DEVELOP GLOBAL LIMITED — Capital/Financing Update 2022

Feb 9, 2022

ASX Announcement 10/02/2022

More strong drilling results point to significant resource upgrade

Latest batch of thick, high-grade intersections puts Sulphur Springs on track for large conversion of Inferred Resources to Indicated as well as an increase in total inventory

• Develop has now received ~60% of the assays from the recently-completed $10 million resource infill and exploration drilling program at Sulphur Springs

• The drilling has been highly successful, with numerous high-grade mineralisation intersections of more than 50m, significantly thicker than anticipated and with two of these intercepts being the thickest (true width) intersections achieved in the project’s history

• The results are important because they point to a substantial conversion of Inferred Resources to the higher confidence Indicated classification

• This upgrade will in turn pave the way for Develop to update the Reserve, mine development plan, project costings and finalise funding options

• Exploration drilling has also returned outstanding results, paving the way for an increase in the total Resource

• Resource update is scheduled for mid-2022

• Preparations for construction of the exploration decline are proceeding rapidly with the approval request submitted; This will be pivotal because it will enable drilling to be conducted faster, and cheaper and brings forward capital/access to the underground deposit

• Remaining assays are expected to be received by the end of this quarter

Develop (ASX: DVP) is pleased to announce more strong drilling results which point to a significant Resource upgrade at its Sulphur Springs copper-zinc-silver project in WA’s Pilbara.

The latest results are consistent with the objective of upgrading a substantial proportion of the Inferred Resource to the Indicated category. This will pave the way for an increased Reserve, optimised mine development plan, revised project costings and finalisation of funding options.

The results from exploration drilling are also exceptional, demonstrating that the main eastern underground lens is significantly thicker than anticipated. The distance between the lenses is also narrowing with more mineralisation being intersected in the two major gaps while drilling along strike and down-plunge. New zinc rich mineralisation has also been intersected in the hanging wall of the deposit.

Develop expects to publish a Resource upgrade containing the conversion from Inferred to Indicated in the middle of this year.

The extensions to the known mineralisation will be pursued in a follow-up drilling program later this year which will be aimed at further growing the total inventory.

The Sulphur Spring Resource stands at 13.8Mt at 2.5% CuEq[1] (1.5% Cu, 3.8% Zn, 0.2% Pb and 17gpt Ag), including 9.4Mt in the Indicated category.

Develop Managing Director Bill Beament said the latest results exceeded the Company’s expectations.

“These results highlight the significant potential to grow and develop Sulphur Springs,” Mr Beament said.

“An increase in the Indicated Resource will ultimately give us more flexibility with the underground mining schedule, enable us to grow the current 10-year mine life and move us closer to finalising project funding.

“The results also extend the known mineralisation, which point to further increases in the Resource later this year.

“We hope to be constructing the exploration decline in the June quarter. This will enable us to accelerate drilling and complete our review of the mine plan and funding options.”

Drill Programme Details

As previously announced (see ASX release 8 December 2021), a total of 68 drill holes were completed as part of the Company’s de-risking and growth strategy at the Sulphur Springs Cu-Zn-Ag Project. The drilling was designed to infill the inferred material within the Sulphur Springs Resource to a nominal 30m x 30m density, with additional exploration drilling also completed across several target areas.

Assay results have now been received from a total of 56 drillholes, representing approximately 60% of the programmes total samples (Figure 1). A further 22 drillholes are currently awaiting analysis at the lab with final results expected by the end of March. These results will be incorporated into an upcoming resource upgrade expected in mid-2022.

Resource Infill – Underground

Infill resource drilling into the down-plunge portion of the Eastern Lens continues to intersect consistent zones of exceptionally thick, high-grade mineralisation, including the two thickest (true width) intersections within the entire project history recorded in drillholes SSD152 (54.0m @ 3.11% CuEq[1] ) and SSD163 (53.0m @ 1.9 % CuEq[1] ). Notably, SSD163 also includes a sub-zone containing high-grade Zn-Ag-Au (9.0m @ 8.0% Zn, 33.5g/t Ag & 0.9g/t Au).

Drilling in this section of the Eastern Lens Resource defines a consistently 30-40m thick zone of continuous mineralisation that extends at least 240m down plunge and remains open outside of the current resource.

Significant intersections received, include:

• 54m @ 3.1% CuEq[1] (0.6% Cu, 0.2% Pb, 7.3% Zn, 14.0 g/t Ag & 0.2 g/t Au) from 288m (SSD152; East Lens) o Including 14m @ 6.6% CuEq[1] (0.2% Cu, 0.5% Pb, 18.4% Zn, 27.6 g/t Ag & 0.4 g/t Au) from 288m

• 53m @ 1.9% CuEq[1] (0.8% Cu, 0.2% Pb, 3.3% Zn, 10.7g/t Ag & 0.3g/t Au) from 237m (SSD163; East lens) o Including 9m @ 3.1% CuEq[1] (0.2% Cu, 0.7% Pb, 8.0% Zn, 33.5g/t Ag & 0.9g/t Au) from 260m

• 41m @ 1.4% CuEq[1] (0.1% Cu, 0.4% Pb, 3.7% Zn, 46.0 g/t Ag & 0.3 g/t Au) from 375m (SSD150; East Lens)

• 37m @ 2.1% CuEq[1] (0.1% Cu, 0.7% Pb, 5.6% Zn, 39.2 g/t Ag & 0.2 g/t Au) from 323m (SSD145; East Lens) o Including 12m @ 3.4% CuEq[1] (0.1% Cu, 1.2% Pb, 9.2% Zn, 64.2 g/t Ag & 0.3 g/t Au) from 330m o And 3m @ 1.9% CuEq[1] (0.3% Cu, 0.4% Pb, 4.5% Zn & 4.6 g/t Ag) from 369m

• 31m @ 1.9% CuEq[1] (1.1% Cu, 0.1% Pb, 2.6% Zn, 4.1 g/t Ag & 0.1 g/t Au) from 297m (SSD162; East Lens)

• 31m @ 0.9% CuEq[1] (0.3% Cu, 0.2% Pb, 1.5% Zn, 13.3 g/t Ag & 0.1 g/t Au) from 310m (SSD165; East Lens) o And 4m @ 4.3% CuEq[1] (0.1% Cu, 0.4% Pb, 11.9% Zn, 35.6 g/t Ag & 0.7 g/t Au) from 296m

• 28m @ 2.2% CuEq[1] (0.3% Cu, 0.2% Pb, 5.4% Zn, 24.8 g/t Ag & 0.2 g/t Au) from 344m (SSD154; East Lens) The true widths of the ‘Underground’ Eastern Lens infill resource drilling intercepts reported are estimated to be approximately 85-95% of the downhole widths.

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

Infill resource drilling into the down-plunge portion of the Western Lens intersected consistent zones of mineralisation, with widths as expected. Significant intersections, include:

• 32m @ 0.9% CuEq[1] (0.7% Cu, 0.1% Pb, 0.9% Zn & 6.9 g/t Ag) from 290m (SSD155; West Lens)

• 26m @ 1.0% CuEq[1] (0.1% Cu, 0.1% Pb, 2.2% Zn, 48.5 g/t Ag & 0.8 g/t Au) from 301m (SSD149; West Lens) o Including 10m @ 2.1% CuEq[1] (0.1% Cu, 0.1% Pb, 5.4% Zn, 45.9 g/t Ag & 0.7 g/t Au) from 301m

• And 18m @ 1.9% CuEq[1] (0.2% Cu, 0.4% Pb, 4.9% Zn, 12.7 g/t Ag & 0.2 g/t Au) from 326m

• o And 4m @ 3.4% CuEq[1] (3.9% Cu, 0.1% Zn & 0.9 g/t Ag) from 288m

• 22m @ 1.0% CuEq[1] (0.2% Cu, 0.1% Pb, 2.3% Zn, 17.7 g/t Ag & 0.1 g/t Au) from 254m (SSD157; West Lens) o And 14m @ 1.2% CuEq[1] (1.1% Cu, 0% Pb, 0.6% Zn, 3.5 g/t Ag & 0 g/t Au) from 274m

• 8m @ 1.0% CuEq[1] (1.2% Cu, & 1.3 g/t Ag) from 236m (SSD159; West Lens)

• And 8m @ 1.1% CuEq[1] (1.2% Cu, & 0.4 g/t Ag) from 300m

Resource Infill – Open Pit

Due to the ongoing delay in turn-around time at the laboratory, assay results from the diamond drillhole tails targeting high-grade Copper within the inferred resources of the proposed open pit are expected to be received in mid to late March.

Exploration

Exploration drilling continues to intersect exceptionally thick zones of high-grade mineralisation, expanding on the already robust 13.8Mt of Copper-Zinc-Silver mineralisation at the Sulphur Springs Resource.

Significant exploration intersections include:

• 43m @ 1.8% CuEq[1] (0.1% Cu, 0.2% Pb, 4.7% Zn, 21.3 g/t Ag & 0.2 g/t Au) from 360m (SSD174) o Including 5m @ 5.0% CuEq[1] (0.4% Cu, 0.2% Pb, 13.5% Zn, 13.5g/t Ag & 0.1g/t Au) from 395m

• 40m @ 1.5% CuEq[1] (0.0% Cu, 0.4% Pb, 4.0% Zn, 26.0 g/t Ag & 0.2 g/t Au) from 366m (SSD168; Exploration) o Including 4m @ 5.8% CuEq[1] (0.0% Cu, 1.6% Pb, 16.2% Zn, 84.4/t Ag & 0.5g/t Au) from 366m

The results with SSD168 and SSD174 expand the current resource across a gap in drilling of approximately 160m, and when combined with the previous exploration intersection of 49m @ 2.9% CuEq[1 ] within SSD132 (see ASX release 8 December 2021) highlights the exceptional growth potential in areas that have previously had no drilling due to the challenging topography and ground conditions.

The Main Fault and Trouser Leg targets are further interpreted to be highly prospective feeder structures that served as fluid conduits to the extensive VMS mineralisation intersected; both zones are expected to host additional zones of copper-rich mineralisation.

Significantly the mineralisation intersected at these targets remains totally open down plunge and along strike and represent an outstanding opportunity to further expand on the current known mineralised footprint.

The true widths of the exploration drilling intercepts reported are estimated to be approximately 60-75% of the downhole widths.

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

==> picture [538 x 306] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 1. Sulphur Springs 2021 drilling long-section.

==> picture [513 x 315] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 2. Sulphur Springs 2021 drilling plan map.

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

Project Activities Update

The strength of these assay results has given Develop further confidence to review of the mine plan and consider the merits of establishing an underground operation ahead of the open pit.

This approach would delay the open pit oxide/transitional ore and focus on the underground primary ore. Previous test work associated with the primary ore showed improved metal recoveries and concentrate specifications over the transitional ore.

As part of this strategy, Develop is looking at establishing a 1500m exploration decline in CY22 to accelerate drilling from underground (Figure 3). The expected cost of this would be approximately $7.5-$8.5 million and would be funded from existing cash reserves.

The decline would increase the efficiency of drilling and enable it to continue through the Pilbara wet season. The decline would later form part of the capital infrastructure of the underground mining operation, hence bringing forward capital that would otherwise be spent in the mine construction phase.

The decline would also mean underground drilling could be used to target the highly promising Bledisloe prospect, which sits 500m along strike from the current Resource and has delivered stringer-style copper and semi-massive zinc mineralisation from limited surface drilling.

Planning and execution of the exploration decline is well advanced. Approvals have been lodged and are currently being processed by the department of mines. Develop is expecting to commence activities in the June quarter.

==> picture [503 x 342] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3. Preliminary decline design enabling access to Eastern and Western Lens and Bledisloe.

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

Table 1. Sulphur Springs significant drilling intersections

Hole ID	From	Intercept	Cu%	Pb%	Zn%	Ag g/t	Au g/t	Geology	Type	Cu Eq	Zn Eq
SSD145	323.0	37.0	0.1	0.7	5.5	39.2	0.2	East Lens	Resource Infill	2.09	6.42
Inc	330.0	12.0	0.1	1.2	9.2	64.2	0.3	East Lens	Resource Infill	3.43	10.52
And	362.0	2.0	0.1	0.2	1.6	5.6	0.1	East Lens	Resource Infill	0.63	1.86
And	369.0	3.0	0.3	0.4	4.5	4.6	0.0	East Lens	Resource Infill	1.87	5.27
SSD146	300.0	5.0	0.0	0.2	4.6	10.5	0.0	East Lens	Resource Infill	1.61	4.54
And	319.0	11.0	0.7	0.1	2.4	8.9	0.1	East Lens	Resource Infill	1.44	4.29
SSD148	349.0	2.0	0.0	0.1	0.4	162.5	0.5	East Lens	Resource Infill	0.27	3.20
And	361.0	5.0	0.1	0.3	1.7	12.8	0.1	East Lens	Resource Infill	0.71	2.22
SSD149	288.0	4.0	3.9	0.0	0.1	0.9	0.01	West Lens	Resource Infill	3.39	10.17
And	301.0	26.0	0.1	0.1	2.2	48.5	0.8	West Lens	Resource Infill	0.96	4.22
Inc	301.0	10.0	0.1	0.1	5.4	45.9	0.7	West Lens	Resource Infill	2.11	7.27
And	326.0	18.0	0.2	0.4	4.9	12.7	0.2	West Lens	Resource Infill	1.88	5.55
SSD150	375.0	41.0	0.1	0.4	3.7	46.0	0.3	East Lens	Resource Infill	1.41	4.77
SSD151	296.0	4.0	0.0	0.0	1.1	2.0	0.0	West Lens	Resource Infill	0.40	1.17
SSD152	288.0	54.0	0.6	0.2	7.3	14.0	0.2	East Lens	Resource Infill	3.11	9.02
Inc	288.0	14.0	0.2	0.5	18.4	27.6	0.4	East Lens	Resource Infill	6.56	18.90
Inc	308.0	7.0	2.6	0.0	0.7	13.4	0.1	East Lens	Resource Infill	2.54	7.74
SSD153	272.0	3.0	0.0	0.2	1.8	8.93	0.0	East Lens	Exploration	0.65	1.94
SSD154	344.0	28.0	0.3	0.2	5.4	24.8	0.2	East Lens	Resource Infill	2.17	6.53
SSD155	290.0	32.0	0.7	0.1	0.9	6.91	0.0	West Lens	Resource Infill	0.93	2.83
SSD157	254.0	22.0	0.2	0.1	2.3	17.7	0.1	West Lens	Resource Infill	0.97	3.00
Inc	254.0	2.0	0.1	0.2	11.4	77.7	0.1	West Lens	Resource Infill	4.05	12.14
And	274.0	14.0	1.1	0.0	0.6	3.5	0.0	West Lens	Resource Infill	1.19	3.58
SSD159	236.0	8.0	1.2	0.0	0.0	1.3	0.0	West Lens	Resource Infill	1.03	3.09
And	300.0	8.0	1.2	0.0	0.0	0.4	0.0	West Lens	Resource Infill	1.05	3.16
And	341.0	2.0	0.1	0.7	1.5	14.9	0.2	West Lens	Resource Infill	0.69	2.36
SSD162	297	31.0	1.1	0.1	2.6	4.08	0.1	East Lens	Resource Infill	1.88	2.61
SSD163	237	53.0	0.8	0.2	3.3	10.7	0.2	East Lens	Resource Infill	1.88	5.76
Inc	260	9.0	0.2	0.7	8.0	33.5	0.9	East Lens	Resource Infill	3.15	10.21
Inc	261	2.0	0.2	0.4	11.7	26	1.5	East Lens	Resource Infill	4.49	14.66
SSD165	296	4.0	0.1	0.4	11.9	35.6	0.7	East Lens	Resource Infill	4.33	13.17
Incl	296	2.0	0.1	0.6	20.7	41.4	1.1	East Lens	Resource Infill	7.43	22.26
And	310	31.0	0.3	0.2	1.5	13.3	0.1	East Lens	Resource Infill	0.81	2.61
SSD168	366.0	40.0	0.0	0.4	4.0	26.0	0.2	Main Fault Target	Exploration	1.47	5.61
Inc	366.0	4.0	0.0	1.6	16.2	84.4	0.5	Main Fault Target	Exploration	5.81	6.61
SSD174	360	43.0	0.1	0.2	4.7	21.3	0.2	Main Fault Target	Exploration	1.77	3.61
Inc	395	5.0	0.4	0.2	13.5	16.9	0.1	Main Fault Target	Exploration	5.00	4.61

Notes.

1. Reported intercepts are determined using averages of length weighted contiguous mineralisation downhole. The lower cut-offs for are 0.5% for copper and 1.0% for zinc. Significant intercepts may include samples below the cut-off values if the interval is less than or equal to 2m or two sample intervals down hole. Totals may not balance due to rounding.

2. The copper equivalent grades (Cu Eq) are based on copper, silver, lead and zinc prices of US$9,781/t Copper, US$23.21/oz Silver, US$2,205/t Lead and US$3,593/t Zinc with overall recoveries of 94%, 62%, 46% and 94% respectively (price deck based on 3-month LME as 09/02/22, recoveries based on 2018 DFS (see ASX release 10 October 2018).

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

3. The copper equivalent calculation is as follows: Cu Eq = Cu grade% * Cu recovery + ((Pb grade % * Pb recovery % * (Pb price $/t/Cu price$/t)) + (Zn grade % * Zn recovery % * (Zn price $/t/Cu price $/t)) + (Ag grade g/t /31.103 * Ag recovery % * (Ag price $/oz/Cu price $/t))

4. Reported on 100% Basis.

5. 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.

Table 2. Sulphur Springs 2021 drill hole survey data and assay status

Hole ID	Type	East	North	RL	EOH	Dip	Azi	Assay Status
SSD107	RC-DDH	729048.4	7659679.1	1256.4	83.4	-62	173	RC Pre-Collar - Previously Reported
SSD108	RC	729050.7	7659679.8	1256.3	72	-49	131	RC Pre-Collar - Previously Reported
SSD109	RC-DDH	729048	7659679	1258	122	-35	188	RC Pre-Collar - Previously Reported
SSD110	RC-DDH	729045	7659678.6	1256.6	121.8	-28	216	RC Pre-Collar - Previously Reported
SSD111	RC	729039.8	7659683.5	1255.9	42	-75	242	RC Pre-Collar - Previously Reported
SSD112	RC-DDH	729010	7659717	1254	155.4	-67	189	RC Pre-Collar - Previously Reported
SSD113	RC-DDH	729005	7659714.3	1254.6	179.4	-54	212	RC Pre-Collar - Previously Reported
SSD114	RC	728929.1	7659841.5	1247.9	96	-39	179	RC Pre-Collar - Previously Reported
SSD115	RC	728929.3	7659842.8	1248.1	96	-55	177	RC Pre-Collar - Previously Reported
SSD116	RC	728859	7659917	1250	96	-46	179	RC Pre-Collar - Previously Reported
SSD117	RC	729028.3	7659678.1	1257.9	72	-15	236	RC Pre-Collar - Previously Reported
SSD118	RC	729012.5	7659723.1	1254	48	-35	210	RC Pre-Collar - Previously Reported
SSD119	RC	728930.1	7659840.4	1248	102	-60	190	RC Pre-Collar - Previously Reported
SSD120	RC	728931.1	7659839.8	1247.8	102	-42	197	RC Pre-Collar - Previously Reported
SSD121	RC-DDH	729004.5	7659725.4	1254	173.4	-35	210	RC Pre-Collar - Previously Reported
SSD122	RC-DDH	728855	7659914	1250	240	-38	186	RC Pre-Collar - Previously Reported
SSD123	RC	728781.8	7659877.2	1253.6	102	-33	168	RC Pre-Collar - Previously Reported
SSD124	RC	728780.4	7659876	1253.5	102	-33	179	RC Pre-Collar - Previously Reported
SSD125	RC	729035.1	7659679.4	1256	30	-83	230	RC Pre-Collar - Previously Reported
SSD126	RC-DDH	729322.4	7659821.1	1342.9	226.4	-48	226	RC Pre-Collar - Previously Reported
SSD127	RC	729134.3	7659822.9	1306.7	42	-56	220	RC Pre-Collar - Previously Reported
SSD128	RC-DDH	729133.8	7659823.3	1306.7	237.8	-56	225	RC Pre-Collar - Previously Reported
SSD129	RC	728842	7659665	1330	54	-73	127	RC Pre-Collar - Previously Reported
SSD130	RC-DDH	728838.6	7659665.2	1344.5	220	-70	78	RC Pre-Collar - Previously Reported
SSD131	RC-DDH	728818	7659664.8	1344.6	239.9	-73	25	RC Pre-Collar - Previously Reported
SSD132	RC-DDH	728785	7659880	1256	321.2	-88	95	Full Hole - Previously Reported
SSD133	RC	728883.3	7659931.8	1248.8	300	-81	193	RC Pre-Collar - Previously Reported
SSD134	RC	728885.7	7659933	1248.8	318	-75	212	RC Pre-Collar - Previously Reported
SSD135	RC	728886	7659929	1249	432	-89	195	Full Hole - Previously Reported
SSD136	RC-DDH	728884.8	7659925.7	1249	306.1	-71	163	RC Pre-Collar - Previously Reported

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

SSD137	RC-DDH	728886.6	7659925.3	1249.2	324.1	-69	155	RC Pre-Collar - Previously Reported
SSD138	RC-DDH	728888.1	7659924.3	1249.2	342.3	-77	133	RC Pre-Collar - Previously Reported
SSD139	RC-DDH	728889	7659925.7	1249.2	333.2	-72	110	RC Pre-Collar - Previously Reported
SSD140	RC	728891.9	7659928.8	1249.3	318	-77	126	RC Pre-Collar - Previously Reported
SSD141	RC	728892.6	7659930.7	1249.4	432	-80	100	RC Pre-Collar - Previously Reported
SSD142	RC	729294	7660051	1262	420	-77	180	Full Hole - Previously Reported
SSD143	RC	729294	7660051	1262	457	-70	187	Full Hole - Previously Reported
SSD144	RC	728843.7	7659916.2	1247.1	402	-87	230	Full Hole - Previously Reported
SSD145	RC	729294	7660051	1262	384	-79	197	Full Hole
SSD146	RC	729168	7660031	1281	372	-64	204	Full Hole
SSD147	RC	729294	7660051	1262	357	-73	196	Full Hole - Previously Reported
SSD148	RC	729168	7660031	1281	367	-77	200	Full Hole
SSD149	RC	729070	7659872	1327	366	-73	232	Full Hole
SSD150	RC	729174.8	7660025.4	1281.2	438	-84	157	Full Hole
SSD151	RC	729070	7659872	1327	352	-78	235	Full Hole
SSD152	RC	729174	7660023.4	1281.3	366	-68	168	Full Hole
SSD153	RC	729077.8	7659866.8	1327.4	348	-88	170	Full Hole
SSD154	RC	729173.4	7660026.5	1281.2	396	-75	168	Full Hole
SSD155	RC	729082	7659868	1327	337	-78	215	Full Hole
SSD156	RC	729174.6	7660023.9	1281.3	360	-75	168	Pending
SSD157	RC	729082	7659868	1327	318	-67	206	Full Hole
SSD158	RC	729172.8	7660024.2	1281.3	316	-60	179	Pending
SSD159	RC	729082	7659868	1327	354	-77	225	Full Hole
SSD160	RC	729172.6	7660024.9	1281.3	399	-82	181	Pending
SSD161	RC	729082	7659868	1327	360	-72	222	Pending
SSD162	RC	729171.7	7660024.4	1281.5	366	-64	188	Full Hole
SSD163	RC	729082	7659868	1327	312	-81	113	Full Hole
SSD164	RC	729170.8	7660024.8	1281.5	354	-69	197	Pending
SSD165	RC	729083.5	7659876.1	1327	360	-86	65	Full Hole
SSD166	RC	729167.8	7660027.7	1281.5	372	-75	225	Pending
SSD167	RC	729082	7659868	1327	318	-87	290	Pending
SSD168	RC	729167.7	7660032	1281.4	426	-80	250	Full Hole
SSD169	RC	729082	7659868	1327	414	-74	245	Pending
SSD170	RC	729289	7660055	1262	552	-84	231	Pending
SSD171	RC	729300.3	7659854.6	1344.7	309	-80	221	Pending
SSD172	RC	729289	7660055	1262	402	-72	215	Pending
SSD173	RC	729299.8	7659854.1	1344.9	312	-74	225	Pending
SSD174	RC	729078	7659879.2	1327.2	420	-84	310	Full Hole
SSD175	RC	729296.7	7659858.4	1344.9	366	-85	272	Pending
SSD176	RC	729289	7660055	1262	438	-76	215	Pending

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

SSD177	RC	729289	7660055	1262	522	-80	152	Pending
SSD178	DDH	729036.1	7659679.4	1256	180	-83	180	Pending

Table 3. Sulphur Springs Mineral Resources Table

MINERAL RESOURCES	MINERAL RESOURCES
Location	JORC Classification	Tonnes ('000t)	Cu %	Zn %	Pb %	Ag g/t
Sulphur Springs	Measured	-	-	-	-	-
	Indicated	9,400	1.5	3.8	0.2	17.0
	Inferred	4,400	1.4	3.7	0.2	18.0
	Sub-total	13,800	1.5	3.8	0.2	17.0
Kangaroo Caves	Measured	-	-	-	-	-
	Indicated	2,300	0.9	5.7	0.3	13.6
	Inferred	1,300	0.5	6.5	0.4	18.0
	Sub-total	3,600	0.8	6.0	0.3	15.0
Project total		17,400	1.3	4.2	0.2	17.0

Note. Totals may not balance due to rounding. The resource is reported at a cut-off grade of 0.4% copper and then less than 0.4% copper and greater than or equal to 2% zinc (see ASX release 21 March 2018 & 22 September 2015).

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 Kangaroo Caves Resources was previously released in announcements issued 22 September 2015, based on information compiled or reviewed by Mr David Milton, Hardrock Mining Consultants Pty Ltd who is a Member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Mr Milton has sufficient experience relevant to the style of mineralisation, type of deposit under consideration and to the activity being undertaking to qualify as Competent Persons as defined in the 2012 – Refer Edition of the “Australasian Code for Reporting of Mineral Resources”.

The information contained in this announcement relating to the Sulphur Springs Resources was previously released in announcements issued 21 March 2018, based on information compiled or reviewed by Mr David Milton of Mil Min Pty Ltd who is a Member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Mr Milton has sufficient experience relevant to the style of mineralisation, type of deposit under consideration and to the activity being undertaking to qualify as Competent Persons as defined in the 2012 – Refer Edition of the “Australasian Code for Reporting of Mineral Resources”.

The information contained in this announcement relating to the Sulphur Springs Reserves was previously released in ASX announcement dated 10th October 2018 based on information compiled or reviewed by Mr Daniel Donald, of Entech Pty Ltd who is a member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Mr Donald has sufficient experience relevant to the style of mineralisation, type of deposit under consideration and to the activity being undertaken to quality as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the “Australasian Code for Reporting of Mineral Reserves”.

The Company confirms that: a) The form and context of the material in this announcement has not been materially modified from the above previous announcements; b) It is not aware of any new information or data that materially affects the information included in the previous announcements and that all material assumptions and technical parameters underpinning the estimate in DFS announcement issued 10 October 2018 continue to apply and have not materially changed; and c) It is uncertain that following further exploration and evaluation that the historical estimates will be able to be reported as mineral resources or ore reserves in accordance with the JORC 2012 Code.

Cautionary Statement

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

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’ contained here 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. The Production Target (and the forward looking financial information based on that Production Target) contained in the DFS includes material classified as Ore Reserves and Inferred Resources. Material classified as Ore Reserves contributes ~68% of the material within the LOM Production Target and Inferred Resources contribute ~32% of material included within the LOM Production Target. The mine plan has been sequenced to ensure that the reliance on material contributed from Inferred Resources is minimised within the first 5 years and the Company is satisfied that the proportion of Inferred Resources is not a determining factor for project viability. Nonetheless, the Company notes there is a low level of geological confidence associated with Inferred Resources and there is no certainty that further exploration work will result in the determination of Indicated Resources or that the LOM Production Target insofar as it relates to the Inferred Resources will be realised.

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

Section 1: Sampling Techniques and Data

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Sampling **techniques **	• Nature and quality of sampling (e.g. cut channels, random chips, or specific specialised industry standard measurement tools appropriate to the minerals under investigation, such as down hole gamma sondes, or handheld XRF instruments, etc.). These examples should not be taken as limiting the broad meaning of sampling. • Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample representivity and the appropriate calibration of any measurement tools or systems used. • Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are Material to the Public Report. • In cases where ‘industry standard’ work has been done this would be relatively simple (e.g. ‘reverse circulation drilling was used to obtain 1 m samples from which 3 kg was pulverised to produce a 30 g charge for fire assay’). In other cases, more explanation may be required such as where there is coarse gold that has inherent sampling problems. Unusual commodities or mineralisation types (e.g. submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed information.	• Diamond Core and Reverse Circulation (RC) drilling were used to obtain samples for geological logging and assaying. • Diamond core was cut and sampled at nominal 1m intervals, or intervals determined by geological contacts. RC drill holes were sampled at 1m intervals and split using a static Metzke cone splitter attached to the cyclone to ensure sample representivity. • The company used industry standard practices to measure and sample the drill chips. • A combination of four-metre composite and one-metre split samples, weighing nomina between 1.0 - 4.0kgs were submitted to the laboratory for multi-element analysis.
Drilling techniques	• Drill type (e.g. core, reverse circulation, open-hole hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc.) and details (e.g. core diameter, triple or standard tube, depth of diamond tails, face-sampling bit or other type, whether core is oriented and if so, by what method, etc.).	• Drilling was completed using a combination of diamond core and reverse circulation. • A combination of HQ3and NQ3triple-tubed, oriented coring was used for diamond drilling. • Standard and Polycrystalline Dimond (PCD) 5.5inch diameter face sampling hammers were used for reverse circulation drilling.
Drill sample recovery	• Method of recording and assessing core and chip sample recoveries and results assessed. • Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and ensure representative nature of the samples. • Whether a relationship exists between sample recovery and grade and whether sample bias may have occurred due to preferential loss/gain of fine/coarse material.	• Sample condition, including estimated recovery and moisture content were recorded for each sample by a geologist or technician. • Core recoveries are recorded by the drillers in the field at the time of drilling and checked by a geologist or technician. • RC samples are not weighed on a regular basis but no significant sample recovery issues have been encountered in drilling programs to date. • When poor sample recovery was encountered during drilling, the geologist and driller have endeavoured to rectify the problem to ensure maximum sample recovery. • Insufficient data is available at present to determine if a relationship exists between recovery and grade.
Logging	• Whether core and chip samples have been geologically and geotechnically logged to a level of detail to support appropriate Mineral Resource estimation, mining studies and metallurgical studies. • Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc.) photography. • The total length and percentage of the relevant intersections logged.	• All diamond core and RC chips were geologically logged for the total length of the hole using a long hand logging method. Logging routinely recorded weathering, lithology, mineralogy, mineralisation, structure, alteration and veining. Logs are coded using the company geological coding legend and entered into the company database. • The following quantitative descriptions were used when logging, amongst others: oTrace less than 1% sulphides. oStringer 1-20% sulphides. oDisseminated 20-60% sulphides. oMassive sulphides greater 60%. • Diamond core arephotographed wet and dry.
Sub-sampling techniques and	• If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, half or all core taken. • If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc. and whether sampled wet or dry. • For all sample types, the nature, quality and appropriateness of the samplepreparation	• Diamond core are cut with an automated core-saw with quarter core samples submitted for analysis. • RC cuttings were split using an industry standard rig-mounted Metzke static cone splitter.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
sample preparation	technique. • Quality control procedures adopted for all sub-sampling stages to maximise representivity of samples. • Measures taken to ensure that the sampling is representative of the in situ material collected, including for instance results for field duplicate/second-half sampling. • Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grain size of the material being sampled.	• Four-metre composite samples were taken from the A-split sample using a PVC tube or scoop through the hanging-wall and footwall sequences. • One-metre A-split samples were taken through mineralised (sulphide) zones. • One-metre B-split sample field duplicates were selected by geologist from zones of significant mineralisation. • One-metre B-split samples were retained on site for future reference. • The majority of samples were dry, with good to excellent recoveries. • The sample size of 1.0-4.0kg is considered appropriate and representative for the grain size and style of mineralisation
Quality of assay data and laboratory tests	• The nature, quality and appropriateness of the assaying and laboratory procedures used and whether the technique is considered partial or total. • For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF instruments, etc., the parameters used in determining the analysis including instrument make and model, reading times, calibrations factors applied and their derivation, etc. • Nature of quality control procedures adopted (e.g. standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (i.e. lack of bias) and precision have been established.	• Samples from the current drilling program were assayed by Australian Laboratory Services Pty. Ltd. Diamond Core and RC samples were prepared and analysed by the following methods: • Samples weighed, crushed and pulverised with the coarse residue retained in vacuum seal bags (LOG-22, WEI-21, PREP-31Y). • 48 elements are analysed by method ME-MS61 utilising 4 acid digest, ICP-MS and ICP- AES; Over-limit/Ore-Grade samples are analysed by method (ME-OG62). Au are analysed by fire assay method Au AA23. • The company included certified reference material and blanks within the at a frequency on 1:20. Field Duplicated were selected in zones of significant mineralisation at a frequency on 1:20. • In addition to Develop’s QA/QC methods (duplicates, standards and blanks), the laboratory has additional checks.
Verification of sampling and assaying	• The verification of significant intersections by either independent or alternative company personnel. • The use of twinned holes. • Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data verification, data storage (physical and electronic) protocols. • Discuss any adjustment to assay data.	• The significant intersections reported have been prepared by geologists with relevant VMS experience. • No twinned holes have been drilled. • Geological descriptions are recorded in long hand prior to being summarised for digital data capture. • The company uses standard templates created in Excel to collate sample intervals, drill collar, downhole survey information which are loaded into a Geological 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. • Specification of the grid system used. • Quality and adequacy of topographic control.	• Drill hole collars are initially surveyed using a handheld GPS operated by company personnel; at programme completion all collars are located by qualified surveyors using a DGPS. • Down-hole surveys are conducted by the drill contractors using a north-seeking Reflex gyroscopic tool with readings every 10-30m as the hole is drilled, and a continuous survey at the end of hole. • Grid systemusedisMGA94(Zone 51).
Data spacing and distribution	• Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results. • Whether the data-spacing and distribution is sufficient to establish the degree of geological and grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve estimation procedure(s) and classifications applied. • Whether sample compositing has been applied.	• Data/drill hole spacing are variable and appropriate to the geology and historical drilling spacing. • 4-metre sample compositing has been applied to RC drilling within the un-mineralised hanging-wall and footwall sequences for gold and multi-element assay.
Orientation of data in relation to geological structure	• Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased sampling of possible structures and the extent to which this is known, considering the deposit type. • If the relationship between the drilling orientation and the orientation of key mineralised structures is considered to have introduced a sampling bias, this should be assessed and reported if material.	• Drill holes are designed to test the Sulphur Springs mineralisation and potential extension as near to perpendicular as possible (subject to collar access). • Due to restricted access and topography, holes are drilled at an angle between –15⁰ to -89⁰ to an azimuth of between 075-310⁰. • Drillhole designs are considered appropriate for the geometry of the host sequence.

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

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Sample security	• The measures taken to ensure sample security.	• The chain of custody is managed by the on-site geological team. • Pre-numbered (calico) sample bags are stored on site within pre-numbered polyweave sacks prior to being loaded into a Bulka Bag for dispatch to the Laboratory via Toll Ipec. • Detailed records are kept of all samples that are dispatched, including details of chain of custody.
Audits or reviews	• The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data.	• No reviews have been undertaken.

Section 2: Reporting of Exploration Results

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

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Mineral tenement and land tenure status	• Type, reference name/number, location and ownership including agreements or material issues with third parties such as joint ventures, partnerships, overriding royalties, native title interests, historical sites, wilderness or national park and environmental settings. • The security of the tenure held at the time of reporting along with any known impediments to obtaining a licence to operate in the area.	• The Sulphur Springs Deposit in located within M45/454. The registered owner of the tenements is Venturex Sulphur Springs Pty Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of Develop Global Ltd. The prospects are held by Venturex Sulphur Springs Pty Ltd. • The tenements are within Njamal Native Title Claim (WC99/8) where native title has been determined. The traditional owners of the land are the Njamal People. The grant of the tenement predates native title and is not subject to native title claim. • The tenement is subject to two third party royalties on any production from the tenement. The tenements are in good standing and no known impediments exist.
Exploration done by other parties	• Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties.	• Previous exploration has been undertaken by a number of parties going back over 30 years. Modern exploration has been undertaken by Sipa Resources, CBH Resources, Homestake Mining, and Venturex Resources.
Geology	• Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation.	• The Sulphur Springs Deposit and associated targets are related to Volcanogenic Massive Sulphide 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: • easting and northing of the drill hole collar • elevation or RL (Reduced Level – elevation above sea level in metres) of the drill hole collar • dip and azimuth of the hole • down hole length and interception depth • hole length. • If the exclusion of this information is justified on the basis that the information is not Material and this exclusion does not detract from the understanding of the report, the Competent Person should clearly explain why this is the case.	• Details of the drill holes are provided in Tables 1 & 2 within the body of this report.
Data aggregation methods	• In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging techniques, maximum and/or minimum grade truncations (e.g. cutting of high grades) and cut-off grades are usually Material and should be stated. • Where aggregate intercepts incorporate short lengths of high grade results and longer lengths of low grade results, the procedure used for such aggregation should be stated and some typical examples of such aggregations should be shown in detail.	• Results reported in this release relate to visual observations of Diamond Core and RC chips, specifically the identification of common sulphide minerals. No estimate of grade or concentration of the minerals is provided. • Results reported are determined by ALS Laboratories using method ME-OG 62, ME- MS61 (over limit samples) and fire assay AyAA-23. • No length weighting or top-cuts have been applied. Any zones of cavity/no sample are

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

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	• The assumptions used for any reporting of metal equivalent values should be clearly stated.	assigned a grade of zero.
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 Sulphur Springs deposit plunges 40-50 degrees to the north. • Drillholes are designed to intersect the orebody at a nominal 90 degrees, however the local access and topography required all drillholes to be designed taking these limitations into consideration to intersect the mineralisation. • Only down hole intersections are reported. • True widths are estimated to be 65-95% of the downhole width unless otherwise indicated.
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.	• Refer to Figures in the body of text within this announcement.
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.	• Tables 1 & 2 present assays status for the current batch of RC and DDH drill holes. • Laboratory assay results are required to determine the widths and grade of the visible mineralisation reported in preliminary geological logging. The Company will update the market when laboratory analytical results become available for pending drillholes.
Other substantive exploration data	• Other exploration data, if meaningful and material, should be reported including (but not limited to): geological observations; geophysical survey results; geochemical survey results; bulk samples – size and method of treatment; metallurgical test results; bulk density, groundwater, geotechnical and rock characteristics; potential deleterious or contaminating substances.	• The Sulphur Springs deposit has had a significant body of work completed on it, including geophysical studies, metallurgical test work, geotechnical and ground water studies.
Further work	• The nature and scale of planned further work (e.g. tests for lateral extensions or depth extensions or large-scale step-out drilling). • Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions, including the main geological interpretations and future drilling areas, provided this information is not commercially sensitive	• Results from the current programme are planned to be used to produce an update to the Sulphur Springs Resource, along with providing geometallurgical data. • Future drilling programmes are also being planned to target the depth/plunge extensions to mineralisation intersect in the current drilling.

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