DEVELOP GLOBAL LIMITED - Capital/Financing Update 2022

ASX Announcement 02/08/2022

- Woodlawn Zinc Copper Mine, NSW

Independent experts confirm large high-grade Resource in line with previous estimates

Updated inventory includes significant increase in Measured and Indicated category and is based on economically-rigorous mining shapes

Highlights

Updated Mineral Resource Estimate for Woodlawn Underground Mine is 7.3Mt at 13.2% ZnEq[1]
The Underground Resource comprises: o 7.3Mt @ 5.7% Zn, 1.8% Cu, 2.0% Pb, 44.9/t Ag & 0.6g/t Au (13.2% ZnEq[1] )
Two thirds of the Resource is in the higher-confidence category of Measured and Indicated
In addition to the Resource, the assessment has identified 5.1Mt of mineralisation next to the historical underground workings, which had mined grades of ~9.1% zinc and ~1.6% copper[2]
This mineralisation could lead to a substantial Resource increase and therefore its potential will be assessed as a priority
The assessment will centre on using paste fill to enable the high-grade mineralisation to be extracted; Woodlawn has a new paste-fill plant on site but this option was not utilised by previous owners because they intended to treat the tailings rather than use them for paste
Excavation of underground drilling platforms is underway, with 35,000m of exploration drilling scheduled to commence in the December quarter
Drilling is designed to convert Inferred Resources to Indicated and extend the mineralised lenses at depth
Drilling will also test highly prospective EM conductors and new exploration targets identified during the Resource interpretation

Develop (ASX: DVP) is pleased to announce that an independent assessment has confirmed that its Woodlawn zinc-copper project in NSW hosts a large high-grade underground JORC-compliant Resource of 7.3 million tonnes grading 13.2% zinc-equivalent[1] .

This figure is in line with the stated Resource at the time Develop acquired the project in February this year.

However, the new estimate contains Measured and Indicated Resources of 4.8 million tonnes, which is higher than in the previous estimate.

The Resource was independently calculated by leading mining and geological consultants Entech.

Develop Managing Director Bill Beament said this independently-calculated Resource confirmed that the upfront A$30 million Woodlawn purchase was an exceptional deal for Develop.

“The Resource is not only large and high-grade, but it is extremely robust due to the application of mineable shapes during the estimation process,” Mr Beament said.

“And the process has also led to substantial high-grade mineralisation being identified near the historic workings. The mined grade of this mineralisation was even higher than the current Resource so it could have a significant impact on the overall inventory and mine life.

“We believe there is strong potential to mine this mineralisation using paste-fill. The previous owners intended to process the tailings but we will study using them in the paste-fill plant already on site.

“This is a well-established mining method which we believe could unlock substantial value for very little cost.”

Mr Beament said the focus was now on growing and upgrading the Resource.

“Excavations are well underway in preparation for the underground drilling program next quarter,” he said. “This will enable us to target extensions of the known mineralised lenses at depth accurately and efficiently.

“We will also be able to test a large number of new and highly promising exploration targets.”

1. Zinc Equivalent (%) = Zn grade% * Zn recovery + ((Pb grade % * Pb recovery % * (Pb price $/t/Zn price$/t)) + (Cu grade % * Cu recovery % * (Cu price $/t/ Zn price $/t)) + (Ag grade g/t /31.103 * Ag recovery % * (Ag price $/oz/ Zn price $/t) + (Au grade g/t /31.103 * Au recovery % * (Au price $/oz/ Zn price $/t)).

2. Historic production Data relates to the operational period of the Woodlawn project between 1978 and 1998, is based on publicly available information reported by Heron. Develop has not independently verified this information.

Background

Woodlawn is a high-grade Volcanogenic Massive Sulphide (VMS) base metal system in the world class Lachland Fold belt in NSW, 250km south-west of Sydney and 40km south of Goulburn. Historically, the Woodlawn Mine operated from 1978 to 1998 and processed 13.8Mt of ore from the Woodlawn open pit, underground and minor satellite deposits grading 19.7% ZnEq[2] (9.1% Zn, 1.6% Cu, 3.6% Pb, 0.5g/t Au and 74g/t Ag).

Develop believes that the project has significant growth potential, having historically been under-explored and untested at depth. In particular, the Company believes that Woodlawn has strong potential for extensions of existing lenses which are open at depth and along strike, and for the discovery of additional lenses, with logical structural positions untested.

Updated Mineral Resource Estimate

The updated 2022 Woodlawn Underground MRE of 7.3Mt @ 5.7% Zn, 1.8% Cu, 2.0% Pb, 44.9/t Ag & 0.6g/t Au represent the most robust and resilient resource for the deposit to date and includes geometallurgical domaining and Minable Stope optimisation (MSO) to fully elucidate the potential for economic extraction.

Resource Category	Tonnes (kt)	NSR ($A/t)	Zinc %	Lead %	Copper %	Gold ppm	Silver ppm	Iron
Measured	104	404	4.3	1.9	2.1	1.4	100.0	15.9
Indicated	4,776	348	5.0	1.8	1.8	0.7	42.2	19.2
Inferred	2,461	408	6.9	2.5	1.8	0.3	47.8	16.9
Total	7,341	369	5.7	2.0	1.8	0.6	44.9	18.4

Table 1: Woodlawn underground Mineral Resource, at NSR cut-off of A$100/t, with A$140/t used for remnant lenses.

The NSR has been calculated using metal pricing, recoveries and other payability assumptions detailed in ‘Cut-off parameters’ in Section 3 of the attached JORC Code Table 1. It is Entech’s opinion that all metals used in the NSR calculation have reasonable potential to be extracted, recovered and sold. Tonnages are dry metric tonnes. Minor discrepancies may occur due to rounding.

Resource Category	Tonnes (kt)	NRS ($A/t)	Zinc %	Lead %	Copper %	Gold ppm	Silver ppm	Iron

Measured	104	404	4.3	1.9	2.1	1.4	100.0	16
Indicated	3,912	338	4.6	1.7	1.8	0.8	44.5	19.9
Inferred	310	213	3.1	0.9	1.2	0.3	21.3	22.0
Total	4,327	330	4.4	1.6	1.8	0.8	44.2	20.0

Table 2: Woodlawn underground Mineral Resource excluding remnant material at an NSR cut-off of A$100/t. Tonnages are dry metric tonnes. Minor discrepancies may occur due to rounding.

Resource Category	Tonnes (kt)	NRS ($A/t)	Zinc %	Lead %	Copper %	Gold ppm	Silver ppm	Iron

Indicated	864	396	7.2	2.2	1.7	0.3	31.9	15.9
Inferred	2,150	436	7.5	2.7	1.9	0.3	51.6	16.2
Total	3,014	425	7.4	2.6	1.8	0.3	46.0	16.1

Table 3: Woodlawn underground remnant Mineral Resource at an NSR cut-off of A$140/t. Tonnages are dry metric tonnes. Minor discrepancies may occur due to rounding.

Two thirds of the Mineral Resource has been classified as Measured and Indicated, with the remaining resources in the Inferred category (Figure 1). The 2022 MRE is reported on the basis of a Net Smelter Return (NSR). Two NSR cut-offs were used:

A NSR of $100 was used for mineralisation in unmined (virgin) areas.
A NSR of $140 was used for previously mined (remnant) areas, which reflects higher associated costs for mining and metal recovery these areas. Minable Stope Optimisation (MSO) shapes were applied to areas of remanent mineralisation.

Importantly a further 5.1Mt of remnant mineralisation has been excluded from the MRE due to its proximity to historic workings. Due to the potential for a significant increase in the global resources (tonnes and grade) which would likely materially improve the economic outcomes, Develop intends to fully investigate the potential mechanism(s) for extraction of this, and addition into the MRE and life of mine plan.

==> picture [496 x 421] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 1. Woodlawn MRE oblique long section.

This announcement is authorised for release by Bill Beament, Managing Director.

Investor Enquiries

Bill Beament DEVELOP Global Limited T: +61 8 6389 7400 E: [email protected]

Media Enquiries Paul Armstrong Read Corporate P: +61 8 9388 1474 E: [email protected]

About Develop

Develop (ASX: DVP) has a twin-pronged strategy for creating value. The first of these centres on the exploration and production of future-facing metals. As part of this, the Company owns the Sulphur Springs copper-zincsilver project in WA’s Pilbara region. This project is currently the focus of ongoing exploration to grow the inventory and various development studies. Develop also owns the Woodlawn zinc-copper project in NSW. Woodlawn, which is on care and maintenance, comprises an underground mine, a significant JORC Resource and Reserve and a new processing plant. The second plank of Develop’s strategy centres on the provision of underground mining services. As part of this, Develop has an agreement with Bellevue Gold (ASX: BGL) to provide underground mining services at its Bellevue Gold Project in WA.

Competent Person Statement

The information in this announcement that relates to Exploration Results at the Sulphur Springs Project is based on information by Mr Luke Gibson who is an employee of the Company. Mr Gibson is a member of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists and Mr Gibson has sufficient experience with the style of mineralisation and the type of deposit under consideration. Mr Gibson consents to the inclusion in the report of the results reported here and the form and context in which it appears.

The information contained in this announcement relating to the Woodlawn Underground Resources is based on information compiled or reviewed by Ms Jillian Irvin of Entech Pty Ltd who is a Member of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists. Ms Irvin consents to the inclusion. Ms Irvin 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 – Refer Edition of the “Australasian Code for Reporting of Mineral Resources”.

Cautionary Statement

The information contained in this document (“Announcement”) has been prepared by DEVELOP Global Limited (“Company”). This Announcement is being used with summarised information. See DEVELOP’s other and periodic disclosure announcements lodged with the Australian Securities Exchange, which are available at www.asx.com.au or at www.develop.com.au for more information.

While the information contained in this Announcement has been prepared in good faith, neither the Company nor any of its shareholders, directors, officers, agents, employees or advisers give any representations or warranties (express or implied) as to the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the information in this Announcement, or of any other written or oral information made or to be made available to any interested party or its advisers (all such information being referred to as “Information”) and liability therefore is expressly disclaimed. Accordingly, to the full extent permitted by law, neither the Company nor any of its shareholders, directors, officers, agents, employees or advisers take any responsibility for, or will accept any liability whether direct or indirect, express or implied, contractual, tortious, statutory or otherwise, in respect of, the accuracy or completeness of the Information or for any of the opinions contained in this Announcement or for any errors, omissions or misstatements or for any loss, howsoever arising, from the use of this Announcement.

This Announcement may include certain statements that may be deemed “forward-looking statements”. All statements in this Announcement, other than statements of historical facts, that address future activities and events or developments that the Company expects, are forward-looking statements. Although the Company believes the expectations expressed in such forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, such statements are not guarantees of future performance and actual results or developments may differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements. The Company, its shareholders, directors, officers, agents, employees or advisers, do not represent, warrant or guarantee, expressly or impliedly, that the information in this Announcement is complete or accurate. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Company disclaims any responsibility to inform any recipient of this Announcement of any matter that subsequently comes to its notice which may affect any of the information contained in this Announcement. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in forward-looking statements include market prices, continued availability of capital and financing, and general economic, market or business conditions. DEVELOP assumes no obligation to update such information.

Investors are cautioned that any forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and that actual results or developments may differ materially from those projected in forward looking statements. Please undertake your own evaluation of the information in this Announcement and consult your professional advisers if you wish to buy or sell DEVELOP shares.

This Announcement has been prepared in compliance with the JORC Code 2012 Edition. The ‘forward-looking information’ is based on the Company’s expectations, estimates and projections as of the date on which the statements were made. The Company disclaims any intent or obligations to update or revise any forward looking statements whether as a result of new information, estimates or options, future events or results or otherwise, unless required to do so by law.

1.The zinc equivalent grades for Woodlawn (Zn Eq) are based on copper, silver, lead and zinc prices of US$9620/t Copper, US$2224/t Lead, US$3956/t Zinc, US$22.8/oz Silver and US$1877/oz Gold with metallurgical metal recoveries of 88% Zn, 70% Pb, 70% Cu, 33% Au and 82% Ag based on historical recoveries at Woodlawn and supported by metallurgical test work undertaken. The zinc equivalent calculation is as follows: Zn Eq = Zn grade% * Zn recovery + ((Pb grade % * Pb recovery % * (Pb price $/t/ Zn price$/t)) + (Cu grade % *Cu recovery % * (Cu price $/t/ Zn price $/t)) + (Ag grade g/t /31.103 * Ag recovery % * (Ag price $/oz/ Zn price $/t)) + (Au grade g/t /31.103 * Ag recovery % * (Au price $/oz/ Zn price $/t)) and are reported on 100% Basis. It is the opinion of Develop Global and the Competent Person that all elements and products included in the metal equivalent formula have a reasonable potential to be recovered and sold.

SECTION 1 SAMPLING TECHNIQUES AND DATA

(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.	• Diamond (DD) drilling comprises 96.5% of Woodlawn underground resource drill holes, including surface parent, wedge holes and drilling from underground drill cuddies, providing intercept points to an average of 20 m × 20 m and maximum vertical depth of 720 m. Reverse circulation (RC) drilling makes up the remaining 3.5% of drill holes underpinning the Mineral Resource Estimate (MRE). The RC holes were drilled from surface locations to a maximum depth of 145 m. It was noted the RC drilling targeted up-dip extensions of lenses. • Entech noted there were 32 unsampled DD holes in the database which were in the process of drilling, logging or sampling at the G or Kate lodes when project operations were put on care and maintenance by Heron Resources Ltd (Heron) in March 2020. Additionally, there were unsampled portions of historical drill holes which appear to intercept lens extensions (due to historical selective sampling practices). In both instances, where geological logging and core photography were available, Entech reviewed for evidence of sulphide mineralisation and, where appropriate, included this information to assist in defining boundaries and extensions of the mineralised lenses. Entech understands Develop Global Ltd (DVP) plans to complete processing of the Heron drill core once operations commence on site and has prepared a resampling programme targeting historical DD holes. • DD holes were sampled using HQ3 (61.1 mm) or NQ3 (45 mm) diameter core. Heron’s DD sampling is predominantly 1 m downhole intervals, which are broken at major mineralisation or lithological contacts. Historical holes (74% of database) were a combination of 1 m downhole sampling or based on geological contacts. • RC samples were collected at 1 m intervals and composited to 2 m (historical) or 4 m (Heron) spear samples. Zones of mineralisation were re-split at 1 m intervals. • Sludge drilling (119 holes), 12 face sample and 88 channel samples, have been used for A, B and G lenses to assist with cross validation of DD and RC drill hole information (spatial location). The sampling techniques and quality are unknown, but both sampling methods carry high risk of preferential sampling bias outcomes. Thus, sludge and channel sample data were excluded from the downhole compositing process and do not inform the MRE outcome.
	• Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample representivity and the appropriate calibration of any measurement tools or systems used.	• Prior to 1998, there were no QAQC (quality assurance and quality control) procedures requiring the insertion of commercially available certified reference materials (CRMs), duplicates and blanks in place. • No blind QAQC procedures were in place for historical diamond drilling from 1969 to 1998, blanks and CRMs were inserted alternately at a frequency of 1 : 30 samples from 1999 to 2012. From 2013, CRMs and blanks were inserted into the sample stream at frequencies ranging between 1:20 or 1:30 samples. • After 1998, QAQC programmeswereimplementedforalldrilling types. Approximately25%

		of the assay database is supported by QAQC data.
	• 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.	• RC and DD drilling was used to obtain a 1 m sample (on average) from which samples were crushed and then pulverised in a ring pulveriser (LM5) to a nominal 90% passing 75 μm. For each interval, a 250 g pulp sub-sample was taken; these were then split to a 50 g charge weight for fire assaying, with checks routinely undertaken.
*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).	• A total of 198,718 m of drilling from 1,067 diamond and diamond tails, and 39 RC drill holes were available for the MRE. • RC drilling has been confined to shallow near-surface exploration targets and near-surface up-dip testing of lens mineralisation. Heron’s RC drilling used a 4.5-inch face sampling hammer, with a booster and auxiliary compressor to boost sample recovery. • DD procedures, core sizes and recoveries have varied over the years. Most historical surface drill holes were cored at NQ size; more recent drilling has been predominantly HQ, reducing to NQ at depth. • No core orientation data had been recorded in the Woodlawn drilling metadata. No evidence of core orientation was observed during Entech’s March 2020 site visit when Heron was the operator.
*Drill sample recovery*	• Method of recording and assessing core and chip sample recoveries and results assessed.	• During Heron’s DD campaigns, cores were laid out in standard core trays, marked and oriented, and recoveries calculated. Visual check by Entech of available historical core photographs confirmed that similar procedures were followed. • Historical documentation notes that RC recoveries were purely qualitative, with sample recovery visually estimated (most recorded as close to 100%).
	• Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and ensure representative nature of the samples.	• Core recoveries during Heron’s drilling were, in Entech’s opinion, generally fair to good, with an average recovery above 98%. Recoveries through the dolerite, rhyolite, silica sericite alteration zones and through the massive sulphide mineralised zones were generally excellent; poorer recoveries were experienced through the chlorite and talc chlorite schists and zones of faulting. • No data on the historical core recovery statistics have been recovered, but visual observation of the core photography by Entech suggests that recoveries were similar to those logged by Heron. • As a result of the high recoveries observed,there is not expected to be anyrelationship,or

		bias, associated with the areas of core loss/poor recovery.
	• 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.	• Diamond core recoveries exceed 95%. A sample bias is not likely to have occurred due to core loss of fine/coarse material as the underground fresh mineralised material which comprises the MRE is competent, with no relationship between grade and competent/poor ground conditions observed. No relationship between sample recovery and grade tenor was identified, nor observed.
*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.	• The level of detail is considered sufficient to support Mineral Resource estimation, mining and metallurgical studies.
	• Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc) photography.	• Entech’s review of available drill hole data in the database shows the level of detail of geological logging varies year to year – from capture of base lithology through to more comprehensive detail, including lithology, structure, mineralogy, alteration and weathering (oxidation state) for both RC samples and DD core. • Logging is both qualitative and quantitative. Visual percentage estimates for lithology, mineralogy, mineralisation, structure (where possible in core only), weathering and features were routinely recorded, with summary comments provided. • Since the change of ownership to DVP, less than 10% of core photography for W series holes (25% of MRE drill holes), less than 3% for U series holes (42% of MRE drill holes) and 80% of Heron Diamond drill holes (22% of MRE drill holes) has been located. • Recovered core photographs show drill core was photographed (wet and dry) before sampling, after mark-up. • DD core trays and RC chip trays are stored for future reference either at Woodlawn; however, the percentage or quality of retained core is not known.
	• The total length and percentage of the relevant intersections logged.	• The MRE is informed by 2 RC holes and 566 diamond holes for 9,939 m of drilling intersecting the mineralisation. Less than 1% (5 DD holes) were not logged.
*Sub-sampling techniques and* *sample preparation*	• If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, half or all core taken.	• Observation of assay intervals indicates that selective sampling of mineralised DD core and adjacent footwall, hanging wall and internal waste was done by Heron and other historical owners of the project. • Database records indicate that half and quarter diamond cores were used for analytical work. Half core sampling was observed during the Entech site visit in March 2020 when Heron was the operator.
	• If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc and whether sampled wet or dry.	• RC samples were generally collected as 1 m downhole intervals, via a rig-mounted cyclone splitter into plastic bags. A 2.5–3kg sample is collected for analysis as either a composite or individual sample. Samples are collected by a spear method if the material is dry and as a grab sample if the material is wet (not suitable for a spear sample). • RC samples were collected at 1 m intervals and composited to 2 m (historical) or 4 m (Heron) spear samples. Zones of mineralisation were sampled or re-split at 1 m intervals.
	• For all sample types, the nature,	• Before 2000: Jododex Australia Pty Ltd (Jododex), Australian Mining and Smelting Pty Ltd

	quality and appropriateness of the sample preparation technique.	(AMS), and Denehurst Limited (Denehurst) sample preparation and analyses were conducted on site at the Woodlawn laboratory (NATA accredited laboratory): `o`Samples were dried, crushed and ground to ~50 µm with a quartz flush after every sample. `o`Mills were blown out with compressed air between each sample. `o`A sample for analysis was separated using a riffle splitter. • 2000 to 2013: TriAusMin: `o`RC sample preparation and assaying are unknown. `o`Sample preparation of DD core was done at ALS Orange. `o`Analysis of final pulps was done at ALS Brisbane. `o`Samples were crushed and pulverised to 85% passing 75 µm. • 2014 to 2020: Heron: `o`Samples were dried, crushed and pulverised to 85% passing 75 µm with 1:20 sample pulps checked for grind quality by wet screening at 75 µm with a quartz flush after every sample. `o`1:20 flush samples were assayed. Based on documentation review, Entech is of the opinion the sample preparation techniques are appropriate for the style of deposit, commodity under consideration and reflect standard techniques available at the time.
	• Quality control procedures adopted for all sub-sampling stages to maximise representivity of samples.	• No blind QAQC inserts were included for historical diamond drilling from 1969 to 1998. • TriAusMin included alternate blanks and CRMs at a frequency of 1:30 samples from 1999 to 2012. From 2013, blanks were inserted at a frequency of 1:40 samples and CRMs were inserted at a frequency of 1:20 samples. No blind duplicates were collected. • From 2014, Heron included blanks at a frequency of 1:30 samples, duplicates taken from the riffle splitter at a frequency of 1:30 samples, and CRMs were inserted at a frequency of 1:30 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.	• No field duplicates have been collected from DD core.
	• Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grain size of the material being sampled.	• Sample sizes are considered to be industry standard and appropriate to represent mineralisation at the Woodlawn deposit based on style of mineralisation, thickness and consistency of mineralised intersections, the sampling methodology and the observed assay ranges.
*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.	• Before 2000: Jododex, AMS (CRA) and Denehurst sample preparation and analyses was conducted on site at the Woodlawn laboratory (NATA accredited laboratory): `o`For holes W001–W166 and W201–W290: `o`Acid digestion of pulverised aliquot and determination of Cu, Pb and Zn by AAS. `o`XRD analysis for Cu, Pb, Zn, precious metals, Fe, Si, Al, Mg and Ba.

		`o`Fire assay of samples >2 ppm Au based on aqua regia assays. `o`For holes U001–U190 and U194–U469 and W167–W199: `o`Aqua regia hydrofluoric and perchloric acid digest with AAS or ICP determination of Cu, Pb, Zn, Ag and Au. `o`Gold assays reporting above 2 ppm were re-assayed by fire assay. `o`For some samples, a second aliquot was analysed by pressed powder XRF to determine Fe, Mg, Si, Al and Ba grades. `o`For holes W160–W165 and W278–W282: `o`Analysed at Classic Comlabs Limited and Geomin Laboratory. `o`Samples were assayed for Cu, Ag, Pb, Zn and Au with some analysed for Ba, Al and Fe. • 2000 to 2013: TriAusMin: `o`Au was determined at ALS Orange by 30 g fire assay with AAS finish analysis. `o`Multi-element assaying was conducted by ALS Brisbane using a 0.25 g sample with a four-acid digest and ICP-AES finish for analyses of Ag, Al, As, Au, Ba, Be, Bi, Ca, Cd, Ce, Co, Cr, Cs, Cu, Fe, Ga, Ge, Hf, In, K, Li, La, Mg, Mn, Mo, Na, Nb, Ni, P, Pb, S, Sb, Sc, Sn, Sr, Ta, Te, Th, Ti, Tl, U, V, W, Y, Zn and Zr. • 2014 to 2020: Heron: `o`Samples were dried, crushed and pulverised to 85% passing 75 µm with 1:20 sample pulps checked for grind quality by wet screening at 75 µm with a quartz flush after every sample. `o`1:20 flush samples were assayed. `o`Au was determined at ALS Orange by 30 g fire assay with an AAS finish and a 1 ppb LLD (lower limit of detection). `o`ALS Orange pulps were sent to ALS Brisbane for multi-element and ore grade analyses with a 0.25 g sample taken from each pulp for 33-element four-acid digest with ICP-AES finish. `o`Analyses comprised Ag, Al, As, Ba, Be, Bi, Ca, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Ga, K, La, Mg, Mn, Mo, Na, Ni, P, Pb, S, Sb, Sc, Sn, Sr, Th, Tl, U, V, W, Y, Zn and Zr. `o`Laboratory quality control standards (blanks, reference standards and duplicates) were inserted at a rate of 5 per 35 samples during ICP work. Based on documentation review, Entech is of the opinion the assaying and laboratory procedures are appropriate for the style of deposit, commodity under consideration and reflect standard techniques available at the time. The described analytical methods are considered to be total assaying techniques: • Multi-element analyses by acid digestion and determination by AAS, ICP, ICP-AES with the assumption that digestion is a total dissolution. • Multi-element analyses of a pulverised and pressed aliquot by XRD and XRF. • Au determination by fire assay with an AAS finish.
	• For geophysical tools, spectrometers,	• Historical documents reviewed by Entech contain no information for geophysical

	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.	instrumentation indicating that instrumentation was not used for DD core or RC chip sample analyses.
	• Nature of quality control procedures adopted (e.g. standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (ie lack of bias) and precision have been established.	• Entech completed a review of QAQC procedures with key points and findings summarised as follows: `o`Prior to 1998, there were no Company QAQC samples included in the sample submissions. The laboratory inserted its own QAQC samples, but no data are available. `o`During 1999 to 2013, blanks and CRMs were included at a rate of about 1: 30 samples. No duplicate samples were collected during this period. `o`The procedures implemented by Heron since 2014 meet current industry standards. `o`The gold CRMs generally perform very well, with some of the recent CRMs showing a small positive or negative bias. `o`The number of gold CRMs submitted represents about 10% of the total samples assayed since 2000. `o`The base metal CRMs generally perform well, except for some of the recent CRMs showing a small positive or negative bias. However, there are numerous cases of apparent sample swaps. `o`There appear to be more issues with the lead analyses or laboratory calibrations as there are numerous lead results well below the expected values for some CRMs. `o`The number of base metal CRMs submitted represents about 10% of the total samples assayed since 2000. `o`The number of blanks submitted represents about 5% of the total samples assayed. Most blank assays are below acceptable limits. `o`The field duplicate samples correlate reasonably well, with some spread in results as expected. `o`The correlation for laboratory checks is very good. • The correlation of umpire samples between the laboratories is generally very good for the major elements, with no obvious bias evident. The correlation for gold, however, is not as good as the other elements, suggesting gold is more nuggety.
*Verification of sampling and* *assaying*	• The verification of significant intersections by either independent or alternative company personnel.	• Significant intersections were not identified for independent verification. Original laboratory certificates have not been located and assay data could not be independently verified. However, the extensive amount of drilling metadata collected at the deposit over the project life from initial discovery in 1969 through to 2020 by multiple owners during several drilling campaigns and also historical mining of many lenses defined by the metadata, have, in Entech’s opinion, mitigated the risk of individual significant intersections or assay errors materially impacting the MRE outcome. ~~•~~ Entech inspected drill core mineralised intercepts, against received assay results during the March 2020 site visit. This was undertaken on drilling for the Kate and G lenses.
	• The use of twinned holes.	• No twinning of holes was done prior to this MRE, but there is consistent and strong

		correlation of width and grade of downhole mineralisation intercepts against close-spaced grade control drilling data (15 m), face sampling and historically mined widths and strike extents.
	• Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data verification, data storage (physical and electronic) protocols.	• No primary documentation relating to logging or sampling was available for review during the compilation of this MRE. Entech relied on observations from the site visit, which correlated with historical Heron documentation of data entry procedures, verification and data storage. • For drilling carried out by Heron: `o`Samples were placed in pre-numbered (Sample-ID) calico bags by site personnel. `o`Downhole sample intervals and corresponding (Sample-ID) and density measurements were recorded on forms and submitted to database administrator for data entry. `o`Individual calico bags were placed in green plastic bags, which in turn were placed into bulka bags which were sealed. `o`Manifest and laboratory analysis request form was generated and sent to ALS Orange laboratory and database administrator. `o`Transportation of bulka bags was via an independent freight contractor or bulka bags were driven directly by Heron staff or contractors. `o`At the laboratory, samples were sorted, checked against supplied manifest then loaded into the laboratory’s data capture and tracking system, with each sample individually barcoded to facilitate tracking of samples through sample preparation and analysis workflows. • Drill hole sample data were reconstructed from two independent data sources: `o`Query extraction of .csv files date stamped 20210921 (21 September 2021) provided by Voluntary Administrators during the project tender phase in September 2021 `o`DVP’s Geology Manager retrieved .csv backup of the database date stamped 20200305 (5 March 2020) during a site visit in March 2022. This date stamp was the most recent backup aside from the dataset provided in September 2021. • Entech reviewed the two independent .csv exports and found 100% data correlation for identical Sample-IDs, noting a minor (immaterial) rounding difference for a small portion of the dataset.
	• Discuss any adjustment to assay data.	• No assay data have been adjusted for this estimate. • There is limited sulphur assaying in the database.
*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.	• MGA_GDA94, Zone 55 is the grid system covering the region; however, a local mine grid system is established for the site. The Woodlawn mine grid (WMG) was established in 1970 as an imperial grid. • The WMG was converted from imperial to metric in 1971. • TriAusMin (formerly Tri Origin Minerals) added 10,000 m to the northings of the WMG, with all historical data converted. Heron used the WMG grid for drill collar locations. • Drill hole collar locations: `o`Historical drill collar surveys on all surface and underground holes were done using conventional total station equipment. `o`For Heron’s drilling,holes were initially positioned usinga handheld GPS and re-

		surveyed with a DGPS once the hole was completed. • Downhole surveying and accuracy: `o`Historical downhole surveying was by single-shot camera at approximately 30 m intervals. `o`2014 Heron drilling was downhole surveyed by a multi-shot electronic camera and by a gyroscope survey on completion. `o`From 2015 onwards, a north-seeking gyroscope was used with a gyroscope survey done on completion. • Magnetic minerals are largely absent in the Woodlawn sequence, consequently, there is very little variance between magnetic and the gyroscope readings. • Heron retrospectively applied an adjustment to all magnetic survey azimuths to reflect the change in magnetic pole declination over the life of the mine. In 2019, the WMG bearings were converted based on the Australian Geoscience website as follows: `o`TN to Magnetic declination (updated each year on 1 January) `o`TN to GDA94 `o`TN to WMG. • There has been magnetic variation from deposit discovery in 1969 (+11.39°) to 2016 (+12.385°). • Entech did not make any further adjustments to the grid or azimuths in the database. • The project comprises substantial historical and recent (Heron) mine workings. The workings, as supplied to Entech, were 3D digital wireframe volumes representing historical cut and fill workings predominantly in A, B, C and E lenses. Long hole open stoping (LHOS) and sublevel open stoping (SLOS) methodologies were employed in other lenses by Heron and surveyed via cavity monitoring systems (CMS). Development as-builts were picked up by Heron surveyors using total stations and converted to 3D digital volumes (wireframes).
	• Specification of the grid system used.	• All MRE coordinates are in the Woodlawn Mine Grid (WMG) grid system. Grid transform, as used by Heron in its 2019 Mineral Resources (Heron 2019), is presented below. No changes to this grid system were undertaken by Entech prior to estimation of the Mineral Resources.
	• Quality and adequacy of topographic control.	• A digital terrain model (DTM) of the pre-mining surface correlates with historical collar elevations; however, the source data origins and accuracy of the DTM are unknown. • A LiDAR survey of the post-mining surface that includes the box cut (Heron) location correlates with the decline start position, but the source and accuracy of the survey data are unknown. It was noted that the decline as-builts were surveyed by Heron when Heron commenced mining and the correlation with the LiDAR surface position of the box cut provided confidence that the topographic surface is adequate for use in the MRE.

*Data spacing and distribution*	• Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results.	• No Exploration Results are being reported as part of this Mineral Resource update.
	• 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.	• The resource definition drilling is variably spaced, nominally 15 m × 15 m centres in the upper and central area of the deposit, with one or two holes intersecting mineralisation in down-plunge lens extension at depth. • Entech considers the data spacing to be sufficient to demonstrate the continuity of both the geology and the mineralisation. The spacing is sufficient to define a Mineral Resource for the Woodlawn polymetallic deposit. • Most lengths range between 0.2 m and 1 m, with longer sample lengths limited to geometallurgical sampling.
	• Whether sample compositing has been applied.	• For Mineral Resource estimation purposes, a 1 m composite (base and other metals) was generated.
*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.	• Threemineralised Horizons (Lower, Middle and Upper) hostingtwelveknown massive sulphide lenses occur within a 400 m × 600 m wide and 900 m deep northwest plunging corridor which remains open at depth. Major northwest trending faults affect the distribution of the lenses, with several having been disrupted or offset by these faults. • The average orientation of the massive sulphide lenses dip 60°towards 260°, plunging 110° to the northwest. • RC drilling from surface tested continuity of mineralisation of some lenses to a vertical depth of 145 m and intersected mineralisation close to orthogonal to mineralisation. • Parent and child DD holes from surface intersect mineralisation close to orthogonal to mineralisation. • Underground DD holes were drilled from locations in the footwall and hanging wall, with some footwall hole orientations at a low angle to mineralisation due to fan drill angles and spatial constraints associated with location of underground drive sites.
	• 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 orientation of mineralisation was delineated by correlation between downhole lithology and assay data, and between historical underground as-builts stopes and development drives. • Entech was of the opinion the predominant drilling orientation is suitable for mineralisation volume delineation at the Woodlawn deposit, does not introduce bias nor pose a material risk to the MRE.
*Sample security*	• The measures taken to ensure sample security.	• Sample security of historical data is not documented, with most samples having been prepared and assayed at onsite laboratories (Woodlawn laboratories). • All Heron drilling and approximately half of the historical drilling is stored at the Woodland core farm. The core farm is located on the tenement leases with core stored in both warehouse racking systems undercover and on pallets in the areas next to the storage sheds. • For drilling carried out by Heron: `o`Samples were placed in pre-numbered calico bags that were barcoded. `o`Calico bags were placed in green zip-tied bags. `o`Green zip-tied bags wereplaced into bulka bags that were sealed and transported to

		ALS Orange laboratories for sample preparation and analyses. `o`Barcoded samples were tracked through sample preparation and analyses.
*Audits or reviews*	• The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data.	• Sampling techniques used over the years are consistent with industry standards prevailing at the time. • Evidence of umpire checks or independent reviews is broadly documented in the Woodlawn Underground Mineral Resource (Heron, June 2019) and Updated Independent Technical Due Diligence Review - Heron Resources Ltd - Woodlawn Project - New South Wales (BDA, December 2016) as follows: `o`Heron conducted annual audits of laboratory. `o`Prior to Heron and TriAusMin, no independent audit or umpire checks appear to have been completed, but historical monthly production reconciliation sample data provided anecdotal evidence of robust sampling techniques and data, i.e., a reliable prediction of grade produced from the mine, process recoveries from the mill, and subsequent concentrate production and sales. • Verification of historical assays carried out Woodlawn laboratories was done by resampling historical core as part of the 2016 Technical Due Diligence studies by BDA.

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 following has been summarised from the 2020 Woodlawn Mine Compliance Audit Report prepared by NSW Regulators. • Tarago Operations Pty Ltd (Tarago Operations), a wholly owned subsidiary of Heron Resources Limited (Heron), has held Special (Crown & Private Lands) Lease No. 20 [S(C&PL)L20] since March 2014. The lease was renewed on 21 January 2015 for a further 15 years and expires on 16 November 2029. • Lease area of [S(C&PL)L20] is 2,368 ha. • A Mining Operations Plan (MOP) is required for the mining operations in accordance with condition 3 of [S(C&PL)L20]. • Tarago Operations prepared an MOP for the Woodlawn Mine (Heron Resources Ltd, Woodlawn Mine SML20 mine operations plan) dated 15 September 2015 (INW15/46417/DOI) – which was approved by the Regulator (then the Department of Industry - Resources and Energy) on 11 November 2015 (OUT15/31494/DOI). • In November 2000, Collex Pty Ltd obtained development consent to operate a waste bioreactor on the old Woodlawn mine site using the open cut void. The waste facility was within S(C&PL)L20 and is now operated by Veolia Energy Services Australia Pty Ltd. • Veolia and Tarago Operations (wholly owned subsidiary of Develop Global) have a current Co- operative agreement inplace across the Woodlawn miningtenement S(C&PL)L20.
	• The security of the tenure held at the time of reporting along with any known impediments to obtaining a license to operate in the area.	• All tenements are in good standing.
*Exploration done* *by other parties*	• Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties.	• Information relating to activities prior to 2016 has been sourced from Updated Independent Technical Due Diligence Review Heron Resources Ltd - Woodlawn Project - New South Wales (BDA, December 2016). • The deposit was discovered by Jododex Australia Pty Ltd in 1969, and 25 drill holes defined an initial open pit mineable resource totalling 6.3 Mt of polymetallic ore grading 14.4% Zn, 5.5% Pb and 1.7% Cu, and 3.7 Mt of copper mineralisation grading 1.9% Cu. • Woodlawn operated as an open pit from 1978 to 1987 and from 1986 to 1998 as an underground operation. • CRA, operating as Australian Mining and Smelting, (AMS), purchased the project in 1984 and continued open pit mining (underground mining commenced in 1986). • The project was sold to Denehurst Limited in 1987 and underground mining continued until 1998. • From 1978 to1998 approximately13.8Mt oforewas extractedfromthe openpit, underground

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		and satellite deposits at average grades of 9.1%Zn, 3.6% Pb, 1.6% Cu, 0.5 g/t Au and 74 g/t Ag. • A tailings retreatment project commenced in 1992 with tailings processed from three contiguous tailings storage facilities (TSFs) known as North, South and West dams. Retreated tailings was placed back in North dam. • Following closure of the mine in 1998, Tri Origin Minerals acquired the project. • Limited exploration occurred in the late 1990s and early 2000s, but from 2007 to 2013, completion of a 17-hole DD campaign led to the discovery of Kate (K) and I lenses. • Heron took 100% ownership of the project in 2014 following a merger with TriAusMin (formerly Tri Origin Minerals). • Exploration and resource drilling were completed over Woodlawn deposit from September 2014 through to March 2020: `o`2014: 14 diamond holes (5,596 m) and 11 shallower RC holes (1,201 m) testing for up-dip lens extensions as part of Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) study `o`2015: 92 diamond holes (21,097 m) to firm up Resource-Reserve base, with focus on Kate and Lisa lenses ahead of 2016 Feasibility Study `o`2016: 7 diamond holes for 2,298 m `o`2017: 22 diamond holes for 4,246 m `o`2018: 19 diamond holes for 3,195 m `o`2019: 30 diamond holes for 2,593 m `o`2020: 58 diamond holes for 5,225 m `o`Geotechnical and geometallurgical drilling was completed to support underground development and processing studies. • Heron ceased operation of Woodlawn underground on 25 March 2020. • DVP acquired Woodlawn in February 2022 by purchasing 100% of the shares in Heron Resources Limited.
*Geology*	• Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation.	• The Woodlawn deposit is described in historical documents as a stratiform syngenetic polymetallic volcanogenic massive sulphide (VMS) deposit. • The Woodlawn deposit lies on the eastern limb of the asymmetric north-northwest plunging Woodlawn Syncline. • Base metal (zinc, lead, copper) and precious (silver, gold) mineralisation is hosted within regionally metamorphosed (greenschist facies) fine- to coarse-grained felsic to intermediate volcanic rocks, volcanogenic sedimentary rocks and minor carbonaceous shale, known as the Woodlawn Volcanics. • Threemineralised horizons (Lower, Middle and Upper) hostingtwelveknown massive sulphide lenses occur within a 400 m × 600 m wide and 900 m deep northwest plunging corridor which remains open at depth. • Major northwest trending faults have an impact on the distribution of the lenses, with several having been disrupted or offset by these faults. • Two major mineralisation types were historicallyrecognised:

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		`o` Polymetallic mineralisation:fine- to medium grained, banded to massive pyrite– sphalerite–galena–chalcopyrite, with the gangue mineralogy including talc, quartz, chlorite, phlogopite, muscovite and barite `o` Copper-rich mineralisation:includes pyrite–chalcopyrite, lesser pyrrhotite as well as chlorite, quartz and calcite as massive sulphide and stockwork veins. • Base metal mineralisation is principally associated with the polymetallic assemblage in the massive sulphide lenses. The ore is typically massive pyrite and has splays and thickened zones, which may be associated with faulting. Grades in the massive ore may reach >20% Zn with copper and lead grades of several percent. • Copper-rich assemblages are concentrated along the footwall in the massive sulphides or as stockwork veins proximal to the footwall or hanging wall of the massive sulphides with felsic and metasediments. • Precious metal (Ag, Au) mineralisation occurs mostly in association with the sulphide mineralisation, occurringin both massive and stockwork systems.
*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.	• No Exploration Results are being reported as part of this Mineral Resource update. • All relevant drill holes used for the modelling and estimation of the Woodlawn Mineral Resources are reported within the Appendices of this Report.
	• 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.	• Refer to previous statement.
	• In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging	• No Exploration Results are being reported as part of this Mineral Resource update.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
*Data aggregation* *methods*	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.	• No Exploration Results or aggregated intercepts are being reported.
	• The assumptions used for any reporting of metal equivalent values should be clearly stated.	• A metal equivalent in the form of net smelter return has been applied to Mineral Resources for reporting purposes and is further detailed in Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources.
*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’).	• The geometry of mineralisation is well known and tested at this deposit via DD drilling and historical mining. Across the drill hole dataset, angles to mineralisation are considered to represent a drill intercept perpendicular to lens strike orientation. With increasing depth, the drill hole intercept angle to lens decreases. However, drilling from underground locations has assisted in mitigating this issue for Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources.
*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.	• No significant discovery is being reported. Plan and long section maps, sections relevant to the Mineral Resources are included in the body of this Report.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
*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.	• No Exploration Results are being reported as part of this Mineral Resource update.
*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.	• Given this is a mature stage project with historical mining and regularised resource and grade control drilling underpinning Mineral Resources, no substantive exploration data has been recently collected at the project. • Geotechnical, metallurgical, bulk density, rock characteristic testwork was completed to feasibility study level of detail in 2016 by Heron. • Entech does not consider there are any meaningful or material exploration data relevant or material to this Mineral Resource update.
*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).	• Entech understands DVP plans to drill test lens extensional opportunities both along strike and down dip. Step-out drilling down dip is considered a key priority for DVP to target untested plunge extents of the deposit mineralisation package.
	• Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions, including the main geological interpretations and future drilling areas, provided this information is not commercially sensitive.	• Refer to previous statement.

SECTION 3 ESTIMATION AND REPORTING OF MINERAL RESOURCES

(Criteria listed in section 1, and where relevant in section 2, also 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.	• The database has been audited by Entech for validation errors and physical comparison of drill hole core photography against geological and assay data undertaken for 1,106 holes underpinning the Mineral Resource. • Heron’s Datashed database and original laboratory assay certificates could not be sourced, with key personnel having left the company since the Woodlawn Project was put on care and maintenance in March 2020 and Heron being placed into voluntary administration in July 2021. • The drill hole database was reconstructed from two data sources: `o`Query extraction of .csv files date stamped 20210921 (21 September 2021) provided by Voluntary Administrators during the project tender phase in September 2021 `o`DVP’s Geology Manager retrieved .csv backup of the database date stamped 20200305 (5 March 2020) during a site visit in March 2022. This date stamp was the most recent backup aside from the dataset provided in September 2021. • Entech completed a comparison of the two datasets. For Sample-IDs that were identical, downhole intervals and assay results matched except for minor rounding differences to three decimals places for a small portion (considered not material). • An additional check was made by the Competent Person of the database against known drill holes being drilled, logged and sampled at the time of the site visit in March 2020. It was determined that the drill holes being processed at the time (e.g. stage of drilling or assayed) matched the compiled dataset detailed above and that these data fairly represented the most recent drilling information available at the project at the time of project cessation. • Heron’s database to March 2020 comprised 1,555 Collar records, 17,245 Survey records, 33,542 Assay records and 28,068 Lithology records. The compiled database used for resource estimation comprised 1,106 Collar records, 16,078 Survey records, 30,592 Assay records and 27,009 Lithologyrecords.
	• Data validation procedures used.	• Entech completed various validation checks using built-in validation tools in GEOVIA Surpac™ and data queries in Microsoft Access such as overlapping samples, duplicate entries, missing data, sample length exceeding hole length, unusual assay values and a review of below detection limit samples. A visual examination of the data was also completed to check for erroneous downhole surveys. • The data validation process identified no major drill hole data issues that would materially affect the MRE outcomes. • Entech’s database checks included the following: `o`Checking for duplicate drill hole names and duplicate coordinates in the collar table. `o`Checking for missing drill holes in the collar, survey, assay and geology tables based on drill hole names. `o`Checking for survey inconsistencies including dips and azimuths <0˚, dips >90˚, azimuths >360˚ and negative depth values. `o`Checking for inconsistencies in the‘From’and‘To’fields of the assay and geology tables.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		The inconsistency checks included the identification of negative values, overlapping intervals, duplicate intervals, gaps and intervals where the ‘From’ value is greater than the ‘To’ value.
*Site visits*	• Comment on any site visits undertaken by the Competent Person and the outcome of those visits.	• The Competent Person undertook a site visit to the Woodlawn deposit between 10 and 18 March 2020. During the visit Entech inspected mineralised intersections from the Woodlawn deposit in drill core (Kate and G lenses) in underground exposures (G lens) and observed drilling, logging, sampling, QAQC and metadata collection operations. • Travel restrictions associated with COVID-19 pandemic and the operations being closed from late March 2020 until change of ownership to DVP in February 2022 have limited the opportunity to access site and undertake more recent observations. However, given the previous site visit occurred a few weeks prior to operations being suspended in March 2020, Entech is of the opinion that project observations and conclusions made at the time reflect processes, procedures and mineralisation styles inherited byDVP at the time ofproject acquisition in February2022.
	• If no site visits have been undertaken indicate why this is the case.	• Refer to previous statement.
*Geological* *interpretation*	• Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertainty of) the geological interpretation of the mineral deposit.	• Lithology and structure are considered the predominant controls on both the base metals (zinc, lead, copper), precious metal (silver, gold) and gangue (iron) mineralisation at the Woodlawn deposit. • Entech relied on historical Heron geological documentation, database derived geological and assay data, historical mineralisation wireframes, mining voids and site-based observations to evaluate geological, structural and mineralisation continuity. • Entech reviewed historical lithological units of the footwall sequence and found them fit for purpose for the MRE. • Entech interpreted and modelled base of complete oxidation (BOCO) and base of partial oxidation (BOPO) surfaces from downhole logging data. • Mineralisation domains were interpreted primarily on geological logging and downhole geological contacts, based on lithology, sulphide distribution, grade distribution, major faults and geometry. This combination provided a mineralisation characterisation which effectively domained mineralisation style and sub-domained higher tenor zinc and copper mineralisation. • Confidence in the mineralisation continuity was based on geological, mineralogical and assay data that were cross referenced with available core photography and historical mine development and stopes wireframes. Two major mineralisation types previously identified by Heron are recognised: `o`Polymetallic mineralisation: fine- to medium-grained, banded to massive pyrite–sphalerite– galena–chalcopyrite, with the gangue mineralogy including talc, quartz, chlorite, phlogopite, muscovite and barite `o`Copper-rich mineralisation: includes pyrite–chalcopyrite, lesser pyrrhotite as well as chlorite, quartz and calcite as massive sulphide and stockwork veins. A total of 198,718 m of drilling from 1,067 DD holes (including RC with diamond tails) and 39 RC drill holes was available for the MRE. Interpretation of the two mineralisation types were initially

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		undertaken using all available drill holes within Seequent Leapfrog GEO™ software. Intercepts correlating to massive sulphide and copper-rich mineralisation and underpinned by strike continuity implied from lithology wireframes were independently identified and manually selected within Seequent Leapfrog GEO™prior to creation of an implicit vein model. Two sulphide mineralisation domains based on sulphide content were defined: a massive sulphide mineralisation domain for polymetallic and copper-rich mineralisation, and a stringer mineralisation domain for copper in the footwall associated with disseminated and stringer sulphide mineralisation. Massive sulphide mineralisation • Entech considers confidence is moderate to high in the geological interpretation and continuity of mineralisation domains within the massive sulphides. • Geological contacts with unmineralised footwall and hanging wall metasediments and felsics were the primary boundaries used for defining massive sulphide lode domain volumes. • Within the massive sulphide lode domains, correlation and statistical analysis and visual review of the mineralisation tenor, orientation and continuity underpinned base metal (zinc, lead, copper), precious metal (silver, gold) and gangue (iron) sub-domain approaches. Statistical distributions highlighted a bimodal distribution for both copper and zinc in the Middle and Upper massive sulphide lenses. Copper and zinc in these horizons have a distinctive geospatial relationship, with zinc primarily on the northern flank and copper on the southern flank. This distinction is less evident in the Upper horizon, which may be due to a combination of sparser drill hole coverage, differing controls on mineralisation and lode geometry. • Based on these conclusions, Indicator numerical modelling was used (in massive domains) to capture spatially continuous sub-domains of zinc (including lead) and copper, with resulting grade populations ranging from Min: 0.0015% – Max: 44.6%, Mean – 8.8% (zinc); Min: 0.001%, Max: 27.81%, Mean: 3.4% (lead) and Min: 0.002%, Max: 20.8%, Mean: 1.5% (copper). These sub-domains were exclusive of each other and used as hard boundaries in the massive sulphide geological envelopes, whereby zinc and lead were composited and estimated within the zinc sub-domain, and copper was composited and estimated within the copper sub-domain. • Correlation analysis indicated gold, silver and iron were similarly distributed across massive sulphide domains and thus were composited and estimated inside this boundary with no sub- domaining undertaken. • To maintain continuity, some material below 0.6% Zn and 0.6% Cu has been included in the lodes. • Historical underground mining documentation, stope and development void locations, preferential orientations, and widths were also used to ground-truth interpretations of higher grade/tenor zinc and copper sub-domains and verify the selected hard boundaries which would control estimated metal outcomes. • Weathering and oxidation horizons have had negligible impact on base and precious metals, with all mineralised domains lying within fresh material. Copper stringer mineralisation • In addition to copper in massive sulphide domains, copper occurs as footwall disseminated and stringer sulphide mineralisation.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		• Entech considers confidence is moderate to high in the geological interpretation and continuity of the copper stringer mineralisation. Entech considers that any alternate interpretations would be unlikely to result in significant difference to lodes spatially and/or volumetrically. • Copper-rich domains within the disseminated and stringer sulphides showed poor continuity due to the nature and geological setting for this style of sulphide mineralisation. • Sampling of core was based primarily on the presence and/or abundance of sulphides, with sampling of massive sulphides prioritised over sampling of disseminated or stringer sulphide mineralisation. Consequently, sample coverage of stringer mineralisation is more variable and wider spaced.
	• Nature of the data used and of any assumptions made.	• Assumptions with respect to mineralisation continuity (plunge, strike and dip) within the underground Mineral Resource were drawn directly from: `o`Drill hole lithological logging `o`Drill hole core photography (where available) `o`Mapped and interpreted northwest trending major faults `o`Variably spaced resource definition drilling, nominally 15 m × 15 m centres in the upper and central area of the deposit, with the down plunge lens extensions having one or two holes intersecting mineralisation at depth `o`Underground void shapes of development and stopes `o`Underground production drilling (sludge and face sampling) was used to assist with modelling of mineralisation geometries but not used for estimation purposes `o`Historical resource and mining documentation/records/files.
	• The effect, if any, of alternative interpretations on Mineral Resource estimation.	• Entech is of the opinion that alternate interpretations and additional drill hole information would be unlikely to result in significant spatial or volume variations. This conclusion was based on undertaking grade-basedprobabilistic volume modelling(numerical modelling).
	• The use of geology in guiding and controlling Mineral Resource estimation.	• The geological sequence, sulphide mineralisation styles and major structural faults defined the geospatial framework for numerical modelling.
	• The factors affecting continuity both of grade and geology.	• Drill hole coverage for geological and grade domain interpretations varies from 15 m × 15 m in some mining areas of the historical mine to greater than 80 m × 80 m in some exploration areas, with one or two holes intersecting mineralisation in down-plunge lens extensions at depth.
*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 mineralisation extent of the Woodlawn deposit comprises three mineralised horizons (Lower, Middle and Upper) hosting twelve known massive sulphide lenses occur within a 400 m × 600 m wide and 900 m deep northwest plunging corridor which remains open at depth. Across-strike widths vary from 1 m to <35 m. • The MRE for zinc, lead, copper, silver and gold on which this Table 1 is based has the following extents: `o`Above 1850 mRL `o`From 8750 mE to 10050 mE `o`From 18950 mN to 19850 mN.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary

*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.	• Domain intercepts were flagged and implicitly modelled in Seequent Leapfrog GEOTM software. • Interpretation was a collaborative process with DVP geologists to ensure Entech’s modelling approach aligned with project restart objectives, represented observations and understanding of geological and mineralisation controls. • Domain interpretations used all available drill hole data with sludge and wall chip samples excluded from downhole compositing. All interpreted intervals were snapped to sample intervals prior to construction of implicitly modelled 3D lode solids. • All drill hole samples and block model blocks were coded for lens and oxidation domain. • Compositing approaches were selected to honour the mineralisation style, geometry, expected grade variability and potential mining selectivity. • Drilling samples were composited to 1 m lengths honouring lode domain boundaries. The Seequent Leapfrog length composite (best fit) was used, whereby any small uncomposited intervals (residuals) were divided evenly between the composites. • Composites were declustered and reviewed for statistical outliers and top-caps were applied by domain and variable. Top-caps were applied where outliers were determined to be statistical and spatial in nature. • Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA), variogram modelling and estimation validation was completed in GeoAccess, Supervisor V8.8 and Isatis™. • Linear estimation techniques were considered suitable due to the style of deposit and available data density. • Variography analyses for zinc, copper, lead, gold, silver and iron were completed on declustered and capped downhole composites grouped by mineralisation style (massive, stringer) and horizon (Lower, Middle, Upper). Robust variogram models with a low to moderate nugget for zinc and lead (6–18%), copper (10%), gold and silver (6–22%) were delineated and used in Kriging Neighbourhood Analysis (KNA) to determine parent cell estimation size and optimise search neighbourhoods. Variogram and search parameters for zinc were applied to lead due to statistical and spatial similarities. It should be noted that although the maximum continuity modelled in the variograms ranged from 20-190m, the bulk of spatial variability (~60%) and subsequent kriging weights was applied within 30–50 m in the Lower and Middle horizons and 10–30 m in the Upper horizon. • Maximum ranges of continuity were: `o` Zinc and lead. Lower 150 m, Middle 60 m, Upper 20 m `o` Copper. Lower 60 m, Middle 130 m, Upper 30 m `o` Gold and silver. Lower 165 m, Middle 135-190 m, Upper 120 m. • Search neighbourhoods broadly reflected the direction of maximum continuity within the plane of mineralisation, ranges, and anisotropy ratios from the variogram models. Neighbourhood parameters were optimised through Kriging Neighbourhood Analysis (KNA) and validation of interpolation outcomes. • Allestimation was completedwithin respectivemineralisationdomains as outlinedin

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		previous sections: `o` Silver ppm, gold ppm and iron percent. Massive sulphide domain. `o` Zinc percent and lead percent. Zinc subdomain inside massive sulphide domain. `o` Copper percent. Copper subdomain inside massive sulphide domain and also as footwall stringer domain. • No other hard boundaries were applied (i.e. weathering profile). • Maximum distance of extrapolation from data points was approximately half the drill hole data spacing. With this approach, the maximum distance blocks estimated from known data points was ~80 m.
	• The availability of check estimates, previous estimates and/or mine production records and whether the Mineral Resource estimate takes appropriate account of such data.	• A check estimate was undertaken for zinc, copper and gold on a selection of domains using Inverse Distance Squared (IDW) with < 3% grade variance for zinc, copper and an average of 7% increase in gold grade for the IDW outcome. • The most recent Heron Mineral Resource documentation (Heron 2019) states a global Mineral Resource (inclusive of TSF and underground Mineral Resources of 18.2 Mt at 9.8% ZnEq) prepared under the guidelines of the JORC Code, which includes a high-grade underground Mineral Resource of 7.4 Mt at 15.2% ZnEq. Heron’s Underground MRE is presented in the table below.Referenced directly from Heron’s ASX Release dated 30 October 2019 - Woodlawn Project Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve Statement June 2019). • By comparison, approaches to domaining, classification, RPEEE (sterilisation and NSR) undertaken by Entech account for the variations to historical Mineral Resources. Key differences in approach included. `o` Inclusion of resource and grade control diamond drill holes for the Kate and G lodes which identified multiple discrete lenses and zinc, copper sub-domains. This approach was implemented across all other lenses and varied from the Heron approach which included internal waste in broader massive sulphide domains. `o` Classification approach which considered the key challenges experienced by Heron during mining, and immediately prior to closure of operations. `o` Definitionofsterilisedvolumesviareviewof MSO (Mineable Stope Optimiser)

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		shapes, NSR values, and DVP’s Life of LOMP for accessing remnant areas. `o` Change in resource classification and reporting criteria from zinc equivalent (ZnEq) in 2019 MRE to the current (2022) NSR based approach. • Mineral Resource accounts for historical mined voids, material sterilised by historical miningand operational challenges experienced byHeronprior to closure in 2020.
	• The assumptions made regarding recovery of by- products.	• No assumptions were made with respect to by-product recovery.
	• Estimation of deleterious elements or other non-grade variables of economic significance (e.g. sulfur for acid mine drainage characterisation).	• Entech understands that both iron and sulphur require monitoring for mine planning and metallurgical amenability purposes. • Iron was composited, estimated and validated using the same process as for value elements of gold and silver. • Sulphur was selectively assayed and did not comprise sufficient data to support estimation. A regression was calculated for sulphur and applied within the final block model using estimated block grades for zinc, lead, copper and iron as input values. • No assumptions were made within the MRE with respect to other deleterious variables or by- products.
	• In the case of block model interpolation, the block size in relation to the average sample spacing and the search employed.	• Block sizes used were 5 mE × 10 mN and 10 mRL with sub-blocks of 0.625 mE × 0.3125 mN and 0.3125 mRL. The parent block size was selected to provide suitable volume fill given the available data spacing and mining selectivity. The drilling data spacing varies from nominal 15 m × 15 m spacing in the central area of the deposit and increases to exploration spacing of 80 m to test continuity of mineralisation at depth. Block model origins were selected to correlate with the Heron 2019 block model. • A two-pass estimation strategy was used, whereby search ranges reflected variogram maximum modelled continuity and a minimum of 6, maximum of 12 composites for zinc, lead and copper, and a minimum of 6, maximum of 16 for gold and silver. The second search reduced the minimum composite required in the neighbourhood to 4, all other parameters (e.g. range and maximum composites) remained the same. All blocks which did not meet the criteria to trigger an estimate remained un-estimated and were excluded from classification.
	• Any assumptions behind modelling of selective mining units.	• No selective mining units were assumed for this Mineral Resource update.
	• Any assumptions about correlation between variables.	• Correlation analyses was completed for the Lower, Middle and Upper massive sulphide domains which contributed to the grouping of elements for compositing and estimation within these domains. • There was insufficient sample population for estimation of sulphur; however, there is a strong positive correlation between iron and sulphur. A sulphur regression was calculated in the final block model using estimated grades for zinc, lead, copper and iron grades as inputs based on strong positive correlation. • Grouping of elements for compositing and estimation was based on the following positive correlations:

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		`o`Zinc + lead `o`Gold + silver + iron `o`Copper.
	• Description of how the geological interpretation was used to control the resource estimates.	• All estimation was completed within either a geologically defined massive sulphide domain (silver, gold, iron) or within higher tenor zinc or copper sub-domains inside the massive domains. Hard boundaries for estimation were: `o`Silver ppm, gold ppm and iron percent: Massive sulphide domain `o`Zinc percent and lead percent: Zinc subdomain inside massive sulphide domain `o`Copper percent: `o` Copper subdomain inside massive sulphide domain, and `o` Stringer domain to footwall of massive domain. • Note that 28 massive and 18 stringer domains were interpreted across the deposit. The domains were grouped as per historical nomenclature into lenses A, B, C, D, E, G, H, I, J, Kate(K) and Lisa (L). • Each massive sulphide domain comprised a sub-domain volume for zinc and sub-domain volume for copper estimation, which reflected findings of geospatial, statistical and correlation analysis. • For the purposes of Exploratory Data Analysis, including variography and kriging neighbourhood analysis for the elements of zinc, lead, copper, silver, gold and iron, these domains were also grouped by their mineralisation style (massive or stringer) or by horizon: `o`Lower: A, B, C, J `o`Middle: D, E, Kate `o`Upper: G, H, I, Lisa. • Geological interpretation of lithology, weathering and structure was not used to control the Mineral Resource estimation as the domains outlined above represent the key controls on mineralisation at the deposit. Note that interpretations of lens strike extents included consideration of interpreted structural offsets.
	• Discussion of basis for using or not using grade cutting or capping.	• Assessment and application of top-capping was undertaken on the zinc, lead, copper, gold and silver variables within individual (and grouped) domains. Domains were capped to address instances where outliers were defined as both statistical and spatial outliers, presented below: • All domains – zinc 15%, lead 10% and copper 15%: `o` Zinc, caps applied across Lower, Middle, Upper horizons: < 1% metal reduction `o` Lead, caps applied across Lower, Middle, Upper horizons: < 1% metal reduction `o` Copper, caps applied in Lower Horizon: < 1% metal reduction • Individual domains – gold ranging from 4 to 15 g/t: `o` Caps applied in Lower Horizon: 2 % metal reduction `o` Caps applied in Middle Horizon: < 1% metal reduction `o` Caps applied in Upper Horizon: 4 % metal reduction • Individual domains – silver ranging from 100 to 1,000 g/t: `o` Caps applied in Lower Horizon: < 1% metal reduction

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		`o` Caps applied in Middle Horizon: < 1% metal reduction `o` Caps applied in Upper Horizon: 11 % metal reduction.
	• The process of validation, the checking process used, the comparison of model data to drill hole data, and use of reconciliation data if available.	• Global and local validation of the zinc, lead, copper, gold, silver and iron estimated outcomes was undertaken with statistical analysis, swath plots and visual comparison (cross and long sections) against input data. Global comparison of declustered and capped composite mean against estimated mean (by domain and variable) highlighted less than 1% variation for zinc, lead, copper. Silver estimated outcome was 6% lower than global composite mean. Gold estimated outcome was 5% lower than global composite mean. • Reconciliation data for Heron’s recently mined areas (G lode) were not considered suitable for comparison as both mining and milling data during the months prior to closure were compromised byoperational challenges.
*Moisture*	• Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or with natural moisture, and the method of determination of the moisture content.	• The tonnages were estimated on a dry basis.
*Cut-off* *parameters*	• The basis of the adopted cut- off grade(s) or quality parameters applied.	• The MRE is reported exclusive of mineralisation which has been mined and also mineralisation which was considered sterilised by adjacent mining. • The NSR of A$100/t is approximately 76% of the break-even stoping cut-off value underpinning the current DVP Life of Mine Plan (LOMP). The NSR of A$140/t for remnant areas reflects higher associated costs with metal recovery from remnant mining areas and was selected based upon discussions with DVP engineers and benchmarked against analogous peer operations (comparable deposit style, commodities, project maturity). • The NSR cut-off considers revenue from base (zinc, lead, copper percent) and precious metals (gold, silver ppm) and offsets site operating and sustaining capital costs, including underground operating development. Metallurgical recoveries are factored in the NSR calculation. The base metal and precious metals used in the NSR calculation all have reasonable potential of being saleable. • For the purposes of the NSR calculation, assumed metal prices, exchange rates, recoveries and other payability assumptions are listed in Table 1. Table 1 • For the purposes of NSR determination, NSR values were calculated on a block by block basis prior to implementing reporting cut-offs for remnant mining and virgin areas. • Itwasnoted that theWoodlawn inventoryincluded 8.1 Mt of materialadjacent to, or within 10

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		m, of historical mining voids. The consideration of this material as either sterilised or as a Mineral Resource within the context of Reasonable Prospects for Eventual Economic Extraction (RPEEE) was considered material to MRE outcomes. • The process to define material as sterilised or Mineral Resource material included a review of the Mineral Resources within the context of RPEEE. The process included stamping into the block model all estimated blocks within 0–5 m and 5–10 m from open development and stoping voids, running MSO (Mineable Stope Optimiser) on all material in remnant areas and holding discussions with DVP and Entech mining engineers on the likelihood of achieving access, on a lens by lens basis. • A key assumption underpinning these discussions and caveats to accessing these Mineral Resources included DVP gaining re-entry to sections of historical workings (pre-2014). Entech included or excluded material based on the understanding that a re-entry plan is defined and planned for execution as part of the LOMP.The Competent Person reviewed individual lenses against historical and recent (Heron) mining voids, MSO shapes and NSR cut-offs above A$140/t to identify contiguous areas on strike extents, up or down dip of historical mining which could be considered potentially extractable by DVP within a reasonable timeframe of 15 years. • Using this approach approximately ~3 Mt of material from lenses A, B, C, E and J were incorporated as remnant Inferred Mineral Resources. This comprises 41% of the tonnage in the Woodlawn Mineral Resources. All remaining material (~5.1 Mt) was classified as sterilised, not meeting RPEEE considerations, and is excluded from Mineral Resource tabulations. • It is the Competent Person’s opinion that these methods and cut-off grades satisfy the requirements to test, assess and define the Woodlawn Mineral Resources within the context of RPEEE.
*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.	• Entech understands DVP plans to implement similar-scale mechanised underground mining methods used previously at Woodlawn. This assumption was based on discussions with DVP’s senior geologists and engineers. • The MRE extends nominally 900 m below the topographic surface. Entech considers material at this depth, and at the grades estimated, would fall under the definition of RPEEE (reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction) in an underground mining framework. • Entech considers the two NSR cut-offs used for MRE reporting of material from virgin and remnant mining areas, being A$140/t and A$100/t, respectively, reflect higher costs associated with metal recovery from remnant mining areas and would fall within the definition of RPEEE in an underground framework. • No mining dilution or cost factors were applied to the estimate.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
*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.	• Metallurgical recovery factors have been applied within the NSR. Metallurgical recovery factors were based on initial metallurgical testwork during the 2016 feasibility study, a metallurgical review by Mineralis (Ref: Review of Woodlawn Metallurgical Operations, Mineralis Consultants, April 2020) and later flow process studies conducted by Heron in 2021 (Ref: Proposed flotation circuit flowsheet and pumping upgrades; high level design and cost estimation, internal company report, June 2021) • Metallurgical testwork was based on crushing and grinding underground mineralisation from Kate lens to produce float concentrates for copper, lead and zinc in order to assess recoveries of saleable concentrates for each metal type. Mineralis observed that zinc performance was the most consistent of the three metals (copper, lead, zinc) with the worst result being 50% zinc concentrate at 70% recovery. • Estimated metallurgical recoveries are factored into NSR calculations. Total recoveries calculated in the NSR, inclusive of all concentrate products are 92% Zn, 85% Pb, 89% Cu, 43% Au and 78% Ag. • Entech understands that both iron and sulphur require monitoring for mine planning and metallurgical amenability purposes. Both variables were included in the final Mineral Resource block model. Entech was not aware of other deleterious variables which would materially affect eventual economic extraction of Mineral Resources. • No factors or assumptions were made within the MRE with respect to other deleterious variables or by-products.
*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 greenfields 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	• No environmental factors were applied to the Mineral Resources or resource tabulations.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	made.
*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.	• This MRE contains dry bulk density data which was collected on drill core from 188 holes (between 2014 and 2020). • The density samples were located between 19100 mN and 19800 mN, 8800 mE and 9600 mE and nominally from the surface to a depth of 800 m, providing a representative density profile between mineralised domains, and depth profile within a centralised portion of the MRE.
	• 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.	• Density measurements were collected on all samples sent to the laboratory. It was measured using an industry-accepted water immersion density determination method for each sample. • The testing area was inspected by a third-party geology resource consultant in December 2018 and reported as industry standard.
	• Discuss assumptions for bulk density estimates used in the evaluation process of the different materials.	• Entech investigated a multi-element regression using Zn %, Pb %, Cu % and Fe % grouped by horizon and for all domains combined. Of the available density values, 85% came from the Upper and Middle horizons. The outcomes for these two horizons were very similar, with good correlation, particularly with respect to Fe. The regression for the Lower horizon was inconclusive. Only 15% of the density data were located in the Lower horizon. • Entech chose to use a multiple regression formula across all domains, using all available samples, which results in a >95% correlation between the original density value and predicted value. The formula uses coefficients for Zn %, Pb %, Cu % and Fe %. • Bulk density is estimated into the block model via a multivariate regression equation, using the block grade estimations: Density = 2.5179+(Zn%0.0241) + (Pb%0.0282) + (Cu%-0.0014) + (Fe%0.0460) • No verifiable historical density data have been located, although the collection of density measurements is mentioned in a number of historical Woodlawn Mineral Resource reports.
*Classification*	• The basis for the classification of the Mineral Resources into varying confidence categories.	• The Woodlawn underground zinc-copper deposit contains Measured, Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources. • Mineral Resources were classified based on geological and grade continuity confidence drawn directly from: `o`Drill hole methodology, data quality, spacing and orientation `o`Geological domaining `o`Estimation quality parameters `o`Historical mining strike lengths, widths, stope orientations and remnant mining areas. • MeasuredMineral Resources were defined where a high level of geological confidence in

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		geometry, continuity, and grade was demonstrated, and were identified as areas where: `o`Blocks were well supported by drill hole data, with drilling averaging a nominal 15 × 15 m or less between drill holes `o`Lens was intercepted by Heron on two sublevels and blocks are within 20–30 m from a lens development drive `o`Estimation quality, slope of regression above 0.8. • IndicatedMineral Resources were defined where a moderate level of geological confidence in geometry, continuity, and grade was demonstrated, and were identified as areas where: `o`Blocks were well supported by drill hole data, with drilling averaging a nominal 40 × 40 m or less between drill holes `o`Blocks were interpolated with a neighbourhood informed by a minimum of 10 samples • InferredMineral Resources were defined where a lower level of geological confidence in geometry, continuity and grade was demonstrated, and were identified as areas where: `o`Drill spacing was averaging a nominal 60 m or less, or where drilling was within 70 m of the block estimate `o`Blocks were interpolated with a neighbourhood informed by a minimum of 4 samples • Mineralisation within the model which did not satisfy the criteria for classification as Mineral Resources remained unclassified.
	• Whether appropriate account has been taken of all relevant factors (ie 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).	• Consideration has been given to all factors material to Mineral Resource outcomes, including but not limited to confidence in volume and grade delineation, continuity and preferential orientation mineralisation; quality of data underpinning Mineral Resources, mineralisation continuity experienced during previous underground operations, nominal drill hole spacing and estimation quality (conditional bias slope, number of samples, distance to informing samples).
	• Whether the result appropriately reflects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit.	• The delineation of Measured, Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources appropriately reflect the Competent Person’s view on continuity and risk at the deposit.
*Audits or reviews*	• The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral Resource estimates.	• Internal audits and peer review were undertaken by Entech with a focus on independent resource tabulation, block model validation, verification of technical inputs, and approaches to domaining, interpolation, and classification.
*Discussion of* *relative* *accuracy/confide* *nce*	• 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	• The MRE is globally representative of zinc, lead, copper, gold and silver Mineral Resources; however, there is uncertainty relating to local representation of volume and grade in Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources due to the mine-scale localised fault structures which terminate and/or offset mineralisation and are locally discontinuous. • Local variances to the tonnage, grade, and metal distribution are expected with further definition drilling. It is the opinion of the Competent Person that these variances will not

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	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.	significantly affect economic extraction of the deposit. • The MRE is considered fit for the purpose for project re-start objectives that include both strategic and operational mine planning activities.
	• 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.	• The Mineral Resource statement relates to global tonnage and grade estimates. • No formal confidence intervals nor recoverable resources were undertaken or derived.
	• These statements of relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate should be compared with production data, where available.	• Reconciliation data for Heron’s recently mined areas (G lode) were not considered suitable for comparison as both mining and milling data during the months prior to closure were compromised by operational challenges. However, historical documentation indicates comparable contained metal and metal recoveries from historically mined areas. The project is currentlyat a restartphase havingbeen on care and maintenance since March 2020.

entech .

Engineering | Geology | Geotech

Entech Pty Ltd. ABN 23 143 135 773

8 Cook St, West Perth WA 6005 [email protected]

entechmining.com

2 August 2022

Luke Gibson Geology Manager Develop Global Limited

LETTER OF CONSENT – WOODLAWN ZINC - COPPER DEPOSIT

UNDERGROUND MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE

Dear Mr Gibson

The following report summarises material outcomes with respect to the underground Base Metal Mineral Resource Estimate for the Woodlawn Zinc-Copper deposit, prepared by Entech Pty Ltd during June 2022 and reported in accordance with JORC Code (2012) guidelines. The Material Summary, JORC Code Table 1, sign-off and consent form included in this letter enable Develop Global Limited to achieve compliance with the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) Listing Rules regarding announcements of Mineral Resources to the market.

Should you have any questions relating to this report please contact the undersigned.

Regards

Entech Pty Ltd

==> picture [150 x 61] intentionally omitted <==

Jill Irvin Principal Geology Consultant BSc MAIG

entech .

MATERIAL SUMMARY

WOODLAWN UNDERGROUND MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE

Material information summary as required under ASX Listing Rule 5.8 and JORC Code (2012) reporting guidelines.

Mineral Resource Statement

The Mineral Resource Statement for the Woodlawn Zinc-Copper underground Mineral Resource Estimate (MRE) was prepared during June 2022 and is reported according to the Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (the ‘JORC Code’) 2012 edition.

The MRE includes 198,718 m of drilling from 1,067 diamond drill holes (DD), including reverse circulation with diamond tails, and 39 reverse circulation (RC) drill holes, completed since 1969. Of the drill metres underpinning the Mineral Resource, 26% were completed by Heron Resources Limited, with the remaining historical drilling completed by previous owners between 1969 and 2013. The depth from surface to the current vertical limit of the Mineral Resources is approximately 900 m.

In the opinion of Entech, the Mineral Resource evaluation reported herein is a reasonable representation of the global underground zinc, copper, lead, gold and silver Mineral Resources within the deposit, based on sampling drill data available as at 1 April 2022.

The Measured, Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources are reported excluding historical mining voids and exclusion zones[1] , comprise wholly of fresh rock material and use a Net Smelter Return[2] (NSR) cut-off value. The NSR cut-off values chosen to constrain and report Mineral Resource blocks were A$140/t for historical remnant[3] lenses and A$100/t for all other lenses. Entech considered these cut-offs to reflect values required to obtain metal recovery from the respective areas[4] using mechanised underground mining methods. The Mineral Resource Statement is presented in Table 1.

1 Allion Partners. Co-operation deed. Heron Resources Ltd, Veolia Environmental Services Pty Ltd. 23 March 2017.

2 Net smelter return inputs and application to Mineral Resources are provided under Cut-off Grade (page 12) and also ‘Cut-off parameters’ in Section 3 of the attached JORC Code Table 1.

3 Historical remnant lenses are defined as where greater than 20% of lens tonnage has been stoped using historical mining methods.

4 Based on review of Heron Resources Ltd’s historical economic cut-offs and Ore Reserve documentation, DVP’s Life of Mine Plan (LOMP) and benchmarked against peer operations with comparable deposit style and commodities.

2 | P a g e

entech .

Table 1 Woodlawn underground Zinc-Copper Mineral Resource, at NSR cut-off of A$100/t, with A$140/t used for remnant lenses

Mineral Resource Category	Tonnes (kt)	NSR (A$/t)	Zinc (%)	Lead (%)	Copper (%)	Gold (ppm)	Silver (ppm)

Measured	104	404	4.3	1.9	2.1	1.4	100.0
Indicated	4,776	348	5.0	1.8	1.8	0.7	42.2
Inferred	2,461	408	6.9	2.5	1.8	0.3	47.8
Total	7,341	369	5.7	2.0	1.8	0.6	44.9

A total of 198,718 m of drilling from 1,067 DD and 39 RC drill holes was available for the MRE. Mineralisation interpretations were informed by 786 DD holes intersecting the resource and two RC drill holes intersecting the resource, for a total of 13,966 m of drilling intersecting the resource.

A breakdown of Table 1, by NSR cut-off, is presented in Table 2 and Table 3.

Table 2 Woodlawn underground Zinc-Copper remnant Mineral Resource at an NSR cut-off of A$140/t

Mineral Resource Category	Lens	Tonnes (kt)	NSR (A$/t)	Zinc (%)	Lead (%)	Copper (%)	Gold (ppm)	Silver (ppm)

	A	77	357	6.9	3.1	0.8	0.6	52.4
	B	544	422	8.0	2.5	1.7	0.1	31.0
Indicated	C	131	350	5.2	0.8	2.3	0.2	22.1
	J	37	400	4.6	0.4	3.4	0.1	24.5
	E	75	328	6.8	2.7	0.4	1.0	37.8
	A	55	491	9.7	4.1	1.0	0.6	81.3
	B	1,109	476	9.2	3.7	1.3	0.3	70.5
Inferred	C	713	409	5.9	1.6	2.6	0.3	31.2
	J	247	331	4.1	1.2	2.5	0.1	22.3
	E	26	378	7.6	2.6	1.0	0.8	21.9
Total		3,014	425	7.4	2.6	1.8	0.3	46.0

Tonnages are dry metric tonnes. Minor discrepancies may occur due to rounding.

3 | P a g e

entech .

Table 3 Woodlawn underground Zinc-Copper Mineral Resource excluding remnant material at an NSR cut-off of A$100/t

Mineral Resource Category	Lens	Tonnes (kt)	NSR (A$/t)	Zinc (%)	Lead (%)	Copper (%)	Gold (ppm)	Silver (ppm)

Measured	G	104	404	4.3	1.9	2.1	1.4	100.0
	B	442	204	0.5	0.1	2.7	0.0	8.0
	D	954	317	5.5	2.1	1.1	0.8	40.8
	G	448	245	3.5	1.6	0.7	0.8	67.9
	H	78	574	5.5	2.9	3.7	2.0	88.3
Indicated	I	535	405	5.7	2.4	1.9	1.1	54.1
	J	142	294	1.1	0.1	3.6	0.2	14.9
	K	1,230	398	5.6	1.8	2.1	0.9	50.6
	L	83	296	3.7	0.9	2.1	0.5	13.3
Inferred	D	310	213	3.1	0.9	1.2	0.3	21.3
Total		4,327	330	4.4	1.6	1.8	0.8	44.2

Tonnages are dry metric tonnes. Minor discrepancies may occur due to rounding.

Note the B and J lenses comprise Mineral Resources which fall below the lowest elevation of historically mined drives. Entech considers, in these instances, material would be accessed by way of DVP capital development drives and not via re-entry into historical workings. Therefore, these lenses comprise both remnant (within historically mined elevations) and virgin Mineral Resources (below historical mining elevations).

Approximately 41% of the MRE tonnage falls within remnant areas (Table 2), whereby greater than 20% of lens tonnage has been depleted via historical mine workings.

This MRE comprises Inferred Mineral Resources which are unable to have economic considerations applied to them, nor is there certainty that further sampling will enable them to be converted to Measured or Indicated Mineral Resources.

Competent Person’s Statement

The information in the report to which this statement is attached that relates to the Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources at the Woodlawn zinc–copper deposit is based on information compiled by Ms Jill Irvin, BSc, a Competent Person who is a current Member of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists (MAIG 3035). Ms Irvin, Principal Geologist at Entech Pty Ltd, is an independent consultant to Develop Global Limited (DVP) with sufficient experience relevant to the style of mineralisation and deposit type under consideration and to the activities 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 . Ms Irvin consents to the inclusion in the report of matters based on her information in the form and context in which it appears.

Entech undertook a site visit to the Woodlawn operations during March 2020. During the visit Entech inspected mineralised intersections from the Woodlawn deposit in drill core (Kate and G lenses) in underground exposures (G lens) and observed drilling, logging, sampling, QAQC and metadata

4 | P a g e

entech .

collection operations. Given the previous site visit occurred a few weeks prior to operations being suspended in March 2020, Entech is of the opinion that project observations and conclusions made at the time reflect processes, procedures and mineralisation styles inherited by DVP at the time of project acquisition in February 2022.

Drilling Techniques

Historical diamond (DD) drilling makes up 96.5% of Woodlawn underground resource drill holes, including surface parent, wedge holes and drilling from underground drill cuddies, providing intercept points to an average of 20 m × 20 m and maximum vertical depth of 720 m. Reverse circulation (RC) drilling makes up the remaining 3.5% of drill holes underpinning the MRE, all drilled from surface locations and to a maximum depth of 145 m. The RC drilling targeted up-dip extensions of lenses at 100 m × 50 m spacing and ad hoc exploration target testing.

All drill collar locations were initially pegged and surveyed using a hand-held GPS, accurate to ±3–5 m. The holes were normally accurately surveyed using an RTK-DGPS system later (±10 mm) by a licensed surveyor after the holes had been completed. Downhole surveys were taken every 30 m down the hole. All reported coordinates are referenced to the Woodlawn mine grid (WMG). The topography is relatively flat at the location of the drilling.

Exploration and resource drilling campaigns completed historically by Heron at the Woodlawn deposit from 2014 through to March 2020 comprised 26% (288 holes for 49,400 m) of total MRE drill holes. Entech noted a key focus for Heron was to infill and extend drill hole coverage of known lens mineralisation. Drilling prior to Heron (1969–2013) comprises 74% of total MRE drill holes (818 holes for 149,318 m).

- Sampling and Sub Sampling Techniques

Historical DD holes were sampled using HQ3 (61.1 mm) or NQ3 (45 mm) diameter core. Heron’s DD sampling is predominantly 1 m downhole intervals, which are broken at major mineralisation or lithological contacts. Historical holes (74% of database) were a combination of 1 m downhole sampling or based on geological contacts. The DD core was cut in half (or quarter core if metallurgical testing was required). The DD core was oriented where possible and marked with 1 m downhole intervals for logging and sampling. The DD core recoveries during Heron’s drilling were generally fair to good, with an average recovery >98%. Sample bias due to loss of fine/coarse material is unlikely.

The RC drilling used a 4.5-inch (11.43 cm) bit and samples were collected on 1 m intervals. In waste zones, a spear sample was taken (composited to 4 m lengths) and in the mineralised zone, the 1 m sample was split using a riffle splitter. Most sample lengths are between 0.22 m and 1.0 m. Historical documentation states that RC recoveries were visually estimated, with most recorded as being close to 100%.

The sample security of historical drilling is not known, but most samples were assayed at the on-site laboratory and chain-of-custody is not a concern. The sampling by Heron was done by trained

5 | P a g e

entech .

personnel following industry standard sampling procedures.

Sample Analysis Method

Prior to 2000, sample preparation and analyses by Jododex Australia Pty Ltd (Jododex), Australian Mining and Smelting Pty Ltd (AMS) and Denehurst Limited (Denehurst) were conducted on site at the Woodlawn laboratory (NATA accredited laboratory). No company QAQC samples were included in samples submitted to the onsite laboratory. From 2000 to 2013, sample analyses for RC and DD samples collected by TriAusMin Limited (TriAusMin) were conducted at ALS Orange, with some final analyses of pulps undertaken at ALS Brisbane. Sample preparation of RC chip and DD core samples involved drying, crushing and pulverising to 85% passing 75 µm. Heron introduced improved QAQC protocols from 2014 onwards with 1:20 sample pulps checked for grind quality by wet screening at 75 µm with a quartz flush after every sample.

Multi-element analyses prior to 2000 were aqua regia hydrofluoric and perchloric acid digest with AAS or ICP determination of copper, lead, zinc, silver and gold with some re-analysis by XRD or XRF analysis for copper, lead, zinc, silver and gold. Gold was assayed by aqua regia with assays above 2ppm re-assayed by fire assay. No company QAQC samples were included in samples submitted to the onsite laboratory, but the laboratory inserted its own to manage quality of analyses.

From 2000 to 2013, TrisAusMin, and Heron from 2014 to 2020, implemented similar analytical procedures for RC and DD core samples with analyses, completed by independent laboratory facilities off site. Gold determination was by fire assay at ALS Oranges with pulps sent to ALS Brisbane for multielement four-acid digest with ICP-AES finish analyses[5] . TriAusMin included Blanks and certified reference materials (CRMs) at a rate of about 1: 30 samples. From 2014 Heron included (blanks, reference standards and duplicates) at a rate of 5:35 samples during ICP work. The number of gold and base metal CRMs submitted represents about 10% of the total samples assayed since 2000. No duplicates were taken due to majority of samples being from DD core.

Based on documentation review, Entech is of the opinion the sample preparation techniques and analyses are appropriate for the style of deposit, commodity under consideration and reflect standard techniques available at the time.

Geology and Geological Interpretation

The Woodlawn deposit is a stratiform syngenetic polymetallic volcanogenic massive sulphide (VMS) deposit that is hosted within the central part of the mid Silurian to early Devonian Goulburn Basin: a deep water, back-arc basin which developed within Ordovician to early Silurian sediments of the Lachlan Fold Belt that hosts numerous metalliferous deposits. Woodlawn lies on the eastern limb of the asymmetric north-northwest plunging Woodlawn Syncline. Mineralisation for base metal (zinc, lead, copper) and precious metal (silver, gold) is hosted in regionally metamorphosed (greenschist

5 Multi-element analyses comprised Ag, Al, As, Ba, Be, Bi, Ca, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Ga, K, La, Mg, Mn, Mo, Na, Ni, P, Pb, S, Sb, Sc, Sn, Sr, Th, Tl, U, V, W, Y, Zn and Zr

6 | P a g e

entech .

facies) fine- to coarse-grained felsic to intermediate volcanic rocks, volcanogenic sedimentary rocks and minor carbonaceous shale, known as the Woodlawn Volcanics.

Three mineralised horizons (Lower, Middle and Upper) hosting 11 known massive sulphide lenses occur within a 400 m × 600 m wide and 900 m deep northwest plunging corridor which remains open at depth (Figure 1 and Figure 2).

Mineralisation domains were interpreted primarily on geological and mineralisation characterisation models defined by downhole geological contacts, and were based on lithology, sulphide characterisation (and distribution), grade tenor, structural model and review of historical void geometries. Using this approach, two key mineralisation styles were interpreted, massive sulphide and stringer mineralisation. It was noted these styles were also historically documented by Heron and recognised by Entech during the site visit and review of drill core photographs. The two mineralisation styles comprise the following assemblages:

Polymetallic mineralisation: fine- to medium-grained, massive (and banded) pyrite– sphalerite–galena–lesser chalcopyrite, with the gangue mineralogy including iron, talc, quartz, chlorite, phlogopite, muscovite and barite.
Copper mineralisation: includes pyrite–chalcopyrite, lesser pyrrhotite as well as chlorite, quartz and calcite as massive sulphide and stringer veins.

Lithology and structure are considered the predominant controls on base and precious metals, and gangue (iron) mineralisation at the Woodlawn deposit.

Zinc, lead and copper mineralisation is primarily associated with the polymetallic assemblage in the massive sulphide lenses. The mineralisation often comprises massive pyrite and has splays and thickened zones, which may be associated with faulting. Massive sulphide mineralisation may contain assays grading above 20% zinc, with copper and lead grades of several percent.
The copper-rich assemblages are spatially located coincident within the massive sulphide footwall, or as stringer veins proximal to the footwall or hanging wall of the massive sulphides. It was noted by Entech that the stringer mineralisation style occurred primarily in felsic and metasediment hosts.
Gold and silver mineralisation is associated both with massive sulphide and stringer mineralisation styles. The tenor of these metals was primarily related to their location within the horizon (Lower, Middle or Upper) and not by mineralisation style.

Several northwest-trending faults impact the strike and dip continuity of the lenses. Entech noted multiple instances of lenses structurally offset by these faults both in documentation and mapping of underground drives. Entech used historical (Heron) structural modelling to ensure interpreted mineralisation continuity accurately represented localised lens offsets.

Weathering surfaces were created by interpreting existing drill logging for soil and oxidation state and were extended laterally beyond the limits of the Mineral Resource Model. Mineralised domains all lie

7 | P a g e

entech .

below weathering surfaces in fresh material.

Entech relied on documentation (Heron), drill hole geological and assay meta data, drill core photograph review (195 of 1106 holes, of which 74% were drilled after 2014), historical mineralisation wireframes and mining voids to evaluate geological, structural and mineralisation continuity.

Interpretation of massive and stringer mineralisation was initially undertaken using all available drill holes in SEEQUENT Leapfrog Geo software. Intercepts correlating to massive sulphide and stringer mineralisation and underpinned by strike continuity implied from lithology wireframes were independently identified and manually selected in SEEQUENT Leapfrog Geo prior to creation of an implicit vein model. Interpretation was a collaborative process with DVP’s geologists to ensure Entech’s modelling approach aligned with project restart objectives, represented observations and understanding of geological and mineralisation controls.

In all, 28 massive and 18 stringer domains were interpreted across the deposit. The domains were grouped as per historical nomenclature into lenses A, B, C, D, E, G, H, I, J, Kate (K) and Lisa (L). The mineralised lenses are grouped by Lower, Middle and Upper Horizons as follows:

Lower: A, B, C, and J lenses
Middle: D, E and Kate (K) lenses
Upper: G, H, I and Lisa (L) lenses

==> picture [482 x 250] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 1 Long section of Woodlawn zinc-copper deposit (looking north) showing drill hole traces, massive sulphide and stringer domains, underground workings, open pit and topography extents

Note: Mineralised domains (as interpreted) do not represent Mineral Resource classification extents.

8 | P a g e

==> picture [477 x 42] intentionally omitted <==

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

entech .
----- End of picture text -----

==> picture [482 x 250] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [435 x 19] intentionally omitted <==

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

Figure 2 Plan view of Woodlawn zinc-copper deposit showing drill hole traces, massive sulphide domains and
underground workings
----- End of picture text -----

Note: Mineralised domains (as interpreted) do not represent Mineral Resource classification extents.

Entech noted the following metal correlation and zonation relationships, which were then volumetrically sub-domained using probability based numerical modelling in Leapfrog.

Geospatial relationship between zinc, lead and copper in the massive sulphide.
Higher tenor zinc and lead grades were preferentially located on the northern flank of massive sulphide lenses, sub-domained for estimation purposes.
Higher tenor copper grades were preferentially located on the southern flank of massive sulphide lenses, sub-domained for estimation purposes. Copper tenor was evenly distributed within stringer mineralisation.
Gold and silver tenor was consistent within individual lenses. Variations occurred within horizon group. For example, the tenor of gold was significantly higher in the Upper horizon.

Estimation Methodology

Compositing approaches were selected to honour the mineralisation style, geometry, expected grade variability and potential mining selectivity. Drilling samples were composited to one metre lengths honouring lode domain boundaries. Composite (best fit) was used, whereby any small residual intervals less than one metre were divided evenly between the composites to mitigate metal loss.

Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA) of the declustered (15 mN, 5 mE, 15 mZ) composited zinc, lead, copper, gold and silver variables in the mineralised domain groups was undertaken using Supervisor™ software. Analysis for sample bias, domain homogeneity and top-capping was undertaken. Evidence

9 | P a g e

entech .

for further sub-domaining of composite data by weathering or lithology boundaries, for the purposes of interpolation, was not supported by statistical and spatial analysis.

Assessment and application of top-capping was undertaken on the zinc, lead, copper, gold and silver variables within individual (and grouped) domains. Domains were capped to address instances where outliers were defined as both statistical and spatial outliers, presented below:

All domains - Zinc 15%. Lead 10%. Copper 15%.
Zinc, caps applied across Lower, Middle, Upper Horizons. < 1% metal reduction.
Lead, caps applied across Lower, Middle, Upper Horizons. < 1% metal reduction.
Copper, caps applied in Lower Horizon. < 1% metal reduction
Individual Domains – Gold ranging from 4 to 15 g/t.
Caps applied in Lower. 2 % metal reduction.
Caps applied in Middle. < 1% metal reduction.
Caps applied in Upper. 4 % metal reduction
Individual Domains – Silver ranging from 100 to 1000 g/t.
Caps applied in Lower. < 1% metal reduction.
Caps applied in Middle. < 1% metal reduction.
Caps applied in Upper. 11 % metal reduction

Variography was undertaken on the capped, declustered zinc, lead, copper, gold and silver variables grouped by mineralisation style (massive, stringer) and horizon (Lower, Middle, Upper). Robust variogram models with a low to moderate nugget for zinc and lead (6–18%), copper (10%), gold and silver (6–22%) were delineated and used in Kriging Neighbourhood Analysis (KNA) to determine parent cell estimation size and optimise search neighbourhoods. Variogram and search parameters for zinc were applied to lead due to statistical and spatial similarities. It should be noted that although the maximum continuity modelled in the variograms ranged from 20-190m, the bulk of spatial variability (~60%) and subsequent kriging weights was applied within 30–50 m in the Lower and Middle horizons and 10–30 m in the Upper horizon.

The maximum continuity ranges are:

Zinc and lead. Lower 150 m, Middle 60 m, Upper 20 m
Copper. Lower 60 m, Middle 130 m, Upper 30 m
Gold and silver. Lower 165 m, Middle 135-190 m, Upper 120 m.

Interpolation was undertaken using Ordinary Kriging (OK) in GEOVIA Surpac™ within parent cell blocks. Dimensions for the interpolation were Y: 10 mN, X: 5 mE, Z: 10 mRL, with sub-celling of Y: 0.312 mN, X: 0.625 mE, Z: 0.625 mRL. The parent block size was selected to provide suitable volume fill given the available data spacing and mining selectivity. The drilling data spacing varies from nominal 15 m × 15 m spacing in the central area of the deposit and increases to exploration spacing of 80 m to test continuity of mineralisation at depth. Considerations relating to appropriate block size include drill hole data spacing, conceptual mining method, variogram continuity ranges and search neighbourhood optimisations (KNA).

10 | P a g e

entech .

A two-pass estimation strategy was used, whereby search ranges reflected variogram maximum modelled continuity and a minimum of 6, maximum of 12 composites for zinc, lead and copper, and a minimum of 6, maximum of 16 for gold and silver. The second search reduced the minimum composite required in the neighbourhood to 4, all other parameters (e.g. range and maximum composites) remained the same. All blocks which did not meet the criteria to trigger an estimate remained unestimated and were excluded from classification.

Domain and sub-domain boundaries represented hard boundaries, whereby composite samples within that domain were used to estimate blocks within the domain. Global and local validation of the zinc, lead, copper, gold and silver variables estimated outcomes was undertaken with statistical analysis, swath plots and visual comparison (cross and long sections) against input data.

The 3D block model was coded with geological horizon, lens, mineralisation style, weathering, depletion, sterilisation and Mineral Resource classification prior to evaluation for Mineral Resource reporting. Regressions were calculated directly into the block model for density, sulphur and Net Smelter Return. Iron percent was estimated, via ordinary kriging, for mine planning purposes.

Classification Criteria

Mineral Resources were classified as Indicated and Inferred to appropriately represent confidence and risk with respect to data quality, drill hole spacing, geological and grade continuity and mineralisation volumes. In Entech’s opinion, the drilling, surveying and sampling undertaken, and the analytical methods and quality controls used, are appropriate for the style of deposit under consideration.

Mineral Resources were classified based on geological and grade continuity confidence drawn directly from:

Drill hole methodology, data quality, spacing and orientation
Geological domaining
Estimation quality parameters
Historical mining strike lengths, widths, stope orientations and remnant mining areas
Measured Mineral Resources were defined where a high level of geological confidence in geometry, continuity, and grade was demonstrated, and were identified as areas where:
Blocks were well supported by drill hole data, with drilling averaging a nominal 15 x 15m or less between drill holes,
Lens was intercepted by Heron on two sublevels and blocks are within 20-30m from a lens development drive,
Estimation quality, slope of regression above 0.8.
Indicated Mineral Resources were defined where a moderate level of geological confidence in geometry, continuity, and grade was demonstrated, and were identified as areas where:
Blocks were well supported by drill hole data, with drilling averaging a nominal 40 x 40m or less between drill holes,
Blocks were interpolated with a neighbourhood informed by a minimum of 10 samples.

11 | P a g e

entech .

Inferred Mineral Resources were defined where a lower level of geological confidence in geometry, continuity and grade was demonstrated, and were identified as areas where:
Drill spacing was averaging a nominal 60 m or less, or where drilling was within 70 m of the block estimate,
Blocks were interpolated with a neighbourhood informed by a minimum of 4 samples,

Consideration has been given to all factors material to Mineral Resource outcomes, including but not limited to:

Confidence in volume and grade delineation, continuity and preferential orientation mineralisation
Quality of data underpinning Mineral Resources,
Mineralisation continuity experienced during previous underground operations
Nominal drill hole spacing and estimation quality (conditional bias slope, number of samples, distance to informing samples).

The reported Mineral Resource was constrained at depth by the available drill hole spacing outlined for Inferred classification, nominally 900 m below surface topography. Mineralisation within the model which did not satisfy the criteria for Mineral Resources remained unclassified.

Mineral Resources that are not Ore Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. The MRE does not account for selectivity, mining loss and dilution. This MRE update includes Inferred Mineral Resources which are unable to have economic considerations applied to them, nor is there certainty that further sampling will enable them to be converted to Measured or Indicated Mineral Resources.

The delineation of Measured, Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources appropriately reflect the Competent Person’s view on continuity and risk at the deposit.

Cut-off Grade

The Mineral Resource NSR cut-off grade for reporting of global zinc, lead, copper, gold and silver resources at Woodlawn was A$140/t for remnant areas and A$100/t for all other material. The MRE is reported exclusive of mineralisation which has been mined and mineralisation which was considered sterilised by adjacent historical mining.

The NSR of A$100/t is approximately 76% of the break-even stoping cut-off value underpinning the current DVP Life of Mine Plan (LOMP). The NSR of A$140/t for remnant areas reflects higher associated costs with metal recovery from remnant mining areas and was selected based upon discussions with DVP engineers and benchmarked against analogous peer operations (comparable deposit style, commodities, project maturity).

The NSR cut-off considers revenue from base (zinc, lead, copper percent) and precious metals (gold, silver ppm) and offsets site operating and sustaining capital costs, including underground operating development. Metallurgical recoveries are factored in the NSR calculation. The base metal and precious metals used in the NSR calculation all have reasonable potential of being saleable.

12 | P a g e

entech .

The NSR calculation adjusts individual grades for all metals included in the calculation by applying the following modifying factors, presented in Table 4:

Metal prices
Metallurgical recoveries
Payability factors, inclusive of concentrate treatment charges, metal refining charges, payment terms (concentrate), logistics costs and NSR royalties.

Table 4 Key NSR assumptions

Metal	FX rate	Metal price	Recoveries	Payability factors

Zinc	A$0.72:US$1	US$3,956.12/t	92%	Concentrate treatment charges, metal refining, payment terms (concentrate), logistics costs and NSR royalties
Lead		US$2,224.28/t	85%
Copper		US$9,620.86/t	89%
Gold		US$1,877.76/oz	43%
Silver		US$22.83/oz	78%

The NSR has been calculated using metal pricing, recoveries and other payability assumptions detailed in Section 3 under ‘Cut-off parameters’ in the JORC Code Table 1. It is Entech’s opinion that all metals used in the NSR calculation have reasonable potential to be extracted, recovered and sold.

==> picture [452 x 296] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3 Grade-tonnage curve for the Woodlawn underground deposit – Measured, Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources

13 | P a g e

entech .

Bulk Density

This MRE contains dry bulk density data collected on drill core from 188 holes (between 2014 and 2020). Density measurements were collected on all samples sent to the laboratory, measured using water immersion density determination method for each sample. No density data were available for historical drilling.

The density samples were located between 19100 mN and 19800 mN, and 8800 mE and 9600 mE, and nominally from the surface to a depth of 800 m, providing a representative density profile between mineralised domains, and depth profile within a centralised portion of the Mineral Resource area (85% from Middle and Upper horizons). Analysis of the bulk density data indicated values between 1.68 and 5.2 g/cm[3] SG (specific gravity).

Entech derived a multi-element regression equation for bulk density which resulted in a +95% correlation between the original density value and predicted value. The formula uses coefficients for zinc, lead, copper and iron:

Regression formula = 2.5179 + Zn%0.0241 + Pb%0.0282 + Cu%-0.0014 + Fe%0.0460

The regression formula was applied in the block model on a block-by-block basis, using estimated zinc, lead, copper and iron values for the individual blocks.

Project History and Historical Mineral Resources

The Woodlawn zinc-copper deposit was discovered in 1969, with the open pit and underground mine developed by Denehurst from 1978 to 1998. During this period, approximately 13.8 Mt[6] of ore was extracted from the open pit, underground and satellite deposits at average grades of 9.1% Zn, 3.6% Pb, 1.6% Cu, 0.5 g/t Au and 74 g/t Ag. The mine was closed in 1998, due to commodity prices, and Denehurst was placed into administration in 2003.

A tailings retreatment project commenced in 1992 with tailings processed from three contiguous tailings storage facilities (TSFs) known as North, South and West dams, with retreated tailings placed back in North dam.

Following closure of the mine in 1998, Tri Origin Minerals acquired the project. Limited exploration occurred in the late 1990s and early 2000s, but from 2007 to 2013, completion of a 17-hole (DD) campaign led to the discovery of Kate and I lenses. In August 2014, TriAusMin merged with Heron Resources Limited and the underground mine and processing plant were restarted in 2018; and placed into care and maintenance in March 2020. In July 2021, Heron Resources Limited was placed into voluntary administration. DVP acquired the project from Heron Resources Limited in May 2022[7] .

6 Independent Technical Due Diligence Review Heron Resources Ltd – Woodland Project – New South Wales. Behre Dolbear Australia, December 2016.

7 ASX. DVP. 20 May 2022. Completion of Woodlawn purchase paves way for Develop to implement exploration strategy.

14 | P a g e

entech .

Lenses historically extracted (8–39% lens volume) include:

Denehurst: Lenses A, B, C, E
Tri Origin and Heron: Lenses D, G, H, I, J, K.

The last publicly reported MRE was the 2019 Woodlawn underground Mineral Resource[8] , prepared by Heron under the guidelines of the JORC Code, reported 7.4 Mt at 6% zinc, 1.9% copper, 2.2% lead, 0.5 g/t gold and 48 g/t silver.

By comparison, approaches to domaining, classification, RPEEE (sterilisation and NSR) undertaken by Entech account for the variations to historical Mineral Resources.

Key differences in approach included:

Inclusion of resource and grade control diamond drill holes for the Kate and G lodes which identified multiple discrete lenses and zinc, copper sub-domains. This approach was implemented across all other lenses and varied from the Heron approach which included internal waste in broader massive sulphide domains.
Classification approach which considered the key challenges experienced by Heron during mining, and immediately prior to closure of operations.
Definition of sterilised volumes via review of MSO (Mineable Stope Optimiser) shapes and DVP’s Life of LOMP for accessing remnant areas.
Change in resource classification and reporting criteria from zinc equivalent (ZnEq) in 2019 MRE to the current (2022) NSR based approach.

Assessment of Reasonable Prospects for Eventual Economic Extraction

Entech assessed the Woodlawn MRE, as reported, as meeting the criterion for reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction based on the following considerations.

Mining

The Woodlawn MRE extends from the topographic surface to approximately 900 m below surface. This depth is supported by the areal extent of historical underground workings. Entech considers material at this depth, and at the grades estimated, would fall under the definition of reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction in an underground mining framework.

It was noted that the Woodlawn inventory included 8.1 Mt[9] of material adjacent to, or within 10 m of, historical mining voids. The consideration of this material as either sterilised or as a Mineral Resource within the context of Reasonable Prospects for Eventual Economic Extraction (RPEEE) was considered material to MRE outcomes.

8 ASX. HRR. 30 October 2019. Woodlawn Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve Statement 2019.

9 Entech tabulations. 8.17 Mt @ 9.6% Zn, 3.6% Pb, 1.7% Cu.

15 | P a g e

entech .

The process to define material as sterilised or Mineral Resource material included stamping into the block model all estimated blocks within 0 to 5 m and 5 to 10 m from open development and stoping voids, running MSO (Mineable Stope Optimiser) on all estimated material in remnant areas and holding discussions with DVP and Entech mining engineers on the likelihood of achieving access, on a lens-by-lens basis. A key assumption underpinning these discussions and caveats to accessing these Mineral Resources included DVP gaining re-entry to sections of historical workings (pre-2014). Entech included or excluded material based on the understanding that a re-entry plan is defined and planned for execution as part of the LOMP.

The Competent Person reviewed individual lenses against historical and recent (Heron) mining voids, MSO shapes and NSR cut-offs above A$140/t to identify contiguous areas on strike extents, up or down dip of historical mining which could be considered potentially extractable by DVP within a reasonable timeframe of 15 years. Using this approach approximately ~3.0 Mt of material from lenses A, B, C, E and J were incorporated as remnant Inferred Mineral Resources. This comprises 41% of the tonnage in the Woodlawn Mineral Resources. All remaining material (~5.1 Mt) was classified as sterilised, not meeting RPEEE considerations, and is excluded from Mineral Resource tabulations.

Discussions with DVP included the potential use of paste fill to assist in reclamation of remnant material. It should be noted this may result in sterilised material being re-incorporated into future Mineral Resources once appropriate mining testwork and studies are undertaken. The current delineation of Insitu Mineral Resources within the context of RPEEE appropriately reflects the Competent Person’s view on risk at the deposit.

The MRE is reported using two NSR cut-offs for remnant and virgin areas, being A$140/t and A$100/t, respectively. For the purposes of NSR determination, NSR values were calculated, using estimated zinc, lead, copper (percent), gold and silver values (ppm), on a block-by-block basis prior to implementing reporting cut-offs. The metal components of the NSR calculation all have reasonable potential of being saleable. Entech considers the two NSR cut-offs appropriately reflect costs associated with metal recovery from virgin and remnant mining areas and would fall within the definition of reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction in an underground framework.

Entech understands DVP plans to implement similar scale mechanised underground mining methods as were used previously at Woodlawn. This assumption was based on discussions with DVP senior geologists and engineers. No mining dilution or cost factors was applied to the estimate. No factors or assumptions were made within the MRE with respect to the environment.

Variances to the tonnage, grade and metal of the Mineral Resources are expected with further definition drilling. The Mineral Resources may also be affected by subsequent assessment of mining, environmental, processing, permitting, taxation, socio-economic and other factors.

It is the Competent Person’s opinion that the proposed underground mining methods and cut-off grades applied satisfy the requirements for reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction .

16 | P a g e

entech .

Metallurgy

Estimated metallurgical recoveries are based on historical recoveries at Woodlawn during its operation from 1978 to 1998, which is further supported by metallurgical testwork undertaken during the 2015-16 Feasibility Study by SRK Consulting[10] and an operational metallurgical review by Mineralis Consultants in 2020[11] .

Metallurgical testwork was based on crushing and grinding underground mineralisation from the Kate lens to produce float concentrates for copper, lead and zinc to assess recoveries of saleable concentrates for each metal type. Mineralis observed that zinc’s performance was the most consistent of the three metals (copper, lead and zinc), with the worst result being 50% zinc concentrate at 70% recovery.

Estimated metallurgical recoveries are factored into NSR calculations. Total recoveries calculated in the NSR, inclusive of all concentrate products are 92% Zn, 85% Pb, 89% Cu, 43% Au and 78% Ag.

Entech understands that iron and sulphur both require monitoring for mine planning and metallurgical amenability purposes. Both variables were included in the final Mineral Resource block model. Entech was not aware of other deleterious elements which would materially affect eventual economic extraction of Mineral Resources.

No factors or assumptions were made within the MRE with respect to deleterious elements or byproduct. Entech was not aware of deleterious elements which would materially affect eventual economic extraction of Mineral Resources.

Given existing testwork data (Kate lens), third party reviews of plant performance during Heron operations (and pre-Heron) Entech does not consider metallurgical amenability poses a material risk to the eventual economic extraction of the Mineral Resources. No metallurgical recovery factors were applied to the Mineral Resources or Mineral Resource tabulations.

END.

10 Technical Report (NI 43-101) Feasibility Study for the Woodlawn Project, New South Wales, Australia, SRK Consulting, 2016.

11 Review of Woodlawn Metallurgical Operation, Mineralis Consultants, April 2020.

17 | P a g e

entech .

COMPETENT PERSON’S CONSENT FORM

Pursuant to the requirements of ASX Listing Rules 5.6, 5.22 and 5.24 and clause 9 of the 2012 JORC Code (Written Consent Statement)

Report Description

Report: Independent Experts confirm large high-grade resource in line with previous estimates

Releasing Company: Develop Global Limited

Deposit Name: Woodlawn Underground Zinc-Copper Deposit

Date: 2 August 2022

Statement

I, Jillian Irvin, confirm that I am the Competent Person (Estimation and Reporting of Gold Mineral Resources) for the Report, and:

I have read and understood the requirements of the 2012 edition of the Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (JORC Code, 2012 edition).
I am a Competent Person as defined by the JORC Code, 2012 edition, having five years’ experience that is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit described in the Report, and to the activity for which I am accepting responsibility.
I am a Member of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists (MAIG 3035).
I have reviewed the Report to which this Consent Statement applies.
I am a consultant working for Entech Pty Ltd and have been engaged by Develop Global Limited to prepare the documentation for the Woodlawn Underground Mineral Resource Estimate on which the Report is based, for the period ending 30 September 2021.

I have disclosed to the reporting company the full nature of the relationship between myself and the company, including any issue that could be perceived by investors as a conflict of interest.

I verify that the Report is based on and fairly and accurately reflects in the form and context in which it appears, the information in my supporting documentation relating to Mineral Resources.

18 | P a g e

entech .

CONSENT

I consent to the release of the Report and this Consent Statement by the directors of:

Develop Global Limited.

==> picture [151 x 60] intentionally omitted <==

2 August 2022

Signature of Competent Person

Date

Professional Membership: Membership Number:

Australian Institute of Geoscientists MAIG (3035)

==> picture [90 x 51] intentionally omitted <==

Ruth Jupp (MAIG 7377)

Signature of Witness

West Perth, Western Australia

19 | P a g e

entech .

Additional Deposits covered by the Report for which the Competent Person signing this form is accepting responsibility:

NONE........................................................................................................................................................ .................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................. ..................................................................................................................................................................

Additional Reports related to the deposit for which the Competent Person signing this form is accepting responsibility:

==> picture [151 x 60] intentionally omitted <==

2 August 2022

Signature of Competent Person Date

Professional Membership: Australian Institute of Geoscientists Membership Number: MAIG (3035)

==> picture [90 x 51] intentionally omitted <==

Ruth Jupp (MAIG 7377)

Signature of Witness

West Perth, Western Australia

20 | P a g e

SECTION 1 SAMPLING TECHNIQUES AND DATA

(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.	• Diamond (DD) drilling comprises 96.5% of Woodlawn underground resource drill holes, including surface parent, wedge holes and drilling from underground drill cuddies, providing intercept points to an average of 20 m × 20 m and maximum vertical depth of 720 m. Reverse circulation (RC) drilling makes up the remaining 3.5% of drill holes underpinning the Mineral Resource Estimate (MRE). The RC holes were drilled from surface locations to a maximum depth of 145 m. It was noted the RC drilling targeted up-dip extensions of lenses. • Entech noted there were 32 unsampled DD holes in the database which were in the process of drilling, logging or sampling at the G or Kate lodes when project operations were put on care and maintenance by Heron Resources Ltd (Heron) in March 2020. Additionally, there were unsampled portions of historical drill holes which appear to intercept lens extensions (due to historical selective sampling practices). In both instances, where geological logging and core photography were available, Entech reviewed for evidence of sulphide mineralisation and, where appropriate, included this information to assist in defining boundaries and extensions of the mineralised lenses. Entech understands Develop Global Ltd (DVP) plans to complete processing of the Heron drill core once operations commence on site and has prepared a resampling programme targeting historical DD holes. • DD holes were sampled using HQ3 (61.1 mm) or NQ3 (45 mm) diameter core. Heron’s DD sampling is predominantly 1 m downhole intervals, which are broken at major mineralisation or lithological contacts. Historical holes (74% of database) were a combination of 1 m downhole sampling or based on geological contacts. • RC samples were collected at 1 m intervals and composited to 2 m (historical) or 4 m (Heron) spear samples. Zones of mineralisation were re-split at 1 m intervals. • Sludge drilling (119 holes), 12 face sample and 88 channel samples, have been used for A, B and G lenses to assist with cross validation of DD and RC drill hole information (spatial location). The sampling techniques and quality are unknown, but both sampling methods carry high risk of preferential sampling bias outcomes. Thus, sludge and channel sample data were excluded from the downhole compositing process and do not inform the MRE outcome.
	• Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample representivity and the appropriate calibration of any measurement tools or systems used.	• Prior to 1998, there were no QAQC (quality assurance and quality control) procedures requiring the insertion of commercially available certified reference materials (CRMs), duplicates and blanks in place. • No blind QAQC procedures were in place for historical diamond drilling from 1969 to 1998, blanks and CRMs were inserted alternately at a frequency of 1:30 samples from 1999 to 2012. From 2013, CRMs and blanks were inserted into the sample stream at frequencies ranging between 1:20 or 1:30 samples. • After 1998, QAQC programmes were implemented for all drilling types. Approximately 25% of the assay database is supported by QAQC data.
	• Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are Material to the Public Report. In cases where ‘industry	• RC and DD drilling was used to obtain a 1 m sample (on average) from which samples were crushed and then pulverised in a ring pulveriser (LM5) to a nominal 90% passing 75 μm. For each interval, a 250 g pulp sub-sample was taken; these were then split to a 50 g charge weight for fire assaying, with checks routinely undertaken.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	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.
*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).	• A total of 198,718 m of drilling from 1,067 diamond and diamond tails, and 39 RC drill holes were available for the MRE. • RC drilling has been confined to shallow near-surface exploration targets and near-surface up-dip testing of lens mineralisation. Heron’s RC drilling used a 4.5-inch face sampling hammer, with a booster and auxiliary compressor to boost sample recovery. • DD procedures, core sizes and recoveries have varied over the years. Most historical surface drill holes were cored at NQ size; more recent drilling has been predominantly HQ, reducing to NQ at depth. • No core orientation data had been recorded in the Woodlawn drilling metadata. No evidence of core orientation was observed during Entech’s March 2020 site visit when Heron was the operator.
*Drill sample recovery*	• Method of recording and assessing core and chip sample recoveries and results assessed.	• During Heron’s DD campaigns, cores were laid out in standard core trays, marked and oriented, and recoveries calculated. Visual check by Entech of available historical core photographs confirmed that similar procedures were followed. • Historical documentation notes that RC recoveries were purely qualitative, with sample recovery visually estimated (most recorded as close to 100%).
	• Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and ensure representative nature of the samples.	• Core recoveries during Heron’s drilling were, in Entech’s opinion, generally fair to good, with an average recovery above 98%. Recoveries through the dolerite, rhyolite, silica sericite alteration zones and through the massive sulphide mineralised zones were generally excellent; poorer recoveries were experienced through the chlorite and talc chlorite schists and zones of faulting. • No data on the historical core recovery statistics have been recovered, but visual observation of the core photography by Entech suggests that recoveries were similar to those logged by Heron. • As a result of the high recoveries observed, there is not expected to be any relationship, or bias, associated with the areas of core loss/poor recovery.
	• 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.	• Diamond core recoveries exceed 95%. A sample bias is not likely to have occurred due to core loss of fine/coarse material as the underground fresh mineralised material which comprises the MRE is competent, with no relationship between grade and competent/poor ground conditions observed. No relationship between sample recovery and grade tenor was identified, nor observed.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
*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.	• The level of detail is considered sufficient to support Mineral Resource estimation, mining and metallurgical studies.
	• Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc) photography.	• Entech’s review of available drill hole data in the database shows the level of detail of geological logging varies year to year – from capture of base lithology through to more comprehensive detail, including lithology, structure, mineralogy, alteration and weathering (oxidation state) for both RC samples and DD core. • Logging is both qualitative and quantitative. Visual percentage estimates for lithology, mineralogy, mineralisation, structure (where possible in core only), weathering and features were routinely recorded, with summary comments provided. • Since the change of ownership to DVP, less than 10% of core photography for W series holes (25% of MRE drill holes), less than 3% for U series holes (42% of MRE drill holes) and 80% of Heron Diamond drill holes (22% of MRE drill holes) has been located. • Recovered core photographs show drill core was photographed (wet and dry) before sampling, after mark-up. • DD core trays and RC chip trays are stored for future reference either at Woodlawn; however, the percentage or quality of retained core is not known.
	• The total length and percentage of the relevant intersections logged.	• The MRE is informed by 2 RC holes and 786 diamond holes for 13,966 m of drilling intersecting the mineralisation. Less than 1% (5 DD holes) were not logged.
*Sub-sampling* *techniques and* *sample preparation*	• If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, half or all core taken.	• Observation of assay intervals indicates that selective sampling of mineralised DD core and adjacent footwall, hanging wall and internal waste was done by Heron and other historical owners of the project. • Database records indicate that half and quarter diamond cores were used for analytical work. Half core sampling was observed during the Entech site visit in March 2020 when Heron was the operator.
	• If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc and whether sampled wet or dry.	• RC samples were generally collected as 1 m downhole intervals, via a rig-mounted cyclone splitter into plastic bags. A 2.5–3kg sample is collected for analysis as either a composite or individual sample. Samples are collected by a spear method if the material is dry and as a grab sample if the material is wet (not suitable for a spear sample). • RC samples were collected at 1 m intervals and composited to 2 m (historical) or 4 m (Heron) spear samples. Zones of mineralisation were sampled or re-split at 1 m intervals.
	• For all sample types, the nature, quality and appropriateness of the sample preparation technique.	• Before 2000: Jododex Australia Pty Ltd (Jododex), Australian Mining and Smelting Pty Ltd (AMS), and Denehurst Limited (Denehurst) sample preparation and analyses were conducted on site at the Woodlawn laboratory (NATA accredited laboratory): `o` Samples were dried, crushed and ground to ~50 µm with a quartz flush after every sample. `o` Mills were blown out with compressed air between each sample. `o` A sample for analysis was separated using a riffle splitter. • 2000 to 2013: TriAusMin: `o` RC sample preparation and assaying are unknown.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		`o` Sample preparation of DD core was done at ALS Orange. `o` Analysis of final pulps was done at ALS Brisbane. `o` Samples were crushed and pulverised to 85% passing 75 µm. • 2014 to 2020: Heron: `o` Samples were dried, crushed and pulverised to 85% passing 75 µm with 1:20 sample pulps checked for grind quality by wet screening at 75 µm with a quartz flush after every sample. `o` 1:20 flush samples were assayed. Based on documentation review, Entech is of the opinion the sample preparation techniques are appropriate for the style of deposit, commodity under consideration and reflect standard techniques available at the time.
	• Quality control procedures adopted for all sub-sampling stages to maximise representivity of samples.	• No blind QAQC inserts were included for historical diamond drilling from 1969 to 1998. • TriAusMin included alternate blanks and CRMs at a frequency of 1:30 samples from 1999 to 2012. From 2013, blanks were inserted at a frequency of 1:40 samples and CRMs were inserted at a frequency of 1:20 samples. No blind duplicates were collected. • From 2014, Heron included blanks at a frequency of 1:30 samples, duplicates taken from the riffle splitter at a frequency of 1:30 samples, and CRMs were inserted at a frequency of 1:30 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.	• No field duplicates have been collected from DD core.
	• Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grain size of the material being sampled.	• Sample sizes are considered to be industry standard and appropriate to represent mineralisation at the Woodlawn deposit based on style of mineralisation, thickness and consistency of mineralised intersections, the sampling methodology and the observed assay ranges.
*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.	• Before 2000: Jododex, AMS (CRA) and Denehurst sample preparation and analyses was conducted on site at the Woodlawn laboratory (NATA accredited laboratory): `o` For holes W001–W166 and W201–W290: `o` Acid digestion of pulverised aliquot and determination of Cu, Pb and Zn by AAS. `o` XRD analysis for Cu, Pb, Zn, precious metals, Fe, Si, Al, Mg and Ba. `o` Fire assay of samples >2 ppm Au based on aqua regia assays. `o` For holes U001–U190 and U194–U469 and W167–W199: `o` Aqua regia hydrofluoric and perchloric acid digest with AAS or ICP determination of Cu, Pb, Zn, Ag and Au. `o` Gold assays reporting above 2 ppm were re-assayed by fire assay. `o` For some samples, a second aliquot was analysed by pressed powder XRF to determine Fe, Mg, Si, Al and Ba grades. `o` For holes W160–W165 and W278–W282: `o` Analysed at Classic Comlabs Limited and Geomin Laboratory.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		`o` Samples were assayed for Cu, Ag, Pb, Zn and Au with some analysed for Ba, Al and Fe. • 2000 to 2013: TriAusMin: `o` Au was determined at ALS Orange by 30 g fire assay with AAS finish analysis. `o` Multi-element assaying was conducted by ALS Brisbane using a 0.25 g sample with a four-acid digest and ICP-AES finish for analyses of Ag, Al, As, Au, Ba, Be, Bi, Ca, Cd, Ce, Co, Cr, Cs, Cu, Fe, Ga, Ge, Hf, In, K, Li, La, Mg, Mn, Mo, Na, Nb, Ni, P, Pb, S, Sb, Sc, Sn, Sr, Ta, Te, Th, Ti, Tl, U, V, W, Y, Zn and Zr. • 2014 to 2020: Heron: `o` Samples were dried, crushed and pulverised to 85% passing 75 µm with 1:20 sample pulps checked for grind quality by wet screening at 75 µm with a quartz flush after every sample. `o` 1:20 flush samples were assayed. `o` Au was determined at ALS Orange by 30 g fire assay with an AAS finish and a 1 ppb LLD (lower limit of detection). `o` ALS Orange pulps were sent to ALS Brisbane for multi-element and ore grade analyses with a 0.25 g sample taken from each pulp for 33-element four-acid digest with ICP-AES finish. `o` Analyses comprised Ag, Al, As, Ba, Be, Bi, Ca, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Ga, K, La, Mg, Mn, Mo, Na, Ni, P, Pb, S, Sb, Sc, Sn, Sr, Th, Tl, U, V, W, Y, Zn and Zr. `o` Laboratory quality control standards (blanks, reference standards and duplicates) were inserted at a rate of 5 per 35 samples during ICP work. Based on documentation review, Entech is of the opinion the assaying and laboratory procedures are appropriate for the style of deposit, commodity under consideration and reflect standard techniques available at the time. The described analytical methods are considered to be total assaying techniques: • Multi-element analyses by acid digestion and determination by AAS, ICP, ICP-AES with the assumption that digestion is a total dissolution. • Multi-element analyses of a pulverised and pressed aliquot by XRD and XRF. • Au determination by fire assay with an AAS finish.
	• 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.	• Historical documents reviewed by Entech contain no information for geophysical instrumentation indicating that instrumentation was not used for DD core or RC chip sample analyses.
	• Nature of quality control procedures adopted (e.g. standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (ie lack of bias) and precision have been established.	• Entech completed a review of QAQC procedures with key points and findings summarised as follows: `o` Prior to 1998, there were no Company QAQC samples included in the sample submissions. The laboratory inserted its own QAQC samples, but no data are available. `o` During 1999 to 2013, blanks and CRMs were included at a rate of about 1: 30 samples. No duplicate samples were collected during this period. `o` The procedures implemented by Heron since 2014 meet current industry standards.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		`o` The gold CRMs generally perform very well, with some of the recent CRMs showing a small positive or negative bias. `o` The number of gold CRMs submitted represents about 10% of the total samples assayed since 2000. `o` The base metal CRMs generally perform well, except for some of the recent CRMs showing a small positive or negative bias. However, there are numerous cases of apparent sample swaps. `o` There appear to be more issues with the lead analyses or laboratory calibrations as there are numerous lead results well below the expected values for some CRMs. `o` The number of base metal CRMs submitted represents about 10% of the total samples assayed since 2000. `o` The number of blanks submitted represents about 5% of the total samples assayed. Most blank assays are below acceptable limits. `o` The field duplicate samples correlate reasonably well, with some spread in results as expected. `o` The correlation for laboratory checks is very good. • The correlation of umpire samples between the laboratories is generally very good for the major elements, with no obvious bias evident. The correlation for gold, however, is not as good as the other elements, suggesting gold is more nuggety.
*Verification of* *sampling and* *assaying*	• The verification of significant intersections by either independent or alternative company personnel.	• Significant intersections were not identified for independent verification. Original laboratory certificates have not been located and assay data could not be independently verified. However, the extensive amount of drilling metadata collected at the deposit over the project life from initial discovery in 1969 through to 2020 by multiple owners during several drilling campaigns and also historical mining of many lenses defined by the metadata, have, in Entech’s opinion, mitigated the risk of individual significant intersections or assay errors materially impacting the MRE outcome. ~~•~~ Entech inspected drill core mineralised intercepts, against received assay results during the March 2020 site visit. This was undertaken on drilling for the Kate and G lenses.
	• The use of twinned holes.	• No twinning of holes was done prior to this MRE, but there is consistent and strong correlation of width and grade of downhole mineralisation intercepts against close-spaced grade control drilling data (15 m), face sampling and historically mined widths and strike extents.
	• Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data verification, data storage (physical and electronic) protocols.	• No primary documentation relating to logging or sampling was available for review during the compilation of this MRE. Entech relied on observations from the site visit, which correlated with historical Heron documentation of data entry procedures, verification and data storage. • For drilling carried out by Heron: `o` Samples were placed in pre-numbered (Sample-ID) calico bags by site personnel. `o` Downhole sample intervals and corresponding (Sample-ID) and density measurements were recorded on forms and submitted to database administrator for data entry. `o` Individual calico bags were placed in green plastic bags, which in turn were placed into bulka bags which were sealed. `o` Manifest and laboratory analysis request form was generated and sent to ALS Orange laboratory and database administrator. `o` Transportation of bulka bags was via an independent freight contractor or bulka bags were driven directlyby

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		Heron staff or contractors. `o` At the laboratory, samples were sorted, checked against supplied manifest then loaded into the laboratory’s data capture and tracking system, with each sample individually barcoded to facilitate tracking of samples through sample preparation and analysis workflows. • Drill hole sample data were reconstructed from two independent data sources: `o` Query extraction of .csv files date stamped 20210921 (21 September 2021) provided by Voluntary Administrators during the project tender phase in September 2021 `o` DVP’s Geology Manager retrieved .csv backup of the database date stamped 20200305 (5 March 2020) during a site visit in March 2022. This date stamp was the most recent backup aside from the dataset provided in September 2021. • Entech reviewed the two independent .csv exports and found 100% data correlation for identical Sample-IDs, noting a minor (immaterial) rounding difference for a small portion of the dataset.
	• Discuss any adjustment to assay data.	• No assay data have been adjusted for this estimate. • There is limited sulphur assaying in the database.
*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.	• MGA_GDA94, Zone 55 is the grid system covering the region; however, a local mine grid system is established for the site. The Woodlawn mine grid (WMG) was established in 1970 as an imperial grid. • The WMG was converted from imperial to metric in 1971. • TriAusMin (formerly Tri Origin Minerals) added 10,000 m to the northings of the WMG, with all historical data converted. Heron used the WMG grid for drill collar locations. • Drill hole collar locations: `o` Historical drill collar surveys on all surface and underground holes were done using conventional total station equipment. `o` For Heron’s drilling, holes were initially positioned using a handheld GPS and re-surveyed with a DGPS once the hole was completed. • Downhole surveying and accuracy: `o` Historical downhole surveying was by single-shot camera at approximately 30 m intervals. `o` 2014 Heron drilling was downhole surveyed by a multi-shot electronic camera and by a gyroscope survey on completion. `o` From 2015 onwards, a north-seeking gyroscope was used with a gyroscope survey done on completion. • Magnetic minerals are largely absent in the Woodlawn sequence, consequently, there is very little variance between magnetic and the gyroscope readings. • Heron retrospectively applied an adjustment to all magnetic survey azimuths to reflect the change in magnetic pole declination over the life of the mine. In 2019, the WMG bearings were converted based on the Australian Geoscience website as follows: `o` TN to Magnetic declination (updated each year on 1 January) `o` TN to GDA94 `o` TN to WMG.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		• There has been magnetic variation from deposit discovery in 1969 (+11.39°) to 2016 (+12.385°). • Entech did not make any further adjustments to the grid or azimuths in the database. • The project comprises substantial historical and recent (Heron) mine workings. The workings, as supplied to Entech, were 3D digital wireframe volumes representing historical cut and fill workings predominantly in A, B, C and E lenses. Long hole open stoping (LHOS) and sublevel open stoping (SLOS) methodologies were employed in other lenses by Heron and surveyed via cavity monitoring systems (CMS). Development as-builts were picked up by Heron surveyors using total stations and converted to 3D digital volumes (wireframes).
	• Specification of the grid system used.	• All MRE coordinates are in the Woodlawn Mine Grid (WMG) grid system. Grid transform, as used by Heron in its 2019 Mineral Resources (Heron 2019), is presented below. No changes to this grid system were undertaken by Entech prior to estimation of the Mineral Resources.
	• Quality and adequacy of topographic control.	• A digital terrain model (DTM) of the pre-mining surface correlates with historical collar elevations; however, the source data origins and accuracy of the DTM are unknown. • A LiDAR survey of the post-mining surface that includes the box cut (Heron) location correlates with the decline start position, but the source and accuracy of the survey data are unknown. It was noted that the decline as-builts were surveyed by Heron when Heron commenced mining and the correlation with the LiDAR surface position of the box cut provided confidence that the topographic surface is adequate for use in the MRE.
*Data spacing and* *distribution*	• Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results.	• No Exploration Results are being reported as part of this Mineral Resource update.
	• 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.	• The resource definition drilling is variably spaced, nominally 15 m × 15 m centres in the upper and central area of the deposit, with one or two holes intersecting mineralisation in down-plunge lens extension at depth. • Entech considers the data spacing to be sufficient to demonstrate the continuity of both the geology and the mineralisation. The spacing is sufficient to define a Mineral Resource for the Woodlawn polymetallic deposit. • Most lengths range between 0.2 m and 1 m, with longer sample lengths limited to geometallurgical sampling.
	• Whether sample compositing has been applied.	• For Mineral Resource estimation purposes, a 1 m composite (base and other metals) was generated.
*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.	• Threemineralised Horizons (Lower, Middle and Upper) hostingelevenknown massive sulphide lenses occur within a 400 m × 600 m wide and 900 m deep northwest plunging corridor which remains open at depth. Major northwest trending faults affect the distribution of the lenses, with several having been disrupted or offset by these faults. • The average orientation of the massive sulphide lenses dip 60°towards 260°, plunging 110° to the northwest. • RC drillingfrom surface tested continuityof mineralisation of some lenses to a vertical depth of 145 m and intersected

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		mineralisation close to orthogonal to mineralisation. • Parent and child DD holes from surface intersect mineralisation close to orthogonal to mineralisation. • Underground DD holes were drilled from locations in the footwall and hanging wall, with some footwall hole orientations at a low angle to mineralisation due to fan drill angles and spatial constraints associated with location of underground drive sites.
	• 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 orientation of mineralisation was delineated by correlation between downhole lithology and assay data, and between historical underground as-builts stopes and development drives. • Entech was of the opinion the predominant drilling orientation is suitable for mineralisation volume delineation at the Woodlawn deposit, does not introduce bias nor pose a material risk to the MRE.
*Sample security*	• The measures taken to ensure sample security.	• Sample security of historical data is not documented, with most samples having been prepared and assayed at onsite laboratories (Woodlawn laboratories). • All Heron drilling and approximately half of the historical drilling is stored at the Woodland core farm. The core farm is located on the tenement leases with core stored in both warehouse racking systems undercover and on pallets in the areas next to the storage sheds. • For drilling carried out by Heron: `o` Samples were placed in pre-numbered calico bags that were barcoded. `o` Calico bags were placed in green zip-tied bags. `o` Green zip-tied bags were placed into bulka bags that were sealed and transported to ALS Orange laboratories for sample preparation and analyses. `o` Barcoded samples were tracked through sample preparation and analyses.
*Audits or reviews*	• The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data.	• Sampling techniques used over the years are consistent with industry standards prevailing at the time. • Evidence of umpire checks or independent reviews is broadly documented in the Woodlawn Underground Mineral Resource (Heron, June 2019) and Updated Independent Technical Due Diligence Review - Heron Resources Ltd - Woodlawn Project - New South Wales (BDA, December 2016) as follows: `o` Heron conducted annual audits of laboratory. `o` Prior to Heron and TriAusMin, no independent audit or umpire checks appear to have been completed, but historical monthly production reconciliation sample data provided anecdotal evidence of robust sampling techniques and data, i.e., a reliable prediction of grade produced from the mine, process recoveries from the mill, and subsequent concentrate production and sales. • Verification of historical assays carried out Woodlawn laboratories was done by resampling historical core as part of the 2016 Technical Due Diligence studies by BDA.

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 following has been summarised from the 2020 Woodlawn Mine Compliance Audit Report prepared by NSW Regulators. • Tarago Operations Pty Ltd (Tarago Operations), a wholly owned subsidiary of Heron Resources Limited (Heron), has held Special (Crown & Private Lands) Lease No. 20 [S(C&PL)L20] since March 2014. The lease was renewed on 21 January 2015 for a further 15 years and expires on 16 November 2029. • Lease area of [S(C&PL)L20] is 2,368 ha. • A Mining Operations Plan (MOP) is required for the mining operations in accordance with condition 3 of [S(C&PL)L20]. • Tarago Operations prepared an MOP for the Woodlawn Mine (Heron Resources Ltd, Woodlawn Mine SML20 mine operations plan) dated 15 September 2015 (INW15/46417/DOI) – which was approved by the Regulator (then the Department of Industry - Resources and Energy) on 11 November 2015 (OUT15/31494/DOI). • In November 2000, Collex Pty Ltd obtained development consent to operate a waste bioreactor on the old Woodlawn mine site using the open cut void. The waste facility was within S(C&PL)L20 and is now operated by Veolia Energy Services Australia Pty Ltd. • Veolia and Tarago Operations (wholly owned subsidiary of Develop Global) have a current Co-operative agreement in place across the Woodlawn mining tenement S(C&PL)L20.
	• The security of the tenure held at the time of reporting along with any known impediments to obtaining a license to operate in the area.	• All tenements are in good standing.
*Exploration done by* *other parties*	• Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties.	• Information relating to activities prior to 2016 has been sourced from Updated Independent Technical Due Diligence Review Heron Resources Ltd - Woodlawn Project - New South Wales (BDA, December 2016). • The deposit was discovered by Jododex Australia Pty Ltd in 1969, and 25 drill holes defined an initial open pit mineable resource totalling 6.3 Mt of polymetallic ore grading 14.4% Zn, 5.5% Pb and 1.7% Cu, and 3.7 Mt of copper mineralisation grading 1.9% Cu. • Woodlawn operated as an open pit from 1978 to 1987 and from 1986 to 1998 as an underground operation. • CRA, operating as Australian Mining and Smelting, (AMS), purchased the project in 1984 and continued open pit mining (underground mining commenced in 1986). • The project was sold to Denehurst Limited in 1987 and underground mining continued until 1998. • From 1978 to 1998 approximately 13.8 Mt of ore was extracted from the open pit, underground and satellite deposits at average grades of 9.1%Zn, 3.6% Pb, 1.6% Cu, 0.5 g/t Au and 74 g/t Ag. • A tailings retreatment project commenced in 1992 with tailings processed from three contiguous tailings storage facilities (TSFs) known as North, South and West dams. Retreated tailings was placed back in North dam. • Following closure of the mine in 1998, Tri Origin Minerals acquired the project.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		• Limited exploration occurred in the late 1990s and early 2000s, but from 2007 to 2013, completion of a 17-hole DD campaign led to the discovery of Kate (K) and I lenses. • Heron took 100% ownership of the project in 2014 following a merger with TriAusMin (formerly Tri Origin Minerals). • Exploration and resource drilling were completed over Woodlawn deposit from September 2014 through to March 2020: `o` 2014: 14 diamond holes (5,596 m) and 11 shallower RC holes (1,201 m) testing for up-dip lens extensions as part of Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) study `o` 2015: 92 diamond holes (21,097 m) to firm up Resource-Reserve base, with focus on Kate and Lisa lenses ahead of 2016 Feasibility Study `o` 2016: 7 diamond holes for 2,298 m `o` 2017: 22 diamond holes for 4,246 m `o` 2018: 19 diamond holes for 3,195 m `o` 2019: 30 diamond holes for 2,593 m `o` 2020: 58 diamond holes for 5,225 m `o` Geotechnical and geometallurgical drilling was completed to support underground development and processing studies. • Heron ceased operation of Woodlawn underground on 25 March 2020. • DVP acquired Woodlawn in February 2022 by purchasing 100% of the shares in Heron Resources Limited.
*Geology*	• Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation.	• The Woodlawn deposit is described in historical documents as a stratiform syngenetic polymetallic volcanogenic massive sulphide (VMS) deposit. • The Woodlawn deposit lies on the eastern limb of the asymmetric north-northwest plunging Woodlawn Syncline. • Base metal (zinc, lead, copper) and precious (silver, gold) mineralisation is hosted within regionally metamorphosed (greenschist facies) fine- to coarse-grained felsic to intermediate volcanic rocks, volcanogenic sedimentary rocks and minor carbonaceous shale, known as the Woodlawn Volcanics. • Threemineralised horizons (Lower, Middle and Upper) hostingelevenknown massive sulphide lenses occur within a 400 m × 600 m wide and 900 m deep northwest plunging corridor which remains open at depth. • Major northwest trending faults have an impact on the distribution of the lenses, with several having been disrupted or offset by these faults. • Two major mineralisation types were historically recognised: `o` Polymetallic mineralisation:fine- to medium grained, banded to massive pyrite–sphalerite–galena–chalcopyrite, with the gangue mineralogy including talc, quartz, chlorite, phlogopite, muscovite and barite `o` Copper-rich mineralisation:includes pyrite–chalcopyrite, lesser pyrrhotite as well as chlorite, quartz and calcite as massive sulphide and stockwork veins. • Base metal mineralisation is principally associated with the polymetallic assemblage in the massive sulphide lenses. The ore is typically massive pyrite and has splays and thickened zones, which may be associated with faulting. Grades in the massive ore may reach >20% Zn with copper and lead grades of several percent. • Copper-rich assemblages are concentrated alongthe footwall in the massive sulphides or as stockwork veinsproximal

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		to the footwall or hanging wall of the massive sulphides with felsic and metasediments. • Precious metal (Ag, Au) mineralisation occurs mostly in association with the sulphide mineralisation, occurring in both massive and stockwork systems.
*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.	• No Exploration Results are being reported as part of this Mineral Resource update. • All relevant drill holes used for the modelling and estimation of the Woodlawn Mineral Resources are reported within the Appendices of this Report.
	• 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.	• Refer to previous statement.
*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.	• No Exploration Results are being reported as part of this Mineral Resource update.
	• 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.	• No Exploration Results or aggregated intercepts are being reported.
	• The assumptions usedfor any reporting	• A metal equivalent in the form of net smelter return has been applied to Mineral Resources for reporting purposes

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	of metal equivalent values should be clearly stated.	and is further detailed in Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources.
*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’). _	• The geometry of mineralisation is well known and tested at this deposit via DD drilling and historical mining. Across the drill hole dataset, angles to mineralisation are considered to represent a drill intercept perpendicular to lens strike orientation. With increasing depth, the drill hole intercept angle to lens decreases. However, drilling from underground locations has assisted in mitigating this issue for Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources.
*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.	• No significant discovery is being reported. Plan and long section maps, sections relevant to the Mineral Resources are included in the body of this Report.
*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.	• No Exploration Results are being reported as part of this Mineral Resource update.
*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.	• Given this is a mature stage project with historical mining and regularised resource and grade control drilling underpinning Mineral Resources, no substantive exploration data has been recently collected at the project. • Geotechnical, metallurgical, bulk density, rock characteristic testwork was completed to feasibility study level of detail in 2016 by Heron. • Entech does not consider there are any meaningful or material exploration data relevant or material to this Mineral Resource update.
*Further work*	• The nature and scale of planned further work(e.g. testsfor lateral extensions or	• Entech understands DVP plans to drill test lens extensional opportunities both along strike and down dip. Step-out drillingdown dipis considered a key priorityfor DVP to target untestedplunge extents of the deposit mineralisation

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	depth extensions or large-scale step- out drilling).	package.
	• Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions, including the main geological interpretations and future drilling areas, provided this information is not commercially sensitive.	• Refer to previous statement.

SECTION 3 ESTIMATION AND REPORTING OF MINERAL RESOURCES

(Criteria listed in section 1, and where relevant in section 2, also 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.	• The database has been audited by Entech for validation errors and physical comparison of drill hole core photography against geological and assay data undertaken for 1,106 holes underpinning the Mineral Resource. • Heron’s Datashed database and original laboratory assay certificates could not be sourced, with key personnel having left the company since the Woodlawn Project was put on care and maintenance in March 2020 and Heron being placed into voluntary administration in July 2021. • The drill hole database was reconstructed from two data sources: `o` Query extraction of .csv files date stamped 20210921 (21 September 2021) provided by Voluntary Administrators during the project tender phase in September 2021 `o` DVP’s Geology Manager retrieved .csv backup of the database date stamped 20200305 (5 March 2020) during a site visit in March 2022. This date stamp was the most recent backup aside from the dataset provided in September 2021. • Entech completed a comparison of the two datasets. For Sample-IDs that were identical, downhole intervals and assay results matched except for minor rounding differences to three decimals places for a small portion (considered not material). • An additional check was made by the Competent Person of the database against known drill holes being drilled, logged and sampled at the time of the site visit in March 2020. It was determined that the drill holes being processed at the time (e.g. stage of drilling or assayed) matched the compiled dataset detailed above and that these data fairly represented the most recent drilling information available at the project at the time of project cessation. • Heron’s database to March 2020 comprised 1,555 Collar records, 17,245 Survey records, 33,542 Assay records and 28,068 Lithology records. The compiled database used for resource estimation comprised 1,106 Collar records, 16,078 Survey records, 30,592 Assay records and 27,009 Lithology records.
	• Data validation procedures used.	• Entech completed various validation checks using built-in validation tools in GEOVIA Surpac™ and data queries in Microsoft Access such as overlapping samples, duplicate entries, missing data, sample length exceeding hole length, unusual assay values and a review of below detection limit samples. A visual examination of the data was also completed to check for erroneous downhole surveys. • The data validation process identified no major drill hole data issues that would materially affect the MRE outcomes. • Entech’s database checks included the following: `o` Checking for duplicate drill hole names and duplicate coordinates in the collar table. `o` Checking for missing drill holes in the collar, survey, assay and geology tables based on drill hole names. `o` Checking for survey inconsistencies including dips and azimuths <0˚, dips >90˚, azimuths >360˚ and negative depth values. `o` Checking for inconsistencies in the ‘From’ and ‘To’ fields of the assay and geology tables. The inconsistency checks included the identification of negative values, overlapping intervals, duplicate intervals, gaps and intervals where the ‘From’ value is greater than the ‘To’ value.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
*Site visits*	• Comment on any site visits undertaken by the Competent Person and the outcome of those visits.	• The Competent Person undertook a site visit to the Woodlawn deposit between 10 and 18 March 2020. During the visit Entech inspected mineralised intersections from the Woodlawn deposit in drill core (Kate and G lenses) in underground exposures (G lens) and observed drilling, logging, sampling, QAQC and metadata collection operations. • Travel restrictions associated with COVID-19 pandemic and the operations being closed from late March 2020 until change of ownership to DVP in February 2022 have limited the opportunity to access site and undertake more recent observations. However, given the previous site visit occurred a few weeks prior to operations being suspended in March 2020, Entech is of the opinion that project observations and conclusions made at the time reflect processes, procedures and mineralisation styles inherited by DVP at the time of project acquisition in February 2022.
	• If no site visits have been undertaken indicate why this is the case.	• Refer to previous statement.
*Geological* *interpretation*	• Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertainty of) the geological interpretation of the mineral deposit.	• Lithology and structure are considered the predominant controls on both the base metals (zinc, lead, copper), precious metal (silver, gold) and gangue (iron) mineralisation at the Woodlawn deposit. • Entech relied on historical Heron geological documentation, database derived geological and assay data, historical mineralisation wireframes, mining voids and site-based observations to evaluate geological, structural and mineralisation continuity. • Entech reviewed historical lithological units of the footwall sequence and found them fit for purpose for the MRE. • Entech interpreted and modelled base of complete oxidation (BOCO) and base of partial oxidation (BOPO) surfaces from downhole logging data. • Mineralisation domains were interpreted primarily on geological logging and downhole geological contacts, based on lithology, sulphide distribution, grade distribution, major faults and geometry. This combination provided a mineralisation characterisation which effectively domained mineralisation style and sub-domained higher tenor zinc and copper mineralisation. • Confidence in the mineralisation continuity was based on geological, mineralogical and assay data that were cross referenced with available core photography and historical mine development and stopes wireframes. Two major mineralisation types previously identified by Heron are recognised: `o` Polymetallic mineralisation: fine- to medium-grained, banded to massive pyrite–sphalerite–galena–chalcopyrite, with the gangue mineralogy including talc, quartz, chlorite, phlogopite, muscovite and barite `o` Copper-rich mineralisation: includes pyrite–chalcopyrite, lesser pyrrhotite as well as chlorite, quartz and calcite as massive sulphide and stockwork veins. A total of 198,718 m of drilling from 1,067 DD holes (including RC with diamond tails) and 39 RC drill holes was available for the MRE. Interpretation of the two mineralisation types were initially undertaken using all available drill holes within Seequent Leapfrog GEO™ software. Intercepts correlating to massive sulphide and copper-rich mineralisation and underpinned by strike continuity implied from lithology wireframes were independently identified and manually selected within Seequent Leapfrog GEO™prior to creation of an implicit vein model. Two sulphide mineralisation domains based on sulphide content were defined: a massive sulphide mineralisation domain for polymetallic and copper-rich mineralisation, and a stringer mineralisation domain for copper in the footwall associated with disseminated and stringer sulphide mineralisation. Massive sulphide mineralisation

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		• Entech considers confidence is moderate to high in the geological interpretation and continuity of mineralisation domains within the massive sulphides. • Geological contacts with unmineralised footwall and hanging wall metasediments and felsics were the primary boundaries used for defining massive sulphide lode domain volumes. • Within the massive sulphide lode domains, correlation and statistical analysis and visual review of the mineralisation tenor, orientation and continuity underpinned base metal (zinc, lead, copper), precious metal (silver, gold) and gangue (iron) sub-domain approaches. Statistical distributions highlighted a bimodal distribution for both copper and zinc in the Middle and Upper massive sulphide lenses. Copper and zinc in these horizons have a distinctive geospatial relationship, with zinc primarily on the northern flank and copper on the southern flank. This distinction is less evident in the Upper horizon, which may be due to a combination of sparser drill hole coverage, differing controls on mineralisation and lode geometry. • Based on these conclusions, Indicator numerical modelling was used (in massive domains) to capture spatially continuous sub-domains of zinc (including lead) and copper, with resulting grade populations ranging from Min: 0.0015% – Max: 44.6%, Mean – 8.8% (zinc); Min: 0.001%, Max: 27.81%, Mean: 3.4% (lead) and Min: 0.002%, Max: 20.8%, Mean: 1.5% (copper). These sub-domains were exclusive of each other and used as hard boundaries in the massive sulphide geological envelopes, whereby zinc and lead were composited and estimated within the zinc sub- domain, and copper was composited and estimated within the copper sub-domain. • Correlation analysis indicated gold, silver and iron were similarly distributed across massive sulphide domains and thus were composited and estimated inside this boundary with no sub-domaining undertaken. • To maintain continuity, some material below 0.6% Zn and 0.6% Cu has been included in the lodes. • Historical underground mining documentation, stope and development void locations, preferential orientations, and widths were also used to ground-truth interpretations of higher grade/tenor zinc and copper sub-domains and verify the selected hard boundaries which would control estimated metal outcomes. • Weathering and oxidation horizons have had negligible impact on base and precious metals, with all mineralised domains lying within fresh material. Copper stringer mineralisation • In addition to copper in massive sulphide domains, copper occurs as footwall disseminated and stringer sulphide mineralisation. • Entech considers confidence is moderate to high in the geological interpretation and continuity of the copper stringer mineralisation. Entech considers that any alternate interpretations would be unlikely to result in significant difference to lodes spatially and/or volumetrically. • Copper-rich domains within the disseminated and stringer sulphides showed poor continuity due to the nature and geological setting for this style of sulphide mineralisation. • Sampling of core was based primarily on the presence and/or abundance of sulphides, with sampling of massive sulphides prioritised over sampling of disseminated or stringer sulphide mineralisation. Consequently, sample coverage of stringer mineralisation is more variable and wider spaced.
	• Nature of the data used and of any assumptions made.	• Assumptions with respect to mineralisation continuity (plunge, strike and dip) within the underground Mineral Resource were drawn directly from:

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		`o` Drill hole lithological logging `o` Drill hole core photography (where available) `o` Mapped and interpreted northwest trending major faults `o` Variably spaced resource definition drilling, nominally 15 m × 15 m centres in the upper and central area of the deposit, with the down plunge lens extensions having one or two holes intersecting mineralisation at depth `o` Underground void shapes of development and stopes `o` Underground production drilling (sludge and face sampling) was used to assist with modelling of mineralisation geometries but not used for estimation purposes `o` Historical resource and mining documentation/records/files.
	• The effect, if any, of alternative interpretations on Mineral Resource estimation.	• Entech is of the opinion that alternate interpretations and additional drill hole information would be unlikely to result in significant spatial or volume variations. This conclusion was based on undertaking grade-based probabilistic volume modelling (numerical modelling).
	• The use of geology in guiding and controlling Mineral Resource estimation.	• The geological sequence, sulphide mineralisation styles and major structural faults defined the geospatial framework for numerical modelling.
	• The factors affecting continuity both of grade and geology.	• Drill hole coverage for geological and grade domain interpretations varies from 15 m × 15 m in some mining areas of the historical mine to greater than 80 m × 80 m in some exploration areas, with one or two holes intersecting mineralisation in down-plunge lens extensions at depth.
*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 mineralisation extent of the Woodlawn deposit comprises three mineralised horizons (Lower, Middle and Upper) hosting eleven known massive sulphide lenses occur within a 400 m × 600 m wide and 900 m deep northwest plunging corridor which remains open at depth. Across-strike widths vary from 1 m to <35 m. • The MRE for zinc, lead, copper, silver and gold on which this Table 1 is based has the following extents: `o` Above 1850 mRL `o` From 8750 mE to 10050 mE `o` From 18950 mN to 19850 mN.
*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.	• Domain intercepts were flagged and implicitly modelled in Seequent Leapfrog GEOTMsoftware. • Interpretation was a collaborative process with DVP geologists to ensure Entech’s modelling approach aligned with project restart objectives, represented observations and understanding of geological and mineralisation controls. • Domain interpretations used all available drill hole data with sludge and wall chip samples excluded from downhole compositing. All interpreted intervals were snapped to sample intervals prior to construction of implicitly modelled 3D lode solids. • All drill hole samples and block model blocks were coded for lens and oxidation domain. • Compositing approaches were selected to honour the mineralisation style, geometry, expected grade variability and potential mining selectivity. • Drillingsamples were composited to 1 m lengths honouringlode domain boundaries. The Seequent Leapfroglength

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		composite (best fit) was used, whereby any small uncomposited intervals (residuals) were divided evenly between the composites. • Composites were declustered and reviewed for statistical outliers and top-caps were applied by domain and variable. Top-caps were applied where outliers were determined to be statistical and spatial in nature. • Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA), variogram modelling and estimation validation was completed in GeoAccess, Supervisor V8.8 and Isatis™. • Linear estimation techniques were considered suitable due to the style of deposit and available data density. • Variography analyses for zinc, copper, lead, gold, silver and iron were completed on declustered and capped downhole composites grouped by mineralisation style (massive, stringer) and horizon (Lower, Middle, Upper). Robust variogram models with a low to moderate nugget for zinc and lead (6–18%), copper (10%), gold and silver (6–22%) were delineated and used in Kriging Neighbourhood Analysis (KNA) to determine parent cell estimation size and optimise search neighbourhoods. Variogram and search parameters for zinc were applied to lead due to statistical and spatial similarities. It should be noted that although the maximum continuity modelled in the variograms ranged from 20-190m, the bulk of spatial variability (~60%) and subsequent kriging weights was applied within 30–50 m in the Lower and Middle horizons and 10–30 m in the Upper horizon. • Maximum ranges of continuity were: `o` Zinc and lead. Lower 150 m, Middle 60 m, Upper 20 m `o` Copper. Lower 60 m, Middle 130 m, Upper 30 m `o` Gold and silver. Lower 165 m, Middle 135-190 m, Upper 120 m. • Search neighbourhoods broadly reflected the direction of maximum continuity within the plane of mineralisation, ranges, and anisotropy ratios from the variogram models. Neighbourhood parameters were optimised through Kriging Neighbourhood Analysis (KNA) and validation of interpolation outcomes. • All estimation was completed within respective mineralisation domains as outlined in previous sections: `o` Silver ppm, gold ppm and iron percent. Massive sulphide domain. `o` Zinc percent and lead percent. Zinc subdomain inside massive sulphide domain. `o` Copper percent. Copper subdomain inside massive sulphide domain and also as footwall stringer domain. • No other hard boundaries were applied (i.e. weathering profile). • Maximum distance of extrapolation from data points was approximately half the drill hole data spacing. With this approach, the maximum distance blocks estimated from known data points was ~80 m.
	• The availability of check estimates, previous estimates and/or mine production records and whether the Mineral Resource estimate takes appropriate account of such data.	• A check estimate was undertaken for zinc, copper and gold on a selection of domains using Inverse Distance Squared (IDW) with < 3% grade variance for zinc, copper and an average of 7% increase in gold grade for the IDW outcome. • The most recent Heron Mineral Resource documentation (Heron 2019) states a global Mineral Resource (inclusive of TSF and underground Mineral Resources of 18.2 Mt at 9.8% ZnEq) prepared under the guidelines of the JORC Code, which includes a high-grade underground Mineral Resource of 7.4 Mt at 15.2% ZnEq. Heron’s Underground MRE is presented in the table below.Referenced directly from Heron’s ASX Release dated 30 October 2019 - Woodlawn Project Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve Statement June 2019).

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		• By comparison, approaches to domaining, classification, RPEEE (sterilisation and NSR) undertaken by Entech account for the variations to historical Mineral Resources. Key differences in approach included. `o` Inclusion of resource and grade control diamond drill holes for the Kate and G lodes which identified multiple discrete lenses and zinc, copper sub-domains. This approach was implemented across all other lenses and varied from the Heron approach which included internal waste in broader massive sulphide domains. `o` Classification approach which considered the key challenges experienced by Heron during mining, and immediately prior to closure of operations. `o` Definition of sterilised volumes via review of MSO (Mineable Stope Optimiser) shapes, NSR values, and DVP’s Life of LOMP for accessing remnant areas. `o` Change in resource classification and reporting criteria from zinc equivalent (ZnEq) in 2019 MRE to the current (2022) NSR based approach. • Mineral Resource accounts for historical mined voids, material sterilised by historical mining and operational challenges experienced by Heron prior to closure in 2020.
	• The assumptions made regarding recovery of by-products.	• No assumptions were made with respect to by-product recovery.
	• Estimation of deleterious elements or other non-grade variables of economic significance (e.g. sulfur for acid mine drainage characterisation).	• Entech understands that both iron and sulphur require monitoring for mine planning and metallurgical amenability purposes. • Iron was composited, estimated and validated using the same process as for value elements of gold and silver. • Sulphur was selectively assayed and did not comprise sufficient data to support estimation. A regression was calculated for sulphur and applied within the final block model using estimated block grades for zinc, lead, copper and iron as input values. • No assumptions were made within the MRE with respect to other deleterious variables or by-products.
	• In the case of block model interpolation, the block size in relation to the average sample spacing and the search employed.	• Block sizes used were 5 mE × 10 mN and 10 mRL with sub-blocks of 0.625 mE × 0.3125 mN and 0.3125 mRL. The parent block size was selected to provide suitable volume fill given the available data spacing and mining selectivity. The drilling data spacing varies from nominal 15 m × 15 m spacing in the central area of the deposit and increases to exploration spacing of 80 m to test continuity of mineralisation at depth. Block model origins were selected to correlate with the Heron 2019 block model.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		• A two-pass estimation strategy was used, whereby search ranges reflected variogram maximum modelled continuity and a minimum of 6, maximum of 12 composites for zinc, lead and copper, and a minimum of 6, maximum of 16 for gold and silver. The second search reduced the minimum composite required in the neighbourhood to 4, all other parameters (e.g., range and maximum composites) remained the same. All blocks which did not meet the criteria to trigger an estimate remained un-estimated and were excluded from classification.
	• Any assumptions behind modelling of selective mining units.	• No selective mining units were assumed for this Mineral Resource update.
	• Any assumptions about correlation between variables.	• Correlation analyses was completed for the Lower, Middle and Upper massive sulphide domains which contributed to the grouping of elements for compositing and estimation within these domains. • There was insufficient sample population for estimation of sulphur; however, there is a strong positive correlation between iron and sulphur. A sulphur regression was calculated in the final block model using estimated grades for zinc, lead, copper and iron grades as inputs based on strong positive correlation. • Grouping of elements for compositing and estimation was based on the following positive correlations: `o` Zinc + lead `o` Gold + silver + iron `o` Copper.
	• Description of how the geological interpretation was used to control the resource estimates.	• All estimation was completed within either a geologically defined massive sulphide domain (silver, gold, iron) or within higher tenor zinc or copper sub-domains inside the massive domains. Hard boundaries for estimation were: `o` Silver ppm, gold ppm and iron percent: Massive sulphide domain `o` Zinc percent and lead percent: Zinc subdomain inside massive sulphide domain `o` Copper percent: `o` Copper subdomain inside massive sulphide domain, and `o` Stringer domain to footwall of massive domain. • Note that 28 massive and 18 stringer domains were interpreted across the deposit. The domains were grouped as per historical nomenclature into lenses A, B, C, D, E, G, H, I, J, Kate(K) and Lisa (L). • Each massive sulphide domain comprised a sub-domain volume for zinc and sub-domain volume for copper estimation, which reflected findings of geospatial, statistical and correlation analysis. • For the purposes of Exploratory Data Analysis, including variography and kriging neighbourhood analysis for the elements of zinc, lead, copper, silver, gold and iron, these domains were also grouped by their mineralisation style (massive or stringer) or by horizon: `o` Lower: A, B, C, J `o` Middle: D, E, Kate `o` Upper: G, H, I, Lisa. • Geological interpretation of lithology, weathering and structure was not used to control the Mineral Resource estimation as the domains outlined above represent the key controls on mineralisation at the deposit. Note that interpretations of lens strike extents included consideration of interpreted structural offsets.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	• Discussion of basis for using or not using grade cutting or capping.	• Assessment and application of top-capping was undertaken on the zinc, lead, copper, gold and silver variables within individual (and grouped) domains. Domains were capped to address instances where outliers were defined as both statistical and spatial outliers, presented below: • All domains – zinc 15%, lead 10% and copper 15%: `o` Zinc, caps applied across Lower, Middle, Upper horizons: < 1% metal reduction `o` Lead, caps applied across Lower, Middle, Upper horizons: < 1% metal reduction `o` Copper, caps applied in Lower Horizon: < 1% metal reduction • Individual domains – gold ranging from 4 to 15 g/t: `o` Caps applied in Lower Horizon: 2 % metal reduction `o` Caps applied in Middle Horizon: < 1% metal reduction `o` Caps applied in Upper Horizon: 4 % metal reduction • Individual domains – silver ranging from 100 to 1,000 g/t: `o` Caps applied in Lower Horizon: < 1% metal reduction `o` Caps applied in Middle Horizon: < 1% metal reduction `o` Caps applied in Upper Horizon: 11 % metal reduction.
	• The process of validation, the checking process used, the comparison of model data to drill hole data, and use of reconciliation data if available.	• Global and local validation of the zinc, lead, copper, gold, silver and iron estimated outcomes was undertaken with statistical analysis, swath plots and visual comparison (cross and long sections) against input data. Global comparison of declustered and capped composite mean against estimated mean (by domain and variable) highlighted less than 1% variation for zinc, lead, copper. Silver estimated outcome was 6% lower than global composite mean. Gold estimated outcome was 5% lower than global composite mean. • Reconciliation data for Heron’s recently mined areas (G lode) were not considered suitable for comparison as both mining and milling data during the months prior to closure were compromised by operational challenges.
*Moisture*	• Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or with natural moisture, and the method of determination of the moisture content.	• The tonnages were estimated on a dry basis.
*Cut-off parameters*	• The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters applied.	• The MRE is reported exclusive of mineralisation which has been mined and also mineralisation which was considered sterilised by adjacent mining. • The NSR of A$100/t is approximately 76% of the break-even stoping cut-off value underpinning the current DVP Life of Mine Plan (LOMP). The NSR of A$140/t for remnant areas reflects higher associated costs with metal recovery from remnant mining areas and was selected based upon discussions with DVP engineers and benchmarked against analogous peer operations (comparable deposit style, commodities, project maturity). • The NSR cut-off considers revenue from base (zinc, lead, copper percent) and precious metals (gold, silver ppm) and offsets site operating and sustaining capital costs, including underground operating development. Metallurgical recoveries are factored in the NSR calculation. The base metal and precious metals used in the NSR calculation all have reasonable potential of being saleable.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		• For the purposes of the NSR calculation, assumed metal prices, exchange rates, recoveries and other payability assumptions are listed in Table 1. Table 1 • For the purposes of NSR determination, NSR values were calculated on a block by block basis prior to implementing reporting cut-offs for remnant mining and virgin areas. • It was noted that the Woodlawn inventory included 8.1 Mt of material adjacent to, or within 10 m, of historical mining voids. The consideration of this material as either sterilised or as a Mineral Resource within the context of Reasonable Prospects for Eventual Economic Extraction (RPEEE) was considered material to MRE outcomes. • The process to define material as sterilised or Mineral Resource material included a review of the Mineral Resources within the context of RPEEE. The process included stamping into the block model all estimated blocks within 0–5 m and 5–10 m from open development and stoping voids, running MSO (Mineable Stope Optimiser) on all material in remnant areas and holding discussions with DVP and Entech mining engineers on the likelihood of achieving access, on a lens by lens basis. • A key assumption underpinning these discussions and caveats to accessing these Mineral Resources included DVP gaining re-entry to sections of historical workings (pre-2014). Entech included or excluded material based on the understanding that a re-entry plan is defined and planned for execution as part of the LOMP. The Competent Person reviewed individual lenses against historical and recent (Heron) mining voids, MSO shapes and NSR cut-offs above A$140/t to identify contiguous areas on strike extents, up or down dip of historical mining which could be considered potentially extractable by DVP within a reasonable timeframe of 15 years. • Using this approach approximately ~3 Mt of material from lenses A, B, C, E and J were incorporated as remnant Inferred Mineral Resources. This comprises 41% of the tonnage in the Woodlawn Mineral Resources. All remaining material (~5.1 Mt) was classified as sterilised, not meeting RPEEE considerations, and is excluded from Mineral Resource tabulations. • It is the Competent Person’s opinion that these methods and cut-off grades satisfy the requirements to test, assess and define the Woodlawn Mineral Resources within the context of RPEEE.
*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	• Entech understands DVP plans to implement similar-scale mechanised underground mining methods used previously at Woodlawn. This assumption was based on discussions with DVP’s senior geologists and engineers. • The MRE extends nominally 900 m below the topographic surface. Entech considers material at this depth, and at the grades estimated, would fall under the definition of RPEEE (reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction) in an underground mining framework. • Entech considers the two NSR cut-offs used for MRE reporting of material from virgin and remnant mining areas, being A$140/t and A$100/t,respectively,reflect higher costs associated with metal recoveryfrom remnant miningareas

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	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.	and would fall within the definition of RPEEE in an underground framework. • No mining dilution or cost factors were applied to the estimate.
*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.	• Metallurgical recovery factors have been applied within the NSR. Metallurgical recovery factors were based on initial metallurgical testwork during the 2016 feasibility study, a metallurgical review by Mineralis (Ref: Review of Woodlawn Metallurgical Operations, Mineralis Consultants, April 2020) and later flow process studies conducted by Heron in 2021 (Ref: Proposed flotation circuit flowsheet and pumping upgrades; high level design and cost estimation, internal company report, June 2021) • Metallurgical testwork was based on crushing and grinding underground mineralisation from Kate lens to produce float concentrates for copper, lead and zinc in order to assess recoveries of saleable concentrates for each metal type. Mineralis observed that zinc performance was the most consistent of the three metals (copper, lead, zinc) with the worst result being 50% zinc concentrate at 70% recovery. • Estimated metallurgical recoveries are factored into NSR calculations. Total recoveries calculated in the NSR, inclusive of all concentrate products are 92% Zn, 85% Pb, 89% Cu, 43% Au and 78% Ag. • Entech understands that both iron and sulphur require monitoring for mine planning and metallurgical amenability purposes. Both variables were included in the final Mineral Resource block model. Entech was not aware of other deleterious variables which would materially affect eventual economic extraction of Mineral Resources. • No factors or assumptions were made within the MRE with respect to other deleterious variables or by-products.
*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 greenfields 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	• No environmental factors were applied to the Mineral Resources or resource tabulations.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	environmental assumptions made.
*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.	• This MRE contains dry bulk density data which was collected on drill core from 188 holes (between 2014 and 2020). • The density samples were located between 19100 mN and 19800 mN, 8800 mE and 9600 mE and nominally from the surface to a depth of 800 m, providing a representative density profile between mineralised domains, and depth profile within a centralised portion of the MRE.
	• 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.	• Density measurements were collected on all samples sent to the laboratory. It was measured using an industry- accepted water immersion density determination method for each sample. • The testing area was inspected by a third-party geology resource consultant in December 2018 and reported as industry standard.
	• Discuss assumptions for bulk density estimates used in the evaluation process of the different materials.	• Entech investigated a multi-element regression using Zn %, Pb %, Cu % and Fe % grouped by horizon and for all domains combined. Of the available density values, 85% came from the Upper and Middle horizons. The outcomes for these two horizons were very similar, with good correlation, particularly with respect to Fe. The regression for the Lower horizon was inconclusive. Only 15% of the density data were located in the Lower horizon. • Entech chose to use a multiple regression formula across all domains, using all available samples, which results in a >95% correlation between the original density value and predicted value. The formula uses coefficients for Zn %, Pb %, Cu % and Fe %. • Bulk density is estimated into the block model via a multivariate regression equation, using the block grade estimations: Density = 2.5179+(Zn%0.0241) + (Pb%0.0282) + (Cu%-0.0014) + (Fe%0.0460) • No verifiable historical density data have been located, although the collection of density measurements is mentioned in a number of historical Woodlawn Mineral Resource reports.
*Classification*	• The basis for the classification of the Mineral Resources into varying confidence categories.	• The Woodlawn underground zinc-copper deposit contains Measured, Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources. • Mineral Resources were classified based on geological and grade continuity confidence drawn directly from: `o` Drill hole methodology, data quality, spacing and orientation `o` Geological domaining `o` Estimation quality parameters `o` Historical mining strike lengths, widths, stope orientations and remnant mining areas. • MeasuredMineral Resources were defined where a high level of geological confidence in geometry, continuity, and grade was demonstrated, and were identified as areas where: `o` Blocks were well supported by drill hole data, with drilling averaging a nominal 15 × 15 m or less between drill holes `o` Lens was intercepted by Heron on two sublevels and blocks are within 20–30 m from a lens development drive

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		`o` Estimation quality, slope of regression above 0.8. • IndicatedMineral Resources were defined where a moderate level of geological confidence in geometry, continuity, and grade was demonstrated, and were identified as areas where: `o` Blocks were well supported by drill hole data, with drilling averaging a nominal 40 × 40 m or less between drill holes `o` Blocks were interpolated with a neighbourhood informed by a minimum of 10 samples • InferredMineral Resources were defined where a lower level of geological confidence in geometry, continuity and grade was demonstrated, and were identified as areas where: `o` Drill spacing was averaging a nominal 60 m or less, or where drilling was within 70 m of the block estimate `o` Blocks were interpolated with a neighbourhood informed by a minimum of 4 samples • Mineralisation within the model which did not satisfy the criteria for classification as Mineral Resources remained unclassified.
	• Whether appropriate account has been taken of all relevant factors (ie 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).	• Consideration has been given to all factors material to Mineral Resource outcomes, including but not limited to confidence in volume and grade delineation, continuity and preferential orientation mineralisation; quality of data underpinning Mineral Resources, mineralisation continuity experienced during previous underground operations, nominal drill hole spacing and estimation quality (conditional bias slope, number of samples, distance to informing samples).
	• Whether the result appropriately reflects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit.	• The delineation of Measured, Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources appropriately reflect the Competent Person’s view on continuity and risk at the deposit.
*Audits or reviews*	• The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral Resource estimates.	• Internal audits and peer review were undertaken by Entech with a focus on independent resource tabulation, block model validation, verification of technical inputs, and approaches to domaining, interpolation, and classification.
*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 MRE is globally representative of zinc, lead, copper, gold and silver Mineral Resources; however, there is uncertainty relating to local representation of volume and grade in Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources due to the mine-scale localised fault structures which terminate and/or offset mineralisation and are locally discontinuous. • Local variances to the tonnage, grade, and metal distribution are expected with further definition drilling. It is the opinion of the Competent Person that these variances will not significantly affect economic extraction of the deposit. • The MRE is considered fit for the purpose for project re-start objectives that include both strategic and operational mine planning activities.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	• 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.	• The Mineral Resource statement relates to global tonnage and grade estimates. • No formal confidence intervals nor recoverable resources were undertaken or derived.
	• These statements of relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate should be compared with production data, where available.	• Reconciliation data for Heron’s recently mined areas (G lode) were not considered suitable for comparison as both mining and milling data during the months prior to closure were compromised by operational challenges. However, historical documentation indicates comparable contained metal and metal recoveries from historically mined areas. The project is currently at a restart phase having been on care and maintenance since March 2020.

==> picture [507 x 718] intentionally omitted <==

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

Northing Total Collar Collar Downhole Intercept Mineralisation
Hole Easting (m) mRL Length (m) Lens
(m) Depth (m) Azimuth (°) Dip (°) From (m) To (m) Type
U001 9598.2 19159.5 2613.3 110.1 87.0 -3.0 73.5 80.2 6.7 C Massive
U002 9597.8 19159.5 2612.3 90.0 88.0 -42.0 71.5 72.0 0.5 C Massive
U003 9597.2 19159.4 2612.3 106.5 88.0 -65.5 78.3 78.5 0.2 C Massive
U005 9616.9 19179.8 2612.7 89.5 90.0 2.0 69.7 75.0 5.3 C Massive
U006 9616.8 19179.8 2611.6 88.3 92.5 -41.0 58.6 61.3 2.7 C Massive
U007 9616.1 19179.8 2611.6 90.4 87.5 -71.0 69.2 71.4 2.2 C Massive
U008 9634.6 19200.1 2612.2 108.0 89.5 -1.5 52.3 77.2 24.9 C Massive
U009 9634.2 19200.1 2611.7 102.0 87.5 -18.0 50.0 60.1 10.0 C Massive
U010 9633.9 19200.1 2611.1 113.5 88.5 -44.0 53.3 60.5 7.2 C Massive
U011 9631.2 19199.8 2611.0 104.0 87.5 -70.0 66.8 67.5 0.7 C Massive
U012 9659.6 19220.8 2611.2 95.5 87.5 0.0 37.4 86.1 48.6 C Massive
U013 9659.2 19220.8 2610.7 90.1 90.5 -24.0 35.8 50.0 14.2 C Massive
U014 9658.1 19220.6 2610.1 121.0 79.5 -79.0 60.8 84.5 23.8 C Massive
U015 9671.8 19242.6 2612.0 109.6 89.5 -3.5 50.3 64.0 13.7 C Massive
U016 9671.8 19242.6 2611.2 102.0 89.5 -34.0 30.5 56.3 25.8 C Massive
U017 9669.4 19242.5 2610.8 132.0 86.0 -64.0 42.9 54.0 11.1 C Massive
U018 9669.1 19242.5 2610.8 123.0 0.0 -90.0 61.2 81.3 20.1 C Massive
U019 9698.5 19272.8 2615.9 60.0 109.0 -11.0 27.0 28.5 1.6 C Massive
U020 9690.4 19274.9 2614.7 75.0 117.5 -38.0 31.6 33.2 1.7 C Massive
U021 9689.4 19274.2 2614.6 75.6 145.0 -70.0 41.8 42.9 1.1 C Massive
U024 9659.5 19220.2 2611.8 101.5 89.0 10.0 42.4 87.8 45.3 C Massive
U025 9659.0 19220.1 2610.1 106.0 93.0 -53.0 43.1 46.0 2.9 C Massive
U026 9645.8 19219.1 2610.1 116.0 0.0 -90.0 89.0 93.2 4.2 C Massive
U027 9631.2 19199.8 2611.0 141.4 0.0 -90.0 79.6 85.6 6.0 C Massive
U028 9595.6 19156.6 2613.8 110.1 107.5 2.0 77.9 84.0 6.1 C Massive
U029 9593.5 19156.5 2613.3 108.0 110.5 -15.0 71.2 78.1 6.9 C Massive
U030 9617.0 19179.7 2612.2 109.5 90.5 -19.0 57.3 63.9 6.6 C Massive
U031 9642.6 19210.2 2611.2 81.0 89.5 -18.0 43.8 54.0 10.3 C Massive
U032 9641.5 19211.1 2610.7 103.1 80.0 -88.0 90.2 93.3 3.1 C Massive
U033 9657.5 19230.6 2610.4 101.0 92.0 -55.0 46.8 54.8 8.0 C Massive
U034 9657.0 19230.6 2610.4 98.0 80.0 -78.0 56.3 76.5 20.2 C Massive
U035 9673.8 19244.4 2611.6 86.1 80.5 -20.0 43.2 48.0 4.8 C Massive
U036 9672.7 19244.9 2611.3 82.0 80.5 -45.0 40.3 49.4 9.1 C Massive
U037 9671.9 19245.0 2611.2 134.0 86.5 -69.0 44.8 55.9 11.0 C Massive
U038 9592.4 19278.5 2601.8 159.5 76.7 -71.0 126.8 136.0 9.2 C Massive
U039 9592.2 19278.5 2601.8 186.0 72.7 -81.0 135.3 147.0 11.7 C Massive
U040 9583.6 19298.6 2601.3 176.3 78.0 -67.0 130.5 133.0 2.5 C Massive
U041 9583.3 19298.6 2601.3 188.0 78.0 -80.0 144.7 155.2 10.5 C Massive
188.2 192.1 3.9 C Massive
U042 9414.3 19333.8 2581.0 313.3 84.7 -74.0 214.6 218.5 3.9 C Massive
219.3 225.3 6.0 C Massive
U043 9414.8 19333.4 2581.5 245.2 97.0 -30.0 132.8 137.8 5.0 C Massive
133.2 144.1 10.9 C Massive
U044 9414.7 19333.5 2581.2 247.4 96.3 -43.0
202.5 209.4 6.8 C Massive
140.9 151.6 10.7 C Massive
U045 9414.5 19333.5 2581.1 252.3 97.3 -53.5
207.7 213.7 6.0 C Massive
24.6 25.9 1.3 A Massive
U047 9414.7 19333.7 2581.2 234.3 83.3 -36.0
110.1 111.7 1.6 C Massive
22.0 24.6 2.6 A Massive
U048 9414.2 19333.6 2581.0 255.0 82.5 -52.0
129.1 132.6 3.5 C Massive
U053 9456.3 19381.1 2589.2 60.6 269.0 38.0 18.8 23.0 4.2 A Massive
U054 9456.3 19381.1 2587.1 69.0 269.0 9.5 23.5 28.0 4.5 A Massive
U056 9456.3 19381.1 2585.5 150.8 269.5 -44.0 83.0 113.0 30.0 A Massive
40.0 41.0 1.0 B Massive
U057 9482.4 19498.5 2590.3 79.3 91.5 14.0
44.0 56.6 12.6 B Massive
22.2 29.4 7.2 B Massive
U058 9482.6 19498.4 2589.4 100.0 91.0 0.0
30.3 46.0 15.7 B Massive
10.0 21.0 11.0 B Massive
U059 9482.0 19498.5 2588.3 101.0 92.5 -32.0
24.2 33.8 9.6 B Massive
----- End of picture text -----

Collar coordinates in WMG coordinate system. Dip angle convention for Dip measurements: positive is up, negative is down, zero is horizontal.

1 of 28

==> picture [507 x 709] intentionally omitted <==

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

Northing Total Collar Collar Downhole Intercept Mineralisation
Hole Easting (m) mRL Length (m) Lens
(m) Depth (m) Azimuth (°) Dip (°) From (m) To (m) Type
14.0 29.0 15.0 B Massive
U060 9481.7 19498.5 2587.5 100.0 92.5 -88.0
37.8 45.1 7.3 B Massive
28.0 41.0 13.0 B Massive
U061 9475.0 19498.0 2588.0 140.0 272.5 -80.0
56.7 59.7 3.0 B Massive
U063 9460.7 19493.9 2591.7 49.5 275.5 45.5 41.0 45.0 4.0 A Massive
U064 9460.8 19493.9 2588.8 61.0 269.5 0.0 38.8 51.0 12.2 A Massive
U065 9460.9 19493.9 2588.5 96.3 277.5 -21.5 61.0 85.0 24.0 A Massive
U066 9460.9 19493.9 2588.2 128.1 272.0 -34.0 122.1 128.1 6.0 A Massive
U067 9464.3 19380.1 2591.2 79.7 280.5 63.0 21.8 30.0 8.2 A Massive
U068 9467.2 19380.1 2591.1 49.7 270.0 88.0 27.8 32.0 4.2 A Massive
U069 9464.0 19380.1 2585.4 95.4 260.0 -21.0 38.0 52.0 14.0 A Massive
U074 9470.7 19399.4 2590.7 45.1 274.0 76.0 29.4 35.0 5.6 A Massive
U075 9467.3 19399.5 2587.7 40.0 272.0 15.0 29.0 36.0 7.0 A Massive
U076 9467.5 19399.5 2586.1 81.0 272.0 -19.5 47.0 58.0 11.0 A Massive
U082 9477.4 19417.9 2592.6 50.0 272.6 69.0 31.9 38.4 6.5 A Massive
U083 9475.3 19418.1 2589.2 52.2 272.6 30.0 34.0 38.2 4.2 A Massive
U084 9475.6 19418.1 2586.6 81.0 272.6 -10.0 55.8 62.0 6.2 A Massive
U085 9475.7 19418.1 2585.9 102.0 276.1 -30.0 95.6 102.0 6.4 A Massive
U089 9473.4 19439.3 2592.0 59.0 267.6 65.0 37.3 41.5 4.2 A Massive
U090 9471.4 19439.2 2589.3 62.1 267.0 25.0 35.1 38.8 3.7 A Massive
U091 9471.6 19439.3 2587.9 71.3 268.0 0.0 45.5 49.0 3.5 A Massive
U092 9471.9 19439.3 2587.5 108.0 269.0 -25.0 80.6 86.2 5.6 A Massive
43.0 44.7 1.7 B Massive
U093 9474.8 19458.7 2588.8 88.0 87.0 10.0
44.7 55.6 11.0 B Massive
21.0 29.0 8.0 B Massive
U094 9474.7 19458.7 2588.9 80.2 88.6 -12.0
31.5 37.1 5.7 B Massive
27.1 33.0 5.9 B Massive
U095 9473.4 19458.7 2587.2 91.8 62.6 -86.0
33.0 39.6 6.6 B Massive
U096 9467.8 19458.7 2589.4 59.5 267.6 23.0 35.9 42.0 6.1 A Massive
U097 9469.4 19458.8 2588.2 53.0 263.6 64.0 40.0 43.0 3.0 A Massive
U098 9467.9 19458.7 2588.2 80.0 265.6 -5.0 44.0 55.4 11.4 A Massive
U099 9468.0 19458.7 2587.8 108.0 268.6 -25.0 81.0 92.6 11.6 A Massive
U100 9469.9 19480.6 2589.6 86.0 90.0 15.0 60.5 73.9 13.4 B Massive
36.0 40.5 4.5 B Massive
U101 9470.0 19480.6 2588.4 80.6 92.6 -7.0
40.5 51.2 10.7 B Massive
22.0 31.5 9.5 B Massive
U102 9469.4 19480.6 2587.6 81.1 94.1 -50.0
31.5 38.8 7.2 B Massive
31.0 32.0 1.0 B Massive
U103 9468.7 19480.6 2587.6 80.0 72.6 -88.0
32.0 50.0 18.0 B Massive
48.0 83.7 35.7 B Massive
U104 9465.1 19479.0 2587.5 121.0 286.6 -79.0
91.3 100.0 8.7 B Stringer
U105 9467.4 19478.9 2592.7 63.7 265.0 83.0 50.0 55.6 5.6 A Massive
U106 9463.9 19478.9 2591.0 50.5 270.0 34.5 37.2 40.7 3.5 A Massive
U107 9464.0 19479.0 2588.8 64.1 270.0 0.0 40.0 50.0 10.0 A Massive
U108 9464.1 19479.0 2588.3 89.3 270.0 -18.0 60.0 72.0 12.0 A Massive
56.0 59.0 3.0 B Massive
U109 9462.3 19521.4 2590.0 87.0 92.6 11.0
60.8 73.5 12.7 B Massive
39.0 43.5 4.5 B Massive
U110 9462.3 19521.4 2589.2 70.0 90.0 -6.0
43.5 58.1 14.7 B Massive
34.0 41.0 7.0 B Massive
U111 9461.9 19521.4 2588.7 77.0 92.6 -34.5
41.0 46.9 5.9 B Massive
70.6 83.9 13.3 B Massive
U112 9457.3 19520.2 2588.3 108.4 272.6 -85.0
83.9 105.0 21.1 B Stringer
U117 9459.4 19534.3 2590.0 78.0 90.0 0.0 66.4 67.4 0.9 B Massive
U118 9459.3 19534.3 2589.2 77.0 91.6 -28.0 52.0 53.1 1.1 B Massive
35.0 43.0 8.0 B Massive
U119 9458.7 19534.4 2588.7 81.0 87.6 -59.0
48.0 58.0 10.0 B Massive
----- End of picture text -----

Collar coordinates in WMG coordinate system. Dip angle convention for Dip measurements: positive is up, negative is down, zero is horizontal.

2 of 28

==> picture [507 x 732] intentionally omitted <==

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

Northing Total Collar Collar Downhole Intercept Mineralisation
Hole Easting (m) mRL Length (m) Lens
(m) Depth (m) Azimuth (°) Dip (°) From (m) To (m) Type
U120 9458.2 19534.4 2588.8 101.0 70.6 -86.0 61.0 67.4 6.5 B Massive
77.3 92.0 14.8 B Massive
U121 9454.46 19532.97 2588.92 130.5 262.57 -84
92.0 109.0 17.0 B Stringer
U125 9458.4 19534.9 2588.8 80.0 57.6 -54.0 42.0 42.6 0.6 B Massive
214.6 223.0 8.4 C Massive
U127 9354.4 19280.8 2570.3 300.0 90.0 -50.0
245.0 256.9 11.9 C Massive
253.5 258.0 4.5 C Massive
U128 9354.0 19280.8 2570.3 325.0 99.6 -61.0
286.8 305.8 19.1 C Massive
276.8 284.3 7.5 C Massive
U129 9353.7 19280.8 2570.3 339.3 98.6 -75.0
293.2 315.2 22.0 C Massive
U134 9446.6 19359.0 2589.7 41.2 270.6 70.0 4.0 13.0 9.0 A Massive
U135 9443.7 19359.2 2585.9 41.5 272.6 0.0 11.7 15.0 3.3 A Massive
U141 9551.9 19219.3 2541.6 144.3 90.6 -36.0 94.9 99.5 4.7 C Massive
U142 9551.4 19219.3 2541.5 141.3 88.6 -53.0 97.2 104.8 7.6 C Massive
95.8 97.8 2.0 C Massive
U143 9550.7 19219.3 2541.4 221.1 65.6 -85.0 123.2 129.7 6.5 C Massive
137.3 143.6 6.2 C Massive
U144 9560.6 19237.8 2539.5 123.5 92.6 -12.0 80.8 89.3 8.5 C Massive
77.6 85.3 7.7 C Massive
U145 9558.8 19237.8 2538.8 180.3 87.6 -73.0
92.3 115.3 23.1 C Massive
U146 9422.1 19221.4 2559.5 271.0 78.6 -48.0 202.6 239.0 36.4 C Massive
U147 9421.7 19221.3 2559.4 300.2 80.6 -62.0 224.2 248.9 24.7 C Massive
260.6 262.9 2.3 C Massive
U148 9421.4 19221.3 2559.3 324.4 77.6 -79.0
262.9 276.4 13.5 C Massive
U150 9560.3 19239.5 2539.0 129.0 62.6 -34.0 100.7 109.2 8.5 C Massive
U151 9560.2 19239.5 2538.7 150.0 62.1 -48.0 91.1 108.1 17.0 C Massive
76.6 84.0 7.4 C Massive
U152 9559.6 19239.3 2538.5 141.0 59.5 -62.5
105.3 111.8 6.5 C Massive
U153 9556.5 19237.4 2538.6 186.0 80.0 -85.0 94.9 161.6 66.7 C Massive
U154 9356.9 19281.1 2570.1 353.2 100.6 -85.0 314.4 337.4 23.0 C Massive
U155 9500.2 19461.1 2512.2 157.2 248.0 -2.0 117.0 142.0 25.0 A Massive
U156 9499.8 19462.2 2512.7 137.4 256.6 10.0 114.0 128.0 14.0 A Massive
49.0 63.0 14.0 B Massive
U157 9499.4 19462.2 2512.7 135.1 270.6 9.0
117.0 130.0 13.0 A Massive
U158 9499.3 19462.3 2511.9 88.6 270.0 -7.0 42.3 73.2 30.9 B Massive
34.0 35.7 1.7 B Massive
U159 9488.1 19500.4 2509.3 127.3 265.0 17.0 44.0 49.0 5.0 B Massive
107.8 121.0 13.2 A Massive
30.0 42.5 12.5 B Massive
U160 9488.2 19500.4 2508.5 148.3 262.6 0.0 46.0 50.0 4.0 B Massive
124.0 135.0 11.0 A Massive
28.7 37.7 9.0 B Massive
U161 9488.2 19500.4 2508.9 141.0 268.6 10.0 43.0 52.0 9.0 B Massive
115.0 130.5 15.5 A Massive
51.0 54.0 3.0 B Stringer
54.0 67.5 13.5 B Massive
U162 9502.5 19489.3 2508.7 183.0 272.6 -13.0
81.0 86.5 5.5 B Massive
155.0 174.0 19.0 A Massive
41.0 52.0 11.0 B Stringer
U163 9488.2 19500.4 2508.9 80.0 276.6 -23.0
52.2 62.7 10.5 B Massive
U164 9597.4 19152.8 2613.8 118.0 113.6 2.5 72.2 79.9 7.6 C Massive
0.0 4.0 4.0 A Massive
U167 9380.2 19438.3 2514.2 130.0 90.2 -69.0 85.1 94.0 8.9 B Massive
94.0 120.0 26.0 B Stringer
5.1 16.0 10.9 A Massive
U168 9371.9 19457.7 2515.1 170.0 270.2 -87.0 113.4 136.9 23.5 B Massive
136.9 160.0 23.1 B Stringer
111.8 123.2 11.4 B Massive
U170 9355.7 19538.6 2516.0 144.0 270.2 -84.0
123.2 135.0 11.8 B Stringer
U171 9355.2 19560.1 2516.5 119.0 90.2 -37.0 80.6 84.7 4.1 B Massive
----- End of picture text -----

Collar coordinates in WMG coordinate system.

3 of 28

Dip angle convention for Dip measurements: positive is up, negative is down, zero is horizontal.

==> picture [507 x 697] intentionally omitted <==

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

Northing Total Collar Collar Downhole Intercept Mineralisation
Hole Easting (m) mRL Length (m) Lens
(m) Depth (m) Azimuth (°) Dip (°) From (m) To (m) Type
63.7 76.7 13.1 C Massive
U172 9590.9 19290.0 2531.6 104.4 127.8 -22.0
91.0 91.9 0.8 C Massive
0.0 1.0 1.0 A Massive
1.0 3.0 2.0 A Massive
U174 9362.3 19499.1 2515.8 148.3 270.2 -83.0
96.5 123.0 26.5 B Massive
123.0 141.0 18.0 B Stringer
0.0 3.0 3.0 A Massive
U175 9380.6 19438.3 2514.2 126.3 88.6 -60.0 77.0 102.0 25.0 B Massive
102.0 108.0 6.0 B Stringer
0.0 7.4 7.4 A Massive
U176 9379.6 19438.3 2514.2 146.0 77.6 -87.0 100.2 112.0 11.8 B Massive
112.0 133.0 21.0 B Stringer
1.5 4.0 2.5 A Massive
U177 9382.0 19420.6 2515.3 119.2 89.2 -30.0
88.0 107.0 19.0 B Stringer
0.7 3.6 2.9 A Massive
U178 9382.8 19420.6 2515.3 206.5 90.6 -50.0
94.5 105.8 11.3 B Stringer
1.5 4.0 2.5 A Massive
U179 9382.8 19420.5 2515.2 201.0 90.0 -61.0
110.5 116.8 6.3 B Stringer
1.3 3.0 1.7 A Massive
51.1 54.2 3.1 B Massive
U180 9374.8 19459.2 2515.6 139.7 88.6 -32.0
57.0 80.5 23.5 B Massive
80.5 86.0 5.5 B Stringer
1.8 4.3 2.4 A Massive
59.9 61.4 1.5 B Massive
U181 9374.3 19459.2 2515.4 117.5 82.6 -60.0
66.5 83.0 16.5 B Massive
83.0 85.0 2.0 B Stringer
2.4 5.9 3.6 A Massive
65.7 67.1 1.4 B Massive
U182 9374.0 19459.2 2515.4 129.0 80.2 -76.0
68.6 98.2 29.7 B Massive
98.3 104.0 5.7 B Stringer
0.0 3.0 3.0 A Massive
63.0 68.0 5.0 B Massive
U183 9368.1 19478.7 2516.0 117.0 86.6 -72.0
70.3 85.0 14.8 B Massive
85.0 93.0 8.0 B Stringer
0.0 3.9 3.9 A Massive
66.6 67.2 0.6 B Massive
U184 9368.3 19478.7 2516.0 132.0 92.6 -87.0
74.5 106.0 31.5 B Massive
106.0 125.0 19.0 B Stringer
54.1 74.0 19.9 B Massive
U185 9365.6 19500.2 2515.4 87.0 90.6 -56.0
74.0 84.0 10.0 B Stringer
73.1 93.0 19.9 B Massive
U186 9365.2 19500.2 2515.4 105.0 84.6 -80.0
93.0 99.0 6.0 B Stringer
68.3 74.8 6.5 B Massive
U187 9362.4 19519.5 2515.6 105.0 93.6 -35.5
74.8 85.8 11.1 B Stringer
88.0 100.0 12.0 B Massive
U188 9360.9 19519.5 2515.5 115.0 93.6 -86.0
100.0 115.0 15.0 B Stringer
U189 9368.8 19539.5 2515.9 95.5 88.6 -36.0 71.0 77.6 6.6 B Massive
U190 9367.5 19539.5 2515.8 106.0 84.6 -79.0 81.2 98.0 16.8 B Massive
U197 9538.5 19205.1 2485.3 99.0 78.7 -34.0 73.0 75.6 2.5 C Massive
U198 9523.1 19221.0 2482.9 136.4 93.7 -60.5 103.7 111.1 7.4 C Massive
U199 9537.9 19205.1 2484.9 146.1 58.7 -80.0 127.0 131.2 4.1 C Massive
94.8 98.8 4.0 C Massive
U200 9507.4 19245.0 2480.4 139.0 97.7 -53.5
109.3 123.5 14.2 C Massive
25.1 28.1 3.1 C Massive
U201 9518.8 19264.9 2479.4 117.0 92.7 -36.5
52.8 96.7 43.9 C Massive
36.8 41.1 4.3 C Massive
U202 9507.4 19265.4 2478.7 124.0 91.7 -48.0
60.2 115.2 55.1 C Massive
----- End of picture text -----

Collar coordinates in WMG coordinate system. Dip angle convention for Dip measurements: positive is up, negative is down, zero is horizontal.

4 of 28

==> picture [507 x 732] intentionally omitted <==

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

Northing Total Collar Collar Downhole Intercept Mineralisation
Hole Easting (m) mRL Length (m) Lens
(m) Depth (m) Azimuth (°) Dip (°) From (m) To (m) Type
44.0 49.4 5.3 C Massive
U203 9507.1 19265.4 2478.8 138.2 91.7 -64.0 95.0 98.8 3.8 C Massive
104.3 130.4 26.1 C Massive
49.7 53.6 3.9 C Massive
U204 9506.94 19265.39 2478.75 148.25 92.65 -73.5
119.4 141.2 21.7 C Massive
55.4 66.5 11.1 C Massive
U205 9492.36 19280.76 2478.43 147 92.65 -63
99.1 130.7 31.7 C Massive
64.2 72.5 8.3 C Massive
U206 9492.36 19280.76 2478.43 149.7 89.65 -72.5
110.6 140.2 29.6 C Massive
64.9 69.6 4.7 C Massive
U207 9453.99 19302.7 2444.1 119.65 90.65 -34
87.1 102.2 15.0 C Massive
72.1 75.8 3.7 C Massive
U208 9453.9 19302.6 2443.9 124.0 90.7 -48.0 87.1 114.0 26.9 C Massive
115.9 118.8 2.9 C Massive
56.1 59.4 3.3 C Massive
U209 9456.1 19314.4 2444.6 121.6 84.7 -14.0 91.3 97.7 6.4 C Massive
97.7 111.0 13.3 C Massive
60.8 63.6 2.8 C Massive
U210 9456.1 19314.4 2444.0 121.9 84.7 -35.0 82.5 87.6 5.1 C Massive
87.7 91.1 3.4 C Massive
64.4 67.1 2.7 C Massive
U211 9456.1 19314.4 2443.8 119.1 88.7 -46.0 84.1 94.4 10.3 C Massive
94.4 94.4 0.0 C Massive
56.8 60.2 3.3 C Massive
U212 9456.2 19314.8 2444.3 120.2 70.7 -23.0 87.2 92.2 4.9 C Massive
95.1 104.9 9.8 C Massive
U213 9456.3 19315.5 2444.1 126.6 59.7 -27.0 102.7 104.7 1.9 C Massive
11.0 20.0 9.0 A Stringer
U214 9348.7 19438.6 2424.1 121.2 100.7 7.0 20.0 54.1 34.1 A Stringer
96.0 102.0 6.0 B Stringer
10.0 28.0 18.0 A Stringer
U215 9347.2 19438.9 2423.2 113.2 108.7 -64.5
105.0 109.0 4.0 J Stringer
10.0 26.0 16.0 A Stringer
U216 9347.4 19439.4 2423.1 76.6 89.7 -62.0
67.0 70.4 3.4 B Stringer
11.0 28.0 17.0 A Stringer
U218 9356.4 19456.6 2421.4 80.6 61.7 -76.0 30.9 46.0 15.1 B Massive
46.0 67.0 21.0 B Stringer
27.2 45.0 17.9 B Massive
U219 9347.3 19479.8 2419.7 65.8 90.7 -70.0
45.0 54.7 9.7 B Stringer
35.5 56.6 21.2 B Massive
U220 9347.1 19479.8 2419.8 69.8 80.7 -89.0
56.6 62.0 5.4 B Stringer
0.0 11.0 11.0 A Massive
U221 9334.1 19484.5 2419.5 72.2 25.7 -71.0 40.8 54.0 13.2 B Massive
54.0 58.0 4.0 B Stringer
23.8 39.6 15.8 B Massive
U222 9341.5 19531.7 2414.5 60.3 164.7 -59.0
39.6 46.0 6.4 B Stringer
1.3 3.0 1.7 B Massive
34.7 41.7 7.1 B Massive
41.7 48.0 6.3 B Stringer
U224 9336.1 19540.7 2413.8 73.2 263.7 -76.0
48.0 52.0 4.0 B Massive
54.0 62.0 8.0 B Massive
62.0 69.0 7.0 B Stringer
U225 9343.2 19566.1 2414.7 63.4 84.7 16.0 33.5 52.7 19.2 B Massive
U226 9341.9 19566.1 2412.6 39.5 73.7 -78.0 28.0 32.6 4.6 B Massive
U227 9342.4 19569.9 2416.3 104.1 82.7 34.0 84.6 93.7 9.1 B Massive
U228 9343.0 19570.2 2414.6 55.6 74.7 9.0 38.0 39.2 1.2 B Massive
U229 9337.2 19572.2 2412.8 69.1 288.7 -60.0 49.0 52.5 3.5 B Massive
U231 9342.9 19571.3 2413.4 55.0 40.7 -17.0 34.0 37.0 3.0 B Massive
U232 9338.3 19574.3 2412.8 95.0 274.7 -51.0 53.2 62.3 9.2 B Massive
U233 9343.0 19571.6 2413.7 84.2 34.7 -4.5 36.0 38.8 2.8 B Massive
----- End of picture text -----

Collar coordinates in WMG coordinate system.

5 of 28

Dip angle convention for Dip measurements: positive is up, negative is down, zero is horizontal.

==> picture [507 x 697] intentionally omitted <==

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

Northing Total Collar Collar Downhole Intercept Mineralisation
Hole Easting (m) mRL Length (m) Lens
(m) Depth (m) Azimuth (°) Dip (°) From (m) To (m) Type
U234 9341.0 19574.2 2413.0 100.3 18.7 -41.0 37.3 38.0 0.7 B Massive
U235 9336.8 19564.3 2413.3 87.0 192.7 -12.0 63.0 69.7 6.7 A Massive
20.0 28.5 8.5 B Massive
U236 9336.8 19563.9 2413.1 126.7 192.7 -18.0 51.5 64.4 13.0 B Massive
70.8 81.0 10.3 A Massive
U237 9336.8 19543.6 2417.2 216.0 274.7 40.4 199.7 210.2 10.5 D Massive
209.0 216.6 7.6 D Massive
U238 9336.5 19543.6 2416.2 232.4 283.7 27.0
216.6 219.0 2.4 D Massive
U239 9370.9 19498.1 2418.8 56.0 226.7 -36.9 0.0 23.6 23.6 B Massive
257.6 260.1 2.5 D Massive
U242 9335.0 19569.9 2414.3 287.9 270.0 -12.0
261.2 263.3 2.1 D Massive
U243 9334.9 19569.9 2414.5 234.0 267.7 6.0 209.9 218.0 8.1 D Massive
238.8 243.0 4.2 D Massive
U244 9334.9 19569.9 2414.5 267.4 278.7 -2.0
246.6 248.3 1.7 D Massive
209.0 216.8 7.8 D Massive
U245 9335.2 19569.1 2415.4 252.0 281.0 16.0
220.8 221.5 0.7 D Massive
U246 9335.2 19569.4 2414.2 278.7 284.7 -10.0 267.0 271.0 4.0 D Massive
240.3 245.0 4.7 D Massive
U247 9337.2 19557.35 2413.98 256.5 269 -6
246.0 249.0 3.0 D Massive
U251 9242.8 19539.9 2575.4 57.0 267.7 72.0 42.0 50.9 8.9 D Massive
U252 9241.3 19540.4 2573.6 54.0 236.7 36.0 37.0 45.0 8.0 D Massive
U253 9241.2 19540.5 2573.5 52.5 278.7 28.0 35.0 43.0 8.0 D Massive
U254 9240.7 19540.5 2570.3 76.5 247.7 -25.0 54.0 66.0 12.0 D Massive
101.0 108.7 7.7 D Massive
U255 9268.5 19555.9 2572.6 113.7 278.7 -21.0
110.0 113.7 3.7 D Massive
230.2 236.2 6.0 B Massive
U256 9200.8 19584.3 2566.7 259.0 90.2 -78.0
245.6 252.0 6.4 B Massive
263.5 272.4 8.9 B Massive
U257 9200.8 19584.3 2566.7 286.5 0.0 -90.0
272.4 279.0 6.6 B Stringer
U258 9195.7 19562.1 2566.8 261.3 93.5 -88.0 252.9 258.0 5.1 B Massive
211.0 221.9 10.9 A Massive
237.0 247.3 10.3 B Massive
U259 9205.8 19515.6 2567.0 272.7 0.0 -90.0
247.3 250.0 2.7 B Stringer
250.0 266.0 16.0 B Massive
U263 9386.8 19212.8 2675.4 51.0 64.0 -26.0 36.3 38.9 2.6 E Massive
U264 9386.8 19212.8 2675.3 60.8 50.0 -66.0 51.0 57.0 6.0 E Massive
162.0 163.0 1.0 J Stringer
U265 9341.7 19423.4 2424.8 210.0 0.0 -90.0
176.0 185.0 9.0 J Stringer
132.3 135.7 3.4 J Stringer
U266 9341.7 19423.4 2424.8 160.0 115.0 -68.0
136.5 142.0 5.5 J Stringer
29.0 51.0 22.0 B Massive
U267 9341.3 19500.5 2417.3 170.0 270.0 -86.0
51.0 60.3 9.3 B Stringer
7.0 23.0 16.0 A Massive
32.5 35.8 3.3 A Stringer
U268 9341.5 19461.3 2420.8 80.0 0.0 -90.0
55.0 72.0 17.0 B Massive
72.0 76.5 4.5 B Stringer
U269 9337.4 19489.1 2422.0 114.0 267.7 32.5 0.0 26.0 26.0 A Massive
U270 9335.0 19569.8 2414.5 330.0 269.7 -25.0 319.5 322.0 2.6 D Stringer
204.0 205.6 1.6 D Massive
U271 9336.39 19540 2416.5 225 267.67 10
208.0 209.0 1.0 D Massive
0.0 1.9 1.9 B Massive
U273 9336.69 19521.4 2419 222 267.67 28
188.7 190.3 1.7 D Massive
212.4 215.5 3.2 D Massive
U274 9334.99 19569.9 2414.8 247.5 270.67 -2
233.1 239.0 5.9 D Massive
U275 9335.0 19569.9 2415.1 226.5 265.7 10.5 206.0 212.2 6.2 D Massive
U276 9335.0 19570.0 2414.5 336.0 275.7 -25.0 321.3 329.0 7.7 D Massive
U277 9386.4 19353.6 2580.3 119.3 232.7 -4.0 81.6 86.0 4.4 K Massive
----- End of picture text -----

Collar coordinates in WMG coordinate system. Dip angle convention for Dip measurements: positive is up, negative is down, zero is horizontal.

6 of 28

==> picture [507 x 732] intentionally omitted <==

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

Northing Total Collar Collar Downhole Intercept Mineralisation
Hole Easting (m) mRL Length (m) Lens
(m) Depth (m) Azimuth (°) Dip (°) From (m) To (m) Type
84.0 95.9 11.9 K Massive
U278 9386.39 19353.6 2580.3 121.5 257.67 -5
99.6 101.1 1.5 E Massive
U279 9386.4 19353.6 2580.3 115.5 237.0 9.0 73.9 83.5 9.6 K Massive
74.5 82.2 7.7 K Massive
U280 9386.39 19353.6 2580.3 114 249.67 7
90.0 91.0 1.0 E Massive
U281 9386.4 19353.6 2579.9 119.6 245.0 -17.0 93.0 104.0 11.0 K Massive
U282 9386.4 19353.5 2581.3 108.8 260.7 23.0 80.9 93.3 12.5 K Massive
U283 9386.5 19353.5 2581.6 101.8 257.7 36.0 82.0 91.3 9.3 K Massive
229.6 234.8 5.2 C Massive
U287 9389.5 19319.8 2405.3 262.5 95.7 -81.0 234.8 246.8 12.0 C Massive
246.8 254.7 7.9 C Massive
88.5 96.0 7.5 J Stringer
U288A 9389.5 19319.8 2405.3 194.2 93.7 -60.0 157.3 187.3 30.0 C Massive
187.3 192.0 4.7 C Massive
0.0 3.4 3.4 G Stringer
U289 9285.2 19307.0 2666.2 40.2 282.7 52.0
30.8 33.1 2.3 G Massive
1.0 6.0 5.0 G Stringer
U290 9284.9 19307.0 2663.5 47.7 274.7 2.0
31.1 35.5 4.4 G Massive
U291 9285.0 19307.0 2663.4 70.5 287.7 -18.0 1.3 7.0 5.7 G Stringer
0.6 5.6 4.9 G Stringer
U292 9285.2 19302.9 2662.9 72.0 232.7 -32.0
45.0 58.0 13.0 G Massive
0.0 2.6 2.6 G Stringer
U293 9285.2 19302.8 2663.3 56.7 217.7 1.0 27.0 37.0 10.0 G Massive
44.4 46.4 2.0 G Stringer
0.7 10.5 9.9 G Stringer
U294 9285.2 19302.9 2662.9 71.5 247.0 -35.0
48.0 59.9 11.9 G Massive
0.0 2.9 2.9 G Stringer
U295 9285.1 19302.8 2664.8 42.0 234.7 18.0
22.0 29.0 7.0 G Massive
0.7 9.8 9.2 G Stringer
U296 9285.2 19302.9 2662.9 75.0 274.7 -31.0
56.0 69.2 13.2 G Massive
U297 9333.8 19269.9 2670.3 96.0 257.7 4.0 83.6 96.0 12.4 G Stringer
72.6 84.9 12.3 G Stringer
U298 9333.8 19269.9 2670.3 109.5 257.7 -7.0
90.1 109.5 19.4 G Stringer
U300 9300.2 19320.4 2661.8 64.5 87.7 -36.0 43.8 53.0 9.2 K Massive
U301 9300.2 19320.4 2662.0 58.5 87.7 -4.0 39.5 51.8 12.3 K Massive
U302 9300.4 19320.4 2662.3 54.0 87.7 11.0 43.0 49.4 6.4 K Massive
25.7 26.3 0.6 E Massive
U303 9317.1 19299.9 2664.7 56.0 87.7 -26.0
26.8 29.4 2.6 K Massive
U304 9283.5 19339.6 2659.6 69.5 87.7 -13.0 38.0 48.6 10.6 K Massive
30.8 32.4 1.6 E Massive
U305 9317.1 19299.9 2665.1 45.0 82.7 6.0
33.5 35.1 1.7 K Massive
0.4 6.1 5.7 G Stringer
U306 9285.2 19302.9 2662.9 49.5 265.7 -17.0
32.7 40.7 8.0 G Massive
0.0 2.8 2.8 G Stringer
U307 9285.2 19302.8 2664.8 35.9 254.7 37.0
23.6 28.1 4.6 G Massive
58.2 60.0 1.8 G Massive
U309 9333.8 19269.9 2670.3 100.5 270.7 4.0
92.3 100.5 8.2 G Stringer
67.6 79.5 11.9 G Stringer
U310 9333.8 19269.9 2670.2 100.0 264.7 -8.0
87.3 100.0 12.7 G Stringer
72.0 74.0 2.0 C Massive
U311 9399.8 19361.2 2362.9 111.0 84.7 -29.5
92.4 101.6 9.1 C Massive
113.7 129.9 16.2 C Massive
129.9 143.6 13.7 C Massive
U312 9399.8 19361.0 2362.9 161.0 92.7 -67.0 143.6 149.5 5.9 C Massive
149.5 154.0 4.5 C Massive
154.0 154.2 0.2 C Massive
21.0 22.0 1.0 J Stringer
47.2 47.6 0.4 C Massive
U313 9439.5 19349.1 2384.8 95.7 101.7 -43.0
62.8 69.0 6.2 C Massive
75.1 84.3 9.2 C Massive
----- End of picture text -----

Collar coordinates in WMG coordinate system.

7 of 28

Dip angle convention for Dip measurements: positive is up, negative is down, zero is horizontal.

==> picture [507 x 732] intentionally omitted <==

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

Northing Total Collar Collar Downhole Intercept Mineralisation
Hole Easting (m) mRL Length (m) Lens
(m) Depth (m) Azimuth (°) Dip (°) From (m) To (m) Type
132.2 136.0 3.8 C Massive
136.0 144.8 8.8 C Massive
U314 9403.2 19280.0 2360.6 158.6 105.7 -44.0 144.8 145.3 0.4 C Massive
145.3 148.2 3.0 C Massive
148.2 155.7 7.5 C Massive
150.1 168.1 18.0 C Massive
U315 9403.2 19280.0 2360.6 177.0 93.7 -70.0
169.1 172.6 3.5 C Massive
204.3 209.2 4.8 C Massive
U316 9403.2 19280.0 2360.6 221.0 95.7 -88.0
211.9 219.2 7.3 C Massive
141.9 159.3 17.4 C Massive
U317 9403.2 19280.0 2360.6 165.0 69.7 -69.0
161.5 163.6 2.1 C Massive
U318 9406.1 19351.6 2362.7 125.0 91.7 -58.0 106.8 125.0 18.2 C Massive
123.0 125.5 2.4 C Massive
U319 9406.1 19351.6 2362.7 189.2 93.7 -75.0 128.3 166.3 37.9 C Massive
166.3 172.8 6.5 C Massive
87.5 89.3 1.8 C Massive
U320 9408.6 19373.5 2360.1 121.5 71.7 -52.0
100.1 101.5 1.4 C Massive
U321 9460.5 19222.7 2348.5 111.0 90.7 -47.0 87.5 95.4 7.9 C Massive
U323 9460.5 19222.7 2348.5 138.0 65.7 -75.0 110.8 111.4 0.6 C Massive
85.8 87.0 1.2 C Massive
U324 9462.2 19222.6 2349.6 100.0 90.7 -11.0 87.0 91.2 4.2 C Massive
91.2 92.3 1.1 C Massive
80.1 92.4 12.4 C Massive
U325 9469.6 19254.6 2351.7 100.0 91.7 -60.0
93.0 93.6 0.6 C Massive
104.5 116.5 12.0 C Massive
U326 9469.6 19254.6 2351.7 137.5 57.7 -88.0
121.7 131.7 10.1 C Massive
0.9 3.0 2.1 J Stringer
28.4 28.7 0.3 J Stringer
U327 9389.9 19399.7 2310.5 38.3 80.7 20.0
28.7 33.5 4.9 J Massive
33.5 38.3 4.8 J Stringer
0.0 1.5 1.5 J Stringer
U328 9389.8 19399.2 2309.0 30.1 87.7 -48.0 12.2 17.2 5.0 J Stringer
24.1 25.8 1.7 J Stringer
U329 9366.1 19509.4 2324.7 79.6 257.7 -18.0 58.3 64.5 6.2 B Massive
U330 9520.0 19342.6 2365.7 225.0 87.7 -13.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 C Massive
22.8 27.3 4.5 B Massive
U332 9321.1 19576.9 2329.4 34.2 233.7 69.0
32.3 34.2 1.9 B Massive
32.6 39.7 7.2 B Massive
49.9 65.5 15.6 B Massive
U333 9320.6 19576.4 2325.2 86.8 233.7 -10.0
65.5 70.0 4.5 B Stringer
70.0 79.4 9.3 B Massive
U334 9344.3 19544.8 2325.5 81.3 250.7 -34.0 67.9 72.6 4.7 B Massive
34.5 42.0 7.5 B Massive
U335 9344.2 19544.5 2326.1 90.1 236.7 -3.0
64.0 75.6 11.6 B Massive
45.4 47.0 1.6 B Stringer
U336 9364.9 19541.2 2328.9 69.2 234.7 52.0
47.1 63.6 16.5 B Massive
U337 9194.0 19406.0 2641.0 48.0 258.6 22.0 30.5 41.0 10.5 H Massive
U338 9233.8 19379.2 2651.8 71.0 271.6 10.0 55.1 64.5 9.4 H Massive
U340 9236.9 19358.1 2655.2 60.8 271.6 12.0 34.0 40.7 6.8 G Massive
U341 9240.7 19344.4 2656.9 36.5 257.1 30.0 10.2 13.6 3.4 G Massive
U342 9236.9 19362.6 2653.6 55.0 270.6 -11.0 40.7 41.6 0.9 G Massive
U343 9209.4 19424.9 2628.1 101.0 255.6 -19.0 78.6 86.1 7.6 H Massive
55.0 57.1 2.1 B Stringer
57.1 80.8 23.7 B Massive
U346 9305.2 19603.3 2284.4 98.6 270.9 1.0
80.8 89.0 8.2 B Stringer
89.0 91.2 2.2 B Massive
U347 9305.6 19603.3 2284.2 72.0 280.6 -12.0 61.1 66.9 5.7 B Stringer
49.5 61.6 12.1 B Massive
U348 9305.4 19604.4 2285.0 76.8 282.6 18.0 61.6 67.6 6.0 B Stringer
67.6 73.0 5.5 B Massive
----- End of picture text -----

Collar coordinates in WMG coordinate system.

8 of 28

Dip angle convention for Dip measurements: positive is up, negative is down, zero is horizontal.

==> picture [507 x 674] intentionally omitted <==

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

Northing Total Collar Collar Downhole Intercept Mineralisation
Hole Easting (m) mRL Length (m) Lens
(m) Depth (m) Azimuth (°) Dip (°) From (m) To (m) Type
41.6 43.6 2.0 B Massive
69.3 72.4 3.1 B Massive
U349 9324.4 19538.4 2283.3 89.2 270.6 16.0
72.4 74.3 2.0 B Stringer
74.3 78.3 4.0 B Massive
U350 9324.6 19538.2 2282.5 78.0 270.6 -1.0 41.7 43.2 1.5 B Massive
22.0 33.7 11.7 B Massive
U351 9276.6 19587.5 2277.6 56.2 257.6 32.0 33.7 43.7 10.0 B Stringer
43.7 45.2 1.5 B Massive
U352 9277.0 19587.4 2275.9 25.4 255.6 10.0 20.0 25.0 5.0 B Massive
U353 9338.3 19348.7 2471.3 120.0 256.6 47.0 80.2 86.1 5.8 K Massive
90.9 91.9 1.0 K Massive
U354 9338.3 19348.6 2470.7 209.2 263.6 33.0 139.5 143.9 4.4 G Stringer
175.0 176.1 1.1 G Massive
90.7 95.3 4.6 K Massive
U355 9366.5 19326.8 2473.5 230.0 262.6 31.0
112.3 118.1 5.8 K Massive
85.8 89.4 3.7 K Massive
U356 9366.2 19327.0 2473.0 115.0 249.6 20.0
93.2 95.9 2.7 K Massive
28.3 29.0 0.7 J Stringer
U358 9347.7 19441.0 2293.5 50.2 74.6 -33.0
35.5 39.5 4.0 J Stringer
32.2 35.9 3.7 J Stringer
U359 9348.2 19440.2 2294.3 49.6 79.6 0.0
37.5 37.9 0.4 J Stringer
98.3 117.7 19.5 C Massive
U360 9444.4 19284.1 2299.2 134.1 95.6 -81.0
117.7 119.1 1.4 C Massive
U361 9325.6 19509.8 2284.9 44.5 263.0 -9.0 31.8 36.1 4.2 B Massive
74.2 89.2 15.0 C Massive
U362 9405.0 19349.3 2252.8 99.5 100.6 -43.0
89.2 97.0 7.8 C Massive
93.5 100.4 7.0 C Massive
U363 9404.7 19349.3 2252.7 128.3 107.6 -64.0 100.4 107.1 6.7 C Massive
107.1 113.5 6.4 C Massive
118.4 120.4 2.0 C Massive
U364 9404.9 19350.9 2252.5 164.1 90.6 -74.0
121.7 123.5 1.7 C Massive
90.0 91.3 1.4 C Massive
U365 9404.9 19350.9 2252.5 111.4 78.6 -62.0 91.3 98.3 7.0 C Massive
98.3 102.0 3.7 C Massive
33.0 35.0 2.0 J Stringer
U366 9310.4 19415.2 2245.0 69.2 89.0 -8.0
40.3 46.6 6.3 J Stringer
28.0 33.0 5.0 J Stringer
U367 9310.5 19415.5 2244.9 64.5 59.0 -20.0
35.6 47.0 11.4 J Stringer
U368 9310.7 19415.0 2245.3 62.0 33.0 -6.0 49.0 58.0 9.0 J Stringer
74.5 78.7 4.2 J Stringer
U369 9310.5 19414.8 2246.7 97.0 80.0 27.0
91.3 94.5 3.2 J Stringer
35.6 49.6 14.0 C Massive
U370 9442.7 19291.4 2264.8 72.0 90.0 -5.0
50.8 55.9 5.1 C Massive
55.3 75.7 20.4 C Massive
U371 9432.9 19320.5 2268.0 85.2 90.0 -57.0
75.7 78.9 3.2 C Massive
37.9 39.7 1.8 C Massive
47.2 59.2 12.0 C Massive
U372 9418.6 19378.7 2266.5 103.0 96.4 -49.0 68.2 81.1 13.0 C Massive
81.5 85.7 4.2 C Massive
87.2 89.4 2.2 C Massive
43.1 45.9 2.8 C Massive
63.1 66.4 3.3 C Massive
U373 9418.6 19378.7 2266.5 106.0 110.9 -57.0 66.4 80.2 13.8 C Massive
83.0 89.5 6.4 C Massive
89.5 101.1 11.6 C Massive
----- End of picture text -----

Collar coordinates in WMG coordinate system. Dip angle convention for Dip measurements: positive is up, negative is down, zero is horizontal.

9 of 28

==> picture [507 x 709] intentionally omitted <==

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

Northing Total Collar Collar Downhole Intercept Mineralisation
Hole Easting (m) mRL Length (m) Lens
(m) Depth (m) Azimuth (°) Dip (°) From (m) To (m) Type
40.6 43.7 3.1 C Massive
56.6 61.2 4.6 C Massive
62.2 66.3 4.1 C Massive
U374 9418.6 19378.7 2266.5 110.6 81.4 -67.5
66.3 81.4 15.1 C Massive
89.5 95.1 5.6 C Massive
95.1 99.1 4.0 C Massive
50.4 52.2 1.8 C Massive
52.2 57.6 5.3 C Massive
U375 9418.6 19378.7 2266.5 90.0 66.9 -54.0
64.0 73.3 9.3 C Massive
80.6 85.3 4.7 C Massive
U376 9418.6 19378.7 2266.5 55.0 85.9 -78.0 47.0 54.1 7.1 C Massive
49.3 54.5 5.2 C Massive
U377 9445.0 19261.0 2260.0 72.2 109.4 -55.5
54.5 58.5 4.1 C Massive
U378 9441.8 19262.6 2260.2 113.0 69.4 -86.0 103.3 108.3 5.1 C Massive
66.6 67.9 1.3 C Massive
U379 9441.8 19262.6 2260.2 86.5 84.9 -70.0 67.9 78.7 10.8 C Massive
78.7 81.3 2.6 C Massive
6.4 18.0 11.6 D Massive
U380 9146.1 19535.0 2463.0 47.8 268.6 -12.0
38.5 40.5 2.0 D Massive
34.0 38.0 4.0 D Massive
U381 9172.2 19541.3 2467.0 135.6 283.6 10.0
41.0 50.0 9.0 D Massive
U382 9171.9 19541.7 2468.5 53.5 270.6 35.0 34.0 43.0 9.0 D Massive
33.2 44.0 10.8 D Massive
U383 9172.0 19543.2 2468.8 65.0 306.6 35.0
53.0 60.0 7.0 D Massive
U384 9143.2 19599.6 2438.9 54.7 250.4 70.0 41.6 50.0 8.4 D Massive
U385 9278.7 19485.0 2235.1 45.0 56.6 14.0 37.0 40.0 3.0 J Stringer
31.0 42.2 11.2 J Stringer
U386 9278.6 19484.9 2233.8 73.6 42.6 -42.0 42.2 58.2 16.0 J Massive
58.2 64.2 6.0 J Stringer
U387 9277.0 19480.3 2235.2 54.9 90.6 15.0 44.0 45.8 1.8 J Stringer
32.1 49.0 16.9 J Stringer
U388 9275.8 19479.5 2233.8 59.0 90.6 -31.0 49.0 56.0 7.0 J Massive
56.0 57.0 1.0 J Stringer
37.0 40.0 3.0 J Stringer
U389 9278.5 19484.9 2233.5 57.4 56.6 -18.0 40.0 51.0 11.0 J Massive
51.0 52.2 1.2 J Stringer
32.7 42.0 9.3 B Stringer
42.0 71.7 29.7 B Massive
U390 9265.1 19629.0 2240.9 88.3 257.6 13.0
71.7 74.3 2.6 B Stringer
74.3 81.1 6.8 B Massive
51.0 61.0 10.0 B Stringer
67.0 98.0 31.0 B Massive
U391 9265.6 19629.5 2239.5 113.4 265.0 -6.0
98.0 101.9 3.9 B Stringer
104.0 108.0 4.0 B Massive
51.9 71.9 20.0 B Stringer
U392 9265.6 19629.5 2239.5 128.3 271.0 -13.0 79.1 94.5 15.5 B Massive
94.5 115.0 20.5 B Massive
55.3 69.0 13.7 B Stringer
69.0 95.0 26.0 B Massive
U394 9265.8 19641.3 2240.5 112.6 273.6 -5.0
95.0 98.9 3.9 B Stringer
98.9 104.0 5.1 B Massive
65.6 77.8 12.3 B Stringer
77.9 96.5 18.6 B Massive
U395 9265.9 19641.2 2240.1 123.0 278.6 -14.0
96.5 103.5 7.0 B Stringer
103.5 107.0 3.5 B Massive
56.0 70.7 14.7 B Massive
U396 9265.9 19640.9 2241.0 93.7 282.6 15.5 70.7 79.9 9.2 B Stringer
79.9 86.5 6.6 B Massive
----- End of picture text -----

Collar coordinates in WMG coordinate system.

10 of 28

Dip angle convention for Dip measurements: positive is up, negative is down, zero is horizontal.

==> picture [507 x 732] intentionally omitted <==

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

Northing Total Collar Collar Downhole Intercept Mineralisation
Hole Easting (m) mRL Length (m) Lens
(m) Depth (m) Azimuth (°) Dip (°) From (m) To (m) Type
21.5 25.7 4.2 C Massive
55.9 57.3 1.4 C Massive
U397 9412.6 19384.5 2203.3 75.0 97.0 -47.0
57.3 66.2 8.9 C Massive
66.2 67.2 1.0 C Massive
8.1 9.2 1.1 C Massive
34.4 36.0 1.6 C Massive
U398 9405.2 19401.6 2203.4 71.3 84.0 -16.0
40.9 52.8 11.9 C Massive
63.0 71.0 8.0 C Massive
18.8 24.6 5.8 C Massive
U399 9405.2 19401.6 2203.4 80.2 90.0 -41.0 38.1 57.0 18.9 C Massive
57.0 59.0 2.0 C Massive
75.0 81.0 6.0 B Stringer
81.0 100.6 19.6 B Massive
U400 9297.4 19600.7 2233.4 127.0 271.6 3.0
100.6 102.0 1.4 B Stringer
102.0 124.0 22.0 B Massive
98.0 109.7 11.7 B Stringer
109.7 138.3 28.6 B Massive
U401 9297.4 19600.7 2232.8 167.1 273.6 -13.0
138.3 140.6 2.3 B Stringer
140.6 162.0 21.4 B Massive
56.1 89.0 32.9 B Stringer
89.0 92.7 3.7 B Massive
U402 9298.1 19574.8 2231.7 109.2 271.6 17.0
92.7 94.7 2.0 B Stringer
94.7 101.3 6.6 B Massive
66.9 119.0 52.1 B Stringer
119.0 123.0 4.0 B Massive
U403 9298.4 19575.1 2230.7 134.5 272.6 0.0
123.0 124.5 1.5 B Stringer
124.5 130.0 5.5 B Massive
35.0 38.0 3.0 J Stringer
U404 9278.6 19484.9 2233.9 64.0 72.6 -33.0 38.0 47.0 9.0 J Massive
47.0 63.0 16.0 J Stringer
15.9 18.9 3.0 J Stringer
U406 9328.3 19523.9 2223.2 58.4 275.6 -20.0 42.4 48.0 5.6 J Massive
48.0 52.0 4.0 J Stringer
U408 9024.8 19661.7 2412.1 77.3 256.6 4.0 0.1 2.3 2.2 I Stringer
0.0 1.0 1.0 I Stringer
U409 9025.1 19661.4 2413.9 75.3 256.6 41.0
64.0 66.1 2.1 I Massive
U410 9024.7 19661.6 2412.0 84.0 261.6 -11.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 I Stringer
0.0 1.8 1.8 I Stringer
U411 9025.2 19661.5 2414.9 76.0 273.6 61.0 57.0 61.0 4.0 I Massive
64.0 65.0 1.0 I Massive
1.4 2.5 1.2 I Stringer
U412 9024.4 19667.1 2412.0 74.3 270.6 4.0
66.1 68.4 2.3 I Massive
1.9 3.5 1.6 I Stringer
U413 9024.2 19667.0 2411.7 88.0 278.6 -11.0
80.4 81.0 0.7 I Massive
0.0 1.3 1.3 I Stringer
52.5 52.8 0.3 I Massive
U414 9024.5 19666.8 2414.4 75.9 275.6 41.0
58.3 59.0 0.7 I Massive
61.2 62.2 1.0 I Massive
U415 9024.9 19679.8 2415.4 79.6 281.6 65.0 66.5 75.4 8.9 I Massive
U416 9024.8 19679.8 2414.4 76.2 292.6 41.0 60.0 61.0 1.0 I Massive
U417 9025.4 19679.4 2411.5 97.0 286.6 -11.0 80.5 81.5 1.0 I Massive
U418 9030.8 19659.8 2411.5 75.7 107.6 -24.0 31.6 35.4 3.8 D Massive
U419 9030.7 19659.7 2411.0 76.0 115.0 -50.0 37.5 41.3 3.8 D Massive
U420 9030.7 19659.7 2411.0 110.5 128.0 -72.0 44.3 53.0 8.7 D Massive
9030.6 19660.1 2411.2 89.7 137.6 -60.0 43.0 53.1 10.1 D Massive
U421
75.5 83.0 7.5 D Massive
U422 9030.9 19662.8 2411.0 80.1 90.6 -80.0 42.0 54.0 12.0 D Massive
88.0 91.4 3.4 I Massive
U424 9076.8 19665.7 2421.7 118.0 265.6 60.0 97.6 106.9 9.3 I Massive
113.5 115.0 1.5 I Massive
----- End of picture text -----

Collar coordinates in WMG coordinate system.

11 of 28

Dip angle convention for Dip measurements: positive is up, negative is down, zero is horizontal.

==> picture [507 x 709] intentionally omitted <==

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

Northing Total Collar Collar Downhole Intercept Mineralisation
Hole Easting (m) mRL Length (m) Lens
(m) Depth (m) Azimuth (°) Dip (°) From (m) To (m) Type
94.0 102.0 8.0 I Massive
U425 9076.8 19665.6 2421.5 110.5 259.6 49.0
103.0 104.9 1.8 I Massive
92.2 98.9 6.6 I Massive
U426 9076.6 19665.5 2420.7 110.4 259.6 38.0
103.0 106.0 3.0 I Massive
U427 9177.2 19534.6 2470.4 69.8 254.6 76.0 45.0 58.9 13.9 D Massive
58.0 64.0 6.0 J Stringer
U429 9380.0 19470.0 2192.7 74.3 270.6 -14.0
65.0 74.3 9.3 J Stringer
51.0 79.0 28.0 J Stringer
U430 9383.3 19492.2 2190.5 91.1 270.6 -4.0 79.0 83.4 4.4 J Massive
83.4 89.8 6.4 J Stringer
41.0 55.0 14.0 J Stringer
U432 9346.6 19512.1 2185.3 76.7 270.6 -10.5 55.0 72.0 17.0 J Massive
72.0 75.2 3.2 J Stringer
35.7 40.0 4.3 B Stringer
40.0 56.1 16.1 B Massive
U433 9215.0 19607.5 2198.5 69.5 267.6 6.0
56.1 56.9 0.9 B Stringer
56.9 69.5 12.6 B Massive
36.0 39.0 3.0 B Stringer
39.0 52.0 13.0 B Massive
U434 9215.3 19607.5 2197.7 85.8 264.6 -10.0
52.0 66.0 14.0 B Stringer
66.0 85.8 19.8 B Massive
37.1 41.9 4.7 B Stringer
U435 9222.8 19616.5 2198.5 78.0 287.6 10.0 48.1 60.0 11.9 B Massive
60.0 76.0 16.0 B Massive
43.8 47.2 3.4 B Stringer
U436 9222.7 19616.5 2198.2 79.5 290.6 -5.0 49.0 59.0 10.0 B Massive
59.0 69.3 10.3 B Massive
40.5 48.0 7.5 B Stringer
48.0 55.8 7.8 B Massive
U437 9226.5 19599.3 2199.4 80.5 262.6 0.0
55.8 75.0 19.2 B Stringer
75.0 80.5 5.5 B Massive
77.0 80.0 3.0 J Stringer
U438 9348.6 19528.0 2187.4 100.0 265.6 -20.0 80.0 98.0 18.0 J Massive
98.0 99.0 1.0 J Stringer
37.0 48.0 11.0 I Massive
U439 9072.5 19659.1 2499.0 64.4 270.6 27.0
49.0 59.1 10.1 I Massive
37.2 43.5 6.3 I Massive
U441 9072.2 19658.9 2498.6 66.3 255.6 13.0 47.4 58.8 11.4 I Massive
59.9 62.1 2.2 I Massive
2.9 5.0 2.1 J Stringer
26.0 27.0 1.0 J Stringer
U442 9403.9 19420.0 2366.1 40.0 90.6 -19.0
27.0 32.5 5.5 J Massive
32.5 35.4 2.9 J Stringer
4.5 8.5 4.0 J Stringer
30.0 35.3 5.3 J Stringer
U443 9401.7 19410.4 2365.4 52.0 90.6 2.0
35.3 41.1 5.8 J Massive
41.1 48.0 6.9 J Stringer
6.8 11.2 4.4 J Stringer
40.9 43.5 2.6 J Stringer
U444 9401.0 19410.4 2365.9 52.5 85.6 20.0
43.5 46.2 2.7 J Massive
46.2 48.4 2.2 J Stringer
5.2 7.0 1.7 J Stringer
U445 9403.4 19394.8 2363.6 50.0 90.6 16.0 44.1 46.3 2.2 J Stringer
46.3 50.0 3.7 J Massive
4.0 5.1 1.1 J Stringer
34.3 34.8 0.5 J Stringer
U446 9403.3 19394.8 2363.1 45.7 90.6 -10.0
34.8 40.0 5.3 J Massive
40.0 45.7 5.7 J Stringer
----- End of picture text -----

Collar coordinates in WMG coordinate system.

12 of 28

Dip angle convention for Dip measurements: positive is up, negative is down, zero is horizontal.

==> picture [507 x 720] intentionally omitted <==

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

Northing Total Collar Collar Downhole Intercept Mineralisation
Hole Easting (m) mRL Length (m) Lens
(m) Depth (m) Azimuth (°) Dip (°) From (m) To (m) Type
2.0 4.0 2.0 J Stringer
32.0 33.4 1.4 J Stringer
U447 9403.1 19420.2 2364.8 52.0 80.6 -65.0
36.7 44.0 7.3 J Massive
44.0 48.4 4.4 J Stringer
35.5 45.3 9.8 I Massive
U448 9072.6 19658.7 2500.0 65.8 250.6 39.0
52.2 59.3 7.2 I Massive
U449 9073.2 19659.3 2500.7 70.0 263.6 55.0 43.8 54.0 10.2 I Massive
45.0 57.0 12.0 I Massive
U450 9073.4 19660.1 2500.9 71.2 288.6 57.0
58.3 71.2 12.9 I Massive
U451 9073.1 19660.8 2500.4 75.2 314.6 48.0 52.6 53.8 1.2 I Massive
U452 9072.8 19661.0 2499.2 68.5 315.6 30.0 54.3 63.2 8.9 I Massive
44.0 53.0 9.0 I Massive
U453 9074.1 19659.5 2501.2 70.2 292.6 72.0
54.0 58.0 4.0 I Massive
U454 9073.0 19658.6 2500.3 70.9 250.6 47.0 37.9 49.6 11.7 I Massive
351.7 356.3 4.7 J Stringer
U457 9173.2 19536.9 2465.7 430.0 250.6 -78.0
358.3 362.0 3.7 J Stringer
111.0 119.4 8.4 D Massive
U458 9024.5 19620.0 2468.9 500.6 58.6 -85.0 141.2 153.2 12.0 D Massive
383.0 411.0 28.0 B Stringer
121.0 123.0 2.0 D Massive
U459 9024.4 19619.7 2469.0 434.6 85.4 -89.0 149.0 154.6 5.6 D Massive
406.1 414.5 8.4 B Stringer
111.0 112.4 1.4 D Massive
U460 9023.3 19617.6 2469.0 155.8 115.0 -81.0
142.7 148.6 5.9 D Massive
154.3 158.3 4.0 D Massive
U461 9021.0 19619.3 2469.0 221.1 283.4 -83.0
189.0 189.6 0.6 D Massive
U463 9395.2 19358.4 2161.2 65.4 42.0 12.0 56.0 65.4 9.4 C Massive
92.4 95.0 2.6 J Stringer
U464 9206.9 19518.5 2206.3 118.1 113.9 -73.0
106.0 107.9 1.9 J Stringer
75.7 89.7 14.0 J Stringer
U465 9207.0 19518.8 2206.5 102.1 92.9 -62.0 89.7 94.0 4.3 J Massive
94.0 95.0 1.0 J Stringer
72.5 81.0 8.5 J Stringer
U466 9207.1 19519.4 2206.6 91.8 60.0 -58.0 81.0 86.0 5.0 J Massive
86.0 88.0 2.0 J Stringer
91.9 94.4 2.5 J Stringer
U467 9206.9 19519.7 2206.4 111.4 72.0 -78.0
94.4 99.0 4.6 J Stringer
98.0 99.0 1.0 J Stringer
U468 9206.4 19520.9 2206.2 107.6 31.0 -76.0 99.0 100.9 1.9 J Massive
100.9 107.0 6.1 J Stringer
82.2 84.6 2.4 J Stringer
U469 9204.0 19526.5 2205.8 105.2 50.0 -65.0 84.6 88.0 3.4 J Massive
88.0 90.0 2.0 J Stringer
UP1 9615.2 19254.8 2468.3 26.0 73.3 8.5 0.0 18.1 18.1 C Massive
UP2 9609.4 19249.5 2468.3 19.8 237.3 10.0 13.9 19.8 5.9 C Massive
UP3 9607.5 19252.1 2468.7 14.4 276.3 13.5 8.4 12.7 4.3 C Massive
UP4 9611.8 19253.8 2468.7 34.2 42.3 8.5 0.0 34.2 34.2 C Massive
UP6 9608.0 19251.5 2470.4 14.4 264.3 41.0 6.0 10.3 4.3 C Massive
0.0 2.2 2.2 C Massive
UP7 9613.2 19243.0 2469.0 25.2 218.3 38.0
9.1 25.2 16.1 C Massive
UP8 9609.8 19249.4 2470.5 18.0 222.3 40.0 4.9 14.5 9.6 C Massive
0.0 0.1 0.1 C Massive
UP9 9612.8 19242.8 2467.0 28.8 224.3 11.0
11.2 23.1 11.9 C Massive
W002 9773.1 19104.6 2808.0 228.0 91.0 -60.0 73.8 95.1 21.4 C Massive
W005 9740.1 19225.4 2802.8 245.0 71.0 -60.0 138.4 144.3 5.8 C Massive
162.3 168.6 6.3 C Massive
172.5 180.3 7.8 C Massive
W008A 9624.6 19106.5 2825.4 289.9 91.0 -60.0
191.1 205.2 14.0 C Massive
214.2 218.7 4.5 C Massive
----- End of picture text -----

Collar coordinates in WMG coordinate system.

13 of 28

Dip angle convention for Dip measurements: positive is up, negative is down, zero is horizontal.

==> picture [507 x 709] intentionally omitted <==

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

Northing Total Collar Collar Downhole Intercept Mineralisation
Hole Easting (m) mRL Length (m) Lens
(m) Depth (m) Azimuth (°) Dip (°) From (m) To (m) Type
199.5 213.3 13.8 C Massive
W009 9633.8 19226.3 2803.5 275.8 91.0 -60.0
218.6 219.9 1.3 C Massive
W012 9633.2 19226.3 2803.5 290.0 1.0 -87.0 248.6 257.0 8.4 C Massive
W013 9876.4 19161.4 2808.0 121.9 0.0 -90.0 34.1 55.2 21.1 C Massive
W014 9859.6 19097.9 2812.6 139.6 0.0 -90.0 24.9 56.4 31.5 C Massive
W015 9849.6 19222.9 2802.8 114.4 0.0 -90.0 86.3 98.2 11.9 C Massive
W017 9845.9 19044.0 2811.4 143.9 0.0 -90.0 21.2 25.3 4.1 C Massive
W018 9845.6 19285.4 2801.6 174.0 0.0 -90.0 96.2 124.2 28.0 C Massive
W021 9623.4 19106.5 2825.4 314.6 0.0 -90.0 179.0 186.5 7.5 C Massive
92.0 97.1 5.1 C Massive
W023 9738.6 19037.6 2814.4 213.3 0.0 -90.0
104.2 111.6 7.4 C Massive
W024 9622.2 19037.0 2835.8 249.9 0.0 -90.0 161.6 172.7 11.0 C Massive
W025 9708.5 19159.5 2808.3 243.2 90.0 -60.0 123.7 142.5 18.8 C Massive
W027 9920.9 19099.5 2820.5 109.7 0.0 -90.0 0.0 10.2 10.2 C Massive
54.9 78.9 24.1 G Stringer
W036 9284.3 19159.4 2798.7 488.6 76.1 -60.0
85.0 104.9 19.8 G Stringer
57.5 68.9 11.4 E Massive
W041 9357.9 19281.4 2802.5 138.7 90.0 -60.0
97.2 100.9 3.7 K Massive
129.8 132.3 2.4 G Massive
W044 9202.5 19281.9 2795.6 285.8 90.1 -60.0 211.5 213.1 1.5 E Massive
227.1 229.1 2.0 K Massive
264.9 275.5 10.7 G Massive
286.5 288.4 1.9 G Stringer
W047 9023.0 19281.3 2792.9 411.5 90.1 -60.0
294.7 302.4 7.6 G Stringer
361.1 369.4 8.3 K Massive
W050 9007.4 19342.2 2792.1 426.9 76.1 -60.0 221.9 227.0 5.1 H Massive
W051 9500.1 19290.1 2801.3 366.0 0.0 -90.0 272.0 276.2 4.2 C Massive
180.8 185.1 4.3 A Massive
W054 9400.0 19500.4 2791.1 480.4 0.0 -90.0
267.0 273.6 6.6 B Massive
183.3 187.5 4.2 D Massive
362.7 377.9 15.2 A Massive
W057 9200.0 19500.0 2791.6 475.5 0.0 -90.0
418.0 432.9 15.0 B Massive
432.9 435.6 2.7 B Stringer
672.5 678.6 6.1 J Stringer
W060 8990.0 19520.0 2787.9 730.3 0.0 -90.0 678.6 686.0 7.4 J Massive
686.0 687.0 1.0 J Stringer
W061 9093.0 19606.0 2787.4 735.4 0.0 -90.0 502.1 509.0 6.9 B Massive
52.3 56.3 4.0 G Stringer
73.9 109.3 35.3 G Stringer
W063 9300.0 19200.0 2800.5 526.5 0.0 -90.0
506.1 510.4 4.3 C Massive
515.5 520.7 5.2 C Massive
W067 9401.5 19300.5 2801.4 110.8 77.4 -60.0 35.2 43.2 8.0 K Massive
W069 9397.0 19267.6 2804.8 114.2 77.4 -62.0 33.0 40.0 7.0 E Massive
486.5 487.7 1.2 J Stringer
487.7 492.0 4.3 J Massive
W070 9261.2 19351.8 2798.4 749.0 92.5 -87.0
492.0 502.0 10.0 J Stringer
530.3 534.0 3.7 C Massive
249.0 268.0 19.0 A Massive
420.0 423.0 3.0 J Stringer
W074 9387.8 19399.8 2801.1 542.2 0.0 -90.0 454.1 456.4 2.3 J Stringer
456.4 460.4 4.0 J Massive
460.4 472.0 11.6 J Stringer
97.0 128.0 31.0 G Stringer
134.8 134.9 0.1 G Stringer
140.0 142.0 2.0 G Stringer
W076 9234.3 19250.2 2797.0 750.0 92.5 -86.0
618.3 622.2 3.9 C Massive
622.2 626.0 3.8 C Massive
626.0 630.0 4.1 C Massive
----- End of picture text -----

Collar coordinates in WMG coordinate system.

14 of 28

Dip angle convention for Dip measurements: positive is up, negative is down, zero is horizontal.

==> picture [507 x 720] intentionally omitted <==

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

Northing Total Collar Collar Downhole Intercept Mineralisation
Hole Easting (m) mRL Length (m) Lens
(m) Depth (m) Azimuth (°) Dip (°) From (m) To (m) Type
96.6 100.4 3.7 G Stringer
105.7 131.3 25.6 G Stringer
W076A 9234.3 19238.2 2797.0 700.4 92.5 -86.0 137.9 139.8 1.9 G Stringer
593.8 597.6 3.7 C Massive
597.7 607.5 9.8 C Massive
96.6 100.4 3.7 G Stringer
W076B 9234.3 19238.2 2797.0 433.0 92.5 -86.0 105.7 131.3 25.6 G Stringer
137.9 139.8 1.9 G Stringer
96.6 100.4 3.7 G Stringer
W076C 9234.3 19238.2 2797.0 448.2 92.5 -86.0 105.7 131.3 25.6 G Stringer
137.9 139.8 1.9 G Stringer
96.6 100.4 3.7 G Stringer
W076D 9234.3 19238.2 2797.0 450.4 92.5 -86.0 105.7 131.3 25.6 G Stringer
137.9 139.8 1.9 G Stringer
21.0 31.0 10.0 E Massive
W078 9393.9 19283.6 2804.9 121.0 92.5 -60.0
73.8 79.8 6.0 K Massive
W079 9390.7 19299.9 2802.1 130.0 94.5 -66.0 55.1 56.5 1.4 K Massive
W080 9401.5 19201.0 2806.5 175.2 92.5 -60.0 90.5 105.5 15.0 E Massive
W081B 9400.0 19180.7 2808.3 516.0 92.5 -60.0 368.9 370.4 1.5 C Massive
W082 9430.1 19200.0 2807.6 200.0 92.5 -60.0 74.0 90.0 16.0 E Massive
175.0 179.4 4.4 A Massive
W086 9400.9 19449.3 2793.6 462.7 92.5 -80.0 246.8 250.8 4.0 B Massive
250.8 257.0 6.2 B Massive
350.8 360.2 9.4 C Massive
W087 9478.1 19232.4 2807.0 436.8 92.5 -70.0
377.1 385.4 8.2 C Massive
340.8 344.3 3.6 C Massive
W087A 9478.1 19232.4 2807.0 424.8 92.5 -70.0
356.5 369.0 12.5 C Massive
W088 9245.2 19552.3 2791.2 462.5 94.5 -80.0 378.6 393.0 14.4 B Massive
266.0 270.0 4.0 L Massive
332.9 339.0 6.1 D Massive
350.0 357.0 7.0 D Massive
W089 9025.5 19550.6 2788.7 686.3 90.5 -88.0 542.5 544.5 2.0 B Massive
544.5 548.5 4.0 B Stringer
548.6 556.5 8.0 B Massive
556.5 578.5 22.0 B Stringer
W091 9520.1 19519.7 2794.1 230.0 90.5 -78.0 162.4 162.9 0.5 B Massive
W094 9246.8 19238.6 2798.0 122.8 90.6 -89.0 104.0 122.2 18.2 G Stringer
103.0 121.0 18.0 G Stringer
W095 9247.4 19238.9 2798.0 625.1 86.6 -89.0
576.7 591.3 14.6 C Massive
W095A 9247.4 19238.9 2798.0 412.7 86.6 -89.0 103.0 121.0 18.0 G Stringer
W095B 9247.4 19238.9 2798.0 348.8 86.6 -89.0 103.0 121.0 18.0 G Stringer
196.0 205.2 9.2 D Massive
W096 9165.2 19569.8 2788.2 518.0 92.6 -80.0
449.3 453.0 3.8 B Massive
150.0 158.0 8.0 G Massive
256.0 258.5 2.6 K Massive
271.8 276.3 4.4 K Massive
511.0 513.0 2.0 J Stringer
W097 9209.7 19284.5 2796.6 655.7 85.6 -84.0
556.8 560.0 3.2 C Massive
563.9 575.5 11.6 C Massive
576.6 588.7 12.1 C Massive
150.0 158.0 8.0 G Massive
254.1 258.9 4.8 K Massive
267.7 277.3 9.7 K Massive
497.0 505.0 8.0 J Stringer
W097A 9209.7 19284.5 2796.6 657.2 85.6 -84.0
520.0 522.0 2.0 C Massive
540.9 543.8 2.9 C Massive
544.6 555.6 11.0 C Massive
W110 9070.6 19275.1 2793.6 931.5 85.6 -85.0 815.9 818.0 2.1 C Massive
W110B 9070.6 19275.1 2793.6 862.6 85.6 -85.0 787.0 787.9 0.9 C Massive
----- End of picture text -----

Collar coordinates in WMG coordinate system.

15 of 28

Dip angle convention for Dip measurements: positive is up, negative is down, zero is horizontal.

==> picture [507 x 732] intentionally omitted <==

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

Northing Total Collar Collar Downhole Intercept Mineralisation
Hole Easting (m) mRL Length (m) Lens
(m) Depth (m) Azimuth (°) Dip (°) From (m) To (m) Type
576.0 580.0 4.0 D Stringer
W121 8876.1 19607.4 2789.2 932.2 85.6 -87.0
829.5 836.7 7.2 J Stringer
554.0 558.0 4.0 D Stringer
W121A 8876.1 19607.4 2789.2 880.3 85.6 -87.0
811.0 813.0 2.0 J Stringer
W121B 8876.1 19607.4 2789.2 834.9 85.6 -87.0 548.0 553.0 5.0 D Stringer
W121C 8876.1 19607.4 2789.2 1001.5 85.6 -87.0 872.2 876.2 4.0 J Stringer
734.0 739.1 5.1 J Stringer
W125 8940.8 19484.5 2790.7 841.8 85.6 -87.0 739.1 744.7 5.6 J Massive
744.7 747.8 3.0 J Stringer
W126 9226.2 19126.2 2797.7 130.0 88.0 -80.8 103.3 122.4 19.1 G Stringer
W127 9221.5 19122.0 2797.5 742.7 94.6 -83.0 105.8 132.5 26.7 G Stringer
237.0 244.0 7.0 A Massive
W128 9339.3 19449.9 2796.8 434.4 85.6 -86.0 326.4 359.0 32.6 B Massive
359.0 365.0 6.0 B Stringer
313.0 339.8 26.8 A Massive
339.8 403.0 63.2 A Stringer
W129 9277.9 19444.9 2798.4 600.4 85.6 -87.0
415.0 417.0 2.0 B Massive
417.0 441.0 24.0 B Stringer
W130 9180.9 19449.4 2792.3 152.0 85.6 -86.0 103.0 106.0 3.0 H Massive
108.6 111.2 2.6 H Massive
535.0 540.0 5.0 J Stringer
W131 9177.5 19450.4 2792.9 659.0 82.6 -86.0 555.0 565.0 10.0 J Stringer
565.0 577.3 12.3 J Stringer
645.2 649.9 4.6 C Massive
436.1 438.0 1.9 D Massive
460.8 464.6 3.8 D Massive
619.3 620.2 1.0 B Massive
W135 8884.4 19607.4 2788.6 741.7 82.6 -70.0
620.2 625.4 5.1 B Stringer
625.4 642.9 17.5 B Massive
644.6 660.0 15.5 B Stringer
W136 9318.0 19563.3 2792.1 388.6 86.6 -73.5 323.9 329.2 5.3 B Massive
W137 9498.9 19462.8 2795.1 343.3 88.0 -78.0 181.5 187.8 6.3 B Massive
265.0 277.6 12.6 A Massive
339.0 340.3 1.3 B Massive
W138 9282.1 19484.7 2795.5 449.8 88.6 -76.0
340.3 357.0 16.7 B Massive
357.0 359.0 2.0 B Stringer
292.0 301.0 9.0 I Massive
306.6 315.6 9.0 I Massive
W139 8919.2 19666.5 2788.7 798.3 87.6 -80.0 317.0 333.0 16.0 I Massive
618.0 624.0 6.0 B Stringer
659.0 687.0 28.0 B Stringer
330.4 334.5 4.2 C Massive
W140 9467.3 19265.3 2792.0 508.0 90.1 -78.0
379.6 415.3 35.6 C Massive
54.0 57.0 3.0 G Massive
174.0 177.0 3.0 E Massive
179.0 195.6 16.6 K Massive
W142 9287.6 19323.0 2799.9 726.3 89.3 -83.0
507.3 512.0 4.7 J Stringer
579.1 606.2 27.1 C Massive
606.2 619.3 13.1 C Massive
284.9 291.0 6.1 I Massive
W143 8919.8 19666.5 2788.7 708.2 87.3 -70.0
582.0 590.0 8.0 B Stringer
286.3 290.9 4.7 C Massive
W144A 9467.3 19265.2 2791.7 486.6 87.5 -73.0
370.1 376.8 6.7 C Massive
230.6 238.6 8.0 L Massive
301.0 311.0 10.0 D Massive
311.0 319.0 8.0 D Massive
W145 9025.5 19540.3 2789.3 641.5 88.0 -70.0 517.1 521.2 4.1 B Massive
521.2 523.2 2.0 B Stringer
523.2 538.0 14.8 B Massive
548.0 550.0 2.0 B Massive
----- End of picture text -----

Collar coordinates in WMG coordinate system.

16 of 28

Dip angle convention for Dip measurements: positive is up, negative is down, zero is horizontal.

==> picture [507 x 697] intentionally omitted <==

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

Northing Total Collar Collar Downhole Intercept Mineralisation
Hole Easting (m) mRL Length (m) Lens
(m) Depth (m) Azimuth (°) Dip (°) From (m) To (m) Type
W146 9142.6 19253.1 2795.9 286.3 89.3 -77.5 207.9 208.3 0.4 G Stringer
207.9 208.3 0.3 G Stringer
W146A 9142.6 19253.1 2795.9 789.0 89.3 -77.5
686.7 700.7 14.0 C Massive
506.0 509.0 3.0 D Massive
W147 8820.5 19621.8 2788.6 791.0 88.3 -70.0 530.8 536.3 5.4 D Massive
698.0 747.4 49.4 B Stringer
248.0 254.0 6.0 D Massive
449.2 456.0 6.9 A Massive
W149 9112.1 19481.9 2790.1 636.0 85.6 -73.0 477.0 486.0 9.0 B Massive
495.2 501.0 5.8 B Massive
501.0 507.0 6.0 B Stringer
269.7 274.5 4.9 C Massive
W150A 9499.9 19300.2 2789.1 457.8 79.1 -86.0 364.2 377.2 13.1 C Massive
378.3 378.7 0.4 C Massive
W167 9507.1 19494.1 2790.0 166.3 104.0 -75.0 161.1 164.7 3.5 B Massive
W168 9507.2 19493.3 2790.0 167.6 116.7 -71.0 156.9 165.3 8.4 B Massive
W169 9395.6 19229.4 2799.6 176.6 107.7 -55.0 85.0 88.0 3.0 E Massive
W170 9371.0 19184.4 2805.4 159.8 71.7 -62.0 132.0 145.0 13.0 E Massive
W171 9158.7 19380.4 2791.4 123.6 93.0 -80.0 110.2 116.5 6.3 H Massive
W172A 9220.5 19321.1 2795.3 137.7 95.7 -78.5 127.9 130.2 2.3 G Massive
W174 9183.7 19357.4 2793.4 141.7 101.0 -80.0 114.2 120.0 5.8 G Massive
W175 9184.4 19357.4 2793.4 109.4 101.0 -65.0 100.3 105.0 4.7 G Massive
204.0 207.4 3.4 G Massive
216.1 218.9 2.9 G Stringer
W176 9138.9 19355.1 2791.8 364.0 102.0 -76.0
227.5 236.4 8.8 G Stringer
295.8 296.4 0.6 K Massive
9177.6 19250.3 2796.0 175.5 83.0 -74.0 119.6 151.9 32.3 G Stringer
W177
167.2 171.7 4.5 G Stringer
W179 8876.3 19678.8 2788.2 398.4 102.9 -84.0 379.4 382.9 3.5 I Massive
W179A 8876.3 19678.8 2788.2 391.5 102.9 -84.0 370.2 374.1 3.9 I Massive
354.3 355.4 1.1 I Massive
355.4 359.5 4.1 I Massive
429.9 434.0 4.1 I Stringer
W180 8924.7 19644.9 2788.9 709.6 82.0 -88.0
477.2 483.4 6.3 D Massive
648.5 655.0 6.5 B Stringer
684.4 709.6 25.2 B Stringer
355.8 360.0 4.2 I Massive
W180A 8924.7 19644.9 2788.9 370.1 82.6 -88.0
360.0 362.9 2.9 I Massive
W183 9514.4 19498.9 2790.6 157.6 94.0 -70.0 149.9 150.4 0.5 B Massive
W185 9514.4 19498.9 2790.6 151.2 115.0 -65.0 142.8 145.2 2.4 B Massive
W187 9099.3 19421.9 2790.5 167.4 93.6 -69.0 148.8 158.7 9.9 H Massive
W188 9105.8 19392.4 2788.6 168.0 102.0 -69.0 153.5 163.1 9.6 H Massive
W189 9128.1 19423.6 2790.8 137.4 90.0 -69.0 126.5 129.0 2.5 H Massive
W190 9094.4 19422.0 2790.7 184.0 100.0 -76.0 159.7 175.6 15.9 H Massive
W191 9109.5 19391.4 2788.3 147.1 83.0 -63.0 129.7 137.4 7.7 H Massive
384.2 385.8 1.6 D Massive
580.4 581.1 0.7 B Massive
W196 8950.4 19600.0 2791.9 630.5 90.0 -79.0 581.1 590.1 9.0 B Stringer
590.1 599.2 9.1 B Massive
608.6 613.9 5.3 B Stringer
275.8 277.1 1.3 I Stringer
404.4 410.9 6.5 D Massive
425.9 427.1 1.3 D Massive
W196A 8950.4 19600.0 2791.9 642.5 90.0 -79.0 596.5 602.9 6.4 B Massive
602.9 608.0 5.1 B Stringer
608.0 625.2 17.2 B Massive
625.2 633.4 8.2 B Stringer
----- End of picture text -----

Collar coordinates in WMG coordinate system. Dip angle convention for Dip measurements: positive is up, negative is down, zero is horizontal.

17 of 28

==> picture [507 x 732] intentionally omitted <==

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

Northing Total Collar Collar Downhole Intercept Mineralisation
Hole Easting (m) mRL Length (m) Lens
(m) Depth (m) Azimuth (°) Dip (°) From (m) To (m) Type
279.1 280.1 1.0 I Stringer
414.4 419.6 5.2 D Massive
599.4 612.3 12.9 B Massive
W196B 8950.4 19600.0 2791.9 650.1 90.0 -79.0
612.3 613.8 1.5 B Stringer
613.8 633.5 19.7 B Massive
633.5 637.5 4.0 B Stringer
279.1 280.1 1.0 I Stringer
421.9 423.9 2.0 D Massive
450.0 453.5 3.5 D Massive
W196C 8950.4 19600.0 2791.9 687.5 90.0 -79.0 610.6 637.3 26.7 B Massive
637.3 640.8 3.5 B Stringer
640.8 655.5 14.7 B Massive
655.5 660.0 4.5 B Stringer
W197 9346.0 19279.5 2803.8 121.0 87.7 -61.5 66.2 73.9 7.6 E Massive
106.0 109.6 3.6 E Massive
W198 9345.5 19278.2 2803.8 147.2 99.0 -69.0
113.4 117.7 4.3 K Massive
W201 9891.0 19251.3 2803.5 87.6 0.0 -90.0 26.1 82.7 56.6 C Massive
W202 9891.0 19220.6 2804.8 77.4 0.0 -90.0 45.2 71.9 26.7 C Massive
W203 9891.1 19190.2 2806.1 69.3 0.0 -90.0 34.7 63.7 29.0 C Massive
W206 9860.8 19251.5 2802.6 106.7 0.0 -90.0 88.7 102.6 13.9 C Massive
W207 9860.7 19190.3 2805.0 91.4 0.0 -90.0 57.9 81.2 23.3 C Massive
W208 9863.7 19159.8 2807.6 100.5 0.0 -90.0 41.6 66.6 25.1 C Massive
18.0 29.4 11.4 C Massive
W209 9860.6 19129.3 2810.3 97.5 0.0 -90.0
34.5 62.9 28.4 C Massive
20.1 23.9 3.8 C Massive
W210 9860.9 19068.1 2812.8 121.9 0.0 -90.0
29.1 34.2 5.1 C Massive
W212 9830.0 19251.3 2801.2 155.6 0.0 -90.0 112.9 117.2 4.3 C Massive
W213 9830.1 19220.7 2801.8 115.6 0.0 -90.0 104.9 109.3 4.4 C Massive
W214 9829.6 19190.6 2803.1 115.8 0.0 -90.0 92.9 104.0 11.2 C Massive
W215 9829.9 19159.8 2805.9 173.9 0.0 -90.0 70.1 86.3 16.2 C Massive
W216 9829.8 19129.3 2807.0 167.9 0.0 -90.0 63.9 83.3 19.4 C Massive
W217 9830.0 19098.9 2807.4 116.4 0.0 -90.0 37.9 71.2 33.3 C Massive
W218 9829.9 19068.1 2807.7 125.9 0.0 -90.0 34.6 44.1 9.5 C Massive
W220 9799.6 19220.9 2801.4 131.6 0.0 -90.0 116.6 122.2 5.7 C Massive
W221 9800.0 19191.6 2803.4 126.2 0.0 -90.0 108.6 118.0 9.3 C Massive
W222 9799.7 19159.8 2803.6 155.5 0.0 -90.0 88.1 104.3 16.2 C Massive
W223 9799.8 19129.2 2804.8 134.4 0.0 -90.0 82.3 104.6 22.3 C Massive
W224 9799.6 19098.7 2806.2 193.6 0.0 -90.0 69.7 97.9 28.2 C Massive
W225 9799.4 19068.1 2807.4 143.8 0.0 -90.0 54.6 58.1 3.5 C Massive
W227 9769.1 19190.2 2803.2 192.3 0.0 -90.0 111.0 134.6 23.7 C Massive
W228 9769.1 19159.7 2804.3 152.4 0.0 -90.0 100.3 125.9 25.6 C Massive
W229 9769.1 19129.3 2806.3 140.2 0.0 -90.0 94.9 115.7 20.8 C Massive
W230 9769.1 19098.7 2808.7 137.3 0.0 -90.0 85.4 112.1 26.8 C Massive
W231 9769.0 19068.2 2811.6 164.6 0.0 -90.0 73.2 81.3 8.1 C Massive
W233 9738.8 19159.7 2806.4 198.1 0.0 -90.0 122.1 149.6 27.5 C Massive
W234 9738.5 19129.5 2808.3 200.0 0.0 -90.0 111.6 139.6 28.0 C Massive
W235 9738.7 19098.7 2811.1 221.9 0.0 -90.0 98.6 119.8 21.2 C Massive
W236 9738.6 19068.4 2812.9 225.6 0.0 -90.0 89.0 96.6 7.6 C Massive
106.0 110.3 4.3 C Massive
W237 9708.2 19098.8 2813.9 223.3 0.0 -90.0
118.5 127.4 8.8 C Massive
W238 9708.5 19068.6 2815.7 167.6 0.0 -90.0 109.0 114.0 5.0 C Massive
105.3 110.6 5.3 C Massive
W239 9708.6 19097.8 2818.2 152.4 0.0 -90.0
118.4 128.8 10.4 C Massive
W240 9833.0 19263.9 2801.4 92.2 41.1 -60.0 64.0 86.4 22.4 C Massive
W241 9817.9 19284.8 2800.4 86.4 41.1 -60.0 51.1 81.3 30.2 C Massive
W242 9884.0 19262.3 2803.0 62.2 41.1 -60.0 13.1 43.4 30.3 C Massive
W243 9921.6 19220.6 2805.6 45.8 0.0 -90.0 9.5 40.8 31.3 C Massive
W244 9921.4 19190.4 2808.4 39.6 0.0 -90.0 11.9 32.6 20.7 C Massive
W245 9906.3 19159.6 2809.7 52.4 0.0 -90.0 14.7 33.7 19.0 C Massive
W246 9891.0 19129.4 2813.8 58.5 0.0 -90.0 18.9 43.3 24.4 C Massive
----- End of picture text -----

Collar coordinates in WMG coordinate system. Dip angle convention for Dip measurements: positive is up, negative is down, zero is horizontal.

18 of 28

==> picture [507 x 697] intentionally omitted <==

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

Northing Total Collar Collar Downhole Intercept Mineralisation
Hole Easting (m) mRL Length (m) Lens
(m) Depth (m) Azimuth (°) Dip (°) From (m) To (m) Type
W247 9891.1 19098.3 2817.8 109.7 0.0 -90.0 24.6 33.0 8.4 C Massive
W248 9921.5 19251.0 2803.9 61.0 0.0 -90.0 8.5 38.2 29.8 C Massive
W249 9892.1 19066.8 2822.3 100.6 0.0 -90.0 23.4 32.1 8.7 C Massive
W251 9799.3 19281.3 2799.8 155.1 0.0 -90.0 111.8 135.5 23.7 C Massive
W252 9952.0 19220.4 2806.9 48.8 0.0 -90.0 11.0 13.1 2.1 C Massive
W253 9798.5 19311.0 2796.9 116.4 0.0 -90.0 80.3 108.2 27.9 C Massive
W254 9768.5 19281.3 2799.4 158.5 0.0 -90.0 117.3 150.2 32.8 C Massive
W255 9755.5 19220.9 2802.2 165.8 0.0 -90.0 120.2 141.1 20.9 C Massive
W256 9754.6 19249.2 2800.7 232.0 0.0 -90.0 134.4 175.9 41.5 C Massive
W257 9799.5 19249.2 2800.7 176.8 0.0 -90.0 117.0 150.3 33.3 C Massive
W258 9725.0 19188.1 2805.6 206.1 0.0 -90.0 135.0 167.4 32.3 C Massive
W259 9769.2 19311.6 2798.7 131.3 0.0 -90.0 87.9 102.1 14.2 C Massive
W267 9738.1 19311.6 2799.4 150.9 0.0 -90.0 136.1 140.8 4.7 C Massive
W268 9921.5 19068.3 2826.1 153.0 0.0 -90.0 2.4 5.5 3.1 C Massive
W269 9921.9 19126.9 2816.9 132.6 0.0 -90.0 0.1 15.2 15.2 C Massive
W276 9699.2 19159.5 2808.3 201.8 0.0 -90.0 137.3 170.3 33.0 C Massive
W286 9620.0 19159.8 2812.6 315.5 0.0 -90.0 231.1 240.9 9.8 C Massive
W287 9674.5 19130.2 2728.3 138.4 91.7 -65.0 53.5 86.2 32.6 C Massive
W288 9681.5 19190.2 2729.9 149.3 90.7 -74.0 89.7 114.1 24.4 C Massive
W289 9694.2 19279.8 2732.6 160.0 90.7 -55.0 92.4 113.1 20.6 C Massive
W290 9676.5 19167.6 2729.6 142.0 118.7 -79.0 91.0 110.3 19.3 C Massive
WE005 9860.0 19228.0 2803.3 82.9 41.3 -45.0 52.2 81.2 29.0 C Massive
WE006 9882.0 19188.0 2806.2 59.1 91.3 -75.0 35.1 58.0 22.9 C Massive
WE007 9805.0 19100.0 2805.8 100.0 0.0 -90.0 63.3 90.3 27.0 C Massive
WE008 9852.0 19236.0 2802.9 84.9 70.4 -50.0 53.3 82.6 29.3 C Massive
WE009 9825.0 19068.0 2802.0 99.9 0.0 -90.0 33.8 42.5 8.7 C Massive
WE010 9858.3 19096.9 2781.5 150.6 86.5 -65.0 0.0 21.6 21.6 C Massive
WE012 9899.4 19219.9 2780.8 132.5 92.0 -70.0 7.5 30.8 23.2 C Massive
WE013 9750.2 19286.0 2747.2 160.6 358.6 -70.0 70.5 77.1 6.7 C Massive
376.7 383.7 6.9 C Massive
WLTD004 9401.1 19308.1 2805.5 425.0 98.3 -75.5
418.1 425.0 6.9 C Massive
393.2 404.1 10.8 C Massive
WLTD004B 9401.1 19308.1 2805.5 510.0 98.3 -75.5
432.7 463.3 30.6 C Massive
176.0 178.0 2.0 D Massive
353.0 371.0 18.0 A Massive
WLTD005 9171.0 19500.0 2795.0 452.1 89.1 -67.0
416.5 432.0 15.6 B Massive
441.0 446.0 5.0 B Stringer
654.0 661.1 7.1 D Stringer
WLTD009A 8800.0 19660.0 2790.0 961.4 68.9 -86.0
916.0 919.0 3.0 J Stringer
248.4 257.0 8.6 L Massive
WLTD010 9090.0 19520.0 2795.0 934.0 91.8 -86.0
318.9 327.0 8.1 D Massive
248.4 256.7 8.4 L Massive
WLTD010A 9090.0 19520.0 2795.0 825.0 91.8 -86.0
318.9 327.0 8.1 D Massive
518.0 524.0 6.0 I Stringer
542.2 552.1 9.9 I Massive
594.6 597.0 2.4 I Stringer
WLTD011 8680.7 19729.4 2787.0 937.1 82.8 -75.0
617.0 625.0 8.0 D Massive
674.0 687.2 13.2 D Massive
847.7 881.1 33.4 B Stringer
529.4 543.0 13.6 I Stringer
551.0 565.5 14.5 I Massive
WLTD011W1 8680.7 19729.4 2787.0 1001.0 82.8 -75.0
629.0 638.5 9.5 D Massive
693.2 708.0 14.8 D Massive
537.0 551.0 14.0 I Stringer
564.0 573.0 9.0 I Massive
WLTD011W2 8680.7 19729.4 2787.0 780.8 82.8 -75.0
648.0 659.0 11.0 D Massive
703.2 717.0 13.8 D Massive
----- End of picture text -----

Collar coordinates in WMG coordinate system. Dip angle convention for Dip measurements: positive is up, negative is down, zero is horizontal.

19 of 28

==> picture [507 x 732] intentionally omitted <==

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

Northing Total Collar Collar Downhole Intercept Mineralisation
Hole Easting (m) mRL Length (m) Lens
(m) Depth (m) Azimuth (°) Dip (°) From (m) To (m) Type
509.0 513.3 4.3 I Stringer
530.0 541.6 11.6 I Massive
WLTD014 8679.6 19701.0 2787.2 693.3 92.3 -75.0 583.0 587.0 4.0 I Stringer
608.8 615.7 6.9 D Massive
656.0 658.0 2.0 D Massive
543.0 549.7 6.7 I Massive
WLTD014W1 8679.6 19701.0 2787.2 711.7 92.3 -75.0 628.4 634.5 6.1 D Massive
674.9 686.0 11.1 D Massive
322.0 324.3 2.3 G Stringer
WLTD015 9007.7 19399.5 2792.4 425.8 97.3 -63.0 377.0 398.0 21.0 K Massive
400.0 409.0 9.0 K Massive
452.0 453.0 1.0 I Stringer
WLTD017 8771.9 19699.1 2786.4 518.7 97.8 -75.0 471.0 476.0 5.0 I Massive
507.0 512.0 5.0 I Stringer
450.0 453.2 3.1 I Stringer
WLTD017W1 8771.9 19699.1 2786.3 519.3 97.8 -75.0
476.0 483.0 7.0 I Massive
372.6 388.0 15.4 K Massive
WNDD0001 8995.3 19401.5 2792.3 425.5 84.8 -64.6
413.8 415.8 2.0 K Massive
368.0 370.3 2.3 K Massive
WNDD0002 9011.0 19400.5 2792.6 434.5 95.2 -58.2 374.0 382.7 8.8 K Massive
392.9 394.0 1.2 K Massive
610.0 614.0 4.0 I Stringer
626.1 631.8 5.6 I Massive
WNDD0006 8547.6 19749.2 2787.0 950.2 94.0 -70.1
698.0 707.5 9.5 D Massive
759.0 769.0 10.0 D Massive
313.5 314.0 0.5 G Massive
358.8 360.2 1.3 G Stringer
WNDD0007 8974.6 19352.7 2790.8 580.6 93.2 -58.0
414.0 427.6 13.6 K Massive
433.7 437.1 3.4 K Massive
WNDD0008 8969.2 19352.8 2791.0 469.1 89.0 -68.7 434.0 439.4 5.4 K Massive
202.9 206.2 3.3 G Massive
209.9 214.9 4.9 G Stringer
WNDD0009 9155.2 19342.3 2792.6 480.2 81.7 -76.0 215.9 218.9 3.0 G Stringer
295.2 301.5 6.3 K Massive
307.7 316.8 9.1 K Massive
206.0 208.5 2.6 G Massive
WNDD0010 9150.9 19301.7 2791.4 413.5 79.3 -78.8
360.1 366.0 5.9 K Massive
WNDD0011 8994.8 19402.2 2793.1 454.1 74.9 -65.3 347.0 354.1 7.1 K Massive
74.0 79.8 5.8 G Massive
WNDD0012 9299.0 19281.6 2800.7 189.2 89.9 -61.0
135.1 139.3 4.2 E Massive
WNDD0013 9248.9 19308.5 2797.7 120.0 87.1 -58.3 75.3 82.8 7.6 G Massive
WNDD0014 9281.1 19289.5 2799.7 80.0 71.0 -60.4 61.2 63.3 2.1 G Massive
WNDD0015 9012.9 19598.8 2786.7 279.2 109.9 -72.2 241.9 248.1 6.2 L Massive
328.6 328.8 0.2 G Massive
WNDD0016 8972.0 19352.6 2791.1 471.4 100.4 -60.0
429.0 446.0 17.0 K Massive
WNDD0017 9095.3 19523.2 2789.9 310.8 72.5 -74.1 254.1 263.6 9.5 D Massive
WNDD0021 9012.8 19598.7 2786.7 319.1 133.5 -84.8 235.5 237.1 1.6 I Stringer
WNDD0022 9012.4 19600.0 2786.8 276.0 103.3 -78.9 202.9 203.1 0.2 I Stringer
WNDD0024 9284.4 19324.7 2799.4 82.5 90.0 -60.0 30.0 31.9 1.9 G Massive
WNDD0026 9132.3 19408.5 2792.8 150.0 85.0 -56.8 108.7 110.4 1.7 H Massive
WNDD0027 9205.7 19363.7 2794.0 120.0 85.2 -81.2 103.8 104.6 0.8 G Massive
89.6 95.3 5.7 G Massive
WNDD0028 9224.8 19196.8 2795.9 265.5 85.6 -61.6
95.3 125.5 30.3 G Stringer
324.3 329.1 4.8 K Massive
WNDD0029 9051.8 19298.1 2790.9 373.7 62.7 -54.8
340.0 347.2 7.1 K Massive
WNDD0031 8989.2 19400.1 2792.5 442.6 69.7 -70.1 383.2 403.7 20.5 K Massive
WNDD0032 9026.0 19331.3 2790.9 447.5 79.3 -70.5 404.2 417.3 13.1 K Massive
326.0 346.7 20.7 K Massive
WNDD0033 9050.8 19298.2 2791.1 408.8 55.4 -57.4 351.1 360.0 8.9 K Massive
365.8 367.1 1.3 K Massive
----- End of picture text -----

Collar coordinates in WMG coordinate system.

20 of 28

Dip angle convention for Dip measurements: positive is up, negative is down, zero is horizontal.

==> picture [507 x 732] intentionally omitted <==

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

Northing Total Collar Collar Downhole Intercept Mineralisation
Hole Easting (m) mRL Length (m) Lens
(m) Depth (m) Azimuth (°) Dip (°) From (m) To (m) Type
288.1 289.1 1.0 G Massive
389.7 395.4 5.7 K Massive
WNDD0035 9049.9 19297.8 2791.0 447.0 70.1 -68.6
399.1 408.6 9.5 K Massive
412.0 413.0 1.1 K Massive
WNDD0036 9014.2 19596.8 2786.6 290.0 118.4 -80.1 204.4 206.4 2.0 I Stringer
346.5 369.7 23.2 K Massive
WNDD0037 9026.6 19331.6 2791.0 416.3 60.2 -62.9 372.1 383.0 10.9 K Massive
391.0 395.3 4.3 K Massive
282.8 285.2 2.4 G Massive
WNDD0038 9050.3 19297.2 2791.1 490.4 76.6 -64.4
374.3 396.1 21.8 K Massive
256.0 260.8 4.8 G Massive
268.9 272.0 3.1 G Stringer
WNDD0039 9050.7 19297.4 2791.0 381.3 68.7 -56.5 281.9 284.8 2.9 G Stringer
349.5 358.6 9.2 K Massive
365.7 367.6 1.9 K Massive
70.5 77.6 7.0 G Stringer
WNDD0042 9254.0 19201.5 2799.2 119.9 66.2 -62.8 77.6 80.8 3.3 G Massive
80.8 106.6 25.8 G Stringer
WNDD0043 9160.5 19247.4 2795.3 228.3 36.2 -60.1 209.9 215.0 5.2 G Stringer
WNDD0044 9130.7 19408.2 2792.8 140.1 96.0 -65.0 116.8 117.9 1.1 H Massive
WNDD0045 9235.1 19232.1 2798.3 120.9 94.1 -73.0 98.3 114.5 16.2 G Stringer
WNDD0046 8925.6 19396.0 2792.6 451.1 78.6 -58.6 400.6 426.1 25.5 K Massive
WNDD0050 9145.7 19410.0 2792.9 130.4 99.0 -61.0 103.1 106.3 3.2 H Massive
WNDD0051 9143.7 19409.8 2793.0 140.1 117.0 -67.0 112.9 116.5 3.7 H Massive
WNDD0052 9145.2 19409.8 2792.0 135.4 110.0 -56.0 105.1 105.9 0.8 H Massive
WNDD0053 8878.7 19380.1 2792.6 501.0 69.2 -59.0 407.5 425.7 18.3 K Massive
85.0 96.8 11.8 G Stringer
96.8 97.9 1.1 G Massive
WNDD0054 9240.4 19139.8 2799.5 207.9 66.2 -69.9
104.9 109.6 4.6 G Massive
109.6 119.4 9.9 G Stringer
WNDD0057 9293.4 19307.6 2800.1 87.5 65.6 -60.4 39.4 45.1 5.7 G Massive
WNDD0058 9292.3 19307.7 2800.3 87.8 49.1 -80.1 53.7 57.1 3.5 G Massive
76.7 77.8 1.1 G Massive
WNDD0059 9298.6 19259.9 2800.5 165.7 53.2 -59.4
138.1 139.5 1.4 E Massive
WNDD0060 8976.3 19589.0 2792.2 463.4 124.9 -62.1 303.9 310.3 6.4 L Massive
141.0 144.0 3.0 E Massive
WNDD0061 9298.3 19259.5 2800.3 201.9 77.2 -64.4
165.0 172.0 7.0 K Massive
127.1 129.5 2.4 E Massive
WNDD0062 9332.6 19243.2 2803.5 171.7 48.5 -64.3
138.5 143.6 5.1 K Massive
WNDD0064 9260.7 19318.2 2798.3 90.8 78.8 -70.0 65.7 69.9 4.1 G Massive
WNDD0065 9261.6 19320.1 2798.4 81.4 62.4 -54.8 50.0 50.4 0.4 G Massive
83.3 83.4 0.1 G Stringer
WNDD0066 9254.8 19199.8 2799.4 115.0 44.1 -71.2 83.4 86.4 3.0 G Massive
86.4 109.1 22.7 G Stringer
74.0 79.8 5.8 G Stringer
WNDD0067 9255.7 19199.8 2799.4 103.3 52.9 -56.0 79.8 82.4 2.6 G Massive
88.0 89.3 1.2 G Stringer
73.6 75.2 1.6 G Stringer
WNDD0068 9254.6 19199.1 2799.3 123.0 104.5 -66.6 78.7 79.4 0.7 G Massive
80.5 121.1 40.6 G Stringer
WNDD0069 9262.4 19197.2 2800.0 95.0 65.7 -51.0 69.6 74.0 4.4 G Stringer
72.5 76.5 4.0 G Stringer
WNDD0070 9255.8 19198.1 2799.5 99.2 103.7 -51.4 76.5 78.7 2.2 G Massive
81.6 99.2 17.7 G Stringer
330.0 334.0 4.0 G Stringer
WNDD0071 9026.5 19331.9 2791.0 436.4 63.8 -69.9 377.8 399.7 21.9 K Massive
405.0 411.5 6.5 K Massive
303.7 305.8 2.1 G Stringer
WNDD0073 9048.6 19297.8 2791.2 420.6 65.0 -62.3 365.6 366.6 1.1 K Massive
369.7 379.8 10.2 K Massive
----- End of picture text -----

Collar coordinates in WMG coordinate system.

21 of 28

Dip angle convention for Dip measurements: positive is up, negative is down, zero is horizontal.

==> picture [507 x 697] intentionally omitted <==

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

Northing Total Collar Collar Downhole Intercept Mineralisation
Hole Easting (m) mRL Length (m) Lens
(m) Depth (m) Azimuth (°) Dip (°) From (m) To (m) Type
185.6 192.0 6.5 G Massive
WNDD0075 9151.0 19301.8 2791.1 399.7 77.0 -72.9 294.0 299.3 5.3 K Massive
301.3 308.0 6.8 K Massive
WNDD0076 9338.0 19267.8 2804.0 158.5 61.8 -59.2 78.4 88.4 10.1 E Massive
119.9 123.6 3.7 E Massive
WNDD0077 9337.5 19267.6 2804.0 168.3 62.6 -72.1
125.5 136.5 11.0 K Massive
22.4 26.4 4.0 E Massive
WNDD0078 9395.1 19276.3 2805.1 92.8 58.6 -54.6
55.1 66.5 11.4 K Massive
WNDD0079 9155.1 19451.5 2789.5 150.0 121.2 -78.0 118.1 118.6 0.5 H Massive
WNDD0080 9363.8 19238.1 2805.0 162.7 58.6 -65.9 99.1 104.0 4.9 K Massive
WNDD0081 9155.7 19451.4 2789.5 135.3 123.4 -68.3 104.8 107.0 2.3 H Massive
WNDD0084 9365.4 19239.2 2805.0 150.1 50.2 -59.5 78.3 85.0 6.7 E Massive
259.9 264.8 4.9 G Massive
WNDD0085 9053.1 19296.0 2791.1 405.7 77.8 -60.2 304.6 307.8 3.1 G Stringer
353.4 367.4 14.0 K Massive
WNDD0086 9199.9 19356.7 2795.2 135.8 24.9 -82.8 97.7 99.3 1.6 G Massive
WNDD0087 9160.4 19345.8 2792.2 138.7 57.6 -70.7 111.6 111.9 0.2 G Massive
WNDD0088 9226.4 19302.4 2796.0 126.7 56.7 -60.4 97.1 100.0 2.9 G Massive
WNDD0089 9216.1 19297.0 2795.7 130.0 32.3 -67.0 114.7 115.8 1.1 G Massive
WNDD0090 9216.3 19296.5 2795.7 124.8 50.9 -61.7 108.9 109.9 1.1 G Massive
49.9 56.1 6.2 E Massive
WNDD0093 9370.1 19272.1 2805.1 117.2 61.5 -55.0
80.4 82.1 1.8 K Massive
WNDD0098 9311.9 19282.0 2801.4 88.3 57.8 -59.0 41.3 50.6 9.3 G Massive
90.5 92.8 2.3 G Massive
WNDD0100 9238.4 19139.0 2799.4 140.2 68.0 -76.9
92.8 114.6 21.8 G Stringer
85.1 86.5 1.4 G Massive
WNDD0101 9235.3 19229.2 2798.2 114.4 93.5 -60.1
89.3 109.4 20.1 G Stringer
WNDD0103 9197.4 19340.7 2795.7 120.7 63.3 -60.5 93.1 95.1 2.0 G Massive
WNDD0104 9049.2 19579.9 2786.3 267.6 113.1 -79.2 222.0 234.4 12.4 L Massive
107.3 111.1 3.7 G Stringer
116.7 132.7 16.0 G Stringer
WNDD0106 9184.2 19202.3 2795.4 166.8 115.0 -60.0 132.7 137.4 4.7 G Massive
137.4 143.6 6.2 G Massive
147.0 151.0 4.0 G Stringer
108.4 111.2 2.8 G Stringer
116.9 138.7 21.7 G Stringer
WNDD0107 9184.2 19203.6 2795.5 180.1 88.0 -67.0 143.6 145.6 2.0 G Massive
145.6 150.6 5.0 G Stringer
157.5 157.8 0.3 G Massive
WNDD0108 8973.0 19719.6 2786.3 633.8 90.0 -75.0 574.9 580.6 5.7 B Stringer
127.9 144.0 16.1 G Stringer
WNDD0109 9154.0 19220.3 2795.2 255.7 131.9 -68.0 153.9 156.7 2.9 G Stringer
165.0 178.5 13.6 G Stringer
106.7 116.3 9.6 G Massive
116.3 119.0 2.8 G Stringer
129.6 139.7 10.1 G Stringer
WNDD0110 9173.2 19204.9 2795.3 222.7 105.9 -69.8
139.7 142.0 2.3 G Massive
142.0 161.4 19.4 G Stringer
161.4 162.6 1.2 G Massive
111.4 124.8 13.4 G Stringer
124.8 160.3 35.4 G Stringer
WNDD0111 9170.0 19211.5 2795.4 205.1 82.9 -72.0 160.3 163.2 2.9 G Massive
163.2 168.8 5.6 G Stringer
177.4 183.6 6.2 G Massive
110.2 110.9 0.6 G Massive
WNDD0112 9171.4 19204.8 2795.3 180.7 88.0 -77.0 110.9 145.4 34.6 G Stringer
153.2 162.3 9.1 G Stringer
----- End of picture text -----

Collar coordinates in WMG coordinate system. Dip angle convention for Dip measurements: positive is up, negative is down, zero is horizontal.

22 of 28

==> picture [507 x 732] intentionally omitted <==

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

Northing Total Collar Collar Downhole Intercept Mineralisation
Hole Easting (m) mRL Length (m) Lens
(m) Depth (m) Azimuth (°) Dip (°) From (m) To (m) Type
113.0 120.1 7.1 G Stringer
128.6 150.0 21.4 G Stringer
154.0 155.4 1.4 G Stringer
WNDD0113 9172.4 19205.8 2795.3 203.2 92.0 -69.0 155.4 159.0 3.6 G Massive
159.0 161.0 2.0 G Stringer
169.0 169.7 0.7 G Massive
178.1 186.9 8.8 G Massive
107.2 109.9 2.7 G Massive
112.5 117.5 5.0 G Stringer
WNDD0114 9174.0 19205.1 2795.3 182.7 108.0 -65.0 125.2 150.7 25.5 G Stringer
150.7 157.5 6.9 G Massive
157.5 162.7 5.2 G Stringer
111.5 114.6 3.1 G Massive
WNDD0115 9169.8 19207.2 2795.1 161.1 116.0 -77.0
119.1 161.1 42.0 G Stringer
108.1 110.5 2.4 G Massive
118.1 123.4 5.3 G Stringer
132.4 146.5 14.0 G Stringer
WNDD0116 9168.8 19207.5 2795.2 167.7 122.0 -70.0 146.5 147.0 0.6 G Massive
147.0 149.2 2.2 G Stringer
149.2 152.1 2.9 G Massive
158.3 166.4 8.1 G Stringer
118.4 118.4 0.0 G Massive
WNDD0117 9149.7 19225.4 2795.1 185.8 95.0 -75.0 123.7 149.6 25.8 G Stringer
167.4 169.7 2.3 G Stringer
89.4 89.6 0.3 G Massive
96.6 116.8 20.2 G Stringer
116.8 119.6 2.8 G Massive
WNDD0118 9213.3 19176.4 2794.8 142.6 88.0 -66.0
119.6 126.9 7.3 G Stringer
128.5 133.3 4.8 G Massive
133.3 135.2 1.9 G Stringer
94.6 117.8 23.1 G Stringer
117.8 119.8 2.1 G Massive
WNDD0119 9214.0 19176.1 2794.9 146.6 92.0 -56.0
119.8 123.1 3.3 G Stringer
124.8 126.7 1.9 G Massive
93.4 95.8 2.4 G Massive
95.8 105.5 9.6 G Stringer
105.5 106.4 0.9 G Massive
WNDD0120 9212.4 19176.9 2794.8 143.6 106.0 -61.0
106.4 119.1 12.7 G Stringer
121.1 123.0 1.9 G Stringer
126.0 129.0 3.0 G Stringer
102.1 103.5 1.4 G Massive
103.5 119.1 15.6 G Stringer
WNDD0121 9212.1 19176.8 2794.8 139.5 120.0 -71.0 119.1 120.1 1.0 G Massive
120.1 120.9 0.8 G Stringer
122.3 127.0 4.7 G Massive
WNDD0122 9147.6 19222.3 2794.9 278.8 95.0 -82.0 138.7 147.5 8.8 G Stringer
114.5 115.7 1.2 G Massive
120.2 149.8 29.6 G Stringer
159.3 160.1 0.8 G Massive
WNDD0123 9149.1 19222.6 2795.0 278.8 92.0 -67.0 162.0 168.5 6.5 G Stringer
184.0 186.2 2.2 G Stringer
187.9 191.5 3.7 G Stringer
209.7 215.4 5.8 G Massive
WNDD0124 9159.4 19246.1 2795.3 221.2 48.0 -69.0 200.9 205.0 4.1 G Massive
WNDD0125 9159.9 19245.1 2795.2 239.8 68.0 -66.0 190.8 199.0 8.1 G Massive
115.8 140.0 24.2 G Stringer
WNDD0126 9185.6 19202.2 2795.3 173.4 94.0 -60.0
151.6 153.0 1.4 G Massive
WNDD0127 9186.1 19202.9 2795.4 166.9 83.0 -53.0 116.0 146.1 30.1 G Stringer
100.0 107.0 7.0 G Stringer
WNDD0128 9212.5 19181.0 2795.0 166.7 75.0 -61.0
111.4 130.9 19.5 G Stringer
----- End of picture text -----

Collar coordinates in WMG coordinate system.

23 of 28

Dip angle convention for Dip measurements: positive is up, negative is down, zero is horizontal.

==> picture [507 x 697] intentionally omitted <==

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

Northing Total Collar Collar Downhole Intercept Mineralisation
Hole Easting (m) mRL Length (m) Lens
(m) Depth (m) Azimuth (°) Dip (°) From (m) To (m) Type
128.9 146.1 17.2 G Stringer
WNDD0129 9148.7 19226.3 2794.9 275.8 71.0 -67.0 189.8 209.0 19.2 G Stringer
221.0 228.5 7.5 G Massive
WNDD0130 9150.3 19227.6 2795.2 233.7 62.0 -63.0 204.4 205.9 1.4 G Massive
124.9 166.1 41.2 G Stringer
WNDD0131 9150.0 19226.9 2795.1 233.7 80.0 -64.0 174.2 199.0 24.8 G Stringer
205.9 210.0 4.1 G Massive
117.0 136.1 19.1 G Stringer
136.1 140.5 4.4 G Massive
WNDD0132 9157.6 19166.1 2792.4 173.8 90.0 -63.0
140.5 147.3 6.8 G Stringer
155.8 164.6 8.7 G Stringer
118.2 119.6 1.5 G Massive
119.6 124.6 5.0 G Stringer
127.5 131.8 4.3 G Stringer
131.8 132.0 0.3 G Massive
WNDD0133 9157.1 19166.6 2792.3 149.7 109.0 -57.0
132.0 141.2 9.2 G Stringer
141.2 144.0 2.8 G Massive
144.0 146.2 2.2 G Massive
WNDD0135 9073.8 19542.3 2786.9 242.3 92.0 -73.0 202.0 211.6 9.6 L Massive
WNDD0137W1 9074.9 19543.1 2786.7 242.8 110.0 -70.0 203.7 203.8 0.1 L Massive
120.3 131.5 11.2 G Massive
138.3 140.2 1.9 G Massive
WNDD0138 9154.8 19167.0 2792.1 170.9 99.0 -68.0
140.2 142.0 1.8 G Stringer
157.6 163.5 6.0 G Stringer
128.7 130.2 1.5 G Massive
131.3 137.0 5.6 G Massive
WNDD0139 9153.8 19165.7 2792.1 170.8 125.0 -59.0 137.0 140.0 3.0 G Stringer
140.0 142.0 2.0 G Massive
146.0 160.6 14.6 G Stringer
124.8 144.4 19.5 G Stringer
WNDD0140 9155.1 19164.7 2792.1 179.4 138.0 -55.0
151.6 159.0 7.4 G Massive
122.6 126.3 3.7 G Stringer
WNDD0141 9155.1 19164.7 2792.1 167.8 125.0 -68.0 132.2 138.7 6.5 G Stringer
146.8 155.4 8.6 G Stringer
144.0 149.3 5.3 G Stringer
WNDD0142 9155.1 19164.7 2792.1 161.8 100.0 -76.0
159.5 161.8 2.3 G Stringer
WNDD0143 9169.6 19113.4 2793.8 148.3 135.0 -60.0 117.7 129.1 11.3 G Stringer
116.5 118.4 1.8 G Massive
118.4 120.6 2.2 G Stringer
WNDD0144 9169.6 19113.4 2793.8 149.7 93.0 -62.0 120.6 124.7 4.1 G Massive
133.4 140.0 6.6 G Stringer
142.0 147.5 5.5 G Stringer
119.7 130.0 10.3 G Massive
130.0 142.0 12.0 G Stringer
WNDD0145 9157.8 19165.8 2793.0 169.5 117.0 -56.0
145.0 146.2 1.2 G Massive
146.2 157.3 11.1 G Stringer
120.1 123.0 2.9 G Stringer
131.9 133.5 1.6 G Massive
134.2 141.3 7.1 G Stringer
WNDD0146 9157.8 19165.8 2793.0 201.4 103.8 -55.0
141.3 143.2 1.9 G Massive
143.2 146.1 2.9 G Stringer
146.1 146.9 0.8 G Massive
118.0 145.0 27.0 G Stringer
145.5 146.6 1.1 G Massive
WNDD0147 9157.8 19165.8 2793.0 212.4 96.0 -61.0
155.9 162.0 6.1 G Stringer
173.0 180.0 7.0 G Stringer
----- End of picture text -----

Collar coordinates in WMG coordinate system. Dip angle convention for Dip measurements: positive is up, negative is down, zero is horizontal.

24 of 28

==> picture [507 x 732] intentionally omitted <==

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

Northing Total Collar Collar Downhole Intercept Mineralisation
Hole Easting (m) mRL Length (m) Lens
(m) Depth (m) Azimuth (°) Dip (°) From (m) To (m) Type
116.0 118.0 2.0 G Stringer
120.8 123.4 2.6 G Stringer
130.6 137.9 7.3 G Stringer
WNDD0148 9157.8 19165.8 2793.0 165.7 78.0 -65.0 138.5 140.7 2.2 G Massive
142.7 150.8 8.1 G Stringer
150.8 153.1 2.3 G Massive
157.8 165.7 7.9 G Stringer
126.7 137.6 10.9 G Massive
WNDD0149 9170.2 19206.9 2793.0 159.0 144.7 -69.0 137.6 140.0 2.4 G Stringer
144.0 148.0 4.0 G Stringer
102.1 104.1 2.0 G Massive
108.1 117.2 9.1 G Stringer
117.6 144.4 26.8 G Stringer
144.4 145.1 0.7 G Massive
WNDD0150 9177.1 19204.9 2793.0 173.7 115.0 -61.0
145.1 149.2 4.1 G Stringer
149.2 151.4 2.2 G Massive
151.4 161.0 9.6 G Stringer
170.0 173.7 3.7 G Stringer
108.0 112.5 4.5 G Stringer
118.1 136.8 18.7 G Stringer
136.8 145.0 8.2 G Massive
WNDD0151 9177.1 19204.9 2793.0 180.7 102.0 -62.0
149.5 153.0 3.5 G Stringer
153.0 157.0 4.0 G Massive
160.8 162.5 1.7 G Massive
9.8 17.4 7.6 G Stringer
WNDD0161 9231.2 19261.8 2697.7 60.8 73.7 -9.7
49.5 52.7 3.3 G Massive
WNDD0163 9231.2 19261.9 2697.6 65.6 42.0 -10.1 50.0 52.6 2.6 G Massive
10.8 22.5 11.7 G Stringer
WNDD0186 9231.3 19259.3 2697.8 58.9 109.3 4.4
39.6 54.0 14.4 G Stringer
6.5 20.4 13.9 G Stringer
WNDD0187 9231.4 19259.2 2697.6 51.4 109.3 -13.4 26.7 32.1 5.4 G Stringer
33.3 42.6 9.4 G Stringer
WNDD0188 9231.0 19257.7 2697.2 56.2 123.8 -12.6 6.3 46.1 39.8 G Stringer
WNDD0189 9230.7 19258.1 2696.7 46.8 123.8 -30.1 4.7 39.2 34.5 G Stringer
70.6 70.9 0.4 G Massive
WNDD0190 9130.0 19160.3 2672.0 81.9 86.5 8.6
78.3 81.9 3.6 G Stringer
51.2 58.8 7.6 G Stringer
WNDD0191 9130.0 19160.2 2672.0 82.8 97.1 -1.3 70.4 73.3 2.9 G Stringer
78.4 81.6 3.3 G Massive
49.3 60.4 11.1 G Stringer
WNDD0192 9130.0 19160.1 2672.0 78.4 104.3 -0.8 69.5 75.4 5.9 G Stringer
77.4 78.4 1.1 G Stringer
49.5 62.2 12.7 G Stringer
71.0 85.6 14.6 G Stringer
WNDD0193 9130.1 19160.0 2671.9 124.1 114.9 -0.8 89.6 92.6 3.0 G Massive
97.7 112.1 14.4 G Stringer
114.7 124.1 9.4 G Stringer
81.4 97.6 16.2 G Stringer
WNDD0194 9129.8 19159.7 2672.7 183.7 120.4 10.8
103.6 127.2 23.6 G Stringer
56.5 68.4 12.0 G Stringer
77.2 93.5 16.3 G Stringer
WNDD0195 9130.1 19160.1 2672.0 140.2 120.5 0.9 98.6 104.6 6.0 G Massive
112.1 117.7 5.6 G Stringer
127.7 132.3 4.6 G Stringer
1.0 14.2 13.2 G Stringer
WNDD0198 9237.5 19242.6 2698.2 59.1 99.5 17.9
43.6 59.1 15.5 G Stringer
WNDD0199 9236.3 19240.5 2696.4 46.9 104.3 -29.0 0.0 32.2 32.2 G Stringer
WNDD0200 9236.2 19240.3 2696.2 35.5 104.3 -63.0 0.0 31.6 31.6 G Stringer
WNDD0201 9236.1 19240.5 2696.2 31.1 133.7 -43.4 0.0 31.1 31.1 G Stringer
WNDD0210 9210.4 19272.2 2600.0 43.4 4.2 14.4 29.2 43.4 14.2 G Massive
----- End of picture text -----

Collar coordinates in WMG coordinate system.

25 of 28

Dip angle convention for Dip measurements: positive is up, negative is down, zero is horizontal.

==> picture [507 x 720] intentionally omitted <==

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

Northing Total Collar Collar Downhole Intercept Mineralisation
Hole Easting (m) mRL Length (m) Lens
(m) Depth (m) Azimuth (°) Dip (°) From (m) To (m) Type
WNDD0211 9216.2 19273.3 2600.4 36.0 23.7 25.9 24.0 24.9 0.9 G Massive
4.4 25.9 21.5 G Massive
WNDD0213 9200.7 19337.5 2593.5 32.4 327.4 -27.5
30.7 31.5 0.8 G Massive
WNDD0215 9200.8 19337.4 2593.4 28.4 345.7 -21.3 3.5 25.3 21.8 G Massive
WNDD0218 9204.3 19336.3 2597.4 26.2 49.6 53.7 0.0 6.4 6.4 G Massive
WNDD0219 9214.2 19346.8 2700.2 22.8 345.1 -31.2 19.7 21.0 1.3 G Massive
WNDD0220 9218.2 19333.2 2702.1 28.9 27.5 -29.3 24.3 24.6 0.2 G Massive
WNDD0221 9218.1 19333.2 2699.4 37.6 55.0 26.2 33.9 34.9 1.0 G Massive
WNDD0222 9218.2 19332.9 2699.5 30.1 55.0 -22.1 20.3 23.8 3.5 G Massive
WNDD0223 9218.0 19332.5 2699.2 36.6 55.0 -46.5 22.7 24.2 1.5 G Massive
WNDD0224 9218.3 19325.5 2701.3 39.0 59.2 16.7 33.6 35.8 2.3 G Massive
WNDD0226 9218.3 19325.2 2701.3 62.0 75.0 16.2 40.4 45.1 4.7 G Massive
40.2 49.5 9.3 G Massive
WNDD0228 9176.8 19286.9 2571.9 79.7 20.9 8.4
68.9 73.9 5.0 G Stringer
38.5 43.4 4.9 G Massive
WNDD0230 9176.8 19286.9 2571.9 80.0 31.5 16.4
69.6 70.6 1.0 G Stringer
WNDD0231 9176.8 19286.9 2571.9 50.6 31.5 -1.0 32.9 38.6 5.7 G Massive
WNDD0232 9178.5 19284.9 2572.8 79.1 42.5 38.7 50.4 65.8 15.4 G Massive
WNDD0233 9178.5 19284.9 2572.8 76.0 48.5 15.8 26.8 29.8 3.0 G Massive
WNDD0236 9212.5 19261.0 2597.9 47.5 31.8 -33.2 0.0 1.9 1.9 G Stringer
0.0 1.5 1.5 G Stringer
WNDD0237 9212.5 19260.7 2597.9 26.5 74.8 -39.2
19.1 22.0 2.9 G Massive
0.0 11.1 11.1 G Stringer
WNDD0238 9216.7 19248.3 2600.9 38.5 79.9 19.3
27.4 35.7 8.3 G Massive
0.0 7.2 7.2 G Stringer
WNDD0240 9216.7 19248.2 2600.9 39.9 107.8 18.3
30.3 31.0 0.7 G Massive
0.0 6.3 6.3 G Stringer
WNDD0241 9216.6 19246.7 2601.2 43.1 129.8 18.0
25.4 27.5 2.1 G Massive
0.0 6.5 6.5 G Stringer
WNDD0243 9215.2 19246.2 2600.9 52.2 158.8 12.3
35.9 42.3 6.4 G Massive
WNDD0244 9215.0 19246.4 2599.1 41.4 157.8 -24.8 0.0 0.1 0.1 G Stringer
0.0 6.4 6.4 G Stringer
WNDD0245 9212.0 19245.5 2600.9 63.7 167.8 10.3
44.4 44.8 0.4 G Massive
WNDD0246 9211.9 19245.8 2599.5 65.2 167.8 -11.4 0.0 2.0 2.0 G Stringer
14.0 18.7 4.7 G Stringer
WNDD0247 9204.7 19336.6 2593.3 146.5 7.8 -43.4 24.8 27.9 3.1 G Stringer
88.1 103.2 15.1 K Massive
0.0 0.6 0.6 G Massive
13.7 18.0 4.3 G Stringer
WNDD0248 9203.4 19337.0 2593.0 121.2 15.6 -44.3 23.7 26.8 3.1 G Stringer
84.6 86.4 1.9 K Massive
93.2 97.9 4.7 K Massive
0.0 0.1 0.1 G Massive
12.1 16.0 3.9 G Stringer
WNDD0249 9203.8 19337.0 2593.1 103.2 26.0 -36.5
20.5 22.7 2.1 G Stringer
72.5 75.5 3.0 K Massive
11.7 16.4 4.7 G Stringer
WNDD0250 9204.7 19336.6 2593.3 125.1 26.0 -53.4 22.3 27.6 5.3 G Stringer
103.9 114.0 10.2 K Massive
10.6 13.0 2.4 G Stringer
WNDD0251 9204.2 19336.1 2592.9 90.3 42.7 -33.4
19.4 22.5 3.1 G Stringer
10.4 13.7 3.2 G Stringer
WNDD0252 9204.3 19336.6 2593.0 104.0 42.7 -44.2 20.9 25.0 4.1 G Stringer
85.7 91.5 5.8 K Massive
11.4 13.9 2.5 G Stringer
WNDD0253 9204.1 19336.3 2592.9 118.6 50.3 -57.3 19.9 28.1 8.2 G Stringer
95.7 103.7 8.0 K Massive
10.1 11.7 1.6 G Stringer
WNDD0255 9204.4 19335.9 2593.1 89.2 53.0 -33.0
18.3 22.8 4.5 G Stringer
----- End of picture text -----

Collar coordinates in WMG coordinate system.

26 of 28

Dip angle convention for Dip measurements: positive is up, negative is down, zero is horizontal.

==> picture [507 x 732] intentionally omitted <==

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

Northing Total Collar Collar Downhole Intercept Mineralisation
Hole Easting (m) mRL Length (m) Lens
(m) Depth (m) Azimuth (°) Dip (°) From (m) To (m) Type
10.2 12.9 2.7 G Stringer
WNDD0256 9203.9 19337.0 2592.9 104.1 53.2 -45.5 20.4 26.8 6.4 G Stringer
83.8 88.5 4.7 K Massive
0.9 5.5 4.6 G Massive
WNDD0258 9202.1 19337.3 2593.0 140.2 343.9 -42.8 25.8 31.8 5.9 G Stringer
106.9 117.9 11.0 K Massive
0.0 2.4 2.4 G Massive
WNDD0259A 9203.1 19337.2 2593.1 135.6 350.0 -41.7 22.6 27.5 4.9 G Stringer
102.6 105.8 3.2 K Massive
0.0 2.0 2.0 G Massive
WNDD0260 9203.1 19337.2 2593.1 177.8 349.9 -47.5 21.4 25.5 4.1 G Stringer
99.4 120.1 20.6 K Massive
0.0 1.6 1.6 G Massive
WNDD0261 9203.1 19337.2 2593.1 136.2 359.9 -42.8 16.9 21.9 5.1 G Stringer
94.8 101.7 6.9 K Massive
0.0 1.5 1.5 G Massive
19.0 22.0 3.0 G Stringer
WNDD0262 9203.1 19337.2 2593.1 151.7 359.9 -49.7
31.3 34.6 3.4 G Stringer
106.0 121.0 15.0 K Massive
14.1 18.4 4.3 G Stringer
26.4 31.3 4.8 G Stringer
WNDD0263 9204.0 19337.0 2593.0 149.2 11.9 -55.1
118.4 129.4 11.0 K Massive
134.4 135.3 0.9 K Massive
11.0 15.4 4.4 G Stringer
20.7 27.5 6.8 G Stringer
WNDD0264 9204.3 19336.3 2592.9 119.2 40.6 -53.9
96.7 104.9 8.2 K Massive
111.6 116.0 4.5 K Massive
0.8 4.5 3.7 G Massive
WNDD0265 9202.1 19337.3 2593.0 113.7 353.4 -38.8 22.3 27.1 4.7 G Stringer
84.5 91.1 6.6 K Massive
0.7 3.4 2.7 G Massive
WNDD0266 9202.1 19337.3 2593.0 100.8 2.6 -39.2 17.2 22.0 4.8 G Stringer
87.5 91.2 3.7 K Massive
0.0 0.6 0.6 G Massive
13.3 17.5 4.2 G Stringer
WNDD0267 9203.3 19337.1 2593.0 134.0 24.6 -57.1 24.6 30.1 5.5 G Stringer
107.6 120.1 12.5 K Massive
130.9 131.2 0.3 K Massive
0.0 0.6 0.6 G Massive
14.2 18.1 3.9 G Stringer
WNDD0267A 9203.3 19337.1 2593.0 146.5 23.1 -64.6 28.2 34.6 6.4 G Stringer
117.8 128.1 10.3 K Massive
139.7 142.2 2.5 K Massive
0.5 1.9 1.4 G Massive
13.7 17.6 3.9 G Stringer
WNDD0268 9202.1 19337.3 2593.0 131.4 37.4 -59.9 24.7 30.9 6.2 G Stringer
104.3 111.3 7.0 K Massive
121.6 123.3 1.7 K Massive
14.5 19.0 4.6 G Stringer
25.9 30.3 4.3 G Stringer
WNDD0269 9204.2 19334.0 2592.8 128.4 13.5 -47.1
92.1 92.1 0.0 K Massive
108.7 116.0 7.4 K Massive
15.0 18.5 3.4 G Stringer
38.1 46.1 8.0 G Stringer
WNDD0270 9204.2 19334.0 2592.8 151.3 36.5 -75.8
123.8 125.2 1.4 K Massive
131.0 145.0 14.0 K Massive
13.3 16.1 2.9 G Stringer
28.0 36.8 8.8 G Stringer
WNDD0271 9204.2 19334.0 2592.8 137.7 46.5 -67.6
100.0 105.0 5.0 K Massive
108.0 119.0 11.0 K Massive
----- End of picture text -----

Collar coordinates in WMG coordinate system.

27 of 28

Dip angle convention for Dip measurements: positive is up, negative is down, zero is horizontal.

==> picture [507 x 386] intentionally omitted <==

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

Northing Total Collar Collar Downhole Intercept Mineralisation
Hole Easting (m) mRL Length (m) Lens
(m) Depth (m) Azimuth (°) Dip (°) From (m) To (m) Type
10.8 12.8 2.0 G Stringer
WNDD0272 9204.3 19336.0 2592.8 122.7 80.5 -57.4 21.9 32.2 10.3 G Stringer
98.0 99.7 1.7 K Massive
12.7 15.3 2.7 G Stringer
WNDD0273 9204.3 19336.0 2592.8 145.4 157.9 -24.5 30.4 41.1 10.7 G Stringer
105.6 121.3 15.7 K Massive
13.9 17.1 3.2 G Stringer
WNDD0274 9204.3 19336.0 2592.8 176.7 80.5 -77.9 38.5 48.3 9.8 G Stringer
117.3 151.1 33.8 K Massive
30.8 42.2 11.4 G Stringer
WNDD0275 9204.3 19334.5 2592.8 140.5 95.5 -65.7
100.2 135.8 35.6 K Massive
34.0 45.1 11.1 G Stringer
WNDD0276 9204.3 19335.0 2592.9 154.4 100.5 -69.2
106.5 138.5 32.0 K Massive
WNGT0036 9627.7 19252.7 2727.0 179.0 113.0 -60.0 153.0 161.3 8.3 C Massive
WNGT0037 9627.5 19252.6 2727.1 183.9 141.0 -60.0 155.2 159.9 4.7 C Massive
WNGT0038 9627.5 19252.9 2727.1 169.8 127.0 -59.0 144.1 156.7 12.7 C Massive
WNGT0039 9627.5 19252.7 2727.3 173.3 129.0 -64.0 157.6 163.5 5.8 C Massive
WNGT0040 9627.7 19252.5 2727.3 181.9 145.0 -61.0 159.6 162.5 2.9 C Massive
WNMH0001 9299.9 19199.7 2802.6 148.8 312.7 -60.8 126.5 148.8 22.3 G Stringer
75.3 82.1 6.8 G Stringer
87.7 87.7 0.0 G Stringer
WNMH0004 9299.9 19199.7 2802.6 98.0 302.5 -67.7
87.7 95.0 7.3 G Massive
95.0 98.0 3.0 G Stringer
WNMH0005 9183.8 19217.0 2795.5 129.5 229.0 -84.4 123.6 129.5 5.9 G Stringer
WNMH0006 9185.2 19218.2 2795.8 126.6 232.9 -83.8 121.0 126.6 5.6 G Stringer
WNMH0007 9185.5 19214.2 2795.2 128.4 241.8 -83.5 121.3 128.4 7.1 G Stringer
WNMH0023 9220.6 19258.8 2696.1 66.2 274.1 -83.0 12.3 28.1 15.8 G Stringer
WNRC0009 9198.0 19340.2 2795.6 138.0 90.2 -61.7 86.0 93.0 7.0 G Massive
WNRC0010 9298.1 19306.6 2800.7 168.0 89.3 -62.6 37.0 46.0 9.0 G Massive
WWTD0003 9274.6 19473.2 2795.2 332.9 2.8 -90.0 122.0 125.0 3.0 D Massive
----- End of picture text -----

Collar coordinates in WMG coordinate system. Dip angle convention for Dip measurements: positive is up, negative is down, zero is horizontal.

28 of 28

AI assistant

DEVELOP GLOBAL LIMITED — Capital/Financing Update 2022

64801_rns_2022-08-01_4af23156-d2da-47b2-a027-7143713b17fd.pdf

- Woodlawn Zinc Copper Mine, NSW

Independent experts confirm large high-grade Resource in line with previous estimates

Highlights

Background

Updated Mineral Resource Estimate

Investor Enquiries

About Develop

Competent Person Statement

Cautionary Statement

SECTION 1 SAMPLING TECHNIQUES AND DATA

SECTION 2 REPORTING OF EXPLORATION RESULTS

SECTION 3 ESTIMATION AND REPORTING OF MINERAL RESOURCES

entech .

2 August 2022

LETTER OF CONSENT – WOODLAWN ZINC - COPPER DEPOSIT

UNDERGROUND MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE

entech .

MATERIAL SUMMARY

WOODLAWN UNDERGROUND MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE

Mineral Resource Statement

entech .

entech .

Competent Person’s Statement

entech .

Drilling Techniques

- Sampling and Sub Sampling Techniques

entech .

Sample Analysis Method

Geology and Geological Interpretation

entech .

entech .

Estimation Methodology

entech .

entech .

Classification Criteria

entech .

Cut-off Grade

Table 4 Key NSR assumptions

Bulk Density

Project History and Historical Mineral Resources

Assessment of Reasonable Prospects for Eventual Economic Extraction

Mining

entech .

Metallurgy

END.

entech .

COMPETENT PERSON’S CONSENT FORM

Report Description

Statement

entech .

CONSENT

entech .

SECTION 1 SAMPLING TECHNIQUES AND DATA

SECTION 2 REPORTING OF EXPLORATION RESULTS

SECTION 3 ESTIMATION AND REPORTING OF MINERAL RESOURCES

More from DEVELOP GLOBAL LIMITED

DEVELOP GLOBAL LIMITED Capital/Financing Update 2022