DART MINING NL — Interim / Quarterly Report 2015

Oct 15, 2015

Report for the Quarter Update Ended 30 September 2015

16 October 2015

ASX Code: DTM

Key Projects:

Unicorn Porphyry: Mo-Cu-Ag

Copper Quarry: Cu-Au Gentle Annie: Cu

Morgan Porphyry: Mo-Ag-Au

Fairley’s: Au Mountain View: Au

Investment Data: Shares on issue: 243,257,892 Unlisted options: 15,473,048

Substantial Shareholders: Top 20 Holdings: 51.13%

Corporate Update

• A review of the Company’s direction and strategy was implemented over the course of the period.

• Further study around the immediate viability of the Mt Unicorn Mo-Cu-Ag project was undertaken and completed.

• Conclusions drawn from the Mt Unicorn project study indicate that for the time being economic risks around further work and development are too great to proceed with any substantial expenditure and development at this time.

• The board continues to seek potential joint venture partners for the Mt Unicorn project which may materialize over time as and when a recovery in the Mo price is seen as sustainable.

• The board adopted a recommendation to pursue the acquisition and development of more Au projects that fit predetermined criteria. These criteria are limited by Geographic location, Project size (large and small), as well as Financial capacity to execute such ventures.

• Development work on Mt View progressed as the company seeks to bring the project into production.

Board & Management: Managing Director: James Chirnside Non-Executive Director: Luke Robinson Non-Executive Director: Russell Simpson Company Secretary: Julie Edwards

Dart Mining NL ACN 119 904 880

Contact Details:

4 Bryant Street, Corryong VIC 3707 Australia

James Chirnside

Phone: +61 (0)498 732 742 Email: jchirnside@dartmining.com.au

Visit our webpage: www.dartmining.com.au

• On-going Au opportunities and negotiations are the Company’s primary focus for the immediate future.

• At the end of the quarter the Company’s cash position stood at approximately $683,000.

Unicorn Project – Study Update

The key findings and assumptions around the 27 May ASX Announcement concerning the Unicorn Project are being documented in a detailed report by Metallurgist Colin Seaborn. This report will pull together the findings and extensive test work conducted as part of the ongoing study since May 2014. The study was commissioned by the Board to clarify the level of accuracy for each aspect of the various studies undertaken as input into the 27 May ASX release. The market has previously been informed (latest as of 26 September 2014 in the company Annual Report) that a Prefeasibility Study (PFS) would be completed for the Unicorn Project by June 2015 – being part of the $9.9M Strategic Plan (ASX release 24 March 2014). A PFS is generally accepted as having a +/- 25% level of accuracy for the input data, this allows economic assessments to be made of projects within this level of confidence. The previous reporting around the confidence level (accuracy) of the various studies has been confusing, firstly being referred to as an industry standard PFS (Prefeasibility Study) in the March 24 2014 ASX release, then as a Project Study in the 2015 March 31 Quarterly Report and finally as a Project Definition Study (PDS) in the 27 May release. The Unicorn Project PFS Update report seeks to identify where each key aspect of the project is with respect to the desired PFS level of accuracy.

GOLD ASSET DEVELOPMENT UPDATE

Following the appointment of a new Board at the general meeting (18 June 2015), the main focus of exploration has been on further work around the known gold prospects within the tenement package. The approved Mountain View Mining Licence (ML5559) and gold mineralisation identified at the Onslow Reefs and Fairley’s prospects have been further reviewed with the aim of assessing the viability of each prospect for gold production (Figure 1).

==> picture [429 x 525] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 1. Key Prospect Location Plan.

2

MOUNTAIN VIEW PROJECT

Scoping level mine design and costing aspects of the proposed Mountain View open pit have been completed with bulk sampling now necessary to complete detailed metallurgical studies. A work plan has been submitted to carry out the bulk sampling program, with approvals expected early in the next quarter. The bulk sampling will provide recovery details and indicate the best toll treatment facility for the ore style, this will also allow negotiations to be finalized on treatment costs and allow completion of a preliminary economic assessment of the Mountain View mineralisation.

A program of targeted infill soil geochemistry using a portable XRF (pXRF) has recently been completed. The infill soil traverses test a 1.2km long area to the north of the previously conducted Mountain View gold soil grid (Figure 2). The results have been very encouraging, confirming previous board scale soil geochemistry lines that showed anomalous gold and arsenic in soils around the historic workings of the New Discovery mine, some 1.3km north of the Mountain View mine. The recent infill soil survey has now identified four arsenic in soil anomalies up to 350m in length from insitu B horizon soil sampling, the soil traverses are spaced at 20m along the strike of mineralisation and each sample is collected at 5m intervals across strike (Figure 2). This soil survey highlights the likely repetition of gold mineralised sulphide lenses; the most northern arsenic anomaly (350m in length) corresponds with the historic New Discovery lens. Previous rock chip sampling (See ASX DTM 12 March 2009) has shown up to 1.5m @ 5.38 g/t Au within the historic workings. The potential for the repetition of mineralised pods along the strike of the Brown’s Creek fault had already been established to the south of the Mountain View mine with further historic workings located at the South Golden Bell, also showing corresponding elevated arsenic in soil. Discreet arsenic in soil anomalies along the Mountain View line are now evident over some 2 km of strike length with six zones currently identified that are worthy of first pass shallow drilling.

FAIRLEY’S PROJECT

A mineralisation Report is currently being prepared for the Fairley’s Project using all available drill and rock chip data to model the currently tested near surface mineralisation. The mineralisation report will accompany an application for the renewal of the Buckland EL4724 (Figure 1). The completed pXRF soil sample traverses at Fairley’s have highlighted the growing scope of the system to host multiple outcropping mineralised zones over the completed 800m of the survey grid (Figure 3) as well as the deeper potential already identified in the previous diamond drilling. The two additional soil traverses at the far south of the grid have again shown some very exciting results with highly anomalous soil arsenic levels up to 450m in width, the highest arsenic in soil levels within this southern zone may correspond with a new Central Shear (identified during early exploration mapping) and the strike extension of the western lines toward the western end of the traverses. The new central zone and the previously identified anomalies clearly warrant drill testing and require the preparation of a new work plan for drilling and drill access track construction. The mineralisation report and EL4724 (Buckland) renewal application will be the focus of the next Quarter, with additional soil traverses and work plan preparation for further drilling planned for the March 2016 Quarter.

ONSLOW REEFS PROSPECT

A small program of RC drilling that was scheduled for the September Quarter at the Onslow Reefs was deferred pending the outcome of detailed metallurgical test work on the Mountain View mineralisation and completion of the scoping level economic viability study. Outcomes of the Mountain View study are likely to be directly applicable to the Onslow Reefs system with a similar silica / sulphide mineralisation style.

3

==> picture [330 x 649] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 2. Infill pXRF Soil As geochemistry colour contour over previous gold soil results – north of Mountain View pit and approved Mining Licence ML5559. Plan also shows previous rock chip and grab sampling at the New Discovery Mine.

4

==> picture [511 x 353] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3. pXRF Soil As geochemistry colour contour over topography showing the location of historic workings and various parallel and strike extensions of mineralised shear systems at Fairley’s Project – Buckland EL4724.

Tenement Status Report as at September 30 2015

Renewal applications for EL4724 (Buckland) and EL4726 (Dart) are being prepared for submission early in the next Quarter. The majority of the key projects are located inside these two tenements with ongoing exploration planned ahead of further resource estimation and subsequent application for either additional mining licenses (ML) or retention licenses (RL).

Tenement Number	Name	Area(Grats)	Interest	Location
EL4724	Buckland2	82	100%	NE Victoria
EL4726	Dart1&2	680	100%	NE Victoria
EL5058	Cudgewa	413	100%	NE Victoria
EL5194	Mt. Alfred	51	100%	NE Victoria
EL5467	Mcormacks	92	100%	NE Victoria
EL5468	Upper Murray	198	100%	NE Victoria
ML5559	Mt View	4.8	100%	NE Victoria

All tenements remain in good standing at 30 September 2015.

NOTE 1: Unicorn Project area subject to a 2% NSR Royalty agreement with BCKP Limited (Orion Mine Finance) dated 29 April 2013.

NOTE 2: Areas subject to a 1.5% Founders NSR Royalty Agreement

5

Competent Persons Statement

The information in this report that relates to Exploration Results is based on information compiled by Dean Turnbull B.App.Sc.(Geol) Hons. M. AIG, a Competent Person who is a Member of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists. Mr Turnbull is a full time employee of Dart Mining NL. Mr Turnbull has sufficient experience that is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposits under consideration and to the activity being undertaken to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the “Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves”. Mr Turnbull consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears.

JORC CODE, 2012 EDITION – TABLE 1

SECTION 1 SAMPLING TECHNIQUES AND DATA

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Sampling	 Nature and quality of sampling (e.g. cut channels,	Hand held XRF (pXRF)
techniques	random chips, or specific specialised industry standard measurement tools appropriate to the minerals under	analysis is performed on the samples from the top of the
	investigation, such as down hole gamma sondes, or	clay layer (B-Horizon) without
	handheld XRF instruments, etc.). These examples	pulverization.
	should not be taken as limiting the broad meaning of	XRF calibration is examined
	sampling.	using duplicate samples
	 Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample	submitted for commercial
	representivity and the appropriate calibration of any	assay analysis and the
	measurement tools or systems used.	equivalent XRF sample data
	 Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are	compared where possible.
	Material to the Public Report.	Assay standards are also
	 In cases where ‘industry standard’ work has been done	included in sampling programs
	this would be relatively simple (e.g. ‘reverse circulation	to establish accuracy. Sample
	drilling was used to obtain 1 m samples from which 3	representivity is examined by
	kg was pulverised to produce a 30 g charge for fire	comparison of adjacent
	assay’). In other cases more explanation may be	samples – data is reviewed
	required, such as where there is coarse gold that has	during interpretation where
	inherent sampling problems. Unusual commodities or	geochemical results are
	mineralisation types (e.g. submarine nodules) may	compared against the
	warrant disclosure of detailed information.	geological setting, previous
		results and standard reference
		material values.
		Chip sampling (where
		reported) is carried out along a
		marked line, perpendicular to
		the strike of the mineralisation,
		as a series of closely spaced
		rock chips within a 50 –
		100mm halo to the sample
		line. Samples are generally 2
		– 3 kg in size, the samples are
		shipped to the laboratory,
		dried, crushed and whole
		sample pulverised prior to riffle
		splitting for assay.
Drilling	 Drill type (e.g. core, reverse circulation, open-hole	NA
techniques	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.). _

6

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Drill sample	 Method of recording and assessing core and chip		NA
recovery	sample recoveries and results assessed.
	 Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and
	ensure representative nature of the samples.
	 Whether a relationship exists between sample recovery
	and grade and whether sample bias may have occurred
	due topreferential loss/gain of fine/coarse material.
Logging	 Whether core and chip samples have been geologically		NA
	and geotechnically logged to a level of detail to support
	appropriate Mineral Resource estimation, mining
	studies and metallurgical studies.
	 Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in nature.
	Core (or costean, channel, etc.) photography.
	 The total length and percentage of the relevant
	intersections logged.
Sub-sampling	 If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, half		NA
techniques	or all core taken.
and sample preparation	 If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc. and whether sampled wet or dry.  For all sample types, the nature, quality and
	appropriateness of the sample preparation technique.
	 Quality control procedures adopted for all sub-sampling
	stages to maximise representivity of samples.
	 Measures taken to ensure that the sampling is
	representative of the in situ material collected, including
	for instance results for field duplicate/second-half
	sampling.
	 Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grain size
	of the material being sampled.
Quality of	 The nature, quality and appropriateness of the assaying		Soil gold levels (where
assay data and laboratory tests	and laboratory procedures used and whether the technique is considered partial or total.  For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF instruments, etc., the parameters used in determining the analysis including instrument make and model,		determined) use ALS technique Au-AA22, which is a low detection limit (0.001ppm) technique commonly used in
	reading times, calibrations factors applied and their		geochemical investigations.
	derivation, etc.
	 Nature of quality control procedures adopted (e.g.
	standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory
	checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (i.e.
	lack of bias) andprecision have been established.
Verification	 The verification of significant intersections by either		Verification of significant
of sampling and assaying	independent or alternative company personnel.  The use of twinned holes.  Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures,		intersections were made by alternative company personnel.
	data verification, data storage (physical and electronic)		Data were logged onto paper
	protocols.		and transferred to a
	 Discuss any adjustment to assay data.		spreadsheet and checked
			Electronic only assay data is
			imported into a spreadsheet
			from the laboratory’s electronic
			data or the pXRF unit.

7

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Location of	 Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drill	Hand held GPS locations mark
data points	holes (collar and down-hole surveys), trenches, mine workings and other locations used in Mineral Resource	the start and end of each soil line, soil sample locations are
	estimation.	then either located by GPS or
	 Specification of the grid system used.	measured offsets along soil
	 Quality and adequacy of topographic control.	lines by tape and compass
		(corrected for slope) –
		Absolute location accuracy is
		+/- 10 – 15m.
		All maps, plans and data are
		on an MGA datum and GDA94
		zone 55 projection.
		Elevation is established from
		government 10 and 20m
		contour mapping.
Data spacing	 Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results.	Soil data spacing varies across
and	 Whether the data spacing and distribution is sufficient	prospects and different
distribution	to establish the degree of geological and grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral Resource and Ore	mineralisation styles – spacing is based on expected
	Reserve estimation procedure(s) and classifications	continuity of mineralisation, no
	applied.	data compositing or
	 Whether sample compositing has been applied.	manipulation is carried out.
Orientation of	 Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased	Soil sampling lines are,
data in	sampling of possible structures and the extent to which	wherever possible, oriented as
relation to geological structure	this is known, considering the deposit type.  If the relationship between the drilling orientation and the orientation of key mineralised structures is considered to have introduced a sampling bias, this	close to perpendicular as possible to the expected strike of mineralisation.
	should be assessed and reported if material.
Sample	 The measures taken to ensure sample security.	All samples submitted for
security		commercial assay analysis are placed in sealed polyweave
		bags and delivered to a
		commercial transport company
		for delivery to the laboratory.
		Any evidence of sample
		damage or tampering is
		immediately reported by the
		laboratory to the company and
		a decision made as to the
		integrity of the sample and the
		remaining samples within the
		damaged / tampered bag/s.
Audits or	 The results of any audits or reviews of sampling	An internal review of
reviews	techniques and data.	procedures, operations,
		sampling techniques and
		analytical techniques was
		made by Dart Mining.

8

SECTION 2 REPORTING OF EXPLORATION RESULTS

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary	Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary	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 security of the tenure held at the time of reporting along with any known impediments to obtaining a licence to operate in the area. Tenement Number Name Area (Grats) Interest Location EL4724 Buckland2 82 100% NE Victoria EL4726 Dart1&2 680 100% NE Victoria EL5058 Cudgewa 413 100% NE Victoria EL5194 Mt. Alfred 51 100% NE Victoria EL5467 Mcormacks 92 100% NE Victoria EL5468 Upper Murray 198 100% NE Victoria MIN5559 Mt View 4.8 100 NE Victoria Renewal applications for EL4724 (Buckland) and EL4726 (Dart) are being prepared for submission early in the next Quarter. All tenements remain in good standing at 30 September 2015.NOTE 1:Unicorn Project area subject to a 2% NSR Royalty agreement with BCKP Limited (Orion Mine Finance) dated 29 April 2013.NOTE 2:* Areas subject to a 1.5% Founders NSR Royalty Agreement	Tenement Number	Name	Area (Grats)	Interest	Location
	EL4724	Buckland2	82	100%	NE Victoria
	EL4726*	Dart1&2	680	100%	NE Victoria
	EL5058	Cudgewa	413	100%	NE Victoria
	EL5194	Mt. Alfred	51	100%	NE Victoria
	EL5467	Mcormacks	92	100%	NE Victoria
	EL5468	Upper Murray	198	100%	NE Victoria
	MIN5559	Mt View	4.8	100	NE Victoria
Exploration done by other parties  Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties. No reported soil surveys have been conducted at the Fairley’s Project by previous explorers. Very limited broad scale soil lines were carried out at the Mountain View Project area by Tanganyika Holdings and Border Gold – sample density was not adequate to assist in the detailed understanding of shoot scale sulphide lens distribution.
Geology  Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation. Fairley’s is an orogenic fault-hosted gold system consisting of mineralisation associated with silicification and clay alteration with fine disseminated sulphide. The disseminated gold mineralisation is associated with fine arsenopyrite within sheared sediments. Mountain View mineralisation is fault hosted and consists of a silica sulphide alteration with associated fine gold. Mineralisation occurs within dilatation sites along the Browns Creek fault within the Wabisco Shale.
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: 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. NA

9

Data	 In reporting Exploration Results, weighting	NA
aggregation methods	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.
	 The assumptions used for any reporting of
	metal equivalent values should be clearly
	stated.
Relationship	 These relationships are particularly important	NA
between	in the reporting of Exploration Results.
mineralisation	 If the geometry of the mineralisation with
widths and intercept lengths	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’). _
Diagrams	 Appropriate maps and sections (with scales)	NA
	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.
Balanced	 Where comprehensive reporting of all	All significant / relevant precious or
reporting	Exploration Results is not practicable, representative reporting of both low and high	pathfinder elements are reported with either assay value in full or presented to
	grades and/or widths should be practiced to	display the full range of assay data
	avoid misleading reporting of Exploration	returned.
	Results.
Other	 Other exploration data, if meaningful and	Any other relevant information is
substantive	material, should be reported including (but not	discussed in the main body of the report.
exploration data	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.
Further work	 The nature and scale of planned further work	Planned work is discussed in the body of
	(e.g. tests for lateral extensions or depth	the report and is dependent on future
	extensions or large-scale step-out drilling).	company direction.
	 Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of
	possible extensions, including the main
	geological interpretations and future drilling
	areas, provided this information is not
	commercially sensitive.

10