Skip to main content

AI assistant

Sign in to chat with this filing

The assistant answers questions, extracts KPIs, and summarises risk factors directly from the filing text.

Sign up Log in

Metals X Limited Capital/Financing Update 2016

Jul 14, 2016

10401_rns_2016-07-14_1d5f1464-584f-4d01-9f40-a4d8209a331d.pdf

Capital/Financing Update

Open in viewer

Opens in your device viewer

PRESS RELEASE - 15 JULY 2016

==> picture [121 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

INITIAL FORTNUM DEVELOPMENT PLAN

FORTNUM TO BECOME METALS X’S FOURTH GOLD OPERATION

The Board of Metals X Limited (“Metals X” or the “Company”) is pleased to provide its renovation plan for the Fortnum Gold Project (“FGP”) located 170km northwest of Meekatharra.

Fortnum was acquired and settled in late 2015 and Metals X has worked its way through engineering, permitting and approvals for the project to re-start. In addition Metals X has reworked the mineral resource and mining reserve estimates for the key initial feed sources for processing. This work is ongoing and the development plan is till yet to consider any of the main opportunities in the Peak Hill component of the project.

An initial 5 year development plan has been devised which presents a robust and low-capital risk start-up plan for the project. The key outputs of the initial 5 year plan are summarised:

  • Capital and infrastructure refurbishment cost

  • Refurbishment time-frame

    • A$15 million (incl. contingency)

    • 16 weeks

  • Initial Ore Feeds:

  • Existing Low Grade Stocks 1.1 million tonnes @ 1.0 g/t

  • o Planned Open Pits 3.7 million tonnes @ 1.9 g/t o Planned Underground Mining 560,000 tonnes @ 4.1 g/t

Sub-total 5.4 million tonnes @ 2.0g/t (338,500ounces)

  • Gold Produced

  • Average Cash Operating Costs (inc. Royalties)

  • All in Cost

  • EBITDA

322,000 ounces A$ 64 per tonne or A$1,070 / ounce A$ 77 per tonne or A$ 1,290 / ounce A$218.2M

  • Simple payback (including acquisition) 2 years

Significantly longer mine life exists beyond this initial 5 year plan from known resources which require more validation and drilling, especially the Peak Hill region which is yet to be considered in the development strategy.

In addition and in recognition of the excellent exploration and development upside in the project it would be the intent of Metals X to commit to an aggressive exploration effort over the first two years of the project. This is expected to significantly extend the project life and potential.

ENQUIRIES

Peter Cook Warren Hallam Rod Corps Executive Director & CEO Executive Director Manager – Investor Relations e: [email protected] e: [email protected] e: [email protected]

[email protected] www.metalsx.com.au

ASX Code: MLX

Level 3, 18–32 Parliament Place West Perth WA 6005

OTCQX Code: MLXEF

Australia

FORTNUM GOLD PROJECT (FGP) (Metals X 100%)

PREAMBLE

Metals X completed the acquisition of the Fortnum Gold Project, approximately 170km Northwest of Meekatharra in late 2015. The project was acquired by wholly owned subsidiary Aragon Resource Pty Ltd which in turn is wholly owned by the parent of Metals X’s gold division, the wholly owned Westgold Resources Pty Ltd.

The FGP is a development ready project and located within historic Horseshoe, Peak Hill and Labouchere gold mining centres that were in production until 2007. The FGP mining area has recent past production of 11.5 million tonnes at 2.8g/t producing just over 1 million ounces. In addition more than 900,000 ounces of gold was produced from the nearby Peak Hill Gold Project which closed in the late 1990’s.

The FGP encompasses the historic Horseshoe and Labouchere gold mining centres that were in production until 2007. and 11.5 million tonnes at 2.8g/t was mined producing just over 1 million ounces. In addition more than 900,000 ounces of gold was produced from the nearby Peak Hill Gold Project which closed in the late 1990’s.

The operation is leveraged to take advantages of this historical production base and synergies with Metals X’s nearby Central Murchison Gold Project.

The existing 1 Mtpa (nominal) process plant and infrastructure will be refurbished over a 14 week period with capital cost estimates of approximately A$15 million including contingency.

Permitting and licencing for the project re-start is essentially in place or will be in conjunction with the plant refurbishment.

INITIAL 5-YEAR DEVELOPMENT PLAN

The Fortnum Gold Mine has progressed to the point of a development decision and the outcomes of these works are a robust initial 5-year development plan designed to offer a low capital risk start-up with four key development phases:

  • Phase 1 – Refurbish the plant, re-align permits and approvals, commission and operate the plant on existing low-grade ore stocks.

  • In the past 6 months a majority of the existing low grade stockpiles have been identified and pattern drill tested. Whilst this work continues, the initial pool of low-grade stocks on surface totals 1.1 million tonnes at an average grade of 1.0 g/t gold, sufficient for a full year of milling without any mining additions.

  • Phase 2 – When the plant is operational, open pit mining is planned to commence from planned cutbacks and extensions to the existing open pits. This will progressively replace the lower grade stocks with these higher grade open pit ores increasing production output.

To this end, following some validation drilling and re-modelling Metals X has completely revised mineral resource and ore reserve estimates for the key pits in the initial 5 year plan. Revised open pit designs and mine scheduling will deliver 3.7 million tonnes of ore at 1.9 g/t over a four year period.

  • Phase 3 – Dewater and recommission the Starlight Underground mine and replace/supplement the other ores with these higher grade ores increasing overall production.

The Starlight underground mine was operated by Perilya between 1999 and 2001, mining ores immediately below the Starlight open pit which had produced 4.65 million tonnes @ 2.8g/t for 425,000 ounces of production. The underground mine produced 612,000 tonnes @ 5.8 g/t for 113,000 ounces mined before being curtailed when Perilya shifted its focus to its newly acquired Broken Hill lead-zinc mines. Metals X has determined an initial ore reserve of 562,000 tonnes @ 4.1 g/t for 74,700 ounces in the area immediately beneath the Starlight pit to within 4 levels. Significant opportunity to expand this exists with the ore system remaining open and sparsely tested down-plunge and the parallel lodes of Twilight, Trev’s and Dougie’s remaining insitu and not developed.

  • Phase 4 - Explore and develop the numerous targets and opportunities to create sustainable production from the existing 2 million ounce resource base and additions to it.

There remain many ore sources which are yet to undergo the rigorous re-evaluation of those in the initial 5-year development mine plan, many have significant potential for additional plant feed by both open pit and in the case of the Peak Hill Mine underground development. It is expected that these will be progressively evaluated as

FORTNUM DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2 PRESS RELEASE 15 JULY 2016

the project advances with some having the capability to become priority developments and move forward in the development plan.

The annualised schedule of production and costs of the initial 5-year development plan (refer to Appendix 1). Sees the mining and processing of 5.4 million tonnes of ore at an average grade of 2.0g/t and 322,000 ounces of gold produced and sold at an average cash cost of A$1,070 per ounce and an All-in cost of A$1,290 per ounce.

The initial 5 year development plan generates EBITDA of A$218.2 and has an NPV 8% of A$106.9 million.

The revised Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve estimates for the FGP as t 30 June 2016 are provided in Appendix 3 and 4 along with the Table 1 criteria (Appendix 6) for such process under JORC 2012.

FGP – FEASIBILITY ASSUMPTIONS/INPUT DATA

The following data summarises the key inputs and assumptions used in the initial 5 year development plan:

  • Financial

  • Australian Gold Price of A$1,750.

  • Diesel Fuel A$1.20 per litre (Net of Rebate Price of A$0.81/L).

  • No account for inflation, wage variance or revenue escalation.

  • No tax implications have been calculated within the analysis due to large group tax losses available for offset.

  • Cost Estimations

  • Open Pits cost estimates are based on current contractual rates at other Metals X operations.

  • Open Pit designs are based initially on A$1,450 Whittle Shells in order to identify the highest value blocks. Executable designs are based upon these shell contours.

  • Underground mining costs have been benchmarked against existing underground mines operated within the Metals X group for similar activity.

  • Ore processing and G&A costs are built from first principles and benchmarked against Metals X's other operations.

  • Physical Assumptions

  • Processing Plant rates for the various oxide states were applied as follows:

    • Oxide material 155 tph (equivalent to 1.17M tpa including downtime and availability),

    • Transitional material 130 tph (equivalent to 0.98M tpa including downtime and availability),

    • Fresh material 110 tph (equivalent to 0.83M tpa including downtime and availability).

  • Metallurgical recoveries varied over the Resources and between oxide states. The initial 5 year development plan utilised extensive historical Processing records as well as recent consultant reports to determine the metallurgical recoveries applied.

OPEX Cost over the Development Plan term OPEX Cost over the Development Plan term
Open Pits $30 - $35 per ore tonne
Underground $60.7 per ore tonne
G & A $5.9 – $6.5 per ore tonne
Technical Services $4.3 - $5.4 per ore tonne
Processing $22.1 – $22.8 per ore tonne t
Royalties $45-$47 per ounce produced

INITIAL FORTNUM DEVELOPMENT PLAN 3 PRESS RELEASE 15 JULY 2016

FORTNUM PROCESSING PLANT

The Processing Plant at FGP consists of a single stage Primary Crusher, a SAG mill, Ball mill and Pebble Crusher followed by three leach and 5 adsorption tanks with a gold recovery / elusion circuit. The plant was placed under Care and Maintenance in May 2007, with some remedial maintenance and refurbishment works undertaken by the previous owners in 2012.

Due to the very high water quality (very low TDS) of the surrounding hydrological environment the plant has not suffered significant corrosion but shows signs of wear, tear and operating fatigue.

==> picture [518 x 265] intentionally omitted <==

Metallurgical profiling from testwork and past operating history reveals a generally fast leaching and free milling nature with a varying gravity recoverable component. Metallurgical recoveries are generally in the 93-96% range, depending upon the ore source and head grade.

Metals X has over the past 6 months liaised with various engineering and service providers to formulate a detailed cost estimate on refurbishing the historical plant and re-establishing the electrical system. The key components of the plant refurbishment are:

  • The re-skinning of the leach tanks,

  • Re-fitting of the Mill control room and control systems,

  • The re-establishment and refurbishment of the cyclone cluster,

  • The complete relining and some re-boring of the Ball and SAG Mills,

  • The refurbishment and re-commissioning the Pebble Crusher,

  • The refurbishment of the Elution Circuit,

  • The re-fitting of a contract power station and electrical circuits,

  • The re-establishment and expansion of the tailings storage facility,

  • The refurbishment and expansion of the mine village,

  • The re-fitting of the site warehouse, stores and first-fill inventory,

  • The re-fitting and establishment of telecoms and IT networks,

  • The re-establishment of light vehicle and maintenance equipment fleets, and

  • The re-establishment and re-fit of appropriate safety, first aid and OH&S service.

FORTNUM DEVELOPMENT PLAN 4 PRESS RELEASE 15 JULY 2016

Firm quotes from multiple tenderers have been received for all components and the complete capital re-start budget including contingency is A$15 million with the refurbishment timetable being 16-weeks from a formal decision to proceed.

The Process Plant operating cost profiles have been constructed from first principles using forecast manning levels, current quoted mill consumable rates, power generation and diesel price quotes specific to the operation, and site maintenance costs aligned to Metals X operating projects in Western Australia and historical reline frequencies. Consideration has been made for varying ore hardness and materials handling issues associated with varying ore blends.

EXISTING LOW-GRADE STOCKPILES

Historic data has indicated that low-grade stockpiles of nearly 2 million tonnes remain left-over from mining episodes at much lower gold prices. Metals X has been through a process of finding and re-evaluating these Resources and has so far confirmed 1.56 million tonnes at an estimated 0.86 g/t exist with a number of old rehabilitated area still be confirmed and tested. Of these Resources, 1.1 million tonnes have an estimated average grade of 1.02 g/t and contain 36,000 ounces and are converted to ore reserves. Ore cartage and operating cost parameters from the development plan should enable gold to be produced at an all-in cost of $1,010 per ounce. Metals X will continue to work through various regional piles at Nathans, Wilthorpe and Peak Hill in the ensuing periods in order to identify further opportunity as well as converting the remaining Resource statement into the Development Plan.

The table below shows the status of currently identified stockpiles in the region following drill testing and over 4,500 assays being collected:

==> picture [485 x 44] intentionally omitted <==

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

Reserve
Prospect Further Resource Conversion
tonnes grade ounces
----- End of picture text -----

Prospect Reserve Reserve Reserve Further Resource Conversion
tonnes grade ounces
Labouchere 62,470 1.0 1,935
Harmony 200,540 1.5 9,870
Peak Hill MW 35,600 1.1 1,300 Further drilling warranted in order to convert Resource. Planned
drillingin late 2016.
Yarlarweelor 161,600 0.6 3,350 Convert remaining Resource (1,200 ounces).
Rom Skyway 56,650 0.8 1,370 Convert remaining Resource (700 ounces).
Eldorado 106,600 0.7 2,445 Convert remaining Resource (900 ounces).
Trev’s 163,700 0.7 3,835 Convert remaining Resource (1,000 ounces).
Starlight 86,400 1.2 3,315
HCP 177,600 1.2 6,635
Rom Fingers 51,000 1.3 2,080
Peak Hill Further drilling of the main LG stockpiles planned after more
research.
Jubilee Further drilling warranted in order to confrm.
Wilthorpe Further drilling warranted in order to identify and confrm.
Nathans Further drilling warranted in order to identify and confrm.
TOTAL LG STOCK 1,102,160 1.0 36,135

INITIAL FORTNUM DEVELOPMENT PLAN 5 PRESS RELEASE 15 JULY 2016

FGP – OPEN PIT MINES

More than 12 open pits of various scale have been mined in the project area over the past three decades with open pit production from within the Fortnum, Horseshoe, Peak Hill and Labouchere districts totalling 16.8Mt’s @ 3.1g/t for over 1.6 million ounces recovered.

Metals X has completed infill drilling, re-interpretation and re-modelling of the known resources for the more advanced of the open pit prospects and has completed mine optimisations at an A$1,450 per ounce gold price. The outcome shells of these optimisations were used as a reference for practical and workable open pit designs applying geotechnical recommendations from the numerous studies already completed.

The approach to open pit mining is considered in two phases. Firstly the bulk waste stripping utilising larger 100t trucks and then the deeper parts of the pits being mined with articulated 40t truck fleets.

Where possible, as is the case for the Yarlarweelor Resource, pit designs are staged in order to manage cash drawdowns. Each pit has associated dilution and ore loss modifying factors applied to resource blocks based upon oxidation state and blasting requirements.

Most open pit mines are in close proximity to the plant, but some will require ore cartage or rehandling. Ore cartage costs have been applied using tendered costs from various haulage service providers.

The schedule for executing each of these Open Pit Resources is provided in Appendix 2.

==> picture [519 x 150] intentionally omitted <==

Fortnum District - Yarlarweelor Pit (Looking East)

Mining begins initially within the localised region of the Fortnum Process Plant – excavating the Yarlarweelor Pit in stages. The more distant pits of Nathans and HCP are subsequently mined. With further optimisation of the resources and results from the planned August 2016 drill program, Metals X expects to be able to consider a re-shuffle or re-ordering of the pits to improve both fiscal outcome and mining flexibility.

FORTNUM DEVELOPMENT PLAN 6 PRESS RELEASE 15 JULY 2016

Details of the individual pits are summarised below:

==> picture [523 x 42] intentionally omitted <==

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

Reserve
Prospect Further Resource Conversion
tonnes grade ounces
----- End of picture text -----

Prospect Reserve Reserve Reserve Further Resource Conversion
tonnes grade ounces
Yarlarweelor
(2,195kt’s @ 2.6g/t for 186.5k
ounces)*		 2,239,950 1.9 134,730 Further Resource growth on the southern plunge as well as opportunity
to undertake Stage 2 North excavation. Updated LOM Plan in late 2016.
Callies
(190kt’s @ 1.8g/t for 10.8k ounces)*		 Opportunity to convert the current Inferred Resource base into Mine
Plan. Updated LOM Plan in late 2016
Toms
(194kt’s @ 2.3g/t for 14.3k ounces)*		 198,600 1.7 10,600 Potential for conversion of the Sam’s Resource (with infll drilling)
which is parallel to Toms Resource.
Nathans
(791kt’s @ 2.8g/t for 67.6k ounces)*		 563,200 1.8 32,160 1k ounces in Reserve Design envelope but not included due to Inferred
categorisation. Further depth extension possible. Planned drilling in
Aug2016. Updated LOM Plan in late 2016
HCP
(958kt’s @ 2.6g/t for 81.3k ounces)*		 415,000 2.3 30,410 2k ounces in Reserve Design envelope but not included due to Inferred
categorisation. Further depth extension possible. Planned drilling in
Aug2016. Updated LOM Plan in late 2016
Harmony
(2,090kt’s @ 3.2g/t for 221k ounces)*		 Metals X to work through this Resource with intent of updated LOM Plan
in late 2016. Excellent potential for pit cutback and deepening.
Jubilee Metals X to work through this Resource with intent of updated LOM Plan
in late 2016. Excellent potential for pit cutback and extensions along
strike.
Labouchere
(1,270kt’s @ 2.6g/t for 80.2k ounces)*		 310,450 2.0 20,000 Metals X to investigate for additional strike extension to the north.
Eldorado
(136kt’s @ 1.4g/t for 5.7k ounces)*		 Metals X to work through this Resource with intent of updated LOM Plan
in late 2016. A low priority but likely viable.
Wilthorpe Metals X to work through this Resource with intent of updated LOM Plan
in late 2016. Goodpotential for modestpit.
TOTAL OPEN PITS 3,727,200 1.9 227,900

*Historical Production

INITIAL FORTNUM DEVELOPMENT PLAN 7 PRESS RELEASE 15 JULY 2016

FGP – Starlight Underground

Underground mines at Labouchere, Starlight and Peak Hill have been operational in various forms during the districts history. The Starlight Underground Mine was previous operated by Perilya Mines in 1999-2001 and produced 612k t’s @ 5.8g/t for 113k ounces mined. Metals X has reviewed and determined a re-start plan which refurbishes the existing development and continues its path into a well-defined +1,000 ounces per vertical metre resource horizon.

==> picture [515 x 362] intentionally omitted <==

Fortnum District - Starlight Underground Long Section (Looking West)

Capital cost estimates for the re-start are based on contractual rates at nearby Metals X operations and are inclusive of decline rehabilitation, pit dewatering, surface setup and crown pillar backfill.

The current mine plan and ore reserve estimate is contained within a finite mining envelope – constrained between 130 R.L to 250 R.L and within a 150m strike length. The plan at this stage extracts only this section of the Starlight lode with adjacent Twilight, Trev’s and Dougie’s lodes remaining in-situ. With further work and infill drilling these have significant potential to rapidly expand the mine footprint and size. As does the down-plunge and along strike extensions of the Starlight lodes which are sparsely tested.

FORTNUM DEVELOPMENT PLAN 8 PRESS RELEASE 15 JULY 2016

Details of the underground are summarised below:

Prosect Reserve Reserve Reserve Further Resource Conversion
p tonnes grade ounces
Starlight Underground
(612kt’s @ 5.8g/t for 113.2k ounces)*		 562,000 4.1 74,750 Further Resource growth from strike and southern plunge exten-
sions. Also the access of Twilight, Trev’s & Dougie’s parallel lodes
in the hangingwall. Metals X to work through this Resource with
intent of updated LOM Plan in late 2016

*Historical Production

ADDITIONAL PROJECT POTENTIAL

The significant omission from the development plan is the mines from the Peak Hill mining centre.

The available geological data-sets and state of historic records is such that it has not yet been possible to validate and complete mining studies to a level of integrity or standard that allows its inclusion. This however does not detract from the impressive historic production outcomes and obvious potential of the Peak Hill district to become a long-term significant contributor to the Fortnum Gold Project.

THE PEAK HILL MINE (MAIN PIT & 5-WAYS)

Gold was first discovered at Peak Hill in 1892 and during the following twenty years the area became a major gold mining centre with a gazetted township and becoming a regional centre for the Murchison district. Before 1913, the mine produced 264,000 ounce of gold from both near surface exploration as well as substantial underground workings reaching a depth of some 530 feet.

Modern mining operations in the area commenced at Mount Pleasant, with a total of 14,200 ounces of gold produced between 1974 and 1988. The Peak Hill Joint Venture partners (North Limited and Plutonic Resources Limited) re-opened Peak Hill mine in 1988, with gold production from open pits at Main, Fiveways, Harmony and Jubilee. The Five Ways Pit alone produced 3.2M tonnes at 3.8g/t for 406k ounces from 1982 to 1995. The western pit of Harmony produced 2.1M tonnes at 3.2g/t for 221k ounces over a similar period. By the end of September 1994 (closure of the plant) the joint venture had produced 627,000 ounces of gold, bringing the total modern era gold production from Peak Hill area to 641,000 ounces.

INITIAL FORTNUM DEVELOPMENT PLAN 9 PRESS RELEASE 15 JULY 2016

==> picture [473 x 281] intentionally omitted <==

Peak HIll District - Five Ways Open Pit (Looking East)

==> picture [281 x 380] intentionally omitted <==

Peak Hill District - Interpreted Geology at Five Ways Open Pit

FORTNUM DEVELOPMENT PLAN 10 PRESS RELEASE 15 JULY 2016

COMPETENT PERSONS STATEMENTS

The information in this report that relates to Mineral Resources compiled by Metals X technical employees under the supervision of Mr. Jake Russell B.Sc. (Hons), who is a member of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists. Mr Russell is a full-time employee of the company, and has sufficient experience which is relevant to the styles of mineralisation and types of deposit under consideration and to the activities 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. Mr Russell consents to the inclusion in this report of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears. Mr Russell is eligible to participate in short and long term incentive plans and holds performance rights in the Company as has been previously disclosed.

The information in this report that relates to Ore Reserve estimate is compiled by Metals X technical employees under the supervision of Mr. Anthony Buckingham B.Eng. (Mining Engineering) M.AusIMM (205126). Mr Buckingham is a full time employee of the company. Mr Buckingham has sufficient experience in relation to the styles of mineralisation and types of deposits under consideration and to the activities which he is undertaking to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the “Australian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves”. Mr Buckingham consents to the inclusion in this report of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears. Mr Buckingham is eligible to participate in short and long term incentive plans and holds performance rights in the Company as has been previously disclosed.

The information in this report that relates to Exploration Targets, Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves is based on information compiled by Mr Peter Cook BSc (App. Geol.), MSc (Min. Econ.) MAusIMM (11072) who has sufficient experience that is relevant to the styles of mineralisation, the types of deposits under consideration and the activity being undertaken to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the Australasian Code for the Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves. Mr Cook is the CEO and an Executive Director and a full time employee of Metals X Limited and consents to the inclusion in the reports of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears. Mr Cook is a shareholder of Metals X and is entitled to participate in Metals X’s short term and long term incentive plans details of which are included in Metals X’s Remuneration Report in the Annual Report.

INITIAL FORTNUM DEVELOPMENT PLAN 11 PRESS RELEASE 15 JULY 2016

APPENDIX 1 – FGP – INITIAL 5 YEAR DEVELOPMENT PLAN - OUTCOME SUMMARY

==> picture [772 x 249] intentionally omitted <==

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

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 TOTAL
kounc- kounc- kounc- kounc- kounc- kounc- kounc-
kt g/t es kt g/t es kt g/t es kt g/t es kt g/t es kt g/t es kt g/t es
Low Grade Stock-
1,045 1.0 34.7 57 0.7 1.2 1,102 1.0 35.9
piles
Open Pit Mining 103 1.5 4.9 959 1.9 57.9 1,244 1.9 75.8 489 1.9 29.6 841 2.0 54.5 91 1.8 5.1 3,727 1.9 227.9
Underground
22 3.1 2.2 320 4.4 44.8 221 3.9 27.7 562 4.1 74.7
Mining
Total Mill
1,043 1.1 36.8 1,121 1.7 61.9 914 1.9 55.4 849 2.8 76.9 872 2.4 68.5 593 2.0 38.9 5,392 2.0 338.5
Production
Ounces Sold 34,868 ounces 58,582 ounces 52,735 ounces 73,343 ounces 65,303 ounces 36,949 ounces 321,781 ounces
EBITDA @ A$1750
A$ 20.5M A$ 37.6M A$ 23.4M A$ 52.9M A$ 39.9M A$ 43.9M A$ 218.2M
Cash Cost of A$ 1,160 / ounces A$ 1,110/ ounces A$ 1,305/ ounces A$ 1,030/ ounces A$ 1,140 / ounces A$ 560/ ounces A$ $1,070 / ounces
Sales / Rec
ounces
CAPEX A$ 19.4M A$ 17.1M A$ 15.3M A$ 12.1M A$ 4.5M A$ 1.1M A$ 69.5M
All-in Cost/ Rec A$ 1,720 / ounces A$ 1,400 / ounces A$ 1,595 / ounces A$ 1,195 / ounces A$ 1,210 / ounces A$ 590 / ounces A$ 1,290 / ounces
ounces
----- End of picture text -----

*Assumes no deferred waste stripping costs smoothing cash cost profile.

APPENDIX 1 – FGP – INITIAL 5 YEAR DEVELOPMENT PLAN - OUTCOME SUMMARY 12

==> picture [703 x 345] intentionally omitted <==

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

O/P HCP Mining EBITDA A$ 218.2M
$200M O/P Yarlar Sth Stage 2 Mining
O/P Nathans Mining @ CCoS A$ 1,070/Oz
UG Starlight Mining
$150M O/P Yarlar Nth Mining
Net Cash A$146.6
O/P Yarlar Sth Mining O/P Toms Mining
@ All-in Cost A$ 1,290/Oz
$100M
LG S/P Milling
Startup CAPEX $50M
(A$15.0M)
8koz [8koz 8koz] 8koz
$M 7koz [7koz]
6koz 6koz [7koz] 6koz
5koz 6koz 6koz 5koz 5koz 5koz 5koz 5koz 5koz [5koz 6koz] 6koz 5koz 5koz [5koz ] 5koz [5koz 5koz] TOTAL
4koz 5koz 5koz 4koz 5koz 5koz [5koz 5koz] 5koz 5koz 5koz 5koz 4koz [5koz] 5koz 4koz 5koz PRODUCTION
-$50M 3koz [3koz 3koz] 4koz 3koz 3koz 4koz 4koz 3koz 4koz 4koz 4koz 4koz 4koz [4koz] 4koz 4koz 321.8k Oz Sold
2koz 3koz [3koz]
2koz
2koz
1koz
0koz
-$100M
Mth 1 Mth 2 Mth 3 Mth 4 Mth 5 Mth 6 Mth 7 Mth 8 Mth 9 Mth 10 Mth 11 Mth 12 Mth 13 Mth 14 Mth 15 Mth 16 Mth 17 Mth 18 Mth 19 Mth 20 Mth 21 Mth 22 Mth 23 Mth 24 Mth 25 Mth 26 Mth 27 Mth 28 Mth 29 Mth 30 Mth 31 Mth 32 Mth 33 Mth 34 Mth 35 Mth 36 Mth 37 Mth 38 Mth 39 Mth 40 Mth 41 Mth 42 Mth 43 Mth 44 Mth 45 Mth 46 Mth 47 Mth 48 Mth 49 Mth 50 Mth 51 Mth 52 Mth 53 Mth 54 Mth 55 Mth 56 Mth 57 Mth 58 Mth 59 Mth 60 Mth 61 Mth 62 Mth 63 Mth 64 Mth 65 Mth 66 Mth 67 Mth 68 Mth 69
----- End of picture text -----

APPENDIX 1 – FGP – INITIAL 5 YEAR DEVELOPMENT PLAN - OUTCOME SUMMARY 13

APPENDIX 2 – FGP – INITIAL 5 YEAR PLAN MINING PARAMETERS

Yarlarweelor N
Yarlarweelor S1
Yarlarweelor S2
Toms
LG Stockpiles
Nathans
Horseshoe
Cassidy
Labouchere
S/Light UG		 Yarlarweelor N
Yarlarweelor S1
Yarlarweelor S2
Toms
LG Stockpiles
Nathans
Horseshoe
Cassidy
Labouchere
S/Light UG		 Yarlarweelor N
Yarlarweelor S1
Yarlarweelor S2
Toms
LG Stockpiles
Nathans
Horseshoe
Cassidy
Labouchere
S/Light UG		 Yarlarweelor N
Yarlarweelor S1
Yarlarweelor S2
Toms
LG Stockpiles
Nathans
Horseshoe
Cassidy
Labouchere
S/Light UG		 Yarlarweelor N
Yarlarweelor S1
Yarlarweelor S2
Toms
LG Stockpiles
Nathans
Horseshoe
Cassidy
Labouchere
S/Light UG		 Yarlarweelor N
Yarlarweelor S1
Yarlarweelor S2
Toms
LG Stockpiles
Nathans
Horseshoe
Cassidy
Labouchere
S/Light UG		 Yarlarweelor N
Yarlarweelor S1
Yarlarweelor S2
Toms
LG Stockpiles
Nathans
Horseshoe
Cassidy
Labouchere
S/Light UG		 Yarlarweelor N
Yarlarweelor S1
Yarlarweelor S2
Toms
LG Stockpiles
Nathans
Horseshoe
Cassidy
Labouchere
S/Light UG		 Yarlarweelor N
Yarlarweelor S1
Yarlarweelor S2
Toms
LG Stockpiles
Nathans
Horseshoe
Cassidy
Labouchere
S/Light UG		 Yarlarweelor N
Yarlarweelor S1
Yarlarweelor S2
Toms
LG Stockpiles
Nathans
Horseshoe
Cassidy
Labouchere
S/Light UG
Status Reserve Reserve Reserve Reserve
Reserve		 Reserve Reserve Reserve Reserve
Reserve
Tonnes
Grade
Ounces
Total Movement
S/R
562,628		 331,802 1,345,507 198,583 1,102,142 563,200 328,914 86,043 310,454 562,315

1.9		 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.0 1.8 2.3 2.3 2.0 4.1
34,410 21,274 79,042 10,589 35,963 32,164 24,046 6,366 19,988 74,669
1,763,154 BCM 1,449,275 BCM 6,938,117 BCM 210,796 BCM N/A 2,129,659 BCM 2,042,565 BCM 355,814 BCM 1,778,536 BCM


6.3
9.7
12.5
1.5		 N/A
8.3
11.6
8.0
13.6		 $13.02 M
Dilution included in above
Ore Loss included in above		 17%ox / 19%tr / 21%fr 17%ox / 19%tr / 21%fr 17%ox / 19%tr / 21%fr 17%ox / 19%tr / 21%fr N/A 15%ox / 17%tr / 19%fr 17%ox / 19%tr / 21%fr 17%ox / 19%tr / 21%fr 17%ox / 19%tr / 21%fr 20%

7% all oxide states		 7% all oxide states 7% all oxide states 7% all oxide states N/A 7% all oxide states 7% all oxide states 7% all oxide states 7% all oxide states 10%
OPEX Costs
Contract Mining (w/ dewater)
In Pit GC & Res Definition
Ore Haulage
Processing (w/ G&A)		 $15.0 / ORE t $15.1 / ORE t $23.1 / ORE t $9.3 / ORE t N/A $21.3 / ORE t $33.8 / ORE t $24.2 / ORE t $33.0 / ORE t $69.0 / ORE t


$5.4 / ORE t
$5.6 / ORE t
$5.5 / ORE t
$4.3 / ORE t		 $.6 / ORE t
$4.1 / ORE t
$5.5 / ORE t
$6.0 / ORE t
$4.2 / ORE t
$5.8 / ORE t


$.9 / ORE t
$.9 / ORE t
$.8 / ORE t
$.3 / ORE t
$3.6 / ORE t
$1.5 / ORE t
$6.2 / ORE t
$6.1 / ORE t
$3.2 / ORE t
$.0 / ORE t


$23.9 / ORE t
$24.1 / ORE t
$28.2 / ORE t
$26.1 / ORE t
$25.0 / ORE t
$30.3 / ORE t
$25.9 / ORE t
$26.9 / ORE t
$30.5 / ORE t
$37.0 / ORE t
Cash Cost of Sales
EBITDA *(@A$1,550)
$886 / Rec Oz		 $941 / Rec Oz $1,253 / Rec Oz $866 / Rec Oz $1,007 / Rec Oz $1,229 / Rec Oz $1,172 / Rec Oz $1,162 / Rec Oz $1,394 / Rec Oz $976 / Rec Oz

$21.37 M
$10.12 M
$21.73 M
$6.81 M
$18.25 M
$9.29 M
$7.95 M
$1.74 M
$2.48 M
$40.62 M
Min Waste 0.7 to 1 g/t 0.7 to 1 g/t 0.7 to 1 g/t 0.7 to 0.9 g/t 0.5 to 0.7 g/t 0.7 to 0.9 g/t 0.8 to 1.1 g/t 0.8 to 1.1 g/t 0.7 to 1 g/t
Low Grade Ore
1 to 1.1 g/t
1 to 1.1 g/t
1 to 1.1 g/t
0.9 to 1.1 g/t
0.7 to 0.8 g/t
0.9 to 1.1 g/t
1.1 to 1.3 g/t
1.1 to 1.3 g/t
1 to 1.2 g/t		 1.1 to 3.2 g/t
High Grade Ore
Above 1.1 g/t
Above 1.1 g/t
Above 1.1 g/t
Above 1.1 g/t
Above 0.8 g/t
Above 1.1 g/t
Above 1.3 g/t
Above 1.3 g/t
Above 1.2 g/t
Above 3.2 g/t

APPENDIX 2 – FGP – INITIAL 5 YEAR PLAN MINING PARAMETERS 14

APPENDIX 3 – FGP MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE

==> picture [525 x 95] intentionally omitted <==

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

METALS X LIMITED
FORTNUM GOLD PROJECT
Mineral Resource Statement
30/06/2016
Measured Indicated Inferred Total
Ore Body Cut- Gold Gold Gold Goled
Off Tonnes Grade Ounces Tonnes Grade Ounces Tonnes Grade Ounces Tonnes Grade Ounces
----- End of picture text -----

APPENDIX 3 – FGP MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE APPENDIX 3 – FGP MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE APPENDIX 3 – FGP MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE APPENDIX 3 – FGP MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE APPENDIX 3 – FGP MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE APPENDIX 3 – FGP MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE APPENDIX 3 – FGP MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE APPENDIX 3 – FGP MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE APPENDIX 3 – FGP MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE APPENDIX 3 – FGP MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE APPENDIX 3 – FGP MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE APPENDIX 3 – FGP MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE APPENDIX 3 – FGP MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE APPENDIX 3 – FGP MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE
METALS X LIMITED
FORTNUM GOLD PROJECT
Mineral Resource Statement
30/06/2016
Ore Body Measured Indicated Inferred Total
Cut-
Of		 Gold Gold Gold Goled
Tonnes Grade Ounces Tonnes Grade Ounces Tonnes Grade Ounces Tonnes Grade Ounces
Fortnum
Callies 0.50 - - - 2,326,456 1.43 106,960 1,527,233 1.10 54,012 3,853,689 1.30 160,972
Eldorado 0.70 - - 53,575 1.65 2,834 32,600 1.65 1,733 86,175 1.65 4,567
Labouchere 1.00 - - - 278,000 1.70 15,194 534,000 1.80 30,903 812,000 1.77 46,098
Nathans 1.00 - - - 823,642 1.94 51,373 240,368 1.91 14,760 1,064,010 1.93 66,133
Regent 0.60 - - - - - - 328,290 1.35 14,299 328,290 1.35 14,299
Starlight
Group		 2.00 - - - 2,004,402 3.80 245,017 1,317,682 3.86 163,545 3,322,084 3.83 408,562
Toms and
Sams		 0.70 9,032 2.22 644 682,358 1.71 37,470 134,399 1.87 8,063 825,789 1.74 46,176
Yarlarweelor 0.70 - - - 3,261,917 1.85 193,805 761,838 1.82 44,505 4,023,755 1.84 238,310
Horseshoe
Horseshoe
Group		 0.70 - - - 1,533,626 2.15 106,010 757,193 2.38 57,939 2,290,819 2.23 163,950
Peak Hill*
Enigma 0.80 - - - 1,505,942 1.17 56,819 316,056 0.97 9,870 1,821,998 1.14 66,689
Durack 0.80 - - - 2,308,688 1.20 89,165 580,304 1.23 23,015 2,888,992 1.21 112,181
Five Ways 0.80 - - - 3,756,449 1.65 199,276 560,837 1.74 31,341 4,317,285 1.66 230,617
Harmony 0.80 - - - 1,594,021 1.65 84,632 296,629 2.12 20,251 1,890,650 1.73 104,883
Jubilee 1.00 - - - 99,995 1.94 6,238 505,616 2.49 40,500 605,610 2.40 46,739
Stockpiles
Eldorado 0.00 - - - 154,080 0.67 3,301 - - - 154,080 0.67 3,301
ROM Finger 1 0.00 - - - 1,915 0.78 48 - - - 1,915 0.78 48
ROM Finger 2 0.00 - - - 5,112 1.78 293 - - - 5,112 1.78 293
ROM Finger 3 0.00 - - - 18,693 0.95 571 - - - 18,693 0.95 571
ROM Finger 4 0.00 - - - 3,059 1.71 168 - - - 3,059 1.71 168
ROM Finger 5 0.00 - - - 5,989 0.87 168 - - - 5,989 0.87 168
Scats 0.00 - - - 16,240 1.60 835 - - - 16,240 1.60 835
Skyway 0.00 - - - 56,640 0.76 1,382 - - - 56,640 0.76 1,382
Starlight 0.00 - - - 86,400 1.19 3,314 - - - 86,400 1.19 3,314
Trevs 0.00 - - - 163,680 0.73 3,833 - - - 163,680 0.73 3,833
Yarlarweelor 0.00 - - - 283,872 0.50 4,595 - - - 283,872 0.50 4,595
Horse-
shoe-Cassidy		 0.00 - - - 177,600 1.16 6,636 - - - 177,600 1.16 6,636
Harmony 0.00 - - - 200,541 1.53 9,880 - - - 200,541 1.53 9,880
Jubilee 0.00 - - - 25,915 0.67 557 - - - 25,915 0.67 557
Labouchere 0.00 - - - 62,474 0.96 1,934 - - - 62,474 0.96 1,934
Nathans /
Wilthorpe		 0.00 - - - - - - 16,208 0.54 282 16,208 0.54 282
Peak Hill 0.00 - - - 79,480 0.88 2,260 - - - 79,480 0.88 2,260
Tom’s and
Sam’s		 0.00 - - - 206,216 0.52 3,431 - - - 206,216 0.52 3,431
Totals 9,032 2.22 644 21,776,976 1.77 1,237,999 7,909,252 2.03 515,019 29,695,260 1.84 1,753,662

*This information was prepared and first disclosed under the JORC Code 2004. It has not been updated since to comply with the JOrD Code 2012 on the basis that the informaiton has not materially changed since it was last reported.

APPENDIX 3 – FGP MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE 15

APPENDIX 4 – FGP ORE RESERVES STATEMENT

==> picture [492 x 100] intentionally omitted <==

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

METALS X LIMITED
FORTNUM GOLD PROJECT
Ore Reserve Statement
30/06/2016
Proven Probable Total
Ore Body Gold Gold Gold
Tonnes Grade Ounces Tonnes rade Ounces Tonnes Grade Ounces
----- End of picture text -----

METALS X LIMITED
FORTNUM GOLD PROJECT
Ore Reserve Statement
30/06/2016		 METALS X LIMITED
FORTNUM GOLD PROJECT
Ore Reserve Statement
30/06/2016		 METALS X LIMITED
FORTNUM GOLD PROJECT
Ore Reserve Statement
30/06/2016		 METALS X LIMITED
FORTNUM GOLD PROJECT
Ore Reserve Statement
30/06/2016		 METALS X LIMITED
FORTNUM GOLD PROJECT
Ore Reserve Statement
30/06/2016		 METALS X LIMITED
FORTNUM GOLD PROJECT
Ore Reserve Statement
30/06/2016		 METALS X LIMITED
FORTNUM GOLD PROJECT
Ore Reserve Statement
30/06/2016		 METALS X LIMITED
FORTNUM GOLD PROJECT
Ore Reserve Statement
30/06/2016		 METALS X LIMITED
FORTNUM GOLD PROJECT
Ore Reserve Statement
30/06/2016		 METALS X LIMITED
FORTNUM GOLD PROJECT
Ore Reserve Statement
30/06/2016
Ore Body Proven Probable Total
Gold Gold Gold
Tonnes Grade Ounces Tonnes rade Ounces Tonnes Grade Ounces
Fortnum
Callies - - - - - - - - -
Eldorado - - - - - - - - -
Labouchere - - - 310,454 2.00 19,988 310,454 2.00 19,988
Nathans - - - 563,200 1.78 32,160 563,200 1.78 32,160
Regent - - - - - - - - -
Starlight Group - - - 562,315 4.14 74,758 562,315 4.14 74,758
Toms and Sams - - - 198,583 1.66 10,588 198,583 1.66 10,588
Yarlarweelor - - - 2,239,938 1.87 134,726 2,239,938 1.87 134,726
Horseshoe
Horseshoe Group - - - 414,957 2.28 30,412 414,957 2.28 30,412
Peak Hill
Enigma - - - - - - - - -
Durack - - - - - - - - -
Five Ways - - - - - - - - -
Harmony - - - - - - - - -
Jubilee - - - - - - - - -
Stockpiles
Eldorado - - - 106,600 0.71 2,444 106,600 0.71 2,444
ROM Finger 1 - - - 1,915 0.78 48 1,915 0.78 48
ROM Finger 2 - - - 5,112 1.78 293 5,112 1.78 293
ROM Finger 3 - - - 18,693 0.95 571 18,693 0.95 571
ROM Finger 4 - - - 3,059 1.71 168 3,059 1.71 168
ROM Finger 5 - - - 5,989 0.87 168 5,989 0.87 168
Scats - - - 16,240 1.60 835 16,240 1.60 835
Skyway - - - 56,640 0.76 1,382 56,640 0.76 1,382
Starlight - - - 86,400 1.19 3,314 86,400 1.19 3,314
Trevs - - - 163,680 0.73 3,833 163,680 0.73 3,833
Yarlarweelor - - - 161,600 0.64 3,348 161,600 0.64 3,348
Horseshoe-Cassidy - - - 177,600 1.16 6,636 177,600 1.16 6,636
Harmony - - - 200,541 1.53 9,871 200,541 1.53 9,871
Jubilee - - - - - - - - -
Labouchere - - - 62,474 0.96 1,934 62,474 0.96 1,934
Nathans / Wilthorpe - - - - - - - - -
Peak Hill - - - 35,600 1.14 1,302 35,600 1.14 1,302
Tom’s and Sam’s - - - - - - - - -
Totals - - - 5,391,588 1.95 338,779 5,391,588 1.95 338,779

APPENDIX4 – FGP ORE RESERVES STATEMENT 16

APPENDIX 5 – SIGNIFICANT (>5gram metres) EXPLORATION RESULTS FOR THE QUARTER FORTNUM GOLD PROJECT

==> picture [506 x 28] intentionally omitted <==

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

From
Lode Hole Collar N Collar E Collar RL Intercept (True Width) Dip Azi
(m)
----- End of picture text -----

Lode Hole Collar N Collar E Collar RL Intercept (True Width) From
(m)		 Dip Azi
DEVELOPMENT PLAN RESOURCE DRILLING
Yarlarweelor Re-
source		 MXC0370 7196299.14 636915.256 429.325 20.2m at 1.44g/t Au 20.0 -67.0 150
incl 3.4m at 6.9g/t Au 40.0
MXC0371 7196329.12 636903.032 431.47 2m at 6.57g/t Au 30.0 -60.0 90
MXC0371 7196328.55 636912.769 414.101 9.2m at 3.96g/t Au 46.0
incl 5.5m at 6.35g/t Au 48.0
MXC0373 7196347.8 636923.875 430.593 3m at 6.08g/t Au 33.0
MXC0374 7196368.78 636862.717 437.18 10.5m at 2.02g/t Au 20.0 -61.0 90
MXC0374 7196367.44 636887.006 389.496 10m at 0.65g/t Au 72.0
MXC0375 7196389.34 636901.665 420.32 14.6m at 2.62g/t Au 37.0 -73.0 90
incl 7.3m at 4.73g/t Au 37.0
MXC0377 7196429.1 636883.292 402.491 13m at 0.93g/t Au 59.0 -63.0 90
incl 2m at 3.54g/t Au 70.0
MXC0406 7195644.81 636713.445 383.187 29.3m at 0.78g/t Au 113.8 -63.0 90
incl 4.5m at 2.59g/t Au 142.0
MXC0407 7195658.02 636766.574 427.481 5.4m at 2.14g/t Au 83.0 -59.0 74
MXC0409 7195681.92 636725.651 393.282 3.1m at 1.27g/t Au 131.0 -54.0 82
MXC0409 7195683.11 636741.745 368.96 11.2m at 0.84g/t Au 155.0
incl 1.5m at 4.1g/t Au 163.0
MXC0412 7195744.9 636712.831 351.975 8.6m at 0.54g/t Au 130.0 -90.0 0
MXC0413 7195746 636736.701 397.368 5.4m at 0.75g/t Au 90.0 -78.0 90
MXC0414 7195762.59 636714.535 347.552 16m at 2.08g/t Au 132.0 -90.0 0
incl 2.7m at 8.4g/t Au 132
incl 1.3m at 4.55g/t Au 154
MXC0415 7195785.5 636727.979 374.288 11.4m at 1.03g/t Au 109.0 -83.0 90
incl 3.6m at 1.84g/t Au 19.0
MXC0416 7195844.91 636739.26 389.737 9.1m at 1.26g/t Au 99.0 -69.0 90
incl 6.3m at 1.68g/t Au 103.0
MXC0378 7196448.87 636879.232 402.429 9.3m at 0.89g/t Au 62.0
incl 1.7m at 3.14g/t Au 62.0
MXC0379 7196449.56 636930.699 389.424 6.9m at 1.21g/t Au 78.0
incl 4.3m at 1.7g/t Au 80.0
MXC0380 7196450.64 636937.976 408.542 1.8m at 21.06g/t Au 61.0 -60 90
MXC0380 7196450.95 636942.325 400.658 1.8m at 5.13g/t Au 70.0
MXC0381 7196478.63 636861.948 408.779 5.8m at 1.63g/t Au 48.0
MXC0382 7196468.51 636922.456 378.939 3.6m at 4.91g/t Au 92.0
MXC0383 7196475.64 636943.521 425.659 2.5m at 4.33g/t Au 30.0
MXC0383 7196473.21 636949.414 409.908 8.7m at 2.36g/t Au 43.0 -67 113
incl 3.2m at 4.86g/t Au 43.0
MXC0384 7196485.81 636860.317 441.971 3.7m at 1.56g/t Au 16.0
MXC0384 7196486.93 636862.179 430.803 6.9m at 0.81g/t Au 25.0
MXC0385 7196493.31 636921.058 424.277 1.6m at 3.33g/t Au 28.0 -77 107
MXC0386 7196490.18 636933.42 431.706 2.6m at 2.05g/t Au 21.0 -62 90

APPENDIX 5 – SIGNIFICANT EXPLORATION RESULTS FOR THE QUARTER 17

==> picture [506 x 27] intentionally omitted <==

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

From
Lode Hole Collar N Collar E Collar RL Intercept (True Width) Dip Azi
(m)
----- End of picture text -----

Lode Hole Collar N Collar E Collar RL Intercept (True Width) From
(m)		 Dip Azi
MXC0386 7196490.3 636940.39 417.72 3.8m at 1.55g/t Au 37.0
MXC0389 7196510.58 636970.692 442.236 5.9m at 1.85g/t Au 9.0 -73 90
MXC0389 7196510.52 636973.306 433.647 3.6m at 3.38g/t Au 20.0
MXC0390 7196534.59 636939.189 430.759 6m at 1.26g/t Au 21.0
MXC0391 7196550.34 636919.499 423.018 6.1m at 2.18g/t Au 36.0
MXC0392 7196545.02 636938.13 441.576 1.8m at 12.38g/t Au 15.0
MXC0392 7196544.86 636944.696 430.125 11.8m at 3.75g/t Au 23.0
incl 6.4m at 6.28g/t Au 22.0
MXC0392 7196544.42 636954.702 412.28 11.5m at 21.42g/t Au 44.0
incl 3.8m at 6.91g/t Au 44.0
incl 4.8m at 45.6g/t Au 51.0
MXC0393 7196545.75 636951.571 452.773 6m at 0.9g/t Au 0.0 -61 76
MXC0393 7196547 636956.954 442.752 10.5m at 2.39g/t Au 9.0
MXC0394 7196574.95 636922.83 429.874 3m at 4.52g/t Au 27.0 -62 90
MXC0405 7195626.24 636724.775 388.945 4.6m at 13.76g/t Au 124.7
incl 0.5m at 120g/t Au 124.7
incl 1.9m at 4.42g/t Au 145.0
MXC0409 7195683.11 636741.745 368.96 11.2m at 0.81g/t Au 155.0
incl 1.4m at 4.1g/t Au 163.0
MXC0410 7195707.7 636717.922 371.301 4.5m at 5.09g/t Au 120.1 -73 176
incl 2.1m at 9.24g/t Au 125.8
MXC0411 7195731.51 636712.635 343.385 1m at 7.55g/t Au 147.5
MXC0412 7195744.9 636712.831 351.975 4.8m at 1.1g/t Au 130.0 -90 270
MXC0414 7195763.7 636714.723 357.513 3.5m at 8.4g/t Au 132.0 -90 270
MXC0414 7195762.08 636714.48 343.223 10.9m at 1.07g/t Au 141.0
incl 1.5m at 4.55g/t Au 154.0
MXC0415 7195785.5 636727.979 374.288 11.4m at 1.03g/t Au 109.0 -83 90
incl 3.6m at 1.84g/t Au 109.0
MXC0416 7195844.91 636739.26 389.737 9.1m at 1.26g/t Au 99.0 -69 90
incl 6.3m at 1.68g/t Au 103.0
MXC0417 7195933.3 636720.724 370.192 2.2m at 2.54g/t Au 162.0 -48 61
MXC0417 7195934.32 636722.94 366.005 4.3m at 11.62g/t Au 166.0
incl 2.1m at 21.61g/t Au 166.0
Toms Resource MXC0419 7198291.64 637267.648 456.219 11m at 0.63g/t Au 60.0 -48 62
MXC0420 7198354.76 637250.781 483.475 4.8m at 2.94g/t Au 4.0 -90 0
MXC0422 7197143.06 636284.178 440.74 4.6m at 8.44g/t Au 64.0
incl 2.3m at 15.19g/t Au 65.0
MXC0423 7197270.14 636257.518 439.312 11.6m at 1.42g/t Au 60.0
incl 2.3m at 3.6g/t Au 66.0
DDH1-F4 7198000.37 637197.406 422.746 7.6m at 0.8g/t Au 90.4 -60 90
DDH1-F4 7198000.46 637204.334 410.742 15.3m at 1.55g/t Au 101.0
incl 5m at 2.56g/t Au 104.0
incl 3.8m at 2.22g/t Au 112.0
DDH1-F5 7198113.1 637071.832 470.602 2.5m at 3.46g/t Au 38.0
DDH1-F5 7198130.72 637088.956 428.048 5.1m at 1.02g/t Au 85.0
DDH1-F6 7198021.57 637067.151 460.934 2.5m at 2.86g/t Au 49.2 -60 135

APPENDIX 5 – SIGNIFICANT EXPLORATION RESULTS FOR THE QUARTER 18

Lode Hole Collar N Collar E Collar RL Intercept (True Width) From
(m)		 Dip Azi
Composite MXC0374 7196368.78 636862.717 437.18 9.5m at 1.68g/t Au 20.0 -61 90
Resampling incl 5.7m at 2g/t Au 24.0
MXC0381 7196479.04 636858.456 448.445 9.2m at 0.76g/t Au 9.0 -85 90
MXC0381 7196478.63 636861.948 408.779 5.8m at 1.04g/t Au 49.0
MXC0387 7196509.65 636904.283 421.807 22m at 2.97g/t Au 26.0 -56 90
incl 12.4m at 4.65g/t Au 31.0
MXC0396 7196350.51 636979.442 450.919 4.6m at 1.83g/t Au 4.0 -46 90
incl 1.8m at 3.96g/t Au 4.0
MXC0396 7196350.51 636979.442 450.919 5.4m at 1.18g/t Au 17.0
MXC0398 7196430.81 636987.144 452.547 4m at 1.37g/t Au 6.0 -55 90
MXC0415 7195785.5 636727.979 374.288 4.8m at 1.45g/t Au 5.0 -83 90
MXC0417 7195888.5 636635.283 502.5 3.8m at 4.36g/t Au 30.0 -48 61
incl 1.9m at 8.22g/t Au 32.0
Lode Hole Collar N Collar E Collar RL Intercept (True Width) From
(m)		 Dip Azi
DEVELOPMENT PLAN LOW GRADE STOCKPILE DRILLING
Yarlarweelor LGSP MXC0013 7196665.87 637358.977 513.017 5m at 2.31g/t Au 4.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0015 7196665.4 637319.621 513.428 5m at 1.13g/t Au 4.0
MXC0029 7196645.49 637359.262 513.345 9m at 0.75g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0035 7196636.87 637390.25 513.971 10m at 0.55g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0036 7196635.66 637368.165 513.621 9m at 1.48g/t Au 1.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0037 7196635.64 637349.36 513.474 10m at 0.77g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0047 7196615.74 637329.073 513.293 8m at 2g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0057 7196587.45 637361.743 515.5 13m at 0.57g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0058 7196579.65 637372.993 515.709 12m at 0.9g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0059 7196567.61 637386.279 516.74 6m at 2.31g/t Au 1.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0060 7196601.82 637413.958 515.897 8m at 0.67g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0446 7196591.55 637405.692 516.064 10m at 4.66g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0448 7196550.43 637364.213 515.706 6m at 0.84g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0066 7196827.61 637525.258 504.829 3m at 3.18g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0085 7196798.29 637518.297 504.518 2m at 3.52g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0115 7196748.08 637528.1 505 2m at 6.39g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
ROM Skyway LGSP MXC0135 7197761.3 636272.419 524.817 8m at 0.7g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0138 7197751.41 636266.113 524.899 11m at 0.63g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0141 7197740.67 636293.608 524.791 8m at 0.65g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0142 7197740.53 636274.151 524.632 12m at 0.53g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0144 7197730.48 636303.219 524.77 7m at 0.76g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0145 7197730.66 636283.408 524.725 9m at 1.4g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0149 7197720.07 636293.442 524.935 11m at 0.96g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0152 7197710.35 636303.592 525.181 11m at 0.52g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0166 7197681.11 636333.783 515.502 6m at 0.89g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0178 7197662.47 636332.08 516.246 7m at 0.73g/t Au 2.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0425 7197757.4 636310.552 522.661 10m at 1.55g/t Au 0.0 -90 0
MXC0426 7197767.88 636304.617 523.651 10m at 0.8g/t Au 0.0 -90 0
MXC0427 7197777.78 636299.884 525.973 10m at 0.92g/t Au 0.0 -90 0

APPENDIX 5 – SIGNIFICANT EXPLORATION RESULTS FOR THE QUARTER 19

==> picture [505 x 27] intentionally omitted <==

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

From
Lode Hole Collar N Collar E Collar RL Intercept (True Width) Dip Azi
(m)
----- End of picture text -----

Lode Hole Collar N Collar E Collar RL Intercept (True Width) From
(m)		 Dip Azi
MXC0428 7197789.28 636291.643 528.818 10m at 0.56g/t Au 0.0 -90 0
Eldorado LGSP MXC0200 7197552.41 636386.916 514.26 5m at 1.71g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0201 7197551.78 636367.001 514.133 5m at 27.21g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
incl 1m at 132g/t Au 4.0
MXC0203 7197542.06 636396.93 514.222 6m at 0.86g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0204 7197542.6 636376.954 514.221 5m at 7.24g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
incl 1m at 32.4g/t Au 0.0
MXC0222 7197473.19 636468.349 513.586 10m at 0.51g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0224 7197464.66 636496.684 512.117 10m at 0.56g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0225 7197463.34 636478.413 512.727 11m at 0.65g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0226 7197463.39 636458.545 513.165 9m at 0.77g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0227 7197453.35 636508.644 511.649 10m at 2.36g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0228 7197453.7 636488.031 511.858 10m at 1.28g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0230 7197444.57 636516.202 510.807 9m at 0.68g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0232 7197443.73 636479.265 511.923 9m at 1.05g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0234 7197433.85 636508.59 510.172 9m at 0.92g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0238 7197426.42 636498.87 509.244 8m at 0.71g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0240 7197416.38 636509.271 507.685 6m at 2.15g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0250 7197365.88 636558.292 506.678 5m at 1.1g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
Trev’s LGSP MXC0251 7198459.06 636192.952 514.983 11m at 0.54g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0252 7198459.47 636174.237 515.164 12m at 1.18g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0253 7198458.66 636153.921 515.839 13m at 0.74g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0254 7198458.04 636134.009 516.03 13m at 0.82g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0255 7198457.81 636113.641 515.591 10m at 1.07g/t Au 3.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0256 7198450.07 636203.877 513.173 9m at 0.7g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0257 7198449.18 636184.099 515.128 11m at 0.66g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0258 7198449.95 636164.227 515.216 12m at 0.98g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0259 7198448.43 636144.975 515.829 12m at 0.65g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0260 7198448.22 636124.009 515.796 11m at 0.49g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0261 7198448.2 636104.585 515.945 9m at 1.76g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0264 7198440 636214.263 510.596 7m at 0.75g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0265 7198439.52 636193.006 514.332 11m at 0.9g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0266 7198438.75 636174.575 514.922 11m at 0.79g/t Au 1.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0267 7198438.58 636154.604 515.516 12m at 0.64g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0268 7198438.69 636134.451 515.937 12m at 0.65g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0269 7198437.97 636114.43 515.636 11m at 0.85g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0273 7198429.68 636204.301 511.997 9m at 0.73g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0275 7198429.52 636163.834 515.422 12m at 0.55g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0276 7198428.99 636144.642 516.075 12m at 1.07g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0277 7198428.44 636124.578 515.786 12m at 0.86g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0278 7198428.27 636103.845 515.502 9m at 0.98g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0282 7198419.77 636214.408 510.642 7m at 0.79g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0284 7198410.17 636265.031 504.928 2m at 3.07g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0319 7198288.16 636166.511 510.144 1m at 7.4g/t Au 6.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0332 7198248.75 636186.17 507.391 3m at 1.79g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
Toms LGSP MXC0337 7198755.16 637328.988 523.859 10m at 1.34g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0342 7198785.85 637358.714 522.619 2m at 8.31g/t Au 1.0 -90.0 0.0

APPENDIX 5 – SIGNIFICANT EXPLORATION RESULTS FOR THE QUARTER 20

==> picture [505 x 27] intentionally omitted <==

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

From
Lode Hole Collar N Collar E Collar RL Intercept (True Width) Dip Azi
(m)
----- End of picture text -----

Lode Hole Collar N Collar E Collar RL Intercept (True Width) From
(m)		 Dip Azi
MXC0345 7198775 637328.983 523.673 7m at 0.82g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0351 7198745.06 637319.177 524.12 9m at 2.62g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0356 7198725.27 637319.561 524.061 3m at 2.39g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
Starlight LGSP MXC0358 7199237.11 637462.315 535.099 5m at 1.24g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0359 7199226.82 637472.137 534.684 5m at 1.64g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0360 7199227.21 637452.676 534.953 5m at 4.81g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0361 7199217.23 637482.105 534.674 5m at 1.62g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0362 7199217.42 637462.863 534.785 5m at 1.33g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0363 7199217.29 637445.581 533.18 5m at 1.7g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0367 7199195.11 637463.103 532.838 4m at 1.89g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
Horseshoe LGSP MXC0450 7182921.51 661291.913 539.228 6m at 1.62g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0451 7182960.47 661269.726 539.111 6m at 1.55g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0453 7182939.98 661291.39 539.096 6m at 1.22g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0454 7182980.62 661289.185 538.87 6m at 1.67g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0457 7182709.79 661359.52 542.674 6m at 1.73g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0460 7182908.55 661399.937 538.902 6m at 1.13g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0461 7182766.86 661381.642 540.682 6m at 3.42g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
incl 1m at 12.4g/t Au 5.0
MXC0462 7182770.85 661367.863 540.542 6m at 1.18g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0463 7182776.74 661342.582 540.437 6m at 1.11g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0465 7182828.98 661320.01 537.97 5m at 2.17g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
MXC0467 7182919.46 661266.293 539.439 6m at 3.07g/t Au 0.0 -90.0 0.0
incl 1m at 10.9g/t Au 4.0
Peak Hill LGSP MXC0469 7163140 671990 610.377 7m at 2.5g/t Au 0 -90 0
MXC0470 7163120 671960 613.568 10m at 5.93g/t Au 0 -90 0
incl 2m at 27.8g/t Au 5 -90 0
MXC0471 7163120 671980 613.544 10m at 0.72g/t Au 0 -90 0
MXC0473 7163100 671950 612.174 9m at 1.18g/t Au 0 -90 0
MXC0474 7163100 671970 612.656 9m at 0.61g/t Au 0 -90 0
MXC0477 7163080 671980 611.061 8m at 0.76g/t Au 0 -90 0
MXC0490 7162801.04 672418.69 609.857 5m at 1.48g/t Au 0 -90 0
MXC0491 7162787.61 672401.804 610.183 5m at 5.02g/t Au 0 -90 0
incl 3m at 8.25g/t Au 1 -90 0
MXC0502 7164785.57 672449.646 574.046 5m at 3.08g/t Au 0 -90 0
Harmony LGSP MXC0521 7161214.21 664334.712 550.143 6m at 1.65g/t Au 0 -90 0
MXC0522 7161199.77 664320.276 550.585 6m at 1.7g/t Au 0 -90 0
incl 2m at 3.34g/t Au 3 -90 0
MXC0524 7161187.7 664281.464 550.007 4m at 1.84g/t Au 0 -90 0
MXC0525 7161188.17 664261.111 549.75 4m at 2.01g/t Au 0 -90 0
MXC0528 7161228.88 664228.688 550.274 6m at 1.95g/t Au 0 -90 0
MXC0532 7161291.36 664237.208 551.232 7m at 1.83g/t Au 0 -90 0
incl 3m at 2.16g/t Au 3 -90 0
MXC0533 7161291.12 664257.324 548.473 4m at 3.45g/t Au 0 -90 0
MXC0540 7161326.05 664203.11 553.931 9m at 1.39g/t Au 0 -90 0
incl 4m at 2.16g/t Au 1 -90 0
MXC0541 7161311.73 664218.269 553.75 9m at 4.27g/t Au 0 -90 0
incl 3m at 11.27g/t Au 6 -90 0

APPENDIX 5 – SIGNIFICANT EXPLORATION RESULTS FOR THE QUARTER 21

==> picture [505 x 27] intentionally omitted <==

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

From
Lode Hole Collar N Collar E Collar RL Intercept (True Width) Dip Azi
(m)
----- End of picture text -----

Lode Hole Collar N Collar E Collar RL Intercept (True Width) From
(m)		 Dip Azi
MXC0543 7161429.15 664231.651 550.275 5m at 1.6g/t Au 0 -90 0
MXC0544 7161438.15 664249.634 550.533 5m at 1.38g/t Au 0 -90 0
MXC0545 7161446.93 664268.026 551.17 6m at 1.23g/t Au 0 -90 0
MXC0546 7161455.72 664286.01 551.447 7m at 0.93g/t Au 0 -90 0
MXC0547 7161465.53 664303.584 550.917 6m at 2.19g/t Au 0 -90 0
incl 3m at 3.97g/t Au 2 -90 0
MXC0548 7161474.73 664321.363 551.61 6m at 1.28g/t Au 0 -90 0
MXC0549 7161483.51 664339.755 551.218 6m at 1.73g/t Au 0 -90 0
MXC0550 7161466.14 664349.973 551.385 6m at 2.05g/t Au 0 -90 0
incl 2m at 4.39g/t Au 4 -90 0
MXC0551 7161456.33 664331.581 551.956 7m at 3.29g/t Au 0 -90 0
MXC0552 7161448.16 664313.189 551.676 7m at 0.74g/t Au 0 -90 0
MXC0554 7161432.22 664276.814 550.991 6m at 2.17g/t Au 0 -90 0
incl 2m at 4.16g/t Au 4 -90 0
MXC0555 7161423.43 664258.626 550.605 6m at 0.98g/t Au 0 -90 0
MXC0556 7161414.24 664240.438 550.816 6m at 0.89g/t Au 0 -90 0
MXC0557 7161405.45 664222.251 549.946 5m at 2.18g/t Au 0 -90 0
incl 2m at 3.74g/t Au 3 -90 0
MXC0569 7205530 628180 489.026 4m at 1.37g/t Au 0 -90 0
MXC0571 7205510 628160 489.062 4m at 1.51g/t Au 0 -90 0
MXC0581 7205470 628200 488.861 4m at 2.06g/t Au 0 -90 0
MXC0583 7205470 628240 489.435 5m at 1.13g/t Au 0 -90 0
MXC0584 7205450 628240 489.383 5m at 1.05g/t Au 0 -90 0
MXC0594 7199812.5 631712.5 519 5m at 1g/t Au 0 -90 0
MXC0596 7199812.5 631762.5 519 5m at 1.34g/t Au 0 -90 0
Toms LGSP MXC0614 7198684.5 637280.751 520.66 12m at 0.5g/t Au 0 -90 0
MXC0616 7198704.22 637260.473 520.698 10m at 0.57g/t Au 0 -90 0
MXC0617 7198704.5 637280.468 520.883 14m at 0.54g/t Au 0 -90 0
MXC0618 7198704.78 637300.464 521.088 10m at 0.52g/t Au 0 -90 0
MXC0619 7198724.21 637260.191 520.655 11m at 0.7g/t Au 0 -90 0
MXC0621 7198724.78 637300.181 520.957 12m at 0.59g/t Au 0 -90 0
MXC0622 7198744.21 637259.908 519.585 12m at 0.63g/t Au 0 -90 0
MXC0623 7198744.49 637279.903 520.1 12m at 1.05g/t Au 0 -90 0
MXC0624 7198744.77 637299.899 520.795 12m at 0.46g/t Au 0 -90 0
MXC0625 7198764.77 637299.616 519.042 11m at 0.53g/t Au 0 -90 0
MXC0627 7198764.48 637279.621 518.741 11m at 0.73g/t Au 0 -90 0
MXC0629 7198764.2 637259.626 518.534 12m at 0.51g/t Au 0 -90 0
MXC0631 7198743.92 637239.913 515.701 10m at 0.53g/t Au 0 -90 0

APPENDIX 5 – SIGNIFICANT EXPLORATION RESULTS FOR THE QUARTER 22

APPENDIX 6 – JORC TABLE 1

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

==> picture [772 x 27] intentionally omitted <==

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

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
Sampling techniques • Nature and quality of sampling (e.g. cut channels, random chips, or specific • Historic reverse circulation drilling was used to collect samples at 1m intervals with sample quality,
----- End of picture text -----

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
Sampling techniques •
Nature and quality of sampling (e.g. cut channels, random chips, or specifc		 •
Historic reverse circulation drilling was used to collect samples at 1m intervals with sample quality,
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.
•
In cases where ‘industry standard’ work has been done this would be relatively
simple (e.g. ‘reverse circulation drilling was used to obtain 1 m samples from which
3 kg was pulverised to produce a 30 g charge for fre assay’). In other cases more
explanation may be required, such as where there is coarse gold that has inherent
sampling problems. Unusual commodities or mineralisation types (e.g. submarine
nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed information.		 recovery and moisture recorded on logging sheets. Bulk samples were composited to 4-5m samples
by PVC spear. These composites were dried, crushed and split to produce a 30g charge for aqua regia
digest at the Fortnum site laboratory.
•
For Metals X (MLX) RC Drilling drill cuttings are extracted from the RC return via cyclone. The
underfow from each interval is transferred via bucket to a four tiered rife splitter, delivering
approximately three kilograms of the recovered material into calico bags for analysis. The residual
material is retained on the ground near the hole. Composite samples are obtained from the residue
material for initial analysis, with the split samples remaining with the individual residual piles until
required for re-split analysis or eventual disposal.
•
In the case of grade control drilling, 1m intervals were split at the rig via a 3-tier splitter box below the
cyclone and collected in calico bags with bulk samples collected into large plastic bags. These 1m
splits were dried, pulverised and split to produce a 50g charge for fre assay at an ofsite laboratory.
•
Where composite intervals returned results >0.15g/t Au, the original bulk samples were split by 3-tier
rife splitter to approximately 3-4kg. The whole sample was dried, pulverised and split to produce a
50g charge for fre assay at an ofsite laboratory.
•
Historic diamond drilling sampled according to mineralisation and lithology resulting in samples
of 10cm to 1.5m. Half core pulverised and split to produce a 50g charge for fre assay at an ofsite
laboratory.
Drilling techniques •
Drill type (e.g. core, reverse circulation, open-hole hammer, rotary air blast, auger,
Bangka, sonic, etc.) and details (e.g. core diameter, triple or standard tube, depth of
diamond tails, face-sampling bit or other type, whether core is oriented and if so, by
what method, etc.).		 •
All reverse circulation at nominal 5.5” diameter, utilising face sampling hammers to reduce the risk of
sample contamination.
•
Diamond drilling utilised 10-40m RC pre-collars to penetrate transported cover then continued as NQ
core. Core was oriented bydown-hole spear.
Drill sample recovery •
Method of recording and assessing core and chip sample recoveries and results
assessed.
•
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 topreferential loss/gain of fne/coarse material.		 •
Reverse circulation recorded sample quality, recovery and moisture for 1m samples. The majority
of samples were of good quality with ground water having minimal efect on sample quality or
recovery. Statistical analysis of sample quality for samples over an Au bottom cut of 0.1ppm indicates
negligible sample bias.
•
Diamond drilling recorded rock hardness, recovery and RQD. Core recovery was good.
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.
•
Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in nature. Core (or costean, channel,
etc.) photography.
•
The total length andpercentage of the relevant intersections logged.		 •
Reverse circulation chips were washed and stored in chip trays in 1m intervals. Chips were visually
inspected, recording lithology, weathering, alteration, mineralisation, veining and structure.
•
Diamond core was visually inspected, recording data related to lithology, weathering, alteration,
mineralisation, veining and structure. Photographs of each core tray were taken wet.
•
All mineralised intersections from both diamond core and reverse circulation were logged.

APPENDIX 6 – JORC TABLE 1 23

==> picture [772 x 17] intentionally omitted <==

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

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
----- End of picture text -----

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
Sub-sampling
techniques and
sample preparation		 •
If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, half or all core taken.
•
If non-core, whether rifed, tube sampled, rotary split, etc. and whether sampled wet
or dry.
•
For all sample types, the nature, quality and appropriateness of the sample
preparation technique.
•
Quality control procedures adopted for all sub-sampling stages to maximise
representivity of samples.
•
Measures taken to ensure that the sampling is representative of the in situ material
collected, including for instance results for feld duplicate/second-half sampling.
•
Whether sample sizes are appropriate to thegrain size of the material being sampled.		 •
Diamond core samples to be analysed were taken as half core. Sample mark-up was controlled by
geological domaining represented by alteration, mineralisation and lithology.
•
Reverse circulation samples were split from dry, 1m bulk sample via a 3-tier rife splitter. Field
duplicates were inserted at a ratio of 1:20, analysis of primary vs duplicate samples indicate
sampling is representative of the insitu material.
•
Standard material was documented as being inserted at a ratio of 1:100 for both RC and diamond
drilling.
•
Detailed discussion of sampling techniques and Quality Control are documented in publicly available
exploration technical reports compiled by prior owners (Homestake, Perilya, Gleneagle, RNI).
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 (ie lack of
bias) and precision have been established.		 •
Historic assaying of RC and core was done by 50g charge fre assay with Atomic Absorption
Spectrometry fnish at Analabs. The method is standard for gold analysis and is considered
appropriate in this case. No Laboratory Certifcates are available for historic assay results pre 2008
however, evaluation of the database identifed the following;
Standards are inserted at a ratio of 1:100,
Assay repeats inserted at a ratio of 1 in 20.
•
QA/QC analysis of this historic data indicates the levels of accuracy and precision are acceptable.
•
Assay of recent (post 2012) sampling was done by 40g charge fre assay with Inductively Coupled
Plasma – Optical Emission Spectroscopy fnish at Bureau Veritas (Ultratrace), Perth. The method
is standard for gold analysis and is considered appropriate in this case. Laboratory Certifcates are
available for the assay results and the following QA/QC protocols used include; Laboratory Checks
inserted 1 in 20 samples, CRM inserted 1 in 30 samples and Assay Repeats randomly selected 1 in 15
samples.
•
QA/QC analysis of this data indicates the levels of accuracy and precision are acceptable with no
signifcant bias observed.
•
Detailed discussion of analytical QA/QC is documented in the individual resource reports.
Verifcation of
sampling and
assaying		 •
The verifcation of signifcant intersections by either independent or alternative
company personnel.
•
The use of twinned holes.
•
Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data verifcation, data
storage (physical and electronic) protocols.
•
Discuss any adjustment to assay data.		 •
No twinned holes drilled historically.
•
All sampling, geological logging, borehole location, laboratory analysis results and QA/QC data is
retained in DataShed, a relational database which has thorough built-in triggers for validation of
imported data. An experienced Database Administrator oversees quality control of input data.
•
Borehole, geological and sampling data is captured in specifcally designed spreadsheets with built in
validation for data entry felds, using established procedures.
•
No adjustment toprimaryassaydata is made.

APPENDIX 6 – JORC TABLE 1 24

==> picture [772 x 17] intentionally omitted <==

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

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
----- End of picture text -----

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
Location of data points •
Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drill holes (collar and down-hole
surveys), trenches, mine workings and other locations used in Mineral Resource
estimation.
•
Specifcation of the grid system used.
•
Quality and adequacy of topographic control.		 •
The grid system used for historic Fortnum drilling is the established Fortnum Mine Grid. Control
station locations and traverses have been verifed by eternal survey consultants (Ensurv). Collar
locations of boreholes have been established by either total station or diferential GPS (DGPS). The
Yarlarweelor, Callie’s and Eldorado open pits (currently abandoned) was picked up by DGPS at the
conclusion of mining. The transformation between Mine Grid and MGA94 Zone 50 is documented and
well established.
•
A LIDAR survey over the project area was undertaken in 2012 and results are in agreement with
survey pickups of pits, low-grade stockpiles and waste dumps.
•
Historic drilling by Homestake was routinely surveyed at 25m, 50m and every 50m thereafter, using
a single shot CAMTEQ survey tool. RC holes have a nominal setup azimuth applied. Perilya YLRC series
holes had survey shots taken by gyro every 10m. Historic drilling in the area did not appear to have
any signifcant problems with hole deviation.
•
Drilling by RNI / MLX was picked up by DGPS on MGA94. Downhole surveys were taken by digital single
shot camera every50m or via agyro surveytool.
Data spacing and
distribution		 •
Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results.
•
Whether the data spacing and distribution is sufcient to establish the degree of
geological and grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve
estimation procedure(s) and classifcations applied.
•
Whether sample compositing has been applied.		 •
Drillhole spacing is a nominal 40m x 40m that has been in-flled to a nominal 20m x 20m in the main
zone of mineralisation at Yarlarweelor, Callie’s and Eldorado with 10m x10m RC grade control within
the limits of the open pits.
•
The spacing is considered sufcient to establish geological and grade continuity for appropriate
Mineral Resource classifcation.
•
During the historic exploration phase, samples were composited to 4m by spearing 1m bulk samples.
Where the assays returned results greater than 0.15ppm Au, the original 1m bulk samples were split
usinga 3-tier rife splitter and analysed as described above.
Orientation of data in
relation to geological
structure		 •
Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased sampling of possible
structures and the extent to which this is known, considering the deposit type.
•
If the relationship between the drilling orientation and the orientation of key
mineralised structures is considered to have introduced a sampling bias, this should
be assessed and reported if material.		 •
Multiple phases of drilling at diferent orientations: Homestake RC and diamond drilling oriented south
east. Perilya RC drilling oriented east and vertical.
•
MLX drilling intersections are nominally designed to be normal to the orebody as far as underground
infrastructure constraints / topography allows.
•
A report analysing the potential of bias between sampling types and drilling orientations was
undertaken and determined no bias exists.
Sample security •
The measures taken to ensure sample security.		 •
Sample bags tagged and logged, sealed in bulka bags.
•
Dispatch by third party contractor, recording consignment note for tracking.
•
In-companyreconciliation with laboratorysample reconciliation and assayreturns.
Audits or reviews •
The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data.		 •
Database compilation into DataShed for data integrity.
•
Program review by external consultants.
•
QA/QC report on historic sampling and analysis is included in the individual resource reports, and
verifed aspart of the QA/QC reviewprocess for 2016 Yarlarweelor Mineral Resource Estimate (MLX).

APPENDIX 6 – JORC TABLE 1 25

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results

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

==> picture [772 x 17] intentionally omitted <==

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

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
----- End of picture text -----

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
Mineral tenement
and land tenure
status		 •
Type, reference name/number, location and ownership including agreements or material
issues with third parties such as joint ventures, partnerships, overriding royalties, native title
interests, historical sites, wilderness or national park and environmental settings.
•
The security of the tenure held at the time of reporting along with any known impediments to
obtaining a licence to operate in the area.		 •
The Fortnum Gold Project tenure is 100% owned by Metals X through subsidiary company Aragon
Resources Pty. Ltd.
•
Various Royalties apply to the package. The most pertinent being;
o
$10/oz after frst 50,000oz (capped at $2M)- Perilya
o
State Government – 2.5% NSR
•
The tenure is currentlyingood standing.
Exploration done by
other parties		 •
Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties.		 •
Drilled by RAB, AC, RC and diamond coring, assayed gold only.
•
Various parties not limited to RNI NL, Eagle Gold Ltd., Gleneagle Gold Ltd, Perilya Mines Ltd.,
Homestake Gold Mines Australia Ltd and Dominion MiningLtd.
Geology •
Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation.		 •
The Fortnum deposits are Paleoproterozoic shear-hosted gold deposits within the Fortnum
Wedge, a localised thrust duplex of Narracoota Formation within the overlying Ravelstone
Formation. Both stratigraphic formations comprise part of the Bryah Basin in the Capricorn
Orogen, Western Australia.
•
The Horseshoe Cassidy deposits are hosted within the Ravelstone Formation (siltstone and
argillite) and Narracoota Formation (highly-altered, moderate to strongly deformed mafc to
ultramafc rocks). The main zone of mineralisation is developed within a horizon of highly
altered magnesian basalt. Gold mineralisation is associated with strong vein stock works that
are confned to the altered mafc. Alteration consists of two types; stockwork proximal silica-
carbonate-fuchsite-haematite-pyrite and distal silica-haematite-carbonate+/- chlorite.
•
The Peak Hill district represents remnants of a Proterozoic fold belt comprising highly deformed
trough and shelf sediments and mafc /ultramafc volcanics, which are generally moderately
metamorphosed (except for the Peak Hill Metamorphic Suite).
Drill hole
Information		 •
A summary of all information material to the understanding of the exploration results including
a tabulation of the following information for all Material drill holes:
oeasting and northing of the drill hole collar
oelevation or RL (Reduced Level – elevation above sea level in metres) of the drill hole collar
odip and azimuth of the hole
odown hole length and interception depth
ohole length.
•
If the exclusion of this information is justifed 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.		 •
No drillhole date being presented.

APPENDIX 6 – JORC TABLE 1 26

==> picture [772 x 17] intentionally omitted <==

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

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
----- End of picture text -----

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
Data aggregation
methods		 •
In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging techniques, maximum and/or
minimum grade truncations (e.g. cutting of high grades) and cut-of 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.		 •
No drillhole date being presented.
Relationship
between
mineralisation
widths and
intercept lengths		 •
These relationships are particularly important in the reporting of Exploration Results.
•
If the geometry of the mineralisation with respect to the drill hole angle is known, its
nature should be reported.
•
If it is not known and only the down hole lengths are reported, there should be a clear
statement to this efect (e.g. ‘down hole length, true width not known’).		 •
No drillhole date being presented.
Diagrams •
Appropriate maps and sections (with scales) and tabulations of intercepts should be
included for any signifcant discovery being reported These should include, but not be
limited to aplan view of drill hole collar locations and appropriate sectional views.		 •
No drillhole date being presented.
Balanced reporting •
Where comprehensive reporting of all Exploration Results is not practicable,
representative reporting of both low and high grades and/or widths should be practiced
to avoid misleading reporting of Exploration Results.		 •
No drillhole date being presented.
Other substantive
exploration data		 •
Other exploration data, if meaningful and material, should be reported including (but not
limited to): geological observations; geophysical survey results; geochemical survey
results; bulk samples – size and method of treatment; metallurgical test results; bulk
density, groundwater, geotechnical and rock characteristics; potential deleterious or
contaminating substances.		 •
No drillhole date being presented.
Further work •
The nature and scale of planned further work (e.g. tests for lateral extensions or depth
extensions or large-scale step-out drilling).
•
Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions, including the main
geological interpretations and future drilling areas, provided this information is not
commercially sensitive.		 •
Ongoing surface exploration activities will be undertaken to support continuing feasibility works
at the Fortnum Gold Project.

APPENDIX 6 – JORC TABLE 1 27

Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources

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

==> picture [772 x 17] intentionally omitted <==

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

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
----- End of picture text -----

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
Database integrity •
Measures taken to ensure that data has not been corrupted
by, for example, transcription or keying errors, between its
initial collection and its use for Mineral Resource estimation
purposes.
•
Data validation procedures used.		 •
Geological logging, drillhole location, laboratory analysis results and QA/QC data is retained in a relational database. MLX
uses DataShed as the relational database which has thorough built-in triggers for validation of imported data. An experienced
Database Administrator oversees quality control of data.
•
Drillhole, geological and sampling data is captured in specifcally designed spreadsheets with built in validation for data entry
felds, using established procedures.
•
Industry standard validation checks were conducted and included, but were not limited to:
o
No overlapping intervals.
o
Downhole surveys at 0m depth and also at the end of hole.
o
Consistency of depths between diferent data tables.
o
Check gaps in the data.
o
Sample number matching between feld sample records and laboratory results.
•
Additional validation checks included comparison against historic databases (2014, 2011 and 2009) and the database stored
on the DMP WAMEX database system (A035439). Approximately, 10% of the original collar, survey and assay (i.e. at least three
intervalsper hole) information was validated against the original or scans of the original hard copies.
Site visits •
Comment on any site visits undertaken by the Competent
Person and the outcome of those visits.
•
If no site visits have been undertaken indicate why this is the
case.		 •
Mr. Russell visits Metals X Gold Operations regularly.
Geological
interpretation		 •
Confdence in (or conversely, the uncertainty of) the
geological interpretation of the mineral deposit.
•
Nature of the data used and of any assumptions made.
•
The efect, if any, of alternative interpretations on Mineral
Resource estimation.
•
The use of geology in guiding and controlling Mineral Resource
estimation.
•
The factors afecting continuity both of grade and geology.		 •
Low-grade stockpiles are derived from previous mining of the mineralisation styles outlined above.
•
Geological matrixes were established to assist with interpretation and construction of the estimation domains.
•
Confdence in the interpretation is high as the geometry, geology, alteration and tenor of the mineralised zones was observed to
be consistent along strike and down dip
•
The interpretations was based on 10m and 20m north-south spaced sections.
•
The information used in the construction and estimation of the respective resources mineralisation is based on Air Core (AC),
Reverse Circulation (RC) and Diamond Drill (DDH) hole information. The AC was included in the poorly information estimation
domains and this was considered during the classifcation of these domains.
•
Oxidation surfaces were constructed from the logged information on 20m north south sections.
•
The extent and variability of the Mineral Resource expressed
as length (along strike or otherwise), plan width, and depth
below surface to the upper and lower limits of the Mineral
Resource.		 •
The Yarlarweelor mineral resource extends over 1,400m in strike length, 570m in lateral extent and 190m in depth.
•
The Tom’s and Sam’s mineral resource extends over 650m in strike length, 400m in lateral extent and 130m in depth.
•
The Eldorado mineral resource extends over 240m in strike length, 100m in lateral extent and 100m in depth.
•
Low-grade stockpiles are of various dimensions.

APPENDIX 6 – JORC TABLE 1 28

==> picture [772 x 17] intentionally omitted <==

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

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
----- End of picture text -----

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
Estimation
and modelling
techniques		 •
The nature and appropriateness of the estimation
technique(s) applied and key assumptions, including
treatment of extreme grade values, domaining, interpolation
parameters and 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 signifcance (e.g. sulphur for acid mine
drainage characterisation).
•
In the case of block model interpolation, the block size in
relation to the average sample spacing and the search
employed.
•
Any assumptions behind modelling of selective mining units.
•
Any assumptions about correlation between variables.
•
Description of how the geological interpretation was used to
control the resource estimates.
•
Discussion of basis for using or not using grade cutting or
capping.
•
The process of validation, the checking process used, the
comparison of model data to drill hole data, and use of
reconciliation data if available.		 •
All modelling and estimation work undertaken by Metals X is carried out in three dimensions with Surpac Vision, Snowden’s
Supervisor v8.3 and or Isatis 2015.
•
Ordinary kriging (OK) and Localised Indicator Kriging (LIK) has been used. LIK was used for the estimation of all Jasperoid
related estimation domains due to mosaic mineralisation style. Length weighting of assay values related to surveyed volumes
was undertaken for low-grade stockpiles.
•
All estimates were validated where possible against historical production records and previous estimates.
•
After validating the drillhole data to be used in the estimation, interpretation of the orebody is undertaken in sectional and
/ or plan view to create the outline strings which form the basis of the three dimensional orebody wireframe. Wireframing
was carried out using a combination of automated stitching algorithms and manual triangulation to create an accurate three
dimensional representation of the sub-surface mineralised body. Domaining was constructed on 20m and 10m spaced sections
and was based on logged lithologies, quartz percentage and gold value.
•
Drillhole intersections within the mineralised body are defned; these intersections are then used to fag the appropriate
sections of the drillhole database tables for compositing purposes. Assay data was composited to 1m downhole using Surpac
“best ft” algorithm. The “best ft” algorithm eliminates residual composites and the estimation domains boundaries defned the
start and end position of the compositing routine. In all aspects of resource estimation; the factual and interpreted geology was
used to guide the development of the interpretation.
•
Support analysis of the diference drill types (Air Core (AC), Reverse Circulation (RC) and Diamond Drill holes (DDH)) was
performed and the mixing these deemed acceptable. The AC drill holes were used in the estimation of the poorly informed
estimation domains.
•
Statistical analysis was carried out on the composited data to assist with determining estimation search parameters, top-cuts
and spatial continuity. Data for some of the domains exhibit an increased degree of skewness and top-cuts were applied to
reduce the skewness of distribution. The appropriateness of the top-cuts was assessed for each domain utilising log-probability
plots, mean and variance plots, histograms and univariate statistics for the composite Au variable.
•
Variogram modelling was undertaken using Isatis™ software and defned the spatial continuity of gold within all domains and
these parameters were used for the interpolation process. Indicator variograms were generated within the Jasperoid related
estimation domains to the used in the LIK estimation process.
•
Volume models were generated in Surpac using topographic surfaces, oxidation surfaces and mineralised zone wireframes as
constraints.
•
Quantitative Kriging Neighbourhood Analysis was used optimise the search parameters.
•
Search ellipses were aligned parallel to the maximum continuity defned during the variographic analysis. The search
dimensions, generally, approximated the ranges of the interpreted variograms and ranged from 50 to 100m. The minimum and
maximum number of samples range from 7 to 11 and 18 to 30, respectively. Second and third pass searches were implement to
fll the un-estimated cells / blocks if they were not estimated during the frst search pass and these search parameters involved
increasing in the search distances and reducing in the minimum number of samples used in the estimation process.
•
The extrapolation was control through the interpreted estimation domains, which was limited to half the drill hole spacing within
section and half the section spacingbetween sections.

APPENDIX 6 – JORC TABLE 1 29

==> picture [772 x 17] intentionally omitted <==

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

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
----- End of picture text -----

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
•
Block estimation for gold was undertaken using Isatis™ and hard boundaries were used between domains for estimation of gold
grade.
•
No assumptions were made about recovery during the OK and LIK estimation processes.
•
Grade estimation was undertaken, with the ordinary kriging (OK) estimation method for all non-jasperoid related estimation
domains.
•
Check estimates were run using Localised Uniform Conditioning (LUC) for the LIK estimation domains, which produces a similar
form of result to LIK. The LIK and LUC models were compared, with reasonable agreement at lower cut-ofs and diferences at
higher cut-ofs refecting higher estimated gold variability in the LIK model. The LIK is believed to be better suited to the style of
mineralisation for the Jasperoid related estimation domains.
•
The estimation is validated using the following: a visual interrogation, a comparison of the mean composite grade to the mean
block grade for each domain, a comparison of the wireframe volume to the block volume for each domain, grade trend plots
(moving window statistics), comparison to the previous resource estimate.
•
The only element of economic interest modelled is gold.
The Isatis™ block models were transferred and imported to Surpac Mining Software. The transfer and importing process was
validated against the Isatis™ block model. The resource was then depleted for mining voids and subsequently classifed in line
with JORCguidelines utilisinga combination of various estimation derivedparameters andgeological / miningknowledge.
Moisture •
Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or with
natural moisture, and the method of determination of the
moisture content.		 •
Tonnages are estimated as dry metric.
Cut-of parameters •
The basis of the adopted cut-of grade(s) or quality
parameters applied.		 •
Interpretation cut-of varies based upon boundary analysis.
•
Various top-cut values have been applied to the data dependent on domains used in the OK estimation process. No top-cutting
was applied to the Jasperoid related estimation domains because of the LIK estimation methodology was implemented.
•
The reported ≥0.7 g/t Au cutof grade is based on surface mining techniques and was determined through interval engineering
investigations.
•
Low-grade stocks are reportedglobally.
Mining factors or
assumptions		 •
Assumptions made regarding possible mining methods,
minimum mining dimensions and internal (or, if applicable,
external) mining dilution. It is always necessary as part of
the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual
economic extraction to consider potential mining methods,
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.		 •
Conventional open cut mining with 120t class hydraulic backhoe excavators and 90t rigid dump trucks.
•
2m minimum mining width has been assumed.
•
No mining dilution or ore loss has been modelled in the resource model or applied to the reported Mineral Resource.
Metallurgical factors
or assumptions		 •
The basis for assumptions or predictions regarding
metallurgical amenability. It is always necessary as part of
the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual
economic extraction to consider potential metallurgical
methods, but the assumptions regarding metallurgical
treatment processes and parameters made when reporting
Mineral Resources may not always be rigorous. Where this is
the case, this should be reported with an explanation of the
basis of the metallurgical assumptions made.		 •
Horizons were modelled based on oxidation state of the host rocks, taken from the drilling information. These were: transported
and lateritic residuum, oxidised, transitional and fresh.
•
Jasperoid was fagged in the model due to its hardness and difering heap leach characteristics as identifed in recent
metallurgical scoping studies.

APPENDIX 6 – JORC TABLE 1 30

==> picture [772 x 17] intentionally omitted <==

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

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
----- End of picture text -----

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
Environmental
factors or
assumptions		 •
Assumptions made regarding possible waste and process
residue disposal options. It is 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 greenfelds 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.		 •
Metals X operates in accordance with all environmental conditions set down as conditions for grant of the respective mining
leases.
Bulk density •
Whether assumed or determined. If assumed, the basis for the
assumptions. If determined, the method used, whether wet or
dry, the frequency of the measurements, the nature, size and
representativeness of the samples.
•
The bulk density for bulk material must have been measured
by methods that adequately account for void spaces (vugs,
porosity, etc.), moisture and diferences between rock and
alteration zones within the deposit.
•
Discuss assumptions for bulk density estimates used in the
evaluationprocess of the diferent materials.		 •
A large suite of bulk density determinations have been carried out across the project area. The bulk densities were separated
into diferent weathering domains and lithological domains (i.e. jasperoid domains). Density determinations were made on
diamond drill core representing mineralisation utilised the water immersion method (Archimedes Principle).
Classifcation •
The basis for the classifcation of the Mineral Resources into
varying confdence categories.
•
Whether appropriate account has been taken of all relevant
factors (i.e. relative confdence in tonnage/grade estimations,
reliability of input data, confdence in continuity of geology
and metal values, quality, quantity and distribution of the
data).
•
Whether the result appropriately refects the Competent
Person’s view of the deposit.		 •
The continuity of geology and mineralisation is well understood, with most of the reported resource being covered by either 20
x2 0m resource drilling or 10 x1 0m grade control drilling.
•
Where employed, the non-linear, local estimation method used is considered appropriate for the style of mineralisation and
assumed mining selectivity.
•
A combination of gold estimation quality parameters and drill spacing were ultimately used to defne resource confdence
categories.
•
The Competent Person believes that the classifcation fairly represents the confdence in the resource estimates, as they are
described in the JORC (2012) code.
Audits or reviews •
The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral Resource
estimates.		 •
Resource estimates are peer reviewed by the site technical team as well as Metals X’s Corporate technical team.

APPENDIX 6 – JORC TABLE 1 31

==> picture [772 x 17] intentionally omitted <==

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

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
----- End of picture text -----

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
Discussion of
relative accuracy/
confdence		 •
Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy
and confdence level in the Mineral Resource estimate
using an approach or procedure deemed appropriate by the
Competent Person. For example, the application of statistical
or geostatistical procedures to quantify the relative accuracy
of the resource within stated confdence limits, or, if such an
approach is not deemed appropriate, a qualitative discussion
of the factors that could afect the relative accuracy and
confdence 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 confdence of the
estimate should be compared with production data, where
available.		 •
Mineral Resources have been reported in accordance with the guidelines of the 2012 edition of the Australasian Code for
Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves and refects the relative accuracy of the Mineral Resource
estimates.
•
The current Mineral Resource model represents a robust estimate of the in-situ gold mineralisation for Fortnum resource
reported. The method used is designed to provide an estimate of local mineable resources, based on current mining methods.

APPENDIX 6 – JORC TABLE 1 32

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.)

==> picture [772 x 17] intentionally omitted <==

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

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
----- End of picture text -----

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
Mineral Resource
estimate for
conversion to Ore
Reserves		 •
Description of the Mineral Resource estimate used as a basis for the conversion to an Ore
Reserve.
•
Clear statement as to whether the Mineral Resources are reported additional to, or inclusive of,
the Ore Reserves.		 •
The total Reserve Statement of 338.5k Oz is a combination of the individual ‘Resource’ models with the
appropriate mining, geotechnical, processing and hydrological modifying factors applied.
•
The total Resource for Measured and Indicated categories covered by the Reserve statement is 21,786k
tonnes @ 1.8 g/t for 1,239k contained Ounces (based on cut-ofs specifc to the individual orebodies).
Mineral Resources are inclusive of Ore Reserves.
•
All resources that have been converted to Reserve are classifed as either Indicated or Measured.
Indicated Resources are only upgraded to Probable Reserves after adding appropriate modifying
factors. Some Measured Resource may be classifed as Proven Reserves and some are classifed as
Probable Reserve based on whether it is developed and /or has drill hole density/ historicalproduction.
Site visits •
Comment on any site visits undertaken by the Competent Person and the outcome of those
visits.
•
If no site visits have been undertaken indicate why this is the case.		 •
Mr Anthony Buckingham has been an employee of Metals X (and its subsidiaries) for the past 7
years and has over 15 years’ experience specifcally in the Western Australian mining industry. Mr
Buckingham visits the Fortnum mine site on a regular fortnightly basis and is the primary engineer
involved in mine planning, site infrastructure and project management.
Study status •
The type and level of study undertaken to enable Mineral Resources to be converted to Ore
Reserves.
•
The Code requires that a study to at least 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.		 •
The Fortnum Gold Mine Operation ceased production in May 2007 when owned by Gleneagle Gold.
Previous to this the operation was operated by Perilya and Homestake, and frst began commercial
mining operations in the late 1980’s. Extensive mining and processing records are therefore available
in each of the deposits.
•
Various open pit styles and host domains have been mined since discovery of the area by Homestake
in 1980’s. Mining during this time has ranged from open pit cut backs, virgin surface excavations to
extensional underground developments.
•
The Fortnum Gold Mine Open Pit and Underground inventory had a Pre-feasibility study completed by
MLX in early 2016. Additional cost details, operational constraints and a revision of the Resources (with
classifcation) have continued since this initial fnancial evaluation. A Feasibility Study was completed
on these revisions and therefore forms the basis for this Reserve Statement. The Fortnum Gold Mine is
now at a budgetary level analysis with specifc details on processing components and reagent costs,
specifc mining contractor cost profles, contractual haulage costs, power provider unit rates as well as
site specifc G&A.

APPENDIX 6 – JORC TABLE 1 33

==> picture [772 x 26] intentionally omitted <==

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

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
Cut-off parameters • The basis of the cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters applied. • The pit rim cut off grade (COG) was determined as part of the Open Pit Reserve estimation. The
----- End of picture text -----

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
Cut-of parameters •
The basis of the cut-of grade(s) or quality parameters applied.		 •
The pit rim cut of grade (COG) was determined as part of the Open Pit Reserve estimation. The
pit rim COG determines which material will be processed by equating the operating cost of grade
control, processing, surface haulage, G&A and selling cost to the value of the mining block in terms of
recovered metal and the expected selling price. The COG is then used to determine whether or not a
mining block should be delivered to the treatment plant for processing or taken to the waste dump as
waste.
•
A range of COG’s were applied to the Open Pit Resources depending upon their location / distance to the
ROM, oxide state, mill recoveries and density requirements for grade control drilling. Therefore COG’s
varied between 0.9 g/t up to 1.2g/t.
•
Low grade piles local to the Plant had a 0.6g/t determinant and the regional low grade stocks of
Horseshoe / Harmony were cut at 0.8 – 1.0g/t. Low Grade stockpiles incurred a low cost profle than
open pits for processing, because of the predominantly oxide material, as well as G&A, as the operation
would have limited fxed management when milling this inventory.
•
The Underground COG was determined by the applying Resource specifc mining method costs,
operating development requirements, geology and fxed costs components, surface haulage (if
applicable), royalties as well as processing requirements with mill recoveries incorporated. For
the case of underground tunnel development, and in the situation where the drive is required to be
excavated for production, a Low Grade COG is applied. This LG COG is calculated on only Processing and
G&A costs. A subsequent, capital inputted, fnancial evaluation of each mine is completed to ensure
the asset produces a positive NPV. The Starlight Underground had an applied 2.8 g/t COG to determine
the HG category.

APPENDIX 6 – JORC TABLE 1 34

==> picture [772 x 17] intentionally omitted <==

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

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
----- End of picture text -----

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
Mining factors or
assumptions		 •
The method and assumptions used as reported in the Pre-Feasibility or Feasibility 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 (e.g. 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.		 Open Pit Methodology.
Following consideration of the various modifying factors the following rules were applied to the reserve
estimation process for the conversion of measured and indicated resource to reserve for suitable
evaluation.
•
The mining shape in the reserve estimation is generated by a wireframe (geology interpretation
of the ore zone) which overlays the block model. Where the wire frame cuts the primary block,
sub blocks fll out the remaining space to the wire frame boundary (efectively the mining
shape). It is reasonable to assume that the mining method can selectively mine to the wire
frame boundary with the additional dilution provision stated in point 4 below.
•
Ore Reserves are based on Pit shape designs – with appropriate modifcations to the original
Whittle Shell outlines to ensure compliance with practical mining parameters.
•
Geotechnical parameters allied to the Open Pit Reserves are either based on observed existing
pit shape specifcs or domain specifc expectations / assumptions. Various geotechnical reports
and retrospective reconciliations were considered in the 2016 design parameters. A majority of
the open pits have a fnal design wall angle of 38-420, which is seen as conservative.
•
Dilution of the ore through the mining process has been accounted for within the Reserve
quoted inventory. Various dilution ratios are used to represent the style of mineralization.
Where continuous, consistent ore boundaries and grade represent the mineralised system
the following factors are applied: oxide 15%, transitional 17% and fresh 19%. In circumstances
where the orebody is less homogenous above the COG then the following dilution factors are
applied in order to model correctly the inherent variability of extracting discrete sections of the
pit foor: oxide 17%, transitional 19% and fresh 21%. To ensure clarity, the following percentages
are additional ore mined in relation to excavating the wire frame boundary as identifed in point
1 above, albeit at a grade of 0.0 g/t. The amount of dilution is considered appropriate based on
orebody geometry, historical mining performance and the size of mining equipment to be used
to extract ore.
•
Expected open pit mining recovery of the ore has been set at 93%.
•
Minimum mining widths have been accounted for in the designs, with the utilization of 40T &
90T trucking parameters.
•
No specifc ground support requirements are needed outside of suitable pit slope design criteria
based on specifc geotechnical domains.
•
Mining sequence is included in the mine scheduling process for determining the economic
evaluation and takes into account available operating time and mining equipment size and
performance.
•
No Inferred material is included within the open pit statement, though in various pit shapes
inferred material ispresent. In these situations this inferred material is classifed as waste.

APPENDIX 6 – JORC TABLE 1 35

==> picture [772 x 17] intentionally omitted <==

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

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
----- End of picture text -----

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
Underground Methodology.
•
All Underground Reserves are based on 3D design strings and polygon derived stope shapes
following the Measured and Indicated Resource (in areas above the COG). A complete mine
schedule is then derived from this design to create a LOM plan and fnancial analysis.
•
Mining methodology is based on previous mining experience. All mining systems within the
Reserve statement are standardized, mechanized Western Australian methods.
•
In large disseminated orebodies a sub level open stoping or single level bench stoping
production methodology is used.
•
In narrow vein laminated quartz hosted domains a conservative narrow bench style mining
method is used.
•
In narrow fat dipping deposits a Flat Long Hole process is adopted (with fllets in the footwall
for rill angle) and or Jumbo stoping.
•
Stope shape parameters have been based on historical data (where possible) or expected
stable hydraulic radius dimensions.
•
Stope inventories have been determined by cutting the geological wireframe at above the area
specifc COG and applying mining dilution and ore loss factors. The ore loss ratio accounts
for pillar locations between the stopes (not operational ore loss) whilst dilution allows for
conversion of the geological wireframe into a minable shape as well as hangingwall relaxation.
A 20% dilution factor and 10% loss ratio has been subsequently applied to the Starlight Reserve
statement.
•
Minimum mining widths have been applied in the various mining methods. The only
production style relevant to this constraint is ‘narrow stoping’ – where the minimum width is
set at 1.5m in an 18.5m sub level interval.
•
Mining operational recovery for the underground mines is set at 100% due to the use of remote
loading units.
•
Stope shape dimensions vary between the various methods. Default hydraulic radii are
applied to each method, and are derived either from historical production or geotechnical
reports / recommendations. Where no data or exposure is available conservative HR values
are used based on the contact domain type.
•
Mining sequence is included in the mine scheduling process for determining the economic
evaluation and takes into account available operating time and mining equipment size and
performance.

APPENDIX 6 – JORC TABLE 1 36

==> picture [772 x 17] intentionally omitted <==

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

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
----- End of picture text -----

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
Metallurgical
factors or
assumptions		 •
The metallurgical process proposed and the appropriateness of that process to the style 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 defned by a specifcation, has the ore reserve estimation been based on
the appropriate mineralogy to meet the specifcations?		 •
Fortnum Gold Mine has an existing conventional CIL processing plant – which has been operational in
various periods since the late 1980’s. The plant has a nameplate capacity of 1.0Mtpa though this can
be varied between 0.8-1.2Mtpa pending rosters and material type.
•
Grind size for the sulphide material has historically been 130 µm.
•
An extensive database of historical CIL recoveries as well as detailed metallurgical test work is
available for the various deposits and these have been incorporated into the COG analysis and fnancial
models.
•
For the 2016 Reserve, Plant recoveries of 93-95% have been utilised.
Environmental •
The status of studies of potential 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 of approvals for process residue
storage and waste dumps should be reported.		 •
The Fortnum Gold Mine has normal Western Australian permitting requirements.
Infrastructure •
The existence of appropriate infrastructure: 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.		 •
Fortnum Gold Mine, despite being under Care and Maintenance since 2007, has an existing operational
infrastructure base with a 108 man camp facility, various water bores, existing TSF, a processing plant,
airstrip, communications and main road access ways.
Costs •
The derivation of, or assumptions made, 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 refning charges, penalties for failure to
meet specifcation, etc.
•
The allowances made for royalties payable, both Government and private.		 •
Open Pit Mining costs have been sourced from MLX CMGP operations whereby several contracting
companies are undertaking mining works. These costs include pit load and haul as well as drill and
blast, dewatering and maintenance. The costs are based on recent tender submissions (early 2016)
for the CMGP which is located 200km south of the Fortnum Gold Mine.
•
Underground mining costs used within the Reserve process are derived from existing operational UG
mines within the Kalgoorlie and Meekatharra district. They are based on current contractual schedule
of rates for all mining processes covered in this Reserve statement.
•
Additional to direct mining costs, surface haulage is based on recent 2016 request for quotation. Where
specifc tkm rates are not available, a default value of $0.10-0.15 /tkm has been used.
•
Processing costs are based on the 2016 Feasibility profle. These costs are in line with previous
operating conditions and are aligned to the cost profle seen in MLX’s neighbouring operation of CMGP.
•
Royalties applicable to the open pit, underground and stockpile inventory vary pending tenement,
though a summary of these are:
o
$10/oz after frst 50,000oz (capped at $2M)- Perilya
o
1% NRS - Montezuma
o
State Government – 2.5% NSR

APPENDIX 6 – JORC TABLE 1 37

==> picture [772 x 17] intentionally omitted <==

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

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
----- End of picture text -----

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
Revenue factors •
The derivation of, or assumptions made 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.		 •
Assessed at A$1,550 / Oz.
Market assessment •
The demand, supply and stock situation for the particular commodity, consumption trends and
factors likely to afect supply and demand into the future.
•
A customer and competitor analysis along with the identifcation of likely market windows for
the product.
•
Price and volume forecasts and the basis for these forecasts.
•
For industrial minerals the customer specifcation, testing and acceptance requirements prior
to a supply contract.		 •
Assessed at A$1,550 / Oz
Economic •
The inputs to the economic analysis to produce the net present value (NPV) in the study, the
source and confdence of these economic inputs including estimated infation, discount rate,
etc.
•
NPV ranges and sensitivity to variations in the signifcant assumptions and inputs.		 •
A straight undiscounted Cash Flow Model has been used to analyse the Fortnum Gold Mine. The 5 years
term does not warrant extensive Discount / Infationary modelling.
Social •
The status of agreements with key stakeholders and matters leading to social licence to
operate.		 •
No negative social impacts noted.
•
Local stakeholders have been consulted regarding MLX plan for the Fortnum Gold Mine.
•
MLX continues to work with local governments, business owners and residence around the Fortnum
Gold Mine.

APPENDIX 6 – JORC TABLE 1 38

==> picture [772 x 17] intentionally omitted <==

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

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
----- End of picture text -----

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
Other •
To the extent relevant, the impact of the following on the project and/or on the estimation and
classifcation of the Ore Reserves:
•
Any identifed material naturally occurring risks.
•
The status of material legal agreements and marketing arrangements.
•
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.		 •
A Mining Proposal for the localised 2016 Open Pit Reserves has been approved – Yarlarweelor, Callies,
Toms.
•
A Project Management Plan for the re-start of the operations (processing, dewatering and open pit
mining) has been approved.
•
Native Title Agreements are established in all Reserve areas.
•
Further work required on approvals for the underground and regional pits, and MLX will work through
these requirements in late 2016.
Classifcation •
The basis for the classifcation of the Ore Reserves into varying confdence categories.
•
Whether the result appropriately refects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit.
•
The proportion of Probable Ore Reserves that have been derived from Measured Mineral
Resources (if any).		 •
Only a small vertical fitch within Tom’s Resources has been classifed as Measured (with fnal grade
control density drilling completed in 2007) with all other Resources having an Indicated designation.
•
All Open Pit and Underground Reserves therefore have been classifed as Probable.
•
The LG stocks have been classifed as Probable to account for material type variations as well as any
possible survey and density discrepancies.
Audits or reviews •
The results of any audits or reviews of Ore Reserve estimates.		 •
Various technical mining and fnancial analysis reports have been undertaken on the operations since
May 2007 as part of re-start programs.
•
These external independent reports and cost models have been used as a reference for the 2016
Reserve calculation / mining modifcation factors in order to validate MLX assumptions and or
parameters.
•
A detailed internal MLX review of the Feasibility was completed in early July 2016.
•
MLX continues to utilise external consultants (experts in their feld) for geotechnical, geological,
hydrological and metallurgical input.

APPENDIX 6 – JORC TABLE 1 39

==> picture [772 x 27] intentionally omitted <==

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

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
Discussion of • Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and confidence level in the Ore • Various sensitivity analyses have been undertaken on the 2016 Reserve models in order to understand
----- End of picture text -----

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
Discussion of •
Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and confdence level in the Ore		 •
Various sensitivity analyses have been undertaken on the 2016 Reserve models in order to understand
relative accuracy/
confdence		 Reserve estimate using an approach or procedure deemed appropriate by the Competent
Person. For example, the application of statistical or geostatistical procedures to quantify the
relative accuracy of the reserve within stated confdence limits, or, if such an approach is not
deemed appropriate, a qualitative discussion of the factors which could afect the relative
accuracy and confdence 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 confdence discussions should extend to specifc 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 confdence of the estimate should be compared with
production data, where available.		 and subsequently control risk.

APPENDIX 6 – JORC TABLE 1 40

More from Metals X Limited

AGM Information 2026
May 18
Declaration of Voting Results & Voting Rights Announcements 2026
May 18
Major Shareholding Notification 2026
May 7
Capital/Financing Update 2026
May 7
Interim / Quarterly Report 2026
Apr 29
Capital/Financing Update 2026
Apr 29
Capital/Financing Update 2026
Apr 29
Proxy Solicitation & Information Statement 2026
Apr 16
Regulatory Filings 2026
Mar 24
Governance Information 2026
Mar 24
View all filings →