GALILEO MINING LTD — Capital/Financing Update 2020

May 18, 2020

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

19 May 2020

ASX: GAL

NEW NICKEL TARGETS EXPAND FRASER RANGE EXPLORATION

Corporate Directory

Directors

Chairman & Managing Director Brad Underwood

Technical Director Noel O’Brien

Non-Executive Director Mathew Whyte

Highlights

• Petrography results from reconnaissance aircore drilling identifies nickel prospective rocks beneath shallow cover

• Drilling results combined with magnetic data show three intrusions which have been named Think Big, Backwood and Green Moon

• Search area around the Lantern intrusion has increased substantially in size to 10km by 8km

• Extensive ground electro-magnetic surveys aiming to directly detect sulphide mineralisation are planned to cover the new prospective zones

Projects

Fraser Range Project Nickel-Copper

Norseman Project Cobalt-Nickel-Copper

==> picture [121 x 122] intentionally omitted <==

Contact Details

T: +61 8 9463 0063 E: info@galmining.com.au W: www.galileomining.com.au 13 Colin St, West Perth, WA

• Aircore drilling at the Lantern Prospect is ongoing with approximately 5,500 metres completed of a planned 8,000 metre program

Galileo Mining Ltd (ASX: GAL, “Galileo” or the “Company”) is pleased to announce the development of new nickel targets in the highly prospective Fraser Range region of Western Australia.

Petrographic rock description of samples from reconnaissance aircore drilling combined with detailed magnetic data shows the presence of three new intrusions. These intrusions, which have been named Think Big, Backwood and Green Moon, have the potential to host magmatic nickel mineralisation under shallow cover rock ranging from 17 metres to 92 metres below surface.

A high-powered ground electro-magnetic (EM) survey is being planned to cover the newly identified intrusions with the intention of defining zones of potential nickel mineralisation.

Commenting on the new targets Galileo Managing Director Brad Underwood said: “Our recent $5 million placement has allowed us to expand the amount of exploration we are undertaking in the Fraser Range. We have now substantially increased the search space around our Lantern Prospect and have the funds to effectively explore the entire area over the next six to twelve months. Our Fraser Range ground has never before been explored for nickel and the significant chance of a high value discovery makes this is an exciting time to be investing in the area.”

==> picture [594 x 25] intentionally omitted <==

Page 1 | 15

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

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

Figure 1 – Three New Prospects (Think Big, Backwood and Green Moon) in the Fraser Range Lantern Area with Magnetic Background Image (TMI)

==> picture [433 x 630] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [594 x 25] intentionally omitted <==

Page 2 | 15

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

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

Petrography results from bottom-of-hole aircore drill holes show the composition of the target basement rock beneath sedimentary cover material. For the drill holes completed at the newly named Green Moon, Backwood and Think Big prospects, the cover rock varied between 17 metres and 92 metres. Beneath the cover rock the basement is uniformly Proterozoic in age with mafic-ultramafic rock units intruding into a predominantly mafic granulite host rock.

Samples of fresh rock (or near to fresh) from the Proterozoic basement were sent for petrographical analysis where the samples were sliced, polished and described under the microscope. Minerals occurring within the samples and their relationship to each other were then observed to determine their provenance and prospectivity for nickel sulphide mineralisation.

Drill holes at the Think Big, Backwood and Green Moon Prospect were found to have intersected mafic or ultramafic rocks with the shape of the intrusions interpreted as shown in Figure 1. A summary of bottom-ofhole lithology types is included in the table in Appendix 1.

Figure 2 – Reconnaissance Aircore Drilling at the Think Big Prospect in the Fraser Range

==> picture [489 x 309] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [594 x 25] intentionally omitted <==

Page 3 | 15

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

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

Mafic and ultramafic intrusive rocks are critical in exploration for the type of deposits described as “magmatic nickel sulphides” which occur at the Fraser Range. The best-known example of magmatic nickel sulphide in the Fraser Range is the currently operating Nova Nickel Mine. At this location nickel mineralisation is intimately associated with mafic and ultramafic intrusions.[(1)]

The discovery of the Nova deposit utilised ground electro-magnetic (EM) surveys to define key target locations. The EM surveys were conducted after drilling showed disseminated sulphides in mafic intrusive rocks.[ (1)] Galileo is following a similar exploration methodology with drilling used to demonstrate the occurrence of nickel prospective rocks prior to EM surveying. EM surveying at Galileo’s new prospects aims to directly detect zones of sulphide mineralisation. Figure 1 shows the expanded EM search area over the new prospects at Think Big, Backwood and Green Moon.

Upcoming work programs planned at the Think Big, Backwood and Green Moon Prospects include:

• Electro-magnetic surveying of prospective zones aiming to define conductors for drill testing;

• Additional aircore drilling to delineate the near surface boundaries of the prospective intrusive rocks; and

• Reverse circulation (RC) and diamond drill testing of targets defined by EM surveying and shallow drilling

Galileo is also pleased to report that aircore drilling is progressing well at the Lantern South prospect with over 5,500 metres completed of a planned 8,000 metre program. The drilling at Lantern South is following up on initial RC drilling results of 12 metres @ 0.38% nickel and 0.33% copper in LARC003.[ (2)] The occurrence of mineralisation at Lantern South shows the potential of the rocks in the area to host nickel-copper sulphides.

Upcoming work programs planned at the Lantern Prospect include:

• Completion of aircore drilling program (5,500 of 8,000 metres drilled to date);

• Fixed loop electro-magnetic (FLEM) surveying of prospective zones defined from the current aircore drilling and from the 2019 MLEM survey (see Figure 3); and

• Reverse circulation (RC) and diamond drill testing of targets defined by EM surveying and shallow drilling

• (1) Refer to Parker et al. “Nova-Bollinger Ni-Cu-Co sulphide deposit” in Phillips, G.N. (ed), 2017. Australian Ore Deposits (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne)

(2) Refer to the Company’s ASX announcement dated 17th March 2020, accessible at

==> picture [594 x 25] intentionally omitted <==

https://www.asx.com.au/asx/statistics/announcements.do?by=asxCode&asxCode=GAL&timeframe=Y&year=2020

Page 4 | 15

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

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

Figure 3 – Lantern North and South Prospects with surface MLEM image (channel 36) on left hand side and detailed TMI magnetic image on right hand side.

==> picture [243 x 358] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [242 x 358] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3 shows the response from ground moving loop EM surveying over the 2km by 2.3km Lantern intrusion (left image) with the image on the right clearly depicting the magnetic response. The best targets identified to date are on the margins of the intrusion, particularly at Lantern South, where ultramafic cumulate rocks containing sulphides have been drilled. The western and eastern flanks of the intrusion have yet to be drill tested and represent compelling targets based on available results. A first pass line of aircore drilling on the western flank of the large intrusion is included in the current aircore program.

==> picture [594 x 25] intentionally omitted <==

Page 5 | 15

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

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

Figure 4 – Galileo Prospect Locations in the Fraser Range Nickel Belt

==> picture [485 x 628] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [594 x 25] intentionally omitted <==

Page 6 | 15

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

Competent Person Statement

The information in this report that relates to Exploration Results is based on, and fairly represents, information and supporting documentation prepared 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.

With regard to the Company’s ASX Announcements referenced in the above Announcement, the Company is not aware of any new information or data that materially affects the information included in the Announcements.

Authorised for release by the Galileo Board of Directors.

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 nickel, copper and cobalt 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 5 below). GAL also has Joint Ventures with the Creasy Group over tenements in the Fraser Range which are highly prospective for nickel-copper-cobalt sulphide deposits.

Figure 5: 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 [594 x 25] intentionally omitted <==

Page 7 | 15

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

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

Appendix 1:

Aircore Drillhole Details

Hole ID	Prospect	East	North	RL	Dip	Azimuth	Depth	Lithology
LAAC084	Green Moon	609494	6553106	189	-90	Vertical	99	Mafic granulite
LAAC085	Green Moon	609499	6552703	189	-90	Vertical	104	Mafic granulite
LAAC086	Green Moon	609496	6552300	189	-90	Vertical	94	Gabbronorite
LAAC087	Green Moon	609497	6551907	191	-90	Vertical	99	Coarse mafic
LAAC088	Green Moon	609487	6551496	191	-90	Vertical	97	Weathered mafic
LAAC089	Think Big	605429	6557772	189	-90	Vertical	82	Gneiss
LAAC090	Think Big	605705	6557480	150	-90	Vertical	119	Mafic granulite
LAAC091	Think Big	606020	6557205	191	-90	Vertical	110	Mafic-ultramafic cumulate
LAAC092	Think Big	606313	6556939	183	-90	Vertical	103	High Mg mafic granulite
LAAC093	Think Big	606649	6556665	182	-90	Vertical	87	Mafic gneiss
LAAC094	Think Big	606950	6556409	181	-90	Vertical	54	Mafic gneiss
LAAC095	Think Big	607212	6556132	183	-90	Vertical	60	Mafic gneiss
LAAC096	Think Big	607533	6555844	188	-90	Vertical	69	Mafic gneiss
LAAC097	Think Big	607836	6555642	191	-90	Vertical	39	Meta-sediment
LAAC098	Think Big	608121	6555363	212	-90	Vertical	38	Felsic gneiss
LAAC099	Backwood	608399	6555073	198	-90	Vertical	42	Felsic gneiss
LAAC100	Backwood	608760	6554797	190	-90	Vertical	26	High Mg mafic granulite
LAAC101	Backwood	609058	6554555	198	-90	Vertical	61	Gabbronorite
LAAC102	Think Big	607607	6555392	192	-90	Vertical	57	Mafic gneiss
LAAC103	Think Big	607195	6555400	187	-90	Vertical	45	Meta-gabbro
LAAC104	Think Big	606819	6555417	189	-90	Vertical	52	Gneiss
LAAC105	Think Big	606388	6555410	188	-90	Vertical	70	Mafic gneiss
LAAC106	Backwood	607615	6554163	196	-90	Vertical	53	Gabbronorite
LAAC107	Backwood	608004	6554158	183	-90	Vertical	58	Mafic gneiss

Note: Easting and Northing coordinates are GDA94 Zone 51.

==> picture [594 x 25] intentionally omitted <==

Page 8 | 15

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

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

Appendix 2:

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.	•Aircore drilling was completed on traverses testing aeromagnetic or/and ground-based gravity 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 a 20-litre plastic bucket and ground dumped in rows. •Each 1m sample pile from the residual (non-transported) portion of each hole was spear sampled to obtain representative 1 metre sub-samples to end of hole for laboratory analysis. A 1m bottom of hole sub-sample was also collected for laboratory analysis. •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. •A 25g pulped sample charge was digested using Aqua Regia (AR25/MS33) and ICP-MS was used to determine a 33 element suite: Au, Ag, Al, As, B, Ba, Bi, Ca, Cd, Ce, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, K, La, Mg, Mn, Mo, Na, Ni, P, Pb, S, Sb, Sc, Sr, Te, Ti, Tl, V, W, Zn. •An additional single metre sample of the last metre (EOH) drilled in each hole was spear sampled to obtain a representative sample for analyses. •A 50g pulped sample charge from the EOH sample was assayed by Fire Assay, ICP-MS determination (FA50/MS) for Au, Pt, Pd. •A 1g pulped sample chargefromthe

==> picture [594 x 25] intentionally omitted <==

Page 9 | 15

	Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
			EOH sample was digested using Four Acid (4A/MS48) and assayed using a 48 element analysis suite: Ag, Al, As, Ba, Be, Bi, Ca, Cd, Ce, Co, Cr, Cs, Cu, Fe, Ga, Ge, Hf, In, K, La, Li, Mg, Mn, Mo, Na, Nb, Ni, P, Pb, Rb, Re, S, Sb, Sc, Se, Sn, Sr, Ta, Te, Th, Ti, Tl, U, V, W,Y,Zn,ZrbyICP-MS.
	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 ifso, by what method, etc). _	•The Aircore drilling method was used with an 85mm blade bit. •KTE Mining was the drilling contractor for the program utilising a KL150 model rig.
	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.	•Sample recoveries are visually estimated for each metre by the geologist supervising the drilling. Poor or wet samples are 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.	•Geological logging of drill holes was done on a visual basis with logging including lithology, grainsize, mineralogy, texture, deformation, mineralisation, alteration, veining, colour and weathering. •Logging of drill chips is semi- quantitative and based on the presentation of representative drill chips retained for all 1m sample intervals in the chip trays. •All drill holes were logged in their entirety
	Sub-sampling techniques and sample preparation	• If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, half or all core taken. • If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc and whether sampled wet or dry. • For all sample types, the nature, quality and appropriateness of the sample preparation technique. • Quality control procedures adopted for all sub- sampling stages to maximise representivity of samples. • Measures taken to ensure that the sampling is representative of the in situ material collected, including for instance results for field duplicate/second-half sampling. • Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the	•All Aircore drill samples were collected using a PVC spear as 3m composites (2-3kg). Other composites of 2m and 1m were collected where required ie, at the bottom of hole or through zones of interest as identified by the geologist supervising the program. A specific 1m bottom of hole sub-sample was also collected by PVC Spear (2-3kg). •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.
		Page 10	15

==> picture [594 x 25] intentionally omitted <==

	Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		_grainsize of the material being sampled. _
	Quality of assay data and laboratory tests	• The nature, quality and appropriateness of the assaying and laboratory procedures used and whether the technique is considered partial or total. • For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF instruments, etc, the parameters used in determining the analysis including instrument make and model, reading times, calibrations factors applied and their derivation, etc. • Nature of quality control procedures adopted (eg standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (ie lack of bias) and precision have been established.	•Aircore composite samples were analysed for a multielement suite (33 elements) by ICP-MS following an Aqua Regia digest. •Bottom of hole Aircore Chip samples were analysed for a multielement suite (48 elements) by ICP-MS following a Four Acid Digest as well as for Au, Pt, Pd by Fire Assay with ICP-MS determination. •The assay methods used are considered appropriate. •QAQC standards and duplicates were routinely included at a rate of 1 per 20 samples •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 methods; AR25/MS33 (Au and multi- element for composites samples), and 4A/MS48 for multi-elements and FA50/MS for Au on bottom of hole samples
	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.	•Field data is collected on site using a standard set of logging templates entered directly into a laptop computer. Data is then sent to the Galileo database manager (CSA Global - Perth) for validation and upload into the database. •Assays are as reported from the laboratory and stored in the Company database and have not been adjusted inanyway.
	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. • Quality and adequacy of topographic control.	•Aircore drill hole collars are surveyed with a handheld GPS with an accuracy of +/-5m which is considered sufficient 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	•Aircore drill traverse spacing is not regular, the holes being placed to provide a systematic traverse pattern coverage ofthe geophysical

==> picture [594 x 25] intentionally omitted <==

Page 11 | 15

	Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		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.	domain/target area of interest. •Drill spacing along traverses has been at selective 400m intervals specific to 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 JORC Compliant Inferred Resources and therefore laboratory assay results and additional drilling would be required. •Drill holes were sampled in the residual (non-transported) portion of the profile on a 3m composite basis or as 1m or 2m samples as determined by the end of hole depth or under instruction from the geologist supervising the program. A 1m sub- sample from end of hole has also been collected.
	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.	•All holes are vertical. •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.	•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 zip tied closed, for transport to laboratory analysis no loss of material. •Laboratory analysis samples are delivered directly to the laboratory in Kalgoorlie by Galileo staff.
	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 audits have beenperformed.

==> picture [594 x 25] intentionally omitted <==

Page 12 | 15

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

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 five granted exploration licenses, covering 446km2and one pending tenement covering 156 km2 •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.	•NA
Geology	• Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation.	•The target geology is indicative of magmatic sulphide mineralisation hosted in or associated with mafic-ultramafic intrusions within the Fraser Complex of the Albany-Fraser Orogeny. •The underlying unweathered lithology is granulite facies metamorphosed and partially retrogressed 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.	•Refer to drill hole collar reporting table in the body of this report

==> picture [594 x 25] intentionally omitted <==

Page 13 | 15

	Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		• If the exclusion of this information is justified on the basis that the information is not Material and this exclusion does not detract from the understanding of the report, the Competent Person should clearly _explain why this is the case. _
	Data aggregation methods	• In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging techniques, maximum and/or minimum grade truncations (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.	•Not applicable, drilling was for the purpose of geological identification of rock types beneath sedimentary cover
	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 width not known’).	•It is unknown whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased sampling of possible structures as the host formations are soft regolith material with no measurable structures recorded in drill core. •The mineralisation occurs in highly weathered regolith material and no structures have been recorded from drilling. •No quantitative measurements of mineralised zones/structures exist, and all drill intercepts are reported as down hole length in metres, true width unknown.
	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	• Other exploration data, if meaningful and material, should be	•Detailed 50m line spaced aeromagnetic data has beenusedfor interpretationofunderlying geology.
		Page 14	15

==> picture [594 x 25] intentionally omitted <==

	Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	exploration data	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.	Data was collected using a Geometrics G-823 Caesium vapor magnetometer at an average flying height of 30m. •Modelling and interpretation of MLEM geophysical data was undertaken by Spinifex Gpx Pty Ltd and by Terra Resources Pty Ltd. Geophysical interpretations were completed independently to provide models to assist drill targeting •2D gridding and 3D Inversion Modelling of aeromagnetic and gravity data was undertaken by Spinifex Gpx Pty Ltd. •Detailed gravity data has been used for interpretation of underlying geology. Data was collected using Scintrex CG-5 Autograv gravity meters positioned using a Leica GX1230 receiver and GNSS base station. •Petrography was undertaken by R.N. England Consulting Geologist
	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. _	•MLEM surveying will be planned to cover the new area of interest defined by the drilling program. •Further Aircore drilling will be planned based on current results

==> picture [594 x 25] intentionally omitted <==

Page 15 | 15