DEVELOP GLOBAL LIMITED — Capital/Financing Update 2016

May 10, 2016

==> picture [256 x 86] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [150 x 742] intentionally omitted <==

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

ASX Announcement
ASX Code: VXR
Released: 11 May 2016
For further details
John Nitschke
Managing Director
T: +61 8 6389 7400
admin@venturexresources.com
Board
Tony Kiernan
Chairman
John Nitschke
Managing Director
Anthony Reilly
Non-Executive Director
Darren Stralow
Non-Executive Director
Trevor Hart
Company Secretary
Contact Details
Registered Office
Level 2
91 Havelock Street
West Perth WA 6005
T: +61 8 6389 7400
F: +61 8 9463 7836
admin@venturexresources.com
www.venturexresources.com
ABN: 28 122 180 205
----- End of picture text -----

Sulphur Springs Resource Update Increases Copper Content and Identifies Near-Term Production Opportunity

Highlights

• Updated JORC 2012 compliant Mineral Resource estimate for 100%owned Sulphur Springs Copper-Zinc Project delivers 6% increase in contained copper:

• 13.4Mt grading 1.5% Cu and 4.0% Zn for 194,000t of contained copper and 530,000t of contained zinc

• New resource model provides additional valuable information allowing Venturex to identify and fully evaluate the opportunities and risks associated with the Project

• The new model includes a newly identified supergene resource of 800,000 tonnes grading 4.2% Cu for 34,000t of contained copper located near the surface in the valley floor

• This supergene zone is expected to be amenable to treatment via heap leach methods, opening up a potential near-term production and cashflow opportunity for Venturex

Venturex Resources Limited (ASX: VXR) is pleased to advise that an updated JORC 2012 compliant Mineral Resource estimate for its 100%-owned Sulphur Springs Copper Zinc Project , located 162km south-east of Port Hedland in the Pilbara region of WA, has been prepared by independent consultant, Hardrock Mining Consultants Pty Ltd (“Hardrock”).

The estimate is based on a new model of the Resource that more accurately reflects the geology of the mineralisation and waste surrounding it and was done as part of a structured process to optimise the Sulphur Springs Project to make it more compelling and development ready.

The new model has identified an enriched near-surface zone of supergene mineralisation that sits on top of the main sulphide ore body at the base of oxidation and is expected to be amenable to extraction and treatment via heap leach SX/EW methods.

It will also allow the potential risks associated with the treatment of transition mineralisation and the disposal of various types of waste materials from the proposed open pit to be identified and fully mitigated.

The updated Mineral Resource estimate, including the newly identified supergene zone, is set out below:

		SULPHUR SPRINGS MINERAL RESOURCE
		May 2016
JORC Classification Ore Type		Tonnes (‘000t) Cu % Zn % Ag g/t
Indicated Fresh		6.7 1.3 4.3 17
Transition		1.6 1.5 4.1 18
Sub Total		8.3 1.4 4.3 17
Inferred Fresh		3.7 1.1 4.0 17
Transition		0.6 1.4 3.9 20
Supergene		0.8 4.2 0.8 23
Sub Total		5.1 1.6 3.5 18
TOTAL		13.4 1.5 4.0 18

Table 1 – Tabulation based on all resource above 0.4% Cu and less than 0.4% Cu but greater than 2% Zn. Tonnes rounded to nearest 0.1 million and grades to nearest 0.1%

The updated Mineral Resource for Sulphur Springs follows the successful Optimisation Study completed last year ( see ASX Announcement, 4 November 2015 ), which delivered a number of significantly enhanced outcomes for the Project.

The identification of the supergene zone is a strategically important and positive development for the project in that it opens up the possibility of near term production without the need to make the capital commitment for the much larger sulphide Project.

Venturex's Managing Director John Nitschke said “Hardrock has done a great job in pulling together the extensive historical database and reworking the Resource model into a form that will enable us to fully optimise the value of the Resource and better manage the various operational and environmental risks associated with the development of the project.”

"Sulphur Springs is a classic Volcanogenic Massive Sulphide ("VMS") deposit with a typical weathering profile for such sulphide ore bodies. We knew that there would be a supergene zone and are very pleased with what we have found," he added.

"As well as making a major step forward in our objective of enhancing the value and de-risking the large and valuable greenfields copper zinc sulphide component of the Project, we have opened up the possibility of near term production at Sulphur Springs that we should be able to achieve even in today’s market. This is something that we have already been working very hard on, and expect to achieve, at Whim Creek as well" Mr Nitschke said.

"The supergene mineralisation should be amenable to heap leaching and basically sits just below the valley floor. There is work to be done on proving up the resource, metallurgical test work, mining and processing plans and permitting before we can make a commitment to mining. Our relationship with Blackrock Metals who already operate the heap leach SX/EW plant at Whim Creek obviously gives us a good head start here" he added.

“We will now prepare an update to the Sulphur Springs Reserve Statement once the mine planning work has been completed".

JOHN NITSCHKE Managing Director

2

For further information, please contact:

Investors:

John Nitschke / Trevor Hart – Venturex Resources Limited on (08) 6389 7400 or email: admin@venturexresources.com

Media:

Nicholas Read – Read Corporate on (08) 9388 1474 or email: info@readcorporate.com.au

About Venturex Resources Limited

Venturex Resources Limited (ASX: VXR) is an exploration and development company with two advanced Copper Zinc Projects near Port Hedland in the Pilbara region of Western Australia. The two projects are the Sulphur Springs Project which includes the Sulphur Springs Project, Kangaroos Caves Resource plus 27km of prospective tenements on the Panorama trend and the Whim Creek Project which includes the Resources at the Whim Creek, Mons Cupri and Salt Creek mines together with the Evelyn project and 18,100 ha of prospective tenements over the Whim Creek basin. Our strategy is to work with our partners Blackrock Metals to expand and extend the existing 5 tonne per day oxide copper heap leach and SXEW operation at Whim Creek, identify other near term production options at Whim Creek, Mons Cupri and Sulphur Springs and fully optimise the Sulphur Springs Project have it shovel ready to take advantage of forecast improvements in base metal prices.

Competency Statements

The information in this report that relates to Mineral Resources is based on information compiled or reviewed by Mr David Milton, Hardrock Mining Consultants Pty Ltd who is a Member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Mr Milton has sufficient experience relevant to the style of mineralisation, type of deposit under consideration and to the activity being undertaking to qualify as Competent Persons as defined in the 2012 Edition of the “Australasian Code for Reporting of Mineral Resources”. Mr Milton consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on their information in the form and context in which it appears.

3

Notes relating to the Sulphur Springs Resource and Reserve Statement Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data

==> picture [156 x 52] intentionally omitted <==

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

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Sampling techniques	 Nature and quality of sampling (e.g. cut channels, random chips, or specific specialised industry standard measurement tools appropriate to the minerals under investigation, such as down hole gamma sondes, or handheld XRF instruments, etc.). These examples should not be taken as limiting the broad meaning of sampling.  Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample representivity and the appropriate calibration of any measurement tools or systems used.  Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are Material to the Public Report.  In cases where ‘industry standard’ work has been done this would be relatively simple (e.g. ‘reverse circulation drilling was used to obtain 1 m samples from which 3 kg was pulverised 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.	 The deposit was sampled with a combination of reverse circulation (RC) and diamond drill (DD) holes completed on a variable spacing across the deposit to a maximum vertical depth of depth of approximately 800 metres. The RC drill holes were sampled via an industry standard cyclone and riffle splitter system from the recovered sample. Diamond drill core was sampled using standard cut half core or where metallurgical samples taken quarter core was used.  Industry standard reverse circulation (RC) drilling produced whole meter RC drill samples split at the rig using a cone splitter producing samples of approximately 3kgs. Diamond drilling completed to industry standard using predominantly NQ size core. Diamond core was orientated, aligned and cut on geologically determined intervals in the range 0.15 to 2.1 metres.  The whole samples from the drilling were individually weighed, dried, stage crushed and pulverized to nominally minus 75 microns or 200 mesh (total preparation) to produce a pulp which was sub-sample for analysis.
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.).	 Prior to 2002 only diamond drilling was used to evaluate mineralisation (approximately 75% of informing information comes from diamond drilling) using mostly NQ size with some BQ, TT56 and HQ size. Drill core was generally structurally orientated for geotechnical and mineralisation structural information purposes. Post 2002 only RC drilling has been used using industry standard 5.5 inch face sampling equipment.
Drill sample recovery	 Method of recording and assessing core and chip 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 to preferential loss/gain of fine/coarse material.	 All operators recorded diamond drill core recovery as a percentage of measured recovered core versus drilled distance. Recoveries were generally high except for cavity zones in the oxide zone. On average through the resource estimated zone core recoveries average better than 99%.  RC samples were weighed, the weights were recorded on field sheets and compared to an expected weight. The locations of intervals of damp or wet samples or low recovery were recorded and entered into the database. The cyclone and splitter were routinely inspected and cleaned during the drilling ensuring no excessive material build-up. Care was taken to ensure the split samples were of a consistent volume.

4

==> picture [155 x 52] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		 There are no detected or material bias or relationships of sample recovery and grade.
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.  Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc.) photography.  The total length and percentage of the relevant intersections logged.	 Diamond drill holes were geologically logged in their entirety and photographed. Representative areas of diamond drilling was logged for geotechnical purposes. RC drill holes were all qualitatively logged and representative sieved and washed chips collected and stored in chip tray samples.  Logging by all operators was at an appropriate detailed quantitative standard to support future geological, resource, reserve estimations and technical/economic studies.  All holes were logged in full.
Sub-sampling techniques and sample preparation	 If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, half or all core taken.  If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc. and whether sampled wet or dry.  For all sample types, the nature, quality and appropriateness of the sample preparation technique.  Quality control procedures adopted for all sub-sampling stages to maximise representivity of samples.  Measures taken to ensure that the sampling is representative of the in situ material collected, including for instance results for field duplicate/second-half sampling.  Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grain size of the material being sampled.	 Diamond core was sawn with a diamond saw and half core samples (quarter core in metallurgical holes) taken for assay.  1 metre RC samples were collected and split off the drill rig using a cone splitter. Approximately 90% of the samples were dry in nature.  The sampling techniques for collection of the sample to be submitted to the assay facility for both diamond drilling and RC drilling are of consistent quality and appropriate.  Venturex and previous operators had on site during drilling and sampling operations, technically competent supervision and procedures in place to ensure sample preparation integrity and quality.  Some field duplicates were taken for RC drilling but not for diamond drilled samples.  The sample sizes are considered appropriate given the relatively fine grained nature of the sulphide mineralisation which is not nuggetty in nature, the sampling methodology and the percent assay value ranges involved.
Quality of assay data and laboratory tests	 The nature, quality and appropriateness of the assaying and laboratory procedures used and whether the technique is considered partial or total.  For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF instruments, etc., the parameters used in determining the analysis including instrument make and model, reading times, calibrations factors applied and their derivation, etc.  Nature of quality control procedures adopted (e.g. standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (i.e. lack of bias) and precision have been established.	 Over the project life 4 different Perth based assaying facilities have been used. Analytical techniques involve either a three or a four acid digest with a multi-element suite ICP/MS finish (30g FA/AAS for precious metals). Samples were split into high sulphide and low sulphide types on submission to ensure appropriate digestion and quality analysis. Sulphur was determined by the Leco method. All methods of analysis are considered to provide “total” assay values.

5

==> picture [155 x 52] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		 No geophysical tools were used to determine any element concentrations reported.  QAQC using re submitted pulps and external check assays, blind blanks and reference standards has been applied to samples assayed. Depending on the operator between 5 and 10% of the assays relate to QA/QC procedures. An independent analysis of intra and inter laboratory bias and precision was undertaken in 2007 by CBH. The results of this QA/QC work indicate no material bias to assay results used by this report.
Verification of sampling and assaying	 The verification of significant intersections by either independent or alternative company personnel.  The use of twinned holes.  Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data verification, data storage (physical and electronic) protocols.  Discuss any adjustment to assay data.	 Prior to 2011, verification procedures are not documented. However inspection of retained core indicates that recorded locations of mineralisation are correct. Post 2011, significant intersections were checked by the Exploration Manager and Managing Director. Significant intersections are also verified/ by portable XRF data collected in the field and cross-checked against the final assays when received.  No specific twinned holes have been drilled.  A range of primary data collection methods were employed since 1989. Since 2007, data recording used a set of standard Excel templates on a data logger and uploaded to note book computer. The data is sent to Perth office for verification and compilation into an SQL database by the in-house database administrator. Full copies are stored offsite. Full data base verification of all historical information was completed in 2007 by CBH. All data is loaded and stored in DataShed data base.  The historical data (pre-2007) has been adjusted with all negative assays, representing below detection assays, were converted to positive assays of half stated assay detection limit.
Location of data points	 Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drill holes (collar and down-hole surveys), trenches, mine workings and other locations used in Mineral Resource estimation.  Specification of the grid system used.  Quality and adequacy of topographic control.	 A full independent resurvey of all pre-2007 hole positions was completed by a licensed surveyor for CBH in 2007. Post 2007, all hole collar coordinates have been picked up by CBH/Venturex employees using a DGPS with all co-ordinates and RL data considered reliable.  Downhole surveys were performed on all holes by either single shot Eastman camera or reflex gyro readings at 10-50 metre down hole intervals.  The grid system used for the location of all drill holes is MGA_GDA94, Zone 50.

6

==> picture [155 x 52] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		 Topographic control is provided by combination of external survey control, photogrammetry analysis and DGPS reading.
Data spacing and distribution	 Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results.  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.  Whether sample compositing has been applied.	 Due to access for drill sites drilling patterns vary from nominally 40m by 40m to 30m by 30m in the plane of the mineralisation.  The current spacing is adequate to assume geological and grade continuity of the mineralised domain to an Indicated and Inferred resource level.  No compositing has been applied to the exploration results.
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.  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.	 The Sulphur Springs drilling azimuth is largely orientated perpendicular to the mineralised strike direction. Limitations imposed by the rugged terrain dictates that some drilling is conducted at angles not perpendicular to the dip of the mineralised system.  Given the dominantly strata bound nature of the mineralising system, no material, orientation based sampling bias has been identified in the resource estimation data.
Sample security	 The measures taken to ensure sample security.	 Independent audits of the data in 2002 and 2006 concluded that the sampling protocols were adequate.  Post 2011, the chain of custody is managed by Venturex. The samples are transported by Venturex personnel to Whim Creek, stored in a secure facility and collected from site by Toll IPEC and delivered to the assay laboratory in Perth. Online tracking is utilised to track the progress of batches of samples.
Audits or reviews	 The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data.	 Independent audits of the sampling techniques and data were completed as part of previous and current feasibility studies in 2002 (McDonald Spiejers Pty Ltd), 2006 (Golders and Associates), 2008 (Zilloc Pty Ltd) and 2011 (Snowden). The studies were comprehensive and cover all industry standard issues. There does not appear to be any significant risk in accepting the data as valid.

7

==> picture [155 x 52] intentionally omitted <==

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results

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

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.	 Sulphur Springs is located wholly within Mining Lease M45/494 and Venturex Resources Limited has a 100% interest in the tenement.  The tenement is within the Njamal Native Title Claim (WC99/8).  The tenement is subject to two third party royalties.  The tenement is a granted Mining Lease, is in good standing and no known impediments exist.
Exploration done by other parties	 Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties.	 Previous exploration has been conducted at Sulphur Springs by Sipa Resources Limited in conjunction with Ashling Resources, Homestake Limited and Outokumpu since 1985 under various joint ventures and CBH Resources Limited from 2005.
Geology	 Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation.	 The Sulphur Springs zinc-copper deposit is hosted by the Kangaroo Caves Formation, a volcano-sedimentary sequence within the north – northeasterly trending tectonostratigraphic domain known as the Lalla Rookh – Western Shaw Corridor (LWSC) in the central east of the Archaean Pilbara Craton. The deposit is a well preserved example of an Archaean volcanogenic massive sulphide (VMS) style deposit in a low grade metamorphic terrain.
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.  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. _	 Not Applicable (NA). No new exploration data being released. This report relates to only previously publically reported and recorded information.
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.  The assumptions used for any reporting of metal equivalent values should be clearly stated.	 All reported assays have been length weighted.  No top cut has been applied.  For reporting exploration results, a nominal 0.25% copper and 2.0% zinc lower cut-off has been applied.  High-grade massive sulphide intervals internal to broader zones of sulphide mineralisation are reported as included intervals.

8

==> picture [155 x 52] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
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’).	 Previous reports highlight down hole intercept and true widths.
Diagrams	 Appropriate maps and sections (with scales) and tabulations of intercepts should be included for any significant discovery being reported These should include, but not be _limited to a plan view of drill hole collar locations and appropriate sectional views. _	 See long section in previous ASX release dated 18 November 2012.
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. _	 All representative results have been reported or publically released.
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.	 Previous feasibility studies (2002 and 2013) outline project geological characteristics and features with respect to possible mining methods, metallurgical characteristics, possible treatment routes, geotechnical and rock characteristics, ore densities, and potential deleterious or contaminating materials.
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).  Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions, including the main geological interpretations and future drilling areas, provided this information is not commercially sensitive	 No further work of an exploration nature is proposed at this time of reporting.

Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources

(Criteria listed in section 1, and where relevant in section 2 apply to this section.)

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Database integrity	 Measures taken to ensure that data has not been corrupted by, for example, transcription or keying errors, between its initial collection and its use for Mineral Resource estimation purposes.  Data validation procedures used.	 Independent audits of the sampling techniques and data integrity were completed as part of previous feasibility studies in 2002 (McDonald Spiejers Pty Ltd), 2006 (Golders and Associates), 2008 (Zilloc Pty Ltd) and 2011 (Snowden). The studies were comprehensive and investigated the reliability of the database. No database integrity issues have been found.  Comparison of assay values reported on original certified assay sheets from the laboratory against the dataset records revealed no anomalies. The data base has a tabulation of original assay source and keeps a history of any variation/modification.

9

==> picture [155 x 52] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Site visits	 Comment on any site visits undertaken by the Competent Person and the outcome of those visits.  If no site visits have been undertaken indicate why this is the case.	 A site visit has been undertaken by the Competent Person in October 2013 and no issues of any material nature for this resource estimate were observed.
Geological interpretation	 Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertainty of) the geological interpretation of the mineral deposit.  Nature of the data used and of any assumptions made.  The effect, if any, of alternative interpretations on Mineral Resource estimation.  The use of geology in guiding and controlling Mineral Resource estimation.  The factors affecting continuity both of grade and geology.	 A very high degree of confidence in the interpretation is based on detailed surface mapping (out crop is almost 100% with little vegetation or alluvium cover) which clearly shows the principal rock types, mineralisation distribution and structural (fault) features. Extensive company and academic studies over a 20 year period have characterized this mineralisation as a well preserved Volcanogenic Massive Sulphide (VMS) deposit. Drilling has demonstrated the continuity of the surface feature at depth.  All surface mapping, drill hole geological and assay data used as basis of interpretation and extent of resource estimate. Cross sectional interpretations were made mainly at 20m spaced sections which increase to 40m spaced at extreme ends of the mineralisation. The sectional interpretations included all major rock and ore types. The sections were then balanced at either 10m or 20m vertical intervals in plan-view horizontally honoring the surface geology and controlled by drilling intercepts at depth.  No alternative interpretations have geological support.  The economic mineralisation is spatially related to the sulphide bearing rock types and events.  VMS deposits have good continuity on a deposit scale. Locally the sulphide bearing rocks have varying tenors of sulphide minerals which vary in both vertical and lateral extent in fresh rock. Latter stage fault and weathering effects have affected the distribution patterns also on a local scale. There is a separate less than 5m true thickness of massive sulphide zone recognized in the overlying chert (hanging wall). Ore types which form separate domains for grade interpolation are massive sulphide, both main and hanging wall, stock work and disseminated zones which can be of a fresh, transitional or supergene type. Oxide material is recognized but not estimated due to lack of informing data.
Dimensions	 The extent and variability of the Mineral Resource expressed as length (along strike or otherwise), plan width, and depth below surface to the upper and lower limits of the Mineral Resource.	 The Mineral Resource covers a single VMS sulphide mineralizing event which has been disrupted post mineralisation by a N-S sub vertical reverse fault into two off-set massive sulphide lenses (East and West), with the West block up faulted and outcropping. Total strike length (east-west) is approximately500 metres,horizontal cross strike width is 60-125 metres

10

==> picture [155 x 52] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		(maximum true width of approximately 16 metres) to a vertical depth of 400 metres. Each lens dips to the north at approximately 45-55°. Underlying the massive sulphide ore type is a volcanic rock sequence which has disseminated and stock work (stringer) ore type sulphide mineralisation. The massive sulphide and stock work ore types may contain economic grades.
Estimation and modelling techniques	 The nature and appropriateness of the estimation technique(s) applied and key assumptions, including treatment of extreme grade values, domaining, interpolation parameters and maximum distance of extrapolation from data points. If a computer assisted estimation method was chosen include a description of computer software and parameters used.  The availability of check estimates, previous estimates and/or mine production records and whether the Mineral Resource estimate takes appropriate account of such data.  The assumptions made regarding recovery of by-products.  Estimation of deleterious elements or other non-grade variables of economic significance (e.g. sulphur for acid mine drainage characterisation).  In the case of block model interpolation, the block size in relation to the average sample spacing and the search employed.  Any assumptions behind modelling of selective mining units.  Any assumptions about correlation between variables.  Description of how the geological interpretation was used to control the resource estimates.  Discussion of basis for using or not using grade cutting or capping.  The process of validation, the checking process used, the comparison of model data to drill hole data, and use of reconciliation data if available.	 The Sulphur Springs Mineral Resource Estimate takes into account observations, comments and methods of previous estimates completed by Outokumpu (2002), CBH (2009) and Venturex (2102). No production has occurred at this deposit.  The estimates have included all principal metals associated with the mineralisation where sufficient data is available. The principle revenue potential elements are copper, zinc, silver, lead and gold. Other elements estimated were sulphur, iron, arsenic, barium, bismuth, cadmium, cobalt, mercury, manganese, nickel and antinomy.  A block model has been generated. Parent cell measures 10 metres (X axis), 10 metres (Y) and 10 metres (Z) with sub-cells of 2.5 metres (X), 2.5 metres (Y), 2.5 metres (Z), appropriate given an average drill spacing of 30 metres. The estimation is based on interpolation of grades using up to three passes of interpolation using appropriate inverse squared and cube interpolations in SURPAC. The interpolation is ellipsoidal and the directional features and search radii varies within the ore type domains. Minimum samples required to make an estimate vary from 2 to 20 according to ore type domain. Discretization was set to 5(Y) by 5(X) by 2(Z).  No selective mining consideration made in modelling.  A high confidence correlation between sulphur grade and S.G which was used to predict ore block density when S grade is greater than 1%. Good correlation exist between zinc, cadmium and mercury and the same estimating parameter were applied to these assays. Weaker correlations exist between other major and minor metals but were not used in estimation considerations.  Resource estimate related to ore type domains based on massive sulphide, disseminated sulphide and super gene zones for each lens and zone. These hard boundaries have strong unequivocal geological support and were used to constrain both the informing assay data selection and grade interpolation.  No top cuts were applied to any assay data.

11

==> picture [155 x 52] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		 Composite length was set at best fit of 1 metre for ore types massive, disseminated and supergene and 2m for stock-work. Estimate validated against original composite grades in swath plots and statistically using 20m slices.
Moisture	 Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or with natural moisture, and the _method of determination of the moisture content. _	 Tonnages are estimated on a dry basis. Moisture content in ore is negligible.
Cut-off parameters	 The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters applied.	 The Mineral Resource estimate is reported at 0.4% Cu or 2% Zn, this being an economic cut-off considered by Venturex to be relevant to long term revenue considerations.
Mining factors or assumptions	 Assumptions made regarding possible mining methods, minimum mining dimensions and internal (or, if applicable, external) mining dilution. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider potential mining methods, but the assumptions made regarding mining methods and parameters when estimating Mineral Resources may not always be rigorous. Where this is the case, this should be reported with an explanation of the _basis of the mining assumptions made. _	 No assumption or modification to the resource has been made with consideration to mining methods factors. The resource estimate is an in-situ estimate. A minimum intersection width of 2m has been applied to massive sulphide zone.
Metallurgical factors or assumptions	 The basis for assumptions or predictions regarding metallurgical amenability. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider potential metallurgical methods, but the assumptions regarding metallurgical treatment processes and parameters made when reporting Mineral Resources may not always be rigorous. Where this is the case, this should be reported with an explanation of the basis of the metallurgical assumptions made.n	 No assumption or modification to the resource has been made with consideration to metallurgical factors. The resource estimate is an in-situ estimate.
Environmental factors or assumptions	 Assumptions made regarding possible waste and process residue disposal options. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider the potential environmental impacts of the mining and processing operation. While at this stage the determination of potential environmental impacts, particularly for a greenfield project, may not always be well advanced, the status of early consideration of these potential environmental impacts should be reported. Where these aspects have not been considered this should be _reported with an explanation of the environmental assumptions made. _	 Estimate include rock type, weathering type and in-situ sulphur content of materials. No assumption or modification of the resource has been made in consideration of environmental factors.
Bulk density	 Whether assumed or determined. If assumed, the basis for the assumptions. If determined, the method used, whether wet or dry, the frequency of the measurements, the nature, size and representativeness of the samples.  The bulk density for bulk material must have been measured by methods that adequately account for void spaces (vugs, porosity, etc.), moisture and differences between rock and alteration zones within the deposit.  Discuss assumptions for bulk density estimates used in the evaluation process of the different materials.	 Densities used in the calculation are based on around 2600 specific gravity determinations were carried out on whole diamond core samples of representative of all the different rock and ore types. Assays pertain to the same interval measured.  Density measurements were conducted on site by the classical water immersion method, using the total core for each sample. Check determination were made at the assay laboratories which confirmed the accuracyof the determinations. The rocks are homogenouslysolid with

12

==> picture [155 x 52] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		negligible pore space.  Metals of economic consideration and the basis of this estimate are only related to sulphide bearing rock. The high correlation confidence between sulphur grade and measured density has allowed the use of estimation of sulphur grades to predict rock density used in the tonnage estimates.
Classification	 The basis for the classification of the Mineral Resources into varying confidence categories.  Whether appropriate account has been taken of all relevant factors (i.e. relative confidence in tonnage/grade estimations, reliability of input data, confidence in continuity of geology and metal values, quality, quantity and distribution of the data).  Whether the result appropriately reflects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit.	 Mineral Resource classification into Inferred and Indicated categories is based on a combination of average weighted distance from sample points, true distance, drill density and geological interpretation confidence. No portion of the resource was considered to be of Measured category.  Appropriate account of the confidence in the tonnage/grade estimates and the supporting interpretation of the controlling geological factors and estimation method has been used for these classifications.  It is the opinion of the Competent Person that the resource classifications reflect their confidence in the estimates for the deposit.
Audits or reviews	 The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral Resource estimates.	 No review or audit of this estimate has been undertaken. The estimate is similar to previous estimates in its grade, tonnage and classification types. The greatest difference from previous estimate lies in the treatment of the main mineralisation envelope as a single contiguous zone of sulphide mineralisation rather than 20 separate zones and recognizing supergene and transitional ore types.
Discussion of relative accuracy/ confidence	 Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and confidence level in the Mineral Resource estimate using an approach or procedure deemed appropriate by the Competent Person. For example, the application of statistical or geostatistical procedures to quantify the relative accuracy of the resource within stated confidence limits, or, if such an approach is not deemed appropriate, a qualitative discussion of the factors that could affect the relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate.  The statement should specify whether it relates to global or local estimates, and, if local, state the relevant tonnages, which should be relevant to technical and economic evaluation. Documentation should include assumptions made and the procedures used.  These statements of relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate should be _compared with production data, where available. _	 The model has been validated visually against drilling and statistically against input data sets on a domain and on swath plot basis. The relative accuracy of the Mineral Resource estimate is reflected in the reporting of the Mineral Resource as per the guidelines of the 2012 JORC code.  The statement relates to global estimates.  No production data is available to compare resource statement with.

13