==> picture [281 x 89] intentionally omitted <==

ASX ANNOUNCEMENT 27 April 2020

Gold Resources Estimate Lucky Draw and Hackney’s Creek Burra a NSW g

Highlights

Hackney’s Creek - Inferred Resource of 2,210,000 tonnes @ 1.4 g/t Au for 102,300 ozs
Lucky Draw - Inferred Resource of 470,000 tonnes @ 2.1 g/t Au for 31,700 ozs
Total Inferred Resource of 2,680,000 tonnes @ 1.6 g/t Au for 134,000 ozs

Paterson Resources Limited ( PSL or the Company ) (ASX: PSL) is pleased to announce the gold mineral resource estimate for the Lucky Draw and Hackneys Creek gold prospects located in the Burraga Copper Gold Project in the Eastern Lachlan Fold Belt in NSW completed by the Company’s independent consultant, Kerrin Allwood from Geomodelling.

Gold Mineral Resources (above 0.5 g/t Au cutoff)	Gold Mineral Resources (above 0.5 g/t Au cutoff)	Gold Mineral Resources (above 0.5 g/t Au cutoff)
		Tonnes g/t Au Au Metal ozs
Hackney's Creek	Measured Indicated Inferred	2,210,000 1.4 102,300
	Total	2,210,000 1.4 102,300

Lucky Draw	Measured Indicated Inferred	470,000 2.1 31,700
	Total	470,000 2.1 31,700

Gold Total	Measured Indicated Inferred	2,680,000 1.6 134,000
	Total	2,680,000 1.6 134,000

Table 1. Lucky Draw and Hackney’s Creek Mineral Resources by model and resource category

The Lucky Draw and Hackney’s Creek deposits occur along strike from each other about 1km apart and 5km northeast of the village of Burraga.

Geology and Geological Interpretation

The Lucky Draw and Hackneys Creek gold deposits occur in metasomatised sediments of the Ordovician Triangle Formation immediately below the contact with mafic volcanic rocks inferred to belong to the Rockley Volcanics and very close to the contact with the Carboniferous Burraga Granite. The skarn-like ore displays a gold – bismuth - tellurium association (an “intrusion-related gold” signature) but is generally sulphur-poor with a very low sulphide mineral content. Skarn-like mineral assemblages (including garnet and gedrite), alteration and mineralisation at Lucky Draw including are considered by Sheppard et al . (1995) to be the product of contact metamorphism and hydrothermal activity associated with the intrusion of the Burraga Granite.

==> picture [436 x 274] intentionally omitted <==

Weathering and associated oxidation of sulphide minerals extends to about 30m below surface.

The Lucky Draw deposit comprises multiple 2 m to 15m thick zones within an overall package about 70 m thick. Both the individual zones and the package strike north south and dips gently (20° - 30°) to the west. Gold mineralisation at Lucky Draw has been defined by drilling over a strike length of 400 m and 200 m down dip to a depth of about 100 m below surface.

At Hackney’s Creek gold mineralisation also occurs in multiple 2 m to 20m thick zones within an overall package about 120 m thick. Mineralisation also strikes north and dips 50° to 60° to the west. Drilling has defined gold mineralisation over a strike length of 220 m and 250 m down dip to about 250 m below surface.

Sampling and Sub Sampling Techniques

DD core was cut using a diamond core saw and half core sub-sampled. The procedure was to take DD core samples geological contacts to a maximum of 1.0 m.

The RC sub-sampling method was not recorded.

The trenches were logged and sampled at 2.5 intervals.

Drilling Techniques

These resources have been estimated from trenching, reverse circulation (RC) drilling and diamond drilling (DD) carried out by Renison Goldfields (RGC) from 1986 until 1993 and by Werrie Gold in 1999 as described in the table below.

						% of
Prospect	Company	Method	Prefix	Number of holes	Total metres	Drilling by
						Prospect
		DD	LDD	151	11,444.30	73.5%
Lucky Draw	RGC	RC	LDR, LRC	111	3,416.10	21.9%
		RCDD	LXD	7	707.26	4.5%
		DD	LDD	35	5,833.62	23.3%
Hackney's Creek	RGC	RC trench RCDD	LRC HAK LXD	127 59 16	4,101.65 11,033.70 2,242.97	16.4% 44.2% 9.0%
	Werrie	RC RCDD	HRC HXD	3 6	320.00 1,456.75	1.3% 5.8%
Grand Total				515	40,556.35

Table 2 Drilling data used in resource estimates by company and drilling method

DD drilling (including holes with RC pre-collars) comprises 78.1 % of Lucky Draw and 38.2% of Hackney’s Creek data. All DD drilling used a triple tube core barrel which maximises core recovery. The hole size data has only been located for 19% of the Lucky Draw and 54% of the Hackney’s Creek DD drilling. At Lucky Draw where hole size was recorded, 62% of the DD drilling was HQ, 10% “HQNQ” and 28% PQ. At Hackney’s Creek the recorded DD hole sizes were 58% HQ and 42% NQ.

RC drilling was not well described. The hole diameter was 4.5 inches. When dry sample could not be maintained the hole was stopped and finished with a DD tail. There is no information on the hammer type, rod size or compressor capacity.

Surface Ditchwitch trenches at Hackney’s Creek were dug to about 1 m depth. The trench locations were surveyed by tape and compass from grid pegs.

Criteria Used for Classification

All resources reported were classified as inferred.

The Lucky Draw resource estimate was classified largely taking into account the limited data available to assess sample quality and also the limited understanding of the geological controls on gold mineralisation. The drill spacing is very close in places and so a small amount of additional drilling has the potential to re-classify some of the resources as measured or indicated if the data quality can be demonstrated.

The current drill spacing at Hackney’s Creek is quite wide relative to the variogram model ranges and so further infill drilling will be required to upgrade the deposit to Indicated and Measured resources categories.

Sample Analysis Method

All samples were dried, crushed, milled to 150um, a 500g riffle split taken and further milled to 100um. A 50g charge was then assayed for Au by fire assay with AAS finish. The lower detection limit was 0.01 g/t.

Estimation Methodology

Lucky Draw Resource Estimation

The data was domained using a wireframe interpreted at a nominal 0.2 g/t Au.

A regularised block model was constructed using blocks of 10 m by 10 m by 2.5 m (XYZ). This model was in turn coded for proportions of blocks below / inside the topography and inside the gold grade domain.

The maximum extrapolation at Lucky Draw was 22.5m and at Hackney’s Creek 25m. In both deposits this was half the section spacing. With the resource estimation software package used it is not possible to calculate (or even define) the proportion of extrapolated resource. A visual estimate is that no more than 10 % of the resource estimates are based on extrapolated grades.

All raw assay samples were composited to 2.5 metres prior to statistical analysis and grade interpolation.

The Lucky Draw resource was estimated by ordinary kriging of composited gold grades cut to 25 g/t Au within the gold grade domain as a hard boundary. No other elements were estimated due to a lack of data.

An assumed bulk density of 2.6 t/m[3] was assigned globally because there was no density data available at the time the resource estimate was made. The bulk density value was based on a typical bulk density of the mineralisation host rock (predominantly unweathered garnet schist).

The Lucky Draw resources were reported from below both a wireframe of the final mine survey and a topographic surface constructed by triangulating pre-mining drill collars.

The block model was validated visually and against alternative interpolation methods. The resource estimate was also reconciled to the Lucky Draw open pit production data.

Hackney’s Creek Resource Estimation

The Hackney’s Creek resource estimate largely followed the methods used at Lucky Draw, however no top cut was applied as there was no statistical evidence that is was necessary.

Cut Off Grade

The Mineral Resource cut-off grade for reporting of global gold resources for the Lucky Draw and Hackney’s Creek deposit chosen as 0.5g/t gold for open cut mining. This was based upon economic parameters utilised at comparable projects where deposits of the same style, commodity, similar size and mining methodology are currently being extracted.

Mining and Metallurgical Methods and Parameters

Open pit mining is assumed based on the width and near surface location of the mineralisation. Current gold prices would likely result in a significantly deeper optimal pit at Lucky Draw than the pit design mined by RGC during the early 1990’s.

High metallurgical recovery (>90%) is assumed at Lucky Draw based on the successful operation of the Lucky Draw gold processing plant (conventional crushing and milling followed by CIP leach and electrowinning).

Preliminary metallurgical test work was carried out on 3 samples of ore from the Hackney’s Creek Deposit by RGC NSW Ltd, showing a work index ranging from 7.4-8.0 kWh/t and a potential gold extraction of 89-95% in a 24 hour cyanide leach. These results compared favourably to the Lucky Draw ore, with slightly higher recoveries potentially indicated.

For and on behalf of the Board Sarah Smith

Company Secretary

This announcement has been authorised for release to ASX by the Board of Paterson Resources Limited.

ABOUT PATERSON RESOURCES:

Paterson Resources (ASX: PSL) is a publicly listed, junior mineral resources company focused on the exploration and development of gold and copper projects. Paterson has aggregated a diversified portfolio of assets that are at multiple stages, commodities and jurisdictions. The Grace Gold Project located in the world class Paterson mineral province in Western Australia consists of two granted exploration licences and five granted prospecting licences (E45/4524, E45/5130, P45/2905, P45/2906, P45/2907, P45/2908, and P45/2909). The Company also has an extensive landholding prospective for gold in the Pilbara in Western Australia, with four exploration licences (E08/2880, E47/3578, E47/3827, and E45/5020). The Burraga Copper Gold Project, located in the world class minerals province of the East Lachlan Fold Belt in central western New South Wales consists of four contiguous exploration licences (EL6463, EL6874, EL7975 and EL8826) covering a total area of approximately 221km². Paterson is an active explorer with the aim of discovering a valuable mineral resource and delivering shareholder value.

COMPETENT PERSON’S STATEMENT:

The information in this announcement that relates to Mineral Resources and exploration results is based on and fairly represents information and supporting information prepared by Kerrin Allwood (M.Sc., CP Geol), a Competent Person who is a Member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Mr. Allwood is employed by Geomodelling Ltd. Mr. Allwood has sufficient experience that is relevant to the styles of mineralisation and types of deposit under consideration and to the activity being undertaken to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the “Australasian Code for Reporting of Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves”. Mr. Allwood has provided his prior written consent as to the form and context in which the exploration results and Mineral Resources and the supporting information are presented in this announcement .

==> picture [282 x 89] intentionally omitted <==

JORC Table 1.

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data

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

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Sampling	• Nature and quality of sampling (eg cut channels, random chips, or	•Hackney’s Creek resource estimate is based on diamond (DD) and
techniques	specific specialised industry standard measurement tools appropriate	RC drilling and surface trench channel samples.
	to the minerals under investigation, such as down hole gamma	•The Lucky Draw resource estimate is based on DD and RC drilling
	sondes, or handheld XRF instruments, etc). These examples should	•The exploration drilling is DD and RC drilling
	not be taken as limiting the broad meaning of sampling.	•All DD drilling was sampled to either 1.0m to geological contacts as
	• Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample representivity	appropriate. The drill core was cut using a diamond core saw and half
	and the appropriate calibration of any measurement tools or systems	of the core submitted to the laboratory for analysis.
	used.	•No description of the RC drilling methods has been located.
	• Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are Material to the Public Report.	•No description of the channel sampling used in the Hackney’s Creek resource has been located.
	• In cases where ‘industry standard’ work has been done this would be	•No description of the sub-sampling methods has been located.
	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 fire assay’). In other cases more explanation may be required,
	such as where there is coarse gold that has inherent sampling
	problems. Unusual commodities or mineralisation types (eg
	submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed information.
Drilling	• Drill type (eg core, reverse circulation, open-hole hammer, rotary air	•The only information on the drilling method is the distinction between
techniques	blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc) and details (eg core diameter, triple	diamond drilling and RC drilling.
	or standard tube, depth of diamond tails, face-sampling bit or other	•DD was both PQ and HQ sized, but the depths at which the hole size
	type, whether core is oriented and if so, by what method, etc).	changed were not recorded. These hole sizes suggest a standard
		tube configuration of the core barrel.
Drill sample	• Method of recording and assessing core and chip sample recoveries	•DD core recovery data has not been located.
recovery	and results assessed.	•RC drilling recovery was not recorded.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	• Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and ensure	•No relationship between grade and core recovery can be determined
	representative nature of the samples.	due to the lack of drilling recovery data
	• Whether a relationship exists between sample recovery and grade
	and whether sample bias may have occurred due to preferential
	loss/gainof fine/coarse material.
Logging	• Whether core and chip samples have been geologically and	•Both core and percussion holes were geologically logged in their
	geotechnically logged to a level of detail to support appropriate	entirety. Features logged include lithology, weathering, alteration,
	Mineral Resource estimation, mining studies and metallurgical	veining and structure. The logging is sufficient to allow geological
	studies.	interpretation to a level sufficient to support resource estimation.
	• Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in nature. Core (or	•Core photos have not been found
	costean, channel, etc) photography.	•The logging is qualitative (descriptive).
	• _The total length and percentage of the relevant intersections logged. _
Sub-sampling	• If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, half or all core	•All DD core was cut using a diamond saw with one half bagged and
techniques and	taken.	dispatched to the laboratory.
sample	• If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc and	•No description of the RC drilling methods has been located.
preparation	whether sampled wet or dry.	•No description of the channel sampling used in the Hackney’s Creek
	• For all sample types, the nature, quality and appropriateness of the	resource has been located.
	sample preparation technique.	•The quality control measures (if any) taken to ensure representivity of
	• Quality control procedures adopted for all sub-sampling stages to	the samples were not recorded.
	maximise representivity of samples.	•The sample size was not recorded
	• Measures taken to ensure that the sampling is representative of the in
	situ material collected, including for instance results for field
	duplicate/second-half sampling.
	• Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grain size of the material
	_being sampled. _
Quality of	• The nature, quality and appropriateness of the assaying and	•To date, no QAQC data have been found for this data
assay data and	laboratory procedures used and whether the technique is considered	•The lack of data verification was one factor leading to the reporting of
laboratory	partial or total.	inferred resources only
tests	• For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF instruments, etc,
	the parameters used in determining the analysis including instrument
	make and model, reading times, calibrations factors applied and their
	derivation, etc.
	• Nature of quality control procedures adopted (eg standards, blanks,
	duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	_of accuracy (ie lack of bias) and precision have been established. _
Verification of	• The verification of significant intersections by either independent or	•The data have not been verified.
sampling and	alternative company personnel.	•The Lucky Draw data was verified to a degree by mining during the
assaying	• The use of twinned holes.	1990s.
	• Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data	•The lack of data verification was one factor leading to the reporting of
	verification, data storage (physical and electronic) protocols.	inferred resources only
	• _Discuss any adjustment to assay data. _
Location of	• Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drill holes (collar and	•The collar locations were surveyed by total station instrument to
data points	down-hole surveys), trenches, mine workings and other locations	0.01m precision.
	used in Mineral Resource estimation.	•The accuracy of the collar locations is +/- 0.1m
	• Specification of the grid system used.	•The collars were surveyed using the AMG66 grid.
	• Quality and adequacy of topographic control.
Data spacing	• Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results.	•The Hackney’s Creek drilling ranges from 25m (N) by 25m (E) in the
and	• Whether the data spacing and distribution is sufficient to establish the	upper 50m of the resource to 50 m by 50 m at depths greater than
distribution	degree of geological and grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral	50m. There are also ‘ditchwitch’ traverses at 5m spacing (N) across
	Resource and Ore Reserve estimation procedure(s) and	the outcrop of the Hackney’s Creek mineralisation.
	classifications applied.	•The Lucky Draw drilling ranges from 12.5m (N) by 5 m (E) to 25m (N)
	• Whether sample compositing has been applied.	by 25m (E)
		•The exploration drilling is not systematically spaced
		•The data spacing is sufficient for resource estimation at Hackney’s
		Creek and Lucky Draw
		•Sample compositing was not used
Orientation of	• Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased sampling of	•At Hackneys Creek the drilling is drilled towards 090 (east) and is
data in relation	possible structures and the extent to which this is known, considering	mostly inclined at 60 degrees. This drilling orientation adequately
to geological	the deposit type.	defines the geometry of the approximately 50 degree west dipping
structure	• If the relationship between the drilling orientation and the orientation	mineralisation at Hackney’s creek. No bias is introduced by the
	of key mineralised structures is considered to have introduced a	drilling orientation.
	sampling bias, this should be assessed and reported if material.	•The drilling at Lucky Draw is largely vertical with a small number of
		inclined holes. The vertical holes adequately define the geometry of
		the shallowly dipping mineralisation at Lucky Draw. No bias is
		introduced by the drilling orientation.
		•The geometry of the mineralisation intersected by the exploration
		holesisnotknownand sono conclusioncanbe drawn regarding the

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		appropriateness of the orientation of these holes.
Sample	• The measures taken to ensure sample security.	•The measures (if any) taken to ensure sample security were not
security		recorded.
Audits or	• The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data.	•The data has not been audited. This is because the projects are at an
reviews		early stage of assessment and because it is possible that further data
		may be recovered from the archives resulting in a change to the
		assessment of the quality of the base data.

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results

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

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Mineral	• Type, reference name/number, location and ownership including	•The data reported on are located in EL6463, EL6874 and EL7975. All
tenement and	agreements or material issues with third parties such as joint	tenements are 100% owned by PSL through it’s subsidiary BC
land tenure	ventures, partnerships, overriding royalties, native title interests,	Exploration Pty Ltd.
status	historical sites, wilderness or national park and environmental	•There are no known impediments to development of a mining
	settings.	operation on these leases other than the usual granting of a mining
	• The security of the tenure held at the time of reporting along with any	licence and the various permits required to operate.
	_known impediments to obtaining a licence to operate inthe area. _
Exploration	• Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties.	•All data was reported on was acquired by RGC from 1985 to 1991
done by other
parties
Geology	• Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation.	•The gold mineralisation at all deposits appears to be similar. It occurs
		as Gold-Bi-Te-Mo mineralization in retrogressed chlorite-biotite-
		siderite schists of the Triangle Group. The mineralisation is spatially
		associated with granitoid intrusives. The style of mineralisation is
		enigmatic, having in the past been classed as skarn related but the
		lack of carbonate rocks makes this interpretation uncertain.
Drill hole	• A summary of all information material to the understanding of the	•See attached table
Information	exploration results including a tabulation of the following information
	_for all Material drill holes: _

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	`o` easting and northing of the drill hole collar
	`o` elevation or RL (Reduced Level – elevation above sea level in
	metres) of the drill hole collar
	`o` dip and azimuth of the hole
	`o` down hole length and interception depth
	`o` hole length.
	• If the exclusion of this information is justified on the basis that the
	information is not Material and this exclusion does not detract from
	the understanding of the report, the Competent Person should clearly
	_explain why this is the case. _
Data	• In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging techniques,	•Exploration results reported are length weighted averages of assay
aggregation	maximum and/or minimum grade truncations (eg cutting of high	results.
methods	grades) and cut-off grades are usually Material and should be stated.	•Only results that are considered to be economically significant due to
	• Where aggregate intercepts incorporate short lengths of high grade	their grade, width and or geological setting are reported. The grade
	results and longer lengths of low grade results, the procedure used	cutoff applied to intercepts varies, but is generally 0.2 g/t Au with up
	for such aggregation should be stated and some typical examples of	to 2.0 m of internal dilution.
	such aggregations should be shown in detail.	•No metal equivalents are reported.
	• The assumptions used for any reporting of metal equivalent values
	_should be clearly stated. _
Relationship	• These relationships are particularly important in the reporting of	•For the exploration results the mineralisation is generally hit at a high
between	Exploration Results.	angle, with true widths at least 70% of downhole widths
mineralisation	• If the geometry of the mineralisation with respect to the drill hole	•This is not relevant to the Hackney’s Creek and Lucky Draw resource
widths and	angle is known, its nature should be reported.	estimates
intercept	• If it is not known and only the down hole lengths are reported, there
lengths	should be a clear statement to this effect (eg ‘down hole length, true
	_width not known’). _
Diagrams	• Appropriate maps and sections (with scales) and tabulations of	•Included in announcement
	intercepts should be included for any significant discovery being
	reported These should include, but not be limited to a plan view of
	_drill hole collar locations and appropriate sectional views. _
Balanced	• Where comprehensive reporting of all Exploration Results is not	•For the exploration results only significant exploration results are
reporting	practicable, representative reporting of both low and high grades	reported. The intercepts reported include appropriate amounts of
	and/or widths should be practiced to avoid misleading reporting of	internal dilution such that the grades of the intercepts should be
	_Exploration Results. _

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		indicative of the grade of mineralisation intersected at that point.
Other	• Other exploration data, if meaningful and material, should be reported	•Other exploration data has been collected from within the tenement
substantive	including (but not limited to): geological observations; geophysical	areas. This work is summarised in the announcement and includes
exploration	survey results; geochemical survey results; bulk samples – size and	airborne magnetic surveys, regional geochemical surveys and
data	method of treatment; metallurgical test results; bulk density,	regional geological mapping.
	groundwater, geotechnical and rock characteristics; potential
	_deleterious or contaminating substances. _
Further work	• The nature and scale of planned further work (eg tests for lateral	•Further work is planned but has not been planned in detail.
	extensions or depth extensions or large-scale step-out drilling).
	• Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions,
	including the main geological interpretations and future drilling areas,
	_provided this information is not commercially sensitive. _

Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources

This section applies to the Hackney’s Creek and Lucky Draw mineral resource estimates only. (Criteria listed in section 1, and where relevant in section 2, also apply to this section.)

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Database	• Measures taken to ensure that data has not been corrupted by, for	•A database of historical drilling and other exploration work carried out
integrity	example, transcription or keying errors, between its initial collection	over the tenement areas has been compiled from archived NSW
	and its use for Mineral Resource estimation purposes.	Department of Industry data. This database has been manually
	• Data validation procedures used.	entered into an access database
		•The data was validated by checking for sample overlaps, gaps,
		extreme values and out of range values.
Site visits	• Comment on any site visits undertaken by the Competent Person and	•The competent person visited the site for 10 days during March 2015.
	the outcome of those visits.	This visit focussed on the Lloyds Copper project and assessment of
	• If no site visits have been undertaken indicate why this is the case.	general procedures including drilling, logging, sampling and core
		storage. The site practices were found to comply with EYM
		procedures.
Geological	• Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertainty of ) the geological	•Hackney’s Creek:
interpretation	interpretation of the mineral deposit.	`o` A gold grade domain was interpreted for the Hackney’s
	• _Nature of the data used and of any assumptions made. _	Creek deposit at a nominal 0.2g/t Au usinga minimum

JORC Code explanation	Commentary
• The effect, if any, of alternative interpretations on Mineral Resource		width of 2.0 m and a maximum internal dilution of 2.0 m.
estimation.	`o`	The gold grade domain was not geologically constrained
• The use of geology in guiding and controlling Mineral Resource		as the controls on gold mineralisation at Hackney’s
estimation.		Creek are poorly understood. It is assumed that the gold
• The factors affecting continuity both of grade and geology.		mineralisation is due to a single event that created a continuous body of mineralisation.
	`o`	Alternative interpretations are not possible for the gross
		structure (ie moderately west dipping tabular body) but
		alternative small scale structures are possible. Any such
		minor alternative interpretations would not significantly
		affect the global grade or tonnage but would impact
		locally (ie <10 m scale).
	`o`	Large scale grade and geological continuity appears to
		be strataform and lithologically controlled. The controls
		on small scale variability, especially of high grade zones,
		are not known.
	•Lucky Draw
	`o`	A gold grade domain was interpreted for the Lucky Draw
		deposit at a nominal 0.2 g/t Au using a minimum width of
		2.0 m and a maximum internal dilution of 2.0 m.
	`o`	The gold grade domain was not strictly geologically
		constrained but the domain is sub-parallel to the
		interpreted granite contact.
	`o`	Alternative interpretations are not possible for the gross
		structure (ie gently west dipping tabular bodies) but
		alternative small scale structures are possible. Any such
		minor alternative interpretations would not significantly
		affect the global grade or tonnage but would impact
		locally (ie <10 m scale).
	`o`	Large scale grade and geological continuity appears to
		be strataform and lithologically controlled with
		mineralisation sub-parallel to the granite contact. The
		controls on small scale variability, especially of high
		gradezones, arenotknown.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary

Dimensions	• The extent and variability of the Mineral Resource expressed as	•The Hackney’s Creek mineralisation occurs as a series of moderately
	length (along strike or otherwise), plan width, and depth below	west dipping stacked lenses. The mineralisation has been defined by
	surface to the upper and lower limits of the Mineral Resource.	drilling over a strike length of 220m and 250m down dip. The thickest
		lens is up to 20 m thick and the entire package of stacked lenses
		about 100 m thick.
		•The Lucky Draw mineralisation occurs as stacked sub-parallel tabular
		bodies dipping gently to the west. The largest bodies extend about
		150 m (N) by 150 m by (E) and are up to 45m thick. The entire
		mineralised zone extends 400 m (N) by 180 m (E) and up to 75 m
		thick.
Estimation and	• The nature and appropriateness of the estimation technique(s)	•Hackney’s Creek
modelling	applied and key assumptions, including treatment of extreme grade	`o` Only gold grades were estimated
techniques	values, domaining, interpolation parameters and maximum distance	`o` The raw assay data was composited to 2.5m and coded
	of extrapolation from data points. If a computer assisted estimation	to a gold domain interpreted at a nominal 0.2 g/t Au.
	method was chosen include a description of computer software and	`o` The gold domain nominal interpretation grade was
	parameters used.	selected based on a likely open pit mining cutoff grade.
	• The availability of check estimates, previous estimates and/or mine	Log cumulative probability plots showed that the gold
	production records and whether the Mineral Resource estimate takes	grade distribution was continuous in the range of domain
	appropriate account of such data.	grades (0.1 – 0.5 g/t Au) and so was not useful for
	• The assumptions made regarding recovery of by-products.	selecting an interpretation grade.
	• Estimation of deleterious elements or other non-grade variables of economic significance (eg sulphur for acid mine drainage characterisation).	`o` Experimental variograms show little anisotropy within the plane of mineralisation. The nugget was 30% with 2 spherical structures to a total sill of 1.0. The total range
	• 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	on the major axis was 70m. `o` Gold grades were interpolated into a regularised block model with blocks 20m x 20m x 5m (XYZ; compared to the closest spaced data of 25m by 25m by 2.5m.) by ordinary kriging. A gold domain interpreted at a nominal 0.2 g/t was used as a hard boundary. Composites were selected for interpolation from within an ellipsoid with axes of 140m x 50m x 36m rotated to the variogram model directions. A minimum of 5 and a maximum of 25

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	available.		composites were used, with a maximum of 13 per
			quadrant.
		•Lucky Draw
		`o`	Only gold grades were estimated
		`o`	The raw assay data was composited to 2.5m and coded
			to a gold domain interpreted at a nominal 0.2 g/t Au.
		`o`	The gold domain nominal interpretation grade was
			selected based on a likely open pit mining cutoff grade.
			Log cumulative probability plots showed that the gold
			grade distribution was continuous in the range of domain
			grades (0.1 – 0.5 g/t Au) and so was not useful for
			selecting an interpretation grade.
		`o`	Experimental variograms show little anisotropy within the
			plane of mineralisation. The nugget was 30% with 2
			spherical structures to a total sill of 1.0. The total range
			on the major axis was 50m.
		`o`	Gold grades were interpolated into a regularised block
			model with blocks 10m x 10m x 2.5m (XYZ compared to
			the closest spaced data of 12.5m by 5m by 2.5m) by
			ordinary kriging. A gold domain interpreted at a nominal
			0.2 g/t was used as a hard boundary. Composites were
			selected for interpolation from within an ellipsoid with
			axes of 50m x 25m x 40m rotated to the variogram
			model directions. A minimum of 5 and a maximum of 15
			composites were used, with a maximum of 8 per
			quadrant.
Moisture	• Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or with natural	•Tonnages are reported on a dry basis.
	_moisture, and the method of determination of the moisture content. _
Cut-off	• The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters	•The cutoff grade for reporting is based on the competent person’s
parameters	applied.	estimate of likely costs for open pit mining operations
Mining factors	• Assumptions made regarding possible mining methods, minimum	•Open pit mining is assumed.
or assumptions	mining dimensions and internal (or, if applicable, external) mining	•It is assumed that a minimum mining width of 2.0 m can be achieved
	dilution. It is always necessary aspart of theprocess of determining	on 2.5m flitcheswithamaximumdilutionskinof0.5m.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider	•The economic base of mineralisation has not been defined by pit
	potential mining methods, but the assumptions made regarding	optimisation or similar methods. There is an implicit assumption that
	mining methods and parameters when estimating Mineral Resources	open pit mining may be possible to the base of the resource model.
	may not always be rigorous. Where this is the case, this should be	This is a reasonable assumption for the Lucky Draw deposit where
	reported with an explanation of the basis of the mining assumptions	the base of the resource estimate is only 100 m below surface and
	made.	the thickness of mineralisation would make open pit mining costs low.
		At Hackney’s Creek it is not clear where the economic depth limits of
		open pit mining may be. If the deeper parts of the Hackney’s Creek
		resource are not economic to mine by open pit then part of the
		resource (at a higher cutoff grade) would still be amenable to
		underground mining.
Metallurgical	• The basis for assumptions or predictions regarding metallurgical	•RGC conducted preliminary metallurgical testwork on Hackney’s
factors or	amenability. It is always necessary as part of the process of	Creek mineralisation which indicated that it has very similar
assumptions	determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to	metallurgical characteristics to the Lucky Draw ore mined during the
	consider potential metallurgical methods, but the assumptions	early 1990’s.
	regarding metallurgical treatment processes and parameters made	•Past production at Lucky Draw indicates that the ore is amenable to
	when reporting Mineral Resources may not always be rigorous.	be recovered in a conventional CIL gold plant. There is no evidence
	Where this is the case, this should be reported with an explanation of	(mineralogical or chemical) that the ore in the Lucky Draw resource
	the basis of the metallurgical assumptions made.	will be any different to that previously mined there.
Environmen-tal	• Assumptions made regarding possible waste and process residue	•No assumptions were made regarding environmental factors
factors or	disposal options. It is always necessary as part of the process of	•The potential waste material is low in both metal and sulphur content
assumptions	determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to	suggesting that little, if any, waste will be potentially acid forming.
	consider the potential environmental impacts of the mining and	•The area has subdued topography with many possible sites for waste
	processing operation. While at this stage the determination of	rock and tailings disposal sites.
	potential environmental impacts, particularly for a greenfields project, may not always be well advanced, the status of early consideration of	•No significant watercourses cross either deposit.
	these potential environmental impacts should be reported. Where
	these aspects have not been considered this should be reported with
	_an explanation of the environmental assumptions made. _
Bulk density	• Whether assumed or determined. If assumed, the basis for the	•Dry bulk densities were assigned due to a lack of test results. The
	assumptions. If determined, the method used, whether wet or dry, the	assigned bulk density was 2.6 t/m3 for all mineralisation and waste at
	frequency of the measurements, the nature, size and	both Hackney’s Creek and Lucky Draw. This density assume that the
	_representativeness of the samples. _	mineralisation is predominantly quartz with lowporosity (~3%).

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	• The bulk density for bulk material must have been measured by	•No allowance has been made for varying density between weathered
	methods that adequately account for void spaces (vugs, porosity,	(oxide) and fresh material. This assumption is likely wrong but
	etc), moisture and differences between rock and alteration zones	unlikely to have a material effect on the total tonnage.
	within the deposit.	•Uncertainty in bulk density is reflected in the resource classification.
	• Discuss assumptions for bulk density estimates used in the
	_evaluation process of the different materials. _
Classification	• The basis for the classification of the Mineral Resources into varying	•All resources are classified as inferred. Whilst the data density
	confidence categories.	relative to the geological and grade uncertainty could allow high
	• Whether appropriate account has been taken of all relevant factors (ie	levels of classification, a lack of information on assay quality, drilling
	relative confidence in tonnage/grade estimations, reliability of input	recovery and bulk density means that all resources were classified as
	data, confidence in continuity of geology and metal values, quality,	inferred.
	quantity and distribution of the data).	•The classification reflects the competent person’s view of the deposits
	• Whether the result appropriately reflects the Competent Person’s
	_view of the deposit. _
Audits or	• The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral Resource estimates.	•There have been no reviews or audits of the mineral resource
reviews		estimates. This is because the projects are at an early stage of
		assessment and because it is possible that further data may be
		recovered from the archives resulting in a change to the assessment
		of the quality of the base data.
Discussion of	• Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and	•The accuracy of these mineral resource estimates is low and that is
relative	confidence level in the Mineral Resource estimate using an approach	reflected in the resource classification.
accuracy/	or procedure deemed appropriate by the Competent Person. For	•Geostatistical methods have not been used to assess the uncertainty
confidence	example, the application of statistical or geostatistical procedures to	in the estimates because one of the major sources of uncertainty
	quantify the relative accuracy of the resource within stated confidence	(insufficient data about the quality of the data) is not explicit in
	limits, or, if such an approach is not deemed appropriate, a qualitative	geostatistical methods
	discussion of the factors that could affect the relative accuracy and	•Local estimate uncertainties are likely very high.
	confidence of the estimate.	•No production data is available for comparison
	• The statement should specify whether it relates to global or local
	estimates, and, if local, state the relevant tonnages, which should be
	relevant to technical and economic evaluation. Documentation should
	include assumptions made and the procedures used.
	• These statements of relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate
	_should be compared with production data, where available. _

56 Adelaide Street Petone New Zealand 5012 Ph +64 4 970 9163 [email protected]

==> picture [387 x 51] intentionally omitted <==

Report on an Estimate of Gold Mineral Resources at Hackneys Creek and Luck Draw.

16 April, 2020.

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 1 of 66

1 Summary

An estimate was made of gold mineral resources at the Lucky Draw and Hackney’s Creek deposits for Elysium Resources Ltd (EYM) in 2011. Following a re-structure EYM has changed name to Paterson Resources Ltd (PSL). This report describes the 2011 resource estimate.

The Lucky Draw and Hackney’s Creek deposits occur along strike from each other about 1km apart and 5km northeast of the village of Burraga.

Weathering and associated oxidation of sulphide minerals extends to about 30m below surface.

These resources have been estimated from trenching, reverse circulation drilling and diamond drilling carried out by Renison Goldfields (RGC) from 1986 until 1993.

There is limited data describing the drilling, sampling and assaying methods used in these resource estimates. There is almost no QAQC data to confirm the quality of these data. All the mineral resources reported here are classified as inferred because of the uncertainty regarding the data quality into account

RGC mined an open pit at Lucky Draw from December 1988 until 1991, producing 1.48 million tonnes grading 3.53 g/t gold.

1.1. Lucky Draw Resource Estimation

The data was domained using a wireframe interpreted at a nominal 0.2 g/t Au.

All raw assay samples were composited to 2.5 metres prior to statistical analysis and grade interpolation.

The Lucky Draw resources were reported from below both a wireframe of the final mine survey and a topographic surface constructed by triangulating pre-mining drill collars.

The block model was classified in accordance with the JORC (2012) code largely taking into account the limited data available to assess sample quality and also the limited understanding of the geological controls on gold mineralisation. The drill spacing is very close in places and so if the data quality can be demonstrated and the geology well understood then it could be possible to re-classify some of the resources as measured or indicated.

The block model was validated visually and against alternative interpolation methods. The resource estimate was also reconciled to the Lucky Draw open pit production data.

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 1 of 66

1.2. Hackney’s Creek Resource Estimation

The Hackney’s Creek resource estimate largely followed the methods used at Lucky Draw.

The only significant difference in method is that no top cut was applied as there was no statistical evidence that a top cut may be necessary.

The current drill spacing at Hackney’s Creek is quite wide relative to the variogram model ranges and so there is no possibility of indicated resources without infill drilling as well as demonstrating the data quality and developing a sound understanding of the geology.

1.3. Results

The Lucky Draw and Hackney’s Creek mineral resources are presented in Table 1.

The gold resources are reported at a cutoff of 0.5 g/t Au.

Gold Mineral Resources (above 0.5 g/t Au cutoff)	Gold Mineral Resources (above 0.5 g/t Au cutoff)	Gold Mineral Resources (above 0.5 g/t Au cutoff)
		tonnes Au (g/t) Au Metal (koz)
Hackney's Creek	Measured Indicated Inferred	2,210,000 1.4 102.3
	Total	2,210,000 1.4 102.3

Lucky Draw	Measured Indicated Inferred	470,000 2.1 31.7
	Total	470,000 2.1 31.7

Gold Total	Measured Indicated Inferred	2,680,000 1.6 134.0
	Total	2,680,000 1.6 134.0

Table 1. Lucky Draw and Hackney’s Creek Mineral Resources by model and resource category

Recommendations have been made to reduce the resource estimation risk and to increase the resource size.

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 2 of 66

*Contents*	*Contents*	*Contents*
Report on an Estimate of Gold Mineral Resources at Hackneys Creek and Luck Draw. ................................................................. 1
16	April, 2020. ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 1
1	Summary ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 1
	1.1.	Lucky Draw Resource Estimation ................................................................................................................................... 1
	1.2.	Hackney’s Creek Resource Estimation ........................................................................................................................... 2
	1.3.	Results .............................................................................................................................................................................. 2
2	Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................... 1
	2.1.	Location ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1
	2.2.	Context .............................................................................................................................................................................. 1
	2.3.	Tenement .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1
	2.4.	Other ................................................................................................................................................................................. 1
	2.4.1.	Software ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1
	2.4.2.	Grids ............................................................................................................................................................................ 2
3	Geology ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 3
	3.1.	Regional Geology ............................................................................................................................................................. 3
	3.1.1.	Stratigraphy ................................................................................................................................................................. 3
	3.1.2.	Structure ...................................................................................................................................................................... 4
	3.1.3.	Gold Mineralisation ..................................................................................................................................................... 4
	3.2.	Local Geology ................................................................................................................................................................... 4
	3.2.1.	Lucky Draw .................................................................................................................................................................. 4
	3.2.2.	Hackneys Creek .......................................................................................................................................................... 5
	3.3.	Previous Mining and Exploration ..................................................................................................................................... 5
4	Data ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
	4.1.	Data Provided ................................................................................................................................................................... 6
	4.1.1.	Databases ................................................................................................................................................................... 6
	4.1.2.	Topography ................................................................................................................................................................. 6
	4.1.3.	Lucky Draw Open Pit final survey .............................................................................................................................. 6
	4.2.	Drilling and Trenching Programmes ................................................................................................................................ 6
	4.2.1.	RGC ............................................................................................................................................................................. 6
	4.2.2.	Werrie Gold ................................................................................................................................................................. 7
	4.3.	Drilling Recovery ............................................................................................................................................................... 7
	4.4.	Sub-Sampling Methods.................................................................................................................................................... 7
	4.5.	Assay Methods ................................................................................................................................................................. 8
	4.6.	Surface Survey methods.................................................................................................................................................. 9
	4.7.	Assay QAQC .................................................................................................................................................................... 9
	4.8.	Data Validation and Import into Minesight .................................................................................................................... 10
5	Domaining .................................................................................................................................................................................. 11
	5.1.	Lucky Draw Gold Grade Domain .................................................................................................................................. 11
	5.2.	Hackney’s Creek Gold Grade Domain .......................................................................................................................... 11
	5.3.	Oxidation Domains ......................................................................................................................................................... 11
	5.4.	Assay coding .................................................................................................................................................................. 11
6	Statistics ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 12
	6.1.	Lucky Draw Gold Domain .............................................................................................................................................. 12
	6.1.1.	Compositing .............................................................................................................................................................. 12
	6.1.2.	Univariate statistics ................................................................................................................................................... 12
	6.1.3.	Extreme Values ......................................................................................................................................................... 12
	6.1.4.	Variography ............................................................................................................................................................... 13
	6.1.	Hackney’s Creek Gold Domain ..................................................................................................................................... 17
	6.1.1.	Compositing .............................................................................................................................................................. 17
	6.1.2.	Univariate statistics ................................................................................................................................................... 17
	6.1.3.	Extreme Values ......................................................................................................................................................... 17
	6.1.4.	Variography ............................................................................................................................................................... 18
	6.2.	Density ............................................................................................................................................................................ 21
7	Block	Model ................................................................................................................................................................................ 23

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 3 of 66

	7.1.	Lucky Draw Model .......................................................................................................................................................... 23
	7.1.1.	Extents and items ...................................................................................................................................................... 23
	7.1.2.	Interpolation Methods ............................................................................................................................................... 24
	7.1.3.	Density ....................................................................................................................................................................... 24
	7.2.	Hackney’s Creek Model ................................................................................................................................................. 24
	7.2.1.	Extents and items ...................................................................................................................................................... 24
	7.2.2.	Interpolation Methods ............................................................................................................................................... 25
	7.2.3.	Density ....................................................................................................................................................................... 26
8	Resource Classification ............................................................................................................................................................. 27
	8.1.	Method ............................................................................................................................................................................ 27
	8.2.	Economic Justification .................................................................................................................................................... 27
9	Results ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 28
10	Validation .................................................................................................................................................................................... 29
	10.1.	Comparison to Historical Production records ............................................................................................................... 29
	10.2.	Variants ........................................................................................................................................................................... 29
	10.2.1.	Variant Grade Tonnage Curves ............................................................................................................................... 29
11	Recommendations ..................................................................................................................................................................... 31
	11.1.	To reduce resource estimation risk: .............................................................................................................................. 31
	11.1.1.	Lucky Draw ................................................................................................................................................................ 31
	11.1.2.	Hackney’s Creek ....................................................................................................................................................... 31
	11.2.	To increase the resource: .............................................................................................................................................. 31
12	References ................................................................................................................................................................................. 32
13	Appendix One: JORC Table 1. .................................................................................................................................................... 1
	13.1.	Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data...................................................................................................................... 1
	13.2.	Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results .................................................................................................................... 4
	13.3.	Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources ........................................................................................... 6
14	Appendix Two – Drillhole List ...................................................................................................................................................... 1

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 4 of 66

List of Figures

Figure 2-1 Geological setting and location of EL6463 and prospects (after Harley, 2011). .............................................................. 1 Figure 3-1 Geological Map of EL6463 and surrounding tenements. .................................................................................................. 3 Figure 6-1. Raw sample length where DOM=1 and Au not null. ....................................................................................................... 12 Figure 6-2. Au Composite Cumulative Probability Plot (not length weighted), of all Au composite data within the Lucky Draw gold grade domain. .............................................................................................................................................................................. 13 Figure 6-3. Histogram of all Au composite data within the Lucky Draw gold grade domain. .......................................................... 13 Figure 6-4. Downhole variogram (2.5 m absolute tolerance). ........................................................................................................... 14 Figure 6-5 Major axis experimental variogram and model ................................................................................................................ 15 Figure 6-6. Semi-major axis experimental variogram and model ..................................................................................................... 15 Figure 6-7. Minor axis experimental variogram and model ............................................................................................................... 16 Figure 6-8. Raw sample length where DOM=1 and Au not null. ....................................................................................................... 17 Figure 6-9. Au Composite Cumulative Probability Plot (not length weighted), of all Au composite data within the Hackney’s Creek gold grade domain. ................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 6-10. Histogram of all Au composite data within the Hackney’s Creek gold grade domain................................................. 18 Figure 6-11. Downhole variogram (2.5 m absolute tolerance). ......................................................................................................... 19 Figure 6-12 Major axis experimental variogram and model .............................................................................................................. 20 Figure 6-13. Semi-major axis experimental variogram and model ................................................................................................... 20 Figure 6-14. Minor axis experimental variogram and model ............................................................................................................. 21 Figure 10-2. Grade-tonnage curves for Lucky Draw interpolant variants. ........................................................................................ 30 Figure 10-3. Grade-tonnage curves for Hackney’s Creek interpolant variants. ............................................................................... 30

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 5 of 66

List of Tables

Table 1. Lucky Draw and Hackney’s Creek Mineral Resources by model and resource category .................................................. 2 Table 2 Drilling data used in resource estimates by company and drilling method ........................................................................... 7 Table 3 Samples by drill type ................................................................................................................................................................ 8 Table 4 Samples by drill type within gold domains. ............................................................................................................................. 8 Table 5 Assay samples by laboratory. .................................................................................................................................................. 9 Table 6 Assay samples within gold domains by laboratory. ................................................................................................................ 9 Table 7. Summary univariate statistics for Au and Bi composites within the Lucky Draw gold domain. ........................................ 12 Table 8. Lucky Draw Gold Domain variogram model. ....................................................................................................................... 16 Table 9. Summary univariate statistics for Au and Bi composites within the Hackney’s Creek gold domain. ................................ 17 Table 10. Hackney’s Creek Gold Domain variogram model. ............................................................................................................ 21 Table 11 Summary of Hackney's Creek density data ........................................................................................................................ 21 Table 12. The Lucky Draw block model extents. ............................................................................................................................... 23 Table 13. Lucky Draw block model items. .......................................................................................................................................... 24 Table 14. The Hackney’s Creek block model extents. ...................................................................................................................... 25 Table 15. Hackney’s Creek block model items. ................................................................................................................................. 25 Table 16. Lucky Draw and Hackney’s Creek Mineral Resources by model and resource category. ............................................. 28 Table 17 Comparison of Lucky draw resource estimate to RGC grade control within RGC pit ...................................................... 29 Table 18 Golf grade interpolation variants used ................................................................................................................................. 29

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 6 of 66

2 Introduction

2.1. Location

The Lucky Draw and Hackney’s Creek deposits are located in central NSW, approximately 40 km southwest of Oberon and 80 km southeast of Orange (see Figure 2-1). The village of Burraga lies about 5km to the southwest of Lucky Draw.

==> picture [416 x 262] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 2-1 Geological setting and location of EL6463 and prospects (after Harley, 2011).

2.2. Context

This resource estimate will be used for public reporting of mineral resources by Paterson Resources Limited (PSL).

The mineral resource estimates reported on here were completed by GML in 2011 for Burraga Copper Ltd, at that time controlled by Elysium Resources Ltd. (EYM). This work was not publicly announced at the time and so no supporting report describing the resource estimation processes was made at the time. This report describes the work completed in 2011 and is intended to support the public reporting of the gold mineral resource estimates at Lucky Draw and Hackney’s Creek by PSL.

2.3. Tenement

The Lucky Draw and Hackney’s Creek deposits are located within EL6463, held by BC Exploration Propriety Limited (BCEL). BCEL is a 100% owned subsidiary of PSL.

2.4. Other

2.4.1. Software

All the geological and block modelling was completed using Minesight software.

Statistical and geostatistical analysis was completed using Minesight MSDA software.

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 1 of 66

2.4.2. Grids

All work reported on here was completed in AMG66 as that was the only coordinates provided for the drilling data. There is no local mine grid.

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 2 of 66

3 Geology

3.1. Regional Geology

The recent discovery of substantial gold mineralisation at McPhillamys Hill between Blayney and Bathurst has altered the perspective of key structural controls on gold mineralisation and the prospectivity of sections of the Lachlan Fold Belt. The McPhillamys deposit (2.3 million ounces gold resource) lies on the southwestern margin of the Hill End Trough adjacent to the Godolphin Fault within strongly deformed sediments and acid volcanics (Anson Formation) belonging to the Late Silurian Mumbil Group. The Godolphin Fault separates the Mumbil Group rocks that host the McPhillamys deposit on the northeastern side of the fault from Late Ordovician volcanics, sediments and intrusives of the Blayney Volcanics to the west.

3.1.1. Stratigraphy

Bedrock within the area covered by EL 6874 is dominated by Middle and Late Ordovician meta-sediments and the Carboniferous Burraga Granite. Figure 3-1 shows the geology of EL6463 and is based on the geological mapping of the Oberon 1:100,000 geological sheet area by the Australian Geological Survey Organisation and the NSW Geological.

==> picture [432 x 307] intentionally omitted <==

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

EL 6463
EL 7975
EL 6874
----- End of picture text -----

Figure 3-1 Geological Map of EL6463 and surrounding tenements.

The stratigraphy of EL6463 is poorly understood with different workers providing substantially different interpretations, especially with respect to the relationship of the Burraga sequence to the rest of the stratigraphy. The following descriptions of the rocks with EL6463 is a summary of the ‘consensus’ stratigraphy.

The oldest rocks in the tenement are the middle Ordovician Adaminaby Group which is comprised mainly of variably deformed quartz sandstone and carbonaceous shale. The Adaminaby Group underlies the south eastern parts of the licence area, east of the ‘Lloyds syncline’.

Conformably overlying the Adaminaby Group is the Triangle Formation of the middle Ordovician Kenilworth Group. The Triangle Formation consists of mafic volcaniclastic sandstone, meta-basalt, slate, phyllite, schist, siliceous carbonaceous slate, chert, quartzite and sandstone. The Triangle Group is host to the Lucky Draw and Hackney’s Creek gold deposits in the north eastern part of EL6463.

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 3 of 66

The Triangle Formation rocks are unconformably overlain by the Middle to Late Silurian Campbells Formation of the Mumbil Group. Typically, the formation comprises siltstones overlain by interbedded slate and fine to coarse grained feldspathic meta-sandstone. The Campbells Formation is broadly correlatable with the Anson Formation; host to the McPhillamys Hill gold deposit in the Blayney-Orange district to the northwest.

In faulted contact above the Triangle Formation are sediments of the Early Devonian Crudine Group. The Crudine Group comprises the Dunchurch Formation (feldspathic quartz sandstone with minor slate, ashstone and dacite) and the Buckburraga Slate (laminated silty slate).

Within the ‘Lloyds syncline’ is a sequence of strongly deformed rocks with complex structural and stratigraphic relationships. This sequence comprises a basal slate mapped as the Buckburraga slate overlain by the Excelsior Porphyry. Petrographic analysis of the Excelsior Porphyry shows that is in fact a highly altered volcanic tuff. Above the Excelsior Porphyry is the Hanrahan’s Agglomerate which is actually a polymict breccia of tectonic origin. The Hanrahan’s Agglomerate includes clasts of limestone, amorphous silica and Excelsior Porphyry. Most of the Burraga copper mineralisation occurs in the Hanrahan’s Agglomerate. Fine grained schist, phyllite and minor limestone of the Lovett’s Formation occurs above the Hanrahan’s Agglomerate.

The age and stratigraphic relationship of the ‘Lloyds syncline’ sequence to rocks outside the ‘syncline’ have not been resolved. The sequence is variably interpreted as part of the Late Ordovician Rockley Volcanics or as part of the Silurian Mumbil Group.

In the northeast of EL 6463 is the western margin of the Carboniferous Burraga Granite that has intruded rocks of the Adaminaby Group and Triangle Formation. The Burraga Granite is described as a medium to coarse-grained leucocratic biotite granodiorite that comprises two phases; a massive medium-grained two mica I-type granodiorite and a mediumgrained garnet-muscovite granodiorite that has S-type affinities. The garnet-muscovite phase occurs in the northwest part of the pluton (within EL 6463) adjacent to the Lucky Draw gold deposit. Intruded Ordovician Adaminaby Group sediments have been contact metamorphosed to micaceous quartzite and pelitic quartz-mica schists containing quartz-albite-biotite + cordierite and quartz-biotite-muscovite-albite-andalusite-cordierite assemblages. Intruded Ordovician Triangle Formation sediments have been contact metamorphosed to quartz-feldspar-biotite schist and tremolite-chlorite schist (Rockley Volcanics?). The contact metamorphic aureole associated with the intrusion of the Burraga Granite is reported to be 75100 metres wide.

Minor Quaternary alluvium and gravels are located adjacent to streams in the central part of the tenement where these streams drain part of the Burraga Granite.

3.1.2. Structure

The tenement area has undergone a complex structural and metamorphic history.

Recent re-interpretation of airborne magnetic data suggests that the Godolphin Fault, (a significant control on the 2.3 Moz McPhillamys gold deposit) extends through EL6463 where it juxtaposes Silurian Campbells Formation (to the west) and Ordovician Triangle Formation (to the east; see Figure 3-1 Geological Map of EL6463 and surrounding tenements.).

3.1.3. Gold Mineralisation

The Lucky Draw gold deposit occurs in metasomatised sediments of the Ordovician Triangle Formation immediately below the contact with mafic volcanic rocks inferred to belong to the Rockley Volcanics and very close to the contact with the Carboniferous Burraga Granite. The skarn-like ore displays a gold – bismuth - tellurium association (an “intrusion-related gold” signature) but is generally sulphur-poor with a very low sulphide mineral content. Skarn-like mineral assemblages (including garnet and gedrite), alteration and mineralisation at Lucky Draw including are considered by Sheppard et al . (1995) to be the product of contact metamorphism and hydrothermal activity associated with the intrusion of the Burraga Granite.

3.2. Local Geology

3.2.1. Lucky Draw

The Lucky Draw deposit occurs within Triangle Group sediments, just below the contact with the overlying Rockley Volcanics.

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 4 of 66

The primary control on gold mineralisation is modelled as gently west dipping which is presumably bedding / foliation parallel.

It is not visually clear if there are ore shoots and, if so, what the plunge of such ore shoots is.

The controls on the high grade gold zones at Lucky Draw are also unclear. It may be that the high grade zones are structurally controlled, possibly by east striking, moderately south dipping structures although steep east – west structures and steep north south structures may also be important. Alternatively, structure may be unimportant and high grade zones are following some sort of chemical (carbonate rich zones?) or physical (grain size?) zones within a stratigraphically favourable unit.

The gold mineralisation is intruded by an un-mineralised granitoid stock and associated dykes / sills.

3.2.2. Hackneys Creek

The geology of gold mineralisation at Hackney’s Creek is very similar to that at Lucky Draw. The main difference is that the Hackney’s Creek mineralisation dips more steeply (40° - 70°) to the west.

3.3. Previous Mining and Exploration

Lucky Draw was discovered by Renison Goldfields Consolidated Ltd (RGC) in the mid-1980s and that company mined a total of 1.48 million tonnes grading 3.53 g/t gold between 1988 and 1991. The current resource at Lucky Draw is largely contained in the pod of un-mined mineralisation to the northwest of the pit. This material was not economic in the gold price and cost environment of the early 1990’s. The pit remains open and is reported to be in good condition.

RGC drilled 111 RC holes totalling 3,416.1 metres, 151 DD holes totalling 11,444.3 metres and 7 DD holes with RC precollars for 707.26 m at Lucky Draw.

RGC also drilled a large number of RAB holes and tool hand augur samples for a regional geochemistry survey as well as carrying out ground and aerial magnetic surveys and ground gravity surveys.

Mining grade control was by 1 m deep ditchwitch trenches 5 m apart in oxide material on 2.5 m flitches. Below about 25m below surface grade control was by blasthole sampling initially on a 4 m by 4 m grid and later on a 3 m by 3 m grid.

Similar mineralisation to Lucky Draw was also discovered by RGC in the late 1980’s at the Hackneys Creek prospect, located some 800 metres north of the Lucky Draw deposit. Hackney’s Creek was discovered by drilling a Au-Bi soil geochemistry anomaly. RGC drilled 127 RC totalling 4,101.85 metres, 35 DD holes totalling 5,833.62 metres, 16 DD holes with RC pre-collars for 2242.97m and also dug 59 surface trenches totalling 11,033.7m.

After RGC ceased mining Werrie Gold drilled 9 holes to test for down dip extensions to mineralisation at Hackney’s Creek.

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 5 of 66

4 Data

4.1. Data Provided

4.1.1. Databases

EYM provided the Lucky Draw and Hackney’s Creek drilling data as a series of excel spreadsheets which had originally been compiled by Brewer Geological Services in 2002 for Marlborough Resources NL from publicly available data held by the NSW Department of Resources and Energy (now Resources and Geoscience NSW; Brewer, 2002). These spreadsheets included collar information (coordinates, total depth, azimuth and hole dip), assays (holeID, from, to, Au and Bi), downhole surveys (holeID, depth, azimuth and dip) and summary geology (HoleID, from, to, lithology). No meta-data such as hole type, hole size, QAQC data, assay method, laboratory, sampling method etc was provided.

GML was able to establish some meta-data from reports and inference of HoleID.

4.1.2. Topography

No topographic data was provided.

The local topography at Lucky Draw and Hackney’s Creek areas is (at least prior to mining) subdued. Therefore, a premining topography surface was created by triangulating hole collar coordinates (excluding holes clearly drilled from within the Lucky Draw pit).

The topographic surfaces are considered acceptable for the resource category reported here (inferred) but would need to be upgraded for higher resource categories.

4.1.3. Lucky Draw Open Pit final survey

EYM provided a text file of points digitised from the pit closure survey plan.

GML triangulated these points to create a final pit surface wireframe used to constrain the Lucky Draw resource.

GML is not aware of any back-fill in the Lucky Draw pit.

4.2. Drilling and Trenching Programmes

4.2.1. RGC

The vast majority of the data used in these resource estimates was completed by RGC.

All downhole surveys were by Eastman single shot.

4.1.2.1 Diamond Drilling

All DD drilling was wireline drilling. All PQ and HQ drilling utilised triple tube core barrels.

The LXD Series holes were NQ DD holes with RC pre-collars. The pre-collars were drilled to the ‘water table’ and then the holes were converted to NQ DD drilling.

The LDD holes were a series vertical PQ/HQ DDs drilled 1987-89, mostly at Lucky Draw but also at Hackney’s Creek. A few LDD holes had short (< 20 m) RC pre-collars. Downhole surveys (unknown method) were taken every 50 m and at the end of hole.

4.1.2.2 Reverse Circulation Drilling

The LRC & LDR series were RC holes.

RC drilling used a 4.5 inch hammer, presumably with a cross-over as face sample hammers had not been invented at this time. There is no other information recorded about the RC drilling methods. Note that RC drilling was a relatively recent development in the late 1980s and many technologies common today were not in use including mast dump, rod carousels, face sample hammers, high capacity compressors, high pressure boosters and dust suppression / sampling.

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 6 of 66

4.1.2.3 Ditchwitch Trenching

The HAK series are surface ditchwitch trenches at Hackney’s Creek dug to about 1 m depth. The trench locations were surveyed by tape and compass from grid pegs. The trenches were logged and sampled at 2.5 intervals.

HAK041-059 were closely spaced ditchwitch trenches designed to test grade control methods and to inform the short range parts of the variogram.

4.2.2. Werrie Gold

Werrie Gold drilled 6 DD holes (HXD005-HXD010) and 3 RC holes (HRC011-HRC013)

				Number of
prospect	Company	method	prefix	holes		Total metres
		DD	LDD		151	11,444.30
Lucky Draw	RGC	RC	LDR, LRC		111	3,416.10
		RCDD	LXD		7	707.26
		DD	LDD		35	5,833.62
	RGC	RC	LRC		127	4,101.65
Hackney's Creek		trench RCDD	HAK LXD		59 16	11,033.70 2,242.97
	Werrie	RC	HRC		3	320.00
		RCDD	HXD		6	1,456.75
Grand Total					515	40,556.35

Table 2 Drilling data used in resource estimates by company and drilling method

4.3. Drilling Recovery

RC drilling recovery was not recorded.

RC sample moisture content was not recorded.

Diamond drilling recovered was reported to be logged, but no diamond drilling recovery data has been located for Lucky Draw to date. RGC (1988) state that core recovery was poor in the oxide zone within 30m of the surface. RGC (1988) reported 26 intervals of diamond drilling recovery less than 90%.

Four intervals of diamond drilling recovery at Hackney’s Creek of less than 90% was reported by Arundell (1989). It is assumed that all other diamond drilling at Hackney’s Creek was greater than 90%.

4.4. Sub-Sampling Methods

DD core was cut using a diamond core saw and half core sub-sampled. The procedure was to take DD core samples geological contacts to a maximum of 1.0 m.

The RC sub-sampling method was not recorded.

Table 4 shows that within the gold domains the samples are predominantly DD samples.

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 7 of 66

		Number of Au	Number of Bi
prospect	Hole type	Assays	Assays	prospect
Lucky Draw	DD	(blank)	6,555	5,704
		HQ	757	688
		HQNQ	117	61
		PQ	467	467
	RC	RC 4.5	1,205	570
	RCDD	RC 4.5	29	29
		(blank)	5	5
		HQ	11	6
	trench	ditchwitch	299	299
Hackney's Creek	DD	HQ3	1,482	1,482
		NQ	952	952
		PQ3	12	12
		RC 4.5	4	4
		(blank)	132	132
		HQ	157	157
	RC	RC 4.5	1,107	767
		RC 4.25	39	39
	RCDD	NQ	156	156
		RC 4.5	49	49
		(blank)	2,062	1,056
	trench	ditchwitch	1,116	598
Grand Total			16,713	13,233
Table 3 Samples by	drill type

	Hole	Number of	Number of Bi
prospect	type	Au Assays	Assays	prospect
Lucky Draw	DD	(blank)	1,338		1,196
		HQ	112		102
		HQNQ	44		44
		PQ	106		106
	RC	RC 4.5	140		80
Hackney's Creek	DD	HQ3	129		129
		NQ	182		182
		HQ	59		59
	RC	RC 4.5	88		60
	RCDD	NQ	12		12
		(blank)	254		139
	trench	ditchwitch	165		4
Grand Total			2,629		2,113

Table 4 Samples by drill type within gold domains.

4.5. Assay Methods

RGC (1988) reported that the assays were all carried out by Australian Assay Laboratories Ltd Orange (AAL, later Analabs, now SGS), however the available data sheets (not laboratory certificates) in various RGC annual EL returns to the NSW mines department show that while the majority of the assays were carried out by Analabs, with some Genalysis assays and a very small number of SGS results (see Table 5).

At Analabs / AAL / SGS the samples were dried on receipt, crushed, if necessary riffle split to – 4kg, hammer milled to 150um, riffle split a 500g sub-sample, milled to -100um. After sample preparation a 50g charge was fire assayed and Au determined by AAS (presumably after aqua regia digest). The lower detection limit for Au was 0.01 ppm.

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 8 of 66

The sample preparation and analytical methods used by Genalysis are not known, but likely very similar to Analabs given that Genalysis were used as an umpire laboratory.

A separate SGS laboratory carried out umpire laboratory check (pulp?) duplicates.

		Number of Au	Percent of all assays in
deposit	laboratory	assays	deposit
Lucky Draw	Analabs	1,659	17.6%
	Genalysis	3,459	36.6%
	SGS	73	0.8%
	(blank)	4,254	45.0%
Hackney's Creek	Analabs	723	9.9%
	Genalysis	674	9.3%
	(blank)	5,871	80.8%
Grand Total		16,713	100.0%

Table 5 Assay samples by laboratory.

		Number of Au	Percent of all assays in
deposit	laboratory	assays	deposit
Lucky Draw	Analabs	284	16.3%
	Genalysis	815	46.8%
	(blank)	641	36.8%
Hackney's Creek	Analabs	173	19.5%
	Genalysis	67	7.5%
	(blank)	649	73.0%
Grand Total		2,629	100.0%

Table 6 Assay samples within gold domains by laboratory.

4.6. Surface Survey methods

All RGC drill collars were surveyed to a precision of +/- 0.01 m by Geospectrum (Australia), but the method was not stated. Given the timing it is likely that either a theodolite or a total station instrument was used.

All RCG surveying was to the AGD66 datum.

Collar locations are considered to be accurate to +/- 0.1 m.

4.7. Assay QAQC

No QAQC data have been located for the Lucky Draw or Hackney’s Creek data. Therefore, no conclusions can be made about the quality of data used in these resource estimates.

RGC (1988) report that a standard was submitted every 10 samples. These results have not been located to date.

Arundell, (1989) reports umpire laboratory check samples for 235 pairs of coarse rejects for Hackney’s Creek. The Check laboratory was Analabs (Perth). The original samples (AAL) average 2.17 g/t Au and the check results 2.16 g/t Au. The data reported on by Arundell have not been located to date.

It is known that the Lucky Draw drilling data was used as the input data for the reserve estimate used to design the RGC open pit mined 1988-93 and that this reserve model reconciled adequately to grade control data. This shows that the drilling assays are not significantly biased and were of adequate precision for mine planning.

The resource categorisation reflects the lack of QAQC data.

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 9 of 66

4.8. Data Validation and Import into Minesight

Prior to use in Minesight software, all the data was compiled from the provided spreadsheets into collar, downhole survey, assay and logging spreadsheets. Checks were performed for minimum values, maximum values, out of range values (e.g. azimuth > 360°) and overlaps. Any such flagged data were checked against the original data (log sheets, downhole surveys, assay certificates) and fixed as appropriate.

Any values provided as -9999 or -99 (missing data) were converted to -1 (null) on import into the Minesight. Below detection limit data were imported as half the detection limit.

Minesight performs additional checks for out of range data, overlapping and missing intervals on import.

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 10 of 66

5 Domaining

5.1. Lucky Draw Gold Grade Domain

The geological controls on gold mineralisation at the Lucky Draw not well understood. It is known that gold mineralisation is restricted to quartz absent Mg-Fe-Al rich schists and is associated with a chlorite-geedrite-garnet-biotitie-staurolitehercynite assemblage. The controls on the orientation and intensity gold mineralisation are poorly understood.

In view of this very limited understanding of the controls on gold mineralisation it was decided to interpret gold grade domains from gold grade data only. The lack of geological understanding of the gold mineralisation increases the risk that the gold grade domains are poorly / incorrectly interpreted. This risk is reflected in the resource classification (see section 8).

The Luck Draw gold grade domain was modelled at a nominal 0.2 g/t to a minimum width of 2 m and a maximum internal dilution of 2 m. 0.2 g/t was selected as the nominal interpretation grade purely on economic grounds because visual inspection of the drilling data and cumulative probability plots show no natural lower cutoff to gold mineralisation. 0.2 g/t is approximately 50% of a likely open mining cut off grade (~0.5 g/t Au) and so the domain interpretation should be robust at such a mining cutoff grade.

There is only one Au grade domain. Higher grade mineralisation (above 0.5 g/t to 2.0 g/t) is continuous and could be interpreted as a high grade domain. There is no statistical evidence of mixed populations. With additional data and / or improved geological understanding it may be that more than one gold grade domain may be interpreted.

The gold grade domain was not interpreted in the granitoid stock.

The gold grade domain was interpreted as polygon strings on drill sections. The strings were snapped to assay intervals so that later coding of the assay data would honour the interpreted domain boundary.

The strings were later linked to form the domain wireframe. Not all strings were linked as an assessment in 3D showed that the continuity observed in section did not extend between sections.

5.2. Hackney’s Creek Gold Grade Domain

The Hackney’s Creek gold domain interpolation largely followed the methods used for Lucky Draw.

The Hackney’s Creek gold mineralisation is generally lower grade than at Lucky Draw.

The primary control on gold mineralisation is modelled as moderately (~50°) west dipping which is presumably bedding / foliation parallel. Secondary control is a series of inferred north striking, steeply east dipping faults with normal movement offsetting stratigraphy and mineralisation and also commonly bounding mineralisation.

5.3. Oxidation Domains

No oxidation domains were interpreted at Lucky Draw or Hackney’s Creek because no weathering or oxidation logging was available.

5.4. Assay coding

The raw assays were coded for DOM (gold grade domain) from the domain wireframes,

The coding of the assays was validated using the filtering function in the Minesight drillview to show all samples meeting the domain criteria (i.e. > 0.20 g/t Au) and not coded as in the gold grade domain wireframe. The visible samples were investigated to ensure that they had been deliberately excluded from the wireframe (usually because they did not show sufficient geological continuity for inclusion in a resource). Similarly, all samples not meeting the domain criteria and coded as inside the domain wireframe were viewed and checked.

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 11 of 66

6 Statistics

The statistical analysis and variography were completed using the Minesight Data Analyst (MSDA) module of the Minesight software package.

6.1. Lucky Draw Gold Domain

6.1.1. Compositing

==> picture [432 x 230] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 6-1. Raw sample length where DOM=1 and Au not null.

A composite length of 2.5 m was selected as this requires the splitting of few raw samples (127 or 7.2% of the 1760 raw samples; see Figure 6-1).

6.1.2. Univariate statistics

Univariate statistics of the 2.5 m composite data show a high coefficient of variation (CV).

			Bi (ppm)
	Au (g/t)	Au cut 25 /t
		(g)
Count	818	822	689
Minimum	0	0	0
Maximum	46.51	25.00	7,000.0
Mean	3.40	3.22	285.3
1st Quartile	0.58	0.59	41.4
Median	1.40	1.41	101.6
3rd Quartile	3.68	3.66	259.6
Std. Devn.	5.66	4.70	686.1
Variance	32.04	22.06	470,748.9
Co. of Variation	1.66	1.46	2.40

Table 7. Summary univariate statistics for Au and Bi composites within the Lucky Draw gold domain.

6.1.3. Extreme Values

Cumulative probability plots of the composite data within the Lucky Draw gold domain show a slope change above about 25 g/t Au, suggestive of a separate high grade population (see Figure 6-2).

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 12 of 66

A histogram of the gold composites within the Lucky Draw gold domain is continuous to about 21 g/t Au.

Visual examination of the gold grades showed that the very high (> 25 g/t Au) zones do not form continuous zones and so may not be estimated separately.

==> picture [432 x 245] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 6-2. Au Composite Cumulative Probability Plot (not length weighted), of all Au composite data within the Lucky Draw gold grade domain.

==> picture [432 x 228] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 6-3. Histogram of all Au composite data within the Lucky Draw gold grade domain.

6.1.4. Variography

All the experimental variograms were correlograms of the composited data with no top cut. The lag tolerance was always set to half the lag.

Initially a downhole variogram was generated using 2.5 m lags and used to determine the nugget from a single sill spherical model largely honouring the first two lags.

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 13 of 66

Next a fan of experimental variograms at 10° increments was created in the plane of the mineralised vein. The variogram with the maximum continuity in this plane was designated the major axis. A second fan of experimental variograms was then created in the plane normal to the major axis and the minor axis designated as the direction of least continuity with the semi-major axis being the direction normal to both the major and minor axes.

The lag distance and angular tolerance (maximum 22.5°) were then varied for each axis in order to get the best structured experimental variogram for each axis.

MSDA was then used to simultaneously view the experimental variograms in the major, semi-major and minor axes. The nugget as determined from the downhole variogram was fixed and spherical variogram models manually fitted. It was found that only a single sill was necessary to model the experimental variograms.

The experimental variograms (Figure 6-4 to Figure 6-7 ) show shoots plunging gently towards the southwest (240°), but fairly isotropic within the plane of mineralisation (240/20W).

==> picture [432 x 269] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 6-4. Downhole variogram (2.5 m absolute tolerance).

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 14 of 66

==> picture [432 x 268] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 6-5 Major axis experimental variogram and model

==> picture [432 x 269] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 6-6. Semi-major axis experimental variogram and model

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 15 of 66

==> picture [432 x 268] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 6-7. Minor axis experimental variogram and model

Mineralisation Domain	DOM	1
Nugget	C0	0.3
Variance	%C0	30%
Sill 1 (Spherical)	C1	0.3
	Maj	30
Range (m)	Semi	20
	Min	6.5
Sill 2 (Spherical)	C1	0.4
	Maj	50
Range (m)	Semi	25
	Min	40
	Z	240
Rotation	X	0
	Y	-20

Table 8. Lucky Draw Gold Domain variogram model.

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 16 of 66

6.1. Hackney’s Creek Gold Domain

6.1.1. Compositing

==> picture [432 x 230] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 6-8. Raw sample length where DOM=1 and Au not null.

A composite length of 2.5 m was selected as this requires the splitting of few raw samples (6 or 0.7% of the 894 raw samples; see Figure 6-8).

6.1.2. Univariate statistics

Univariate statistics of the 2.5 m composite data show a high coefficient of variation (CV).

	Au (g/t)	Bi (ppm)
Count	439	265
Minimum	0.005	0.5
Maximum	50.79	7,524.0
Mean	1.62	196.2
1st Quartile	0.42	41.4
Median	0.86	86.5
3rd Quartile	1.75	184.3
Std. Devn.	3.03	545.8
Variance	9.16	297,929.6
Co. of Variation	1.87	2.78

Table 9. Summary univariate statistics for Au and Bi composites within the Hackney’s Creek gold domain.

6.1.3. Extreme Values

Cumulative probability plots of the composite data within the Hackney’s Creek gold domain show a straight line indicative of a single log normally distributed population with no extreme values (see Figure 6-2).

Similarly, the histogram of the gold composites within the Hackney’s Creek gold domain is continuous to about 10 g/t Au.

In view of these observations no topcut was applied to the gold composites prior to geostatistical analysis or grade interpolation.

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 17 of 66

==> picture [432 x 242] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 6-9. Au Composite Cumulative Probability Plot (not length weighted), of all Au composite data within the Hackney’s Creek gold grade domain.

==> picture [432 x 229] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 6-10. Histogram of all Au composite data within the Hackney’s Creek gold grade domain.

6.1.4. Variography

All the experimental variograms were correlograms of the composited data with no top cut. The lag tolerance was always set to half the lag.

Initially a downhole variogram was generated using 2.5 m lags and used to determine the nugget from a single sill spherical model largely honouring the first two lags.

The lag distance and angular tolerance (maximum 22.5°) were then varied for each axis in order to get the best structured experimental variogram for each axis.

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 18 of 66

The experimental variograms (Figure 6-4 to Figure 6-7 ) show that most of the variance occurs within the first 10 m.

The minor axis variogram was very poorly structures, so the downhole variogram model was used as a proxy for the minor axis.

==> picture [432 x 270] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 6-11. Downhole variogram (2.5 m absolute tolerance).

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 19 of 66

==> picture [432 x 268] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 6-12 Major axis experimental variogram and model

==> picture [432 x 266] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 6-13. Semi-major axis experimental variogram and model

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 20 of 66

==> picture [432 x 267] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 6-14. Minor axis experimental variogram and model

==> picture [244 x 191] intentionally omitted <==

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

Mineralisation
DOM 1
Domain
C0 0.5
Nugget Variance
%C0 45%
Sill 1 (Spherical) C1 0.3
Maj 10
Range (m) Semi 10
Min 5
Sill 2 (Spherical) C1 0.3
Maj 140
Range (m) Semi 50
Min 36
Z 180
Rotation X 0
Y -50
----- End of picture text -----

Table 10. Hackney’s Creek Gold Domain variogram model.

6.2. Density

No density data was available for Lucky Draw.

At Hackney’s Creek density data of 260 samples from 24 Diamond holes have been reported in aggregate by Arundell (1989; see Table 11). The density values were determined by core immersion, but the exact equipment used, the laboratory used and whether the core was wax coated were not recorded.

	Average (t/m3)	Median (t/m3)	Maximum (t/m3)	Minimum (t/m3)	number of samples
Upper pod (ox / pri)	2.50	2.51	2.72	2.04	34
Upper pod (pri)	2.72	2.69	2.90	2.63	27
Lower pod (Pri)	2.87	2.83	4.05	2.08	199

Table 11 Summary of Hackney's Creek density data

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 21 of 66

In both the Lucky Draw and Hackney’s Creek models a density of 2.6 t/m[3] has been assumed, based on a typical mineralisation lithology (quartz and schist) and the vague memories of Russell Hooper, the processing manager for RGC.

It is likely that the bulk density varies significantly with weathering and also to a lesser degree varies with lithology and depth.

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 22 of 66

7 Block Model

7.1. Lucky Draw Model

The Minesight filename for the Lucky Draw block model is LD15.dat.

7.1.1. Extents and items

The Lucky Draw block model was constructed using the block sizes, extents and items described in Table 12and

item			precision	description
TOPO	0	100	0.1	% of block below topo
ORIG%	0	100	0.1	% of block below pre-mining topo
DOM	0	9	1	Au domain code
ORE%	0	100	0.1	% of block in Au domain
CODE1	0	99	1
MATL	0	9	1	oxidation domain code
BULKD	0	9	0.01	bulk density (t/m3)
AUKR1	0	99	0.01	Au grade (g/t) OK variant 1
AUKR2	0	99	0.01	Au grade (g/t) OK variant 2
AUKR3	0	99	0.01	Au grade (g/t) OK variant 3
AUID	0	99	0.01	Au grade (g/t) IDW2 variant
AUNN	0	99	0.01	Au grade (g/t) nearest neighbour variant
BIKR	0	9999	1
BIID	0	9999	1
RSCAT	0	9	1	resource category; 1= measured, 2=indicated, 3=inferred; 4= not resource
KREG	0	9	0.001	kriging slope of regression
KVAR	0	99	0.01	kriging variance
DIST	0	999	0.1	distance to nearest composite (AUKR1)
#CMP	0	99	1	number of composites used (AUKR1)
#DH	0	99	1	number of drillholes used (AUKR1)
Table 13.

	min	max	block size (m)	# blocks
X	737,550	737,950	10	40
Y	6,243,700	6,244,300	10	60
RL	900	1,050	2.5	60

Table 12. The Lucky Draw block model extents.

The block dimensions were not determined quantitatively but were selected with consideration of the closest spaced drilling (12.5 m by 12.5 m) and likely open pit mining SMU.

The block model uses ore percentages (proportions) for volume determinations.

item		precision	description
TOPO	100	0.1	% of block below topo
ORIG%	100	0.1	% of block below pre-mining topo
DOM	9	1	Au domain code
ORE%	100	0.1	% of block in Au domain
CODE1	99	1
MATL	9	1	oxidation domain code
BULKD	9	0.01	bulk density (t/m3)
AUKR1	99	0.01	Au grade (g/t) OK variant 1
AUKR2	99	0.01	Au grade (g/t) OK variant 2

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 23 of 66

AUKR3 0 99 0.01 Au grade (g/t) OK variant 3 AUID 0 99 0.01 Au grade (g/t) IDW2 variant AUNN 0 99 0.01 Au grade (g/t) nearest neighbour variant BIKR 0 9999 1 BIID 0 9999 1 RSCAT 0 9 1 resource category; 1= measured, 2=indicated, 3=inferred; 4= not resource KREG 0 9 0.001 kriging slope of regression KVAR 0 99 0.01 kriging variance DIST 0 999 0.1 distance to nearest composite (AUKR1) #CMP 0 99 1 number of composites used (AUKR1) #DH 0 99 1 number of drillholes used (AUKR1) Table 13. Lucky Draw block model items.

7.1.2. Interpolation Methods

Gold was interpolated using ordinary kriging (OK) into the block model item AUKR1 using composite data with a top cut of 25 g/t Au applied.

The minimum, maximum samples and block discretisation were determined by assessing the kriging variance in sparsely and closely drilled areas.

Search ellipsoid at variogram range (50 m x 25 m x 40 m)
Minimum 5 composites
Maximum 15 composites (limits negative kriging weights)
Maximum of 5 composites per hole
Gold grade domain as hard boundary
• Block discretisation of 3x3x2 (XYZ)

No additional de-clustering methods such as quadrant restriction or limiting the number of composites per hole was employed because the data is not particularly clustered.

The block model items AUKR2, AUID and AUNN were interpolated as check models using the same parameters as AUKR1 except that AUKR2 used un-cut data, AUID used inverse distance squared weighting and AUNN nearest neighbour interpolation.

7.1.3. Density

Dry Bulk Density (DBD) of 2.6 t/m3 was assigned to all blocks in the block model below the topographic surface.

7.2. Hackney’s Creek Model

The Minesight filename for the Hackney’s Creek block model is HC15.dat.

7.2.1. Extents and items

The Hackney’s Creek block model was constructed using the block sizes, extents and items described in Table 12and

item		precision	description
TOPO	100	0.1	% of block below topo
ORIG%	100	0.1	% of block below pre-mining topo
DOM	9	1	Au domain code
ORE%	100	0.1	% of block in Au domain
CODE1	99	1
MATL	9	1	oxidation domain code
BULKD	9	0.01	bulk density (t/m3)
AUKR1	99	0.01	Au grade (g/t) OK variant 1
AUKR2	99	0.01	Au grade (g/t) OK variant 2
AUKR3	99	0.01	Au grade (g/t) OK variant 3

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 24 of 66

AUID 0 99 0.01 Au grade (g/t) IDW2 variant AUNN 0 99 0.01 Au grade (g/t) nearest neighbour variant BIKR 0 9999 1 BIID 0 9999 1 RSCAT 0 9 1 resource category; 1= measured, 2=indicated, 3=inferred; 4= not resource KREG 0 9 0.001 kriging slope of regression KVAR 0 99 0.01 kriging variance DIST 0 999 0.1 distance to nearest composite (AUKR1) #CMP 0 99 1 number of composites used (AUKR1) #DH 0 99 1 number of drillholes used (AUKR1) Table 13.

	min	max	block size (m)	# blocks
X	737,400	737,800	20	20
Y	6,244,700	6,245,100	20	20
RL	700	1,050	5	70

Table 14. The Hackney’s Creek block model extents.

The block dimensions were not determined quantitatively but were selected with consideration of the closest drilling (25 m by 25 m) and likely open pit mining SMU.

The block model uses ore percentages (proportions) for volume determinations.

item		precision	description
TOPO	100	0.1	% of block below topo
ORIG%	100	0.1	% of block below pre-mining topo
DOM	9	1	Au domain code
ORE%	100	0.1	% of block in Au domain
CODE1	99	1
MATL	9	1	oxidation domain code
BULKD	9	0.01	bulk density (t/m3)
AUKR1	99	0.01	Au grade (g/t) OK variant 1
AUKR2	99	0.01	Au grade (g/t) OK variant 2
AUKR3	99	0.01	Au grade (g/t) OK variant 3
AUID	99	0.01	Au grade (g/t) IDW2 variant
AUNN	99	0.01	Au grade (g/t) nearest neighbour variant
BIKR	9999	1
BIID	9999	1
RSCAT	9	1	resource category; 1= measured, 2=indicated, 3=inferred; 4= not resource
KREG	9	0.001	kriging slope of regression
KVAR	99	0.01	kriging variance
DIST	999	0.1	distance to nearest composite (AUKR1)
#CMP	99	1	number of composites used (AUKR1)
#DH	99	1	number of drillholes used (AUKR1)

Table 15. Hackney’s Creek block model items.

7.2.2. Interpolation Methods

Gold was interpolated using ordinary kriging (OK) into the block model item AUKR1 using composite data.

The minimum, maximum samples and block discretisation were determined by assessing the kriging variance in sparsely and closely drilled areas.

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 25 of 66

Search ellipsoid at twice the variogram model range (140 m x 50 m x 36 m)
Minimum 5 composites
Maximum 25 composites (limits negative kriging weights)
Maximum of 5 composites per hole
Gold grade domain as hard boundary
• Block discretisation of 5x5x3 (XYZ)

No additional de-clustering methods such as quadrant restriction or limiting the number of composites per hole was employed because the data is not particularly clustered.

The block model items AUID and AUNN were interpolated as check models using the same parameters as AUKR1 except that AUID used inverse distance squared weighting and AUNN nearest neighbour interpolation.

7.2.3. Density

Dry Bulk Density (DBD) of 2.6 t/m3 was assigned to all blocks in the block model below the topographic surface.

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 26 of 66

8 Resource Classification

8.1. Method

Both the Lucky Draw and Hackney’s Creek gold resource estimates are classified as inferred in accordance with the JORC 2012 code.

While the (drilling) data density would commonly allow higher resource categories at Lucky Draw, the lack of geological understanding, QAQC data to demonstrate the sampling and assay quality and density data preclude the possibility of higher confidence resource categories.

8.2. Economic Justification

Open pit mining is assumed based on the width and near surface location of the mineralisation. Current gold prices would likely result in a significantly deeper optimal pit than the pit design mined by RGC during the early 1990’s.

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 27 of 66

9 Results

Gold Mineral Resources (above 0.5 g/t Au cutoff)	Gold Mineral Resources (above 0.5 g/t Au cutoff)	Gold Mineral Resources (above 0.5 g/t Au cutoff)
		tonnes Au (g/t) Au Metal (koz)
Hackney's Creek	Measured Indicated Inferred	2,210,000 1.4 102.3
	Total	2,210,000 1.4 102.3

Lucky Draw	Measured Indicated Inferred	470,000 2.1 31.7
	Total	470,000 2.1 31.7

Gold Total	Measured Indicated Inferred	2,680,000 1.6 134.0
	Total	2,680,000 1.6 134.0

Table 16. Lucky Draw and Hackney’s Creek Mineral Resources by model and resource category.

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 28 of 66

10 Validation

10.1. Comparison to Historical Production records

The Lucky Draw model was compared to historical production from the open pit reported by RGC (RGC, 1992). and the RGC pre-mining reserve estimate (Arundell, 1989). RGC did not report the cutoff grade used for mining and so a cutoff grade of 0.5 g/t Au has been assumed). The resource estimate was reported from between a pre-mining topographic surface and the final pit survey surface. The pre-mining topographic surface was created by triangulating the collars of drillholes drilled prior to mining.

The current resource estimate compares favourably to the RGC grade control

	Cut off
	(g/t Au)	ore tonnes	Au	ounces
Actual Mined (from mill data)		1,410,000	4.2	190,394
Pre-mining RGC Reserve		1,410,000	3.7	167,728
this resource estimate	0.5	1,490,000	3.6	171,681
	this resource estimate as a percentage of:
Actual Mined (from mill data)		106%	85%	90%
Pre-mining RGC Reserve		106%	97%	102%
Table 17 Comparison of Lucky draw resource estimate to RGC grade control within RGC pit

10.2. Variants

The variants in Table 18 were estimated in order to assess the criteria used to estimate block Au grades.

Model	Variant	Description
Lucky Draw	AUKR1	Base case reported
	AUKR2	As base case but no top cut
	AUID	Inverse distance squared weighted interpolation within the same search neighbourhood as base case
	AUNN	Nearest neighbour interpolation within the same search neighbourhood as base case
Hackney’s Creek	AUKR1	Base case reported
	AUID	Inverse distance squared weighted interpolation within the same search neighbourhood as base case
	AUNN	Nearest neighbour interpolation within the same search neighbourhood as base case

Table 18 Golf grade interpolation variants used

10.2.1. Variant Grade Tonnage Curves

Grade tonnage curves of the variants were plotted to assess the degree of smoothing in the model introduced by the various interpolation variants.

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 29 of 66

==> picture [432 x 284] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 10-1. Grade-tonnage curves for Lucky Draw interpolant variants.

==> picture [432 x 283] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 10-2. Grade-tonnage curves for Hackney’s Creek interpolant variants.

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 30 of 66

11 Recommendations

11.1. To reduce resource estimation risk:

11.1.1. Lucky Draw

➢ Twin about 10 holes with oriented diamond holes to validate the existing data and to help understand the geological controls on mineralisation
➢ Acquire high quality topographic survey (Lidar?) over the project area
➢ Separate sub-domains (definitely needed)
➢ Use oriented drill core and surface geological mapping to develop a robust geological model of the controls on mineralisation
➢ Develop an assay and sampling QAQC system that results in demonstrably reliable assays suitable for resource estimation
➢ Assay a multi-element suite for an infill drilling to better determine and geochemical associations, for metallurgical characterisation of potential ore and for waste characterisation
➢ Acquire sufficient bulk density data to allow modelling of bulk density
➢ Use logged geology to improve gold domains
➢ Find & use oxidation logging

11.1.2. Hackney’s Creek

➢ Twin about 6 holes with diamond holes to validate the existing data
➢ Acquire high quality topographic survey (Lidar?) over the project area
➢ Separate sub-domains (definitely needed)
➢ Infill drill to 20m by 20 m with at least 25% of this drilling oriented diamond core
➢ Use oriented drill core and surface geological mapping to develop a robust geological model of the controls on mineralisation
➢ Develop an assay and sampling QAQC system that results in demonstrably reliable assays suitable for resource estimation
➢ Assay a multi-element suite for an infill drilling to better determine and geochemical associations, for metallurgical characterisation of potential ore and for waste characterisation
➢ Acquire sufficient bulk density data to allow modelling of bulk density
➢ Use logged geology to improve gold domains
➢ Find & use oxidation logging

11.2. To increase the resource:

Geophysics – IP, ground mag,
Drilling along strike, especially between Lucky Draw and Hackney’s Creek
Use geological model of controls on mineralisation as a template for targeting brownfields exploration

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 31 of 66

12 References

*12 References*
Arundell, A.M. (1989):	Estimate of Indicated and Inferred Resources, Hackney’s Creek Gold deposit, Burraga,
	EL2337, NSW.
Brewer, A. (2002):	A Review of the Exploration Potential of the Hackney’s Creek Gold Prospect, Bathurst
	District, Central NSW.Unpublished report to Marlborough Resources NL.
RGC (1988):	Preliminary Estimate of Indicated and Inferred resources, Burraga Gold Deposits,
	EL2337, NSW..
RGC (1992):	Lucky Draw Mine Mining Lease 1212 Final Progress report Geology.

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 32 of 66

13 Appendix One: JORC Table 1.

13.1. Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data

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

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Sampling	• Nature and quality of sampling (eg cut channels, random chips, or	•Hackney’s Creek resource estimate is based on diamond (DD) and
techniques	specific specialised industry standard measurement tools appropriate	RC drilling and surface trench channel samples.
	to the minerals under investigation, such as down hole gamma	•The Lucky Draw resource estimate is based on DD and RC drilling
	sondes, or handheld XRF instruments, etc). These examples should	•The exploration drilling is DD and RC drilling
	not be taken as limiting the broad meaning of sampling.	•All DD drilling was sampled to either 1.0m to geological contacts as
	• Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample representivity	appropriate. The drill core was cut using a diamond core saw and half
	and the appropriate calibration of any measurement tools or systems	of the core submitted to the laboratory for analysis.
	used.	•No description of the RC drilling methods has been located.
	• Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are Material to the Public Report.	•No description of the channel sampling used in the Hackney’s Creek resource has been located.
	• In cases where ‘industry standard’ work has been done this would be	•No description of the sub-sampling methods has been located.
	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 fire assay’). In other cases more explanation may be required,
	such as where there is coarse gold that has inherent sampling
	problems. Unusual commodities or mineralisation types (eg
	submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed information.
Drilling techniques	• Drill type (eg core, reverse circulation, open-hole hammer, rotary air	•The only information on the drilling method is the distinction between
	blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc) and details (eg core diameter, triple	diamond drilling and RC drilling.
	or standard tube, depth of diamond tails, face-sampling bit or other	•DD was both PQ and HQ sized, but the depths at which the hole size
	type, whether core is oriented and if so, by what method, etc).	changed were not recorded. These hole sizes suggest a standard
		tube configuration of the core barrel.
Drill sample	• Method of recording and assessing core and chip sample recoveries	•DD core recovery data has not been located.
recovery	and results assessed.	•RC drilling recovery was not recorded.
	• Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and ensure	•No relationship between grade and core recovery can be determined
	representative nature of the samples.	due to the lack of drilling recovery data
	• Whether a relationship exists between sample recovery and grade

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 1 of 66

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	and whether sample bias may have occurred due to preferential
	loss/gainof fine/coarse material.
Logging	• Whether core and chip samples have been geologically and	•Both core and percussion holes were geologically logged in their
	geotechnically logged to a level of detail to support appropriate	entirety. Features logged include lithology, weathering, alteration,
	Mineral Resource estimation, mining studies and metallurgical	veining and structure. The logging is sufficient to allow geological
	studies.	interpretation to a level sufficient to support resource estimation.
	• Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in nature. Core (or	•Core photos have not been found
	costean, channel, etc) photography.	•The logging is qualitative (descriptive).
	• _The total length and percentage of the relevant intersections logged. _
Sub-sampling	• If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, half or all core	•All DD core was cut using a diamond saw with one half bagged and
techniques and	taken.	dispatched to the laboratory.
sample	• If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc and	•No description of the RC drilling methods has been located.
preparation	whether sampled wet or dry.	•No description of the channel sampling used in the Hackney’s Creek
	• For all sample types, the nature, quality and appropriateness of the	resource has been located.
	sample preparation technique.	•The quality control measures (if any) taken to ensure representivity of
	• Quality control procedures adopted for all sub-sampling stages to	the samples were not recorded.
	maximise representivity of samples.	•The sample size was not recorded
	• Measures taken to ensure that the sampling is representative of the in
	situ material collected, including for instance results for field
	duplicate/second-half sampling.
	• Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grain size of the material
	_being sampled. _
Quality of assay	• The nature, quality and appropriateness of the assaying and	•To date, no QAQC data have been found for this data
data and	laboratory procedures used and whether the technique is considered	•The lack of data verification was one factor leading to the reporting of
laboratory tests	partial or total.	inferred resources only
	• 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. _

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 2 of 66

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Verification of	• The verification of significant intersections by either independent or	•The data have not been verified.
sampling and	alternative company personnel.	•The Lucky Draw data was verified to a degree by mining during the
assaying	• The use of twinned holes.	1990s.
	• Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data	•The lack of data verification was one factor leading to the reporting of
	verification, data storage (physical and electronic) protocols.	inferred resources only
	• _Discuss any adjustment to assay data. _
Location of data	• Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drill holes (collar and	•The collar locations were surveyed by total station instrument to
points	down-hole surveys), trenches, mine workings and other locations	0.01m precision.
	used in Mineral Resource estimation.	•The accuracy of the collar locations is +/- 0.1m
	• Specification of the grid system used.	•The collars were surveyed using the AMG66 grid.
	• Quality and adequacy of topographic control.
Data spacing and	• Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results.	•The Hackney’s Creek drilling ranges from 25m (N) by 25m (E) in the
distribution	• Whether the data spacing and distribution is sufficient to establish the	upper 50m of the resource to 50 m by 50 m at depths greater than
	degree of geological and grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral	50m. There are also ‘ditchwitch’ traverses at 5m spacing (N) across
	Resource and Ore Reserve estimation procedure(s) and	the outcrop of the Hackney’s Creek mineralisation.
	classifications applied.	•The Lucky Draw drilling ranges from 12.5m (N) by 5 m (E) to 25m (N)
	• Whether sample compositing has been applied.	by 25m (E)
		•The exploration drilling is not systematically spaced
		•The data spacing is sufficient for resource estimation at Hackney’s
		Creek and Lucky Draw
		•Sample compositing was not used
Orientation of data	• Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased sampling of	•At Hackneys Creek the drilling is drilled towards 090 (east) and is
in relation to	possible structures and the extent to which this is known, considering	mostly inclined at 60 degrees. This drilling orientation adequately
geological	the deposit type.	defines the geometry of the approximately 50 degree west dipping
structure	• If the relationship between the drilling orientation and the orientation	mineralisation at Hackney’s creek. No bias is introduced by the
	of key mineralised structures is considered to have introduced a	drilling orientation.
	sampling bias, this should be assessed and reported if material.	•The drilling at Lucky Draw is largely vertical with a small number of
		inclined holes. The vertical holes adequately define the geometry of
		the shallowly dipping mineralisation at Lucky Draw. No bias is
		introduced by the drilling orientation.
		•The geometry of the mineralisation intersected by the exploration
		holesisnotknownand sono conclusioncanbe drawn regarding the

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 3 of 66

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		appropriateness of the orientation of these holes.
Sample security	• The measures taken to ensure sample security.	•The measures (if any) taken to ensure sample security were not
		recorded.
Audits or reviews	• The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data.	•The data has not been audited. This is because the projects are at an
		early stage of assessment and because it is possible that further data
		may be recovered from the archives resulting in a change to the
		assessment of the quality of the base data.

13.2. Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results

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

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Mineral tenement	• Type, reference name/number, location and ownership including	•The data reported on are located in EL6463, EL6874 and EL7975. All
and land tenure	agreements or material issues with third parties such as joint	tenements are 100% owned by EYM through it’s subsidiary BC
status	ventures, partnerships, overriding royalties, native title interests,	Exploration Pty Ltd.
	historical sites, wilderness or national park and environmental	•There are no known impediments to development of a mining
	settings.	operation on these leases other than the usual granting of a mining
	• The security of the tenure held at the time of reporting along with any	licence and the various permits required to operate.
	_known impediments to obtaining a licence to operate inthe area. _
Exploration done	• Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties.	•All data was reported on was acquired by RGC from 1985 to 1991
by other parties
Geology	• Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation.	•The gold mineralisation at all deposits appears to be similar. It occurs
		as Gold-Bi-Te-Mo mineralization in retrogressed chlorite-biotite-
		siderite schists of the Triangle Group. The mineralisation is spatially
		associated with granitoid intrusives. The style of mineralisation is
		enigmatic, having in the past been classed as skarn related but the
		lack of carbonate rocks makes this interpretation uncertain.
Drill hole	• A summary of all information material to the understanding of the	•See attached table
Information	exploration results including a tabulation of the following information
	_for all Material drill holes: _

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 4 of 66

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	`o` easting and northing of the drill hole collar
	`o` elevation or RL (Reduced Level – elevation above sea level in
	metres) of the drill hole collar
	`o` dip and azimuth of the hole
	`o` down hole length and interception depth
	`o` hole length.
	• If the exclusion of this information is justified on the basis that the
	information is not Material and this exclusion does not detract from
	the understanding of the report, the Competent Person should clearly
	_explain why this is the case. _
Data aggregation	• In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging techniques,	•Exploration results reported are length weighted averages of assay
methods	maximum and/or minimum grade truncations (eg cutting of high	results.
	grades) and cut-off grades are usually Material and should be stated.	•Only results that are considered to be economically significant due to
	• Where aggregate intercepts incorporate short lengths of high grade	their grade, width and or geological setting are reported. The grade
	results and longer lengths of low grade results, the procedure used	cutoff applied to intercepts varies, but is generally 0.2 g/t Au with up
	for such aggregation should be stated and some typical examples of	to 2.0 m of internal dilution.
	such aggregations should be shown in detail.	•No metal equivalents are reported.
	• The assumptions used for any reporting of metal equivalent values
	_should be clearly stated. _
Relationship	• These relationships are particularly important in the reporting of	•For the exploration results the mineralisation is generally hit at a high
between	Exploration Results.	angle, with true widths at least 70% of downhole widths
mineralisation	• If the geometry of the mineralisation with respect to the drill hole	•This is not relevant to the Hackney’s Creek and Lucky Draw resource
widths and	angle is known, its nature should be reported.	estimates
intercept lengths	• If it is not known and only the down hole lengths are reported, there
	should be a clear statement to this effect (eg ‘down hole length, true
	_width not known’). _
Diagrams	• Appropriate maps and sections (with scales) and tabulations of	•Included in announcement
	intercepts should be included for any significant discovery being
	reported These should include, but not be limited to a plan view of
	_drill hole collar locations and appropriate sectional views. _
Balanced	• Where comprehensive reporting of all Exploration Results is not	•For the exploration results only significant exploration results are
reporting	practicable, representative reporting of both low and high grades	reported. The intercepts reported include appropriate amounts of
	_and/or widths should be practiced to avoid misleading reporting of _	internaldilutionsuchthat the grades oftheintercepts should be

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 5 of 66

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	Exploration Results.	indicative of the grade of mineralisation intersected at that point.
Other substantive	• Other exploration data, if meaningful and material, should be reported	•Other exploration data has been collected from within the tenement
exploration data	including (but not limited to): geological observations; geophysical	areas. This work is summarised in the announcement and includes
	survey results; geochemical survey results; bulk samples – size and	airborne magnetic surveys, regional geochemical surveys and
	method of treatment; metallurgical test results; bulk density,	regional geological mapping.
	groundwater, geotechnical and rock characteristics; potential
	_deleterious or contaminating substances. _
Further work	• The nature and scale of planned further work (eg tests for lateral	•Further work is planned but has not been planned in detail.
	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. _

13.3. Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources

This section applies to the Hackney’s Creek and Lucky Draw mineral resource estimates only. (Criteria listed in section 1, and where relevant in section 2, also apply to this section.)

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Database integrity	• Measures taken to ensure that data has not been corrupted by, for	•A database of historical drilling and other exploration work carried out
	example, transcription or keying errors, between its initial collection	over the tenement areas has been compiled from archived NSW
	and its use for Mineral Resource estimation purposes.	Department of Industry data. This database has been manually
	• Data validation procedures used.	entered into an access database
		•The data was validated by checking for sample overlaps, gaps,
		extreme values and out of range values.
Site visits	• Comment on any site visits undertaken by the Competent Person and	•The competent person visited the site for 10 days during March 2015.
	the outcome of those visits.	This visit focussed on the Lloyds Copper project and assessment of
	• If no site visits have been undertaken indicate why this is the case.	general procedures including drilling, logging, sampling and core
		storage. The site practices were found to comply with EYM
		procedures.
Geological	• Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertainty of ) the geological	•Hackney’s Creek:
interpretation	interpretation of the mineral deposit.	`o` A gold grade domain was interpreted for the Hackney’s

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 6 of 66

JORC Code explanation	Commentary
• Nature of the data used and of any assumptions made.		Creek deposit at a nominal 0.2 g/t Au using a minimum
• The effect, if any, of alternative interpretations on Mineral Resource		width of 2.0 m and a maximum internal dilution of 2.0 m.
estimation.	`o`	The gold grade domain was not geologically constrained
• The use of geology in guiding and controlling Mineral Resource estimation.		as the controls on gold mineralisation at Hackney’s Creek are poorly understood. It is assumed that the gold
• The factors affecting continuity both of grade and geology.		mineralisation is due to a single event that created a continuous body of mineralisation.
	`o`	Alternative interpretations are not possible for the gross
		structure (ie moderately west dipping tabular body) but
		alternative small scale structures are possible. Any such
		minor alternative interpretations would not significantly
		affect the global grade or tonnage but would impact
		locally (ie <10 m scale).
	`o`	Large scale grade and geological continuity appears to
		be strataform and lithologically controlled. The controls
		on small scale variability, especially of high grade zones,
		are not known.
	•Lucky Draw
	`o`	A gold grade domain was interpreted for the Lucky Draw
		deposit at a nominal 0.2 g/t Au using a minimum width of
		2.0 m and a maximum internal dilution of 2.0 m.
	`o`	The gold grade domain was not strictly geologically
		constrained but the domain is sub-parallel to the
		interpreted granite contact.
	`o`	Alternative interpretations are not possible for the gross
		structure (ie gently west dipping tabular bodies) but
		alternative small scale structures are possible. Any such
		minor alternative interpretations would not significantly
		affect the global grade or tonnage but would impact
		locally (ie <10 m scale).
	`o`	Large scale grade and geological continuity appears to
		be strataform and lithologically controlled with
		mineralisation sub-parallel to the granite contact. The
		controls onsmallscalevariability, especially of high

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 7 of 66

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		grade zones, are not known.
Dimensions	• The extent and variability of the Mineral Resource expressed as	•The Hackney’s Creek mineralisation occurs as a series of moderately
	length (along strike or otherwise), plan width, and depth below	west dipping stacked lenses. The mineralisation has been defined by
	surface to the upper and lower limits of the Mineral Resource.	drilling over a strike length of 220m and 250m down dip. The thickest
		lens is up to 20 m thick and the entire package of stacked lenses
		about 100 m thick.
		•The Lucky Draw mineralisation occurs as stacked sub-parallel tabular
		bodies dipping gently to the west. The largest bodies extend about
		150 m (N) by 150 m by (E) and are up to 45m thick. The entire
		mineralised zone extends 400 m (N) by 180 m (E) and up to 75 m
		thick.
Estimation and	• The nature and appropriateness of the estimation technique(s)	•Hackney’s Creek
modelling	applied and key assumptions, including treatment of extreme grade	`o` Only gold grades were estimated
techniques	values, domaining, interpolation parameters and maximum distance	`o` The raw assay data was composited to 2.5m and coded
	of extrapolation from data points. If a computer assisted estimation	to a gold domain interpreted at a nominal 0.2 g/t Au.
	method was chosen include a description of computer software and	`o` The gold domain nominal interpretation grade was
	parameters used.	selected based on a likely open pit mining cutoff grade.
	• The availability of check estimates, previous estimates and/or mine	Log cumulative probability plots showed that the gold
	production records and whether the Mineral Resource estimate takes	grade distribution was continuous in the range of domain
	appropriate account of such data.	grades (0.1 – 0.5 g/t Au) and so was not useful for
	• The assumptions made regarding recovery of by-products.	selecting an interpretation grade.
	• Estimation of deleterious elements or other non-grade variables of economic significance (eg sulphur for acid mine drainage characterisation).	`o` Experimental variograms show little anisotropy within the plane of mineralisation. The nugget was 30% with 2 spherical structures to a total sill of 1.0. The total range
	• 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. _	on the major axis was 70m. `o` Gold grades were interpolated into a regularised block model with blocks 20m x 20m x 5m (XYZ; compared to the closest spaced data of 25m by 25m by 2.5m.) by ordinary kriging. A gold domain interpreted at a nominal 0.2 g/t was used as a hard boundary. Composites were selected for interpolation from within an ellipsoid with

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 8 of 66

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	• The process of validation, the checking process used, the comparison		axes of 140m x 50m x 36m rotated to the variogram
	of model data to drill hole data, and use of reconciliation data if		model directions. A minimum of 5 and a maximum of 25
	available.		composites were used, with a maximum of 13 per
			quadrant.
		•Lucky Draw
		`o`	Only gold grades were estimated
		`o`	The raw assay data was composited to 2.5m and coded
			to a gold domain interpreted at a nominal 0.2 g/t Au.
		`o`	The gold domain nominal interpretation grade was
			selected based on a likely open pit mining cutoff grade.
			Log cumulative probability plots showed that the gold
			grade distribution was continuous in the range of domain
			grades (0.1 – 0.5 g/t Au) and so was not useful for
			selecting an interpretation grade.
		`o`	Experimental variograms show little anisotropy within the
			plane of mineralisation. The nugget was 30% with 2
			spherical structures to a total sill of 1.0. The total range
			on the major axis was 50m.
		`o`	Gold grades were interpolated into a regularised block
			model with blocks 10m x 10m x 2.5m (XYZ compared to
			the closest spaced data of 12.5m by 5m by 2.5m) by
			ordinary kriging. A gold domain interpreted at a nominal
			0.2 g/t was used as a hard boundary. Composites were
			selected for interpolation from within an ellipsoid with
			axes of 50m x 25m x 40m rotated to the variogram
			model directions. A minimum of 5 and a maximum of 15
			composites were used, with a maximum of 8 per
			quadrant.
Moisture	• Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or with natural	•Tonnages are reported on a dry basis.
	_moisture, and the method of determination of the moisture content. _
Cut-off	• The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters	•The cutoff grade for reporting is based on the competent person’s
parameters	applied.	estimate of likely costs for open pit mining operations

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 9 of 66

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Mining factors or	• Assumptions made regarding possible mining methods, minimum	•Open pit mining is assumed.
assumptions	mining dimensions and internal (or, if applicable, external) mining	•It is assumed that a minimum mining width of 2.0 m can be achieved
	dilution. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining	on 2.5 m flitches with a maximum dilution skin of 0.5 m.
	reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider	•The economic base of mineralisation has not been defined by pit
	potential mining methods, but the assumptions made regarding	optimisation or similar methods. There is an implicit assumption that
	mining methods and parameters when estimating Mineral Resources	open pit mining may be possible to the base of the resource model.
	may not always be rigorous. Where this is the case, this should be	This is a reasonable assumption for the Lucky Draw deposit where
	reported with an explanation of the basis of the mining assumptions	the base of the resource estimate is only 100 m below surface and
	made.	the thickness of mineralisation would make open pit mining costs low.
		At Hackney’s Creek it is not clear where the economic depth limits of
		open pit mining may be. If the deeper parts of the Hackney’s Creek
		resource are not economic to mine by open pit then part of the
		resource (at a higher cutoff grade) would still be amenable to
		underground mining.
Metallurgical	• The basis for assumptions or predictions regarding metallurgical	•RGC conducted preliminary metallurgical testwork on Hackney’s
factors or	amenability. It is always necessary as part of the process of	Creek mineralisation which indicated that it has very similar
assumptions	determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to	metallurgical characteristics to the Lucky Draw ore mined during the
	consider potential metallurgical methods, but the assumptions	early 1990’s.
	regarding metallurgical treatment processes and parameters made	•Past production at Lucky Draw indicates that the ore is amenable to
	when reporting Mineral Resources may not always be rigorous.	be recovered in a conventional CIL gold plant. There is no evidence
	Where this is the case, this should be reported with an explanation of	(mineralogical or chemical) that the ore in the Lucky Draw resource
	the basis of the metallurgical assumptions made.	will be any different to that previously mined there.
Environmen-tal	• Assumptions made regarding possible waste and process residue	•No assumptions were made regarding environmental factors
factors or	disposal options. It is always necessary as part of the process of	•The potential waste material is low in both metal and sulphur content
assumptions	determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to	suggesting that little, if any, waste will be potentially acid forming.
	consider the potential environmental impacts of the mining and	•The area has subdued topography with many possible sites for waste
	processing operation. While at this stage the determination of	rock and tailings disposal sites.
	potential environmental impacts, particularly for a greenfields project, may not always be well advanced, the status of early consideration of	•No significant watercourses cross either deposit.
	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. _

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 10 of 66

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Bulk density	• Whether assumed or determined. If assumed, the basis for the	•Dry bulk densities were assigned due to a lack of test results. The
	assumptions. If determined, the method used, whether wet or dry, the	assigned bulk density was 2.6 t/m3 for all mineralisation and waste at
	frequency of the measurements, the nature, size and	both Hackney’s Creek and Lucky Draw. This density assume that the
	representativeness of the samples.	mineralisation is predominantly quartz with low porosity (~3%).
	• The bulk density for bulk material must have been measured by	•No allowance has been made for varying density between weathered
	methods that adequately account for void spaces (vugs, porosity,	(oxide) and fresh material. This assumption is likely wrong but
	etc), moisture and differences between rock and alteration zones	unlikely to have a material effect on the total tonnage.
	within the deposit.	•Uncertainty in bulk density is reflected in the resource classification.
	• Discuss assumptions for bulk density estimates used in the
	_evaluation process of the different materials. _
Classification	• The basis for the classification of the Mineral Resources into varying	•All resources are classified as inferred. Whilst the data density
	confidence categories.	relative to the geological and grade uncertainty could allow high
	• Whether appropriate account has been taken of all relevant factors (ie	levels of classification, a lack of information on assay quality, drilling
	relative confidence in tonnage/grade estimations, reliability of input	recovery and bulk density means that all resources were classified as
	data, confidence in continuity of geology and metal values, quality,	inferred.
	quantity and distribution of the data).	•The classification reflects the competent person’s view of the deposits
	• Whether the result appropriately reflects the Competent Person’s
	_view of the deposit. _
Audits or reviews	• The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral Resource estimates.	•There have been no reviews or audits of the mineral resource
		estimates. This is because the projects are at an early stage of
		assessment and because it is possible that further data may be
		recovered from the archives resulting in a change to the assessment
		of the quality of the base data.
Discussion of	• Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and	•The accuracy of these mineral resource estimates is low and that is
relative accuracy/	confidence level in the Mineral Resource estimate using an approach	reflected in the resource classification.
confidence	or procedure deemed appropriate by the Competent Person. For	•Geostatistical methods have not been used to assess the uncertainty
	example, the application of statistical or geostatistical procedures to	in the estimates because one of the major sources of uncertainty
	quantify the relative accuracy of the resource within stated confidence	(insufficient data about the quality of the data) is not explicit in
	limits, or, if such an approach is not deemed appropriate, a qualitative	geostatistical methods
	discussion of the factors that could affect the relative accuracy and	•Local estimate uncertainties are likely very high.
	confidence of the estimate.	•No production data is available for comparison
	• The statement should specify whether it relates to global or local
	estimates, and, if local, state the relevant tonnages, which should be

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 11 of 66

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	relevant to technical and economic evaluation. Documentation should
	include assumptions made and the procedures used.
	• These statements of relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate
	_should be compared with production data, where available. _

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 12 of 66

14 Appendix Two – Drillhole List

			AMG 66	AMG 66		Depth
prospect	Company	Hole_ID	North	East	RL	(m)	Azimuth	Dip
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK001	736750.00	6244502.00	975.00	200.66	90	0
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK002	737102.00	6244497.00	987.50	199.14	84.05	0
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK003	737170.00	6244400.00	987.50	154.65	0	0
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK004	737743.50	6244995.50	1025.40	216.00	248.21	-4.8
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK005	737742.50	6244935.00	1023.00	243.50	131.83	-4.85
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK006	737732.50	6244920.00	1016.00	140.00	270	2.87
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK007	737805.91	6245007.43	1030.24	58.00	253	-6
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK008	738208.00	6246908.00	1060.00	556.00	277	0
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK009	737739.38	6244999.42	1022.85	241.50	268	-7.3
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK010	737847.95	6244303.28	1025.42	248.50	267	0
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK011	737774.26	6245124.46	1022.50	290.00	246	-3.1
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK012	737768.91	6245052.30	1021.96	270.00	284	-6.65
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK013	737842.18	6244360.01	1021.67	244.00	260	0
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK014	737750.18	6244421.00	1016.01	458.00	280	-2.3
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK015	737753.92	6245343.72	1002.18	408.00	283	0
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK016	737749.36	6244468.19	1014.17	88.00	280	0
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK017	737849.30	6244241.80	1025.60	422.00	280.3	0
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK018	737743.07	6244949.64	1022.51	124.00	107	2.4
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK019	737899.97	6245001.00	1037.15	100.00	264	0.4
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK020	737950.09	6245050.39	1035.65	187.75	266	-2.6
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK021	737950.34	6245098.39	1029.95	177.50	257	-3.2
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK022	737951.41	6245150.86	1025.50	164.00	269	-1.4
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK023	737950.51	6245201.62	1030.93	152.00	268	-7
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK024	738159.43	6245258.18	1053.85	484.00	258	0
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK025	737674.32	6245351.68	992.18	237.00	164	0
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK026	738000.00	6245300.00	1036.50	176.50	269	0

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 1 of 66

			AMG 66	AMG 66		Depth
prospect	Company	Hole_ID	North	East	RL	(m)	Azimuth	Dip
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK027	737945.00	6245770.00	1048.75	591.00	255	0
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK028	737778.70	6245150.06	1020.80	214.00	267	-3.45
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK029	737580.00	6245950.00	1010.00	358.00	65	0
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK030	737584.00	6244200.00	1017.24	335.00	270	0
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK031	737564.00	6244100.00	1023.13	333.00	270	0
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK032	737476.00	6244000.00	1021.95	260.00	270	0
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK033	737435.00	6244255.00	1007.32	264.50	90	0
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK034	737768.00	6246078.00	1020.00	198.00	98	2.87
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK035	737656.00	6246222.00	1022.00	121.00	270	-4.74
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK036	737684.00	6246296.00	1026.00	246.00	68	4.23
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK037	737732.00	6246561.00	1026.00	141.00	296	4
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK038	737974.00	6247338.00	1060.00	176.00	90	-8
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK039	738034.00	6247710.00	1061.00	265.00	105	-5
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK040	737743.76	6245430.92	1000.00	289.00	296	0
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK041	737685.24	6244965.00	1020.15	40.50	270	-7.22
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK042	737685.25	6244960.00	1020.40	47.50	270	-7.97
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK043	737690.21	6244955.00	1020.78	51.50	270	-5.41
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK044	737700.31	6244950.00	1021.21	76.50	270	-4.4
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK045	737690.39	6244945.00	1020.80	56.50	270	-6.06
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK046	737690.37	6244940.00	1020.58	57.50	270	-4.86
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK047	737691.48	6244935.00	1020.30	57.00	270	-4.54
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK048	737691.76	6244930.00	1019.95	57.50	270	-3.76
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK049	737691.25	6244925.00	1019.47	58.00	270	-3.96
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK050	737690.92	6244920.00	1018.92	51.50	270	-4.21
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK051	737691.53	6244915.00	1018.47	58.00	270	-3.19
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK052	737691.71	6244910.00	1017.94	57.50	270	-3.22
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK053	737691.36	6244905.00	1017.45	56.50	270	-2.24

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 2 of 66

			AMG 66	AMG 66		Depth
prospect	Company	Hole_ID	North	East	RL	(m)	Azimuth	Dip
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK054	737690.97	6244900.00	1016.45	60.00	270	1.48
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK055	737691.57	6244895.00	1015.84	58.00	270	-2.14
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK056	737690.11	6244890.00	1015.32	50.00	270	0
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK057	737690.62	6244885.00	1014.70	40.00	270	0
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK058	737690.11	6244880.00	1013.59	35.00	270	0
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	HAK059	737691.43	6244875.00	1012.61	32.50	270	0
Hackney's
Creek	Werrie	HRC011	737502.00	6244773.70	1001.20	120.00	83	-65
Hackney's
Creek	Werrie	HRC012	737550.40	6244775.80	1001.00	100.00	83	-65
Hackney's
Creek	Werrie	HRC013	737601.50	6244746.30	1002.50	100.00	83	-65
Hackney's
Creek	Werrie	HXD005	737484.40	6244949.40	993.50	179.90	83	-60
Hackney's
Creek	Werrie	HXD006	737449.50	6244950.20	993.00	231.10	83	-75
Hackney's
Creek	Werrie	HXD007	737500.15	6244900.81	995.50	282.20	90	-75
Hackney's
Creek	Werrie	HXD008	737450.30	6244903.40	994.50	306.20	83	-85
Hackney's
Creek	Werrie	HXD009	737473.30	6244850.00	997.00	205.25	90	-75
Hackney's
Creek	Werrie	HXD010	737450.00	6244849.30	998.50	252.10	88	-85
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD100	6244164.58	737643.67	1021.91	21.00	89.0	-51.5
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD101	6244062.39	737611.74	1031.86	125.50	90.0	-54.5
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD102	6243912.91	737630.79	1030.90	98.10	96.0	-49.5
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD103	6244061.03	737660.51	1034.65	107.40	87.5	-52.5
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD104	6244167.44	737589.29	1020.11	119.20	99.8	-60.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD105	6243818.04	737574.02	1020.79	103.10	93.8	-50.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD106	6243913.67	737668.65	1032.34	89.00	90.5	-51.5
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD107	6243913.56	737707.49	1032.79	23.00	87.5	-50.5
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD108	6243912.43	737579.54	1028.51	110.00	91.5	-50.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD109	6244164.54	737692.04	1022.11	66.00	90.0	-50.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD110	6244062.38	737541.16	1024.72	126.20	94.0	-50.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD111	6244167.81	737729.62	1022.83	73.65	123.0	-50.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD112	6244162.12	737510.61	1014.32	123.20	90.5	-50.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD113	6244164.26	737640.92	1022.91	86.20	91.0	-50.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD114	6244078.18	737755.43	1031.41	84.00	127.0	-50.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD115	6243914.26	737745.01	1032.79	45.00	119.0	-49.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD116	6243813.31	737669.69	1022.79	49.50	117.0	-51.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD117	6243769.80	737957.25	1019.40	58.70	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD118	6244009.91	737663.54	1038.07	106.50	123.0	-49.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD119	6244100.09	737472.92	1015.86	133.00	116.0	-50.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD142	6243950.33	737749.92	1035.22	50.42	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD143	6243950.70	737700.05	1036.59	81.53	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD144	6243950.05	737649.80	1035.57	102.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD145	6243899.78	737649.47	1030.55	79.30	0.0	-90.0

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 3 of 66

			AMG 66	AMG 66		Depth
prospect	Company	Hole_ID	North	East	RL	(m)	Azimuth	Dip
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD146	6243899.60	737674.70	1030.33	66.83	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD147	6243900.18	737724.94	1031.04	36.50	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD148	6243875.34	737699.49	1027.89	42.90	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD149	6244049.94	737575.62	1029.68	106.77	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD150	6244100.35	737599.50	1026.14	99.25	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD151	6244125.17	737599.68	1023.90	90.64	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD152	6244025.16	737599.91	1033.64	109.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD153	6244024.27	737749.53	1035.26	65.45	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD154	6244024.77	737649.70	1037.58	100.23	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD155	6244024.00	737800.62	1033.03	51.07	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD156	6244049.35	737625.32	1034.02	103.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD157	6244050.20	737675.10	1035.56	88.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD158	6244025.20	737699.82	1036.49	81.91	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD159	6244049.89	737724.91	1034.47	74.51	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD160	6244100.17	737574.87	1024.07	111.80	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD161	6244000.00	737725.00	1036.72	80.23	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD162	6244099.97	737650.05	1029.24	89.72	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD163	6244099.98	737699.95	1028.36	75.45	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD164	6244075.09	737650.00	1032.37	89.50	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD165	6244074.88	737699.67	1032.34	73.13	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD166	6244050.00	737750.00	1032.45	62.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD167	6243999.92	737649.75	1037.94	99.30	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD168	6243974.70	737674.73	1037.99	96.45	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD169	6243950.00	737740.00	1035.22	55.30	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD170	6244125.10	737524.90	1019.80	106.50	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD171	6244099.95	737750.05	1030.48	62.87	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD172	6243925.00	737775.00	1034.80	28.00	0.0	-90.0
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LDD173	737748.70	6245000.11	1023.66	205.45	0.00	-90
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LDD174	737600.32	6244700.33	1004.90	201.77	0.00	-90
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LDD175	738000.60	6244600.14	1016.06	73.56	0.00	-90
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD176	6244302.18	737425.70	1006.25	137.11	0.0	-90.0
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LDD177	737502.63	6244998.67	994.19	201.13	0.00	-90
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LDD178	737700.12	6244800.50	1002.18	193.48	0.00	-90
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LDD179	737845.88	6244700.99	1011.66	145.47	0.00	-90
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD180	6243899.71	737699.80	1031.18	54.30	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD181	6243875.29	737675.08	1026.71	56.20	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD182	6243925.00	737675.00	1033.76	79.38	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD183	6243900.00	737750.00	1031.58	24.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD184	6243925.00	737700.10	1033.85	70.40	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD185	6243874.87	737725.04	1029.65	30.18	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD186	6243950.25	737675.10	1036.44	91.30	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD187	6243900.00	737775.00	1031.19	15.40	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD188	6243925.00	737725.00	1033.95	55.81	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD189	6243974.90	737725.17	1037.05	74.25	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD190	6243949.82	737775.16	1034.87	31.35	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD191	6243999.92	737699.95	1037.53	89.03	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD192	6244000.24	737750.05	1036.22	60.44	0.0	-90.0

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 4 of 66

			AMG 66	AMG 66		Depth
prospect	Company	Hole_ID	North	East	RL	(m)	Azimuth	Dip
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD193	6243974.84	737699.91	1037.82	92.13	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD194	6244050.00	737700.00	1034.94	76.71	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD195	6243975.00	737750.00	1036.23	39.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD196	6244075.76	737749.60	1031.95	63.91	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD197	6244050.34	737650.31	1035.55	94.48	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD198	6243999.89	737674.90	1038.83	98.29	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD199	6244050.14	737600.07	1032.05	105.62	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD200	6244124.97	737650.32	1026.61	85.58	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD203	6244124.67	737700.51	1025.01	61.45	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD204	6244149.71	737599.94	1022.08	91.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD205	6244075.30	737599.90	1029.37	100.12	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD206	6244125.00	737750.46	1028.20	60.18	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD207	6243874.92	737650.42	1027.72	67.49	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD208	6243874.75	737750.25	1029.33	19.34	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD209	6243925.33	737650.55	1033.11	88.90	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD210	6244200.18	737600.08	1018.60	85.91	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD211	6243924.73	737749.65	1033.61	34.96	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD212	6244124.60	737574.89	1021.74	106.51	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD213	6244249.90	737599.94	1016.37	94.07	109.0	-85.5
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD214	6243974.98	737775.19	1036.23	36.51	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD215	6244075.88	737575.18	1026.46	107.93	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD216	6243974.00	737799.89	1036.14	24.16	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD217	6243949.79	737799.75	1035.05	19.31	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD218	6243924.75	737800.17	1033.32	11.40	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD219	6244200.31	737550.05	1014.35	78.68	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD220	6243925.00	737795.00	1033.50	10.82	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD232	6244025.00	737625.14	1035.82	102.73	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD233	6243950.08	737725.14	1035.85	66.25	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD234	6244149.88	737749.88	1025.03	53.06	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD235	6244150.21	737550.15	1017.33	97.29	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD236	6244074.64	737625.10	1030.87	94.23	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD237	6244149.55	737799.86	1026.26	49.44	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD238	6244100.21	737624.75	1028.12	91.34	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD239	6244100.34	737550.17	1021.96	109.83	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD240	6244125.11	737799.85	1027.08	51.21	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD241	6244149.67	737774.88	1025.61	57.16	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD242	6244125.00	737625.16	1025.67	82.23	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD243	6244024.87	737724.83	1036.01	73.80	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD244	6244174.92	737750.02	1023.52	44.70	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD245	6244024.86	737674.97	1037.84	93.24	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD246	6244074.94	737725.15	1031.31	64.91	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD247	6244175.25	737775.25	1024.32	42.90	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD248	6244075.35	737675.21	1033.13	84.87	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD249	6244100.32	737725.28	1028.34	61.04	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD250	6244050.07	737899.56	1036.32	32.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD251	6244100.05	737676.37	1029.32	78.14	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD252	6244024.85	737875.55	1036.72	48.44	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD253	6244125.00	737725.00	1026.61	55.06	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD254	6243849.91	737649.55	1025.77	55.92	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD255	6244125.30	737675.49	1025.81	77.71	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD256	6243849.97	737674.88	1024.60	49.89	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD257	6244150.02	737725.66	1024.50	55.68	0.0	-90.0

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 5 of 66

			AMG 66	AMG 66		Depth
prospect	Company	Hole_ID	North	East	RL	(m)	Azimuth	Dip
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD258	6244049.80	737549.86	1026.53	105.18	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD259	6243950.05	737599.73	1032.93	103.60	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD260	6244199.70	737750.65	1022.00	40.70	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD261	6244150.25	737697.13	1023.31	62.07	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD262	6244174.95	737724.58	1023.70	49.76	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD263	6244074.81	737550.02	1024.24	111.21	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD264	6244149.89	737624.64	1023.04	85.16	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD265	6244175.03	737575.40	1018.26	74.87	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD266	6244225.00	737624.53	1018.27	88.53	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD267	6243900.31	737599.73	1028.19	97.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD268	6244200.13	737624.93	1019.45	94.53	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD269	6243849.59	737599.90	1024.35	82.87	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD270	6244225.10	737575.16	1015.78	81.42	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD271	6243850.13	737549.94	1022.34	78.84	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD272	6244174.17	737625.16	1020.60	90.02	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD273	6243825.00	737625.14	1023.57	74.05	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD274	6243825.34	737649.89	1024.10	61.34	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD275	6243975.12	737650.14	1036.75	102.77	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD276	6243800.08	737625.07	1021.59	62.57	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD305	6243969.46	737745.90	1036.23	57.10	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD306	6244290.36	737549.44	1013.71	121.50	0.0	-90.0
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LDD307	737550.00	6244349.40	1009.85	114.27	0.00	-90
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LDD308	737545.06	6244402.20	1008.27	117.45	0.00	-90
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LDD309	737549.88	6244800.95	999.23	160.98	0.00	-90
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LDD310	737552.69	6244456.29	1007.66	124.52	0.00	-90
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LDD311	737549.27	6244750.34	1001.98	277.82	0.00	-90
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LDD312	737556.45	6244499.61	1005.82	136.16	0.00	-90
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LDD313	737547.31	6244597.64	1007.36	180.89	0.00	-90
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LDD314	737554.02	6244698.95	1004.50	193.84		-90
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LDD315	737548.02	6244653.74	1006.35	160.80		-90
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LDD316	737525.69	6244800.51	998.80	196.28	90	-55
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LDD325	737575.63	6244800.49	999.37	196.32	90	-55
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LDD326	737475.16	6244799.53	1000.28	196.51	90	-55
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LDD327	737524.58	6244849.84	996.25	190.56	90	-55
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LDD328	737474.27	6244849.79	997.66	231.90	90	-55
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LDD329	737550.98	6244750.40	1001.85	154.33	90	-55
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LDD330	737499.46	6244749.85	1002.34	210.57	90	-55

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 6 of 66

			AMG 66	AMG 66		Depth
prospect	Company	Hole_ID	North	East	RL	(m)	Azimuth	Dip
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LDD331	737594.90	6244904.40	997.20	200.65	90	-55
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LDD332	737449.63	6244749.83	1002.98	123.81	90	-55
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LDD333	737601.90	6244952.30	1007.40	247.00	90	-55
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LDD334	737399.83	6244699.25	1004.06	148.46	90	-55
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LDD335	737650.92	6244953.26	1016.05	128.58	90	-54
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LDD336	737600.93	6244999.08	1007.84	145.09	90	-55
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LDD337	737576.43	6244850.06	996.87	145.43	90	-55
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LDD338	737550.48	6244999.69	999.80	162.10	90	-55
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LDD346	737619.15	6244850.08	998.25	124.50	90	-55
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LDD349	737551.49	6244899.74	995.30	112.38	90	-55
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LDD350	737668.98	6244841.94	1001.18	100.00	90	-55
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LDD366	737619.62	6244871.85	998.62	80.93	90	-55
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LDD371	737501.22	6244898.87	994.26	250.63	90	-55
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD514	6243937.52	737732.72	1010.00	52.93	360.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD515	6243962.30	737737.20	1010.20	73.70	360.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD516	6244096.53	737752.07	1007.92	43.98	270.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD517	6244125.00	737734.00	1007.50	37.69	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD518	6244062.40	737562.50	1025.30	109.45	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD519	6244087.50	737562.50	1024.60	115.62	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD520	6244087.50	737563.20	1024.60	106.35	90.0	-65.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD521	6244112.30	737562.10	1020.70	109.22	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD522	6244113.70	737587.20	1023.90	102.94	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD523	6244113.60	737587.70	1023.90	97.98	90.0	-69.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD524	6244138.90	737587.80	1021.90	100.50	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD525	6244186.90	737587.30	1018.50	79.30	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDD526	6244212.30	737587.40	1016.90	85.06	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR001	6243793.00	738009.00	1021.00	21.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR002	6243795.00	737985.00	1021.50	27.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR003	6243806.00	737773.00	1023.20	26.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR004	6243901.00	737877.00	1031.00	38.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR005	6243909.00	737728.00	1033.20	29.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR006	6243910.00	737703.00	1033.20	31.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR007	6243911.00	737677.00	1033.00	30.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR008	6243913.00	737653.00	1032.50	17.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR009	6243914.00	737627.00	1032.00	3.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR010	6243916.00	737603.00	1031.50	2.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR011	6244015.00	737607.00	1035.20	12.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR012	6244014.00	737633.00	1037.60	20.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR013	6244012.00	737658.00	1038.00	21.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR014	6244011.00	737683.00	1038.00	18.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR015	6244010.00	737707.00	1037.70	18.00	0.0	-90.0

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 7 of 66

			AMG 66	AMG 66		Depth
prospect	Company	Hole_ID	North	East	RL	(m)	Azimuth	Dip
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR016	6244009.00	737719.00	1037.50	38.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR017	6244008.50	737732.00	1037.50	21.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR018	6244007.00	737757.00	1037.10	24.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR019	6244006.00	737782.00	1036.50	25.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR020	6244004.00	737807.00	1036.00	26.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR021	6244003.00	737832.00	1036.00	17.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR022	6244001.00	737857.00	1037.40	25.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR023	6244000.00	737883.20	1038.00	39.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR024	6243907.50	737753.00	1033.20	32.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR025	6243906.00	737777.00	1033.20	35.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR026	6243817.00	737573.00	1022.00	4.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR027	6243815.50	737597.00	1023.50	18.50	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR028	6243815.00	737623.00	1023.50	14.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR029	6243813.00	737647.30	1024.00	19.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR030	6243811.00	737673.00	1024.20	27.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR031	6243810.50	737697.00	1025.10	36.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR032	6243809.00	737723.00	1025.50	29.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR033	6243807.00	737748.00	1024.90	24.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR034	6243714.00	737618.00	1018.00	24.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR035	6243715.00	737593.00	1017.90	23.50	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR036	6243716.00	737568.00	1017.70	18.50	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR037	6243718.00	737543.00	1017.50	13.50	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR038	6243719.00	737518.00	1016.00	13.50	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR039	6244114.00	737612.00	1026.00	29.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR040	6244113.00	737637.00	1027.60	21.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR041	6244112.00	737662.00	1028.50	32.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR042	6244111.00	737687.00	1028.00	30.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR043	6244109.00	737712.00	1027.50	24.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR044	6244108.50	737725.00	1028.00	36.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR045	6244108.00	737737.00	1029.70	33.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR046	6244107.00	737762.00	1031.50	3.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR047	6244106.00	737787.00	1028.50	39.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR048	6244104.00	737812.00	1030.20	31.50	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR049	6244103.00	737837.00	1032.20	27.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR050	6244101.00	737863.00	1034.00	24.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR051	6244100.00	737887.00	1034.30	24.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR052	6244195.00	737967.00	1031.00	15.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR053	6244197.00	737942.00	1030.70	9.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR054	6244198.00	737917.00	1029.90	16.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR055	6244199.00	737892.00	1029.00	24.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR056	6244201.00	737867.00	1028.20	30.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR057	6244201.00	737842.00	1026.20	39.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR058	6244203.00	737792.00	1023.00	42.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR059	6244207.00	737742.00	1021.50	36.50	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR060	6244209.00	737717.00	1021.00	39.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR061	6244211.00	737667.00	1019.00	36.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR062	6244213.00	737643.00	1019.90	24.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR063	6244063.00	737660.00	1033.50	34.50	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR064	6244062.00	737685.00	1033.30	33.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR065	6244061.00	737710.00	1032.60	41.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR066	6244060.20	737722.00	1033.00	36.20	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR067	6244059.00	737735.00	1033.50	36.00	0.0	-90.0

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 8 of 66

			AMG 66	AMG 66		Depth
prospect	Company	Hole_ID	North	East	RL	(m)	Azimuth	Dip
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR068	6244058.00	737760.00	1033.70	40.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR069	6243962.00	737655.00	1037.60	45.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR070	6243961.00	737681.00	1037.60	36.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR071	6243960.00	737706.00	1037.60	30.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR072	6243959.00	737730.00	1037.45	26.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR073	6243957.00	737755.00	1037.45	35.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR074	6243956.00	737781.00	1037.40	28.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR075	6243864.50	737625.00	1027.40	13.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR076	6243863.00	737651.00	1027.50	21.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR077	6243862.00	737675.00	1027.60	30.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR078	6243860.00	737700.00	1028.50	6.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR079	6243859.00	737725.00	1029.00	32.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR080	6243857.00	737750.00	1029.00	36.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR081	6243856.50	737775.00	1028.20	24.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR082	6243711.00	737668.00	1018.00	33.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR083	6243708.00	737717.00	1022.00	21.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LDR084	6243903.00	737827.00	1032.30	33.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LRC085	6243812.63	738007.95	1020.46	72.00	99.5	-50.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LRC086	6243820.56	737956.55	1019.06	30.00	101.0	-50.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LRC087	6243828.55	737907.28	1019.54	35.90	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LRC088	6243835.60	737857.47	1021.28	29.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LRC089	6243844.47	737810.55	1024.06	24.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LRC090	6243853.63	737758.26	1026.37	31.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LRC091	6243860.89	737708.51	1027.56	36.50	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LRC092	6243950.50	737931.40	1030.07	91.00	94.5	-50.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LRC093	6243976.77	737618.70	1035.39	93.00	106.8	-50.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LRC094	6243984.61	737569.15	1031.23	128.00	105.0	-50.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LRC095	6243991.12	737529.67	1026.50	98.00	100.0	-50.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LRC096	6243999.72	737479.36	1021.80	128.00	100.0	-50.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LRC097	6244008.26	737431.18	1018.67	125.00	100.0	-50.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LRC277	6243825.27	737699.76	1024.80	20.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LRC278	6243975.74	737823.11	1036.80	14.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LRC279	6243824.59	737675.09	1023.60	20.00	0.0	-90.0
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC289	737649.96	6245000.31	1014.19	48.60		-90
Lucky Draw	RGC	LRC290	6243924.18	737825.10	1032.43	5.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LRC291	6243949.82	737824.41	1034.85	5.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LRC292	6244000.16	737849.61	1036.12	24.50	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LRC293	6244024.77	737850.26	1033.48	48.50	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LRC294	6244049.69	737849.90	1031.98	30.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LRC295	6244073.07	737871.46	1034.08	28.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LRC296	6244075.32	737899.62	1034.16	3.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LRC297	6244049.93	737875.20	1034.90	33.50	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LRC298	6244000.65	737875.05	1037.18	34.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LRC299	6243976.06	737848.12	1036.97	16.00	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LRC303	6243849.88	737699.86	1026.42	20.00	0.0	-90.0
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC340	737701.92	6245002.49	1018.48	70.00	90	-55
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC341	737701.73	6244952.53	1021.52	74.00	90	-55
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC342	737751.00	6244951.92	1022.67	68.00	90	-55

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 9 of 66

			AMG 66	AMG 66		Depth
prospect	Company	Hole_ID	North	East	RL	(m)	Azimuth	Dip
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC343	737684.23	6244910.50	1017.95	87.00	90	-55
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC344	737623.74	6244798.28	999.78	52.00	90	-55
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC345	737701.55	6245049.27	1017.22	74.00	85	-55
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC347	737650.35	6245049.81	1011.09	50.00	85	-55
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC348	737605.39	6245043.44	1005.73	52.00	90	-55
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC351	737674.52	6244978.62	1018.19	60.00	90	-55
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC352	737652.36	6244978.84	1016.06	46.00	90	-55
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC353	737627.56	6244955.77	1011.30	64.00	90	-55
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC354	737618.39	6244902.39	1003.92	46.00	94.5	-54
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC355	737643.68	6244873.39	1004.70	42.00	95	-55
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC356	737644.39	6244901.02	1009.71	47.00	90	-55
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC357	737681.16	6244951.38	1020.24	82.00	90	-54
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC358	737603.56	6244933.63	1004.48	76.00	90	-55
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC362	737670.89	6244875.64	1010.80	63.00	90	-55
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC363	737674.71	6244900.14	1015.84	46.00	94	-54.7
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC364	737654.08	6244931.97	1015.47	50.00	90	-55
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC365	737679.45	6244932.84	1019.35	67.00	91	-54
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC401	737425.00	6244700.00	1004.20	28.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC402	737450.00	6244700.00	1004.32	30.00	89	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC403	737475.00	6244700.00	1004.32	28.00	86	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC404	737500.00	6244700.00	1004.32	10.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC405	737525.00	6244700.00	1004.39	20.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC406	737525.00	6244750.00	1002.07	18.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC407	737525.00	6244600.00	1007.21	29.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC408	737550.00	6244600.00	1007.44	23.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC409	737575.00	6244600.00	1007.79	21.75	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC410	737600.00	6244600.00	1008.13	55.00	90	-60

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 10 of 66

			AMG 66	AMG 66		Depth
prospect	Company	Hole_ID	North	East	RL	(m)	Azimuth	Dip
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC411	737650.00	6244600.00	1009.59	30.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC412	737400.00	6244500.00	999.66	30.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC413	737425.00	6244500.00	1001.28	24.60	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC414	737450.00	6244500.00	1002.91	20.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC415	737475.00	6244500.00	1003.51	24.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC416	737500.00	6244500.00	1004.12	26.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC417	737525.00	6244500.00	1004.99	30.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC418	737575.00	6244500.00	1006.83	24.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC419	737600.00	6244500.00	1007.80	21.50	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC420	737625.00	6244500.00	1009.05	32.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC421	737650.00	6244500.00	1010.31	30.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC422	737600.00	6244800.00	999.45	30.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC423	737625.00	6244800.00	999.94	15.50	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC424	737650.00	6244800.00	1000.44	28.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC425	737675.00	6244800.00	1001.31	20.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC426	737400.00	6244400.00	1002.97	26.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC427	737425.00	6244400.00	1003.62	24.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC428	737450.00	6244400.00	1004.27	27.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC429	737475.00	6244400.00	1005.21	30.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC430	737500.00	6244400.00	1006.16	30.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC431	737525.00	6244400.00	1007.35	30.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC432	737550.00	6244400.00	1008.54	24.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC433	737575.00	6244400.00	1009.36	30.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC434	737600.00	6244400.00	1010.18	30.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC435	737625.00	6244400.00	1010.83	30.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC436	737650.00	6244400.00	1011.49	30.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC437	737675.00	6244400.00	1012.73	30.00	90	-60

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 11 of 66

			AMG 66	AMG 66		Depth
prospect	Company	Hole_ID	North	East	RL	(m)	Azimuth	Dip
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC438	737700.00	6244400.00	1013.97	30.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC439	737400.00	6244300.00	1004.78	30.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC440	737425.00	6244300.00	1006.03	30.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC441	737450.00	6244300.00	1007.28	30.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC442	737475.00	6244300.00	1008.69	30.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC443	737500.00	6244300.00	1010.11	30.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC444	737525.00	6244300.00	1011.65	30.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC445	737575.00	6244300.00	1014.07	30.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC446	737600.00	6244300.00	1014.94	30.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC447	737625.00	6244300.00	1015.58	20.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC448	737650.00	6244300.00	1016.22	30.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC449	737675.00	6244300.00	1018.01	30.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC450	737700.00	6244300.00	1019.79	30.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC451	737725.00	6244300.00	1020.91	30.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC452	737725.00	6244400.00	1014.99	30.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC453	737750.00	6244400.00	1016.01	30.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC454	737650.00	6244350.00	1013.90	30.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC455	737675.00	6244350.00	1015.42	30.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC456	737600.00	6244450.00	1008.52	30.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC457	737575.00	6244450.00	1008.30	30.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC458	737625.00	6244450.00	1009.28	30.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC459	737650.00	6244450.00	1010.05	30.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC460	737675.00	6244450.00	1010.97	27.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC461	737675.00	6244500.00	1011.70	30.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC462	737700.00	6244500.00	1013.09	30.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC463	737575.00	6244550.00	1006.77	26.30	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC464	737600.00	6244550.00	1007.51	21.00	90	-60

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 12 of 66

			AMG 66	AMG 66		Depth
prospect	Company	Hole_ID	North	East	RL	(m)	Azimuth	Dip
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC465	737625.00	6244550.00	1008.98	10.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC466	737650.00	6244550.00	1010.46	30.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC467	737400.00	6244600.00	1001.33	30.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC468	737425.00	6244600.00	1002.59	28.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC469	737450.00	6244600.00	1003.86	27.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC470	737475.00	6244600.00	1005.42	27.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC471	737500.00	6244600.00	1006.98	24.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC472	737625.00	6244600.00	1008.86	28.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC473	737300.00	6244700.00	1000.17	30.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC474	737325.00	6244700.00	1002.21	30.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC475	737350.00	6244700.00	1004.26	30.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC476	737375.00	6244700.00	1004.17	28.40	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC477	737575.00	6244700.00	1004.68	20.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC478	737625.00	6244700.00	1005.51	14.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC479	737650.00	6244700.00	1006.13	8.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC480	737675.00	6244700.00	1006.97	12.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC481	737700.00	6244700.00	1007.36	18.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC482	737725.00	6244800.00	1002.93	6.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC483	737525.00	6245150.00	996.96	22.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC484	737550.00	6245150.00	999.56	25.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC485	737575.00	6245150.00	1016.28	24.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC486	737600.00	6245150.00	1005.29	30.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC487	737625.00	6245150.00	996.96	30.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC488	737600.00	6245250.00	1001.46	8.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC489	737625.00	6245250.00	1002.94	22.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC490	737650.00	6245250.00	1004.41	22.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC491	737675.00	6244550.00	1011.45	24.00	90	-60

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 13 of 66

			AMG 66	AMG 66		Depth
prospect	Company	Hole_ID	North	East	RL	(m)	Azimuth	Dip
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC492	737600.00	6244650.00	1007.02	24.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC493	737625.00	6244650.00	1007.52	32.50	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC494	737650.00	6244650.00	1008.02	28.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC495	737675.00	6244650.00	1008.85	14.00	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC496	737700.00	6244650.00	1007.02	32.50	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC497	737675.00	6244600.00	1010.40	32.50	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC498	737700.00	6244600.00	1011.21	32.50	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC499	737725.00	6244600.00	1012.11	32.50	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC500	737750.00	6244600.00	1013.01	32.50	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC601	737625.00	6244550.00	1008.99	32.50	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC602	737700.00	6244550.00	1012.44	32.50	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC603	737725.00	6244550.00	1013.44	32.50	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC604	737750.00	6244550.00	1014.43	32.50	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC605	737725.00	6244500.00	1014.21	32.50	90	-60
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LRC606	737750.00	6244500.00	1015.32	32.50	90	-60
Lucky Draw	RGC	LXD098	6244289.44	737559.43	1014.28	110.10	100.0	-60.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LXD099	6244299.11	737504.18	1010.42	132.10	96.0	-60.0
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LXD135	737595.74	6244901.17	997.33	169.60		-90
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LXD136	737700.83	6244917.26	1019.18	161.80		-90
Lucky Draw	RGC	LXD137	6244301.25	737749.90	1022.03	82.40	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LXD138	6244301.80	737651.25	1016.22	91.20	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LXD139	6244301.90	737849.50	1025.42	83.30	0.0	-90.0
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LXD280	737601.99	6244955.42	1007.28	174.15		-90
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LXD281	737656.37	6244899.42	1013.27	208.00		-90
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LXD282	737650.73	6244950.15	1016.09	198.15		-90
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LXD283	737538.68	6244839.46	996.86	183.07		-90
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LXD284	736850.83	6244495.36	969.75	124.46		-90
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LXD287	737988.87	6244881.30	1011.89	79.81		-90
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LXD288	737508.84	6244799.32	999.45	237.64		-90
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LXD304	737551.31	6244550.73	1006.31	151.78		-90

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 14 of 66

			AMG 66	AMG 66		Depth
prospect	Company	Hole_ID	North	East	RL	(m)	Azimuth	Dip
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LXD339	737652.43	6244998.19	1014.71	149.06	90	-55
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LXD359	737628.70	6244930.71	1009.08	86.47	90	-55
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LXD360	737604.55	6244981.68	1006.42	99.90	90	-55.2
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LXD361	737629.07	6244978.69	1011.56	89.74	94	-51
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LXD367	737601.13	6244849.48	997.62	38.64	90	-55
Hackney's
Creek	RGC	LXD368	737625.20	6244999.74	1010.56	90.70	90	-55
Lucky Draw	RGC	LXD369	6244023.54	737547.68	1024.98	105.33	0.0	-90.0
Lucky Draw	RGC	LXD370	6244024.49	737574.92	1022.79	102.83	0.0	-90.0

Geomodelling Limited - PSL NSW Gold Resources 2016 resource report final 20200422.docx

Page 15 of 66

AI assistant

PATERSON RESOURCES LTD — Capital/Financing Update 2020

65618_rns_2020-04-26_394b6669-0cc1-49d1-98bf-fcf2dbd43fdb.pdf

Gold Resources Estimate Lucky Draw and Hackney’s Creek Burra a NSW g

Highlights

Geology and Geological Interpretation

Sampling and Sub Sampling Techniques

Drilling Techniques

Criteria Used for Classification

Sample Analysis Method

Estimation Methodology

Lucky Draw Resource Estimation

Hackney’s Creek Resource Estimation

Cut Off Grade

Mining and Metallurgical Methods and Parameters

Company Secretary

ABOUT PATERSON RESOURCES:

COMPETENT PERSON’S STATEMENT:

JORC Table 1.

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data

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

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results

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

Report on an Estimate of Gold Mineral Resources at Hackneys Creek and Luck Draw.

16 April, 2020.

1 Summary

1.1. Lucky Draw Resource Estimation

1.2. Hackney’s Creek Resource Estimation

1.3. Results

Contents

List of Figures

List of Tables

2 Introduction

2.1. Location

2.2. Context

2.3. Tenement

2.4. Other

2.4.1. Software

2.4.2. Grids

3 Geology

3.1. Regional Geology

3.1.1. Stratigraphy

3.1.2. Structure

3.1.3. Gold Mineralisation

3.2. Local Geology

3.2.1. Lucky Draw

3.2.2. Hackneys Creek

3.3. Previous Mining and Exploration

4 Data

4.1. Data Provided

4.1.1. Databases

4.1.2. Topography

4.1.3. Lucky Draw Open Pit final survey

4.2. Drilling and Trenching Programmes

4.2.1. RGC

4.1.2.1 Diamond Drilling

4.1.2.2 Reverse Circulation Drilling

4.1.2.3 Ditchwitch Trenching

4.2.2. Werrie Gold

4.3. Drilling Recovery

4.4. Sub-Sampling Methods

4.5. Assay Methods

4.6. Surface Survey methods

4.7. Assay QAQC

4.8. Data Validation and Import into Minesight

5 Domaining

5.1. Lucky Draw Gold Grade Domain

5.2. Hackney’s Creek Gold Grade Domain

5.3. Oxidation Domains

5.4. Assay coding

6 Statistics

6.1. Lucky Draw Gold Domain

6.1.1. Compositing

6.1.2. Univariate statistics

6.1.3. Extreme Values

6.1.4. Variography

6.1. Hackney’s Creek Gold Domain

6.1.1. Compositing

6.1.2. Univariate statistics

6.1.3. Extreme Values

PATERSON RESOURCES LTD Capital/Financing Update 2020