal dilution. •1991 Stream Sediment Sampling:No comment can be made as these details are not included in Platinova Resources Ltd’s report.
	The assumptions used for any reporting of metal equivalent values should be clearly stated.		• Metal equivalents have not been used.
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’).		•2021 Geophysics:Not applicable. •2021 Diamond Drilling:The geometry of the mineralisation with respect to the drill- hole angle is not known. • Down hole length, true width not known. •1991 Stream Sediment Sampling:Not applicable.

40 Conico Ltd ASX: CNJ F:BDD

==> picture [199 x 48] intentionally omitted <==

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.		•2021 Geophysics:Not applicable. •2021 Diamond Drilling:Refer Figures 7, 8, & 11 and Annex 3. •1991 Stream Sediment Sampling:Not applicable.
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.		•2021 Geophysics:Not applicable. •2021 Diamond Drilling:All assay data that has been reported is in Annex 1. •1991 Stream Sediment Sampling:All assay data that has been reported is in Annex 4.
Other substantive exploration data	Other exploration data, if meaningful and material, should be reported including (but not limited to): geological observations; geophysical survey results; geochemical survey results; bulk samples – size and method of treatment; metallurgical test results; bulk density, groundwater, geotechnical and rock characteristics; potential deleterious or contaminating substances.		• The historical rock-chip precious metal tenors and other observations are published in Holwell et al, Mineralium Deposita, 2012, 47:3-21. • Conico announcement dated 29 July 2020, ‘Conico to acquire east Greenland projects via acquisition of Longland re- sources.
Further work	The nature and scale of planned further work (e.g., tests for lateral extensions or depth extensions or large-scale step-out drilling).		• Diamond drilling of known targets identified in the geophysical surveys.
	Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions, including the main geological interpretations and future drilling areas, provided this information is not commercially sensitive.		• Figures 3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17 & 18.

41 Conico Ltd ASX: CNJ F:BDD