FireFly Metals Ltd. - Capital/Financing Update 2024

==> picture [191 x 54] intentionally omitted <==

ASX FFM

29 October 2024

ASX Announcement

- Green Bay Copper Gold Project, Canada

Resource increases 42% to 1.2Mt of contained metal at 2% Copper Eq[1]

“This outstanding result confirms Green Bay’s status as one of the fastest-growing highgrade copper projects with genuine scale in the western world.” – FireFly MD Steve Parsons

KEY POINTS

Green Bay Resource grows to 59Mt at 2% CuEq, reflecting the results of the highly successful 2023-2024 underground drilling campaign
The updated Resource sees significant increases in tonnes and contained copper metal while maintaining high grade of 2% CuEq; 41% is now in the Measured and Indicated category
Total contained metal now stands at 1.2Mt CuEq, comprised of 1Mt copper (+39% increase), 550koz gold (+48% increase) and 5.4Moz silver (+57% increase)
The Resource in the high-grade VMS zone increases to 6Mt at 4.3%CuEq and remains open
The additional resource was discovered at low all-in costs[2] of only A$79 (US$53) per tonne of copper metal equivalent
The bulk mining potential of Green Bay is evident when evaluating the deposit at lower cutoff grades; at a 0.5% copper cutoff the Resource increases to 93Mt @ 1.6%CuEq
This Resource increase is driven mainly by mineralisation from the large-scale footwall copper zone due to the Phase 1 drill platform locations; Phase 2 is now well underway with drilling targeting the high-grade copper-gold VMS zones which are expected to underpin the next round of Resource growth
Both the large-scale footwall copper zone and the high-grade copper-gold VMS zones remain open, with the deepest hole to date in the footwall returning 61.8m @ 1.8% CuEq ~ true thickness (refer ASX 3/10/2024)
Drill drive development and four underground drill rigs to continue into the foreseeable future. Further step-out drill results expected in coming weeks

1 Metal equivalent for the Resource Estimate has been calculated at a copper price of US$8,750/t, gold price of US$2,500/oz and silver price of US$25/oz. Metallurgical recoveries have been set at 95% for copper and 85% for both gold and silver. CuEq(%) = Cu(%) + (Au(g/t) x 0.82190) + (Ag(g/t) X 0.00822). In the opinion of the Company, all elements included in the metal equivalent calculation have a reasonable potential to be sold and recovered based on current market conditions, metallurgical test work, and the Company’s operational experience.

2 All in discovery costs include drilling, assays, geology staff, geophysics and all mining costs of developing the exploration drill drive.

FireFly Metals Ltd

+61 8 9220 9030 ACN 110 336 733 [email protected] Principal & Registered Office: www.fireflymetals.com.au Level 2/8 Richardson Street West Perth WA 6005

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Downhole electro-magnetic (DHEM) geophysical testing demonstrates potential mineralisation extends beyond the updated Resource
In light of the success in growing the Resource to this size, FireFly intends to undertake engineering studies in 2H CY25; these will take into account the results of the coming phase of growth and discovery drilling
The Company remains well funded to accelerate resource growth following the recent highly successful A$65M institutional placement and a further A$8M from the SPP

FireFly Managing Director Steve Parsons said: “This outstanding result confirms Green Bay’s status as one of the fastest-growing high-grade copper projects with genuine scale in the western world.

“To achieve such immense growth in such a short time and for so little cost highlights the topshelf quality of Green Bay, the skill of our team and the Company’s commitment to multi-rig drilling programs.

“These same factors will drive the next round of resource growth, enabling us to capitalise on the open nature of the mineralisation and the potential for new discoveries as highlighted by the recent geophysical results”.

FireFly Metals Ltd (ASX: FFM) (“Company” or “FireFly”) is pleased to announce a 42 per cent increase in the Mineral Resource Estimate (“Resource”) at its Green Bay copper-gold project in Newfoundland, Canada.

The total Resource is now 59Mt at 2% copper-equivalent for 1.2Mt of contained metal. Copper is the dominant contained metal in the Resource (1Mt) with significant quantities of gold (550koz) and silver (5.4Moz) as co-products.

The Resource consists of two components, namely the Ming Mine (49.9Mt @ 2.0% CuEq) and the Little Deer deposit (9.1Mt @ 2.0% CuEq). Both have now been prepared in accordance with the JORC Code (2012 Edition) and estimated by external independent consulting groups. FireFly is also preparing technical reports in accordance with Canadian National Instrument 43-101.

The increase in the Resource has been driven primarily by the successful growth strategy implemented by FireFly since it acquired Green Bay in October 2023. Over 1,400m of underground development has been mined at Green Bay’s Ming deposit to position the drill rigs to effectively test down-plunge extensions of the high-grade volcanogenic massive sulphide (“VMS”) mineralisation and broad footwall copper stringer zone (“FWZ”). Up to four rigs have been operating and approximately 40,000m of diamond drilling completed so far. To date, the total discovery cost per estimated tonne of CuEq metal added is an industry-low A$79 (US$53) per tonne.

This exploration drilling has successfully demonstrated that the Resource at the Ming mine extends over considerable distances, now reaching a strike length of approximately 2 km. Both the highgrade massive sulphide zones and broad footwall stringer zones remain open, with downhole geophysical surveys indicating probable extensions to the mineralisation.

ASX FFM

Page | 2

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [429 x 297] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 1: Long section of Ming mine resource extent and drilling completed by FireFly in 2023-2024 to inform the estimate . The resource remains open and recent geophysical DHEM conductors indicate the mineralisation continues down plunge. Red wireframes denote footwall stringer zone mineralisation and gold wireframes are the upper high-grade copper-gold volcanogenic massive sulphide (VMS) lodes. Red on the drillholes are assays >0.5% copper.

==> picture [427 x 283] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 2: Isometric view of the Ming mine Resource model showing all blocks above 1% copper. The resource consists of a very high-grade upper volcanogenic massive sulphide (VMS) zone of 6Mt @ 4.3%CuEq and broad footwall copper stringer style mineralised zone (FWZ).

ASX FFM

Page | 3

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Table 1: Mineral Resource Estimate for the Green Bay Copper Gold Project at 3 October 2024

	MEASURED	INDICATED	INFERRED	TOTAL RESOURCE
	Tonnes Grade Metal	Tonnes Grade Metal	Tonnes Grade Metal	Tonnes Grade Metal
Copper Gold Silver	4.7Mt 1.7% 77kt 0.3g/t 45koz 2.3g/t 0.3Moz	19.7Mt 1.7% 328kt 0.2g/t 154koz 2.6g/t 1.6Moz	34.5Mt 1.7% 592kt 0.3g/t 348koz 3.1g/t 3.4Moz	58.9Mt 1.7% 997kt 0.3g/t 547koz 2.8g/t 5.4Moz
CuEq	4.7Mt 1.9% 89kt	19.7Mt 1.9% 371kt	34.5Mt 2.0% 690kt	58.9Mt 2.0% 1,150kt

Note: The resource is reported at a 1% copper cutoff. This is the same cutoff grade used for the previous resource reported in August 2023. Refer to following sections of this release and Appendix B ‘JORC Table 1’ for further details on the Mineral Resource Estimate. Please note totals may vary due to rounding. Please refer to the compliance statements for details on parameters used to calculate metal equivalents.

==> picture [485 x 190] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3: Comparison with previous resource estimate for the Green Bay Copper-Gold Project. (August 2023 vs October 2024). Note: The previous estimate is considered a foreign estimate and was not prepared in accordance with the JORC Code (2012 Edition). Refer to ASX release dated 31 August 2023 for further details of the Foreign Estimate. The current Resource was prepared in accordance with the JORC Code (2012 Edition). Both resource estimates have been reported at a 1% copper cutoff grade.

The Green Bay Resource was reported using a 1% copper cutoff grade, the same as the previous Foreign Estimate reported in August 2023. Sensitivity analysis ( Table 2 ) demonstrates that the potential scale of the project increases significantly as the cutoff grade is lowered. At a 0.5% copper cutoff, the estimate increases to 93.3Mt at 1.6% CuEq for ~1.5Mt of copper, ~700koz of gold and ~7Moz of silver. Both bulk and selective mining options will be contemplated as part of future economic evaluations.

Table 2: Cutoff grade sensitivity for the Green Bay Copper-Gold Project October 2024 Resource

			Grade			Metal		CuEq	CuEq
Cut Off(Cu %)	Tonnes	Cu(%)	Au(g/t)	Ag (g/t)	Cu(kt)	Au(koz)	Ag (Moz)	Grade(%)	Metal(kt)
0.5	93.3	1.3	0.2	2.3	1,259	707	7.0	1.6	1,458
0.7	80.7	1.5	0.3	2.5	1,183	651	6.5	1.7	1,366
0.9	66.5	1.6	0.3	2.7	1,069	583	5.8	1.9	1,233
1	58.9	1.7	0.3	2.8	997	547	5.4	2.0	1,151
1.3	38.3	2.0	0.3	3.3	762	424	4.1	2.3	881
1.5	27.4	2.2	0.4	3.7	608	339	3.2	2.6	703
1.9	13.5	2.8	0.5	4.8	377	235	2.1	3.3	443

Note: The current Resource has been reported at the 1% copper cutoff. The table above is prepared on the basis of the assumptions referred to under Ming Resource Cut Off Grade and Modifying Mining and Metallurgical Factors .

ASX FFM

Page | 4

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Forward Work Plan

Recent drilling confirms that the Ming deposit remains open down-plunge, with the deepest hole in the Footwall Zone returning an intersection of 61.8m @ 1.8% CuEq on the limit of the Resource boundary (see ASX release dated 3 October 2024, intersection is ~ true thickness). As such, the Company will continue with its low-cost rapid resource growth strategy, with the underground exploration drill drive to be extended to allow effective drill testing down plunge as well as discovery drilling utilising DHEM for new parallel and repeat lodes at the Ming deposit during 2025.

Four drill rigs remain underground at the Ming mine to ensure the growth objectives are delivered. To date, ~40,000m of the planned 130,000m drill program has been completed. The remainder of the underground drill program for 2024-2025 has three clear strategic components:

Resource extension: Test the down-plunge continuation of both the high-grade copper-gold VMS zones as well as the broad footwall copper stringer zone: ~40,000m of drilling ( Figure 4 );
Infill drilling: Convert inferred areas of the Resource to indicated for inclusion in future mining studies; and
Discovery drilling: Drilling to explore for parallel high-grade VMS lodes and additional broad footwall stringer-style mineralisation and possible ‘feeder’ zone style mineralisation within 600m of the underground infrastructure.

==> picture [517 x 307] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 4: Planned 2024-2025 Resource extensions drilling at the Ming mine. This is expected to add additional high-grade VMS as well as broad footwall stringer extensions to the Resource. Note that new discovery drilling and infill drilling is not shown on this image, only extension drilling.

ASX FFM

Page | 5

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Further Resource updates are planned for 2025, with the first in the second quarter of CY2025 expected to potentially include additional high-grade copper and gold rich massive sulphide lenses. The second update is scheduled for late 2025 and will include potential resource extensions from the second phase of the drill drive.

Work has commenced on engineering studies to evaluate various scenarios for an up-scaled restart to operations, which will incorporate the expected 2025 resource updates once finalised. Upscaled studies can be completed very quickly once final resource update numbers are available given the level of detail going into the current engineering assessments, but with the huge success of the drilling programs the Company does not want to limit the size of any future potential upscaled mining operation until it has completed the next phase of growth drilling.

FireFly is well funded through 2025 with the recent institutional Placement and Share Purchase Plan raising an additional A$73M.

==> picture [408 x 285] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 5: Key 2024-2025 milestones for the Green Bay Copper-Gold Project. Please note that timelines are indicative and may be subject to change.

Steve Parsons

Media

Managing Director FireFly Metals Ltd Phone: +61 8 9220 9030

Paul Armstrong Read Corporate +61 8 9388 1474

ASX FFM

Page | 6

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

About the Mineral Resource Estimate

Green Bay Copper-Gold Project

FireFly Metals Ltd’s Green Bay copper-gold project is located in the northern coastal region of central Newfoundland, Canada ( Figure 6 ). FireFly holds ~211km[2] of prime mineral claims in the heart of the prolific Baie Verte mineral district, which hosts numerous base metal volcanogenic massive sulphide (“VMS”) and orogenic gold deposits.

==> picture [506 x 227] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 6: (Left) Location of the Green Bay copper-gold project in Newfoundland, Canada; (Right) FireFly’s mineral claims and simplified geology of the Baie Verte mineral district

Green Bay Mineral Resource Estimate

The Green Bay Resource consists of the Ming Deposit (50Mt @ 2% CuEq) and Little Deer (9Mt @ 2% CuEq). The Green Bay Mineral Resource Estimate by source is shown in Table 3 .

The Ming and Little Deer Resource estimates have been prepared in accordance with the JORC Code (2012 Edition) by independent external consultants in close collaboration with FireFly personnel.

The growth in the global resource has come exclusively from the Ming deposit which has been the focus of drilling and underground development activities over the past year. No additional information was collected from the Little Deer deposit.

ASX FFM

Page | 7

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Table 3: October 2024 Mineral Resource Estimate for the Green Bay copper-gold project

Ming Deposit Mineral Resource Estimate

	MEASURED	INDICATED	INFERRED	TOTAL RESOURCE
	Tonnes Grade Metal	Tonnes Grade Metal	Tonnes Grade Metal	Tonnes Grade Metal
Copper Gold Silver	4.7Mt 1.7% 77kt 0.3g/t 45koz 2.3g/t 0.3Moz	16.8Mt 1.6% 266kt 0.3g/t 145koz 2.4g/t 1.3Moz	28.3Mt 1.7% 482kt 0.4g/t 338koz 3.3g/t 3.0Moz	49.9Mt 1.7% 825kt 0.3g/t 528koz 2.9g/t 4.6Moz
CuEq	4.7Mt 1.9% 89kt	16.8Mt 1.8% 307kt	28.3Mt 2.0% 576kt	49.9Mt 2.0% 972kt

Little Deer Mineral Resource Estimate

	MEASURED	INDICATED	INFERRED	TOTAL RESOURCE
	Tonnes Grade Metal	Tonnes Grade Metal	Tonnes Grade Metal	Tonnes Grade Metal
Copper Gold Silver	- - - - - - -	2.9Mt 2.1% 61kt 0.1g/t 9koz 3.4g/t 0.3Moz	6.2Mt 1.8% 110kt 0.1g/t 10koz 2.2g/t 0.4Moz	9.1Mt 1.9% 172kt 0.1g/t 19koz 2.6g/t 0.7Moz
CuEq	- - -	2.9Mt 2.2% 65kt	6.2Mt 1.8% 114kt	9.1Mt 2.0% 178kt

GREEN BAY PROJECT TOTAL MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE

	MEASURED	INDICATED	INFERRED	TOTAL RESOURCE
	Tonnes Grade Metal	Tonnes Grade Metal	Tonnes Grade Metal	Tonnes Grade Metal
Copper Gold Silver	4.7Mt 1.7% 77kt 0.3g/t 45koz 2.3g/t 0.3Moz	19.7Mt 1.7% 328kt 0.2g/t 154koz 2.6g/t 1.6Moz	34.5Mt 1.7% 592kt 0.3g/t 348koz 3.1g/t 3.4Moz	58.9Mt 1.7% 997kt 0.3g/t 547koz 2.8g/t 5.4Moz
CuEq	4.7Mt 1.9% 89kt	19.7Mt 1.9% 371kt	34.5Mt 2.0% 690kt	58.9Mt 2.0% 1,150kt

Note: Please note totals may vary due to rounding.

Variance to Previous Estimate

Table 4: Green Bay Global Resource: October 2024 Resource vs August 2023 Foreign Resource

		MEASURED	MEASURED		INDICATED	INDICATED		INFERRED	INFERRED	TOTAL RESOURCE	TOTAL RESOURCE	TOTAL RESOURCE
	Tonnes	Grade Metal		Tonnes	Grade Metal		Tonnes	Grade Metal		Tonnes	Grade Metal
Copper	-3.7Mt (-45%)	-0.06% (-4%)	-67kt (-47%)	+1.5Mt (+8%)	-0.23% (-12%)	-17kt (-5%)	+21.9Mt (+174%)	-0.1% (-6%)	+362kt (158%)	+19.7Mt (+50%)	-0.14% (-8%)	+278kt (+38%)
Gold		-0.16g/t (-34%)	-79koz (-64%)		-0.03g/t (-10%)	-3koz (-2%)		+0.1g/t (+44%)	+260koz (+293%)		0.04g/t (-1.5%)	+177koz (+48%)
Silver		-1.3g/t (-37%)	-0.6Moz (-65%)		-0.03g/t (+1%)	+0.1Moz (+9%)		+0.7g/t (+28%)	+2.4Moz (+251%)		+0.12g/t (+4%)	+1.9Moz (+57%)

Note: Both estimates use a 1% lower cutoff grade. Upper figure shows the quantity of change, with the percentage difference below in brackets. Please see ASX release dated 31 August 2023 for details on the foreign estimate .

ASX FFM

Page | 8

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

The change between the August 2023 and October 2024 resource estimates is shown in Figure 7.

==> picture [480 x 249] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 7: Comparison between Aug 2023 and Oct 2024 Resource estimates for the Green Bay Copper-Gold Project. Both Resources used a lower 1% copper cutoff grade.

The October 2024 resource estimate shows a significant increase in tonnes and metal with grade being maintained within 8% ( Table 4 ). The Little Deer estimate has not changed as no additional data was added during 2023 and 2024.

Key reasons for the change in the resource at Ming include, but are not limited to:

Additional data; ~40,000m of diamond drilling completed underground at Ming;
Discovery of ~750m of extensions to both the high-grade VMS and broad Footwall stringer zone at the Ming mine resulting in a significant increase to the quantity of inferred resources;
Grade was slightly down at Ming due to Resource extension drilling being predominantly in the broad footwall stringer zone and less in the higher-grade VMS zone during the Phase 1 drill program. Drill platforms are being positioned to test other higher grade VMS lodes (e.g., 1807) in future updates as part of the Phase two drill program;
Indicated resource tonnes also increased due to some validation and infill resource drilling;
Revised geological modelling of mineralised and waste domains at Ming;
Adjustments in estimation parameters; and
Change in Resource classification methodology. The 45% reduction in Measured Resources was the result of the application of more stringent requirements to be considered a Measured Resource. Additionally measured material in the previous estimate around historic workings was downgraded to a lesser confidence category. It is still expected that remnant material will be effectively extracted by utilising paste fill in a future mining operation.

ASX FFM

Page | 9

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Sensitivity Analysis

The Green Bay mineral resource estimate is sensitive to the lower cutoff grade applied. This will be considered in future mining studies, with unit costs heavily influenced by the selected mining method and eventual processing capacity.

The grade-tonnage sensitivity analysis is presented in Figure 8 .

==> picture [486 x 323] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 8: Green Bay Resource Grade-Tonnes sensitivity analysis at various copper cut off grades. Please refer to the compliance statement in this release for parameters used to calculate the copper equivalent grade.

Ming Deposit Resource Estimate

The Ming October 2024 Resource update ( Table 5 ) was prepared in accordance with the JORC Code (2012 Edition) by independent consultants International Resource Solutions Pty Ltd., in close collaboration with FireFly geological personnel.

Table 5: October 2024 mineral resource estimate for the Ming Deposit

	MEASURED	INDICATED	INFERRED	TOTAL RESOURCE
	Tonnes Grade Metal	Tonnes Grade Metal	Tonnes Grade Metal	Tonnes Grade Metal
Copper Gold Silver	4.7Mt 1.7% 77kt 0.3g/t 45koz 2.3g/t 0.3Moz	16.8Mt 1.6% 266kt 0.3g/t 145koz 2.4g/t 1.3Moz	28.3Mt 1.7% 482kt 0.4g/t 338koz 3.3g/t 3.0Moz	49.9Mt 1.7% 825kt 0.3g/t 528koz 2.9g/t 4.6Moz
CuEq	4.7Mt 1.9% 89kt	16.8Mt 1.8% 307kt	28.3Mt 2.0% 576kt	49.9Mt 2.0% 972kt

ASX FFM

Page | 10

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Additional data informing the updated Ming Resource

Drilling at the Ming underground copper-gold mine recommenced following the acquisition of the Green Bay copper-gold project by FireFly in October 2023. The Company completed 79 drill holes for 37,110m of diamond core to the beginning of October 2024 from underground development.

At the data cut-off date for the Resource estimate (3 October 2024), assays for the first 68 holes had been received and were used to inform the updated Ming Resource Estimate ( Figure 9 ). All results have been previously reported in FireFly’s ASX releases.

Most of the drilling was completed from the exploration drill drive mined by FireFly, with over 1,400m of underground development completed by the owner-operator mining team since November 2023. The drill platform was specifically designed to position drill rigs at favourable orientations sub-perpendicular to mineralisation.

Approximately 5,000m of drilling was conducted to validate historical information and infill data gaps within the previous foreign estimate.

==> picture [476 x 331] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 9: Long section showing new drill data acquired by FireFly since October 2023 to inform the updated mineral resource estimate. Red on the drill traces are assays >0.5% copper.

ASX FFM

Page | 11

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Ming Geology and Geological Interpretation

The Ming deposit is classified geologically as a volcanogenic massive sulphide (VMS) mineralised system. The Ming mineralisation is typically located at the regional contact between CambrianOrdovician aged felsic volcanics (rhyolite) and mafic volcanics.

Hydrothermal fluids migrated towards the surface via deep-tapping growth faults, driven by the heat generated from the tectonic collision and subduction of ancestral North America (Laurentia) beneath proto-Europe (Gondwana). The conceptual deposit model proposed by Pilote et al. (2016) is presented in Figure 10 along with the current mineralisation domains for the October 2024 resource model.

Mineralisation is locally intersected by post-mineral mafic gabbro dykes which can contain structurally controlled quartz-carbonate veins with remobilised sulphides.

==> picture [493 x 172] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 10: Ming Mineralisation model and interpretation for the October 2024 resource update. The copper-dominated stringer style Footwall mineral zones are shown in green. The upper high-grade Cu-Au-Ag massive sulphides lenses are shown in red. (Left) Conceptual geological model for the Ming Deposit proposed in Pilote et. al (2016). (Right) Mineralisation domains for the October 2024 resource model.

There are two distinct styles of mineralisation at the Ming deposit:

Broad Footwall Stringer-Style Mineralisation: centimetre-scale veins of pyrite and chalcopyrite interpreted to have formed as part of the hydrothermal feeder system below the sea floor ( Figure 11 ). The sulphide stringers have been locally deformed and characteristically follow the foliation. The host rock is typically rhyolite that is intensely chlorite-altered reflecting the temperature and fluid pressure at formation. The zone of stringer mineralisation can be up to 300m wide, 200m in height, with grades locally reaching beyond 2% copper.

ASX FFM

Page | 12

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [399 x 299] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 11: Stringer-style Footwall mineralisation from the 735 Level in the Ming Mine (photograph taken in September 2024). The mineralisation consists of individual mm to cm scale chalcopyrite-pyrite veins hosted within highly chloritized rhyolite. This mineralisation is amenable to large-scale mining and often bulks out to grades exceeding 2% copper.

Polymetallic Volcanogenic Massive Sulphides: Polymetallic Cu-Au-Ag dominated massive sulphides lenses formed on the sea floor via the accumulation of precipitated sulphides around subaqueous volcanic vents. The sulphides are dominantly pyrite and chalcopyrite with lesser sphalerite. The channel-like geometry results in lenses that are between 3m and 15m in true thickness and widths of 100m laterally. The strike of these lenses at Ming now exceeds 2km and remains open. Mineralisation from the Ming North is shown in Figure 12 .

==> picture [488 x 127] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 12: Massive sulphide copper-gold rich mineralisation intersected in FireFly resource extension drilling (MUG24-030). The core photograph shown (48.75m to 55.8m) is part of a broader reported intersection of 13.1m @ 14.3% CuEq (10.7% Cu & 4.1g/t Au) true thickness . The mineralisation is predominantly pyrite and chalcopyrite with lesser local sphalerite. Refer to FireFly’s ASX release dated 19 June 2024.

ASX FFM

Page | 13

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Ming Drilling and Sampling Techniques

The Ming deposit has been sampled exclusively by diamond drilling. A total of 1,334 holes for a total drilled meterage of 233,380m was used to inform the October 2024 resource model.

Historic drill core was predominantly NQ (47.8mm diameter) with some BQ sized core (36mm diameter). All 37,110m of diamond drilling completed by FireFly was NQ2 (50.6mm diameter) and oriented using the Reflex Act III core orientation tool.

Core was sampled to a maximum length of 1m. The minimum sample length was 0.3m to accommodate for geological boundaries or changes in mineralisation. All FireFly core was cut in half, with the non-assayed portion stored for future reference if required.

For further detail regarding drilling and sampling, please refer to Appendix B ‘Table 1 – Section 1 (Ming Resource)’.

Analytical Techniques

All assays completed by FireFly were undertaken at Eastern Analytical Ltd. in Springdale, Newfoundland. The laboratory is ISO 17025 accredited and utilises industry-standard preparation and analytical methodologies.

Sample preparation consisted of drying at 60[o] followed by crushing to ~80% passing -10 mesh. A riffle splitter was used to collect a representative 250g to 300g subsample. A ring mill is then used to pulverise the sample split to 95% passing -150 mesh.

Initial analysis for 34 elements was determined by Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP). A 200mg subsample is totally digested in four acids and analysed by ICP-OES.

Where the upper detection limits were reached for select ore grade elements (Cu, Ag, Zn, Pb and Fe), the samples were then dissolved in a three-acid digest and analysed by atomic adsorption (AA). Gold content was determined by fire assay with AA finish.

All samples submitted by FireFly were subjected to rigorous internal and external QA/QC protocols. These include the routine inclusion of certified reference materials (standards), blank samples and duplicate samples. Sample pulps were also analysed at another independent laboratory (SGS) to confirm validity.

For further detail regarding analytical techniques, please refer to Appendix B ‘Table 1 – Section 1 (Ming Resource)’.

Ming Resource Estimation Methodology

Domains

Leapfrog software was used for lithology and mineralisation domain wireframing.

Twenty-two mineralisation domains are defined in the current model. These domains were based on mineralisation style and statistical analysis.

ASX FFM

Page | 14

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

The Lithology model comprises a surface that delineates the boundary between the hanging wall mafic and footwall felsic packages, along with twenty gabbro dykes and three felsic intrusives. The dykes are primarily generated using Leapfrog software, which is well-suited for their tabular geometry. Narrower and shorter-range dykes are also apparent in the structural data, generally with a flatter orientation. In cases where gabbro intervals cannot be confidently included in explicit wireframes, the intrusion function has been applied guided by structural data and confined to the footwall zone. A prominent and well-defined gabbro occurrence in the Ming North lode has been sub-domained using a constrained boundary to prevent grade smearing into potentially barren volumes.

Data Treatment

The Mineral Resource estimation utilises 2m composites for all DD sampling data, composite residuals smaller than 0.3m have been removed from the estimation.

Detailed exploratory data analysis, variography, and model validation was carried out using Isatis and other software.

Treatment of extreme high grades were dealt with by using a cap grade strategy.

Industry-standard 3D geological modelling software was used for data compilation, calculating and coding composite values, estimating and reporting.

Estimation

All lodes were estimated using ordinary kriging (OK) with the same domains used to estimate Cu, Au, Ag and Zn. OK estimation was completed using an oriented search ellipsoid. A two-pass search strategy was employed for each estimated variable, with search directions aligned to the major, semi-major, and minor axes of the variogram. During the first pass, a search radius of 100 meters by 100 meters by 30 meters was utilized, with a requirement of a minimum of 8 and a maximum of 12 composites. A maximum of 3 composites per drillhole was allowed. For the second pass, the search radius was expanded to 400 meters by 400 meters by 120 meters, and the minimum sample requirement was reduced to 4 composites.

The block model is based on a 10mX by 10mY by 5mZ parent block size and sub-blocks of 2.5mX by 2.5mY by 2.5mZ. Block model volumes were compared to wireframe volumes to validate subblocking.

Ming Resource Classification

Mineral Resources have been classified based on confidence in the geological and grade continuity using the drilling density and the distance to sample selections. These were evaluated individually for each of the 22 mineralisation domains.

Measured Mineral Resources have been defined generally where the closest drillhole sample is within 15m and the average distance to samples used for estimation within 20m.

ASX FFM

Page | 15

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Indicated Mineral Resources where the closest drillhole sample is within 30m and the average distance to samples used for estimation within 40m.

Inferred Mineral Resources where the closest drillhole sample is within 90m or greater if there is enough geological and grade continuity. Resources outside 90m are constrained by boundary strings and flagged as unclassified resource category. Distance to historical workings have been used to down grade the resource category where required.

==> picture [395 x 280] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 13: Resource categories and drill data in long section for the Ming October 2024 Resource.

Ming Resource Cut Off Grade

The cut-off grade of 1% Cu has been calculated based on the likely input components of mining, processing, recovery and administration costs. Benchmark industry averages and forward-looking forecast costs and physicals form the basis of the cut-off grade calculations including:

Cu price of US$8,750 and 95% metallurgical recovery
Au price US$2,500 and 85% metallurgical recovery
Ag price US$25 and 85% metallurgical recovery

Modifying Mining and Metallurgical Factors

The mineral resource is reported in-situ, however conservative economic factors and cut-off grades were applied. The cutoff grade used was 1% copper. Mining costs assumed in the cut-off grade calculation assume a combination of transverse and longitudinal long hole open stoping (LHOS) with paste backfill. Processing costs were guided by benchmarked operations that utilise floatation to produce a copper-gold concentrate for external extraction.

ASX FFM

Page | 16

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Recovery assumptions are based on the previous operations at Ming. Economic evaluation studies are in progress to further increase confidence in the cut-off grade and refine modifying factors applied.

In the opinion of the Company, all elements included in the metal equivalent calculation have a reasonable potential to be sold and recovered based on current market conditions, metallurgical test work, and the Company’s operational experience.

Little Deer Resource Estimate

The Little Deer mineral resource estimate as of October 2024 is presented in Table 6 . This estimate was initially prepared as a Foreign Estimate prepared in accordance with Canadian National Instrument 43-101 (refer to ASX announcement dated 31 August for further details).

No additional new data was collected since the previous foreign estimate. Employees of independent consulting group P&E Mining Consultants Inc. have in conjunction with FireFly employees verified that the Little Deer resource estimate meets the criteria as defined in the JORC Code (2012 Edition). For further information on the Little Deer resource estimate, please refer to Appendix B JORC Table 1.

	MEASURED	INDICATED	INFERRED	TOTAL RESOURCE
	Tonnes Grade Metal	Tonnes Grade Metal	Tonnes Grade Metal	Tonnes Grade Metal
Copper Gold Silver	- - - - - - -	2.9Mt 2.1% 61kt 0.1g/t 9koz 3.4g/t 0.3Moz	6.2Mt 1.8% 110kt 0.1g/t 10koz 2.2g/t 0.4Moz	9.1Mt 1.9% 172kt 0.1g/t 19koz 2.6g/t 0.7Moz
CuEq	- - -	2.9Mt 2.2% 65kt	6.2Mt 1.8% 114kt	9.1Mt 2.0% 178kt

Table 6: Little Deer Mineral Resource Estimate as at October 2024

Little Deer Geology and Geological Interpretation

The Little Deer deposits consist of two components, namely the Little Deer and Whalesback mines. These were historically joined by an underground decline and mined in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

Both Little Deer and Whalesback are geologically classified as copper-rich ophiolite-hosted Volcanogenic Massive Sulphide (VMS) deposits formed at or near the sea floor. The host rocks are typically mafic volcanics, intrusions and volcaniclastic sediments. Areas proximal to the deposit have typically undergone intense chloritic alteration.

The deposits were subject to deformation as the oceanic floor was accreted onto the ancestral North American continent ~480 million years ago.

The Little Deer deposit contains mainly stringer and disseminated sulphide mineralisation with lesser amounts of massive sulphides. The predominant sulphide species present are pyrrhotite, chalcopyrite, pyrite and sphalerite. The Whalesback Deposit contains mainly veins and pods of disseminated sulphide mineralisation that form 0.3m to 15 m lenses.

ASX FFM

Page | 17

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

The simplified geology of the Little Deer-Whalesback area is presented in Figure 14 .

==> picture [484 x 410] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 14: Simplified geology of the Little Deer-Whalesback mine area. Modified after Cloutier et. al., 2015.

Little Deer Drill Data and Sampling Techniques

The Little Deer drill database contains 622 drill holes totalling 132,972m. Of the drilling validated, 564 drillholes were deemed suitable for inclusion in the resource estimate based on the opinion of the competent person. All drilling was completed prior to FireFly’s acquisition of the project.

A composite long projection of drill data used in the mineral resource estimate is shown in Figure 15 .

ASX FFM

Page | 18

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [492 x 252] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 15: Long Projection of the Little Deer and Whalesback mines.

The Little Deer Complex drill holes were drilled using NQ sized (47.8mm diameter) diamond drill core.

Sample lengths collected from the drill core were variable. The average sample width was 1.44m due to many composite samples. The core was selectively sampled with only rock with indications of mineralisation sent for analysis.

For further information on drilling and sampling, please refer to Appendix B .

Analytical Techniques

Drilling from the early 2000s onwards was analysed by Eastern Analytical Ltd. in Springdale, Newfoundland. Sample preparation consisted of initial coarse crush to -10 mesh. A representative split was collected, and a 300g split was ring pulverised to 98% passing -150 mesh.

All samples were analysed using a 30-element aqua regia digest (ICP-OES). Overlimit material for copper, lead, zinc, cobalt, or silver were subjected to ore grade analysis via 3 acid digestion before analysis by atomic absorption. Gold was analysed in 30g aliquots by fire assay with ICP-AES finish.

QA/QC consisted of inserting blanks and standards every with each batch for small shipments and every 20th samples for larger batches. Certified blanks were used.

P&E Consultants completed verification sampling in 2011 at AGAT Laboratories in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. Further pulp re-assays were conducted in 2021, with no issues indicated.

ASX FFM

Page | 19

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Little Deer Resource Estimation Methodology

Domains

Domains for the Resource ( Figure 16 ) are based on both geology and visible mineralisation. Geological interpretation is based on extensive mining history which provides a high level of confidence in the interpretation of geological and grade continuity.

Mineral Resource estimation for the Little Deer and Whalesback deposit is based on identification and modelling of distinct geological structures and incorporated into five individual mineralised domains.

Grade and geological continuity are a function of local structures, which are incorporated into the estimation process.

==> picture [491 x 300] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 16: Mineralised domains and drillhole data for the Little Deer / Whalesback Resource Estimates.

Data Treatment

Detailed geostatistical analysis was completed for each modelling domain. The influence of highgrade outliers has been restricted by capping composite grades above a threshold value prior to estimation. Log normal histograms of Cu composites were generated for each mineralised zone for the Little Deer and Whalesback Deposit.

Estimation

The Inverse Distance Squared (ID[2] ) estimation method was used to estimate Copper block grades. Other elements (gold, silver and cobalt) were estimated using Inverse Distance Cubed (ID[3] ).

ASX FFM

Page | 20

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

The block model was constructed using Genovia Gems modelling software. Mineral Resource block model size and orientation are based on the general size and geometry of the deposit. Block models are based on a 5 m x 2.5 m x 5 m block size for the Little Deer and Whalesback deposits.

Classification

Classification of the Resource was based on both the number of samples informing the estimate, distance to the nearest drilling and observed geological continuity. All blocks within 40m of 2 or more drillholes were classified as Indicated, and all other estimated blocks were classed as Inferred. Isolated, or artifact, blocks were removed via selection pass after the initial classification.

Little Deer Resource Cut Off Grade

Cu price of US$8,750 and 95% metallurgical recovery
Au price US$2,500 and 85% metallurgical recovery
Ag price US$25 and 85% metallurgical recovery

Modifying Mining and Metallurgical Factors

The mineral resource is reported in-situ, however conservative economic factors and cut-off grades were applied. The cutoff grade used was 1% copper. Mining costs assumed in the cut-off grade calculation assume longitudinal long hole open stoping (LHOS) with paste backfill . Processing costs were guided by benchmarked operations that utilise floatation to produce a copper-gold concentrate for external extraction.

Recovery assumptions are based on the previous operations at Little Deer. Economic evaluation studies are in progress to further increase confidence in the cut-off grade and refine modifying factors applied.

ASX FFM

Page | 21

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

ABOUT FIREFLY METALS LTD

FireFly Metals Ltd (formerly AuTECO Minerals Ltd) (ASX:FFM) is an emerging copper-gold company focused on advancing the high-grade Green Bay Copper-Gold project in Newfoundland, Canada. The Green Bay Copper-Gold Project currently hosts a mineral resource prepared in accordance with the JORC Code (2012 Edition) of 59Mt at 2% for 1.2Mt CuEq . The Company has a clear strategy to rapidly grow the copper-gold resource to demonstrate a globally significant copper-gold asset. FireFly has commenced a 130,000m diamond drilling program.

FireFly holds a 70% interest in the high-grade Pickle Crow Gold Project in Ontario. The current Inferred Resource stands at 11.9Mt at 7.2g/t for 2.8Moz gold , with exceptional discovery potential on the 500km[2] tenement holding.

The Company also holds a 90% interest in the Limestone Well Vanadium-Titanium Project in Western Australia.

For further information regarding FireFly Metals Ltd please visit the ASX platform (ASX:FFM) or the Company’s website www.fireflymetals.com.au

COMPLIANCE STATEMENTS

– Foreign Resource Estimate Green Bay Project (August 2023)

The Company first announced the foreign estimate of mineralisation for the Green Bay Project on 31 August 2023. At that time, the resource was a Foreign Estimate prepared in accordance with Canadian National Instrument 43-101. A competent person had not done sufficient work to classify the Foreign Estimate as Mineral Resources in accordance with the JORC Code. It was uncertain that following evaluation and/or further exploration work that the Foreign Estimate would be able to be reported as Mineral Resources in accordance with the JORC Code.

This foreign resource has now been superseded by the Mineral Resource Estimate prepared in accordance with the JORC Code (2012 Edition) presented in this release. The foreign estimate is referenced in this release for comparative purposes only.

Please refer to the ASX announcement dated 31 August 2023 titled ‘AuTECO to acquire Green Bay Copper-Gold Project in Newfoundland, Canada’ for supporting information and details regarding the Foreign Estimate.

Metal equivalents

Metal equivalents for the Mineral Resource Estimate mineralisation have been calculated at a copper price of US$8,750/t, gold price of US$2,500/oz and silver price of US$25/oz. Individual Resource grades for the metals are set out at Appendix A of this announcement.

Metallurgical factors have been applied to the metal equivalent calculation. Copper recovery used was 95%. Historical production at the Ming Mine has a documented copper recovery of ~96%. Precious metal metallurgical recovery was assumed at 85% on the basis of historical recoveries achieved at the Ming mine in addition to historical metallurgical test work to increase precious metal recoveries.

ASX FFM

Page | 22

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Copper equivalent was calculated based on the formula CuEq(%) = Cu(%) + (Au(g/t) x 0.82190) + (Ag(g/t) X 0.00822).

Exploration results

Previously reported exploration results at the Green Bay Project referred to in this announcement were first reported in accordance with ASX Listing Rule 5.7 in FireFly’s ASX releases dated 31 August 2023, 11 December 2023, 16 January 2024, 4 March 2024, 21 March 2024, 29 April 2024, 19 June 2024, 3 September 2024, 16 September 2024 and 3 October 2024.

– Mineral Resources Estimate Pickle Crow Project

The Mineral Resource Estimate for the Pickle Crow Project referred to in this announcement was first reported in the Company’s ASX release dated 4 May 2023, titled “High-Grade Inferred Gold Resource Grows to 2.8Moz at 7.2g/t”.

Compliance Statements

FireFly confirms that it is not aware of any new information or data that materially affects the information included in the original announcements and that all material assumptions and technical parameters underpinning the estimates in the announcements continue to apply and have not materially changed. The Company confirms that the form and context in which the Competent Persons’ findings are presented have not been materially modified from the original market announcement.

COMPETENT PERSONS STATEMENT

The information in this announcement that relates to the Ming Mineral Resource Estimate is based on and fairly represents information and supporting information compiled by Mr Brian Wolfe. Mr Wolfe is a director and full-time employee of International Resource Solutions Pty Ltd, who specialises in mineral resource estimation, evaluation and exploration. Neither Mr Wolfe nor International Resource Solutions Pty Ltd holds any interest in FireFly Metals Ltd, its related parties, or in any of the mineral properties that are the subject of this announcement. Mr Wolfe is a member of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists and has sufficient experience which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity which he is undertaking to qualify as a Competent Person (or “CP”) as defined in the 2012 Edition of the Australian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (the JORC Code). Mr Wolfe has reviewed the contents of this ASX announcement and consents to the inclusion in this announcement of all technical statements based on his information in the form and context in which they appear.

The information in this announcement that relates to the Little Deer Mineral Resource Estimate is based on and fairly represents information and supporting information compiled by Mr Eugene Puritch, P.Eng., FEC, CET. Mr Puritch is President and a full-time associate of P&E Mining Consultants

ASX FFM

Page | 23

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Inc. P&E Mining Consultants Inc., who specialises in mineral resource estimation, evaluation, mining and exploration. Neither Mr Puritch nor P&E Mining Consultants Inc. holds any interest in FireFly Metals Ltd, its related parties, or in any of the mineral properties that are the subject of this announcement. Mr Puritch is a member of the Professional Engineers Ontario and Professional Engineers and Geoscientists Newfoundland and Labrador and has sufficient experience which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity which he is undertaking to qualify as a Competent Person (or “CP”) as defined in the 2012 Edition of the Australian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (the JORC Code). Mr Puritch has reviewed the contents of this ASX announcement and consents to the inclusion in this announcement of all technical statements based on his information in the form and context in which they appear.

FORWARD LOOKING INFORMATION

This announcement may contain certain forward-looking statements and projections, including statements regarding FireFly’s plans, forecasts and projections with respect to its mineral properties and programs. Although the forward-looking statements contained in this release reflect management’s current beliefs based upon information currently available to management and based upon what management believes to be reasonable assumptions, such forward looking statements/projections are estimates for discussion purposes only and should not be relied upon. They are not guarantees of future performance and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors many of which are beyond the control of the Company. The forward-looking statements/projections are inherently uncertain and may therefore differ materially from results ultimately achieved. For example, there can be no assurance that FireFly will be able to confirm the presence of Mineral Resources or Ore Reserves, that FireFly plans for development of its mineral properties will proceed, that any mineralisation will prove to be economic, or that a mine will be successfully developed on any of FireFly’s mineral properties. The performance of FireFly may be influenced by a number of factors which are outside the control of the Company, its directors, staff or contractors. The Company does not make any representations and provides no warranties concerning the accuracy of the projections, and disclaims any obligation to update or revise any forward looking statements/projects based on new information, future events or otherwise except to the extent required by applicable laws.

ASX FFM

Page | 24

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

APPENDIX A – Green Bay Copper-Gold Project Mineral Resources

Ming Deposit Mineral Resource Estimate

	MEASURED	INDICATED	INFERRED	TOTAL RESOURCE
	Tonnes Grade Metal	Tonnes Grade Metal	Tonnes Grade Metal	Tonnes Grade Metal
Copper Gold Silver	4.7Mt 1.7% 77kt 0.3g/t 45koz 2.3g/t 0.3Moz	16.8Mt 1.6% 266kt 0.3g/t 145koz 2.4g/t 1.3Moz	28.3Mt 1.7% 482kt 0.4g/t 338koz 3.3g/t 3.0Moz	49.9Mt 1.7% 825kt 0.3g/t 528koz 2.9g/t 4.6Moz
CuEq	4.7Mt 1.9% 89kt	16.8Mt 1.8% 307kt	28.3Mt 2.0% 576kt	49.9Mt 2.0% 972kt

Little Deer Mineral Resource Estimate

	MEASURED	INDICATED	INFERRED	TOTAL RESOURCE
	Tonnes Grade Metal	Tonnes Grade Metal	Tonnes Grade Metal	Tonnes Grade Metal
Copper Gold Silver	- - - - - - -	2.9Mt 2.1% 61kt 0.1g/t 9koz 3.4g/t 0.3Moz	6.2Mt 1.8% 110kt 0.1g/t 10koz 2.2g/t 0.4Moz	9.1Mt 1.9% 172kt 0.1g/t 19koz 2.6g/t 0.7Moz
CuEq	- - -	2.9Mt 2.2% 65kt	6.2Mt 1.8% 114kt	9.1Mt 2.0% 178kt

GREEN BAY PROJECT TOTAL MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE

	MEASURED	INDICATED	INFERRED	TOTAL RESOURCE
	Tonnes Grade Metal	Tonnes Grade Metal	Tonnes Grade Metal	Tonnes Grade Metal
Copper Gold Silver	4.7Mt 1.7% 77kt 0.3g/t 45koz 2.3g/t 0.3Moz	19.7Mt 1.7% 328kt 0.2g/t 154koz 2.6g/t 1.6Moz	34.5Mt 1.7% 592kt 0.3g/t 348koz 3.1g/t 3.4Moz	58.9Mt 1.7% 997kt 0.3g/t 547koz 2.8g/t 5.4Moz
CuEq	4.7Mt 1.9% 89kt	19.7Mt 1.9% 371kt	34.5Mt 2.0% 690kt	58.9Mt 2.0% 1,150kt

FireFly Metals Ltd Resources for the Green Bay Copper-Gold project, incorporating the Ming Deposit and Little Deer Complex, are reported in accordance with the JORC Code (2012 Edition);
Mineral resources have been reported at a 1.0% copper cut-off grade.
Metal equivalents for the Resource Estimate has been calculated at a copper price of US$8,750/t, gold price of US$2,500/oz and silver price of US$25/oz. Metallurgical recoveries have been set at 95% for copper and 85% for both gold and silver. CuEq(%) = Cu(%) + (Au(g/t) x 0.82190) + (Ag(g/t) X 0.00822)
Totals may vary due to rounding

ASX FFM

Page | 25

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

APPENDIX B – JORC CODE, 2012 EDITION

– Table 1 Ming Mine

Section 1 - Sampling Techniques and Data: Ming mine (Criteria in this section apply to all succeeding sections)

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Sampling	•	Nature and quality of sampling (e.g. cut	•	This deposit is sampled by diamond drilling (DD)
techniques		channels, random chips, or specific		drilling completed by FireFly and by previous
		specialised industry standard		operators. A total of 1,334 drillholes for a total of
		measurement tools appropriate to the		233,380m at depths ranging from 10 to 1,771m.
		minerals under investigation, such as		Included within these figures, FireFly drilled 72 DD
		down hole gamma sondes, or handheld		(30,640m).
		XRF instruments, etc). These examples	•	DD sample intervals are based on geological
		should not be taken as limiting the		observations. All the core is sampled in 1m
		broad meaning of sampling.		intervals with some smaller samples down to
	•	Include reference to measures taken to		minimum core length of 0.3m to accommodate
		ensure sample representivity and the		geological and mineralization contacts. Half NQ
		appropriate calibration of any		diamond drill core was submitted for analysis.
		measurement tools or systems used.	•	DD sampling by previous operators assumed to
	•	Aspects of the determination of		be to industry standard at that time.
		mineralisation that are Material to the	The following is a summary of the core sampling
		Public Report.		procedure:
	•	In cases where ‘industry standard’ work	•	All sample collection, core logging, and specific
		has been done this would be relatively simple (e.g. ‘reverse circulation drilling		gravity determinations were completed by FireFly under the supervision of a professionally qualified
		was used to obtain 1m samples from		registered geologist.
		which 3 kg was pulverised to produce a 30 g charge for fire assay’). In other	•	NQ core was marked for splitting during logging and is sawn using a diamond core saw with a
		cases, more explanation may be		mounted jig to assure the core is cut lengthwise
		required, such as where there is coarse		into equal halves. Whole core sampling was used
		gold that has inherent sampling		for BQ core.
		problems. Unusual commodities or mineralisation types (e.g. submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of	• •	Half of the cut core is placed in clean individual plastic bags with the appropriate sample tag. QA/QC samples are inserted into the sample
		detailed information.		stream at prescribed intervals.
			•	The samples are then placed in rice bags for
				shipment to the offsite laboratory’s facility.
			•	The remaining half of the core is retained and
				incorporated into Firefly’s secure, core library
				located on the property.
			•	FireFly drill analysis was completed at ISO-certified
				Eastern Analytical laboratories. The samples are
				dried, crushed, and pulverised. Samples are
				crushed to approximately -10 mesh and split using
				a riffle splitter to approximately 300 g. A ring mill is
				used to pulverize the sample split to 98% passing -
				150 mesh. Sample pulps and rejects are picked up
				at Eastern by FireFly staff and returned directly to
				the Project site. Sample rejects are securely stored
				at the FireFly site.
Drilling	•	Drill type (e.g. core, reverse circulation,	•	Historic diamond drilling was predominately NQ
techniques		open-hole hammer, rotary air blast,		(47.8 mm diameter) with some BQ(36mm) where
		auger, Bangka, sonic, etc) and details		grade control programs.

ASX FFM

Page | 26

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
		(e.g. core diameter, triple or standard	•	FireFly diamond drilling exclusively NQ2 (50.6mm
		tube, depth of diamond tails, face-		diameter) size with core oriented by REFLEX ACT III
		sampling bit or other type, whether core		core orientation tool.
		is oriented and if so, by what method,
		etc).
Drill sample	•	Method of recording and assessing core	•	Historic diamond drilling was predominately NQ
recovery		and chip sample recoveries and results		(47.8 mm diameter) with some BQ(36mm) where
		assessed.		grade control programs. FireFly diamond drilling
	•	Measures taken to maximise sample		exclusively NQ2 (50.6mm diameter) size with core
		recovery and ensure representative		oriented by REFLEX ACT III core orientation tool.
		nature of the samples.	•	All care is taken to ensure the full recovery of the
	•	Whether a relationship exists between		core, yet certain drilling conditions, such as broken
		sample recovery and grade and		ground, can impede 100% recovery.
		whether sample bias may have	•	There is no known relationship between sample
		occurred due to preferential loss/gain of		recovery and grade. Drilling conditions have been
		fine/coarse material.		noted to be competent in historical reports. FireFly
				core recovery averages >95%.
Logging	•	Whether core and chip samples have	The following steps are completed during the core
		been geologically and geotechnically	logging procedure:
		logged to a level of detail to support	•	Sample security and chain of custody start with
		appropriate Mineral Resource		the removal of core from the core tube and boxing
		estimation, mining studies and		of drill core at the drill site.
		metallurgical studies.	•	The boxed core remains under the custody of the
	•	Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc) photography.	•	drill contractor until it is transported from the drill to the secure onsite core facility. Core boxes are opened and inspected to ensure
	•	The total length and percentage of the		correct boxing and labelling of the core by the drill
		relevant intersections logged.		contractor.
			•	The core is meter marked, cleaned and oriented
				with the orientation line drawn using the marks
				form REFLEX ACT III core orientation tool.
			•	The drill core is geologically logged,
				photographed, and then marked and tagged for
				sampling and splitting.
			•	Core logging describes variations in lithology,
				alteration, and mineralization.
			•	Data associated with core logging and related
				assay results and other downhole information
				including orientation surveys are recorded in the
				Acquire database System.
			•	Measured parameters include structural
				orientation with respect to core axis, lost core as a
				percentage of recovered length, and fracture
				density which are determined by the intensity and
				thickness of mineralization at specific intervals.
			•	Each core sample is assigned a tag with a unique
				identifying number. Sample lengths are typically
				one metre but can be depending on zone
				mineralogy and boundaries.
			•	Sample core that is not mineralised is marked in
				1.5 metre lengths.

ASX FFM

Page | 27

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
			•	Wing samples are marked at 0.5 metres and
				sampled at the extremities of mineralised intervals
				to ensure anomalous grades do not continue into
				the surrounding wall rock.
			•	100% of the core is logged
Sub-sampling	•	If core, whether cut or sawn and	•	Most FireFly drilling is NQ2. A single drillhole was
techniques and		whether quarter, half or all core taken.		completed with a BQ tail.
sample	•	If non-core, whether riffled, tube	•	For NQ diameter the core was sawn in half
preparation		sampled, rotary split, etc and whether		following a sample cutting line determined by
		sampled wet or dry.		geologists during logging and submitted for
	•	For all sample types, the nature, quality		analysis on nominal 1m intervals or defined by
		and appropriateness of the sample		geological boundaries determined by the logging
		preparation technique.		geologist.
	•	Quality control procedures adopted for	•	Historic diamond drilling has been half core
		all sub-sampling stages to maximise		sampled.
		representivity of samples.	•	Samples are dried at approximately 60°C ,
	•	Measures taken to ensure that the		crushed and pulverised. Samples are crushed in a
		sampling is representative of the in-situ		Rhino jaw crusher to approximately 80% -10mesh,
		material collected, including for		and split using a riffle splitter to approximately
		instance results for field		250-300g. The remainder of the sample is bagged,
		duplicate/second-half sampling.		labelled and stored as coarse reject. A ring mill is
	•	Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grain size of the material being sampled.		used to pulverise the sample split to 95% passing - 150 mesh. Sample pulps are picked up at Eastern Analytical by FireFly staff and returned directly to the Project site.
			•	For pre-FireFly samples, sample preparation,
				analytical procedures and QA/QC used on the
				property were reviewed by independent
				consultants WSP in 2018, stating in their report that
				sampling practices meet industry standards and
				display acceptable levels of accuracy and
				precision.
			•	All core sampled in the prospective intervals when
				required wing samples are marked from 0.5
				metres up to 5m and sampled at the extremities
				of mineralised intervals to ensure anomalous
				grades do not continue into the surrounding wall
				rock.
			•	No purpose lab audit has been completed. FireFly
				personnel has visited the Eastern analytical
				facilities on several occasions and observed that
				lab practices, equipment overall cleanliness
				meets industry standards.
			•	Pre-FireFly BQ core was entirely crushed for the
				assays.
			•	Field duplicates were completed using ¼ core and
				inserted into the sample series at a rate of 2% of
				samples. Analysis results were acceptable
				considering the style of mineralization being
				heterogeneous with stockwork stringers of
				chalcopyrite

ASX FFM

Page | 28

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Quality of assay	•	The nature, quality and appropriateness	•	All FireFly and Rambler results reported in this
data and		of the assaying and laboratory		release were analysed by Eastern Analytical in
laboratory tests		procedures used and whether the		Springdale, NL.
		technique is considered partial or total.	•	34 elements were determined by Inductively
	•	For geophysical tools, spectrometers,		Coupled Plasma (ICP). A 200mg subsample is
		handheld XRF instruments, etc, the		totally dissolved in four acids and analysed by
		parameters used in determining the		ICP-OES.
		analysis including instrument make and	•	Ore grade elements, Cu, Zn, Pb, Fe and Ag are
		model, reading times, calibrations		dissolved via 3 acid digestion and analysed by
		factors applied and their derivation, etc.		atomic adsorption (AA).
	•	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.	• •	Gold assays were determined by fire assay with atomic adsorption finish. As part of the QA/QC program duplicate, blank and Certified Reference Material (CRM) samples are inserted alternately. Blanks are inserted one every 50 samples. CRMs are inserted every 20
				samples. Field duplicates are taken approximately
				one every 40 samples. Blanks and CRMs are also
				randomly inserted in zones of suspected high
				grades. The minimum insertion rate for CRMs is 5%,
				which FireFly adheres to. Historical data collected
				by Rambler Metals and Mining was also subject to
				a similar rigorous QA/QC regime.
			•	In addition to the Company QAQC samples
				(described earlier) included within the batch the
				laboratory included its own CRM’s (Certified
				Reference Materials), blanks and duplicates.
			•	Sample assay results continue to be evaluated
				through control charts, log sheets, sample logbook
				and signed assay certificates to determine the
				nature of any anomalies or failures and failures
				were re-assayed at the laboratory.
Verification of	•	The verification of significant	•	FireFly routinely sends sample pulps for
sampling and		intersections by either independent or		independent umpire lab check to SGS laboratory
assaying		alternative company personnel.		in Burnaby. Results correlate very well with Eastern
	•	The use of twinned holes.		Analytical results.
	•	Documentation of primary data, data	•	There are no purpose twinned holes in the dataset
		entry procedures, data verification, data		but a comparison of the results of different drilling
		storage (physical and electronic)		generations showed that results were
		protocols.		comparable.
	•	Discuss any adjustment to assay data.	•	FireFly logging data, assay certificates and other
				relevant information are stored in an AcQuire
				database and on a site server.
			•	All pre-FireFly logging data was completed, core
				marked up, logging and sampling data was
				entered directly into an MX deposit or Fusion
				database.
			•	FireFly is not aware of any adjustments made by
				Rambler to the assay data. WSP completed an
				independent audit in 2018 where a representative
				number of assaycertificates were compared to

ASX FFM

Page | 29

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
				digital assay database and no discrepancies were
				found.
Location of data	•	Accuracy and quality of surveys used to	•	Drill collars were surveyed by the FireFly mine
points		locate drill holes (collar and down-hole		survey crew upon completion of the drill program.
		surveys), trenches, mine workings and	•	The set-ups for the underground drill collars were
		other locations used in Mineral Resource		marked by the FireFly mine survey crew, and the
		estimation.		drilling contractor were expected to set up
	•	Specification of the grid system used.		properly on line. A FireFly geologist checked the
	•	Quality and adequacy of topographic		underground drill set-up during the drilling
		control.		program to ensure accuracy.
			•	Downhole surveys are completed using a Reflex
				Sprint IQ gyro multi-shot instrument to provide
				azimuth and dip reading down the hole. The Reflex
				Sprint IQ gyro instrument is calibrated at least
				once a year to ensure accuracy of results.
			•	Previous drilling has been set-out and picked up in
				both national and local grids using a combination
				of GPS and Survey instruments and are assumed
				to be to industry standards. Directional surface
				holes completed using Devico® technology.
			•	The underground development has been picked
				up by surveyors creating high confidence in the
				topographic control which drillholes, both
				historical and recent, are referenced against.
			•	Collar coordinates are recorded in local mine grid.
				Survey data was collected in mine grid and in UTM
				grid (NAD83 Zone 21).
			•	Topographic control is from Digital Elevation
				Contours (DEM) 2019 and site surveyed DGPS
				pickups.
Data spacing and	•	Data spacing for reporting of Exploration	•	Mineral Resources are based on a maximum of
distribution		Results.		90m drill spacing. The data spacing and
	•	Whether the data spacing, and distribution is sufficient to establish the		distribution is considered sufficient to establish geological and/or grade continuity appropriate
		degree of geological and grade		for the Mineral Resource and classifications to be
		continuity appropriate for the Mineral		applied.
		Resource and Ore Reserve estimation	•	Core is sampled to geology contacts; sample
		procedure(s) and classifications		compositing is not applied until the estimation
		applied.		stage.
	•	Whether sample compositing has been
		applied.
Orientation of	•	Whether the orientation of sampling	•	Underground drill hole orientation was sub-
data in relation to		achieves unbiased sampling of possible		perpendicular to the mineralisation but variable in
geological		structures and the extent to which this is		places where low angle drilling to the
structure		known, considering the deposit type.		mineralisation has been completed in zones
	•	If the relationship between the drilling		without suitable drilling platforms.
		orientation and the orientation of key	•	The drill orientation to mineralised structures is not
		mineralised structures is considered to		thought to make a material difference in the
		have introduced a sampling bias, this		Resource estimation as intercept widths are
		should be assessed and reported if		interpreted to be close to true width.
		material.

ASX FFM

Page | 30

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Sample security	•	The measures taken to ensure sample	•	Core was placed in wooden core boxes close to
		security.		the drill rig by the drilling contractor. The core was
				collected daily by the drilling contractor and
				delivered to the secure core logging facility on the
				Ming Mine site. Access to the core logging facility
				is limited to FireFly employees or designates.
Audits or reviews	•	The results of any audits or reviews of	•	Regular reviews of DD sampling techniques are
		sampling techniques and data.		completed by Senior Geologists and Resource
				Geologists and conclude that sampling
				techniques are satisfactory and industry
				standard.
			•	All recent FireFly sample data has been extensively
				QAQC reviewed internally and externally.
			•	Pre FireFly data audits were conducted as part of
				NI-43-101 resource estimation by independent
				consultants WSP in 2018. It was WSP’s opinion that
				the drilling, sampling and logging procedures put
				in place by Rambler met acceptable industry
				standards and that the information can be used
				for geological and resource modelling.

Section 2 - Reporting of Exploration Results: Ming mine (Criteria in this section apply to all succeeding sections)

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Mineral tenement	•	Type, reference name/number, location	•	FireFly owns a mineral land assembly consisting of
and land tenure		and ownership including agreements or		one map-staked mineral license (023175M) and
status		material issues with third parties such		two mining leases (141L and 188L) totalling 955.4
		as joint ventures, partnerships,		ha and registered in the name of FireFly Metals
		overriding royalties, native title interests,		Canada Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of
		historical sites, wilderness or national		FireFly Metals Limited. All of these mineral lands
		park and environmental settings.		are contiguous and, in some cases, overlapping
	•	The security of the tenure held at the		and are located in the area of the former Ming
		time of reporting along with any known		and Ming West mines. In early 2015 the mineral
		impediments to obtaining a license to		license 023175M replaced the original license
		operate in the area.		014692M by claim reduction as requested by
				Rambler.
			•	FireFly holds all the permits required to operate
				the Ming Mine.
			•	All lands are in good standing with the Provincial
				Government, and FireFly is up to date with respect
				to lease payments (for leases) and required
				exploration expenditure (for licenses).
			•	FireFly holds all the permits required to operate
				the Ming Mine.
Exploration done	•	Acknowledgment and appraisal of	•	Ming Mine Early History: Auriferous sulphides and
by other parties		exploration by other parties.		copper was found in the area in 1905 by Enos
				England.
			•	The Main Mine sulphide zone was found in 1935
				about 600ft north of the Enos England discovery. In
				1940, the Newfoundland government drilled
				eighteen diamond drill holes totalling 5,000ft.

ASX FFM

Page | 31

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
			•	An airborne electromagnetic survey was flown
				from 1955 to 1956.
			•	The Ming Mine was discovered in 1970 by a
				helicopter borne AEM system. A large low grade
				stringer type copper deposit was later discovered
				in the footwall 300ft to 500ft below the Ming
				orebody during mining operations and delineated
				by thirty-six diamond drill holes. Mining ceased at
				the Ming Mine in 1982 because of low copper
				prices.
			•	In 1988, the property was awarded to the Rambler
				Joint Venture Group (a Consortium of Teck
				Exploration, Petromet Resources Ltd, and
				Newfoundland Exploration Company Ltd).
				Exploration consisted of ground geophysics and
				soil geochemistry, resulting in discovery of the
				Ming West deposit. Forty-eight diamond drill holes
				(25,534ft) were completed
			•	Altius Minerals Corporation: Under the terms of an
				option to purchase agreement with Ming Minerals,
				Altius conducted exploration on the Rambler
				property in 2001, 2003, and 2004. In 2001, a
				lithogeochemical program was initiated to
				chemically fingerprint rocks of the hanging wall
				and footwall to the sulphide deposits.
			•	Rambler Metals and Mining PLC: Rambler Metals
				and Mining is a UK-based company listed on
				London’s Alternate Investment Market (AIM).
				Rambler held a 100% interest in the Ming property
				and between 2005 and 2023 and conducted a
				multi-phase diamond drilling program consisting
				of surface drilling, directional drilling, and
				underground delineation drilling. A total of
				220,704m from 1,365 diamond drill holes were
				completed by Rambler. Between 2012 and 2022
				the Ming mine produced 3Mt at 1.86% Cu and 0.71
				Au for total of 55Kt of copper and 68Koz of gold.
			•	The Ming mine was placed on care and
				maintenance in February 2023.
			•	In October 2023, AuTECO Minerals (FireFly Metals)
				acquired the project from administration.
			•	FireFly conducted drilling to test down plunge
				extent of VMS and footwall stringer lodes.
			•	An underground exploration drive is in progress to
				allow further drilling at more favourable drill
				angles.
Geology	•	Deposit type, geological setting and	•	The Green Bay project is a Noranda-type
		style of mineralisation.		Volcanogenic Massive Sulphide (VMS) hosted by
				Cambrian-Ordovician metavolcanic and
				metasedimentary rocks of the Pacquet Harbour
				Group. The style of mineralization, alteration, host
				rock, and tectonism most closely resembles other
				VMS deposits throughout the world. The deposit

ASX FFM

Page | 32

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
					consists of several individual massive sulphide
					lens and their underlying stockwork zones. It is
					thought that the stockwork zone represents the
					near surface channel ways of a submarine
					hydrothermal system and the massive sulphide
					lens represents the accumulation of sulphides
					precipitated from the hydrothermal solutions, on
					the sea floor, above and around the discharge
					vent. The Ming deposits are polymetallic (Cu, Au,
					Ag ± Zn) massive sulphides that occur along the
					flank of a felsic dome. The Ming deposits have
					undergone strong deformation and upper
					greenschist to amphibolite facies metamorphism.
					The massive sulphide bodies are now thin and
					elongate down the plunge of the regional lineation
					(30-35ºNE). Typical aspect ratios of length down-
					plunge to width exceed 10:1, and the bodies exhibit
					mild boudinage along the plunge. The foot wall
					stock work comprises mainly of quartz-sericite-
					chlorite schist, which hosts disseminated and
					stringer pyrite and chalcopyrite with minor
					sphalerite, galena, and pyrrhotite with locally
					significant gold contents that could represent a
					discordant stockwork stringer feeder zone. The
					mineralization is crosscut by younger mafic dykes.
Drill hole	•	A	summary of all information material	•	No new exploration results are reported. Please
Information		to the understanding of the exploration			refer to the Compliance Statements in this release
		results including a tabulation of the			for details of previous exploration results reported.
		following information for all Material drill
		holes:
		`o`	easting and northing of the drill hole
			collar
		`o`	elevation or RL (Reduced Level –
			elevation above sea level in meters)
			of the drill hole collar
		`o`	dip and azimuth of the hole
		`o`	down hole length and interception
			depth
		`o`	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	•	In	reporting Exploration Results,	•	No new exploration results are reported. Please
methods		weighting averaging techniques,			refer to the Compliance Statements in this release
		maximum and/or minimum grade			for details of previous exploration results reported.
		truncations (e.g. cutting of high grades)		•	Metal equivalent results have been calculated at
		and cut-off grades are usually Material			a copper price of US$8,750/t, gold price of
		and should be stated.			US$2,500/oz, silver price of US$25/oz

ASX FFM

Page | 33

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
	•	Where aggregate intercepts	•	Metallurgical recoveries have been set at 95% for
		incorporate short lengths of high-grade		copper and 85% for both gold and silver. These
		results and longer lengths of low-grade		assumptions are made of the basis of historical
		results, the procedure used for such		production at the Ming mine and additional
		aggregation should be stated and		metallurgical test work.
		some typical examples of such	•	CuEq(%) = Cu(%) + (Au(g/t) x 0.82190) + (Ag(g/t) X
		aggregations should be shown in detail.		0.00822)
	•	The assumptions used for any reporting
		of metal equivalent values should be
		clearly stated.
Relationship	•	These relationships are particularly	•	No new exploration results are reported. Please
between		important in the reporting of Exploration		refer to the Compliance Statements in this release
mineralisation		Results.		for details of previous exploration results reported.
widths and	•	If the geometry of the mineralisation
intercept lengths		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	•	Maps and sections are included in the body of this
		scales) and tabulations of intercepts		release as deemed appropriate by the competent
		should be included for any significant		person.
		discovery being reported These should
		include, but not be limited to a plan view
		of drill hole collar locations and
		appropriate sectional views.
Balanced	•	Where comprehensive reporting of all	•	No new exploration results are reported. Please
reporting		Exploration Results is not practicable,		refer to the Compliance Statements in this release
		representative reporting of both low and		for details of previous exploration results reported.
		high grades and/or widths should be
		practiced to avoid misleading reporting
		of Exploration Results.
Other	•	Other exploration data, if meaningful	•	No new exploration results are reported. Please
substantive		and material, should be reported		refer to the Compliance Statements in this release
exploration data		including (but not limited to): geological		for details of previous exploration results reported.
		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	•	FireFly will be conducting drill testing of additional
		work (e.g. tests for lateral extensions or		mineralisation as well as step out drilling of
		depth extensions or large-scale step-		existing lodes to further enhance the resources
		out drilling).		quoted in this release. More information is
	•	Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas		presented in the body of this report.
		of possible extensions, including the	•	Diagrams in the main body of this release show
		main geological interpretations and		areas of possible resource extension on existing
		future drilling areas, provided this		lodes.

ASX FFM

Page | 34

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
information is not commercially	•	The Company has continued to mine an
sensitive.		exploration drive to enable effective drill testing of
		down plunge extensions.

Section 3 – Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources: Ming mine (Criteria in this section apply to all succeeding sections)

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Database	•	Measures taken to ensure that data has	•	FireFly sampling and logging data is digitally
Integrity		not been corrupted by, for example,		entered into AcQuire database using a
		transcription or keying errors, between		laptop. There are checks in place to avoid
		its initial collection and its use for		duplicate holes and sample numbers.
		Mineral Resource estimation purposes.	•	All holes used in the resource estimate have been
	•	Data validation procedures used.		validated individually for collar, downhole survey,
				geology and sample integrity by FireFly
				geologists.
Site visits	•	Comment on any site visits undertaken	•	The Competent Person for the Ming Resource
		by the Competent Person and the		visited the deposit site in July 2024.
		outcome of those visits.	•	The Competent Person reviewed site procedures
	•	If no site visits have been undertaken		and processes related to data collection for the
		indicate why this is the case.		preparation of the Resource estimate. The
				Competent Person also viewed to mineralisation
				underground and confirmed it is consistent with
				the geological interpretation.
Geological	•	Confidence in (or conversely, the	•	The geological framework and the factors
interpretation		uncertainty of) the geological		influencing mineralization are comprehensively
		interpretation of the mineral deposit.		understood, attributable to an extensive mining
	•	Nature of the data used and of any		history and parallels to other regional deposits.
		assumptions made.	•	Validated diamond drill hole data was used to
	•	The effect, if any, of alternative		inform the interpretation including lithological,
		interpretations on Mineral Resource		alteration, weathering, mineralization and
		estimation.		structural logging. The same data was used in the
	•	The use of geology in guiding and		resource estimation.
		controlling Mineral Resource estimation.	•	The Competent Person believes that, given the
	•	The factors affecting continuity both of grade and geology.		characteristics of the deposit, alternative geological interpretations are unlikely to significantly differ from the present model.
			•	Diamond core enabled characterisation of
				mineralisation, geological and structural contacts
				orientation measurements helped to inform
				orientation of lodes. Stacked massive sulphide
				lodes are consistently correlated across drill holes
				based on an orientation that is similar to the
				neighbouring contact between the footwall felsic
				tuff and hanging wall mafic volcanics. The lower
				footwall stockwork envelopes are defined by
				alteration assemblages, dominant sulphide
				species, the frequency of sulphide stringers and
				grade distribution and continuity.
			•	Post-mineralisation mafic dykes cross-cut the
				mineralised domains . Dykes typicallyoccur in

ASX FFM

Page | 35

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
				consistent orientations with different intrusive
				generations able to be characterized by multi-
				element data.
Dimensions	•	The extent and variability of the Mineral	•	The extent of mineralisation is 2,200m along the
		Resource expressed as length (along		down dip direction, 500m along strike and 400m
		strike or otherwise), plan width, and		wide.
		depth below surface to the upper and	•	The mineralisation is contained within 3 sulphide
		lower limits of the Mineral Resource.		stringer envelopes and 14 individual massive to
				semi-massive and stringer sulphides tabular
				lodes that vary between 1 to 18m in thickness.
			•	There are width and grade variations in all
				modelled and estimated structures along strike
				and down-dip. The deposit remains open at
				depth with strike potential.
Estimation and	•	The nature and appropriateness of the	•	FireFly geological staff used Leapfrog software for
modelling		estimation technique(s) applied and		lithology and mineralisation domain wireframing.
techniques		key assumptions, including treatment of		The subsequent wireframe interpretations were
		extreme grade values, domaining,		reviewed and validated by the CP and minor
		interpolation parameters and maximum		adjustments were made prior to using the
		distance of extrapolation from data		interpretations as input to Resource.
		points. If a computer assisted	•	The Lithology model comprises a surface that
		estimation method was chosen include		delineates the boundary between the hanging
		a description of computer software and		wall mafic and footwall felsic packages, along
		parameters used.		with twenty gabbro dykes and three felsic
	•	The availability of check estimates,		intrusives.
		previous estimates and/or mine	•	Twenty-two mineralisation domains are defined in
		production records and whether the		the current model:
		Mineral Resource estimate takes appropriate account of such data.		• Twelve of these represent massive sulphide and stringer deposits along and
	•	The assumptions made regarding		below the felsic contact (vein style
		recovery of by-products.		domains).
	•	Estimation of deleterious elements or		• Six east dipping feeder structures (vein
		other non-grade variables of economic		style domains).
		significance (e.g. sulphur for acid mine drainage characterisation).		• Two envelopes to capture the lower grade stringer mineralisation around massive
	•	In the case of block model interpolation,		sulphide and feeder zones described
		the block size in relation to the average		above (intrusion style domains).
		sample spacing and the search		• Two lower footwall zone (LFZ) domains,
		employed.		including an inner core of high-grade
	•	Any assumptions behind modelling of		(LFZ_HG) and an outer medium-grade
		selective mining units.		(LFZ_MG) domain.
	•	Any assumptions about correlation	•	The overall stockwork zone is delineated based on
		between variables.		logged alteration and sulphide content. The LFZ
	•	Description of how the geological		high-grade was generated using a 0.7% Cu lower
		interpretation was used to control the		cutoff to delineate the core of the higher-grade
		resource estimates.		mineralisation.
	•	Discussion of basis for using or not using	•	The Mineral Resource estimation utilises 2m
		grade cutting or capping.		composites for all DD sampling data, composite
	•	The process of validation, the checking process used, the comparison of model		residuals smaller than 0.3m have been removed from the estimation.
		data to drill hole data, and use of
		reconciliation data if available.

ASX FFM

Page | 36

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
		•	Detailed exploratory data analysis, variography,
			and model validation is carried out using Isatis
			and industry standard software, including Vulcan.
		•	Data compilation, calculating and coding
			composite values, estimating and reporting was
			completed utilising industry-standard software.
		•	All lodes are estimated using ordinary kriging (OK)
			with the same domains used to estimate Cu, Au,
			Ag and Zn. OK estimation was completed using
			an oriented search ellipsoid. A two-pass search
			strategy was employed for each estimated
			variable, with search directions aligned to the
			major, semi-major, and minor axes of the
			variogram. During the first pass, a search radius
			of 100 meters by 100 meters by 30 meters was
			utilized, with a requirement of a minimum of 8 and
			a maximum of 12 composites. A maximum of 3
			composites per drillhole was allowed. For the
			second pass, the search radius was expanded to
			400 meters by 400 meters by 120 meters, and the
			minimum sample requirement was reduced to 4
			composites.
		•	Block model volumes were compared to
			wireframe volumes to validate sub-blocking.
		•	Where OK estimates were used, treatment of
			extreme high grades were dealt with by using a
			cap grade strategy.
		•	Previous descriptions and photographs of
			sulphide mineralisation and dyke geometries
			have informed the interpretation of geological
			domains. These historical records have been
			utilized to refine the understanding of the spatial
			distribution and orientation of mineralised zones.
			The data obtained from previous descriptions and
			estimates have been integrated into the current
			model, ensuring that critical geological features
			influencing resource estimation are accurately
			represented. Necessary adjustments were made
			where contemporary data and advanced
			modelling techniques provided an opportunity for
			refinement.
		•	Gold and silver were recovered historically and
			therefore justified for inclusion in Cu equivalent
			calculation.
		•	No deleterious elements have been modelled.
		•	The parent block sizes of 10m(X) x 10m(Y) x 5m(Z)
			represents 30 to 50% of the average drill spacing
			in the zone classified as indicated. Parent blocks
			have been sub-celled to 2.5m x 2.5m x 2.5m.
		•	Block sizes reflect the selective mining units (SMU)
			that are appropriate based on anticipated the
			mining method of long hole open stoping (LHOS).

ASX FFM

Page | 37

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria JORC Code explanation

Commentary

			•	No assumptions have been made about
				correlation between variables in the estimate.
			•	Hard boundaries were utilized for all domains, with
				the exception of the LFZ. For the LFZ, a soft
				boundary was applied in the form of a 10-meter
				thick buffer zone (LFZ_soft) between the LFZ_HG
				and LFZ_MG domains. Samples within this buffer
				were included in the search neighbourhood for
				either of the adjacent domains.
			•	Blocks coded as post-mineralisation gabbro or
				felsic intrusive units were not estimated in the
				model.
			•	Top cuts were applied in the Estimation stage and
				determined by a range of statistical techniques
				including: Disintegration analysis of Histogram,
				Log-probability, Mean-CV and Cumulative metal
				plots.
			•	Top cuts vary by domain and element. Top cuts
				are considered light and have a minimal effect on
				the global outcome.
			•	The Mineral Resource Estimate was validated
				based on a combination of visual, graphical and
				reconciliation style validations summarised as:
				• Visual validation of the lode and lithology
				coding of both the composite data and the
				block model.
				• Comparison of lode wireframe volumes to
				block model volumes.
				• Visual validation of Mineral Resource
				Estimate against composite data in plan,
				section, and in 3D.
				• Statistical comparison of composites
				versus all estimates in block model: trend
				analysis plots for each domain are
				produced by Northing / Easting / RL. The
				Mineral Resource Estimate generally shows
				a reasonable reflection of the composites
				where there are high numbers of
				composites used in the estimate. Where
				smaller numbers of composites are input
				to the block estimate, local differences
				may be seen between the block and
				composite grades however the global
				estimates remain robust.
Moisture	•	Whether the tonnages are estimated on	•	Tonnages are reported on a dry basis with
		a dry basis or with natural moisture, and		sampling and analysis having been conducted to
		the method of determination of the		avoid water content density issues.
		moisture content.
Cut-off	•	The basis of the adopted cut-off	•	The cut-off grade of 1% Cu has been calculated
parameters		grade(s) or quality parameters applied.		based on the key input components of mining,
				processing, recovery and administration
				costs. Benchmark industryaverages and forward-

ASX FFM

Page | 38

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
				looking forecast costs and physicals form the
				basis of the cut-off grade calculations including:
				`o` Cu price of US$8,750 and 95%
				metallurgical Recovery.
				`o` Au price US$2,500 and 85%
				metallurgical Recovery
				`o` Ag price US$25 and 85%
				Metallurgical Recovery
Mining factors or	•	Assumptions made regarding possible	•	The anticipated mining method is a combination
assumptions		mining methods, minimum mining		of transverse and longitudinal long hole open
		dimensions and internal (or, if		stoping (LHOS). This mining method has been
		applicable, external) mining dilution. It is		used to identify sensible SMU units when
		always necessary as part of the process		determining block sizes in the model.
		of determining reasonable prospects for	•	Total extraction has been assumed with a future
		eventual economic extraction to		paste backfill system likely.
		consider potential mining methods, but the assumptions made regarding mining methods and parameters when	•	This has been factored into the cutoff grade calculations.
		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.
Metallurgical	•	The basis for assumptions or predictions	•	A review of historical recoveries and metallurgical
factors or		regarding metallurgical amenability. It		analysis was completed by WSP in 2020.
assumptions		is always necessary as part of the	•	Significant data was collected over the years
		process of determining reasonable		which shows that coarser grind and ore feed rate
		prospects for eventual economic		to the mill had moderate impact on the overall
		extraction to consider potential		recoveries. In general, copper recovery did not
		metallurgical methods, but the		vary with head grade and mostly between 95% to
		assumptions regarding metallurgical		97% copper.
		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.	•	Gold and silver recoveries increased as head grades increased with historical recoveries range between 65% and 75% for gold and silver, however studies have been undertaken to improve precious metal recoveries.
Environmental	•	Assumptions made regarding possible	•	The Ming Mine was in operation from 2012 to 2023
factors or		waste and process residue disposal		and is currently on care and maintenance. It is
assumptions		options. It is always necessary as part of		considered that there are no significant
		the process of determining reasonable		environmental factors affecting the Ming property
		prospects for eventual economic		at this time.
		extraction to consider the potential	•	The mine is currently fully permitted for operations
		environmental impacts of the mining		at 500ktpa.
		and processing operation. While at this
		stage the determination of potential
		environmental impacts, particularly for
		a green fields 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

ASX FFM

Page | 39

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
		reported with an explanation of the
		environmental assumptions made.
Bulk density	•	Whether assumed or determined. If	•	A bulk density database, comprising a total of
		assumed, the basis for the assumptions.		12,467 measurements, was used to inform
		If determined, the method used,		densities used in the model. Of these, 8,070 were
		whether wet or dry, the frequency of the		collected historically and 4,397 collected by FireFly.
		measurements, the nature, size and	•	The water displacement method was used to
		representativeness of the samples.		determine bulk density, a sample is weighted to
	•	The bulk density for bulk material must		determine the dry mass and weighted submerged
		have been measured by methods that		in water to determine the volume using the
		adequately account for void spaces		Archimedes principle. The data was categorized
		(vugs, porosity, etc.), moisture and		into groups based on mineralization and
		differences between rock and alteration		lithological domains, and statistical analysis was
		zones within the deposit.		conducted to compare historic and FireFly
	•	Discuss assumptions for bulk density		datasets. The results demonstrated good
		estimates used in the evaluation		consistency between the two datasets.
		process of the different materials.	•	Individual bulk densities are applied in
				accordance with specific lithologies and
				mineralization domains based on calculated
				mean and median of the overall density dataset.
Classification	•	The basis for the classification of the	•	Mineral Resources have been classified on the
		Mineral Resources into varying		basis of confidence in the geological and grade
		confidence categories.		continuity using the drilling density, and the
	•	Whether appropriate account has been		distance to sample selections. These were
		taken of all relevant factors (i.e. relative		evaluated individually for each mineralisation
		confidence in tonnage/grade		domain.
		estimations, reliability of input data,	•	Measured Mineral Resources have been defined
		confidence in continuity of geology and		generally where the closest drillhole sample is
		metal values, quality, quantity and		within 15m and the average distance to samples
		distribution of the data).		used for estimation within 20m.
	•	Whether the result appropriately reflects	•	Indicated Mineral Resources where the closest
		the Competent Person’s view of the		drillhole sample is within 30m and the average
		deposit.		distance to samples used for estimation within
				40m.
			•	Inferred Mineral Resources where the closest
				drillhole sample is within 90m or greater if there is
				enough geological and grade continuity.
				Resources outside this criteria are constrained by
				boundary strings and flagged as unclassified
				resource category. Distance to historical workings
				have been used to down grade the resource
				category where required.
			•	This classification is considered appropriate given
				the confidence that can be gained from the
				existing data density and results from drilling.
			•	The reported resource appropriately reflect the
				Competent Person’s view of the deposit and the
				current level of risk associated with the project to
				date.
Audits or reviews	•	The results of any audits or reviews of	•	The mineralisation domaining, estimation
		Mineral Resource estimates.		parameters, classification and reporting have
				reviewed internally by FireFly employees.

ASX FFM

Page | 40

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Discussion of	•	Where appropriate a statement of the	•	There is good confidence in the data quality,
relative		relative accuracy and confidence level		drilling methods and analytical results. The
accuracy/		in the Mineral Resource estimate using		available geology and assay data correlate well,
confidence		an approach or procedure deemed		and the geological continuity has been
		appropriate by the Competent Person.		demonstrated.
		For example, the application of	•	The Mineral Resources constitute a global
		statistical or geostatistical procedures		resource estimate.
		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.

– Table 1 Little Deer Deposit

Section 1 - Sampling Techniques and Data: Little Deer (Criteria in this section apply to all succeeding sections)

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Sampling	•	Nature and quality of sampling (e.g. cut	•	Firefly have not conducted any drilling or
techniques		channels, random chips, or specific		exploration work on the Little Deer Complex
		specialised industry standard		Property. The work summarized here was
		measurement tools appropriate to the		conducted by Rambler and Thundermin in 2014,
		minerals under investigation, such as		who were joint venture partners at the time.
		down hole gamma sondes, or handheld	•	The Mineral Resource estimation database was
		XRF instruments, etc). These examples		created from a total of 662 drill holes, of which 564
		should not be taken as limiting the		were available for Mineral Resource modelling. The
		broad meaning of sampling.		database contained 3,008 assays for Cu, Co, Ag
	•	Include reference to measures taken to		and Au.
		ensure sample representivity and the	•	Nominal sample lengths ranged from 0.10 to 5.30
		appropriate calibration of any		m with an average sample length of 1.44 m.
		measurement tools or systems used.	•	Unmineralised core was not sampled. Half core
	•	Aspects of the determination of		was sampled.
		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 1m samples from

ASX FFM

Page | 41

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
		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	•	Drill type (e.g. core, reverse circulation,	•	The Little Deer Complex drill holes were drilled
techniques		open-hole hammer, rotary air blast,		using NQ sized diamond drill core standard-tube
		auger, Bangka, sonic, etc) and details		(3 m), wire line equipment.
		(e.g. core diameter, triple or standard	•	Rambler and Thundermin and Cornerstone and
		tube, depth of diamond tails, face-		Thundermin used downhole survey systems for
		sampling bit or other type, whether core		their oriented core programs. Downhole surveys
		is oriented and if so, by what method, etc).		for the drilling were completed by acid test prior to 2000 and by Tropari from 2000 onwards.
			•	Core was systematically hand oriented in the core
				box with respect to downhole core orientation and
				oriented core markings (if taken) before being
				marked for cutting.
Drill sample	•	Method of recording and assessing core	•	Core recovery in drill holes at the Little Deer
recovery		and chip sample recoveries and results		Complex Project was >95 percent, including the
		assessed.		mineralised intervals.
	•	Measures taken to maximise sample	•	There is no known relationship between sample
		recovery and ensure representative		recovery and grade.
		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.
Logging	•	Whether core and chip samples have	•	Drill core has been geologically and
		been geologically and geotechnically		geotechnically logged to support Mineral
		logged to a level of detail to support		Resource estimation.
		appropriate Mineral Resource	•	Core logging was carried out by company
		estimation, mining studies and		geologists, who delineated intervals on geological,
		metallurgical studies.		structural, alteration and (or) mineralogical
	•	Whether logging is qualitative or		boundaries, to industry standard.
		quantitative in nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc) photography.	•	Logging is quantitative and qualitative and includes documentation of the rock types,
	•	The total length and percentage of the		alteration and structures and estimates of
		relevant intersections logged.		sulphide content.
			•	Visual estimates are logged of sulphide, quartz,
				alteration, as percentages. 100% of the drill core
				was logged.
			•	The drill core from the 2007 to 2014 drilling
				programs was photographed.

ASX FFM

Page | 42

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Sub-sampling	•	If core, whether cut or sawn and	•	Core was sawn and half core was taken.
techniques and		whether quarter, half or all core taken.	•	External laboratory sample preparation is
sample	•	If non-core, whether riffled, tube		adequate. Each entire sample was crushed to -10
preparation		sampled, rotary split, etc and whether		mesh, and then a 300 g split was ring milled to
		sampled wet or dry.		98% passing -150 mesh material and the pulp
	•	For all sample types, the nature, quality		packet is stored awaiting collection.
		and appropriateness of the sample	•	All samples are sampled dry.
		preparation technique.	•	Sample weights varied from 0.27 to 14.31 kg, with
	•	Quality control procedures adopted for		average 3.89 kg. This size and the sample
		all sub-sampling stages to maximise		preparation procedures are broadly used by
		representivity of samples.		mining companies in Canada and elsewhere and
	•	Measures taken to ensure that the		represents the industry standard approach.
		sampling is representative of the in-situ	•	Assay repeatability for copper for the Little Deer
		material collected, including for		Complex 2011 site visits showed strong correlation
		instance results for field		between historical samples and P&E ¼ core
		duplicate/second-half sampling.		verification sampling, as demonstrated in Figures
	•	Whether sample sizes are appropriate		B.1.
		to the grain size of the material being	•	Flooding prevented access to the drill core for the
		sampled.		2021 site visit, so a total of 24 archived pulp and
				reject samples were taken from 12 Thundermin-
				Cornerstone drill holes for independent assay
				verification. Correlation was excellent between the
				original samples and the P&E verification
				sampling, as demonstrated in Figure B.2.
			•	Target mineralization was veins, pods,
				disseminated and massive sulphides; therefore,
				sample size was appropriate to the grain size of
				the material being sampled.
Quality of assay	•	The nature, quality and appropriateness	•	Cornerstone and Thundermin drilling, 2007
data and		of the assaying and laboratory		through 2011: The drill core samples were prepared
laboratory tests		procedures used and whether the		and assayed at Eastern Analytical Ltd., an
		technique is considered partial or total.		independent and ISO/IEC 17025:2017 accredited
	•	For geophysical tools, spectrometers,		analytical laboratory. Each entire sample was
		handheld XRF instruments, etc, the		crushed to -10 mesh, and then a 300 g split was
		parameters used in determining the		ring milled to 98% passing -150 mesh material. All
		analysis including instrument make and model, reading times, calibrations		samples were analyzed using a 30-element aqua regia digestion/ICP-OES suite. Overlimit material
		factors applied and their derivation, etc.		for copper, lead, zinc, cobalt, or silver were
	•	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	•	subjected to ore grade analysis via 3 acid digestion before analysis by atomic absorption. Gold was analyzed in 30 g aliquots by fire assay with ICP-AES finish. QA/QC consisted of inserting blanks and
		precision have been established.		standards every with each batch for small
				shipments and every 20th samples for larger
				batches. Certified blanks were used.
			•	P&E verification sampling from 2011 was carried
				out at AGAT Laboratories in Mississauga, Ontario,
				Canada.
			•	P&E verification sampling from 2021 was carried
				out at Eastern Analytic Limited in Springdale,
				Newfoundland, Canada.

ASX FFM

Page | 43

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
			•	Eastern Analytical Limited was not accredited by
				the Canadian Association for Laboratory
				Accreditation (CALA) until February 2014, but had
				provided independent laboratory services to the
				mining exploration industry since 1987. The
				laboratory is now ISO/IEC 17025:2017 accredited.
Verification of	•	The verification of significant	•	Calculations of significant intersections are
sampling and		intersections by either independent or		carried out by a company Competent Person.
assaying		alternative company personnel.	•	Database verification was conducted by checking
	•	The use of twinned holes.		digital database against copies of original
	•	Documentation of primary data, data		laboratory certificates or the supplied database.
		entry procedures, data verification, data	•	The historical information was recovered from the
		storage (physical and electronic)		archives of the Newfoundland and Labrador
		protocols.		Department of Natural Resources in St. John’s,
	•	Discuss any adjustment to assay data.		Newfoundland and Labrador, and checked
				against the electronic database.
			•	Electronic data from external laboratories is stored
				and reported under the control of a geological
				database specialist.
			•	No adjustments to assay data are carried out.
Location of data	•	Accuracy and quality of surveys used to	•	All coordinates are quoted in NAD 27 UTM Zone 21
points		locate drill holes (collar and down-hole		North.
		surveys), trenches, mine workings and	•	Historical collars were surveyed with a Total
		other locations used in Mineral Resource		Station in 2009.
		estimation.	•	The topography and overburden surfaces were
	•	Specification of the grid system used.		created using drill hole collars and geology logs
	•	Quality and adequacy of topographic		from the drill holes.
		control.
Data spacing and	•	Data spacing for reporting of Exploration	•	Data spacing and distribution is sufficient to
distribution		Results.		establish the degree of geological and grade
	•	Whether the data spacing, and		continuity appropriate for the Mineral Resource.
		distribution is sufficient to establish the	•	Sample compositing was used within the Mineral
		degree of geological and grade		Resource wireframe.
		continuity appropriate for the Mineral
		Resource and Ore Reserve estimation
		procedure(s) and classifications
		applied.
	•	Whether sample compositing has been
		applied.
Orientation of	•	Whether the orientation of sampling	•	The primary mineralization style of principal
data in relation to		achieves unbiased sampling of possible		relevance to the Little Deer Complex Project is
geological		structures and the extent to which this is		mafic volcanic-hosted copper sulphides in veins,
structure		known, considering the deposit type.		pods, disseminated and massive sulphides
	•	If the relationship between the drilling		associated with VMS type deposits.
		orientation and the orientation of key	•	The spatial distribution of the drill holes provides
		mineralised structures is considered to		good spatial coverage of the entire strike length of
		have introduced a sampling bias, this		the mineralised zone.
		should be assessed and reported if	•	No material sampling bias has been introduced
		material.		by the drilling direction.

ASX FFM

Page | 44

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Sample security	•	The measures taken to ensure sample	•	Drill core samples for all projects are selected, cut
		security.		and bagged in tied numbered plastic bags, and
				then grouped in rice bags with a sample
				submission sheet. The bags were shipped to
				Eastern Analytical, an accredited laboratory since
				2014.
			•	All sample submissions are documented, and all
				assays are returned via email.
			•	Coarse rejects and pulp splits for past drill
				programs are stored at the Rambler Mine site.
			•	Coarse rejects and pulp splits for the P&E
				verification sampling are stored in a safe area by
				P&E.
			•	This is considered to be a secure and reasonable
				procedure and no instances of tampering with
				samples was evident.
Audits or reviews	•	The results of any audits or reviews of	•	Review of sampling procedures for the Property
		sampling techniques and data.		was completed in 2011 and 2021 by P&E Mining
				Consultants. No material issues were raised.

Section 2 - Reporting of Exploration Results: Little Deer (Criteria in this section apply to all succeeding sections)

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Mineral tenement	•	Type, reference name/number, location	•	The Property comprises two mineral licenses
and land tenure		and ownership including agreements or		containing a total of 162 staked claims covering a
status		material issues with third parties such		total area of approximately 4,040 ha. They are
		as joint ventures, partnerships,		100% owned by subsidiaries of Firefly Metals Ltd.
		overriding royalties, native title interests,	•	Mineral License No. 010215M is owned 50% by
		historical sites, wilderness or national		Rambler Metals and Mining Canada Limited and
		park and environmental settings.		50% by 1948565 Ontario Inc., subsidiaries of Firefly
	•	The security of the tenure held at the		Metals Ltd and covers the Little Deer Deposit.
		time of reporting along with any known	•	Mineral License No. 027468M is owned 100% by
		impediments to obtaining a license to		Firefly Metals Canada, subsidiary of Firefly Metals
		operate in the area.		Ltd and covers the Whalesback Deposit.
			•	Both of the Little Deer Complex mineral licenses
				are in good standing as of the effective date of
				this Report.
Exploration done	•	Acknowledgment and appraisal of	•	External contractors were utilized to run
by other parties		exploration by other parties.		geophysical surveys on the Little Deer and
				Whalesback deposits.
Geology	•	Deposit type, geological setting and	•	The primary mineralization style of principal
		style of mineralisation.		relevance to the Little Deer Complex is ophiolite-
				hosted volcanogenic massive sulphides
			•	The Little Deer Deposit contains mainly stringer
				and disseminated sulphide mineralization with
				smaller amounts of massive sulphides. The
				predominant sulphides are pyrrhotite,
				chalcopyrite, pyrite and sphalerite

ASX FFM

Page | 45

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
			•	The Whalesback Deposit contains mainly veins,
				pods disseminated sulphide mineralization that
				form 0.3 to 15 m lenses.
			•	The Whalesback massive sulphide lenses are
				located in the central and hanging wall portions of
				a chlorite shear zone that plunges approximately
				50° southwest.
Drill hole	•	A summary of all information material	•	The supplied database contains 622 drill holes
Information		to the understanding of the exploration		records totalling 132,972 m.
		results including a tabulation of the	•	48 drill holes had no associated assays, one had
		following information for all Material drill		no Cu assays, and one had an erroneous collar
		holes:		location.
		`o` easting and northing of the drill hole	•	Two wedge drill holes were excluded from
		collar		modelling and an additional six drill holes were
		`o` elevation or RL (Reduced Level –		outside the immediate area of the deposits.
		elevation above sea level in meters)	•	564 drill holes available for Mineral Resource
		of the drill hole collar		modelling.
		`o` dip and azimuth of the hole	•	No new exploration results are reported.
		`o` down hole length and interception	•	See below this table for plan view of the drill
		depth		collars used in the Little Deer Resource.
		`o` 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	•	In reporting Exploration Results,	•	Grade capping is implemented in the Mineral
methods		weighting averaging techniques,		Resource model to limit the inclusion of isolated,
		maximum and/or minimum grade		anomalous high-grade values of Cu, Co, Ag and
		truncations (e.g. cutting of high grades)		Pu in the deposit.
		and cut-off grades are usually Material	•	The determination of capping thresholds is based
		and should be stated.		on the decomposition of individual composite
	•	Where aggregate intercepts		log-probability distributions.
		incorporate short lengths of high-grade	•	The capping threshold is applied to the assay
		results and longer lengths of low-grade		samples in the following manner:
		results, the procedure used for such aggregation should be stated and some typical examples of such aggregations should be shown in detail.	•	Capped grade = Original sample value if the original assay value is less than or equal to the capping grade.
	•	The assumptions used for any reporting of metal equivalent values should be clearly stated.	•	Capped grade = Capped grade value if the original assay value is greater than the capping grade.
			•	Metallurgical recoveries have been set at 95% for
				copper and 85% for both gold and silver. These
				assumptions are made on the basis of historical
				production and advancement in processing
				technology since historic mining.
			•	CuEq(%) = Cu(%) + (Au(g/t) x 0.82190) + (Ag(g/t) X
				0.00822)

ASX FFM

Page | 46

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Relationship	•	These relationships are particularly	•	At Whalesback, it was thought that the apparent
between		important in the reporting of Exploration		thickness was close to true thickness.
mineralisation		Results.	•	True thicknesses at Little Deer were undetermined
widths and	•	If the geometry of the mineralisation		and highly variable due to the stringer style of
intercept lengths		with respect to the drill hole angle is		mineralization.
		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	•	A longitudinal projection of the Little Deer and
		scales) and tabulations of intercepts		Whalesback deposits are included in the body of
		should be included for any significant		this release.
		discovery being reported These should	•	Drill hole locations are presented in plan view
		include, but not be limited to a plan view		following this report
		of drill hole collar locations and
		appropriate sectional views.
Balanced	•	Where comprehensive reporting of all	•	All intersections within the mineralised wireframe,
reporting		Exploration Results is not practicable,		both high and low grade, are utilised in the Mineral
		representative reporting of both low and		Resource Estimate.
		high grades and/or widths should be
		practiced to avoid misleading reporting
		of Exploration Results.
Other	•	Other exploration data, if meaningful	•	Borehole geophysics was conducted for the 1998-
substantive		and material, should be reported		2000 drilling.
exploration data		including (but not limited to): geological	•	Borehole geophysics using pulse EM was
		observations; geophysical survey		conducted on drill holes in 2008-2010.
		results; geochemical survey results; bulk samples – size and method of treatment; metallurgical test results;	•	An Induced Polarization survey was conducted in 2010.
		bulk density, groundwater, geotechnical
		and rock characteristics; potential
		deleterious or contaminating
		substances.
Further work	•	The nature and scale of planned further	•	Infill drilling to continue the conversion of Inferred
		work (e.g. tests for lateral extensions or		to Indicated Mineral Resources;
		depth extensions or large-scale step- out drilling).	•	Delineation drilling to further define the down-dip and along strike extensions of the mineralised
	•	Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas		zones;
		of possible extensions, including the	•	Exploration drilling to identify close-proximity
		main geological interpretations and		targets to the mine footprint;
		future drilling areas, provided this information is not commercially sensitive.	•	Borehole EM surveys on selected exploration drill holes;
			•	Differential GPS surveys of the collar location of all
				new drill holes;
			•	Updated Mineral Resource Estimate, following
				completion of all the recommended drill
				programs;
			•	Access and mine road improvement work;
			•	Metallurgical testing on representative samples of
				the mineralised zone(s),to assess and confirm

ASX FFM

Page | 47

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
			metal recoveries, reagent usages, process flow
			sheets, and additional associated operating
			issues.
		•	Mineralised material sorting test work should also
			be undertaken; and
		•	Baseline studies on brownfield characteristics and
			evaluation of reclamation work completed to
			date.

Section 3 – Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources: Little Deer (Criteria in this section apply to all succeeding sections)

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Database	•	Measures taken to ensure that data has	•	All drilling and assay data were provided in the
Integrity		not been corrupted by, for example,		form of Excel data files by Firefly Metals Canada
		transcription or keying errors, between		Limited. The Geovia GemsTM V6.8 database for
		its initial collection and its use for		this Mineral Resource Estimate, was compiled by
		Mineral Resource estimation purposes.		P&E.
	•	Data validation procedures used.	•	P&E conducted verification of the drill hole assay
				database by comparison of the database entries
				with assay certificates provided directly from
				Eastern Analytical in digital format.
			•	The historical information was recovered from the
				archives of the Newfoundland and Labrador
				Department of Natural Resources in St. John’s,
				Newfoundland and Labrador, and was verified
				against the drill hole database. No assay entry
				errors were detected and no significant validation
				errors were noted.
Site visits	•	Comment on any site visits undertaken	•	Mr. Eugene Puritch, P.Eng., of P&E and a Qualified
		by the Competent Person and the		Person under the terms of NI 43-101, conducted a
		outcome of those visits.		site visit to the Property on May 16, 2011. A data
	•	If no site visits have been undertaken		verification sampling program was conducted
		indicate why this is the case.		on-site. Mr. Puritch collected 13 samples from 11
				drill holes. The samples were delivered by Mr.
				Puritch directly to AGAT Laboratories in
				Mississauga, Ontario for analysis.
			•	Mr. Tim Froude, P.Geo., an independent consultant
				and a Qualified Person under the terms of NI 43-
				101, conducted a site visit on June 15, 2021 that was
				impeded due to flooding. He selected a total of 24
				archived pulp and reject samples from 12
				Thundermin-Cornerstone drill holes for
				independent verification sampling. Samples were
				taken by Mr. Froude and submitted to Eastern
				Analytical Laboratories in Springdale,
				Newfoundland for analysis.
Geological	•	Confidence in (or conversely, the	•	Geological interpretation is based on extensive
interpretation		uncertainty of) the geological		mining history which provides a high level of
		interpretation of the mineral deposit.		confidence in the interpretation of geological and
				grade continuity.

ASX FFM

Page | 48

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
	•	Nature of the data used and of any	•	Mineral Resource estimation for the Little Deer and
		assumptions made.		Whalesback deposit is based on identification and
	•	The effect, if any, of alternative		modelling of distinct geological structures and
		interpretations on Mineral Resource		incorporated into five individual mineralised
		estimation.		domains.
	•	The use of geology in guiding and	•	Grade and geological continuity are a function of
		controlling Mineral Resource estimation.		local structures, which are incorporated into the
	•	The factors affecting continuity both of		estimation process.
		grade and geology.
Dimensions	•	The extent and variability of the Mineral	•	Whalesback (area 100) – 620 m strike length,
		Resource expressed as length (along		750m down dip length, 6m average width.
		strike or otherwise), plan width, and	•	Whalesback (area 110) – 640 m strike length, 700m
		depth below surface to the upper and		down dip length, 6 m average width.
		lower limits of the Mineral Resource.	•	Little Deer (area 200) – 1,100 m strike length, 875m
				down dip length, 5 m average width.
			•	Little Deer (area 210) – 510 m strike length, 625m
				down dip length, 10m average width.
			•	Little Deer (area 220) – 310 m strike length, 300m
				down dip length, 8m average width.
Estimation and	•	The nature and appropriateness of the	•	Inverse distance squared estimation is used for Cu
modelling		estimation technique(s) applied and		block grades.
techniques		key assumptions, including treatment of	•	Inverse distance cubed estimation is used for Au,
		extreme grade values, domaining,		Ag, Co block grades.
		interpolation parameters and maximum distance of extrapolation from data points. If a computer assisted	•	The block model was constructed using Genovia GemsTM modelling software.
		estimation method was chosen include	•	Mineral Resource block model size and orientation
		a description of computer software and		are based on the general size and geometry of the
		parameters used.		deposit. Block models are based on a 5 m x 2.5 m
	•	The availability of check estimates, previous estimates and/or mine		x 5 m block size for the Little Deer and Whalesback deposits.
		production records and whether the	•	The Mineral Resource model consists of a block
		Mineral Resource estimate takes		with attributes estimated grades, volume percent
		appropriate account of such data.		wireframe inclusion, rock codes, bulk density and
	•	The assumptions made regarding		classification attributes.
		recovery of by-products.	•	There is a moderate correlation between Cu and
	•	Estimation of deleterious elements or		Co, Au, and Ag grades.
		other non-grade variables of economic	•	The influence of high-grade outliers has been
		significance (e.g. sulphur for acid mine		restricted by capping composite grades above a
		drainage characterisation).		threshold value prior to estimation. Log normal
	•	In the case of block model interpolation, the block size in relation to the average sample spacing and the search		histograms of Cu composites were generated for each mineralised zone for the Little Deer and Whalesback Deposit.
		employed.
	•	Any assumptions behind modelling of
		selective mining units.
	•	Any assumptions about correlation
		between variables.
	•	Description of how the geological
		interpretation was used to control the
		resource estimates.

ASX FFM

Page | 49

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
	•	Discussion of basis for using or not using
		grade cutting or capping.
	•	The process of validation, the checking
		process used, the comparison of model
		data to drill hole data, and use of
		reconciliation data if available.
Moisture	•	Whether the tonnages are estimated on	•	Tonnages are estimated on a dry basis.
		a dry basis or with natural moisture, and
		the method of determination of the
		moisture content.
Cut-off	•	The basis of the adopted cut-off	•	The cut-off grade of 1% Cu has been calculated
parameters		grade(s) or quality parameters applied.		based on the key input components of mining,
				processing, recovery and administration
				costs. Benchmark industry averages and forward-
				looking forecast costs and physicals form the
				basis of the cut-off grade calculations including:
				`o` Cu price of US$8,750 and 95% metallurgical
				Recovery.
				`o` Au price US$2,500 and 85% metallurgical
				Recovery
				`o` Ag price US$25 and 85% Metallurgical
				Recovery
Mining factors or	•	Assumptions made regarding possible	•	Underground mining at Whalesback and Little
assumptions		mining methods, minimum mining		Deer was conducted by BRINEX. A 1,044 m drift at a
		dimensions and internal (or, if		depth of 244 m on Little Deer served as the main
		applicable, external) mining dilution. It is		haulage. There were no accurate production
		always necessary as part of the process		records from this time.
		of determining reasonable prospects for	•	The Little Deer Mine was re-opened in 1973-1974 by
		eventual economic extraction to		the Green Bay Mining Co. Development was
		consider potential mining methods, but		limited to shallow, low-grade copper resources
		the assumptions made regarding		that were accessible from a 329 m ramp driven
		mining methods and parameters when		from surface. There were no accurate production
		estimating Mineral Resources may not		records from this time.
		always be rigorous. Where this is the
		case, this should be reported with an
		explanation of the basis of the mining
		assumptions made.
Metallurgical	•	The basis for assumptions or predictions	•	SGS Mineral Services of Lakefield, Ontario was
factors or		regarding metallurgical amenability. It		retained by Thundermin Resources in 2010 to
assumptions		is always necessary as part of the		complete a characterization and flotation
		process of determining reasonable		concentration test program on a 200 kg
		prospects for eventual economic		representative composite sample from the Little
		extraction to consider potential		Deer Deposit.
		metallurgical methods, but the	•	The composite material graded 2.43% Cu and the
		assumptions regarding metallurgical		Cu occurred almost exclusively as chalcopyrite.
		treatment processes and parameters		Approximately 10.5% of the mass was iron
		made when reporting Mineral Resources		sulphides; of which 85% was pyrrhotite and 15%
		may not always be rigorous. Where this		was pyrite. The non-sulphides were mainly chlorite
		is the case, this should be reported with		(51%), quartz (15%), and plagioclase (7%).
		an explanation of the basis of the metallurgical assumptions made.	•	Based on data from the historical (2010) test work, the expected metallurgicalperformance could be:

ASX FFM

Page | 50

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
				Concentrate Grade: 28% Cu, 0.06% Co, 0.3 g/t Au.
				Copper Recovery was 97%.
			•	The flotation response indicated that mineralised
				material from Little Deer would be a suitable feed
				for an existing process plant in the region. A minor
				modification to the existing circuit could include
				the installation of a small concentrate regrind mill.
Environmental	•	Assumptions made regarding possible	•	There are no known environmental impacts
factors or		waste and process residue disposal		affecting the Little Deer Complex Property at this
assumptions		options. It is always necessary as part of		time.
		the process of determining reasonable	•	The historical Whalesback Mine concentrator has
		prospects for eventual economic		been removed from site.
		extraction to consider the potential environmental impacts of the mining and processing operation. While at this stage the determination of potential	•	The tailing storage area exists in the north part of the property. The liability for the historical tailings sits with province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
		environmental impacts, particularly for
		a green fields 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.
Bulk density	•	Whether assumed or determined. If	•	The bulk density used for the Mineral Resource
		assumed, the basis for the assumptions.		model was supplied by previous operators
		If determined, the method used,		(Rambler Metals and Mining).
		whether wet or dry, the frequency of the	•	1,865 bulk density measurements collected from
		measurements, the nature, size and		drill core. The average bulk density measured is
		representativeness of the samples.		3.0 t/m3
	•	The bulk density for bulk material must	•	Bulk density was determined by the weighing in air
		have been measured by methods that		and weighing in water method. Void spaces were
		adequately account for void spaces		determined to <5% and were not taken into
		(vugs, porosity, etc.), moisture and		consideration. All mineralised portions of the
		differences between rock and alteration		Resource Estimate were measured for bulk
		zones within the deposit.		density.
	•	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 have been classified based on
		Mineral Resources into varying		geological and grade continuity, and areas of low
		confidence categories.		geological confidence have been appropriately
	•	Whether appropriate account has been		down-graded or excluded from the estimates.
		taken of all relevant factors (i.e. relative	•	The Mineral Resource model consists of a block
		confidence in tonnage/grade		with attributes estimated grades, volume percent
		estimations, reliability of input data,		wireframe inclusion, rock codes, bulk density and
		confidence in continuity of geology and		classification attributes
		metal values, quality, quantity and distribution of the data).	•	All relevant factors regarding tonnage and grade estimates, the quality and distribution of data and
	•	Whether the result appropriately reflects		confidence in local geological structures has been
		the Competent Person’s view of the		taken into account.
		deposit.

ASX FFM

Page | 51

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
			•	Estimation methodology is based on detailed
				knowledge of the local geological structures.
			•	The estimated tonnage and grade of the Mineral
				Resources appropriately reflects the Competent
				Person’s view of the deposit.
Audits or reviews	•	The results of any audits or reviews of	•	P&E prepared the Mineral Resource Estimate and
		Mineral Resource estimates.		considers that the methodology used for the Little
				Deer Complex Project represents a generally
				prudent and moderately conservative approach
				to the Mineral Resource Estimate and that the
				Mineral Resource reported is in conformity with the
				requirements of the Australasian Code for
				Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources
				and Ore Reserves (“JORC”).
Discussion of	•	Where appropriate a statement of the	•	A check for local estimation bias was completed
relative		relative accuracy and confidence level		by plotting vertical swath plots of the estimated
accuracy/		in the Mineral Resource estimate using		ID3 block grade and the Nearest Neighbour grade.
confidence		an approach or procedure deemed		The results demonstrate a reasonable level of
		appropriate by the Competent Person.		smoothing for the ID estimate.
		For example, the application of	•	See below for the Swath plot
		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.

ASX FFM

Page | 52

==> picture [146 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [288 x 372] intentionally omitted <==

Plan view of drill data at Little Deer

==> picture [489 x 285] intentionally omitted <==

Swath plot for the Little Deer / Whalesback Resource Estimate

ASX FFM

Page | 53

AI assistant

FireFly Metals Ltd. — Capital/Financing Update 2024

48548_rns_2024-10-28_dd85f350-b1df-4254-848d-cf219ba2f7e8.pdf

ASX FFM

ASX Announcement

- Green Bay Copper Gold Project, Canada

Resource increases 42% to 1.2Mt of contained metal at 2% Copper Eq[1]

KEY POINTS

Forward Work Plan

Steve Parsons

Media

About the Mineral Resource Estimate

Green Bay Copper-Gold Project

Green Bay Mineral Resource Estimate

Table 3: October 2024 Mineral Resource Estimate for the Green Bay copper-gold project

Ming Deposit Mineral Resource Estimate

Little Deer Mineral Resource Estimate

GREEN BAY PROJECT TOTAL MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE

Variance to Previous Estimate

Sensitivity Analysis

Ming Deposit Resource Estimate

Additional data informing the updated Ming Resource

Ming Geology and Geological Interpretation

There are two distinct styles of mineralisation at the Ming deposit:

Ming Drilling and Sampling Techniques

Analytical Techniques

Ming Resource Estimation Methodology

Domains

Data Treatment

Estimation

Ming Resource Classification

Ming Resource Cut Off Grade

Modifying Mining and Metallurgical Factors

Little Deer Resource Estimate

Little Deer Geology and Geological Interpretation

Little Deer Drill Data and Sampling Techniques

Analytical Techniques

Little Deer Resource Estimation Methodology

Domains

Data Treatment

Estimation

Classification

Little Deer Resource Cut Off Grade

Modifying Mining and Metallurgical Factors

ABOUT FIREFLY METALS LTD

COMPLIANCE STATEMENTS

– Foreign Resource Estimate Green Bay Project (August 2023)

Metal equivalents

Exploration results

– Mineral Resources Estimate Pickle Crow Project

Compliance Statements

COMPETENT PERSONS STATEMENT

FORWARD LOOKING INFORMATION

APPENDIX A – Green Bay Copper-Gold Project Mineral Resources

Ming Deposit Mineral Resource Estimate

Little Deer Mineral Resource Estimate

GREEN BAY PROJECT TOTAL MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE

APPENDIX B – JORC CODE, 2012 EDITION

– Table 1 Ming Mine

Criteria JORC Code explanation

Commentary

– Table 1 Little Deer Deposit

More from FireFly Metals Ltd.

FireFly Metals Ltd. Capital/Financing Update 2024