Metals X Limited - Interim / Quarterly Report 2015

==> picture [152 x 56] intentionally omitted <==

Metals X Limited is a diversified group exploring and developing minerals and metals in Australia. It is Australia’s largest tin producer, a top 10 gold producer and holds a pipeline of assets from exploration to development including the world class Wingellina NIckel Project.

QUARTERLY REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 30 SEPTEMBER 2014 SIGNIFICANT OUTPUTS DURING THE QUARTER

CORPORATE

Cash & working capital at end of quarter of $133.3 million including gold pre-pay of $40.45 million.
Annual dividend policy announced to be 30% of NPAT and inaugural dividend of 0.6785 cents per share with a record date of 16 December 2014.
Capital consolidation of 1 for 4 announced to be voted on at AGM, reducing shares on issue to approximately 414 million.
Metals X was included in the S&P/ASX 300 index commencing 20 September 2014.

CORPORATE DIRECTORY ASX Code: MLX OTCQX Code: MTXXY

GOLD DIVISION

Gold division outperformed production guidance by 20.8%
Mined 207,385 tonnes @ 5.96 g/t Au.

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

Processed 394,252 tonnes @ 3.46 g/t Au.
Gold metal produced was 42,293 ounces (up 10% Q on Q).
Total cash cost of sales was $878/oz (4% higher Q on Q).
EBITDA (unaudited) of $22.2 million (4% higher Q on Q).

PO Box 1959 West Perth WA 6872 Australia

TIN DIVISION

Record Quarterly tin output:
Mined 173,332 tonnes @1.56% Sn (steady).

t: +61 8 9220 5700 f: +61 8 9220 5757 [email protected] www.metalsx.com.au

Processed 167,879 tonnes @ 1.56% Sn (grade 0.11% higher).
Tin metal production (in concentrates) increased by 9% to 1,831 tonnes.
Total cash cost of sales was $18,910/t Sn (lower by 3.2%, output driven).
Metals X share of EBITDA (unaudited) of $4.36 million (lower by 11%, lower tin prices).

NICKEL DIVISION

Wingellina Public Environmental Review document ready for submission (following Environmental Scoping study approved by the EPA on 23 May 2014).
A further 100 tonne bulk sample extracted and dispatched to Korea for metallurgical testing using an alternative Limonite processing technology.

==> picture [152 x 138] intentionally omitted <==

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

ROVER
CLAUDE HILLS
MT DAVIES
WINGELLINA
CMGP
HGO
SKO
RENISON
----- End of picture text -----

Approvals received for drilling of new limonite prospect to be completed in next quarter.

WARUMPI JOINT VENTURE

Substantial high grade copper and zinc results, up to 9.9% Cu and 8.55% Zn returned from a newly discovered gossan.

ENQUIRIES

Peter Cook

Warren Hallam Executive Director [email protected]

Executive Director & CEO [email protected]

GOLD DIVISION

OVERVIEW

Metals X continued to consolidate its position as a gold producer with the end of the quarter marking the first year anniversary as a gold producer from its gold division strategy. Production guidance on acquisition was for a first full year of 150,000 per ounce at total costs of A$1,000 per ounce.

The first full year for the gold division yielded 180,361 ounces at total costs of sales of A$999 per ounce. Further, EBITDA generated from the first year of gold production was A$106.9 million.

Gold production for the current quarter was again above guidance of 35,000 ounces by 20.8% at 42,293 ounces.

At the Higginsville Gold Operations, the Company closed the Chalice Underground Mine during the quarter as previously forecast. The Company successfully commenced open pit mining at the Lake Cowen open pits to replace the Chalice ore source.

The South Kalgoorlie Operations continued to operate at full capacity on low grade stocks and intermittent toll processing of third party ores. Significant progress was made on a revised development plan that will see open pit mining recommence in the ensuing quarter as well as a re-start of the HBJ underground mine.

At the CMGP, detailed planning and the generation of budgets and works schedules are nearing completion. A number of immediate mining opportunities were drilled and evaluated and a revised plan of operations for a re-start of operations in mid 2015 is taking shape.

Diamond drilling at Rover 1 (copper-gold-bismuth) is underway with a focus on a resource upgrade below 600 m vertical depth and to gain additional data for geotechnical and shaft sinking studies.

Production guidance for the ensuing quarter for the gold division is 30,000 ounces at a total cost of A$1,100 per ounce. The lower production rate and increase in total cost reflects the buildup of open pit mining over the quarter which is initially of lower grade than the gold production from the Chalice Underground Mine.

HIGGINSVILLE GOLD OPERATIONS (HGO)

HGO consists of a modern 1.35 Mtpa capacity CIP plant, a 300 person village, the Trident Underground Mine, numerous open pits and requisite mine and process infrastructure.

==> picture [524 x 159] intentionally omitted <==

[Photo: Higginsville 1.35 Mtpa Gold Plant]

Productivity and operational performance during the quarter was highlighted by excellent mine grade performance from the Trident Mine which offset lower production from the Chalice Mine. Continued issues with stoping at the Chalice Mine and lower reconciliations in the final development drives brought forward the closure of the mine, essentially 60,000 tonnes lower than expectated. The mine was completely closed and all stock was depleted by the end of the quarter. A complete writeoff of the remaining carrying values at the Chalice Mine occurred during the quarter.

QUARTERLY REPORT 2 FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 30 SEPTEMBER 2014

Ore from the Chalice Mine is being replaced with open pit ores from the Lake Cowan group of pits located approximately 10 km north-east of the process plant. Open pit mining commenced late in the quarter with the mining of the Louis Pit. These ores will complement the feeds from the Trident Mine and production rates will build during the current quarter.

HGO operating output for the quarter is summarised as follows:

Higginsville Gold Operations	September 14 Quarter	Previous Quarter
Mine Production
Ore Tonnes (t)	207,385	247,629
ROM Grade (g/t Au)	5.96	4.86
Ore Processed
Tonnes Processed	214,688	224,030
Head Grade (g/t Au)	5.67	5.24
Recovery (%)	96.6	94.7
Gold Produced (oz)	37,834	35,777

The imputed key fiscal outcomes attributable to HGO for the quarter are summarised below:

Higginsville Gold Operations	September 14 Quarter	Previous Quarter
Imputed Revenue (A$ Million)	53.0	50.0
Avg. Gold Price Received (A$/oz)	1,400	1,394
Cash Operating Cost (A$/oz)	815	798
Cash Cost of Sales (A$/oz)	895	875
Cash Operating Surplus (EBITDA) $M	19.2	18.7
Depreciation & Amortisation (A$/oz)	224	239
Total Cost of Sales (A$/oz)	1,119	1,114

Total capital reinvestment into HGO for the quarter is summarised below:

Higginsville Gold Operations	September 14 Quarter	Previous Quarter
Capital Mine Development ($M)	3.91	4.27
Exploration ($M)	0.95	0.81
Property Plant & Equipment ($M)	0.74	0.64

QUARTERLY REPORT 3 FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 30 SEPTEMBER 2014

HIGGINSVILLE GOLD OPERATIONS (HGO) (CONTINUED) EXPLORATION ACTIVITY

Exploration work at Trident has had a dual focus, with drilling targeted at both defining the internal grade distribution of the Artemis and Helios zones below the current mining front, and expanding the footprint of Trident Mineralisation beyond the boundaries of the current resource.

At Artemis, drilling was conducted beyond the southern boundary of the current resource and mine design. A best result of 0.7 m at 75.3 g/t in hole TUG2357 highlighted that the Artemis structure carries significant grade beyond what was thought to be the southernmost extent of economic mineralisation. Work over the current quarter will attempt to quantify the potential mining target in this area.

At Helios a previously undefined E Shear adjacent to active development has returned significant results over a strikelength of at least forty metres. This new zone of mineralisation is expected to contribute additional high-grade ounces to the production profile over the coming months without any additional capital expenditure. Best results returned from this E Shear include 2.6 m at 16.1 g/t from 16.8 m in hole TUG2316 and 2.7 m at 37.8 g/t from 16.3 m in hole TUG2320. In addition, Helios Core mineralisation within the current mining plan continues to return strong results in definition drilling. Some standout results this quarter include 8.1 m at 15.5 g/t from 80 m in hole TUG2307, 6.2 m at 6.8 g/t from 80.5 m in hole TUG2314 and 18 m at 5.2 g/t from 88.5 m in hole TUG2317.

The Poseidon zone which sits outside the current Trident resource and adjacent to existing Eastern Zone mining infrastructure has undergone initial testing this quarter. Pleasingly a series of strong results have been returned, providing significant encouragement for follow-up work in this area. Better results returned to date include 2.8 m at 10.1 g/t from 74 m in hole TUG2336, 2.1 m at 22.4 g/t from 69.5 m in hole TUG2332 and 2.8m at 6.5 g/t from 32.2 m in hole TUG2330.

Finally, a follow-up hole at the Ares (targetted up-dip and to the north of the current Artemis/Helios mining area) returned 8 m at 4.9 g/t Au. Work within the coming quarter will focus on better constraining the mineralised zone, which will allow for an initial economic assessment to be undertaken. This zone sits approximately 100 m from an existing developed area.

Significant drilling was conducted at the Josephine and Napoleon prospects in order to define additional ores to supplement the Louis Pit ore. Better results from this work include 19.1 m at 4.12 g/t from 42 m in hole LKCR252, 9.9 m at 4.30 g/t from 58 m in hole LKCR250 and 7.8 m at 9.77 g/t from hole LKCR258 all at Napoleon. It is expected that small open pits at both Josephine and Napoleon will be added to the current mining campaign at Louis.

Further afield, the Wills palaeo-channel resource underwent a last round of resource definition drilling. This will allow for finalisation of the pit design in anticipation of a significant campaign of palaeo-channel pit mining commencing in 2015. Better results from this work include 9 m at 6.34 g/t from 22 m in hole HIGA7133 and 7 m at 9.64 g/t from 23 m in hole HIGA7146.

QUARTERLY REPORT 4 FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 30 SEPTEMBER 2014

SOUTH KALGOORLIE OPERATIONS (SKO)

The SKO consists of a 1.2 Mtpa CIP plant and infrastructure. Numerous open pits and underground options have previously been mined within the tenement area since the late 1980’s.

The SKO operated predominantly on processing low grade stockpiles with intermittent toll processing of third party ores.

==> picture [524 x 159] intentionally omitted <==

[Photo: Jubilee Plant 1.2 Mtpa]

Operational performance for the SKO business unit includes only those ores owned and processed by SKO, no physical toll processing production from ores owned by other parties are reported below. Revenues from toll processing are credited against the operating costs such that fiscal production from site as a business unit is reported. No mining was undertaken during the quarter. Physical output is summarised below:

South Kalgoorlie Operations	September 14 Quarter	Previous Quarter
Mine Production
Ore Tonnes (t)	-	-
ROM Grade (g/t Au)	-	-
Ore Processed
Tonnes Processed (t)	179,564	112,175
Head Grade (g/t Au)	0.81	0.87
Recovery (%)	84.0	84.0
Gold Produced (oz)	4,459	2,657

The imputed key fiscal outcomes for the quarter attributable to SKO are summarised below:

South Kalgoorlie Operations	September 14 Quarter	Previous Quarter
Imputed Revenue (A$)	6.30	3.72
Avg. Gold Price Received (A$/oz)	1,400	1,380
Cash Operating Cost (A$/oz)	696	421
Cash Cost of Sales (after tolling credits) (A$/oz)	733	442
Cash Operating Surplus (after tolling credits) (EBITDA $M)	3.04	2.55
Depreciation & Amortisation (A$/oz)	169	335
Total Cost of Sales (A$/oz)	902	777

QUARTERLY REPORT 5 FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 30 SEPTEMBER 2014

SOUTH KALGOORLIE OPERATIONS (SKO) (CONTINUED)

Total capital reinvestment into SKO for the quarter is summarised:

South Kalgoorlie Operations	September 14 Quarter	Previous Quarter
Capital Mine Development ($M)	-	0.36
Exploration ($M)	1.40	1.30
Property Plant & Equipment ($M)	0.44	0.05

In the ensuing quarter the plant feed will be a combination of SKO low-grade ore stocks and toll treatment of third party ores.

A number of small open pit feed sources have been identified, drilled and scheduled for open pit mining. These sources should see open pit mining recommence in the ensuing quarter and be processed in the March 2015 quarter. The staged approach to recommencing the HBJ Underground Mine advanced during the quarter with dewatering of the open pit being esentially completed. A new portal will be cut in the next quarter to intersect and allow rehabilitation of the old (existing) decline. Metals X expects to build a long-term ore supply from HBJ underground of approximately 400,000 tpa at 4-5 g/t Au on the doorstep of the process plant.

Additionally, a mine financing and profit sharing agreement was reached with Southern Gold during the quarter. This will see the Cannon Open Pit Mine and potentially an underground mine developed at Bulong. Under the agreement, Metals X’s staff will operate and manage the mine and the ore will be batch processed in parcels of approximately 40,000 tonnes through the Jubilee process plant. Revenue will firstly go to repay costs and the surplus will be split on a 50:50 basis.

Metals X is negotiating on a number of similar ventures with smaller operators in the Kalgoorlie region.

EXPLORATION ACTIVITY

Exploration drilling works at SKO during the quarter has been focussed on supporting the upcoming re-start of open pit mining. Open pit mining will initially will be concentrated in Locations 48 and 50, within 5 km of Metals X’s Jubilee Processing plant. Two of the three initial pits in this area, Peaceful Chief and Dusk underwent their final round of resource drilling. Better results returned from Peaceful Chief include 6 m at 3.01 g/t from 31 m in hole PCFRC025, 3 m at 9.75 g/t from 44 m in hole PCFRC032 and 3 m at 4.84 g/t Au from 57 m in hole PCFRC049. Better results returned from Dusk include 6 m at 3.58 g/t from 43 m in hole DSKRC043, 12 m at 1.78 g/t from 8 m in hole DSKRC044 and 12 m at 3.66 g/t from 11 m in hole DSKRC048. The third pit in the initial mining campaign, Mutooroo is undergoing final resource modelling, in preparation for optimisation, design and grade control in early November.

As reported in the previous quarter, the preparation of the existing Erebus and Fuji pits has continued to advance. These pits had previously terminated at a historical lease boundary that is now integrated into Metals X’s tenure. Initial positive drill results prompted follow-up drilling during the quarter, with recent results including 11 m at 3.31 g/t from 34 m in hole EBSRC075, 7 m at 5.12 g/t from 23 m in hole EBSRC096 and 11 m at 3.63 g/t from 43 m in hole EBSRC103. Based upon this drilling an initial resource model has been developed. Subsequent feasibility assessment has provided a pit design that will be grade controlled in early November in readiness for mining. Extensional drilling at Erebus continues, with the resource remaining open down-dip, and along-strike to the north.

Over the coming quarter exploration and resource development work at SKO will focus on: expanding the mining inventory in the Location 48/50 area; following up on the success achieved at Erebus; initial testing of the Trojan group of exploration targets will be undertaken in preparation for mining at the Trojan mining complex in 2015; ongoing geological development work at the large HBJ Underground Mine as it comes online from October.

QUARTERLY REPORT 6 FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 30 SEPTEMBER 2014

CENTRAL MURCHISON GOLD PROJECT (CMGP)

Metals X continued to advance its strategy to re-commence mining at the Central Murchison Gold Project.

The acquisition of the Meekatharra Gold Operations was completed in the previous quarter. These assets are now integrated into the existing Central Murchison Gold Project (CMGP), and works have commenced on a development strategy to bring the region into production in mid 2015.

The recently refurbished (and operated) 1.5–2.0 Mtpa process CIP plant and infrastructure provides an immediate process option for the ores in the region. As previously announced, the gold resource base covers the historic mineral production fields of Day Dawn, Cuddingwarra, Big Bell, Reedy, Yaloginda, Paddy’s Flat and Meekatharra North with a combined total resource of 7.85 million ounces.

==> picture [379 x 253] intentionally omitted <==

[Photo: Bluebird Plant 1.5–2.0 Mtpa]

The key objective for the CMGP is to re-establish the region as an underground mining hub whereby the major historic underground mines and prolific producers of Great Fingall, Golden Crown, Big Bell, Paddy’s Flat, Bluebird, Paddy’s Flat and Reedy mining centres are brought back into production.

The operational objective is to steadily access these underground mines on a staged basis over the ensuing years with an objective to achieve long-term sustainable production at a rate in excess of 200,000 oz per annum. The Bluebird mill will process a blended feedstock from all sources at an estimated rate of 2 million tonnes per annum at this point. In the build-up phase, smaller open pit mines will supplement underground development ores whilst full capacity is established over a 3 year period.

Metals X is close to completing its detailed development plans, costing and timing for the re-start which remains on track for a mid to late 2015 commencement.

On the exploration front, significant on-ground work commenced this quarter in support of the 2015 restart of operations at the CMGP.

Deep diamond drilling into the high-grade Great Fingall underground mine commenced, with the current holes designed to improve definition of the Great Fingall Reef at depth to assist in optimising the mine design. These holes are expected to be completed in November, with results available shortly thereafter.

The diamond rig will then shift onto drilling of underground targets at the Black Swan South and Rheingold prospects, both of which were prolific open pit mines with limited deeper evaluation.

QUARTERLY REPORT 7 FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 30 SEPTEMBER 2014

CENTRAL MURCHISON GOLD PROJECT (CONTINUED)

In the Yaloginda area, resource definition drilling was completed at the Batavia and Whangamata prospects to enable pit designs to be finalised. Results were not available at the end of the quarter. During the December quarter it is expected that grade control drilling for the first benches of all pits in the 2015 mining schedule will be completed, allowing ore block design and detailed short term scheduling to be undertaken well in advance of the proposed start of mining activities.

Diamond drilling will commence in the Paddy’s Flat area in October with an initial focus on underground targets at the high-grade Vivian – Consol’s mining area and from there progressing onto the Reedy mining centre.

==> picture [184 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [77 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [184 x 35] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [77 x 85] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [184 x 34] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [184 x 35] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [184 x 34] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [77 x 85] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [184 x 35] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [184 x 34] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [77 x 84] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [184 x 35] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [184 x 34] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [184 x 35] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [77 x 85] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [184 x 34] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [184 x 35] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [77 x 85] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [184 x 34] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [184 x 35] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [184 x 36] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [77 x 57] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [184 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

[Figure: Central Murchison Gold Project Locations]

QUARTERLY REPORT 8 FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 30 SEPTEMBER 2014

THE ROVER PROJECT (GOLD-COPPER-BISMUTH)

The Rover Project is an undercover repetition of the rich Tennant Creek Goldfield, 80 km to the north-east. Exploration to date has so far fully tested three blind targets within the project area. Each of which has defined significant mineralised IOCG (Iron Oxide Copper Gold) systems at Rover 1, Explorer 108 and Explorer 142 prospects.

Development works at Rover are focussed on the Rover 1 Prospect. Rover 1 is a virgin IOCG discovery and Metals X has previously announced a polymetallic Total Mineral Resource at Rover 1 (as at 30 June 2014) of 6.81 million tonnes at 1.74 g/t Au, 1.2% Cu, 0.14% Bi and 0.06% Co (1.22 Moz at 5.6 g/t gold equivalent).

The project area is proximal to a major infrastructure corridor adjacent to Central Australian Railway, gas pipeline and Stuart Highway.

Diamond Drilling commenced late in the quarter on an infill and extensional program for the Jupiter Deeps zone at Rover 1. At the quarter’s end the first hole defining the resource boundary in this area had been complete, with the margins of the ironstone and minor gold and chalcopyrite mineralisation (visual) successfully intersected. Assay results are yet to be recieved. A daughter hole/wedge targeting the centre of the ironstone down-plunge of the current Indicated resource is currently underway.

As previously advised, the Northern Territory Government, through the Geological Survey has awarded Metals X with co-funding of approximately $96,000 for the drilling of the Curiosity IP anomaly 36 km west-northwest of Rover 1. The co-funding has been awarded under the Geophysics and Drilling Collaborations program which is part of the NT Government’s CORE (Creating Opportunities for Resource Exploration) initiative which provides co-funding assistance for selected exploration drilling and geophysical acquisition projects in greenfields areas where there is a paucity of geological information. Drilling of this program commenced in mid October.

WARUMPI JOINT VENTURE (EARNING UP TO 80%)

The Warumpi Project is a grass roots exploration project in what is believed to be a paleo-proterozoic terrain equivalent to the prolific stratigraphy and epoch (1690-1610Ma) when the mega base metal mines of Broken Hill (1690Ma), Mt Isa (1654Ma), McArthur River (1640Ma) and Century (1610Ma) were formed. Metals X is a first mover in this virtually unknown and unexplored province.

Ground reconnaissance has discovered an outcropping gossan at the Huron Prospect with rock chip results at surface returning results up to 120g/t Ag, 9.89% Cu and 4.73% Zn (WR0343).

Further reconnaissance has revealed a cluster of gossanous outcrops with high anomalous base and precious metal results (silver, copper and zinc). Infill sampling surrounding this zone was completed during the quarter with results showing upto 182g/t Ag (WR0381), 7.72%Cu (WR0373) and 8.55% Zn (WR0351).

These results whilst early-stage, have provided encouragement for follow-up work, and as such, 3D IP and aerial magnetic surveys over the zone of anomalous surface responses have been planned for late October - early November.

QUARTERLY REPORT 9 FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 30 SEPTEMBER 2014

TIN DIVISION RENISON PROJECT (MLX 50%)

Productivity and operational performance continue to be in line with nameplate levels with higher head grades enabling a quarterly record of tin produced. Mine and processing outputs are summarised below:

Renison Mine (100%)	Sept 2014 Quarter	Previous Quarter	Rolling 12 Months
Ore Tonnes (t)	173,332	173,754	650,419
ROM Grade (%Sn)	1.56	1.43	1.48
Tin Concentrator
Tonnes Processed (t)	167,879	172,350	649,032
Head Grade (%Sn)	1.56	1.45	1.48
Tail Grade (% Sn)	0.48	0.47	0.47
Tin Metal Produced (t)	1,831	1,685	6,461

The operations have matured such that process capacity is no longer dictated by the mine output and increasing ore stocks have been building up ahead of the processing plant. The focus of mining is now on optimisation and grade maximisation whilst maintaining productivity.

The Renison tin concentrator plant continued to show steady performance with excellent availability, lower tin residues and significantly improved concentrate quality. Continuous improvement work programs are underway and are aimed at increasing plant productivity.

Whilst tin production was at record levels, lower revenue was received as the average tin price fell by A$1,200/t compared with the previous quarter. The key fiscal outcomes for the quarter attributable to Metals X’s 50% ownership of the Renison Project are summarised below:

Fiscal Outcomes(MLX Share)	Sept 2014 Quarter	Previous Quarter	Rolling 12 Months
Imputed Revenue (A$)	21.7	20.9	79.7
Tin Price Received (A$/t Sn)	23,659	24,855	24,560
Cash Operating Cost (A$/t Sn)	15,564	16,346	15,788
Cash Cost of Sales (A$/t Sn)	18,910	19,521	19,018
Cash Operating Surplus (EBITDA $M)	4.36	5.03	19.9
Depreciation & Amortisation (A$/t Sn)	1,821	2,201	2,316
Total Cost of Sales (A$/t Sn)	20,731	21,722	21,334

Capital re-investment at Renison has continued to slow as expected. A large stock of capitally and normally developed ore exists with mine, which bodes well for future production. Drilling activity during the quarter was focussed on the upgrading and infilling of known resources.

Capital Re-investments(MLX Share)	Sept 2014 Quarter	Previous Quarter	Rolling 12 Months
Capital Mine Development ($M)	1.09	2.09	8.35
Exploration ($M)	0.39	0.03	2.59
Property Plant & Equipment ($M)	0.36	0.19	1.28

QUARTERLY REPORT 10 FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 30 SEPTEMBER 2014

NICKEL DIVISION

Metals X wholly owns the largest nickel project in Australia and one of the largest undeveloped nickel projects in the world today, the Wingellina Nickeliferous Limonite Project in the Central Musgrave Region of Western Australia.

The Wingellina Project is an intensely leached deposit of limonite (previously a dunite intrusive) enriched in nickel, iron and cobalt. Over the past decade, Metals X has consolidated outright ownership of the Wingellina layered intrusive complex. The latest move by Metals X in the region was to buy-out Rio Tinto’s interest in what was previously the Mt Davies JV, which it completed in 2013.

==> picture [426 x 231] intentionally omitted <==

The key focus of the Nickel Division is to bring the Wingellina Nickel–Cobalt Project into production.

The Wingellina Mineral Resource estimate defines an ore body containing approximately 183 million tonnes of ore containing 1.8 million tonnes of contained nickel metal, 86 million tonnes of Fe203 and 139,000 tonnes of Cobalt metal. Significantly, over 91% of the resource is defined as a Probable mining reserve in accordance with the JORC code. The ore is very similar in style to Ambatovy in Madagascar (under development) and Moa Bay in Cuba, where Sherritt Gordon developed and have successfully operated High Pressure Acid Leach (HPAL) for over 50 years.

Wingellina is only one of many areas where nickeliferous limonites exist within the Central Musgrave Project, and is the only one to have been extensively drilled to date. In 2011 Metals X completed a drilling program at its Claude Hill Prospect, another known occurrence located approximately 25 km to the east of Wingellina. This first reconnaissance program defined a further Inferred Resource (JORC) of 33 million tonnes grading 0.81% Ni, 0.07% Co and 39% Fe2O3. Many other areas remain to be tested.

Metals X engaged industry experts to complete a feasibility study (+/-25%) in 2009 which concluded:

A robust project development with a minimum 40 year mine life at an average annual production rate of 40,000 t of nickel and 3,000 t of cobalt.
At a nickel price of US$20,000/t nickel, US$40,000/t cobalt and an A$/US$ exchange rate of 0.85, an estimated Project NPV(8%) of $3.4 Billion was determined.
A production cost of US$3.34/lb after cobalt credits.
Capital cost estimates were put at approximately A$2.5 billion and have recently been reconfirmed at this level (2013).

QUARTERLY REPORT 11 FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 30 SEPTEMBER 2014

PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS AT WINGELLINA

Metals X entered into a Memorandum of Undestanding (MOU) with Samsung C&T in September 2012 to work together to bring the massive Wingellina Ni–Co Project into production. Under the MOU, Metals X will complete a revised Definitive Feasibility Study (DFS) with the assistance of Samsung C&T, updating and reviewing the previous development proposal study completed in 2008. Under the MOU, Samsung C&T would provide its technical expertise in engineering, feasibility studies and construction and will use its financial reputation and capacity to assist Metals X with the financing and development proposals for the project.

The objectives of the MOU were for Metals X to retain a 30% interest in the project free carried to production and that Samsung C&T would be awarded the Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) contract for the project on normal and competitive commercial terms. Under the terms of the MOU, Samsung C&T can, depending on the outcomes of the DFS, purchase equity in the project and provide project delivery. SNC-Lavalin was appointed the Principle Engineer for the DFS and was directly awarded the engineering for the Processing and plant infrastructure. Due to the deterioration of the nickel price and the strength of the Australian dollar through 2013, the Board of Metals X reassessed the timing of the DFS and in consultation with Samsung C&T and SNC decided to park up the project until economics improve.

CURRENT STATUS OF WINGELLINA

Whilst the engineering works for the updated feasibility study have been halted, Metals X continues to use its internal resources to complete other long lead-time studies required for the DFS. Metals X has been completing infrastructure, roads, rail and ports studies, and the Public Environmental Review (PER) documentation which is the final documentation required for EPA approval.

As stated in the June quarter the Wingellina environmental scoping study was approved by the EPA on 23 May 2014. Following this approval, the PER document will be formally submitted to the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority by the end of October. This is a significant step in the development of the project as it is the main documentat required for final approvals. The document will undertake the normal review process across WA Government Departments before being released for public review towards the end of the year.

As a result of the successful metallurgical bench testing of the Wingellina ore through an alternative Limonite process that is being developed in Korea, a sample program was completed to obtain a further 100 tonne sample for pilot plant testing in South Korea during the quarter.

Interaction with the State and Federal Governments in relation to infrastructure requirements within central Australia continued with strong co-operation and a desire to assist with the development of the project.

The company entered into an agreement with the Native Title Holders and their representative bodies in 2010 allowing Metals X to develop a mining operation at Wingellina.

WINGELLINA REGIONAL EXPLORATION

Approvals and works have been completed to undertake a drill program to commence at the end of the December quarter to test further Nickel and Cobalt mineralisation in the South Australian tenements and to further define the calcrete deposits used for neutralisation. The program is focused on the known mineralisation located at Scarface with a series of drill lines being undertaken over 4.5 km of strike.

QUARTERLY REPORT 12 FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 30 SEPTEMBER 2014

CORPORATE

During the quarter Metals X was included into the S&P / ASX 300 Index on the commencement of trading on 20 September 2014.

Subsequent to the end of the quarter the Company has announced an inaugural fully frank dividend of 0.6785 cents per share with a record date of 16 December to be paid on 7 January 2015. The company has also announced a Dividend Reinvestment Plan that will attract a 5% discount to the 5 day VWAP prior to reinvestment.

Metals X also announced that it will recommend to shareholders at the AGM on 26 November 2014 that the issued capital of the Company be consolidated on the basis of one (1) new share for every four (4) shares currently on issue. The consolidation will reduce the number of shares on issue from 1,656M to approximately 414M. The Company believes that this will much better align the company with its peers in the market.

During the quarter Metals X entered into a pre-payment arrangement to sell 30,000 ounces of production over 24 months (1,250 oz per month). The net result of this has been to bring forward $40.4M in cashflow at minimal cost.

Metals X ended the September quarter with unaudited cash and working capital of $133.3M. The Group has no corporate debt.

INVESTMENTS

Metals X holds the following investments in other listed entities:

VESTMENTS tals X holds the following investments in other listed entities:
Reed Resources Limited	0.39% share holding
Aziana Limited	13.73% share holding
Mongolian Resource Corporation Limited	14.76% share holding

CAPITAL STRUCTURE

The Company has the following equities on issue as of 30 September 2014:

PITAL STRUCTURE Company has the following equities on issue as of 30 September 2014:
Fully Paid Ordinary Shares	1,655,826,110
Unlisted Options - various conversions and dates	6,565,000
Fully Diluted Equity	1,662,391,110

MAJOR SHAREHOLDERS

The major shareholders of the Company as of 30 September 2014 are:

AJOR SHAREHOLDERS major shareholders of the Company as of 30 September 2014 are:
APAC Resources (HKEX:1104)	24.07%
Jinchuan Group	10.66%

End

COMPETENT PERSONS STATEMENT

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.

QUARTERLY REPORT 13

FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 30 SEPTEMBER 2014

GOLD DIVISION – HGO TABLE OF RESULTS FOR THE QUARTER

==> picture [525 x 710] intentionally omitted <==

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

Intercept
Prospect/ Lode Hole Collar N Collar E Collar RL From (m) Dip Azi
(True Width)
Ares TUG2381 6,490,042 379,944 687 8m at 4.9g/t Au 163.3 -11 321
Artemis TUG2320 6,490,025 379,853 403 0.5m at 50.3g/t Au 128.6 -46 259
TUG2356 6,489,740 379,792 547 NSI 8 218
TUG2357 6,489,756 379,802 510 0.7m at 75.3g/t Au 189.7 -3 217
TUG2358 6,489,806 379,809 473 NSI -17 226
TUG2359 6,489,677 379,874 546 NSI -15 218
TUG2360 6,489,823 379,812 441 NSI -31 231
TUG2361 6,489,780 379,812 445 NSI -27 222
TUG2362 6,489,763 379,810 500 NSI -23 216
TUG2363 6,489,817 379,812 415 NSI -38 233
TUG2364 6,489,800 379,815 402 NSI -39 225
TUG2365 6,489,782 379,815 409 NSI -34 218
TUG2402 6,490,017 379,837 202 NSI -62 251
TUG2413 6,490,080 379,853 286 NSI -58 274
TUG2429 6,490,055 379,859 391 3.7m at 3.8g/t Au 129.0 -52 280
TUG2457 6,490,016 379,849 435 NSI -32 252
TUG2458 6,490,030 379,863 432 NSI -39 260
At WZ_link TUG2366 6,489,429 379,796 1,036 NSI -34 177
TUG2366A 6,489,429 379,796 1,036 NSI -34 177
Helios E Shear TUG2311 6,490,072 379,921 487 3.3m at 2.1g/t Au 30.2 -16 320
TUG2312 6,490,080 379,921 488 1m at 5.6g/t Au 37.5 -12 329
TUG2315A 6,490,048 379,921 483 1.2m at 3.5g/t Au 22.0 -31 276
TUG2316 6,490,046 379,927 483 2.6m at 16.1g/t Au 16.8 -40 281
TUG2316A 6,490,049 379,928 483 1.6m at 2.4g/t Au 16.5 -40 281
TUG2317 6,490,053 379,929 484 0.6m at 41.7g/t Au 17.5 -36 304
TUG2318A 6,490,062 379,928 484 1m at 4.3g/t Au 21.7 -29 316
TUG2319 6,490,065 379,931 483 NSI -30 328
TUG2320 6,490,043 379,928 481 2.7m at 37.8g/t Au 16.3 -46 259
TUG2321 6,490,049 379,931 483 1m at 17.3g/t Au 15.0 -48 285
TUG2376 6,490,127 379,944 492 NSI -2 325
TUG2427 6,490,045 379,931 482 0.5m at 24.6g/t Au 15.1 -52 266
TUG2429 6,490,048 379,932 483 2m at 5.8g/t Au 14.0 -52 280
TUG2457 6,490,038 379,919 481 2.3m at 4.5g/t Au 25.0 -32 252
TUG2458 6,490,042 379,926 482 2m at 2.2g/t Au 17.9 -39 260
----- End of picture text -----

TABLES OF RESULTS FOR THE QUARTER 14

==> picture [525 x 730] intentionally omitted <==

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

Intercept
Prospect/ Lode Hole Collar N Collar E Collar RL From (m) Dip Azi
(True Width)
EZ 1185 TUG2343 6,489,313 379,802 1,200 NSI 43 96
TUG2344 6,489,312 379,790 1,191 0.2m at 44.1g/t Au 3.6 51 130
TUG2345 6,489,293 379,811 1,206 1.2m at 28.8g/t Au 28.4 38 100
TUG2345 6,489,292 379,814 1,208 0.9m at 6.7g/t Au 32.0 38 100
TUG2346 6,489,286 379,803 1,205 1.7m at 4g/t Au 23.0 46 124
TUG2346 6,489,281 379,810 1,213 6m at 4.4g/t Au 33.0 46 124
TUG2347 6,489,280 379,807 1,202 NSI 31 128
TUG2348 6,489,265 379,805 1,210 NSI 35 154
TUG2341 6,489,333 379,811 1,212 NSI 44 50
TUG2342 6,489,314 379,789 1,193 NSI 69 86
Helios Shear TUG2312 6,490,161 379,870 467 8m at 2.3g/t Au 128.0 -12 329
TUG2311 6,490,130 379,874 466 35m at 0.8g/t Au 90.0 -16 320
TUG2318A 6,490,120 379,873 440 NSI -29 316
TUG2319 6,490,151 379,877 426 NSI -30 328
TUG2371 6,490,195 379,877 504 NSI 2 320
TUG2374 6,490,190 379,880 425 8m at 1.1g/t Au 168.0 -23 320
TUG2376 6,490,217 379,883 484 NSI -2 325
TUG2370 6,490,196 379,880 526 NSI 10 320
TUG2372 6,490,190 379,881 476 NSI -7 320
TUG2373 6,490,188 379,884 454 NSI -15 320
TUG2315A 6,490,053 379,881 459 2.5m at 5.4g/t Au 68.0 -31 276
Helios Core TUG2309 6,490,149 379,876 484 5m at 1.9g/t Au 116.6 -4 328
TUG2306 6,490,058 379,870 476 8.9m at 5.4g/t Au 69.5 -15 277
TUG2307 6,490,094 379,874 473 8.1m at 15.5g/t Au 80.0 -60 270
TUG2308 6,490,119 379,876 482 3.8m at 5.8g/t Au 96.0 -7 318
TUG2310 6,490,075 379,869 467 7.5m at 4.7g/t Au 78.0 -21 292
TUG2311 6,490,128 379,876 467 NSI -16 320
TUG2313 6,490,013 379,865 463 4.8m at 8.4g/t Au 86.0 -22 247
TUG2314 6,490,029 379,867 457 6.2m at 6.8g/t Au 80.5 -27 259
TUG2315A 6,490,055 379,865 449 3.6m at 2.9g/t Au 86.8 -31 276
TUG2316A 6,490,060 379,867 433 14m at 2.1g/t Au 87.0 -40 281
TUG2317 6,490,091 379,871 434 18m at 5.2g/t Au 88.5 -36 304
TUG2320 6,490,026 379,857 407 11m at 2.5g/t Au 114.0 -46 259
TUG2321 6,490,062 379,871 416 17m at 2.4g/t Au 93.6 -48 285
TUG2458 6,490,030 379,863 432 18m at 2.7g/t Au 85.5 -39 260
----- End of picture text -----

TABLES OF RESULTS FOR THE QUARTER 15

GOLD DIVISION – HGO TABLE OF RESULTS FOR THE QUARTER (CONTINUED)

==> picture [525 x 710] intentionally omitted <==

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

Intercept
Prospect/ Lode Hole Collar N Collar E Collar RL From (m) Dip Azi
(True Width)
Helios Core TUG2457 6,490,020 379,861 443 6.9m at 1.7g/t Au 94.5 -32 252
TUG2413 6,490,077 379,882 331 5m at 2.4g/t Au 189.5 -58 274
TUG2427 6,490,038 379,859 391 4m at 2.4g/t Au 128.5 -52 266
TUG2428 6,490,047 379,867 410 16m at 2.6g/t Au 96.0 -50 274
TUG2429 6,490,054 379,870 404 10.5m at 2.7g/t Au 106.7 -52 280
Helios HW Quartz TUG2313 6,490,013 379,864 462 0.6m at 36.4g/t Au 89.3 -22 247
TUG2314 6,490,030 379,868 457 0.8m at 31.5g/t Au 83.1 -27 259
TUG2457 6,490,023 379,871 449 1.3m at 55.8g/t Au 85.2 -32 252
Poseidon TUG2329A 6,489,030 379,803 1,204 1.8m at 5.5g/t Au 86.0 58 124
TUG2330 6,489,032 379,830 1,187 NSI 40 111
TUG2334A 6,489,059 379,819 1,181 4.9m at 2.5g/t Au 73.0 44 89
TUG2336 6,489,067 379,807 1,191 2.8m at 10.1g/t Au 74.0 56 74
TUG2337 6,489,085 379,840 1,182 1.3m at 10.7g/t Au 96.2 34 70
TUG2333 6,489,053 379,798 1,191 NSI 62 95
TUG2332 6,489,038 379,834 1,126 2.1m at 22.4g/t Au 69.5 -1 106
TUG2335 6,489,051 379,811 1,152 NSI 26 98
TUG2420 6,489,023 379,826 1,138 NSI 43 93
TUG2421 6,489,017 379,817 1,144 NSI 72 89
TUG2422 6,489,018 379,834 1,131 NSI 25 90
TUG2330 6,489,047 379,789 1,151 2.8m at 6.5g/t Au 32.2 40 111
TUG2331 6,489,037 379,803 1,144 NSI 20 117
TUG2340 6,489,095 379,823 1,151 4.8m at 3.7g/t Au 72.0 5 82
TUG2340 6,489,086 379,810 1,146 3.7m at 3.4g/t Au 56.0 5 82
TUG2339 6,489,067 379,839 1,134 NSI 5 82
TUG2338 6,489,066 379,809 1,142 4.1m at 2.6g/t Au 45.2 18 78
WZ FW1 TUG2367 6,489,413 379,793 1,038 NSI 3 191
TUG2368 6,489,401 379,788 1,051 NSI 24 192
LKCR262 6,496,416 394,064 287 2.1m at 7.53g/t Au 75.0 -60.0 055
LKCR263 6,496,404 394,064 286 4.2m at 2.58g/t Au 25.0 -60.0 055
LKCR263 6,496,404 394,064 286 4.2m at 1.23g/t Au 34.0 -60.0 055
Wills HIGA7122 6,514,470 370,880 296 NSI -90.0 000
HIGA7123 6,514,450 370,880 296 NSI -90.0 000
HIGA7124 6,514,431 370,880 296 NSI -90.0 000
HIGA7125 6,514,487 370,947 296 NSI -90.0 000
----- End of picture text -----

TABLES OF RESULTS FOR THE QUARTER 16

==> picture [525 x 710] intentionally omitted <==

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

Intercept
Prospect/ Lode Hole Collar N Collar E Collar RL From (m) Dip Azi
(True Width)
Wills HIGA7126 6,514,495 370,957 296 NSI -90.0 000
HIGA7127 6,514,487 370,990 297 NSI -90.0 000
HIGA7128 6,514,523 370,990 296 NSI -90.0 000
HIGA7129 6,514,547 371,009 296 7m at 0.87g/t Au 22.0 -90.0 000
HIGA7130 6,514,560 371,020 296 6m at 2.52g/t Au 20.0 -90.0 000
HIGA7130 6,514,560 371,020 296 NSI -90.0 000
HIGA7131 6,514,566 371,030 296 4m at 1.67g/t Au 21.0 -90.0 000
HIGA7132 6,514,581 371,051 297 3m at 6.37g/t Au 23.0 -90.0 000
HIGA7133 6,514,589 371,047 296 9m at 6.34g/t Au 22.0 -90.0 000
HIGA7134 6,514,586 371,033 296 2m at 2.96g/t Au 22.0 -90.0 000
HIGA7135 6,514,607 370,991 296 2m at 3.85g/t Au 21.0 -90.0 000
HIGA7135 6,514,607 370,991 296 NSI -90.0 000
HIGA7136 6,514,586 370,976 296 NSI -90.0 000
HIGA7137 6,514,609 370,970 296 NSI -90.0 000
HIGA7138 6,514,579 370,998 296 2m at 8.87g/t Au 22.0 -90.0 000
HIGA7139 6,514,633 370,900 295 NSI -90.0 000
HIGA7140 6,514,611 370,899 295 NSI -90.0 000
HIGA7141 6,514,581 371,071 297 NSI -90.0 000
HIGA7142 6,514,607 371,069 297 NSI -90.0 000
HIGA7143 6,514,607 371,089 297 3m at 1.69g/t Au 24.0 -90.0 000
HIGA7144 6,514,613 371,122 297 4m at 1.41g/t Au 21.0 -90.0 000
HIGA7145 6,514,606 371,111 297 4m at 2.33g/t Au 21.0 -90.0 000
HIGA7146 6,514,606 371,148 297 7m at 9.64g/t Au 23.0 -90.0 000
HIGA7147 6,514,615 371,169 297 NSI -90.0 000
HIGA7148 6,514,607 371,189 298 NSI -90.0 000
HIGA7148 6,514,607 371,189 298 NSI -90.0 000
HIGA7149 6,514,624 371,189 298 8m at 1.41g/t Au 24.0 -90.0 000
HIGA7150 6,514,615 371,171 297 2m at 3.07g/t Au 22.0 -90.0 000
HIGA7151 6,514,674 370,901 296 NSI -90.0 000
HIGA7152 6,514,657 370,901 296 4m at 1.29g/t Au 17.0 -90.0 000
HIGA7153 6,514,690 370,860 296 NSI -90.0 000
HIGA7154 6,514,670 370,858 296 NSI -90.0 000
HIGA7155 6,514,647 370,861 295 NSI -90.0 000
HIGA7156 6,514,627 370,860 295 NSI -90.0 000
----- End of picture text -----

TABLES OF RESULTS FOR THE QUARTER 17

GOLD DIVISION – HGO TABLE OF RESULTS FOR THE QUARTER (CONTINUED)

==> picture [525 x 691] intentionally omitted <==

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

Intercept
Prospect/ Lode Hole Collar N Collar E Collar RL From (m) Dip Azi
(True Width)
Josephine JOGC100 6,496,376 394,617 287 5.2m at 5.36g/t Au 1.0 -60.0 055
JOGC099 6,496,371 394,609 287 6.3m at 3.74g/t Au 15.0 -60.0 055
JOGC098 6,496,366 394,637 287 2.9m at 7.84g/t Au 7.0 -60.0 055
JOGC097 6,496,361 394,629 287 13.8m at 0.62g/t Au 0.0 -60.0 055
JOGC096 6,496,355 394,621 286 NSI -60.0 055
JOGC096 6,496,355 394,621 286 NSI -60.0 055
JOGC095 6,496,354 394,655 287 NSI -60.0 055
JOGC094 6,496,348 394,646 287 NSI -60.0 055
JOGC093 6,496,342 394,638 286 NSI -60.0 055
JOGC092 6,496,337 394,665 286 3.4m at 2.31g/t Au 1.0 -60.0 055
JOGC091 6,496,332 394,658 286 3.4m at 1.5g/t Au 14.0 -60.0 055
JOGC090 6,496,321 394,676 286 NSI -60.0 055
Napoleon LKCR235 6,496,564 393,980 291 NSI -60.0 055
LKCR235 6,496,564 393,980 291 NSI -60.0 055
LKCR236 6,496,558 393,988 291 NSI -60.0 055
LKCR237 6,496,585 394,044 291 NSI -60.0 055
LKCR238 6,496,576 394,032 290 NSI -60.0 055
LKCR239 6,496,549 393,993 292 NSI -60.0 055
LKCR239 6,496,549 393,993 292 NSI -60.0 055
LKCR240 6,496,562 394,029 291 3.5m at 1.99g/t Au 2.0 -60.0 055
LKCR240 6,496,562 394,029 291 NSI -60.0 055
LKCR241 6,496,548 394,009 291 2.8m at 2.4g/t Au 12.0 -60.0 055
LKCR241 6,496,548 394,009 291 4.2m at 1.51g/t Au 19.0 -60.0 055
LKCR242 6,496,557 394,040 291 NSI -60.0 055
LKCR243 6,496,542 394,014 291 NSI -60.0 055
LKCR244 6,496,529 394,016 291 NSI -60.0 055
LKCR244 6,496,529 394,016 291 NSI -60.0 055
LKCR244 6,496,529 394,016 291 NSI -60.0 055
LKCR245 6,496,549 394,062 290 NSI -60.0 055
LKCR246 6,496,532 394,039 291 NSI -60.0 055
LKCR246 6,496,532 394,039 291 NSI -60.0 055
LKCR247 6,496,514 394,013 292 4.9m at 2.9g/t Au 32.0 -60.0 055
LKCR248 6,496,498 394,024 291 NSI -60.0 055
----- End of picture text -----

TABLES OF RESULTS FOR THE QUARTER 18

==> picture [525 x 730] intentionally omitted <==

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

Intercept
Prospect/ Lode Hole Collar N Collar E Collar RL From (m) Dip Azi
(True Width)
Napoleon LKCR248 6,496,498 394,024 291 6.4m at 0.81g/t Au 36.0 -60.0 055
LKCR249 6,496,489 394,012 292 NSI -60.0 055
LKCR252 6,496,445 394,019 290 9.9m at 1.66g/t Au 8.0 -60.0 055
LKCR252 6,496,445 394,019 290 9.9m at 1.64g/t Au 25.0 -60.0 055
LKCR252 6,496,445 394,019 290 19.1m at 4.12g/t Au 42.0 -60.0 055
LKCD003 6,496,429 394,066 287 7.5m at 0.84g/t Au 54.0 -60.0 055
LKCD004 6,496,476 394,029 290 NSI -60.0 055
LKCR250 6,496,450 394,016 290 7.1m at 2.62g/t Au 25.0 -60.0 055
LKCR250 6,496,450 394,016 290 9.9m at 4.3g/t Au 58.0 -60.0 055
LKCR251 6,496,457 394,036 289 NSI -60.0 055
LKCR253 6,496,434 394,003 290 6.4m at 1.9g/t Au 75.0 -60.0 055
LKCR254 6,496,445 394,053 289 3.5m at 1.86g/t Au 59.0 -60.0 055
LKCR255 6,496,419 394,017 290 NSI -60.0 055
LKCR256 6,496,444 394,105 286 NSI -60.0 055
LKCR257 6,496,455 394,086 287 2.8m at 2.45g/t Au 35.0 -60.0 055
LKCR258 6,496,439 394,079 287 7.8m at 9.77g/t Au 47.0 -60.0 055
LKCR259 6,496,421 394,055 288 3.5m at 1.83g/t Au 16.0 -60.0 055
LKCR259 6,496,421 394,055 288 8.5m at 1.66g/t Au 65.0 -60.0 055
LKCR260 6,496,404 394,030 287 4.9m at 1.44g/t Au 82.0 -60.0 055
LKCR261 6,496,422 394,091 286 4.2m at 2g/t Au 47.0 -60.0 055
LKCR262 6,496,416 394,064 287 4.9m at 1.07g/t Au 59.0 -60.0 055
LKCR262 6,496,416 394,064 287 2.1m at 7.53g/t Au 75.0 -60.0 055
LKCR263 6,496,404 394,064 286 4.2m at 2.58g/t Au 25.0 -60.0 055
LKCR263 6,496,404 394,064 286 4.2m at 1.23g/t Au 34.0 -60.0 055
LKCR264 6,496,393 394,049 287 NSI -60.0 055
Louis LKCR181 6,495,775 395,517 285 NSI -60.0 055
LKCR182 6,495,781 395,508 285 NSI 22.0 -61.0 055
LKCR184 6,495,799 395,496 284 NSI 16.0 -60.8 055
LKCR185 6,495,801 395,484 284 NSI 19.0 -60.0 055
LKCR186 6,495,808 395,475 284 NSI 7.0 -60.0 055
LKCR213 6,495,453 395,728 282 NSI -60.5 055
LKCR220 6,495,813 395,448 283 NSI 0.0 -60.0 055
LKCR221 6,495,837 395,448 284 NSI -55.0 055
LKCR222 6,495,836 395,446 283 NSI 10.0 -60.0 055
LKCR222 6,495,836 395,446 283 NSI 16.0 -60.0 055
----- End of picture text -----

TABLES OF RESULTS FOR THE QUARTER 19

GOLD DIVISION – HGO TABLE OF RESULTS FOR THE QUARTER (CONTINUED)

==> picture [525 x 333] intentionally omitted <==

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

Intercept
Prospect/ Lode Hole Collar N Collar E Collar RL From (m) Dip Azi
(True Width)
Louis LKCR223 6,495,830 395,437 283 NSI 3.0 -60.0 055
LKCR223 6,495,830 395,437 283 NSI 12.0 -60.0 055
LKCR223 6,495,830 395,437 283 NSI 21.0 -60.0 055
LKCR224 6,495,840 395,436 283 NSI 3.0 -60.0 055
LKCR224 6,495,840 395,436 283 NSI 19.0 -60.5 055
LKCR225 6,495,849 395,431 283 NSI 9.0 -60.6 055
Voltaire LKCR265 6,496,071 394,920 278 NSI -60.0 055
LKCR266 6,496,062 394,908 278 NSI -60.4 057
LKCR267 6,496,054 394,897 278 NSI -61.0 056
Wills Head Waters WILC003 6,514,458 370,944 297 NSI -60.0 230
WILC004 6,514,418 370,884 296 NSI -60.0 230
WILC005 6,514,371 370,835 296 NSI -60.0 230
WILC006 6,514,318 370,768 296 NSI -60.0 230
WILC007 6,514,266 370,707 296 NSI -60.0 230
WILC008 6,514,222 370,642 296 NSI -60.0 230
----- End of picture text -----

GOLD DIVISION – SKO TABLE OF RESULTS FOR THE QUARTER

==> picture [525 x 333] intentionally omitted <==

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

Intercept
Prospect/ Lode Hole Collar N Collar E Collar RL From (m) Dip Azi
(Downhole Width)
Peaceful Chief PCFRC005 6,567,850 366,730 366 6m at 2.07g/t Au 19.0 -60.0 90.0
PCFRC007 6,567,863 366,730 366 2m at 3.34g/t Au 20.0 -60.0 90.0
PCFRC009A 6,567,887 366,745 366 3m at 1.94g/t Au 10.0 -60.0 90.0
PCFRC012A 6,567,912 366,735 366 5m at 1.18g/t Au 16.0 -60.0 90.0
PCFRC014 6,567,938 366,725 366 6m at 1.39g/t Au 23.0 -60.0 90.0
PCFRC015 6,567,950 366,738 366 4m at 2.01g/t Au 13.0 -60.0 90.0
PCFRC017 6,567,963 366,745 366 4m at 2.94g/t Au 11.0 -60.0 90.0
PCFRC024 6,567,988 366,715 367 9m at 1.49g/t Au 21.0 -60.0 90.0
PCFRC025 6,567,963 366,700 367 3m at 1.79g/t Au 26.0 -60.0 90.0
6,567,963 366,700 367 6m at 3.01g/t Au 31.0 -60.0 90.0
PCFRC027 6,568,000 366,696 368 8m at 1.23g/t Au 42.0 -60.0 90.0
PCFRC032 6,568,013 366,690 368 3m at 9.75g/t Au 44.0 -65.0 90.0
PCFRC037 6,567,775 366,770 366 3m at 2.91g/t Au 23.0 -60.0 90.0
PCFRC049 6,568,013 366,675 369 3m at 4.84g/t Au 57.0 -60.0 90.0
PCFRC051 6,568,026 366,678 370 2m at 3.51g/t Au 62.0 -60.0 90.0
----- End of picture text -----

TABLES OF RESULTS FOR THE QUARTER 20

==> picture [525 x 730] intentionally omitted <==

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

Intercept
Prospect/ Lode Hole Collar N Collar E Collar RL From (m) Dip Azi
(Downhole Width)
Dusk DSKRC025 6,557,048 371,600 333 3m at 1.86g/t Au 18.0 -60.0 90.0
DSKRC029 6,557,068 371,560 333 3m at 1.88g/t Au 27.0 -60.0 90.0
DSKRC033 6,557,088 371,565 333 14m at 1.49g/t Au 10.0 -55.0 90.0
DSKRC037 6,557,118 371,550 332 2m at 3.14g/t Au 26.0 -70.0 90.0
6,557,118 371,550 332 12m at 1.69g/t Au 46.0 -70.0 90.0
DSKRC039 6,557,130 371,560 332 8m at 1.9g/t Au 8.0 -60.0 90.0
DSKRC040 6,557,130 371,545 332 3m at 3.66g/t Au 39.0 -60.0 90.0
DSKRC041 6,557,148 371,565 331 2m at 4.5g/t Au 0.0 -60.0 90.0
DSKRC042 6,557,148 371,550 331 2m at 2.52g/t Au 20.0 -60.0 90.0
6,557,148 371,550 331 8m at 1.17g/t Au 31.0 -60.0 90.0
Dusk DSKRC043 6,557,158 371,545 331 6m at 1.24g/t Au 25.0 -60.0 90.0
6,557,158 371,545 331 6m at 3.58g/t Au 43.0 -60.0 90.0
DSKRC044 6,557,168 371,555 331 12m at 1.78g/t Au 8.0 -60.0 90.0
DSKRC045 6,557,168 371,540 331 4m at 1.66g/t Au 30.0 -60.0 90.0
DSKRC047 6,557,188 371,540 331 5m at 3.31g/t Au 20.0 -60.0 90.0
6,557,188 371,540 331 3m at 1.86g/t Au 32.0 -60.0 90.0
DSKRC048 6,557,210 371,555 331 12m at 3.66g/t Au 11.0 -60.0 90.0
DSKRC049 6,557,210 371,540 331 4m at 4.66g/t Au 24.0 -60.0 90.0
DSKRC051 6,557,228 371,540 331 6m at 1.71g/t Au 16.0 -60.0 90.0
DSKRC052 6,557,250 371,545 331 5m at 1.41g/t Au 6.0 -50.0 90.0
Erebus EBSRC060 6,567,124 350,490 388 4m at 1.51g/t Au 61.0 -60.0 270.0
EBSRC062 6,567,138 350,455 389 8m at 2.33g/t Au 24.0 -60.0 270.0
EBSRC063 6,567,138 350,470 388 6m at 1.32g/t Au 40.0 -60.0 270.0
6,567,138 350,470 388 3m at 4.45g/t Au 52.0 -60.0 270.0
EBSRC064 6,567,150 350,475 388 5m at 2.54g/t Au 54.0 -60.0 270.0
EBSRC065 6,567,150 350,490 388 9m at 0.77g/t Au 68.0 -60.0 270.0
EBSRC068 6,567,163 350,470 388 4m at 1.51g/t Au 53.0 -60.0 270.0
EBSRC070 6,567,188 350,435 388 12m at 2.3g/t Au 9.0 -55.0 270.0
EBSRC071 6,567,188 350,445 388 4m at 1.26g/t Au 23.0 -60.0 270.0
EBSRC072 6,567,200 350,430 387 7m at 1.59g/t Au 6.0 -55.0 270.0
EBSRC074 6,567,213 350,430 387 15m at 2.2g/t Au 14.0 -55.0 270.0
EBSRC075 6,567,213 350,445 387 11m at 3.31g/t Au 34.0 -55.0 270.0
EBSRC076 6,567,225 350,425 387 18m at 1.71g/t Au 12.0 -55.0 270.0
EBSRC077 6,567,225 350,440 386 15m at 1.31g/t Au 33.0 -55.0 270.0
EBSRC078 6,567,225 350,455 386 13m at 2.66g/t Au 56.0 -55.0 270.0
----- End of picture text -----

TABLES OF RESULTS FOR THE QUARTER 21

GOLD DIVISION – SKO TABLE OF RESULTS FOR THE QUARTER (CONTINUED)

==> picture [525 x 591] intentionally omitted <==

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

Intercept
Prospect/ Lode Hole Collar N Collar E Collar RL From (m) Dip Azi
(Downhole Width)
Erebus EBSRC079 6,567,238 350,415 386 16m at 1.49g/t Au 5.0 -55.0 270.0
EBSRC081 6,567,238 350,445 386 5m at 5.77g/t Au 49.0 -55.0 270.0
EBSRC082 6,567,263 350,410 386 7m at 1.55g/t Au 14.0 -55.0 270.0
EBSRC084 6,567,288 350,395 386 3m at 2.28g/t Au 21.0 -55.0 270.0
EBSRC085 6,567,288 350,410 386 2m at 3.52g/t Au 22.0 -55.0 270.0
EBSRC092 6,567,396 350,370 384 3m at 2.77g/t Au 4.0 -55.0 270.0
EBSRC095 6,567,415 350,370 383 3m at 2.4g/t Au 20.0 -55.0 270.0
EBSRC096 6,567,415 350,380 383 7m at 5.12g/t Au 23.0 -55.0 270.0
6,567,415 350,380 383 3m at 4.41g/t Au 36.0 -55.0 270.0
EBSRC099 6,567,435 350,385 382 6m at 1.5g/t Au 39.0 -55.0 270.0
6,567,435 350,385 382 6m at 1.04g/t Au 54.0 -55.0 270.0
EBSRC100 6,567,463 350,375 382 2m at 2.6g/t Au 33.0 -50.0 270.0
EBSRC100 6,567,463 350,375 382 7m at 1.94g/t Au 41.0 -50.0 270.0
EBSRC102 6,567,475 350,325 383 3m at2.59g/t Au 41.0 -55.0 90.0
6,567,475 350,325 383 11m at 1.51g/t Au 48.0 -55.0 90.0
EBSRC103 6,567,485 350,375 382 2m at 5.37g/t Au 28.0 -55.0 270.0
6,567,485 350,375 382 3m at 2.61g/t Au 37.0 -55.0 270.0
6,567,485 350,375 382 11m at 3.63g/t Au 43.0 -55.0 270.0
EBSRC104 6,567,510 350,320 382 6m at 1.38g/t Au 20.0 -55.0 90.0
6,567,510 350,320 382 11m at 1.88g/t Au 32.0 -55.0 90.0
EBSRC106 6,567,540 350,360 382 6m at 1.15g/t Au 26.0 -55.0 270.0
EBSRC108 6,567,650 350,303 383 7m at 1.04g/t Au 12.0 -50.0 90.0
EBSRC110 6,567,660 350,290 385 13m at 1.45g/t Au 30.0 -50.0 90.0
EBSRC111 6,567,670 350,306 383 2m at 3.12g/t Au 6.0 -50.0 90.0
EBSRC112 6,567,685 350,302 384 3m at 1.71g/t Au 2.0 -50.0 90.0
EBSRC115 6,567,725 350,320 383 17m at 1.67g/t Au 13.0 -50.0 270.0
EBSRC117 6,567,773 350,307 383 8m at 0.84g/t Au 28.0 -55.0 270.0
Samphire STSF11A 6,562,581 359,908 340 16m at 1.01g/t Au 12.0 -90.0 0.0
----- End of picture text -----

GOLD DIVISION – CMGP TABLE OF RESULTS FOR THE QUARTER

Prospect/ Lode	Hole	Collar N
Cuddy South	CDAC1765	6,961,600 580,130 420 3m at 0.72g/t Au 33.0 -60 270
		6,961,600 580,130 420 2m at 2.94g/t Au 59.0 -60 270
		TABLES OF RESULTS FOR THE QUARTER 22

TIN DIVISION – RENISON TABLE OF RESULTS FOR THE QUARTER

==> picture [525 x 651] intentionally omitted <==

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

Intercept Intercept
Prospect/ Lode Hole Intercept N Intercept E From (m) Dip Azi
RL (True Width)
Area 4kay U4950 NSI
U4951 66,708 44,468 1,354 1.8m at 2.28% Sn 53.0 29.7 29.8
U4951 66,716 44,473 1,359 2.3m at 3.3% Sn 63.7 29.7 29.8
U4952 66,673 44,476 1,343 1.7m at 11.32% Sn 22.0 35.8 77.1
U4953 NSI
U5059 66,538 44,530 1,219 2.6m at 7.21% Sn 75.1 -0.4 136.6
U5059 66,524 44,540 1,219 1.1m at 4.19% Sn 92.5 -0.4 136.6
U5059 66,514 44,546 1,219 5.4m at 2.61% Sn 102.0 -0.4 136.6
U5130 NSI
U5131 66,523 44,520 1,245 2.5m at 1.9% Sn 4.3 -17.0 134.2
U5131 66,499 44,546 1,234 1m at 23.4% Sn 40.2 -17.0 134.2
U5132 66,505 44,544 1,233 1.6m at 3.89% Sn 34.7 -21.6 128.2
U5133 NSI
U5136 66,536 44,522 1,246 3.1m at 2.14% Sn 0.3 -2.2 96.5
U5140 NSI
U5141 NSI
U5142 NSI
U5143 NSI
U5144 NSI
U5145 NSI
U5146 NSI
U5148 66,674 44,474 1,311 1.4m at 1.23% Sn 21.0 -41.4 72.4
U5149 NSI
U5150 66,714 44,478 1,337 2m at 12.67% Sn 60.3 10.4 35.8
U5190 66,572 44,521 1,243 2.3m at 0.74% Sn 0.0 -56.0 315.4
U5191 66,563 44,518 1,243 2.3m at 2.34% Sn 3.0 -24.5 214.6
U5192A 66,557 44,535 1,233 4.9m at 1.59% Sn 18.0 -34.3 282.3
U5193 NSI
U5193A 66,550 44,533 1,239 1.8m at 1.92% Sn 12.6 -27.0 249.4
U5193A 66,546 44,522 1,233 4.8m at 4.08% Sn 24.0 -27.0 249.4
U5193A 66,544 44,519 1,231 1m at 4.05% Sn 30.0 -27.0 249.4
----- End of picture text -----

TABLES OF RESULTS FOR THE QUARTER 23

TIN DIVISION – RENISON TABLE OF RESULTS FOR THE QUARTER (CONTINUED)

==> picture [525 x 710] intentionally omitted <==

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

Intercept Intercept
Prospect/ Lode Hole Intercept N Intercept E From (m) Dip Azi
RL (True Width)
Area 4kay U5194 NSI
U5195 66,610 44,518 1,237 1.1m at 1.68% Sn 11.5 -37.8 233.0
U5196 66,618 44,524 1,241 1.5m at 9.17% Sn 3.2 -46.1 290.0
U5197 NSI
U5198 NSI
U5199 NSI
Central Federal U5139 NSI
Bassett
U5164 NSI
U5165 NSI
U5166 66,416 44,514 1,365 1.6m at 1.61% Sn 1.0 40.2 111.4
U5167 66,421 44,523 1,364 0.9m at 22.65% Sn 10.7 12.4 53.4
U5168 66,417 44,517 1,358 1.1m at 1.19% Sn 3.5 -29.5 52.3
U5169 NSI
U5170 NSI
U5171 66,446 44,516 1,354 1.3m at 1.43% Sn 10.5 -38.1 99.6
U5172 NSI
U5173 66,450 44,517 1,378 1.3m at 11.86% Sn 16.0 51.4 78.0
U5174 NSI
U5175 NSI
U5176 NSI
U5177 NSI
U5178 66,278 44,507 1,417 1.3m at 1.41% Sn 44.0 -31.1 99.6
U5179 NSI
U5180 66,268 44,499 1,438 0.9m at 3.15% Sn 34.1 -4.4 119.0
U5181 66,293 44,500 1,438 2.2m at 1.62% Sn 31.0 76.1 -5.6
U5181 66,296 44,515 1,436 2m at 2.92% Sn 46.0 76.1 -5.6
U5182 66,280 44,490 1,483 6.3m at 3.56% Sn 43.1 60.0 104.1
U5183 66,294 44,493 1,471 8.1m at 4.16% Sn 35.7 50.0 68.5
U5184 66,329 44,499 1,436 2.5m at 0.99% Sn 30.4 -1.1 79.5
U5185 66,328 44,494 1,457 3.8m at 1.39% Sn 29.4 33.5 80.5
U5186 66,321 44,487 1,478 3.8m at 1.36% Sn 39.4 61.7 96.4
U5187 66,336 44,480 1,492 2.1m at 0.6% Sn 52.1 71.3 48.1
U5188 NSI
U5189 NSI
----- End of picture text -----

TABLES OF RESULTS FOR THE QUARTER 24

==> picture [525 x 710] intentionally omitted <==

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

Intercept Intercept
Prospect/ Lode Hole Intercept N Intercept E From (m) Dip Azi
RL (True Width)
Central Federal U5200 NSI
Bassett
U5201 66,465 44,513 1,382 2.3m at 20.17% Sn 12.6 -0.2 86.3
U5202 NSI
U5211 66,160 44,497 1,470 8.8m at 5.07% Sn 56.8 14.2 77.2
U5212 66,137 44,494 1,470 2m at 1.71% Sn 58.0 15.0 100.0
U5216 66,129 44,487 1,479 1.4m at 5.47% Sn 54.7 25.4 105.5
U5216 66,128 44,491 1,481 4.6m at 1.28% Sn 57.7 25.4 105.5
U5216 66,126 44,500 1,485 4.8m at 5.55% Sn 67.7 25.4 105.5
U5216 66,123 44,509 1,490 1.5m at 4.18% Sn 80.4 25.4 105.5
U5218 66,119 44,496 1,454 3.5m at 1.36% Sn 60.0 0.2 113.6
U5220 66,090 44,495 1,455 9.3m at 3.39% Sn 71.5 1.3 129.0
U5220 66,081 44,506 1,455 4.7m at 2.39% Sn 89.4 1.3 129.0
U5223 66,096 44,487 1,467 1.5m at 5.24% Sn 67.3 10.4 131.4
U5223 66,087 44,497 1,470 2.2m at 1.17% Sn 82.0 10.4 131.4
U5223 66,076 44,509 1,473 5.9m at 2.44% Sn 95.5 10.4 131.4
U5231 66,459 44,507 1,388 2.3m at 7.15% Sn 9.0 23.5 121.6
U5232 NSI
U5233 66,177 44,569 1,382 0.8m at 2.18% Sn 27.1 -11.6 83.4
U5234 NSI
U5238A NSI
U5250 65,951 44,517 1,430 1m at 4.07% Sn 21.4 -7.4 198.3
Upper Federal U5151 65,697 44,348 1,918 5.3m at 1.53% Sn 1.0 15.2 275.3
U5152 NSI
U5153 NSI
U5154 65,715 44,365 1,920 2m at 1.02% Sn 8.0 14.4 96.0
U5155 NSI
U5156 65,733 44,361 1,918 2.9m at 0.88% Sn 0.4 14.0 101.0
U5157 65,750 44,356 1,919 3.3m at 1.03% Sn 0.0 14.4 283.1
U5158 65,766 44,350 1,922 1.9m at 1.53% Sn 11.0 14.5 285.0
U5159 65,788 44,352 1,924 2.9m at 0.92% Sn 15.3 16.3 306.1
U5160 NSI
U5161 NSI
U5162 65,637 44,352 1,919 9.5m at 1.02% Sn 9.0 15.5 96.2
U5163 NSI
----- End of picture text -----

TABLES OF RESULTS FOR THE QUARTER 25

BASE METALS – WARUMPI TABLE OF RESULTS FOR THE QUARTER

==> picture [525 x 691] intentionally omitted <==

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

Lode Sample North East Au ppm Ag ppm Cu % Ni % Pb % Zn %
Huron WR0316 7,426,490 711,574 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
WR0317 7,426,104 712,590 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.06
WR0318 7,426,534 712,712 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02
WR0319 7,427,042 712,122 0.00 1.26 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.15
WR0320 7,426,935 712,273 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05
WR0321 7,427,076 712,067 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.19
WR0322 7,427,010 712,133 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
WR0323 7,426,971 712,012 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00
WR0324 7,427,209 711,978 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
WR0326 7,427,009 712,416 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.20
WR0327 7,427,009 712,416 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.16
WR0328 7,426,592 712,560 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.88
WR0329 7,426,592 712,561 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.24
WR0338 7,426,963 712,553 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
WR0339 7,426,661 712,493 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10
WR0340 7,426,890 712,362 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02
WR0341 7,427,009 712,416 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
WR0342 7,426,971 712,069 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01
WR0343 7,427,021 712,188 0.08 120.00 9.89 0.00 0.04 4.73
WR0344 7,427,031 712,183 0.00 4.46 0.17 0.00 0.01 0.61
WR0345 7,427,005 712,185 0.03 14.40 0.45 0.00 0.06 0.37
WR0346 7,427,019 712,184 0.00 6.16 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.04
WR0348 7,426,533 712,564 0.00 0.34 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.32
WR0349 7,426,527 712,596 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.23
WR0350 7,426,595 712,570 0.00 0.36 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.05
WR0351 7,427,007 712,182 0.16 24.90 4.57 0.00 0.06 8.55
WR0352 7,427,014 712,138 0.00 0.18 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.17
WR0353 7,427,019 712,148 0.02 11.10 0.16 0.00 0.15 0.82
WR0354 7,427,132 712,205 0.00 1.22 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.15
WR0355 7,427,258 712,054 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
WR0356 7,427,148 712,270 0.00 0.20 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.07
WR0357 7,427,072 712,343 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02
WR0358 7,426,882 712,373 0.00 1.37 0.04 0.00 0.07 0.42
----- End of picture text -----

TABLES OF RESULTS FOR THE QUARTER 26

==> picture [525 x 571] intentionally omitted <==

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

Lode Sample North East Au ppm Ag ppm Cu % Ni % Pb % Zn %
WR0359 7,426,879 712,376 0.00 0.89 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.53
WR0360 7,427,013 712,132 0.00 1.94 0.05 0.00 0.01 1.42
WR0361 7,427,035 712,111 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.07
WR0362 7,427,036 712,112 0.00 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.13
WR0363 7,427,112 712,075 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09
WR0364 7,426,973 712,056 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01
WR0365 7,426,980 712,233 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01
WR0366 7,427,021 712,072 0.00 1.33 0.09 0.00 0.03 0.12
WR0367 7,427,067 712,063 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.01
WR0368 7,427,048 712,083 0.02 85.40 2.36 0.00 0.09 1.64
WR0370 7,426,497 712,724 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.01 0.13 0.44
WR0371 7,426,869 712,421 0.00 1.63 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.20
WR0372 7,426,860 712,436 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.20
WR0373 7,427,039 712,083 0.09 90.60 7.72 0.00 0.09 3.23
WR0374 7,427,042 712,083 0.10 83.80 3.70 0.00 0.10 1.30
WR0375 7,426,540 712,561 0.01 1.68 0.46 0.00 0.01 0.36
WR0376 7,426,528 712,567 0.01 1.74 0.41 0.00 0.01 1.42
WR0377 7,426,494 712,707 0.01 20.50 0.03 0.00 0.63 0.61
WR0378 7,426,551 712,637 0.00 0.48 0.01 0.00 0.06 0.14
WR0379 7,427,108 712,410 0.00 0.08 0.01 0.00 0.00 1.44
WR0380 7,427,101 712,414 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.59
WR0381 7,427,044 712,082 0.06 182.00 4.97 0.00 0.11 3.03
WR0382 7,427,031 712,082 0.01 2.82 0.57 0.00 0.03 0.24
WR0383 7,427,049 712,082 0.01 47.40 0.17 0.00 0.07 0.36
WR0384 7,426,929 712,298 0.00 5.94 0.19 0.00 0.01 0.14
WR0385 7,426,946 712,314 0.00 4.47 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.07
WR0386 7,427,037 712,173 0.00 1.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.02
----- End of picture text -----

TABLES OF RESULTS FOR THE QUARTER 27

APPENDIX 1 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – GOLD DIVISION 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 (eg cut channels, random chips, or specific specialised HGO
----- End of picture text -----

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
Sampling techniques	• Nature and quality of sampling (eg cut channels, random chips, or specifc specialised	HGO
Drilling techniques Drill sample recovery	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 (eg ‘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 (eg submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed information. • Drill type (eg core, reverse circulation, open-hole hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc) and details (eg core diameter, triple or standard tube, depth of diamond tails, face- sampling bit or other type, whether core is oriented and if so, by what method, etc). • 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 to preferential loss/gain of fne/coarse material.	• Diamond Drilling The bulk of the data used in resource calculations at Trident has been gathered from diamond core. Four types of diamond core sample have been historically collected. The predominant sample method is half-core NQ2 diamond with half-core LTK60 diamond, Whole core LTK48 diamond and whole core BQ also used. This core is logged and sampled to geologically relevant intervals. The bulk of the data used in resource calculations at Chalice has been gathered from diamond core. The predominant drilling and sample type is half core NQ2 diamond. Occasionally whole core has been sampled to streamline the core handling process. Historically half and whole core LTK60 and half core HQ diamond have been used. This core is logged and sampled to geologically relevant intervals. • Face Sampling Each development face / round is chip sampled at both Trident and Chalice. One or two channels are taken per face perpendicular to the mineralisation. The sampling intervals are domained by geological constraints (e.g. rock type, veining and alteration / sulphidation etc.) with an efort made to ensure each 3 kg sample is representative of the interval being extracted. Samples are taken in a range from 0.1 m up to 1.2 m in waste / mullock. All exposures within the orebody are sampled. • Sludge Drilling Sludge drilling at Chalice and Trident is performed with an underground production drill rig. It is an open hole drilling method using water as the fushing medium, with a 64mm or 89mm hole diameter. Samples are taken twice per drill steel (1.9m steel, 0.8m sample). Holes are drilled at sufcient angles to allow fushing of the hole with water following each interval to prevent contamination. • RC Drilling For Fairplay, Vine, Lake Cowan, Two Boys, Mousehollow, Pioneer and Eundynie the bulk of the data used in the resource estimate is sourced from RC drilling. Minor RC drilling is also utilised at Trident, Musket, Chalice and the Palaeochannels (Wills, Pluto, Mitchell 3 & 4). Drill cuttings are extracted from the RC return via cyclone. The underfow from each 1 m 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. Samples to wet to be split through the rife splitter are taken asgrabs and are recorded as such.

APPENDIX 1 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – GOLD DIVISION 28

==> picture [772 x 16] intentionally omitted <==

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

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

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary

		• RAB / Air Core Drilling Drill cuttings are extracted from the RAB and Aircore return via cyclone. 4m Composite samples are obtained by spear sampling from the individual 1m drill return piles; the residue material is retained on the ground near the hole. In the Palaeochannels 1m samples are rife split for analysis. There is no RAB or Aircore drilling used in the estimation of Trident, Chalice, Corona, Fairplay, Vine, Lake Cowan and Two Boys. SKO SKO is a long-term producing operation with a long history of drilling and sampling to support exploration and resource development. • Sampling Techniques Chips from the RC drilling face-sampling hammer are collected for assaying. Sample return lines are cleaned with compressed air each metre and the cyclone sample collector is cleaned following each rod. Samples are rife split through a three-tier splitter with a split ~3kg sample (generally at 1m intervals) pulverised to produce a 30g charge analysed via fre assay. Diamond drill-core is geologically logged and then sampled according to geology (minimum sample length of 0.4 m to maximum sample length of 1.5 m) – where consistent geology is sampled, a 1m length is used for sampling the core. The core is sawn half-core with one half sent of for analysis. Samples have been collected from numerous other styles of drilling at SKO, including but not limited to RAB, aircore, blast-hole, sludge drilling and face samples. • Drilling Techniques Historical data includes DD, RC, RAB and aircore holes drilled between 1984 and 2010. Not all the historical drilling programmes at SKO are documented and many historical holes are assigned a drill type of ‘unknown’. Over 4,000 km of drilling has been completed on the tenure. Drilling by the most recent previous owners (Alacer Gold Corporation) has predominantly been RC, with minor DD and aircore drilling. RC drilling is used predominantly for defning and testing for near-surface mineralisation and utilises a face sampling hammer with the sample being collected on the inside of the drill- tube. RC drillholes utilise downhole single shot camera. Drillhole collars were surveyed by onsite mine surveyors. Diamond drilling is used for either testing / targeting deeper mineralised systems or to defne the orientation of the host geology. Many of these holes had RC pre-collars generally to a depth of between 60 – 120 m, followed by a diamond tail. The majority of these holes have been drilled at NQ2 size with minor HQ sized core. All diamond holes were surveyed during drilling with down hole single shot cameras, and then at end of hole using a Gyro Inclinometer at 5 or 10 m intervals. Drillhole collars were surveyed byonsite mine surveyors.

APPENDIX 1 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – GOLD DIVISION 29

==> picture [772 x 16] intentionally omitted <==

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

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

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary

		• Sample Recovery Sample recovery is generally good, and there is no indication that sampling presents a material risk for the quality of the evaluation of any deposit at SKO. CMGP • Diamond Drilling A signifcant portion of the data used in resource calculations at the CMGP has been gathered from diamond core. Multiple sizes have been used historically. This core is geologically logged and subsequently halved for sampling. Grade control holes may be whole-cored to streamline the core handling process if required. • Face Sampling At each of the major past underground producers at the CMGP, each development face / round is horizontally chip sampled. The sampling intervals are domained by geological constraints (e.g. rock type, veining and alteration / sulphidation etc.). The majority of exposures within the orebody are sampled. • Sludge Drilling Sludge drilling at the CMGP was performed with an underground production drill rig. It is an open hole drilling method using water as the fushing medium, with a 64mm (nominal) hole diameter. Sample intervals are ostensibly the length of the drill steel. Holes are drilled at sufcient angles to allow fushing of the hole with water following each interval to prevent contamination. Sludge drilling is not used to inform resource models. • RC Drilling RC drilling has been utilised at the CMGP. 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. • RAB / Aircore Drilling Combined scoops from bucket dumps from cyclone for composite. Split samples taken from individual bucket dumps via scoop. RAB holes not included in the resource estimate. • Blast Hole Drilling Cuttings sampled via splitter tray per individual drill rod. Blast holes not included in the resource estimate. • All geology input is logged and validated by the relevant area geologists, incorporated into this is assessment of sample recovery. No defned relationship exists between sample recovery and grade. Nor has sample bias due to preferential loss or gain of fne or coarse material been noted.

APPENDIX 1 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – GOLD DIVISION 30

==> picture [772 x 16] intentionally omitted <==

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

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

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary

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 and percentage of the relevant intersections logged	• Metals X / Alacer / Avoca surface drill-holes are all orientated and have been logged in detail for geology, veining, alteration, mineralisation and orientated structure. Metals X / Alacer / Avoca underground drill-holes are logged in detail for geology, veining, alteration, mineralisation and structure. Core has been logged in enough detail to allow for the relevant mineral resource estimation techniques to be employed. • Surface core is photographed both wet and dry and underground core is photographed wet. All photos are stored on the companies servers, with the photographs from each hole contained within separate folders. • Development faces are mapped geologically. • RC, RAB and AirCore chips are geologically logged. • Sludge drilling is logged for lithology, mineralisation and vein percentage. • Logging is quantitative in nature. • All holes are logged completely, all faces are mapped completely.
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 the grain size of the material being sampled.	HGO • NQ2 and LTK60 diameter core is sawn half core using a diamond-blade saw, with one half of the core consistently taken for analysis. LTK48 and BQ are whole core sampled. Sludge samples are dried then rife split. • The un-sampled half of diamond core is retained for check sampling if required. • For the onsite Intertek facility the entire dried sample is jaw crushed (JC2500 or Boyd Crusher) to a nominal 85% passing 2 mm with crushing equipment cleaned between samples. An analytical sub-sample of approximately 500-750 g is split out from the crushed sample using a rife splitter, with the coarse residue being retained for any verifcation analysis. Sample preparation techniques are appropriate for the type of analytical process. • Where Fire assay has been used the entire half core sample (3-3.5 kg) is crushed and pulverised (single stage mix and grind using LM5 mills) to a target of 85-90% passing 75μm in size. A 200g sub-sample is then separated out for analysis • Core and underground face samples are taken to geologically relevant boundaries to ensure each sample is representative of a geological domain. Sludge samples are taken to nominal sample lengths. • The sample size is considered appropriate for the grain size of the material being sampled. • For RC, RAB and Aircore chips regular feld duplicates are collected and analysed for signifcant variance to primary results. • RAB and Aircore sub-samples are collected through spear sampling.

APPENDIX 1 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – GOLD DIVISION 31

==> picture [772 x 16] intentionally omitted <==

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

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

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary

		SKO • NQ2 and HQ diameter core is sawn half core using a diamond-blade saw, with one half of the core consistently taken for analysis. Smaller sized core (LTK48 and BQ) are whole core sampled. The un-sampled half of diamond core is retained for check sampling if required. SKO staf collect the sample in pre-numbered calico sample bags which are then submitted to the laboratory for analysis. Delivery of the sample is by an SKO staf member and as such. • RC samples are collected at 1m intervals with the samples being rife split through a three- tier splitter. The samples are collected by the RC drill crews in pre-numbered calico sample bags which are then collected by SKO staf for submission. Delivery of the sample to the laboratory is by an SKO staf member. • Upon delivery to the laboratory, the sample numbers are checked by the SKO staf member against the sample submission sheet. Sample numbers are recorded and tracked by the laboratory using electronic coding. • Sample preparation techniques are considered appropriate for the style of mineralisation being tested for – this technique is industry standard across the Eastern Goldfelds. CMGP • Blast holes -Sampled via splitter tray per individual drill rods. • RAB / AC chips - Combined scoops from bucket dumps from cyclone for composite. Split samples taken from individual bucket dumps via scoop. • RC - Three tier rife splitter (approximately 5kg sample). Samples generally dry. • Face Chips - Nominally chipped horizontally across the face from left to right, sub-set via geological features as appropriate. • Diamond Drilling - Half-core niche samples, sub-set via geological features as appropriate. Grade control holes may be whole-cored to streamline the core handling process if required. • Chips / core chips undergo total preparation. • Samples undergo fne pulverisation of the entire sample by an LM5 type mill to achieve a 75µ product prior to splitting. • QA/QC is currently ensured during the sub-sampling stages process via the use of the systems of an independent NATA / ISO accredited laboratory contractor. A signifcant portion of the historical informing data has been processed by in-house laboratories. • The sample size is considered appropriate for the grain size of the material being sampled. • The un-sampled half of diamond core is retained for check sampling if required. • For RC chips regular feld duplicates are collected and analysed for signifcant variance to primaryresults.

APPENDIX 1 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – GOLD DIVISION 32

==> picture [772 x 16] intentionally omitted <==

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

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

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary

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 (eg standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (ie lack of bias) and precision have been established.	HGO • At the Intertek on-site facility, analysis is performed using a 500g PAL method. The accurately weighed sub-sample is further processed utilising a PAL1000B to grind the sample to a nominal 90% passing 75µm particle size, whilst simultaneously extracting any cyanide amenable gold liberated into a Leachwell liquor. The resulting liquor is then analysed for gold content by organic extraction with fame AAS fnish, with an overall method detection limit of 0.01ppm Au content in the original sample. This method is appropriate for the type and magnitude of mineralisation at Higginsville. • Quality control procedures include the use of standards, blanks and duplicates. Standards and duplicates are used to test both the accuracy and precision of the analytical process, while blanks are employed to test for contamination during the sample preparation stage. The analyses have confrmed the analytical process employed at Higginsville is adequately precise and accurate for use as part of the mineral resource estimation. SKO • Only nationally accredited laboratories are used for the analysis of the samples collected at SKO. • The laboratory dry and if necessary (if the sample is >3kg) rife split the sample, which is then jaw crushed and pulverised (the entire 3kg sample) in a ring mill to a nominal 90% passing 75 microns. All recent RC and Diamond core samples are analysed via Fire Assay, which involves a 30g charge (sub-sampled after the pulverisation) of the analytical pulp being fused at 1050°C for 45 minutes with litharge. The resultant metal pill is digested in aqua regia and the gold content determined by atomic adsorption spectrometry – detection limit is 0.01 ppm Au. • Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) samples are routinely submitted by SKO staf and comprise standards, blanks, assay pills, feld duplicates, lab duplicates and repeat analyses. The results for these QA/QC samples are routinely analysed by Senior Geologists with any discrepancies dealt with in conjunction with the laboratory prior to the analytical data being imported into the database. • There is limited information available on historic QA/QC procedures. SKO has generally accepted the available data at face value and carry out data validation procedures as each deposit is re-evaluated. • The analytical techniques used are considered appropriate for the style of mineralisation being tested for – this technique is industry standard across the Eastern Goldfelds. • Ongoing production data generally confrms the validity of prior sampling and assaying of the mined deposits to within acceptable limits of accuracy.

APPENDIX 1 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – GOLD DIVISION 33

==> picture [772 x 16] intentionally omitted <==

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

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

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary

		CMGP • Recent drilling was analysed by fre assay as outlined below; • A 50g sample undergoes fre assay lead collection followed by fame atomic adsorption spectrometry. • The laboratory includes a minimum of 1 project standard with every 22 samples analysed. • Quality control is ensured via the use of standards, blanks and duplicates. • No signifcant QA/QC issues have arisen in recent drilling results. • Historical drilling has used a combination of Fire Assay, Aqua Regia and PAL analysis. • These assaymethodologies are appropriate for the resource inquestion.
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 independent or alternative verifcations are available. • Virtual twinned holes have been drilled in several instances across all sites with no signifcant issues highlighted. Drillhole data is also routinely confrmed by development assay data in the operating environment. • Primary data is collected on paper or on tough book using a standard excel template. The information is imported into a SQL database server and verifed. • All data used in the calculation of resources and reserves are compiled in databases (underground and open pit) which are overseen and validated by senior geologists. • No adjustments have been made to anyassaydata.
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.	HGO • Collar coordinates for surface drill-holes were generally determined by GPS, with underground drill-holes generally determined by survey pick-up. Downhole survey measurements for most surface diamond holes were by Gyro-compass at 5m intervals. Holes not gyro-surveyed were surveyed using Eastman single shot cameras at 20m intervals. Downhole surveys for underground diamond drill-holes were taken at 15 – 30m intervals by Refex single-shot cameras. Routine survey pick-ups of underground and surface holes where they intersected development indicates (apart from some minor discrepancies with pre-Avoca drilling) a survey accuracy of less than 5m. • All drilling and resource estimation is undertaken in local mine grid at the various projects. • Topographic control is generated from Diferential GPS. This methodology is adequate for the resource inquestion.

APPENDIX 1 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – GOLD DIVISION 34

==> picture [772 x 16] intentionally omitted <==

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

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

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary

		SKO • Collar coordinates for surface RC and diamond drill-holes were generally determined by either RTK-GPS or a total station survey instrument. Underground drill-hole locations (Mount Marion and HBJ) were all surveyed using a Leica refectorless total station. • Recent surface diamond holes were surveyed during drilling with down-hole single shot cameras and then at the end of the hole by Gyro-Inclinometer at 5 or 10mm intervals. Holes not gyro-surveyed were surveyed using Eastman single shot cameras at 20m intervals. RC drill-holes utilised down-hole single shot camera surveys spaced every 15 to 30m down-hole. • Down-hole surveys for underground diamond drill-holes were taken at 15 – 30m intervals by Refex single-shot cameras. • The orientation and size of the project determines if the resource estimate is undertaken in local or MGA 94 grid. Each project has a robust conversion between local, magnetic and an MGA grid which is managed by the SKO survey department. • Topographic control is generated from RTK GPS. This methodology is adequate for the resources in question. CMGP • All data is spatially oriented by survey controls via direct pickups by the survey department. Drillholes are all surveyed downhole, deeper holes with a Gyro tool if required, the majority with single / multishot cameras. • All drilling and resource estimation is undertaken in local mine grid at the various sites. • Topographic control is generated from a combination of remote sensing methods and ground- based surveys. This methodologyis adequate for the resource inquestion.
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.	HGO • Drilling in the underground environment at Chalice and Trident is nominally carried-out on 20m x 30m spacing for resource defnition and in flled to a 10m x 15m spacing with grade control drilling. At trident the drill spacing below the 500RL widens to an average of 40m x 80m. At Chalice below the 880RL the typical drill spacing 60m x 60m. Mining has shown that this data spacing is appropriate for the Mineral Resource estimation process and to allow for classifcation of the resource as it stands. • Drilling at the Lake Cowan region is on a 20m x 10m spacing. Historical mining has shown this to be an appropriate spacing for the style of mineralisation and the classifcations applied. • Compositing is carried out based upon the modal sample length of each project.

APPENDIX 1 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – GOLD DIVISION 35

==> picture [772 x 16] intentionally omitted <==

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

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

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary

		SKO HBJ: Drill spacing ranges from 10m x 5m grade control drilling to 100m x 100m at deeper levels of the resource. The majority of the Indicated Resource is estimated using a maximum drill spacing of 40m x 40m. The resource has been classifed based on drill density with mining of the 2.2km long HBJ Open-Pit confrming that the data spacing is adequate for the resource classifcations applied. Mount Martin: Drill spacing ranges from 10m x 5m grade control drilling to 60m x 60m for the Inferred areas of the resource. The drill spacing for the majority of the Indicated Resource is 20m x 20m. The resource has been classifed primarily on drill density and the confdence in the geological/ grade continuity – the data spacing and distribution is deemed adequate for the estimation techniques and classifcations applied. Pernatty: Drill spacing for the reported resource is no greater than 60m x 60m with the majority of the Indicated resource based on a maximum spacing of 40m x 40m. The geological interpretation of the area is well understood, and is supported by the knowledge from open pit and underground operations. However given the mineralisation is controlled by shear zones the mineralisation continuity is considered to be less understood. The resource is classifed on a combination of drill density and the number of samples used to estimate the resource blocks. Mount Marion: Drill-spacing ranges from 20m x 20m to no greater than 60m x 60m for the reported resource Given that the geological and mineralisation understanding is well established via mining operations, this drill-spacing is considered adequate for the classifcations applied to the resource. Compositing is carried out based upon the modal sample length of each project. CMGP • Data spacing is variable dependent upon the individual orebody under consideration. A lengthy history of mining has shown that this approach is appropriate for the Mineral Resource estimation process and to allow for classifcation of the resource as it stands. Compositingis carried out based upon the modal sample length of each individual domain.

APPENDIX 1 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – GOLD DIVISION 36

==> picture [772 x 16] intentionally omitted <==

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

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

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary

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.	• Drilling intersections are nominally designed to be normal to the orebody as far as underground infrastructure constraints / topography allows. • Development sampling is nominally undertaken normal to the various orebodies. • Where drilling angles are sub optimal the number of samples per drill hole used in the estimation has been limited to reduce any potential bias. • It is not considered that drillingorientation has introduced an appreciable samplingbias.
Sample security	• The measures taken to ensure sample security.	• The core is transported to the core storage facility by either drilling company personnel or geological staf. Once at the facility the samples are kept in a secure location while logging and sampling is being conducted. The storage facility is enclosed by a fence which is locked at night or when the geology staf are absent. The samples are transported to the onsite Intertek facilityby geological staf.
Audits or reviews	• The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data	HGO A review of the grade control practices on site has been undertaken by an external consultant. No formal external audit or review has been performed on the resource estimate. Internal reviews are performed as a matter of course. SKO No formal external audit or review has been performed on the sampling techniques and data. Internal reviews are performed as a matter of course. CMGP Site generated resources and reserves and the parent geological data is routinely reviewed bythe Metals X Corporate technical team.

APPENDIX 1 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – GOLD DIVISION 37

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.	HGO • State Royalty of 2.5% of revenue applies to all tenements. • The Trident Resource is located within mining leases M15/0642, M15/0351 and M15/0348. M15/0351 and M15/0642 also incur the Morgan Stanley royalty of 4% of revenue after 100,000oz of production and the Morgan Stanley price participation royalty at 10% of incremental revenue for gold prices above AUD$600/oz. M15/0642 is also subject to the Mitchell Royalty at AUD$32/oz. • The Chalice Resource is located on mining lease M15/0786. There are no additional royalties. • Lake Cowan is located on mining lease M15/1132. Lake Cowan is subject to an additional royalty (Brocks Creek) of $1/tonne of ore. SKO • State Royalty of 2.5% of revenue applies to all tenements, although does not apply to the 16 freehold titles (which host the majority of SKO’s Resource inventory). There are a number of minor agreements attached to a select number of tenements and locations with many of these royalty agreements associated with tenements with no current Resources and/or Reserves. • Private royalty agreements are in place that relate to production from HBJ open-pit at $10/ oz. In addition, a royalty is payable in the form of 1.75% of the total gold ounces produced from the following resources: Shirl Underground, Golden Hope, Bellevue, HBJ Open-pit, Mount Martin open-pit, Mount Martin Stockpiles and any reclaimed tailings. • SKO consists of 141 tenements including 16 freehold titles, 6 exploration licenses, 47 mining leases, 12 miscellaneous licenses and 60 prospecting licenses, all held directly by the Company. • There are no known issues regarding security of tenure. • There are no known impediments to continued operation. CMGP • The CMGP comprises 9 granted exploration leases, 14 granted miscellaneous leases, 48 granted mining leases and 38 granted prospecting leases. • Native title interests are recorded against several CMGP tenements. • The CMGP tenements are held by the Big Bell Gold Operations (BBGO) of which Metals X has 100% ownership. • Several third party royalties exist across various tenements at CMGP, over and above the state government royalty. • BBGO operates in accordance with all environmental conditions set down as conditions for grant of the leases. • There are no known issues regarding security of tenure. • There are no known impediments to continued operation.

APPENDIX 1 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – GOLD DIVISION 38

==> picture [772 x 16] intentionally omitted <==

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

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

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary

Exploration done by other parties Geology	• Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other partie • Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation.	• The Higginsville region has an exploration and production history in excess of 30 years. • The SKO tenements have an exploration and production history in excess of 40 years. • Metals X / Alacer work has generally confrmed the veracity of historic exploration data. HGO • Trident is hosted primarily within a thick, weakly diferentiated gabbro with subordinate mafc and ultramafc lithologies and comprises a series of north-northeast trending, shallowly north-plunging mineralised zones. The deposit comprises two main mineralisation styles; large wallrock-hosted ore-zones comprising sigmoidal quartz tensional vein arrays and associated metasomatic wall rock alteration hosted exclusively within the gabbro; and thin, lode-style, nuggety laminated quartz veins that formed primarily at sheared lithological contacts between the various mafc and ultramafc lithologies. • Chalice geology is characterised by NNW-striking and W-dipping intercalated mafc and ultramafc volcanic rocks that are metamorphosed to mid-amphibolite facies. This sequence is bounded to the west and east by thick granitic bodies of the Boorabin Batholith and Pioneer Dome Batholith respectively. The dominant unit that hosts gold mineralisation is a fne grained, weakly to strongly foliated amphibole-plagioclase amphibolite. Two major, and one minor, ultramafc units occur as discontinuous members throughout the deposit. Four generations of granitic dike intrude the lithostratigraphic sequence. The mineralisation is characterised by strong diopside-hornblende-albite alteration with associated pyrite / pyrrhotite sulphides. Mineralisation occurs with highly foliated and folded host rock with width varying up to 50m. • Lake Cowan mineralisation can be separated into two types. Structurally controlled primary mineralisation in ultramafcs, basalts and felsics host (e.g. Louis, Josephine and Napoleon), and saprolite / palaeochannel hosted supergene hydromorphic deposits, including Sophia, Brigitte and Atreides.

APPENDIX 1 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – GOLD DIVISION 39

==> picture [772 x 16] intentionally omitted <==

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

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

SKO HBJ: The HBJ lodes form part of a gold mineralised system along the Boulder-Lefroy shear zone that is over 5km long and includes the Celebration, Mutoroo, HBJ and Golden Hope open-pit and underground mines. The lodes are hosted within a steeply-dipping, north-northwest striking package of mafic, ultramafic and sedimentary rocks and schists that have been intruded by felsic to intermediate porphyries. Gold mineralisation is structurally controlled and is focused along lithological contacts, within stockwork and tensional vein arrays and within shear zones. The main mineralised zone has a length in excess of 1.9 km and an average width of 40 m in the Jubilee workings but is generally narrower to the north in the Hampton-Boulder workings. Mount Marion: The Mount Marion deposit is located on the eastern side of the Coolgardie Domain within a flexure in the Karramindie Shear Zone. It is hosted within a sub-vertical sequence of metakomatiites intercalated with metasediments that have been metamorphosed to amphibolite facies. Gold mineralisation occurs in a footwall and hangingwall lode, each ranging in thickness from 2 to 15m. The mineralisation plunges steeply to the west and is open at depth. Mount Martin: The Mount Martin Tribute Area, is located within a regional scale north-northwest trending Archaen Greenstone Belt. Within the Mount Martin – Carnilya area, the greenstone belt comprises a mixed sequence of ultramafic (predominantly komatiitic) and fine-grained, variably sulphidic sedimentary lithologies with subsidiary mafic units. Known gold and nickel mineralisation at the Mount Martin Mine is associated with a series of stacked, westerly dipping, sulphide and quartz-carbonate bearing lodes which are mainly hosted within intensely deformed and altered chloritic schists sandwiched between talc-carbonate ultramafic lithologies. Pernatty: The Pernatty deposit is hosted within a granophyric phase of a gabbro and is controlled by a structurally complex interaction of a number of major shear zones. Shearing has altered the original granophyric quartz dolerite to a biotite-carbonate-plagioclase-pyrite schist. The sequence has also been intruded by mafic and felsic porphyritic dykes, which are also mineralised.

APPENDIX 1 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – GOLD DIVISION 40

==> picture [772 x 16] intentionally omitted <==

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

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

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary

		CMGP • The CMGP is located in the Achaean Murchison Province, a granite-greenstone terrane in the northwest of the Yilgarn Craton. Greenstone belts trending north-northeast are separated by granite-gneiss domes, with smaller granite plutons also present within or on the margins of the belts. • Mineralisation at Big Bell is hosted in the shear zone (Mine Sequence) and is associated with the post-peak metamorphic retrograde assemblages. Stibnite, native antimony and trace arsenopyrite are disseminated through the K-feldspar-rich lode schist. These are intergrown with pyrite and pyrrhotite and chalcopyrite. Mineralisation outside the typical Big Bell host rocks (KPSH), for example 1,600N and Shocker, also display a very strong W-As-Sb geochemical halo. • Numerous gold deposits occur within the Cuddingwarra Project area, the majority of which are hosted within the central mafc-ultramafc ± felsic porphyry sequence. Within this broad framework, mineralisation is shown to be spatially controlled by competency contrasts across, and fexures along, layer-parallel D2 shear zones, and is maximised when transected by corridors of northeast striking D3 faults and fractures. • The Great Fingall Dolerite hosts the majority gold mineralisation within the portion of the greenstone belt proximal to Cue (The Day Dawn Project Area). Unit AGF3 is the most brittle of all the fve units and this characteristic is responsible for its role as the most favourable lithological host togold mineralisation in the Greenstone Belt.
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: » easting and northing of the drill hole collar » elevation or RL (Reduced Level – elevation above sea level in metres) of the drill hole collar » dip and azimuth of the hole » down hole length and interception depth » hole 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 clearlyexplain whythis is the case.	• Tables containing drillhole collar, downhole survey and intersection data are included in the body of the announcement.
Data aggregation methods	• In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging techniques, maximum and/or minimum grade truncations (eg 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.	• All results presented are length weighted. • No high-grade cuts are used. • Reported results contain no more than two contiguous metres of internal dilution below 1g/t. • Results are reported above a variety of gram / metre cut-ofs dependent upon the nature of the hole. These are cut-ofs are clearly stated in the relevant tables. • No metal equivalent values are stated.

APPENDIX 1 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – GOLD DIVISION 41

==> picture [772 x 16] intentionally omitted <==

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

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

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary

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 (eg‘down hole length, true width not known’).	• Unless indicated to the contrary, all results reported are true width. • Given restricted access in the underground environment the majority of drillhole intersections are not normal to the orebody.
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 a plan view of drill hole collar locations and appropriate sectional views.	• Appropriate diagrams are provided in the body of the release.
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 reportingof Exploration Results.	• Appropriate balance in exploration results reporting is provided.
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.	• There is no other substantive exploration data associated with this release.
Further work	• The nature and scale of planned further work (eg tests for lateral extensions or depth extensions or large-scale step-out drilling). • Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions, including the main geological interpretations and future drilling areas, provided this information is not commercially sensitive.	• Ongoing surface and underground exploration activities will be undertaken to support continuing mining activities at Metals X Gold Operations.

APPENDIX 1 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – GOLD DIVISION 42

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 validationprocedures used.	• The database used for the estimation was extracted from the Metals X’s DataShed database management system stored on a secure SQL server. • As new data is acquired it passes through a validation approval system designed to pick up anysignifcant errors before the information is loaded into the master database.
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 whythis 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.	HGO • Current and historical mining activities across the Higginsville region provide signifcant confdence in the geological interpretation of all projects. • No alternative interpretations are currently considered viable. • In all cases the local lithological and structural geology has been used to inform the interpretive process. All available information from drilling, underground mapping and pit mapping has been considered during interpretation. • The Trident, Corona, Fairplay, Vine and Two boys deposits are all hosted within a suite of east over west thrust repeated mafc, ultramafc and sedimentary rocks. In all cases the most favourable host is of mafc composition, generally gabbro and to a lesser extent basalt. Together the deposits form what is locally referred to as the Higginsville Line of Lode, a 5km long, north-northeast striking mineralised corridor of historic and current mining operations. Steep west and shallow east have been identifed as the most favourable structural orientations for mineralisation. • At Chalice, multiple generations of unmineralised felsic intrusive cross cut the host amphibolite and infuence both the volume and the grade, through contact remobilisation, of the mineralisation. The Resource Estimate is sensitive to the volume of unmineralised felsics within the mineralised horizon. • At both Chalice and Lake Cowan there is a lack of consistent visual proxies for mineralisation, making accurate ore delineation difcult. • High-grade zones within the palaeochannels are the result of a more preferential depositional environment due to changes in strike of thepalaeochannel.

APPENDIX 1 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – GOLD DIVISION 43

==> picture [772 x 16] intentionally omitted <==

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

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

SKO HBJ: The mineralisation has been modelled focussing on the structural (shear zone) and lithological (porphyry mainly) controls. The large scale (1.9km long and ~40m wide) provides significant confidence in the geological and grade continuity within the deposit. The interpretation has used predominantly RC drilling with some DD used for the deeper parts of the resource. There is an alternative interpretation that could be applied to this deposit, which focuses on defining and sub-domaining higher grade mineralisation that is evident at lithological contacts. Mount Marion: The lithological and structural model for the Mount Marion deposit is well understood as it is supported by the knowledge gained from open-pit and underground operations. The mineralisation is hosted along a dilational flexure within the lode gneiss with clearly defined contact mineralisation with the surrounding ultramafic lithologies. The lithological model is used as the basis for the mineralisation interpretation and has been derived from predominantly RC and Diamond drill-holes. The confidence of the geological controls on mineralisation is consistent with the resource classification applied to the deposit. No alternative interpretations have been devised for this deposit. Mount Martin: Gold mineralisation at Mount Martin is associated with chlorite schists (shear zones) hosted within talc-carbonate ultramafic lithologies. Within these controlling shear zones are a series of stacked, westerly-dipping, sulphide and quartz carbonate bearing lodes which host the majority of the gold mineralisation. The geological and mineralisation interpretation used in this resource is consistent with that mined historically in the open pit. Although other interpretations have been proposed they tend to be variations on the steep westerly-dipping lodes theme adopted for this resource and as such would not represent a significant change in the contained metal. Pernatty: Mineralisation at Pernatty is controlled by a complex arrangement of very well-defined shear zones with the highest grade mineralisation associated with structural intersections and flexures along the three main shears. Given the consistency in orientation of the three main controlling shears, the confidence in the geological and mineralisation interpretation is deemed adequate.

APPENDIX 1 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – GOLD DIVISION 44

==> picture [772 x 16] intentionally omitted <==

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

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

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary

		CMGP Mining has occurred since 1800’s providing signifcant confdence in the currently geological interpretation across all projects. No alternative interpretations are currently considered viable. Geological interpretation of the deposit was carried out using a systematic approach to ensure that the resultant estimated Mineral Resource fgure was both sufciently constrained, and representative of the expected sub-surface conditions. In all aspects of resource estimation the factual and interpreted geology was used to guide the development of the interpretation. The structural regime is the dominant control on geological and grade continuity at the CMGP. Lithological factors such as rheologycontrast are secondarycontrols ongrade distribution.
Dimensions	• 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.	HGO • The Trident mineral resource extends over 680m in strike length, 350m in lateral extent and 940m in depth. • Chalice mineralisation has been defned over a strike length of 700m, a lateral extent of 200m and a depth of 650m. • The Lake Cowan resource has been defned over a strike length of >1.5Km, a lateral extent of >500m and to a depth of >150m. • SKO • The HBJ deposit extends over 5km of strike (includes the Golden Hope and Mutooroo lodes) and up to 650m below surface with the individual lodes being up to 40m wide. • Mount Marion mineralisation extends to just under 1km in strike length, 800m in depth with the lodes varying in width from 3 – 15m. The mineralisation is steeply plunging resulting in a very small surface expression of the lodes. • The Mount Martin deposit has a strike length of 1km, a vertical extent of 350m, with the individual, shallow west-southwesterly dipping lodes varying between 2 – 10m true thickness. These lodes make up a mineralised package of ~300m true thickness (hangingwall to footwall). • The Pernatty desposit has a strike extent of 500m, 400m dip extent and up to 300m in lateral extent. The individual lodes are of varying orientations and are generally between 2 – 15m wide. CMGP • Individual deposit scales vary across the CMGP. • The Big Bell Trend is mineralised a strike length of >3,900m, a lateral extent of up +50m and a depth of over 1,500m. • Great Fingall is mineralised a strike length of >500m, a lateral extent of >600m and a depth of over 800m. • Black Swan South is mineralised a strike length of >1,700m, a lateral extent of up +75m and a depth of over 300m.

APPENDIX 1 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – GOLD DIVISION 45

==> picture [772 x 16] 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 (eg sulphur for acid mine drainage characterisation). • In the case of block model interpolation, the block size in relation to the average sample spacing and the search employed. • Any assumptions behind modelling of selective mining units. • Any assumptions about correlation between variables. • Description of how the geological interpretation was used to control the resource estimates. • 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.	• HGO • For Trident, Chalice, Two Boys, Vine and Lake Cowan the modelling and estimation work was undertaken by Alacer Gold and carried out in Vulcan 3D mining software. • For Alacer Gold estimates the drill hole data to be used in the process is frst validated. The initial interpretation is then completed on 1:250 scale hardcopy cross sections, long sections and level plans, this interpretation is then validated by either the senior geologists or the Chief Geologist before then being digitised into the Vulcan 3D modelling package. The digitised polygons form the basis of the three dimensional orebody wireframe. Wireframing is then 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. • 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. Drillholes are subsequently composited to allow for grade estimation. In all aspects of resource estimation the factual and interpreted geology was used to guide the development of the interpretation. • Once the sample data has been composited, a statistical analysis is undertaken to assist with determining estimation search parameters, top-cuts etc, this is carried out using Supervisor. Top cut analysis was carried out by assessing normal and log-histograms for extreme values and using a combination of mean variance plots and population disintegration techniques. Variographic analysis of individual domains is undertaken to assist with determining appropriate search parameters. In all cases knowledge of the geology was used to guide the analysis of the variogram fans in determining the orientation of maximum continuity. • An empty block model is then created for the area of interest; with each ore wireframe used to assign block domain codes which match the fag used for the composites. This model contains attributes set at background values for gold as well as density, and various estimation parameters that are subsequently used to assist in resource categorisation. The block sizes used in the model will vary depending on orebody geometry, minimum mining units, estimation parameters and levels of informing data available. • Grade estimation is then undertaken, with ordinary kriging estimation as standard, although in some circumstances where sample populations are small, or domains are unable to be accurately defned, inverse distance weighting estimation techniques will be used. At Trident a grade assignment method has been employed for the Athena orebody. This uses face sampling/mapping on each level to identify runs of vein with similar width and grade profles. For each run, the length of the run and average vein width is calculated as well as a width weighted average vein grade. Two or more grade runs are then joined up across levels to form a grade block, a long section is used to validate the plunge of each grade block against the diamond drilling. The length and width of each run is used to calculate a length weighted average grade and an average vein width for the block. A wireframe for each grade block is created at the specifed average vein width for the block. This wireframe is then assigned the previously calculated block grade using a post process script. • No by-products or deleterious elements are estimated. • No assumptions have been made about the correlation between variables.

APPENDIX 1 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – GOLD DIVISION 46

==> picture [772 x 16] intentionally omitted <==

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

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

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary

		• 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 resource is then depleted for mining voids and subsequently classifed in line with JORC guidelines utilising a combination of various estimation derived parameters and geological / mining knowledge. • Production reconciliation data is regularly used to check the performance of the estimate and to adjust parameters is necessary. • Good reconciliation between mine claimed fgures and milled fgures is routinelyachieved.
		SKO • The HBJ mineral resource estimate was undertaken in December 2011 by Widenbar and Associates Pty Ltd. The grade interpolation method used was Ordinary Kriging (OK) in the Datamine ESTIMA process – a method that is appropriate for the style of mineralisation being estimated. A simple unfolding process has been applied to the data and model blocks in order to simplify the setup of search ellipses and allow searches to follow the varying dip and strike of the various domains. • Geological, mining as-built and mineralisation domains and a valid drillhole database were supplied by SKO personnel. The geological and mineralisation domains were used to control the interpolation as hard boundaries (mineralisation domains) and for the application of bulk density data (geological boundaries). • The Mineral Resource estimates for Mount Marion, Mount Martin and Pernatty were undertaken by Alacer Gold in September 2011. The geological and mineralisation wireframes as well as the grade interpolation was undertaken in Vulcan 8.04 3-D modelling software with statistical analysis undertaken using Snowden Supervisor software. The interpolation method used was Ordinary Kriging (OK) – a method that is appropriate for the styles of mineralisation being estimated. • Statistical analysis was undertaken to determine the composite length (1m) and for the application of top-cuts. • The search ellipses applied were based on a combination of drillhole spacing and variographic analysis. Various minimum and maximum samples were used in the frst search with a maximum of four samples per drill-hole allowed. Several passes were used each with increasing search ellipse sizes, all the blocks in the mineralised domains were informed in the frst pass. • The block model was depleted using surfaces / domains generated by the SKO Survey. • Validation of the models was completed by visual inspection, statistical comparisons and comparison with reconciliation data, with the fnal model achieving a satisfactory validation. • No deleterious elements were estimated as theyare considered not material.

APPENDIX 1 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – GOLD DIVISION 47

==> picture [772 x 16] intentionally omitted <==

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

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

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary

		CMGP • All modelling and estimation work undertaken by Metals X is carried out in three dimensions via Surpac Vision. • 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 is then 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. • 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. Drillholes are subsequently composited to allow for grade estimation. In all aspects of resource estimation the factual and interpreted geology was used to guide the development of the interpretation. • Once the sample data has been composited, a statistical analysis is undertaken to assist with determining estimation search parameters, top-cuts etc. Variographic analysis of individual domains is undertaken to assist with determining appropriate search parameters. Which are then incorporated with observed geological and geometrical features to determine the most appropriate search parameters. • An empty block model is then created for the area of interest. This model contains attributes set at background values for the various elements of interest as well as density, and various estimation parameters that are subsequently used to assist in resource categorisation. The block sizes used in the model will vary depending on orebody geometry, minimum mining units, estimation parameters and levels of informing data available. • Grade estimation is then undertaken, with ordinary kriging estimation method is considered as standard, although in some circumstances where sample populations are small, or domains are unable to be accurately defned, inverse distance weighting estimation techniques will be used. Both by-product and deleterious elements are estimated at the time of primary grade estimation if required. It is assumed that by-products correlate well with gold. There are no assumptions made about the recovery of by-products. • The resource is then depleted for mining voids and subsequently classifed in line with JORC guidelines utilising a combination of various estimation derived parameters and geological / mining knowledge. • This approach has proven to be applicable to Metals X’s gold assets. • Estimation results are routinely validated against primary input data, previous estimates and mining output. • Good reconciliation between mine claimed fgures and milled fgures was routinely achieved during pastproduction history.
Moisture	• Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or with natural moisture, and the method of determination of the moisture content.	• Tonnage estimates are dry tonnes.
Cut-of parameters	• The basis of the adopted cut-of grade(s) or quality parameters applied.	• The cut of grades used for the reporting of the Mineral Resources have been selected based on the style of mineralisation, depth from surface of the mineralisation and the most probable extraction technique.

==> picture [772 x 16] intentionally omitted <==

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

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

==> picture [772 x 484] intentionally omitted <==

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

|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Mining factors or assumptions|•|Assumptions made regarding possible mining methods, minimum mining dimensions and|HGO|
|internal (or, if applicable, external) mining dilution. It is always necessary as part of the|The principle extraction method at both Trident and Chalice is sub-level open stoping. For the|
|process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider|narrow vein systems at Trident bench stoping is employed.|
|potential mining methods, but the assumptions made regarding mining methods and|
|SKO|
|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|The Pernatty, Mount Martin and upper portions of the HBJ deposits are assumed to be|
|made.|amenable to open pit mining processes. A minimum mining width of 2.5m (horizontal) is|
|applied to the lodes.|
|The lower parts of the HBJ deposit was assumed to be mineable via bulk underground mining|
|techniques such as sub-level or block caving. The Mount Marion deposit is assumed to be|
|amenable to underground mining via open stoping means which is consistent with the|
|mining practices adopted for the Mount Marion deposit.|
|CMGP|
|Not considered for Mineral Resource. Applied during the Reserve generation process.|
|Metallurgical|factors|or|•|The basis for assumptions or predictions regarding metallurgical amenability. It is always|HGO|
|assumptions|necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual|Metallurgical test work is carried out on a project by project basis. The Higginsville plant is|
|economic extraction to consider potential metallurgical methods, but the assumptions|approximately 5.5 years old and routinely averages over 96% recovery when being fed with|
|regarding metallurgical treatment processes and parameters made when reporting Mineral|Trident and Chalice material. No other project is currently being mined / processed.|
|Resources may not always be rigorous. Where this is the case, this should be reported with|
|SKO|
|an explanation of the basis of the metallurgical assumptions made.|
|The majority of the SKO resource base comprises deposits that have some level of mining|
|history and hence established metallurgical properties.|
|CMGP|
|Not considered for Mineral Resource. Applied during the Reserve generation process.|
|Environmental|factors|or|•|Assumptions made regarding possible waste and process residue disposal options. It is|HGO|
|assumptions|always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual|•|Tailings are discharged to the nearby tailings storage facility and also used to form cemented|
|economic extraction to consider the potential environmental impacts of the mining and|backfill for underground operations.|
|processing operation. While at this stage the determination of potential environmental|
|impacts, particularly for a greenfields project, may not always be well advanced, the status|•|Process water is pumped 30 km from the Chalice open pit to the Aphrodites pit from which it|
|is stored prior to pumping to the process mill|
|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|•|Potable water is pumped from the Coolgardie–Norseman water pipe line and is provided by|
|environmental assumptions made.|the state water provider.|
|•|Water used in the Trident mine for mining operations is recycled from underground and stored|
|in the nearby Poseidon North Pit before being returned for underground use.|
|•|Water used in the Chalice mine for mining operations is pumped from the remaining water left|
|in the base of the Chalice open pit.|
|SKO|
|The significant operational history at SKO has allowed for a consistent set of environmental|
|assumptions to be applied to the mineral resource deposits in the region.|
|CMGP|
|BBGO operates in accordance with all environmental conditions set down as conditions for|
|grant of the respective leases.|

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

APPENDIX 1 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – GOLD DIVISION 49

==> picture [772 x 16] intentionally omitted <==

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

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

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary

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 evaluation process of the diferent materials.	HGO • For both Trident and Chalice bulk densities were assessed via test work and assigned to the model. Samples were selected to cover the full range of lithology types and ore types across the deposit. Individual unbroken half core samples of approximately 30cm length were randomly selected from within specifed metre intervals. Samples were sent to the Genalysis Laboratory in Kalgoorlie, where mass and volumes (by water immersion) were measured and bulk density calculated. • Where no drill core or other direct measurements are available, SG factors have been assumed based on similarities to other zones of mineralisation / lithologies or from historic production records. SKO • For the HBJ, Mount Marion, Pernatty and Mount Martin deposits, density values were based on historic mining reconciliations combined with bulk density check test work. • Bulk densities were assigned based on the host rock, mineralisation style and oxidation state, all of which were coded into the block models. CMGP • Bulk density of the mineralisation at the CMGP is variable and is for the most part lithology rather than mineralisation dependent. Bulk density sampling is undertaken via assessments of drill core and grab samples. • A signifcant past mining history has validated the assumptions made surrounding bulk densityat the CMGP.
Classifcation	• The basis for the classifcation of the Mineral Resources into varying confdence categories. • Whether appropriate account has been taken of all relevant factors (ie 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 appropriatelyrefects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit.	• Resources are classifed in line with JORC guidelines utilising a combination of various estimation derived parameters, input data and geological / mining knowledge. • This approach considers all relevant factors and refects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit
Audits or reviews	• The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral Resource estimates.	• Resource estimates are peer reviewed by the site technical team. • No external reviews have been undertaken.
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 withproduction data, where available.	• All currently reported resources estimates are considered robust, and representative on both a global and local scale. • A continuing history of mining with good reconciliation of mine claimed to mill recovered provides confdence in the accuracy of the estimates.

APPENDIX 1 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – GOLD DIVISION 50

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 27] intentionally omitted <==

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

Criteria JORC Code Explanation Commentary
Mineral Resource estimate for • Description of the Mineral Resource estimate used as a basis for the conversion to an Ore • At all projects, all Resources that have been converted to Reserve are classified as either
----- End of picture text -----

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
Mineral Resource estimate for	• Description of the Mineral Resource estimate used as a basis for the conversion to an Ore	• At all projects, all Resources that have been converted to Reserve are classifed as either
conversion to Ore Reserves	Reserve. • Clear statement as to whether the Mineral Resources are reported additional to, or inclusive of, the Ore Reserves.	an Indicated or Measured Resource. 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 theyare capitallyor fullydeveloped.
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 whythis is the case.	• Mr Buckingham visits the Higginsville operations on a regular basis and is actively involved in budgets / forecasts and physical mining processes at both the operating mines.
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	HGO • Mining is in progress at both Chalice and Trident. • The Chalice underground mine has been in operation since 2011, with historical open pit and underground workings having been established in the 1990’s by Resolute Mining. The mining methodology, design layouts, production performance, mining modifying factors and cost profles used in the 2014 Mineral Reserve are therefore refective of this history. • The Trident Underground mine began production in late 2008. The mining methodology, design layouts, production performance, mining modifying factors and cost profles used in the 2014 Mineral Reserve are therefore refective of this history. • Underground mining costs have been derived from the current Australian Contract Mining (ACM) rates. • The Lake Cowan Mining Centre (including Louis Pit) was mined in the 2000’s by Harmony Gold. The Reserve for Louis involves depth and width extension of the current Pit. • Following exploration and infll drilling activity, annual resource updates and economic assessment of the Measured and Indicated resources is completed using actual costs, operating parameters and modifying factors. An annual update of Ore Reserves is completed on this basis. SKO • Economic assessment of the stockpiles is undertaken regularly using actual costs of processing inclusive of administration at SKO. CMGP • A comprehensive Defnitive Feasibility Study utilising a combination of internal and external expertise has been undertaken to allow the conversion of Mineral Resources to Ore Reserves.

APPENDIX 1 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – GOLD DIVISION 51

==> 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. • Underground Mines - Cut off grades were determined for the various mining methods and
----- End of picture text -----

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
Cut-of parameters	• The basis of the cut-of grade(s) or quality parameters applied.	• Underground Mines - Cut of grades were determined for the various mining methods and
		various mining sections in the mine. The COG’s have been applied to both development and stope production from their respective areas. • Open Pit Mines - The pit rim cut of grade (COG) was determined as part of the Reserve estimation. The pit rim COG determines which material will be processed by equating the operating cost of processing and selling 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 dumpas waste.
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 (eg pit slopes, stope sizes, etc), grade control and pre-production drilling. • The major assumptions made and Mineral Resource model used for pit and stope optimisation (if appropriate). • The mining dilution factors used. • The mining recovery factors used. • Any minimum mining widths used. • The manner in which Inferred Mineral Resources are utilised in mining studies and the sensitivity of the outcome to their inclusion. • The infrastructure requirements of the selected mining methods.	• Ore Reserves have been undertaken on a ‘bottom up’ process – with the physicals refecting mine designs rather than Resource conversion factors or Whittle optimisations. HGO • Mining methodologies for underground Reserves centre on long hole open stoping. However, there are areas which are designed as narrow vein up hole or fat bench stoping. All methods described in the Reserve have either been trialled successfully and/or implemented historically. The stope design parameters take into account the diferent mining shapes and are based on specifc geology and geotechnical domains associated with those areas. Stope shapes, level layouts and extraction sequences are designed cognisant of local and regional ground conditions. Where deteriorating ground conditions are expected or where signifcant fault planes run adjacent to mineralisation, stope shapes are altered to encompass these conditions and sequenced early to ensure recovery is possible. • Dilution factors vary pending the orebody style and host rock conditions as well as from mining sequence and development layouts. • Each mining method applied has a minimum width, which corresponds to sub level distances, blast hole drill accuracy constraints, nature of the mineralisation and/or feet fexibility. • With the implementation of paste flling at Trident and the utilisation of remote loaders with telecabins, a 100% mining recovery factor is applied to the stope physicals. • No Inferred resources are included with the Reserve Statement. • Both underground mines are established production centres and have been in operation for several years. Mining methodologies forecasted in the Reserve are those currently being utilised. • Conventional open pit mining methodologies and sequencing have been applied to open pits. • A 6% dilution factor has been applied to Louis Reserve. • Louis has a 95% mining recovery factor. • Wall angles used in the Louis Pit are refective of the historical parameters used. • Lake Cowan has pre-existing haulage routes and site earthworks. Re-establishment of the haulage route into Higginsville has been costed as is included within the economic analysis. SKO • As all SKO reserves are stockpile no mining factors or assumptions are applied during assessment of their viability.

APPENDIX 1 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – GOLD DIVISION 52

==> picture [772 x 16] intentionally omitted <==

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

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

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary

		CMGP • Pit and underground reserves have all been subject to detailed mine design. • Stockpile resources have been converted to reserves by application of appropriate modifying factors. • Feasibility Evaluations have incorporated dewatering requirements. • Open Pit geotechnical parameters have been supplied by Geotechnical Consultant following site inspection. • Open Pits have been designed to ensure a minimum 25m bench width. • Inferred Mineral Resources have been treated as waste in each assessment. • The construction of a 1.5Mtpa Process Plant at Big Bell as detailed in the DFS has been assumed.
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?	HGO • Gold extraction is achieved using staged crushing, ball milling with gravity concentration and Carbon in Leach. The Higginsville plant has operated since 2008 and historical recoveries on Trident ore average 97% and Chalice 95%. • Treatment of ore is via conventional gravity recovery / intensive cyanidation and CIL is applied as industry standard technology. • Host mineralisation has been consistent within the Trident and Chalice orebodies, and historical high gold extractions achieved at full commercial production rates. Additional testwork is instigated where notable changes to geology and mineralogy are identifed. Small scale batch leach tests on primary Louis ore have indicated lower recoveries (80%) associated with fner gold and sulphide mineralisation. • There have been no major examples of deleterious elements afecting gold extraction levels or bullion quality. Some minor variations in sulphide mineralogy have had short term impacts on reagent consumptions. • No bulk sample testing is required whilst geology/mineralogy is consistent based on treatment plant performance. SKO • All SKO stockpiles have a signifcant processing history and metallurgical performance is well understood. • A long history of processing through the existing facility demonstrates the appropriateness of the process to the styles of mineralisation considered. • No deleterious elements are considered, as a long history of processing has shown this to be not a material concern.

APPENDIX 1 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – GOLD DIVISION 53

==> picture [772 x 16] intentionally omitted <==

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

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

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary

		CMGP • The industry standard CIL process will be used treat CMGP ore. This has a demonstrated applicability to the styles of mineralisation present at the CMGP. • The CIL process is well proven. • Signifcant metallurgical test-work has been undertaken as part of the DFS. A signifcant past production history exists to validate the test-work results. • No signifcant deleterious elements are known. As such there is no allowance for deleterious elements in the process. • Metallurgical recoveries on the various ore and grades were considered as part of the cut-of grade analysis.
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.	HGO • The Higginsville mine operates under and in compliance with a number of operating environmental plans, which cover its environmental impacts and outputs. • Waste is generally stored underground in mined out stopes. When underground stopes are not available, waste is placed on approved surface waste dumps or capping material for historical tailings dams. • Waste rock created from the Open Pit operation at Louis is planned for storage alongside the pit crest and is formed up against an existing waste landform. The planned location sits underneath a tested regional dyke (no mineralisation). SKO • SKO operates under and in compliance with a number of operating environmental plans, which cover its environmental impacts and outputs. CMGP • A Clearing Permit covering all reserves and associated infrastructure has been approved. • Department of Water Licence to Take Water approvals are in place to allow dewatering of all mines within reserve estimate. • DEC Works Approval has been granted for Dewatering activities. • Hydrogeology, Waste and Soil characterisation studies have been undertaken. • Yet to submit application for MiningProposal for Waste Dumps or Tails Storage Facility.

APPENDIX 1 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – GOLD DIVISION 54

==> picture [772 x 16] intentionally omitted <==

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

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

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary

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 be provided, or accessed.	HGO • Both the Trident and Chalice mines are currently active and have substantial infrastructure in place including a large amount of underground infrastructure, major electrical, ventilation and pumping networks. The main Higginsville location has an operating CIL plant a fully equipped laboratory, extensive workshop, administration facilities and a 350 person single person quarters nearby. • Infrastructure required for Louis Pit production (workshops, gen sets, ofces) will be sourced from South Kalgoorlie Operations. These units have been used historically in satellite pits for SKO. SKO • SKO has an operating CIL plant, along with extensive maintenance and administration facilities. • Power and water supplies are in place. • Labour and accommodation is sourced from the nearby city of Kalgoorlie – Boulder. CMGP • Sufcient space is availability on existing granted tenements to allow mining and associated infrastructure to extract reserves. • Power will be supplied bydiesel orgasgeneration onsite.

APPENDIX 1 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – GOLD DIVISION 55

==> picture [772 x 16] intentionally omitted <==

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

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

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary

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.	HGO Underground Mines • Capital Development costs are derived from the current contractor cost model (ACM). CAPEX Infrastructure costs have been sourced either from specifc quotes or historical invoices. • Operating costs are derived primarily from the current contractor cost profle (ACM). In areas where works are outside of ACM’s scope, alterative contractor costs have been sourced. • Chalice Mine haulage (25km) is operated by Breakaway with current contract rates included within the Reserve model. Open Pit Mine • CAPEX has been sourced from a specifc quote (Dec 2013). • Operating costs associated with the pit operation are based on schedule of rates from various Kalgoorlie based contractors. These costs are in line with previous pit operations in both SKO and HGO. Surface and Plant • The HGO Plant costs are derived from historical cost profles, with updates from recent consumable negotiations. • Fuel and potable water rates are refective of current market conditions. • Site Administration and Manning costs are refective of current conditions. Royalties • Allprivate and state royalties have been incorporated into the Reserve cost model.
		SKO • Processing costs are based on actual cost profles, as are administrative costs. • Both state government and private royalties are incorporated into costings as appropriate. CMGP • Capital Costs were estimated as part of the DFS. • Operating Costs were estimated as part of the DFS. • WA State Government 2.5% applies. • $5per ozproduced Royaltyapplies to Great Fingall Deeps.

APPENDIX 1 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – GOLD DIVISION 56

==> picture [772 x 16] 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.	HGO • Trident Mine Revenue is based on the long term forecast of A$ 1,452/oz. • The Chalice and Louis mines are analysed at a A$1,400/oz price due to their shorter life. • No allowance is made for silver by-products. SKO • For SKO, revenue is based upon a A$1,400/oz forecast which is consistent with current market pricing and industry short term forecasts. • No co-product revenue is considered in evaluations. CMGP • Reserves are based upon a AUD$1500 per fne gold oz revenue assumption. • Costs for bullion transport and refning in Perth. No allowances for additional costs or penalties and no allowance for silver revenue.
Market assessment	• The demand, supply and stock situation for the particular commodity, consumption trends and factors likely to afect supply and demand into the future. • A customer and competitor analysis along with the identifcation of likely market windows for the product. • Price and volume forecasts and the basis for these forecasts. • For industrial minerals the customer specifcation, testing and acceptance requirements prior to a supplycontract.	• Detailed economic studies of the gold market and future price estimates are considered by Metals X and applied in the estimation of revenue, cut-of grade analysis and future mine planning decisions. • There remains strong demand and no apparent risk to the long term demand for the gold.
Economic	• The inputs to the economic analysis to produce the net present value (NPV) in the study, the source and confdence of these economic inputs including estimated infation, discount rate, etc. • NPV ranges and sensitivity to variations in the signifcant assumptions and inputs.	HGO • The Higginsville NPV assumes a 10% discount rate with no infation. Mining costs derived from contract rates, Paste Plant costs as per cubes required at a historical A$/m3, G&A costs on a cost per tonne basis and processing cost based on actual cost profles. SKO • The SKO NPV assumes a 10% discount rate with no infation, G&A costs on a cost per tonne basis and processing costs based on upon actual cost profles. CMGP • For the CMGP, which is yet to be funded, an 8% real discount rate is applied to NPV analysis. • Sensitivity analysis of key fnancial and physical parameters is applied to future development project considerations and mine.

APPENDIX 1 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – GOLD DIVISION 57

==> picture [772 x 16] intentionally omitted <==

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

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

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary

Social	• The status of agreements with key stakeholders and matters leading to social licence to operate.	HGO • HGO is fully permitted and a major contributor to the local and regional economy. It has no external pressures that impact its operation or which could potentially jeopardise its continuous operation. • As new open pits or underground operations develop the site will require separate environmental approvals from the diferent regulating bodies. SKO • SKO mine is fully permitted and a major contributor to the local and regional economy. It has no external pressures that impact its operation or which could potentially jeopardise its continuous operation. • As new open pits or underground operations develop the site will require separate environmental approvals from the diferent regulating bodies. CMGP • The CMGP isyet to start and will require environmental and other regulatory permitting.
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.	• HGO is an active mining project. • SKO is an active mining project. • No operational or marketing contracts have been awarded for the CMGP. However, the DFS assumptions are based upon common WA operational experience giving confdence in their validity. Statutory approvals and licence applications are either in place or substantially prepared and no delays or hindrances to project development are anticipated.
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).	• The basis for classifcation of the resource into diferent categories is made on a subjective basis. Measured Resources have a high level of confdence and are generally defned in three dimensions and have been accurately defned or capitally and normally developed. Indicated resources have a slightly lower level of confdence but contain substantial drilling and are in most instances capitally developed or well defned from a mining perspective. Inferred resources always contain signifcant geological evidence of existence and are drilled, but not to the same density. There is no classifcation of any resource that isn’t drilled or defned by substantial physical sampling works. • Some Measured Resources have been classifed as Proven and some are defned as Probable Reserves based on subjective internal judgements, but generally based upon the intensity of capital and normal development they have been subjected to. • The result appropriatelyrefects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit.
Audits or reviews	• The results of any audits or reviews of Ore Reserve estimates.	• Site generated reserves and the parent data and economic evaluation data is routinely reviewed by the Metals X Corporate technical team. • Further, external consultants (experts in their feld of speciality) regularly visit Metals X Gold Divisions sites to audit designs and processes. The recommendations from these reports are represented in the Reserves.

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

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

Criteria JORC Code Explanation Commentary
Discussion of relative • Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and confidence level in the Ore HGO
----- End of picture text -----

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
Discussion of relative	• Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and confdence level in the Ore	HGO
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.	• Trident and Chalice Reserves are refective of current operating practices and mine planning processes. All currently reported reserve calculations are considered representative on a local scale. Regular mine reconciliations occur to validate and test the accuracy of the estimates at Trident and Chalice. A comprehensive production history confrms the validity of the Trident and Chalice reserve. • Reserve calculations for the Louis Open Pit are cognisant of the historical geological, geotechnical and mining data (Harmony Gold 2000’s). Confdence in the Reserve is further achieved with the validation of historical production data and observation of structural orientations on the existing pit walls. SKO • All currently reported reserve calculations are considered representative on a local scale. Regular mine reconciliations occur to validate and test the accuracy of the estimates at SKO. CMGP • The ore reserve has been completed to a DFS standard and benchmarked against local site historicalproduction and experience hence confdence in the estimate is high.

APPENDIX 1 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – GOLD DIVISION 59

APPENDIX 2 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – WARUMPI SECTION 1 SAMPLING TECHNIQUES AND DATA

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

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

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
Sampling techniques	• Nature and quality of sampling (eg cut channels, random chips, or specifc specialised	• No drilling has been undertaken at Warumpi.
Drilling techniques Drill sample recovery	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 (eg ‘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 (eg submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed information. • Drill type (eg core, reverse circulation, open-hole hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc) and details (eg core diameter, triple or standard tube, depth of diamond tails, face- sampling bit or other type, whether core is oriented and if so, by what method, etc). • 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 mayhave occurred due topreferential loss/gain of fne/coarse material.	• All sampling undertaken to date is reconnaissance geochemical in nature. With grab, lag and soil samples collected.
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	• No holes have been drilled to date. • Geochemical sampling medium is recorded in the feld.

APPENDIX 2 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – WARUMPI 60

==> picture [772 x 16] 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 the grain size of the material being sampled.	• Grab samples undergoes total preparation.The sample preparation process consists of: » Crushing using a vibrating jaw crusher to achieve a maximum sample size of 4mm. » The crushed sample is then pulverised in a Labtech LM5 Ring Mill for 6 minutes. For samples weighing greater than 3.2kg the frst portion is removed and second portion is homogenised in the same machine. Once complete the frst portion is put back in the LM5 and both portions are homogenised. » From the pulverised sample, approximately 200g is taken as a master sample which stays in Alice Springs, while a second sample of approximately 150g taken and sent to for assaying. These samples are collected via a scoop inserted to the bottom of the bowl. The remaining sample is transferred to a calico bag for storage. » For every 20th sample, an approximately 25g sample is screened to 75 microns to check that homogenising has achieved 80% passing 75 microns. • or lag and soil samples, preperation is as follows: » Crushing using a vibrating jaw crusher to achieve a maximum sample size of 4mm. » Pulverise 1kg to 85% passing <75um » Roasting to remove organic matter. • • QA/QC is ensured during sampling via the use of sample ledgers, blanks, standards and repeats. • QA/QC is ensured during the assays process via the use of blanks, standards and repeats at a NATA / ISO accredited laboratory. • The sample sizes are considered appropriate to the grainsize of the material being sampled. • The reject is retained for check samplingif required.
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 (eg standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (ie lack of bias) and precision have been established.	• Analysis of samples is as per the following; » For gold 30g charge of prepared sample is fused with a mixture of lead oxide, sodium carbonate, borax, silica and other reagents and then cupelled to yield a precious metal bead. The bead is then dissolved in acid and analysed by ICP-AES. » For the remaining elements of interest the prepared sample is digested using a 4 acid digest. » The subsequent solution is analysed by inductively coupled plasma - atomic emission spectroscopy or by atomic absorption spectrometry for 48 elements. • No signifcant QA/QC issues have arisen in recent drilling results. • These assaymethodologies are appropriate for the resource inquestion.
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 anyadjustment to assaydata.	• No drilling has been undertaken to date. • Primary data is loaded into the database system and then archived for reference. • All data is compiled and overseen and validated by senior geologists. • No primary assays data is modifed in any way.

APPENDIX 2 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – WARUMPI 61

==> picture [772 x 16] 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. • Qualityand adequacyof topographic control.	• All data is spatially oriented by handheld GPS. • All data is located in MGA grid. • Topographic control is generated from remote sensing methods. This methodology is adequate for the resource inquestion.
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.	• Data spacing is semi-regular, with the initial geochemical sampling at kilometres centres. This spacing is closed down to 250m x 250m centres in areas of interest. • Individual features may be selectively grab sampled. • No composting of samples has been undertaken.
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.	• All sampling is reconnaissance geochemical and surfcial in nature. Orientation is dictated by topography.
Sample security	• The measures taken to ensure sample security.	• Samples are delivered to the secure facilityof a thirdpartyindependent laboratorycontractor.
Audits or reviews	• The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data	• Site generated geochemical data is routinely reviewed by the Metals X Corporate technical team.

APPENDIX 2 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – WARUMPI 62

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 Exploration done by other parties Geology	• 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. • Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other partie • Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation.	• The Warumpi Project comprises 4 granted exploration leases. • Native title interests are recorded against the Warumpi tenements. • The Warumpi tenements are held by Lassact Pty. Ltd. Castile with is 100% Metals X owned is earning into the tenements. • Several third party royalties exist across various tenements at Warumpi, over and above the Northern Territory government royalty. • Castile operates in accordance with all environmental conditions set down as conditions for grant of the leases. • There are no known issues regarding security of tenure. • There are no known impediments to continued operation. • There is no documented modern exploration at Warumpi. • The Warumpi terrain represents the southern margin of a large collisional zone of the North Australia Craton (NAC) and the South Australia Craton (SAC) which has greatly distorted the rocks throughout its multiple phase deformational history. This deformational history has created several crustal-scale shear zones and thrust faults as well as numerous secondary structures throughout the region. • To date no known occurrences of economic mineralisation are known to exist in the Warumpi Project area.
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: » easting and northing of the drill hole collar » elevation or RL (Reduced Level – elevation above sea level in metres) of the drill hole collar » dip and azimuth of the hole » down hole length and interception depth » hole 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 clearlyexplain whythis is the case.	• No drillhole information is being presented in this release.

APPENDIX 2 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – WARUMPI 63

==> picture [772 x 16] 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 (eg 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 anyreportingof metal equivalent values should be clearlystated.	• No drillhole information is being presented in this release.
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 (eg‘down hole length, true width not known’).	• No drillhole information is being presented in this release.
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 a plan view of drill hole collar locations and appropriate sectional views.	• No drillhole information is being presented in this release.
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 reportingof Exploration Results.	• No drillhole information is being presented in this release.
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 information is being presented in this release.
Further work	• The nature and scale of planned further work (eg tests for lateral extensions or depth extensions or large-scale step-out drilling). • Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions, including the main geological interpretations and future drilling areas, provided this information is not commercially sensitive.	• Exploration and mine planning assessment continues to take place at the Warumpi Project.

APPENDIX 2 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – WARUMPI 64

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.	• Data is stored in a Maxwell’s DataShed system based on the Sequel Server platform which is currently considered “industry standard”. • As new data is acquired it passes through a validation approval system designed to pick up any signifcant errors before the information is loaded into the master database. The information is uploaded bya series of Sequel routines and isperformed as required
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 whythis is the case.	• Given the early stage in project evolution a site visit has not been undertaken by the competent person to date.
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 afectingcontinuityboth ofgrade andgeology.	• No resource has been stated for the Warumpi Project.
Dimensions	• 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.	• No resource has been stated for the Warumpi Project.
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 (eg sulphur for acid mine drainage characterisation). • In the case of block model interpolation, the block size in relation to the average sample spacing and the search employed. • Any assumptions behind modelling of selective mining units. • Any assumptions about correlation between variables. • Description of how the geological interpretation was used to control the resource estimates. • 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.	• No resource has been stated for the Warumpi Project.

APPENDIX 2 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – WARUMPI 65

==> picture [772 x 16] intentionally omitted <==

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

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

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary

Moisture	• Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or with natural moisture, and the method of determination of the moisture content.	• No resource has been stated for the Warumpi Project.
Cut-ofparameters	• The basis of the adopted cut-ofgrade(s) orquality parameters applied.	• No resource has been stated for the Warumpi Project.
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.	• No resource has been stated for the Warumpi Project.
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.	• No resource has been stated for the Warumpi Project.
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.	• Castile operates in accordance with all environmental conditions set down as conditions for grant of the respective 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 evaluation process of the diferent materials.	• No resource has been stated for the Warumpi Project.
Classifcation	• The basis for the classifcation of the Mineral Resources into varying confdence categories. • Whether appropriate account has been taken of all relevant factors (ie 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 appropriatelyrefects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit.	• No resource has been stated for the Warumpi Project.
Audits or reviews	• The results of anyaudits or reviews of Mineral Resource estimates.	• No resource has been stated for the Warumpi Project.

APPENDIX 2 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – WARUMPI 66

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

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
Discussion of relative	• Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and confdence level in the Mineral	• No resource has been stated for the Warumpi Project.
accuracy/ confdence	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 withproduction data, where available.

SECTION 4 ESTIMATION AND REPORTING OF ORE RESERVES

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

==> 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.	• No resource has been stated for the Warumpi Project.
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 whythis is the case.	• No resource has been stated for the Warumpi Project.
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 ModifyingFactors have been considered	• No resource has been stated for the Warumpi Project.
Cut-ofparameters	• The basis of the cut-ofgrade(s) orquality parameters applied.	• No resource has been stated for the Warumpi Project.

APPENDIX 2 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – WARUMPI 67

==> picture [772 x 16] 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 (eg pit slopes, stope sizes, etc), grade control and pre-production drilling. • The major assumptions made and Mineral Resource model used for pit and stope optimisation (if appropriate). • The mining dilution factors used. • The mining recovery factors used. • Any minimum mining widths used. • The manner in which Inferred Mineral Resources are utilised in mining studies and the sensitivity of the outcome to their inclusion. • The infrastructure requirements of the selected miningmethods.	• No resource has been stated for the Warumpi Project.
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 mineralogyto meet the specifcations?	• No resource has been stated for the Warumpi Project.
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.	• No resource has been stated for the Warumpi Project.
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.	• No resource has been stated for the Warumpi Project.

APPENDIX 2 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – WARUMPI 68

==> picture [772 x 16] intentionally omitted <==

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

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

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary

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 royaltiespayable, both Government andprivate.	• No resource has been stated for the Warumpi Project.
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.	• No resource has been stated for the Warumpi Project.
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 supplycontract.	• No resource has been stated for the Warumpi Project.
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 sensitivityto variations in the signifcant assumptions and inputs.	• No resource has been stated for the Warumpi Project.
Social	• The status of agreements with key stakeholders and matters leading to social licence to operate.	• No resource has been stated for the Warumpi Project.
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.	• No resource has been stated for the Warumpi Project.

APPENDIX 2 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – WARUMPI 69

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

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

Criteria JORC Code Explanation Commentary
Classification • The basis for the classification of the Ore Reserves into varying confidence categories. • No resource has been stated for the Warumpi Project.
----- End of picture text -----

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
Classifcation	• The basis for the classifcation of the Ore Reserves into varying confdence categories.	• No resource has been stated for the Warumpi Project.
	• 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).
Audits or reviews	• The results of anyaudits or reviews of Ore Reserve estimates.	• No resource has been stated for the Warumpi Project.
Discussion of relative accuracy/ confdence	• Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and confdence level in the Ore 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.	• No resource has been stated for the Warumpi Project.

APPENDIX 2 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – WARUMPI 70

APPENDIX 3 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – TENNANT CREEK IOCG ORE BODIES SECTION 1 SAMPLING TECHNIQUES AND DATA

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

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

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
Sampling techniques	• Nature and quality of sampling (eg cut channels, random chips, or specifc specialised	• Diamond Drilling
Drilling techniques Drill sample recovery	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 (eg ‘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 (eg submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed information. • Drill type (eg core, reverse circulation, open-hole hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc) and details (eg core diameter, triple or standard tube, depth of diamond tails, face- sampling bit or other type, whether core is oriented and if so, by what method, etc). • 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 mayhave occurred due topreferential loss/gain of fne/coarse material.	All data used in resource calculations at the Tennant Creek Project has been gathered from diamond core. Multiple sizes have been used historically. This core is geologically logged and subsequently halved for sampling. • All geology input is logged and validated by the relevant area geologists, incorporated into this is assessment of sample recovery. No defned relationship exists between sample recovery and grade. Nor has sample bias due to preferential loss or gain of fne or coarse material been noted.
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	• Diamond core is logged geologically and geotechnically. • Logging is quantitative in nature. • All holes are logged completely.

APPENDIX 3 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – TENNANT CREEK IOCG ORE BODIES 71

==> picture [772 x 16] 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 the grain size of the material being sampled.	• Diamond Drilling - Half-core niche samples, sub-set via geological features as appropriate. • Core undergoes total preparation. • The sample preparation process consists of: » Crushing using a vibrating jaw crusher to achieve a maximum sample size of 4mm. » The sample is then weighed, and if the sample weight is greater than 3.2kg, the sample is split into two using a Jones-type Rife splitter. » The crushed sample is then pulverised in a Labtech LM5 Ring Mill for 6 minutes. For samples weighing greater than 3.2kg the frst portion is removed and second portion is homogenised in the same machine. Once complete the frst portion is put back in the LM5 and both portions are homogenised. » From the pulverised sample, approximately 200g is taken as a master sample which stays in Alice Springs, while a second sample of approximately 150g taken and sent to for assaying. These samples are collected via a scoop inserted to the bottom of the bowl. The remaining sample is transferred to a calico bag for storage. » For every 20th sample, an approximately 25g sample is screened to 75 microns to check that homogenising has achieved 80% passing 75 microns. • QA/QC is ensured during sampling via the use of sample ledgers, blanks, standards and repeats. • QA/QC is ensured during the assays process via the use of blanks, standards and repeats at a NATA / ISO accredited laboratory. • The sample sizes are considered appropriate to the grainsize of the material being sampled. • The un-sampled half of diamond core is retained for check samplingif required.
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 (eg standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (ie lack of bias) and precision have been established.	• Analysis of drill core for Au, Ag, Bi, Co and Cu was carried out in Perth in the following manner; » Gold (Au-AA25 scheme – lower detection limit = 0.01ppm, upper detection limit = 100ppm). A 30g charge of prepared sample is fused with a mixture of lead oxide, sodium carbonate, borax, silica and other reagents and then cupelled to yield a precious metal bead. » The bead is then dissolved in acid and analysed by atomic absorption spectroscopy against matrix-matched standards. » Samples returning assay values in excess of 100g/t Au were repeated using the Au- AA26 method. » Silver, bismuth, cobalt and copper (ME-OG62) - A prepared sample is digested using a 4 acid digest. » The subsequent solution is analysed by inductively coupled plasma - atomic emission spectroscopy or by atomic absorption spectrometry. • No signifcant QA/QC issues have arisen in recent drilling results. • These assaymethodologies are appropriate for the resource inquestion.

APPENDIX 3 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – TENNANT CREEK IOCG ORE BODIES 72

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

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

Criteria JORC Code Explanation Commentary
Verification of sampling and • The verification of significant intersections by either independent or alternative company • Anomalous intervals as well as random intervals are routinely checked assayed as part of
----- End of picture text -----

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
Verifcation of sampling and	• The verifcation of signifcant intersections by either independent or alternative company	• Anomalous intervals as well as random intervals are routinely checked assayed as part of
assaying	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.	the internal QA/QC process. • Virtual twinned holes have been drilled in several instances with no signifcant issues highlighted. • Primary data is loaded into the drillhole database system and then archived for reference. • All data used in the calculation of resources are compiled in databases which are overseen and validated by senior geologists. • Noprimaryassays data is modifed in anyway.
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.	• All data is spatially oriented by survey controls via direct pickups by the survey department. Drillholes are all surveyed downhole, deeper holes with a Gyro tool if required. • All drilling and resource estimation is undertaken in MGA grid. • Topographic control is generated from a combination of remote sensing methods and ground- based surveys. This methodologyis adequate for the resource inquestion.
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.	• Data spacing is variable dependent upon the individual orebody under consideration. This approach is appropriate for the Mineral Resource estimation process and to allow for classifcation of the resource as it stands. • Compositing is carried out based upon the modal sample length of each individual domain.
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.	• Drilling intersections are nominally designed to be normal to the orebody as far topography / economics allows. • Development sampling is nominally undertaken normal to the various orebodies. • It is not considered that drilling orientation has introduced an appreciable sampling bias.
Sample security	• The measures taken to ensure sample security.	• Samples are delivered to a third party transport service, who in turn relay them to the independent laboratorycontractor. Samples are stored securelyuntil theyleave site.
Audits or reviews	• The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data	Site generated resources and reserves and the parent geological data is routinely reviewed bythe Metals X Corporate technical team.

APPENDIX 3 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – TENNANT CREEK IOCG ORE BODIES 73

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 Exploration done by other parties Geology	• 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. • Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other partie • Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation.	• The Tennant Creek Project comprises 5 granted exploration leases. • Native title interests are recorded against the Tennant Creek tenements. • The Tennant Creek tenements are held by Castile with is 100% Metals X owned. • Several third party royalties exist across various tenements at Tennant Creek, over and above the Northern Territory government royalty. • Castile operates in accordance with all environmental conditions set down as conditions for grant of the leases. • There are no known issues regarding security of tenure. • There are no known impediments to continued operation. • The Tennant Creek area has an exploration and production history in excess of 100 years. The Rover area in particular has an intensive exploration history stretching from the 1970’s. • On balance, Castile work has generally confrmed the veracity of historic exploration data. • The Tennant Creek Project is located in the 1860-1850Ma Warramunga Province is approximately centred on the township of Tennant Creek, and contains the Palaeoproterozoic Warramunga Formation. This is a weakly metamorphosed turbiditic succession of partly tufaceous sandstones and siltstones which includes argillaceous banded ironstones locally referred to as ‘haematite shale’. • Copper in the form of chalcopyrite occurs around the upper margins of the quartz magnetite ironstones and in the silicifed BIF or haematitic shales that often form an alteration transition to the adjacent chlorite alteration envelope. Although copper levels in the upper quartz magnetite portion of the ironstones is usually very low, pervasive sub-economic copper levels can persist throughout this zone. Economic levels of copper are dominantly contained in the lower massive magnetite portion or in massive magnetite “veins” identifed in the magnetite quartz zones. The massive magnetite zones grade laterally and at depth into magnetite chlorite stringer zones. Gold content increases where the content of magnetite veining and chlorite alteration decreases and there is an increase in early haematite dusted quartz veins and indurated sediments and fne chlorite veining related to the mineralisation phase. The transition from massive magnetite copper mineralisation to magnetite quartz chlorite stringer gold mineralisation is also the zone of increased bismuthinite mineralisation. • Lead and zinc mineralisation at Explorer 108 is associated with a brecciated dolomitised sediment unit, consisting of irregular, generally narrow, domains or veins of semi-massive sulphides (sphalerite and galena). A basal “high-grade” zone is present at the contact of the dolomite and lower felsic units.

APPENDIX 3 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – TENNANT CREEK IOCG ORE BODIES 74

==> picture [772 x 16] intentionally omitted <==

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

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

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary

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: » easting and northing of the drill hole collar » elevation or RL (Reduced Level – elevation above sea level in metres) of the drill hole collar » dip and azimuth of the hole » down hole length and interception depth » hole 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 clearlyexplain whythis is the case.	• No drillhole information is being presented in this release.
Data aggregation methods	• In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging techniques, maximum and/or minimum grade truncations (eg 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 anyreportingof metal equivalent values should be clearlystated.	• No drillhole information is being presented in this release.
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 (eg‘down hole length, true width not known’).	• No drillhole information is being presented in this release.
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 a plan view of drill hole collar locations and appropriate sectional views.	• No drillhole information is being presented in this release.
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 reportingof Exploration Results.	• No drillhole information is being presented in this release.
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 information is being presented in this release.
Further work	• The nature and scale of planned further work (eg tests for lateral extensions or depth extensions or large-scale step-out drilling). • Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions, including the main geological interpretations and future drilling areas, provided this information is not commercially sensitive.	• Exploration and mine planning assessment continues to take place at the Tennant Creek Project.

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.	• Drillhole data is stored in a Maxwell’s DataShed system based on the Sequel Server platform which is currently considered “industry standard”. • As new data is acquired it passes through a validation approval system designed to pick up any signifcant errors before the information is loaded into the master database. The information is uploaded by a series of Sequel routines and is performed as required. The database contains diamond drilling (including geotechnical and specifc gravity data), face chip and sludge drilling data and some associated metadata. By its nature this database is large in size, and therefore exports from the main database are undertaken (with or without the application of spatial and various other flters) to create a database of workable size, preserve a snapshot of the database at the time of orebody modelling and interpretation and preserve the integrityof the master database.
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 whythis is the case.	• Mr Russell visits site on an “as required” basis.
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.	• Mining of similar deposits in the region provides confdence in the current geological interpretation. • No alternative interpretations are currently considered viable. • Geological interpretation of the deposit was carried out using a systematic approach to ensure that the resultant estimated Mineral Resource fgure was both sufciently constrained, and representative of the expected sub-surface conditions. In all aspects of resource estimation the factual and interpreted geology was used to guide the development of the interpretation. • The structural regime and the presence of intrusive source bodies are the dominant controls ongeological andgrade continuityat the Tennant Creek Project.
Dimensions	• 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.	• Individual deposit scales vary across the Tennant Creek Project. • The Rover 1 deposit is mineralised a strike length of >540m, a lateral extent of up +70m and a depth of over 650m. • The Rover 1 deposit is mineralised a strike length of >400m, with a thickness of up to 60m. • The Explorer 142 deposit is mineralised a strike length of >200m, with a thickness of up to 8m.

APPENDIX 3 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – TENNANT CREEK IOCG ORE BODIES 76

==> picture [772 x 16] 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 (eg sulphur for acid mine drainage characterisation). • In the case of block model interpolation, the block size in relation to the average sample spacing and the search employed. • Any assumptions behind modelling of selective mining units. • Any assumptions about correlation between variables. • Description of how the geological interpretation was used to control the resource estimates. • 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 via Surpac Vision. • 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 is then 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. • 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. Drillholes are subsequently composited to allow for grade estimation. In all aspects of resource estimation the factual and interpreted geology was used to guide the development of the interpretation. • Once the sample data has been composited, a statistical analysis is undertaken to assist with determining estimation search parameters, top-cuts etc. Variographic analysis of individual domains is undertaken to assist with determining appropriate search parameters. Which are then incorporated with observed geological and geometrical features to determine the most appropriate search parameters. • An empty block model is then created for the area of interest. This model contains attributes set at background values for the various elements of interest as well as density, and various estimation parameters that are subsequently used to assist in resource categorisation. The block sizes used in the model will vary depending on orebody geometry, minimum mining units, estimation parameters and levels of informing data available. • Grade estimation is then undertaken, with ordinary kriging estimation method is considered as standard, although in some circumstances where sample populations are small, or domains are unable to be accurately defned, inverse distance weighting estimation techniques will be used. Both by-product and deleterious elements are estimated at the time of primary grade estimation if required. It is assumed that by-products correlate well with gold. There are no assumptions made about the recovery of by-products. • The resource is then depleted for mining voids and subsequently classifed in line with JORC guidelines utilising a combination of various estimation derived parameters and geological / mining knowledge. • This approach has proven to be applicable to Metals X’s gold assets. • Estimation results are routinely validated against primary input data, previous estimates and mining output. • Good reconciliation between mine claimed fgures and milled fgures was routinely achieved during pastproduction history.
Moisture	• Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or with natural moisture, and the method of determination of the moisture content.	• Tonnage estimates are dry tonnes.

APPENDIX 3 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – TENNANT CREEK IOCG ORE BODIES 77

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

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

Criteria JORC Code Explanation Commentary
Cut-off parameters • The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters applied. • The Rover 1 reporting cut-off grade is 2.5g/t Au.
----- End of picture text -----

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
Cut-of parameters	• The basis of the adopted cut-of grade(s) or quality parameters applied.	• The Rover 1 reporting cut-of grade is 2.5g/t Au.
		• The Explorer 108 reporting cut-of grade is 2.5% Pb + Zn. • The Explorer 142 reportingcut-ofgrade is 2.5g% Cu.
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.	• Not considered for Mineral Resource. Applied during the Reserve generation process.
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.	• Not considered for Mineral Resource. Applied during the Reserve generation process.
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.	• Castile operates in accordance with all environmental conditions set down as conditions for grant of the respective 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 evaluation process of the diferent materials.	• Bulk density of the mineralisation at the Tennant Creek Project is variable and is for the both lithology and alteration / mineralisation dependent. • For modern drilling, feld technicians perform density test-work on core samples on a campaign basis every three months. All density measurements have been determined using the simple water immersion technique. The samples from all holes were well below the base of oxidation and were in generally competent, non-porous rock.
Classifcation	• The basis for the classifcation of the Mineral Resources into varying confdence categories. • Whether appropriate account has been taken of all relevant factors (ie 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 appropriatelyrefects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit.	• Resources are classifed in line with JORC guidelines utilising a combination of various estimation derived parameters, the input data and geological / mining knowledge. • This approach considers all relevant factors and refects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit.
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 3 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – TENNANT CREEK IOCG ORE BODIES 78

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

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
Discussion of relative	• Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and confdence level in the Mineral	• All currently reported resources estimates are considered robust, and representative on both
accuracy/ confdence	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 withproduction data, where available.	a global and local scale. • No production data exists to compare the resource estimate against.

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.	• No reserve has been stated for the Tennant Creek Project.
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 whythis is the case.	• No reserve has been stated for the Tennant Creek Project.
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 ModifyingFactors have been considered	• No reserve has been stated for the Tennant Creek Project.
Cut-ofparameters	• The basis of the cut-ofgrade(s) orquality parameters applied.	• No reserve has been stated for the Tennant Creek Project.

APPENDIX 3 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – TENNANT CREEK IOCG ORE BODIES 79

==> picture [772 x 16] 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 (eg pit slopes, stope sizes, etc), grade control and pre-production drilling. • The major assumptions made and Mineral Resource model used for pit and stope optimisation (if appropriate). • The mining dilution factors used. • The mining recovery factors used. • Any minimum mining widths used. • The manner in which Inferred Mineral Resources are utilised in mining studies and the sensitivity of the outcome to their inclusion. • The infrastructure requirements of the selected miningmethods.	• No reserve has been stated for the Tennant Creek Project.
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 mineralogyto meet the specifcations?	• No reserve has been stated for the Tennant Creek Project.
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.	• No reserve has been stated for the Tennant Creek Project.
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.	• No reserve has been stated for the Tennant Creek Project.

APPENDIX 3 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – TENNANT CREEK IOCG ORE BODIES 80

==> picture [772 x 16] intentionally omitted <==

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

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

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary

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 royaltiespayable, both Government andprivate.	• No reserve has been stated for the Tennant Creek Project.
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.	• No reserve has been stated for the Tennant Creek Project.
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 supplycontract.	• No reserve has been stated for the Tennant Creek Project.
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 sensitivityto variations in the signifcant assumptions and inputs.	• No reserve has been stated for the Tennant Creek Project.
Social	• The status of agreements with key stakeholders and matters leading to social licence to operate.	• No reserve has been stated for the Tennant Creek Project.
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.	• No reserve has been stated for the Tennant Creek Project.

APPENDIX 3 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – TENNANT CREEK IOCG ORE BODIES 81

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

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

Criteria JORC Code Explanation Commentary
Classification • The basis for the classification of the Ore Reserves into varying confidence categories. • No reserve has been stated for the Tennant Creek Project.
----- End of picture text -----

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
Classifcation	• The basis for the classifcation of the Ore Reserves into varying confdence categories.	• No reserve has been stated for the Tennant Creek Project.
	• 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).
Audits or reviews	• The results of anyaudits or reviews of Ore Reserve estimates.	• No reserve has been stated for the Tennant Creek Project.
Discussion of relative accuracy/ confdence	• Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and confdence level in the Ore 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.	• No reserve has been stated for the Tennant Creek Project.

APPENDIX 3 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – TENNANT CREEK IOCG ORE BODIES 82

APPENDIX 4 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – TIN DIVISION SECTION 1 SAMPLING TECHNIQUES AND DATA

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

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

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
Sampling techniques	• Nature and quality of sampling (eg cut channels, random chips, or specifc specialised	• Diamond Drilling
Drilling techniques Drill sample recovery	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 (eg ‘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 (eg submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed information. • Drill type (eg core, reverse circulation, open-hole hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc) and details (eg core diameter, triple or standard tube, depth of diamond tails, face- sampling bit or other type, whether core is oriented and if so, by what method, etc). • 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 to preferential loss/gain of fne/coarse material.	The bulk of the data used in resource calculations at Renison has been gathered from diamond core. Three sizes have been used historically NQ2 (45.1mm nominal core diameter), LTK60 (45.2mm nominal core diameter) and LTK48 (36.1mm nominal core diameter), with NQ2 currently in use. This core is geologically logged and subsequently halved for sampling. Grade control holes may be whole-cored to streamline the core handling process if required. NQ and HQ core sizes have been recorded as being used at Mount Bischof. This core is geologically logged and subsequently halved for sampling. There is no diamond drilling for the Rentails Project. • Face Sampling Each development face / round is horizontally chip sampled at Renison. The sampling intervals are domained by geological constraints (e.g. rock type, veining and alteration / sulphidation etc.). Samples are taken in a range from 0.3m up to 1.2m in waste / mullock. All exposures within the orebody are sampled. A similar process would have been followed for historical Mount Bischof face sampling. There is no face sampling for the Rentails Project. • Sludge Drilling Sludge drilling at Renison is performed with an underground production drill rig. It is an open hole drilling method using water as the fushing medium, with a 64mm (nominal) hole diameter. Sample intervals are ostensibly the length of the drill steel. Holes are drilled at sufcient angles to allow fushing of the hole with water following each interval to prevent contamination. There is no sludge drilling for the Mount Bischof Project. There is no sludge drilling for the Rentails Project. • RC Drilling RC drilling has been utilised at Mount Bischof. 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. There is no RC drilling for the Renison Project. There is no RC drillingfor the Rentails Project.

APPENDIX 4 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – TIN DIVISION 83

==> picture [772 x 16] intentionally omitted <==

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

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

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary

		• Percussion Drilling This drilling method was used for the Rentails project and uses a rotary tubular drilling cutter which was driven percussively into the tailings. The head of the cutting tube consisted of a 50mm diameter hard tipped cutting head inside which were ftted 4 spring steel fngers which allowed the core sample to enter and then prevented it from falling out as the drill tube was withdrawn from the drill hole. There is no percussion drilling for the Renison Project. There is no percussion drilling for the Mount Bischof Project. • All geology input is logged and validated by the relevant area geologists, incorporated into this is assessment of sample recovery. No defned relationship exists between sample recovery and grade. Nor has sample bias due to preferential loss or gain of fne or coarse material been noted.
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	• Diamond core is logged geologically and geotechnically. • RC chips are logged geologically. • Development faces are mapped geologically. • Logging is quantitative in nature. • All holes are logged completely, all faces are mapped completely.
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 the grain size of the material being sampled.	• Drill core is halved for sampling. Grade control holes may be whole-cored to streamline the core handling process if required • Samples are dried at 90°C, then crushed to <3mm. Samples are then rife split to obtain a sub-sample of approximately 100g which is then pulverized to 90% passing 75um. 2g of the pulp sample is then weighed with 12g of reagents including a binding agent, the weighed sample is then pulverized again for one minute. The sample is then compressed into a pressed powder tablet for introduction to the XRF. This preparation has been proven to be appropriate for the style of mineralisation being considered. • QA/QC is ensured during the sub-sampling stages process via the use of the systems of an independent NATA / ISO accredited laboratory contractor. • The sample size is considered appropriate for the grain size of the material being sampled. • The un-sampled half of diamond core is retained for check sampling if required. • For RC chips regular feld duplicates are collected and analysed for signifcant variance to primaryresults.
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 (eg standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (ie lack of bias) and precision have been established.	• Assaying is undertaken via the pressed powder XRF technique. Sn, As and Cu have a detection limit 0.01%, Fe and S detection limits are 0.1%. These assay methodologies are appropriate for the resource in question. • All assay data has built in quality control checks. Each XRF batch of twenty consists of one blank, one internal standard, one duplicate and a replicate, anomalies are re-assayed to ensure quality control. • Specifc gravity / density values for individual areas are routinely sampled during all diamond drillingwhere material is competent enough to do so.

APPENDIX 4 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – TIN DIVISION 84

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

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
Verifcation of sampling and	• The verifcation of signifcant intersections by either independent or alternative company	• Anomalous intervals as well as random intervals are routinely checked assayed as part of
assaying	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.	the internal QA/QC process. • Virtual twinned holes have been drilled in several instances across all sites with no signifcant issues highlighted. Drillhole data is also routinely confrmed by development assay data in the operating environment. • Primary data is loaded into the drillhole database system and then archived for reference. • All data used in the calculation of resources and reserves are compiled in databases (underground and open pit) which are overseen and validated by senior geologists. • Noprimaryassays data is modifed in anyway.
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.	• All data is spatially oriented by survey controls via direct pickups by the survey department. Drillholes are all surveyed downhole, currently with a GyroSmart tool in the underground environment at Renison, and a multishot camera for the typically short surface diamond holes. • All drilling and resource estimation is undertaken in local mine grid at the various sites. • Topographic control is generated from remote sensing methods in general, with ground based surveys undertaken where additional detail is required. This methodology is adequate for the resource inquestion.
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.	• Drilling in the underground environment at Renison is nominally carried-out on 40m x 40m spacing in the south of the mine and 25m, x 25m spacing in the north of the mine prior to mining occurring. A lengthy history of mining has shown that this data spacing is appropriate for the Mineral Resource estimation process and to allow for classifcation of the resource as it stands. • Drilling at Mount Bischof is variably spaced. A lengthy history of mining has shown that this data spacing is appropriate for the Mineral resource estimation process and to allow for classifcation of the resource as it stands. • Drilling at Rentails is usually carried out on a 100m centres. This is appropriate for the Mineral resource estimation process and to allow for classifcation of the resource as it stands. • Compositing is carried out based upon the modal sample length of each individual domain.
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.	• Drilling intersections are nominally designed to be normal to the orebody as far as underground infrastructure constraints / topography allows. • Development sampling is nominally undertaken normal to the various orebodies. • It is not considered that drilling orientation has introduced an appreciable sampling bias.
Sample security	• The measures taken to ensure sample security.	• At Renison, Mount Bischof and Rentails samples are delivered directly to the on-site laboratory by the geotechnical crew where they are taken into custody by the independent laboratorycontractor.
Audits or reviews	• The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data	• Site generated resources and reserves and the parent geological data is routinely reviewed bythe Metals X Corporate technical team.

APPENDIX 4 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – TIN DIVISION 85

SECTION 2 REPORTING OF EXPLORATION RESULTS

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

==> picture [772 x 16] 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 Exploration done by other parties Geology	• 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. • Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other partie • Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation.	• All Tasmania resources are hosted within 12M1995 and 12M2006. Both tenements are standard Tasmanian mining leases. • No native title interests are recorded against the Tasmanian tenements. Native title interests are recorded against the Queensland tenements. • Tasmanian tenements are held by the Bluestone Mines Tasmania Joint Venture of which Metals X has 50% ownership. • No royalties above legislated state royalties apply for the Tasmanian tenements. • Bluestone Mines Tasmania Joint Venture operates in accordance with all environmental conditions set down as conditions for grant of the mining leases. • There are no known issues regarding security of tenure. • The Renison and Mount Bischof areas have an exploration and production history in excess of 100 years. • Bluestone Mines Tasmania Joint Venture work has generally confrmed the veracity of historic exploration data. • Renison is one of the world’s largest operating underground tin mines and Australia’s largest primary tin producer. Renison is the largest of three major Skarn, carbonate replacement, pyrrhotite-cassiterite deposits within western Tasmania. The Renison Mine area is situated in the Dundas Trough, a province underlain by a thick sequence of Neoproterozoic-Cambrian siliciclastic and volcaniclastic rocks. At Renison there are three shallow-dipping dolomite horizons which host replacement mineralisation. • Mount Bischof is the second of three major Skarn, carbonate replacement, pyrrhotite- cassiterite deposits within western Tasmania. The Mount Bischof Mine area is situated within the Dundas Trough, a province underlain by a thick sequence of Neoproterozoic-Cambrian siliciclastic and volcaniclastic rocks. At Mount Bischof folded and faulted shallow-dipping dolomite horizons host replacement mineralisation with fuid interpreted to be sourced from the forceful emplacement of a granite ridge and associated porphyry intrusions associated with the Devonian Meredith Granite, which resulted in the complex brittle / ductile deformation of the host rocks. Lithologies outside the current mining area are almost exclusively metamorphosed siltstones. Major porphyry dykes and faults such as the Giblin and Queen provided the major focus for ascending hydrothermal fuids from a buried ridge of the Meredith Granite. Mineralisation has resulted in tin-rich sulphide replacement in the dolomite lodes, greisen and sulphide lodes in the porphyry and fault / vein lodes in the major faults. All lodes contain tin as cassiterite within sulphide mineralisation with some coarse cassiterite as veins throughout the lodes. • The Rentails resource is contained within three Tailing Storage Facilities (TSF’s) that have been built up from the processing of tin ore at the Renison Bell mine over the period 1968 to 2013.

APPENDIX 4 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – TIN DIVISION 86

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

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

Criteria JORC Code Explanation Commentary
Drill hole Information • A summary of all information material to the understanding of the exploration results • Excluded results are non-significant and do not materially affect understanding of the
----- End of picture text -----

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
Drill hole Information	• A summary of all information material to the understanding of the exploration results	• Excluded results are non-signifcant and do not materially afect understanding of the
	including a tabulation of the following information for all Material drill holes: » easting and northing of the drill hole collar » elevation or RL (Reduced Level – elevation above sea level in metres) of the drill hole collar » dip and azimuth of the hole » down hole length and interception depth » hole 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 clearlyexplain whythis is the case.	Renison deposit.
Data aggregation methods	• In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging techniques, maximum and/or minimum grade truncations (eg 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 anyreportingof metal equivalent values should be clearlystated.	• Results are reported on a length weighted average basis. • Results are reported above a 3% Sn/m cut-of. • Results reported may include up to two metres of internal dilution below a 0.5% Sn cut-of. • No metal equivalent values are reported in an exploration context.
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 (eg‘down hole length, true width not known’).	• Interval widths are true width unless otherwise stated.
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 a plan view of drill hole collar locations and appropriate sectional views.	• Presented above.
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 reportingof Exploration Results.	• Excluded results are non-signifcant and do not materially afect understanding of the Renison deposit.
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.	• Relevant information presented above.
Further work	• The nature and scale of planned further work (eg tests for lateral extensions or depth extensions or large-scale step-out drilling). • Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions, including the main geological interpretations and future drilling areas, provided this information is not commercially sensitive.	• Exploration assessment and normal mine extensional drilling continues to take place at Renison. • Exploration assessment continues to progress at Mount Bischof. • Project assessment continues to progress at Rentails.

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.	• Drillhole data is stored in a Maxwell’s DataShed system based on the Sequel Server platform which is currently considered “industry standard”. • As new data is acquired it passes through a validation approval system designed to pick up any signifcant errors before the information is loaded into the master database. The information is uploaded by a series of Sequel routines and is performed as required. The database contains diamond drilling (including geotechnical and specifc gravity data), face chip and sludge drilling data and some associated metadata. By its nature this database is large in size, and therefore exports from the main database are undertaken (with or without the application of spatial and various other flters) to create a database of workable size, preserve a snapshot of the database at the time of orebody modelling and interpretation and preserve the integrityof the master database.
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 whythis is the case.	• Mr Russell visits the active sites on a regular basis.
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.	• Mining has occurred since 1800’s providing signifcant confdence in the currently geological interpretation across all projects. • No alternative interpretations are currently considered viable. • Geological interpretation of the deposit was carried out using a systematic approach to ensure that the resultant estimated Mineral Resource fgure was both sufciently constrained, and representative of the expected sub-surface conditions. In all aspects of resource estimation the factual and interpreted geology was used to guide the development of the interpretation. • The architecture of the Renison horst / graben system is the dominant control on geological and grade continuity. • Similarly at Mount Bischof the extent of intrusive felsic dykes in proximity to carbonate horixons control the continuity of grade within the system. • The depositional historyof Rentails is well documented.
Dimensions	• 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.	• Renison has currently been mined over a strike length of >1,950m, a lateral extent of >1,250m and a depth of over 1,100m. • Mount Bischof mineralisation has currently been defned over a strike length of >600m, a lateral extent of >250m and a depth of >250m. • Rentails is deposited in three adjacent TSFs which have and aggregate length of approximately 1.8km and a width at the widestpoint of circa 1km. Maximum depth is in excess of 20m.

APPENDIX 4 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – TIN DIVISION 88

==> picture [772 x 16] 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 (eg sulphur for acid mine drainage characterisation). • In the case of block model interpolation, the block size in relation to the average sample spacing and the search employed. • Any assumptions behind modelling of selective mining units. • Any assumptions about correlation between variables. • Description of how the geological interpretation was used to control the resource estimates. • 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 Bluestone is carried out in three dimensions via Surpac Vision. • 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 is then 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. • 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. Drillholes are subsequently composited to allow for grade estimation. In all aspects of resource estimation the factual and interpreted geology was used to guide the development of the interpretation. • Once the sample data has been composited, a statistical analysis is undertaken to assist with determining estimation search parameters, top-cuts etc. Variographic analysis of individual domains is undertaken to assist with determining appropriate search parameters. Which are then incorporated with observed geological and geometrical features to determine the most appropriate search parameters. • An empty block model is then created for the area of interest. This model contains attributes set at background values for the various elements of interest as well as density, and various estimation parameters that are subsequently used to assist in resource categorisation. The block sizes used in the model will vary depending on orebody geometry, minimum mining units, estimation parameters and levels of informing data available. • Grade estimation is then undertaken, with ordinary kriging estimation method is considered as standard, although in some circumstances where sample populations are small, or domains are unable to be accurately defned, inverse distance weighting estimation techniques will be used. Both by-product and deleterious elements are estimated at the time of primary grade estimation. It is assumed that by-products correlate well with tin. There are no assumptions made about the recovery of by-products. • The resource is then depleted for mining voids and subsequently classifed in line with JORC guidelines utilising a combination of various estimation derived parameters and geological / mining knowledge. • This approach has proven to be applicable to Metals X’s tin assets. • Estimation results are routinely validated against primary input data, previous estimates and mining output. • Good reconciliation between mine claimed fgures and milled fgures is routinelyachieved.
Moisture	• Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or with natural moisture, and the method of determination of the moisture content.	• Tonnage estimates are dry tonnes.
Cut-of parameters	• The basis of the adopted cut-of grade(s) or quality parameters applied.	• The resource reporting cut-of grade is 0.7% Sn at Renison. • The resource reporting cut-of grade is 0.5% Sn at Mount Bischof. • There is no lower reportingcut-ofgrade for Rentails

APPENDIX 4 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – TIN DIVISION 89

==> picture [772 x 16] intentionally omitted <==

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

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

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary

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.	• Not considered for Mineral Resource. Applied during the Reserve generation process.
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.	• Not considered for Mineral Resource. Applied during the Reserve generation process.
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.	• Both Bluestone Mines Tasmania Joint Venture 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 evaluation process of the diferent materials.	• Bulk density of the mineralisation at Renison and Mount Bischof is variable. Bulk density sampling is undertaken via assessments of drill core (BMTJV practice is to undertake bulk density determinations on a representative selection of drill core sent for assay), and are reviewed constantly (BMTJV practice is to collect check SG samples as a regular part of the mining cycle). Where no drill core or other direct measurements are available, SG factors have been assumed based on similarities to other zones of mineralisation. • Given the volume of the TSF’s are known, and the tonnage of tailings material deposited into the dams was recorded, the insitu bulk density of the Rentails resource has been back- calculated.
Classifcation	• The basis for the classifcation of the Mineral Resources into varying confdence categories. • Whether appropriate account has been taken of all relevant factors (ie 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 appropriatelyrefects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit.	• Resources are classifed in line with JORC guidelines utilising a combination of various estimation derived parameters, the input data and geological / mining knowledge. • This approach considers all relevant factors and refects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit.
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 4 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – TIN DIVISION 90

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

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
Discussion of relative	• Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and confdence level in the Mineral	• All currently reported resources estimates are considered robust, and representative on both
accuracy/ confdence	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 withproduction data, where available.	a global and local scale. • A continuing history of mining with good reconciliation of mine claimed to mill recovered provides confdence in the accuracy of the estimate for Renison and Mount Bischof. • A detailed set of production records provides confdence in the accuracy of the estimate for Rentails.

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 27] intentionally omitted <==

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

Criteria JORC Code Explanation Commentary
Mineral Resource estimate for • Description of the Mineral Resource estimate used as a basis for the conversion to an Ore • At all projects, all resources that have been converted to reserve are classified as either
----- End of picture text -----

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
Mineral Resource estimate for	• Description of the Mineral Resource estimate used as a basis for the conversion to an Ore	• At all projects, all resources that have been converted to reserve are classifed as either
conversion to Ore Reserves	Reserve. • Clear statement as to whether the Mineral Resources are reported additional to, or inclusive of, the Ore Reserves.	an Indicated or Measured Resource. Indicated Resources are only upgraded to Probable Reserves after adding appropriate modifying factors. Some Measured Resource may be classifed as Proven Reserves and some is classifed as Probable Reserve based on whether is capitallyor fullydeveloped.
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 whythis is the case.	• Mr Michael Poepjes visits the Tasmanian operations on a regular basis and is actively involved in physical mining process and evaluations.
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	• Mining is in progress at Renison and has occurred for nearly 50 years. Following exploration and infll drilling activity, annual resource updates and economic assessment of the measured and indicated resources is completed using actual costs, operating parameters and modifying factors. An annual update of Ore Reserves is completed on this basis. With regard to the Rentails Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve, the proposed Rentails Tailings Re- treatment Project has been subject to a Defnitive Feasibility Study to validate the operating parameters applied. Increases in both the Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve for Renison are a direct refection of total tailings output to the tailings dam from the operating Renison tin concentrator plant. • No reserve is stated for Mount Bischof.

APPENDIX 4 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – TIN DIVISION 91

==> 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 cut-off grade used for inclusion in the Renison Reserve is 0.8% Sn based on economic
----- 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 cut-of grade used for inclusion in the Renison Reserve is 0.8% Sn based on economic
		assessment and current operating and market parameters. No consideration is given to copper co-product revenue in the economic assessment as the mining and recovery of the material is ad hoc and occurs as a consequence of mining the tin. • There is no lower cut-of for reporting of the Rentails Reserve as the entire resource will be mined as far as physical constraints allow. • No reserve is stated for Mount Bischof.
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 (eg pit slopes, stope sizes, etc), grade control and pre-production drilling. • The major assumptions made and Mineral Resource model used for pit and stope optimisation (if appropriate). • The mining dilution factors used. • The mining recovery factors used. • Any minimum mining widths used. • The manner in which Inferred Mineral Resources are utilised in mining studies and the sensitivity of the outcome to their inclusion. • The infrastructure requirements of the selected mining methods.	• The Renison mine predominantly applies an up-hole benching with in some cases post fll and cemented aggregate fll to fll voids. The mining method has been successfully applied over the past decade with small tweaks and geotechnical considerations progressively applied. • Mining dilution for the Mining Reserve is generally 25% at zero grade. • A minimum mining width of underground development is 3.5m and for underground stoping a minimum width of 1.5m and resource models are diluted to these limits before dilution applied. • A mining recovery 80% of the material developed and/or stoped is applied. • No Inferred resources are included within either the Reserve or the mine plan. • Rentails resources have been converted to reserve via a DFS study. • Rentails will be mined via a combination of dredging and monitoring. • Mining dilution at Rentails is minimal. • Mining recovery at Rentails will exceed 95%. • No Inferred resources are included within either the Rentails Reserve or the mine plan. • No reserve is stated for Mount Bischof.
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?	• The Renison mine produces a tin concentrate of grade varying between 50- 60 % Sn with internal process designed to reduce penalty metals such as iron, sulphur, tungsten and copper. • The metallurgical process is complex and applies several stages of gravity-type concentration as well as sulphide and oxide fotation, regrinding and acid leach methods. The method is proved and has successfully operated for over 45 years. • The metallurgical recovery as estimated based on regression analysis of grade recovery curves from the actual processing of ores in the plant. • Metallurgical recoveries on the various ore and grades were considered as part of the cut-of grade analysis. • The process proposed by Rentails project is to regrind the ores to a fner grind, the pre- concentration using sulphide and oxide fotation, and high-g-force gravity separation to produce a low-grade concentrate which is planned to be processed using an Ausmelt process to fume the tin to a high grade concentrate tap out a copper matte. • No reserve is stated for Mount Bischof.

APPENDIX 4 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – TIN DIVISION 92

==> picture [772 x 16] intentionally omitted <==

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

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

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary

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.	• Waste is generally stored underground in old mine voids. Smaller amounts are placed on approved dumps. • The Renison mine operates under and in compliance with a number of operating permits, which cover its environmental impacts and outputs. • No reserve is stated for Mount Bischof.
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 be provided, or accessed.	• The Renison mine is currently active and has substantial in place infrastructure in place including a large amount of mine infrastructure, major electrical and pumping networks, and underground primary crusher and automated shaft hoist system, a 650,000tpa tin concentrator plant, a fully equipped laboratory, extensive workshop, administration facilities and a 100 person single person quarters nearby. • The Rentails Project will be integrated with the Renison Project. There is sufcient land set aside for the Rentails expansion and future infrastructure requirements including tailings storage. • No reserve is stated for Mount Bischof.
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 royaltiespayable, both Government andprivate.	• Mining costs for the Renison mine are based on Actual Mining Contractor Costs and actual realised costs and future budget estimates for all other functions at the existing mine. • Costs for the Rentails Project have been defned through a Defnitive Feasibility Study. • No reserve is stated for Mount Bischof
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.	• For the Renison Mine, revenue is based upon existing smelter contract costs and a base international tin price of A$25,000. No co-product revenue is considered in Mining Reserve or cut-of grade estimation. • For the Rentails Project, similar industry based smelter contracts is considered. Credits for sale of a high-grade copper matte product are considered and applied as a co-product revenue in the estimation of operating costs. • No reserve is stated for Mount Bischof.
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 supplycontract.	• Detailed economic studies of the tin market and future price estimates are considered by Metals X and applied in the estimation of revenue, cut-of grade analysis and future mine planning decisions. • There remains strong demand and no apparent risk to the long term demand for the tin products and/or copper products generated from the project.

APPENDIX 4 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – TIN DIVISION 93

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

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

Criteria JORC Code Explanation Commentary
Economic • The inputs to the economic analysis to produce the net present value (NPV) in the study, • As an operating mine, internal cash flow estimates and impairment models apply an implied
----- End of picture text -----

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
Economic	• The inputs to the economic analysis to produce the net present value (NPV) in the study,	• As an operating mine, internal cash fow estimates and impairment models apply an implied
	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.	8% real discount rate for NPV analysis and only economically viable ores are considered for mining. The mine is operated in a JV and carries no external debt forces. • For the Rentails Project, which is yet to be funded, an 8% real discount rate is applied to NPV analysis. • Sensitivity analysis of key fnancial and physical parameters is applied to future development project considerations and mine. • No reserve is stated for Mount Bischof.
Social	• The status of agreements with key stakeholders and matters leading to social licence to operate.	• The Renison mine is fully permitted and a major contributor to the local and regional economy. It has no external pressures that impact its operation or which could potentially jeopardise its continuous operation. • The Rentails Project is yet to start and will require environmental and other regulatory permitting. • The Mount Bischof Project is currently closed and the site is under care and maintenance whilst addition drillingand economic evaluation or remainingresources is considered.
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.	• Renison is an active mining project.
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).	• The basis for classifcation of the resource into diferent categories is made on a subjective basis. Measured Resources have a high level of confdence and are generally defned in three dimensions and have been accurately defned or capitally and normally developed. Indicated resources have a slightly lower level of confdence but contain substantial drilling and are in most instances capitally developed or well defned from a mining perspective. Inferred resources always contain signifcant geological evidence of existence and are drilled, but not to the same density. There is no classifcation of any resource that isn’t drilled or defned by substantial physical sampling works. • Some Measured Resources have been classifed as Proven and some are defned as Probable Reserves based on subjective internal judgements, but generally based upon the intensity of capital and normal development they have been subjected to. • The result appropriatelyrefects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit.

APPENDIX 4 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – TIN DIVISION 94

==> picture [772 x 16] intentionally omitted <==

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

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

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary

Audits or reviews	• The results of any audits or reviews of Ore Reserve estimates.	• Site generated reserves and the parent data and economic evaluation data is routinely reviewed by the Metals X Corporate technical team. Resources and Reserves have in the past been subjected to external expert reviews, which have ratifed them with no issues. There is no regular external consultant reviewprocess inplace.
Discussion of relative accuracy/ confdence	• Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and confdence level in the Ore 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.	• All currently reported reserve calculations are considered representative on a local scale. Regular mine reconciliations occur to validate and test the accuracy of the estimates at Renison. A comprehensive production history confrms the validity of the Rentails reserve. • No reserve is stated for Mount Bischof.

APPENDIX 4 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – TIN DIVISION 95

APPENDIX 5 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – NICKEL DIVISION SECTION 1 SAMPLING TECHNIQUES AND DATA

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

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

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
Sampling techniques	• Nature and quality of sampling (eg cut channels, random chips, or specifc specialised	• Diamond Drilling
Drilling techniques Drill sample recovery	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 (eg ‘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 (eg submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed information. • Drill type (eg core, reverse circulation, open-hole hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc) and details (eg core diameter, triple or standard tube, depth of diamond tails, face- sampling bit or other type, whether core is oriented and if so, by what method, etc). • 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 to preferential loss/gain of fne/coarse material.	A small portion of the data used in resource calculations at the Central Musgrave Project (CMP) has been gathered from diamond core. This core is geologically logged prior to sampling. • RC Drilling RC drilling has been utilised extensively at the CMP. 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. • Historial A variety of drilling methods were employed by INCO, including churn drilling (102 holes) DDH (19 holes) RAB Drilling (2,643 holes) Vacuum (77 holes) Becker Drilling (102 holes). • Sample recovery from early drilling by INCO is not known. Sample recovery from RC drilling carried out from RC drilling after 2001 was generally very good, except where the drill encountered strong water fow from the hole. • All geology input is logged and validated by the relevant area geologists, incorporated into this is assessment of sample recovery. No defned relationship exists between sample recovery and grade. Nor has sample bias due to preferential loss or gain of fne or coarse material been noted.
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	• Diamond core is logged geologically and geotechnically. • RC hole chips are logged geologically. • Logging is quantitative in nature. • All holes are logged completely.

APPENDIX 5 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – NICKEL DIVISION 96

==> 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 the grain size of the material being sampled.	• A sample of each 5ft of drilling from INCO drilling were quartered and forwarded for assay, either to AMDEL in Adelaide, or to INCO’s in-house laboratory at Blackstone. • Samples of RC drilling taken prior to 2006 were composited on 3 or 4m basis, and the composite assayed. A 1m rife-split sample was also taken for each metre drilled, and was submitted for analysis if the composite assayed >0.4%Ni. • Sub sampling for the 2006 and later RC drilling were rife split each 2m sample drilled. • Chips / core chips undergo total preparation. • QA/QC is currently ensured during the sub-sampling stages process via the use of the systems of an independent NATA / ISO accredited laboratory contractor. A portion of the historical informing data has been processed by in-house laboratories. • The sample size is considered appropriate for the grain size of the material being sampled. • The un-sampled half of diamond core is retained for check sampling if required. • For RC chips regular feld duplicates are collected and analysed for signifcant variance to primaryresults.
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 (eg standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (ie lack of bias) and precision have been established.	• Samples of INCO’s drilling were dried and assayed by AAS either at AMDEL in Adelaide, or at INCO’s in-house laboratory at Blackstone. The digest method was not specifed. Samples were assayed for Ni, Co and Fe. Analytical quality control was maintained by the by the insertion of standard samples and re-analysis of duplicates at separate laboratories at a frequency of two check analyses for every twenty samples. • Composite samples of RC drilling completed in 2001 were submitted to AMDEL, dried and pulverised, and assayed for Ni, Co, Ag, As, Bi, Cu, Cr, Fe, Mg, Mn, Pb, S, Sb, Ti, V, Zr, Ca and Al by HF-multi-acid digest / ICP-OES. The 1m rife-splits for any composite sample assaying >0.4%Ni were retrieved, and re-assayed using the same method. • Composite samples from 2002-2004 were assayed for Al, Ca, Cr, Fe, Mg, Mn, Ni, Si, Ti by borate fusion ICP-OES, and for Ag, As, Bi, Co, Cu, Ni, Pb, S, Sb, V, Zr by HF-multi-acid digest / ICP-OES. • During 2005 two-metre composite rife-split (or spear-sampled for wet samples) samples were sent to SGS Laboratories in Perth. Each 2m composite sample was dried and pulverised to a nominal 90 per cent passing 75 microns and analysed for: As, Bi, Co, Cu, Ni, Pb, S and Zn by ICP-OES. Samples returning >0.4%Ni were re-assayed for Ni, Co, Al2O3, CaO, K2O, Fe2O3, MgO, MnO, Na2O, SiO2, V2O5, TiO2, Cr, SO3, Cu, Zn by fused disc XRF. • After 2005 two-metre composite rife-split (or spear-sampled) samples were sent to SGS Laboratories in Perth. Each sample was pulverised to nominal 90 per cent passing 75 micron for analysis for assay for Ni, Co, Al2O3, SiO2, TiO2, Fe2O3, MnO, CaO, K2O, MgO, SO3, Na2O, V2O5, Cr, Cu and Zn by fused disc XRF. • Duplicate samples were taken by spearing the sample pile on the ground approximately every 20 samples, and an in-house standard was inserted into the sample run every alternate 20 samples. • No signifcant QA/QC issues have arisen in recent drilling results. • These assaymethodologies are appropriate for the resource inquestion.

APPENDIX 5 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – NICKEL DIVISION 97

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

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
Verifcation of sampling and	• The verifcation of signifcant intersections by either independent or alternative company	• Anomalous intervals as well as random intervals are routinely checked assayed as part of
assaying	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.	the internal QA/QC process. • Virtual twinned holes have been drilled in several instances across all sites with no signifcant issues highlighted. • Primary data is loaded into the drillhole database system and then archived for reference. • All data used in the calculation of resources and reserves are compiled in databases which are overseen and validated by senior geologists. • Noprimaryassays data is modifed in anyway.
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.	• All hole collar locations for RC holes drilled after 2000 were surveyed by using a Real Time Kinematic GPS. This measured X, Y and Z to sub-centimetre accuracy in terms of the MGA94, Zone 52 metric grid. • Hole collars for almost all INCO drill holes were re-located, and survey in using the RTK GPS. Several INCO collars could not be located, and their MGA positions are estimated from their drilled location on the original INCO Imperial local grid. • Topographic control is generated from a combination of remote sensing methods and ground- based surveys. This methodologyis adequate for the resource inquestion.
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.	• Drill hole spacing at CMP is generally on a 120m x 50m spacing. This has been flled-in to 60 x 50 and 30m x 25m spacing in some areas. The data spacing is sufcient for both the estimation procedure and resource classifcation applied. • Compositing of drill assay data to 1.5m was used in the estimate.
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.	• Drilling intersections are nominally designed to be sub-normal to the orebody. • It is not considered that drilling orientation has introduced an appreciable sampling bias.
Sample security	• The measures taken to ensure sample security.	• Samples are delivered to a third party transport service, who in turn relay them to the independent laboratorycontractor. Samples are stored securelyuntil theyleave site.
Audits or reviews	• The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data	• Site generated resources and reserves and the parent geological data is routinely reviewed bythe Metals X Corporate technical team.

APPENDIX 5 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – NICKEL DIVISION 98

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 Exploration done by other parties Geology	• 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. • Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other partie • Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation.	• The CMP comprises 5 granted exploration leases and 1 granted miscellaneous lease. • Native title interests are recorded against the CMP tenements. • The CMP tenements are held by the Austral Nickel Pty Ltd (South Australia) and Hinckley Range Pty Lty (Western Australia). Metals X has 100% ownership of both companies. • One third party royalty agreement applies to the tenements at CMP, over and above the state government royalty. • Hinckley Range and Austral Nickel operate in accordance with all environmental conditions set down as conditions for grant of the leases. • There are no known issues regarding security of tenure. • There are no known impediments to continued operation. • The CMP area has an exploration history which extends to the 1960’s, with signifcant contributors being INCO, Acclaim and Metex Nickel. • On balance, MLX work has generally confrmed the veracity of historic exploration data. • The Musgrave Block is an east-west trending, structurally bounded mid-Proterozoic terrane some 130,000km2in area, straddling the common borders of Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory. • Deep weathering of olivine-rich ultramafc units has resulted in the concentration of nickel mineralisation. The olivines in the ultramafc units have background values of about 0.15% Ni to 0.3% Ni. The almost complete removal of MgO and SiO2to ground waters during the weathering of olivines in the ultramafc units resulted in extreme volume reductions and consequent signifcant upgrading of other rock forming oxides (Fe2O3, Al2O3) and metal element concentrations in the weatheredprofle.
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: » easting and northing of the drill hole collar » elevation or RL (Reduced Level – elevation above sea level in metres) of the drill hole collar » dip and azimuth of the hole » down hole length and interception depth » hole 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 clearlyexplain whythis is the case.	• No drillhole information is being presented in this release.

APPENDIX 5 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – NICKEL DIVISION 99

==> 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 (eg 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 anyreportingof metal equivalent values should be clearlystated.	• No drillhole information is being presented in this release.
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 (eg‘down hole length, true width not known’).	• No drillhole information is being presented in this release.
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 a plan view of drill hole collar locations and appropriate sectional views.	• No drillhole information is being presented in this release.
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 reportingof Exploration Results.	• No drillhole information is being presented in this release.
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 information is being presented in this release.
Further work	• The nature and scale of planned further work (eg tests for lateral extensions or depth extensions or large-scale step-out drilling). • Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions, including the main geological interpretations and future drilling areas, provided this information is not commercially sensitive.	• Exploration and mine planning assessment continues to take place at the CMP.

APPENDIX 5 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – NICKEL DIVISION 100

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.	• Drillhole data is stored in a Maxwell’s DataShed system based on the Sequel Server platform which is currently considered “industry standard”. • As new data is acquired it passes through a validation approval system designed to pick up any signifcant errors before the information is loaded into the master database. The information is uploaded by a series of Sequel routines and is performed as required. The database contains diamond drilling (including geotechnical and specifc gravity data), and some associated metadata. By its nature this database is large in size, and therefore exports from the main database are undertaken (with or without the application of spatial and various other flters) to create a database of workable size, preserve a snapshot of the database at the time of orebody modelling and interpretation and preserve the integrity of the master database.
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 whythis is the case.	• The site is manned continually by Senior Geological personnel. • As no material update to the resource has been undertaken since early 2008 no recent site visits bythe Competent Person have been undertaken.
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.	• Confdence in the geological model used to constrain the Wingellina estimate is high, with the genetic model for lateritic nickel development well understood. Logged geology has been used to drive the mineralisation interpretation, with the base of laterite defned with drill holes, or its level on a given section interpreted from surrounding drill sections. Continuity of the interpretation across and along the Wingellina deposit is for the most part good, with intersections of hard rock in drill holes, and well mapped outcropping basement the primary causes of breaks within the mineralised horizon. • No alternative interpretations are currently considered viable. • Geological interpretation of the deposit was carried out using a systematic approach to ensure that the resultant estimated Mineral Resource fgure was both sufciently constrained, and representative of the expected sub-surface conditions. In all aspects of resource estimation the factual and interpreted geology was used to guide the development of the interpretation. • The protolithology is the dominant control on grade continuity at the CMP. Structural controls which infuence depth of weatheringare secondarycontrols ongrade distribution.
Dimensions	• 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.	• Individual deposit scales vary across the CMP. • The Wingellina deposits are mineralised a strike length of >9km, a lateral extent of up to 2.5km and a depth of upto 200m.

APPENDIX 5 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – NICKEL DIVISION 101

==> 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 (eg sulphur for acid mine drainage characterisation). • In the case of block model interpolation, the block size in relation to the average sample spacing and the search employed. • Any assumptions behind modelling of selective mining units. • Any assumptions about correlation between variables. • Description of how the geological interpretation was used to control the resource estimates. • 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 was carried out in three dimensions via either Vulcan or Surpac Vision. • 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 is then 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. • 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. Drillholes are subsequently composited to allow for grade estimation. In all aspects of resource estimation the factual and interpreted geology was used to guide the development of the interpretation. • Once the sample data has been composited, a statistical analysis is undertaken to assist with determining estimation search parameters, top-cuts etc. Variographic analysis of individual domains is undertaken to assist with determining appropriate search parameters. Which are then incorporated with observed geological and geometrical features to determine the most appropriate search parameters. • An empty block model is then created for the area of interest. This model contains attributes set at background values for the various elements of interest as well as density, and various estimation parameters that are subsequently used to assist in resource categorisation. The block sizes used in the model will vary depending on orebody geometry, minimum mining units, estimation parameters and levels of informing data available. • Grade estimation is then undertaken, with ordinary kriging estimation method is considered as standard, although in some circumstances where sample populations are small, or domains are unable to be accurately defned, inverse distance weighting estimation techniques will be used. Both by-product and deleterious elements are estimated at the time of primary grade estimation if required. It is assumed that by-products correlate well with gold. There are no assumptions made about the recovery of by-products. • The resource is then depleted for mining voids and subsequently classifed in line with JORC guidelines utilising a combination of various estimation derived parameters and geological / mining knowledge. • This approach has proven to be applicable to Metals X’s nickel assets. • Estimation results are routinely validated against primary input data, previous estimates and mining output.
Moisture	• Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or with natural moisture, and the method of determination of the moisture content.	• Tonnage estimates are dry tonnes.
Cut-of parameters	• The basis of the adopted cut-of grade(s) or quality parameters applied.	• The resource reporting cut-of grade is 0.5% Ni. • The reporting cut-of used was based on MLX’s current interpretation of commodity markets, and to allowpeergroupcomparison.

APPENDIX 5 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – NICKEL DIVISION 102

==> 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	• 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.	• Not considered for Mineral Resource. Applied during the Reserve generation process.
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.	• Not considered for Mineral Resource. Applied during the Reserve generation process.
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.	• MLX operates in accordance with all environmental conditions set down as conditions for grant of the respective 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 evaluation process of the diferent materials.	• Sampling of HQ diamond drill core was used to determine the dry density of laterite ore. Average measured dry density is 1.28t/m3. • A total of 281 triple-tube HQ core samples were collected immediately from the core barrel and measured for bulk density on site. The core length was measured for diameter and length (square-cut ends), dried for 24 hours in a gas oven at 120°C, and weighed. • Density was calculated by dividing the weight (kg) of dry sample by the volume of the core piece.
Classifcation	• The basis for the classifcation of the Mineral Resources into varying confdence categories. • Whether appropriate account has been taken of all relevant factors (ie 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 appropriatelyrefects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit.	• Resources are classifed in line with JORC guidelines utilising a combination of various estimation derived parameters, the input data and geological / mining knowledge. • This approach considers all relevant factors and refects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit.
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 5 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – NICKEL DIVISION 103

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 withproduction data, where available.	• All currently reported resources estimates are considered robust, and representative on both a global and local scale.
SECTION 4 ESTIMATION AND REPORTING OF ORE RESERVES (Criteria listed in section 1, and where relevant in sections 2 and 3, also apply to this section.)
Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	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.	At all projects, all resources that have been converted to reserve are classifed as either an Indicated or Measured Resource. Indicated Resources are only upgraded to Probable Reserves after adding appropriate modifying factors. Some Measured Resource may be classifed as Proven Reserves and some is classifed as Probable Reserve based on whether is capitallyor fullydeveloped.
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 whythis is the case.	• Irregular site visits have been undertaken. The reserve has remained consistent since the 2008 Feasibility Study was completed.
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 ModifyingFactors have been considered	• A Feasibility Study utilising a combination of internal and external expertise has been undertaken to allow the conversion of Mineral Resources to Ore Reserves.
Cut-of parameters	• The basis of the cut-of grade(s) or quality parameters applied.	• The cut-of grade used for inclusion in the CMP Reserve were determined through the Feasibility Study process. • Cobalt co-product revenue is considered bythe FS.

APPENDIX 5 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – NICKEL DIVISION 104

==> 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 (eg pit slopes, stope sizes, etc), grade control and pre-production drilling. • The major assumptions made and Mineral Resource model used for pit and stope optimisation (if appropriate). • The mining dilution factors used. • The mining recovery factors used. • Any minimum mining widths used. • The manner in which Inferred Mineral Resources are utilised in mining studies and the sensitivity of the outcome to their inclusion. • The infrastructure requirements of the selected miningmethods.	• Whittle 4D was used to formulate optimal pit shell, with subsequent designs being undertaken in Surpac. • Mining studies indicate most material will be free digging, but an allowance has been made to blast some material. • The material outcrops on surface and has an overall strip ratio of 1.1:1. Due to the shallow nature and expected ground conditions, slope angles are low. Geotechnical data has been obtained through logging. • The Mineral Resource was used to formulate the Ore Reserves. • Due to the bulk nature of the deposit, limited dilution factors have been used, combined with high recovery factors.
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 mineralogyto meet the specifcations?	• Based on this preliminary assessment, the Wingellina Deposit should be processed by a pressure acid leach fowsheet. • Pressure acid leach is a proven nickel extraction method both in Australia and globally • Extensive test-work including at pilot plant scale has been conducted on CMP material over the period 1965 to 2013.
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.	• Waste dumps were considered during the Feasibility Study. • A draft Public Environmental Notice has been completed and will be published.
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 be provided, or accessed.	• Limited infrastructure is currently present. All required infrastructure was considered in the Feasibility Study. • Infrastructure is considered standard for a remote site set-up.

APPENDIX 5 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – NICKEL DIVISION 105

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

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

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

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary

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 royaltiespayable, both Government andprivate.	• The Feasibility Study was completed in 2008 using both independent and internal cost estimates. These costs were updated in 2012. • Both government and private royalties are payable. All royalties were considered as part of the Feasibility Study.
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.	• The Pre-Feasibility Study progressed utilising assumptions regarding foreign exchange rates and commodity prices presented below. These prices have been set by corporate management and are considered a realistic forecast of expected commodity prices and exchange rates over the initial period of projected operation at Wingellina. Ni = US $20,000/t Co = US $45,000/t Exchange Rate ($AUD : $US) = US $0.85 • Headgrades have been defned via Whittle optimisation and subsequent scheduling.
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 supplycontract.	• Detailed economic studies of the nickel market and future price estimates are considered by Metals X and applied in the estimation of revenue, cut-of grade analysis and future mine planning decisions. • There remains strong demand and no apparent risk to the long term demand for the nickel generated from the project.
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 sensitivityto variations in the signifcant assumptions and inputs.	• For the CMP, which is yet to be funded, an 8% real discount rate is applied to NPV analysis. • Sensitivity analysis of key fnancial and physical parameters is applied to future development project considerations and mine.
Social	• The status of agreements with key stakeholders and matters leading to social licence to operate.	• The CMP is yet to start and will require environmental and other regulatory permitting.
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 Native Title agreement has been reached.

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

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

Criteria JORC Code Explanation Commentary
Classification • The basis for the classification of the Ore Reserves into varying confidence categories. • The basis for classification of the resource into different categories is made on a subjective
----- End of picture text -----

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
Classifcation	• The basis for the classifcation of the Ore Reserves into varying confdence categories.	• The basis for classifcation of the resource into diferent categories is made on a subjective
	• 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).	basis. Measured Resources have a high level of confdence and are generally defned in three dimensions and have been accurately defned or capitally and normally developed. Indicated resources have a slightly lower level of confdence but contain substantial drilling and are in most instances capitally developed or well defned from a mining perspective. Inferred resources always contain signifcant geological evidence of existence and are drilled, but not to the same density. There is no classifcation of any resource that isn’t drilled or defned by substantial physical sampling works. • Some Measured Resources have been classifed as Proven and some are defned as Probable Reserves based on subjective internal judgements, but generally based upon the intensity of capital and normal development they have been subjected to. • The result appropriatelyrefects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit.
Audits or reviews	• The results of any audits or reviews of Ore Reserve estimates.	• Site generated reserves and the parent data and economic evaluation data is routinely reviewed by the Metals X Corporate technical team. Resources and Reserves have in the past been subjected to external expert reviews, which have ratifed them with no issues. There is no regular external consultant reviewprocess inplace.
Discussion of relative accuracy/ confdence	• Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and confdence level in the Ore 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.	• All currently reported reserve calculations are considered representative on a global scale. • Only material considered as part of the Pre-feasibility study has been included as part of the reserve statement. • Limited modifying factors have been applied due to the massive nature of the deposit and the closeness to the surface.

APPENDIX 5 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – NICKEL DIVISION 107

AI assistant

Metals X Limited — Interim / Quarterly Report 2015

10401_rns_2014-10-26_393382da-6763-4f45-a5e2-1f7722d7c870.pdf

QUARTERLY REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 30 SEPTEMBER 2014 SIGNIFICANT OUTPUTS DURING THE QUARTER

CORPORATE

GOLD DIVISION

TIN DIVISION

NICKEL DIVISION

WARUMPI JOINT VENTURE

ENQUIRIES

Peter Cook

GOLD DIVISION

OVERVIEW

HIGGINSVILLE GOLD OPERATIONS (HGO)

HIGGINSVILLE GOLD OPERATIONS (HGO) (CONTINUED) EXPLORATION ACTIVITY

SOUTH KALGOORLIE OPERATIONS (SKO)

SOUTH KALGOORLIE OPERATIONS (SKO) (CONTINUED)

EXPLORATION ACTIVITY

CENTRAL MURCHISON GOLD PROJECT (CMGP)

CENTRAL MURCHISON GOLD PROJECT (CONTINUED)

THE ROVER PROJECT (GOLD-COPPER-BISMUTH)

WARUMPI JOINT VENTURE (EARNING UP TO 80%)

TIN DIVISION RENISON PROJECT (MLX 50%)

NICKEL DIVISION

PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS AT WINGELLINA

CURRENT STATUS OF WINGELLINA

WINGELLINA REGIONAL EXPLORATION

CORPORATE

INVESTMENTS

CAPITAL STRUCTURE

MAJOR SHAREHOLDERS

COMPETENT PERSONS STATEMENT

GOLD DIVISION – HGO TABLE OF RESULTS FOR THE QUARTER

GOLD DIVISION – HGO TABLE OF RESULTS FOR THE QUARTER (CONTINUED)

GOLD DIVISION – HGO TABLE OF RESULTS FOR THE QUARTER (CONTINUED)

GOLD DIVISION – HGO TABLE OF RESULTS FOR THE QUARTER (CONTINUED)

GOLD DIVISION – SKO TABLE OF RESULTS FOR THE QUARTER

GOLD DIVISION – SKO TABLE OF RESULTS FOR THE QUARTER (CONTINUED)

GOLD DIVISION – CMGP TABLE OF RESULTS FOR THE QUARTER

TIN DIVISION – RENISON TABLE OF RESULTS FOR THE QUARTER

TIN DIVISION – RENISON TABLE OF RESULTS FOR THE QUARTER (CONTINUED)

BASE METALS – WARUMPI TABLE OF RESULTS FOR THE QUARTER

APPENDIX 1 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – GOLD DIVISION SECTION 1 SAMPLING TECHNIQUES AND DATA

SECTION 2 REPORTING OF EXPLORATION RESULTS

SECTION 3 ESTIMATION AND REPORTING OF MINERAL RESOURCES

SECTION 4 ESTIMATION AND REPORTING OF ORE RESERVES

APPENDIX 2 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – WARUMPI SECTION 1 SAMPLING TECHNIQUES AND DATA

SECTION 2 REPORTING OF EXPLORATION RESULTS

SECTION 3 ESTIMATION AND REPORTING OF MINERAL RESOURCES

SECTION 4 ESTIMATION AND REPORTING OF ORE RESERVES

APPENDIX 3 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – TENNANT CREEK IOCG ORE BODIES SECTION 1 SAMPLING TECHNIQUES AND DATA

SECTION 2 REPORTING OF EXPLORATION RESULTS

SECTION 3 ESTIMATION AND REPORTING OF MINERAL RESOURCES

SECTION 4 ESTIMATION AND REPORTING OF ORE RESERVES

APPENDIX 4 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – TIN DIVISION SECTION 1 SAMPLING TECHNIQUES AND DATA

SECTION 2 REPORTING OF EXPLORATION RESULTS

SECTION 3 ESTIMATION AND REPORTING OF MINERAL RESOURCES

SECTION 4 ESTIMATION AND REPORTING OF ORE RESERVES

APPENDIX 5 – JORC 2012 TABLE 1 – NICKEL DIVISION SECTION 1 SAMPLING TECHNIQUES AND DATA

SECTION 2 REPORTING OF EXPLORATION RESULTS

SECTION 3 ESTIMATION AND REPORTING OF MINERAL RESOURCES

More from Metals X Limited

Metals X Limited Interim / Quarterly Report 2015