GREAT DIVIDE MINING LTD - Regulatory Filings 2023

ASX Release

4 October 2023

==> picture [157 x 80] intentionally omitted <==

51,100 oz Gold Initial JORC Mineral Resource Estimate at Yellow Jack

Great Divide Mining Ltd (the Company or GDM ), a new Queensland gold, antimony and critical metals explorer, is pleased to report its maiden Inferred Mineral Resource Estimate (MRE) at the Yellow Jack Project in accordance with the 2012 JORC Code. The maiden Inferred Mineral Resource at the Yellow Jack project totals 1.84 Mt at 0.86 g/t gold (Au) for 51,100 oz contained gold and is reported above a 0.5g/t Au cutoff grade.

Highlights:

Yellow Jack inferred JORC Mineral Resource of 1.84Mt @ 0.86 g/t Au for 51,100 oz contained gold above a cutoff grade of 0.5g/t Au,
Oxide gold resource, open at depth and along strike with initial drilling limited to only 70m vertical depth,
• Further diamond core drilling and RC drilling is planned in the coming months and is expected to expand the Mineral Resource,
Metallurgical test work is planned on the drill cores to determine if ore-sorting and other potential metallurgical processes can improve the gold head grade,
A conceptual mine plan, LiDAR survey, and other works are planned for the coming months as GDM advances towards a Pre-Feasibility Study for mining at Yellow Jack.

Chief Executive Officer, Justin Haines, commented:

“We are excited to announce GDM’s first Mineral Resource Estimate at Yellow Jack of 1.84Mt @ 0.86 g/t Au for 51,100 oz contained gold, within weeks of being listed on ASX.

“This MRE is the first step towards eventual gold production at Yellow Jack, which could take advantage of nearby existing infrastructure, including multiple processing plants, facilitating a low capex mining operation at Yellow Jack. We are in the process of completing a conceptual mine plan for Yellow Jack in the coming weeks.”

GDM engaged Xenith Consulting, a global mining consulting firm, to complete a JORC Mineral Resource Estimate at Yellow Jack. A copy of their report is included with this announcement; see Annexure 1.

Mineral Resource Estimate

The Mineral Resource Estimate for Yellow Jack is summarised in the table below and is reported above a cutoff grade of 0.5 g/t Au. The Mineral Resource was estimated using previous RC and RAB drill hole results, the details of which are included in Annexure 1. Density in the model is assigned based on sampled densities sourced from historical reports and nearby similar gold deposits.

Resource Classification	Tonnes (Mt)	Density (t/m3)	Au (g/t)	As (ppm)	Contained Au (oz)
Inferred	1.84	2.65	0.86	1014	51,100

The Company has planned to conduct further infill drilling and a resource extension drill program (RC and diamond drilling) as the gold resource is open at depth and along strike. The previous initial drilling was limited to only 70m vertical depth, presenting significant potential upside for the Company at depth.

Great Divide Mining Ltd

ACN 655 868 803

GPO Box 154 Brisbane QLD 4001

greatdividemining.com.au

==> picture [157 x 80] intentionally omitted <==

Yellow Jack Project

The Yellow Jack Project is approximately 215 km west of Townsville in North Queensland. The Yellow Jack deposit occurs in the Broken River Province, deposited during the Silurian to the Carboniferous periods. The area surrounding Yellow Jack hosts abundant mineral occurrences, which are predominantly gold prospects. The nearby Big Rush Gold Mine, formerly owned by Great Northern Minerals, is located 20 km southwest of the Yellow Jack Project in the same package of rocks.

Gold mineralisation at Yellow Jack is associated with quartz veins and stockworks hosted within a micaceous arkose. The initial drilling indicates that anomalous gold mineralisation occurs in a zone approximately 30-50 m wide, with a strike length of more than 1 km, indicating a strong structural control. A 3-D image of the gold mineralisation is included below in Figure 1.

The gold-bearing veins generally have low concentrations of iron oxides and sulphides. The best grade mineralisation typically occurs above 35 m vertical depth. The base of oxidation is located at depths of 50-60 m vertically. Anomalous gold values occur in a zone 30-50 m wide, and within this zone, higher-grade lodes (>1.0 g/t Au) are up to 5 m thick, with an aggregate thickness of up to 20 m. Lodes are associated with variably intense quartz veining and green sericite alteration and are steeply east-dipping to vertical. Vein intensity within the lode varies along strike and down-dip. Further details of the mineralisation are included in Annexure 1.

==> picture [489 x 322] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [403 x 10] intentionally omitted <==

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

Above: Isometric view of the Yellow Jack resource quartz veins from the geological model.
----- End of picture text -----

==> picture [25 x 7] intentionally omitted <==

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

ENDS
----- End of picture text -----

ASX release authorised by the Chief Executive Officer of Great Divide Mining Ltd.

==> picture [157 x 80] intentionally omitted <==

For further information:

Investors and Media:

Justin Haines

Chief Executive Officer e: [email protected]

Reign Advisory

e: [email protected] p: +61 2 9174 5388

About Great Divide Mining Ltd (ASX: GDM)

Great Divide Mining is a Gold, Antimony and critical metals explorer in Queensland, with four projects across eleven tenements (see below). GDM’s focus is on developing assets within areas of historical mining and past exploration with nearby infrastructure, thus enabling rapid development. Through a staged exploration and development programme, GDM intends to generate cash flow from its initial projects to support further exploration across its portfolio of highly prospective tenements.

==> picture [401 x 482] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [157 x 80] intentionally omitted <==

Competent Persons Statement

The information in this announcement that relates to Mineral Resources is based on information compiled by Mr. Jaco van Zyl, a Competent Person who is a Member of The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy or the Australian Institute

Mr. Jaco van Zyl is a full-time employee of Xenith Consulting, whom Great Divide Mining contracted to conduct the Geological modelling and Resource Estimation for the Yellow Jack deposit.

Mr Jaco van Zyl 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.

Mr. Jaco van Zyl consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears.

Forward-Looking Statements

This announcement may contain forward-looking information about the Company and its operations. In certain cases, forward-looking information may be identified by such terms as "anticipates", "believes", “should”, "could", "estimates", “target”, “likely”, “plan”, "expects", "may", “intend”, "shall", "will", or "would". These statements are based on information currently available to the Company and the Company provides no assurance that actual results will meet management's expectations. Forward-looking statements are subject to risk factors associated with the Company’s business, many of which are beyond the control of the Company. It is believed that the expectations reflected in these statements are reasonable, but they may be affected by a variety of variables and changes in underlying assumptions which could cause actual results or trends to differ materially from those expressed or implied in such statements. There can be no assurance that actual outcomes will not differ materially from these statements.

==> picture [157 x 80] intentionally omitted <==

Annexure 1: Yellow Jack Mineral Resource Estimate Technical Report by Xenith Consulting received on 3 October 2023.

==> picture [96 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

1	EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 9	EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 9
2	INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF REPORT ................................................................................. 12
	2.1	Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 12
	2.2	Scope of Project ...................................................................................................................... 13
	2.3	Site Visit .................................................................................................................................. 13
	2.4	Tenements Status ................................................................................................................... 15
3	EXPLORATION HISTORY .......................................................................................................... 16
4	GEOLOGY ............................................................................................................................... 18
	4.1	Regional Geology .................................................................................................................... 18
	4.2	. Local Geology ........................................................................................................................ 18
	4.3	Mineralisation ......................................................................................................................... 19
	4.4	Oxide Profiles .......................................................................................................................... 19
5	DRILLING ............................................................................................................................... 20
	5.1	Drilling Methods ..................................................................................................................... 20
	5.2	Collar Surveys .......................................................................................................................... 20
	5.3	Down Hole Surveys ................................................................................................................. 20
	5.4	Drill Hole Data Validation ....................................................................................................... 20
6	GEOLOGICAL MODELLING ...................................................................................................... 22
	6.1	Geological Data ....................................................................................................................... 22
	6.2	Surface Modelling ................................................................................................................... 22
	6.3	Geological Model .................................................................................................................... 22
7	EXPLORATORY DATA ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 24
	7.1	Sampling and Assaying ............................................................................................................ 24
	7.2	Global Data Analysis ............................................................................................................... 24
	7.3	Element Correlations .............................................................................................................. 25
	7.4	Composites ............................................................................................................................. 26
	7.5	Contact Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 27
	7.6	Top Cuts .................................................................................................................................. 27
	7.7	Estimation Domains ................................................................................................................ 28
8	BLOCK MODEL AND RESOURCE ESTIMATION .......................................................................... 30
	8.1	Model Definition ..................................................................................................................... 30
	8.2	Estimation Method ................................................................................................................. 30
	8.3	Model Results ......................................................................................................................... 31
		8.3.1 Model Comparison .................................................................................................... 32
	8.4	Model Validation .................................................................................................................... 33
	8.5	Resource Classification ........................................................................................................... 37
9	RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................. 38
10	REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 39
11	COMPETENT PERSON STATEMENT AND CONSENT .................................................................. 40
	11.1	Competent Person’s Consent Form ........................................................................................ 41

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 2

==> picture [96 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 - Location plan of the Yellow Jack Project ...................................................................................... 11 Figure 2.1 – Location plan of the Yellow Jack Project ..................................................................................... 12 Figure 2.2 – Preserved Reverse Circulation Drill Collar (96YJRC158) .............................................................. 14 Figure 2.3 –Deposit looking approximately along the strike of the mineralisation. ....................................... 14 Figure 2.4 – Tenement and sub-blocks of EPM 17321 .................................................................................... 15 Figure 4.1 – Regional Geology of the Yellow Jack Project ............................................................................... 19 Figure 6.1 - Cross section through 96YJRC141 - 96YJRC145 ............................................................................ 22 Figure 6.2 – Plan view showing association of northern and southern mineralisation. ................................. 23 Figure 7.1 – Histograms of Au and As for the RC Drilling ................................................................................ 25 Figure 7.2 – Scatter plot of Arsenic vs. Au for all data .................................................................................... 26 Figure 7.4 – Boundary Analysis Plots for Two Domains .................................................................................. 27 Figure 7.5 – Top cut analysis (Top - LR; quantile analysis, Cumulative Frequency, Probability Plot, Bottom - LR; Mean vs. Top Cut, COV vs. Top Cut, Au Histogram) ........................................................................................ 28 Figure 7.6 – Proportional Effect in Au Data. .................................................................................................... 29 Figure 8.1 –Au Grade Tonnage Curve .............................................................................................................. 32 Figure 8.2 – Comparison of Sample Grades (left) with Block Grades (right) ................................................... 34 Figure 8.3 – Cross sections through 96YJRC144 to 96YJRC141 and 96YJRC158 and 96YJRC156. ................... 35 Figure 8.4 – Validation swath plots by Northing, Easting and RL .................................................................... 36

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 – The Yellow Jack Inferred Mineral Resource .................................................................................. 10 Table 5.1 - Drill meters by Drill Method. ......................................................................................................... 20 Table 5.2 – Data Files Supplied. ....................................................................................................................... 21 Table 7.1 – Summary Statistics for the Raw Assay Data. ................................................................................ 24 Table 8.1 – Block Model Parameters ............................................................................................................... 30 Table 8.2 – Search Ellipse Parameters. ............................................................................................................ 31 Table 8.3 – Inferred Mineral Resource above 0.5g/t Au cut-off. .................................................................... 31 Table 8.4 –Mineral Resource reported by Whim Creek Pty Ltd in 1997 ......................................................... 32 Table 8.5 – 2009 Mineral Resource stated by Bluekebble Pty Ltd .................................................................. 33 Table 8.6 – Odessa vs. Xenith Search Ellipse Parameters ............................................................................... 33 Table 8.7 – Descriptive Statistics Comparing Sample and Block Model Data. ................................................ 34 Table A.1 - Sampling Techniques and Data ..................................................................................................... 43 Table A.2 - Reporting of Exploration Results ................................................................................................... 49 Table A.3 - Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources ........................................................................... 53 Table B.4 – Drill-hole Locations and Mineralised Intercepts ........................................................................... 59

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 3

==> picture [96 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A.	JORC Code (2012). Edition Table 1......................................................................................... 43
Appendix B.	Yellow Jack Drillhole locations and mineralised intercepts ................................................... 59

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 4

==> picture [96 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

DISCLAIMER

This document and the drawings, information and data recorded in this document have been prepared by Xenith Consulting Pty Ltd with all reasonable skill, care, and diligence, and taking account of the timescale and resources allocated to it by agreement with you (our Client).

Information reported herein is based on the interpretation of data collected, which has been accepted in good faith as being accurate and valid. This document is solely for the use of the authorised recipient and this document may not be used, copied, or reproduced in whole or part for any purpose other than that for which it was supplied by Xenith Consulting Pty Ltd.

Xenith Consulting Pty Ltd makes no representation, undertakes no duty, and accepts no responsibility to any third party who may use or rely upon this document, or the drawings, information and data recorded in this document.

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 5

==> picture [96 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

DOCUMENT ISSUE APPROVAL

Project & Document No:	Date:
Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate	29/09/2023
Title	Revision No:
Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate
Client:	Status:
Great Divide Mining Ltd	Final

	Name	Position	Date
Prepared by:	Jaco van Zyl	Snr Resource Geologist	31/08/2023
Reviewed by:	Michael Mills	Principal Geologist	7/09/2023
Approved by:	Troy Turner	Managing Director & CEO	29/09/2023

DISTRIBUTION

Organisation	Attention	No of hard copies	No of electronic copies	Actioned
Great Divide Mining	Justin Haines		1

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 6

==> picture [96 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

GLOSSARY

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Acronyms and Abbreviations	Description
AC	Air Core
AusIMM	The Australasian Institute of Miningand Metallurgy
AAS	Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy
Ag	Silver
Au	Gold
As	Arsenic
Bi	Bismuth
BHP	Broken Hill PtyLtd
Co	Cobalt
Cu	Copper
DGPS	Differential Global PositioningSystem
EPM	Exploration Permit Minerals
Great Divide	Great Divide Mining
g/t	Gramsper tonne
Ha	Hectares
JORC	Joint Ore Reserves Committee
km	Kilometres
LiDAR	Light Detection and Ranging
MIP	Maximum Intensity projection
ML	MiningLease
Mt	Million tonnes
m	Metres
Ni	Nickel
Pb	Lead
ppm	Partsper million
QA/QC	Qualityassurance/QualityControl

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 7

==> picture [96 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Acronyms and Abbreviations	Description
RAB	RotaryAir Blast
RC	Reverse Circulation
Sb	Antimony
t	Tonnes
t/m3	Tonnesper metre cubed(Density)
WMC	Western MiningCompany
Xenith	Xenith ConsultingPtyLtd
Zn	Zinc

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 8

==> picture [95 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Xenith Consulting Pty Ltd (“Xenith”) was commissioned by Great Divide Mining Limited Ltd (“Great Divide”) to undertake a Mineral Resource Estimate (MRE) and prepare a Mineral Resource Report for the Yellow Jack project (“the project”).

The project is approximately 215 km west of Townsville in North Queensland. The Yellow Jack project is accessible via Jessie Springs Road, heading south-southwest from Greenvale to Pandanus Homestead (Figure 1.1). The exploration permit, EPM 17321, is centred at Northing 7,858,996 m S and Easting 27,0645 m E. and covers an area of 139 km2.

EPM 17321 was granted to Bluekebble Pty Ltd on 4 November 2009 and later transferred to Walla Mines Ltd. In mid-2014 a sale of the project was negotiated and a transfer of the EPM from Walla Mines Ltd to Laura Exploration Pty Ltd was initiated. The transfer was completed in early 2015 and the EA was issued to Laura on 3 June 2015. Great Divide Mining Ltd acquired 100% of Laura Exploration Pty Ltd on listing on 25 August 2023.

The deposit occurs in the Broken River Province, deposited during the Silurian to the Carboniferous periods. The project area consists primarily of shallow marine sediments with lesser mafic volcanic rocks. The Broken River province has undergone deformation resulting in a series of synclines and anticlines, with structural trends commonly parallel to the regional Jessey Springs fault located to the south and two northeast-trending faults.

The outcrop at the project is poor due to a 1-2 m thick pisolitic gravel cover containing quartz pebbles. Bedrock drilling indicates the prospect is situated on a paleo-high with a bedrock sequence consisting of siltstones, micaceous sandstones, pebbly sandstones, and minor thin black shales. Gold mineralisation is associated with quartz veins and stockworks in the micaceous arkose bedrock.

Initial drilling (1996 and 1997) indicates that anomalous gold mineralisation occurs in a zone varying between 50 m and 60 m wide, with a strike length of more than 1 km. Initial interpretations and drilling indicate that the veins are sub-parallel to the strike of the Jessey Springs fault. The deposit was drilled on a nominal 40m E by 80m N spacing, with the drill fence lines oriented north-northwest to south-southeast. The Reverse Circulation (RC) drilling was at a 60° dip towards the south-southeast, but no downhole surveys were collected. Drilling is shallow, with holes drilled deeper than 80 m. The mineral resource is classified as an Inferred Resource based on the widely spaced drilling, low confidence in the bulk density and geological and grade continuity.

Sampled density data is lacking. As a result, density in the geological model is assigned based on sampled densities from the nearby Big Rush Deposit and the historical Odessa Mineral Resource report. Given the lack of density data, the reported Mineral Resource for the project has been downgraded to a lower confidence level, with tonnages and grades reported as an Inferred Mineral Resource. Certainty in the geological and grade continuity is also lower due to the inability to detect sufficient surface outcropping of mineralised veins to make an informed judgement on geological continuity.

The Mineral Resource estimate is shown in Table 1.1 and is reported above a cut-off grade of 0.5 g/t Au.

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 9

==> picture [95 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Table 1.1 – The Yellow Jack Inferred Mineral Resource

Resource Classification	Tonnes (Mt)	Density (t/m3)	Au (g/t)	As (ppm)	Contained Au (kOz)
Inferred	1.84	2.65	0.86	1014	51.1

Xenith recommends the following actions be completed further to improve the confidence in the Mineral resource:

Plan additional drilling to infill the sparsely drilled areas, reducing the drill spacing from 80 m×40 m to 40 m×40 m as a first pass.
Implement a resource extension drill program. The Resource is open at depth as drilling is limited to ~70 m vertical depth. The resource is also open along strike.
Twin the current RC holes to verify the gold and arsenic grades and understand potential grade variability.
Implement a rigorous QA/QC program when drilling commences.
Perform density measurements on all new samples collected during drilling.
Conduct a Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) survey over the deposit.

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 10

==> picture [95 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 1.1 - Location plan of the Yellow Jack Project

==> picture [337 x 471] intentionally omitted <==

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 11

2 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF REPORT

==> picture [95 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

2.1 Introduction

Great Divide commissioned Xenith to complete an independent resource estimate of the Yellow Jack deposit southwest of Greenvale, North Queensland.

The project area is approximately 215 km west of Townsville in North Queensland. Access is via the Lucky Springs Road south‐southwest from Greenvale to Pandanus Homestead (Figure 2.1). Vehicle access via station tracks within the tenement is generally reasonable. The tenement is located on the Clarke River, 1:250,000 geological sheet (SE55‐13), and the Burges 1:100,000 sheet (7859). The property is centred at Northing 7,858,996 m S and Easting 27,0645 m E.

The coordinate system used for the project was the Universal Transverse Mercator Map Grid of Australia (MGA2020) Zone 55.

Figure 2.1 – Location plan of the Yellow Jack Project

==> picture [483 x 339] intentionally omitted <==

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 12

==> picture [95 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

2.2 Scope of Project

The report details the work completed by Xenith in June 2023 to generate a Mineral Resource estimate of the project. The mineral resource was first estimated in 1997 by Whim Creek Consolidated and in 2009 by Odessa Resources Pty Ltd. Xenith has not cited the previous Mineral Resources and cannot comment on their integrity.

Geological modelling, tonnage and grade estimation, and reporting was undertaken by Mr Jaco van Zyl of Xenith and included:

Validation and review of all available drill hole data.
Generate estimation domains.
Construct a block model using Micromine Origin v2023.5 limited by estimation domain.
Undertake a statistical analysis based on the coded data within the estimation domains.
Complete estimation using inverse distance weighted interpolation and validate the results.
Classify the Mineral Resource as per the 2012 JORC Code.
Compilation of a report detailing the interpretation and modelling activities undertaken.
Design a drill program to extend and validate the existing drilling.
Complete a site visit.

2.3 Site Visit

Mr van Zyl visited the project on the 28th of June 2023, to review existing drill locations and get acquainted with the site locality and geology.

The site visit aimed to locate and inspect the historic RC collars (Figure 2.2) and potentially locate outcropping quartz veins. During exploratory data analysis of the drill hole data, several drill holes were identified with gold mineralisation in the first intercepts below the collar. Encountering no outcrop confirmed historical exploration reports' statements regarding poor or no outcrop. Figure 2.3 shows the location of the project covered in bushland.

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 13

==> picture [95 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 2.2 – Preserved Reverse Circulation Drill Collar (96YJRC158)

==> picture [220 x 293] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 2.3 –Deposit looking approximately along the strike of the mineralisation.

==> picture [220 x 293] intentionally omitted <==

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 14

2.4 Tenements Status

==> picture [95 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

The project comprises one granted exploration permit mineral, EPM 17321. (Figure 2.4).

EPM 17321 was granted to Bluekebble Pty Ltd on 4 November 2009 and later transferred to Walla Mines Ltd. In mid-2014, the project was sold and transferred from Walla Mines Ltd to Laura Exploration Pty Ltd. Laura Exploration was granted an exploration amendment (EA) in June 2015. Laura Exploration made two relinquishments, with the most recent reduction in November 2017. Great Divide Mining Ltd acquired 100% of Laura Exploration Pty Ltd on listing on 25 August 2023. The current EPM size is 16 sub-blocks with an expiry date of 3 November 2023, as shown in Figure 2.4.

Figure 2.4 – Tenement and sub-blocks of EPM 17321

==> picture [483 x 339] intentionally omitted <==

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 15

==> picture [95 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

3 EXPLORATION HISTORY

Early exploration in the project area targeted sedimentary-style uranium deposits. Early exploration aimed at locating gold mineralisation was by Otter‐Allstate Pty Ltd in a Joint Venture with Broken Hill Pty Ltd (BHP) on EPM 2485. BHP carried out stages of stream sediment sampling for Au, As, S, Cu, Pb and Zn. Three prospective areas were identified: A, B and C, gridded, soil and rock chip sampled and mapped.

Aberfoyle (EPM 3249) adopted a 'Carlin' exploration model targeting the Shield Creek Au-Sb workings. A single roadside rock-chip traverse across this zone was done, which revealed anomalous Sb-As and no Au in the ferruginous limestone. Aberfoyle concluded the 'Carlin' model was unsuited and withdrew from the area.

Duval (EPM 3972) explored for sediment-hosted and intrusive related hydrothermal gold deposits. Duval conducted a literature review and focussed on Area C, discovered by BHP. The work included limited pan concentrate sampling, 1:2,500 scale mapping, and rock chip sampling. Duval identified vertical auriferous quartz veins with limited strike extent.

Epithermal Gold/Juldex Pty Ltd, in collaboration with their joint venture (JV) partners Ross Mining and later Aberfoyle, conducted further investigations into potential gold mineralisation on EPM 4258. Juldex identified three prospects: Turtle Creek East, Sedhost and Wade Prospect. Near Turtle Creek, work was limited to soil geochemistry, trenching, and drilling of sixteen holes. Antimony (Sb) ± Au mineralisation was identified in two trenches and drilling, with the mineralisation contained in quartz veins. Sedhost corresponds to Area B, recognised by earlier BHP exploration. Initial work consisted of stream sediment sampling, soil geochemistry, trenching, and two (2) percussion drill holes. The work completed at the Wade prospect was stream sediment sampling, gridding, mapping (1:5,000), and soil geochemistry.

Cambrian Resources (EPM 4584) pursued the concept that gold could potentially be hosted in the chloritizedvolcanics underlying the Donaldson's Well Member of the Judea Formation. The latter hosts strata-bound fine-grained gold in jasperoid outcrops and coarser-grained gold in quartz veins. They performed limited pan concentrate sampling for visible gold and traversed domal structures in three localities, with no significant gold being found.

Newmont (EPM 5183) conducted a regional reconnaissance stream sediment and rock chip sampling programme highlighting the Shield Creek area as having anomalous Au. Mapping at a 1:2,500 scale combined with soil geochemistry defined several zones of Au‐Sb mineralisation associated with splays and cross‐ structures on the Tank Creek Fault. Four (4) trenches were excavated to sample the best rock/soil geochemistry. Three of the costeans intersected narrow quartz‐Sb veins with narrow clay alteration selvages. Trench samples returned low-order Au assays over narrow widths with no drilling conducted.

Western Mining Corporation (WMC, EPM 5571) conducted a 'blanket' stream sediment sampling programme with a sample density of four samples/km[2] . Around the Poley Cow Fault and splays, the sampling density was increased. Follow-up of the Au, As, Sb and TI stream sediment anomalies included soil and rock chip geochemistry. The geochemical sampling only yielded broad regional anomalies, with several low-order Au anomalies not followed up.

WMC (EPM 5621), located north and east of EPM 5571, was subject to the same exploration approach as for EPM 5571. The programme generated several high gold-only anomalies. After follow-up, WMC concluded the high values were due to paleo gold shed from Tertiary sediments.

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 16

==> picture [95 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Billiton (EPM 6049) held four sub‐blocks north and northeast of their 'Big Rush' prospect. They undertook stream sediment sampling (BCLI‐180 ppm) and rock chip sampling. They also placed two soil sampling lines across a zone of weakly developed sheeted quartz veins. Bulk Cyanide Leach (BCL) soils were all below the detection limits.

Aberfoyle (EPM 7188) undertook a regional programme involving the adjacent tenements EPM 4258 and EPM 7005. Aberfoyle considered the area prospective because of the Au‐As anomalies generated by the previous tenement holder WMC in the Poley Cow Fault area.

Subsequently, Aberfoyle changed their view of the validity of the sediment-hosted model and downgraded the region's prospectivity for sediment-hosted Au. Aberfoyle was reported to have tested for Au mineralisation at Discovery (Turtle Creek East), Sedhost, and Wades. Anomalous Au was reported in stream sediment sampling near the Janelles Hope gold deposit.

During their first year of tenure, Sons of Gwalia (EPM 9239) compiled previous exploration data and acquired Landsat TM imagery and aerial photographs. Completed fieldwork included stream sediment geochemistry in local areas, geological reconnaissance, rock chip geochemical sampling, and regional grid-based soil geochemical sampling (Parks & Porter, 1994).

During Year 2 of their tenure, in-fill soil geochemical sampling was undertaken, following up on the results of the grid-based regional soil surveys completed in Year 1. The sampling covered a large area of soil and lateritic cover lying between the Wades and Discovery Au prospects. Reconnaissance rock chip sampling indicated auriferous quartz veined sandstone assaying up to 3.8g/t Au. The results of the soil sampling programme delineated an area of 1500m x 1000m with elevated Au/As values extending to the northeast from the "Swamp" soil anomaly.

During 1996 and 1997, as part of a farm‐in joint venture arrangement with Sons of Gwalia, Whim Creek Consolidated NL completed a significant amount of Rotary Air Blast (RAB) drilling. They also completed a 40hole RC programme totalling 3200m as a follow-up to anomalous Au intersections from previous RAB and Air Core drilling.

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 17

==> picture [95 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

4 GEOLOGY

4.1 Regional Geology

The early to middle Devonian Broken River Province is fault-bound to the northwest against the Precambrian Georgetown Province, whilst the Clarke River Mylonite zone separates it from the Precambrian / Early Palaeozoic Lolworth-Ravenswood Province to the southeast.

The tenements lie within the Broken River Province and are interpreted as a graben open to the sea during the Silurian to Carboniferous periods. Marine and freshwater sediment deposition occurred in two basins separated by a shelf. Most of the eastern basin, the Clarke River basin, lies east of the tenements.

The Bundock basin, the western basin, contains freshwater and marine sediments of the DevonianCarboniferous Bundock Creek Formation. These sediments have been intruded by various felsic lithologies, including porphyritic rhyolites of the Permian Montgomery Range Complex. The intrusions form irregular stocks, sills, and dykes.

Limestone and marine shelf facies of the Devonian Broken River group occur throughout most of the central part of the project area. The Silurian Graveyard Creek group consists of greywacke, limestone lenses and limestone conglomerate, interpreted as foredeep depressions, occurring in the northeast and eastern portion of the tenements. There are minor small intrusions of Ordovician tonalite in the Cambrian marine sediments.

The Broken River sequence has been deformed into a series of synclines and anticlines, with the prevalent structural trends being sub-parallel to the two northeast trending bounding faults.

Gold mineralisation within the area includes both hard rock and alluvial Au styles of deposit. Hardrock Sb – (Au), alluvial-eluvial cinnabar (Hg) and Uranium mineralisation also occur in the area. The hard rock Au is associated with quartz veins generally within sediments of varying calcareous content and in zones of faulting.

Much of the mineralisation (The Sisters, Breccia Ridge, Sedhost and Big Rush) is hosted within or close to the Mytton Formation, the uppermost unit of the Broken River Group. This formation consists of fine-to-coarsegrained sub-lithic arenite and mudstone, with minor calcareous units. Within the project area, the Mytton formation trends northeast and is cut by the parallel trending Jessey Springs fault.

Figure 4.1 shows the project and tenement outline in relation to the regional geology.

4.2 . Local Geology

The outcrop at the project is poor, with cover consisting of 1-2 m of pisolitic gravel containing rounded quartz pebbles (Figure 4.1). The cover consists of a blanket of variable sandy and pebbly clay and siltstone up to 40 m thick. Bedrock drilling indicates the prospect is located on a paleo-high with relatively sharp drop-offs of 20-30 m into paleo channels to the east and west. The bedrock sequence and host to mineralisation consists of siltstone, poorly sorted micaceous sandstone/arkose, pebbly sandstones, and minor thin black shales. Fossiliferous limestones occur a few hundred metres to the west of mineralisation.

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 18

==> picture [95 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 4.1 – Regional Geology of the Yellow Jack Project

==> picture [483 x 338] intentionally omitted <==

4.3 Mineralisation

Gold mineralisation is associated with quartz veins and stockworks in the micaceous arkose. The initial drilling indicates that anomalous gold mineralisation occurs in a zone approximately 50m wide, with a strike length of more than 1 km.

The veins have low concentrations of iron oxides, with sulphides not encountered. Better grade mineralisation typically occurs above 35 m vertical depth. The oxidation base is located at depths of 50-60m vertically, near the lodes. Anomalous gold values occur in a zone 30-40 m wide. Within this, higher-grade lodes (>1.0 g/t Au) are up to 5 m thick, with an aggregate thickness of 20 m. Lodes are associated with variably intense quartz veining and green sericite alteration and are steeply east-dipping to vertical. Vein thickness within a lode varies significantly up- and down-dip, suggesting extensive boudinage within a shear zone. Panned gold appears mostly about 50 microns in diameter and very yellow, indicating a high fineness.

4.4 Oxide Profiles

The top-of-fresh rock was logged in the historical logs and is generally 60 m below the current surface. Drilling indicates that oxidation may extend deeper than currently interpreted as several holes finished in partially oxidised material.

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 19

==> picture [95 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

5 DRILLING

5.1 Drilling Methods

Great Divide Mining supplied the drilling and sampling data. Initial drilling was Rotary Air Blast (RAB) followed by Air Core (AC) drilling, following up initial soil geochemistry anomalies. The second phase of drilling was a Reverse Circulation (RC) drilling programme totalling 3,200 m to follow up anomalous Au intersections from the RAB and AC drilling. The RC drilling reportedly returned good-quality samples using a face sampling drill bit. Only two samples were not riffle split due to being moist. Table 5.1 gives a breakdown of the drilling by drill type, number of holes drilled, and meters drilled using each drill method.

Table 5.1 - Drill meters by Drill Method.

Row Labels	Year Drilled	Number of Holes	Total Drilled (m)
Air Core	1995	75	2909
RAB	1995	60	829
RC	1996	40	3200
Total		175	6937

5.2 Collar Surveys

The RC Collars were surveyed by a registered surveyor using deferential GPS (DGPS) with the coordinates, dips and azimuths surveyed. Thirty-nine (39) of the forty (40) RC holes were located, with 96YJRC140 not located. The RAB and AC hole collars were not located or surveyed. Not locating the RAB and AC holes meant they were not relied upon in guiding the interpretations of the mineralisation.

5.3 Down Hole Surveys

Downhole survey information has not been cited for any of the borehole data supplied. Due to the shallow nature of the RC holes, it is unlikely that downhole surveys were collected during drilling. Due to the shallow nature of the drilling (80 m), deviation in the azimuth and dip is expected to be minimal.

5.4 Drill Hole Data Validation

Great Divide Mining supplied the drill hole in four (4) separate CSV files (Table 5.2), and was updated, when survey data was received from the registered surveyor. Micromine’s drill hole database tool was used to generate a drill hole database. The database was validated using Micromine’s built-in database validation tool, with which errors were corrected. The critical errors reported by the validation tool are “Intervals beyond hole depth”, “Missing incorrect azimuth”, and “Overlapping Intervals”. In conjunction with the errors, Micromine also reports warnings, which are non-critical errors in the database. These warnings include “Hole not defined” and “Missing intervals”. The warnings are due to missing assays or geological data not recorded for individual holes. Most of these errors and warnings relate to the RAB and AC drilling. Two RC holes,

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 20

==> picture [95 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

96YJRC152 and 96YJRC174, had missing intervals at 60-61 and 72-73 m, with these missing intervals inserted with no assay data.

Table 5.2 – Data Files Supplied.

File Name	File Type
h_Loc_YJ	Collar File
h_Loc_YJ updated 230605	Collar File
h_Loc_YJ updated 230710	Collar File
h_Survey_YJ Updated 230605	Downhole Surveyfile
h_Survey_YJ Updated 230710	Downhole Surveyfile
h_Sample_YJ.DAT	Sample Data File
h_Coded Geology_YJ.DAT	Lithological file

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 21

==> picture [95 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

6 GEOLOGICAL MODELLING

6.1 Geological Data

Previous interpretations from the last resource study by Odessa Resources were not available. As such, the geological model was reconstructed guided by a cross-section from the 2009 Odessa Mineral Resource Estimate Report.

6.2 Surface Modelling

The topography was modelled using the collar RL data. The generated topography is a good representation of the surface topography as the area is generally flat with few topographical features. It is recommended that a LiDAR survey be conducted over the deposit before mining.

6.3 Geological Model

The gold grades were used as a proxy for quartz veining and guided the modelling of the quartz veins. Even though quartz veins are described in historical company reports as hosting the Au mineralisation, the logging data supplied did not contain any intervals logged as quartz veins. The lack of logged quartz vein intersections in the drilling necessitated using gold grades as a proxy for veining. Figure 6.1 shows a section through the deposit showing the interpretation using the gold grade as a proxy for the veins. Figure 6.2 shows a gap in modelling between what is currently designated Yellow Jack North and Yellow Jack South.

Figure 6.1 - Cross section through 96YJRC141 - 96YJRC145

==> picture [398 x 281] intentionally omitted <==

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 22

==> picture [95 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 6.2 – Plan view showing association of northern and southern mineralisation.

==> picture [441 x 622] intentionally omitted <==

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 23

==> picture [95 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

7 EXPLORATORY DATA ANALYSIS

7.1 Sampling and Assaying

All samples were sampled, and riffle split on site with 118 samples (approximately 4 kgs) sent to ALS Townsville for fire assay analysis of Au and As by Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy (AAS).

The RAB and AC samples were analysed at Analabs in Townsville for Au by carbon rod finish with 50g aqua regia digest (method: GG335 or GG336) or by fire assay on 50 g charge (method: GG337). RAB and AC samples were analysed for As, Ag, Bi, Co, Cu, Ni, Pb, Sb and Zn (method GA335) by 50 g aqua regia digestion and AAS finish or Arsenic (method GA140) by AAS determination. The RC samples were analysed at ALS, Townsville, for Au by fire assay with a 50 g charge and AAS finish (method PM209) and As by AAS finish (method G001).

Assay sheets provided in the annual report CR29102A also mention standards. The results mentioned within the annual report CR29102A are labelled “internal standard”. There is no reference to the certified reference material used by ALS. Xenith has not cited additional QA/QC data.

7.2 Global Data Analysis

Table 7.1 details the descriptive statistics of the raw assays for gold and arsenic from all the drilling (RC, RAB, and AC). Additionally, Table 7.1 shows the descriptive statistics for the RC holes only. The statistics for the RAB and AC samples are not shown as the data is not used during the modelling and estimation.

Two holes, 96YJRC152 and 96YJRC174, had missing samples at 60-61 m and 72-73 m. The missing interval in both holes precedes mineralisation. Drilling reports indicated that two samples were not riffle split as they were too moist. The two samples not submitted for analysis were likely from 96YJRC152 and 96YJRC174.

Both the sample distribution of As and Au are positively skewed (Figure 7.1, Mean Au = 0.12 ppm > Median Au = 0.01 ppm; Means As = 297 ppm > Median As 140 ppm) and is illustrated in the histograms in Figure 7.1

Table 7.1 – Summary Statistics for the Raw Assay Data.

Analyte	Domain	No of Points	Minimum (ppm)	Maximum (ppm)	Mean (ppm)	Variance	Std Dev	CV	Median (ppm)
Au	All	4711	0.01	21.80	0.18	0.54	0.73	4.09	0.02
As	All	4573	5	8940	376	352777	594	392	420
Au	RC	3198	0.01	10.50	0.12	0.23	0.48	4.06	0.01
As	RC	3198	10	7800	297	255417	505	2	140

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 24

==> picture [95 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 7.1 – Histograms of Au and As for the RC Drilling

==> picture [469 x 226] intentionally omitted <==

7.3 Element Correlations

The scatterplot in Figure 7.2 demonstrates a strong correlation between Arsenic and Au in the data. The relationship is poorly understood at this stage.

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 25

==> picture [95 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 7.2 – Scatter plot of Arsenic vs. Au for all data

==> picture [242 x 231] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [86 x 10] intentionally omitted <==

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

7.4 Composites
----- End of picture text -----

All data was sampled at a nominal 1.0 m sample interval, as shown in Figure 7.3. Due to the 1.0 m dominant sampling interval and the narrow width of the mineralisation, the data was not composited.

Figure 7.3 – Histogram of sample lengths of all drilling

==> picture [242 x 233] intentionally omitted <==

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 26

7.5 Contact Analysis

==> picture [95 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

The Boundary Analysis tool in Micromine was employed to determine how the domain boundaries are handled while estimating the mineral resource, i.e., hard vs. soft boundaries. An abrupt change in gold grade between the inside and outside of the domains is observed in Figure 7.4. The abrupt change across the domain boundary suggests that the boundaries should be treated as hard. Historical company reports state that gold mineralisation is hosted in quartz veins. The mineralisation hosted in discrete quartz veins further substantiates the use of hard domain boundaries. Thus, it would be reasonable to surmise that gold mineralisation would be confined inside the estimation domain boundaries and that any gold mineralisation in the host rock is unrelated to the gold in the veins.

Figure 7.4 – Boundary Analysis Plots for Two Domains

==> picture [469 x 249] intentionally omitted <==

7.6 Top Cuts

Micromine's Top-Cut analysis tool (Figure 7.5) was utilised to determine if it is necessary to top-cut the assays. According to Parrish (1997), when the top decile contains more than 40 % of the metal, the top decile has twice the metal of the 80th and 90th deciles and the top percentile has more than 10 % of the total metal content top-cutting may be required. The gold and arsenic assay data were assessed against Parrish's rules, with the gold assay data satisfying one of Parrish's rules, with the top decile containing more than 40 % of the metal. On the other hand, the arsenic data did not meet any of the criteria for a top-cut to be applied. Based on the results from Figure 7.5, 4.5 ppm was chosen where the gold grades should be top cut. Rather than assigning all the gold grades above 4.5 ppm a value of 4.5 ppm, the value of the 75th percentile was used for Au assays larger than 4.5 ppm. The variable Au_Cut was created to preserve the original variable Au_ppm. Further statistical evaluation and estimation of the gold grades in the mineral resource relied on the Au_Cut variable.

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 27

==> picture [95 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 7.5 – Top cut analysis (Top - LR; quantile analysis, Cumulative Frequency, Probability Plot, Bottom - LR; Mean vs. Top Cut, COV vs. Top Cut, Au Histogram)

==> picture [469 x 252] intentionally omitted <==

7.7 Estimation Domains

The geological domains generated of the veins were used as estimation domains. The top-cut gold assay data were assessed for proportional effect, where higher grades equal higher variability, and were found to demonstrate proportionality (Figure 7.6). This strong relationship suggests ordinary kriging as the preferred estimation method for the mineral resource. However, due to the widely spaced drilling (nominal 80 m × 40 m) resulting in a low number of samples (361), calculating variograms for use during kriging proved ineffective. Thus, variography and ordinary kriging were not pursued further. The inverse distance squared interpolant was used to estimate the gold and arsenic grade for the mineral resource.

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 28

==> picture [95 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 7.6 – Proportional Effect in Au Data.

==> picture [242 x 252] intentionally omitted <==

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 29

==> picture [95 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

8 BLOCK MODEL AND RESOURCE ESTIMATION

8.1 Model Definition

Epithermal/sheeted quartz veins are interpreted to host the gold mineralisation. Open-pit mining methods are anticipated to be used for its extraction. The size of the parent blocks (as shown in Table 8.1) is defined based on one-third of the average drill spacing, resulting in parent blocks measuring 12 m E × 24 m N × 12 m RL. The model is sub-blocked, with the sub-blocks selected to provide the most suitable estimate of the volume of the narrow veins, which are at a minimum of 1 m wide.

Table 8.1 – Block Model Parameters

	Min Centre	Block Size (m)	Max Centre	No of Blocks	Sub-Block Discretisation
X	273,200	12	274,340	93	12
Y	7,859,780	24	7,861,916	91	24
Z	488	12	620	12	12
Rotation	30°

8.2 Estimation Method

The grade interpolation for the block model involved three rounds of search ellipse application. The initial pass is based on drill hole spacing, and the subsequent second and third passes were multiples of the first. For more details, refer to Table 8.2. The search ellipse was defined using Micromine's Maximum Intensity Projection (MIP) function and is centred on the mineralisation's overall trend (strike and dip). MIP is a tool that aids in identifying high-grade zones' plunge in a deposit. Using MIP, the user can choose the plunge, strike, and dip of the search ellipse that best matches the grade continuity observed in the deposit. The first pass estimated 49 % of the blocks, while in the second pass, the remaining blocks (49.6 %) were estimated with less than 1 % of the blocks estimated during the third pass.

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 30

==> picture [95 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Table 8.2 – Search Ellipse Parameters.

		Search Orientation	Search Orientation		Range			Samples Selection	Samples Selection	Samples Selection
Domain	Search	Bearing (deg)	Pitch (deg)	DIP (deg)	Major (m)	Semi Major (m)	Minor (m)	Min	Max / Octant	Max / Hole
North	Pass 1	206	1	71	80	40	5	3	6	3
North	Pass 2	206	1	71	80	40	5	2	8
North	Pass 3	206	1	71	80	40	5	1	9
South	Pass 1	209	0	73	80	40	5	3	6	3
South	Pass 2	209	0	73	80	40	5	2	8
South	Pass 3	209	0	73	80	40	5	1	9

8.3 Model Results

The Mineral Resource Estimate yields an Inferred mineral resource of 1.84 Mt at 0.86 g/t Au and 1014 ppm Arsenic (Table 8.3) at a 0.5 g/t Au cut-off. Figure 8.1 shows the grade and tonnage distribution the mineral resource.

Table 8.3 – Inferred Mineral Resource above 0.5g/t Au cut-off.

Resource Classification	Tonnes (Kt)	Density (t/m3)	Au (g/t)	As (ppm)	Contained Au (kOz)
Inferred	1.84	2.65	0.86	1014	51.1

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 31

==> picture [95 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 8.1 –Au Grade Tonnage Curve

==> picture [371 x 257] intentionally omitted <==

8.3.1 Model Comparison

Two mineral resource estimations were completed previously, the first in 1997 under Whim Creek Consolidated and the second in 2009 by Odessa Resource Pty Ltd for Bluekebble Pty Ltd. The Mineral Resource stated by Whim Creek Consolidated was not reported in accordance with the 2012 JORC code. The Mineral Resource stated by Bluekebble Pty Ltd was reported in accordance with the 2004 JORC code. It should be noted the neither the Mineral Resources stated by Whim Creek Consolidated and Bluekebble Pty Ltd was not reported in accordance with the 2012 JORC code and are only included for comparison to historical Mineral Resource Estimates.

Table 8.4 and Table 8.5 lists the Mineral resources reported by Whim Creek Pty Ltd and Bluekebble Pty Ltd. According to the Odessa Mineral Resource report, the Whim Creel model is reported using two different cutoff grades for Indicated Resources and Inferred Resource, indicated using a 1.0 g/t Au cut-off where the Inferred resource is the tonnes between 0.4 and 1.0 g/t Au. The Whim Creek Mineral Resource was estimated to be 50 m below the surface. The Mineral Resource Reported by Bluekebble Pty Ltd was stated using a 0 g/t Au cut-off grade.

Table 8.4 –Mineral Resource reported by Whim Creek Pty Ltd in 1997

Resource Category	Tonnes (kt)	Au (g/t)	Au (kOz)
Indicated	490	1.86	29.0
Inferred	314	0.67	6.7
Total(Ind + Inf)	804	1.38	35.7

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 32

==> picture [95 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Table 8.5 – 2009 Mineral Resource stated by Bluekebble Pty Ltd

Resource Category Inferred	Tonnes (kt)	Au (g/t)	Au (kOz)
	855	1.41	39

Comparing the Whim Creek (Table 8.4) and Bluekebble (Table 8.5) Mineral Resources with the latest Mineral Resource in Table 8.3, it is notable that the resource has doubled even when using a 0.5 g/t cut-off for reporting the latest mineral resource. The main reason for the increase is attributed to the change in interpretation, resulting in different estimation domains. The Bluekebble Odessa mineral resource used 16 estimation domains, estimating an approximate volume of 334,000 m[3] , whereas Xenith estimated into 22 domains, totalling 694,000 m[3] . Further to the differences in tonnes, the overall grade in the Xenith estimate is lower at 0.86 g/t Au versus 1.41 g/t Au (Table 8.5). The difference between grades is ascribed to the different estimation search parameters and differences in the application of top-cutting. Table 8.6 compares the search ellipse sizes used by Odessa and Xenith during the respective estimations.

Table 8.6 – Odessa vs. Xenith Search Ellipse Parameters

Search Ellipse	Major Axis (m)	Semi Major Axis (m)	Minor Axis (m)
Odessa	200	160	30
Xenith	80	40	5

8.4 Model Validation

The first step in validating the block model was comparing the block model statistics with the sample data statistics in Table 8.7 and Figure 8.2. The block model was visually inspected by generating sections through the block model and visually inspecting the blocks against drilling data (Figure 8.3). As further validation, swath plots were generated as part of the validation. The maximum grade in the model (2.41 ppm) is lower than the sample data (4.40 ppm). The mean block model gold grade is comparable with the mean sample gold grade of 0.65 ppm versus 0.68 ppm. The grade distribution in the block model is tighter around the mean, whereas in the sample data, the spread is broader and not as peaked as in the block model (Figure 8.2). The Variance, Standard Deviation, and coefficient of variation for the block model are lower than those of the sample data. The lower variance in the block model is as expected as the estimation method smooths the gold grades.

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 33

==> picture [95 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Table 8.7 – Descriptive Statistics Comparing Sample and Block Model Data.

Source	Variable	No of Points	Minimum (ppm)	Maximum (ppm)	Mean (ppm)	Variance	Std Dev	CV
Sample	Au_Cut	361	0.005	4.40	0.68	0.63	0.79	1.16
Block Model	Au_ppm	31921	0.005	2.41	0.65	0.12	0.34	0.53

Sample	As	361	10	7800	928	1029732	1015	1.09
Block Model	As	31691	75	4240	923	261549	511	0.55

Figure 8.2 – Comparison of Sample Grades (left) with Block Grades (right)

==> picture [469 x 226] intentionally omitted <==

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 34

==> picture [95 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 8.3 – Cross sections through 96YJRC144 to 96YJRC141 and 96YJRC158 and 96YJRC156.

==> picture [441 x 311] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [441 x 312] intentionally omitted <==

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 35

==> picture [95 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

The validation swath plots in Figure 8.4 indicate that the inverse distance estimate adequately reproduces the trends in the grade of the sample data. However, when comparing the estimation to the sample data by RL, the estimate smooths the data considerably.

Figure 8.4 – Validation swath plots by Northing, Easting and RL

==> picture [469 x 450] intentionally omitted <==

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 36

8.5 Resource Classification

==> picture [95 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

The resource is classified as an Inferred Mineral Resource. The classification is based on the widely spaced drilling (80 mN×40 mE), low confidence in bulk density and geological and grade continuity.

Bulk densities in the block model are assigned based on bulk densities from the nearby Big Rush Deposit and the Odessa Mineral Resource estimate. Due to this, there is lower confidence in the reported tonnes for the mineral resource.

The lower confidence in geological continuity stems from the poor outcropping of the mineralised quartz veins to make an informed judgement on geologic continuity.

No quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) data for the gold and arsenic assays, sample recovery and drilling in general has been cited. As a result, the accuracy of the assay data cannot be confirmed, which contributes to the low confidence.

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 37

9 RECOMMENDATIONS

==> picture [95 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Further drilling to infill the sparsely drilled areas, i.e., reduce the drill spacing from 80 m × 40 m to 40 m × 40 m as a first pass.
Implement an extensive resource extension drill program. The Resource is open at depth as drilling is limited to ~70 m vertical depth. The resource is also open along strike.
Implement a twinning program. Twin the current RC holes to confirm the grade and understand the potential variability in grade.
Implement a rigorous QA/QC program when drilling commences.
Perform density measurements on all new samples collected during drilling.
Conduct a LiDAR survey, as no reliable topographic data is available.

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 38

==> picture [95 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

10 REFERENCES

R.J. Morrison, (1996). Annual Report for the Period Ending 3 March 1996, EPM9239 – Jessey Springs, Whim Creek Consolidated – CR28653

D Hewitt, (1997). Annual Report for the Period Ending 3 March 1997, EPM9239 – Jessey Springs, Whim Creek Consolidated – CR29102

J Parks and R. Porter, (1994). Exploration Permit Mineral 9232, 9233, and 9239 Broken River Annual Report for the period ending 3 March 1994, – Sons of Gwalia Pty Ltd – CR25374

P. Kastellorizos, (2010). First Annual Report on Yellow Jack Gold Project, EPM17321, Bluekebble, CR65009

A Gillman, (2009). Resource Estimate on the Yellow Jack Gold Project, Queensland, Australia, Odessa Resources,

I.S Parrish, (1997), Geologist’s Gordian Knot: To cut or not to Cut, Mining Engineering, vol. 49. pp. 45-49

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 39

==> picture [95 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

11 COMPETENT PERSON STATEMENT AND CONSENT

The information in this report that relates to Mineral Resources is based on information compiled by Mr. Jaco van Zyl, a Competent Person who is a Member of The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy or the Australian Institute

Mr. Jaco van Zyl is a full-time employee of Xenith Consulting, whom Great Divide Mining contracted to conduct the Geological modelling and Resource Estimation for the Yellow Jack Project.

Mr. Jaco van Zyl consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears.

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 40

==> picture [95 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

11.1 Competent Person’s Consent Form

Pursuant to the requirements of ASX Listing Rules 5.6, 5.22 and 5.24 and Clause 9 of the JORC Code 2012 Edition (Written Consent Statement)

Report name: Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate

Releasing Company: Great Divide Mining

Deposit Name: Yellow Jack

Date: 03 October 2023

I, Jacobus van Zyl confirm that I am the Competent Person for the Report and:

I have read and understood the requirements of the 2012 Edition of the Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (JORC Code, 2012 Edition).
I am a Competent Person as defined by the JORC Code 2012 Edition, having five years’ experience that is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit described in the Report and to the activity for which I am accepting responsibility.
I am a Member of The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (MAusIMM - 308026).
I have reviewed the Report to which this Consent Statement applies.

I am a consultant working for Xenith Consulting and have been engaged by Great Divide Mining to prepare the documentation for the Yellow Jack Project, on which the Report is based, for the period ended 31/08/2023.

I have disclosed to the reporting company the full nature of the relationship between myself and the company, including any issue that investors could perceive as a conflict of interest.

I verify that the Report is based on and fairly and accurately reflects, in the form and context in which it appears, the information in my supporting documentation relating to Mineral Resources.

I consent to the release of the Report and this Consent Statement by the directors of:

Great Divide Mining

Signature: Member - AusIMM Professional Membership Signature of Witness	29/09/2023
	Date: 308026
	Membership Number Michael Mills (MAusIMM - 323665) Brisbane, Queensland
	Witness Name and Residence(print)

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 41

==> picture [95 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Additional deposits covered by the Report for which the Competent Person signing this form is accepting responsibility:

None

Additional Reports related to the deposit for which the Competent Person signing this form is accepting responsibility:

None

==> picture [73 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

Signature:

29/09/2023

Date:

Member - AusIMM

308026

Professional Membership

Membership Number

==> picture [149 x 35] intentionally omitted <==

Signature of Witness

Michael Mills (MAusIMM - 323665) Brisbane, Queensland Witness Name and Residence(print)

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 42

==> picture [96 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

APPENDIX A. JORC CODE (2012). EDITION TABLE 1

Table A.1 - Sampling Techniques and Data

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, 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 representativity and the appropriate calibration of any measurement tools or systems used.	• Sampling methods have included surface rock chip, soil and stream sediment samples, together with drill hole samples comprising RC percussion, RAB and air-core samples. • Geochemistry from soil and stream sediment samples is used semi- quantitatively to guide further exploration and is not used for Mineral Resource estimation. • The accuracy of rock chip geochemistry is generally high, but these samples are spot samples and generally not used in Mineral Resource estimation. • The quality of RC percussion drilling is generally medium–high because the method significantly reduces the potential of contamination unless there is a lot of groundwater or badly broken ground. Consequently, these samples can be representative of the interval drilled and be used for Mineral Resource estimation. • The quality of RAB drilling is generally low because there is a likelihood of contamination of samples. Consequently, these samples are generally used to guide further exploration, not for Mineral Resource estimation. • No information documenting measures to ensure sample representativity for surface sampling methods is available. These methods are not used for Mineral Resource estimation. • RC drilling is an established method designed to minimise drilling- induced contamination of samples, aimed to deliver a representative sample of the interval being drilled. • Economicgold mineralisation is measured in terms ofpartsper

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 43

==> picture [96 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	• 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 pulverised to produce a 30 g charge for fire assay’). In other cases, more explanation may be required, such as where there is coarse gold that has inherent sampling problems. Unusual commodities or mineralisation types (e.g., submarine nodules) may warrant the disclosure of detailed information.	million; therefore, rigorous sampling techniques must be adopted to ensure quantitative, precise measurements of gold concentration. If gold is present as medium–coarse grains, the entire sampling, subsampling, and analytical process must be more stringent.
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 types, whether the core is oriented and if so, by what method, etc.).	• Numerous drilling programs have been recorded across the Project area since the mid-1990s, mainly comprising RC, RAB, and air core drilling. GDM has not completed any drilling to date at the Project. • Whim Creek completed 135 RAB/air core/RC holes for 3,742m (1995). No information is available documenting drill bit type or diameter. • Whim Creek completed 40 RC holes for 3,200m (1996). RC drill bit type involved a face-sampling hammer with a diameter of 5 ¾”.
Drill sample recovery	• Method of recording and assessing core and chip sample recoveries and results assessed. • Measures are taken to maximise sample recovery and ensure the 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.	• No information is available documenting if sample recovery was routinely recorded. • No assessment of sample recovery has been made. • No information is available documenting measures to maximise sample recovery or ensure the collection of representative samples. • No assessment has been completed to determine if there is a relationship between sample recovery and grade and whether there is any potential for sample bias associated with the drilling methods used to date
Logging	• Whether core and chip samples have been geologically and	• No information documenting if the (1995) RAB and air core drill holes were logged for lithology,structure,alteration,mineralisation,and

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 44

==> picture [96 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	geotechnically logged to a level of detail to support appropriate Mineral Resource estimation, mining studies and metallurgical studies. • Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc.) photography. • The total length and percentage of the relevant intersections logged.	veining is available. • Drill logs document (1996) RC holes were logged for lithology, alteration, mineralisation, and veining. • • Logging of RC holes is qualitative (e.g., lithology, alteration, veining and mineralisation) with variable quantitative analysis of veining, alteration, and mineralisation • No information documenting how much of the (1995) RAB and air core holes were logged is available. • Geological logs were completed for all drilled intervals of the (1996) RC holes.
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 the representativity of samples.	• (1995) RAB and air core hole sampling were based on 1m intervals and composited into 3m intervals for assay. • (1996) RC holes were sampled in 1m intervals. • Drilled material (1996 RC holes) was sampled by riffle split on site. No information is available on the moisture content of non-core samples, although only two samples from the 1996 RC program were moist and unable to be riffle split. • No details of the laboratory preparation of samples were recorded. It is assumed that sample preparation methods used by all commercial laboratories followed the basic steps of drying, crushing, and pulverising. However, details of the amount of the sample crushed and pulverised are not known. Therefore, assessing the sample preparation techniques' quality and appropriateness is impossible. • No information is available on the size of the (1995) RAB/air core samples submitted for analysis, but approximately 4kg of (1996) RC samples were submitted. • No information has been recorded that documents quality control procedures adopted for all sub-sampling stages to maximise the representativity of samples.

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 45

==> picture [96 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	• 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.	• No information has been recorded that documents measures taken to ensure that the sampling is representative of the in-situ material collected. • No formal assessment has been undertaken to quantify the appropriate sample size required for good quality determination of gold content, given the nature of the gold mineralisation.
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 include 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) andprecision have been established.	• 1995 RAB and air core: Samples were analysed at Analabs, Townsville, for gold by carbon rod finish with 50g aqua regia digest (method GG335 or GG336) or by fire assay on 50g charge (method GG337). Samples were analysed for As, Ag, Bi, Co, Cu, Ni, Pb, Sb and Zn (method GA335) by 50g aqua regia digestion and AAS finish or Arsenic (method GA140) by AAS determination. • 1996 RC: Samples were analysed at ALS, Townsville, for gold by fire assay with a 50g charge and AAS finish (method PM209) and As by AAS finish (method G001). • No geophysical tools, spectrometers, or handheld XRF instruments have been used to date to determine chemical composition at a semi- quantitative level of accuracy. • No details of the use of QAQC samples, standards (certified reference materials), blanks or duplicates have been reported
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, and data storage (physical and electronic) protocols. • Discuss any adjustments to assay data.	• It has not been possible to verify significant intersections independently. • A series of twin holes are planned to validate historical drill data. • GDM has collated and created a digital database of previously completed explorations at the Project. • No adjustments to assay data have been made.

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 46

==> picture [96 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
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.	• Drillhole collar locations for the 1995 RAB drilling were based on a local grid (tied approximately to Australian Map Grid 1966 using handheld GPS equipment at the start of each line and then by topofil and compass). The locations were re-surveyed in 1996 by the Big Rush Gold Mine Survey Department relative to the local grid (CR29102_4). The locations were transformed by Great Divide Mining’s consulting Surveyor, Atkinson Surveys, in 2023 based on the surveyed locations of the RC holes. The accuracy of drill collars has not been verified to date. • Drillhole collar locations for the 1996 RC drilling were based on a local grid (holes drilled grid E 113degrees magnetic). The collars were located and surveyed to GDA2020 by Atkinson Surveys on behalf of Great Divide Mining in June 2023, except 96YJRC140, which was not located. • There is no downhole survey information, and it is unlikely any downhole surveys were carried out. • The coordinate system used for the earlier exploration programs was Australian Map Grid 1996 (AMG66), zone 55. • The coordinate system used for more recent exploration work is the Geocentric Datum of Australia (GDA94) in Map Grid of Australia (MGA) zone 55. • The coordinate system used in the 2023 survey verification was the Geocentric Datum of Australia (GDA2020) in Map Grid of Australia (MGA) zone 55. • The quality of the topographic control data is poor and relies on public domain data.

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 47

==> picture [96 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Data spacing and distribution	• Data spacing for reporting Exploration Results. • Whether the data spacing and distribution are 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 data spacing is 40m×80m (Easting × Northing). RAB and air core holes were drilled on a line spacing of 200m. • Data spacing is sufficient for an Inferred Resource • • 1995 RAB drilling: Sample compositing of up to 3m was carried out on site. • • 1996 RC drilling: No sample compositing was carried out on site.
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.	• Many of the 1995 RAB drill holes were drilled vertically and are not considered to be oriented appropriately to drill across mineralisation. • The 1996 RC drill holes were generally sited to intersect interpreted mineralised zones at a high angle. • Potential exists for sampling bias to have been introduced in the 1995 RAB drilling completed to date due to the vertical nature of the drilling. • To the extent known, the 1996 RC drilling is assumed to be unbiased. • It is possible there could be sampling bias due to the orientation of the 1995 RAB drilling. • No sampling bias is considered to have been introduced in the 1996 RC drilling completed.
Sample security	• The measures taken to ensure sample security.	• No chain of custody is documented for the previous drilling
Audits or reviews	• The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data.	• Derisk Pty Ltd has completed a review of the exploration undertaken on this project

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 48

==> picture [96 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Table A.2 - Reporting of Exploration Results

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 parks and environmental settings. • The security of the tenure held at the time of reporting, along with any known impediments to obtaining a licence to operate in the area.	• The Project tenements comprise EPM 17321. This licence is currently held 100% by Laura Exploration Pty Ltd. • Refer to the Independent Solicitor’s Report on Tenements in the Prospectus. • The tenement is in good standing.
Exploration done by other parties	• Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties.	• Numerous exploration permits have been held over parts of the Project area. Previous exploration has included geological mapping, stream sediment, soil and rock chip geochemical sampling, airborne geophysics, plus RAB/air core and RC drilling. Major programs included: `o` Minatome Pty Ltd (1976 - 1979) completed geological mapping, geochemical surveys and radiometrics as part of a uranium search. `o` BHP Minerals Ltd (1980 – 1982) completed geological mapping, geochemical surveys, ground magnetics and drilling west of EPM 17321. `o` Aberfoyle Ltd (1982 – 1983) completed geological mapping and geochemical surveys. `o` Duval Pty Ltd (1986 – 1987) completed geochemical surveys. `o` Epithermal Gold Pty Ltd (1986 – 1991) completed geological mapping, geochemical surveys, costeaning, ground magnetics and drilling (on the Turtle prospect outside the bounds of EPM 17321). `o` Cambrian Resources Ltd(1987 – 1988)completedgeological

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 49

==> picture [96 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		mapping and geochemical surveys. `o` Newmont Ltd (1988 – 1991) completed geological mapping, geochemical surveys, and costeaning (on the Shield Creek prospect). `o` WMC Ltd (1989 – 1990) completed geological mapping and geochemical surveys. `o` Billiton Ltd (1990 – 1991) completed geochemical surveys. `o` Sons of Gwalia Ltd/Whim Creek Consolidated Ltd (1993 – 1998) completed geological mapping, geochemical surveys, 60-hole RAB/40-hole RC drilling programs and resource estimations. `o` Moggie Mining Ltd (2004 – 2009) completed geochemical and geophysical surveys. `o` Bluekebble Pty Ltd/Walla Mines Pty Ltd (2009 – 2015) completed a compilation of all historical data, drill hole analysis, 3D modelling and resource estimations.
Geology	• Deposit type, geological setting, and style of mineralisation.	• The Yellow Jack project is in the southwest of the Broken River Province, North Queensland, which is dominated by northeast- trending, deformed Ordovician to Devonian marine sediments and subordinate mafic volcanic rocks of the Graveyard Creek Sub- province. • GDM considers that the Yellow Jack Project is prospective for mesothermal (orogenic) vein and intrusion-related gold deposits. The district contains numerous old gold mine workings and known mineral occurrences.
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	• Refer to the tables below for drill hole details and intercepts.

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 50

==> picture [96 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	`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` Downhole length and interception depth `o` Hole length. • If the exclusion of this information is justified on the basis that the information is not Material and this exclusion does not detract from the understanding of the report, the Competent Person should clearly explain why this is the case.	• Not applicable
Data aggregation methods	• In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging techniques, maximum and minimum grade truncations (e.g., 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.	• The mineralised drill intersections are reported as downhole intervals and were not converted to true widths. Where gold repeats were recorded, the average of all the samples was used. True widths may be up to 50% less than drill intersections, pending confirmation of mineralisation geometry. • The drill intercepts reported were calculated using 0.4 to 1 g/t Au cut- off grades. The gold grade for the intercept was calculated as a weighted average grade. Some internal waste (< 1 g/t Au) was included in some cases. • No metal equivalents are reported
Relationship between mineralisation widths and intercept lengths	• These relationships are particularly important in the reporting of Exploration Results. • If the geometry of the mineralisation concerning 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(e.g., ‘down hole length,	• Overall, previous RC drilling orientation and sampling was generally as perpendicular to the mineralisation targets as practicable. • RC drill holes were oriented perpendicular to the strike of the steeply west dipping shear zone and angled to the east to intersect the steeply dipping mineralised zones at a high angle. • The mineralised intercepts generally intersect the interpreted dip of the mineralisation at a high angle but are not true widths.

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 51

==> picture [96 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	_true width not known’). _
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.	• Refer to the prospectus
Balanced reporting	• Where comprehensive reporting of all Exploration Results is not practicable, representative reporting of both low and high grades and widths should be practised to avoid misleading reporting of Exploration Results.	• • Balanced reporting of Exploration Results is presented
Other substantive exploration data	• Other exploration data, if meaningful and material, should be reported, including (but not limited to) geological observations; geophysical survey results; geochemical survey results; bulk samples – size and method of treatment; metallurgical test results; bulk density, groundwater, geotechnical and rock characteristics; potential deleterious or contaminating substances.	• The Project includes a large amount of exploration data collected by previous companies, including regional stream sediment geochemical data, soil sample and rock chip data, geological mapping data, drilling data and geophysical survey data. Much of this data has been captured and validated into a GIS database.
Further work	• The nature and scale of planned further work (e.g., 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.	• Great Divide Mining plans to conduct surface geological mapping and geochemistry, ground geophysics and drilling across various high- priority target areas over the next two years. • Refer to the Prospectus

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 52

==> picture [96 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Table A.3 - Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources

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.	• Drill hole data was compiled from several historical Company Reports using a combination of automatic scanning and manual data entry. Great Divide Mining and consultant geologists have checked the drill data several times for accuracy. The data presented are consistent with the significant drill intercepts presented. • A Micromine drill hole database was created from CSV files supplied by Great Divide Mining. The data was then validated using Micromine’s built-in validation tools, with discrepancies recorded and corrected where possible.
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.	• The site has been visited by Jaco van Zyl (Xenith Consulting), who inspected the location of the reverse circulation drilling collars. Further time was spent in the field attempting to find outcrop where drilling indicated gold mineralisation at the surface; this proved unsuccessful.
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.	• The confidence in the Yellow Jack geological model is moderate, as the interpretation is based on 39 reverse circulation drill holes. • The mineralised system's geology is poorly understood as the area's outcrop is poor, and the deposit is covered by 1-2m of alluvium. • The interpretations were guided by Au grade using the grade >0.1g/t as a proxy for quartz veining. • The mineralisation is still open at depth and along the strike of the modelled veins. • An alternative geological interpretation has been investigated and yields a similar estimate as the one being reported
Dimensions	• The extent and variability of the Mineral Resource expressed as length	• The current interpretation of the Yellow Jack mineralisation is divided into two sections,North and South. The northern section of Yellow

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 53

==> picture [96 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	(along strike or otherwise), plan width, and depth below the surface to the upper and lower limits of the Mineral Resource.	Jack has an interpreted strike of 160m and a vertical depth extent of 86m. The southern section of Yellow Jack has an interpreted strike of 660m with a vertical extent of 85m. The vertical extent of Yellow Jack is limited due to the RC drilling, with all holes only drilled to 80m depth.
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 the maximum distance of extrapolation from data points. If a computer-assisted estimation method was chosen, include a description of the computer software and parameters used. • The availability of check estimates, previous estimates and mine production records and whether the Mineral Resource estimate takes appropriate account of such data. • The assumptions made regarding the recovery of by-products. • Estimation of deleterious elements or other non-grade variables of economic significance (e.g., 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 the modelling of selective mining units. • Any assumptions about the correlation between variables. • Description of how the geological interpretation was used to control the resource estimates. • Discussion of the 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 the use of reconciliation data if available.	• The Au and As concentrations were estimated using inverse distance to a power of 2. • The estimation was performed using Micromine v2023.5 in three passes. The first pass used a search ellipse to match the drill spacing (80 m×40 m×5 m), whereas the second pass was 160 m×80 m×10 m, and the third pass ellipse was 240 m×120 m×15 m. • Odessa Resources completed a previous resource estimate for Bluekebble Mining; however, the interpretations and estimate were not available to compare against the latest estimate. • The sample data only contains data for Au and As with no other by- products. • As stated above, arsenic was included in the data provided and included in the resource estimate. The impacts of arsenic on metallurgical processing are currently untested. • Drill holes are nominally space at 80m along strike, 40m across strike and 40m down dip. The parent block size is approximately a third of the drill hole spacing, i.e., 12 m×24 m×12 m (East, North, RL) in a rotated model to 030°. • No assumptions were made regarding selective mining units. • Au and As exhibit a minor correlation; however, no assumptions were made regarding the correlation. • No geological data was available to generate a geological model. The Au grade was used as a proxy for quartz veining, which was used to generategrade-based domains,which in turn was used to control the

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 54

==> picture [96 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		resource estimate. • The Au grade was top cut. The quantile method for determining the top cut was applied. Two of the three criteria were not met for top cutting; however, the histogram “broke” down around 5g/t and a top cut of 4.5 g/t was decided upon. Values greater than 4.5 g/t were assigned the grade of the 75thpercentile. No top cut was applied to the Arsenic. • The model was validated by comparing the descriptive statistics of the estimation with that of the top-cut assay values. The model was also validated by visually comparing the estimate against the drill intercepts. Swath plots were also generated to compare the smoothing of the model against the drilling, and it was found that the model sufficiently honoured the trends observed in the sample data. • No reconciliation data is available as this project is not an active mine.
Moisture	• Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or with natural moisture, and the method of determination of the moisture content.	• No Moisture data have been provided; tonnes are estimated on a dry basis
Cut-off parameters	• The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters applied.	• Two cut-off grades were applied: a geological cut of grade used to model the grade and an economic cut-off grade used for reporting. • The geological cut-off grade was 0.1g/t, with analysis showing this to be the “natural” cut-off grade for the mineralisation. • The economic cut-off grade was assumed to be 0.5g/t and was provided by a_competent_mining engineer
Mining factors or 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. However, the assumptions made regarding mining methods andparameters when estimating Mineral Resources	• Great Divide Mining informed Xenith Consulting that it plans to mine the Yellow Jack deposit using conventional open pit mining methods, using a single 100t excavator and 3×40t articulated haul trucks supported by a D10-sized dozer. • Mining factor assumptions are in line with the equipment used at Big Rush

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 55

==> picture [96 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	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.
Metallurgical factors or 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.	• Whim Creek Consolidated NL in CR30009 “Annual/Final Report for the period ending 3 March 1998 EPM 9239 Jessey Springs” pp 8 reported that “Bottle roll cyanidation recoveries on pulps of Yellow Jack oxide and transition zone material gave cyanide recoveries averaging 88%...”. These results indicate that gold recovery through conventional heap-leach or carbon-in-leach processes is achievable.
Environmental factors or assumptions	• Assumptions made regarding possible waste and process residue disposal options. As part of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction, it is always necessary 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.	• Ore will be transported off-site to be treated at third party processing facilities. • Waste rock will be placed on temporary waste dumps to be returned to the pit once mining is completed. • Infrastructure will be non-permanent and be removed when mining is completed. • Fauna and Flora studies have been completed at the time of the MRE being completed. • A cultural heritage survey has been conducted by the representatives of the Gudjala people
Bulk 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, and 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	• No bulk density measurements exist. • Density was assigned based on an assumption of the 2009 Mineral Resource estimate performed by Odessa Resource for Bluekebble and the nearby Big Rush Mine

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 56

==> picture [96 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	deposit. • Discuss assumptions for bulk density estimates used in the evaluation process of the different materials.
Classification	• The basis for the classification of the Mineral Resources into varying confidence categories. • Whether the appropriate account has been taken of all relevant factors (i.e., relative confidence in tonnage/grade estimations, reliability of input data, confidence in the 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 Yellow Jack resource was classified as an Inferred Mineral Resource based on drill hole spacing, sampling geometry, bulk density, geological and grade continuity. • There is low confidence in the geological and grade continuity; the interpretation is entirely based on RC drilling, so there is no structural data to prove the assumed continuity of mineralisation. • Surface outcrop is poor, lowering the geological and grade continuity confidence. • As stated above, bulk density is assumed, based on the Odessa Mineral Resource estimate and the nearby Big Rush Mine.
Audits or reviews	• The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral Resource estimates.	• No external 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 theprocedures used.	• No Geostatistical procedure was applied to establish confidence levels. • The Mineral Resource estimates are reasonably accurate globally; however, there is some uncertainty in the local estimates because of the current drill hole spacing. • No production data is available as no mining has taken place

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 57

==> picture [96 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	• These statements of relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate should be compared withproduction data, where available.

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 58

==> picture [96 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

APPENDIX B. YELLOW JACK DRILLHOLE LOCATIONS AND MINERALISED INTERCEPTS

Table B.4 – Drill-hole Locations and Mineralised Intercepts

Hole ID	Easting	Northing	RL Regional	Drilling Type	Azimuth (Degrees)	Dip (Degrees)	Final Depth (m)	From (m)	To (m)	Interval width (m)	Au (g/t)	As (ppm)
95YJRB001	273000	7860600	600	RAB	0	-90	4			No Significant Intercept
95YJRB002	273100	7860600	600	RAB	0	-90	9
										No Significant Intercept
95YJRB003	273200	7860600	600	RAB	0	-90	42			No Significant Intercept
95YJRB004	273300	7860600	600	RAB	0	-90	5
										No Significant Intercept
95YJRB005	273400	7860600	600	RAB	0	-90	12			No Significant Intercept
95YJRB006	273500	7860600	600	RAB	0	-90	13
										No Significant Intercept
95YJRB007	273550	7860600	600	RAB	0	-90	15	9	12	3	0.11	100
95YJRB008	273600	7860600	600	RAB	0	-90	27	0	3	3	0.13	350
								9	27	18	1.20	408
95YJRB009	273650	7860600	600	RAB	0	-90	27	21	24	3	0.51	350
95YJRB010	273700	7860600	600	RAB	0	-90	24	0	3	3	0.14	600
95YJRB011	273800	7860600	600	RAB	0	-90	12
										No Significant Intercept
95YJRB012	273900	7860600	600	RAB	0	-90	15			No Significant Intercept
95YJRB013	274000	7860600	600	RAB	0	-90	37	12	15	3	0.10	0
95YJRB014	274000	7860600	600	RAB	0	-90	33			No Significant Intercept
95YJRB015	273530	7860260	600	RAB	112.8	-60	29	0	3	3	0.20	0
								24	29	5	0.51	150
95YJRB016	273545	7860260	600	RAB	111.8	-60	1.44	0	2.6	2.6	1.44	0
95YJRB017	273565	7860260	600	RAB	109.8	-60	8.2	0	6	6	0.43	202
95YJRB018	273450	7860200	600	RAB	0	-90	5
										No Significant Intercept
95YJRB019	273500	7860200	600	RAB	0	-90	0.7	0	5	5	2.61	0

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 59

==> picture [96 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Hole ID	Easting	Northing	RL Regional	Drilling Type	Azimuth (Degrees)	Dip (Degrees)	Final Depth (m)	From (m)	To (m)	Interval width (m)	Au (g/t)	As (ppm)
95YJRB020	273600	7860200	600	RAB	0	-90	5	No Significant Intercept
95YJRB021	273650	7860200	600	RAB	0	-90	5	No Significant Intercept
95YJRB022	273700	7860200	600	RAB	0	-90	5	0	3	3	0.46	350
95YJRB023	273750	7860200	600	RAB	0	-90	5	0	5	5	0.33	180
95YJRB024	273800	7860200	600	RAB	0	-90	20	12	15	3	0.29	650
95YJRB025	273850	7860200	600	RAB	0	-90	32	0	3	3	0.11	0
								6	15	9	0.40	133
								27	30	3	0.20	300
95YJRB026	273900	7860200	600	RAB	0	-90	16	3	18	15	0.21	140
95YJRB027	273950	7860200	600	RAB	0	-90	26	0	3	3	0.11	150
								9	24	15	0.16	130
95YJRB028	273950	7860400	600	RAB	0	-90	25	No Significant Intercept
95YJRB029	273900	7860400	600	RAB	0	-90	29	27	29	2	0.18	0
95YJRB030	273850	7860400	600	RAB	0	-90	35	No Significant Intercept
95YJRB031	273800	7860400	600	RAB	0	-90	10	No Significant Intercept
95YJRB032	273450	7860400	600	RAB	0	-90	3	No Significant Intercept
95YJRB033	273500	7860400	600	RAB	0	-90	4	No Significant Intercept
95YJRB034	273550	7860400	600	RAB	0	-90	4	0	2	2	0.16	0
95YJRB035	273600	7860400	600	RAB	0	-90	3	0	3	3	0.13	0
95YJRB036	273650	7860400	600	RAB	0	-90	5	No Significant Intercept
95YJRB037	273700	7860400	600	RAB	0	-90	5	No Significant Intercept
95YJRB038	273750	7860400	600	RAB	0	-90	5	No Significant Intercept
95YJRB039	273550	7860800	600	RAB	0	-90	5	No Significant Intercept
95YJRB040	273600	7860800	600	RAB	0	-90	2	No Significant Intercept
95YJRB041	273650	7860800	600	RAB	0	-90	1	No Significant Intercept

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 60

==> picture [96 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Hole ID	Easting	Northing	RL Regional	Drilling Type	Azimuth (Degrees)	Dip (Degrees)	Final Depth (m)	From (m)	To (m)	Interval width (m)	Au (g/t)	As (ppm)
95YJRB042	273700	7860800	600	RAB	0	-90	2	0	2	2	0.39	2000
95YJRB043	273750	7860800	600	RAB	0	-90	1.5	0	1.5	1.5	0.12	0
95YJRB044	273800	7860800	600	RAB	0	-90	5	0	3	3	0.15	300
95YJRB045	273850	7860800	600	RAB	0	-90	5	0	3	3	0.54	350
95YJRB046	273900	7860800	600	RAB	0	-90	2			No Significant Intercept
95YJRB047	273950	7860800	600	RAB	0	-90	20
										No Significant Intercept
95YJRB048	273750	7861000	600	RAB	0	-90	5	0	5	5	2.25	1120
95YJRB049	273800	7861000	600	RAB	0	-90	5	0	3	3	0.21	0
95YJRB050	273850	7861000	600	RAB	0	-90	5	0	3	3	0.22	0
95YJRB051	273900	7861000	600	RAB	0	-90	5	0	3	3	0.12	0
95YJRB052	273950	7861000	600	RAB	0	-90	5	0	3	3	0.11	0
95YJRB053	274000	7861000	600	RAB	0	-90	8
										No Significant Intercept
95YJRB054	274050	7861000	600	RAB	0	-90	20			No Significant Intercept
95YJRB055	274100	7861000	600	RAB	0	-90	20	0	3	3	0.26	0
95YJRB056	274150	7861000	600	RAB	0	-90	14	0	6	6	0.15	150
95YJRB057	273600	7860600	600	RAB	111.8	-60	35	13	28	15	2.24	1057
								29	30	1	0.16	770
								30	35	5	2.77	753
95YJRB058	273580	7860600	600	RAB	112.8	-60	32	0	3	3	0.17	250
								3	6	3	0.20	0
								8	22	14	3.26	1572
								22	25	3	3.50	4210
								25	26	1	0.12	1450
								27	28	1	0.15	323
								30	32	2	0.29	1365

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 61

==> picture [96 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Hole ID	Easting	Northing	RL Regional	Drilling Type	Azimuth (Degrees)	Dip (Degrees)	Final Depth (m)	From (m)	To (m)	Interval width (m)	Au (g/t)	As (ppm)
95YJRB059	273550	7860260	600	RAB	110.8	-60	32	0	6	6	0.81	475
								12	15	3	0.11	0
								18	24	6	0.26	175
								24	27	3	1.40	0
								27	32	5	0.39	420
95YJRB060	273525	7860260	600	RAB	108.8	-60	29	0	3	3	0.17	0
								12	15	3	2.39	0
								15	29	14	0.34	868
95YJRB061	273651	7860600	600	ACORE	109.8	-60	39	0	3	3	0.11	450
								24	37	13	0.89	1031
95YJRB062	273671	7860600	600	ACORE	109.8	-60	39	0	3	3	0.71	581
								24	27	3	1.36	1650
								27	36	9	0.46	858
95YJRB063	273630	7860600	600	ACORE	109.8	-60	39	15	18	3	0.17	445
								24	27	3	0.15	2800
95YJRB064	273610	7860600	600	ACORE	109.8	-60	39	0	3	3	0.18	61
								4	5	1	0.21	327
								8	16	8	0.73	824
								16	21	5	0.68	579
								21	29	8	0.53	2071
95YJRB065	273590	7860600	600	ACORE	109.8	-60	54	0	3	3	0.25	120
								8	25	17	1.01	1200
								28	38	10	2.98	2012
								38	39	1	0.26	1150
								46	47	1	0.17	145

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 62

==> picture [96 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Hole ID	Easting	Northing	RL Regional	Drilling Type	Azimuth (Degrees)	Dip (Degrees)	Final Depth (m)	From (m)	To (m)	Interval width (m)	Au (g/t)	As (ppm)
95YJRB066	273570	7860600	600	ACORE	109.8	-60	75	14	15	1	0.45	38
								18	21	3	2.08	2063
								33	35	2	0.13	349
								35	43	8	0.50	927
								47	48	1	0.20	230
								49	50	1	0.20	395
95YJRB067	273550	7860600	600	ACORE	109.8	-60	48	21	24	3	0.14	10
95YJRB068	273595	7860200	600	ACORE	114.8	-60	39
										No Significant Intercept
95YJRB069	273575	7860200	600	ACORE	114.8	-60	39			No Significant Intercept
95YJRB070	273555	7860200	600	ACORE	114.8	-60	39
										No Significant Intercept
95YJRB071	273535	7860200	600	ACORE	114.8	-60	39	0	3	3	0.84	2210
95YJRB072	273515	7860200	600	ACORE	114.8	-60	57	36	39	3	0.31	481
								0	3	3	0.87	3390
								15	18	3	0.40	1210
								21	24	3	0.20	451
								24	30	6	0.42	692
								30	39	9	0.44	442
								45	57	12	0.29	1084
95YJRB073	273495	7860200	600	ACORE	114.8	-60	69	0	3	3	0.43	2100
								4	13	9	1.27	1100
								18	33	15	1.83	1189
								42	48	6	0.27	852
								48	51	3	0.43	1330
								51	57	6	0.15	329
95YJRB074	273475	7860200	600	ACORE	114.8	-60	69	6	12	6	0.21	525

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 63

==> picture [96 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Hole ID	Easting	Northing	RL Regional	Drilling Type	Azimuth (Degrees)	Dip (Degrees)	Final Depth (m)	From (m)	To (m)	Interval width (m)	Au (g/t)	As (ppm)
								27	30	3	0.11	78
								36	39	3	0.18	157
								52	63	11	1.50	1463
95YJRB075	273455	7860200	600	ACORE	114.8	-60	51	33	36	3	0.21	258
95YJRB076	273505	7860200	600	ACORE	114.8	-60	69	0	3	3	0.35	459
								3	6	3	0.24	990
								24	27	3	0.10	324
								39	42	3	0.12	600
								66	69	3	1.47	1430
95YJRB077	273805	7861000	600	ACORE	109.8	-60	45	0	3	3	0.25	420
								30	36	6	0.77	1160
								36	39	3	1.03	444
								42	45	3	1.42	1370
95YJRB078	273785	7861000	600	ACORE	109.8	-60	39			No Significant Intercept
95YJRB079	273765	7861000	600	ACORE	109.8	-60	39	0	6	6	1.11	1545
								18	24	6	0.21	522
95YJRB080	273745	7861000	600	ACORE	138.8	-60	39	18	24	6	1.20	2690
								27	30	3	0.50	1370
95YJRB081	273725	7861000	600	ACORE	138.8	-60	39	12	15	3	0.62	1040
95YJRB082	273760	7861000	600	ACORE	289.8	-60	35	0	3	3	0.14	536
								9	15	6	0.31	845
95YJRB083	273840	7861000	600	ACORE	289.8	-60	45	0	3	3	0.18	1280
								9	15	6	0.33	885
								24	27	3	0.11	142
95YJRB084	273860	7861000	600	ACORE	289.8	-60	57	0	3	3	0.24	539

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 64

==> picture [96 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Hole ID	Easting	Northing	RL Regional	Drilling Type	Azimuth (Degrees)	Dip (Degrees)	Final Depth (m)	From (m)	To (m)	Interval width (m)	Au (g/t)	As (ppm)
								27	30	3	0.29	980
								33	39	6	0.14	542
95YJRB085	273880	7861000	600	ACORE	289.8	-60	51	0	9	9	0.18	1622
								24	27	3	0.20	1620
								33	39	6	0.12	561
95YJRB086	273900	7861000	600	ACORE	289.8	-60	51	0	3	3	0.15	446
								27	30	3	0.48	1750
								33	39	6	0.40	967
								45	48	3	0.26	737
95YJRB087	273920	7861000	600	ACORE	289.8	-60	39	0	3	3	0.18	300
95YJRB088	273645	7860600	600	ACORE	289.8	-60	75	16	18	2	0.90	341
								19	22	3	0.50	2340
								53	60	7	1.20	3900
95YJRB089	273700	7861000	600	ACORE	0	-90	9	No Significant Intercept
95YJRB090	273650	7861000	600	ACORE	0	-90	9	No Significant Intercept
95YJRB091	273600	7861000	600	ACORE	0	-90	9	No Significant Intercept
95YJRB092	273600	7861200	600	ACORE	0	-90	9	No Significant Intercept
95YJRB093	273650	7861200	600	ACORE	0	-90	21	No Significant Intercept
95YJRB094	273700	7861200	600	ACORE	0	-90	12	No Significant Intercept
95YJRB095	273750	7861200	600	ACORE	0	-90	9	No Significant Intercept
95YJRB096	273800	7861200	600	ACORE	0	-90	9	No Significant Intercept
95YJRB097	273850	7861200	600	ACORE	0	-90	9	No Significant Intercept
95YJRB098	273900	7861200	600	ACORE	0	-90	12	No Significant Intercept
95YJRB099	273950	7861200	600	ACORE	0	-90	9	No Significant Intercept
95YJRB100	274000	7861200	600	ACORE	0	-90	9	No Significant Intercept

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 65

==> picture [96 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Hole ID	Easting	Northing	RL Regional	Drilling Type	Azimuth (Degrees)	Dip (Degrees)	Final Depth (m)	From (m)	To (m)	Interval width (m)	Au (g/t)	As (ppm)
95YJRB101	274050	7861200	600	ACORE	0	-90	9
										No Significant Intercept
95YJRB102	274100	7861200	600	ACORE	0	-90	12			No Significant Intercept
95YJRB103	274150	7861200	600	ACORE	0	-90	21
										No Significant Intercept
95YJRB104	274200	7861200	600	ACORE	0	-90	30			No Significant Intercept
95YJRB105	273650	7860800	600	ACORE	289.8	-60	39	24	30	6	0.19	1425
								33	39	6	0.10	475
95YJRB106	273670	7860800	600	ACORE	289.8	-60	39	33	36	3	0.15	900
95YJRB107	273690	7860800	600	ACORE	292.8	-60	39	0	3	3	0.20	650
								27	30	3	0.36	3500
95YJRB108	273710	7860800	600	ACORE	292.8	-60	42	0	6	6	0.18	500
								9	12	3	0.12	650
								15	24	9	1.18	2217
								33	39	6	0.63	1575
95YJRB109	273730	7860800	600	ACORE	292.8	-60	51	0	9	9	0.15	300
								12	15	3	0.12	200
								18	21	3	0.17	100
								33	36	3	0.15	50
95YJRB110	273750	7860800	600	ACORE	292.8	-60	48	0	9	9	0.31	950
								21	24	3	0.16	150
								33	39	6	0.12	25
								51	54	3	0.15	50
95YJRB111	273770	7860800	600	ACORE	292.8	-60	41	12	18	6	0.32	275
								21	24	3	0.13	25
95YJRB112	273780	7861000	600	ACORE	289.8	-60	57	0	3	3	0.13	800
								21	24	3	0.18	1150

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 66

==> picture [96 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Hole ID	Easting	Northing	RL Regional	Drilling Type	Azimuth (Degrees)	Dip (Degrees)	Final Depth (m)	From (m)	To (m)	Interval width (m)	Au (g/t)	As (ppm)
								48	57	9	0.97	2533
95YJRB113	273825	7861000	600	ACORE	289.8	-60	23	0	3	3	0.14	400
								11	12	1	0.12	350
								13	14	1	0.15	400
95YJRB114	273605	7860600	600	ACORE	289.8	-60	48	0	2	2	0.20	125
								5	6	1	0.10	500
								11	17	6	1.11	1042
								18	20	2	0.34	500
								23	24	1	0.14	150
								26	28	2	0.24	375
								29	30	1	0.31	800
								40	41	1	0.15	500
95YJRB115	273625	7860600	600	ACORE	289.8	-60	51	0	2	2	0.15	325
								5	6	1	0.12	650
								11	32	21	1.92	1307
								33	41	8	1.02	1788
								42	48	6	0.21	200
								50	51	1	0.13	150
95YJRB116	273670	7860600	600	ACORE	289.8	-60	32	12	15	3	0.78	550
								18	21	3	0.59	100
								24	32	8	0.23	500
95YJRB117	273690	7860600	600	ACORE	289.8	-60	51	25	36	11	1.41	868
95YJRB118	273530	7860400	600	ACORE	292.8	-60	38	0	9	9	0.22	383
								12	15	3	0.10	50
95YJRB119	273550	7860400	600	ACORE	292.8	-60	39	0	3	3	0.14	450

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 67

==> picture [96 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Hole ID	Easting	Northing	RL Regional	Drilling Type	Azimuth (Degrees)	Dip (Degrees)	Final Depth (m)	From (m)	To (m)	Interval width (m)	Au (g/t)	As (ppm)
95YJRB120	273570	7860400	600	ACORE	292.8	-60	41	3	6	3	0.11	1200
								24	30	6	0.22	175
95YJRB121	273590	7860400	600	ACORE	292.8	-60	38	0	3	3	0.15	700
								15	24	9	1.11	1033
95YJRB122	273610	7860400	600	ACORE	292.8	-60	52	0	3	3	0.16	900
								12	24	12	0.52	825
								30	36	6	0.23	350
								36	42	6	0.18	250
								51	52	1	0.13	300
95YJRB123	273630	7860400	600	ACORE	292.8	-60	59	0	6	6	0.16	975
								12	14	2	2.35	1450
								24	36	12	0.48	575
								36	39	3	0.15	250
								42	45	3	0.63	1200
								51	54	3	0.21	400
95YJRB124	273650	7860400	600	ACORE	292.8	-60	71	9	21	12	0.36	1225
								33	48	15	0.32	660
								51	54	3	0.12	550
95YJRB125	273670	7860400	600	ACORE	292.8	-60	41	0	3	3	0.11	800
95YJRB126	273505	7860200	600	ACORE	292.8	-60	50	0	11	11	0.79	736
								20	23	3	0.11	100
								26	29	3	0.16	100
95YJRB127	273524	7860200	600	ACORE	294.8	-60	28.5
										No Significant Intercept
95YJRB128	273525	7860200	600	ACORE	294.8	-60	60	0	6	6	0.25	1275
								25	26	1	0.13	550

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 68

==> picture [96 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Hole ID	Easting	Northing	RL Regional	Drilling Type	Azimuth (Degrees)	Dip (Degrees)	Final Depth (m)	From (m)	To (m)	Interval width (m)	Au (g/t)	As (ppm)
								27	40	13	1.44	988
								41	46	5	0.83	1240
95YJRB129	273538	7860200	600	ACORE	294.8	-60	66	0	9	9	0.34	1267
								10	13	3	0.21	833
								18	30	12	0.36	550
								40	45	5	0.17	900
								62	66	4	0.60	1163
95YJRB130	273720	7860200	600	ACORE	294.8	-60	38
										No Significant Intercept
95YJRB131	273740	7860200	600	ACORE	294.8	-60	38			No Significant Intercept
95YJRB132	273760	7860200	600	ACORE	294.8	-60	38
										No Significant Intercept
95YJRB133	273780	7860200	600	ACORE	294.8	-60	38			No Significant Intercept
95YJRB134	273660	7860200	600	ACORE	0	-90	18	0	3	3	0.10	750
95YJRB135	273640	7860200	600	ACORE	0	-90	18			No Significant Intercept
96YJRC136	273852.8	7860881	603.59	REVC	114	-62	80	40	41	1	0.10	62
								49	51	2	0.14	10
96YJRC137	273818.8	7860900	603.88	REVC	121	-60	80	0	2	2	0.52	773
								24	25	1	0.14	10
96YJRC138	273783.4	7860919	604.19	REVC	120	-60	80	0	2	2	0.27	693
								5	6	1	0.30	552
								13	19	6	0.58	313
								22	25	3	0.12	361
								29	30	1	0.14	412
								33	34	1	0.16	270
								40	41	1	0.12	118
96YJRC139	273747.8	7860938	604.4	REVC	120	-61	80	12	13	1	0.10	110

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 69

==> picture [96 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Hole ID	Easting	Northing	RL Regional	Drilling Type	Azimuth (Degrees)	Dip (Degrees)	Final Depth (m)	From (m)	To (m)	Interval width (m)	Au (g/t)	As (ppm)
								14	16	2	0.25	70
								36	38	2	0.16	10
								39	45	6	1.15	2165
								53	57	4	0.38	2043
								58	59	1	0.10	30
								63	64	1	0.15	530
								65	66	1	0.78	1800
96YJRC140	273713.3	7860957	600	REVC	113	-60	80	10	12	2	0.21	515
								22	23	1	0.15	40
								58	59	1	0.16	10
								73	74	1	0.10	30
								78	79	1	0.11	30
96YJRC141	273814.8	7860810	603.86	REVC	117	-60	80	27	28	1	0.16	360
								29	37	8	0.69	1299
								39	40	1	0.10	1030
								41	42	1	0.14	740
								0	3	3	1.07	1293
96YJRC142	273779.2	7860830	604.21	REVC	122	-58	80	15	24	9	0.71	982
96YJRC143	273743.4	7860850	604.29	REVC	121	-61	80	0	1	1	0.22	110
								18	20	2	0.31	175
								21	22	1	2.17	780
								34	35	1	0.14	480
								48	56	8	0.60	1480
96YJRC144	273709.7	7860869	604.07	REVC	124	-62	80	48	49	1	0.12	200
								56	57	1	0.35	1210

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 70

==> picture [96 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Hole ID	Easting	Northing	RL Regional	Drilling Type	Azimuth (Degrees)	Dip (Degrees)	Final Depth (m)	From (m)	To (m)	Interval width (m)	Au (g/t)	As (ppm)
								73	76	3	2.60	3037
96YJRC145	273674.2	7860888	604.36	REVC	125	-60	80	41	42	1	0.22	10
								46	47	1	0.10	10
96YJRC146	273775.5	7860741	604.07	REVC	124	-59	80	37	38	1	0.12	290
								40	44	4	0.50	100
								57	58	1	0.10	30
								59	60	1	0.14	850
								61	63	2	0.24	1040
								66	67	1	0.12	130
								68	69	1	0.11	320
								71	72	1	0.26	440
								79	80	1	0.12	420
96YJRC147	273741.8	7860760	604.29	REVC	112	-60	80	0	3	3	0.30	247
								8	10	2	0.91	220
								12	15	3	0.45	857
								16	17	1	0.16	370
								23	25	2	0.19	1100
								27	28	1	0.13	1190
								30	32	2	0.26	1680
96YJRC148	273705.9	7860780	604.53	REVC	126	-59	80	0	2	2	0.21	215
								4	8	4	1.86	2048
								14	15	1	0.10	70
								18	19	1	0.12	50
								27	29	2	0.13	150
								31	32	1	0.13	40

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 71

==> picture [96 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Hole ID	Easting	Northing	RL Regional	Drilling Type	Azimuth (Degrees)	Dip (Degrees)	Final Depth (m)	From (m)	To (m)	Interval width (m)	Au (g/t)	As (ppm)
								33	34	1	0.36	40
								47	48	1	0.10	170
								64	66	2	0.60	1515
								69	71	2	0.49	210
								76	77	1	0.50	3450
96YJRC149	273670.8	7860799	604.6	REVC	117	-60	80			No Significant Intercept
96YJRC150	273633.2	7860819	604.45	REVC	118	-59	80	20	21	1	0.11	20
								73	78	5	0.19	288
96YJRC151	273773	7860651	604.38	REVC	113	-59	80	15	18	3	0.60	600
								33	34	1	0.15	3100
								42	43	1	0.16	1340
								44	45	1	0.10	210
								47	48	1	0.16	210
								49	52	3	0.63	373
								54	56	2	0.31	505
								58	61	3	0.41	580
								64	65	1	0.25	1370
								66	67	1	0.23	1310
								68	70	2	0.22	1110
								72	77	5	0.46	742
96YJRC152	273736.6	7860671	604.71	REVC	120	-61	80	1	2	1	0.10	210
								17	23	6	0.58	910
								27	28	1	0.79	380
								30	35	5	0.19	346
								52	53	1	0.14	190

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 72

==> picture [96 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Hole ID	Easting	Northing	RL Regional	Drilling Type	Azimuth (Degrees)	Dip (Degrees)	Final Depth (m)	From (m)	To (m)	Interval width (m)	Au (g/t)	As (ppm)
								55	57	2	0.80	625
								58	59	1	0.11	650
								61	64	3	0.66	450
								66	67	1	0.16	230
								77	79	2	0.23	320
96YJRC153	273701.8	7860690	604.72	REVC	122	-59	80	0	2	2	0.15	140
								11	14	3	0.32	890
								17	21	4	0.81	848
								22	32	10	0.24	330
								34	35	1	0.12	310
								57	58	1	0.13	500
								60	62	2	0.32	555
								64	69	5	0.21	482
								72	74	2	0.13	480
96YJRC154	273666.7	7860710	604.73	REVC	121	-60	80	0	1	1	0.11	40
								7	8	1	0.14	1050
								9	12	3	0.71	723
								24	25	1	0.30	70
								27	28	1	0.10	80
								29	31	2	0.19	65
96YJRC155	273627.8	7860720	604.81	REVC	122	-60	80	21	22	1	0.11	30
								38	39	1	0.16	10
								55	56	1	0.10	90
								77	78	1	0.43	90
96YJRC156	273733.6	7860582	605.69	REVC	117	-61	80	0	1	1	0.13	740

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 73

==> picture [96 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Hole ID	Easting	Northing	RL Regional	Drilling Type	Azimuth (Degrees)	Dip (Degrees)	Final Depth (m)	From (m)	To (m)	Interval width (m)	Au (g/t)	As (ppm)
								22	26	4	1.94	663
								34	40	6	1.73	1198
								45	46	1	0.10	160
								49	54	5	0.76	622
								55	56	1	0.21	260
								58	59	1	0.35	110
								67	69	2	0.14	390
								71	75	4	0.33	220
								77	78	1	0.10	50
96YJRC157	273698.9	7860601	605.95	REVC	123	-59	80	0	6	6	0.24	878
								25	34	9	1.67	989
								39	41	2	0.14	630
								55	56	1	0.28	120
								57	58	1	0.30	320
								70	71	1	0.71	150
96YJRC158	273664	7860620	606.07	REVC	130	-60	80	53	56	3	2.45	873
								57	58	1	0.16	70
								70	71	1	0.21	1410
								78	79	1	0.26	1060
96YJRC159	273694.3	7860512	607.21	REVC	121	-61	80	0	2	2	0.31	445
								4	6	2	0.70	1060
								21	23	2	0.29	355
								28	38	10	0.36	389
								40	41	1	0.13	200
								42	43	1	0.11	240

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 74

==> picture [96 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Hole ID	Easting	Northing	RL Regional	Drilling Type	Azimuth (Degrees)	Dip (Degrees)	Final Depth (m)	From (m)	To (m)	Interval width (m)	Au (g/t)	As (ppm)
								46	48	2	0.16	95
								58	60	2	0.98	920
96YJRC160	273660.6	7860530	607.4	REVC	123	-62	80	1	2	1	0.12	160
								10	11	1	0.20	80
								24	26	2	0.63	155
								31	32	1	0.14	200
								37	39	2	0.20	160
								44	48	4	0.18	363
								51	52	1	0.16	260
								57	58	1	0.28	1260
96YJRC161	273625.8	7860549	607.49	REVC	120	-60	80	0	3	3	0.30	543
								4	7	3	0.17	1167
								24	26	2	0.16	45
								27	28	1	0.14	50
								34	36	2	0.12	50
								54	55	1	0.21	410
96YJRC162	273656.7	7860440	608.53	REVC	116	-60	80	0	4	4	0.28	1698
								13	15	2	0.81	1310
								26	27	1	0.13	1250
								28	29	1	0.10	1950
								32	34	2	0.23	285
								43	45	2	0.12	1125
								47	54	7	0.88	1899
								58	62	4	0.41	904
								64	65	1	0.13	1070

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 75

==> picture [96 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Hole ID	Easting	Northing	RL Regional	Drilling Type	Azimuth (Degrees)	Dip (Degrees)	Final Depth (m)	From (m)	To (m)	Interval width (m)	Au (g/t)	As (ppm)
								68	69	1	0.13	450
								72	77	5	0.22	610
96YJRC163	273619.8	7860460	608.81	REVC	119	-60	80	24	42	18	1.87	1033
								43	47	4	0.59	425
								51	55	4	0.16	398
								58	59	1	0.10	160
								62	63	1	0.10	130
								64	69	5	0.16	546
96YJRC164	273585.5	7860479	608.88	REVC	117	-60	80	31	33	2	1.48	220
								54	56	2	0.30	320
								73	74	1	0.12	60
96YJRC165	273652.3	7860350	609.31	REVC	116	-60	80	0	3	3	0.53	203
								4	5	1	0.11	160
								12	13	1	0.12	130
								24	28	4	1.14	660
								36	37	1	0.17	290
								43	45	2	0.12	330
								49	50	1	0.16	210
96YJRC166	273617	7860370	609.77	REVC	124	-60	80	13	14	1	0.10	270
								15	16	1	0.36	360
								26	27	1	0.65	970
								30	31	1	0.10	680
								33	35	2	0.19	575
								38	53	15	1.42	859
								56	63	7	1.37	351

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 76

==> picture [96 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Hole ID	Easting	Northing	RL Regional	Drilling Type	Azimuth (Degrees)	Dip (Degrees)	Final Depth (m)	From (m)	To (m)	Interval width (m)	Au (g/t)	As (ppm)
								64	67	3	0.58	247
96YJRC167	273582	7860388	610.1	REVC	114	-61	80	51	52	1	0.14	160
								55	56	1	0.11	120
								57	58	1	0.16	120
								61	68	7	1.61	1514
								75	80	5	0.58	1334
96YJRC168	273941.1	7861289	605.75	REVC	123	-58	80	1	2	1	0.25	350
								17	20	3	0.38	1087
								21	26	5	0.15	716
								27	29	2	1.30	1535
								30	31	1	0.82	2000
								36	40	4	1.48	1958
								46	50	4	0.55	688
								53	54	1	0.44	1000
96YJRC169	273904.7	7861307	606.03	REVC	122	-59	80	24	25	1	0.17	260
								36	38	2	0.85	810
								54	56	2	0.12	125
								59	60	1	0.13	440
								64	65	1	0.10	2220
								66	72	6	1.84	3747
96YJRC170	273869.6	7861327	606.27	REVC	124	-60	80	0	2	2	0.11	300
								29	30	1	0.23	2320
								46	47	1	0.12	980
								50	52	2	0.72	2785
96YJRC171	273973.1	7861180	603.74	REVC	122	-59	80	75	76	1	0.19	240

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 77

==> picture [96 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Hole ID	Easting	Northing	RL Regional	Drilling Type	Azimuth (Degrees)	Dip (Degrees)	Final Depth (m)	From (m)	To (m)	Interval width (m)	Au (g/t)	As (ppm)
								77	80	3	0.24	293
96YJRC172	273937.5	7861199	604.12	REVC	123	-59	80	0	2	2	0.29	860
								4	5	1	0.30	1150
								25	26	1	0.20	110
								30	31	1	0.11	490
								36	38	2	0.31	690
								42	43	1	0.41	1950
								44	50	6	0.20	1528
								53	56	3	0.14	1447
								71	73	2	0.16	230
96YJRC173	273902.6	7861218	604.64	REVC	117	-61	80	0	2	2	0.12	595
								5	6	1	0.28	460
								13	14	1	0.10	170
								17	18	1	0.12	330
								20	22	2	0.69	510
								26	28	2	1.09	1985
								31	32	1	0.12	340
								59	60	1	0.43	590
96YJRC174	273867	7861238	605.1	REVC	123	-59	80	2	6	4	0.26	395
								12	13	1	0.13	710
								15	16	1	0.13	500
								43	44	1	2.17	1990
								61	62	1	0.10	1230
								73	75	2	1.68	3440
								75	76	1	0.15	1800

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 78

==> picture [96 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Hole ID	Easting	Northing	RL Regional	Drilling Type	Azimuth (Degrees)	Dip (Degrees)	Final Depth (m)	From (m)	To (m)	Interval width (m)	True Thickness Estimate (m)	Au (g/t)	As (ppm)
								79	80	1		1.24	3120
96YJRC175	273832	7861257	605.4	REVC	112	-59	80	54	56	2		0.66	740

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 79

==> picture [96 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

BRISBANE

Level 6 40 Creek Street (GPO Box 993) Brisbane QLD 4000 Australia P +61 7 3835 3900

HUNTER VALLEY

Suite 2, Level 1 129 John Street (PO Box 1169) Singleton NSW 2330 Australia P +61 2 6572 2878

SYDNEY

Level 2, Suite 201 189 Kent Street Sydney NSW 2000 Australia P +61 498 280 435

www.xenith.com.au

Great Divide Mining Ltd • Yellow Jack Project Mineral Resource Estimate • 80

AI assistant

GREAT DIVIDE MINING LTD — Regulatory Filings 2023

64975_rns_2023-10-03_963223ee-645f-461d-9342-c9c5fc3c21ef.pdf

51,100 oz Gold Initial JORC Mineral Resource Estimate at Yellow Jack

Highlights:

Mineral Resource Estimate

Yellow Jack Project

Justin Haines

Reign Advisory

About Great Divide Mining Ltd (ASX: GDM)

Competent Persons Statement

Forward-Looking Statements

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF APPENDICES

DISCLAIMER

DOCUMENT ISSUE APPROVAL

DISTRIBUTION

GLOSSARY

Acronyms and Abbreviations

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2.1 Introduction

2.2 Scope of Project

2.3 Site Visit

3 EXPLORATION HISTORY

4 GEOLOGY

4.1 Regional Geology

4.2 . Local Geology

4.3 Mineralisation

4.4 Oxide Profiles

5 DRILLING

5.1 Drilling Methods

5.2 Collar Surveys

5.3 Down Hole Surveys

5.4 Drill Hole Data Validation

6 GEOLOGICAL MODELLING

6.1 Geological Data

6.2 Surface Modelling

6.3 Geological Model

7 EXPLORATORY DATA ANALYSIS

7.1 Sampling and Assaying

7.2 Global Data Analysis

7.3 Element Correlations

7.6 Top Cuts

7.7 Estimation Domains

8 BLOCK MODEL AND RESOURCE ESTIMATION

8.1 Model Definition

8.2 Estimation Method

8.3 Model Results

8.3.1 Model Comparison

8.4 Model Validation

10 REFERENCES

11 COMPETENT PERSON STATEMENT AND CONSENT

11.1 Competent Person’s Consent Form

APPENDIX A. JORC CODE (2012). EDITION TABLE 1

Table A.1 - Sampling Techniques and Data

Table A.2 - Reporting of Exploration Results

Table A.3 - Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources

APPENDIX B. YELLOW JACK DRILLHOLE LOCATIONS AND MINERALISED INTERCEPTS

Table B.4 – Drill-hole Locations and Mineralised Intercepts

BRISBANE

HUNTER VALLEY

SYDNEY

More from GREAT DIVIDE MINING LTD

GREAT DIVIDE MINING LTD Regulatory Filings 2023