GALILEO MINING LTD — Capital/Financing Update 2019

Apr 28, 2019

==> picture [119 x 33] intentionally omitted <==

29 April 2019 ASX: GAL

NEW GOLD TARGET AT EMPIRE ROSE PROSPECT – FRASER RANGE

Corporate Directory

Directors

Non-Executive Chairman Simon Jenkins

Managing Director Brad Underwood

Technical Director Noel O’Brien

Fast Facts
Issued Shares	120.4m
Share Price	$0.13
Market Cap Cash (31/03/19)	$15.7m $8.0m

Projects Norseman Cobalt Project Fraser Range Nickel Project

==> picture [121 x 123] intentionally omitted <==

Highlights

• Review of historic data reveals a high-quality untested gold target, “Yardilla South”, 2km from Galileo’s Empire Rose Prospect

• Anomalous geochemistry in historical drill hole occurs above an untested geophysical target at shallow depth

• Drill testing to be conducted in conjunction with the drilling program at the Empire Rose Prospect scheduled to begin in mid-May

• Planned drilling program consists of 600 metres of RC drilling and 600 metres of diamond drilling to test both the Empire Rose and Yardilla South targets for economic mineralisation

Galileo Mining Ltd (ASX: GAL, “Galileo” or the “Company”) is pleased to announce that a review of historic work undertaken at the Yardilla South Prospect has defined a new drill ready gold target. Yardilla South is just 2km from the Company’s existing Empire Rose nickel-copper target in the Fraser Range Province of Western Australia.

Both prospects will be tested simultaneously with the upcoming drilling program scheduled to commence in mid-May 2019.

Commenting on the upcoming program, Galileo Managing Director Brad Underwood said the Yardilla South and Empire Rose Prospects represent compelling targets with the potential to turn into discoveries.

“Both the Yardilla South and Empire Rose Prospects have geophysical signatures consistent with mineralisation and the targets are further supported by geochemical and petrographical data obtained from drill samples.

Contact Details

T: +61 8 9463 0063 E: info@galmining.com.au W: www.galileomining.com.au

“At Yardilla South we have identified a promising geochemical signature above a geophysical target and expanded our focus in the Fraser Range to include precious metals. The expanded focus complements our nickel-coper exploration at Empire Rose where we have previously reported shallow drill results, including 36m @ 0.2% nickel from 18m[(1)] , along with encouraging geology, suggesting good potential at depth.

(1) Refer to the Company’s ASX announcements dated 30th October 2018 and 21st January 2019 accessible at https://www.asx.com.au/asx/statistics/announcements.do?by=asxCode&asxCode=gal&timeframe=Y&year=2018

==> picture [595 x 25] intentionally omitted <==

Page 1 | 17

==> picture [79 x 123] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [120 x 32] intentionally omitted <==

“The Fraser Range is a fast-developing mineralised province with exceptional promise and we are excited to begin Galileo’s first deep drilling in the area with the chance of making a discovery.”

A review of the Yardilla South prospect has shown that historic drilling did not adequately test a chargeable feature identified from historic Induced Polarisation (IP) geophysical surveying. Galileo has completed an updated interpretation of the IP survey, a re-log of the original RC chips, and petrographic analyses of selected intervals from the historic drilling. YSRC002 was found to contain geochemically anomalous levels of gold, silver, copper, molybdenum, and tellurium, in a banded iron formation host rock (see Appendix 1 for details). These elements are frequently associated with mineralised gold systems occurring in banded iron formations. Petrographic results describe rock types in YSRC002 as reduced iron formation with zones where low zircon coincides with sulphur-chalcophile enrichment, suggesting an exhalative chemical horizon that may be laterally equivalent to massive sulphide mineralisation.

Figure 1 – Yardilla South Prospect cross section through historical drill holes YSRC001 and YSRC002 showing the location of the IP chargeability anomaly and proposed drill hole. Geology has been interpreted from historical surface mapping and drilling information – see Figure 3 for a plan view location of section.

==> picture [462 x 341] intentionally omitted <==

Two lines of historic IP surveying were completed at Yardilla South over the banded iron formation with results showing a significant chargeability high, with an amplitude of 30mV/V, at an estimated depth of 150m. The chargeable zone corresponds to a zone of decreased resistivity/increased conductivity (Figure 2 below).

==> picture [595 x 25] intentionally omitted <==

Page 2 | 17

==> picture [79 x 123] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [120 x 32] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 2 – Observed field data and 3D-Inversion results for the Yardilla South Prospect. The location of the section line is shown in plan view in Figure 3.

==> picture [414 x 158] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [408 x 137] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [402 x 156] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [401 x 132] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [595 x 25] intentionally omitted <==

Page 3 | 17

==> picture [79 x 123] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [120 x 32] intentionally omitted <==

Chargeable and conductive geophysical targets are regularly pursued in mineral exploration due to large accumulations of sulphides, the minerals which can contain target metals, giving a measurable response when a current is passed through the ground during survey work. Galileo considers that the chargeability, geological setting, and anomalous geochemistry at Yardilla South are all positive characteristics which could represent economic sulphide mineralisation at relatively shallow depth.

The Yardilla South target occurs approximately 2km from the Empire Rose target (Figure 3 location plan). Both prospects are only 30km from the operating Nova nickel mine and just 7km from the Eyre Highway (Figure 4). Initial aircore drilling at the Empire Rose prospect returned a best result of 36 metres @ 0.2% nickel from 18 metres. Rock units from the prospect, including fractionated gabbronorite, peridotite and pyroxenite, were described by petrographic analyses indicating the area has potential for magmatic nickel sulphide deposits. An electro-magnetic (EM) survey at Empire Rose defined a conductor at 250 metres depth with a follow up IP survey outlining a coincident chargeable anomaly at the same position.[(1) ]

Figure 3 – Plan view of Empire Rose and Yardilla South drill targets over TMI magnetic image.

==> picture [516 x 355] intentionally omitted <==

(1) Refer to the Company’s ASX announcements dated 30th October 2018 and 21st January 2019 accessible at

https://www.asx.com.au/asx/statistics/announcements.do?by=asxCode&asxCode=gal&timeframe=Y&year=2018

==> picture [595 x 25] intentionally omitted <==

Page 4 | 17

==> picture [79 x 123] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [120 x 32] intentionally omitted <==

Both the Empire Rose and Yardilla South targets will be tested with the upcoming drilling program which is scheduled to begin in mid-May. Reverse circulation (RC) pre-collars will be drilled prior to target testing with diamond core tails. Diamond core drilling is expected to provide a more thorough test of the prospects with detailed information on structure, lithology and rock textures to be used to advance the understanding of potential mineralisation types.

Figure 4 shows the proposed drill hole through the EM conductor and IP chargeable anomaly at the Empire Rose Prospect. Galileo looks forward to updating the market when drilling commences and with drill results as soon as they become available.

Figure 4 – Empire Rose Prospect cross section with EM conductor, IP Target and Planed Drill Hole.

==> picture [502 x 286] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [595 x 25] intentionally omitted <==

Page 5 | 17

==> picture [79 x 123] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [120 x 32] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 5 – Galileo’s Fraser Range tenement holdings (blue) Prospect Locations. Silver Knight and Nova magmatic nickel-copper deposits are shown by mine symbols

==> picture [420 x 606] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [595 x 25] intentionally omitted <==

Page 6 | 17

==> picture [120 x 32] intentionally omitted <==

Competent Person Statement

The information in this report that relates to Exploration Results is based on information compiled by Mr Brad Underwood, a Member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, and a full time employee of Galileo Mining Ltd. Mr Underwood has sufficient experience that is relevant to the styles of mineralisation and types of deposit under consideration, and to the activity being undertaken, to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the “Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves” (JORC Code). Mr Underwood consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears.

Investor information: phone Galileo Mining on + 61 8 9463 0063 or email info@galmining.com.au

Media: David Tasker Managing Director Chapter One Advisors E: dtasker@chapteroneadvisors.com.au T: +61 433 112 936

About Galileo Mining:

Galileo Mining Ltd (ASX: GAL) is focussed on the exploration and development of cobalt and nickel resources in Western Australia. GAL holds tenements near Norseman with over 26,000 tonnes of contained cobalt, and 122,000 tonnes of contained nickel, in JORC compliant resources (see Figure 6 below). GAL also has Joint Ventures with the Creasy Group over tenements in the Fraser Range which are highly prospective for nickelcopper-cobalt sulphide deposits.

Figure 6: JORC Mineral Resource Estimates for the Norseman Cobalt Project (“Estimates”) (refer to ASX “Prospectus” announcement dated May 25[th] 2018 and ASX announcement dated 11[th] December 2018, accessible at http://www.galileomining.com.au/investors/asx-announcements/). Galileo confirms that all material assumptions and technical parameters underpinning the Estimates continue to apply and have not materially changed).

Cut-off Cobalt %	Class	Tonnes Mt		Co		Ni
			%	Tonnes	%	Tonnes
MT THIRSTY SILL
0.06 %	Indicated Inferred Total	10.5 2.0 12.5	0.12 0.11 0.11	12,100 2,200 14,300	0.58 0.51 0.57	60,800 10,200 71,100
MISSION SILL
0.06 %	Inferred	7.7	0.11	8,200	0.45	35,000
GOBLIN
0.06 %	Inferred	4.9	0.08	4,100	0.36	16,400
TOTAL JORC COMPLIANT RESOURCES
0.06 %	Total	25.1	0.11	26,600	0.49	122,500

==> picture [595 x 25] intentionally omitted <==

Page 7 | 17

==> picture [79 x 123] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [120 x 32] intentionally omitted <==

Appendix 1:

YSRC002 Anomalous Geochemistry (Historic)

Hole_ID	From	To	Interval	Au (ppb)	Ag (ppm)	Cu (ppm)	Mo (ppm)	Te (ppm)
YSRC002	16	17	1	279	*BDL	69	2.2	0.12
YSRC002	17	18	1	173	0.09	95	2.2	0.07
YSRC002	18	19	1	26	0.12	152	3.5	0.12
YSRC002	19	20	1	39	0.13	201	2.5	0.14
YSRC002	20	21	1	27	0.15	122	2.4	0.11
YSRC002	21	22	1	22	0.12	132	2.2	0.09
YSRC002	22	23	1	12	0.11	95	1.5	0.29
YSRC002	23	24	1	16	0.11	88	1.5	0.31
YSRC002	24	25	1	20	0.09	56	1.3	0.28
YSRC002	25	26	1	19	0.1	65	2.2	0.28
YSRC002	26	27	1	21	0.14	62	7.6	0.46
YSRC002	27	28	1	25	0.15	79	6.5	0.41
YSRC002	28	29	1	43	0.13	101	16.6	0.52
YSRC002	29	30	1	17	0.09	86	5.3	0.68
YSRC002	30	31	1	13	0.09	93	2.8	0.48
YSRC002	31	32	1	9	0.07	158	3.6	0.46
YSRC002	32	33	1	20	0.07	101	3.5	0.45
YSRC002	33	34	1	12	0.05	101	4	0.36
YSRC002	34	35	1	12	0.05	95	4.4	0.38
YSRC002	35	36	1	15	*BDL	103	4.5	0.32
YSRC002	36	37	1	15	0.56	88	3.8	0.28
YSRC002	37	38	1	22	0.21	75	2.3	0.38
YSRC002	38	39	1	25	0.23	142	3.7	0.5
YSRC002	39	40	1	31	0.12	102	2.8	0.49
YSRC002	40	41	1	38	0.15	118	2.5	0.41
YSRC002	41	42	1	27	0.13	101	2	0.4
YSRC002	42	43	1	15	0.14	107	1.9	0.32
YSRC002	43	44	1	21	0.22	107	3.2	0.47
YSRC002	44	45	1	14	0.44	128	8.2	0.28
YSRC002	45	46	1	22	0.7	202	8.4	0.32
YSRC002	46	47	1	19	0.38	147	10.2	0.29
YSRC002	47	48	1	14	0.31	118	7.8	0.21
YSRC002	48	49	1	21	0.43	168	10.1	0.27
YSRC002	49	50	1	16	0.2	114	3.2	0.42
YSRC002	50	51	1	17	3.31	609	4.6	0.36
YSRC002	51	52	1	26	0.61	222	6.4	0.48
YSRC002	52	53	1	24	0.34	93	5.3	0.47
YSRC002	53	54	1	23	0.29	120	5.6	0.59
YSRC002	54	55	1	17	1.13	452	5.2	0.59
YSRC002	55	56	1	20	0.33	236	4.2	0.5
YSRC002	56	57	1	18	0.25	126	4.2	0.52
YSRC002	57	58	1	21	0.31	189	4.1	0.5
YSRC002	58	59	1	23	0.2	153	3.4	0.46
YSRC002	59	60	1	31	0.26	222	5.5	0.44

==> picture [595 x 25] intentionally omitted <==

Page 8 | 17

	Hole_ID	From	To	Interval	Au (ppb)	Ag (ppm)	Cu (ppm)	Mo (ppm)	Te (ppm)
	YSRC002	60	61	1	27	0.34	256	5	0.45
	YSRC002	61	62	1	24	0.34	299	6.2	0.6
	YSRC002	62	63	1	45	0.56	346	7.1	0.54
	YSRC002	63	64	1	33	0.49	335	9.3	0.49
	YSRC002	64	65	1	47	0.47	318	7.4	0.37
	YSRC002	65	66	1	32	0.33	229	6.9	0.35
	YSRC002	66	67	1	28	0.33	230	6.1	0.48
	YSRC002	67	68	1	18	0.29	202	5.7	0.45
	YSRC002	68	69	1	30	0.37	228	6	0.37
	YSRC002	69	72	3	17	0.24	182	5	0.16
	YSRC002	72	75	3	10	0.21	134	3.3	0.22
	YSRC002	75	78	3	12	0.21	142	3.3	0.16
	YSRC002	78	81	3	9	0.19	124	3	0.16
	YSRC002	81	84	3	9	0.15	112	2.8	0.13
	YSRC002	84	87	3	23	0.25	172	5.6	0.35
	YSRC002	87	90	3	12	0.13	101	1.9	0.2
	YSRC002	90	93	3	12	0.07	98	1.9	0.29
	YSRC002	93	96	3	14	0.13	140	2.6	0.15
	YSRC002	96	99	3	15	0.13	146	1.8	0.16
	YSRC002	99	102	3	15	0.13	149	1.8	0.29
	YSRC002	102	105	3	17	0.15	190	2.2	0.31
	YSRC002	105	108	3	21	0.19	234	2.1	0.37
	YSRC002	108	111	3	12	0.57	120	2	0.13
	YSRC002	111	114	3	15	0.12	138	2	0.24
	YSRC002	114	117	3	24	0.17	175	4.1	0.28
	YSRC002	117	120	3	13	0.15	141	3.3	0.21
	YSRC002	120	123	3	16	0.12	90	2.5	0.42
	YSRC002	123	126	3	17	0.08	119	2	0.3
	YSRC002	126	129	3	21	0.16	200	2.6	0.34
	YSRC002	129	132	3	18	0.16	192	2.6	0.32
	YSRC002	132	135	3	21	0.18	234	3	0.39
	YSRC002	135	138	3	17	0.13	158	3.2	0.31
	YSRC002	138	141	3	18	0.11	126	2.8	0.2
	YSRC002	141	144	3	16	0.08	117	2.5	0.28
	YSRC002	144	145	1	17	0.12	173	3.1	0.22

*BDL = below detection limit for the assay.

Note: Drilling reported is historical and relies upon reports not previously publicly released.

==> picture [595 x 25] intentionally omitted <==

Page 9 | 17

==> picture [79 x 123] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [120 x 32] intentionally omitted <==

Appendix 2:

RC Drillhole Details (Historic)

Hole ID	Prospect	East	North	RL	Dip	Azimuth	Depth
YSRC001	Yardilla South	484221	6464193	430	-60	320	142
YSRC002	Yardilla South	484188	6464231	433	-60	320	145
YSRC003	Yardilla South	484379	6464314	434	-60	320	105

Note: Easting and Northing coordinates are GDA94 Zone 51.

Note: Drilling reported is historical and relies upon reports not previously publicly released.

==> picture [595 x 25] intentionally omitted <==

Page 10 | 17

==> picture [79 x 123] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [120 x 32] intentionally omitted <==

Appendix 3:

Galileo Mining Ltd – Fraser Range Project JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data

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

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Sampling techniques	• Nature and quality of sampling (eg cut channels, random chips, or specific specialised industry standard measurement tools appropriate to the minerals under investigation, such as down hole gamma sondes, or handheld XRF instruments, etc). These examples should not be taken as limiting the broad meaning of sampling. • Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample representivity and the appropriate calibration of any measurement tools or systems used. • Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are Material to the Public Report. • In cases where ‘industry standard’ work has been done this would be relatively simple (eg ‘reverse circulation drilling was used to obtain 1 m samples from which 3 kg was pulverised to produce a 30 g charge for fire assay’). In other cases more explanation may be required, such as where there is coarse gold that has inherent sampling problems. Unusual commodities or mineralisation types (eg submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed information.	•The historical reverse circulation drilling reported in this release was completed to test geochemical and geophysical targets. •Drill cuttings representative of each 1m down hole interval of sample return were collected direct from the drill rig sample return system (cyclone) into green plastic bags. •Each 1m sample pile of each hole was spear sampled to obtain representative 3 metre composite sub-sample for laboratory analysis. •Intercepts of interest were re-sampled as 1m re-splits •Sub-sample weights were in the range 2-3kg. •Certified QAQC standards (blank & reference) and field duplicate samples were included routinely with 1 per 20 primary sub samples being a certified standard, blank or a field duplicate. •Samples were submitted to an independent commercial assay laboratory. •All assay sample preparation comprised oven drying, jaw crushing, pulverising and splitting to a representative assay charge pulp. •One gram of the pulped sample charge was digested using Four Acid and assayed using a 60 element analysis suite (including rare earth elements) by ICP-MS: Ag, As, Ba, Be, Bi, Ca, Cd, Ce, Co, Cr, Cs, Cu, Dy, Er, Eu, Fe, Ga, Gd, Ge, Hf, Ho, In, K, La, Li, Lu, Mg, Mn, Mo, Na, Nb, Nd, Ni, P, Pb, Pr, Rb, Re, S, Sb, Sc, Se, Sm, Sn, Sr, Ta, Tb, Te, Th, Ti, Tl, Tm, U, V, W, Y, Yb, Zn, Zr •Fifty grams of the pulped sample charge was analysed for Au with lead collection fire assay. •Moombarriga GeophysicalSolutions

==> picture [595 x 25] intentionally omitted <==

Page 11 | 17

	Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
			Pty Ltd completed the historical Dipole- Dipole Induced Polarisation (“DDIP”) survey at Yardilla South Prospect. •DDIP data was collected using a dipole-dipole array with a Smartem system. A Zonge GGT10 Transmitter was utilised with a base frequency of 0.125Hz, 100m A spacing and N level of 8. •Modelling and interpretation of the DDIP survey geophysical data was undertaken by Spinifex Geophysics Pty Ltd •Loke 3D software was utilised for inversion modelling and imaging of DDIPdata.
	Drilling techniques	• Drill type (eg core, reverse circulation, open- hole hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc) and details (eg core diameter, triple or standard tube, depth of diamond tails, face- sampling bit or other type, whether core is oriented and if so, by what method, etc).	•Drilling reported is historical and relies upon reports not previously publicly released. •The RC drilling method was used with a 5.5-inch face sampling hammer. •SBD Drilling Pty Ltd was the drilling contractor forthe program.
	Drill sample recovery	• Method of recording and assessing core and chip sample recoveries and results assessed. • Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and ensure representative nature of the samples. • Whether a relationship exists between sample recovery and grade and whether sample bias may have occurred due to preferential loss/gain of fine/coarse material.	•Drilling reported is historical and relies upon reports not previously publicly released. •Sample recoveries were visually estimated for each metre by the geologist supervising the drilling. Poor or wet samples were recorded in the drill and sample log sheets. •The sample cyclone was routinely cleaned between holes and when deemed necessary within the hole. •No relationship has been determined between sample recovery and grade and there is insufficient data to determineifthereis a sample bias.
	Logging	• Whether core and chip samples have been geologically and geotechnically logged to a level of detail to support appropriate Mineral Resource estimation, mining studies and metallurgical studies. • Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc) photography. • The total length and percentage of the relevant _intersections logged. _	•Drilling reported is historical and relies upon reports not previously publicly released. •No geological logging data is available. •Drill chips were retained for all 1m sample intervals in the chip trays and have been reviewed by Galileo Mining Limited Geologists.
	Sub-sampling techniques and sample preparation	• If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, half or all core taken. • If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc and whether sampled wet or dry. • For all sample types, the nature, quality and	•Drilling reported is historical and relies upon reports not previously publicly released. •All RC drill samples were collected using a PVC spear as 3m composites (2-3kg). One-metre interval re-splits

==> picture [595 x 25] intentionally omitted <==

Page 12 | 17

	Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		appropriateness of the sample preparation technique. • Quality control procedures adopted for all sub- sampling stages to maximise representivity of samples. • Measures taken to ensure that the sampling is representative of the in situ material collected, including for instance results for field duplicate/second-half sampling. • Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the _grainsize of the material being sampled. _	were collected through zones of interest as identified by the geologist supervising the program. •QAQC reference samples and duplicates were routinely submitted with each batch. •The sample size is considered appropriate for the mineralisation style, application and analytical techniques used.
	Quality of assay data and laboratory tests	• The nature, quality and appropriateness of the assaying and laboratory procedures used and whether the technique is considered partial or total. • For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF instruments, etc, the parameters used in determining the analysis including instrument make and model, reading times, calibrations factors applied and their derivation, etc. • Nature of quality control procedures adopted (eg standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (ie lack of bias) and precision have been established.	•Drilling reported is historical and relies upon reports not previously publicly released. •RC composite samples were analysed for a multielement suite (60 elements) by ICP-MS following four acid digest. •The assay methods used are considered appropriate. •QAQC material was routinely included at a rate of 1 per 20 samples for standards and 1 per 50 samples for duplicates. •Further internal laboratory QAQC procedures included internal batch standards and blanks •Sample preparation was completed at Intertek-Genalysis Laboratory, (Kalgoorlie) with digest and assay conducted by Intertek-Genalysis Laboratory Services (Perth). Using fire assay (for Au), and four acid followed byICP-MS (for60 element suite)
	Verification of sampling and assaying	• The verification of significant intersections by either independent or alternative company personnel. • The use of twinned holes. • Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data verification, data storage (physical and electronic) protocols. • Discuss any adjustment to assay data.	•Drilling reported is historical and relies upon reports not previously publicly released. •Field data was collected on site using a standard set of logging templates and entered directly into a laptop computer. Data was then sent to the database manager for validation and upload into the database. The historical assay database has been merged into the Galileo Mining Ltd database (managed by Galileo’s database consultant- CSA Global). •Assays are as stored in the historical database. Assays from this source havenot beenadjustedinanyway.
	Location of data points	• Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drill holes (collar and down-hole surveys), trenches, mine workings and other locations used in Mineral Resource estimation. • Specification of the grid system used.	•Drilling reported is historical and relies upon reports not previously publicly released. •RC drill hole collars were surveyed with a handheld GPS with an accuracy of +/-5m which is considered sufficient

==> picture [595 x 25] intentionally omitted <==

Page 13 | 17

	Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		• Quality and adequacy of topographic control.	for drill hole location accuracy. •Co-ordinates are in GDA94 datum, Zone 51. •Downhole depths are in metres from surface. •Topographic control has an accuracy of 2m based on detailed satellite imagery derivedDTM.
	Data spacing and distribution	• Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results. • Whether the data spacing and distribution is sufficient to establish the degree of geological and grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve estimation procedure(s) and classifications applied. • Whether sample compositing has been applied.	•Drilling reported is historical and relies upon reports not previously publicly released. •RC collar spacing is not regular, the holes being placed to target surface geochemical anomalies. •Drill spacing between holes was dependent on the target zone and ongoing observations from the geologist during the drilling program. This spacing has been deemed adequate for first pass assessment only and is not considered sufficient to determine a JORC Compliant Inferred Resources and therefore laboratory assay results and additional drilling would be required. •Drill holes were sampled on a 3m composite basis and as 1m re-splits in areas of interest.
	Orientation of data in relation to geological structure	• Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased sampling of possible structures and the extent to which this is known, considering the deposit type. • If the relationship between the drilling orientation and the orientation of key mineralised structures is considered to have introduced a sampling bias, this should be assessed and reported if material.	•Drilling reported is historical and relies upon reports not previously publicly released. •All holes were drilled at minus 60 degrees dip to the north-west. •It is unknown whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased sampling of possible structures as the target setting is hosted in soft regolith material with no measurable structures recorded in drill core. •No quantitative measurements of mineralised zones/structures exist and all drill intercepts are reported as down hole length, true width unknown. Blade refusal depth of the drill rig will vary due to rock type, structure and alteration intersected as well as in-hole drilling conditions.
	Sample security	• The measures taken to ensure sample security.	•Drilling reported is historical and relies upon reports not previously publicly released. •Each sub-sample was put into and tied off inside a calico bag. •Several of the samples were placed in a large plastic “polyweave” bag which are then ziptied closed,for transport to

==> picture [595 x 25] intentionally omitted <==

Page 14 | 17

	Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
			laboratory analysis no loss of material. •Laboratory analysis samples were delivered directly to the laboratory in Kalgoorlie by Dunstan Holdings Pty Ltd employees.
	Audits or reviews	• The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data.	•Continuous improvement internal reviews of sampling techniques and procedures are ongoing. No external auditshave beenperformed.

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results

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

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Mineral tenement and land tenure status	• Type, reference name/number, location and ownership including agreements or material issues with third parties such as joint ventures, partnerships, overriding royalties, native title interests, historical sites, wilderness or national park and environmental settings. • The security of the tenure held at the time of reporting along with any known impediments to obtaining a licence to operate in the area.	•The Fraser Range Project comprises four granted exploration licenses, covering 492km2 •Kitchener JV tenement E28/2064 (67% NSZ Resources Pty Ltd, 33% Great Southern Nickel Pty Ltd). •Yardilla JV tenements: E63/1539, E63/1623, E63/1624 (67% FSZ Resources Pty Ltd, 33% Dunstan Holdings Pty Ltd) •NSZ Resources Pty Ltd & FSZ Resources Pty Ltd are wholly owned subsidiaries of Galileo Mining Ltd. •Great Southern Nickel Pty Ltd and Dunstan Holdings Pty Ltd are entities of Mark Creasy •The Kitchener Area is approximately 250km east of Kalgoorlie on vacant crown land and on the Boonderoo Pastoral Station. •The Yardilla Area is approximately 90km east of Norseman on vacant crown land and on the Fraser Range Pastoral Station. •Both the Kitchener Area and the Yardilla Area are 100% covered by the Ngadju Native Title Determined Claim. •The tenements are in good standing and there are no known impediments.
Exploration done by other parties	• Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties.	•Historical RC drilling discussed in this release was completed by Dunstan Holdings Pty Ltd in 2013. •Historical dipole-dipole IP geophysical surveys discussed in this release were completed by Dunstan Holdings Pty Ltd in 2012.
Geology	• Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation.	•The Yardilla South Prospect target geology is indicative of orogenic Au mineralisation hosted in banded iron formation. •The Empire Rose target geology is indicative of magmatic sulphide mineralisation hosted in mafic- ultramafic intrusions within the Fraser Complex of the Albany-Fraser Orogeny. •The underlying unweathered lithology is granulite faciesmetamorphosed and partiallyretrogressed

==> picture [595 x 25] intentionally omitted <==

Page 15 | 17

	Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
			sedimentary, mafic and ultramafic igneous rocks as determined by petrographic work.
	Drill hole Information	• A summary of all information material to the understanding of the exploration results including a tabulation of the following information for all Material drill holes: o easting and northing of the drill hole collar o elevation or RL (Reduced Level – elevation above sea level in metres) 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.	•Drilling reported is historical and relies upon reports not previously publicly released. •Refer to drill hole collar and assay reporting table in the Appendices 1 and 2 of this report
	Data aggregation methods	• In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging techniques, maximum and/or minimum grade truncations (eg cutting of high grades) and cut-off grades are usually Material and should be stated. • Where aggregate intercepts incorporate short lengths of high grade results and longer lengths of low grade results, the procedure used for such aggregation should be stated and some typical examples of such aggregations should be shown in detail. • The assumptions used for any reporting of metal equivalent values should be clearly stated.	•Assay results are presented in Appendix 1 for individual one metre samples. No averaging, cutting or intercept calculations have been made.
	Relationship between mineralisation widths and intercept lengths	• These relationships are particularly important in the reporting of Exploration Results. • If the geometry of the mineralisation with respect to the drill hole angle is known, its nature should be reported. • If it is not known and only the down hole lengths are reported, there should be a clear statement to this effect (eg ‘down hole length, true	•No core drilling has been completed to determine mineralised orientations. •It is unknown whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased sampling of possible structures. •No measurable structure orientations are recorded in drilling. •No quantitative measurements of mineralised zones/structures exist, and all assays are reported as individual assays for down-hole metre intervals.

==> picture [595 x 25] intentionally omitted <==

Page 16 | 17

	Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		width not known’).
	Diagrams	• Appropriate maps and sections (with scales) and tabulations of intercepts should be included for any discovery being reported These should include, but not be limited to a plan view of drill hole collar locations and appropriate _sectional views. _	•Project location map, plan map and section map of the drill hole locations with respect to each other and with respect to other available data. •Drill hole locations have been determined with hand-held GPS drill hole collar location (Garmin GPS 78s) +/- 5m in X/Y/Z dimensions
	Balanced reporting	• Where comprehensive reporting of all Exploration Results is not practicable, representative reporting of both low and high grades and/or widths should be practiced to avoid misleading _reporting of Exploration Results. _	•All available relevant information is presented.
	Other substantive exploration data	• Other exploration data, if meaningful and material, should be reported including (but not limited to): geological observations; geophysical survey results; geochemical survey results; bulk samples – size and method of treatment; metallurgical test results; bulk density, groundwater, geotechnical and rock characteristics; potential deleterious or contaminating substances.	•Detailed 50m line spaced aeromagnetic data has been used for interpretation of underlying geology. Data was collected using a Geometrics G-823 Caesium vapor magnetometer at an average flying height of 30m. •Moombarriga Geophysical Solutions Pty Ltd completed the historical Dipole-Dipole Induced Polarisation (“DDIP”) survey at Yardilla South Prospect. •DDIP data was collected using a dipole-dipole array with a Smartem system. A Zonge GGT10 Transmitter was utilised with a base frequency of 0.125Hz, 100m A spacing and N level of 8. •Original modelling and interpretation of the 2012 DDIP survey geophysical data was undertaken by Spinifex Geophysics Pty Ltd •Re-modelling and interpretation of the 2012 DDIP survey geophysical data was undertaken by Terra Resources Pty Ltd •Petrography was undertaken by R.N. England Consulting Geologist. •Previously reported activities refer to ASX announcements on www.galileomining.com.au
	Further work	• The nature and scale of planned further work (eg tests for lateral extensions or depth extensions or large-scale step-out drilling). • Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions, including the main geological interpretations and future drilling areas, provided this information is _not commercially sensitive. _	•RC and Diamond core drilling is planned at Yardilla South and Empire Rose Prospects based on the results of geophysical surveys (IP and EM) and historical RC drilling results from Yardilla South. •Downhole EM surveys area planned for all holes to be drilled in the proposed program.

==> picture [595 x 25] intentionally omitted <==

Page 17 | 17