HAMMER METALS LIMITED — Capital/Financing Update 2015

Aug 25, 2015

ASX Announcement (ASX: HMX)

August 26[th] 2015

Overlander Copper Resource Update

HIGHLIGHTS

• Overlander copper resources up 53% to 1.77 million tonnes at 1.2% Cu following extensional drilling program at Overlander North;

• New Mineral Resource Estimate was completed for Overlander North by Haren Consulting (Haren) and reported in accordance with the guidelines of the JORC Code (2012 Edition);

• Comprises 1,123,000 tonnes at 1.31% copper in the Indicated and Inferred category at Overlander North and 649,000 tonnes at 1.0% copper in the Inferred category at Overlander South using a 0.7% Cu cut-off grade;

• Deposits remain open down plunge and along strike;

• Additional testing planned for the Overlander Rhyolite and Overlander North IOCG targets.

Hammer Metals Limited (Hammer) (ASX: HMX) is pleased to advise that following a successful drilling campaign, a new Mineral Resource Estimate for the Overlander North Deposit has been produced by Haren Consulting (“Haren”) and reported in accordance with the guidelines of the JORC Code (2012 Edition). A Mineral Resource Estimate for Overlander South is also tabled, but remains unchanged since its initial reporting in July 2014.

The 100%-owned Overlander North and South deposits are situated 60 kilometres to the southeast of the mining centre of Mount Isa in North West Queensland and 6 kilometres to the west of Hammer’s Kalman copper-gold-molybdenum-rhenium deposit. Hammer holds a strategic tenement position covering approximately 2,000km[2] within the Mount Isa region and surrounding Overlander and Kalman.

Overlander North (August 2015) and South Combined (June 2014) Mineral Resource (0.7 % Cu cut-off)

Classification	Tonnes	Cu (%) Co (ppm) Cu tonnes Co tonnes
Measured	-	- - - -
Indicated	253,000	1.35 254 3,414 64
Inferred	1,518,000	1.17 476 17,702 723
Total	1,772,000	1.2 445 21,116 788

Note – Totals may differ due to rounding

Alexander Hewlett, CEO of Hammer Metals Limited said that: “Our work continues to demonstrate the prospectivity of Hammer’s Overlander prospect and the Mount Isa project area as a whole. With limited drilling we have generated a major upgrade to the Mineral Resource estimate with further drilling at the adjacent Overlander Rhyolite and Overlander IOCG targets planned.”

1

==> picture [462 x 555] intentionally omitted <==

Project Location

2

A summary of the background and information used in the Mineral Resource estimation is as follows:

Haren Consulting (Haren) was contracted in June 2014 by Hammer Resources Limited (Hammer) to complete Mineral Resource estimates for the Overlander North and Overlander South Copper (Cu) and Cobalt (Co) deposits. Following more recent drilling, Haren completed a new Mineral Resource estimate for the Overlander North deposit in August 2015.

The deposits are located within the Eastern Fold Belt of the Mount Isa Inlier approximately 60km southeast of Mount Isa in NW Queensland. Prospect scale mapping has identified a sequence of calcareous metasediments and rhyolitic volcanics marginal to the Overlander Granite. The Overlander North and Overlander South copper mineralisation occurs at the sheared contact of these units. The mineralisation is interpreted to be in parallel and steeply dipping high grade copper and cobalt lodes contained within a low grade mineralisation envelope.

The Overlander Mineral Resources are located within Exploration Permit 14232, held 100% by Mt Dockerell Mining Pty Ltd which is a 100% owned subsidiary of Hammer. Initial exploration was completed by Carpentaria Exploration Company (CEC) in the 1970’s, with nine short percussion holes and one diamond hole drilled. Kings Minerals Limited completed twelve reverse circulation (RC) drill holes and soil sampling along the Overlander trend during 2005 and 2006. Hammer commenced exploration at Overlander in late 2013.

Drilling in the Overlander North deposit was recently extended from a previous depth of 160m, to a new vertical depth of approximately 420m. The mineralisation was re-modelled from surface to a depth of approximately 440 m below surface. Drilling in the Overlander South deposit extends to a vertical depth of approximately 220m and the mineralisation was modelled from surface to a depth of approximately 220m below surface. The resource estimates are based on good quality RC and diamond drilling data. Drill hole spacing is predominantly on a 40m by 20m spacing with additional drill holes between sections targeted at the higher grade cores of the deposits.

The Mineral Resource estimates are reported here in compliance with the 2012 Edition of the ‘Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves’ prepared by the Joint Ore Reserves Committee of The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Australian Geoscientists and Minerals Council of Australia (The JORC Code 2012). The Overlander North Mineral Resource is summarised in Table A and the Overlander South Mineral Resource (reported in July 2014) is summarised in Table B. Table C shows the combined mineral resource.

3

Table A: Overlander North (August 2015) Mineral Resource (0.7 % Cu cut-off)

Classification	Tonnes	Cu (%) Co (ppm) Cu tonnes Co tonnes
Measured	-	- - - -
Indicated	253,000	1.35 254 3,414 64
Inferred	870,000	1.30 456 11,350 396
OVN Total	1,123,000	1.31 410 14,764 461

Note – Totals may differ due to rounding

Table B: Overlander South (June 2014) Mineral Resource (0.7 % Cu cut-off)

Classification	Tonnes	Cu (%) Co (ppm) Cu tonnes Co tonnes
Measured	-	- - - -
Indicated	-	- - - -
Inferred	649,000	1.0 500 6,352 327
OVS Total	649,000	1.0 500 6,352 327

Note – Totals may differ due to rounding

Table C: Overlander North and South Combined Mineral Resource (0.7 % Cu cut-off)

Classification	Tonnes	Cu (%) Co (ppm) Cu tonnes Co tonnes
Measured	-	- - - -
Indicated	253,000	1.35 238 3,414 64
Inferred	1,518,000	1.17 476 17,700 723
Total	1,772,000	1.2 445 21,112 788

Note – Totals may differ due to rounding

4

The Block model of the Overlander North deposit was constructed using ordinary kriging interpolation. The interpolation was constrained by hard-boundaries comprising mineralisation envelopes. A 0.1% Cu or 150ppm Co cut-off for low grade mineralisation and a 0.4% Cu cut-off for high grade copper mineralisation was applied. In these envelopes there may be cobalt values less than 150ppm where copper values are high. Additional high grade cobalt envelopes were created using a 150ppm Co cut-off. Down hole intercepts were composited to 1m intervals prior to geostatistical modelling.

Top-cuts were not applied to the copper mineralisation however a top-cut of 2,500ppm was applied to the high grade cobalt pods. The Mineral Resource is reported at a cut-off of 0.7% Cu.

The block dimensions used in the Overlander North model were 20m NS by 2.5m EW by 10m vertical, with sub-cells of 5m by 0.625m by 2.5m.

Bulk density measurements were supplied to Haren for Hammer drill holes at both Overlander North and Overlander South. 205 measurements were available from drill holes, including 93 new measurements from drill holes OVRC029, OVRC030 and OVRC031.

Table D: Overlander North and Overlander South Mineral Resource Density

Material	Density	Description	Description	Description
Oxide	2.30 t/m3	Above the base of complete oxidation (BOCO)
Transition	2.60 t/m3	Between the BOCO and TOFR
Fresh	2.84 t/m3	Below the top of fresh rock (TOFR)

The updated Overlander North estimation incorporates four new drill holes completed by Hammer, which have confirmed the continuity of lodes allowing an extension to the Inferred Mineral Resource down-dip and across-strike. The new drilling and geological mapping proved the continuity of grade necessary to greatly expand low-grade envelopes west of the high-grade shear zone. The deposit continues to have good potential for extension of the defined resource along strike and down dip with further exploration drilling.

5

==> picture [460 x 358] intentionally omitted <==

Overlander North drilling, showing existing drillholes in blue and new drillholes in red. The red box defines the Indicated resource category and the grey polygon defines the Inferred resource category.

Mineral Resource Statement and Parameters

The Mineral Resource estimates for the Overlander North and South deposits were completed using the following parameters:

• The drilling at the Overlander North deposit extends over a distance of 290 m (from 7,673,530 mN to 7,673,820 mN) and includes the 435 m vertical interval from 385 m to -50 m. The Cu and Co mineralisation is interpreted to extend over a distance of 360 m (from 7,673,480 mN to 7,673,840 mN) and from surface to approximately 440 m below surface. The drill hole database contained 26 drill holes for a total of 3821 m of drilling.

• Holes were drilled at mostly 40m spacings on east-west orientated drill sections with some 20m infill drilling. Drill spacing down dip is mostly 20m. The drill spacing is sufficient to allow the grade intersections to be modelled into coherent wireframes for each domain.

• No site visit has been conducted by Haren.

• The RC holes have been sampled at 1.0 m sample lengths within interpreted mineralised intervals. Remaining intervals were sampled as 4m composites obtained by spearing the 1 m drill spoil. RC drill holes completed by Kings Minerals were sampled at 1.0 m sample lengths. Diamond holes

6

completed by CEC (DDH1) and Hammer Metals (OVD001) were sampled at varying intervals based on logged geological contacts.

• RC holes were surveyed “in rod” on a nominal 30 m interval, errors in azimuth readings in zones of high magnetic susceptibility were either excluded or modelled according to the adjacent values. Historical diamond drill holes were surveyed on a mostly 50 m interval.

• Holes were accurately surveyed at the collar by a contract surveyor using Trimble GNSS equipment using the RTK survey method to an accuracy of 0.05m.

• Logging and sampling methods for the Hammer drilling follow industry recognised procedures and are considered to be of an acceptable standard.

Sample preparation and analysis was carried out by ALS Mount Isa. Samples were analysed by ALS for a range of elements using ME-ICP61 (4 acid digest / ICP determination) and ME-ICP41 (Aqua Regia digest / ICP determination). Cu values greater than 10,000 ppm were re-analysed using CuOG62, which uses a similar technique to ME-ICP61 but is suitable for higher grade mineralisation. Gold was analysed using Au-AA21, Au-AA25 and Au-AA26; procedures that include fire assay and Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy.

The QAQC programs are an ongoing process for all Hammer drill programs. Sample duplicates were inserted every 20 samples and suitable base metal certified Standards were inserted every 20 samples.

• The topographic surface across the Overlander North deposit was defined by a digital terrain model generated from data obtained during a heliborne magnetic survey.

The deposit was constrained by Mineral Resource outlines based on mineralisation envelopes prepared using a 0.1 % Cu or 150 ppm Co cut-off for low grade mineralisation and a 0.4 % Cu cut-off for high grade Cu mineralisation. High grade Co envelopes were created using a 150 ppm Co cutoff.

• Top-cuts were not applied to the Cu mineralisation however a top-cut of 2,500 ppm was applied to the high grade Co pods.

7

==> picture [460 x 417] intentionally omitted <==

Overlander North Low Grade Mineralisation Envelope and Drilling

8

==> picture [226 x 370] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [226 x 370] intentionally omitted <==

Cross section 7673730mN. Left side shows Cu (%) resource blocks before June 2014 and right side Cu (%) resource blocks after the drilling of OVRC031 (August 2015)

L

Previous Estimations

The Mineral Resource estimate for Overlander South tabled in this report was reported to the ASX on July 24[th] 2014.

The Overlander North maiden resource estimate was reported in March 2014 by Hammer Metals Limited, then trading as Midas Resources Limited, as shown below in Table E. Following further RC drilling by Hammer, the resource estimate was revised by HC as shown in Table F below and reported on July 24[th] 2014.

9

Table E: Overlander North March 2014 Mineral Resource (0.5 % Cu cut-off)

Classification	Tonnes	Cu (%) Co (ppm) Cu tonnes	Co tonnes
Measured	-	- - -	-
Indicated	-	- - -	-
Inferred	482,000	1.3 210 6,206	101
Total	482,000	1.3 210 6,206	101

Table F: Overlander North June 2014 Mineral Resource (0.7 % Cu cut-off)

Classification	Tonnes	Cu (%) Co (ppm) Cu tonnes Co tonnes
Measured	-	- - - -
Indicated	247,000	1.3 230 3,201 56
Inferred	261,000	1.5 250 3,788 65
OVN Total	508,000	1.4 240 6,989 121

Drilling Summary

A summary of the drilling at Overlander North is provided in Table G below.

Table G: Overlander Drilling Summary

	a	: veraner rng ummary
Deposit	Company	Period Drilling Num Holes Metres
North	CEC	1970’s DD 1 132
	Kings Minerals NL	2005-2006 RC 3 394
	Hammer Resources	2013 -2014 RC 22 3295
South	CEC	1970’s RC 15 289
	Kings Minerals NL	2005-2006 RC 9 1,324
	Hammer Resources	2013 -2015 RC 10 1,000
Total	All	All All 59 6,434

10

Prospects for Economic Extraction

The Overlander North and Overlander South deposits are reported at a cut-off of 0.7% Cu based on the viability at this value for economic extraction. The nearby Kalman polymetallic deposit (6 km east of Overlander North) and other satellite prospects support the open-cut mining of the Overlander deposits as part of a project ‘hub’.

For these reasons Haren is of the opinion that the Overlander North and Overlander South deposits are of sufficient grade and tonnage to have reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction using open-pit surface mining techniques and are thus suitable for public reporting.

Classification

The Overlander North Mineral Resource (the subject of this report) was classified on the basis of data quality, sample spacing and continuity of the interpreted zones. The deposit shows consistent continuity of mineralisation within well-defined geological constraints which have been largely confirmed by the recent drilling by Hammer. The drill hole spacing throughout the project is approximately 40m along strike with some 20m infill drilling. Drill spacing down dip is of similar dimensions. The drill spacing is sufficient to allow the grade intersections to be modelled into coherent wireframes for each domain. Reasonable consistency is evident in the thickness and grade of the domains.

Haren considers that geological and mineralisation continuity has been demonstrated with sufficient confidence to allow portions of the Overlander North deposit to be classified as Indicated or Inferred Mineral Resources. The extrapolation of the lodes along strike and down dip has been limited by the application of strings to defined reportable Mineral Resources. The Overlander North deposit appears to have good potential for extension of the defined resource along strike and ‘down dip’ with further exploration drilling. Haren considers the data underlying the estimate to be reliable.

The Overlander South Mineral Resource reported in July 2014 was classified on the basis of data quality, sample spacing and continuity of the interpreted zones. The deposit shows consistent continuity of mineralisation within well-defined geological constraints which have been largely confirmed by the recent drilling by Hammer. The drill hole spacing throughout the project is approximately 40m along strike with some 20m infill drilling. Drill spacing down dip is of similar dimensions. The drill spacing is sufficient to allow the grade intersections to be modelled into coherent wireframes for each domain. Reasonable consistency is evident in the thickness and grade of the domains.

Haren considers that geological and mineralisation continuity has been demonstrated with a reasonable level of confidence at Overlander South, however the inclusion in this estimate of P series holes which have an uncertain location means there is some uncertainty in the tenor and width of mineralised intersections therefore there is only sufficient confidence to allow portions of the Overlander South deposit to be classified as an Inferred Mineral Resources. The extrapolation of the lodes along strike and down dip has been limited by the application of a restriction at a depth of 300m to the defined reportable Mineral Resources.

The Overlander North and Overlander South Mineral Resource models are undiluted, so appropriate dilution needs to be incorporated in any evaluation of the deposit.

11

The reported Inferred Mineral Resources have been estimated with insufficient confidence to allow the application of Modifying Factors in sufficient detail to support mine planning and evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit.

Risk and Opportunities

There is an opportunity to increase the level of confidence in the Mineral Resources through close spaced infill drilling. There is also the opportunity with extensional drilling along strike and at depth to identify additional resources.

Competent Persons Statement

The information in this report that relates to Mineral Resources is based on information compiled by Ms. Elizabeth Haren, a Competent Person who is a Member and Chartered Professional of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and a full time employee of Haren Consulting Pty Ltd. Ms. Haren has sufficient experience which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity which she has undertaken to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the ‘Australasian Code for the Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves’. Ms. Haren consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on this information in the form and context in which it appears.

Ms. Haren has no economic, financial or pecuniary interest in Hammer and there is no issue that could be perceived as a conflict of interest.

The reporting of Mineral Resources presented in this Statement has been carried out in accordance with the “Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves” (The JORC Code – 2012 Edition).

The information in this report that relates to Exploration Results is based on information compiled and supplied by Mr. John Downing, a Competent Person who is a Member of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists and an employee of Hammer. Mr. Downing has sufficient experience which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity which he has undertaken to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the ‘Australasian Code for the Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves’. John Downing consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on this information in the form and context in which it appears.

12

The following section is provided to ensure compliance with the JORC (2012) requirements for the reporting of the Mineral Resource estimates for the Overlander North and South copper deposits on mining tenement EPM 14232.

Overlander North & South Deposits JORC Code (2012) Table 1

==> picture [482 x 510] intentionally omitted <==

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

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data
(Criteria in this section apply to all succeeding sections.)
Criteria  JORC Code explanation Commentary
Sampling  Nature and quality of sampling  The sampling has been carried out using a reverse
techniques (egg cut channels, random circulation (RC) drilling rig to obtain individually
chips, or specific specialised riffle split 1m samples weighing approximately
industry standard 3kg. One metre samples over interpreted
measurement tools mineralised intervals were selected for assay.
appropriate to the minerals Remaining intervals were sampled as 4m
under investigation, such as composites obtained by spearing the 1 metre drill
down hole gamma sondes, or spoil.
handheld XRF instruments,  Duplicate samples were taken at 25 metre
etc.). These examples should intervals by riffle-splitting the remaining bulk
not be taken as limiting the sample return. Multi-element standard reference
broad meaning of sampling. samples and blanks were each inserted into
 Include reference to measures laboratory submissions at 25-sample intervals.
taken to ensure sample Sample collection equipment was regularly
representivity and the inspected for function, cleanliness and appropriate
appropriate calibration of any operation. Wet or poor sample return was logged.
measurement tools or systems Diamond drill samples comprised half-cut core
used. over geologically defined intervals.
 Aspects of the determination of  Samples were selected using geological criteria
mineralisation that are (visual inspection) and niton XRF analysis.
Material to the Public Report.  All samples submitted for assay underwent a fine
 In cases where ‘industry crush with 1kg riffled off for pulverising to 75
standard’ work has been done micron.
this would be relatively simple  The RC samples were submitted for 4 acid or Aqua
(e.g. ‘reverse circulation regia digest followed by fire assay/AAS for gold,
drilling was used to obtain 1 m and ICP analysis for a range of elements including
samples from which 3 kg was copper, silver, cobalt and molybdenum. Half-core
pulverised to produce a 30 g samples were submitted for 4-acid digest followed
charge for fire assay’). In other by fire assay for gold and ICP analysis for a range
cases more explanation may be of elements including Copper, Silver, Cobalt,
required, such as where there Molybdenum and Arsenic.
is coarse gold that has inherent  Historical reverse circulation samples drilled by
sampling problems. Unusual Kings Minerals is sampled every 1 metre. Core
commodities or mineralisation drilled by Carpentaria Exploration Company (CEC)
types (e.g. submarine nodules) is sampled at lengths based on geological contact
may warrant disclosure of and visible mineralisation.
detailed information.
----- End of picture text -----

13

==> picture [482 x 659] intentionally omitted <==

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

||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|Criteria||JORC Code explanation|Commentary|
|Drilling||Drill type (e.g. core, reverse||Hammer drilling was by reverse circulation and|
|techniques|circulation, open-hole hammer,|diamond drilling.|
|rotary air blast, auger, Bangka,||Historical drilling includes 3 reverse circulation|
|sonic, etc.) and details (e.g.|holes drilled by Kings Minerals in 2005 and 2006,|
|core diameter, triple or|also 1 diamond hole drilled by CEC in the 1970’s.|
|standard tube, depth of|
|diamond tails, face-sampling|
|bit or other type, whether core|
|is oriented and if so, by what|
|method, etc.).|
|Drill sample||Method of recording and||Recovery of samples were visually estimated and|
|recovery|assessing core and chip sample|recorded in the logs. Average recovery of the|
|recoveries and results|samples was estimated to be in the range of 80-|
|assessed.|90%. Local variations in the near surface oxidised|
||Measures taken to maximise|zone. Recovery of core samples was determined|
|sample recovery and ensure|by measuring recovered core and comparing with|
|representative nature of the|drilled intervals.|
|samples.||The RC was drilled dry using a booster and|
||Whether a relationship exists|auxiliary compressor. Care was taken to avoid|
|between sample recovery and|sample contamination. Core was washed|
|grade and whether sample bias|immediately. No sample recovery bias was|
|may have occurred due to|observed through mineralised zones.|
|preferential loss/gain of|
|fine/coarse material.|
|Logging||Whether core and chip||All drill chips were geologically logged in detail by|
|samples have been geologically|Hammer Metals geologists recording lithology,|
|and geotechnically logged to a|alteration and mineralisation, weathering, colour|
|level of detail to support|and structure, and any other features of the sample|
|appropriate Mineral Resource|to a level of detail to support appropriate studies.|
|estimation, mining studies and|CEC diamond drilling is not logged geologically; all|
|metallurgical studies.|Kings Minerals drilling is logged for lithology.|
||Whether logging is qualitative||Small washed samples from each one metre RC|
|or quantitative in nature. Core|interval were collected and stored in a chip tray.|
|(or costean, channel, etc.)|Full core was collected and logged prior to half-|
|photography.|core sampling. All logging is qualitative.|
||The total length and||All Hammer drill holes were logged in full. CEC|
|percentage of the relevant|diamond drilling is not logged geologically; all|
|intersections logged.|Kings Minerals drilling is logged entirely for|
|lithology.|
|Sub-sampling||If core, whether cut or sawn||No details are available for historical drill core|
|techniques|and whether quarter, half or all|sampling.|
|and sample|core taken.||Half-core samples were cut by diamond saw.|
|preparation||If non-core, whether riffled,||All one metre RC samples were riffle split and|
|tube sampled, rotary split, etc.|bagged. The one metre samples interpreted to be|
|and whether sampled wet or|(copper) mineralised were submitted to ALS|
|dry.|Laboratories in Mount Isa for analysis.|
||For all sample types, the||The remaining RC samples were composited into|
|nature, quality and|four metre samples using a spear/scoop, rebagged|
|appropriateness of the sample|and numbered, and submitted to ALS Laboratories|
|preparation technique.|in Mount Isa for analysis.|
||Quality control procedures||Field QC procedures involved the use of certified|
|adopted for all sub-sampling|reference materials (1 in 20), and field duplicates|
|stages to maximise|(1 in 20). RC Field duplicates were collected by|

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

14

==> picture [482 x 640] intentionally omitted <==

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

||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|Criteria||JORC Code explanation|Commentary|
|representivity of samples.|riffle-splitting on-site 1 metre sample return. Half-|
||Measures taken to ensure that|core duplicate samples have not been collected at|
|the sampling is representative|this stage. The field duplicates have accurately|
|of the in situ material collected,|reflected the original assay. Recognised|
|including for instance results|laboratories have been used for analysis of|
|for field duplicate/second-half|samples.|
|sampling.||All samples were dry.|
||Whether sample sizes are||Sample collection and size is considered|
|appropriate to the grain size of|appropriate to the target style and analysis.|
|the material being sampled.||The 3kg riffle split RC samples from the sample|
|return, and the sample preparation procedures|
|used by ALS maintained appropriate grains size for|
|the material being sampled.|
|Quality of||The nature, quality and||The RC drill samples were analysed by ALS for a|
|assay data|appropriateness of the|range of elements by ME- ICP61 (4 acid) or ME-|
|and|assaying and laboratory|ICP41 (Aqua regia) digest with ICP determination.|
|laboratory|procedures used and whether|Cu values greater than 10,000ppm were re-|
|tests|the technique is considered|analysed by Cu-OG62. Gold was analysed using Au-|
|partial or total.|AA21, Au-AA25 or Au-AA26 (fire assay) with AAS|
||For geophysical tools,|determination.|
|spectrometers, handheld XRF||No information is available regarding historical|
|instruments, etc., the|assay methods.|
|parameters used in||No geophysical tools were used to determine any|
|determining the analysis|element concentrations used in this resource|
|including instrument make and|estimate.|
|model, reading times,||QA duplicates were inserted every 20 samples and|
|calibrations factors applied|suitable certified base metal Standards were|
|and their derivation, etc.|inserted every 20 samples. Certified standards|
||Nature of quality control|have generally reported within acceptable limits.|
|procedures adopted (e.g.|ALS Laboratories also maintained a regime of|
|standards, blanks, duplicates,|check samples, duplicates, standard reference|
|external laboratory checks)|samples, blanks and calibration standards. The|
|and whether acceptable levels|QAQC results confirm the suitability of the drilling|
|of accuracy (i.e. lack of bias)|data for use in the resource estimation.|
|and precision have been|
|established.|
|Verification of||The verification of significant||Significant results were checked by alternative|
|sampling and|intersections by either|Hammer personnel.|
|assaying|independent or alternative||No twin holes were drilled.|
|company personnel.||All Hammer field logging was done initially by|
||The use of twinned holes.|hand, and later directly into laptops on site and|
||Documentation of primary|later checked and entered into the company|
|data, data entry procedures,|database.|
|data verification, data storage||Assay files are received electronically from the|
|(physical and electronic)|laboratory.|
|protocols.||Repeat results are kept independent and are not|
||Discuss any adjustment to|averaged. Below-detection limit (BDL) results are|
|assay data.|saved in the database as - BDL values. BDL results|
|are converted to half the detection limit value on|
|export from the database.|

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

15

Criteria	 JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Location of	 Accuracy and quality of	 Drill hole collars were primarily measured using a
data points	surveys used to locate drill	hand-held GPS unit. Hole positions have since been
	holes (collar and down-hole	re-surveyed using DGPS, apart from drillholes
	surveys), trenches, mine	OVRC029 to OVRC031 and OVD001. All RC and
	workings and other locations	diamond core collars have been recorded
	used in Mineral Resource	accurately.
	estimation.	 All collars have been located in UTM, MGA94, Zone
	 Specification of the grid system	54 co-ordinates.
	used.	 The topographic surface used for Resource
	 Quality and adequacy of	estimation was modelled from detailed helicopter-
	topographic control.	borne magnetic survey data.
Data spacing	 Data spacing for reporting of	 Samples are collected every metre down hole.
and	Exploration Results.	Current drilling is on a nominal 40m x 20m
distribution	 Whether the data spacing and distribution is sufficient to establish the degree of geological and grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve estimation procedure(s) and classifications applied.  Whether sample compositing has been applied.	pattern.  The mineralised domains have demonstrated sufficient continuity in both geological and grade continuity to support the definition of Inferred Mineral Resource, and the classifications applied under the 2012 JORC Code.  RC sample compositing to 4m using a spear/scoop was applied to less mineralised intervals.
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.	 Drill holes are orientated perpendicular to the interpreted strike of the mineralisation.  No orientation based sampling bias has been identified in the data
Sample	 The measures taken to ensure	 For Hammer RC drilling pre-numbered bags are
security	sample security.	used and transported by company personnel to the
		ALS Laboratory in Mount Isa. ALS transports
		samples to its laboratories in Townsville or
		Brisbane when required.
		 No information is available regarding security of
		historical diamond drilling samples.
Audits or	 The results of any audits or	 A desktop review of sampling techniques was
reviews	reviews of sampling	carried out by HC. From the reports provided, the
	techniques and data.	sampling appears to be conducted to industry
		standards.

16

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results

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

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Mineral	 Type, reference name/number,	 The Overlander prospect is situated in EPM 14232,
tenement and	location and ownership	held 100% by Mt Dockerell Mining Pty Ltd which is
land tenure	including agreements or	a 100% owned subsidiary of Hammer Resources
status	material issues with third	Limited.
	parties such as joint ventures,	 No royalties are applicable.
	partnerships, overriding royalties, native title interests, historical sites, wilderness or national park and environmental settings.  The security of the tenure held at the time of reporting along with any known impediments to obtaining a licence to operate in the area.	 The area is within the Kalkadoon claim area.  The tenement is in good standing with the Queensland DME.
Exploration	 Acknowledgment and appraisal	 Some previous exploration in the 1970’s
done by other	of exploration by other parties.	completed by Carpentaria Exploration Company
parties		including one drill hole, and in the 2005-2006 period by Kings Minerals Ltd.
Geology	 Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation.	 The deposit is located amongst Proterozoic shear hosted copper-(gold-cobalt) mineralisation.
Drill hole	 A summary of all information	 Drilling results were tabled in announcements
Information	material to the understanding	released to the ASX on 17/01/2014, 13/06/2014,
	of the exploration results including a tabulation of the following information for all Material drill holes: o easting and northing of the drill hole collar o elevation or RL (Reduced Level – elevation above sea level in metres) of the drill hole collar o dip and azimuth of the hole o down hole length and interception depth o hole length.  If the exclusion of this information is justified on the	10/05/2015 and 14/07/2015.
	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.

17

==> picture [482 x 651] intentionally omitted <==

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

||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|Criteria|JORC Code explanation|Commentary|
|Data||In reporting Exploration||Interval grades are reported as down-hole length|
|aggregation|Results, weighting averaging|weighted averages of grades above 0.3% Cu. Up to|
|methods|techniques, maximum and/or|2m of internal waste was included and no top- cuts|
|minimum grade truncations|were applied.|
|(e.g. cutting of high grades) and||Aggregated results also separately report the|
|cut-off grades are usually|internal high-grade intervals.|
|Material and should be stated.||No metal equivalent values reported.|
||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.|
|Relationship||These relationships are||Holes are inclined at 55 to 60° from horizontal to|
|between|particularly important in the|intersect the steeply dipping (~70° to 90°)|
|mineralisatio|reporting of Exploration|mineralised structure.|
|n widths and|Results.||For most holes, the estimated true width of|
|intercept||If the geometry of the|reported intercepts is approximately 70% to 80%|
|lengths|mineralisation with respect to|of the down hole width.|
|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, true width|
|not known’).|
|Diagrams||Appropriate maps and sections||A plan and sections showing Overlander North RC|
|(with scales) and tabulations of|and diamond drilling are included within this|
|intercepts should be included|Mineral Resource report.|
|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.|
|Balanced||Where comprehensive||Results for the first two holes (OVRC001 and|
|reporting|reporting of all Exploration|OVRC002) of the 16 hole RC program were|
|Results is not practicable,|reported on December 17 2013. Results for holes|
|representative reporting of|OVRC003 to OVRC016 were reported on January|
|both low and high grades|17 2014. Results for hole OVRC024 were reported|
|and/or widths should be|on June 3 2014. Results for holes OVRC017 to|
|practiced to avoid misleading|OVRC028 were reported on June 13 2014. Results|
|reporting of Exploration|for OVD001 were reported on 10/05/2015.|
|Results.|Results for RC drillholes OVRC029 to OVRC031|
|were reported on 14/07/2015. No further current|
|drilling is included as part of this Mineral Resource|

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

18

==> picture [482 x 348] intentionally omitted <==

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

||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|Criteria|JORC Code explanation|Commentary|
|estimate.|
|Other||Other exploration data, if||Magnetic, gravity and IP anomalies have been|
|substantive|meaningful and material,|identified at Overlander North using geophysical|
|exploration|should be reported including|survey methods. Reported on 17/04/2015.|
|data|(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.|
|Further work||The nature and scale of planned||Extensional drilling is 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.|

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

Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources

(Criteria listed in section 1, and where relevant in section 2, also apply to this section.)

==> picture [482 x 265] intentionally omitted <==

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

||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|Criteria|JORC Code explanation|Commentary|
|Database||Measures taken to ensure that||Drill logging data and assay results are generated|
|integrity|data has not been corrupted by,|digitally, compiled and validated prior to import to|
|for example, transcription or|a central Sql Server database. Assay results are|
|keying errors, between its initial|not compiled for import until final QAQC data and|
|collection and its use for|certification has been received from the analytical|
|Mineral Resource estimation|laboratory. A suite of validation routines are|
|purposes.|carried out across the database on a regular basis.|
||Data validation procedures||Haren Consulting (HC) also performed data audits|
|used.|and checked collar coordinates, down hole surveys|
|and assay data for errors. Minor errors in down|
|hole surveys were identified as a result of the|
|presence of magnetite. These surveys were either|
|removed or altered to reflect adjacent readings. No|
|other errors were found.|
|Site visits||Comment on any site visits||A site visit has not been conducted by HC.|
|undertaken by the Competent|
|Person and the outcome of|
|those visits.|
||If no site visits have been|
|undertaken indicate why this is|

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

19

==> picture [482 x 657] intentionally omitted <==

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

||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|Criteria|JORC Code explanation|Commentary|
|the case.|
|Geological||Confidence in (or conversely,||The confidence in the geological interpretation is|
|interpretation|the uncertainty of) the|considered to be good. The deposit is similar in|
|geological interpretation of the|style to many polymetallic deposits in Mount Isa|
|mineral deposit.|Inlier.|
||Nature of the data used and of||Drill hole logging by Hammer geologists, through|
|any assumptions made.|direct observation of RC and diamond core|
||The effect, if any, of alternative|samples have been used to interpret the geological|
|interpretations on Mineral|setting. Detailed surface mapping supports down-|
|Resource estimation.|hole interpretation. The continuity of the main|
||The use of geology in guiding|mineralised lodes is clearly observed by relevant|
|and controlling Mineral|grades within the drill holes. The diamond and RC|
|Resource estimation.|drilling suggests the current interpretation is|
||The factors affecting continuity|robust.|
|both of grade and geology.||The nature of the lodes would indicate that|
|alternate interpretations would have little impact|
|on the overall Mineral Resource estimation.|
||Weathering was used in the generation of the|
|wireframes for the Mineral Resource estimation as|
|the mineralisation is contained within weathered|
|and fresh material. Wireframes were based on the|
|chemical analyses for Copper and Cobalt.|
||The geological logging and the results of the|
|geostatistical analyses have been useful in|
|predicting the continuity of the mineralisation for|
|the Mineral Resource estimation.|
|Dimensions||The extent and variability of the||The Overlander North Mineral Resource Cu and|
|Mineral Resource expressed as|Co mineralisation is interpreted to extend over a|
|length (along strike or|distance of 360 m (from 7,673,480 mN to|
|otherwise), plan width, and|7,673,840 mN) and from surface to approximately|
|depth below surface to the|440 m below surface.|
|upper and lower limits of the||The Overlander South Mineral Resource Cu and Co|
|Mineral Resource.|mineralisation is interpreted to extend over a|
|distance of 480 m (from 7,672,090 mN to|
|7,672,570 mN) and from surface to approximately|
|220 m below surface.|
|Estimation||The nature and||Ordinary Kriging (“OK”) interpolation with an|
|and modelling|appropriateness of the|oriented ‘ellipsoid’ search was used for the|
|techniques|estimation technique(s) applied|estimate. CAE Studio software was used for the|
|and key assumptions, including|estimations. Three dimensional mineralised|
|treatment of extreme grade|wireframes were used to domain the mineralised|
|values, domaining,|data. Sample data was composited to 1m down|
|interpolation parameters and|hole lengths using the ‘best fit’ method. Intervals|
|maximum distance of|with no assays were excluded from the estimates.|
|extrapolation from data points.|The influence of extreme grade values was|
|If a computer assisted|addressed for Cobalt by reducing high outlier|
|estimation method was chosen|values by applying top-cuts to the data within the|
|include a description of|high grade Cobalt zones. These cut values were|
|computer software and|determined through statistical analysis|
|parameters used.|(histograms, log probability plots, CVs, and|
||The availability of check|summary multi-variate and bi-variate statistics)|
|estimates, previous estimates|using Supervisor software. No top-cut was|
|and/or mine production|required for Copper. The maximum distance of|

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

20

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	records and whether the	extrapolation from data points was 20m.
	Mineral Resource estimate	 The current HC estimates represent a maiden
	takes appropriate account of	Mineral Resource estimate for the Overlander
	such data.	South deposit and a re-estimate of the March 2014
	 The assumptions made	maiden Mineral Resource estimate for the
	regarding recovery of by-	Overlander North deposit. No mining has occurred
	products.	in the area. HC has assumed that the deposit will
	 Estimation of deleterious	be mined, and the ore processed for Cu and
	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 modelling of selective mining units.  Any assumptions about correlation between variables.  Description of how the geological interpretation was used to control the resource estimates.  Discussion of basis for using or not using grade cutting or capping.  The process of validation, the checking process used, the comparison of model data to drill hole data, and use of reconciliation data if available.	potentially Co. At this stage the Mineral Resource is reported using only Cu% as a cut-off.  No non-grade elements have been estimated.  For the Overlander North deposit, the parent block dimensions used were 20m NS by 2.5m EW by 10m vertical with sub-cells of 5m by 0.625m by 2.5m. The parent block size was selected on the basis of being approximately 50% of the average drill hole spacing.  For the Overlander South deposit, the parent block dimensions used were 20m NS by 5m EW by 10m vertical with sub-cells of 5m by 1.25m by 2.5m. The parent block size was selected on the basis of being approximately 50% of the average drill hole spacing.  Selective mining units were not modelled. The block size used in the resource model was based on drill sample spacing and lode orientation.  No assumptions were made regarding correlation of variables; Cu and Co were both modelled individually with set parameters.  The deposit mineralisation was constrained by overall wireframes constructed using a 0.1% Cu OR 150ppm Co cut-off grade. Within the low grade wireframe two internal wireframes were constructed using a higher grade Cu value of 0.4% Cu. A further three internal wireframes were constructed using a higher grade Co value of 150ppm. The wireframes were applied as hard boundaries in the estimate.
		 To assist in the selection of appropriate top-cuts,
		log-probability plots and histograms were
		generated. A top-cut for Cu was not considered
		appropriate however given the high coefficient of
		variation for Co within the higher grade domain; a
		top-cut of 2,500ppm was applied.
		 To validate the model, a qualitative assessment
		was completed by slicing sections through the
		block model in positions coincident with drilling. A
		quantitative assessment of the estimate was
		completed by comparing the average grades of the
		sample file input against the block model output
		for all the resource objects. A trend analysis was
		completed by comparing the interpolated blocks to
		the sample data within all the lodes. This analysis
		was completed for northings and elevations across

21

==> picture [482 x 662] intentionally omitted <==

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

||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|Criteria|JORC Code explanation|Commentary|
|the deposit. Validation plots showed good|
|correlation between the sample grades and the|
|block model grades for both Cu and Co.|
|Moisture||Whether the tonnages are||Tonnages and grades were estimated on a dry in|
|estimated on a dry basis or with|situ basis. No moisture values were reviewed.|
|natural moisture, and the|
|method of determination of the|
|moisture content.|
|Cut-off||The basis of the adopted cut-off||The nominal cut-off grade of 0.1% Cu OR 150ppm|
|parameters|grade(s) or quality parameters|Co was used to define the boundary of the|
|applied.|mineralisation, it was determined from analysis of|
|log probability plots of all samples at the deposit.|
|This cut-off was used to define the mineralised|
|wireframes.|
||The Mineral Resource has been reported at 0.7%|
|Cu cut-off. This is based on economic assumptions|
|for open cut extraction.|
|Mining factors||Assumptions made regarding||HC has assumed that the deposit could potentially|
|or|possible mining methods,|be mined using open pit techniques as part of the|
|assumptions|minimum mining dimensions|Mount Isa Project Hub. It is within trucking|
|and internal (or, if applicable,|distance of the nearby Kalman polymetallic|
|external) mining dilution. It is|deposit.|
|always necessary as part of the|
|process of determining|
|reasonable prospects for|
|eventual economic extraction to|
|consider potential mining|
|methods, but the assumptions|
|made regarding mining|
|methods and parameters when|
|estimating Mineral Resources|
|may not always be rigorous.|
|Where this is the case, this|
|should be reported with an|
|explanation of the basis of the|
|mining assumptions made.|
|Metallurgical||The basis for assumptions or||No assumptions have been made regarding|
|factors or|predictions regarding|metallurgy.|
|assumptions|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|

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

22

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	metallurgical assumptions
	made.
Environmen-	 Assumptions made regarding	 No assumptions have been made by HC regarding
tal factors or	possible waste and process	possible waste and process residue disposal
assumptions	residue disposal options. It is	options.
	always necessary as part of the
	process of determining
	reasonable prospects for
	eventual economic extraction to consider the potential environmental impacts of the mining and processing operation. While at this stage the determination of potential environmental impacts, particularly for a greenfields project, may not always be well advanced, the status of early consideration of these potential environmental impacts should be reported. Where these aspects have not been considered this should be reported with an explanation of the environmental assumptions made.
Bulk density	 Whether assumed or	 Bulk density is applied based on data collected
	determined. If assumed, the basis for the assumptions. If determined, the method used, whether wet or dry, the frequency of the measurements, the nature, size and representativeness of the samples.  The bulk density for bulk material must have been measured by methods that adequately account for void spaces (vughs, porosity, etc.), moisture and differences between rock and alteration zones within the deposit.  Discuss assumptions for bulk	from the Overlander North and Overlander South deposits in predominantly fresh material. The densities used in the March 2014 estimate of Overlander North were retained for oxide and transitional material. A value of 2.84 t/m3 was assigned for fresh rock mineralisation and 2.6 t/m3 for transitional, 2.3 t/m3 for oxide.  These same density values were applied to Overlander South.
	density estimates used in the
	evaluation process of the
	different materials.
Classification	 The basis for the classification	 Mineral Resources were classified in accordance
	of the Mineral Resources into	with the Australasian Code for the Reporting of
	varying confidence categories.	Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore
	 Whether appropriate account	Reserves (JORC, 2012 Edition).
	has been taken of all relevant	 The Overlander North estimate was classified as
	factors (i.e. relative confidence	Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource on the
	in tonnage/grade estimations,	basis of dataquality,sample spacing,and lode

23

==> picture [482 x 590] intentionally omitted <==

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

||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|Criteria|JORC Code explanation|Commentary|
|reliability of input data,|continuity. The input data is considered reliable as|
|confidence in continuity of|Hammer have comprehensive QAQC procedures in|
|geology and metal values,|place.|
|quality, quantity and||The Overlander South estimate was classified as|
|distribution of the data).|Inferred Mineral Resource on the basis of data|
||Whether the result|quality, sample spacing, and lode continuity. Some|
|appropriately reflects the|of the input data is considered of lower reliability|
|Competent Person’s view of the|as they are historical but Hammer drill holes is|
|deposit.|considered reliable as Hammer have|
|comprehensive QAQC procedures in place.|
||The Mineral Resource estimate appropriately|
|reflects the view of the Competent Person.|
|Audits or||The results of any audits or||Internal audits have been completed which|
|reviews|reviews of Mineral Resource|verified the technical inputs, methodology,|
|estimates.|parameters and results of the estimate.|
|Discussion of||Where appropriate a statement||The Overlander Mineral Resource estimates have|
|relative|of the relative accuracy and|been reported with a high degree of confidence.|
|accuracy/|confidence level in the Mineral|The lode geometry and continuity has been|
|confidence|Resource estimate using an|adequately interpreted to reflect the applied level|
|approach or procedure deemed|of Inferred Mineral Resource for the Overlander|
|appropriate by the Competent|South estimate and mixed Indicated and inferred|
|Person. For example, the|Mineral Resource for the Overlander North|
|application of statistical or|estimate. The data quality is good and the drill|
|geostatistical procedures to|holes have detailed logs produced by qualified|
|quantify the relative accuracy|geologists for all recent drilling. A recognised|
|of the resource within stated|laboratory has been used for all analyses.|
|confidence limits, or, if such an||The Mineral Resource statement relates to global|
|approach is not deemed|estimates of tonnes and grade.|
|appropriate, a qualitative||No mining has occurred at the deposit.|
|discussion of the factors that|
|could affect the relative|
|accuracy and confidence of the|
|estimate.|
||The statement should specify|
|whether it relates to global or|
|local estimates, and, if local,|
|state the relevant tonnages,|
|which should be relevant to|
|technical and economic|
|evaluation. Documentation|
|should include assumptions|
|made and the procedures used.|
||These statements of relative|
|accuracy and confidence of the|
|estimate should be compared|
|with production data, where|
|available.|

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

24