FOCUS MINERALS LTD — Capital/Financing Update 2018

Jul 22, 2018

ASX Announcement

23 July 2018

==> picture [557 x 93] intentionally omitted <==

Mineral Resource Update for Lancefield Project

Focus Minerals Ltd. (ASX: FML) is pleased to announce that following an extensive review of historical and recent drilling programmes, the Lancefield Project in Laverton has resulted in an update to its Mineral Resource estimate.

The newly updated resource is reported above a 4g/t cut-off for the main lode, comprises:

• Inferred Resource 3.9 Mt grading 6.3g/t gold for 793,000 contained ounces

The Mineral Resource is reported on a dry tonnage basis. See the attached JORC Table 1 for additional details.

The Mineral Resource tabulation with above 4g/t gold cut-off is shown below and reported according the JORC Code 2012 Edition:

Classification Tonnes Grade (g/t Au) Ounces	Classification Tonnes Grade (g/t Au) Ounces	Classification Tonnes Grade (g/t Au) Ounces	Classification Tonnes Grade (g/t Au) Ounces
Inferred	3,944,000	6.3	793,000
Total	3,944,000	6.3	793,000

Note:

1. Discrepancies may occur due to rounding;

1. Historic mining depletion has been taken into account.

The Lancefield Project forms part of Focus Minerals tenement portfolio in the highly prospective Laverton region of Western Australia. The deposit area was a major open pit and underground gold producer with the bulk of the development by Western Mining Corporation (“WMC”) from 1980 to 1994. Underground mining by WMC produced 3.23Mt @ 6.77g/t before the mine was closed in 1994.

Various drill campaigns have been conducted for over 30 years at Lancefield. The Lancefield Mineral Resource was estimated based on a total of 108 drill holes comprising: 58 underground drilled diamond holes and 50 diamond holes with an RC pre-collar (RCDD), totalling 40,623m. FML drilled 3 RCDD holes into the main lode in June 2017, however only 2 of these holes were used in the estimate; 5 RCDD holes were drilled by Metex Resources NL (“Metex”), between August and November 1995; 1 RCDD holes was drilled by Golden Plateau NL (“Golden Plateau”) in 1987 and 2 more diamond holes in 1988; 98 holes were drilled by WMC from the mid 1980’s to 1993.

==> picture [595 x 47] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [479 x 379] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 1: Plan View of Lancefield Deposit with historic workings

==> picture [478 x 296] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 2: Long Section View West of the Main Lode Mineralisation

Page 2 of 14

==> picture [481 x 298] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3: Section View North North East of Lancefield Deposit with Historic Workings

For further information please contact:

Alex Aaltonen

General Manager - Exploration Focus Minerals Ltd Phone: +61 8 9215 7888

Zaiqian Zhang

Director, Company Secretary and CFO Focus Minerals Ltd Phone: +61 8 9215 7888

Forward Looking Statements

This release contains certain “forward looking statements”. Forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of ‘forward-looking’ terminology, including, without limitation, the terms ‘believes’, ‘estimates’, ‘anticipates’, ‘expects’, ‘predicts’, ‘intends’, ‘plans’, ‘propose’, ‘goals’, ‘targets’, ‘aims’, ‘outlook’, ‘guidance’, ‘forecasts’, ‘may’, ‘will’, ‘would’, ‘could’ or ‘should’ or, in each case, their negative or other variations or comparable terminology. These forward-looking statements include all matters that are not historical facts. By their nature, forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors because they relate to events and depend on circumstances that may or may not occur in the future, assumptions which may or may not prove correct, and may be beyond Focus’ ability to control or predict which may cause the actual results or performance of Focus to be materially different from the results or performance expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are based on assumptions and contingencies and are not guarantees or predictions of future performance. No representation is made that any of these statements or forecasts will come to pass or that any forecast result will be achieved. Similarly, no representation is given that the assumptions upon which forward-looking statements may be based are reasonable. Forward-looking statements speak only as at the date of this document and Focus disclaims any obligations or undertakings to release any update of, or revisions to, any forward-looking statements in this document.

The announcement continues…

Page 3 of 14

JORC 2012 Mineral Resource Summary for Lancefield Deposit

Background

The Lancefield Project is located 7km north of the Laverton Township, in the Eastern Goldfields of Western Australia with access via the sealed Laverton-Leonora Road. The Main Lode horizon, the focus of this estimate, is located on mining lease M38/037. FML have a Royalty agreement with South32 Royalty Investments Pty Ltd (“South32”) which was renegotiated early in 2017 (see ASX release dated 29 March 2017).

==> picture [477 x 301] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 4: Lancefield Project location

The Lancefield Project has been historically mined, with the bulk of the development by WMC from 1980 to 1994 (when the mine closed), by both underground and surface mining of the Main Lode and West Lode Horizons. The area consists of numerous open pits and underground workings, including Lancefield open pit, South Lancefield open pit and Telegraph open pit. Underground activities focused on the Main Lode and Main Lode Deeps which were mined using both shaft and decline access. The maximum vertical depth of development is 830m. Golden Plateau held the prospecting tenements and later combined Mining Lease for the ground immediately south of WMC’s operating Lancefield mine. From mid-1987 to mid-1988 they successfully completed 3 diamond holes designed to test the down dip extension of the Lancefield Deeps. Metex acquired the Lancefield tenements from WMC in November 1995 and drilled 3 deep diamond holes (with 2 “daughter” holes wedged off the main hole traces). The ground was subsequently acquired by Crescent Gold NL in June 2010 before being taken over by Focus Minerals Laverton in October 2012.

Page 4 of 14

Geology and Geological Interpretation

The geological setting at Lancefield is that of a basal komatiite overlain by tholeiitic basalt and gabbro units with carbonaceous shale interflow sediments. The ultramafic / mafic package is overlain by a sedimentary pile, commencing with a basal conglomeratic unit that is overlain by pelitic and arenaceous sediments.

Mineralisation at Lancefield occurs within stacked interflow sediments within the mafic units. The sediments appear to have localised mineralised thrust structures, becoming silicified and sulphidic. Grade and alteration is most intense at the southern end of the Lancefield workings, with the interflow sediments being increasingly carbonaceous to the north. The high-grade shoots are spatially related to footwall flexures that in turn relate to syenite intrusives in the ultramafic footwall.

The Main Lode is characterised by silica – carbonate – sulphide replacement of carbonaceous shales, hanging wall basalt and footwall gabbro. Gold is associated with arsenopyrite – pyrrhotite – pyrite – quartz – carbonate – chlorite veins in the late stage brittle fracturing of the silicified host. There is a strong As – Ag correlation with gold (also Cu – Zn in the upper levels of the mine). Gold in the Main Lode is generally as fine sulphide occluded elemental grains within arsenopyrite. To the north, the lode style has less arsenopyrite and is more banded; the high-grade shoots becoming more localised.

The entire Lancefield deposit strikes NS with a total strike length of over 1.5km. The Main Lode of mineralisation has been modelled to approximately 1.5km below surface, the bulk of the Main Lode sits approximately 300m beneath surface. Mineralisation has an average width of 3-5m and dips 40° to the east. All available drill hole and historic mining data was used to guide the geological interpretation of the mineralisation. Historic underground works at Lancefield have focused on extracting mineralised sedimentary units dipping at a 40°-45° angle. The logging of sediments and sulphides also guided the interpretation. Mineralisation interpretations were undertaken in GEOVIA Surpac™ software, with envelopes digitised on a section by section basis using an approximate 2g/t Au cut-off grade and geological contacts. Infrequently sub 2g/t samples (logged as sediments) were included for continuity. Only minor deviation of the lode geometry was noted between drill holes along strike and down-dip.

Sampling Techniques

Diamond core has been sampled in the mineralised zones to geological contacts up to 1m in length by various companies over the years. Diamond core was ½ core sampled in recent drill campaigns; a minimum of 5cm was sampled. It is unclear if WMC took ½ core samples. Some of the RC precollars have been sampled over 4m-5m composites, these RC samples are near surface and not used in the estimation.

Drilling Techniques

Drilling has been predominantly by Diamond core, for the estimation 108 holes were used. 50 diamond holes were drilled from surface most with an RC pre-collar (RCDD), 58 diamond holes were drilled underground by WMC during mining.

Sample Analysis Method

A combination of Aqua Regia and Fire Assay assaying methods have been used by various companies and over drill programs. Focus Minerals used a 30g to 50g fire assay with either an AAS or ICP-OES Finish.

Page 5 of 14

Estimation Methodology

Only the diamond core samples were used in the estimation. Samples were composited to 1m, the dominant sample interval. After a review of the main lode statistics, histogram, probability plot and mean/variance plot it was determined top-capping of outlier high grade values was not required. Snowden Supervisor software was used for Variography and Kriging Neighbourhood analysis to help determine sample numbers, search distances. An elliptical search was used based on the ranges of the Variograms. Grade Estimation was by ordinary kriging using GEOVIA Surpac[TM] software. Three search passes were run, with decreasing minimum sample numbers and increasing range between each search pass; 33% of the main lode estimated in the first search pass. Further detail is provided in Table 1, Section 3.

Criteria Used for Classification

Mineral Resource Classification was based on the following criteria:

1. Confidence in the drillhole data: sampling, logging, surveying, analytical techniques and database compliation with appropriate QAQC checks.

2. Geological confidence in the continutity and geometry of the deposit.

3. Various output parameters from the ordinary kriging process, such as number and distance of samples, kriging and block variance, slope of regression and number of negative kriging weights determined the classification of Indicated and Inferred Resources.

Competent Person Statement

The information in this announcement that relates to Exploration Results is based on information compiled by Mr. Jeff Ion, who is a Member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (AusIMM) and a Member of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists (AIG). Mr. Ion holds shares in Focus Minerals Limited and is a director of Jeffrey Geo Pty Ltd, under contract to Focus Minerals Limited. Mr. Ion has sufficient experience that 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 as defined in the 2012 Edition of the “Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves”.

The Mineral Resource estimate was undertaken by Ms. Hannah Kosovich, an employee of Focus Minerals. Ms. Hannah Kosovich is a member of Australian Institute of Geoscientists and has sufficient experience to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the “Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves”.

Michael Job from Cube Consulting worked with and reviewed/critiqued FML’s work on the geological interpretation, estimation methodology and parameters, and estimate validation. Michael Job is a Fellow of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and has sufficient experience to act as the Competent Person for the Mineral Resource estimate as defined in the 2012 Edition of the “Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves”.

Mr. Jeffery Ion, Ms. Hannah Kosovich and Mr. Michael Job consent to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on the information in the form and context in which it appears.

Page 6 of 14

JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1 Lancefield

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data

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

Criteria		Commentary
Sampling	•	This report relates to results from Reverse Circulation (RC) and diamond core
techniques		(DDH) drilling.
	•	Lancefield has been drilled by various companies over the years, this report
		contains information on holes drilled by Western Mining Corporation Ltd (WMC),
		Golden Plateau N.L (GPNL), Metex Resources N.L (Metex) and Focus Minerals
		Ltd (FML).
	•	WMC drilled pre-collars on their surface diamond holes that were not sampled.
		Diamond core was sampled at 1m intervals or on geological contacts.
	•	GPNL stated diamond core was sampled at 0.5 to 1m intervals or geological
		contacts.
	•	Metex sampled and assayed for gold over the entire drill hole. Pre-collar drill chips
		were spear sampled in 5m composites using a 50mm PVC pipe tube. Unaltered or
		unmineralised core intervals were filleted and composited up to 5m. Zones of
		sulphide mineralisation and/or alteration were half core sampled up to 1m or
		geological contact.
	•	The information of sampling techniques below applies to the drill holes drilled by
		Focus Minerals (FML) only.
	•	RC percussion drill chips were collected through a cyclone and in-line cone splitter
		under driller control. RC samples were collected on a 1m basis. Diamond core was
		sampled across identified zones of mineralisation by site geologists, the sample
		widths varied between a nominal minimum of 0.2m and a nominal maximum of 1m.
	•	The diamond core was marked up for sampling by the supervising geologist during
		the core logging process, with sample intervals determined by the presence of
		mineralisation and/or alteration. The core was cut in half using an automatic core
		saw. Samples for assay were put into pre-numbered calico bags.
	•	RC chips were passed through a cone splitter to achieve a sample weight of
		approximately 3kg. The splitter was levelled at the beginning of each hole using a
		bullseye level. The spoils were collected in green bags at 1m intervals. Samples for
		assay were collected in pre-numbered calico bags.
	•	At the assay laboratory all calico bagged assay samples were oven dried, core
		samples (only) crushed to a nominal 10mm using a jaw crusher and weighed.
		Samples in excess of 3kg in weight were riffle split to achieve a maximum 3kg
		sample weight before being pulverized to 90% passing 75μm.
	•	Duplicate samples were collected from RC pre-collars at the rate of 5 per 100m
		(every 20m). The duplicates were collected directly from the cone splitter at the
		same time as the primary sample. The duplicates were of similar weight to the
		primary sample and were treated identically to the primary sample. No duplicates
		were collected from the diamond core material.
	•	Standards of appropriate grade were inserted into the RC sample runs at a rate of
		3 per 100m (1 per 25m – excepting where it clashed with a duplicate position).
	•	No blanks were used as many of primary samples on the project recorded assays
		below or close to the detection limit making the role of the blank superfluous.
		Instead gold geochemical standards with low expected values were utilised
		regularly.
Drilling	•	WMC diamond holes drilled from surface usually had an RC pre-collar from surface
techniques		to approx. 70m. Underground diamond drilling was also conducted from available
		drive cuddies.
	•	GPNL diamond drilling was carried out by tricone drill bit from surface to
		approximately 100m, switching to HQ and finally NQ as the drill hole progressed.
	•	Metex drilled RC pre-collars to a maximum depth of 96.3m, diamond drilling was
		then used to complete the holes using HQ and NQ core barrels. The drilling was
		directional and Navi drilling used to make directional corrections or cut wedges
		when drilling the secondary “daughter” hole off the first completed drill hole.
		Downhole surveyswere conducted by either Eastmansingle shot camera or

Page 7 of 14

Criteria	Commentary
	gyroscopic data in areas of extreme magnetic deviation. Drill core was oriented
	using a spear tip method which was successful 50% of the time.
	• All FML drilling was completed using RC gear with face sampling hammer for the
	pre-collar, followed by HQ (if required by ground conditions) and then NQ2 size
	diamond core equipment. As the holes were collared vertical, the core in the upper
	part of the hole was not oriented due to limitations of the core orientation system
	available. Deeper parts of the holes were oriented by the drilling contractor using an
	EzyMark system. Holes were surveyed upon completion of drilling initially using a
	north-seeking gyroscope tool within the rod string.
Drill sample	•WMC did not document drill recoveries in their annual reports.
recovery	•GPNL did not document drill recoveries in their annual reports.
	•Metex states no significant core loss was encountered with all recoveries averaging
	99% or better.
	•FML RC sample recovery was recorded by a visual estimate during the logging
	process. Diamond core recovery was calculated by measuring the drill core against
	drill rod length (as annotated on core blocks). Recoveries for FML drilling were
	good.
Logging	•WMC logged the diamond core to lithological boundaries; recording rock type,
	structure, texture, alteration and veining. The pre-collar drill cuttings do not appear
	to have been logged.
	•GPNL logged the diamond core to lithological boundaries; recording weathering,
	rock type, structure, texture, alteration, veining and colour. The Tricone drill cuttings
	were not logged.
	•Metex logged the entire drill hole including the RC pre-collar chips for weathering,
	rock type, structure, texture, alteration, veining, mineralisation and colour. Drill core
	was photographed wet and dry prior to cutting.
	•The information of logging techniques below applies to the drill holes drilled by FML
	only. Core samples were oriented where possible, marked into metre intervals and
	compared to the depth measurements on the core blocks. Any loss of core was
	noted and recorded in the drilling database.
	•All RC samples were geologically logged to record weathering, regolith, rock type,
	colour, alteration, mineralisation, structure and texture and any other notable
	features that are present.
	•In addition to parameters logged over RC chips, all diamond core was also logged
	for structure. If an orientation line was available, structure orientation was recorded.
	•The logging information was transferred into the company’s drilling database once
	the log was complete.
	•Logging was qualitative, however the geologists often recorded quantitative mineral
	percentage ranges for the sulphide minerals present.
	•Diamond core was photographed one core tray at a time using a standardised
	photography jig.
	•Samples from RC holes were archived in standard 20m plastic chip trays.
	•The entire length of all holes was logged.
Sub-sampling	•The bulk of the WMC sample preparation and analysis were conducted at the
techniques and	nearby Windarra Nickel Project laboratory and records of the methods used to
sample	analyse the samples have not been found.
preparation	•GPNL submitted drill core as 2.5-3kg samples in pre-numbered bags for analysis to
	either Analabs or Genalysis where it was crushed, single stage mixed and ground.
	The crushed core was sampled in triplicate for gold by a fire assay on a 50g charge
	to a lower detection limit of 0.01 ppm gold. As, Ag, Cu and Ni were also analysed on
	the original sample only.
	•Metex samples were submitted to Amdel Laboratories in Kalgoorlie for analysis by
	50g fire assay to a lower detection limit of 0.01ppm Au.
	•The information of sub-sampling and sample preparation below applies to the drill
	holes drilled by FML only.
	• Core sampleswere taken from halfcore, cut using anautomatic core saw. The

Page 8 of 14

Criteria	Commentary
	remainder of the core was retained in core trays tagged with a hole number and
	metre mark.
	•RC samples were cone split to a nominal 2.5kg to 3kg sample weight. The drilling
	method was designed to maximise sample recovery and delivery of a clean,
	representative sample into the calico bag.
	•The samples were collected in a pre-numbered calico bag bearing a unique sample
	ID. Samples were crushed to 75μm at the laboratory and riffle split (if required) to a
	maximum 3kg sample weight. Gold analysis was a 40g Fire Assay for individual
	samples with an ICP-OES or AAS Finish.
	•The assay laboratories’ sample preparation procedures follow industry best
	practice, with techniques and practices that are appropriate for this style of
	mineralisation. Pulp duplicates were taken at the pulverising stage and selective
	repeats conducted at the laboratories’ discretion.
	•For RC sampling, duplicates were collected directly from the cone splitter every 20th
	sample number (5 duplicates per 100 samples). Diamond core field duplicates were
	not taken. Standards were inserted every 25thsample number with the exception of
	numbers ending in “00” (reserved for duplicate in RC sampling). All sample
	despatches had multiple standards inserted.
	•Regular reviews of the sampling were carried out by the supervising geologist and
	senior field staff, to ensure all procedures were followed and best industry practice
	carried out.
	• The sample sizes were considered to be appropriate for the type, style and
	consistency of mineralisation encountered during this phase of exploration.
Quality of	•Notwithstanding the lack of information on WMC laboratory techniques, the assay
assay data and	method and laboratory procedures were appropriate for this style of mineralisation.
laboratory	The fire assay technique was designed to measure total gold in the sample.
tests	•No geophysical tools, spectrometers or handheld XRF instruments were used.
	•The QA/QC process described above was sufficient to establish acceptable levels
	of accuracy and precision. All results from assay standards and duplicates were
	scrutinised to ensure they fell within acceptable tolerances.
	• WMC successfully mined Lancefield main lode for a number of years with
	documented reconciliation numbers. This is taken as an indication that WMC’s drill
	hole sampling and analytical methods were adequate for resource / reserve
	calculation.
Verification of	•Significant intervals were visually inspected by company geologists to correlate
sampling and	assay results to logged mineralisation.
assaying	•Primary data is sent in digital format to the company’s Database Administrator
	(DBA) as often as was practicable. The DBA imports the data into an acQuire
	database, with assay results merged into the database upon receipt from the
	laboratory. Once loaded, data was extracted for verification by the geologist in
	charge of the project.
	•No adjustments were made to any current or historic data. If data could not be
	validated to a reasonable level of certainty it was not used in any resource
	estimations.
Location of	•WMC drill collars would have been surveyed by the site mine surveyors in a local
data points	mine grid. Down hole surveys were by Eastman single and multi-shot camera.
	•GPNL collar survey methods are unknown, down hole surveys were by Eastman
	single shot camera.
	•Metex used Spectrum Surveys of Kalgoorlie to layout the collar locations and survey
	the collar position once completed using established control points around the old
	mine site. Drill core was orientated using a spear system and either an Eastman
	single shot camera or down hole gyroscope tool.
	•FML drill collars were surveyed after completion, using a DGPS instrument. Drill
	core was oriented by the drilling contractor using an Ezy-mark system. A north-
	seeking gyroscope tool was used to survey down hole. Holes were surveyed open-
	hole. Otherwise a single shot Eastman camera downhole survey was used.
	•All coordinates and bearings use the MGA94 Zone 51 grid system.
	• FMLutilisesLandgate sourcedregionaltopographicmaps and contours aswellas

Page 9 of 14

Criteria	Commentary
	internally produced survey pick-ups produced by the mining survey teams utilising
	DGPS base station instruments.
Data spacing	•Drill spacing along the Lancefield trend is irregular, varying from 25m x 50m in the
and	upper middle section to more than 150m x 250m to the south. Numerous “fans”
distribution	have been drilled from underground drive shafts.
Orientation of	•Drilling was designed based on known geological models, field mapping, verified
data in relation	historical data and cross-sectional interpretation.
to geological	•Drill holes were oriented at right angles to strike of deposit, with dip optimised for
structure	drill capabilities and the dip of the ore body.
Sample	•All samples were reconciled against the sample submission with any omissions or
security	variations reported to FML.
	• All samples were bagged in a tied numbered calico bag, grouped into green plastic
	bags. The bags were placed into bulka bags with a sample submission sheet and
	kept within the Laverton yard until ready for transport to Kalgoorlie by transport
	courier.
	•Historic sample security is not recorded.
Audits or	•After Metex Resources acquired the WMC data, a thorough data validation of the
reviews	WMC GEOVIA SurpacTMdatabase against raw data hard copy information and
	Eastman photographic survey shots was conducted in the mid 1990’s. Focus
	Minerals has purchased the Metex validated database and associated hard copies
	as part of the Lancefield project acquisition.

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results

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

Criteria	Commentary
Mineral	•All exploration was conducted on tenements 100% owned by FML or its subsidiary
tenement and	companies Focus Operations Pty Ltd. All tenements are in good standing.
land tenure	•Various royalties may be in place as documented in the FML Annual Report 2016
status	•FML holds Native Title agreements with traditional Landowners.
Exploration	•The Lancefield Project has been historically mined with the bulk of the development
done by other	by WMC from 1980 to 1994 (when the mine closed) by both underground and surface
parties	mining of the Main Lode and West Lode Horizons. The area consists of numerous
	open pits and underground workings, including Lancefield open pit, South Lancefield
	open pit and Telegraph open pit. Underground activities focused on the Main Lode
	and Main Lode Deeps which were mined using both shaft and decline access. The
	maximum vertical depth of development is 830m. Production figures quoted in the
	Metex Resources NL, Annual Technical Report 1996-1997, state “WMC produced
	3.72Mt @ 6.59g/t, with 3.23Mt @ 6.77g/t produced from the underground mining
	operation” (Johnson, 1997).
	•GPNL held the prospecting tenements and later combined Mining Lease for the
	ground immediately south of WMC’s operating Lancefield mine. From mid-1987 to
	mid-1988 they successfully completed 3 diamond holes designed to test the down dip
	extension of the Lancefield Deeps.
	•Metex acquired the Lancefield tenements from WMC in November 1995 and drilled 3
	deep diamond holes (with 2 “daughter” holes wedged off the main hole traces).
	•The ground was subsequently acquired by Crescent Gold NL in June 2010 before
	being taken over by Focus Minerals Laverton in October 2012.
Geology	•The geological setting at Lancefield is that of a basal komatiite overlain by tholeiitic
	basalt and gabbro units with carbonaceous shale interflow sediments. The ultramafic /
	mafic package is overlain by a sedimentary pile, commencing with a basal
	conglomeratic unit that is overlain by pelitic and arenaceous sediments.
	•MineralisationatLancefield occurswithinstackedinterflowsedimentswithinthemafic

Page 10 of 14

• Criteria Commentary units. The sediments appear to have localised mineralised thrust structures, becoming silicified and sulphidic. Grade and alteration is most intense at the southern end of the Lancefield workings, with the interflow sediments being increasingly carbonaceous to the north. The high-grade shoots are spatially related to footwall flexures that in turn relate to syenite intrusives in the ultramafic footwall.

• • The Main Lode is characterised by silica – carbonate – sulphide replacement of carbonaceous shales, hanging wall basalt and footwall gabbro. Gold is associated with arsenopyrite – pyrrhotite – pyrite – quartz – carbonate – chlorite veins in the late stage brittle fracturing of the silicified host. There is a strong As – Ag correlation with gold (also Cu – Zn in the upper levels of the mine). Gold in the Main Lode is generally as fine sulphide occluded elemental grains within arsenopyrite. To the north, the lode style has less arsenopyrite and is more banded. The high-grade shoots becoming more localised.

• Drill hole • Historic Lancefield drilling information has been validated against publicly available Information WAMEX reports. Not all drill holes can be found referenced in the WAMEX reports. However, cross-checking of original drill surveys and paper geology logs was verified against the databased. Most of these holes are in the sub-inferred or mined out part of the resource. Unreferenced data within the Inferred zone is only 8% of the data and consistent with surrounding drill hole information.

Company	Drill Hole Number	WAMEX Report A- Number	Report Date
Metex	MLD01 MLD01W1 MLD02
Resources NL	, , , NMLD01, NMLD01W1	48547	January 1996
Golden Plateau NL	GLD1	23426	1989
	GLD2, GLD3	28728	1989
	LFD069	16961	January1986
	LFD072, 074, 074W1, 074W2, 083	19483	June 1986
	LFD075, 076, 081, 082, 084AW1, 4AW2 A
	08, 085, 086, 087, 088, 088W1, 088W2, 089A, 090A, 092 092W1 093 094 096	22649	January 1988
	, , , , , 096W1
Western	LFD097, 098; LFU050-02, 960- 01, 960-02, 960-03, 960-04, 960-
Mining Corporation Ltd	05, 960-06, 960-07, 960-08	32929	March 1991
	ASSAY ONLY: LFU050-01, 056- 05, 056-06, 056-07, 233-01, 233- 02, 233-03, 248-01, 248-02,
	LFU941-01, 941-02, 941-03, 941- 04 942-01 942-02 942-03 942-
	, , , , 04, 942-05, 942-06	42284	September 1994
	ASSAY ONLY: LFU9801-01, 9801-02, 9801-03, 102-01, 102- 02, 110-01, 110-02, 170-03, 233- 04, 233-05, 876-03, 876-04, 876- 05

• FML drilled 5 holes at Lancefield in mid-2017, 2 RC holes and 3 RC/DD holes of these 2 RC/DD holes (LFRD012, 014) were used in the estimation.

Page 11 of 14

Criteria
		Commentary
			ASX Release Date 25-Jul-17
	Drill Hole Number	ASX Release Title	ASX Release Date
	LFRC015, 026 LFRD012, 013, 014	Operational Update	25-Jul-17
Data aggregation methods •Mineralised intersections are reported at a 2g/t Au cut-off, composited to 1m for diamond holes.
Relationship between mineralisatio n widths and intercept lengths •Holes were drilled orthogonal to mineralisation as much as possible, however the exact relationship between intercept width and true width cannot be estimated exactly in all cases.
Diagrams •Refer to Figures and Tables in body of the release.
Balanced reporting •Historic drill hole results available on WAMEX. •FML drill hole data is available in the previous drill hole information table.
Other substantive exploration data • There is no other material exploration data to report.
Further work • The company is further reviewing the exploration results.
Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources (Criteria listed in section 1, and where relevant in section 2, also apply to this section)
Criteria Commentary
Database integrity •FML data was geologically logged electronically, collar and downhole surveys were also received electronically as was the laboratory analysis results. These electronic files were loaded into an acQuire database by the company in-house Database Administrator. • FML’s database is a Microsoft SQL Server database (acQuire), which is case sensitive, relational and normalised to the Third Normal Form. As a result of normalisation, the following data integrity categories exist: • Entity Integrity: no duplicate rows in a table, eliminated redundancy and chance of error. • Domain Integrity: Enforces valid entries for a given column by restricting the type, the format or a range of values. • Referential Integrity: Rows cannot be deleted which are used by other records. • User-Defined Integrity: business rules enforced by acQuire and validation codes set up by FML. •Additionally, in-house validation scripts are routinely run in acQuire on FML’s database and they include the following checks: • Missing collar information • Missing logging, sampling, downhole survey data and hole diameter • Overlappingintervalsingeological logging, sampling, down hole surveys

Page 12 of 14

Criteria	Commentary
	o Checks for character data in numeric fields
	•Data extracted from the database were validated visually in GEOVIA SurpacTM
	software and ARANZ Geo Leapfrog software. Also, when loading the data any errors
	regarding missing values and overlaps are highlighted.
	•Historic data has been validated against WAMEX reports where possible.
Site visits	•Jeff Ion, the Competent Person for Sections 1 and 2 of Table 1 is FML’s Principal
	Geologist via his contracting company Jeffrey Geo Pty Ltd, conducts regular site
	visits.
	•Hannah Kosovich is FML’s Resource Geologist and has visited Lancefield in 2014.
	•Michael Job, the Competent Person for Section 3 of Table 1 is Principal Consultant
	with Cube Consulting, an independent mineral industry consulting group.
Geological	•All available drill hole and historic mining data was used to guide the geological
interpretation	interpretation of the mineralisation.
	•The mineralised geological interpretation was digitized in GEOVIA SurpacTMsoftware
	on a section by section basis. An approximate 2g/t cut-off was used, infrequently sub
	2g/t samples were included for continuity. The logging of sediments and sulphides
	also guided the interpretation.
	•Minor deviation only of the lode geometry was noticed between drill holes along strike
	and down-dip.This is evident by the old WMC underground development.
Dimensions	•The entire Lancefield deposit strikes NS with a total strike length of over 1.5km. The
	main lode of mineralisation has been modelled to approximately 1.5km below
	surface, the bulk of the main lode sits approx. 300m beneath surface. Mineralisation
	has an average width of 3-5m.
Estimation	•Diamond holes were used in the estimation. In total 108 holes were used in the
and	estimate; 50 diamond holes, most with an RC pre-collar (RCDD) and 58 Underground
modelling	diamond holes. The two “daughter” holes drilled by Metex have been counted as
techniques	separate drill holes as they have unique hole id’s. This includes 2 of the 5 holes
	discussed in section 2 of this table.
	•The drill hole samples were composited to 1m within each domain. This is the
	dominant sampling interval.
	•All domain boundaries were considered “hard” boundaries and no drill hole
	information were used by another domain in the estimation.
	•Composited assay values of each domain were exported to a text file (.csv) and
	imported into Snowden Supervisor for geostatistical analysis.
	•A review of histograms, probability plots and mean/variance plots for the main lode
	domain revealed no significant outlier sample values. Therefore, no top-capping of
	the gold values was undertaken in the estimation.
	•The data was declustered in Supervisor using a cell weighted approach.
	•Variograms were modelled in Supervisor.
	•GEOVIA SurpacTMSoftware was used for the estimation and modelling process. The
	model was created in GDA 94 grid co-ordinates. Block sizes for the model were
	12.5m in Y, 6m in X and 6m in Z direction. Sub celling of the parent blocks was
	permitted to 3.125m in the Y direction, 1.5m in the X direction and 1.5m in the Z
	direction. Sub-blocking was used to best fill the wireframes and inherit the grade of
	the parent block. No rotation was applied to the orientation of the blocks.
	•Block size is approximately ½ of the average drill hole spacing along strike and
	across strike to best fill the wireframe volume.
	•An Ordinary Kriging (OK) estimation technique was selected and used the
	variograms modelled in Supervisor.
	•Minimum (8) and maximum (20) samples were selected based on a Kriging
	Neighbourhood analysis in Supervisor.
	•An elliptical search was used based on range/ratio of the Variograms.
	•Three search passes were run in order to fill the block model with estimated Au
	values. After each search pass the search range was doubled and in the third search
	pass minimum number of samples was decreased.
	•The estimate was validated by a number of methods. An initial visual review was
	done bycomparingestimated blocks and raw drill holes.

Page 13 of 14

Criteria		Commentary
	•	Tonnage weighted mean grades were compared for the Main Lode with no major
		differences.
	•	Swath plots of drill hole values and estimated Au grades by northing and RL were run
		for the main domain and showed that the estimated grades honoured the trend of the
		drilling data.
Moisture	•	Tonnages are estimated on a dry basis.
Cut-off	•	The Mineral Resources for Lancefield have been reported above a 4g/t Au cut-off.
parameters
Mining	•	The majority of the Lancefield deposit would most likely be mined by underground
factors or		mine methods.
assumptions
Metallurgical	•	Metex commissioned metallurgical studies and the production records of WMC
factors or		document plant recoveries. The Main Lode of Lancefield is known to be sulphide
assumptions		refractory.
Environmenta	•	Lancefield deposit occurs in a historic mining centre with both open cut and
l factors or		underground workings in the area.
assumptions
Bulk density	•	Specific gravity measurements were taken on select core samples during the Metex
		deep diamond drilling program of 1995, (Little, 1996). Based on the test work an
		average SG for the Main Lode of 2.86 has been applied to the block model.
Classification	•	Mineral Resources have been classified as Inferred.
Audits or	•	Cube Consulting worked with and reviewed/critiqued FML’s work on the geological
reviews		interpretation, estimation methodology and parameters, and estimate validation.
		Michael Job from Cube Consulting is satisfied to act as one of the Competent
		Persons for the Mineral Resource estimate.
Discussion of	•	This is addressed in the relevant paragraph on Classification above.
relative	•	The Mineral Resource relates to global tonnage and grade estimates.
accuracy/
confidence

END OF THE ANNOUNCEMENT

Page 14 of 14