ELEMENTOS LIMITED — Regulatory Filings 2014

Dec 3, 2014

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

4 December 2014

Cleveland Tailings Project - Positive Metallurgical Test Results

Highlights

• Metallurgical test work supports the previous testing and proposed flow sheet designs for the Cleveland Tailings Project

• The rehabilitation and retreatment of the Cleveland Tailings Mineral Resource[1] will produce a concentrate from gravity and flotation processing, of between 50-55% tin at a recovery of 48-50%

• Submission of the Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan is scheduled for early 2015

• Lodgment of the Mining Lease Application is planned for early 2015, with a view to beginning production in 2016

Elementos Limited (ASX: ELT) (“Elementos” or the “Company”) is pleased to report the positive results of a metallurgical test program, which required the testing of composite samples from the two Cleveland tailings dams (TD1 and TD2). The work was performed at the ALS laboratory in Burnie, Tasmania, under the supervision of Mike Gunn, an experienced metallurgist specialising in the recovery of tin.

After mass balancing of the metal content, the two tailings deposits indicated very similar overall performance. The mass balance shown in Table 1 (below) is a blend of the results achieved at each process stage for each tailings dam.

Table 1: Preliminary Results for Saleable Concentrate Grade and Recovery

	Tonnes Per Hour Solids		Total Recovery
		Grade
Gravity Tin Product(Dressed)	0.22	42.2%	29.1%
Flotation Tin Product(Dressed)	0.18	36.0%	20.5%
Total Tin Product(Combined Concentrate after Leaching)	0.30	52.6%	49.6%
Total Tin Tail Reject	104.62	0.15%	50.4%

The results support the Company’s plans to submit a Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan in early 2015, in conjunction with the lodgement of a Mining Lease Application, with a view to beginning production in 2016.

1 The information is extracted from the report entitled “Resource Upgrade – Cleveland Tailings Resource” created on 17 June 2014, which is an update on previously reported work entitled “Cleveland JORC Resources Significantly Expanded” which was released on the 5 March 2014. Both reports are available to view at www.elementos.com. The company confirms that it is not aware of any new information or data that materially affects the information included in the original market announcement and, in the case of estimates of Mineral Resources or Ore Reserves, that all material assumptions and technical parameters underpinning the estimates in the relevant market announcement continue to apply and have not materially changed. The company confirms that the form and context in which the Competent Person’s findings are presented have not been materially modified from the original market announcement.

==> picture [592 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [149 x 54] intentionally omitted <==

Background

111 samples (~479kg) were taken as part of a sampling program at the Cleveland tailings dams. Of these samples, 33 from TD1 and 52 from TD2 were selected and composited into a main feed sample for batch gravity testing. The rejected samples were either clay cap material or remnant Hellyer tailings from a past plant trial. The composite sizing and assays were consistent with the weighted average of sample interval sizing and assays. They were also comparable with the estimate of the average tailings grade calculated from historical production data.

The test work was based largely on the flow sheet used by Cleveland Tin Mining Company N.L. in pilot tests in 1984. This testing was designed to separately define the performance of each of the process steps for TD1 and TD2. No regrinding of the gravity middlings streams and no dressing of concentrates were undertaken. Flotation testing was conducted as a batch test with no retreatment of cleaner tailings.

Note the arrangement of the process stages in the mass balance is distinctly different from the sequence of stages in the test work. The mass balance developed from these test results allows for the losses incurred by upgrading of concentrates.

Other Material Results

Other material results from the sample analysis and testing include:

• The data from the individual test stages was sufficiently consistent and reliable to enable a preliminary overall mass balance to be developed;

• All pre-dressed concentrates are carrying around 50% by mass of siderite, an iron carbonate (FeCO3), which can be leached out with acid to achieve higher product grade;

• Sulphide removal by flotation and Low Intensity Magnetic Separation (LIMS) and desliming at 6 microns were all carried out with an expected and acceptable loss of tin;

• Siderite removal from flotation feed was tested in isolation using Wet High Intensity Magnetic Separation (WHIMS) with an expected and acceptable loss of tin;

• As expected, samples were sticky and handling was difficult. However, these material handling characteristics can be managed through a variety of mining methods;

• De-agglomeration using a high shear attritioner was effective;

• Individual sample intervals showed a very broad range of particle sizing, emphasising the requirement for homogenisation of the plant feed; and

• The tailings reject showed potential to generate acid over time in the tailing storage facility. The Company plans to provide adequate controls through best practice engineering in its tailings dam design.

Page 2 of 13

==> picture [149 x 54] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 1: Sample Locations used for Metallurgical Testing

==> picture [435 x 617] intentionally omitted <==

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

Tailings Dam 1 (TD1)
Tailings Dam 2 (TD2)
----- End of picture text -----

Page 3 of 13

==> picture [149 x 53] intentionally omitted <==

Next Steps

A second phase of testing will be required to finalise plant design and its performance criteria as part of a Definitive Feasibility Study, scheduled to commence in the first half of 2015. This will include collecting a bulk sample from both tailings dams and processing the material through a pilot plant (locked cycle test) to confirm plant specifications. The work will include the sub-sampling of material for testing of a Falcon Ultra-Fine Concentrator and quantification of concentrate penalty elements.

For more information, please contact:

Calvin Treacy

Managing Director Phone: +61 7 3221 7770 Email: admin@elementos.com.au

Elementos is an Australian, ASX-listed, exploration and development company, focused on developing the Cleveland Province, which hosts advanced stage tin and copper assets, together with a significant tungsten exploration project.

Please visit us at www.elementos.com.au

COMPETENT PERSON STATEMENT

The information in this report that relates to Exploration Targets, Exploration Results, Mineral Resources or Ore Reserves is based on information compiled by Tim McManus, a Competent Person who is a Member of The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and a full-time employee of the Company.

Tim McManus 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’.

Tim McManus consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears.

Page 4 of 13

==> picture [149 x 53] intentionally omitted <==

Appendix One – Sample Location Data

Table2: Sample Location Data

Location	Easting	Northing
ID
ELMDH01	364528	5406602
ELMDH02	364457	5406670
ELMDH03	364650	5406675
ELMDH04	364600	5406700
ELMDH05	364675	5406750
ELMDH06	364600	5406750
ELMDH07	364675	5406800
ELMDH08	364563	5406800
ELMDH09	364650	5406850
ELMDH10	364700	5406900
ELMDH11	364658	5406909
ELMDH12	364735	5406950
ELMDH13	364600	5407130
ELMDH14	364641	5407177
ELMDH15	364569	5407163
ELMDH16	364700	5407234
ELMDH17	364573	5407228
ELMDH18	364664	5407270
ELMDH19	364617	5407277
ELMDH20	364625	5407336
ELMDH21	364671	5407350

Page 5 of 13

==> picture [149 x 53] intentionally omitted <==

Appendix Two – Sample Results

Table3: Sample Results

Sample	Tailings	Sample	%-	Sn%	Fe%	S%	Wt	Rejected	Reason For
Location	Dam	No.	38um				kg	Interval	Rejection
ID								Kg
ELMDH 01	N/A – used to test wall material and depth to determine likelywall design
ELMDH 02	N/A – used to test wall material and depth to determine likelywall design
ELMDH 03	TD2	6						2.75	ClayCapMaterial
ELMDH 03	TD2	7	15.52	0.58	17.9	6.44	2.648
ELMDH 03	TD2	8	24.52	0.32	18.35	7.23	5.794
ELMDH 03	TD2	9	65.14	0.21	17.4	4.43	4.392
ELMDH 03	TD2	10	74.84	0.25	20.3	6.43	4.556
ELMDH 03	TD2	11	33.88	0.29	23.1	11	4.846
ELMDH 03	TD2	12	30.92	0.3	23.9	6.87	5.808
ELMDH 03	TD2	13	77.79	0.32	15.9	4.31	4.13
ELMDH 03	TD2	14	19.28	0.3	19.45	7.19	6.04
ELMDH 03	TD2	15	33.97	0.27	17.9	7.03	3.036
ELMDH 04	TD2	16						1.16	ClayCapMaterial
ELMDH 04	TD2	17	38.9	0.31	19.25	6.82	4.554
ELMDH 04	TD2	18	56.67	0.28	18.35	5.34	2.458
ELMDH 04	TD2	19	30.03	0.54	18.7	4.8	4.362
ELMDH 04	TD2	20	29.16	0.34	21.5	10.1	3.48
ELMDH 04	TD2	21	28.47	0.21	19	7.37	5.006
ELMDH 05	TD2	22						3.87	ClayCapMaterial
ELMDH 05	TD2	23	77.11	0.33	14.3	2.46	3.938
ELMDH 05	TD2	24	95.84	0.41	15.25	2.4	3.752
ELMDH 05	TD2	25	27.93	0.26	19.85	7.47	4.222
ELMDH 05	TD2	26	58.56	0.22	17.85	4.08	4.4
ELMDH 05	TD2	27	66.59	0.27	16.55	3.76	3.418
ELMDH 06	TD2	28						3.26	ClayCapMaterial
ELMDH 06	TD2	29	36.3	0.23	13.1	2.92	0.69
ELMDH 06	TD2	30	71.61	0.46	16.35	3.17	4.29
ELMDH 06	TD2	31	69.48	0.36	14.05	2.24	4.19
ELMDH 06	TD2	32	75.12	0.38	16.15	4.16	4.47
ELMDH 06	TD2	33	54.82	0.29	17.95	4.44	0.642
ELMDH 06	TD2	34	40.23	0.27	17.65	5.86	6.715
ELMDH 06	TD2	35	69	0.33	13.55	2.49	4.182
ELMDH 07	TD2	36						7.86	ClayCapMaterial
ELMDH 07	TD2	37	88.06	0.33	15.6	2.49	3.518
ELMDH 07	TD2	38	93.7	0.35	14.45	2.05	3.576
ELMDH 07	TD2	39	96.98	0.48	14.55	2.23	4.03
ELMDH 07	TD2	40	89.89	0.48	15.3	1.48	3.51
ELMDH 07	TD2	41	93.55	0.53	15.6	1.86	3.634
ELMDH 07	TD2	42	97.75	0.47	14.6	1.2	4.272
ELMDH 07	TD2	43	67.87	0.22	17.2	5.45	3.698
ELMDH 07	TD2	44	55.53	0.21	18.4	5.73	3.836
ELMDH 07	TD2	45	53.4	0.26	18.85	6.21	4.656
ELMDH 07	TD2	46	68.67	0.29	18.7	4.39	4.57
ELMDH 08	TD2	47						4.33	ClayCapMaterial
ELMDH 08	TD2	48	45.96	0.38	14.25	2.89	4.77
ELMDH 08	TD2	49	51.88	0.24	17.45	5.59	3.912
ELMDH 08	TD2	50	18.83	0.36	18.75	6.55	3.34
ELMDH 10	TD2	51						1.84	ClayCapMaterial

Page 6 of 13

==> picture [149 x 53] intentionally omitted <==

Sample	Tailings	Sample	%-	Sn%	Fe%	S%	Wt	Rejected	Reason For
Location	Dam	No.	38um				kg	Interval	Rejection
ID								kg
ELMDH 10	TD2	52	32.75	0.18	8.46	1.49	4.022
ELMDH 10	TD2	53	53.81	0.29	17.2	6.15	3.78
ELMDH 10	TD2	54	61.68	0.27	17.25	3.35	3.928
ELMDH 10	TD2	55	72.16	0.23	17.15	3.8	3.758
ELMDH 10	TD2	56	94.02	0.31	16.5	2.84	4.158
ELMDH 11	TD2	57						3.41	ClayCapMaterial
ELMDH 11	TD2	58	82.84	0.24	16.1	2.9	3.95
ELMDH 11	TD2	59	90.28	0.31	16.35	2.48	4.612
ELMDH 12	TD2	60						3.22	ClayCapMaterial
ELMDH 12	TD2	61	13.75	0.36	21.7	9.84	5.078
ELMDH 12	TD2	62	25.47	0.3	20.2	8.48	4.996
ELMDH 12	TD2	63	88.98	0.32	15.6	2.34	5.582
ELMDH 12	TD2	64	96.85	0.29	15.15	1.15	4.302
ELMDH 12	TD2	65	95.23	0.28	15.5	1.85	2.944
ELMDH 12	TD2	66	93.13	0.29	15.15	2.38	4.71
ELMDH 13	TD1	67						1.55	ClayCapMaterial
ELMDH 13	TD1	68	74.24	0.45	14	1.94	2.798
ELMDH 13	TD1	69	71.63	0.41	15.6	4.51	5.234
ELMDH 13	TD1	70	55.32	0.39	19.95	10	4.95
ELMDH 13	TD1	71	41.25	0.19	14.6	5.29	5.096
ELMDH 14	TD1	72						2.91	ClayCapMaterial
ELMDH 14	TD1	73	88.62	0.44	14.1	1.94	3.198
ELMDH 14	TD1	74	80.76	0.43	12.6	1.4	3.576
ELMDH 14	TD1	75	77.48	0.45	16.9	6.49	5.722
ELMDH 14	TD1	76	86.98	0.45	15.45	4.47	5.576
ELMDH 14	TD1	77	92.63	0.61	14.05	2.26	3.478
ELMDH 14	TD1	78	89.55	0.64	13.5	2.13	3.7
ELMDH 14	TD1	79	91.75	0.55	13.9	2.03	3.886
ELMDH 15	TD1	80						5.68	ClayCapMaterial
ELMDH 15	TD1	81	76.87	0.49	17.8	5.17	4.216
ELMDH 15	TD1	82	16.88	0.28	20.9	10.55	3.78
ELMDH 15	TD1	83	31.13	0.32	21.1	10.85	4.204
ELMDH 16	TD1	84					0.466		Hellyer Tails
ELMDH 16	TD1	85	42.39	0.1	9.97	0.49	1.868		Hellyer Tails
ELMDH 16	TD1	86	84.78	0.43	13.7	1.5	1.09		Hellyer Tails
ELMDH 16	TD1	87	84.34	0.55	13.25	2	0.962		Hellyer Tails
ELMDH 17	TD1	88						3.29	ClayCapMaterial
ELMDH 17	TD1	89	73.02	0.43	17.35	5.67	4.464
ELMDH 17	TD1	90	61.14	0.45	15.9	5.67	4.564
ELMDH 17	TD1	91	16.4	0.38	21.2	11.45	4.49
ELMDH 17	TD1	92	23.74	0.35	21	11.15	4.066
ELMDH 17	TD1	93	42.48	0.36	21.6	10.85	5.038
ELMDH 18	TD1	94						3.46	ClayCapMaterial
ELMDH 18	TD1	95	95.16	0.45	14.4	1.86	4.516
ELMDH 18	TD1	96	95.54	0.55	14.65	2.16	4.42
ELMDH 18	TD1	97	93.22	0.46	13.85	2.27	3.798
ELMDH 18	TD1	98	90.87	0.46	13.65	1.93	4.152
ELMDH 19	TD1	99						3.75	ClayCapMaterial
ELMDH 19	TD1	100	65.08	0.34	14.85	5.29	4.296
ELMDH 19	TD1	101	54.72	0.38	19.65	9.09	3.466
ELMDH 19	TD1	102	60.91	0.41	19.55	9.17	3.732

Page 7 of 13

==> picture [149 x 53] intentionally omitted <==

Sample	Tailings	Sample	%-	Sn%	Fe%	S%	Wt	Rejected	Reason For
Location	Dam	No.	38um				kg	Interval	Rejection
ID								kg
ELMDH 19	TD1	103	90.15	0.5	16.45	4.38	4.232
ELMDH 19	TD1	104	97.21	0.53	14.45	3.02	4.142
ELMDH 20	TD1	105						5.83	ClayCapMaterial
ELMDH 20	TD1	106	66.11	0.45	17.1	6.69	3.646
ELMDH 20	TD1	107	60.06	0.39	14.95	4.89	4.83
ELMDH 21	TD1	108	84.83	0.52	17.35	6.69	2.478
ELMDH 21	TD1	109						2.77	ClayCapMaterial
ELMDH 21	TD1	110	84.16	0.49	16.15	5.07	2.852
ELMDH 21	TD1	111	33.35	0.21	13.65	3.42	3.174

Page 8 of 13

==> picture [149 x 53] intentionally omitted <==

Appendix Three – Supporting Data Tables

Section 1: Sampling Techniques and Data

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
Sampling techniques	Nature and quality of sampling (e.g. cut channels, random chips, or specific specialised industry standard measurement tools appropriate to the minerals under investigation, such as down hole gamma sondes, or handheld XRF instruments, etc.). These examples should not be taken as limiting the broad meaning of sampling. Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample representivity and the appropriate calibration of any measurement tools or systems used. Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are Material to the Public Report. In cases where ‘industry standard’ work has been done this would be relatively simple (e.g. ‘reverse circulation drilling was used to obtain 1 m samples from which 3 kg was pulverised to produce a 30 g charge for fire assay’). In other cases more explanation may be required, such as where there is coarse gold that has inherent sampling problems. Unusual commodities or mineralisation types (e.g. submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed information.	21 ‘Wacker’ holes provided 111 samples. Of the 111 samples, 33 from TD1 and 52 from TD2 were selected and composited into the main feed sample for batch gravity testing. The rejected samples were either clay cap material or historic Hellyer tailings. The composite sample sizing and assay were consistent with the weighted average of sample interval sizings and assays. They were also comparable with the estimate of the average tailings grade calculated from historical production data. No duplicate samples were collected and no standards were incorporated in the sample batch.
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.).	‘Wacker’ sampling was used. This technique utilises a continuous sample recovery barrel, enabling a full column of sample of tailings material to be recovered.
Drill sample recovery	Method of recording and assessing core and chip sample recoveries and results assessed. Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and ensure representative nature of the samples. Whether a relationship exists between sample recovery and grade and whether sample bias may have occurred due to preferential loss/gain of fine/coarse material.	The ‘Wacker’ sampling method provides a full column of sample to be recovered. However, not all samples covered the full depth of the tailings.
Logging	Whether core and chip samples have been geologically and geotechnically logged to a level of detail to support appropriate Mineral Resource estimation, mining studies and metallurgical studies. Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc.) photography. The total length and percentage of the relevant intersections logged.	All samples acquired were logged for material type, with full paper and electronic logs made available in the Company database. Photos were taken of all samples before they were stored in a freezer pending the above-mentioned metallurgical testing.

Page 9 of 13

==> picture [149 x 53] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
Sub- sampling techniques and sample preparation	If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, half or all core taken. If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc. and whether sampled wet or dry. For all sample types, the nature, quality and appropriateness of the sample preparation technique. Quality control procedures adopted for all sub- sampling stages to maximise representivity of samples. Measures taken to ensure that the sampling is representative of the in situ material collected, including for instance results for field duplicate/second-half sampling. Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grain size of the material being sampled.	The samples received were weighed and sub sampled to provide material for sample characterisation, which entailed assays and particle sizing at -38um. Future work will need to assess in-situ bulk density and moisture content, as the moisture of 19% was derived from a composite of stored drill intervals, and cannot be relied upon. The comparison of sizing indicates that the individual analysis of drilled intervals is consistent with the composite sizing. 33 TD1 and 52 TD2 samples selected from the original 111 sample intervals and were composited into a main feed sample for batch gravity testwork. The rejected samples were either clay cap material or Hellyer tailings.
Quality of assay data and laboratory tests	The nature, quality and appropriateness of the assaying and laboratory procedures used and whether the technique is considered partial or total. For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF instruments, etc., the parameters used in determining the analysis including instrument make and model, reading times, calibrations factors applied and their derivation, etc. Nature of quality control procedures adopted (e.g. standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (i.e. lack of bias) and precision have been established.	The laboratory analysis technique utilises the entire sample. The laboratory assay procedure is considered appropriate for samples of this type. No additional quality control measured beyond the standard laboratory "checks and balances" implemented by the laboratory as part of their normal assaying procedure were conducted.
Verification of sampling and assaying	The verification of significant intersections by either independent or alternative company personnel. The use of twinned holes. Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data verification, data storage (physical and electronic) protocols. Discuss any adjustment to assay data.	Independent consultants Pitt & Sherry supervised the ‘Wacker’ sampling. No twinning was deemed necessary due to the compositing of the samples for bulk determination. All data collection, verification and protocols were set under the guidance of independent consultants Pitt & Sherry. Mass balancing was used to interpret the results. This is a blend of the deportments achieved at each process stage for each tailings dam. The arrangement of the process stages in the mass balance is distinctly different from the sequence of the process stages in the testwork. The mass balance developed from these test results allows for the losses incurred by upgrading of concentrates.
Location of data points	Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drillholes (collar and down-hole surveys), trenches, mine workings and other locations used in Mineral Resource estimation. Specification of the grid system used. Quality and adequacy of topographic control.	A hand held GPS was used to record sample locations (+/- 5m accuracy). The samples were plotted using the Map Grid of Australia (MGA) based upon the Geodetic Datum of Australia 1994 (GDA94).

Page 10 of 13

==> picture [149 x 53] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
Data spacing and distribution	Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results. Whether the data spacing and distribution is sufficient to establish the degree of geological and grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve estimation procedure(s) and classifications applied. Whether sample compositing has been applied.	The spacing of sample sites was determined to best represent a consistent sampling of each of the tailings dams whilst allowing for safe and effective access. The composite sizing and assay were consistent with the weighted average of sample interval sizing and assays. They were also comparable with the estimate of the average tailings grade calculated from historical production data.
Orientation of data in relation to geological structure	Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased sampling of possible structures and the extent to which this is known, considering the deposit type. If the relationship between the drilling orientation and the orientation of key mineralised structures is considered to have introduced a sampling bias, this should be assessed and reported if material.	The samples were taken vertically, which is more or less perpendicular to the general stratification in the tailings dam.
Sample security	The measures taken to ensure sample security.	Samples were collected in the field and stored in a secure lockable location until dispatched to the laboratory via company personnel and vehicle where the laboratory assumed custody of the samples.
Audits or reviews	The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data.	No audits or reviews have been conducted at this stage.

Page 11 of 13

==> picture [149 x 53] intentionally omitted <==

Section 2: Reporting of Exploration Results

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
Mineral tenement and land tenure status	Type, reference name/number, location and ownership including agreements or material issues with third parties such as joint ventures, partnerships, overriding royalties, native title interests, historical sites, wilderness or national park and environmental settings. The security of the tenure held at the time of reporting along with any known impediments to obtaining a licence to operate in the area.	Exploration Licence EL7/2005 covers the Cleveland mine and Mineral Resource and is 100% owned by Elementos Ltd, through its wholly owned subsidiary Rockwell Minerals (Tasmania) Pty Ltd.
Exploration done by other parties	Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties	Exploration and mining has been conducted in the area since 1898. Recent exploration and mining activities include, exploration by Aberfoyle Tin Development Partnership (1961-65), exploration and mining by Cleveland Tin NL and Aberfoyle Limited (1968-86), exploration by Lynch Mining Pty Ltd (2007) and exploration by Rockwell Minerals Limited (2013).
Geology	Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation	Historical mining at Cleveland produced a tailings legacy that the company proposes to reprocess as part of its strategy for the Province. The tailings are stored above ground on-site in two tailings dams (TD1 and TD2). The tailings contain a substantial quantity of recoverable tin and copper due in part to operational inefficiencies and technical limitations of tin processing whilst the mine was in operation.
Drill hole Information	A summary of all information material to the understanding of the exploration results including a tabulation of the following information for all Material drill holes:  Easting and northing of the drill hole collar  Elevation or RL (Reduced Level – elevation above sea level in metres) of the drill hole collar  Dip and azimuth of the hole  Down hole length and interception depth  Hole length. If the exclusion of this information is justified on the basis that the information is not Material and this exclusion does not detract from the understanding of the report, the Competent Person should clearly explain why this is the case.	No drilling was conducted to produce the samples for the bulk composite. Samples were extracted by ‘wacker’ method which uses a hand-held mechanised push tube process to extract material from the tailings dams.

Page 12 of 13

==> picture [149 x 53] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
Data aggregation methods	In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging techniques, maximum and/or minimum grade truncations (eg cutting of high grades) and cut-off grades are usually Material and should be stated. Where aggregate intercepts incorporate short lengths of high-grade results and longer lengths of low-grade results, the procedure used for such aggregation should be stated and some typical examples of such aggregations should be shown in detail. The assumptions used for any reporting of metal equivalent values should be clearly stated.	Samples were composited into the main feed sample for batch gravity testing. The rejected samples were either clay cap material or historic Hellyer tailings. The composite sample sizing and assay were consistent with the weighted average of sample interval sizing and assays. Mass balancing was used to interpret the results. This is a blend of the tin deportments achieved at each process stage for each tailings dam. The mass balance developed from these test results allows for the losses incurred by upgrading of concentrates.
Relationship between mineralisatio n 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 (eg ‘down hole length, true width not known’).	The samples were composited for bulk assessment purposes and do not represent intersections. The results were for material characterisation and do not imply any lengths, volumes or quantitates of mineralisation.
Diagrams		See figures in this announcement.
Balanced reporting		All sampling results have been reported.
Other substantive exploration data	Other exploration data, if meaningful and material, should be reported including (but not limited to): geological observations; geophysical survey results; geochemical survey results; bulk samples – size and method of treatment; metallurgical test results; bulk density, groundwater, geotechnical and rock characteristics; potential deleterious or contaminating substances.	The metallurgical amenability of the tin copper mineralisation was established by mining and processing operations from 1968 to 1986.
Further work	The nature and scale of planned further work (eg tests for lateral extensions or depth extensions or large-scale step-out drilling). Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions, including the main geological interpretations and future drilling areas, provided this information is not commercially sensitive.	No future drilling is envisaged at this time. A bulk sample is planned as part of a Definitive Feasibility Study in 2015, but a submission for approval of to take a bulk sample has not yet been submitted.

Note: A detailed list of authors included in the tables above is included as References in the Company’s ASX release dated 2 April 2014 and is available to view on www.elementos.com.au.

Page 13 of 13