MACARTHUR MINERALS LIMITED — Capital/Financing Update 2021

Sep 9, 2021

For Immediate Dissemination

==> picture [187 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

News release

9 September 2021

INFINITY MINING IPO SPIN-OUT UPDATE:

Tenement transfer to secure future iron ore extension strategy in the Pilbara for Macarthur

Macarthur Minerals Limited (TSX-V: MMS) (ASX: MIO) (OTCQB: MMSDF) (the Company or Macarthur ) is pleased to announce that the Company’s Pilbara iron ore tenements, (currently held by wholly-owned subsidiary Infinity Mining Limited ( Infinity ), previously named Macarthur Lithium Pty Ltd), will remain in the Macarthur Group. An intra-group tenement transfer agreement to be finalised prior to the planned listing of Infinity later this year will preserve Macarthur’s ability to pursue a future iron ore extension strategy in the Pilbara.

Highlights

• Tenement transfer agreement to keep Pilbara iron ore tenements within Macarthur Group.

• Infinity to retain non-iron ore rights in Pilbara tenements following completion of its planned ASX listing later this year.

• Transfer will allow all prospective tenements in the Pilbara to be appropriately resourced and drive value through exploration, back to shareholders.

• Transfer preserves a future Pilbara iron ore extension strategy for Macarthur, with potential to grow future value beyond on the Company’s flagship Lake Giles Iron Project.

• Macarthur will seek to transact with a partner on the Pilbara tenements to enable it to maintain its current focus and resources on the development of its flagship Lake Giles hematite and magnetite projects.

Tenement Transfer Agreement

A tenement transfer agreement ( Agreement ), to be finalised prior to the planned Infinity ASX listing, will see the Company’s Strelley Gorge and Tambourah tenements in the Pilbara transferred into Macarthur’s wholly owned subsidiary, Macarthur Iron Ore Pty Ltd. The Agreement will enable the Company to pursue a future iron ore extension strategy in the Pilbara.

Whilst Macarthur Iron Ore Pty Ltd will become the registered holder of the tenements, as the Pilbara tenements are also prospective for copper, gold, nickel and lithium, following completion of the transfer, Infinity will retain all non-iron ore mineral rights in the tenements.

Background to Pilbara Iron Ore Tenements

The tenements that will be transferred under the Agreement are the Strelley Gorge (E45/4735) and Tambourah (E45/5324) tenements in the Pilbara region of Western Australia, covering a combined area of approximately 616km[2] . The Strelley Gorge tenement is prospective for DSO iron ore and is located immediately adjacent to the Abydos iron ore project that has been mined by Atlas Iron Limited ( Atlas Iron ). The Tambourah tenement is also prospective for iron ore, with a 5km strike length of the

==> picture [57 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

Pincunah banded iron member, that hosts Atlas Iron’s Mt Webber mine approximately 10km to the north-east.

Macarthur considers both tenements prospective for iron ore and is seeking interested parties to further explore these assets.

Overview of Strelley Gorge (E45/4735)

The Strelley Gorge tenement lies within the Lalla Rookh syncline composed of mainly Euro Basalt (AKEe-b) metamorphosed basalt, komatiitic basalt and serpentinized peridotite. The tenement also contains two banded iron units prospective for DSO iron ore - the Paddy Market Formation on the eastern side and the Cleaverville formation on the west (see Figure 1 below). The latter hosts past iron ore mining operations of the Abydos project owned by Atlas Iron on the western edge of the tenement (see Figure 2 below).

Atlas Iron has also obtained EPA approval to commence the Sandtrax iron ore mine located in the BIF unit towards the north-eastern boundary (see Figure 2 below).

==> picture [411 x 411] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 1: 1:500k Geology of the Strelley Gorge project

2

==> picture [57 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [466 x 270] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 2. Strelley Gorge tenure proximity in relation to Atlas Iron mine site, showing outcropping BIF found continuing along strike from the previously mined Atlas Abydos project and approximate location of iron rock chip samples (Source: FE Ltd ASX announcement 5 September 2019)

Reconnaissance rock sampling completed by Fe Limited (ASX:FEL) on the outcropping BIF along strike from the previously mined Atlas Abydos project returned high iron grades (61.3% and 58.11% Fe). The results, summarised in Table 1 below, were previously reported by FE Limited to the market in an ASX announcement dated 5 September 2019 (see announcement here).

Table 1: Reconnaissance rock sample results at Strelley Gorge (Source: FE Ltd ASX announcement 5 September 2019)

==> picture [471 x 91] intentionally omitted <==

Overview of Tambourah (E45/5324)

The Tambourah tenement lies within the Shaw Batholith comprised of the Callina Supersuite (A-CLmg) - metadiorite to metasyenogranite; massive to gneissic rocks and the Tambina Supersuite (A-TAmg) - metatonalite and metagranodiorite (see Figure 3 below).

The tenement also encompasses approximately 5.5km strike length of the Pincunah Banded Iron member. The Pincunah BIF hosts the iron ore deposits previously mined as part of Atlas Iron’s Mt Webber project 10km to the north east.

3

==> picture [57 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [407 x 480] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3. 1:500k Geology of the Tambourah project area

Historical reporting by Atlas Iron Ltd in 2012 (see Tables 2 and 3) highlighted the iron potential of the Pincunah Banded Iron formation within the tenement. Their drilling of the MW08 Prospect reported in an annual report to the Department of Mines and Petroleum prepared on behalf of Atlas Iron Ltd, and accessible on Wamex (Report Number A095162. Report titled: Mt Webber Project Annual Technical Report , dated 28 September 2012) returned significant iron results over the 400 metres of strike that was tested with RC drilling. That drilling recorded significant intercepts in fourteen (14) of the twenty‐six (26) drillholes drilled on the MW08 prospect predominantly within goethite and goethitic haematite (see Figures 4 and 5).

4

==> picture [57 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

Table 2: Atlas Iron significant intercepts from MW08 prospect, RC drilling 2012 reported in an annual report to the Department of Mines and Petroleum prepared on behalf of Atlas Iron Ltd, and accessible on Wamex (Report Number A095162. Report titled: Mt Webber Project Annual Technical Report, dated 28 September 2012)

==> picture [470 x 351] intentionally omitted <==

Table 3: Atlas Iron MW08 prospect, RC drilling 2012, Drill Hole Survey Data

==> picture [452 x 271] intentionally omitted <==

5

==> picture [57 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 4. Atlas Iron 2012 Drill Hole Collars

Figure 5. Atlas Iron 2012 Drill Hole Locations

==> picture [250 x 365] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [281 x 362] intentionally omitted <==

Joe Phillips, Managing Director of Macarthur Minerals commented:

“It is beneficial to Macarthur shareholders for the Company to separate the Pilbara iron ore assets from the non-iron ore assets prior to the proposed ASX listing of Infinity Mining Limited, as currently Macarthur is being valued solely on the Lake Giles iron ore assets.

This transfer will allow all prospective tenements in the Pilbara to be appropriately resourced and drive value through exploration, back to shareholders. Macarthur will be looking to transact with a third party on the Strelley Gorge and Tambourah tenements so as not to distract resources away from the development of the Lake Giles hematite and magnetite projects.

On behalf of the Board of Directors, Mr Cameron McCall, Chairman

For more information please contact:

Joe Phillips Managing Director +61 7 3221 1796 communications@macarthurminerals.com

Investor Relations – Australia Advis ir Alex Bunney, Manager Client Services alex.bunney@advisir.com.au

Investor Relations - Canada Investor Cubed Neil Simon, CEO +1 647 258 3310 info@investor3.ca

6

==> picture [57 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

No new information

To the extent that this announcement contains references to prior exploration results and Mineral Resource estimates, which have been cross referenced to previous market announcements (including supporting JORC reporting tables) made by the Company, unless explicitly stated, no new information is contained in accordance with Table 1 checklist in the JORC Code. The Company confirms that it is not aware of any new information or data that materially affects the information included in the relevant market announcements and, in the case of Mineral Resources that all assumptions and technical parameters underpinning the estimates in the relevant market announcement continue to apply and have not materially changed.

Competent persons

The information in this press release that relates to Exploration Results is based on information reviewed by Mr Ian S Cooper, B.Sc., A.R.S.M., F.G.S. FAusIMM. Mr Cooper is a Fellow of the Australasian Institute of Mining (AusIMM) and as such qualifies 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 Cooper is a consultant to the Company and consents to the inclusion of the Exploration Results in the form and context in which they appear.

Company profile

Macarthur is an iron ore development, gold and lithium exploration company that is focused on bringing to production its Western Australia iron ore projects. The Lake Giles Iron Project mineral resources include the Ularring hematite resource (approved for development) comprising Indicated resources of 54.5 million tonnes at 47.2% Fe and Inferred resources of 26 million tonnes at 45.4% Fe; and the Lake Giles magnetite resource of 53.9 million tonnes (Measured), 218.7 million tonnes (Indicated) and 997 million tonnes (Inferred). The JORC reporting tables and Competent Person statement for the magnetite and hematite mineral resources have previously been disclosed in ASX market announcements dated 12 August 2020 and 5 December 2019. Macarthur has prominent (~721 square kilometre tenement area) gold, lithium and copper exploration interests in Pilbara region of Western Australia. In addition, Macarthur has lithium brine Claims in the emerging Railroad Valley region in Nevada, USA.

This news release is not for distribution to United States services or for dissemination in the United States

Caution Regarding Forward Looking Statements

Certain of the statements made and information contained in this press release may constitute forward-looking information and forwardlooking statements (collectively, “forward-looking statements”) within the meaning of applicable securities laws. All statements herein, other than statements of historical fact, that address activities, events or developments that the Company believes, expects or anticipates will or may occur in the future, including but not limited to statements regarding expected completion of the Feasibility Study; conversion of Mineral Resources to Mineral Reserves or the eventual mining of the Project, are forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements in this press release reflect the current expectations, assumptions or beliefs of the Company based upon information currently available to the Company. Although the Company believes the expectations expressed in such forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, such statements are not guarantees of future performance and no assurance can be given that these expectations will prove to be correct as actual results or developments may differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in forward-looking statements include but are not limited to: unforeseen technology changes that results in a reduction in iron or magnetite demand or substitution by other metals or materials; the discovery of new large low cost deposits of iron magnetite; the general level of global economic activity; failure to complete the FS; inability to demonstrate economic viability of Mineral Resources; and failure to obtain mining approvals. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements due to the inherent uncertainty thereof. Such statements relate to future events and expectations and, as such, involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties. The forward-looking statements contained in this press release are made as of the date of this press release and except as may otherwise be required pursuant to applicable laws, the Company does not assume any obligation to update or revise these forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

7

==> picture [57 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 3

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data

(Criteria in this section apply to all succeeding sections.)

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Sampling	•	Nature and quality of sampling (eg cut channels,	•	Technical information in this report is of an
techniques		random chips, or specific specialised industry		historical nature and has been sourced from
		standard measurement tools appropriate to the		an open file report submitted to the West
		minerals under investigation, such as down hole		Australian Department of Mines and
		gamma sondes, or handheld XRF instruments,		Petroleum titled: Mt Webber Project
		etc). These examples should not be taken as		E45/2312-1, Annual Technical Report for the
		limiting the broad meaning of sampling.		period ending 28 September 2012. The open
	•	Include reference to measures taken to ensure		file report number being A095162.
		sample representivity and the appropriate	•	The historical report does not include a
		calibration of any measurement tools or systems		section on sampling techniques.
		used.	•	The historical report does include as txt files:
	•	Aspects of the determination of mineralisation		drill collars and down hole survey data
		that are Material to the Public Report.		indicating drilling method was by reverse
	•	In cases where ‘industry standard’ work has		circulation drilling, assay and QAQC data,
		been done this would be relatively simple (eg		geology and magnetic property logging.
		‘reverse circulation drilling was used to obtain 1
		m samples from which 3 kg was pulverised to
		produce a 30 g charge for fire assay’). In other
		cases more explanation may be required, such
		as where there is coarse gold that has inherent
		sampling problems. Unusual commodities or
		mineralisation types (eg submarine nodules)
		may warrant disclosure of detailed information.
Drilling	•	Drill type (eg core, reverse circulation, open-hole	•	The historical report indicates the drilling was
techniques		hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic,		by reverse circulation method
		etc) and details (eg core diameter, triple or
		standard tube, depth of diamond tails, face-
		sampling bit or other type, whether core is
		_oriented and if so, by what method, etc). _
Drill sample	•	Method of recording and assessing core and	•	The historical report does not report on
recovery		chip sample recoveries and results assessed.		sample recovery
	•	Measures taken to maximise sample recovery
		and ensure representative nature of the
		samples.
	•	Whether a relationship exists between sample
		recovery and grade and whether sample bias
		may have occurred due to preferential loss/gain
		of fine/coarse material.
Logging	•	Whether core and chip samples have been	•	The historical report indicates the drilling was
		geologically and geotechnically logged to a level		logged geologically
		of detail to support appropriate Mineral	•	No mineral resource has been quoted
		Resource estimation, mining studies and
		metallurgical studies.
	•	Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in
		nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc)
		photography.
	•	The total length and percentage of the relevant
		intersections logged.

8

==> picture [57 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Sub-	•	If core, whether cut or sawn and whether	•	The historical report does not report on sub-
sampling		quarter, half or all core taken.		sampling
techniques	•	If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled,
and sample		rotary split, etc and whether sampled wet or
preparation		dry.
	•	For all sample types, the nature, quality and
		appropriateness of the sample preparation
		technique.
	•	Quality control procedures adopted for all sub-
		sampling stages to maximise representivity of
		samples.
	•	Measures taken to ensure that the sampling is
		representative of the in situ material collected,
		including for instance results for field
		duplicate/second-half sampling.
	•	Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the
		grain size of the material being sampled.
Quality of	•	The nature, quality and appropriateness of the	•	Not verified by QP as technical aspects of the
assay data		assaying and laboratory procedures used and		news release rely on the historical report.
and		whether the technique is considered partial or
laboratory		total.
tests	•	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
		(eg standards, blanks, duplicates, external
		laboratory checks) and whether acceptable
		levels of accuracy (ie lack of bias) and precision
		have been established.
Verification	•	The verification of significant intersections by	•	Not verified by QP as technical aspects of the
of sampling		either independent or alternative company		news release rely on the historical report.
and		personnel.
assaying	•	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.
Location of	•	Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate	•	Not verified by QP as technical aspects of the
data points		drill holes (collar and down-hole surveys),		news release rely on the historical report
		trenches, mine workings and other locations		however the QP visited the site in February
		used in Mineral Resource estimation.		2021 and observed the sites of the historical
	•	Specification of the grid system used.		drill hole collars. The QP used the drill hole
	•	Quality and adequacy of topographic control.		file from the Historicl report to navigate to
				selected drill collars via use of a handheld
				GPS instrument.
Data	•	Data spacing for reporting of Exploration	•	Not verified by QP as technical aspects of the
spacing		Results.		news release rely on the historical report.
and	•	Whether the data spacing and distribution is
distribution		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.
Orientation	•	Whether the orientation of sampling achieves	•	Not verified by QP as technical aspects of the
of data in		unbiased sampling of possible structures and		news release rely on the historical report.
relation to		the extent to which this is known, considering
geological		the deposit type.
structure	•	If the relationship between the drilling
		orientation and the orientation of key

9

==> picture [57 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
		mineralised structures is considered to have
		introduced a sampling bias, this should be
		assessed and reported if material.
Sample	•	The measures taken to ensure sample security.	•	Not verified by QP as technical aspects of the
security				news release rely on the historical report.
Audits or	•	The results of any audits or reviews of sampling	•	Not verified by QP as technical aspects of the
reviews		techniques and data.		news release rely on the historical report.

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results

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

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Mineral	•	Type, reference name/number, location and	•	The tenements that will be transferred
tenement and		ownership including agreements or material		under the Agreement are the Strelley Gorge
land tenure		issues with third parties such as joint ventures,		(E45/4735) and Tambourah (E45/5324)
status		partnerships, overriding royalties, native title		tenements in the Pilbara region of Western
		interests, historical sites, wilderness or		Australia
		national park and environmental settings.	•	E45/4735 overlaps L45/189 held by
	•	The security of the tenure held at the time of		Venturex Sulphur Springs Pty Ltd (4.55%).
		reporting along with any known impediments	•	Based on the lawyer Searches, there are no
		to obtaining a licence to operate in the area.		ILUAs to which Macarthur is party which
				relate to the Tenements.
			•	The following Heritage Agreement apply to
				the Tenement:
				o the Aboriginal Heritage
				Agreement dated 23 November
				2017 between the Registered
				Applicants for the Njamal
				Claimant Group and Macarthur in
				relation to E45/4708, E45/4709,
				E45/4732,E45/4735, E45/4779
				and E45/4824.
			•	The tenements are secured under the
				provisions of the relevant leglistation of the
				state of Western Australia
Exploration	•	Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration	•	Technical information in this report is of an
done by other		by other parties.		historical nature and has been sourced from
parties				an open file report submitted to the West
				Australian Department of Mines and
				Pretroleum titled: Mt Webber Project
				E45/2312-1, Annual Technical Report for the
				period ending 28 September 2012. The
				open file report number beingA095162.
Geology	•	Deposit type, geological setting and style of	•	Not Applicable
		mineralisation.
Drill hole	•	A summary of all information material to the	•	Refer to statement on the historical report
Information		understanding of the exploration results	•	The historical report does include as txt
		including a tabulation of the following		files: drill collars and down hole survey data
		information for all Material drill holes:		indicating drilling method was by reverse
		o easting and northing of the drill hole collar		circulation drilling, assay and QAQC data,
		o elevation or RL (Reduced Level – elevation		geology and magnetic property logging.
		above sea level in metres) of the drill hole
		collar
		o dip and azimuth of the hole

10

==> picture [57 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
		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	•	Not Applicable
aggregation		averaging techniques, maximum and/or
methods		minimum grade truncations (eg cutting of high
		grades) and cut-off grades are usually Material
		and should be stated.
	•	Where aggregate intercepts incorporate short
		lengths of high grade results and longer
		lengths of low grade results, the procedure
		used for such aggregation should be stated
		and some typical examples of such
		aggregations should be shown in detail.
	•	The assumptions used for any reporting of
		metal equivalent values should be clearly
		stated.
Relationship	•	These relationships are particularly important	•	Not Applicable
between		in the reporting of Exploration Results.
mineralisation	•	If the geometry of the mineralisation with
widths and		respect to the drill hole angle is known, its
intercept		nature should be reported.
lengths	•	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’). _
Diagrams	•	Appropriate maps and sections (with scales)	•	Not Applicable
		and tabulations of intercepts should be
		included for any significant discovery being
		reported These should include, but not be
		limited to a plan view of drill hole collar
		locations and appropriate sectional views.
Balanced	•	Where comprehensive reporting of all	•	Not Applicable
reporting		Exploration Results is not practicable,
		representative reporting of both low and high
		grades and/or widths should be practiced to
		avoid misleading reporting of Exploration
		Results.
Other	•	Other exploration data, if meaningful and	•	Not Applicable
substantive		material, should be reported including (but not
exploration		limited to): geological observations;
data		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 further work	•	Not Applicable
		(eg tests for lateral extensions or depth
		extensions or large-scale step-out drilling).
	•	Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of
		possible extensions, including the main
		geological interpretations and future drilling
		areas, provided this information is not
		commercially sensitive.

11

==> picture [57 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

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	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Database	•	Measures taken to ensure that data has not	• No resources are quoted or reported
integrity		been corrupted by, for example, transcription
		or keying errors, between its initial collection
		and its use for Mineral Resource estimation
		purposes.
	•	Data validationprocedures used.
Site visits	•	Comment on any site visits undertaken by the	• Not Applicable
		Competent Person and the outcome of those
		visits.
	•	If no site visits have been undertaken indicate
		why this is the case.
Geological	•	Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertainty	• Not Applicable
interpretation		of ) the geological interpretation of the
		mineral deposit.
	•	Nature of the data used and of any
		assumptions made.
	•	The effect, if any, of alternative
		interpretations on Mineral Resource
		estimation.
	•	The use of geology in guiding and controlling
		Mineral Resource estimation.
	•	The factors affecting continuity both of grade
		_andgeology. _
Dimensions	•	The extent and variability of the Mineral	• Not Applicable
		Resource expressed as length (along strike or
		otherwise), plan width, and depth below
		surface to the upper and lower limits of the
		Mineral Resource.
Estimation	•	The nature and appropriateness of the	• Not Applicable
and modelling		estimation technique(s) applied and key
techniques		assumptions, including treatment of extreme
		grade values, domaining, interpolation
		parameters and maximum distance of
		extrapolation from data points. If a computer
		assisted estimation method was chosen
		include a description of computer software
		and parameters used.
	•	The availability of check estimates, previous
		estimates and/or mine production records
		and whether the Mineral Resource estimate
		takes appropriate account of such data.
	•	The assumptions made regarding recovery of
		by-products.
	•	Estimation of deleterious elements or other
		non-grade variables of economic significance
		(eg sulphur for acid mine drainage
		characterisation).
	•	In the case of block model interpolation, the
		block size in relation to the average sample
		spacing and the search employed.
	•	Any assumptions behind modelling of
		selective mining units.
	•	Any assumptions about correlation between
		variables.
	•	Description of how the geological
		interpretation was used to control the
		resource estimates.

12

==> picture [57 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	•	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.
Moisture	•	Whether the tonnages are estimated on a	• Not Applicable
		dry basis or with natural moisture, and the
		method of determination of the moisture
		content.
Cut-off	•	The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or	• Not Applicable
parameters		quality parameters applied.
Mining	•	Assumptions made regarding possible mining	• Not Applicable
factors or		methods, minimum mining dimensions and
assumptions		internal (or, if applicable, external) mining
		dilution. It is always necessary as part of the
		process of determining reasonable prospects
		for eventual economic extraction to consider
		potential mining methods, but the
		assumptions made regarding mining
		methods and parameters when estimating
		Mineral Resources may not always be
		rigorous. Where this is the case, this should
		be reported with an explanation of the basis
		of the mining assumptions made.
Metallurgical	•	The basis for assumptions or predictions	• Not Applicable
factors or		regarding metallurgical amenability. It is
assumptions		always necessary as part of the process of
		determining reasonable prospects for
		eventual economic extraction to consider
		potential metallurgical methods, but the
		assumptions regarding metallurgical
		treatment processes and parameters made
		when reporting Mineral Resources may not
		always be rigorous. Where this is the case,
		this should be reported with an explanation
		of the basis of the metallurgical assumptions
		made.
Environmen-	•	Assumptions made regarding possible waste	• Not Applicable
tal factors or		and process residue disposal options. It is
assumptions		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 determined. If assumed,	• Not Applicable
		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

13

==> picture [57 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		account for void spaces (vugs, porosity, etc),
		moisture and differences between rock and
		alteration zones within the deposit.
	•	Discuss assumptions for bulk density
		estimates used in the evaluation process of
		the different materials.
Classification	•	The basis for the classification of the Mineral	• Not Applicable
		Resources into varying confidence categories.
	•	Whether appropriate account has been taken
		of all relevant factors (ie relative confidence
		in tonnage/grade estimations, reliability of
		input data, confidence in continuity of
		geology and metal values, quality, quantity
		and distribution of the data).
	•	Whether the result appropriately reflects the
		Competent Person’s view of the deposit.
Audits or	•	The results of any audits or reviews of	• Not Applicable
reviews		Mineral Resource estimates.
Discussion of	•	Where appropriate a statement of the	• Not Applicable
relative		relative accuracy and confidence level in the
accuracy/		Mineral Resource estimate using an
confidence		approach or procedure deemed appropriate
		by the Competent Person. For example, the
		application of statistical or geostatistical
		procedures to quantify the relative accuracy
		of the resource within stated confidence
		limits, or, if such an approach is not deemed
		appropriate, a qualitative discussion of the
		factors that could affect the relative accuracy
		and confidence of the estimate.
	•	The statement should specify whether it
		relates to global or local estimates, and, if
		local, state the relevant tonnages, which
		should be relevant to technical and economic
		evaluation. Documentation should include
		assumptions made and the procedures used.
	•	These statements of relative accuracy and
		confidence of the estimate should be
		compared with production data, where
		available.

Section 4 Estimation and Reporting of Ore Reserves

(Criteria listed in section 1, and where relevant in sections 2 and 3, also apply to this section.)

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Mineral	•	Description of the Mineral Resource estimate	•	No resources are quoted or reported
Resource		used as a basis for the conversion to an Ore
estimate for		Reserve.
conversion to	•	Clear statement as to whether the Mineral
Ore Reserves		Resources are reported additional to, or
		inclusive of, the Ore Reserves.
Site visits	•	Comment on any site visits undertaken by the	•	Not Applicable
		Competent Person and the outcome of those
		visits.
	•	If no site visits have been undertaken indicate
		why this is the case.
Study status	•	The type and level of study undertaken to	•	Not Applicable
		enable Mineral Resources to be converted to
		Ore Reserves.
	•	The Code requires that a study to at least

14

==> picture [57 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
		Pre-Feasibility Study level has been
		undertaken to convert Mineral Resources to
		Ore Reserves. Such studies will have been
		carried out and will have determined a mine
		plan that is technically achievable and
		economically viable, and that material
		Modifying Factors have been considered.
Cut-off	•	The basis of the cut-off grade(s) or quality	•	Not Applicable
parameters		parameters applied.
Mining	•	The method and assumptions used as	•	Not Applicable
factors or		reported in the Pre-Feasibility or Feasibility
assumptions		Study to convert the Mineral Resource to an
		Ore Reserve (i.e. either by application of
		appropriate factors by optimisation or by
		preliminary or detailed design).
	•	The choice, nature and appropriateness of
		the selected mining method(s) and other
		mining parameters including associated
		design issues such as pre-strip, access, etc.
	•	The assumptions made regarding
		geotechnical parameters (eg pit slopes, stope
		sizes, etc), grade control and pre-production
		drilling.
	•	The major assumptions made and Mineral
		Resource model used for pit and stope
		optimisation (if appropriate).
	•	The mining dilution factors used.
	•	The mining recovery factors used.
	•	Any minimum mining widths used.
	•	The manner in which Inferred Mineral
		Resources are utilised in mining studies and
		the sensitivity of the outcome to their
		inclusion.
	•	The infrastructure requirements of the
		selected mining methods.
Metallurgical	•	The metallurgical process proposed and the	•	Not Applicable
factors or		appropriateness of that process to the style
assumptions		of mineralisation.
	•	Whether the metallurgical process is well-
		tested technology or novel in nature.
	•	The nature, amount and representativeness
		of metallurgical test work undertaken, the
		nature of the metallurgical domaining
		applied and the corresponding metallurgical
		recovery factors applied.
	•	Any assumptions or allowances made for
		deleterious elements.
	•	The existence of any bulk sample or pilot
		scale test work and the degree to which such
		samples are considered representative of the
		orebody as a whole.
	•	For minerals that are defined by a
		specification, has the ore reserve estimation
		been based on the appropriate mineralogy to
		meet the specifications?
Environmen-	•	The status of studies of potential	•	Not Applicable
tal		environmental impacts of the mining and
		processing operation. Details of waste rock
		characterisation and the consideration of
		potential sites, status of design options
		considered and, where applicable, the status

15

==> picture [57 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
		of approvals for process residue storage and
		waste dumps should be reported.
Infrastructure	•	The existence of appropriate infrastructure:	•	Not Applicable
		availability of land for plant development,
		power, water, transportation (particularly for
		bulk commodities), labour, accommodation;
		or the ease with which the infrastructure can
		beprovided, or accessed.
Costs	•	The derivation of, or assumptions made,	•	Not Applicable
		regarding projected capital costs in the
		study.
	•	The methodology used to estimate operating
		costs.
	•	Allowances made for the content of
		deleterious elements.
	•	The source of exchange rates used in the
		study.
	•	Derivation of transportation charges.
	•	The basis for forecasting or source of
		treatment and refining charges, penalties for
		failure to meet specification, etc.
	•	The allowances made for royalties payable,
		both Government andprivate.
Revenue	•	The derivation of, or assumptions made	•	Not Applicable
factors		regarding revenue factors including head
		grade, metal or commodity price(s) exchange
		rates, transportation and treatment charges,
		penalties, net smelter returns, etc.
	•	The derivation of assumptions made of metal
		or commodity price(s), for the principal
		metals, minerals and co-products.
Market	•	The demand, supply and stock situation for	•	Not Applicable
assessment		the particular commodity, consumption
		trends and factors likely to affect supply and
		demand into the future.
	•	A customer and competitor analysis along
		with the identification of likely market
		windows for the product.
	•	Price and volume forecasts and the basis for
		these forecasts.
	•	For industrial minerals the customer
		specification, testing and acceptance
		requirementsprior to a supply contract.
Economic	•	The inputs to the economic analysis to	•	Not Applicable
		produce the net present value (NPV) in the
		study, the source and confidence of these
		economic inputs including estimated
		inflation, discount rate, etc.
	•	NPV ranges and sensitivity to variations in
		the significant assumptions and inputs.
Social	•	The status of agreements with key	•	Not Applicable
		stakeholders and matters leading to social
		licence to operate.
Other	•	To the extent relevant, the impact of the	•	Not Applicable
		following on the project and/or on the
		estimation and classification of the Ore
		Reserves:
	•	Any identified material naturally occurring
		risks.
	•	The status of material legal agreements and
		marketing arrangements.

16

==> picture [57 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
	•	The status of governmental agreements and
		approvals critical to the viability of the
		project, such as mineral tenement status,
		and government and statutory approvals.
		There must be reasonable grounds to expect
		that all necessary Government approvals will
		be received within the timeframes
		anticipated in the Pre-Feasibility or Feasibility
		study. Highlight and discuss the materiality
		of any unresolved matter that is dependent
		on a third party on which extraction of the
		reserve is contingent.
Classification	•	The basis for the classification of the Ore	•	Not Applicable
		Reserves into varying confidence categories.
	•	Whether the result appropriately reflects the
		Competent Person’s view of the deposit.
	•	The proportion of Probable Ore Reserves that
		have been derived from Measured Mineral
		_Resources(if any). _
Audits or	•	The results of any audits or reviews of Ore	•	Not Applicable
reviews		Reserve estimates.
Discussion of	•	Where appropriate a statement of the	•	Not Applicable
relative		relative accuracy and confidence level in the
accuracy/		Ore Reserve estimate using an approach or
confidence		procedure deemed appropriate by the
		Competent Person. For example, the
		application of statistical or geostatistical
		procedures to quantify the relative accuracy
		of the reserve within stated confidence limits,
		or, if such an approach is not deemed
		appropriate, a qualitative discussion of the
		factors which 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.
	•	Accuracy and confidence discussions should
		extend to specific discussions of any applied
		Modifying Factors that may have a material
		impact on Ore Reserve viability, or for which
		there are remaining areas of uncertainty at
		the current study stage.
	•	It is recognised that this may not be possible
		or appropriate in all circumstances. These
		statements of relative accuracy and
		confidence of the estimate should be
		compared with production data, where
		available.

17

==> picture [57 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

Section 5 Estimation and Reporting of Diamonds and Other Gemstones

(Criteria listed in other relevant sections also apply to this section. Additional guidelines are available in the ‘Guidelines for the Reporting of Diamond Exploration Results’ issued by the Diamond Exploration Best Practices Committee established by the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum.)

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Indicator	•	Reports of indicator minerals, such as	•	Not Applicable
minerals		chemically/physically distinctive garnet,
		ilmenite, chrome spinel and chrome diopside,
		should be prepared by a suitably qualified
		_laboratory. _
Source of	•	Details of the form, shape, size and colour of	•	Not Applicable
diamonds		the diamonds and the nature of the source of
		diamonds (primary or secondary) including the
		rock type andgeological environment.
Sample	•	Type of sample, whether outcrop, boulders, drill	•	Not Applicable
collection		core, reverse circulation drill cuttings, gravel,
		stream sediment or soil, and purpose (eg large
		diameter drilling to establish stones per unit of
		volume or bulk samples to establish stone size
		distribution).
	•	_Sample size, distribution and representivity. _
Sample	•	Type of facility, treatment rate, and	•	Not Applicable
treatment		accreditation.
	•	Sample size reduction. Bottom screen size, top
		screen size and re-crush.
	•	Processes (dense media separation, grease, X-
		ray, hand-sorting, etc).
	•	Process efficiency, tailings auditing and
		granulometry.
	•	Laboratory used, type of process for micro
		diamonds and accreditation.
Carat	•	One fifth (0.2) of a gram (often defined as a	•	Not Applicable
		_metric carat or MC). _
Sample	•	Sample grade in this section of Table 1 is used	•	Not Applicable
grade		in the context of carats per units of mass, area
		or volume.
	•	The sample grade above the specified lower
		cut-off sieve size should be reported as carats
		per dry metric tonne and/or carats per 100 dry
		metric tonnes. For alluvial deposits, sample
		grades quoted in carats per square metre or
		carats per cubic metre are acceptable if
		accompanied by a volume to weight basis for
		calculation.
	•	In addition to general requirements to assess
		volume and density there is a need to relate
		stone frequency (stones per cubic metre or
		tonne) to stone size (carats per stone) to derive
		_samplegrade(caratsper tonne). _

18

==> picture [57 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Reporting of	•	Complete set of sieve data using a standard	•	Not Applicable
Exploration		progression of sieve sizes per facies. Bulk
Results		sampling results, global sample grade per
		facies. Spatial structure analysis and grade
		distribution. Stone size and number
		distribution. Sample head feed and tailings
		particle granulometry.
	•	Sample density determination.
	•	Per cent concentrate and undersize per sample.
	•	Sample grade with change in bottom cut-off
		screen size.
	•	Adjustments made to size distribution for
		sample plant performance and performance on
		a commercial scale.
	•	If appropriate or employed, geostatistical
		techniques applied to model stone size,
		distribution or frequency from size distribution
		of exploration diamond samples.
	•	The weight of diamonds may only be omitted
		from the report when the diamonds are
		considered too small to be of commercial
		significance. This lower cut-off size should be
		stated.
Grade	•	Description of the sample type and the spatial	•	Not Applicable
estimation		arrangement of drilling or sampling designed
for reporting		for grade estimation.
Mineral	•	The sample crush size and its relationship to
Resources		that achievable in a commercial treatment
and Ore		plant.
Reserves	•	Total number of diamonds greater than the
		specified and reported lower cut-off sieve size.
	•	Total weight of diamonds greater than the
		specified and reported lower cut-off sieve size.
	•	The sample grade above the specified lower
		cut-off sieve size.
Value	•	Valuations should not be reported for samples	•	Not Applicable
estimation		of diamonds processed using total liberation
		method, which is commonly used for processing
		exploration samples.
	•	To the extent that such information is not
		deemed commercially sensitive, Public Reports
		should include:
		o diamonds quantities by appropriate screen
		size per facies or depth.
		o details of parcel valued.
		o number of stones, carats, lower size cut-off
		per facies or depth.
	•	The average $/carat and $/tonne value at the
		selected bottom cut-off should be reported in
		US Dollars. The value per carat is of critical
		importance in demonstrating project value.
	•	The basis for the price (eg dealer buying price,
		dealer selling price, etc).
	•	An assessment of diamond breakage.

19

==> picture [57 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Security and	•	Accredited process audit.	•	Not Applicable
integrity	•	Whether samples were sealed after excavation.
	•	Valuer location, escort, delivery, cleaning
		losses, reconciliation with recorded sample
		carats and number of stones.
	•	Core samples washed prior to treatment for
		micro diamonds.
	•	Audit samples treated at alternative facility.
	•	Results of tailings checks.
	•	Recovery of tracer monitors used in sampling
		and treatment.
	•	Geophysical (logged) density and particle
		density.
	•	Cross validation of sample weights, wet and
		dry, with hole volume and density, moisture
		factor.
Classification	•	In addition to general requirements to assess	•	Not Applicable
		volume and density there is a need to relate
		stone frequency (stones per cubic metre or
		tonne) to stone size (carats per stone) to derive
		grade (carats per tonne). The elements of
		uncertainty in these estimates should be
		considered, and classification developed
		_accordingly. _

20