GATEWAY MINING LIMITED — Capital/Financing Update 2022

Sep 26, 2022

==> picture [146 x 89] intentionally omitted <==

ASX Announcement ASX: GML

27 September 2022

Initial Julias Resource Boosts Total Resource to 526,000oz at Newly-Renamed Montague Gold Project

Low $9/oz discovery cost supports strategy of exploring for shallow, oxide deposits

HIGHLIGHTS

• Gateway’s flagship WA gold project renamed the Montague Gold Project to better reflect the key geological features and previous mining operations in the 1980’s-1990’s.

• Total Montague Mineral Resources now over 526,000oz, including 142,000oz at 2.1g/t Au in the Indicated category:

	Tonnes (t)	Au (g/t)	Ounces (oz)
Indicated	2,148,000	2.1	142,000
Inferred	7,925,000	1.5	384,000
Total	10,073,000	1.6	526,000
Total GML**	9,596,000	1.6	507,000

Note – Resources reported above 0.6g/t Au. Rounding errors may occur

**Julias located on M57/427, which is owned 75% GML 25% Estuary Resources Pty Ltd

• Julias Mineral Resource added to the Project Resource base at a cost of $9/oz direct expenditure.

• Initial Mineral Resource Estimate for the Julias oxide discovery, estimated using Gateway RC drilling, totals over 77,000oz Indicated and Inferred, with over 67% of the Mineral Resource located in the oxide zone:

	Tonnes (t)	Au (g/t)	Ounces (oz)
Indicated	1,405,000	1.4	61,000
Inferred	503,000	1.0	16,000
Total	1,908,000	1.3	77,000
Total GML**	1,431,000	1.3	58,000

Note – Resources reported above 0.6g/t Au. Rounding errors may occur

**Julias located on M57/427, which is owned 75% GML 25% Estuary Resources Pty Ltd

• Previously announced air-core intersections have highlighted significant extensions to the Julias deposit for over 700m to the south-west.

• RC drilling completed on extensions to existing Mineral Resources (Montague-Boulder, Achilles and Evermore) with results pending.

Gateway’s Managing Director, Mr Mark Cossom, said: “Our multi-pronged exploration strategy continues to pay dividends at Montague, with the discovery and rapid delineation of the Julias oxide discovery adding high-quality low-cost ounces just 2km from the cornerstone Montague-Boulder and Whistler deposits. Importantly, we have added these ounces at a discovery cost of just $9/oz – an impressive result!

Gateway Mining Ltd B1/431 Roberts Road Subiaco WA 6008

LinkedIn: @gateway-mining Twitter: @gateway_mining www.gatewaymining.com.au

==> picture [76 x 46] intentionally omitted <==

“Additionally, we have a clear pathway to grow the deposit with recent air-core drilling highlighting extensions to the mineralised trend to the south-west over a strike length of at least 700m. We are planning further RC drilling later this financial year to target additions to this initial Julias JORC Resource.

“With assays pending on several fronts, from recent RC drilling to test extensions to the Montague-Boulder, Achilles and Evermore deposits, we are looking forward to a busy end to the year as we continue to build critical mass at Montague with our resource inventory now passing the half-million-ounce mark.

“We have made the strategic decision to rename the project the Montague Gold Project for a range of reasons, not least of which is the geological importance of the Montague Granodiorite as the major feature controlling mineralisation in the greenstone belt, and to differentiate it from the historic Gidgee gold mine, which is owned by our neighbours Horizon Gold.”

==> picture [312 x 246] intentionally omitted <==

Figure (1): Julias deposit location, with respect to existing Mineral Resources around the Montague Granodiorite.

Gateway Mining Limited (ASX: GML) ( Gateway or Company ) is pleased to report an initial Mineral Resource Estimate ( MRE ) for the Julias deposit, a recent discovery made within its newly-renamed Montague Gold Project, located in the Northern Murchison Goldfields of Western Australia.

The Julias deposit was discovered as part of the strategy that Gateway implemented to identify, drill-out and add resource ounces from new deposits within the Montague Project. This is the first of our pipeline of targets which is supported by our exploration of the controlling Montague granodiorite feature.

The addition of the Julias Mineral Resource brings the Global Mineral Resources for the Montague Gold Project over the key milestone of half a million ounces to 526,000oz Au (Indicated and Inferred – see Table 1).

The Julias MRE comprises a total of 1,908,000t @ 1.3g/t Au for 77,000oz (Indicated and Inferred) (see Table 2). This MRE is the culmination of the past 12 months of drilling at Julias by Gateway, which deliberately targeted the mineralisation contained within the oxide zone.

These additional 77,000oz have been added at a direct exploration cost of $9/oz, highlighting the attractive return from the discovery of near-surface oxide zone mineralisation, for which the Montague Gold Project is still considered to have excellent potential.

Importantly, the initial Julias MRE is located over 500m of strike defined by recent RC drilling activity.

However, air-core drilling undertaken by Gateway during 2022 identified the extension of this mineralised structure for over 700m to the south-west (Figure 4), highlighting the clear potential to delineate extensions to this initial MRE with further RC drilling.

2

==> picture [76 x 46] intentionally omitted <==

Two phases of air-core drilling have been undertaken on this trend, with the aim of extending the potential zone of mineralisation toward the nearby Flametree target area. Significant intersections over this 700m of strike include[1] :

▪ GWAC1034: 4m @ 8.3g/t Au from 56m ▪ GWAC0965: 24m @ 1.4g/t Au from 16m ▪ GWAC1023: 5m @ 1.9g/t Au from 36m ▪ GWAC0961: 8m @ 1.3g/t Au from 32m ▪ GWAC1029: 8m @ 1.0g/t Au from 40m, and 9m @ 1.0g/t Au from 84m ▪ GWAC1028: 7m @ 1.0g/t Au from 48m ▪ GWAC0957: 4m @ 1.4g/t Au from 16m

Air-core drilling by Gateway at the Flametree target area has identified a significant footprint of supergene gold mineralisation present in several horizons, with significant results including[1] :

▪	GWAC0267:	5m @	10.4g/t Au from 52m
▪	GWAC1056:	3m @	5.4g/t Au from 51m
▪	GWAC0256:	4m @	3.8g/t Au from 20m
▪	GWAC0247:	5m @	3.8g/t Au from 23m
▪	GWAC1053:	4m @	2.5g/t Au from 69m
▪	GWAC1070:	9m @	1.0g/t Au from 64m

With these exciting oxide zone targets in the immediate vicinity of the new Julias MRE, this area of the Project will continue to be an important exploration focus for the delineation of additional shallow oxide zone mineralisation in the immediate future.

Project Change of Name

With the Project surpassing the milestone 500,000oz of total Mineral Resources, the Company has made the decision to change the name to the Montague Gold Project.

The change of name has been made to not only better reflect the key geological features in the area and the previous mining operations in the late 1980’s – early 1990’s, but also to remove potential confusion with other projects in the region, namely the former Gidgee Gold Mine which is located on the adjacent tenement package owned by Horizon Gold Ltd.

Between 1986 and 1993, five open pits were mined by Herald Resources Ltd, including those at Whistler and Montague-Boulder, with ore material treated on site by a small CIP/CIL processing plant (which has since been removed). This operation was known as the Montague Gold Operation, with the Montague Granodiorite being a key controlling feature of mineralisation.

The Company anticipates the change of name will better reflect not only the targeting of exploration activities, but the underlying attributes of the styles and host of mineralisation present in the Project.

Ongoing Exploration Activities

Gateway has recently completed an additional 14,000m RC drilling program, primarily targeting along strike extensions to its existing Mineral Resources at Montague-Boulder, Evermore, and Achilles.

Results from these programs are pending, although indications to date are that significant improvements have been made in assay turnaround times through the commercial laboratory used by Gateway.

In addition, Gateway will commence a regional air-core drilling program in mid-October. This program aims to test major regional gold-bearing structures that are interpreted to traverse the Project tenure, and are obscured by transported overburden. This is part of our continued pipeline development to feed into future resource growth.

The program will comprise approximately 16,000m of drilling, which will encompass exploration field activities through until the end of the calendar year.

1 See ASX Release dated 23 May 2022.

3

==> picture [76 x 46] intentionally omitted <==

MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE SUMMARY

The Montague Gold Project Mineral Resource has been updated to 10,073,000t @ 1.6g/t Au for 526,000oz Au, classified as Indicated and Inferred (Table 1) reported in accordance with the JORC Code (2012).

This updated Mineral Resource represents an increase of 17% from the Mineral Resource announced on 14 December 2021. The updated Total Mineral Resource consists of the previously announced estimates for the Whistler, Montague-Boulder, Evermore and Achilles Nth/Airport deposits, and the addition of an initial Mineral Resource for the Julias deposit (Figure 1).

The new estimate for the Julias deposit was undertaken by Elizabeth Haren of Haren Consulting Pty Ltd, based on a drill database and mineralisation interpretations compiled by Gateway geological staff.

The Whistler, Montague-Boulder, Evermore and Achilles Nth/Airport Mineral Resources have not been reestimated as part of this process. Full details of the Whistler Mineral Resource are provided in the ASX Release dated 3 October 2019, and full details of the Montague-Boulder, Evermore and Achilles Nth/Airport Mineral Resources are provided in the ASX Release dated 14 December 2021. Ongoing exploration by Gateway is aimed at further growth in these existing deposits.

It should be noted that the Julias deposit is located on M57/427, which is a 75%:25% Joint Venture between Gateway and Estuary Resources Pty Ltd (a wholly owned subsidiary of Red 5 Ltd (ASX:RED)). As such, The Mineral Resource for Julias is presented below on both a deposit level, as well as a Gateway attributable level.

Table 1. Montague Gold Project – September 2022 Mineral Resource Estimate Summary

		Indicated	Indicated	Inferred	Inferred	Inferred	Montague Project Total	Montague Project Total	Montague Project Total	GML Attributable Total	GML Attributable Total	GML Attributable Total
Deposit	**Tonnes (t) **	Au Grade (g/t)	Au Ounces (oz)	Tonnes (t)	Au Grade (g/t)	Au Ounces (oz)	Tonnes (t)	Au Grade (g/t)	Au Ounces (oz)	Tonnes (t)	Au Grade (g/t)	Au Ounces (oz)
Montague-Boulder Whistler Evermore Achilles Nth/Airport Julias Total**	522,000 221,000 1,405,000 2,148,000	4.0 2.0 1.4	67,000 14,000 61,000	2,556,000 1,700,000 1,319,000 1,847,000 503,000	1.2 2.2 1.6 1.4 1.0	96,000 120,000 67,000 85,000 16,000	3,078,000 1,700,000 1,319,000 2,068,000 1,908,000	1.7 2.2 1.6 1.5 1.3	163,000 120,000 67,000 99,000 77,000	3,078,000 1,700,000 1,319,000 2,068,000 1,431,000	1.7 2.2 1.6 1.5 1.3	163,000 120,000 67,000 99,000 58,000 507,000
		2.1	142,000	7,925,000	1.5	384,000	10,073,000	1.6	526,000	9,596,000	1.6
*Notes: Montague-Boulder, Evermore, Julias Achilles Nth/Airport Mineral Resources reported above 0.6g/t Au Whistler Mineral Resource reported above 0.5g/t Au for open pit and 2.0g/t Au for underground Rounding errors may occur

• Julias located on M57/427, which is owned 75% GML 25% Estuary Resources Pty Ltd

Table 2. Julias Deposit – September 2022 Mineral Resource Estimate Summary

	Tonnes (t)	Au (g/t)	Ounces (oz)
Indicated	1,405,000	1.4	61,000
Inferred	503,000	1.0	16,000
Total	1,908,000	1.3	77,000
TotalGML**	1,431,000	1.3	58,000

• Note – Resources reported above 0.6g/t Au. Rounding errors may occur

• **Julias located on M57/427, which is owned 75% GML 25% Estuary Resources Pty Ltd

A summary of other material information pursuant to ASX Listing Rules 5.8 is provided below for the Julias Mineral Resource. Full details of the Estimation and Reporting of the Julias Mineral Resource are included in the JORC Code (2012) Table 1 located in Appendix 2 of this release.

Regional Geology

The areas of interest are centred on the Montague Granodiorite Dome, an elliptical pluton of enriched dioritic to granodioritic composition which forms the core of an open north-plunging anticline. The granodiorite has dimensions of approximately 8.5km x 2.6km and has intruded into a sequence of metamorphosed basalts and volcano-sedimentary rocks. Steeply east dipping, the granodiorite contacts are discordant with the immediate surrounding basalt stratigraphy which on western side is shallow west dipping between 30-45 degrees and in the east, steeply east dipping.

4

==> picture [76 x 46] intentionally omitted <==

A mafic intrusion occurs along the western margin of the granodiorite and is locally fractionated from Olivine Gabbro to Dolerite and has intruded along the contact zone after the emplacement of the granodiorite. This unit is generally <60m wide but is likely to have been structurally duplicated by shearing along the western margin of the granodiorite.

Mineralisation at the Montague Project shares a strong spatial relationship with the margin of the Montague Granodiorite and occurs predominantly as NNW striking lodes within moderate dipping shear zones laterally continuous (Montague-Boulder/Evermore/Julias) as well as steep faulting and veining (Whistler) within the sedimentary/volcanic sequence, as well as the basalt and granitoid lithologies. Transported regolith and surficial cover mask a significant portion of the region, with outcrops limited to low relief slopes of metabasalt and subcropping granodiorite.

Local Geology and Mineralisation

The Julias deposit consists of mostly supergene mineralisation hosted in a heavily weathered sedimentary and felsic volcanic rocks package (siltstones, wackes and minor shale) associated with a moderately west dipping gossanous quartz-breccia after massive sulphide. The high-grade mineralisation is present at shallow depths tracing for approximately 500m of strike trending approximately NS. In fresh rock the mineralisation is hosted within a massive sulphide (mostly Py and minor Cpy) horizon and minor felsic volcanic rocks with common quartz veining. High grade mineralisation is preferentially located within the transition and oxide zones where the massive sulphide-shale horizon weathers to gossanous chert and shale material. Some late NNE trending faults also affect the whole stratigraphy with associated sporadic high-grade gold.

Geological Interpretation

Geological interpretation of the host rocks was used to guide the mineralisation geometry where it was understood to be a significant control.

Mineralisation at Julias consists of one main moderately dipping zone of that is contained within and parallel to a massive sulphide unit that is weathered to gossan in the oxide zone. A smaller second zone parallel to the main mineralised structure is present in parts of the deposit. Two wireframes of these mineralised domains were generated based on 25m drill sections over the entire 500m of strike. Wireframes were based on a nominal 0.1-0.3g/t Au mineralisation envelope. These wireframes were utilised to constrain grade interpolation.

Database

All data utilised in the Mineral Resource estimation process are a subset of Gateway’s central exploration database, which an SQL-based system utilising DataShed software as a front-end. Only RC drillholes were utilised in the Resource estimation process, and were predominately completed by Gateway. However, some historic RC were included, where suitable documentation of drilling, sampling and assaying techniques was available. All air-core and RAB drilling was excluded from the estimation process.

Sampling and Assaying

RC drilling samples were collected as 2kg - 3kg samples split from dry 1m bulk samples. The sample was initially collected from the cyclone in an inline collection box. Once the metre was completed the sample was dropped under gravity thorough a Metzke cone splitter, with the 1m split for assay collected in a calico bag. The bulk reject from the sample was collected and dumped into neat piles on the ground.

All samples have been assayed for Au via traditional fire assay digest and AAS determination methods. Various drill campaigns have also assayed samples for multi-element data via aqua regia digest and ICP-MS determination.

RC Field duplicates were collected at a ratio of 1:50 and collected at the same time as the original sample through the B chute of the cone splitter. OREAS certified reference material (CRM) was inserted at a ratio of 1:50. The grade ranges of the CRM’s were selected based on grade populations and economic grade ranges. All QAQC data is reported both with each batch, as well as time-interval reports generated each month to allow for trend analysis. All QAQC data is reviewed by senior Gateway geology staff.

Resource Estimation Methodology

The Julias deposit consists of mostly supergene mineralisation hosted in a heavily weathered sedimentary and felsic volcanic rocks package (siltstones, wackes and minor shale) associated with a moderately west dipping gossanous quartz-breccia after massive sulphide. The high-grade mineralisation is present at shallow depths

5

==> picture [76 x 46] intentionally omitted <==

tracing for approximately 500m of strike trending approximately NS. In fresh rock the mineralisation is hosted within a massive sulphide which is mostly pyrite and minor chalcopyrite, and minor felsic volcanic rocks with quartz veining common, however grade tenor is lower in this portion. High grade mineralisation is preferentially located within the transition and oxide zones where the massive sulphide-shale horizon weathers to gossanous chert and shale material. Some late north-north-east trending faults also affect the whole stratigraphy with associated sporadic high-grade gold.

Gateway constructed two mineralisation domains which were used for estimation along with a geological wireframe of the massive sulphide zone which were used for estimation.

‐ The model for the Julias deposit was constructed using a parent block size of 5mE by 5mN by 5mRL; with sub cells down to 0.5mE by 0.5mN by 0.5mRL to accurately represent the geometry and volumes of the weathering horizons and mineralisation domains. The parent cell size was selected based on the drill hole data spacing and its relationship to the complexity of mineralisation with the parent block size used for estimation of gold grade.

Drill hole data available consisted of Rotary Air Blast (RAB), Aircore (AC) and Reverse Circulation (RC) drilling. Only the highest quality RC drilling was used for the estimation of Mineral Resources with other drill types used to guide the interpretation.

Statistical and geostatistical analysis was used to understand the characteristics of the mineralisation. No outlier gold grades were identified therefore no top-cut was applied with the maximum grade for the 1m composites of mineralisation 19.45 g/t in the main mineralisation domain 1 and 9.02 g/t in domain 2. The variogram modelled showed a low nugget effect of 22% of the total variability. The horizontal along strike direction was modelled with a maximum range of 110m and the down-dip direction maximum range of 25m reflecting the strong continuity within the weathered material.

Gold block grades were estimated using the ordinary kriging technique. Dynamic anisotropy was utilised to allow the estimation to follow the geometry of the mineralisation.

Hard boundary conditions were applied for grade estimation into each of the mineralised domains so that grade estimation for each domain used only the data that is contained within that domain.

Density

The massive sulphide unit has been wireframed and densities have been assumed to be higher in all oxidation horizons than the surrounding country rock which is a sedimentary and felsic volcanic rock package (siltstones, wackes and minor shale). The densities applied have been determined from similar material:

• Massive sulphide oxide 2.5 t/m[3]

• Massive sulphide transitional 2.8 t/m[3]

• Massive sulphide fresh 3.5 t/m[3]

• Country rock oxide 1.8 t/m[3]

• Country rock transitional 2.3 t/m[3]

• Country rock fresh 2.5 t/m[3]

Lower Cut-off

‐ The Mineral Resource is reported above a 0.6 g/t Au lower cut off grade.

Mining Modifying Parameters

Planned extraction is by open pit mining. Mining factors such as dilution and ore loss have not been applied.

Metallurgical Factors

No metallurgical assumptions have been made in estimating Mineral Resources.

Mineral Resource Classification

The Mineral Resources have been classified based on confidence in geological and grade continuity, as well as accounting for data quality (including sampling methods), data density and confidence in the block grade estimation.

==> picture [76 x 46] intentionally omitted <==

Indicated Mineral Resources have been defined at Julias in areas where the continuity of mineralisation is very good and RC drill spacing is generally 25 mE by 25 mN or closer. Down-dip portions and along strike extensions where drilling is sparse has been classified as Inferred.

==> picture [359 x 505] intentionally omitted <==

Figure (2): Julias deposit plan view, with recent RC drilling significant intersections.

7

==> picture [76 x 46] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [406 x 275] intentionally omitted <==

Figure (3): Julias infill RC drilling cross section 6,969,225mN. Note the shallow nature of mineralisation and depth of weathering, associated with stronger gold grades.

==> picture [274 x 387] intentionally omitted <==

Figure (4): Julias-Flametree target areas. Note the +700m of strike identified southwest of the Julias Mineral Resource.

8

==> picture [76 x 46] intentionally omitted <==

This released has been authorised by:

Mark Cossom Managing Director

For and on behalf of GATEWAY MINING LIMITED

Competent Person Statement

The information in this report that relates to Exploration Results is based on information compiled or reviewed by Mr Stuart Stephens who is a full-time employee of Gateway Mining Ltd and is a current Member of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists. Mr Stephens owns options in Gateway Mining Ltd. Mr Stephens has sufficient experience, which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and types of deposit under consideration and to the activities undertaken, to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the “Australasian Code of Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves”. Mr Stephens consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on the information in the form and context in which it appears.

The information in the release that relates to the Estimation and Reporting of the Julias, Montague-Boulder, Evermore and Achilles North/Airport Mineral Resources has been compiled and reviewed by Ms Elizabeth Haren of Haren Consulting Pty Ltd who is an independent consultant to Gateway Mining Limited and is a current Member and Chartered Professional of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and Member of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists. Ms Haren has sufficient experience, which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and types of deposits under consideration and to the activities undertaken, to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the “Australasian Code of Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (The JORC Code).

The information in this announcement that relates to the reporting of the Whistler Mineral Resource has been extracted from the Gateway ASX announcement dated 3 October 2019 and is available to view on the Company’s website at www.gatewaymining.com.au or through the ASX website at www.asx.com.au (using ticker code “GML”). The Company confirms that it is not aware of any new information or data that materially affects the information included in the original market announcement. The company confirms that the form and context in which the Competent Person’s findings are presented have not been materially modified from the original market announcement.

Investors

Mark Cossom Managing Director T: 08 6383 9969 or

Media Nicholas Read Read Corporate T: 08 9388 1474

Kar Chua Company Secretary T: 02 8316 3998

Click here to subscribe to investor updates

Follow us on: LinkedIn: @gateway-mining Twitter: @gateway_mining

9

==> picture [76 x 46] intentionally omitted <==

APPENDIX (1)

About the Montague Gold Project

==> picture [470 x 354] intentionally omitted <==

Montague Gold Project Tenement Location Diagram

10

APPENDIX (2): JULIAS MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE SEPTEMBER 2022 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 (e.g. 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 (e.g. ‘reverse circulation drilling was used to obtain 1 m samples from which 3 kg was pulverized to produce a 30 g charge for fire assay’). In other cases more explanation may be required, such as where there is coarse gold that has inherent sampling problems. Unusual commodities or mineralisation types (e.g. submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed information.	• RC drilling (GRC prefix) - 2kg - 3kg samples were split from dry 1m bulk samples. The sample was initially collected from the cyclone in an inline collection box. Once the metre was completed the sample was dropped under gravity thorough a cone splitter, with the 1m split for assay collected in a calico bag. • The bulk reject from the sample was collected in buckets and dumped into neat piles on the ground. • RC Field duplicates were collected at a ratio of 1:50 and collected at the same time as the original sample through the B chute of the cone splitter. OREAS certified reference material (CRM) was inserted at a ratio of 1:50. The grade ranges of the CRM’s were selected based on grade populations and economic grade ranges.
Drilling techniques	• Drill type (e.g. core, reverse circulation, open-hole hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc.) and details (e.g. core diameter, triple or standard tube, depth of diamond tails, face-sampling bit or other type, whether core is oriented and if so, by what method, etc.).	• RC – Challenge Drilling drill rig was used. The rig consisted of a truck mounted RC rig with on board compressor, an on board Booster, and a truck mounted auxiliary compressor.
Drill sample recovery	• Method of recording and assessing core and chip sample recoveries and results assessed. • Measures taken to maximize 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.	• During the RC sample collection process, the sample sizes were visually inspected to assess drill recoveries. • The majority of samples were of good quality with ground water having minimal effect on sample quality or recovery. • From the collection of recovery data, no identifiable bias exists.
Logging	• Whether core and chip samples have been geologically and geotechnically	• RC chipswerewashed and storedinchip traysin 1m intervalsforthe entire

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	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.	length of each hole. Chips were visually inspected and logged to record lithology, weathering, alteration, mineralisation, veining and structure. • Data on rock type, deformation, colour, structure, alteration, veining, mineralisation and oxidation state were recorded. • Logging is both qualitative and quantitative or semi quantitative in nature.
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 grain size of the material being sampled.	• RC Samples were split from dry, 1m bulk sample via a cone splitter directly from the cyclone. • The QC procedure adopted through the process includes: • Field duplicates were collected at a rate of 1:50, these were collected during RC drilling at the same time as the primary sample. • OREAS certified material (CRM) was inserted at a rate of 1:50, the grade ranges of the CRM’s were selected based on grade populations. • 0.8-3kgs of sample was submitted to the laboratory. • Samples oven dried then pulverized in LM5 mills to 85% passing 75micron. • All samples were analysed for Au using the Au-AA26 technique which is a 50g lead collection fire assay.
Quality of assay data and Laboratory tests	• The nature, quality and appropriateness of the assaying and laboratory procedures used and whether the technique is considered partial or total. • For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF instruments, etc., the parameters used in determining the analysis including instrument make and model, reading times, calibrations factors applied and their derivation, etc. • Nature of quality control procedures adopted (e.g. standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (i.e. lack of bias) and precision have been established.	• Drill samples were submitted to ALS (Perth). All samples were analysed by a 50g fire assay (AAS finish) which is a total digest assay technique. • RC Field duplicates were collected at a rate of 1:50 with CRM’s inserted at a rate of 1:50 also. The grade ranges of the CRM’s were selected based on grade populations.
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	• Drilling results are cross checked by company geologists. • Data is recorded digitally at the project within MicroMine Geobank software, assay results are received digitally. • All data is stored within DataShed SQL Database.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	storage (physical and electronic) protocols. • Discuss any adjustment to assay data.
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.	• Initial drill hole location is initially recorded with a handheld Garmin GPS (+/- 3m). A Reflex EZ North Seeking Gyro is used to record the deviation of the drill holes (+/- 1deg). All collars were surveyed post-drilling utilising RTK-GPS.
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.	• RC holes have been completed on a nominal 25 x 25m pattern over the main Julias deposit. • Holes drilled within this program are considered to be of suitable data spacing for use in a Resource estimation. The Mineral resource has been classified in the Indicated and Inferred categories.
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.	• The drilling was orientated perpendicular to the perceived strike of the mineralised structures, with holes drilled to the east. Inclined holes (-60°) are considered to be appropriate to the dip of the mineralised structure creating minimal sampling bias.
Sample security	• The measures taken to ensure sample security.	• Calico samples are sealed into green/poly weave bags and cable tied. These are then sealed in bulka bags and transported to the laboratory in Perth by company staff or contractors or established freight companies.
Audits or reviews	• The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data.	• Drilling results are cross checked by company geologists.

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.	• All tenements are held under Gateway Mining Ltd, M57/429 (75% GML:25% Estuary Resources Pty Ltd). • No Native Title claims are lodged over the tenements.
Exploration done by other parties	• Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties.	• Gold was discovered in the district during the gold rush era, first records of gold won from small-scale, high-grade workings include the Montague Mining Centre (1904-13). Renewed interest in the late 1960's included base metal exploration carried out within exposed stratigraphy of the Montague Ranges (Bungarra Ranges), exploration interest that broadened with the release of the Sandstone 1:250,000 aeromagnetic sheet in 1970 resulting in the staking of favourable magnetic anomalies by exploration companies. • Early explorers in the Montague Ranges included Anaconda Australia Inc. (1966-67), followed by International Nickel Australia (1971-75) evaluating a Gabbro - banded differentiated basic complex believed prospective for copper and/or nickel such as the Dulith Gabbro, USA. Strong geophysical and mineralised anomalism was encountered, however, copper-zinc enrichment was also encountered in adjacent felsic stratigraphy at Ed's Bore prospect, which was followed-up by CRA Exploration (1983-1990) to intersect polymetallic VMS enrichments at Bevan prospect (not substantively pursued). • At Montague, Western Mining Corporation (1976) conducted investigations for copper and gold including soil sampling and IP surveying, which was followed by CRA Exploration (1984-89) working concurrently with AMOCO Minerals Australia Company (1984) and Clackline Refractories Ltd (from 1985 - to later become Herald Resources) assessing/purchasing historic mine areas from Mr W.J. Griffiths of Sandstone. RAB drilling penetrating transported cover resulted in the virgin discoveries of NE Pit by AMOCO and Whistler deposit by CRA. Later noted explorers included Dalrymple Resources NL (1987-1990) intersecting gold at the Armada (Twister) prospect, and Arimco Mining (1990- 98) intersecting gold at Lyle prospect, Victory West prospect, and copper at The Cup prospect (not substantively pursued). • The Montague Mining Centre produced approximately 150,000oz of gold commencing in 1986 at Caledonian and NE Pits (Clackline), and continued at MontagueBoulder from 1988 (Herald), andwas to closein 1993 after

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		completion of the Rosie Castle open cut (Herald). Whistler open cut was mined from November 1990 (Polaris Pacific NL) and ore toll treated through the Herald mill. Little attention was paid to mineralisation other than gold. Gateway Mining in joint venture with Herald Resources continued exploration of the Montague Mining Centre, Gateway also targeting poly-metallic intrusion related - VMS models in the district from 2006. • Airport, Airport Sth, S Bend, Rosie Nth, Rosie Sth mineralisation was discovered by Gateway Mining between 2007 and 2011 in RAB drilling and later defined by RC drilling.
Geology	• Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation.	• Gateway’s Montague Project is located in the Montague district in the Archean Yilgarn Craton of Western Australia approximately 630km NE of Perth and 70km north from the township of Sandstone on the eastern central portion of the Gum Creek Greenstone Belt, of the Southern Cross Province. Metamorphic grade of the Gum Creek Greenstone Belt is estimated to be low- grade greenschist facies. • Project lithology includes basalt/ash tuff/dolerite/gabbro, the Montague Granodiorite sub-volcanic intrusion (calc-alkaline - FI), dacite volcanic flow/s (FI), volcaniclastic sequences of felsic composition and epiclastic conglomerates, ultramafic intrusives and external orogenic granite plutons. Key regional characteristics of a Volcanic Arc Extensional Basin include calc- alkaline bimodal volcanic sequences associated with extensive iron formations. Later ENE-WSW orogenic compression event is characterised by NNW regional scale faults/unconformities, NNW shearing and folding, slaty cleavage has developed within sediments near a tight syncline fold closure within the NE area of the project.
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.	• Exploration drill results from recent drilling, and associated details are contained in Table 1 of this release.

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary	Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary	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.	• Significant intersections are calculated based on a lower cut-off of minimum 1m @ 0.8g/t Au, with a maximum of 4m internal dilution. This is considered appropriate for the intended use of the data for tracing Au within the oxide zone. • No high-grade cut-off has been applied
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’). _	• The drill holes were orientated as inclined holes (-60°), toward 090°, as this is considered to be appropriate for the interpreted dip of the major mineralised structure – parallel to the Montague-Boulder shear zone - creating minimal sampling bias.
Diagrams	• Appropriate maps and sections (with scales) and tabulations of intercepts should be included for any significant discovery being reported These should include, but not be limited to a plan view of drill hole collar locations and appropriate sectional views.	• Appropriate maps are included in the announcement.
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.	• The accompanying document is considered to be a balanced report with a suitable cautionary note.
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. _	• The area has been covered by detailed ground gravity and airborne magnetic surveys. Previous drilling is limited to set depth RAB which is considered to have been an ineffective test, some 50m x 25m spaced AC and RC exists in the Northeast part of the prospect.
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. _	• Additional air-core and RC drilling will be undertaken to continue tracing the anomalous mineralised structure along strike.

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	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Database integrity	• Measures taken to ensure that data has not been corrupted by, for example, transcription or keying errors, between its initial collection and its use for Mineral Resource estimation purposes. • Data validation procedures used.	• All data was collected electronically by Gateway and stored in a SQL database with appropriate data validation procedures. The database is managed by Gateway with extracts provided to Haren for Mineral Resource estimation. • Haren undertook a basic check of the data for potential errors as a preliminary step to compiling the resource estimate. No significant flaws were identified.
Site visits	• Comment on any site visits undertaken by the Competent Person and the outcome of those visits. • If no site visits have been undertaken indicate why this is the case.	• No site visit has been conducted by the competent person for Mineral Resources. The ability to conduct site visits has been affected by COVID19 pandemic.
Geological interpretation	• Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertainty of) the geological interpretation of the mineral deposit. • Nature of the data used and of any assumptions made. • The effect, if any, of alternative interpretations on Mineral Resource estimation. • The use of geology in guiding and controlling Mineral Resource estimation. • The factors affecting continuity both of grade and geology.	• There is high confidence in the interpreted geological and mineralisation model. Infill drilling by Gateway prior to the updated Mineral Resource estimate largely confirmed mineralisation continuity and tenor. • The data used for Mineral Resource estimation has been collected reliably with most drill hole data collected by Gateway in a professional manner. • Alternative interpretations are unlikely due to the well understood geology and relative simplicity of the two domains of mineralisation. • Geological interpretations of lithology and contact relationships are key to understanding the mineralisation emplacement and are used extensively in the mineralisation interpretations.
Dimensions	• The extent and variability of the Mineral Resource expressed as length (along strike or otherwise), plan width, and depth below surface to the upper and lower limits of the Mineral Resource.	• The Julias deposit extends approximately 500 m from north to south, 200 m east to west and is currently known to a depth of ~100 m.
Estimation and modelling techniques	• The nature and appropriateness of the estimation technique(s) applied and key assumptions, including treatment of extreme grade values, domaining, interpolation parameters and maximum distance of extrapolation from data points. If a computer assisted estimation method was chosen include a description of computer software and parameters used. • The availability of check estimates, previous estimates and/or mine production records and whether the Mineral Resource estimate takes appropriate account of such data. • The assumptions made regarding recovery of by-products.	• The Julias mineralisation 1 m composites exhibit approximately log-normal distributions within each domain which is suitable for estimation by ordinary kriging. • No outlier gold grades were identified therefore no top-cut was applied with the maximum grade for the 1m composites of mineralisation 19.45g/t in domain 1 and 9.02 in domain 2. • All estimates used hard boundaries between estimation domains and soft

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	• Estimation of deleterious elements or other non-grade variables of economic significance (eg sulphur for acid mine drainage characterisation). • In the case of block model interpolation, the block size in relation to the average sample spacing and the search employed. • Any assumptions behind modelling of selective mining units. • Any assumptions about correlation between variables. • Description of how the geological interpretation was used to control the resource estimates. • Discussion of basis for using or not using grade cutting or capping. • The process of validation, the checking process used, the comparison of model data to drill hole data, and use of reconciliation data if available.	boundaries between weathering which were confirmed by contact analysis. • Reported Mineral Resource estimations were limited to extrapolation of less than 40 m from drill hole data. • Datamine version 1.10.100.0 was used for block modelling, estimation and reporting. Supervisor version 8.14.3.0 was used for statistical and geostatistical analysis. • Check estimates for Julias were made using wireframes with the results comparable. • No assumptions were made regarding recovery of by-products and no other estimates than the gold grades were made. • No other variables are considered deleterious and no deleterious elements or other non-grade variables of economic significance were estimated. • For Julias the block model was constructed using a parent cell size of 5 mE by 5 mN by 5 mRL for mineralised material These dimensions were selected with consideration made to the continuity of mineralisation, drill hole spacing and geometry of the mineralisation. • The search ellipse orientation was modified to the local mineralisation geometry by using dynamic anisotropy. • The search radius was based on the results of the grade continuity analysis with initial search of approximately 50 m by 50 m by 20 m used with a minimum of seven and maximum of 14 composites. • At this stage the selective mining units are unknown. • No elemental correlation analysis was completed and only Au was estimated. • The mineralisation domains were used as hard boundaries with soft boundaries between rock types and between weathering horizons. • Validation of grade estimates was completed using a three-stage process. The first is a global comparison of declustered composites key statistics to the block model estimates for the first search pass as well as subsequent search passes. The second is a trend analysis where the declustered composites are sliced into windows in northing or elevation directions and compared. The third is careful local validation of composite grades to estimated grade in multiple orientations to ensure expected grade trends arereproduced and the

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		estimates are a good reflection of the input composites and estimation parameters. Where required, parameters were adjusted in an iterative process to ensure a high quality estimation.
Moisture	• Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or with natural moisture, and the method of determination of the moisture content.	• All tonnages have been estimated as dry tonnages.
Cut-off parameters	• The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters applied.	• The gold mineralisation was reported above a 0.60 g/t Au cut-off grade. • This cut-off grade is based on an average of recent gold prices and mine costs using Australian industry benchmarking. • Haren believes that the cut-off grade is reasonable for the gold mineralisation being extracted using open-cut methods.
Mining factors and assumptions	• Assumptions made regarding possible mining methods, minimum mining dimensions and internal (or, if applicable, external) mining dilution. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider potential mining methods, but the assumptions made regarding mining methods and parameters when estimating Mineral Resources may not always be rigorous. Where this is the case, this should be reported with an explanation of the basis of the mining assumptions made.	• It is assumed the deposit will be mined using open cut methods. Successful mining operations are located nearby. • Western Australia has a low geopolitical risk, an extensive history of gold mining and stable government policies and processes.
Metallurgical factors and assumptions	• The basis for assumptions or predictions regarding metallurgical amenability. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider potential metallurgical methods, but the assumptions regarding metallurgical treatment processes and parameters made when reporting Mineral Resources may not always be rigorous. Where this is the case, this should be reported with an explanation of the basis of the metallurgical assumptions made.	• It is assumed that the gold will be extracted using standard gravity recovery and CIL methods common in the Western Australian goldfields.
Environmental factors and assumptions	• Assumptions made regarding possible waste and process residue disposal options. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider the potential environmental impacts of the mining and processing operation. While at this stage the determination of potential environmental impacts, particularly for a greenfields project, may not always be well advanced, the status of early consideration of these potential environmental impacts should be reported. Where these aspects have not been considered this should be reported with _an explanation of the environmental assumptions made. _	• It is assumed that no environmental factors exist that could prohibit any potential mining development at the deposits.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Density	• Whether assumed or determined. If assumed, the basis for the assumptions. If determined, the method used, whether wet or dry, the frequency of the measurements, the nature, size and representativeness of the samples. • The bulk density for bulk material must have been measured by methods that adequately account for void spaces (vugs, porosity, etc), moisture and differences between rock and alteration zones within the deposit. • Discuss assumptions for bulk density estimates used in the evaluation process of the different materials.	• The massive sulphide has been wireframed and densities have been assumed to be higher in all oxidation horizons than the surrounding country rock which is a sedimentary and felsic volcanic rocks package (siltstones, wackes and minor shale). The densities applied have been determined from similar material. • Density has been assigned to the deposits based on weathering horizon and dominant rock type. Massive sulphide oxide has been assigned 2.5 t/m3, transition 2.8 t/m3and fresh 3.5 t/m3. Country rock oxide has been assigned 1.8 t/m3, transitional 2.3 t/m3, fresh 2.5 t/m3.
Classification	• The basis for the classification of the Mineral Resources into varying confidence categories. • Whether appropriate account has been taken of all relevant factors (ie relative confidence in tonnage/grade estimations, reliability of input data, confidence in continuity of geology and metal values, quality, quantity and distribution of the data). • Whether the result appropriately reflects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit.	• The Mineral Resources have been classified based on confidence in geological and grade continuity and taking into account data quality (including sampling methods), data density and confidence in the block grade estimation. • Indicated Mineral Resources have been defined at Julias in areas where the continuity of mineralisation is very good and drill spacing is generally 25 mE by 25 mN or closer. Down-dip portions and along strike extensions where drilling is sparse and the has been classified as Inferred.
Audits and reviews	• The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral Resource estimates.	• No external reviews or audits have been completed.
Discussion of relative accuracy / confidence	• Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and confidence level in the Mineral Resource estimate using an approach or procedure deemed appropriate by the Competent Person. For example, the application of statistical or geostatistical procedures to quantify the relative accuracy of the resource within stated confidence limits, or, if such an approach is not deemed appropriate, a qualitative discussion of the factors that could affect the relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate. • The statement should specify whether it relates to global or local estimates, and, if local, state the relevant tonnages, which should be relevant to technical and economic evaluation. Documentation should include assumptions made and the procedures used. • These statements of relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate should be compared with production data, where available.	• A quantitative procedure for assessing relative accuracy and precision has not been deemed appropriate by the Competent Person for the estimation of gold grade at this stage. • The Mineral Resource discussed is a global estimate and will require closer spaced data to achieve a local estimate suitable for reliable localisation of ore and waste at a mining stage.