ELEMENTOS LIMITED - M&A Activity 2018

==> picture [596 x 120] intentionally omitted <==

31 JULY 2018

A C Q U I S I T I O N O F T H E O R O P E S A T I N P R O J E C T

Heads of Agreement signed to acquire the advanced Oropesa tin project in Spain
Transformational transaction expands Company’s portfolio of advanced, near production tin assets
Feasibility Study underway and Mining License application has been lodged
Open pit potential with uncomplicated geology and conventional process flowsheet
ELT brings development team with extensive experience and expertise in tin projects
Oropesa is one of the highest-grade undeveloped tin resources globally:
JORC Measured and Indicated Resource of 9.34mt @ 0.55% tin; and
JORC Inferred Resource of 3.2mt @ 0.52 % tin (at 0.15% tin cut-off); for
a total contained JORC Resource of 67,520 tonnes of tin

Elementos Limited (ASX: ELT) (“Elementos” or the “Company”) is pleased to announce it has signed a binding Heads of Agreement ( HoA ) with Eurotin Limited (TSX-V: TIN) ( Eurotin ) to acquire the 96% owned Oropesa Tin Project located in Spain ( Oropesa ).

The Company believes Oropesa is one of the best undeveloped tin resources in the Western World. Attractions include, a large JORC Mineral Resource based on more than 54,000 metres of drilling, open-cut mining potential, simple metallurgy and processing, access to development infrastructure, and support from local stakeholders. A Feasibility Study is in progress, Environmental Studies complete and a Mining Licence Application lodged.

The acquisition represents an excellent strategic fit with the organisations core capability of developing tin projects, a fundamental driver of Eurotin’s decision to partner with Elementos to deliver the Oropesa project.

Oropesa is a near-term development project and cash flow generation opportunity, being acquired at a very attractive valuation. The Company believes it will create significant share value-uplift potential for shareholders as the project is well advanced towards development.

Consideration for the acquisition is the issue of one billion fully paid Elementos shares which are to be distributed pro-rata to Eurotin’s shareholders. The transaction is subject to completion of due diligence and shareholder approvals.

Commenting on the agreement, Chairman Andy Greig said “The acquisition of Oropesa is a perfect opportunity to acquire a complementary high-quality tin asset at an attractive price. The Company has a team with significant experience and expertise in the tin business including, Chief Executive Officer, Chris Creagh, who worked at the Renison tin operations. Chris has a deep understanding of tin orebodies and mineralization, and has previously developed projects from concept through to production. Chris is supported by Executive Director Chris Dunks who has over 20 years project delivery experience with engineering firms including Bechtel, Jacobs, SNC Lavalin and Worley Parsons”.

==> picture [596 x 52] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [97 x 35] intentionally omitted <==

S t r a t e g i c R a t i o n a l e f o r A c q u i r i n g O r o p e s a

The Company believes the acquisition of Oropesa represents an excellent opportunity to create value-uplift potential for shareholders as the project is advanced towards development.

Attraction of the Oropesa project, include:

Large, well-defined resource - A globally significant, undeveloped resource with strong opportunities for resource expansion;
Open-cut mining potential –The deposit is amendable to simple drill and blast, truck and shovel open cut mining operations;
Simple metallurgy - extensive metallurgical testing and process flowsheet designed to produce a 62.4% tin concentrate at a 74.2% metallurgical recovery;
Near-term production potential – A Definitive Feasibility Study has commenced which is expected to be completed in the 4[th] Quarter of 2018;
Permitting process advanced – A base-line Environmental Impact Assessment was lodged with the Government in January 2018 and a Mining License application has been submitted to the Government for approval;
Located close to development infrastructure - Located close to major highways which link to export ports, water supply and power supply. The region has a skilled mining workforce;
Low sovereign risk - The Andalucia region of Spain is home to some of the country’s most significant mining operations and part of the European Union which provides a safe investment environment;
Large sunk cost – significant investment in drilling, geophysics, metallurgical testing and development studies; and
Local community support - The local government and community is extremely supportive of the project moving ahead.

D e v e l o p m e n t S t r a t e g y a n d C a p a b i l i t y

The Company’s strategy at the completion of the transaction, includes:

Completion of the Definitive Feasibility Study including studying options for enhancing the project economics including, metallurgical and mine optimisation;
Finalisation of the permitting and environmental studies;
Securing off-take and project financing; and
Final engineering and design, prior to construction, commissioning and operations.

The Company believes there is potential to identify other resources in the tenement package and expand the scale of the project in the future.

The Company is pleased to have been identified by Eurotin as a team with the organisational capability to complete the development of Oropesa. The executive team are complimented by a strong and engaged Board of Directors lead by Chairman Andy Greig. Prior to joining the Board of Elementos, Mr Greig was instrumental in building the Mining and Metals division of the Bechtel Group. Mr. Greig has significant experience in designing and constructing mining and minerals processing projects. Other board members include Non-Executive Directors Calvin Treacy and Corey Nolan who have experience in acquiring, financing and advancing mineral projects towards development.

Page 2

==> picture [97 x 35] intentionally omitted <==

O r o p e s a O v e r v i e w

L o c a t i o n a n d I n f r a s t r u c t u r e

Oropesa consists of a 14.51 square kilometre concession package located approximately 75 kilometres north-west of Cordoba and 180 kilometres north-east of Seville, in the region of Andalucía, in southern Spain. The Oropesa district has historically been a mining district for base metals with coal mining ceasing in recent times.

Tin mineralisation was first recognised at Oropesa in 1982. Intensive exploration activity since 2010, including 261 drill holes, has resulted in the definition of the current mineral resource. The project area contains numerous geophysical and geochemically anomalous regions that could potentially extend this resource with additional exploration.

Figure 1 - Location of Oropesa

==> picture [486 x 298] intentionally omitted <==

Access to the Oropesa project area is well serviced with paved highways and gravel roads and tracks throughout the area. There is rail access approximately 16 kilometres from the project area. The district also has a number of power transmission lines of varying voltage capacities.

Page 3

==> picture [97 x 35] intentionally omitted <==

J O R C M i n e r a l R e s o u r c e s

The tin mineralisation (cassiterite with minor stannite) occurs as a replacement style orebody associated with sulphides, predominantly pyrite and pyrrhotite within a sedimentary sequence at the contact between sandstone and conglomerate units. Widespread folding of the sedimentary sequence has resulted in the mineralised sequence being overturned and repeated in places.

==> picture [461 x 315] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 2 - Cross section of the Oropesa orebody looking northwest

The Oropesa tin project contains a JORC compliant Measured, Indicated and Inferred Resource of 67,520 tonnes of tin (see Table 1)

Table 1 - Oropesa Global Mineral	Table 1 - Oropesa Global Mineral	Resources Estimate (0.15% Sn cut-off grade)	Resources Estimate (0.15% Sn cut-off grade)
Category	Tonnes	Grades % Sn	Contained Tin
Measured	330,000	1.09	3,585
Indicated	9,010,000	0.53	47,320
Total M & I	9,340,000	0.55	50,905
Inferred	3,200,000	0.52	16,615

Page 4

==> picture [97 x 35] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [486 x 317] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3: Oropesa – resource location, soil geochemistry and IP geophysical anomalies

P r o c e s s i n g

The project has been subject to extensive metallurgical testing including bulk sample analysis. Metallurgical testing has defined a conventional tin recovery processing circuit consisting of gravity and flotation that has achieved tin recoveries of 74.2% to a concentrate grade of 62.4% tin.

The Company will be studying opportunities to optimise the flowsheet including using ore sorters which has been successfully demonstrated at other tin projects around the world.

P e r m i t t i n g S t a t u s

An Exploitation Licence (Mining Licence) application was lodged with the Junta de Andalucia in October 2017. The application entails all technical aspects for the mining and processing of the Oropesa orebody as well as associated infrastructure, equipment and tailings storage facilities to operate the tin mine. The application is for an initial open-cut operation graduating to an underground operation with the potential to produce up to 3,000tpa of tin in concentrate.

The Environmental Impact Assessment was lodged with the Government in January 2018.

Page 5

==> picture [97 x 35] intentionally omitted <==

O r o p e s a B i n d i n g H e a d s o f A g r e e m e n t

Elementos has entered into a binding HoA with Eurotin to acquire the Oropesa Tin Project in Spain through the purchase of 100% of the shares in a wholly owned subsidiary of Eurotin, Minas De Estaño De España, S.L.U., which in turn owns 96% of the Oropesa Tin Project (the Project ).

The consideration for the acquisition of the Project is one billion ordinary fully shares in Elementos which are to be distributed pro-rata to Eurotin’s shareholders.

Elementos will also be assuming up to CAD$1.0m in loans owed to Eurotin’s Chief Executive Officer and major shareholder, Mark Wellings ( Wellings Loan ).

The acquisition of the Project is to take place by way of a share exchange, plan of arrangement or other such form of transaction as the Company and Eurotin may determine, acting reasonably, but which is currently anticipated to be conducted by way of plan of arrangement under Canadian laws pursuant to an arrangement agreement ( Arrangement Agreement ). The HoA is subject to a number of conditions precedent over the next 30 days including entering in to the formal Arrangement Agreement, completion of satisfactory due diligence enquiries by both parties, completion of documentation related to the Wellings Loan and entering into of voting agreements by each of the major shareholders of Eurotin and Elementos agreeing to vote in favour of the resolutions approving the transaction. Elementos has been granted exclusive dealing rights during the next 30 days.

Both Elementos and Eurotin must obtain all necessary regulatory and shareholder approvals in order to undertake the transaction. Elementos will be convening a shareholders meeting as soon as practicable to seek shareholder approval for the issue of the consideration shares. There will be no changes to the Elementos or Eurotin boards as a result of this acquisition.

Further details regarding the key terms of the HoA are set out in Annexure 1. Additional information will be provided on completion of due diligence investigations and entry of the Arrangement Agreement.

For more information, please contact:

Duncan Cornish

Company Secretary Phone: +61 7 3212 6299

Email: [email protected] Please visit us at: www.elementos.com.au

Page 6

==> picture [97 x 35] intentionally omitted <==

C A U T I O N A R Y S T A T E M E N T S

F o r w a r d - l o o k i n g s t a t e m e n t s

This document may contain certain forward-looking statements. Such statements are only predictions, based on certain assumptions and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, many of which are beyond the company’s control. Actual events or results may differ materially from the events or results expected or implied in any forward-looking statement.

The inclusion of such statements should not be regarded as a representation, warranty or prediction with respect to the accuracy of the underlying assumptions or that any forward-looking statements will be or are likely to be fulfilled. Elementos undertakes no obligation to update any forward-looking statement to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this document (subject to securities exchange disclosure requirements).

The information in this document does not take into account the objectives, financial situation or particular needs of any person or organisation. Nothing contained in this document constitutes investment, legal, tax or other advice.

COMPETENT PERSONS STATEMENT

The information in this report that relates to Exploration Results and Mineral Resources is based on information compiled by Robert Goddard, who is a full time employee of SRK Consulting (UK) Ltd. Mr Goddard has been engaged by Minas De Estano De Espana, SLU as an Independent Consultant to prepare a Mineral Resource estimate and supporting documentation for the Oropesa Tin Project. Mr Goddard is a Competent Person who is a Member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and who consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears.

Robert Goddard has sufficient experience that is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity being undertaken to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (JORC Code 2012).

The Australian Securities Exchange has not reviewed and does not accept responsibility for the accuracy or adequacy of this release.

Page 7

==> picture [97 x 35] intentionally omitted <==

Annexure 1 – Binding Heads of Agreement (HoA)

The following is an overview of the key terms of the HoA:

Structure: the acquisition of the Project is to take place by way of a share exchange, plan of arrangement or such other form of transaction as the Company and Eurotin may determine, acting reasonably, but which is currently anticipated to be conducted by way of plan of arrangement under Canadian laws pursuant to an arrangement agreement.
Conditions Precedent to HoA: the binding HoA is subject to and conditional upon:
a. Elementos and Eurotin each undertaking due diligence enquiries to their respective satisfaction;
b. a loan with Mark Wellings (director and significant shareholder of Eurotin) being formally documented to the satisfaction of the Company;
c. a formal Arrangement Agreement being agreed and executed by the Company and the applicable seller; d. Mark Wellings (and his associates) delivering a voting agreement in support of any resolutions at any shareholder meeting of Eurotin to effect the Arrangement Agreement. Mark Wellings (and associates) currently holds 42,793,139 Eurotin shares (representing 40.1% of Eurotin’s total issued shares). Eurotin is required to use its best endeavours to procure such agreement subject to compliance with all applicable laws.
e. Andy Greig (and his associates) delivering a voting agreement in support of any resolutions at any shareholder meeting of the Company to effect the Arrangement Agreement. Andy Greig (and associates) currently holds 272,226,820 Elementos shares (representing 20.4% of Elementos’s total issued shares). Elementos is required to use its best endeavours to procure such agreement subject to compliance with all applicable laws.

If the above conditions are not satisfied or waived by Elementos or Eurotin (as the context requires) within 30 days of execution of the HoA, or such later date agreed by the parties, either party may terminate the HoA (as the context requires).

Consideration: 1,000,000,000 fully paid ordinary shares in Elementos in consideration for a 96% interest in the Project, which are to be distributed pro-rata to Eurotin’s shareholders. The Company may initially issue convertible redeemable preference shares as consideration provided such shares automatically convert to ordinary shares upon completion of distribution to Eurotin shareholders.
Wellings Loan: Mark Wellings has loaned Minas De Estaño De España, S.L.U, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eurotin, ( MESPA ) up to an amount of CAD$1,000,000. Eurotin have provided a representation that at the time of closing of the transaction, the total liabilities of MESPA (inclusive of the Wellings Loan) will not be greater than CAD$1,000,000. As noted above, a condition precedent to the binding HoA is for this loan to be formally documented to the satisfaction of the Company and Mark Wellings. The Loan is unsecured, accrues interest at a rate of 5.0% p.a. and is to be repaid by the second anniversary of the closing date of the transaction. Mark Wellings shall have the right to convert, from time to time, up to the principal amount and all accrued interest into Elementos shares at a price equal to the 20 day VWAP of Elementos shares preceding the date that Mark Wellings provides notice of his intention to convert. Conversion will be subject to all necessary shareholder approvals being obtained.
Conditions to completion of acquisition: Completion of the acquisition of the Project will be subject to:
a. all shareholder approvals of the Company and Eurotin being obtained in accordance with all applicable laws, including for the distribution of the consideration shares to Eurotin’s shareholders;
b. all regulatory consents/authorisations required to implement the Arrangement Agreement being obtained in accordance with all applicable laws, including the rules and policies of all applicable stock exchanges;
c. the ASX confirming to the Company that re-compliance with Chapters 1 and 2 of the ASX Listing Rules is not required;
d. the making of the appropriate orders by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Court) approving the Arrangement Agreement pursuant to the Business Corporations Act (Ontario)( OBCA );
e. there not existing any prohibition at law, including a cease trade order, injunction or other prohibition or order at law against the Company or Eurotin which shall prevent the completion of the Arrangement Agreement;
f. no Superior Proposal being made in respect of Eurotin and/or the Project;
g. delivery of executed ASX escrow agreements for any ASX imposed escrow of consideration shares; and
h. such other mutually agreed conditions as are usual for such a transaction.

Page 8

==> picture [97 x 35] intentionally omitted <==

6. Arrangement Agreement Process:

a. Eurotin is required to seek all necessary regulatory and shareholder approvals to effect the Arrangement Agreement and make necessary applications to the court and authorities to hold the shareholder meeting and implement the transaction. Eurotin is required to carry on its business in the usual and ordinary course until the Arrangement Agreement becomes effective.
b. Elementos is required to seek all necessary regulatory and shareholder approvals to effect the Arrangement Agreement and apply for a waiver in respect of the application of ASX imposed escrow to the consideration shares. Elementos is also required to provide prospectus level disclosure in accordance with Canadian securities laws for inclusion with the Eurotin notice of meeting circular. Elementos is required to carry on its business in the usual and ordinary course until the Arrangement Agreement becomes effective.
Board: There will be no changes to the Elementos or Eurotin boards as a result of this acquisition.
Exclusivity: for a period of 30 days, Eurotin grants Elementos exclusivity with respect to the acquisition of the Project. Eurotin must not solicit, facilitate, initiate, encourage, enter or participate in any discussions or negotiations which might lead to an offer or proposal for a transaction similar to that contemplated by the HoA or grant any access or due diligence rights in this respect. This is qualified to the extent that Eurotin is in receipt of a ‘superior proposal’ or the board determines that not undertaking such action would be likely to constitute a breach of duties of the directors of Eurotin. A ‘superior proposal’ is a bona fide, unsolicited and publicly announced proposal to acquire at least 20% of the assets of Eurotin or the voting securities in Eurotin or to acquire the Project (or a plan or arrangement or other scheme doing either of those things) which is capable of completion without delay, not subject to due diligence or financing and which the Eurotin board determines (after external advice) is a more favourable transaction to its shareholders and failure to recommend would be in breach of director duties. Eurotin must immediately give notice to Elementos of any ‘superior proposal’ and Elementos has 5 business days to propose variations to match or better the ‘superior proposal’.

9. Termination Fees:

Eurotin has agreed to pay a termination fee of $100,000 to Elementos if it accepts or recommends a ‘superior proposal’.

Standstill: both parties have agreed to a standstill in respect of each other securities during the exclusivity period.
Governing law: Queensland, Australia
Binding: the HoA is binding notwithstanding the intention of the parties to enter the Arrangement Agreement.

Page 9

Annexure B

MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE ON THE OROPESA TIN PROJECT, CORDOBA PROVINCE, SPAIN

Prepared For Minas de Estaño de España

==> picture [455 x 191] intentionally omitted <==

Report Prepared by

SRK Consulting (UK) Limited UK6692

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Details

COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER

Copyright (and any other applicable intellectual property rights) in this document and any accompanying data or models which are created by SRK Consulting (UK) Limited ("SRK") is reserved by SRK and is protected by international copyright and other laws. Copyright in any component parts of this document such as images is owned and reserved by the copyright owner so noted within this document.

The use of this document is strictly subject to terms licensed by SRK to the named recipient or recipients of this document or persons to whom SRK has agreed that it may be transferred to (the “Recipients”). Unless otherwise agreed by SRK, this does not grant rights to any third party. This document may not be utilised or relied upon for any purpose other than that for which it is stated within and SRK shall not be liable for any loss or damage caused by such use or reliance. In the event that the Recipient of this document wishes to use the content in support of any purpose beyond or outside that which it is expressly stated or for the raising of any finance from a third party where the document is not being utilised in its full form for this purpose, the Recipient shall, prior to such use, present a draft of any report or document produced by it that may incorporate any of the content of this document to SRK for review so that SRK may ensure that this is presented in a manner which accurately and reasonably reflects any results or conclusions produced by SRK.

This document shall only be distributed to any third party in full as provided by SRK and may not be reproduced or circulated in the public domain (in whole or in part) or in any edited, abridged or otherwise amended form unless expressly agreed by SRK. Any other copyright owner’s work may not be separated from this document, used or reproduced for any other purpose other than with this document in full as licensed by SRK. In the event that this document is disclosed or distributed to any third party, no such third party shall be entitled to place reliance upon any information, warranties or representations which may be contained within this document and the Recipients of this document shall indemnify SRK against all and any claims, losses and costs which may be incurred by SRK relating to such third parties.

© SRK Consulting (UK) Limited 2018 version: Jan2018

SRK Legal Entity:		SRK Consulting (UK) Limited
SRK Address:		5thFloor Churchill House
		17 Churchill Way
		Cardiff, CF10 2HH
		Wales, United Kingdom.
Effective Date:		17 February 2017
Report Date:		29 July 2018
Project Number:		UK6692
SRK Project Director:	Martin Pittuck	Corporate Consultant (Resource Geology)
SRK Project Manager:	Mike Beare	Corporate Consultant (Mining Engineering)
Client Legal Entity:		Minas de Estano de Espana, S.L.U
Client Address:		Calle Americo Vespucio, 5
		Bloque E Isla de la Cartuja
		Sevilla
		Spain

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page i of i

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Table of Contents Executive Summary

Table of Contents: Executive Summary

1	EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................... I
	1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... i
	1.2 Project Description .................................................................................................................... i
	1.3 Project Geology ........................................................................................................................ i
	1.4 Exploration Drilling and Sampling .............................................................................................ii
	1.5 Mineral Resource Estimate.......................................................................................................ii
	1.6 Mineral Resource Statement ................................................................................................... iii
	1.7 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................iv
	1.8 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................iv

List of Tables: Executive Summary

Table ES 1: SRK Mineral Resource Statement effective of 17 February 2017 for the Oropesa Deposit prepared in accordance with the JORC Code ................................................ iv

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 1 of 1

SRK Consulting (UK) Limited 5th Floor Churchill House 17 Churchill Way City and County of Cardiff CF10 2HH, Wales United Kingdom E-mail: [email protected] URL: www.srk.co.uk Tel: + 44 (0) 2920 348 150 Fax: + 44 (0) 2920 348 199

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE ON THE OROPESA TIN PROJECT, CORDOBA PROVINCE, SPAIN

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Introduction

SRK Consulting (UK) Limited (“SRK”) has been requested by Minas De Estaño De España, SLU (“MESPA” or “the Company”) to prepare an update of the Mineral Resource Estimate (MRE) on the Oropesa Tin Project (“Oropesa” or “the Project”).

SRK has prepared this update based on targeted infill drilling completed at the Oropesa deposit during 2016. The deposit has been modelled using the UTM coordinate grid.

The Mineral Resource Statement presented is signed off by Robert Goddard, a Competent Person in accordance with the JORC Code.

1.2 Project Description

The Oropesa property represents a 14.51 km[2] concession package located approximately 75 km northwest of Cordoba and 180 km northeast of Seville, Region of Andalucía, in southern Spain. The Company has earned a 96% interest in the Oropesa property with registered title to the property with the Andalucia mining authorities under the Spanish Mining Act.

1.3 Project Geology

The Oropesa deposit is located within the Peñarroya basin, a Carboniferous, transtensional basin that formed during the Hercynian/Variscan orogeny.

The Oropesa project area comprises intercalated sandstones and conglomerates with complex geometries, reflecting an active depositional environment and syn-sedimentary faulting. This geometry has been further complicated by a subsequent phase of basin inversion that involved reactivation of some basin-controlling faults as reverse faults and associated folding of the stratigraphic package, producing locally overturned bedding.

==> picture [66 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

Registered Address: 21 Gold Tops, City and County of Newport, NP20 4PG, Group Offices: Africa Wales, United Kingdom. Asia SRK Consulting (UK) Limited Reg No 01575403 (England and Wales) Australia Page 1 of 108 Europe North America South America

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Executive Summary

Tin mineralisation (cassiterite with minor stannite) is typically associated with pervasive silica alteration and several phases of paragentically late sulphides. The majority of the tin mineralisation is replacement style, primarily occurring in granular sandstones at the contacts between the sandstone and conglomerate units. Two main fault sets are also interpreted to be mineralised, however fault-hosted mineralisation is volumetrically far less significant than the replacement style mineralisation.

1.4 Exploration Drilling and Sampling

The updated Mineral Resource Estimate for the Oropesa Project is based on some 54,026 m of drilling for a total of 261 drillholes. The drilling has been completed from the surface on a grid spacing of approximately 20–100 m, providing intersections at a similar spacing. Drillholes are typically angled between -45° and -85° (from horizontal), orientated broadly perpendicular to the strike of mineralisation with intersection angles with the mineralisation typically ranging from perpendicular to 45°.

In comparison to the MRE reported in October 2015, the database includes an additional 16 exploration drillholes for 2,619 m of DD drilling, with an additional three metallurgical holes for some 574 m. The latest phase of exploration work completed by the Company focused on improving the geological confidence in the model within a small zone of relatively high grade, near-surface mineralisation (targeted for open pit extraction) in the west of the Oropesa deposit.

All recent samples were sent for preparation to ALS Laboratories sample preparation facility in Seville, Spain (“ALS Seville”), and then dispatched to ALS Vancouver, Canada (“ALS Vancouver”) for analysis for tin by glass fusion X-Ray fluorescence (“XRF”).

In the opinion of SRK, the sampling procedures used by the Company conform to industry best practices and the resultant drilling pattern is sufficiently dense to interpret the geometry, geological boundaries and tin mineralisation with an appropriate level of confidence.

1.5 Mineral Resource Estimate

In summary, for this Mineral Resource update, SRK has completed the following:

modelled tin mineralisation horizons in 3D;
created a single composite for each of the drillholes per intersected domain and undertaken statistical analysis of these;
reviewed the sample composite data for grade outliers - based on histogram analysis no high-grade capping was applied;
undertaken geostatistical analyses to determine appropriate interpolation algorithms;
created block models with block dimensions of 20x20x10 m;
undertaken a Quantitative Kriging Neighbourhood Analysis (QKNA) to test the sensitivity of the interpolation parameters;
interpolated tin grades and density data into the block model;
visually and statistically validated the estimated block grades relative to the original sample results; and
reported the Mineral Resource according to the terminology, definitions and guidelines given in the JORC Code.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page ii of v

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Executive Summary

Upon consideration of data quality, drillhole spacing and the interpreted continuity of grades controlled by the deposit, SRK has classified portions of the deposit in the Measured, Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource categories.

1.6 Mineral Resource Statement

SRK has applied basic economic considerations to determine which portion of the block model has reasonable prospects for economic extraction by open-pit mining methods. To achieve this, the Mineral Resource has been subject to a high-level pit optimisation study to assist with determining the potential depth to which an open pit operation could be considered viable and reported above a suitable cut-off grade for resource reporting. This approach remains consistent with that used in the 2015 MRE.

SRK’s updated mine planning exercise for 2017 envisages a medium-sized open pit operation followed by underground mining to access the remaining medium to high grade mineralisation at depth. However, the results of the pit optimisation study for 2017 showed that an open pit operation could potentially reach a depth of 235 m (close to the bottom of the model) and that a cut-off grade of 0.15% Sn would be appropriate. The cut-off grade is higher when compared to the 2015 MRE (0.1 Sn%), which is mainly due to a higher processing cost.

Whilst an underground mining scenario would be unlikely to target some of the lower grade tin mineralisation at depth, SRK considers that this material continues to have reasonable prospects for economic extraction with a larger open pit should the Company’s mining strategy change.

Based on the above, SRK has elected to consider the full extents of the geological model for Mineral Resource reporting.

The parameters used for the 2017 pit optimisation exercise were based on SRK’s 2017 mining study:

A tin price of USD23,400/t derived from market consensus long term price forecasts with a 30% uplift as appropriate for assessing eventual economic potential of Mineral Resources.
A tin process recovery of 71%.
A cost of USD18/t for processing, USD4/t G&A and USD1.8/t for mining.
Slope angles of 35° for oxide, 40° for transition and 46° for fresh material.

The 2017 Mineral Resource Statement for the Oropesa deposit is shown per weathering zone and grade category in Table ES 1. The Company has earned a 96% interest in the Oropesa property with registered title to the property with the Andalucia mining authorities under the Spanish Mining Act.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page iii of v

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Executive Summary

Table ES 1: SRK Mineral Resource Statement effective of 17 February 2017 for the Oropesa Deposit prepared in accordance with the JORC Code

				Tin	Tin
~~C~~	Whi Z	~~G~~d C %S	T k
ategory	eaterng one	rae ategory n	onnes (t)	% Sn	Metal(Sn t)

Subtotal Measured	Oxide	>0.15	-	-	-
	Transition	>0.15	40	1.62	650
	Fresh	>0.15	290	1.01	2,940
Subtotal Indicated	Oxide	>0.15	110	0.58	645
	Transition	>0.15	1,900	0.49	9,250
	Fresh	>0.15	7,000	0.53	37,430
~~S~~ubtotal Measured and ~~I~~ndicated	Oxide	>0.15	110	0.58	645
	Transition	>0.15	1,940	0.51	9,900
	Fresh	>0.15	7,290	0.55	40,365
Subtotal Inferred	Oxide	>0.15	190	0.43	815
	Transition	>0.15	1,120	0.41	4,645
	Fresh	>0.15	1,890	0.59	11,155
Total Measured >0.15			330	1.09	3,585
Total Indicated >0.15			9,010	0.53	47,320
Total Measured and Indicated >0.15			9,340	0.55	50,910
Total Inferred >0.15			3,200	0.52	16,615

1. All figures are rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimate.

2. Mineral Resources are not Ore Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.

3. The reporting standard adopted for the reporting of the MRE uses the terminology, definitions and guidelines given in the Joint Ore Reserves Committee (JORC) Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (2012)

4. The Mineral Resource is given on the basis of 100% ownership of the Oropesa property.

1.7 Conclusions

The Oropesa deposit is an open pit and underground mining target, which is at a relatively advanced stage of drilling and geological understanding. Selective infill drilling from surface and updated geological modelling in 3D has added further geological confidence to the local scale geometry of the mineralisation and grade distributions in the Resource model.

The geological interpretation used to generate the Mineral Resource presented herein is generally considered to be robust; however, there are areas of lower geological confidence which may be subject to further revision in the future. In addition, SRK notes there is potential to add additional replacement-style and/or fault-controlled mineralisation along strike and around the margins of the deposit.

SRK considers the exploration data accumulated by the Company is generally reliable and suitable for the purpose of this Mineral Resource estimate.

1.8 Recommendations

SRK considers there to be good potential to improve confidence and increase tonnage in the reported Mineral Resource at Oropesa with further modelling work and additional drilling. In relation to drilling and sampling, SRK would recommend the following:

Targeted infill drilling to add geological confidence to convert the Inferred Resources to Indicated and convert more of the Indicated to Measured Resources.
Complete additional exploration drilling along strike and around the margins of the deposit where there is potential to add additional replacement-style and/or fault-controlled mineralisation. Any future drilling should include the systematic collection of downhole structural data to further constrain the geological model.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page iv of v

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Executive Summary

The geological model should be further tested and refined in conjunction with a reassessment of the licence scale exploration potential.

In addition, SRK would also recommend the following:

Density test work during future exploration programmes should focus on characterising the density of rubbly, oxidised material and the sampling of existing drillholes which have not yet been sampled for density to maximise the confidence in density estimates within these areas;
Future exploration programs should use a high-accuracy GPS for drillhole collar survey given the potential variability noted in the accuracy of the z-coordinate determined by handheld GPS.
Consider sending the remaining non-sampled (tin) intervals located within the mineralised zones to ALS Vancouver to remove the need for inserting values from Niton XRF data.
Adopt a commercial database system to improve management of the raw database at Oropesa.
For the holes drilled prior to ORPD059 (if available) SRK recommend to send pulp splits from a representative portion of samples to the primary laboratory along with QAQC samples according to the current protocols to compare the laboratory performance today with its performance in 2011 and 2010 prior to drillhole ORPD059.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page v of v

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Table of Contents Main Report

Table of Contents	Table of Contents
1	INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1
	1.1 Background .............................................................................................................................. 1
2	RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS ..................................................................... 1
3	PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION ................................................... 2
	3.1 Property Description and Ownership ....................................................................................... 2
	3.2 Additional Permits and Payments ............................................................................................ 5
	3.3 Surface Rights ......................................................................................................................... 5
	3.3.1 Exploration Permits: .................................................................................................... 5
	3.3.2 Investigation Permits:.................................................................................................. 5
	3.3.3 Mining Concession: ..................................................................................................... 5
4	ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND
	PHYSIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................ 6
	4.1 Accessibility ............................................................................................................................. 6
	4.2 Climate ..................................................................................................................................... 6
	4.3 Local Resources ...................................................................................................................... 6
	4.4 Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................ 6
	4.5 Physiography ........................................................................................................................... 6
5	HISTORY ............................................................................................................. 7
	5.1 History of Exploration and Mining ............................................................................................ 7
	5.1.1 Early History ................................................................................................................ 7
	5.1.2 Recent History ............................................................................................................ 7
	5.2 Historical Estimates ................................................................................................................. 7
	5.3 Historical Production ................................................................................................................ 7
6	GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALISATION ............................................ 8
	6.1 Regional Geology .................................................................................................................... 8
	6.2 Local/Project Geology ............................................................................................................ 10
	6.2.1 Stratigraphy ............................................................................................................... 10
	6.2.2 Structure ................................................................................................................... 11
	6.2.3 Mineralisation ............................................................................................................ 13
7	DEPOSIT TYPES .............................................................................................. 15
8	EXPLORATION ................................................................................................. 16
	8.1 Historical Exploration ............................................................................................................. 16
	8.1.1 Regional Geological Mapping ................................................................................... 16
	8.1.2 Regional Geochemical Stream Sediment Surveys ................................................... 16
	8.1.3 Regional Geochemical Soil Surveys ......................................................................... 17
	8.1.4 Regional Geophysical Surveys ................................................................................. 17
	8.1.5 Local Geochemical Soil Surveys .............................................................................. 18

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page i of v

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Table of Contents Main Report

	8.1.6 Local Geophysical Surveys ...................................................................................... 18
	8.1.7 Oropesa Trenching and Sampling ............................................................................ 19
	8.1.8 Local Drilling ............................................................................................................. 20
	8.1.9 Mineralogical Studies ................................................................................................ 20
	8.2 Exploration by the Company ................................................................................................. 20
	8.2.1 Geochemical Survey ................................................................................................. 20
	8.2.2 Geophysical Surveys ................................................................................................ 20
	8.2.3 Trenching Programmes ............................................................................................ 23
	8.2.4 Test Pitting Programmes .......................................................................................... 23
9	DRILLING .......................................................................................................... 24
	9.1 Historical Drilling .................................................................................................................... 24
	9.2 Drilling by the Company......................................................................................................... 24
	9.2.1 Drilling Summary 2010.............................................................................................. 24
	9.2.2 Drilling Summary 2011.............................................................................................. 25
	9.2.3 Drilling Summary 2012.............................................................................................. 25
	9.2.4 Drilling Summary 2013.............................................................................................. 25
	9.2.5 Drilling Summary 2015.............................................................................................. 25
	9.2.6 Drilling Summary 2016.............................................................................................. 25
	9.2.7 Summary of Data Quantity ....................................................................................... 26
	9.2.8 Collar and Topography Survey ................................................................................. 27
	9.2.9 Downhole Surveys .................................................................................................... 28
	9.2.10 Hole Orientation ........................................................................................................ 28
	9.2.11 Diamond Drilling Procedure ...................................................................................... 29
	9.2.12 Core Recovery .......................................................................................................... 29
	9.2.13 Core Storage ............................................................................................................. 30
	9.3 SRK Comments ..................................................................................................................... 30
10	SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSIS AND SECURITY ................................. 31
	10.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 31
	10.2 Chain of Custody, Sample Preparation, and Analyses ......................................................... 31
	10.3 Specific Gravity Data ............................................................................................................. 31
	10.4 SRK Comments ..................................................................................................................... 33
11	DATA VERIFICATION ....................................................................................... 34
	11.1 Verifications by SRK .............................................................................................................. 34
	11.1.1 Verification of Sampling Database ............................................................................ 34
	11.2 Verifications by the Company ................................................................................................ 35
	11.3 QAQC for Tin Analysis 2010-2016 ........................................................................................ 36
	11.3.1 Insertion of CRM ....................................................................................................... 37
	11.3.2 Blanks ....................................................................................................................... 37
	11.3.3 Duplicates ................................................................................................................. 37

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page ii of v

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Table of Contents Main Report

11.3.4 Umpire Laboratory Duplicates .................................................................................. 38 11.4 SRK Comments ..................................................................................................................... 38 12 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES ................................................................ 39 12.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 39 12.2 Resource Estimation Procedures .......................................................................................... 39 12.3 Resource Database ............................................................................................................... 39 12.4 Statistical Analysis – Raw Data ............................................................................................. 39 12.5 3D Modelling .......................................................................................................................... 40 12.5.1 Geological Wireframes.............................................................................................. 40 12.5.2 Mineralisation Wireframes ........................................................................................ 41 12.5.3 Mineralisation Model Coding .................................................................................... 41 12.6 Compositing ........................................................................................................................... 43 12.7 Evaluation of Outliers ............................................................................................................. 43 12.8 Geostatistical Analysis ........................................................................................................... 44 12.9 Block Model and Grade Estimation ....................................................................................... 46 12.10 Final Estimation Parameters ............................................................................................ 47 12.11 Model Validation and Sensitivity ....................................................................................... 47 12.11.1 Sensitivity Analysis ................................................................................................... 47 12.12 Block Model Validation ..................................................................................................... 49 12.13 Mineral Resource Classification ....................................................................................... 52 12.14 Mineral Resource Statement ............................................................................................ 54 12.15 Grade Sensitivity Analysis ................................................................................................ 55 12.16 Vertical Profile Analysis .................................................................................................... 57 12.17 Comparison to Previous Mineral Resource Estimates ..................................................... 57 12.18 Exploration Potential ......................................................................................................... 58 13 INTERPRETATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ..................................................... 58 14 RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................... 59 15 REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 60

List of	Tables
Table 3-1:	Current Oropesa Investigation Permit 13.050 - Boundary Corner Points ..................... 4
Table 9-1:	Summary of Oropesa Drilling Completed by MESPA as at 17 February 2017* ......... 26
Table 10-1:	Summary of density inside mineralisation wireframes and weathering zones (2017) 32
Table 11-1:	Summary of Analytical Quality Control Data Produced by the Company for the Oropesa
	Project (subsequent to ORPD059) .............................................................................. 36
Table 11-2:	Summary of Certified Reference Material for tin submitted by the Company in sample
	submissions ................................................................................................................. 37
Table 11-3:	Analysis of tin assays versus assigned CRM values for 2010-2016 Submissions ..... 37
Table 12-1:	Summary of Mineralisation Zones at the Oropesa Project.......................................... 42
Table 12-2:	Composite Statistics (Global Mineralisation Domain) ................................................. 44
Table 12-3:	Composite Statistics (Individual Mineralised Horizons) .............................................. 44
Table 12-4:	Summary of semi-variogram parameters* .................................................................. 46
Table 12-5:	Details of Block Model Dimensions for the Project Geological Model ........................ 46

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page iii of v

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Table of Contents Main Report

Table	12-6:	Summary of block model fields used for flagging different geological properties ....... 46
Table	12-7:	Summary of Final Estimation Parameters for Oropesa ............................................... 47
Table	12-8:	QKNA Search Ellipse Size for Oropesa; Mineralised horizon KZONE 10 .................. 48
Table	12-9:	QKNA Number of Samples for Oropesa; Mineralised horizon KZONE 10 ................. 48
Table	12-10:	Summary Block Statistics for Ordinary Kriging and Inverse Distance Weighting
		Estimation Methods for tin ........................................................................................... 52
Table	12-11:	SRK Mineral Resource Statement effective of 17 February 2017 for the Oropesa
		Deposit prepared in accordance with the JORC Code ............................................... 55
Table	12-12:	Gradations for Measured and Indicated Material at Oropesa at various %Sn Cut-off
		Grades ......................................................................................................................... 56
Table	12-13:	Gradations for Inferred Material at Oropesa at various %Sn Cut-off Grades ............. 56

List of Figures

Figure	3-1:	Location of Oropesa Property ....................................................................................... 2
Figure	3-2:	Current Oropesa Investigation Permit 13.050 showing Oropesa mineralisation
		wireframes and MESPA’s La Grana drillhole collars ..................................................... 4
Figure	6-1:	Simplified geology map of the Iberian Massif from Smith 2012 .................................... 8
Figure	6-2:	Geology of the Ossa Morena Zone from Smith 2012 .................................................... 9
Figure	6-3:	Schematic cross section illustrating the evolution of folding in the Peñarroya basin
		modified from Wagner 2004 ........................................................................................ 10
Figure	6-4:	Conglomerate intersected in drillhole ORPD57 at 193.8 m ........................................ 10
Figure	6-5:	Bedded Sandstone in drillhole ORPD108 at 173 m .................................................... 11
Figure	6-6:	Cross Section from the northwest of Oropesa ............................................................ 12
Figure	6-7:	Cross Section from the southeast of Oropesa ............................................................ 13
Figure	6-8:	Replacement mineralisation in sandstone in drillhole ORPD108 at 216.7 m ............. 14
Figure	8-1:	Map of Oropesa Stream Sediment Sampling Results within the Company’s current
		Licence Boundaries (Source: MESPA) ....................................................................... 17
Figure	8-2:	Schematic of the Oropesa and La Grana soil geochemistry relative to wireframe
		locations, interpreted ‘feeder’ structures and Licence Boundary (Source: MESPA) ... 19
Figure	8-3:	Oropesa Chargeability and Resistivity Anomalies from the Company’s 2011
		Geophysical Survey (Source: MESPA) ....................................................................... 21
Figure	8-4:	Oropesa Chargeability Anomalies from the Company’s 2011 Geophysical Survey
		overlain with Oropesa Sn Soil Geochemistry (Source: MESPA) ................................ 22
Figure	8-5:	Oropesa Ground Magnetic Survey Results (Source: MESPA) ................................... 23
Figure	9-1:	Location of new collars (red) completed by MESPA during the 2016 exploration
		program ....................................................................................................................... 26
Figure	9-2:	Leica 530 SR GPS at the Oropesa Deposit area ........................................................ 27
Figure	9-3:	Collar and LIDAR data used to create surface topography for the Oropesa Project .. 28
Figure	9-4:	Example cross section through the Oropesa deposit .................................................. 29
Figure	9-5:	Sn% versus core recovery .......................................................................................... 30
Figure	10-1:	Scatterplot showing tin grade versus density data ...................................................... 32
Figure	11-1:	Scatter plot of Sn% (ALS Vancouver) vs Sn% (Niton XRF); 89 Values ...................... 35
Figure	11-2:	Composite sample grade log histogram distributions for tin, showing data assayed with
		QAQC support (left) and without QAQC (right) ........................................................... 36
Figure	12-1:	Incremental and Log Histogram of Length Weighted Project Tin Assays ................... 40
Figure	12-2:	3D view (looking NE) illustrating the position and orientation of the mineralised horizons
		and faulting at Oropesa ............................................................................................... 41
Figure	12-3:	Oropesa Mineralisation Model Cross Section, 25 m slice width ................................. 42
Figure	12-4:	Oropesa Mineralisation Model Plan View ................................................................... 43
Figure	12-5:	Log Histogram and Log Probability Plot for the tin mineralisation domain at Oropesa
		..................................................................................................................................... 44
Figure	12-6:	Summary of modelled semi-variogram parameters for the Oropesa Mineralisation
		domain (GROUP 100) ................................................................................................. 45
Figure	12-7:	Oropesa Block Model 3D view showing visual validation of modelled borehole
		intercepts to grade estimates ...................................................................................... 49
Figure	12-8:	Oropesa Block Model 2D view showing visual validation of modelled borehole
		intercepts to grade estimates ...................................................................................... 50
Figure	12-9:	Validation Plot (Easting) showing Block Model Estimates versus Sample Mean (20m
		Intervals) for Mineralised horizon KZONE 10 .............................................................. 51

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page iv of v

SRK Consulting	Oropesa MRE Report – Table of Contents Main Report
Figure 12-10:	Plan view showing SRK’s wireframe-defined Mineral Resource Classification for the
	Oropesa deposit .......................................................................................................... 53
Figure 12-11:	Grade Tonnage Curve for Measured and Indicated at Oropesa at various %Sn Cut-off
	Grades ......................................................................................................................... 56
Figure 12-12:	Grade Tonnage Curve for Inferred at Oropesa at various %Sn Cut-off Grades ......... 57

List of Technical Appendices

A	QAQC ANALYSIS ............................................................................................A-1
B	HISTOGRAMS AND LOG PROBABILITY PLOTS ..........................................B-1
C	BLOCK GRADE VISUAL VALIDATION ..........................................................C-1
D	VALIDATION PLOTS .......................................................................................D-1
E	VERTICAL PROFILE ANALYSIS .................................................................... E-1
F	JORC TABLE 1 ................................................................................................ F-1

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page v of v

MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE ON THE OROPESA TIN PROJECT, CORDOBA PROVINCE, SPAIN

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The Oropesa property represents a 14.51 km[2] concession package located approximately 75 km northwest of Cordoba and 180 km northeast of Seville, Region of Andalucía, in southern Spain.

The Company has earned a 96% interest in the Oropesa property with registered title to the property with the Andalucia mining authorities under the Spanish Mining Act

SRK first produced a Mineral Resource Estimate (“MRE”) for the Project in October 2012, then updated this in June 2014 and October 2015 and now provides this update based on targeted infill drilling. The MRE given in this technical report (the Technical Report) has been prepared using the guidelines and terminology given in the JORC Code and presents the most up to date MRE, which is based on some 54,026 m of drilling for a total of 261 drillholes.

The latest phase of exploration work completed by the Company focused on improving the geological confidence in the model within a small zone of relatively high grade, near-surface mineralisation (targeted for open pit extraction) in the west of the Oropesa deposit.

2 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS

SRK’s opinion is based on information provided to SRK by the Company and their consultants and associates. SRK was reliant upon such information and, where possible, SRK has independently verified the data provided and has completed a site visit to review physical evidence for the deposit.

SRK has not performed an independent verification of land title and tenure as summarised in Section 3.1 of this report. SRK did not verify the legality of any underlying agreement(s) that may exist concerning the permits or other agreement(s) between third parties, but has relied on the Company and its legal advisor for land title issues.

SRK was informed by the Company that there are no known litigations potentially affecting the Oropesa Project.

==> picture [66 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

3 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION

The 14.51 km[2] Oropesa property is located approximately 75 km northwest of Cordoba and 180 km northeast of Seville in the Cordoba Province, Region of Andalucía, in southern Spain (Figure 3-1). The licence is host to the Oropesa Tin Project, as well as the La Grana West and La Grana East tin occurrences which were discovered in the 1980s by the Spanish government agency “Instituto Geologico y Minero de Espana” (“IGME”). The La Grana West and East tin occurrences are excluded from this Mineral Resource estimate, which reflects the Company’s current focus on the Oropesa deposit.

==> picture [418 x 256] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3-1: Location of Oropesa Property

3.1 Property Description and Ownership

The Oropesa Investigation Permit number 13.050 (the “Permit”), is comprised of 50 “cuadricula mineras”, (blocks of land which measure 0°00’20” per side). Approximate geographical coordinates for the centre of the property are latitude 19°00.0’ north and longitude 5°28.5’ west.

The Permit was issued to Sondeos y Perforaciones Industrales del Bierzo, S.A. (SPIB) in January 2008. Pursuant to a Sale and Purchase Agreement (the “SPA”) dated 30 January 2013, SPIB agreed to transfer to Minas De Estano De Espana, SLU (“MESPA”), a 100% interest in the permit. Also, as of 30 January 2013, MESPA and SPIB entered into a Shareholder Agreement (the Sale and Purchase Agreement and the Shareholder Agreement collectively referred to herein as the “Agreements”) relating to their respective continuing interests in the Oropesa property.

MESPA was originally granted the rights to acquire the Permit by SPIB in December 2007. It was agreed by the parties that MESPA would acquire a 50% interest by spending EUR1,500,000 on exploration on the Oropesa property and a further 50% interest by:

either granting SPIB a 1.35% net smelter royalty (“NSR”) or paying SPIB 0.90% of the value of the metal reserves in the Oropesa Tin Property; and

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 2 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

agreeing to issue to SPIB a 4% equity ownership in MESPA at the time of commercial production.

MESPA satisfied all of the foregoing requirements which, in the case of item 1 above, were satisfied by granting a 1.35% NSR and, as such, the parties have entered into the Agreements to complete the transfer to MESPA of the Permit.

The salient terms of the Agreements included:

A transfer to MESPA of a 100% interest in the Permit.
MESPA agrees to deliver a scoping study for the Oropesa Tin Property (the “Scoping Study”) by July 2014 (which has been completed).
MESPA shall pay to SPIB a 1.35% NSR from the sale of tin concentrate from the Oropesa Tin Property
Upon determination of the feasibility of the project, SPIB shall be issued common shares of MESPA so that SPIB becomes a 4% shareholder of MESPA, which percentage ownership shall be fixed and not subject to further dilution.
MESPA and SPIB shall establish a technical committee consisting of three individuals, two of which shall be appointed by MESPA and one by SPIB. Until delivery of the Scoping Study, all decisions of the technical committee must be unanimous; however, any lack of unanimity cannot delay advancement of the Scoping Study or other project related work. Following delivery of the Scoping Study, all decisions of the technical committee shall be effective if taken by a majority of its members.
SPIB shall be contracted by MESPA for all drilling on the Oropesa Tin Property subject to SPIB’s capacity to fulfil MESPA’s requirements and competitive pricing for its services.
For all other works and matters to do with the commercial exploitation of the Oropesa Tin Property, excluding plant construction, SPIB shall be given the opportunity to participate in an open tender process. The results from the open tender process will be kept confidential from SPIB and, to the extent that SPIB has presented a bid, SPIB will not participate in the decision making process of the technical committee. If however (i) SPIB’s quotes for any contract or work are competitive and not more than 2% greater than those of an unrelated third party, and (ii) SPIB can demonstrate that it has equal or better technical ability and equipment to fulfil the contract or work, MESPA agrees to give preferential treatment to use SPIB as the contractor.

The Permit was issued for base and precious metals according to Section “C” of the Spanish Mining Act. The boundary of the Oropesa property is not required to be surveyed; it is defined (in accordance with Spanish law) by geographical co-ordinates, provided in Table 3-1. The Permit overlies a section of the Investigation Permit Guadiato IV, and to the east meets the State Reserve 379 both of which were issued for coal under Section “D” of the Spanish Mining Act.

Figure 3-2 shows the current exploration Licence in relation to the Oropesa mineralisation wireframes and location of the La Grana West and East Occurrences.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 3 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

Table 3-1: Current Oropesa Investigation Permit 13.050 - Boundary Corner Points

Point	West Longtitude	North Latitude
1	5°30'00"	38°20'00"
2	5°28'40"	38°20'00"
3	5°28'40"	38°19'40"
4	5°27'40"	38°19'40"
5	5°27'40"	38°19'00"
6	5°27'00"	38°19'00"
7	5°27'00"	38°17'40"
8	5°29'00"	38°17'40"
9	5°29'00"	38°18'00"
10	5o29'40"	38°18'00"
11	5°29'40"	38°18'20"
12	5°30'00"	38°18'20"

==> picture [421 x 261] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3-2: Current Oropesa Investigation Permit 13.050 showing Oropesa mineralisation wireframes and MESPA’s La Grana drillhole collars

The Oropesa Investigation Permit was officially renewed on 23 October 2014 for a second extension period of three years.

SRK has been informed by the Company that the current three year Oropesa Investigation Permit expired on 1 November 2017. On 10 October 2017 the Company filed an Exploitation Permit application for the Oropesa property and within 90 days (as regulation dictates) on 2 January 2018 the Company also filed an Environmental Impact Study and Closure Plan for the Oropesa property. Under Spanish Law an Exploitation Concession is granted for a 30-year period, and may be extended for two further periods of 30 years each and up to a maximum of 90 years. Completing and filing the Exploitation Application prior to the expiration of the Investigation Permit allows the Company to remain in compliance with its title for the Oropesa property.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 4 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

3.2 Additional Permits and Payments

No additional Investigation Permits are currently held by the Company. The Company previously held two additional Investigation Permits adjacent to the Oropesa Investigation Permit; however, as of 3 October 2016 these have now been relinquished.

3.3 Surface Rights

Under the Spanish Mining Act (1973) land titles with respect to mining can be held as either Exploration Permits (Permiso de Exploracion “PE”), Investigation Permits (Permiso de Investigacion “PI”), or as a Mining Concession (Concesion Minera “MC”). These permits and concession areas are comprised of cuadriculas mineras, and all boundaries are aligned with astronomic north-south and east-west.

3.3.1 Exploration Permits:

Minimum area: 300 cuadriculas mineras, maximum area: 3000 cuadriculas mineras.
Only allows work which does not significantly change the land to be conducted.
One year permit, which can be extended once.

3.3.2 Investigation Permits:

Maximum area: 300 cuadriculas mineras.
Three year permit, which can be extended for two 3-year periods (with justification).
Work programmes and budgets must be submitted to the government for each year of the three year permit; technical reports detailing all work completed must also be submitted.
Where work or budgets have been reduced, the permit holder must provide justification.
Where the government believes insufficient effort has been made at completing proposed programmes, the PI may be revoked.
Small fee and nominal taxes are payable each year and must be submitted with a summary of works report.

3.3.3 Mining Concession:

Maximum area: 100 cuadriculas mineras.
Issued for 30 years, can be extended twice.
Mining Concessions will generally only constitute a portion of the Investigation Permit
To obtain Mining Concessions, an economic mineral deposit must be identified and a mining plan, feasibility study, environmental impact study (“EIS”) and restoration plan (“RP”) need to be submitted to the government. The EIS and RP must be approved by the government environment ministry (Consejeria de Medio Ambiente).
Three year “Suspension of work” may be applied for where the project economics change negatively, re-application is required every three years.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 5 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

4 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY

4.1 Accessibility

The property is easily accessible from Seville, the regional capital via paved highways, 133 km north on A-66 / E-803, and 96 km east on N-432 to the town of Fuenta Obejuna. The property can be accessed from the town of Los Blazquez approximately 1.8 km north of Fuenta Obejuna on highway CO-9012. Paved roads are within 3 km of the property, which is directly accessed via a farm road which intersects the CO-9012 highway. Other farms tracks and trails provide convenient access to other parts of the property.

4.2 Climate

The region has a Mediterranean climate which has short mild winters, and long, hot, dry summers. The daily temperatures average 12°C from December to February; during the summer months (July and August) an average temperature of 28°C is experienced. Precipitation is limited to approximately 640 mm annually, half of which falls from January to March. Exploration and mining practices (open pit and underground) are typically conducted year round.

4.3 Local Resources

The property is located close to the regional capital of Seville, and to the cities of Huelva, Cordoba and the former coal mining town of Penarroya-Pueblonuevo. The Andalucia Region has a long mining history and supplies, services and professional, skilled and semi-skilled labour are easily sourced from the cities/towns described previously, for both exploration and mining. The area is currently used for sheep and pig farming, with minor plantations of grain crops.

4.4 Infrastructure

The area is well serviced with paved dual and multi-lane highways, there are also gravel roads and farm tracks throughout the area. The district has power transmission lines which have different voltage capacities. There is a rail head in the town of Penarroya-Pueblonuevo approximately 16 km away.

4.5 Physiography

The local topography is typically gently rolling hills, elevations on the property range from approximately 550 m at the eastern boundary of the property to approximately 811 m at the top of the Sierra de la Grana in the northern part of the property. Sierra de la Grana is thickly covered in jara bushes, whilst the rest of the property is sparsely vegetated with thorn bushes, other shrubs and oak trees.

Several seasonal water courses run through the property. Whilst these are anticipated to be suitable for exploration activities additional water source will be required for mining operation requirements.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 6 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

5 HISTORY

5.1 History of Exploration and Mining

5.1.1 Early History

Mining has been occurring in the Ossa-Morena area since at least 2,000 BC. There is evidence that copper-silver (Cu-Ag) deposits were worked by ancient cultures and the Romans mined outcrops containing lead-silver (Pb-Ag) veins and copper-gold (Cu-Au) veins approximately 45 km west of the Oropesa property. Mining activities appeared to cease at the end of the Roman period. The Cu-Ag veins appear to have been mined again during the 1500s and the Pb-Ag veins were again exploited from 1848 to 1945 in the Azuaga-Berlanga area (20 – 30 km west of Oropesa). Small mining operations were probably occurring in the central area of the Oropesa property during medieval times and during the last century, with slag piles and hand dug shafts having been identified. Coal mining was occurring to the east of Oropesa from the mid-1800s until recently.

5.1.2 Recent History

IGME, between 1969 and late 1990, conducted multi-discipline exploration programmes over an area which included the current Oropesa property. A summary of the historical exploration and drilling programs completed by IMGE is provided in Section 8.1 and Section 9.1.

5.2 Historical Estimates

SRK has previously produced three Mineral Resource Estimates on the Oropesa Permit, which are summarised below:

Mineral Resource with effective date of 9 October 2012 reporting an Oxide Indicated Mineral Resource of 1.7 Mt grading 0.33% Sn, a Fresh Indicated Mineral Resource of 7.3 Mt grading 0.31% Sn, an Oxide Inferred Mineral Resource of 2.7 Mt grading 0.22% Sn and a Fresh Inferred Mineral Resource of 6.1 Mt grading 0.28% Sn.
Mineral Resource Estimate completed by SRK for 5 June 2014 (“2014 MRE”), which reported an Oxide Indicated Mineral Resource of 3.3 Mt grading 0.35% Sn, a Fresh Indicated Mineral Resource of 11.6 Mt grading 0.37% Sn, an Oxide Inferred Mineral Resource of 1.1 Mt grading 0.35% Sn and a Fresh Inferred Mineral Resource of 3.2 Mt grading 0.38% Sn.
Mineral Resource Estimate completed by SRK for 30 October 2015 (“2015 MRE”), which reported an Oxide Indicated Mineral Resource of 80 kt grading 0.48% Sn, Transition Indicated Mineral Resource of 2.1 Mt grading 0.56% Sn and Fresh Indicated Mineral Resource of 7.3 Mt grading 0.55% Sn. Inferred Mineral Resources included an Oxide subtotal of 78 kt grading 0.43% Sn, Transition sub-total of 1.2 Mt grading 0.42% Sn and Fresh sub-total of 2.1 Mt grading 0.58% Sn.

5.3 Historical Production

The Company notes that historically there may have been some very small operations of primitive smelting for iron from the central part of the deposit. SRK is not aware of any previous significant production from the Oropesa Property.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 7 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

6 GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALISATION

6.1 Regional Geology

The following summary of the regional geology uses information primarily contained within Dallmeyer and Martinez-Garcia (1990) and Wagner (2004).

The Oropesa Project is located within the Iberian Massif, a complex orogenic belt consisting of numerous allochthonous and autochthonous terranes that comprise Paleozoic sedimentary sequences with lesser Precambrian basement. These rocks are cut by numerous intrusions of varying ages and deformed by one or more phases of folding and faulting. The Iberian Massif can be subdivided into six zones, based on differences in stratigraphy and structural history (Figure 6-1). The Oropesa project occurs near the northeastern edge of the Ossa Morena Zone.

==> picture [423 x 276] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 6-1: Simplified geology map of the Iberian Massif from Smith 2012

The Precambrian and Paleozoic metasedimentary rocks of the Ossa Moreno Zone can be further subdivided into four main packages (Figure 6-2) based on differences in age and depositional environment:

Precambrian rocks of various type and affinity;
a Cambrian, rift-related sedimentary sequence;
an Ordovician to Devonian passive margin sequence; and
Mid-Devonian to Early Permian syn-orogenic (basin-fill) sequences.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 8 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

The structural history of the Precambrian basement is not well constrained, but likely involved one or two distinct orogenic phases. Rifting initiated during the Cambrian, leading to the development of an oceanic basin along the edge of which the passive margin sediments that are now preserved in the Ossa-Morena zone were deposited. The earliest evidence for collision is recorded by obduction of the Beja-Acebuches ophiolite in the Middle Devonian. From the Mid-Devonian until the Early Permian the Ossa Morena Zone underwent a protracted multistage orogenesis (the Variscan/Hercyninan orogeny) which led to the development of several basins, including the Peñarroya basin which hosts the Oropesa deposit.

==> picture [424 x 265] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 6-2: Geology of the Ossa Morena Zone from Smith 2012

The Peñarroya basin is northwest trending and approximately 50 km long by 2 km wide. It is interpreted by Wagner (2004) to have formed as a pull-apart basin within a strike-slip to transtensional fault system. This interpretation is supported by observations at the Oropesa project, where there is evidence for syn-sedimentary faulting strongly oblique to the basinbounding faults. The Peñarroya basin contains a variety of sedimentary rocks including conglomerates, sandstone, siltstone and coal measures. There is a broad transition from rocks that are predominantly marine in origin at the base of the sequence to predominantly terrestrial in origin near the top of the sequence. The coal measures in the Peñarroya basin have been extensively mined since Roman times up to the 20th century.

Subsequent to basin formation, but still within the broad time constraints of the Variscan/Hercynian orogeny, there was a switch to a transpressional tectonic regime. Evidence for this transpressional phase can be observed in the widespread folding within the Peñarroya basin, including overturned stratigraphy, and development of reverse faulting. The basin inversion has a strong asymmetry, with the most intense folding and the largest reverse faults localised along the southwest margin of the basin. Many of the reverse faults are probably reactivated from the earlier basin-forming event and thus the asymmetry likely reflects, to some extent, the original basin-forming fault architecture.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 9 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

==> picture [417 x 210] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 6-3: Schematic cross section illustrating the evolution of folding in the Peñarroya basin modified from Wagner 2004

6.2 Local/Project Geology

6.2.1 Stratigraphy

The Oropesa Deposit consists of two main lithological units: conglomerate and sandstone.

The conglomerate is poorly-sorted and predominantly clast-supported (Figure 6-4). It consists primarily of cobble to pebble-sized, sub rounded clasts with a gradational matrix. Most clasts are of sedimentary origin, although occasional igneous clasts can be observed. Locally, the conglomerate also contains occasional 1-5 m interbeds of sandstone.

==> picture [421 x 193] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 6-4: Conglomerate intersected in drillhole ORPD57 at 193.8 m

The sandstone unit is quite variable and includes several different lithofacies. There is considerable grain size variation, from a pebbly sandstone, down to a very fine sandstone; however, the majority of the sandstones fall between the fine and granule grain size classifications (Figure 6-5).

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 10 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

==> picture [419 x 180] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 6-5: Bedded Sandstone in drillhole ORPD108 at 173 m

Rare siltstones and shales are also observed locally and are included in the broad ‘sandstone’ unit. The sandstone unit varies from massive to bedded, with local younging indicators, such as graded bedding and trace fossils. Some sandstone beds also preserve silica pseudomorphs of early (diagenetic) bladed gypsum and broken crinoid fossils are also occasionally observed at the base of some sandstone beds.

As will be discussed in Section 6.2.2, post-sedimentary deformation has complicated the geometry of the Oropesa deposit; however, even when this deformation is accounted for, there is clear evidence for considerable lateral variations in sandstone grain size as well as the presence of wedge-shaped conglomerate units, erosional surfaces and channels. In addition to these features, there are also some very sharp changes in lithology both along and across strike that are interpreted to result from syn-sedimentary faulting. All of these features support the interpretation that the Peñarroya basin was a fault-controlled basin with significant topography at the basin margins. The presence of crinoid fossils, which do not occur in fresh water, indicate at least periodic marine ingress while the gypsum blades suggest the presence of syn-sedimentary brines, possibly formed during periods where the basin was sealed off from the ocean.

6.2.2 Structure

The geometry of the Oropesa deposit is primarily the result of two major deformation phases, an initial strike-slip to extensional phase of deformation during basin formation followed by a strong contractional overprint.

The initial phase of basin formation produced a complicated initial geometry characterised by at least two major fault orientations: a basin-parallel, NW striking fault set, the original dip of which is still uncertain, and an oblique N-S striking, fault set with steep to subvertical dips. Both fault sets appear to have been active during basin formation, producing rapid lateral facies changes and the characteristic wedge shaped stratigraphic packages mentioned in Section 6.2.1.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 11 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

Low core axis angles indicating local dips of greater than 60°, combined with evidence for overturned bedding indicate that the sedimentary sequence has undergone significant folding post-deposition. Modelling has identified a single closed to open fold that controls the first order geometry of the deposit (Figure 6-6 and Figure 6-7). The axial plane of the fold varies from flatlying to shallow-dipping to the northeast, which broadly supports previous interpreations of a syn-folding reverse fault controlling the uplift of Devonian quartzites immediately northeast of Oropesa. Importantly, due to the geometry of the fold, NW striking faults are likely to be folded whereas N-S faults may be relatively undeformed.

Properly understanding the geometries that might be expected as a result of folding an already complex syn-sedimentary fault network is essential to constraining the geometry of mineralisation.

==> picture [417 x 294] intentionally omitted <==

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

Oropesa Cross Section Overburden
Sandstone
Conglomerate
Shale
----- End of picture text -----

Figure 6-6: Cross Section from the northwest of Oropesa

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 12 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

==> picture [414 x 295] intentionally omitted <==

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

Oropesa Cross Section Overburden
Sandstone
Conglomerate
----- End of picture text -----

Figure 6-7: Cross Section from the southeast of Oropesa

6.2.3 Mineralisation

Tin at Oropesa is associated with sulphide mineralisation, dominantly pyrite, and pervasive silica alteration. There is a strong stratigraphic control on the distribution of mineralisation along with subordinate fault-related mineralisation.

Tin Paragenesis

Field studies and petrography conducted in 2011 by Roger Taylor identified a six stage paragenetic sequence (which has been slightly modified herein to include an unmineralised quartz phase):

Silica alteration and cassiterite infill, possibly with minor muscovite/sericite, pyrite and arsenopyrite. This is the main tin-bearing stage.
Pyrite as alteration and infill. Pyrite is the dominant sulphide in the system but this phase is not interpreted to be associated with the introduction of additional tin. The spatial distribution of this phase broadly mirrors Stage 1.
Mixed sulphide and carbonate. Sulphides include sphalerite, pyrite, marcasite, chalcopyrite, galena and arsenopyrite. Minor stannite is also observed locally. Spatially, this phase occurs in conjunction with Stage 1 and 2 mineralisation and locally also as a distinct sheeted vein set.
Pyrrhotite. This was split out by Taylor as a separate phase, although he noted that it was possibly part of stage 3.
Argillisation (clay). Clay occurs as late infill, though most of it has been removed by Stage 7.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 13 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

Quartz infill. The quartz infill is commonly associated with cockade breccias as well as crustiform and colloform layering. These textures are typical of epithermal environments, suggesting that at least this phase of mineralisation occurred at relatively shallow depths (<2-3 km).
Leaching and oxidation. This phase is associated with widespread cavity development that often focuses in zones associated with Stage 5 clays and Stage 6 quartz infill. At least some of this leaching is associated with late acid weathering; however, an earlier leaching phase cannot be entirely excluded.

Controls on Mineralisation

Mineralisation at Oropesa is strongly lithologically controlled, with the majority of mineralisation occurring in sandstone (Figure 6-8); grain-size and stratigraphic position act as second-order controls.

==> picture [420 x 172] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 6-8: Replacement mineralisation in sandstone in drillhole ORPD108 at 216.7 m

Overall, granular sandstones are typically better mineralised, whereas finer-grained sandstones are commonly lower grade or barren, even when associated with silica alteration. The cause of this relationship between grain-size and mineralisation is not well understood but could be due to increased porosity in coarser-grained sandstones and/or potentially related to the composition of the cement.

Tin mineralisation is also controlled by stratigraphic position, typically occurring proximal to conglomerate contacts. This may in part relate to the natural grain-size variation through the sandstone packages, however, other influences, such as micro or macro-scale fracturing localised at rheological contrasts may have some influence.

In addition to the stratigraphic-controls, there are also several interpreted mineralised faults. Fault-hosted mineralisation is commonly associated with increased weathering, broken ground and, in some cases, an increase in clay content. Two north-striking, subvertical faults have been modelled thus far, more may exist, however, they are difficult to identify with the existing drill patterns. These faults cut across the main mineralisation trend and appear to be relatively undeformed by folding. A mineralised, basin-parallel (northwest-striking) fault has also been identified. Based on the major facies changes across this fault and the angular relationship with bedding this fault is interpreted to have been folded.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 14 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

Fault-hosted mineralisation is volumetrically much less significant than the sediment-hosted replacement style mineralisation, however, faults are interpreted to have acted as feeder structures, bringing the mineralising fluid up from depth.

A sheeted carbonate-base metal vein system is also locally observed at Oropesa. Where present, these veins are typically 1cm wide, with a spacing of 1-5m and a sulphide mineralogy dominated by chalcopyrite, sphalerite and galena. This vein system is interpreted to be associated with Stage 3 in the paragenetic sequence and thus likely post-dates the major tin mineralising stage.

Timing of Mineralisation

Mineralisation occurred during the Variscan/ Hercynian orogeny. Initial indications suggest that mineralisation was pre-folding, however, further field studies focused on identifying key timing relationships and testing existing concepts will need to be completed to improve the associated geological understanding as this will be an important constraint for planning the next phase of exploration.

7 DEPOSIT TYPES

The Oropesa deposit is a replacement type deposit with subordinate fault-controlled mineralisation. It likely formed at formed at relatively shallow depths (<5 km) probably well above the granitic intrusion that was the likely source for the mineralising fluid. Pyroxene-rich skarn does occur locally at Oropesa (Taylor 2011), however, skarn accounts for only a very small proportion of the deposit in terms of volume and has an inconsistent relationship with mineralisation (typically <0.25% Sn), suggesting that it is not primarily a skarn deposit. Instead, Oropesa has more in common with the Tasmanian replacement deposits such as Renison Bell, Cleveland and Mt Bischoff. As with Oropesa, each of these has significant massive to semimassive sulphide mineralisation and varying degrees of silica alteration. They differ from Oropesa in that they are all hosted in carbonate host rocks, however, this difference could be explained if the granular sandstones at Oropesa originally contained a carbonate cement. It should be noted that tin deposits have not been a major focus of academic research over the last 30 years. Therefore the classification of some modern tin deposits can be somewhat difficult as these classification systems do not necessarily represent the full diversity of styles that may exist in nature.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 15 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

8 EXPLORATION

8.1 Historical Exploration

Instituto Geológico y Minero de España (“IGME”), between 1969 and late 1990, conducted multi-discipline exploration programmes over an area which included the current Oropesa property. These programmes included 1:50,000 scale geological mapping, and stream sediment geochemical surveys. The mapping programme discovered the presence of tin (Sn) on the present Oropesa property in 1982. The tin mineralisation on Oropesa was identified as banded copper-tin veins occurring within a carbonitised detrital unit of Lower Carboniferous age.

From 1983 to 1990, exploration on the property was focused on two areas of tin mineralisation, Oropesa and La Grana (situated approximately 1.5 km north of Oropesa) and also covered the regional extents of the property. The exploration programmes conducted during this time included, detailed mapping, geochemical surveys (including stream sediment and soil), and geophysical surveys (including ground Induced Polarization and Resistivity, ground and airborne magnetic and VLF electromagnetic surveys), trenching, diamond drilling and metallurgical test work.

8.1.1 Regional Geological Mapping

From 1982 to 1988, detailed geological mapping was completed over the property and surrounding areas. The tin mineralisation host unit was identified as a carbonitised, detrital conglomerate and arenite (also referred to as greywacke) and this was traced across the property.

8.1.2 Regional Geochemical Stream Sediment Surveys

Multiple stream sediment sampling programmes have been undertaken over Oropesa and the surrounding areas. Approximately 130 samples covering 115 km[2] were taken and analysed for Cu, Pb, Zn, and Sn. No sample collection or analytical methodology is available. As expected, the best Sn values (<10 to 650 ppm) were situated over the Oropesa area. Higher Cu, Pb and Zn values were found not to correlate with the higher Sn values.

Additional sampling from the same area included 36 samples which were concentrated by panning, followed by heavy liquid separation and, subsequently, a Frantz magnetic separator. Information from the sampling programmes is incomplete, with only limited descriptive information available for 20 of the 36 samples. Mineralogical content was examined by Dr D Antonio Arribas from the Granada University. Cassiterite was identified in 18 samples, with samples from downstream of the Oropesa project showing most abundant cassiterite concentrations. Figure 8-1 shows a map of the results from the stream sediment sampling program.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 16 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

==> picture [418 x 243] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 8-1: Map of Oropesa Stream Sediment Sampling Results within the Company’s current Licence Boundaries (Source: MESPA)

8.1.3 Regional Geochemical Soil Surveys

A regional geochemical soil survey was conducted by IGME in 1989 and covered both Oropesa (11 lines, 1200 m long, 100 m apart, oriented at 030°) and La Grana (two lines, approximately 500 m long, 100 m apart, oriented at 030°). The aim of the survey was to establish the ideal parameters (grain size, minimum sample density, soil horizon) for a regional sampling programme and the Oropesa project area was used as a control site. Samples were collected from the B soil horizon (where outcrops occurred surface soil was collected) and 575 samples in total were collected at -80 mesh (-0.177 mm) and sent for analysis.

Twenty-three test pits were also dug between 1.5 and 2 m deep using an excavator. Soil horizons A, B, and C were sampled for 69 samples and three fractions were collected (0.25/+0.177 mm, -0.177/+0.125 mm, and <0.125 mm). Analysis was completed by ICP methodology for 20 elements and colorimetry for three elements: Sn, tungsten (W), and fluorine (F).

Results indicated that A-B soil material at -80 mesh is suitable for analysis, at a sampling density of 100x250 m. Sampling identified areas of Sn mineralisation and hydrothermal alteration zones.

8.1.4 Regional Geophysical Surveys

Combined Airborne Magnetic, Electromagnetic and VLF Survey

An area covering approximately 160 km[2] (including the entire Oropesa property) was flown by helicopter between December 1987 and January 1988 by Aerodat Ltd. Lines were flown at approximately 400 m spacing (although 200 m intervals occurred in places) on a bearing of 030º, with an average ground clearance of 60 m. A magnetic high (2000 m long and 1000 m wide) was identified which is associated with the Sierra La Grana – Oropesa area. The Oropesa project appears to coincide with an electro-magnetic anomaly, whilst a second anomaly extends westward from the La Grana occurrences.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 17 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

8.1.5 Local Geochemical Soil Surveys

Soil Surveys

Soil surveys at Oropesa were undertaken from 1989 to 1990 and included 25 lines, approximately 100 m apart at an orientation of 020º. Samples were taken at 25 m spacing, and the lines varied from 500 to 1300 m in length. In total, 665 samples were collected and analysed for Sn, Cu, Pb, and Zn at Laboratorios Almeria, SA (“Laboral”) by Atomic Absorption methods. It is unknown whether the laboratory was certified during this time. An anomalous (>125 ppm) area was identified at 2000 m long and 200 – 700 m wide at an approximate orientation of NNW/SSE (Figure 8-2). Three other areas of high Sn were detected in the western, central and southern parts of the area.

At La Grana, 1,173 samples were collected at 25 m spacing and analysed for Cu, Pb, Zn, and Sn. Two areas of significant Sn (>250 ppm) were identified approximately 1.3 km apart (Figure 8-2). Sn occurrences at La Grana West showed a strong correlation with Cu and Pb, whilst La Grana East had a weak Cu-Sn correlation and strong Pb-Sn correlation.

8.1.6 Local Geophysical Surveys

Oropesa IP-Resistivity Survey

A two phase pole-dipole survey was completed over Oropesa in 1983 and 1985. A total of 10.075 km was surveyed and there appeared to be a correlation between chargeability and geochemical anomalies.

Oropesa VLF Electromagnetic and Magnetometer Surveys

A total of 14.775 km of surveys, was conducted across the mineralised horizon at Oropesa, including the three anomalous zones identified by geochemical sampling. Readings were taken parallel to the geochemical grid lines at 25 m intervals, approximately 100 m apart. Data were smoothed using a moving average. Four VLF electromagnetic conductors were identified; being associated with the known mineralisation and geochemical anomalies previously identified with the fourth conductor thought to be due to a result of cultural influences. The magnetic data was found to be inconclusive.

La Grana Gravity Survey

At La Grana, an area of approximately 3x6 km was surveyed on lines spaced either 500 or 1,000 m apart and oriented 020°. Plans of the Bouger, Regional and Residual data is available; however, no report has been found to date. Separate gravity anomalies are coincident with both the La Grana West and La Grana East occurrences.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 18 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

==> picture [420 x 495] intentionally omitted <==

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

La Grana West target
La Grana East target
Oropesa Deposit
----- End of picture text -----

Figure 8-2: Schematic of the Oropesa and La Grana soil geochemistry relative to wireframe locations, interpreted ‘feeder’ structures and Licence Boundary (Source: MESPA)

8.1.7 Oropesa Trenching and Sampling

From 1982 through to 1986, 26 trenches totalling 2,681 m in cumulative length were dug to bed rock. The trenches were oriented at 020° and at a maximum approximate depth of 3 m. Nine of the trenches were aimed at exposing mineralisation and 14 were designed to test geochemical and geophysical anomalies. All of trenches were mapped in detail; however systematic sampling occurred only for the last 14 trenches. Sample methodology was not typically detailed. All analysis was completed at the IGME laboratory in Madrid by XRF.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 19 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

8.1.8 Local Drilling

Between 1983 and 1990, 33 holes were drilled by IGME in to the Oropesa anomaly. Further details are provided in Section 9.1.

8.1.9 Mineralogical Studies

Mineralogical studies were undertaken by IGME and reported in the Boletin Geologico y Minero (Alverez Rodriguez and Gomez-Limon, 1988, and Garcia Frutos and Ranz Boquerin, 1989). Both papers describe technical difficulties encountered in relation to the recovery of cassiterite from Oropesa with poor yields being a result of a low liberation size and the occurrence of iron oxides which are partly embedded in the cassiterite.

8.2 Exploration by the Company

Since acquisition of the property, the Company has completed a review of the IGME data including re-interpretation and development of an exploration model for tin emplacement. A number of exploration programmes have been carried out over the property including geochemical and geophysical surveys, trenching, test pitting programmes.

8.2.1 Geochemical Survey

From 2008 to 2010, a sampling programme was conducted taking 160 float samples from the La Grana West area (a small number of samples were also taken from La Grana East and Oropesa). All sample locations were recorded using a hand held GPS (±5 m accuracy).

The aim of this sampling programme was to identify and prove the presence of cassiterite mineralisation on the property, and to gain an understanding of the size and nature of the mineralisation.

Samples were approximately cobble sized and were initially collected randomly over areas of 1.5x1.0 km area at Oropesa, 1.0x1.0 km area at La Grana West and 0.5x0.75 km area at La Grana East. Once the presence and orientation of the mineralisation had been identified, samples were collected in a manner which would confirm mineralisation orientation. All samples were described geologically and subsequently bagged and tagged.

8.2.2 Geophysical Surveys

From February to June 2011, IP-resistivity and ground magnetic surveys were conducted over the property. The IP-resistivity survey covered 50.02-line km on 34 lines spaced 50 to 100 m apart and oriented NE/SW. A dipole-dipole electrode array was used, spacing between electrodes was 20 m and the distance between the current dipole and receiving potential dipole was between 1 and 20 m. The Oropesa mineralisation corresponded with anomalies identified in the central part of the survey area. A number of sub-parallel NNW/SSE anomalies were identified by the survey, as illustrated in Figure 8-3 and overlain with soil geochemistry results and drillhole collars in Figure 8-4. SRK note that the La Grana occurrences were not covered by the geophysical surveys.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 20 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

==> picture [417 x 336] intentionally omitted <==

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

La Grana West target
La Grana East target
Oropesa Licence
Oropesa Deposit
----- End of picture text -----

Figure 8-3: Oropesa Chargeability and Resistivity Anomalies from the Company’s 2011 Geophysical Survey (Source: MESPA)

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 21 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

==> picture [413 x 330] intentionally omitted <==

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

La Grana West target
La Grana East target
Oropesa Licence
Oropesa Deposit
MESPA drillhole
collars
Historic IGME drillhole
collars
----- End of picture text -----

Figure 8-4: Oropesa Chargeability Anomalies from the Company’s 2011 Geophysical Survey overlain with Oropesa Sn Soil Geochemistry (Source: MESPA)

The magnetic survey covered 63.5 km along the IP NE/SW oriented IP lines. An additional six lines plus three tie lines were also surveyed. Readings were taken automatically every two seconds, as the operator walked along the lines, GPS readings were also taken at each location. A general NW/SE trend is visible, with the Oropesa mineralisation lying at a change in magnetics between the shale (highly magnetic) to the SW and conglomerate (low magnetic) to the NW, as illustrated in Figure 8-5.

Additionally, detailed airborne Versatile Time Domain Electromagnetic (“VTEM”) and magnetic surveys were undertaken in 2011 and SRK Exploration Services Ltd carried out the processing and interpretation of the data. The VTEM survey was performed by Geotech in 2011 and covered most of the area with lines flown in a NNE direction with a central area covering the Oropesa project flown in more detail in the orthogonal ESE direction. It was found that the Oropesa Sn deposit gave rise to a strong electromagnetic anomaly that indicates the presence of good conductivity material at depth. The conductor appeared to be approximately 1100 m long and 800 m wide and possibly caused by more conductive minerals such as pyrrhotite.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 22 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

==> picture [409 x 336] intentionally omitted <==

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

Oropesa
mineralisation
outline
----- End of picture text -----

Figure 8-5: Oropesa Ground Magnetic Survey Results (Source: MESPA)

8.2.3 Trenching Programmes

Trenching programmes were undertaken at La Grana West (18 trenches, 8 to 30 m in length, totalling a cumulative length of 720 m) and La Grana East (one trench, 284 m in length). Trenches were oriented across areas of known mineralisation with the purpose of exposing bedrock and determining whether high grade intercepts indicated mineralized structures. Some areas of high Sn concentrations were found, however these were sporadic in nature. The company believes some mineralized areas are due to soil creep (Burns, 2011).

8.2.4 Test Pitting Programmes

In early 2011, the Arroyo Majavacas flood plain located in the southeast of the property was sampled using nine test pits. The aim was to test the potential for alluvial Sn deposits. The test pits were dug (using an excavator) down to bedrock at depths of between 1.7 to 2.7 m.

Material between the overlying soil and underlying rock was sampled, assay results ranged from 6 to 219 ppm Sn, with only two out of 12 assays above 100 ppm Sn. These results indicate the presence of an alluvial Sn deposit on the flood plain being unlikely.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 23 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

9 DRILLING

9.1 Historical Drilling

Between 1983 and 1990, 33 core drillholes with a cumulative length of 6,913.55 m were drilled by IGME in to the Oropesa anomaly. The majority of these holes were oriented at 020° NE. Between 1987 and 1990, 16 core drillholes with a cumulative length of 3,420 m were drilled in to the neighbouring La Grana Sn occurrences. Holes one to five tested La Grana West, and Holes six to 16 La Grana East.

Holes were collared in HQ and reduced to NQ, and BQ where required. There are no descriptive drill logs available (only graphical logs) and no report has been found detailing the purpose and interpreted results of the drill programme. Collar surveys were not completed and downhole surveys are noted only on the graphical logs (survey method was not recorded). Drill collars were located by Burns during a site visit. Sample lengths vary and Burns (August, 2011) notes that sampling appears to have been primarily based on core recovery. It was also noted that sections of mineralized core had not been sampled.

All sample preparation was undertaken at IGME Litoteca de Sondeos in PenarroyaPueblonuevo, and all analysis for Cu, Pb, Zn, and Sn by XRF was completed at the IGME laboratory in Madrid.

Whilst the IGME drillhole collars were difficult to locate, with low confidence in the survey and assay data, the IGME data at Oropesa in general supports the presence of anomalous tin grades and range of mineralised thicknesses intercepted by the more recent drilling.

9.2 Drilling by the Company

The Company has undertaken six drilling programs to date, with the latest phase of drilling and sampling completed between during 2016. A summary of each of the drill programs is provided as follows:

9.2.1 Drilling Summary 2010

The first drill programme (March to November, 2010) comprised of 30 holes with a cumulative length of 4,817.10 m, conducted by drill contractor Sondeos y Perforaciones Industrales del Bierzo, SA (SPIB), also the property vendor. Sixteen holes were drilled at Oropesa (totalling 2,798.9 m) and 14 holes at La Grana West (totalling 2,018.2 m). The core was typically HQ in size, although reduction to NQ occurred in two holes. A track mounted, Model 100 SPIRILL hydraulic diamond drill was used; this equipment could reach a maximum depth of 750 m.

The 16 holes drilled at Oropesa covered an 800 m strike length and were designed to intersect previously drilled mineralisation. This drilling encountered hydrothermal Sn and sulphide mineralisation in the eastern anomaly at Oropesa. The 14 drillholes at La Grana West were exploration holes aimed at testing the various structures which had been identified during sampling programmes and from re-interpretation of the IGME data.

Tin mineralisation at La Grana has been interpreted by the Company to occupy brittle fractures in quartzities, where reported drilling intervals typically have grades of 0.1 to 1.0% tin over intervals of 1-6 m. The geological continuity, lateral and vertical extent of the mineralisation at La Grana remains to be fully defined.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 24 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

9.2.2 Drilling Summary 2011

The second SPIB Oropesa drill programme (December 2010 to July 2011) completed by the Company, included 92 diamond drillholes (‘DD’) with a total cumulative length of 20,023.45 m.

All holes were planned in Datamine Mining Software, and a compass and handheld GPS were used to position the holes. Downhole surveys were taken using a Reflex single shot camera at approximately 50 m intervals. Deviations in azimuth have been attributed to the magnetic minerals (pyrrhotite) present in rocks at Oropesa. The aim of the drill programme was to:

delineate the grade, and attitude of zones and/or expand zones laterally by using a fence across the mineralized zones;
test IP delineated targets;
determine source of high grade Sn boulders located in the SE of the property; and
check the existence of interpreted structures.

On completion of drilling, holes were geotechnically (RQD, core recovery) and geologically logged, all core was photographed and samples were selected and marked. All data is entered electronically.

The November 2011 drilling programme indicated that the mineralisation dips to the north, suggesting that the IGME and previous MESPA (2010) holes were drilled in the wrong orientation. All subsequent drilling has therefore been drilled to the south.

9.2.3 Drilling Summary 2012

The third drilling phase was completed in May 2012 with the drilling completed by SPIB for an additional 21,233.1 m of diamond core drilling (92 holes) and 2,118.0 m reverse circulation (“RC”) drilling (16 holes), for a total of 108 holes. All drilling undertaken in this phase of work was conducted to infill to a 50x50 m grid with a partial 25x25 m grid.

9.2.4 Drilling Summary 2013

The fourth phase was completed during June to September 2013 for an additional 4,087.8 m. During this phase, a total of 24 holes were drilled across the deposit to target higher grade structures and infill areas of lower confidence.

9.2.5 Drilling Summary 2015

The fifth phase of exploration drilling was a relatively small program aimed at confirming the presence of mineralisation within previously non-sampled zones and testing for additional tin mineralisation at depth below previously modelled domains. Additions to the database for 2015 consisted of three drillholes for 980 m of DD drilling, with an additional four earlier holes for some 754 m which were not available in time for inclusion in the Drilling Summary for 2013.

9.2.6 Drilling Summary 2016

The latest phase of exploration drilling and sampling was a small program focused towards improving the geological confidence in the model within a zone of high grade, near-surface mineralisation (targeted for open pit extraction) in the west of the Oropesa deposit. DD drillholes for 2016 were collared on previously established drill section lines and angled between -45° and -60° (below horizontal) towards the southwest.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 25 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

Additions to the database for 2016 consist of a further 16 exploration drillholes for 2,619 m of DD drilling, with an additional three (non-sampled) metallurgical holes for some 574 m. The positions of new drillhole collars for 2016 are illustrated in Figure 9-1.

==> picture [417 x 341] intentionally omitted <==

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

Mineralisation
wireframes
----- End of picture text -----

Figure 9-1: Location of new collars (red) completed by MESPA during the 2016 exploration program

9.2.7 Summary of Data Quantity

A total of 259 holes totalling some 53,726.0 m have been completed by the Company at the Oropesa Project. All drilling data available as of 17 February 2017 was made available to SRK. A summary of the Oropesa holes completed by the Company is provided in Table 9-1 subdivided by drilling type.

Table 9-1: Summary of Oropesa Drilling Completed by MESPA as at 17 February 2017*

Target Area	DrillingType	Count	Total length(m)
Oropesa	DD	243	51,193.8
	RC	12	1,610.0
	RC+DD	4	922.2
Subtotal		259	53,726.0

*Drill statistics include all Oropesa metallurgical holes, re-drills and RC holes provided by the Company and exclude 2,725 m of drilling completed at the neighbouring La Grana prospects (“LGR” series holes).

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 26 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

9.2.8 Collar and Topography Survey

Prior to 2016 the topographic survey of all drillhole collars was completed using a Leica 530 SR GPS (illustrated in Figure 9-2) which provides survey measurements in x, y and z coordinates accurate to within 15cm. The geodetic control point for the surveying was located at la Grana Hill, approximately 1km north from the Oropesa deposit.

Since then, the limited number of additional drillhole collars have been surveyed using tape and compass based on triangulation from nearby, previously surveyed collars; this provides measurements accurate to within 10cm in x and y coordinates. A handheld GPS was used to determine the z coordinate (elevation) for the collars surveyed using triangulation.

Following visual validation of the collar surveys (as described in Section 11.1.1), SRK has used the collar point-data to generate a topography for use in constraining the model to surface above the footprint of the mineralisation wireframes; this appropriately reflects flat-lying relief of the Oropesa deposit area.

SRK has also been provided with LIDAR data which is accurate to within 5m. Given the limited collar coverage away from the well-drilled footprint of the mineralisation (and only small (typically <1m) difference between collar and LIDAR survey data), SRK has used the LIDAR data to inform the surface topography outside of this area, as illustrated in Figure 9-3.

==> picture [420 x 209] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 9-2: Leica 530 SR GPS at the Oropesa Deposit area

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 27 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

==> picture [422 x 191] intentionally omitted <==

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

Drillhole collars
Topographic Topographic
surface based on surface based on Mineralisation
LIDAR data (blue) collar data (red) wireframes
----- End of picture text -----

Figure 9-3: Collar and LIDAR data used to create surface topography for the Oropesa Project

9.2.9 Downhole Surveys

SRK has been supplied with downhole survey information for the start and the end of each hole, with intermediate readings at approximately every 50 m, typically using a Reflex single shot camera survey measurement. In general, the data collected is considered to be of high precision and accuracy suitable for use in this resource estimation.

9.2.10 Hole Orientation

All drilling undertaken on the Project has been completed from surface.

At Oropesa, the drilling intersects the mineralised zone from the southwest and northeast orientations. The Oropesa drillholes are plotted on sections oriented NE-SW across the principal structural control of the deposit and are spaced approximately 20–100 m apart, proving intersections at a similar spacing.

Drillholes are typically angled between -45° and -85° (below horizontal), hole lengths ranging from 50–636 m and intersection angles with the mineralisation typically ranging from perpendicular to -45°.

It is SRK’s view that the drilling orientations are reasonable to model most of the geology and mineralisation based on the current geological interpretation. Figure 9-4 provides a cross section to show the typical drilling orientation and dip of the mineralisation wireframe.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 28 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

==> picture [411 x 352] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 9-4: Example cross section through the Oropesa deposit

9.2.11 Diamond Drilling Procedure

The drilling was performed by the SPIB contractors and managed by the Company’s geological team. With the exception of a limited number of RC holes (16) completed during February to April 2012, which are largely situated away from the main mineralised zones at Oropesa, all drilling was completed using DD.

DD drilling was performed with the use of a double tube; core was typically HQ in size.

Core was typically produced in 3 m core runs and then placed into a V-rail for core recovery measurement. The core was then placed in wooden boxes using cut wooden blocks to mark drilling intervals and then transported to the core storage facility.

9.2.12 Core Recovery

Sample recovery is measured by technical staff as part of the logging process. This is recorded in the drilling logs.

Visual assessment of the core shows that recovery is variable with areas of lower recoveries often noted in zones of significant oxidation, mineralisation or structure. Estimated recovery ranges from 0% to 100% core recovery and averages 92%.

The core loss in higher grade regions was investigated to test for the existence of a relationship with increased grade and decreased core recovery.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 29 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

Figure 9-5 presents a correlation plot of Sn% grade versus estimated recovery. No clear relationship exists and therefore it is unlikely that a systematic bias has been introduced.

While no systematic relationship exists between Sn grade and recovery, future drilling should consider appropriate techniques to improve areas where problematic drilling conditions are anticipated. For example, triple tube diamond coring or reverse circulation drilling could be considered.

==> picture [389 x 253] intentionally omitted <==

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

SN_PCT versus REC_PCT
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Recovery (%)
SN_PCT versus REC_PCT
Sn (%)
----- End of picture text -----

Figure 9-5: Sn% versus core recovery

9.2.13 Core Storage

All diamond drill core is stored in custom made wooden core boxes in the warehouse located in the town of Fuente Obejuna, Cordoba. The boxes are then stacked on pallets. In addition to the core storage, crushed reject samples are returned from ALS Laboratories sample preparation facility in Seville, Spain (“ALS Seville”) and stored in the facility in locked metal containers for later submission as supplicate samples.

The facility is locked and secured. A security system alarm has been installed and is connected to the police station. Access to the sample storage facility is restricted to MESPA personnel.

9.3 SRK Comments

In the opinion of SRK, the sampling procedures used by the Company conform to industry standard practices and the resultant drilling pattern is sufficiently dense to interpret the geometry, geological boundaries and tin mineralisation with an appropriate level of confidence.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 30 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

10 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSIS AND SECURITY

10.1 Introduction

The following section relates to the methods and protocols used by the Company during the 2016 exploration campaign, which remains unchanged from the Company’s previous sampling programs.

10.2 Chain of Custody, Sample Preparation, and Analyses

All core samples were collected from the drill rig and transported to the core farm in Fuente Obejuna, Cordoba, by Company personnel for logging, sample selection and splitting using a core saw. The samples were then transported by the Company to the ALS sample preparation facility in Seville (“ALS Seville”) as batches of between approximately 40 to 150 samples. The samples were typically submitted to ALS Seville on a hole by hole basis.

The samples received by the ALS Seville sample preparation facility were logged into the LIMS tracking system and processed in accordance to the requested analytical procedure. Sample preparation was via procedure PREP-31 in which the sample is weighed, dried, and crushed prior to a 250 g split being taken and pulverized to better than 85% passing 75 microns. Samples were then shipped by bonded courier to the ALS Laboratory in Vancouver, Canada (“ALS Vancouver”), for analysis by glass fusion X-Ray fluorescence (“XRF”). ALS Seville is ISO accredited.

10.3 Specific Gravity Data

The Company technical staff collected bulk density data using an immersion method collecting weight in air versus weight in water. Density determinations were completed as follows:

Three pieces of core were selected for each sample interval (1 or 2 m sampling interval depending if the interval was visually mineralized or not).
The core billets were selected taking into account the lithology and the core quality (competent intervals were selected preferentially).
Calibration weights were used to check the calibration scale each day prior to weighing samples commenced. The scale was calibrated to ±5 g;
The core billet was oven dried and weighed prior to immersion to determine the dry weight of the sample in air. The core billet was then placed in the sample basket, immersed in water and reweighed to determine the weight in water. The core was observed to ensure all bubbles disappeared prior to the immersed sample weight was determined.
Density was determined using the following formula:

Density = weight (in air) / [ weight (in air) – weight (in water) ]

The results of the three readings were averaged for each interval.
In cases of assumed high porosity, sample densities were derived using the above methodology and then dried again using an oven and then wax coated. The samples were then subjected to the same immersion methodology and a factor representing the density of the wax was applied to the density calculation.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 31 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

Density for wax-coated samples was determined using the following formula:

Density = weight (in air) / [ weight with wax (in air) – weight with wax (in water) ] – [ [weight with wax (in air) – weight (in air) ] / wax density (0.8 g/cm[3] ) ]

The density database for the 2017 MRE comprised 2,726 density measurements recorded by the Company and 755 density measurements from ALS Vancouver, with wax coated samples used in preference over the raw samples, to account for porosity. The raw density data was initially coded within the modelled wireframes and weathering surfaces and the descriptive statistics per domain are provided in Table 10-1.

An updated assessment of Sn grade relative to density for the 2017 MRE did not indicate a high correlation relationship, as illustrated in Figure 10-1. SRK has therefore interpolated the density data into the modelled wireframes using Inverse Distance Weighting Squared (IDW2), producing a variable density block model. Blocks that did not meet the search criteria for estimation were set to the average density per domain.

Table 10-1: Summary of density inside mineralisation wireframes and weathering zones (2017)

Group	Description	Field	Zone	Sample No.	Mean	Max	Min
100	Mineralisation	DENSITY	Oxide	11	2.3	2.7	2.1
			Transition	251	2.5	4.1	1.7
			Fresh	778	2.9	5.6	1.6

==> picture [417 x 262] intentionally omitted <==

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

SN_PCT vs DENSITY
6
5
4
3
SN_PCT vs DENSITY
2
1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Density (g/cm [3] )
Sn%
----- End of picture text -----

Figure 10-1: Scatterplot showing tin grade versus density data

In the absence of data, an assumed overburden density has been derived from the AusIMM field geologist’s guide, which provides density estimates for various overburden types. The overburden present at the Oropesa deposit is classified and a mix of gravels and clays. From this a dry density of 1.8 g/cm[3] has been derived, which remains consistent with the previous MRE.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 32 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

10.4 SRK Comments

In the opinion of SRK, the sampling preparation, security and analytical procedures used by the Company are consistent with generally accepted industry standard practices and are therefore adequate for the purpose of this Mineral Resource estimate. However, SRK notes that density measurements were only taken using competent core and therefore may slightly overestimate density in zones of broken/rubbly, oxidised core.

SRK recommends that density test work during future exploration programmes should focus on characterising the density of rubbly, oxidised material and the sampling of existing drillholes which have not yet been sampled for density to maximise the confidence in density estimates within these areas.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 33 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

11 DATA VERIFICATION

11.1 Verifications by SRK

In accordance with JORC guidelines, SRK has completed several Resource Geology visits to the Project, including:

Howard Baker (Resource Geology, CP for the 2012 and 2014 MRE) during March 2012;
Paul Stenhouse (Structural Geology) and Oliver Jones (Resource Geology) during July 2015.

The site visits allowed SRK to review exploration procedures, define geological modelling procedures, examine drill core, inspect the site, interview project personnel and collect relevant information.

A further Resource Geology site visit during was not deemed necessary during 2017 due to the limited number of additional holes (16) completed subsequent to the October 2015 Mineral Resource Estimate.

11.1.1 Verification of Sampling Database

SRK completed a phase of data validation on the digital sample database supplied by the Company which included, but was not limited to the following:

Search for sample overlaps, duplicate or absent samples, anomalous assay and survey results. No material issues were noted in the final sample database.
Exclusion of the following historic drillholes that did not pass all aspects of SRK’s validation procedures:
RC drillhole ORC-10, based on anomalous assay data; and
30 historic IGME drillholes, namely the “OR” series holes and ORM-3, ORM-4 and ORM 5 based on low confidence in the survey and assay data. That said, historic drillholes ORM-1 and ORM-2 were not excluded from the database given that the Company has verified these collar locations and the associated tin grade and mineralised thickness visually correlates well adjacent more recent drilling.
Visual validation of the z-coordinate (elevation) of (16) new infill drillhole collars against the topographic surface used for the previous MRE. In general, the new collars were very close to the topographic surface (typically within <0.3m), however SRK noted a more significant difference (i.e. 2-3m) for drillholes ORPD-192i, ORPD-194i and ORPD-195i. Given that the z-coordinate of the new drillhole collars (based on handheld GPS) is considered to be less accurate when compared with the data used to generate the topographic surface for the previous model, SRK moved these 3 holes on to the topographic surface for creating the geological model.
Verification of the formulae used to calculate sample density, as described in Section 10.3. No issues were noted in the final formulae, however, whilst previous models assumed a paraffin density of 0.9 g/cm[3 ] (as required to determine the density from samples coated in paraffin), further investigation by the Company identified that a paraffin density of 0.8 g/cm[3 ] is more appropriate. The overall impact of this on the resource model is small, with approximately 0.4% added to the tonnage when applying a paraffin density of 0.8 g/cm[3] instead of 0.9.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 34 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

Identification of absent tin values within the mineralised zones. Excluding non-sampled metallurgical and superseded/ failed holes, SRK noted the presence of a limited number of non-sampled intervals, representing some 0.5% of the sample database. Of this, 0.3% relate to either core loss in less competent rock or minor volumetric wireframe discrepancy where complexity of the geometry of the mineralisation results in the capture of a few isolated non-sampled intercepts. The remaining 0.2% represent intervals within the host structure of visually weak to very poorly mineralised core (verified based on Niton XRF data), which have therefore not been sent for analysis at ALS Vancouver.

Drilling completed during 2016 has significantly increased the amount of Niton XRF data for comparison with assay results for tin from ALS Vancouver. Excluding a limited number of anomalous results (2), scatterplot analysis for the grade range of interest (<1% Sn) suggests a reasonable correlation between the two sets of data (as illustrated in Figure 11-1). Therefore, to prevent the smoothing of higher grade data in to areas of non-sampled (weak to very poorly-mineralised) core, SRK has allowed a length-weighted tin value from the Niton analysis (ranging from 0.01 to 0.1% Sn) to influence the composited grades used in to the estimation database. SRK notes that the overall impact of this on the interpolated resource model tin grade is small (i.e. approximately 1% relative reduction in tin grade above a 0% Sn cut-off).

==> picture [419 x 239] intentionally omitted <==

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

0.6
0.5
y = 0.7841x + 0.0241
R² = 0.6817
0.4
Anomalies Removed
0.3 X=Y
All Data <= 1% Sn
X=Y
0.2
Linear (Anomalies Removed)
0.1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Sn % (ALS Vancouver)
Sn % (Niton XRF Data)
----- End of picture text -----

Figure 11-1: Scatter plot of Sn% (ALS Vancouver) vs Sn% (Niton XRF); 89 Values

11.2 Verifications by the Company

The Company has undertaken validation of sample assays during the exploration drilling programs completed using standards, blanks and duplicate samples (QAQC samples) which have been inserted routinely into each batch submitted to the laboratory at ALS Vancouver.

SRK notes that 2,883 m (74%) of the total 3,892 m of drillhole intersections inside the mineralisation wireframes is supported by QAQC data, which largely relates to holes drilled following ORPD059 which was drilled during 2011.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 35 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

The remaining 1,008 m (26%) of sampling inside the mineralisation wireframes is not supported by QAQC data, however this forms part of the same mineralised body and underwent the same sample preparation and assay procedures at ALS Vancouver. These drillholes are interspersed with those that are supported by QAQC data, they are visually comparable with adjacent intersections with QAQC and also show comparable sample distributions and mean grades (Figure 11-2).

==> picture [201 x 140] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [206 x 139] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 11-2: Composite sample grade log histogram distributions for tin, showing data assayed with QAQC support (left) and without QAQC (right)

The quality assurance and quality control (QAQC) results for tin analysis completed by the Company between 2010-2016 is summarised in Section 11.3.

11.3 QAQC for Tin Analysis 2010-2016

Routine QAQC procedures were introduced during the 2011 drilling program following drillhole ORPD059.

The following control measures were implemented by the Company to monitor both the precision and accuracy of sampling, preparation and assaying. Results shown have been limited to the QAQC samples inserted during routine sample submissions.

Certified Reference Materials (“CRM”), blanks and duplicates were submitted into the sample stream, equating to a QAQC sample insertion rate of approximately 6%, as illustrated in Table 11-1.

The QAQC system includes the submission of blank samples, CRM and duplicates in every batch of samples in a proportional sequence approximately every 10-15 samples.

Table 11-1: Summary of Analytical Quality Control Data Produced by the Company for the Oropesa Project (subsequent to ORPD059)

CompanyAnalytical QualityControl Data – 2011(ORPD059)- 2016	CompanyAnalytical QualityControl Data – 2011(ORPD059)- 2016	CompanyAnalytical QualityControl Data – 2011(ORPD059)- 2016	CompanyAnalytical QualityControl Data – 2011(ORPD059)- 2016
	Count	Total(%)	Comment

Sampling Program	Tin	Tin

Sample Count	9,515
Field Blanks	218	2%
CRM Samples	183	2%	Sourced from African Mineral Standards
Duplicates(coarse reject)	199	2%
Total QC Samples	600	6%

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 36 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

11.3.1 Insertion of CRM

The Company has introduced three different CRM into the analysis sample stream, inserted at regular intervals. The CRM for tin have been supplied by African Mineral Standards, South Africa (Table 11-2). Summary statistics for each CRM sample are shown in Table 11-3.

SRK has reviewed the CRM results and is satisfied that they demonstrate an acceptable level of accuracy at the assaying laboratory and hence give sufficient confidence in the assays for these to be used to derive a Mineral Resource estimate. CRM charts are presented in Appendix A.

Table 11-2: Summary of Certified Reference Material for tin submitted by the Company in sample submissions

	Tin;Sn(%)	Tin;Sn(%)	Tin;Sn(%)
Sdd Mil
tanar atera	Certified Value	SD	Company

AMIS0019	1.095	0.062	African Mineral Standards
AMIS0020	0.68	0.040	African Mineral Standards
AMIS0021	0.27	0.026	African Mineral Standards

Table 11-3: Analysis of tin assays versus assigned CRM values for 2010-2016 Submissions

Sample Type	Standard Code	Lab	Count	Assigned	Mean	Variance	Maximum	Minimum
DD	AMIS0019	XRF10 - ALS Vancouver	9	1.10	1.12	2.49%	1.13	1.09
DD	AMIS0020	XRF10 - ALS Vancouver	101	0.68	0.66	-3.03%	0.69	0.001
DD	AMIS0021	XRF10 - ALS Vancouver	73	0.27	0.27	-0.25%	0.3	0.22

11.3.2 Blanks

A coarse blank sourced from a quartz gravel quarry located more than 25 km from the project is included in the sample stream. In total, 218 blanks were inserted at regular intervals within the sample stream for drilling, which represents some 2% of total sample submissions from the sampling programs completed with routine QAQC samples.

SRK has reviewed the results from the blank sample analysis and (with the exception of one anomalous result of 0.57% Sn, which may represent a sample switch) has determined that there is little evidence for sample contamination at ALS Vancouver. Blank sample analysis charts are presented in Appendix A.

11.3.3 Duplicates

Duplicate samples representing coarse reject material were returned from the laboratory and were then re-submitted in different sample batches. The practise included insertion of duplicates based on four approximate grade ranges for Sn, including: low grade (0.10% to 0.30%), medium grade (0.31% to 0.50%), high grade (0.51% to 1.00%) and very high grade (>1%).

In total, 199 duplicates for drilling were submitted for analysis which represents some 2% of total sample submissions from the sampling programs completed with routine QAQC samples.

The duplicates for drilling show a relatively good correlation to the original samples. SRK notes the presence of a small number of anomalous results between the mean grades for Sn, which lie outside of the typically expected scatter in the results from the coarse reject material; this potentially reflects the underlying geological variability at the Project which is not always resolved by sample preparation. Duplicate charts are presented in Appendix A.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 37 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

Excluding the small number of anomalous results, SRK is reasonably confident in the repeatability of the sample preparation process.

11.3.4 Umpire Laboratory Duplicates

A small number of inter-laboratory check samples (512) were submitted to SGS Wheal Jane during the 2012-2013 drilling programs; however, only 61 of these samples are associated with sample numbers that can be correlated with the original assays.

The duplicate data is presented in Appendix A. The duplicate data shows a high level of correlation with the linear correlation coefficient being 0.93.

The data contains a number of anomalous outliers. In SRK’s opinion, it is likely that a degree of variability between duplicate pairs is associated with the inherent variability of the sample or settling and homogenisation issues relating to sample storage and resubmission. While the data set is limited and submission of continuous inter-laboratory duplicate samples is recommended, no major issues were identified in the duplicate samples.

11.4 SRK Comments

SRK has reviewed the data collection methodologies during the site visit, and has undertaken an extensive review of the assay and geology database during the Mineral Resource estimation procedure.

For the data available for use in the MRE, some 26% of the data inside the mineralisation wireframes is not supported by QAQC, however these samples appear to be similar to, are well supported by and interspersed with more recent intersections which have good QAQC results.

Assessment of the available QAQC data indicates the assay data for the drilling and sampling to date is both appropriately accurate and precise.

SRK recommends that on-going assessment of all QAQC data is completed routinely to increase the size of the database for review and therefore further increase confidence in the quality of the analytical data.

For the holes drilled prior to ORPD059 (if available) SRK recommends sending pulp splits from a representative portion of samples to the primary laboratory along with QAQC samples according to the current protocols to compare the laboratory performance today with its performance in 2011 and 2010 prior to drillhole ORPD059. This would maximise the confidence in the assay QAQC.

With regard to sampling protocols, SRK recommends for all future exploration programs that drillhole collars are surveyed using a high-accuracy GPS (as used for holes completed prior to 2016), given the potential variability noted in the accuracy of the z-coordinate determined by handheld GPS. In addition, SRK recommends sending the remaining non-sampled intervals located within the mineralised zones to ALS Vancouver (during future sampling programs) to remove the need to insert values from Niton XRF data and therefore further improve confidence in the grade estimates within these areas of the model.

Whilst in general SRK would also continue to recommend the adoption of a commercial database system to improve the overall database management at Oropesa, SRK is confident that the data provided by the Company is of sufficiently high quality, and has been subjected to a sufficiently high level of checking for use in this Mineral Resource estimate.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 38 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

12 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES

12.1 Introduction

The Mineral Resource Statement presented herein represents the latest Mineral Resource evaluation prepared for the Project in accordance with the JORC Code.

The Mineral Resource model prepared by SRK utilises some 54,026 m of drilling for a total of 261 drillholes at the Oropesa Project. The Mineral Resource estimate was completed by Mr Robert Goddard, CGeol an “Competent Person” as defined by the JORC Code. The effective date of the Mineral Resource statement is 17 February, 2017.

12.2 Resource Estimation Procedures

The resource estimation methodology involved the following procedures:

database compilation and verification;
construction of wireframe geological models and definition of Resource domains;
data conditioning (compositing and capping review) for statistical analysis, geostatistical analysis;
variography;
block modelling and grade interpolation;
resource classification and validation;
assessment of “reasonable prospects for economic extraction” and selection of appropriate reporting cut-off grades; and
preparation of the Mineral Resource Statement.

12.3 Resource Database

SRK was supplied with a Microsoft Excel Database. The files supplied had an effective date of 17 February 2017. The database has been reviewed by SRK and imported into Datamine to complete the Mineral Resource Estimate. SRK is satisfied with the quality of the database for use in the construction of the geological block model and associated Mineral Resource Estimate.

12.4 Statistical Analysis – Raw Data

An initial global statistical analysis was undertaken on the raw drill data. Summary statistics, incremental and log histograms were calculated and used to determine whether different geological domains could be identified. The positively skewed log normal distributions for tin are shown in Figure 12-1, with the separate populations noted in the tin assays relating to lower grade host rock and higher grade mineralised zones. SRK notes a low grade population caused by the analytical lower detection limits at less than 0.01%.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 39 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

==> picture [202 x 202] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [203 x 203] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 12-1: Incremental and Log Histogram of Length Weighted Project Tin Assays

12.5 3D Modelling

All electronic data was initially imported into the Leapfrog Geo Software (“Leapfrog”) for visual validation against the topography and preliminary review in plan and section. For the 2017 Mineral Resource estimate, the geological units modelled for the deposit were:

fault interpretation;
definition of weathering and overburden zones; and
tin mineralised horizons.

12.5.1 Geological Wireframes

Fault Surfaces

Two fault surfaces for the Oropesa deposit have been interpreted by SRK using a combination of geological logging and interpreted offsets in the lithological and mineralisation domains. The structural model has been used to guide the termination of the major mineralised horizons and orientation of minor fault-hosted mineralisation.

Weathering and Overburden Surfaces

Surfaces representing the base of oxidation and the top of fresh weathering were created based on geological logging, with resultant model zones defined as ‘oxide’, ‘transition’ or ‘fresh’. SRK noted in general higher levels of oxidation in more significantly mineralised zones associated with massive and semi-massive sulphides, which results in a ‘pull down’ effect within certain areas where surficial weathering has extended to greater depths.

The overburden surface has been modelled based on geological logging and represents a relatively thin zone of un-mineralised transported material and clays with an average thickness of approximately 6 m.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 40 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

12.5.2 Mineralisation Wireframes

Tin Mineralised Horizons

Mineralised horizons have been defined based on a combination of lithological logging and tin grade whilst honouring the structural controls and ensuring geological and grade continuity. Top and bottom contacts reflect a cut-off of 0.25% tin (Sn) to differentiate mineralised layers from lower grade host rock and internal partings.

SRK created 3D solid wireframes from selected sample intervals using the vein tool in the Leapfrog Geo Software (“Leapfrog”).

An example 3D image showing the tin mineralised horizons in context of the modelled fault surfaces is provided in Figure 12-2. Mineralisation modelled for 2017 comprises several separate features which are geologically continuous along strike for between 100 m and 800 m, with dip extents of up to 250 m and an average thickness normally between 3 m and 10 m, reaching over 20 m in certain areas.

==> picture [410 x 342] intentionally omitted <==

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

Tin mineralised
horizons (green)
Fault Surface
(grey)
----- End of picture text -----

Figure 12-2: 3D view (looking NE) illustrating the position and orientation of the mineralised horizons and faulting at Oropesa

12.5.3 Mineralisation Model Coding

A summary of the modelled mineralisation horizons is provided in Table 12-1. The GROUP code relates to the mineralisation domain globally, whereas the KZONE code relates to individual mineralised horizons.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 41 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

Table 12-1 and Figure 12-4 provide images of the Oropesa geological wireframes, which have been reviewed by the Company for approval and have been deemed acceptable for use in the MRE.

Table 12-1: Summary of Mineralisation Zones at the Oropesa Project

==> picture [418 x 400] intentionally omitted <==

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

GROUP KZONE Wireframe Deposit Description
Tin mineralised
100 1 - 20 horizons (k1_tr - Oropesa Tin mineralised zones primarily occurring in granular sandstones at
k20_tr) the contacts between the sandstone and conglomerate units
Tin mineralised
horizons
[GROUP 100]
Drillhole trace
coloured by Sn%
----- End of picture text -----

Figure 12-3: Oropesa Mineralisation Model Cross Section, 25 m slice width

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 42 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

==> picture [411 x 258] intentionally omitted <==

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

Tin mineralised
horizons
[GROUP 100]
Fault surfaces
----- End of picture text -----

Figure 12-4: Oropesa Mineralisation Model Plan View

12.6 Compositing

Prior to the undertaking of a statistical analysis, the samples were composited into equal lengths to provide a constant sample volume, honouring sample support theories.

The tin grade data at Oropesa shows that there are higher and lower grade patches within the deposit, with the preferentially mineralised zones possibly related to coarser-grained sandstones or fracturing localised in areas of rheological contrast at the sandstoneconglomerate contacts.

The gradation between patches of higher and lower grade is observed as a lateral patchiness rather than a predictable grade trend from top to bottom contact within the stratigraphy. Therefore, recognising the absence of such a grade trend and in order to overcome the variable number of samples per intersection due mainly to variable intersection angles, SRK elected to create a single composite for each of the drillholes per intersected horizon (‘zone-composites’) to ensure variography and block grade estimation focused on variability along stratigraphy. Where a drillhole intersects the horizon at a very shallow angle, two or more equal length composites were made each with a length typically no more than 40 m.

12.7 Evaluation of Outliers

High grade capping is undertaken where very high grade data is considered to be unrepresentative of the main population. SRK has completed the analysis based on log probability plots, raw and log histograms which can be used to distinguish the grades at which samples have significant impacts on the local estimation and whose affect is considered extreme. Based on a review of raw and log histogram plots for the mineralisation domain (in context of a visual assessment for sample support), no high-grade capping was applied.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 43 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

Log histograms and log-probability plots (as illustrated for tin zone-composites in Figure 12-5) are shown for the mineralisation domain in Appendix B, which also presents capping analysis based on 2 m composites to illustrate in general the limited sensitivity on the outlier assessment to composite length. Table 12-2 and Table 12-3 provide a summary of the zone-composite sample statistics within the mineralisation domain and individual mineralised horizons, respectively.

==> picture [203 x 145] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [199 x 145] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 12-5: Log Histogram and Log Probability Plot for the tin mineralisation domain at Oropesa

Table 12-2: Composite Statistics (Global Mineralisation Domain)

GROUP	FIELD	NSAMP	MIN	MAX	MEAN	VAR	STDDEV	COV
100	SN_PCT	541	0.001	3.48	0.54	0.22	0.47	0.86
Table 12-3: Composite Statistics (Individual Mineralised Horizons)
KZONE	FIELD	NSAMP	MIN	MAX	MEAN	VAR	STDDEV	COV
1	SN_PCT	57	0.0	1.95	0.39	0.08	0.28	0.72
2	SN_PCT	66	0.0	1.46	0.44	0.11	0.33	0.74
3	SN_PCT	5	0.3	0.38	0.31	0.00	0.05	0.15
4	SN_PCT	6	0.1	1.19	0.55	0.19	0.43	0.79
5	SN_PCT	20	0.1	1.85	0.56	0.25	0.50	0.88
6	SN_PCT	5	0.3	0.58	0.40	0.01	0.10	0.25
7	SN_PCT	16	0.3	0.55	0.37	0.01	0.08	0.23
8	SN_PCT	6	0.2	0.53	0.36	0.01	0.10	0.27
9	SN_PCT	3	0.3	0.64	0.43	0.02	0.16	0.37
10	SN_PCT	177	0.0	3.39	0.67	0.30	0.55	0.82
11	SN_PCT	24	0.3	1.74	0.64	0.16	0.40	0.63
12	SN_PCT	13	0.2	1.09	0.44	0.07	0.26	0.58
13	SN_PCT	61	0.0	2.35	0.37	0.11	0.33	0.91
14	SN_PCT	57	0.0	3.48	0.72	0.42	0.65	0.89
15	SN_PCT	5	0.2	0.87	0.41	0.06	0.24	0.59
16	SN_PCT	7	0.2	0.38	0.29	0.00	0.07	0.23
17	SN_PCT	3	0.2	1.70	1.00	0.36	0.60	0.60
18	SN_PCT	3	0.6	0.72	0.68	0.00	0.04	0.05
19	SN_PCT	5	0.3	1.40	0.56	0.18	0.42	0.75
20	SN_PCT	2	0.4	0.66	0.52	0.02	0.14	0.26

12.8 Geostatistical Analysis

Variography is the study of the spatial variability of an attribute, in this case tin grade. The Snowdon Supervisor Software (“Supervisor”) was used for geostatistical analysis and the data has been analysed using a pairwise relative variogram in order to define variogram models of sufficient clarity.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 44 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

In completing the analysis for the mineralised domains, the following has been considered:

strike azimuth of the zone was determined;
a short-lag variogram was calculated and modelled to characterise the nugget effect;
Experimental Pairwise Relative semi-variograms were calculated to review directional variograms for the along strike direction, to limit the influence from sample pairs situated on opposite sides of folded units;
variograms were modelled using the nugget defined in the short-lag variography and the ranges identified for the along strike direction; and
all variances were re-scaled for each mineralised lens to match the total variance for that zone (namely the ‘VAR’ field in Table 12-3).

SRK treated the mineralisation domain as a single zone for variography due to the limited number of samples within certain horizons; however, the experimental variogram was calculated using a 35° cone in attempt to reduce the influence of sample data from spatially separate horizons from impacting the assessment of grade continuity. Omni-directional structures were selected for fitting of the final variogram models.

The pairwise relative variogram modelled for the Mineralisation domain (GROUP 100) for tin is shown in Figure 12-6. The variogram parameters for the Project are displayed in Table 12-4.

==> picture [417 x 367] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 12-6: Summary of modelled semi-variogram parameters for the Oropesa Mineralisation domain (GROUP 100)

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 45 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

Table 12-4: Summary of semi-variogram parameters*

Variogram Parameter	SN_PCT-GROUP100
Co	0.05
C1	0.08
A1 – AlongStrike(m)	29
A1 – Down Dip (m)	29
A1 – Across Strike(m)	29
C2	0.24
A2 – AlongStrike(m)	76
A2 – Down Dip (m)	76
A2 – Across Strike(m)	76
C3	0.00
A3 – AlongStrike(m)	0
A3 – Down Dip (m)	0
A3 – Across Strike(m)	0
Nugget Effect(%)	14%

*Semi-variogram structures were subsequently re-scaled to the total sample variance per estimation zone

12.9 Block Model and Grade Estimation

A block model prototype was created for Oropesa based on UTM coordinate grid. Block model parameters were chosen to reflect the average drillhole spacing (along strike and on section) and to appropriately reflect the grade variability along strike and along dip.

To improve the geometric representation of the geological model, sub-blocking was allowed along the boundaries to a minimum of 2x2x1 m (x, y, and z). A summary of the block model parameters is given in Table 12-5. Using the wireframes created and described in Section 12.5, several codes have been written in the block model to describe each of the major geological properties of the rock types. Table 12-6 summarises geological fields created within the block model and the codes used.

Table 12-5: Details of Block Model Dimensions for the Project Geological Model

Model	Dimension	Origin(UTM)	Block Size	Number of Blocks	Min Sub-blocking (m)
Oropesa	X	282680	20	81	2
	Y	4242800	20	65	2
	Z	250	10	45	1

Table 12-6: Summary of block model fields used for flagging different geological properties

Field Name	Description
SVOL	Search Volume reference(range from 1 - 3)
KV	KrigingVariance
NSUM	Number of samples used to estimate the block
SN	Interpolated tin value
CLASS	Classification
KZONE	Zone for estimation
GROUP	Zone for statistical analysis
CLASS	Classification
DENSITY	Densityof the rock
OXZONE	Zone for densityestimation
OX	Weatheringzone(1=oxide;2=transition;3=fresh)
OVB	Overburden zone code(1=overburden)

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 46 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

12.10 Final Estimation Parameters

Ordinary Kriging (“OK”) was used for the grade interpolation for the Mineralisation domain for tin and individual mineralised horizons were estimated separately (per KZONE) to honour spatial differences observed in the sample grade distribution and to prevent drillhole data from one domain affecting blocks in another domain.

For grade interpolation, given the folded nature of the estimation domains, the use of a dynamic search ellipse which follows the trend of the mineralisation wireframes was initially considered. However, the tightly folded stratigraphy limits the effectiveness of this technique at the fold hinges, given the difficultly with getting the ellipse to ‘fold’ around the hinge. Instead, SRK has used a relatively local spherical search ellipse that achieves well informed local block estimates within the hinge-area of the folds without overly influencing the blocks from one side of the fold with sample data from the opposite side. All domain boundaries were treated as hard boundaries during the estimation process.

Inverse distance weighting (“IDW”) was used for the interpolation of density and for verification of the OK estimates for tin.

The selected estimation parameters have been verified based on the results of a quantitative Kriging Neighbourhood Analysis (“QKNA”), and are presented in Table 12-7.

Table 12-7: Summary of Final Estimation Parameters for Oropesa

Estimation Parameters	Estimation Parameters	Estimation Parameters	Description
GROUP	100		Kriging zone for estimation Field for interpolation Search reference number Search volume shape (2 = ellipse) Search distance 1 (dip) Search distance 2 (strike) Search distance 3 (across strike) Search angle 1 (dip direction) Search angle 2 (dip) Search angle 3 (plunge) Search axis 1 (z) Search axis 2 (x) Search axis 3 (z) Minimum sample number (SVOL1) Maximum sample number (SVOL1) Search distance expansion (SVOL2) Minimum sample number (SVOL2) Maximum sample number (SVOL2) Search distance expansion (SVOL3) Minimum sample number (SVOL3) Maximum sample number (SVOL3) Maximum number of samplesper drillhole
FIELD	SN_PCT	DENSITY
SREFNUM	1 2 65 65 65 0 0 0 3 1 3 4 8 2 4 8 3 2 8 -	2 2 65 65 65 0 0 0 3 1 3 10 40 2 10 40 5 2 40 -
SMETHOD
SDIST1
SDIST2
SDIST3
SANGLE1
SANGLE2
SANGLE3
SAXIS1
SAXIS2
SAXIS3
MINNUM1
MAXNUM1
SVOLFAC2
MINNUM2
MAXNUM2
SVOLFAC3
MINNUM3
MAXNUM3
MAXKEY

12.11 Model Validation and Sensitivity

12.11.1 Sensitivity Analysis

Grade estimation was performed in Datamine, based on optimum parameters verified through a QKNA exercise. The exercise was based on varying kriging parameters for tin during a number of different scenarios. The slope of regression, kriging variances, block estimates and percentage of blocks filled in each search were recorded and compared for each scenario. The following parameters were changed during the QKNA exercise:

minimum number of samples;

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 47 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

maximum number of samples; and
search ellipse sizes.

The QKNA exercise for the MRE has focused on testing the sensitivity of block grade estimates to changes in the selected search parameters for the KZONE 10 Mineralised horizon, based on its representative geometry and relatively significant contribution to tonnage (31%) in the geological model.

In general, the estimate showed a relatively limited sensitivity in the mean block grade to changes in the estimation parameters. SRK noted, however, that block grades (visually) better reflected the sample variability by restricting the search ellipse dimension and maximum number of composites to within reasonable limits, the associated sensitivity is shown in Table 12-8 and Table 12-9. The final parameters were selected to ensure that the contiguous patches of higher and lower tin grade sometimes evident in the drilling data were appropriately reflected in block grade estimates.

Table 12-8: QKNA Search Ellipse Size for Oropesa; Mineralised horizon KZONE 10

DETERMINE SEARCH VOLUME		GRADE
RUN Min Max Search	SVOL	SNOK SNIDW	SLOPE NUM KV % Fill
1 4 8 50x50x50 4 8 50x50x50 2 8 50x50x50	1 2 3	0.67 0.68 0.53 0.53 0.54 0.53	0.85 7 0.09 56.1% 0.65 7 0.15 43.8% 0.26 8 0.21 0.2%
2 4 8 65x65x65 4 8 65x65x65 2 8 65x65x65	1 2	0.63 0.63 0.53 0.53	0.81 7 0.10 82.0% 0.57 8 0.16 18.0% 0.0%
3 4 8 80x80x80 4 8 80x80x80 2 8 80x80x80	1 2	0.61 0.62 0.54 0.54	0.79 7 0.11 95.2% 0.38 8 0.19 4.8% 0.0%
4 4 8 95x95x95 4 8 95x95x95 2 8 95x95x95	1 2	0.61 0.61 0.55 0.54	0.78 8 0.11 98.9% 0.28 8 0.20 1.1% 0.0%
5 4 8 110x110x110 4 8 110x110x110	1 2	0.60 0.61 0.48 0.43	0.78 8 0.11 100.0% 0.44 8 0.19 0.0% 0.0%
2 8 110x110x110

Table 12-9: QKNA Number of Samples for Oropesa; Mineralised horizon KZONE 10

DETERMINE NUMBER OF SAMPLES		GRADE
RUN Min Max Search	SVOL	SNOK SNIDW	SLOPE NUM KV % Fill
1 5 8 65x65x65 5 8 65x65x65 2 8 65x65x65	1 2	0.64 0.65 0.53 0.53	0.84 7 0.095 69.0% 0.62 8 0.154 31.0% 0.0%
2 6 8 65x65x65 6 8 65x65x65 2 8 65x65x65	1 2 3	0.67 0.68 0.53 0.53 0.48 0.43	0.88 8 0.084 54.2% 0.67 8 0.146 45.8% 0.44 8 0.192 0.0%
3 4 10 65x65x65 4 10 65x65x65 2 10 65x65x65	1 2	0.62 0.63 0.53 0.53	0.81 7 0.104 82.0% 0.59 10 0.158 18.0% 0.0%
4 4 12 65x65x65 4 12 65x65x65 2 12 65x65x65	1 2	0.62 0.63 0.53 0.53	0.82 8 0.103 82.0% 0.60 11 0.157 18.0% 0.0%
5 4 14 65x65x65 4 14 65x65x65	1 2	0.62 0.63 0.53 0.53	0.82 9 0.103 82.0% 0.61 12 0.156 18.0% 0.0%
2 14 65x65x65

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 48 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

12.12 Block Model Validation

SRK has validated the block model using the following techniques:

visual inspection of block grades in comparison with drillhole data;
sectional validation of the mean samples grades in comparison to the mean model grades; and
comparison of block model statistics.

Visual Validation

Visual validation provides a comparison of the interpolated block model on a local scale. A thorough visual inspection has been undertaken in section and 3D, comparing the sample grades with the block grades, which demonstrates in general good comparison between local block estimates and nearby samples, without excessive smoothing in the block model. Figure 12-7 and Figure 12-8 provide examples of the visual validation checks and highlights the overall block grades corresponding with composite sample grades. Further visual validation images are shown in Appendix C.

==> picture [417 x 345] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 12-7: Oropesa Block Model 3D view showing visual validation of modelled borehole intercepts to grade estimates

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 49 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

==> picture [415 x 308] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 12-8: Oropesa Block Model 2D view showing visual validation of modelled borehole intercepts to grade estimates

Sectional Validation

As part of the validation process, the drillhole composite samples are compared to the block model grades within a series of coordinates (based on the principle directions). The results of which are then displayed on charts to check for visual discrepancies between grades. Figure 12-9 shows the results for the tin grades for the Mineralised horizon KZONE 10 based on section lines cut along x-coordinates.

The resultant plots show a reasonable correlation between the block model grades and the composite grades, with the block model showing a typically smoothed profile of the composite grades as expected. SRK notes that in less densely sampled areas, minor grade discrepancies do exist on a local scale. Overall, however, SRK is confident that the interpolated grades reflect the available input sample data and the estimate shows no sign of material bias.

Validation plots for selected Mineralised horizons are shown in Appendix D.

Statistical Validation

The block estimates for the 2017 MRE have been compared to the mean of the composite samples (Table 12-10) which indicate the overall percentage difference in the mean grades typically vary between 1% – 10%, which SRK deems to be within acceptable levels.

SRK notes a slightly higher percentage difference in the means for mineralised horizons KZONE 4, 14 and 19, which is as a result of the sample mean being skewed by relatively few low/ high grade samples that influence a large proportion of the tonnage.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 50 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

Based on the visual, sectional and statistical validation results SRK has accepted the grades in the block model.

==> picture [417 x 239] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 12-9: Validation Plot (Easting) showing Block Model Estimates versus Sample Mean (20m Intervals) for Mineralised horizon KZONE 10

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 51 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

Table 12-10: Summary Block Statistics for Ordinary Kriging and Inverse Distance Weighting Estimation Methods for tin

			Block Estimate	Composite Mean		Absolute Difference
KZONE	Field	Estimation Method			% Difference
			Mean(ppm)	(ppm)		(ppm)

1	SN	OK	0.38	0.39	-3%	-0.01
		IDW	0.38	0.39	-3%	-0.01
2	SN	OK	0.45	0.44	3%	0.01
		IDW	0.47	0.44	6%	0.03
3	SN	OK	0.30	0.31	-3%	-0.01
		IDW	0.31	0.31	-1%	0.00
4	SN	OK	0.45	0.55	-18%	-0.10
		IDW	0.42	0.55	-23%	-0.12
5	SN	OK	0.54	0.56	-4%	-0.02
		IDW	0.51	0.56	-10%	-0.06
6	SN	OK	0.39	0.40	-3%	-0.01
		IDW	0.39	0.40	-3%	-0.01
7	SN	OK	0.37	0.37	1%	0.00
		IDW	0.37	0.37	1%	0.00
8	SN	OK	0.34	0.36	-6%	-0.02
		IDW	0.35	0.36	-4%	-0.01
9	SN	OK	0.43	0.43	2%	0.01
		IDW	0.44	0.43	4%	0.02
10	SN	OK	0.61	0.67	-9%	-0.06
		IDW	0.62	0.67	-8%	-0.05
11	SN	OK	0.69	0.64	8%	0.05
		IDW	0.70	0.64	9%	0.06
12	SN	OK	0.46	0.44	4%	0.02
		IDW	0.47	0.44	7%	0.03
13	SN	OK	0.38	0.37	2%	0.01
		IDW	0.38	0.37	2%	0.01
14	SN	OK	0.63	0.72	-13%	-0.09
		IDW	0.63	0.72	-12%	-0.09
15	SN	OK	0.44	0.41	7%	0.03
		IDW	0.43	0.41	6%	0.02
16	SN	OK	0.27	0.29	-6%	-0.02
		IDW	0.27	0.29	-5%	-0.02
17	SN	OK	1.08	1.00	8%	0.08
		IDW	1.09	1.00	8%	0.08
18	SN	OK	0.69	0.68	1%	0.01
		IDW	0.69	0.68	1%	0.01
19	SN	OK	0.62	0.56	11%	0.06
		IDW	0.65	0.56	15%	0.09
20	SN	OK	0.55	0.52	5%	0.03
		IDW	0.59	0.52	13%	0.07

12.13 Mineral Resource Classification

Block model quantities and grade estimates for the Oropesa deposit were classified according to the JORC Code.

Mineral Resource classification is typically a subjective concept, industry best practices suggest that resource classification should consider both the confidence in the geological continuity of the mineralised structures, the quality and quantity of exploration data supporting the estimates and the geostatistical confidence in the tonnage and grade estimates. Appropriate classification criteria should aim at integrating both concepts to delineate regular areas at similar resource classification.

Data quality, geological confidence, sample spacing and the interpreted continuity of grades controlled by the deposit has allowed SRK to classify the block model in the Measured, Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource categories.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 52 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

The following guidelines apply to SRK’s classification:

Measured

Measured Mineral Resources are where block grades are based on multiple drillhole intercepts, where there is typically 20m spacing and where there is good continuity shown by both assay grades and geological wireframes. Additional density sampling during future infill drilling is required in the oxide zone prior to reporting the oxidised resource with ‘measured’ confidence.

Indicated

Indicated Mineral Resources comprise the blocks in where SRK has a reasonable level of geological confidence in well drilled areas of the model and typically up to 70 m beyond these areas.

Inferred

Inferred Mineral Resources are in domains that display reasonable to low geological confidence, where blocks are typically within 100 m of sample data and bound by the maximum extents of the mineralisation wireframes. These areas require infill drilling to improve the quality of the geological interpretation and local block grade estimates to a level suitable for mine planning.

An example of SRK’s Mineral Resource classification for the Oropesa deposit is shown in Figure 12-10.

==> picture [418 x 270] intentionally omitted <==

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

N
----- End of picture text -----

Figure 12-10: Plan view showing SRK’s wireframe-defined Mineral Resource Classification for the Oropesa deposit

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 53 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

12.14 Mineral Resource Statement

The JORC Code defines a Mineral Resource as:

A “concentration or occurrence of solid material of economic interest in or on the Earth’s crust in such form, grade (or quality), and quantity that there are reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction. The location, quantity, grade (or quality), continuity and other geological characteristics of a Mineral Resource are known, estimated or interpreted from specific geological evidence and knowledge, including sampling”.

The “reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction” requirement generally implies that the quantity and grade estimates meet certain economic thresholds and that the mineral resources are reported at an appropriate cut-off grade taking into account extraction scenarios and processing recoveries.

Reporting and Cut-off Derivation

Based on the above, SRK has elected to consider the full extents of the geological model for Mineral Resource reporting.

The parameters used for the 2017 pit optimisation exercise were based on SRK’s 2017 mining study:

A tin price of USD23,400/t derived from market consensus long term price forecasts with a 30% uplift as appropriate for assessing eventual economic potential of Mineral Resources.
A tin process recovery of 71%.
A cost of USD18/t for processing, USD4/t G&A and USD1.8/t for mining.
Slope angles of 35° for oxide, 40° for transition and 46° for fresh material.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 54 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

The 2017 Mineral Resource Statement for the Oropesa deposit is shown per weathering zone and grade category in Table 12-11. The Company has earned a 96% interest in the Oropesa property with registered title to the property with the Andalucia mining authorities under the Spanish Mining Act.

Table 12-11: SRK Mineral Resource Statement effective of 17 February 2017 for the Oropesa Deposit prepared in accordance with the JORC Code

				Tin	Tin
~~C~~	~~W~~hi Z	~~G~~d C S	T k
ategory	eaterng one	rae ategory %n	onnes (t)	% Sn	Metal(Sn t)

Subtotal Measured	Oxide	>0.15	-	-	-
	Transition	>0.15	40	1.62	650
	Fresh	>0.15	290	1.01	2,940
Subtotal Indicated	Oxide	>0.15	110	0.58	645
	Transition	>0.15	1,900	0.49	9,250
	Fresh	>0.15	7,000	0.53	37,430
~~S~~ubtotal Measured and ~~I~~ndicated	Oxide	>0.15	110	0.58	645
	Transition	>0.15	1,940	0.51	9,900
	Fresh	>0.15	7,290	0.55	40,365
Subtotal Inferred	Oxide	>0.15	190	0.43	815
	Transition	>0.15	1,120	0.41	4,645
	Fresh	>0.15	1,890	0.59	11,155
Total Measured >0.15			330	1.09	3,585
Total Indicated >0.15			9,010	0.53	47,320
Total Measured and Indicated >0.15			9,340	0.55	50,910
Total Inferred >0.15			3,200	0.52	16,615

1. All figures are rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimate.

2. Mineral Resources are not Ore Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.

4. The Mineral Resource is given on the basis of 100% ownership of the Oropesa property.

12.15 Grade Sensitivity Analysis

The results of grade sensitivity analysis completed for Oropesa are shown in Table 12-12 and Table 12-13 graphically in Figure 12-11 and Figure 12-12.

This is to show the continuity of the grade estimates at various cut ‐ off increments and the sensitivity of the Mineral Resource to changes in cut-off. The tonnages and grades in these tables at cut-off grades other than 0.15% Sn, however, are not Mineral Resources.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 55 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

Table 12-12: Gradations for Measured and Indicated Material at Oropesa at various

%Sn Cut-off Grades

Grade - Tonnage Table,Oropesa,February2017	Grade - Tonnage Table,Oropesa,February2017	Grade - Tonnage Table,Oropesa,February2017	Grade - Tonnage Table,Oropesa,February2017
	Measured and Indicated
~~C~~ff Gd
ut-o rae	Quantity	Tin

Sn(%)	(Mt)	% Sn	Metal(Sn Mt)
0.00	9.5	0.54	51.1
0.10	9.5	0.54	51.1
0.15	9.3	0.55	50.9
0.20	9.1	0.55	50.6
0.30	8.1	0.59	47.8
0.40	6.6	0.65	42.6
0.50	4.7	0.73	34.0

==> picture [418 x 202] intentionally omitted <==

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

Grade Tonnage Curve for Oropesa - Measured and Indicated
10.0 2.50
9.0
8.0 2.00
7.0
6.0 1.50
5.0
Tonnes
4.0 1.00
Sn%
3.0
2.0 0.50
1.0
0.0 0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.20
Sn Cut-Off (%)
Tonnes (t)
Millions
Grade Sn (%)
----- End of picture text -----

Figure 12-11: Grade Tonnage Curve for Measured and Indicated at Oropesa at various %Sn Cut-off Grades

Table 12-13: Gradations for Inferred Material at Oropesa at various %Sn Cut-off Grades

Grade - Tonnage Table,Oropesa,February2017	Grade - Tonnage Table,Oropesa,February2017	Grade - Tonnage Table,Oropesa,February2017	Grade - Tonnage Table,Oropesa,February2017
	Inferred
~~C~~ff Gd
ut-o rae	Quantity	Tin

Sn(%)	(Mt)	% Sn	Metal(Sn Mt)
0.00	3.2	0.52	16.6
0.10	3.2	0.52	16.6
0.15	3.2	0.52	16.6
0.20	3.2	0.52	16.6
0.30	2.9	0.55	15.8
0.40	1.9	0.65	12.3
0.50	1.2	0.78	9.2

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 56 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

==> picture [416 x 204] intentionally omitted <==

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

Grade Tonnage Curve for Oropesa - Inferred
3.5 2.00
3.0
1.50
2.5
2.0
1.00
Tonnes
1.5
Sn%
1.0
0.50
0.5
0.0 0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00
Sn Cut-off (%)
Tonnes (t)
Grade Sn (%)
Millions
----- End of picture text -----

Figure 12-12: Grade Tonnage Curve for Inferred at Oropesa at various %Sn Cut-off Grades

12.16 Vertical Profile Analysis

SRK has completed a vertical profile analysis of the classified Mineral Resource grouped over 10m increments to illustrate the nature of the grade and tonnages of the mineralisation with depth. To illustrate the sensitivity of the vertical profiles to cut-off gradations, separate tabulations are provided above cut-off grades of 0.15%, 0.2% and 0.25% Sn and are presented in Appendix E. The reader is cautioned that the tables presented should not be misconstrued as a Mineral Resource Statement.

The vertical profile plot at a 0.15% Sn cut-off shows that the material classified as Measured and Indicated has an overall higher grade in the top half of the model (above 480m RL i.e. to depth of 140 m). The grade in the top half is 0.58% Sn, whereas the lower half of the model has a slightly lower grade at 0.52% Sn.

12.17 Comparison to Previous Mineral Resource Estimates

In comparison to the previous 2015 Mineral Resource estimate for the Project which was comprised Indicated and Inferred categories, SRK has upgraded 0.3 Mt at a grade of 1.1% tin in to the Measured category, which is primarily due to additional geological confidence provided by infill drilling.

In comparison to the previous Indicated Mineral Resource which was reported at a cut-off grade of 0.1% tin, the updated Measured+Indicated Mineral Resource estimate (reported at a cut-off of 0.15% tin) represents a marginal decrease in the metal content, from 52.1 to 50.9 kt. The change in contained metal is the result of 1% reduction in tonnage and 1% (relative) decrease in tin grade.

The reduction in tonnage is mainly due to infill drilling improving the definition of the geological contacts between the (mineralised) sandstone and (non-mineralised) conglomerate. SRK note a 2% relative reduction in grade due to new drilling returning slightly lower tin grades and the (Niton) assaying of a small number of previously non-sampled intervals; this is balanced by a small 1% relative increase in grade by increasing the cut-off grade, which results in a net 1% relative reduction in tin grade.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 57 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

Within the Inferred category, the updated Mineral Resource estimate (reported at a cut-off of 0.15% tin) represents a decrease in the metal content, from 17.5 kt to 16.6 kt. The change in contained metal is mainly the result of 5% reduction in tonnage due to infill drilling improving the definition between the sandstone and conglomerate at the deposit periphery.

SRK considers that the key changes in the Mineral Resource result from a combination of the following factors:

metal converted to Measured, primarily due to new infill drilling confirming the continuity of the geology and mineralisation within targeted areas of the deposit;
infill drilling improving the definition between the mineralised sandstone and (nonmineralised) conglomerate, mainly at the deposit periphery;
new drilling returning slightly lower tin grades overall;
(Niton) assaying of previously non-sampled intervals within the mineralised zone; and
increase to the tin cut-off grade used to report the Mineral Resource.

12.18 Exploration Potential

SRK notes that the mineralisation remains open along strike and around the margins of the deposit where there is potential for additional replacement-style and/or fault-controlled mineralisation.

Furthermore, the geological model used to guide the development of the mineralisation wireframes has significant implications for exploration in the surrounding area, with several NNW/SSE trending geophysical anomalies sub-parallel to the interpreted hinge of the major fold at Oropesa (Figure 8-3) highlighting the potential for additional zones of mineralisation within the Licence boundary. The geological model should be further tested and refined in conjunction with a reassessment of the licence scale exploration potential.

In addition, SRK considers that within certain areas lower grade material may exist adjacent to the current mineralisation wireframes, with the potential to add a small amount of tonnage to the resource. SRK has not attempted to model this material given its typically discontinuous and poorly understood nature.

13 INTERPRETATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

The geological interpretation used to generate the Mineral Resource presented herein is generally considered to be robust; however, there are areas of lower geological confidence in parts of the Inferred Mineral Resource which may be subject to further revision in the future. In addition, SRK notes there is potential to add additional replacement-style and/or fault-controlled mineralisation along strike and around the margins of the deposit.

SRK considers the exploration data accumulated by the Company is generally reliable and suitable for the purpose of this Mineral Resource estimate.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 58 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

14 RECOMMENDATIONS

Targeted infill drilling to add geological confidence to convert the Inferred Resources to Indicated and convert more of the Indicated to Measured Resources.
Complete additional exploration drilling along strike and around the margins of the deposit where there is potential to add additional replacement-style and/or fault-controlled mineralisation. Any future drilling should include the systematic collection of downhole structural data to further constrain the geological model.
The geological model should be further tested and refined in conjunction with a reassessment of the licence scale exploration potential.

In addition, SRK would also recommend the following:

Density test work during future exploration programmes should focus on characterising the density of rubbly, oxidised material and the sampling of existing drillholes which have not yet been sampled for density to maximise the confidence in density estimates within these areas;
Future exploration programs should use a high-accuracy GPS for drillhole collar survey given the potential variability noted in the accuracy of the z-coordinate determined by handheld GPS.
Consider sending the remaining non-sampled (tin) intervals located within the mineralised zones to ALS Vancouver to remove the need for inserting values from Niton XRF data.
Adopt a commercial database system to improve management of the raw database at Oropesa.
For the holes drilled prior to ORPD059 (if available) SRK recommends sending pulp splits from a representative portion of samples to the primary laboratory along with QAQC samples according to the current protocols to compare the laboratory performance today with its performance in 2011 and 2010 prior to drillhole ORPD059.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 59 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Main Report

15 REFERENCES

Dallmeyer, R.D. and Martinez Garcia, E. (Eds), 1990. Pre-Mesozoic geology of Iberia. Springer Verlag. 416p.

Hosking, K.F.G., 1988. The world’s major types of tin deposits. In: Hutchison, C.S. (ed), Geology of tin deposits in Asia and the Pacific, pp 3-49.

JORC, 2012. Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (The JORC Code) [online]. Available from: http://www.jorc.org (The Joint Ore Reserves Committee of the Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Australian Instittue of Geoscientist and Minerals Council of Australia).

Miller, 2015. Estimation of the maximum tin recovery at the Oropesa Tin Project. Internal memorandum for Eurotin Inc.

Smith, J. A., 2012. Characterising the nature of cassiterite and associated mineralisation at the Oropesa Tin Deposit, SW Spain. MSc Thesis, University of Exeter, 210p.

SRK, 2012. Mineral Resource Estimate of the Oropesa Tin Project, Cordoba Province, Spain. Technical report prepared for Minas De Estaño De España, SLU.

SRK, 2014. Updated Mineral Resource Estimate of the Oropesa Tin Project, Cordoba Province, Spain, June 2014. Technical report prepared for Minas De Estaño De España, SLU.

SRK, 2014. A preliminary Economic Assesment/Scoping Study of the Oropesa Tin Deposit. Technical report prepared for Eurotin Inc.

Taylor, R.G., 1979. Geology of tin deposits; Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, 543p.

Taylor, R .G., 2011. Petrology of 14 drill core samples from the Oropesa tin field. Private report, Eurotin 37p

Taylor, R.G., 2011a. Geological aspects and overview potential of the Oropesa Tin field. Consultancy report, May, 2011.

Taylor, R.G., 2011b. Structural aspects concerning the Oropesa tin system. Consultancy report, October 2011.

Taylor, R.G., 2011c. Petrological examination of 4 gossanous samples from the Oropesa tin prospect, Spain. Consultancy report, November, 2011.

Wagner, R.H., 2004. The Iberian Massif: a Carboniferous assembly. Journal of Iberian Geology 30, 93-108.

For and on behalf of SRK Consulting (UK) Limited

==> picture [188 x 42] intentionally omitted <==

Robert Goddard, Senior Consultant (Resource Geology), SRK Consulting (UK) Limited

==> picture [179 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Mike Beare,

Corporate Consultant (Mining Engineering), SRK Consulting (UK) Limited

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page 60 of 60

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Technical Appendix A

APPENDIX

A QAQC ANALYSIS

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page A1 of A5

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Technical Appendix A

2010-2016 SAMPLE SUBMISSION TO ALS LABORATORIES

TIN CRM

==> picture [403 x 466] intentionally omitted <==

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

Analysis Sn Assays (ppm) from CRM-AMIS0020
0.900
0.850
0.800
+3SD
0.750 -3SD
+2SD
0.700
-2SD
0.650 Certified Value
XRF10 - ALS Vancouver
0.600
0.550
0.500
0.450
0.400
0 20 40 60 80 100
Submission Order
Analysis Sn Assays (ppm) from CRM-AMIS0019
1.400
1.300
+3SD
1.200
-3SD
1.100 +2SD
-2SD
1.000
Certified Value
0.900 XRF10 - ALS Vancouver
0.800
0.700
0 2 4 6 8 10
Submission Order
Sn Assay (%)
Sn Assay (%)
----- End of picture text -----

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page A2 of A5

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Technical Appendix A

==> picture [403 x 233] intentionally omitted <==

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

Analysis Sn Assays (ppm) from CRM-AMIS0021
0.400
0.350
+3SD
0.300 -3SD
+2SD
0.250
-2SD
Certified Value
0.200
XRF10 - ALS Vancouver
0.150
0.100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Submission Order
Sn Assay (%)
----- End of picture text -----

BLANKS

==> picture [403 x 247] intentionally omitted <==

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

Analysis Sn Assays (%)-BLK
0.600
0.500
DL
0.400
3DL
0.300
5DL
0.200
XRF10 - ALS
Vancouver
0.100
0.000
0 50 100 150 200
Submission Order
Sn Assay (%)
----- End of picture text -----

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page A3 of A5

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Technical Appendix A

SN - KZONE 10

==> picture [369 x 301] intentionally omitted <==

SN - KZONE 10

==> picture [369 x 302] intentionally omitted <==

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page C2 of C5

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Technical Appendix C

DENSITY - GROUP 100

==> picture [422 x 212] intentionally omitted <==

DENSITY - GROUP 100

==> picture [422 x 237] intentionally omitted <==

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page C3 of C5

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Technical Appendix C

MINERALISATION DOMAINS – 2D Sectional Visual Validation for Sn%

==> picture [351 x 302] intentionally omitted <==

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page C4 of C5

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Technical Appendix C

==> picture [353 x 303] intentionally omitted <==

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page C5 of C5

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Technical Appendix D

APPENDIX

D VALIDATION PLOTS

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page D1 of D6

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Technical Appendix D

MINERALISATION DOMAIN GROUP 100

SN – KZONE 1

==> picture [340 x 587] intentionally omitted <==

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

0.7 12
0.6
10
0.5
8
0.4
6
0.3
4
0.2
2
0.1
0 0
283050 283100 283150 283200 283250 283300 283350 283400 283450
X-Co-ordinate
Sample Mean Model Mean No. Samples
0.7 12
0.6
10
0.5
8
0.4
6
0.3
4
0.2
2
0.1
0 0
4243500 4243550 4243600 4243650 4243700 4243750 4243800 4243850 4243900 4243950
Y Co-ordinate
Sample Mean Model Mean No. Samples
0.6 16
14
0.5
12
0.4
10
0.3 8
6
0.2
4
0.1
2
0 0
390 400 410 420 430 440 450 460 470 480 490
Z Co-ordinate
Sample Mean Model Mean No. Samples
SN %
No. Samples
SN %
No. Samples
SN %
No. Samples
----- End of picture text -----

SN – KZONE 2

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page D2 of D6

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Technical Appendix D

==> picture [339 x 585] intentionally omitted <==

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

1.2 10
9
1
8
7
0.8
6
0.6 5
4
0.4
3
2
0.2
1
0 0
283050 283100 283150 283200 283250 283300 283350 283400 283450
X-Co-ordinate
Sample Mean Model Mean No. Samples
0.9 12
0.8
10
0.7
0.6 8
0.5
6
0.4
0.3 4
0.2
2
0.1
0 0
4243500 4243550 4243600 4243650 4243700 4243750 4243800 4243850 4243900 4243950
Y Co-ordinate
Sample Mean Model Mean No. Samples
0.8 14
0.7 12
0.6
10
0.5
8
0.4
6
0.3
4
0.2
0.1 2
0 0
380 430 480 530 580 630
Z Co-ordinate
Sample Mean Model Mean No. Samples
SN %
No. Samples
SN %
No. Samples
SN %
No. Samples
----- End of picture text -----

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page D3 of D6

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Technical Appendix D

SN – KZONE 10

==> picture [339 x 586] intentionally omitted <==

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

1.4 20
18
1.2
16
1 14
12
0.8
10
0.6
8
0.4 6
4
0.2
2
0 0
283000 283100 283200 283300 283400 283500 283600 283700 283800
X-Co-ordinate
Sample Mean Model Mean No. Samples
1.4 35
1.2 30
1 25
0.8 20
0.6 15
0.4 10
0.2 5
0 0
4243300 4243400 4243500 4243600 4243700 4243800 4243900
Y Co-ordinate
Sample Mean Model Mean No. Samples
1.2 25
1
20
0.8
15
0.6
10
0.4
5
0.2
0 0
350 400 450 500 550 600 650
Z Co-ordinate
Sample Mean Model Mean No. Samples
SN %
No. Samples
SN %
No. Samples
SN %
No. Samples
----- End of picture text -----

SN – KZONE 13

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page D4 of D6

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Technical Appendix D

==> picture [341 x 587] intentionally omitted <==

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

2.5 12
10
2
8
1.5
6
1
4
0.5
2
0 0
283100 283150 283200 283250 283300 283350 283400 283450 283500 283550
X-Co-ordinate
Sample Mean Model Mean No. Samples
0.9 10
0.8 9
8
0.7
7
0.6
6
0.5
5
0.4
4
0.3
3
0.2
2
0.1 1
0 0
4243450 4243500 4243550 4243600 4243650 4243700 4243750 4243800 4243850
Y Co-ordinate
Sample Mean Model Mean No. Samples
0.8 16
0.7 14
0.6 12
0.5 10
0.4 8
0.3 6
0.2 4
0.1 2
0 0
490 510 530 550 570 590 610 630
Z Co-ordinate
Sample Mean Model Mean No. Samples
SN %
No. Samples
SN %
No. Samples
SN %
No. Samples
----- End of picture text -----

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page D5 of D6

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Technical Appendix D

SN – KZONE 14

==> picture [340 x 587] intentionally omitted <==

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

1.6 9
1.4 8
7
1.2
6
1
5
0.8
4
0.6
3
0.4
2
0.2 1
0 0
283700 283750 283800 283850 283900 283950 284000 284050 284100
X-Co-ordinate
Sample Mean Model Mean No. Samples
1.6 8
1.4 7
1.2 6
1 5
0.8 4
0.6 3
0.4 2
0.2 1
0 0
4242900 4243000 4243100 4243200 4243300 4243400 4243500 4243600
Y Co-ordinate
Sample Mean Model Mean No. Samples
1.4 9
8
1.2
7
1
6
0.8 5
0.6 4
3
0.4
2
0.2
1
0 0
330 380 430 480 530 580 630
Z Co-ordinate
Sample Mean Model Mean No. Samples
SN %
No. Samples
SN %
No. Samples
SN %
No. Samples
----- End of picture text -----

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page D6 of D6

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Technical Appendix E

APPENDIX

E VERTICAL PROFILE ANALYSIS

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page F1 of F3

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Technical Appendix E

Vertical Profile Analysis for the Oropesa Project above a 0.15% Sn cut-off

	Measured	and Indicated	and Indicated	Inferred	Inferred	Inferred
Elevation (m RL)		Tin			Tin
	T k			T k
	onnes (t)	% Sn	Metal(Sn t)	onnes (t)	% Sn	Metal(Sn t)

>620	3	0.42	10	4	1	25
610 to 620	18	0.61	110	49	0.50	250
600 to 610	49	0.71	350	78	0.47	365
590 to 600	110	0.56	615	100	0.45	450
580 to 590	136	0.53	715	103	0.46	470
570 to 580	150	0.55	820	112	0.49	555
560 to 570	187	0.58	1,080	117	0.52	610
550 to 560	316	0.52	1,640	131	0.51	670
540 to 550	400	0.49	1,975	145	0.52	750
530 to 540	477	0.54	2,565	122	0.52	640
520 to 530	616	0.67	4,125	120	0.49	585
510 to 520	597	0.71	4,245	111	0.46	515
500 to 510	575	0.56	3,235	117	0.44	510
490 to 500	524	0.51	2,665	136	0.52	715
480 to 490	489	0.54	2,640	177	0.65	1,150
470 to 480	533	0.55	2,920	110	0.40	440
460 to 470	515	0.54	2,775	132	0.41	535
450 to 460	594	0.51	3,020	197	0.44	865
440 to 450	694	0.51	3,535	158	0.51	805
430 to 440	600	0.50	2,975	224	0.50	1,130
420 to 430	384	0.47	1,805	110	0.59	655
410 to 420	273	0.49	1,345	95	0.63	595
400 to 410	323	0.49	1,595	101	0.62	635
390 to 400	322	0.55	1,775	97	0.60	580
380 to 390	218	0.59	1,290	89	0.60	540
370 to 380	140	0.53	745	98	0.61	600
360 to 370	73	0.41	305	102	0.57	580
350 to 360	21	0.34	75	53	0.62	325
340 to 350	-	-	-	15	0.64	95

Vertical Profile Analysis for the Oropesa Project above a 0.2% Sn cut-off

	Measured a	nd Indicated	nd Indicated	Inferred	Inferred	Inferred
Elevation (m RL)		Tin			Tin
	T k			T k
	onnes (t)	% Sn	Metal(Sn t)	onnes (t)	% Sn	Metal(Sn t)

>620	3	0.42	10	4	1	25
610 to 620	17	0.64	105	47	0.52	245
600 to 610	42	0.80	340	73	0.49	355
590 to 600	98	0.61	595	100	0.45	450
580 to 590	118	0.58	685	103	0.46	470
570 to 580	139	0.57	800	112	0.49	555
560 to 570	183	0.58	1,070	112	0.53	600
550 to 560	308	0.53	1,625	124	0.53	660
540 to 550	387	0.50	1,955	136	0.54	735
530 to 540	471	0.54	2,555	121	0.53	635
520 to 530	613	0.67	4,120	120	0.49	585
510 to 520	596	0.71	4,240	111	0.46	515
500 to 510	572	0.56	3,230	117	0.44	510
490 to 500	519	0.51	2,655	136	0.52	715
480 to490	484	0.54	2,630	177	0.65	1,150
470 to480	522	0.56	2,900	110	0.40	440
460 to 470	505	0.55	2,755	132	0.41	535
450 to 460	579	0.52	2,995	197	0.44	865
440 to450	692	0.51	3,535	158	0.51	805
430 to440	600	0.50	2,975	224	0.50	1,130
420 to430	384	0.47	1,805	110	0.59	655
410 to420	266	0.50	1,335	95	0.63	595
400 to 410	287	0.53	1,530	101	0.62	635
390 to 400	300	0.58	1,740	97	0.60	580
380 to 390	218	0.59	1,290	89	0.60	540
370 to 380	140	0.53	745	98	0.61	600
360 to 370	73	0.41	305	102	0.57	580
350 to 360	21	0.34	75	53	0.62	325
340 to 350	-	-	-	15	0.64	95

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page F2 of F3

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Technical Appendix E

Vertical Profile Analysis for the Oropesa Project above a 0.25% Sn cut-off

	Measured	and Indicated	and Indicated	Inferred	Inferred	Inferred
Elevation (m RL)		Tin			Tin
	T k			T k
	onnes (t)	% Sn	Metal(Sn t)	onnes (t)	% Sn	Metal(Sn t)

>620	3	0.42	10	4	1	25
610 to 620	16	0.65	105	45	0.53	240
600 to 610	38	0.86	330	70	0.50	350
590 to 600	92	0.63	580	88	0.48	425
580 to 590	111	0.60	670	90	0.49	440
570 to 580	129	0.60	775	101	0.53	530
560 to 570	173	0.60	1,045	110	0.54	595
550 to 560	300	0.53	1,605	117	0.55	645
540 to 550	387	0.50	1,950	128	0.56	715
530 to 540	457	0.55	2,520	108	0.56	610
520 to 530	604	0.68	4,100	110	0.51	560
510 to 520	575	0.73	4,190	111	0.46	510
500 to 510	552	0.58	3,180	117	0.44	510
490 to 500	509	0.52	2,630	136	0.52	715
480 to490	478	0.55	2,620	177	0.65	1,150
470 to 480	502	0.57	2,860	108	0.40	435
460 to 470	492	0.55	2,725	132	0.41	535
450 to460	566	0.52	2,965	195	0.44	865
440 to450	667	0.52	3,480	156	0.51	800
430 to440	594	0.50	2,960	224	0.50	1,130
420 to430	379	0.47	1,795	110	0.59	655
410 to 420	250	0.52	1,300	95	0.63	595
400 to 410	255	0.57	1,460	101	0.62	635
390 to400	287	0.60	1,715	97	0.60	580
380 to 390	218	0.59	1,290	89	0.60	540
370 to 380	140	0.53	745	98	0.61	600
360 to 370	71	0.42	295	97	0.59	570
350 to 360	21	0.34	75	53	0.62	325
340 to 350	-	-	-	15	0.64	95

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page F3 of F3

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Technical Appendix F

APPENDIX

F JORC TABLE 1

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page F1 of F13

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Technical Appendix F

JORC TABLE 1

Section 1: Sampling Techniques and Data

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

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Project Description
*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. _	Sampling for chemical assay was undertaken by drilling from surface. SRK has been supplied with downhole survey information for the start and the end of each hole, with intermediate readings at approximately every 50 m, typically using a Reflex single shot camera survey measurement. At Oropesa, the drilling intersects the mineralised zone from the southwest and northeast orientations. The Oropesa drillholes are plotted on sections oriented NE-SW across the principal structural control of the deposit and are spaced approximately 20–100 m apart, proving intersections at a similar spacing.
	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.
*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.).	The Company carried out six drilling programmes between 2010–2016, taking mostly DD drillholes (259) of HQ diameter, using a double tube. A small number of RC (12) and RC-DD tail (4) drillholes were also carried out during early phases of exploration (during 2012); RC intercepts are mostly located outside of the modelled zones of mineralisation.
*Drill sample* *recovery*	Method of recording and assessing core and chip sample recoveries and results assessed.	Diamond core was generally extracted in 3 m runs and placed on a V-rail for recovery measurements to be recorded as part of the logging process. Average recovery is 92%, but ranges from 0% to 100%.
	Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and ensure representative nature of the samples	Visual assessment of the core shows that recovery is variable with areas of lower recoveries often noted in zones of significant oxidation, mineralisation or structure. No clear relationship exists between tin grade and recovery; therefore, it is unlikely that a systematic bias has been introduced. However, it is recommended that triple tube diamond coring is employed in future.
	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.
*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 _	Geotechnical (RQD and estimated core recovery) and geological logging was carried out for all core, and data was entered electronically.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page F2 of F13

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Technical Appendix F

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Project Description
	studies.
	Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc.) photography.	Both quantitative (geotechnical logging of RQD and core recovery) and qualitative (lithology) logging was carried out. All core was photographed.
	The total length and percentage of the relevant intersections logged.	100% of diamond core was logged.
*Sub-sampling* *techniques and* *sample* *preparation*	If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, half or all core taken.	Whole core was split using a core saw by Company personnel and then submitted to an ISO-accredited ALS facility in Seville for preparation. This facility followed procedure PREP-31 to weigh, dry and crush samples, and then take a 250 g split to be further pulverized so that >85% pas through a 75 micron mesh. Prepared samples were sent to the ALS Laboratory in Vancouver, Canada for analysis.
	If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc. and _whether sampled wet or dry. _
	For all sample types, the nature, quality and appropriateness of the _sample preparation technique. _
	Quality control procedures adopted for all sub-sampling stages to _maximise representivity of samples. _
	Measures taken to ensure that the sampling is representative of the in situ material collected, including for instance results for field _duplicate/second-halfsampling. _
	Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grain size of the _material being sampled. _
*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.	 ALS Vancouver analysed the samples for tin by glass fusion X-Ray fluorescence (“XRF”).  Routine, industry-standard QAQC procedures have been in place following drillhole ORPD059 which was drilled during 2011; 74% of drillhole intersections within the mineralisation wireframes are supported by QAQC data. The samples collected prior to the implementation of QAQC procedures were prepared and analysed at the same ALS laboratory facilities (in Seville and Vancouver), and mineralised intersections and grade distributions are visually comparable to adjacent data supported by QAQC procedures.  The QAQC procedures featured insertions of field blanks, CRM samples and duplicates, at a combined rate of approximately 6%, in every batch sent to the laboratory.  A limited number of samples were submitted to SGS Wheal Jane during 2012–2013 as an external laboratory check. In general, the check assays validated the assay results from the primary ALS laboratory.  SRK considers that the assay data for drilling and sampling is accurate, precise, was collected and analysed according to generally accepted industry standard practices, and suitable for use in an MRE.
	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.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page F3 of F13

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Technical Appendix F

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Project Description
		 For the holes drilled prior to ORPD059 (if available) SRK recommends sending pulp splits from a representative portion of samples to the primary laboratory along with QAQC samples according to the current protocols to compare the laboratory performance today with its performance in 2011 and 2010 prior to drillhole ORPD059. This would maximise the confidence in the assay QAQC.
*Verification of* *sampling and* *assaying*	The verification of significant intersections by either independent or alternative company personnel.	SRK has completed several Resource Geology visits to the Project, including 2012 and 2015. The site visits allowed SRK to review exploration procedures, define geological modelling procedures, examine drill core, inspect the site, interview project personnel and collect relevant information.
	The use of twinned holes.	No twinned holes have been completed.
	Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data verification, data storage (physical and electronic) protocols.	SRK performed validation checks on the digital sample database and applied corrections or excluded data where appropriate. Based on the verification work completed, SRK is confident that the excel database is an accurate reflection of the drilling and sampling data. The Company validated sample assays by routinely submitting QAQC samples into each batch submitted for analysis at ALS Vancouver.
	Discuss any adjustment to assay data.	SRK noted the presence of a limited number of non-sampled intervals, representing some 0.5% of the sample database. Of this, 0.3% relate to either core loss or minor volumetric wireframe discrepancy where complexity of the geometry of the mineralisation results in the capture of a few isolated non- sampled intercepts. The remaining 0.2% represent intervals within the host structure of visually weak to very poorly mineralised core (verified based on Niton XRF data), which have therefore not been sent for analysis at ALS Vancouver. Drilling completed during 2016 significantly increased the amount of Niton XRF data for comparison with assay results for tin from ALS Vancouver. Excluding a limited number of anomalous results (2), scatterplot analysis for the grade range of interest (<1% Sn) suggests a reasonable correlation between the two sets of data. Therefore, to prevent the smoothing of higher grade data in to areas of non-sampled (weak to very poorly-mineralised) core, SRK has allowed a length-weighted tin value from the Niton analysis (ranging from 0.01 to 0.1% Sn) to influence the composited grades used in to the estimation database. SRK notes that the overall impact of this on the interpolated resource model tin grade is small (i.e. approximately 1% relative reduction in tin grade above a 0% Sn cut-off).
*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.	Pre-2016 drillhole collars were located using a Leica 530 SR GPS, giving locations accurate to ±15 cm. The small number of more recent drillholes were surveyed using tape and compass via triangulation from nearby collars (±10 cm horizontal accuracy), using a handheld GPS to determine elevation.
	Specification of the grid system used.	UTM coordinate grid.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page F4 of F13

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Technical Appendix F

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Project Description
	Quality and adequacy of topographic control.	High accuracy collar point data was used to generate a topography over the generally flat-lying surface footprint of the mineralisation. Outside of this area LIDAR data (5m accuracy) was used.
*Data spacing* *and distribution*	Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results.	Drillhole spacing typically ranges between 20 to 100 m.
	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 drilling pattern is sufficiently dense to establish geological and grade continuity for the Mineral Resource at a reasonable level of confidence.
	Whether sample compositing has been applied.	The tin grade data at Oropesa shows that there are higher and lower grade patches within the deposit. The gradation between patches of higher and lower grade is observed as a lateral patchiness rather than a predictable grade trend from top to bottom contact within the stratigraphy. Therefore, recognising the absence of such a grade trend and in order to overcome the variable number of samples per intersection due mainly to variable intersection angles, SRK elected to create a single composite for each of the drillholes per intersected horizon (‘zone-composites’) to ensure variography and block grade estimation focused on variability along stratigraphy.
*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. _	Drillholes are typically angled between -45° and -85° (below horizontal) and intersection angles with the mineralisation typically ranging from perpendicular to-45°.
	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 the drilling is not considered to have introduced any material bias to the sample data or MRE.
*Sample* *security*	The measures taken to ensure sample security.	Transport of core from drill site to core storage, and of samples from sample site to the ALS sample preparation facility, Seville, is carried out by Company personnel. All diamond drill core and returned crushed reject samples are stored in a locked and secured warehouse. The warehouse security alarm is connected to the police station and access is restricted to Company personnel.
*Audits or* *reviews*	The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data.	SRK performed validation checks on the digital sample database and applied corrections or excluded data where appropriate. Based on the verification work completed, SRK is confident that the excel database is an accurate reflection of the drilling and sampling data.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page F5 of F13

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Technical Appendix F

Section 2: Reporting of Exploration Results

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Project Description
*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.	Minas De Estaño De España, SLU (“the Company”) has a 96% interest in the Oropesa property, and registered title to the property with the Andalucia mining authorities (Permit number 13.050), under the Spanish Mining Act. The property is a 14.51 km2concession in Andalucía, southern Spain, located ~75 km northwest of Cordoba and 180 km northeast of Seville. SRK has been informed by the Company that the current three year Oropesa Investigation Permit expired on 1 November 2017. On 10 October 2017 the Company filed an Exploitation Permit application for the Oropesa property. Under Spanish Law an Exploitation Concession is granted for a 30-year period, and may be extended for two further periods of 30 years each and up to a maximum of 90 years. Completing and filing the Exploitation Application prior to the expiration of the Investigation Permit allows the Company to remain in compliance with its title for the Oropesa property.
	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. _	There are no known litigations potentially affecting the Oropesa Project.
*Exploration* *done by other* *parties*	Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties.	Instituto Geológico y Minero de España (“IGME”) conducted an exploration programme in southern Spain between 1969–1990, including geological mapping and geochemical surveys, which led to the discovery of tin on the Oropesa property in 1982. Additional tin exploration targeted Oropesa and the neighbouring La Grana property during 1983–1990, which included further mapping, stream sediment sampling, geochemical soils geophysical surveys, trenching andinitialdrilling.
*Geology*	Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation.	The Oropesa deposit is characterised by replacement-style tin mineralisation (cassiterite and minor stannite) occurring mainly at sandstone-conglomerate contacts in the Peñarroya Basin, a Carboniferous basin formed during the Hercynian/Variscan Orogeny. Reactivation of syn-sedimentary and basin- controlling faults has resulted in complex, folded geometries. Subordinate fault- hosted mineralisation is also present.
*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 meters) of the drill hole collar  dip and azimuth of the hole  down hole length and interception depth  hole length. Ifthe exclusion of this information is justified on the basis that the	Listing this material would not add any further material understanding of the deposit and Mineral Resource. Furthermore, no detailed Exploration Results are specifically reported.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page F6 of F13

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Technical Appendix F

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Project Description
	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. _
*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 indetail.
	The assumptions used for any reporting of metal equivalent values should be clearly stated
*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’). _
*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. _
*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. _
*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. _
*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). _	SRK notes that the mineralisation remains open along strike and around the margins of the deposit where there is potential for additional replacement-style and/or fault-controlled mineralisation. Furthermore, the geological model used to guide the development of the mineralisation wireframes has significant implications for exploration in the surrounding area, with several NNW/SSE trending geophysical anomalies sub-parallel to the interpreted hinge of the major fold at Oropesa highlighting the potential for additional zones of
	Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions, including the main geological interpretations and future drilling areas, provided this information is not commercially sensitive

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page F7 of F13

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Technical Appendix F

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Project Description
		mineralisation within the Licence boundary. The geological model should be further tested and refined in conjunction with a reassessment of the licence scale exploration potential.

Section 3: Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Project Description
*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. _	SRK performed a number of database validation checks on the Company’s digital sample data and found no material issues in the final database.
	Data validation procedures used.
*Site visits*	Comment on any site visits undertaken by the Competent _Person and the outcome of those visits. _	SRK completed two site visits to review exploration procedures, define geological modelling procedures, inspect the site and select drill core, interview personnel and collect any other relevant information. The first site visit was carried out in March 2012, by the CP for the 2012 and 2014 MREs. The second visit was carried out in July 2015 by Resource Geology and Structural Geology consultants. A further Resource Geology site visit during was not deemed necessary during 2017 due to the limited number of additional holes (16) completed subsequent to the October 2015 Mineral Resource Estimate.
	If no site visits have been undertaken indicate why this is the case.
*Geological* *interpretation*	Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertainty of) the geological _interpretation of the mineral deposit. _	Mineralised horizons have been defined based on a combination of lithological logging and tin grade whilst honouring the structural controls and ensuring geological and grade continuity. Top and bottom contacts reflect a cut-off of 0.25% tin (Sn) to differentiate mineralised layers from lower grade host rock and internal partings. SRK created 3D solid wireframes from selected sample intervals using the vein tool in the Leapfrog Geo Software.
	Nature of the data used and of any assumptions made.
	The effect, if any, of alternative interpretations on Mineral Resource estimation.
	The use of geology in guiding and controlling Mineral Resource estimation.
	_The factors affecting continuity both ofgrade andgeology. _
*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.	Mineralisation modelled for 2017 comprises several separate features which are geologically continuous along strike for between 100 m and 800 m, with dip extents of up to 250 m and an average thickness normally between 3 m and 10 m,reaching over 20m incertainareas.
*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.	In summary, for this Mineral Resource update, SRK has completed the following:  modelled tin mineralisation horizons in 3D using the Leapfrog Geo Software  created a single composite for each of the drillholes per intersected domain and undertaken statistical analysis of these;  reviewed the sample composite data for grade outliers - based on histogram analysis no high-grade capping was applied;

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page F8 of F13

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Technical Appendix F

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Project Description
		 undertaken geostatistical analyses to determine appropriate interpolation algorithms;  created block models with block dimensions of 20x20x10 m;  undertaken a Quantitative Kriging Neighbourhood Analysis (QKNA) to test the sensitivity of the interpolation parameters;  interpolated tin grades and density data into the block model using the Datamine Studio 3 Software;  visually and statistically validated the estimated block grades relative to the original sample results; and  reported the Mineral Resource according to the terminology, definitions and guidelines given inthe JORC Code.
	The availability of check estimates, previous estimates and/or mine production records and whether the Mineral Resource estimate takes appropriate account of such data.	In comparison to the SRK 2015 Mineral Resource estimate for the Project which was comprised Indicated and Inferred categories, SRK has upgraded 0.3 Mt at a grade of 1.1% tin in to the Measured category, which is primarily due to additional geological confidence provided by infill drilling. In comparison to the SRK 2015 Indicated Mineral Resource which was reported at a cut-off grade of 0.1% tin, the updated Measured+Indicated Mineral Resource estimate (reported at a cut-off of 0.15% tin) represents a marginal decrease in the metal content, from 52.1 to 50.9 kt. The change in contained metal is the result of 1% reduction in tonnage and 1% (relative) decrease in tin grade. The reduction in tonnage is mainly due to infill drilling improving the definition of the geological contacts between the (mineralised) sandstone and (non- mineralised) conglomerate. SRK note a 2% relative reduction in grade due to new drilling returning slightly lower tin grades and the (Niton) assaying of a small number of previously non-sampled intervals; this is balanced by a small 1% relative increase in grade by increasing the cut-off grade, which results in a net 1% relative reduction in tin grade. Within the Inferred category, the updated Mineral Resource estimate (reported at a cut-off of 0.15% tin) represents a decrease in the metal content, from 17.5 kt to 16.6 kt. The change in contained metal is mainly the result of 5% reduction in tonnage due to infill drilling improving the definition between the sandstone and conglomerate at the deposit periphery. SRK considers that the key changes in the Mineral Resource result from a combination of the following factors:  metal converted to Measured, primarily due to new infill drilling confirming the continuity of the geology and mineralisation within targeted areas of the deposit;  infilldrillingimproving the definitionbetweenthemineralised sandstone and

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page F9 of F13

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Technical Appendix F

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Project Description
		(non-mineralised) conglomerate, mainly at the deposit periphery;  new drilling returning slightly lower tin grades overall;  (Niton) assaying of previously non-sampled intervals within the mineralised zone; and  increase to the tin cut-off grade used to report the Mineral Resource.
	The assumptions made regarding recovery of by-products.	No by-products have been estimated as part of this MRE.
	Estimation of deleterious elements or other non-grade variables of economic significance (e.g. sulphur for acid mine drainage characterisation).	No deleterious elements have been estimated as part of this MRE.
	In the case of block model interpolation, the block size in relation to the average sample spacing and the search employed.	Block dimensions are 20x20x10 m. These dimensions were chosen to be similar to the average along-strike and on-section drillhole spacing while reflecting the along-strike and down-dip grade variability. Sub-blocking was permitted along the model boundaries to allow better representation of the deposit geometry (minimum size of 2x2x1 m).
	Any assumptions behind modelling of selective mining units.	Selective mining units have not been modelled as part of this MRE.
	Any assumptions about correlation between variables.	No significant correlation relationships were found between modelled variables during raw statistical analysis (that is, tin and density sample results).
	Description of how the geological interpretation was used to control the resource estimates	The limits of the block model domains are constrained by structural and stratigraphic wireframes that represent the folded, mineralised sandstone units within a conglomerate, and two major faults that cross-cut the deposit.
	Discussion of basis for using or not using grade cutting or capping.	Based on histogram analysis of composite sample data, no high-grade capping was applied.
	The process of validation, the checking process used, the comparison of model data to drill hole data, and use of reconciliation data if available.	Visual checks were carried out along sections and in 3D to compare model block grades with drillhole data. Mean model grades were compared to mean sample grades along a series of pre-defined sections, as presented on validation plots. Block estimate mean grades were also compared to the mean of the composite samples; the overall percentage difference in the mean grades typically vary between 1% – 10%. Based on the visual, sectional and statistical validation results SRK has accepted the grades in the block model.
*Moisture*	Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or with natural moisture, and the method of determination of the moisture content.	Tonnages are estimated on a dry basis.
*Cut-off parameters*	The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters _applied. _	SRK has applied basic economic considerations to determine which portion of the block model has reasonable prospects for economic extraction by open-pit mining methods. To achieve this, the Mineral Resource has been subject to a high-level pit optimisation study to assist with determining the potential depth to
*Mining factors or* *assumptions*	Assumptions made regarding possible mining methods, minimum mining dimensions and internal (or, if applicable,

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page F10 of F13

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Technical Appendix F

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Project Description
	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. _	which an open pit operation could be considered viable and reported above a suitable cut-off grade for resource reporting. This approach remains consistent with the previous 2015 MRE. SRK’s updated mine planning exercise for 2017 envisages a medium-sized open pit operation followed by underground mining to access the remaining medium to high grade mineralisation at depth. However, the results of the pit optimisation study for 2017 showed that an open pit operation could potentially reach a depth of 235 m (close to the bottom of the model) and that a cut-off grade of 0.15% Sn would be appropriate. The cut-off grade is higher when compared to the 2015 MRE (0.1 Sn%), which is mainly due to a higher processing cost. Whilst an underground mining scenario would be unlikely to target some of the lower grade tin mineralisation at depth, SRK considers that this material continues to have reasonable prospects for economic extraction with a larger open pit should the Company’s mining strategy change. Based on the above, SRK has elected to consider the full extents of the geological model for Mineral Resource reporting. The parameters used for the 2017 pit optimisation exercise were based on SRK’s 2017 mining study:  A tin price of USD23,400/t derived from market consensus long term price forecasts with a 30% uplift as appropriate for assessing eventual economic potential of Mineral Resources.  A tin process recovery of 71%.  A cost of USD18/t for processing, USD4/t G&A and USD1.8/t for mining.  Slope angles of 35°for oxide, 40°for transition and 46°for fresh material
*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.
*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 made. _	SRK is unaware of any environmental factors which would preclude the reporting of Mineral Resources.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page F11 of F13

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Technical Appendix F

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Project Description
*Bulk density*	Whether assumed or determined. If assumed, the basis for the assumptions. If determined, the method used, whether wet or dry, the frequency of the measurements, the nature, size and representativeness of the samples. The bulk density for bulk material must have been measured by methods that adequately account for void spaces (vugs, porosity, etc.), moisture and differences between rock and alteration zones within the deposit.	Bulk density was calculated by the Company using an immersion method comparing the weight of samples in air against the weight in water. In cases of assumed high porosity, samples were wax coated and then density derived using the same immersion methodology. The raw density data was coded within the model wireframes and then SRK interpolated the density data into the block model using Inverse Distance Weighting Squared (IDW2). It should be noted that competent core was preferentially selected for density measurements, and therefore density may be slightly overestimated in zones of broken, rubbly, or oxidised core. SRK recommends that density test work during future exploration programmes should focus on characterising the density of rubbly, oxidised material and the sampling of existing drillholes which have not yet been sampled for density to maximise the confidence in density estimates within these areas.
	Discuss assumptions for bulk density estimates used in the evaluation process of the different materials.
*Classification*	The basis for the classification of the Mineral Resources into varying confidence categories. Whether appropriate account has been taken of all relevant factor (i.e. relative confidence in tonnage/grade estimations, reliability of input data, confidence in continuity of geology and metal values, quality, quantity and distribution of the data).	Data quality, geological confidence, sample spacing and the interpreted continuity of grades controlled by the deposit has allowed SRK to classify the block model in the Measured, Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource categories, as follows:  Measured Mineral Resources are where block grades are based on multiple drillhole intercepts, where there is typically 20m spacing and where there is good continuity shown by both assay grades and geological wireframes. Additional density sampling during future infill drilling is required in the oxide zone prior to reporting the oxidised resource with ‘measured’ confidence.  Indicated Mineral Resources comprise the blocks in where SRK has a reasonable level of geological confidence in well drilled areas of the model and typically up to 70 m beyond these areas.  Inferred Mineral Resources are in domains that display reasonable to low geological confidence, where blocks are typically within 100 m of sample data and bound by the maximum extents of the mineralisation wireframes. These areas require infill drilling to improve the quality of the geological interpretation and local block grade estimates to a level suitable for mine planning. This classification was prepared by, and reflects the views of, the Competent Person.
	Whether the result appropriately reflects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page F12 of F13

SRK Consulting

Oropesa MRE Report – Technical Appendix F

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Project Description
*Audits or reviews*	The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral Resource estimates.	SRK has previously produced three Mineral Resource Estimates on the Oropesa Permit, which are summarised below:  Mineral Resource with effective date of 9 October 2012 reporting an Oxide Indicated Mineral Resource of 1.7 Mt grading 0.33% Sn, a Fresh Indicated Mineral Resource of 7.3 Mt grading 0.31% Sn, an Oxide Inferred Mineral Resource of 2.7 Mt grading 0.22% Sn and a Fresh Inferred Mineral Resource of 6.1 Mt grading 0.28% Sn.  Mineral Resource Estimate completed by SRK for 5 June 2014 (“2014 MRE”), which reported an Oxide Indicated Mineral Resource of 3.3 Mt grading 0.35% Sn, a Fresh Indicated Mineral Resource of 11.6 Mt grading 0.37% Sn, an Oxide Inferred Mineral Resource of 1.1 Mt grading 0.35% Sn and a Fresh Inferred Mineral Resource of 3.2 Mt grading 0.38% Sn.  Mineral Resource Estimate completed by SRK for 30 October 2015 (“2015 MRE”), which reported an Oxide Indicated Mineral Resource of 80 kt grading 0.48% Sn, Transition Indicated Mineral Resource of 2.1 Mt grading 0.56% Sn and Fresh Indicated Mineral Resource of 7.3 Mt grading 0.55% Sn. Inferred Mineral Resources included an Oxide sub-total of 78 kt grading 0.43% Sn, Transition sub-total of 1.2 Mt grading 0.42% Sn and Fresh sub- total of 2.1 Mt grading 0.58% Sn.
*Discussion of* *relative accuracy/* *confidence*	Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and confidence level in the Mineral Resource estimate using an approach or procedure deemed appropriate by the Competent Person. For example, the application of statistical or geostatistical procedures to quantify the relative accuracy of the resource within stated confidence limits, or, if such an approach is not deemed appropriate, a qualitative discussion of the factors that could affect the relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate. The statement should specify whether it relates to global or local estimates, and, if local, state the relevant tonnages, which should be relevant to technical and economic evaluation. Documentation should include assumptions made and the procedures used. These statements of relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate should be compared with production data, where available.	The Oropesa deposit is an open pit and underground mining target, which is at a relatively advanced stage of drilling and geological understanding. Selective infill drilling from surface and updated geological modelling in 3D has added further geological confidence to the local scale geometry of the mineralisation and grade distributions in the Resource model. The geological interpretation used to generate the Mineral Resource presented herein is generally considered to be robust; however, there are areas of lower geological confidence in parts of the Inferred Mineral Resource which may be subject to further revision in the future.

UK6692 Oropesa_MRE Report_JORC_v17.docx

July 2018

Page F13 of F13

AI assistant

ELEMENTOS LIMITED — M&A Activity 2018

64837_rns_2018-07-30_7f248501-0029-40b4-b6f8-33cef7eeaa14.pdf

31 JULY 2018

A C Q U I S I T I O N O F T H E O R O P E S A T I N P R O J E C T

S t r a t e g i c R a t i o n a l e f o r A c q u i r i n g O r o p e s a

D e v e l o p m e n t S t r a t e g y a n d C a p a b i l i t y

O r o p e s a O v e r v i e w

L o c a t i o n a n d I n f r a s t r u c t u r e

Figure 1 - Location of Oropesa

J O R C M i n e r a l R e s o u r c e s

P r o c e s s i n g

P e r m i t t i n g S t a t u s

O r o p e s a B i n d i n g H e a d s o f A g r e e m e n t

Duncan Cornish

C A U T I O N A R Y S T A T E M E N T S

F o r w a r d - l o o k i n g s t a t e m e n t s

COMPETENT PERSONS STATEMENT

Annexure 1 – Binding Heads of Agreement (HoA)

6. Arrangement Agreement Process:

9. Termination Fees:

MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE ON THE OROPESA TIN PROJECT, CORDOBA PROVINCE, SPAIN

COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER

Table of Contents: Executive Summary

List of Tables: Executive Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE ON THE OROPESA TIN PROJECT, CORDOBA PROVINCE, SPAIN

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Introduction

1.2

Project Description

1.3

Project Geology

1.4 Exploration Drilling and Sampling

1.5 Mineral Resource Estimate

1.6 Mineral Resource Statement

1.7

Conclusions

1.8

Recommendations

List of Figures

List of Technical Appendices

MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE ON THE OROPESA TIN PROJECT, CORDOBA PROVINCE, SPAIN

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

2 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS

3 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION

3.1 Property Description and Ownership

3.2 Additional Permits and Payments

3.3 Surface Rights

3.3.1 Exploration Permits:

3.3.2 Investigation Permits:

3.3.3 Mining Concession:

4 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY

4.1

Accessibility

4.2

Climate

4.3

Local Resources

4.4

Infrastructure

4.5

Physiography

5 HISTORY

5.1 History of Exploration and Mining

5.1.1 Early History

5.1.2 Recent History

5.2 Historical Estimates

5.3

Historical Production

6 GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALISATION

6.1

Regional Geology

6.2 Local/Project Geology

6.2.1 Stratigraphy

6.2.2 Structure

6.2.3 Mineralisation

Tin Paragenesis

Controls on Mineralisation

Timing of Mineralisation

ELEMENTOS LIMITED M&A Activity 2018