GODOLPHIN RESOURCES LIMITED - Capital/Financing Update 2021

16[th] August 2021

==> picture [140 x 27] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [119 x 63] intentionally omitted <==

NSW Projects Exploration Update

Review of historic rock chip and soil geochemical data has identified highly prospective areas of multi-element anomalism confirming strong gold mineralisation potential on the Lewis Ponds Project (EL5583) outside of the currently defined Mineral Resource.
Excellent rock chip results up to 12.65g/t Au occur at the newly defined Williams Prospect, associated with a large 1000m x 250m CuZn-Pb-soil anomaly.
At the Mt Shorter Prospect rock chip samples grading up to 10.3g/t Au have been identified
Drilling of the Quarry Lodes at Lewis Ponds to commence this week

Godolphin Resources Limited (ASX: GRL) (“Godolphin” or the “Company”) is pleased to provide Shareholders with an update regarding new gold targets which have been generated on the Lewis Ponds Project EL5583 with commencement of drilling imminent.

After a review of existing data within Lewis Ponds EL5583, several multi-element (gold-copper-leadzinc) highly prospective anomalies have been identified in rock chip and soil geochemical data, and are open along strike.

Assay results have been received from a program of sampling historic drill core from Lewis Ponds. The potential for mineralisation to extend outside of the previously estimated Mineral Resource at Lewis Ponds has been recognised. Drilling of the near surface Quarry Lodes at Lewis Ponds is imminent after delays caused by heavy rain and the snap COVID lockdown in Orange NSW.

Godolphin’s Managing Director, Jeneta Owens commented:

“The Godolphin team in Orange have been busy identifying future drill targets from reviewing existing rock chip and soil geochemical data in EL8556 outside of the immediate area of the Lewis Ponds Mineral Resource project, which significantly adds to the great potential of the overall Lewis Ponds Project.

“This current Lewis Ponds evaluation is the initial systematic compilation of historic exploration data in the extensive Godolphin tenement package, which bodes well for continued success identifying new drill targets.”

“We’re looking forward to our upcoming drilling campaign at Lewis Ponds, testing the highly prospective Quarry Lodes and will update the market on the progress in due course.”

Godolphin Resources

A: Unit 13, 11-19 William Street, Orange NSW 2800 P: +61 2 6318 8144 E: [email protected] www.godolphinresources.com.au

ASX Code: GRL ACN: 633 779 950

==> picture [140 x 27] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [119 x 63] intentionally omitted <==

EXPLORATION PROGRAM – EL 5583 “LEWIS PONDS”

EL5583 is located 15km east of Orange and approximately 20km north along strike from the McPhillamy’s gold deposit. The exploration licence is situated on the western margin of the Hill End Trough in the eastern Lachlan Fold Belt, which hosts a range volcanic-hosted massive sulphide base metal deposits (“VMS”), porphyry copper-gold and gold deposits, including Woodlawn (polymetallic), Cadia-Ridgeway (Cu-Au), North Parkes (Cu-Au), Copper Hill (Cu-Au), Tomingley (Au) and McPhillamys (Au).

During a project review, multiple areas with the potential to host mineralisation, outside of the currently estimated Lewis Ponds Mineral Resource, were identified within EL5583. There are multiple historical mining sites and mineral occurrences that have the same NW-SE structural trend as the Lewis Ponds Mineral Resource, which is encouraging as it suggests the same controls on mineralisation at Lewis Ponds could be occurring at the new target areas. Review of the historical rock chip and soils assay results show that the Mt Lindsay area in the north and Williams Prospect in the south have the potential to host significant mineralisation and drill ready targets.

==> picture [442 x 241] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [442 x 121] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 1. Overview of EL5583, showing the location of Mt Lindsay/Mt Shorten to the north and Williams Prospect area to the south of the Lewis Ponds project. Note the similar levels of zinc at both the Williams and Lewis Ponds projects. Historical soil samples were not assayed for gold at Williams.

Godolphin Resources

==> picture [140 x 27] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [119 x 63] intentionally omitted <==

Williams Gold-Base Metals Prospect

The Williams Prospect in the south of EL5583 displays multi-element anomalies (Au+As, Zn, Pb, Ag+Cu) in both the rock chip and soil geochemistry. The geochemical signature of the soils is similar to the Lewis Ponds area just 3km to the northwest. Historically, the soil samples from the Williams target area were only assayed for copper, lead and zinc, as it was considered to be a VMS target only, the same as Lewis Ponds, and not considered prospective for gold. In recent times, it has been recognised that many of these VMS deposits do contain mineable quantites of gold.

The mineral occurrences previoulsy noted from historical work over the Williams Prospect have been described as largely stratabound veins and stacked semi-massive sulphide lenses. The prospect area occurs within a regional magnetic low feature, which has similarities to Lewis Ponds and also the magnetic setting of the McPhillamy’s gold mine. The highest result in rock chip samples was 12.65g/t Au and is associated with copper, zinc, lead, arsenic and silver soil anomaly, 1000m x 250m in area.

At Lewis Ponds, higher-grade gold mineralisation in drill core correlates well with surface soil gold anomalies. The presence of high-grade gold in rock chips and the lack of gold analysis from the Williams Prospect historic soil samples increases the probability of the occurrence of gold mineralisation.

Godolphin will complete a soil sampling grid over the Williams Prospect, which will be used to confirm the presence of gold anomalism at surface and assist in drill hole designs.

==> picture [438 x 285] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 2. A: Copper in soils results plotted on aerial image with lead and zinc soil contours to show the coincident nature of the geochemistry signature, note: no assays for gold were conducted, and B: Copper in soils results plotted on total magnetic intensity (“TMI”) magnetic image from the helimag survey.

Godolphin Resources

==> picture [140 x 27] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [119 x 63] intentionally omitted <==

Mt Lindsay and Mt Shorter Gold-Copper Prospects

In the north of EL5583, the Mt Lindsay and Mt Shorter prospects display multi-element (Au+As+Cu+Zn+Ag+Pb) anomalies in both the rock chip and soil geochemistry. Historical mining occurred in both of these prospect areas. Mt Lindsay was historically mined for copper and Mt Shorter was mined mainly for zinc and lead. The soil and rock chip anomalies coincide with a magnetic high interpreted from a low-level helicopter magnetic survey completed in 2010. The prospects also display an electromagnetic (“EM”) anomaly from a previous airborne EM survey. Although the Mt Lindsay and Mt Shorter Prospects have similar geochemical signatures to Lewis Ponds, the geophysical data suggests the style of mineralisation may be different to the prospects in the south of the tenement.

The highest historic gold result in rock chip samples was 10.3g/t Au in the Mt Shorter area. The highest Au in soils was an exceptional 4,690ppb coincident with anomalous copper, zinc, lead, arsenic and silver, forming a coherent anomaly 215m x 200m in area. Surface geological mapping of the prospect and a program of infill soils samples, which will be assayed for the full multi-element suite, will be completed to assist in drill hole design.

==> picture [426 x 313] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3. A: Zinc soil results plotted on aerial image with gold and copper soil contours to show the coincident nature of the geochemistry signature and B: same data plotted on TMI magnetic image from helimag survey.

Godolphin Resources

==> picture [140 x 27] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [119 x 63] intentionally omitted <==

DRILLING PROGRAMS

Lewis Ponds Project

As previously reported, the Lewis Ponds Project is a high priority for Godolphin due to the extensive historic gold and base metal workings at Lewis Ponds, and the current Inferred Mineral Resource Estimate (MRE) of 6.2Mt @ 2.0g/t gold, 80g/t silver, 2.7% zinc, 1.6% lead & 0.2% copper (ASX Announcement 2 Feb 2021). Godolphin owns freehold title over Lewis Ponds through its 100%-owned subsidiary company TriAusMin Pty Ltd, situated within Godolphin’s 100%-owned EL5583 which covers approximately 148km² located 15km east of Orange (Figure 1).

Drilling is scheduled to commence mid-August 2021, with the objective of extending the Quarry Lode mineralisation northwards. The Quarry Lodes are interpreted to occur to the east of the main Spicer’s and Tom’s Lodes and has been intersected at depth in previous deeper drilling campaigns. The Quarry Lode drill targets are positioned below surface gold in soil anomalies which provides confidence that the Quarry Lode also occurs near the surface in an area which is essentially undrilled and outside of the currently defined Lewis Ponds MRE. Drill pads have been constructed in anticipation of the drill rigs arrival.

==> picture [430 x 246] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 4. Location of the Quarry Lodes target zone, to be tested by reverse circulation percussion (RC) drilling in August 2021. The target is positioned below >200ppb Au in soils anomaly, a similar level as the surface expression of the main Lewis Ponds Spicer’s and Tom’s Lodes. Spicer’s Lode wireframe in pink for reference .

Godolphin Resources

==> picture [140 x 27] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [119 x 63] intentionally omitted <==

HISTORIC DIAMOND DRILL CORE RE-LOGGING AND SAMPLING

It was recognised that some of the historical drilling completed within the Lewis Ponds MRE had gaps in the assay data through the mineralised zones. A program of re-assaying some of the historic core from the Lewis Ponds deposit was completed, from sulphide intersections which, despite the fact they were mineralised, had not been previously assayed. Intervals from 15 historic diamond drill holes were assayed. The assay results reveal that on the edges of the previously identified high grade massive sulphide intervals, zinc and lead mineralisation is present.

Previously interpreted barren sections between high grade massive sulphide mineralisation have been found to host stringer style mineralisation, which will extend the mineralisation outside of the currently estimated Lewis Ponds Inferred Mineral Resource. Significant intercepts are associated with interbedded limestone, marble, conglomerates, breccias and felsic volcaniclastic rocks. A plan view of the drill holes with intervals which were assayed, is displayed as Figure 5 below. A cross section of the holes with the modelled wireframes of the two main lodes, Spicer’s and Tom’s clearly show that mineralisation is present both above and below the modelled wireframes and is presented as Figure 6 below.

Significant intercepts from the historic core sampling program are displayed in Table 1 below.

HoleID From To Interval(m) Cu % Zn % Pb % Aug/t Ag ppm AuEq g/t	HoleID From To Interval(m) Cu % Zn % Pb % Aug/t Ag ppm AuEq g/t	HoleID From To Interval(m) Cu % Zn % Pb % Aug/t Ag ppm AuEq g/t	HoleID From To Interval(m) Cu % Zn % Pb % Aug/t Ag ppm AuEq g/t	HoleID From To Interval(m) Cu % Zn % Pb % Aug/t Ag ppm AuEq g/t	HoleID From To Interval(m) Cu % Zn % Pb % Aug/t Ag ppm AuEq g/t	HoleID From To Interval(m) Cu % Zn % Pb % Aug/t Ag ppm AuEq g/t	HoleID From To Interval(m) Cu % Zn % Pb % Aug/t Ag ppm AuEq g/t	HoleID From To Interval(m) Cu % Zn % Pb % Aug/t Ag ppm AuEq g/t	HoleID From To Interval(m) Cu % Zn % Pb % Aug/t Ag ppm AuEq g/t
TLPD-12	531	533.8	2.8	0.04	1.06	0.18	0.61	25.31	2.07
and	538.05	542	3.95	0.06	0.49	0.23	0.55	26.94	1.66
TLPD-12W3	416	420.1	4.1	0.07	0.95	0.51	0.72	28.1	2.36
incl.	417.9	420.1	2.2	0.11	1.27	0.69	1.06	40.24	3.32
and	453.7	462.15	8.45	0.03	0.87	0.51	0.45	31.96	2.03
incl.	453.7	456.2	2.5	0.04	1.94	1.38	0.78	72.75	4.39
TLPD-18	389.9	396	6.1	0.04	0.55	0.30	0.46	24.36	1.57
incl.	392.45	394.6	2.15	0.06	0.86	0.53	0.70	41.13	2.52 2.55 0.86
TLPD-21W	500.8	504	3.2	0.12	1.22	0.54	0.44	36.70
TLPD-28W	636	638	2	0.01	0.03	0.01	0.77	2.63
and	641	645	4	0.03	0.35	0.16	0.51	11.7	1.13 1.56 0.54
TLPD-29	759.95	762.7	2.75	0.03	0.41	0.27	0.82	12.96
TLPD-29W2	681	703.3	22.3	0.04	0.39	0.15	0.2	9.06
and	727.5	743.65	16.15	0.05	0.63	0.35	0.32	32.23	1.68
incl.	731	738.25	7.25	0.05	0.81	0.37	0.45	27.56	1.87
and	742.1	743	0.9	0.11	1.91	1.43	0.69	156.7	6.10 1.61 2.13
TLPD-30	708	716.7	8.7	0.03	0.20	0.12	0.78	28.62
TLPD-33	469	472.85	3.85	0.03	0.56	0.34	0.51	49.5

Table 1. Significant intercept table from the historic core sampling

Values used to calculate AuEqg/t AuEqg/t = Aug/t + (Agg/t0.02) + (Zn%0.75) + (Pb%0.45) + (Cu%*1.83) Based on USD=0.73AUD and a 6-month average of the price for each commodity from January 2021 to end of June 2021. www.kitco.com

Godolphin Resources

==> picture [140 x 27] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [119 x 63] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [434 x 207] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [434 x 103] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 5. Plan view of historic core sampling from Lewis Ponds area, showing mineralised intervals. Zinc is plotted on the left of the drill trace with Lead plotted on the right of the drill trace. All these results sit outside the current mineral resource.

Godolphin Resources

==> picture [140 x 27] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [119 x 63] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [361 x 450] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 6. Oblique section view looking West, displaying AuEqg/t on the drill hole traces. Wireframes for the Spicer’s (red) and Tom’s (pink) Lodes. This shows the original assays did not extend beyond the interpreted lode and mineralisation is present above and below the current interpretation and resource model.

ENDS

This market announcement has been authorised for release to the market by the Board of Godolphin Resources Limited.

For further information regarding Godolphin, please visit godolpinresources.com.au or contact:

Jeneta Owens Managing Director +61 417 344 658

Godolphin Resources

==> picture [140 x 27] intentionally omitted <==

About Godolphin Resources

==> picture [119 x 63] intentionally omitted <==

Godolphin Resources (ASX: GRL) is an ASX listed resources company, with 100% controlled Australian-based projects in the Lachlan Fold Belt ( “LFB” ) NSW, a world-class gold-copper province. Currently the Company’s tenements cover 3,200km[2] of highly prospective ground focussed on the Lachlan Transverse Zone, one of the key structures which controlled the formation of copper and gold deposits within the LFB, the Godolphin Fault and the Molong Volcanic Belt.

Godolphin is exploring for structurally hosted, epithermal gold and base-metal deposits and large, gold-copper Cadia style porphyry deposits and is pleased to announce a re-focus of exploration efforts for unlocking the potential of its East Lachlan tenement holdings, including increasing the mineral resource of its advanced Lewis Ponds Project. Reinvigoration of the exploration efforts across the tenement package is the key to discovering the exploration potential and represents a transformational stage for the Company and its shareholders.

COMPLIANCE STATEMENT The information in this report that relates to Exploration Targets, Exploration Results, Mineral Resources or Ore Reserves is based on information compiled by Jeneta Owens, a Competent Person who is a Member of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists. Ms Owens is the Managing Director and is a full-time employee of Godolphin Resources Limited, who has sufficient experience that is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type 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. Ms Owens consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on her information in the form and context in which it appears.

Godolphin Resources

==> picture [720 x 56] intentionally omitted <==

Appendix 1 – JORC Code, 2012 Edition, Table 1 report

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data (Criteria in this section applies to all succeeding sections)

==> picture [711 x 21] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
Sampling  Nature and quality of
----- End of picture text -----

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary	Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary	Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary	Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
*Sampling*	 Nature and quality of
*techniques*	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.		Sampling method description Rock chip samples o These samples were collected by previous explorers including Tri Origin and Ardea between 2005 and 2017. All were collected using best practices at the time of collection and are considered reliable and representative. They were collected from outcrop, float, or other exposure. Samples are clear of organic matter before analysis. Soil samples o These samples were collected by Godolphin Resources in 2020 along with previous explorers including LFB Resources and Tri Origin between 1996 and 2005. All were collected by best practices at the time of collection and are considered reliable and representative. They are collected from the “B” or “C” soil horizon at depths up to 75 cm deep or just above bedrock in shallow sub crop areas. The samples are sifted to between 355µm and 1mm All samples are free of organic matter before sifting. o In order to optimize the sample’s ability to represent the mineralisation, the samples are collected from the “B” or “C” horizon in order to mitigate the misrepresentation caused by transported material. o These sampling methods are standard industry methods and are believed to provide acceptably representative samples for the type of mineralisation encountered. Drilling Samples  Previously drilled Diamond core drilling (DD) was sampled.  Intervals from 15 drill holes from the Lewis Ponds area that were previously unsampled, were selected for sampling based on visual observations of mineralisation.  All holes were sampled based on the visual presence of sulphide mineralisation, which created small sample sizes and on geological lithologies interpreted to have potential to host Au mineralisation. o Each interval was geologically logged, and sample intervals determined using visual observations of mineralisation or geological lithologies. o Each sample was cut in half, with one half sent for assay analysis and the other stored for future use.  All intervals were logged and recorded in GRL’s standard templates and saved in the company database. Data includes: from and to measurements, colour, lithology, magnetic susceptibility, structures etc. Visible mineralisation content was logged as well as alteration and weathering. A table of the historical holes sampled and sent for assay, along with their drilling dates are in the table below:

Godolphin Resources

==> picture [720 x 56] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		Sample type and assay meters is summarized below: HoleID Date Started Date completed Drill Type Diameter Total metres sampled (m) TLPD-12 07-May-93 06-Jun-93 DD NQ 34.4 TLPD-12W3 11-Jul-94 21-Jul-94 DD_Wedge NQ 27.7 TLPD-18 11-Jan-94 22-Jan-94 DD NQ 43.5 TLPD-21W 08-Feb-94 15-Feb-94 DD NQ 34.35 TLPD-28 05-Mar-94 28-Mar-94 DD NQ 24.3 TLPD-28W 05-Apr-94 18-Apr-94 DD_Wedge NQ 72.58 TLPD-29 28-Mar-94 21-Apr-94 DD NQ 12.55 TLPD-29W2 11-May-94 28-May-94 DD_Wedge NQ 78 TLPD-30 19-Apr-94 14-May-94 DD NQ 49.8 TLPD-32 29-Jun-94 26-Jul-94 DD NQ 18.6 TLPD-33 08-Oct-94 29-Oct-94 DD NQ 25 TLPD-34 30-Oct-94 07-Nov-94 DD NQ 23.35 TLPD-34W 09-Nov-94 11-Nov-94 DD_Wedge NQ 11.3 TLPD-36W 17-Feb-95 23-Feb-95 DD_Wedge NQ 11.7 TLPD-43 30-Apr-95 22-May-95 DD NQ 9.8 TLPD-62 21-Jan-97 31-Jan-97 DD NQ 6.2 The results are based on sub-surface samples obtained by previous diamond drilling, with cores being held at the historic Lewis Ponds mine site.
*Drilling* *techniques*	 Drill type (eg core, reverse circulation, open-hole hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc) and details.	 All samples have been taken from historical diamond drilling of NQ size.
*Drill* *sample* *recovery*	 Method of recording and assessing core and chip sample recoveries and results assessed.	 Core recoveries at Lewis Ponds have not in every case been recorded on a sample by sample basis, however a good recovery database is provided by recoveries recorded in the Geological Logs. These show that significant core loss is a comparatively rare event once the hole enters competent rock, and in most cases is due to local stopped voids, faulting and/or shearing. Recovery of core has been measured by restoring the core, fitting individual pieces end to end where possible. Lengths of the assembled core were measured to compare with the intervals between drillers’ downhole markers. The ratio between the measured length and the marker interval length was recorded as core recovery percent. .  From historical records, core loss was minimized by maintaining a satisfactory balance between core diameter and drilling cost. For the TOA, TRO and TriAusMin programs between 1992 and 2004, also the Shell/Aquitaine 1981 program, the standard core size was HQ reducing to NQ. This was the most significant factor in minimizing core loss, to the extent that contract controlled drilling provisions were not called for.

Godolphin Resources

==> picture [720 x 56] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
*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.	 The drill core was re-logged by a GRL Geologist. The log includes detailed datasets for: Lithology, Alteration, Mineralisation, Veins, Structure, Geotechnical logs, magnetic susceptibility.  The data is logged by a qualified geologist and is suitable for use in any future geological modelling, resource estimation, mining and/or metallurgical studies
*Sub-* *sampling* *techniques* *and sample* *preparation*	 For all sample types, the nature, quality and appropriateness of the sample preparation technique.	Soil and Rock Chip Samples  All samples are crushed then pulverised in a ring pulveriser (LM5) to a nominal 90% passing 75 microns. An approximately 100g pulp sub-sample is taken from the large sample and residual material stored.  A quartz flush (approximately 0.5 kilogram of white, medium-grained sand) is put through the LM5 pulveriser prior to each new batch of samples. A number of quartz flushes are also put through the pulveriser after each massive sulphide sample to ensure the bowl is clean prior to the next sample being processed. A selection of this pulverised quartz flush material is then analysed and reported by the lab to gauge the potential level of contamination that may be carried through from one sample to the next. Drilling Samples  Sample intervals were marked by the geologist using the lithology and visual observation of sulphide mineralisation as guide. Sample lengths are not equal. The NQ core was split using a core saw and one half of each sample interval sent for assay analysis.  QAQC was employed. A standard, blank or duplicate sample was inserted into the sample stream at regular intervals and also at specific intervals based on the geologists discretion. Standards were quantified industry standards. Sample sizes are appropriate for the nature of mineralisation.  The Lewis Ponds sulphides, whether massive or disseminated, have not raised problems of representivity with the RC and DD sampling employed. Preliminary metallurgical study indicates that gold may be refractory within some sulphide lenses.  No problems of ultra-fine grain size exist at Lewis Ponds and the sample sizes are considered adequate.
*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.  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	Soil and Rock Chip Samples  Sample preparation and assaying was conducted through ALS Laboratories, Orange, NSW or Bureau Veritas, Adelaide. Some analyses of pulps were completed at the ALS Laboratory in Perth WA and Brisbane QLD.  Gold was determined by 30g fire assay fusion with ICP-AES analysis to 1 ppb LLDor a 40g portion of the sample determined by Atomic Absorbtion Spectrometry.  Other elements by mixed acid digestion,including Hydrofluoric, Nitric, Hydrochloric and Perchloric Acidsfollowed by ICP-AES analysis. . Drilling Samples  All GRL samples were submitted to Bureau Veritas laboratories in Adelaide.  The samples were sorted, then weighed. Primary preparation involved crushing and splitting the sample with a riffle splitter where necessary to obtain a sub-fraction which was pulverised in a vibrating pulveriser. All coarse residues have been retained.  The samples have been analysed by firing a 50 g (approx) portion of the sample. Lower sample weights may be employed for samples with very high sulphide and metal contents.

Godolphin Resources

==> picture [720 x 56] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	been established.	This is the classical fire assay process and will give total separation of Gold, Platinum and Palladium in the sample. Au, Pd, Pt have been determined by Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP) Optical Emission Spectrometry.  The lab routinely inserts analytical blanks, standards and duplicates into the client sample batches for laboratory QAQC performance monitoring.  GRL also inserted QAQC samples into the sample stream as mentioned above.  All of the QAQC data has been statistically assessed and if required a batch or a portion of the batch may be re-assayed. (no re-assays required for the data in the release).  QC Certificates of Analysis are held from the laboratory in respect of regular internal check assays of Standards, Blanks and Internal Duplicates from pulps of the original samples. Random checks give evidence of satisfactory procedures.
*Verification* *of sampling* *and* *assaying*	 The verification of significant intersections by either independent or alternative company personnel.  Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data verification, data storage (physical and electronic) protocols.  Discuss any adjustment to assay data.	 The lab routinely inserts analytical blanks, standards and duplicates into the client sample batches for laboratory QAQC performance monitoring.  GRL also inserted QAQC samples as mentioned above  All of the QAQC data has been statistically assessed. GRL has undertaken its own further review of QAQC results of the BV routine standards through a database consultancy, 100% of which returned within acceptable QAQC limits. This fact combined with the fact that the data is demonstrably consistent has meant that the results are considered to be acceptable and suitable for reporting.  In 2004, A Database Verification exercise was carried out for Lewis Ponds. This was recorded on a master spreadsheet which listed all drill holes, one sample per record. The data, as entered, was checked individually against source Assay Certificates and Sample Submission information. 289 errors were identified, listed and corrected. Of these 16 were significant errors. 9 of the 16 from early drilling could not be reconstructed and had to be deleted from the database. In those cases, original Assay Certificates were not available and checks could only be made against scanned tables of assays or in some cases scans of assay results on drill cross sections.
*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.	Soil and Rock Chip Samples  Sample coordinates are recorded by a handheld GPS and entered into the database. They are then corrected in the database to MGA94_55 Drilling  Collar positions have been set in using a Trimble GPS instrument with a sub-5-meter level of accuracy. Collars of TOA and TRO holes have been picked up using a DGPS Sub- 1 meter instrument since mid-1995. Prior to that, holes may have been sited relative to a pegged tape and compass grid with significant inaccuracies. However, in 1995 all previous hole collars appear to have been identified and surveyed by DGPS. No tape and compass coordinates are used to locate any item of drill data in the current database. In 2004 limited checks were made of surviving early hole collars (pre-1995) using DGPS with satisfactory results when compared with database.  GRL also conducted collar check prior to the 2021 Mineral Resource Estimation using a Trimble TDC150 GPS with average accuracy of 20-30cm in all three axes. When comparing the GRL collar data with the current database, the average variance was between 1.5 and 3.0m resulting is high confidence in the current collar database.

Godolphin Resources

==> picture [720 x 56] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [711 x 396] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
Data  Data spacing for reporting Soil and Rock Chip Sampling
spacing of Exploration Results.  Soil sampling was completed on a 30m to 50m by 100m grid, considered sufficient for the prospect type
and  Whether the data spacing  Rock chip samples were sourced from various outcropping lithologies.
distribution and distribution is
sufficient to establish the
Drilling
degree of geological and
grade continuity  The geological model interpreted for the Lewis Ponds deposit consists of several narrow tabular massive, semi massive and stringer sulphide units striking NW and dipping steeply
appropriate for the Mineral NE in general. This model is different to the historic models for Lewis Ponds, but the two main historic targets (Tom’s and Main Zones) is generally consistent with new Tom’s and
Resource and Ore Spicer’s lodes. As a result, the drill density in these main units is generally good with intersections usually about 50 to 80m apart, but areas with less data density do exist.
Reserve estimation  Historic sampling was selective, likely targeting areas within the geological model if the time. For this reason, some intercepts of historic drillholes with the current model have no
procedure(s) and assay data, and the data spacing is greater in areas such as these.
 classifications applied. Whether sample  These current results are from these zones that were previously not assayed, and show that low-grade mineralisation exists outside the previously assayed intervals.
 The main mineralized zone of the Spicer’s lode in the north of the deposit has a data spacing of 50-80m in both dimensions for an area roughly 500m x 300m. The general data
compositing has been
applied. density for the Tom’s lode is similar, but for smaller areas of strike and dip through the length of the deposit.
Orientation  Whether the orientation of Soil and Rock Chip Samples
of data in sampling achieves
relation to unbiased sampling of  Soils sampled on a grid
geological possible structures and  Rocks sampled where outcropping occurred
structure the extent to which this is
known, considering the Drilling
deposit type.
 As the lenses dip variably to the east, and the difficult topography is to the west, there has been little problem in siting holes to optimize the drill to mineralization intersection
angles. The strongest mineralization dips about 70°-80° east. This has resulted in intersection angles effectively normal to the thicker parts of the mineralization.
 No significant bias is likely as a result of the pattern of intersection angles.
Sample  The measures taken to  For all programs care has been taken to have standard procedures for sample processing, and each past drilling program has recorded its procedures. These have been
security ensure sample security. simple and industry standard to avoid sample bias.
 All core was collected and accounted for by GRL employees/consultants during drilling. All logging was done by GRL personnel. All samples were bagged into calico bags by
GRL personnel.
 The appropriate manifest of sample numbers and a sample submission form containing laboratory instructions were submitted to the laboratory. Any discrepancies between
sample submissions and samples received were routinely followed up and accounted for.
Audits or  The results of any audits  A total review and audit of the Lewis Ponds database was carried out following the public float of Tri Origin Minerals Limited on 9 Jan 2004. Areas were: Grids and Collars,
reviews or reviews of sampling Downhole
techniques and data.
 Surveys, Assays, Geology. Apart from this Review, previous resource estimates were studied for factors likely to introduce bias, up or down.
----- End of picture text -----

Godolphin Resources

==> picture [720 x 56] 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 license to operate in the area.	 The Lewis Ponds project is comprised of tenement EL5583 located approximately 14km east-northeast of the city of Orange, central New South Wales, Australia. Local relief at the site is between 700 and 900m above sea level. Access to the area is by sealed and gravel roads and a network of farm tracks.  The exploration rights to the project are owned 100% by the Godolphin Resources through the granted exploration license EL5583_._  Security of $40,000 is held by the Department of Planning and Environment in relation to EL5583  The project is on partly cleared private land, most of which is owned by Godolphin Resources. Access agreements are in place for the private land surrounding the main deposit area. There are no national parks, reserves or heritage sites affecting the project area. At this stage security  can only be enhanced by continued engagement with stakeholders and maintaining profile in the city of Orange in particular.
*Exploration* *done by other* *parties*	 Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties.	EL 5583 was granted to TriAusMin in 1999 for an area of 71 units and replaced three previously held exploration licenses (EL 1049, EL 4137 and EL 4432). In the 2006 renewal, the license was party relinquished to 57 units and the following year TriAusMin purchased 289 hectares of freehold land over Lewis Ponds. Upon renewal in 2011, EL 5583 was reduced to 51 units for a further term until 24thJune 2014. The second renewal of EL 5583 was granted until June of 2017 with no reduction in tenement size. On August 5th2014, TriAusMin underwent a corporate merger with Heron Resources Limited which resulted in Heron acquiring 100% of EL 5583 and the 289 hectares of freehold land over Lewis Ponds. In 2017, Ardea Resources Ltd was “spun out” as a new company, and gained ownership of EL 5583, with TriAusmin becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of Ardea. In 2019, Godolphin Resources Ltd was “spun out” as a new company, and gained ownership of EL 5583, with TriAusmin becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of Godolphin. In the 1850’s gold was discovered at Ophir. At this time Lewis ponds was already a small mining camp. Shallow underground mining took place at Spicer’s, Lady Belmore, Tom’s Zone and on several mines in the Icely area during the period 1887 to 1921. In 1964, a number of major companies including Aquitaine, Amax, Shell and Homestake explored the region looking for depth and strike extensions of the Lewis Ponds mineralization but failed to intersect significant mineralization. These companies had drilled approximately 8,500 meters. Not commonly noted, but of great significance is the fact that much of Lewis Ponds’ early development was in lieu of the high grades of silver in its ores. It appears that silver was the major commodity mined at different points of the mines’ history.
*Geology*	 Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralization.	The Lewis Ponds Project occurs on the western margin of the Hill End Trough in the eastern Lachlan Fold Belt, which hosts a range of base metals in volcanic-hosted massive sulphide deposits (VMS), porphyry copper-gold and gold deposits, including Woodlawn (polymetallic), Cadia-Ridgeway (Cu-Au), North Parkes (Cu-Au), Copper Hill (Cu-Au), Tomingley (Au) and McPhillamys (Au). The Molong Volcanic Belt is west of the EL 5583 and comprises Ordovician to early Silurian basal units of mafic to ultramafic volcanic and sedimentary rocks of the Kenilworth and Cabonne Groups. These units are separated from the Hill End Trough by the extensive Godolphin Fault Thrust System. The Mumbil Group unconformably overlies the Molong Volcanic Belt and comprises shallow-water Later Silurian sequence of felsic volcanics, volcaniclastics, siltstone and limestone. Part of this Group is the Barnby Hills Formation at Lewis Ponds and comprises (tuffaceous) siltstones overlying limestone and rhyodacitic volcaniclastics. To the east and conformably overlying rocks of the Mumbil Group, siltstone and minor sandstone units form part of the Silurian-Early Devonian Hill End Trough sedimentary sequence The Lewis Ponds deposit is located in a locally highly structured zone within the western limb of a north-west plunging syncline. The deposit consists of stratabound, disseminated to massive sulphide lenses. The deposit is hosted in Silurian felsic to intermediate volcanic rocks as a thin, mostlyfine-grained sedimentaryunit with occasional limestone lenses

Godolphin Resources

==> picture [720 x 56] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary	Commentary	Commentary	Commentary	Commentary	Commentary	Commentary	Commentary
		that has undergone significant deformation and is now defined as a steeply east dipping body with mineralization that occurs over a strike length of more than 2km. The Southern mineralization occurs within a limestone breccia and Tom’s mine is hosted by siltstone and consists of fine-grained tuffaceous sediments. The mineralized zones unconformably overlie a sequence of strongly foliated and hydrothermally altered quartz-plagioclase dacite. Mineralization occurs in two main styles: plunging shoots of thicker, high-grade mineralization within the anticline and syncline axes; and as tabular lenses in fold limbs and shear zones.
*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:	Total drilling to the date of this report was 79296.38metres comprising of:  168 primary diamond holes for 53541.37 metres  30 wedged diamond holes for 15,077.51 metres  10 diamond tails to RCP holes for 2,454.3metres  82 RCP holes for 8223.2 metres  Drill hole information from samples holes is presented in the table below. Hole_ID Hole_Type Depth MGA_Grid_ID MGA_East MGA_North MGA_RL Dip (degrees) MGA_Azi (degrees) TLPD-12 DD 579.1 MGA94_55 709768.9108 6316923.87 816.71 -75 223.184 TLPD-12W3 DD_Wedge 514.5 MGA94_55 709768.9108 6316923.87 816.71 -75 223.184 TLPD-18 DD 544.7 MGA94_55 709786.5322 6316849.955 796.65 -63 223.193 TLPD-21W DD 516 MGA94_55 709719.0647 6316951.194 832.22 -75 223.184 TLPD-28 DD 750.3 MGA94_55 709857.3475 6316954.243 790.72 -80 223.193 TLPD-28W DD_Wedge 675.7 MGA94_55 709857.3475 6316954.243 790.72 -80 223.193 TLPD-29 DD 791.5 MGA94_55 709796.485 6317057.722 803.63 -85 223.193 TLPD-29W2 DD_Wedge 768 MGA94_55 709796.485 6317057.722 803.63 -85 223.193 TLPD-30 DD 802.9 MGA94_55 709647.2764 6317059.422 864.05 -85 220.193 TLPD-32 DD 645.1 MGA94_55 709810.5771 6317035.357 799.77 -65 233.193 TLPD-33 DD 489.8 MGA94_55 709725.7768 6316803.554 796.42 -79 223.193 TLPD-34 DD 327.1 MGA94_55 709724.8368 6316802.984 796.53 -58 228.193 TLPD-34W DD_Wedge 273.42 MGA94_55 709724.8368 6316802.984 796.53 -58 228.193 TLPD-36W DD_Wedge 397.6 MGA94_55 709623.0913 6316834.748 815.35 -66 227.656 TLPD-43 DD 389 MGA94_55 709823.7869 6316685.448 805.15 -46 223.156 TLPD-62 DD 441.2 MGA94_55 710301.4027 6316123.752 795.16 -65 227.166
		Hole_ID	Hole_Type	Depth	MGA_Grid_ID	MGA_East	MGA_North	MGA_RL	Dip (degrees)	MGA_Azi (degrees)
		TLPD-12	DD	579.1	MGA94_55	709768.9108	6316923.87	816.71	-75	223.184
		TLPD-12W3	DD_Wedge	514.5	MGA94_55	709768.9108	6316923.87	816.71	-75	223.184
		TLPD-18	DD	544.7	MGA94_55	709786.5322	6316849.955	796.65	-63	223.193
		TLPD-21W	DD	516	MGA94_55	709719.0647	6316951.194	832.22	-75	223.184
		TLPD-28	DD	750.3	MGA94_55	709857.3475	6316954.243	790.72	-80	223.193
		TLPD-28W	DD_Wedge	675.7	MGA94_55	709857.3475	6316954.243	790.72	-80	223.193
		TLPD-29	DD	791.5	MGA94_55	709796.485	6317057.722	803.63	-85	223.193
		TLPD-29W2	DD_Wedge	768	MGA94_55	709796.485	6317057.722	803.63	-85	223.193
		TLPD-30	DD	802.9	MGA94_55	709647.2764	6317059.422	864.05	-85	220.193
		TLPD-32	DD	645.1	MGA94_55	709810.5771	6317035.357	799.77	-65	233.193
		TLPD-33	DD	489.8	MGA94_55	709725.7768	6316803.554	796.42	-79	223.193
		TLPD-34	DD	327.1	MGA94_55	709724.8368	6316802.984	796.53	-58	228.193
		TLPD-34W	DD_Wedge	273.42	MGA94_55	709724.8368	6316802.984	796.53	-58	228.193
		TLPD-36W	DD_Wedge	397.6	MGA94_55	709623.0913	6316834.748	815.35	-66	227.656
		TLPD-43	DD	389	MGA94_55	709823.7869	6316685.448	805.15	-46	223.156
		TLPD-62	DD	441.2	MGA94_55	710301.4027	6316123.752	795.16	-65	227.166
*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	 No grade aggregation, weighting, or cut-off methods were used for this announcement.

Godolphin Resources

==> picture [720 x 56] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary	Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary	Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
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.
*Relationship* *between* *mineralization* *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. The mineralized units generally dip steeply to the east. Drilling has almost exclusively been conducted from the east resulting in acceptable intersection angles with the mineralized units. The drill angles vary, but is generally at 60 degrees down, resulting in mineralized intersections slightly longer than the true width. Interpretation of the mineralized units honor the true width.
*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. Diagrams can be found in the body of 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 Results.	 Results reported in this announcement have associated “from” and “to” depth to highlight their location down hole. The results reported in this announcement are not currently used in any estimation calcualtions. NOTE: If more detailed results are required, a request can be made to GRL.

Godolphin Resources

==> picture [720 x 56] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [639 x 417] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
Other  Other exploration data, if A Magnetic TMI survey was conducted in 2004 and found magnetic anomalies south east of Lewis Ponds.
substantive meaningful and material,
exploration should be reported
data 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.
A Hoist Electro Magnetic survey was also done at the same time.
Further work  The nature and scale of  Drilling to test the near surface presence of mineralisation as part of the interpreted quarry lode.
planned further work (eg
tests for lateral extensions
or depth extensions or
large-scale step-out
drilling).
----- End of picture text -----

Godolphin Resources