AI assistant

Sign in to chat with this filing

The assistant answers questions, extracts KPIs, and summarises risk factors directly from the filing text.

Sign up Log in

EXULTANT MINING LIMITED Earnings Release 2025

Jan 20, 2026

64245_rns_2026-01-20_d929b347-8bc6-4735-a16b-fab5b9e82bc7.pdf

Earnings Release

Open in viewer

Opens in your device viewer

21[st] January 2026

==> picture [358 x 23] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [131 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [98 x 23] intentionally omitted <==

HIGHLIGHTS

==> picture [36 x 17] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [368 x 17] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [326 x 18] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [112 x 18] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [32 x 18] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
		for 52 elements (AR25/MS52)
*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).	• 27 drill holes completed historically between 1975-2012, comprising: `o` WMC 1978 – 1982: 14 diamond drillholes for total of 1,852 metres with an average of 132 m. `o` Denehurst 1995-96: 2 diamond drillholes for total of 291 m. `o` Ironbark Zinc 2010-2012: 11 diamond drill holes for total of 1,710 m. • Hole orientations generally –60° toward local grid west. • Diamond holes were NQ/HQ Size. • Drilling unit was track mounted. • Core orientation methods not documented in available reports.
*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.	• Recovery records are limited or inconsistently reported in historic drilling programs. • No systematic recording of core recovery or sample quality documented for early programs (1975-1995). • Potential sample bias due to preferential loss in broken ground zones cannot be assessed from available data.
*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.	• Historic core has been geologically logged to varying standards depending on the operator and time period. • Logging generally qualitative in nature, focusing on lithology, alteration, and mineralisation. • Core photography not systematically undertaken in early programs. • Detailed structural logging limited, though some programs noted shear- foliation oriented N-S with steep dip. • Most intersections appear to have been logged, though detail level varies significantly between operators.

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
*Subsampling* *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 insitu 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	• Core sampling methods are not consistently documented across all historic programs. • RC samples collected at 0.66 m intervals in most programs; Diamond drilling samples collected at 0.1 m intervals. • Sample preparation procedures varied between operators and time periods. • No documented field duplicate or second-half sampling programs. • Quality control procedures for sub-sampling are not systematically documented for early programs. • Rock Chips are broken from outcrop or float using a steel Estwing geological hammer, the entire sample (nominal 0.5kg) is pulverised to produce a 30g charge for fire assay (AU-AA23) to analyse for Au and 0.25g is used for multielement analysis (ME-MS61), where it uses a four-acid digestion to dissolve nearly all minerals. It’s then measured using a mass spectrometer and optical emission spectrometer. • Rock chips collected by Peak View Exploration were pulverized to produce a 25g charge for aqua regia digestion with a MS analytical finish to analyze for 52 elements (AR25/MS52) • In-Lab QA/QC procedures include insertion of standards, blanks and duplicates, grind checks and repeat analyses are standard procedure. • A 0.5kg sample size for a Rock Chip is an acceptable industry standard and considered appropriate for the style of mineralisation being targeted and the grainsize of the rock 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. • For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF instruments, etc, the parameters used in determining the analysis including instrument	• Historic assaying conducted using: `o` Fire assay for gold analysis (considered total extraction method) `o` Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy (AAS) for gold and base metals. • Laboratories used not consistently documented. • QAQC procedures: Standards, blanks, and duplicates not systematically implemented in early programs (1975-1995). • Modernprogram(Ironbark 2007-2012)implemented better QAQC, but

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
	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.	specific details not provided in available reports. • No documented external laboratory checks or round-robin testing. • Previous rock chip program (Peak View Exploration 2022-2023) implemented sound QAQC consisting of duplicates, standards (OREAS622 & OREAS232b) and blanks • The latest program (Exultant Mining 2025 - Present) uses ALS Orange and considers its procedures for sample preparation, fusion and analysis industry standard. • In-Lab QA/QC procedures include insertion of standards, blanks and duplicates, grind checks and repeat analyses are standard procedure. • A 0.5kg sample size for a rock chip sample is an acceptable industry standard and considered appropriate for the style of mineralisation being targeted and the grainsize of the rock being sampled. • QA/QC samples are behaving within acceptable thresholds. • Accuracy and precision levels are not established for historic data.
*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	• Limited verification of significant intersections documented. • Data entry and verification procedures not documented for most historic programs. • Primary data storage protocols vary by operator - some data may be housed with NSW Department of Primary Industries. • No systematic independent verification of historic results undertaken. • Data acquired during logging of rock chip samples is captured in Microsoft Excel and incorporated into the digital database
*Location of data* *points*	• Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drill holes (collar and downhole surveys), trenches, mine workings and other locations used in Mineral Resource estimation. • Specification of the grid system used. • Quality and adequacy of topographic control.	• Historic survey methods not consistently documented. • Local grid systems used by different operators (WMC) may not be consistent. • Coordinate system conversions between different programs may introduce errors. • Down-hole surveys: Methods not documented for most programs. • Topographic control: Adequate for the low-relief terrain(maximum relief

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
		~700 m). • Grid system: Various local grids used historically; modern programs used MGA94 Zone 55. • Collar survey accuracy estimated at ±5-10 m for early programs, improving to ±1-2 m for modern programs (Ironbark). • Data points in the field are collected using a handheld Garmin GPSMAP® 65S MULTI-BAND
*Data spacing and* *distribution*	• Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results. • Whether the data spacing and distribution is sufficient to establish the degree of geological and grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve estimation procedure(s) and classifications applied. • Whether sample compositing has been applied	• Data points in the field are collected using a handheld Garmin GPSMAP® 65S MULTI-BAND with a nominal accuracy of +/- 5m • Grid system is GDA2020 Zone 55 • RC/Diamond drilling: Variable spacing, generally 25-100 m apart. • Data spacing insufficient for resource estimation at Peak View prospect. • Most of the prospect strike length only tested by shallow drilling with wide spacing. • Rock chip samples are point samples and are not adequate for Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve estimations
*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.	• Historic drilling generally oriented -60° toward local grid west. • Mineralisation orientation: Steeply east-dipping shear zones parallel to N-S striking thrust faults. • Main lode plunge: Peak View ~25° to north. • Drilling orientation appears appropriate for intersecting the steeply-dipping mineralised zones. • Potential bias: Some oblique intersection of moderately north-plunging shoots but not considered to introduce significant sampling bias. • Rock chip samples are collected where there is adequate outcrop
*Sample security*	• The measures taken to ensure sample security	• Sample security measures not documented for historic programs. • Chain of custody procedures not consistently reported. • Sample storage and handling protocols varied between operators and time periods. • No evidence of systematic sample securityissues affectingresults.

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
		• Rock chip samples are collected within calico bags and stored in sealed polyweave bags that are secured on pallets for transport • Pallets of samples are transported via a freight company to ALS Orange • The facility at ALS Orange is presumed to be secured and locked with an adequate and regularly monitored security system
*Audits or reviews*	• The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data.	• No systematic audits or reviews of historic sampling techniques documented. • No independent technical audits of historic exploration programs identified. • Data compilation and review ongoing as part of current technical assessment. • The sampling methods being used are industry standard practice. • The laboratory holds ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation for testing and calibration, ensuring the technical competence of the facility. • The management system of Australian Laboratory Services Pty. Ltd. located at 10 Leewood Drive, Orange, NSW, is certified to ISO 9001:2015 standards. • Historic samples reported (Peak View Exploration) used Intertek Adelaide laboratory which holds an ISO 17025 accreditation for testing and calibration, ensuring the technical competence of the facility.

AI assistant

EXULTANT MINING LIMITED Earnings Release 2025

64245_rns_2026-01-20_d929b347-8bc6-4735-a16b-fab5b9e82bc7.pdf

HIGHLIGHTS

Appendix A: Peak View JORC Code, 2012 Table

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data

Appendix B: Black Hammer JORC Code, 2012 Table 1

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
	• 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	from the Monaro Highway • Land use: Primarily grazing and cropping on gently undulating hills. • Environmental: No mineral production, coal, petroleum, or infrastructure permits within tenement areas.
*Exploration done* *by other parties*	• Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties.	• Historic exploration (1971-2023): `o` Nova Nickel NL/Western Mining (1971-1975): Early geological mapping, stream sediment sampling. `o` Western Mining (1975 - 1984): Geological mapping, soil sampling, Geophysics including IP, Sirotem and magnetics surveys, drilling. `o` Delta Gold (1993): Stream sediment sampling. `o` Denehurst (1995-1996): Radiometric and aeromagnetic survey, drilling. `o` Ironbark Zinc (2007 – 2012): Drilling `o` Peak View Exploration (2022-2023): rock chip sampling
*Geology*	• Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation.	• The Peak View Project lies within the Molong-South Coast Anticlinorial Zone of the Lachlan Fold Belt in New South Wales. • The tenement is dominated by Ordovician sediments of the Adaminaby Group and Jerangle Metamorphic Complex while being bounded to the east by Devonian Granites.
*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	• Total drilling: 27 holes (RC, Diamond) completed 1975-2012 • Key intersections from Peak View area listed in Peak View drill intersection table in Appendix B. • Depth testing: Only 3 holes drilled >250 m depth, all intersected gold/base minerals mineralisation. • Collar coordinates: Historic local grids, conversion to modern coordinate system completed. • Complete drill hole database: Requires compilation and re-validation from multiple operators in the field.

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
	- down hole length and intersection 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
*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 intersections 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.	• Historic reporting: Intersections reported at various cut-off grades (See table 2 of Appendix B). • Composites in drill intersection table calculated using a minimum mineralised intersect of 0.2m, a maximum of 0.2m internal waste. • Metal equivalent values are not reported.
*Relationship* *between* *mineralisation* *widths and* *intersection* *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’).	• Mineralisation geometry: Steeply east-dipping shear zones (typically 70- 80° dip). • Drill hole orientation: Generally, 60° toward grid west. • True width estimation: Most intersections are at moderate angle to mineralisation, true widths not known but estimated at 60-80% of down- hole length. • Reporting: Historic results reported as down-hole lengths. True width is not known. • The relationship between rock chip samples and mineralized widths are not known

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
*Diagrams*	• Appropriate maps and sections (with scales) and tabulations of intersections 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	• Maps and sections are included in the body of this Report as deemed appropriate by the Competent Person.
*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.	• Historic reporting documents both high-grade intersections and lower grade zones. • Peak View intersection table lists all significant intersections. • High-grade intersections not followed up in historic programs, indicating potential remaining targets. • Rock chip information and results are provided in Table 1 & 3.
*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.	• Geophysics: aero magnetics, IP surveys, ground gravity and Radiometric. • Geochemistry: Extensive soil sampling programs, stream sediment surveys. • Bulk density: Not systematically measured in historic programs. • The local Silurian geology consists of an eastern horizon of acid crystal and lithic tuffs (chlorite-bearing in places) and a more complex variable western horizon with fine-grained acid tuffs, aphanitic lava flows, limestone, quartzites and cherts.
*Further work*	• The nature and scale of planned further work (e.g. tests for lateral 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.	• Work program (Year 1-2,): `o` Field mapping and geological model updates. `o` Soil and rock chip sampling programs. `o` Gravity & I.P geophysical surveys `o` Drilling program • Priority targets: `o` 10km of contact prospective for massive sulphides. `o` Down-plunge extensions at Peak View (only 3 holes >250 m depth). `o` Southern Zone - broad lower-grade system needs systematic drilling.

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
		`o` Drilling included 39 Air core drilling by North Ltd. `o` Stream sediment sampling.
*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).	• No drilling has been conducted by current vendors. • Historic drilling includes 39 air core drill holes by North Ltd.
*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.	• No information available on sample recovery methods or assessments for historic drilling. • Recovery data not consistently documented in historic reports.
*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.	• Limited geological logging information available from historic drilling. • No systematic geological or geotechnical logging documented to support mineral resource estimation.
*Subsampling* *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 insitu 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	• No detailed information available on sub-sampling methods for historic drilling. • Sample preparation techniques not consistently documented in historic reports. • Rock Chips are broken from outcrop or float using a steel Estwing geological hammer, the entire sample (nominal 0.5kg) is pulverised to produce a 30g charge for fire assay (AU-AA23) to analyse for Au and 0.25g is used for multielement analysis (ME-MS61), where it uses a four-acid digestion to dissolve nearly all minerals. It’s then measured using a mass spectrometer and optical emission spectrometer. • In-Lab QA/QCprocedures include insertion of standards,

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
		blanks and duplicates, grind checks and repeat analyses are standard procedure. • • A 0.5kg sample size for a Rock Chip is an acceptable industry standard and considered appropriate for the style of mineralisation being targeted and the grainsize of the rock 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. • 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.	• Historic analytical methods included AAS (Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy) and fire assay. • QAQC protocols from historic exploration not consistently documented. • Various laboratories used over the exploration period. • No information on standards, blanks, duplicates or external laboratory checks for historic work. • The latest program (Exultant Mining 2025 - Present) uses ALS Orange and considers its procedures for sample preparation, fusion and analysis industry standard. • In-Lab QA/QC procedures include insertion of standards, blanks and duplicates, grind checks and repeat analyses are standard procedure. • A 0.5kg sample size for a rock chip sample is an acceptable industry standard and considered appropriate for the style of mineralisation being targeted and the grainsize of the rock being sampled. • QA/QC samples are behaving within acceptable thresholds. • Accuracy and precision levels are not established for historic data.
*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	• No independent verification of significant intersections documented. • No twinned holes reported. • Data entry procedures and verification protocols not documented for historic work. • No adjustments to assay data reported. • Data acquired during logging of rock chip samples is captured in Microsoft Excel and incorporated into the digital database

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
*Location of data* *points*	• Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drill holes (collar and downhole surveys), trenches, mine workings and other locations used in Mineral Resource estimation. • Specification of the grid system used. • Quality and adequacy of topographic control.	• Survey accuracy and quality for historic drill hole locations not documented. • Topographic control adequacy not assessed. • Collar survey methods not consistently recorded. • Historic collars and other geochemical data located using GDA94/MGA Zone 55. • Data points in the field are collected using a handheld Garmin GPSMAP®65S MULTI-BAND
*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	• 39 historic drill holes. See Black Hammer drill table for collar details. • Most drilling focused on gold exploration. • Data spacing insufficient to establish geological and grade continuity. • No sample compositing reported. • Data points in the field are collected using a handheld Garmin GPSMAP® 65S MULTI-BAND with a nominal accuracy of +/- 5m • Grid system is GDA2020 Zone 55
*Orientation* of *data in relation to* *geological* *structure*	• Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased sampling of possible structures and the extent to which this is known, considering the deposit type. • If the relationship between the drilling orientation and the orientation of key mineralised structures is considered to have introduced a sampling bias, this should be assessed and reported if material.	• Drill hole orientations not documented relative to geological structures. • No assessment of potential sampling bias from drilling orientation. • Structural controls on mineralisation not systematically tested by historic drilling. • Rock chip samples are collected where there is adequate outcrop
*Sample security*	• The measures taken to ensure sample security	• No information available on sample security measures for historic exploration. • Chain of custody procedures not documented. • Rock chip samples are collected within calico bags and stored in sealed polyweave bags that are secured on pallets for transport • Pallets of samples are transported via a freight company to ALS Orange

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
		• The facility at ALS Orange is presumed to be secured and locked with an adequate and regularly monitored security system
*Audits or reviews*	• The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data.	• No audits or reviews of historic sampling techniques and data reported. • Data compilation and review ongoing as part of current technical assessment. • The sampling methods being used are industry standard practice. • The laboratory holds ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation for testing and calibration, ensuring the technical competence of the facility. • The management system of Australian Laboratory Services Pty. Ltd. located at 10 Leewood Drive, Orange, NSW, is certified to ISO 9001:2015 standards.
Secton 2 Reportng of Exploraton 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	• Project consists of a granted exploration licence (EL9332) and an exploration licence application (ELA6915) covering 310 km². • EL9332 tenement 100% owned by Shriver Nominees Pty Ltd while ELA6915 was applied by Exultant Mining Ltd. • EL9332 expires on5 December 2027. • State national parks cover portion of tenement area.
*Exploration done* *by other parties*	• Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties.	• Extensive exploration spanning 1970-2025 by multiple companies including Le Nickel Australia, Mines Search, Australian Anglo-American, Renison Gold North and Sultan Corporation. • Primary focus on gold - copper mineralisation with limited focus on diamond exploration.

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
		• 39 historical shallow drill holes completed (average depth of 12m), mostly targeting gold by North. See Black Hammer drill table for collar details. • Over 264 geochemical rock chip samples collected. • Significant intersection for Au, Cu Pb and Zn from the historic rock chips are listed in the Black Hammer rock chip results table in Appendix D, in prospectus. • Ground based Magnetic survey completed on a small portion of tenement.
*Geology*	• Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation.	• The project area is located within the Ordovician Macquarie Arc, one of Australia’s most prolific mineral provinces. • The arc is globally recognised for hosting world-class porphyry and epithermal deposits, including Cadia–Ridgeway, Northparkes, Lake Cowal, and Boda. These systems demonstrate the capacity of the arc to generate large- tonnage, Tier-1 copper–gold deposits. • The project area also hosts several historic small-scale mining operations from the early 20th century, including the Tuglow Copper Mines, Chatham Valley Gold Mines, Hughes Copper Mine, and Porters Retreat Copper Mine. These prospects were never advanced beyond shallow workings and, crucially, have not been tested by drilling.
*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	• 39 historic drill holes by North Ltd – all air core. • Detailed collar information (coordinates, elevations, orientations) comprehensively documented in available historic records. See drill hole collar table for collar information from historic reports. • Most drilling targeted base metal exploration.

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
*Balanced* *reporting*	• Where comprehensive reporting of all Exploration Results is not practicable, representative reporting of both low and high grades and/or widths should be practiced to avoid misleading reporting of Exploration Results.	• Historic exploration results show both anomalous and background values across the project area. • Rock chip information and results are provided in Table 2.
*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.	• Ground magnetic survey conducted by historic operators. • Geochemical surveys include 264 rock chip samples. • Drilling included 39 Air core drilling by North Ltd.
*Further work*	• The nature and scale of planned further work (e.g. tests for lateral 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.	• Two-year exploration program planned. • Year 1: data compilation, geological mapping, geochemical sampling, assaying of historic stored cores, magnetic, I.P, gravity geophysical surveys, air core drilling, drill targeting. • Year 2: Targeted drilling of targets delineated from Year 1 work

AI assistant

EXULTANT MINING LIMITED — Earnings Release 2025

64245_rns_2026-01-20_d929b347-8bc6-4735-a16b-fab5b9e82bc7.pdf

HIGHLIGHTS

Appendix A: Peak View JORC Code, 2012 Table

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data

Appendix B: Black Hammer JORC Code, 2012 Table 1

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data

More from EXULTANT MINING LIMITED

EXULTANT MINING LIMITED Earnings Release 2025