HAWSONS IRON LTD - Capital/Financing Update 2017

ASX ANNOUNCEMENT

==> picture [258 x 60] intentionally omitted <==

We find it. We prove it. We make it possible.

ABN : 63 095 117 981 ASX : CAP

3 July 2017

Hawsons Resource update

Highlights

➢ Prefeasibility level mining studies confirm suitability for lower mining cut-off grade of 9.5% DTR* mass recovery is appropriate, reduced from 10%.
➢ Resource estimate restated at 9.5% cut off grade for 2.50bt at 13.9% magnetite mass recovery, an increase of 120Mt of ore and 12Mt of concentrate at 69.7%Fe.
➢ Prefeasibility study investigating 10Mtpa Hawsons Supergrade product, including a full mine through to ship loading cost design and cost estimate

ASX:CAP today restates its existing resource as announced on 27 February 2017, at a lower cut-off grade of 9.5% Davis tube recovery (DTR), down from 10%DTR.

The resource estimate is 2.50Bt at 13.9%DTR magnetite recovery for 348Mt of concentrate at 69.7%Fe and 2.81% silica (see Table 1).

The estimate represents an increase of 120Mt and an increase in contained concentrate of 12Mt. The lower cut-off grade was determined by GHD using mine optimisation techniques, where key assumptions included a 65%Fe iron ore price of US$70/t (currently US$791.20/t) and processing and logistics estimates based on earlier project engineering studies.

The lower cut-off grade allows for a lower strip ratio than otherwise might occur. However, it is expected that the overall strip will not change substantially from that reported earlier of 0.47. Mining studies carried out for the purposes of the prefeasibility study (which the Company expects to release to the market by the end of July 2017) will benefit with approximately 50mt of waste reclassified to ore.

Level 6, 345 Ann Street Brisbane Qld 4000

PO Box 10919, Adelaide St Brisbane Qld 4000

e-mail: [email protected]

Managing Director Mr Quentin Hill said, “The restatement of the Resources at Hawsons by H&S Consultants Pty Ltd is an important step in the process of completing the Hawsons Iron Project PFS, which we expect to be announced by the end of July 2017.”

Studies for the prefeasibility are so far meeting or exceeding expectations.

For further information contact: Quentin Hill Managing Director Phone: 07 3220 2022

==> picture [109 x 77] intentionally omitted <==

* Davis tube recovery

Page 1 of 4

ASX ANNOUNCEMENT

==> picture [258 x 60] intentionally omitted <==

Following is a summary of the restated Resources at Hawsons as calculated by H&S Consultants Pty Ltd.

Category	Mt	DTR %	DTR Mt	Fe Head %			Concentrate Grades	Concentrate Grades	Concentrate Grades
					Fe %	Al2O3 %	P %	S %	SiO2 %	TiO2 %	LOI %
Indicated	840	14.5	121	17.4	69.9	0.19	0.004	0.002	2.61	0.03	-3.04
Inferred	1,660	13.6	227	16.8	69.7	0.20	0.004	0.003	2.91	0.03	-3.04
Total	2,500	13.9	348	17.0	69.7	0.20	0.004	0.002	2.81	0.03	-3.04

Table 1 – Hawsons Iron Project 2017 Resource Estimate, H&S Consultants Pty Ltd

Additional information on the resource estimate that applies to the 27 February Announcement and today’s revised cut-off grade estimate. Table 1, under the JORC code is also attached.

For the purposes of ASX Listing Rule 5.8.1, the Company provides the following information:

(a) The new resource estimates are based on data from the original 2010-11 drilling and the recent 2016 drilling in conjunction with an improved geological model. The Hawsons prospect is situated within folded, upper greenschist facies Neoproterozoic rocks of the Adelaide Fold Belt. The Braemar Facies magnetite ironstone is the host stratigraphy and comprises a series of narrow, strike extensive magnetite-bearing siltstones with a moderate dip (circa 45 degrees). Large areas of the Hawsons prospective stratigraphy are concealed by transported ferricrete and other younger cover. The base of oxidation due to weathering over the prospective horizons is estimated to average 80m in depth. The airborne magnetic data clearly identifies the magnetite siltstones as a series of parallel, narrow, high amplitude magnetic anomalies. Mineralisation consists of fine grained disseminated magnetite with no obvious structural remobilisation or overprint. Sediment porosity as a function of sediment source and depositional environment is considered a major control to mineralisation and hence to grade continuity.
(b) The resource estimates were produced from a total of 73 holes for 21,429m with a predominance of surface RC drillholes relative to HQ/NQ diamond drillholes. Sampling was as RC splits or sawn half/quarter core with assaying for recovered magnetic fraction by the Davis Tube method. In total, 448 diamond drill samples (for 3,493m) were collected along with 924 samples (for 6,631m) for the 2010 RC drilling and 864 samples (for 4,331m) with the 2016 RC drilling. Sample lengths have varied from 4 to 8m. In total, total 3,924 5m composites were generated from the drillhole database and modelled for Davis Tube recovered magnetic fraction (“DTR”), iron head grade and the concentrate elements of Al2O3, P, S, SiO2, TiO2 and LOI, of which 2,862 were in fresh rock. Downhole magnetic susceptibility has been used to supplement the DTR composite data with the use of regression equations, particularly peripheral to the main mineralisation and the transition zone.
(c) Grade interpolation of the composite data was completed using Ordinary Kriging. Modelling was unconstrained as the nature of the mineralisation boundaries is gradational. 3 structural domains with hard boundaries were used, relating to interpreted offsetting faults. A 4 pass search strategy using dynamic interpolation was applied with the strike-elongate search ellipse rotated to the dip and strike of the host sediments. An initial search of 240m by 150m by 40m was applied and expanded in three increments to 450m by 225m by 75m. Minimum number of data was 8 composites per hole decreasing to 6 with the minimum number of informing holes being 3 initially, decreasing to 1 for Pass 4.
(d) In total, 3,574 5m density composites were generated from the downhole geophysics, supplemented by the use of transition and fresh rock regression equations with the head iron assays. The density grade was interpolated in the same way as the DTR grades. No significant change in densities has been observed with the new drilling.

Page 2 of 4

ASX ANNOUNCEMENT

==> picture [258 x 60] intentionally omitted <==

(e) Assaying consists of 2,644 samples with DTR analyses with 2,402 samples having XRF analysis of the concentrate product. All the DTR samples have head grade XRF analyses. Downhole geophysical coverage comprises approximately 19,190m for magnetic susceptibility, 16,823m of gamma logging and 11,170m of short spaced density. The 2010 DTR was based on a range of laboratory composite intervals from 4-15m of RC chip sampling and cut half core under geological control for magnetite mineralisation. The samples have been analysed by appropriate techniques using 38 micron grind, at ALS laboratories, a commercial laboratory based in Perth, Western Australia. The 2016 sample compositing comprised uniform 5m samples collected in the field with the same sample prep procedure.
(f) Validation of the block model comprised a visual comparison between composite values and block grades, comparison with previous estimates and a range of statistical measures. No issues with the modelling were noted. Classification of the estimates was based on the number of data used in the grade interpolation i.e. the drillhole spacing, in conjunction with other considerations including the style of mineralisation, the geological interpretation, the QAQC programme, downhole geophysical data and good recoveries.
(g) The new estimate figures represent a 6% increase in size with no significant change in DTR grade or the high iron content of the concentrate. The new mineralisation is generally peripheral to the previous estimates with a majority coming from Unit 2 in the eastern Core and the Fold target areas. The drilling has allowed for an increase in the amount of Indicated Resource which is up from 227Mt at 16% DTR in Unit 3 only to 840Mt at 14.5% DTR in both Unit 2 and Unit 3 reported at a 9.5% DTR cut-off.
(h) The classification of the resource estimates is based on the data distribution, which is a function of the drillhole spacing, the style of mineralisation, the geological model, the QAQC programme and results and comparison with previous resource estimates. Drill hole spacing was nominally 200m x 200m or 200m x 100m for Indicated Resources and up to 400m x 200m for Inferred Resources. The mining method will be a bulk mining method via an open pit operation and the resources have been classified according to this assumption. The allocation of Indicated and Inferred in the block model has been detailed as Indicated, Inferred and Exploration Potential. As a result of the above classification, the new updated Mineral Resources for the Hawsons Magnetite Project has been estimated. The estimates are reported for a 9.5% DTR cut off, as advised by the Company, from within the fresh rock zone vertically above the -240mRL. The decrease in grade of the Indicated Resources from the previous estimates is due to the inclusion of the overall lower DTR grade Unit 2 and the Interbed unit, where formally only the higher grade Unit 3 was included. The 9.5%DTR cut-off is considered by the Company to be conservative and reasonable, as GHD reported that the optimisation process indicates the economic cut-off grade could be lower than 9%DTR. Key assumptions in the optimisation were a revenue based on 62%Fe price of US$60/t (converting to a 65%Fe price of US$70/t (currently 65%Fe is ~US$79), with mining and processing costs being derived from previous mine planning and processing test work.
(i) Further infill drilling is required to increase the confidence of the resource estimates with potential for additional material to be discovered along strike and down dip around the Fold hinge area and for the SE Limb area. This exploration potential has a range of 0.5 to 1Bt with a DTR grade range of 13 to 14% with the likely concentrate to be composed of 69-69.7% Fe, 0.2 to 0.3% Al2O3, 0.0035 to 0.0055% P, 0.0025 to 0.0035% S, 3 to 4% SiO2, 0.25 to 0.35% TiO2 and -2.85 to -3% LOI.
(j) The potential quantity and grade of the Exploration Potential is conceptual in nature and there has been insufficient exploration to define a Mineral Resource in relation to it. It is uncertain if further exploration will result in the determination of a Mineral Resource. The quoted magnetite grades may not be represented with any subsequent exploration including drilling and the depth of the weathered overburden may be variable.
(k) Currently the mineralisation is open at depth with the occasional drillhole intersecting the mineralisation below the -240mRL.

For further information please contact:

Page 3 of 4

ASX ANNOUNCEMENT

==> picture [258 x 60] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [81 x 37] intentionally omitted <==

Quentin Hill Managing Director +61 7 3220 2022

We find it. We prove it. We make it possible.

The information in this report that relates to Exploration Results, Exploration Targets and Resources is based on information evaluated by Mr Q.S. Hill who is a member of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists (MAIG) and who has sufficient experience relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity which he is undertaking 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 (the “JORC Code”). Mr Hill is a Director of Carpentaria Exploration Ltd and he consents to the inclusion in the report of the Exploration Results in the form and context in which they appear.

The data in this report that relates to Mineral Resource Estimates for the Hawsons Magnetite Project is based on information evaluated by Mr Simon Tear who is a Member of The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (MAusIMM) and who has sufficient experience relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity which he is undertaking 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 (the “JORC Code”). Mr Tear is a director of H & S Consultants Pty Ltd and he consents to the inclusion in the report of the Mineral Resource in the form and context in which they appear.

Page 4 of 4

JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1 Hawsons Iron Project

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data – 2010 Campaign

Criteria JORC Code explanation Sampling • Nature and quality of sampling (e.g. cut channels, random chips, or techniques specific specialised industry standard measurement tools appropriate to the minerals under investigation, such as down hole gamma sondes, or handheld XRF instruments, etc). These examples should not be taken as limiting the broad meaning of sampling.
Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample representivity and the appropriate calibration of any measurement tools or systems used.
Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are Material to the Public Report.

Commentary

A total of 52 drillholes were drilled by CAP. Drillholes were a mixture of reverse circulation (RC) from surface, diamond tails to RC precollars (PD) and diamond from surface (DD).
All sampling was to industry standard
RC drillholes were drilled to obtain 1m samples with sample compositing applied to obtain a 2m to 10m 3kg sample which was pulverized to produce 150g aliquot for X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) and Davis Tube Recovery (DTR) analysis. Hand held magnetic susceptibility measurements and geological logging was completed for every metre of every drillhole.

	• •	not be taken as limiting the broad meaning of sampling. Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample representivity and the appropriate calibration of any measurement tools or systems used. Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are Material to the Public Report.	•	RC drillholes were drilled to obtain 1m samples with sample compositing applied to obtain a 2m to 10m 3kg sample which was pulverized to produce 150g aliquot for X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) and Davis Tube Recovery (DTR) analysis. Hand held magnetic susceptibility measurements and geological logging was completed for every metre of every drillhole.
	•	In cases where ‘industry standard’ work has been done this would be	•	Diamond drillhole core sampling process involved; orientation,
		relatively simple (e.g. ‘reverse circulation drilling was used to obtain 1		metre marking, magnetic susceptibility measurements (every
		m samples from which 3 kg was pulverised to produce a 30 g charge		0.5m), core recoveries, rock quality designation (RQD) and
		for fire assay’). In other cases more explanation may be required,		geological logging (every metre). The core was then
		such as where there is coarse gold that has inherent sampling		photographed and cut into halves to produce an 8m composite
		problems. Unusual commodities or mineralisation types (e.g.		sample (predominantly NQ core) which was pulverized to
		submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed information.		produce a 150g aliquot for XRF and DTR analysis.
			•	Geoscience Associates carried out gyroscope surveying on all
				drillholes. Surveys were conducted on open hole. The
				geophysical logging was completed for a majority of holes and
				consisted of natural gamma, magnetic susceptibility, density and
				calliper readings
			•	CAP has a suite of documented procedures for drilling related
				activities
			•	Consistency of sampling method maintained.
			•	Samplingtechnique is considered appropriate for deposit type
Drilling	•	Drill type (e.g. core, reverse circulation, open-hole hammer, rotary air	•	Drilling is a combination of RC, PD and DD
techniques		blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc.) and details (e.g. core diameter,	•	Industry standard drilling rigs suitable for the required task were
		triple or standard tube, depth of diamond tails, face-sampling bit or		used.
		other type, whether core is oriented and if so, by what method, etc.).	•	RC drilling was carried out using a truck mounted Schramm and
				truck mounted KWL 1600H. Both used 4.5 inch rods and 5.5inch
				face bits.
			•	PD and DD drilling was carried out using a truck mounted
				UDR650 usingNQ2 and standard HQdiameters. When

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
			orientated the Ace Core orientation tool was used.
Drill sample	• Method of recording and assessing core and chip sample recoveries	•	RC sampling done on 1m intervals into green plastic bags.
recovery	and results assessed.		Sample recoveries for RC were visually estimated by the
	• Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and ensure		geologist at the time of drilling and recorded,
	representative nature of the samples.	•	Because no numerical RC chip recovery data exists it is not
	• Whether a relationship exists between sample recovery and grade		possible to conclude if there is a relationship between sample
	and whether sample bias may have occurred due to preferential		recovery and mineral grade
	loss/gain of fine/coarse material.	•	Core recoveries were recorded by measuring the length of core
			recovered in each run divided by the drilled length of the
			individual core runs; average recovery >97%.
		•	A hand held XRF orientation study concluded that there was no
			sample bias with loss or gain of fine/coarse material.
		•	Negligible wet samples in the RC drilling
Logging	• Whether core and chip samples have been geologically and	•	Every RC, PD and DD drillhole was logged by a geologist &
	geotechnically logged to a level of detail to support appropriate		entered into Excel spread sheets recording; Recovery, Moisture
	Mineral Resource estimation, mining studies and metallurgical		content, Magnetic susceptibility, Oxidation state, Colour, % of
	studies.		Magnetite, Gangue Min, Sulphide Min, Veins and Structure. Data
	• Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in nature. Core (or		was uploaded to a customised Access database.
	costean, channel, etc) photography.	•	Logging used a mixture of qualitative and quantitative codes
	• The total length and percentage of the relevant intersections logged.	•	All RC sample metres were sub-sampled, sieved, washed and
			stored in a labelled plastic chip tray. All remaining drill core after
			sampling was stored in labelled plastic core trays on site.
		•	All drill core was photographed wet and dry after logging and
			before cutting.
		•	All relevant intersections were logged
		•	Geological logging was of sufficient detail to allow the creation of
			ageological model.
Sub-sampling	• If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, half or all core	•	All RC samples were composited using the spear sampling
techniques	taken.		method. The spear method was concluded to be adequate
and sample	• If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc and		based on the results of a hand held XRF orientation exercise.
preparation	whether sampled wet or dry.		The green plastic bags were speared from each angle to the
	• For all sample types, the nature, quality and appropriateness of the		bottom of the bag to ensure a representative sample.
	sample preparation technique.	•	DD core was cut into half core using a brick saw and diamond
	• Quality control procedures adopted for all sub-sampling stages to		blade. The core was cut using the orientation line or
	maximise representivity of samples.		perpendicular to bedding. Half core was sent to ALS for analysis,
	• Measures taken to ensure that the sampling is representative of the in		whilst remaining half core was retained for reference.
	situ material collected, including for instance results for field	•	Field duplicates, blanks (river sand) and certified standards were
	duplicate/second-half sampling.		used for quality control measures
		•	All sampling methods and samples sizes are deemed

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary	Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary

• Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grain size of the material being sampled.	appropriate
Quality of assay data and laboratory tests • The nature, quality and appropriateness of the assaying and laboratory procedures used and whether the technique is considered partial or total. • For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF instruments, etc, the parameters used in determining the analysis including instrument make and model, reading times, calibrations factors applied and their derivation, etc. • Nature of quality control procedures adopted (e.g. standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (i.e. lack of bias) and precision have been established. • •	Sample Prep • Crush the sample to 100% below 3.35 mm. • A 150 g sub-sample for pulverizing in a C125 ring pulveriser (record weight) – DTR SAMPLE. • Initially pulverize the 150 g sample for nominal 30 seconds – the sample is unusually soft for a ferro-silicate rock! • Wet screen the DTR sample at 38 micron pressure filter and dry, screen at 1 mm to de-clump and re-homogenize. • Record the oversize weights – if less than approximately 20 g is oversize, stop the procedure – failure. • If failure - select another 150 g DTR Sample and reduce the initial pulverization time by 5 secs, repeat until initial grind pass returns greater than approximately 20 g oversize. Once achieved retain the – 38 micron undersize. • Regrind only the oversize for 4 seconds of every 5 g weight of oversize. • Repeat the wet screening, drying, de-clumping & weighing stages until less than 5g above 38micron remains. • Ensure the remaining < 5 g oversize is returned back into the previously retained -38 micron product. • Report the times and weights for each grind pass phase. • Combine and homogenize all retained -38 micron aliquots and <5 g oversize –final pulverized product. Sub-sample the final pulverized product to give a 20 g feed sample for DTR work and a ~10 g sample for HEAD analysis via XRF fusion. • The objective of the pulverizing procedure is to achieve a nominal P80 of approximately 25 micron for the sample. Davis Tube Recovery (DTR) Analysis • Pulveriser bowl 150 ml • Stroke Frequency - 60/minute • Stroke length – 38mm • Magnetic field strength – 3000 gauss • Tube Angle – 45 degrees • Tube Diameter – 40mm • Water flow rate – 540-590ml/min • Washingtime 20 minutes

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary	Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary

• • • • • • •	• Collect the concentrate in small collector (magnetic fraction) and discard tails. X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) Assaying • Using the Head Sample, analyse byXRF fusion methodfor the following elements: Al2O3 %, As % , Ba % , CaO % , Cl % , Co % , Cr % , Cu % , Fe % , K2O % , MgO % , Mn % , Na2O % , Ni % , P % , Pb % , S % , SiO2 % , Sn % , Sr % , TiO2 % , V % , Zn % , Zr % & LOI. • Dry the DTR concentrate and report the weight of the concentrate as a percentage of measured feed and report – DTR Mass Recovery. • Using the DTR concentrate sample analyse by XRF fusion method for the following elements: Al2O3 %, As % , Ba % , CaO % , Cl % , Co % , Cr % , Cu % , Fe % , K2O % , MgO % , Mn % , Na2O % , Ni % , P % , Pb % , S % , SiO2 % , Sn % , Sr % , TiO2 % , V % , Zn % , Zr % & LOI. JH8 and KT5 magnetic susceptibility meters were used to record magnetic susceptibility. A laboratory standard was used each day to calibrate each metre. A Niton XL3T Gold hand held XRF machine was used. A laboratory analysed sample was used to calibrate for Fe. QAQC procedures consisted of using field duplicates, triplicates, blanks and certified standards at a frequency of 5 per 100 samples. Internal QAQC measures were also undertaken by ALS. Satisfaction of precision, accuracy and any lack of bias was made by Keith Hannan of Geochem Pacific Pty Ltd, an independent Geochemist/consultant. All sampling and assay methods and samples sizes are deemed appropriate.
Verification of sampling and assaying • The verification of significant intersections by either independent or alternative company personnel. • The use of twinned holes. • Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data verification, data storage (physical and electronic) protocols. • Discuss any adjustment to assay data. • • • •	Data was stored in a customised Access database Twin DD holes were used to verify the results for RC holes and the DTR performance. No Adjustments were made to raw assay data. Density data from the downhole geophysics was adjusted upwards by 5.2% based on check density measurements using core with the immersion in water(Archimedes)method
Location of • Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drill holes (collar and down-hole surveys), trenches, mine workings and other locations •	Drill holes collars were located by a local surveyor using a Differential GPS with accuracyto less than one metre.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
data points	used in Mineral Resource estimation.	•	Coordinates were supplied in GDA 94 – MGA Zone 54.
	• Specification of the grid system used.	•	Down hole surveys were recorded using a gyroscope due to the
	• Quality and adequacy of topographic control.		highly magnetic nature of the deposit.
		•	Topographic control was collected using a high resolution
			Differential GPS by a local surveyor
		•	Location methods used to determine accuracy of drillhole collars
			are considered appropriate
Data spacing	• Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results.	•	The deposit is drilled at a nominal spacing of 150m to 400m in
and	• Whether the data spacing and distribution is sufficient to establish the		section and plan.
distribution	degree of geological and grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral	•	The drill spacing was deemed adequate for the interpretation of
	Resource and Ore Reserve estimation procedure(s) and		geological and grade continuity noting the homogeneity of the
	classifications applied.		style of mineralisation.
	• Whether sample compositing has been applied.	•	Drill samples were composited under geological control with an
			interval range of 2 to 10m with an average length of 8m,
Orientation of	• Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased sampling of	•	Drilling was completed at -60o, generally sub-perpendicular to
data in	possible structures and the extent to which this is known, considering		the bedding, which is the primary control to the magnetite
relation to	the deposit type.		mineralisation.
geological	• If the relationship between the drilling orientation and the orientation	•	Different azimuths were used to reflect the changing strike of the
structure	of key mineralised structures is considered to have introduced a		beds associated with folding of the sediments and were
	sampling bias, this should be assessed and reported if material.		designed to maintain the steep angle to the bedding
		•	Locally holes suffered significant deviation to the right (east) with
			depth. This affected the lower Unit 2 more than the upper Unit 3
		•	Drillingorientations are considered appropriate with no bias.
Sample	• The measures taken to ensure sample security.	•	All samples were stored on site under CAP personnel
security			supervision until transporting to the CAP Broken Hill office
		•	Intensity of magnetite mineralisation is difficult to see visually but
			detectable usinga magnet.
Audits or	• The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data.	•	Sample procedures and results were systematically reviewed by
reviews			CAP personnel.
		•	The QAQC data was reviewed by CAP staff
		•	The QAQC data was also reviewed by Keith Hannan of
			Geochem Pacific Pty Ltd, an independent
			Geochemist/consultant who concluded:
			`o` 1. The duplication procedure for composite RC samples, by
			careful spearing, is demonstrably effective;
			`o` 2. An absence of mismatches between duplicates and the
			consistency of analytical results for CAP blanks and the CAP
			certified standards indicate that sample handling procedures

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		in the field for this complex program are well executed.
		`o` 3. Based on the laboratory chemical analyses and derived
		parameters such as magnetite content, the CAP monitor
		standard is chemically and mineralogically uniform and
		therefore ‘fit-for-purpose’.
		`o` 4. The high degree of correlation between the averaged field
		portable (FP) XRF readings for Fe on primary bags of RC
		spoil and the laboratory analyses of Fe on the much smaller
		composite samples derived thereof, indicates that downhole
		Fe distributions are successfully mapped by FP XRF and that
		the compositing procedure is effective.

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data – 2016 Campaign

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Sampling techniques	• Nature and quality of sampling (eg cut channels, random chips, or specific specialised industry standard measurement tools appropriate to the minerals under investigation, such as down hole gamma	• •	A total of 20 drillholes were drilled by CAP. All results have been received. Drillholes were reverse circulation (RC) from surface. All sampling was to industry standard
	sondes, or handheld XRF instruments, etc). These examples should	•	RC drillholes were drilled to obtain 1m samples with sample
	not be taken as limiting the broad meaning of sampling.		compositing applied to obtain a 5m 6kg sample which was
	• Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample representivity		crushed to produce 150g aliquot for X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF)
	and the appropriate calibration of any measurement tools or systems		and Davis Tube Recovery (DTR) analysis. Magnetic susceptibility
	used.		measurements and geological logging was completed for every
	• Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are Material to the		metre of every drillhole.
	Public Report.	•	Endeavour Geophysics carried out down hole geophysical logging
	• In cases where ‘industry standard’ work has been done this would be		and gyroscope surveying on all drillholes. Surveys were
	relatively simple (eg ‘reverse circulation drilling was used to obtain 1		conducted on open hole. The geophysical logging consisted of
	m samples from which 3 kg was pulverised to produce a 30 g charge		natural gamma, magnetic susceptibility, density and caliper
	for fire assay’). In other cases more explanation may be required,		readings.
	such as where there is coarse gold that has inherent sampling	•	CAP has a suite of documented procedures for drilling related
	problems. Unusual commodities or mineralisation types (eg		activities
	submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed information.	•	Consistency of sampling method maintained.
		•	Sampling technique is considered appropriate for deposit type

Page 6 of 14

Drilling techniques	• Drill type (eg core, reverse circulation, open-hole hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc) and details (eg core diameter, triple or standard tube, depth of diamond tails, face-sampling bit or other	• •	Drilling was RC. RC drilling was carried out using truck mounted Sandvik DE 840 (UDR1200), UDR1000 and Metzke rigs. All used 4.5 inch rods
	type, whether core is oriented and if so, by what method, etc).		and 5 ½ inch face bits.
Drill sample	• Method of recording and assessing core and chip sample recoveries and results assessed.	•	RC sampling done on 1m intervals into green plastic bags. Sample recoveries for RC were visually estimated by the geologist
recovery	• Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and ensure		at the time of drilling and recorded for every metre, calculation of
	representative nature of the samples.		actual and theoretical mass concluded that wet samples
	• Whether a relationship exists between sample recovery and grade		averaged 40% to 50% recovery where dry samples were 80% -
	and whether sample bias may have occurred due to preferential		90% recovery. No bias of mineral grade linked to recovery was
	loss/gain of fine/coarse material.		found.
		•	Twin RC and diamond holes have shown no bias in sampling
			based on drill type.

Page 7 of 14

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
		•	A hand held XRF orientation study concluded that there was no
			sample bias with loss or gain of fine/coarse material.
		•	<5% wet samples in the RC drilling
Logging	• Whether core and chip samples have been geologically and geotechnically logged to a level of detail to support appropriate Mineral Resource estimation, mining studies and metallurgical studies.	•	Every RC drillhole was logged by a geologist & entered into Excel spread sheets recording; Recovery, Moisture content, Magnetic susceptibility, Oxidation state, Colour, % of Magnetite, Gangue
	• Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in nature. Core (or		Min, Sulphide Min, Veins and Structure. Data was uploaded to a
	costean, channel, etc) photography.		customised Access database.
	• The total length and percentage of the relevant intersections logged.	•	Logging used a mixture of qualitative and quantitative codes
		•	All RC sample metres were sub-sampled, sieved, washed and
			stored in a labelled plastic chip tray. All remaining drill core after
			sampling was stored in labelled plastic core trays on site.
		•	All relevant intersections were logged
		•	Geological logging was of sufficient detail to allow the creation of
			a geological model.
Sub-sampling techniques	• 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	•	RC samples were composited using the riffle split method. A 1/16 split was taken from the rig every metre then composited by splitting again using a 50/50 riffle splitter.
and sample	whether sampled wet or dry.	•	Field pairs, blanks (washed sand) and certified standards we used
preparation	• For all sample types, the nature, quality and appropriateness of the sample preparation technique.	•	for quality control measures All sampling methods and samples sizes are deemed appropriate
	• Quality control procedures adopted for all sub-sampling stages to
	maximise representivity of samples.
	• Measures taken to ensure that the sampling is representative of the in
	situ material collected, including for instance results for field
	duplicate/second-half sampling.
	• Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grain size of the material
	being sampled.
Quality of assay data	• The nature, quality and appropriateness of the assaying and laboratory procedures used and whether the technique is considered partial or total.	•	Pulverizing • Crush the sample to 100% below 3.35 mm. • Separate a sample of 150 g for pulverizing in aC125 ring
and	• For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF instruments, etc,		pulverizer (record weight) – DTR SAMPLE.
	the parameters used in determining the analysis including instrument		• Initially pulverize the 150 g sample for nominal 30 seconds –
	make and model, reading times, calibrations factors applied and their		the sample is unusuallysoft for a ferro-silicate rock!

Page 8 of 14

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary	Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary	Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary

laboratory tests derivation, etc. • Nature of quality control procedures adopted (eg standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (ie lack of bias) and precision have been established. • •	• Wet screen the DTR sample at 38 micron pressure filter and dry, screen at 1 mm to de-clump and re-homogenize. • Record the oversize weights – if less than approximately 20 g is oversize, stop the procedure – failure. • If failure - select another 150 g DTR Sample and reduce the initial pulverization time by 5 secs, repeat until initial grind pass returns greater than approximately 20 g oversize. Once achieved retain the – 38 micron undersize. • Regrind only the oversize for 4 seconds of every 5 g weight of oversize. • Repeat the wet screening, drying, de-clumping & weighing stages until less than 5g above 38micron remains. • Ensure the remaining < 5 g oversize is returned back into the previously retained -38 micron product. • Report the times and weights for each grind pass phase. • Combine and homogenize all retained -38 micron aliquots and <5 g oversize –final pulverized product. Sub-sample the final pulverized product to give a 20 g feed sample forDTR workand a ~10 g sample for HEAD analysis via XRF fusion. • The objective of the pulverizing procedure is to achieve a nominal P80 of approximately 25 micron for the sample. Davis Tube Recovery (DTR) Analysis • Pulverizer bowl 150 ml • Stroke Frequency 60/minute • Stroke length – 38mm • Magnetic field strength – 3000 gauss • Tube Angle – 45 degrees • Tube Diameter – 40mm • Water flow rate – 540-590ml/min • Washing time 20 minutes • Collect the concentrate in small collector (magnetic fraction) and discard tails. X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) Assaying • Head Sample • Using the Head Sample, analyse byXRF fusion method for the following elements: Al2O3 %, As % , Ba % , CaO % , Cl % , Co % , Cr % , Cu % , Fe % , K2O % , MgO % , Mn % ,

Page 9 of 14

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
			Na2O % , Ni % , P % , Pb % , S % , SiO2 % , Sn % , Sr % ,
			TiO2 % , V % , Zn % , Zr % & LOI.
		•	DTR Concentrate Sample
			• Dry the DTR concentrate and report the weight of the
			concentrate as a percentage of measured feed and report –
			DTR Mass Recovery.
			• Analyse the concentrate by XRF fusion method for the
			following elements: Al2O3 %, As % , Ba % , CaO % , Cl % ,
			Co % , Cr % , Cu % , Fe % , K2O % , MgO % , Mn % , Na2O
			% , Ni % , P % , Pb % , S % , SiO2 % , Sn % , Sr % , TiO2 %
			, V % , Zn % , Zr % & LOI.
		•	Head Satmagan analysis was conducted on every sample.
		•	JH8 and KT5 magnetic susceptibility metres were using to
			record magnetic susceptibility. A laboratory standard was used
			each day to calibrate each metre. A Niton XL3T Gold hand help
			XRF machine was used. A laboratory analysed sample was
			used to calibrate for Fe.
		•	QAQC procedures consisted of using field pairs, field
			duplicates, blanks, certified standards and umpire lab samples
			(Intertek) at a frequency of 10 per 100 samples.
		•	Internal QAQC measures were also undertaken by ALS in the form
			of lab repeats, lab duplicates and the use of internal standards.
		•	An independent review of the QAQC procedures and data
			was completed by Keith Hannan of Geochem Pacific Pty
			Ltd, an independent Geochemist/consultant. It was
			concluded that the data was fit for purpose for the resource
			modelling with lack of bias and acceptable levels of
			precision and accuracy.
		•	All sampling and assay methods and samples sizes are deemed
			appropriate.

Page 10 of

Verification of	• The verification of significant intersections by either independent or	•	Data was stored in an Access database
sampling and	alternative company personnel. • The use of twinned holes.	•	Twin RC of DD holes were used to verify the results for RC holes and the DTR performance.
assaying	• Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data	•	A rigorous QAQC program was completed by Keith Hannan of
	verification, data storage (physical and electronic) protocols.		Geochem Pacific, checking all aspects of sample preparation
	• Discuss any adjustment to assay data.		and analysis.
		•	No adjustments were made to raw assay data and lab
			certificates were presented to verify the data.
Location of	• Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drill holes (collar and	•	Drill holes collars were located using a Differential GPS accuracy
data points	down-hole surveys), trenches, mine workings and other locations used in Mineral Resource estimation.	•	to less than one metre by a local surveyor. Coordinates were supplied in GDA 94 – MGA Zone 54.
	• Specification of the grid system used.	•	Down hole surveys were recorded using a gyroscope due to the
	• Quality and adequacy of topographic control.		highly magnetic nature of the deposit.

Page 11 of

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
		•	Topographic control was collected using a high resolution
			Differential GPS by a local surveyor
		•	Location methods used to determine accuracy of drillhole collars
			is considered appropriate
Data spacing and	• Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results. • Whether the data spacing and distribution is sufficient to establish the degree of geological and grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral	• •	The deposit is drill at a nominal spacing of 150m to 200m in section and plan. The drill spacing was deemed adequate for the interpretation of
distribution	Resource and Ore Reserve estimation procedure(s) and		geological and grade continuity noting the homogeneity of the
	classifications applied.		deposit and style of mineralisation.
	• Whether sample compositing has been applied.	•	Drill samples were composited at a nominal 5m
Orientation of	• Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased sampling of
data in	possible structures and the extent to which this is known, considering the deposit type.	•	Drilling was completed at -60o, generally sub-perpendicular to the bedding, which is the primary control to the magnetite
relation to	• If the relationship between the drilling orientation and the orientation		mineralisation.
geological structure	of key mineralised structures is considered to have introduced a sampling bias, this should be assessed and reported if material.	•	Different azimuths were used to reflect the changing strike of the beds associated with folding of the sediments and were designed to maintain the steep angle to the bedding
		•	Locally holes deviated to the right (east) with depth.
		•	Drilling orientations are considered appropriate with no bias.
Sample security	• The measures taken to ensure sample security.	• •	All samples were stored on site under company personnel supervision until transporting to the companies Broken Hill office Intensity of magnetite mineralisation is difficult to see visually but
			detectable usinga magnet.
Audits or	• The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data.	`o`	Sample procedures and results were reviewed by company
reviews			personnel systematically. The QAQC data is being reviewed by Carpentaria staff and an external consultant.

Page 10 of 14

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results – 2010 Campaign

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

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Mineral	• Type, reference name/number, location and ownership including	•	The Hawsons Magnetite project is located in Western NSW, 60
tenement and	agreements or material issues with third parties such as joint		km southwest of Broken Hill. The deposit is 30km from the
land tenure	ventures, partnerships, overriding royalties, native title interests,		Adelaide-Sydney railway line, a main highway and a power
status	historical sites, wilderness or national park and environmental		supply.
	settings.	•	The project is under a Joint Venture between Carpentaria
	• The security of the tenure held at the time of reporting along with any		Exploration Ltd (CAP) and Pure Metals Pty Ltd where CAP holds
	known impediments to obtaining a licence to operate in the area.		64% and Pure Metals 36% equity in the project. Pure Metals
			currently manage the project.
		•	The project area is wholly within Exploration Licences (ELs)
			6979, 7208 & 7504 which are 100% owned by CAP.
		•	Licence conditions for all ELs have been met and are in good
			standing.
		•	An application for a Mining Lease (ML) was lodged with the
			NSW Trade & Investment Department in October 2013 and
			Carpentaria is not aware of any impediments to obtaining a
			mininglease.
Exploration	• Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties.	•	In 1960 Enterprise Exploration Company (the exploration arm of
done by other			Consolidated Zinc) outlined a number of track-like exposures of
parties			Neoproterozoic magnetite ironstone (+/- hematite) which
			returned a maximum result of 6m at 49.1% Fe from a cross-
			strike channel sample. No drilling was undertaken by Enterprise.
		•	CRAE completed five holes within EL 6979 seeking gold

Page 10 of 14

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
			mineralisation in a second-order linear magnetic low interpreted
			to be a concealed faulted iron formation within the hinge of the
			curvilinear Hawsons’ aeromagnetic anomaly. CRAE’s program
			failed to locate significant gold or base metal mineralisation but
			the drilling intersected concealed broad magnetite ironstone
			units interbedded with diamictite adjacent to the then untested
			peak of the highest amplitude segment of the Hawsons
			aeromagnetic anomaly.
Geology	• Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation.	•	The Hawsons Magnetite Project is situated within folded, upper
			greenschist facies Neoproterozoic rocks of the Adelaide Fold
			Belt. The Braemar Facies magnetite ironstone is the host
			stratigraphy and comprises a series of strike extensive
			magnetite-bearing siltstones generally with a moderate dip (circa
			-55o). The airborne magnetic data clearly indicates the
			magnetite siltstones as a series of parallel, high amplitude
			magnetic anomalies. Large areas of the Hawsons prospective
			stratigraphy are concealed by transported ferricrete and other
			younger cover. The base of oxidation due to weathering over
			the prospective horizons is estimated to average 80m from
			surface.
		•	The Hawsons project comprises a number of prospects including
			the Core, Fold, T-Limb, South Limb and Wonga deposits.
			Resource Estimates have been generated for the Core and Fold
			areas which are contiguous.
		•	The depositional environment for the Braemar Iron Formation is
			believed to be a subsiding basin, with initial rapid subsidence
			related to rifting possibly in a graben setting as indicated by the
			occurrence of diamictites in the lower part of the sequence (Unit
			2). A possible sag phase of cyclical subsidence followed with
			deposition of finer grained sediments with more consistent, as
			compared to the diamictite units, bed thicknesses, style and clast
			composition (Unit 3). The top of the Interbed Unit marks the
			transition from high (Unit 2) to lower (Unit 3) energy sediment
			deposition
		•	The distribution of disseminated, inclusion-free magnetite in the
			Braemar Iron Formation at Hawsons is related to the
			composition and nature of the sedimentary beds. The idioblastic
			nature of the of the magnetite is believed due to one or more of a
			range ofpossibleprocesses includingin situ recrystallisation of

Page 10 of 14

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
			primary detrital grains, chemical precipitation from seawater,
			permeation of iron-rich metamorphic fluids associated with
			regional greenschist metamorphism. Grain size generally ranges
			from 10microns to 0.2mm but tends to average around the
			40microns. The sediment composition and grain size appear to
			provide the main control on the mineralisation. There is no
			evidence for structural control in the form of veins or veinlets
			coupled with the lack of a strong structural fabric.
		•	In the majority of the Core and Fold deposits the units strike
			south east and dip between 45 and 65˚ to the south west. The
			eastern part of the Fold deposit comprises a relatively tight,
			synclinal fold structure resultingin a 90ostrike rotation.
Drill hole	• A summary of all information material to the understanding of the	•	Exploration results not being reported
Information	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 basis that the
	information is not Material and this exclusion does not detract from
	the understanding of the report, the Competent Person should clearly
	explain why this is the case.
Data	• In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging techniques,	•	Exploration results not being reported
aggregation	maximum and/or minimum grade truncations (e.g. cutting of high
methods	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.
Relationship	• These relationships are particularly important in the reporting of	•	Drilling has tended to be at a steep angle to the dip angle of the
between	Exploration Results.		sedimentary beds.
mineralisation	• If the geometry of the mineralisation with respect to the drill hole
widths and	angle is known, its nature should be reported.

Page 10 of 14

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
intercept	• If it is not known and only the down hole lengths are reported, there
lengths	should be a clear statement to this effect (e.g. ‘down hole length, true
	width not known’).
Diagrams	• Appropriate maps and sections (with scales) and tabulations of	•	Exploration results not being reported
	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.
Balanced	• Where comprehensive reporting of all Exploration Results is not	•	Exploration results not being reported
reporting	practicable, representative reporting of both low and high grades
	and/or widths should be practiced to avoid misleading reporting of
	Exploration Results.
Other	• Other exploration data, if meaningful and material, should be reported	•	A substantial amount of polished and thin section work has been
substantive	including (but not limited to): geological observations; geophysical		completed on both RC chips and diamond core. This work has
exploration	survey results; geochemical survey results; bulk samples – size and		confirmed the nature and style of both the original sediment and
data	method of treatment; metallurgical test results; bulk density,		the iron minerals including magnetite, hematite, chlorite and
	groundwater, geotechnical and rock characteristics; potential		ferroan dolomite.
	deleterious or contaminating substances.	•	Downhole geophysics comprises magnetic susceptibility, gamma
			and density and has been completed for a majority of the holes.
			This has resulted in the definition of a magnetic (and density-
			related) stratigraphy that is coincident with a chronostratigraphic
			interpretation.
Further work	• The nature and scale of planned further work (e.g. tests for lateral	•	Exploration results not being reported
	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.

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results – 2016 Campaign

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

Criteria JORC Code explanation

Commentary

Page 11 of 14

Mineral	• Type, reference name/number, location and ownership including	•	The Hawsons Magnetite project is located in Western NSW, 60
tenement and	agreements or material issues with third parties such as joint ventures, partnerships, overriding royalties, native title interests,		km southwest of Broken Hill. The deposit is 30km from the Adelaide-Sydney railway line, a main highway and a power
land tenure	historical sites, wilderness or national park and environmental		supply.
status	settings. • The security of the tenure held at the time of reporting along with any	•	The project is under a Joint Venture between Carpentaria Exploration Ltd (CAP) and Pure Metals Pty Ltd where CAP holds
	known impediments to obtaining a licence to operate in the area.		64% and Pure Metals 36% equity in the project. Pure Metals
			currently manage the project.
		•	The project area is wholly within Exploration Licences (ELs) 6979,
			7208 & 7504 which are 100% owned by CAP.
		•	Licence conditions for all ELs have been met and are in good
			standing.
		•	An application for a Mining Lease (ML) was lodged with the NSW
			Trade & Investment Department in October 2013 and Carpentaria
			is not aware of anyimpediments to obtaininga mininglease.
Exploration done by other	• Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties.	•	In 1960 Enterprise Exploration Company (the exploration arm of Consolidated Zinc) outlined a number of track-like exposures of Neoproterozoic magnetite ironstone (+/- hematite) which returned
parties			a maximum result of 6 m at 49.1% Fe from a cross-strike channel
			sample. No drilling was undertaken by Enterprise.
		•	CRAE completed five holes within EL 6979 seeking gold
			mineralisation in a second-order linear magnetic low interpreted
			to be a concealed faulted iron formation within the hinge of the
			curvilinear Hawsons’ aeromagnetic anomaly. CRAE’s program
			failed to locate significant gold or base metal mineralisation but
			the drilling intersected concealed broad magnetite ironstone units
			interbedded with diamictite adjacent to the then untested peak of
			the highest amplitude segment of the Hawsons aeromagnetic
			anomaly.
Geology	• Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation.	•	The Hawsons Magnetite Project is situated within folded, upper greenschist facies Neoproterozoic rocks of the Adelaide Fold Belt.
			The Braemar Facies magnetite ironstone is the host stratigraphy
			and comprises a series of narrow,strike extensive magnetite-

Page 12 of 14

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
			bearing siltstones generally with a moderate dip (circa 45o). The
			airborne magnetic data clearly indicates the magnetite siltstones
			as a series of parallel, narrow, high amplitude magnetic
			anomalies. Large areas of the Hawsons prospective stratigraphy
			are concealed by transported ferricrete and other younger cover.
			The base of oxidation due to weathering over the prospective
			horizons is estimated to average 80m in depth.
		•	The Hawsons project comprises a number of prospects including
			the Core, Fold, T-Limb, South Limb and Wonga deposits.
			Resource Estimates have been generated for the Core and Fold
			areas which are contiguous.
		•	The depositional environment for the Braemar Iron Formation is
			believed to be a subsiding basin, with initial rapid subsidence
			related to rifting possibly in a graben setting eg the diamictites in
			the lower part of the sequence. A possible sag phase of cyclical
			subsidence followed with deposition of finer grained sediments
			with more consistent, as compared to the diamictite units, bed
			thicknesses, style and clast composition. The top of the Interbed
			Unit marks the transition from high to lower energy sediment
			deposition
		•	The distribution of disseminated, inclusion-free magnetite in the
			Braemar Iron Formation at Hawsons is related to the composition
			and nature of the sedimentary beds. The idioblastic nature of the
			of the magnetite is believed due to one or more of a range of
			possible processes including in situ recrystallisation of primary
			detrital grains, chemical precipitation from seawater, permeation
			of iron-rich metamorphic fluids associated with regional
			greenschist metamorphism . Grain size generally ranges from
			10microns to 0.2mm but tends to average around the 40micron
			mark. The sediment composition and grain size appear to provide
			a control on the mineralisation. There is no evidence for structural
			control in the form of veins or veinlets coupled with the lack of a
			strong structural fabric.
		•	In the majority of the Core and Fold deposit the units strike south
			east and dip between 45 and 65˚ to the south west. The eastern
			Fold deposit comprises a relatively tight synclinal fold structure
			resultingin a 90ostrike rotation.

Page 13 of 14

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Drill hole	• A summary of all information material to the understanding of the	•	Exploration results not being reported
Information	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 basis that the
	information is not Material and this exclusion does not detract from
	the understanding of the report, the Competent Person should clearly
	explain why this is the case.
Data	• In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging techniques,	•	Exploration results not being reported
aggregation	maximum and/or minimum grade truncations (eg cutting of high grades) and cut-off grades are usually Material and should be stated.
methods	• 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 between	• These relationships are particularly important in the reporting of Exploration Results. • If the geometry of the mineralisation with respect to the drill hole	•	Drilling was planned to intersect the geology as close to perpendicular as possible to bedding to achieve true widths.
mineralisation	angle is known, its nature should be reported.
widths and intercept	• If it is not known and only the down hole lengths are reported, there should be a clear statement to this effect (eg ‘down hole length, true width not known’).
lengths
Diagrams	• Appropriate maps and sections (with scales) and tabulations of intercepts should be included for any significant discovery being	•	Exploration results not being reported
	reported These should include, but not be limited to a plan view of
	drill hole collar locations and appropriate sectional views.

Page 14 of 14

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Balanced	• Where comprehensive reporting of all Exploration Results is not	•	Exploration results not being reported
reporting	practicable, representative reporting of both low and high grades and/or widths should be practiced to avoid misleading reporting of
	Exploration Results.
Other	• Other exploration data, if meaningful and material, should be reported	•	Downhole geophysics comprises magnetic susceptibility
substantive	including (but not limited to): geological observations; geophysical survey results; geochemical survey results; bulk samples – size and		conductivity, gamma and density has been completed for all holes. This has resulted in the definition of a magnetic (and
exploration	method of treatment; metallurgical test results; bulk density,		density-related) stratigraphy that is coincident with a
data	groundwater, geotechnical and rock characteristics; potential deleterious or contaminating substances.		chronostratigraphic interpretation. Two tools were used to collect the data, a FDS50 (Formation Density) tool using a 3500CO
			radioactive source and a MIG08 (Magnetic
			susceptibility/Induction conductivity/Gamma) tool. Gamma was
			also collected using the FDS tool.
Further work	• The nature and scale of planned further work (eg tests for lateral	•	Further environmental and engineering studies are planned which
	extensions or depth extensions or large-scale step-out drilling).		will form part of the current PFS completion.
	• Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions,
	including the main geological interpretations and future drilling areas,
	provided this information is not commercially sensitive.

Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources

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

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
*Database*	• Measures taken to ensure that data has not been corrupted by, for example,	•	Independently customised Access database by GR-FX Pty Ltd
*integrity*	transcription or keying errors, between its initial collection and its use for
	Mineral Resource estimation purposes.	•	Validation of database undertaken by Keith Hannan of Geochem
	• Data validation procedures used.		Pacific Pty Ltd, an independent consultant.
		•	Limited validation was conducted by H&S Consultants (H&SC) to
			ensure the drill hole database is internally consistent. Validation
			included checking that no assays, density measurements or
			geological logs occur beyond the end of hole and that all drilled
			intervals have been geologically logged. The minimum and
			maximum values of assays and density measurements were
			~~Page 15 of 14~~ checked to ensure values are within expected ranges. Further

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
			checks include testing for duplicate samples and overlapping
			sampling or logging intervals
		•	H&SC has not performed detailed database validation and CAP
			personnel take responsibility for the accuracy and reliability of
			the data used to estimate the Mineral Resources.
		•	H&SC created a local E-W orthogonal grid for all interpretation
			and modelling work
*Site visits*	• Comment on any site visits undertaken by the Competent Person and the	•	Regular site visits have been carried out by Quentin Hill,
	outcome of those visits.		Managing Director for CAP, who acts as the Competent Person
	• If no site visits have been undertaken indicate why this is the case.		with responsibility for reporting the exploration results and the
			integrity and validity of the database on which resource
			estimates were conducted.
		•	A site visit has been undertaken in 2012 by Simon Tear of
			H&SC, Competent Person for the reporting of the resource
			estimates.
*Geological*	• Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertainty of) the geological	•	The broad geological interpretation of the Hawsons deposit is
*interpretatio*	interpretation of the mineral deposit.		relatively simple and reasonably well constrained by drilling and
n	• Nature of the data used and of any assumptions made.		the high amplitude magnetic anomalies.
	• The effect, if any, of alternative interpretations on Mineral Resource estimation. • The use of geology in guiding and controlling Mineral Resource estimation.	•	The mineralisation is stratabound as disseminated grains of magnetite with no obvious structural remobilisation or overprint.
	• The factors affecting continuity both of grade and geology.	•	The downhole geophysical data, gamma and magnetic
			susceptibility, has been used in conjunction with DTR recovered
			magnetic fraction grades to produce a detailed geological
			interpretation and to the generation of a set of 3D wireframes
			representing variously mineralised units and provide a
			stratigraphic framework.
		•	The consistency of the geophysical patterns for the sediments
			provides for a high level of confidence in the stratigraphic
			interpretation.
		•	Two main cross faults, possibly a conjugate pair, have been
			delineated and have caused small offsets in the mineral-bearing
			stratigraphy.

~~Page 16 of 14~~

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
		•	H&SC used the geological logs of the drill holes to create a
			wireframe surface representing the base of colluvium.
		•	H&SC also used the geological logs of the drill holes to create
			wireframe surfaces representing the base of complete oxidation
			(BOCO) and the top of fresh rock (TOFR). Contact plot analysis
			of the estimated elements were conducted in order to investigate
			how these surfaces should be treated in the resource estimation.
			The top of fresh rock surface was found to coincide with a
			marked difference in density and DTR and was therefore used
			as a hard boundary. The density and DTR values in the volume
			above the top of fresh rock surface were estimated using a
			flattened search ellipse. All other parameters did not take
			account of the top of fresh rock surface and the orientation of the
			search ellipse and variogram axes are controlled by the
			orientation of the lithological unit surfaces.
		•	Any additional faulting in the deposit is assumed to be
			insignificant relative to the resource estimation.
		•	H&SC is aware that alternative interpretations of the mineralised
			zones and faults are possible but consider the wireframes to
			adequately approximate the locations of the mineralised zones
			for the purposes of resource estimation. Alternative
			interpretations may have a limited impact the resource estimate.
*Dimensions*	• The extent and variability of the Mineral Resource expressed as length	•	The resources have a strike length of around 3.3km in a south
	(along strike or otherwise), plan width, and depth below surface to the		easterly direction. The plan width of the resource varies from
	upper and lower limits of the Mineral Resource.		700m to 1.9km with an average of around 1.1km (noting the
			relatively modest dip angle of the beds. The upper limit of the
			mineralisation occurs between 25 and 80m below surface
			(average 65m) and the lower limit of the resource extends to a
			depth of 440m below surface. The lower limit to the resource is
			a direct function of the depth limitations to the drilling.
*Estimation*	• The nature and appropriateness of the estimation technique(s) applied and	•	Ordinary Kriging was used to complete the estimation in the
*and*	key assumptions, including treatment of extreme grade values, domaining,		Micromine software. H&SC considers Ordinary Kriging to be an
*modelling*	interpolation parameters and maximum distance of extrapolation from data		appropriate estimation technique for the type of mineralisation
*techniques*	points. If a computer assisted estimation method was chosen include a		and extent of data available from the Core and Fold deposits. All
	description of computer software and parameters used.		data has low coefficients of variation.
	• The availability of check estimates, previous estimates and/or mine

Page 17 of 14

JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
production records and whether the Mineral Resource estimate takes	•	A total of 3,924 unconstrained 5m composites were generated
appropriate account of such data.		from the drillhole database and modelled for Davis Tube
• The assumptions made regarding recovery of by-products.		recovered magnetic fraction (“DTR”), iron head grade and the
• Estimation of deleterious elements or other non-grade variables of		concentrate elements of Al2O3, P, S, SiO2, TiO2and LOI,
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.	•	2,862 composites were in fresh rock and 1,161 in the transition zone of which 209 were from direct DTR measurement. 74 of the fresh rock composites were generated from the downhole mag_sus data with 55 from the hand-held mag_sus data via regression equations, particularly peripheral to the main
• Description of how the geological interpretation was used to control the		mineralisation and the transition zone.
resource estimates.
• Discussion of basis for using or not using grade cutting or capping.	•	A regression based on downhole magnetic susceptibility was
• The process of validation, the checking process used, the comparison of model data to drill hole data, and use of reconciliation data if available.		used to calculate likely DTR values for untested intervals. A regression based on the hand held magnetic susceptibility data was used to estimate the DTR values where downhole magnetic
		susceptibility was not available. Missing Fe concentrate grades
		were calculated using a regression based on the DTR grades
		and the remaining concentrate elements were calculated using a
		regression based on the iron concentrate grade. Most of the
		missing DTR grades were on the periphery of the mineralisation
		(often unsampled areas) and the missing concentrate grades the
		result of insufficient sample being available for XRF analysis
		mainly from the Interbed Unit.
	•	The base of colluvium was used to control the upper limit of the
		resource estimation. Drill hole data from above the colluvium
		surface were not used in the resource estimate.
	•	Two main cross faults have been delineated and have caused
		small offsets in the mineral-bearing stratigraphy. These faults
		were treated as hard boundaries during estimation so that data
		from within a particular fault block were only used to estimate
		blocks in that fault block.
	•	H&SC created nine surfaces representing the edges of eight
		conformable lithological units based on drill hole data. These
		surfaces were combined to produce eight wireframe solids, the
		outer boundary of which was used to constrain the Mineral
		Resource Estimate. In order to reflect local variations of dip and
		strike, the orientation of the triangles that make up the nine
		surfaces were used to locallycontrol the orientation of the

H&SC created nine surfaces representing the edges of eight conformable lithological units based on drill hole data. These surfaces were combined to produce eight wireframe solids, the outer boundary of which was used to constrain the Mineral Resource Estimate. In order to reflect local variations of dip and strike, the orientation of the triangles that make up the nine surfaces were used to locally control the orientation of the ~~Page 18 of 14~~

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
			search ellipse and variogram axes – the dynamic interpolation
			method.
		•	The top of fresh rock surface was found to coincide with a
			marked difference in density and DTR and was therefore used
			as a hard boundary. The density and DTR values in the volume
			above the top of fresh rock surface were estimated using a
			flattened search ellipse. All other parameters did not take
			account of the top of fresh rock surface and the orientation of the
			search ellipse and variogram axes are controlled by the
			orientation of the lithological unit surfaces.
		•	No recovery of any by-products has been considered in the
			resource estimates as no products beyond iron are considered
			to exist in economic concentrations.
		•	No top-cutting was applied as extreme values were not present
			and top-cutting was considered by H&SC to be unnecessary
		•	No check estimate was carried out though the estimates were in
			line with previous estimates. Hellman & Schofield, the
			predecessor to H&SC, estimated the resources of Hawsons in
			2010 and updated in 2011. The resource estimates were further
			updated in 2013 by H&SC following an in-depth analysis and
			interpretation of downhole geophysical data resulting in the
			delineation of Indicated Resources. The new resource estimates
			for 2017 have only a modest increase in size at the same grade.
			but contain considerably more Indicated Resource which was
			the aim of the infill drilling. The extra resource is primarily from
			peripheral areas in the Core and the Fold areas.
		•	Block dimensions are 100m x 50m x 20m (Local E, N, RL
			respectively). The east and north dimensions were chosen as
			they are around half the nominal drillhole distances. The vertical
			dimension was chosen to reflect the sample spacing and
			possible mining bench heights.
		•	Each element was estimated separately. Four search passes
			were employed with progressively larger radii or decreasing
			search criteria. The first pass used radii of 250x150x40m, the
			second pass used 300x150x50m, the third and fourth used
			450x225x75m(alongstrike,down dipand across mineralisation

~~Page 19 of 14~~

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
			respectively). All passes used a four sector search with a
			maximum number of data points per sector of 8 (total 32). The
			first pass required a minimum of 20 data points from at least
			three different drill holes whereas the second and third passes
			required a minimum of 16 data points from at least two different
			drill holes. The fourth pass required a minimum of eight data
			points and had no restriction on the number of drill holes
			required.
		•	The new block model was reviewed visually by H&SC and CAP
			geologists and it was concluded that the block model fairly
			represents the grades observed in the drill holes. H&SC also
			validated the block model using a variety of summary statistics
			and simple plots.
*Moisture*	• Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or with natural	•	Tonnages of the Mineral Resource are estimated on a dry weight
	moisture, and the method of determination of the moisture content.		basis.
*Cut-off*	• The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters applied.	•	The resources are reported at a cut-off of 9.5% DTR as advised
*parameters*			by CAP to H&S. The 9.5%DTR cut-off is considered by the
			Company to be conservative and reasonable, as GHD reported
			that the optimisation process indicates the economic cut-off
			grade could be lower than 9%DTR. Key assumptions in the
			optimisation were a revenue based on 62%Fe price of US$60/t
			(converting to a 65%Fe price of US$70/t (currently 65%Fe is
			~US$79), with mining and processing costs being derived from
			previous mine planning and processing test work
		•	Other constraints in reporting the resource estimates include
			below the top of the fresh rock surface and a vertical depth of -
			250mRL.
		•	The cut-off grade at which the resource is quoted reflects the
			intended bulk-mining approach
*Mining*	• Assumptions made regarding possible mining methods, minimum mining	•	The Hawsons resources were estimated on the assumption that
*factors or*	dimensions and internal (or, if applicable, external) mining dilution. It is		the material is to be mined by open pit using a bulk mining
*assumptions*	always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable		method.
	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	•	Minimum mining dimensions are envisioned to be around 25m x 10m x 10m (strike, across strike, vertical respectively). The block size is significantly larger than the likely minimum mining

Minimum mining dimensions are envisioned to be around 25m x 10m x 10m (strike, across strike, vertical respectively). The block size is significantly larger than the likely minimum mining Page 20 of 14

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
	rigorous. Where this is the case, this should be reported with an explanation		dimensions.
	of the basis of the mining assumptions made.
		•	The resource estimation includes internal mining dilution.
		•	A study was recently completed by GHD which developed a
			mine plan to produce 10Mtpa of magnetite concentrates via on
			site processing
		•	The proposed mining method would use a combination of In Pit
			Crushing and Conveying as well as truck and shovel.
*Metallurgical*	• The basis for assumptions or predictions regarding metallurgical	•	The idioblastic nature of the magnetite lends itself to relatively
*factors or*	amenability. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining		easy liberation
*assumptions*	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	•	The ROM material is relatively soft for a magnetite deposit with a bond work index much lower than typical Banded Iron Formation deposits.
	reported with an explanation of the basis of the metallurgical assumptions made.	•	Initial laboratory testwork by the CSIRO in Brisbane identified that the ROM material could readily be reduced to a particle size
			less than 1mm in an impact crusher.
		•	hrlTesting completed metallurgical testwork that showed better
			than 50% rejection can be achieved in the rougher stages. The
			ball mill operational power is lower than expected and at a P100
			of 38µm a concentrate of ~69% Fe can be achieved.
*Environmen-*	• Assumptions made regarding possible waste and process residue disposal	•	The deposits lie in flat open country typical of Western NSW.
*tal factors or*	options. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining
*assumptions*	reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider the	•	Predominantly scrub vegetation that allows for sheep grazing.
	potential environmental impacts of the mining and processing operation. While at this stage the determination of potential environmental impacts,	•	There are large flat areas for waste and tailings disposal
	particularly for a greenfields project, may not always be well advanced, the status of early consideration of these potential environmental impacts	•	Small number of creeks with only seasonal flows
	should be reported. Where these aspects have not been considered this	•	Baseline data collection of a variety of environmental parameters
	should be reported with an explanation of the environmental assumptions		is in progress e.g. dust monitoring, surface water, weather
	made.		records
		•	Preliminary Ecology Assessments with have led to field ecology
			studies under the guidance of the Office of Environment and

Page 21 of 14

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
			Heritage in NSW
		•	A Water Optimisation Study identified ways to reduce water
			consumption in the plant and has led to a new process design
			considering paste thickening in the metallurgical plant instead of
			the original conventional thickeners.
*Bulk density*	• Whether assumed or determined. If assumed, the basis for the assumptions.	•	The short spaced density (SSD) data from the downhole
	If determined, the method used, whether wet or dry, the frequency of the		geophysics was used for the density. The SSD data was
	measurements, the nature, size and representativeness of the samples.		collected using a FDS50 down hole tool containing a 3500CO
	• The bulk density for bulk material must have been measured by methods that adequately account for void spaces (vugs, porosity, etc), moisture and differences between rock and alteration zones within the deposit.		radioactive source. This data had a correction factor of +5.2% applied based on testwork completed on 194 NQ core samples using the immersion-in-water (Archimedes) method.
	• Discuss assumptions for bulk density estimates used in the evaluation process of the different materials.	•	The data was composited to 5m prior to modelling.
		•	The density at Hawsons was estimated using Ordinary Kriging
			for search passes one to three and the remaining blocks were
			populated from values estimated from the Fe head grade of each
			block using a regression created from blocks where both
			variables had been estimated.
*Classificatio*	• The basis for the classification of the Mineral Resources into varying	•	The classification of the resource estimates is based on the data
n	confidence categories.		distribution which is a function of the drillhole spacing, the style
	• Whether appropriate account has been taken of all relevant factors (i.e.		of mineralisation, the geological model, coherency of the
	relative confidence in tonnage/grade estimations, reliability of input data, confidence in continuity of geology and metal values, quality, quantity and		downhole geophysics including density, the QAQC programme and results and comparison with previous resource estimates.
	distribution of the data). • Whether the result appropriately reflects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit.	•	The resources were initially classified on the search criteria with blocks populated by Passes 1 and 2 being Indicated and passes 3 and 4 being classed as Inferred.
		•	Upon review of the Indicated resources a defined shape was
			delineated which reverted individual or small numbers of isolated
			blocks from indicated to Inferred.
		•	A detailed sedimentological review using gamma and magnetic
			susceptibility downhole data demonstrated strong stratigraphic
			continuity of the DTR grades with the sediment packages.
		•	H&SC believes the confidence in tonnage and grade estimates,
			the continuity of geology and grade, and the distribution of the

H&SC believes the confidence in tonnage and grade estimates, the continuity of geology and grade, and the distribution of the Page 22 of 14

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
			data reflect Indicated and Inferred categorisation. The estimates
			appropriately reflect the Competent Person’s view of the deposit.
			H&SC has not assessed the reliability of input data and CAP
			personnel take responsibility for the accuracy and reliability of
			the data used to estimate the Mineral Resources.
*Audits or*	• The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral Resource estimates.	•	The estimation procedure was reviewed as part of an internal
*reviews*			H&S Consultants peer review and the block model was reviewed
			visually by CAP geologists.
		•	Mining Associates Limited (“MA’) completed a technical review in
			2016 on the inferred and indicated resources (2014). MA
			concluded that the model is a good global representation of the
			magnetite resource and considers Ordinary Kriging to be an
			appropriate estimating technique the type of mineralisation with
			very low coefficients of variation.
		•	Behre Dolbear Australia (“BDA”) completed a technical review
			for CAP in 2011 based on a GHD study. BDA considers that the
			broad geology and geological controls on mineralisation and the
			geological database are:
			`o` Generally adequately defined at this stage for estimation
			of Inferred [2010] resources. BDA recommends the use
			of hard boundaries for modelling of the mineralisation.
			`o` BDA considers that the analytical process adopted by
			Carpentaria is suitable for evaluation of recoverable
			magnetite concentrate proportions and quality. Overall
			the Hawsons database appears adequate for use in
			estimating Inferred resources under the [2012] JORC
			code
			`o` The proposed processing route is consistent with
			modern practice and flowsheets of other recently
			established operations.
*Discussion*	• Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and confidence	•	No statistical or geostatistical procedures were used to quantify
*of relative*	level in the Mineral Resource estimate using an approach or procedure		the relative accuracy of the resource. The global Mineral
*accuracy/*	deemed appropriate by the Competent Person. For example, the application		Resource estimates of the Hawsons deposit is moderately
*confidence*	of statistical or geostatistical procedures to quantify the relative accuracy of		sensitive to higher cut-off grades but does not vary significantly
	the resource within stated confidence limits, or, if such an approach is not		~~P 23 f 1~~

~~Page 23 of 14~~

JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
deemed appropriate, a qualitative discussion of the factors that could affect		at lower cut-offs.
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.	•	The relative accuracy and confidence level in the Mineral Resource estimates are considered to be in line with the generally accepted accuracy and confidence of the nominated Mineral Resource categories. This has been determined on a qualitative, rather than quantitative, basis, and is based on the Competent Person’s experience with similar deposits and geology
	•	The Mineral Resource estimates are considered to be accurate
		globally, but there is some uncertainty in the local estimates due
		to the current drillhole spacing and a lack of geological definition
		in places.
	•	No mining of the deposit has taken place so no production data
		is available for comparison.

Page 24 of 14

AI assistant

HAWSONS IRON LTD Capital/Financing Update 2017

65053_rns_2017-07-02_02f75676-9ad0-4560-a7d1-16c54d82328c.pdf

Hawsons Resource update

Highlights

Quentin Hill Managing Director +61 7 3220 2022

We find it. We prove it. We make it possible.

JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1 Hawsons Iron Project

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data – 2010 Campaign

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data – 2016 Campaign

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results – 2010 Campaign

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results – 2016 Campaign

Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources

AI assistant

HAWSONS IRON LTD — Capital/Financing Update 2017

65053_rns_2017-07-02_02f75676-9ad0-4560-a7d1-16c54d82328c.pdf

Hawsons Resource update

Highlights

Quentin Hill Managing Director +61 7 3220 2022

We find it. We prove it. We make it possible.

JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1 Hawsons Iron Project

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data – 2010 Campaign

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data – 2016 Campaign

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results – 2010 Campaign

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results – 2016 Campaign

Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources

More from HAWSONS IRON LTD

HAWSONS IRON LTD Capital/Financing Update 2017