PEEL MINING LIMITED — Capital/Financing Update 2014

May 26, 2014

27 MAY 2014

==> picture [155 x 62] intentionally omitted <==

ASX / MEDIA RELEASE

PEEL MINING LTD

ASX: PEX ABN: 42 119 343 734

Street Address:

Unit 1 34 Kings Park Rd WEST PERTH WA 6005

Postal Address:

PO Box 849 WEST PERTH WA 6872

Tel: +61 8 9382 3955 Fax: +61 8 9388 1025

Email: info@peelmining.com.au Web: www.peelmining.com.au

Projects:

Mallee Bull: Cu-Ag-Au-Pb-Zn-Co Cobar Superbasin: Cu-Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Apollo Hill: Au Attunga: W, Cu-Au

Rise & Shine: Au

Ruby: Ag-Pb-Zn

==> picture [146 x 222] intentionally omitted <==

HIGH GRADE COPPER RESOURCE AT MALLEE BULL

 Maiden Mineral Resource for Mallee Bull, at 1.0% copper equivalent cutoff, of 3.92 Mt @ 2.3% copper, 32 g/t silver, 0.3 g/t gold (2.7% copper equivalent).

 Mineral resource contains approximately 90,000t copper, 4 Moz silver and 43 koz gold.

 Mineralisation is continuous at higher cut offs with estimates at 1.8% copper equivalent cutoff of 3.05 Mt @ 2.6% copper, 35 g/t silver, 0.4 g/t gold (3.0% copper equivalent).

 Search for new mineralisation continuing.

Peel Mining Limited ( ASX: PEX ), together with its 50% joint venture partner CBH Resources Limited, is pleased to advise that the maiden Mineral Resource estimate for the Mallee Bull copper-silver-gold deposit has returned a high-grade result, as expected, with approximately 90,000 tonnes of contained copper, 4 million ounces contained silver and 43,000 ounces contained gold (at a 1% copper equivalent cutoff) ( see Table 1 and Figure 1 ).

This Mineral Resource estimate comprises 3.9 million tonnes at 2.3% copper, 32 g/t silver and 0.3 g/t Au ( see Table 1 ). The Mineral Resource estimate is reported in accordance with the guidelines of the JORC Code (2012 edition). Approximately 16% of the Mallee Bull resource is in the Indicated Mineral Resource category. The Mineral Resource estimate will form the basis of an in-house scoping study which will commence shortly.

Commenting on the Resource Statement, Peel Mining Managing Director, Rob Tyson said: “Mallee Bull is one of the highest grade copper discoveries in Australia in recent times and putting a Resource to it is an important milestone. In that regard, I’d like to thank our project team on a job well done. It would be highly unusual if Mallee Bull were to occur in isolation, and so the search for “another” Mallee Bull, along with a scoping study, will continue as part of the next stage of investigation.”

Peel Mining Limited ACN 119 343 734 Unit 1, 34 Kings Park Rd, West Perth, WA 6005. Ph: (08) 9382 3955. Fax (08) 9388 1025. E:rtyson@peelmining.com.au www.peelmining.com.au

==> picture [155 x 62] intentionally omitted <==

Resource Estimation Details

MPR Geological Consultants was engaged by Peel Mining Limited to audit the Mallee Bull geological model and to estimate the Mineral Resource. The Mallee Bull Mineral Resource comprises two main mineralised domains, and one smaller zone. The domains were generated by wire-framing of geological data and the use of a 0.8% copper lower cutoff. A breakdown of the Mineral Resources at 1% copper equivalent cut off is shown below in Table 1. The figures in this table are rounded to reflect the precision of the estimates and include rounding errors.

Cut off CuEq %	Category	Kt		Grade	Grade			Contained Metal	Contained Metal
			CuEq	Cu %	Ag g/t	Aug/t	CuEq Kt	Cu kT	Ag koz	Au koz
1.0	Indicated	620	2.22	1.73	29.0	0.54	14	10.7	578	11
	Inferred	3,300	2.8	2.4	32	0.3	93	79	3,395	32
	Total	3,920	2.7	2.3	32	0.3	107	90	3,973	43

Table 1: Mallee Bull Mineral Resource estimate based on 1% copper equivalent (CuEq) cutoff grade.

Mineral Resource estimates include copper equivalent grades incorporating copper, silver and gold values. The copper equivalent grades are based on copper, silver and gold prices of $7000/t, $20.00/oz and $1300/oz with overall recoveries of 95%, 90% and 66% respectively. These estimates are based on Peel’s interpretation of potential commodity prices and the Company’s interpretation of first pass metallurgical test work performed on Mallee Bull diamond core using the following formula: Cu equivalent (%) = Cu (%) + 0.009 x Ag (g/t) + 0.415 x Au (g/t). It is the company’s opinion that all elements included in the metal equivalent calculation have a reasonable potential to be recovered and sold. Additional test work is required to demonstrate potential metallurgical recoveries for cobalt, lead and zinc.

A summary of the information used in the resource estimation is as follows:

A range of lower cutoffs was used to report grades and tonnages, as shown in Table 2. The estimates at zero cutoff grade represent the entire mineralised domain volumes. Mineralisation appears robust and this is demonstrated by the fact that elevated cutoff grades have relatively minor effect on the contained metal – i.e., at a 1.8% copper equivalent* lower cutoff, the resource still contains approximately 79,000 tonnes of copper, 3.45 Moz of silver and 34 koz of gold ( see Table 2). The Mineral Resource estimate will form the basis of an in-house scoping study which will commence shortly.

The Mallee Bull project area lies within the Cobar-Mt Hope Siluro-Devonian sedimentary and volcanic units. The northern Cobar region consists of predominantly sedimentary units with tuffaceous member, whilst the southern Mt Hope region consists of predominantly felsic volcanic rocks; geological interpretation indicates that the Mallee Bull prospect is located in an area of overlap between these two regions. Mineralisation at Mallee Bull features the Cobar-style attributes of short strike lengths, narrow widths and vertical continuity, and occurs as shoot-like structures dipping steeply to the west. Detailed geological studies including petrography has identified key rock types which together with logging and multi-element geochemistry allowed for the compilation of a robust geological interpretation of discrete 3D geological domains which were used for resource estimation.

The Mineral Resource area has dimensions of approximately 400 m (north) by 400 m (east) and 800 m (elevation). Drilling of the deposit consists primarily of diamond drill holes (35% NQ, 64% HQ and 1% PQ diameter core) providing 94% of resource composites (51 holes for 21,083 m). The remainder comprises reverse circulation (RC) drillholes employing 5 ½ inch face sampling hammer drilling (19 holes for 4,422 m).

Peel Mining Limited ACN 119 343 734 Unit 1, 34 Kings Park Rd, West Perth, WA 6005. Ph: (08) 9382 3955. Fax (08) 9388 1025. E:rtyson@peelmining.com.au www.peelmining.com.au

==> picture [155 x 62] intentionally omitted <==

Drillhole spacing varies from 20 m by 20 m and tighter in the upper to central areas of the mineralisation to greater than 80 m by 80 m in peripheral areas and at depth.

Recovered core lengths were recorded for virtually all core runs and show an average recovery of 100% for mineralised domains. Recovered sample weights for RC drilling show an average recovery of around 77% for mineralised domains. The available information is indicative of generally good sample recoveries with no notable relationship between sample recovery and grade and no indication that preferential sample loss may have generated biased samples. Drillhole collar locations were surveyed using differential GPS, and all holes were downhole surveyed using gyroscopic survey tools.

Sampling of diamond core was based on 1m sample intervals or geological intervals (length 0.6 m to 1.3 m) and was cut into half or quarter drillcore. RC samples were sub-sampled with either a three tier riffle splitter or cone splitter. A small number of intervals were sub-sampled by scoop. Field quality control procedures involved assay standards, along with blanks and duplicates. These QC samples were inserted on a regular basis. Samples submitted to ALS were oven dried and jaw crushed (for diamond core), then riffle split if required to produce a maximum 3 Kg sample which was pulverised to nominally 85% passing 75 microns.

A pulp sub‐sample was collected for analysis, with assaying to mid-2012 for copper, silver, cobalt, lead, zinc and sulphur completed by four acid digest with determination by ICP-AES. From mid-2012 copper, silver, cobalt, lead, zinc and sulphur assaying was by aqua regia digest with determination by ICP-AES. Samples completed by aqua regia digest represent around 66% of the Resource dataset. All gold assaying was by 30 gram fire assay.

Four acid digest check assaying by ALS and SGS indicates that ALS aqua regia assaying significantly undervalues sulphur grades. The Mineral Resource estimates do not include sulphur. The block model constructed for the current estimates include sulphur grades to facilitate density assignment. Comparative modelling with aqua regia sulphur assays factored to remove the apparent bias did not give significantly different estimates confirming that the apparent bias in aqua regia sulphur assaying does not significantly affect the assigned densities or the current Mineral Resource estimates.

The geological setting of the Mallee Bull deposit mineralisation has been confidently established from drill hole logging, including development of a three dimensional model of the major rock units. The mineralised domains used for resource estimation capture zones of continuous mineralisation with drill sample copper grades of greater than 0.8%, with some lower grade intercepts included for continuity. The resource domains comprise two main zones designated as the hangingwall and footwall domains respectively, and a subsidiary zone designated as the central zone which represents around 2% of estimated resources. Domain interpretation included reference to lithological domain wire-frames and the domains are consistent with geological understanding. The combined domains extend from around 125 m to 815 m depth with average widths of around 5.6 m.

Peel routinely performed immersion density measurements on air dried samples of drill core with results available for 2,308 samples. The reliability of Peel’s density measurements was confirmed by 97 repeat measurements performed by ALS on oven dried samples. Density measurements show an association between increasing density and sulphur grade reflecting increasing concentration of sulphide minerals. Densities were assigned to the current block model from Kriged sulphur values using the following formula derived from the available density measurements: Density (t/m3) = 2.80 + 0.04 x S (%). Average estimated densities range from approximately 2.9 t/m[3] for the footwall and central domains to approximately 3.7 t/m[3] for the more sulphide rich hangingwall domain. The available information suggests that the density measurements are representative of the mineralisation.

Grades were Kriged into 2 m by 10 m by 10 m (east, north, vertical) blocks with sub-blocking to minimum

Peel Mining Limited ACN 119 343 734 Unit 1, 34 Kings Park Rd, West Perth, WA 6005. Ph: (08) 9382 3955. Fax (08) 9388 1025. E:rtyson@peelmining.com.au www.peelmining.com.au

==> picture [155 x 62] intentionally omitted <==

dimensions of 0.4 m by 2.0 m by 2.0 m at domain boundaries. Estimation included a four pass octant based search strategy, with ellipsoids aligned with mineralised domain orientations. Search ellipsoid radii (across strike, along strike, down dip) and minimum data requirements for these searches range from 10 m by 50 m by 50m (8 data) for search 1, to 20 m by 200 m by 200 m (4 data) for search 4. Estimates from search pass 4 contribute around 1% of estimated resources. The mineralised domains have demonstrated sufficient continuity in both geological and grade continuity to support the Mineral Resource and the classifications applied under the JORC Code (2012 edition).

The block model constructed for the current study includes copper, silver, gold, cobalt, lead, zinc and sulphur grades. Sulphur grades were estimated for density assignment and are not included in Mineral Resource estimates. Grades were estimated by Ordinary Kriging of 1 m down-hole composited assay grades within the mineralised domains. Estimation of each attribute included upper cuts which generally approximate the 95[th] percentile of each dataset. Upper cuts applied to the hangingwall, footwall upper, footwall lower and central domain respectively were as follows: Copper: 4.0%, 5.0%, 10%, 4.5%; Silver: 75 g/t, 100 g/t, 170 g/t, 80 g/t; Gold: 2.5 g/t, 1.0 g/t 1.0 g/t, 0.60 g/t; Cobalt 900 g/t, 250 g/t, 250 g/t, 70 g/t; Lead: 1.5%, 1.5%, 1.5%, 0.9%; Zinc: 1.0%, 1.0%, 0.5%, 1.5%; Sulphur: 45%, 20%,10%, uncut. The model estimates are generally extrapolated to a maximum of around 40 m from drill intercepts. Micromine software was used for data compilation, domain wire-framing, and coding of composite values, and GS3M was used for resource estimation. The estimation technique is appropriate for the mineralisation style.

For the hangingwall and footwall domains, estimates for mineralisation with consistently 40 m by 40 m or closer spaced sampling are classified as Indicated and estimates for more broadly sampled mineralisation are classified as Inferred. The central mineralised domain is comparatively broadly drilled and all estimates are classified as Inferred.

MPR Geological carried out a site visit to the Mallee Bull deposit from 3-6 February 2014. Mr Jonathon Abbott, who is the Competent Person for the purposes of this report, inspected drill core, and drilling and sampling activities and had detailed discussions with Peel field geologists gaining an improved understanding of the geological setting and mineralisation controls, and the resource sampling activities.

Cut off CuEq %	Category	Kt		Grade	Grade			Contained Metal	Contained Metal
			CuEq	Cu %	Ag g/t	Aug/t	CuEq Kt	Cu kT	Ag koz	Au koz
0.0	Indicated	640	2.18	1.70	28.6	0.53	14	10.9	588	11
	Inferred	3,300	2.7	2.3	32	0.3	90	76	3,395	32
	Total	3,940	2.6	2.2	31	0.3	103	87	3,984	43
1.0	Indicated	620	2.22	1.73	29.0	0.54	14	10.7	578	11
	Inferred	3,300	2.8	2.4	32	0.3	93	79	3,395	32
	Total	3,920	2.7	2.3	32	0.3	107	90	3,973	43
1.4	Indicated	580	2.28	1.78	29.6	0.57	13	10.3	552	11
	Inferred	3,100	2.8	2.4	33	0.3	87	74	3,289	30
	Total	3,680	2.7	2.3	32	0.3	101	85	3,841	41
1.8	Indicated	450	2.46	1.92	30.5	0.65	11	8.6	441	9
	Inferred	2,600	3.1	2.7	36	0.3	82	70	3,009	25
	Total	3,050	3.0	2.6	35	0.4	93	79	3,451	34

Table 2: Mallee Bull Mineral Resource estimate outcomes based on a range of copper equivalent lower cutoff grades. The figures in this table are rounded to reflect the precision of the estimates and include rounding errors.

Peel Mining Limited ACN 119 343 734 Unit 1, 34 Kings Park Rd, West Perth, WA 6005. Ph: (08) 9382 3955. Fax (08) 9388 1025. E:rtyson@peelmining.com.au www.peelmining.com.au

==> picture [155 x 62] intentionally omitted <==

For further information, please contact Rob Tyson on +61 420 234 020.

The information in this report that relates to Exploration Results is based on information compiled by Mr Robert Tyson, who is a Member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Mr Tyson is the Managing Director of Peel Mining Limited. Mr Tyson has sufficient experience which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity which he is undertaking to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the ‘Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves.’ Mr Tyson consents to the inclusion in this report of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears.

The information in this report that relates to the Mineral Resource estimates is based on information compiled by Jonathon Abbott, a Competent Person who is a Member of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists. Jonathon Abbott is a full time employee of MPR Geological Consultants Pty Ltd and is an independent consultant to Peel Mining Ltd. Mr Abbott has sufficient experience that is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity being undertaking 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 Abbott consents to the inclusion in this report of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears.

Peel Mining Limited ACN 119 343 734 Unit 1, 34 Kings Park Rd, West Perth, WA 6005. Ph: (08) 9382 3955. Fax (08) 9388 1025. E:rtyson@peelmining.com.au www.peelmining.com.au

==> picture [155 x 62] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [518 x 466] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 1 – Mallee Bull Drillhole Plan with Geology

Peel Mining Limited ACN 119 343 734 Unit 1, 34 Kings Park Rd, West Perth, WA 6005. Ph: (08) 9382 3955. Fax (08) 9388 1025. E:rtyson@peelmining.com.au www.peelmining.com.au

==> picture [155 x 62] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [433 x 659] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 2 – Mallee Bull Section 6413367N

Peel Mining Limited ACN 119 343 734 Unit 1, 34 Kings Park Rd, West Perth, WA 6005. Ph: (08) 9382 3955. Fax (08) 9388 1025. E:rtyson@peelmining.com.au

www.peelmining.com.au

==> picture [155 x 62] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [443 x 657] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3 – Mallee Bull Resource Model 3D view towards NE

Peel Mining Limited ACN 119 343 734 Unit 1, 34 Kings Park Rd, West Perth, WA 6005. Ph: (08) 9382 3955. Fax (08) 9388 1025. E:rtyson@peelmining.com.au www.peelmining.com.au

==> picture [155 x 62] intentionally omitted <==

Table 1 Mallee Bull (JORC Code, 2012 Edition)

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data

Criteria	JORC Code explanation Commentary
Sampling techniques	 Nature and quality of sampling (eg cut channels, random chips, or specific specialised industry standard measurement tools appropriate to the minerals under investigation, such as down hole gamma sondes, or handheld XRF instruments, etc). These examples should not be taken as limiting the broad meaning of sampling.  Within the resource area the Mallee Bull drill hole database comprises 79 RAB holes, 19 RC holes and 51 pre-collared diamond holes drilled by Peel since 2011 for 32,655 m of drilling.  Wedges were drilled from five of the diamond holes with between 1 and 4 wedges drilled from each parent hole.
	 Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample representivity and the appropriate calibration of any measurement tools or systems used.  Measures taken to ensure the representivity of RC and diamond sampling include close supervision by field geologists, use of appropriate sub-sampling methods, routine cleaning of splitters and cyclones, and RC rigs with sufficient capacity to provide generally dry, high recovery samples.  Information available to demonstrate sample representivity includes recovered RC sample weights, diamond core recoveries and RC field duplicates.
	 Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are Material to the Public Report.  In cases where ‘industry standard’ work has been done this would be relatively simple (eg ‘reverse circulation drilling was used to obtain 1 m samples from which 3 kg was pulverised to produce a 30 g charge for 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  Potentially mineralised RC and diamond samples were selected for assaying on the basis of geological logging and nearby drilling results.  Down-hole sample lengths of assays within the mineralised domains used for resource estimation range from 0.6 to 1.3 m and average 1.0 m with 1.0 m samples representing 99.7% of mineralised drilling.  RC samples were generally sub-sampled with either a three tier riffle splitter or cone splitter. A small number of intervals were sub-sampled by scoop.  Diamond core was generally halved for assaying with a diamond saw.  Samples were submitted to ALS in Orange NSW for analysis, with check assaying by SGS in Townsville.  Samples submitted to ALS were oven dried and jaw crushed (for diamond core), then riffle split if required to produce a maximum 3 Kg sample which was pulverised to nominally 85% passing 75 microns.  All gold assaying was by 30 gram fire assay  For assaing to mid-2012 copper, silver, cobalt, lead, zinc and sulphur assaying was by four acid digest with determination by ICP-AES.  From mid-2012 copper, silver, cobalt, lead, zinc and sulphur assaying was by aqua regia digest with determination by ICP-AES. These samples represent around 66% of the resource dataset.
Drilling techniques	 Drill type (eg core, reverse circulation, open- hole hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc) and details (eg core diameter, triple or standard tube, depth of diamond tails, face-sampling bit or other type, whether core  Resources were estimated from 1m down-hole composited assay grades from RC and diamond drilling with diamond drilling providing 94% of resource composites.

Peel Mining Limited ACN 119 343 734 Unit 1, 34 Kings Park Rd, West Perth, WA 6005. Ph: (08) 9382 3955. Fax (08) 9388 1025. E:rtyson@peelmining.com.au www.peelmining.com.au

==> picture [155 x 62] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	is oriented and if so, by what method, etc).	 All RC drilling used face-sampling bits of generally 5
		½ inch diameter.
		 Diamond drilling included NQ, HQ and PQ sized core,
		which contribute 35%, 64% and 1% of the diamond
		resource dataset respectively.
		 Approximately 65% of the diamond core was
		oriented by conventional spear or electronic
		methods.
Drill sample	 Method of recording and assessing core and	 Measures taken to maximise recovery for RC drilling
recovery	chip sample recoveries and results assessed.	included use of face sampling bits and drilling rigs of
	 Measures taken to maximise sample recovery	sufficient capacity to provide generally dry, high
	and ensure representative nature of the	recovery samples.
	samples.	 Recovered sample weights show an average
	 Whether a relationship exists between sample	recovery of around 77% for mineralised domain RC
	recovery and grade and whether sample bias	samples and no relationship between recovery and
	may have occurred due to preferential	grade.
	loss/gain of fine/coarse material.	 Recovered core lengths were recorded for virtually
		all core runs. These data show an average recovery
		of 100% for mineralised domain drilling and no
		relationship between recovery and grade.
		 The available information is indicative of generally
		good sample recoveries with no notable relationship
		between sample recovery and grade and no
		indication that preferential sample loss may have
		generated biased samples.
Logging	 Whether core and chip samples have been	 Mallee Bull drill holes were routinely geologically
	geologically and geotechnically logged to a	logged by industry standard methods with core
	level of detail to support appropriate Mineral	samples routinely photographed. Diamond core was
	Resource estimation, mining studies and	generally geotechnically logged, including RQD.
	metallurgical studies.	 Geological logs are available for 99% of the resource
	 Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative	area RC and diamond drilling.
	in nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc)	 The logging is qualitative in nature and of sufficient
	photography.	detail to support the current resource estimates.
	 The total length and percentage of the
	relevant intersections logged.
Sub-sampling	 If core, whether cut or sawn and whether	 RC samples were collected over generally 1m down-
techniques	quarter, half or all core taken.	hole intervals and sub-sampled with a cone or three
and sample	 If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled,	tier riffle splitter.
preparation	rotary split, etc and whether sampled wet or	 Diamond core was halved for assaying with a
	dry.	diamond saw.
	 For all sample types, the nature, quality and	 Measures taken to ensure the representivity of RC
	appropriateness of the sample preparation	and diamond sub-sampling include close supervision
	technique.	by field geologists, use of appropriate sub-sampling
	 Quality control procedures adopted for all	methods, routine cleaning of splitters and cyclones,
	sub-sampling stages to maximise	and rigs with sufficient capacity to provide generally
	representivity of samples.	dry, high recovery RC samples.
	 Measures taken to ensure that the sampling is	 Information available to demonstrate the
	representative of the in situ material collected,	representivity of sub-sampling includes RC field
	including for instance results for field	duplicates.
	duplicate/second-half sampling.	 The available information demonstrates that the
	 Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the	sub-sampling methods and sub-sample sizes are
	grain size of the material being sampled.	appropriate for the grain size of the material being
		sampled,andprovide sufficientlyrepresentative

Peel Mining Limited ACN 119 343 734 Unit 1, 34 Kings Park Rd, West Perth, WA 6005. Ph: (08) 9382 3955. Fax (08) 9388 1025. E:rtyson@peelmining.com.au www.peelmining.com.au

==> picture [155 x 62] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation Commentary
	sub-samples for resource estimation.
Quality of assay data and laboratory tests	 For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF instruments, etc, the parameters used in determining the analysis including instrument make and model, reading times, calibrations factors applied and their derivation, etc.  Nature of quality control procedures adopted (eg standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (ie lack of bias) and precision have been established.  No geophysical measurements including hand-held XRF measurements were used in the resource estimates.  Assay quality control procedures adopted by Peel include reference standards, blanks and inter- laboratory check assays. These results have established acceptable levels of precision and accuracy for the assaying of the metals included in the Mineral Resource estimates.  Four acid digest check assaying by ALS and SGS indicates that ALS aqua regia assaying significantly undervalues sulphur grades. The Mineral Resource estimates do not include sulphur. The block model constructed for the current estimates include sulphur grades to facilitate density assignment. Comparative modeling with aqua regia sulphur assays factored to remove the apparent bias did not give significantly estimates confirming that the apparent bias in aqua regia sulphur assaying does not significantly affect the assigned densities or the current resource estimates.
Verification of sampling and assaying	 The verification of significant intersections by either independent or alternative company personnel.  No drill hole results are reported in this announcement.
	 The use of twinned holes.  No twinned holes have been drilled at Mallee Bull
	 Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data verification, data storage (physical and electronic) protocols.  Sample intervals and geological logs were recorded by field geologists on hard copy sampling sheets which were then entered into spreadsheets for merging into the central database. Laboratory assay files were merged directly into a central sql database.  Peel geologists routinely validate data when loading into the database.
	 Discuss any adjustment to assay data.  Assay values were not adjusted for resource estimation.
Location of data points	 Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drill holes (collar and down-hole surveys), trenches, mine workings and other locations used in Mineral Resource estimation.   All RC and diamond holes included in the current estimates have accurate differential GPS collar surveys.  All resource holes were down hole surveyed by gyro tools at an average of 13 m intervals to at least the depth of mineralised intercepts.  The locations of drill hole traces have been defined with sufficient accuracyfor the current estimates.
	 Specification of the grid system used.  All surveying was undertaken in Map Grid of Australia 1994(MGA94)Zone 55 coordinates.
	 Quality and adequacy of topographic control.  A triangulation representing topgography was generated from drill hole collar surveys. The mineralisation does not outcrop and accuracy of the topgographic triangulation does not influence resource estimates.  Topographic control is adequate for the current estimates.

Peel Mining Limited ACN 119 343 734

Unit 1, 34 Kings Park Rd, West Perth, WA 6005. Ph: (08) 9382 3955. Fax (08) 9388 1025. E:rtyson@peelmining.com.au www.peelmining.com.au

==> picture [155 x 62] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation Commentary
Data spacing and distribution	 Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results.  No drill results are included in this announcement.  Drill hole spacing varies from around locally 20 by 20 m in central portions to 80 by 80 m and locally broader inperipheral areas and at depth.
	 Whether the data spacing and distribution is sufficient to establish the degree of geological and grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve estimation procedure(s) and classifications applied.  The data spacing has established geological and grade continuity sufficiently for the current Mineral Resource Estimates.
	 Whether sample compositing has been applied  Drill hole samples were composited to 1 m down- hole intervals for resource modeling.
Orientation of data in relation to geological structure	 Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased sampling of possible structures and the extent to which this is known, considering the deposit type.  If the relationship between the drilling orientation and the orientation of key mineralised structures is considered to have introduced a sampling bias, this should be assessed and reported if material.  Mallee Bull mineralisation dips at an average of around 75oto the west.The majority of resource RC and diamond holes are inclined moderately to steeply to the east.  One diamond hole with two wedges (MBDD017, MBDD017W1, MBDD017W2) drilled primarily for metallurgical sampling is inclined steeply west, sub- parallel to the mineralisation. These data were excluded from resource estimates for the main hangingwall and footwall mineralised domains, and used only for estimation of the small central zone.  For the combined resource dataset true thicknesses of mineralised intersections approximate 60% of down-hole intersection lengths.  For the resource dataset the drilling orientations achieve un-biased samplingof the mineralisation.
Sample security	 The measures taken to ensure sample security.  Field sampling was undertaken by field staff supervised by Peel geologists. Subsequent sample preparation and analyses were undertaken by commercial assay laboratories.  Sub-samples selected for assaying were collected in heavy-duty polywoven plastic bags which were immediately sealed. These bags were delivered to the assay laboratory by independent couriers, Peel employees or contractors.  Results of field duplicates, and the general consistency of results between sampling phases provide confidence in the general reliability of the resource data.
Audits or reviews	 The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data.  MPR Geological Consultants independently reviewed sample quality information, and database validity for the Mallee Bull resource drilling. These reviews included comparison of assay, collar survey and down-hole survey entries in the database with original records and checking for consistency within and between database tables. These reviews showed no significantly discrepancies.  MPR consider that the sample preparation, security and analytical procedures adopted for the Mallee Bull resource drilling provide an adequate basis for the current Mineral Resource estimates.

Peel Mining Limited ACN 119 343 734 Unit 1, 34 Kings Park Rd, West Perth, WA 6005. Ph: (08) 9382 3955. Fax (08) 9388 1025. E:rtyson@peelmining.com.au www.peelmining.com.au

==> picture [155 x 62] intentionally omitted <==

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Mineral	 Type, reference name/number, location and	 The Mallee Bull prospect is wholly located within
tenement	ownership including agreements or material	Exploration Licence EL7461 “Gilgunnia”. The
and land	issues with third parties such as joint	tenement is subject to a 50:50 Joint Venture with
tenure status	ventures, partnerships, overriding royalties,	CBH Resources Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of
	native title interests, historical sites,	Toho Zinc Co Ltd. Peel Mining Limited has a 50%
	wilderness or national park and	interest in the tenement.
	environmental settings.	 The tenement is in good standing and no known
	 The security of the tenure held at the time of	impediments exist.
	reporting along with any known impediments
	to obtaining a licence to operate in the area.
Exploration	 Acknowledgment and appraisal of	 Drilling by previous project explorers did not
done by	exploration by other parties.	intersect the Mallee Bull mineralisation and resource
other parties		estimates include only Peel RC and diamond drilling.
		 Exploratory work completed in the area by former
		tenement holders Triako Resources between 2003
		and 2009 included diamond drilling, IP surveys,
		geological mapping and reconnaissance geochemical
		sampling around the historic Four Mile Goldfield
		area. Prior to Triako Resources, Pasminco Exploration
		explored the Cobar Basin area for Cobar or Elura
		type deposits.
Geology	 Deposit type, geological setting and style of	 The project area lies within the Cobar-Mt Hope
	mineralisation.	Siluro-Devonian sedimentary and volcanic units. The
		northern Cobar region consists of predominantly
		sedimentary units with tuffaceous member, whilst
		the southern Mt Hope region consists of
		predominantly felsic volcanic rocks; the Mallee Bull
		prospect seems to be located in an area of overlap
		between these two regions. Mineralisation at Mallee
		Bull features the Cobar-style attributes of short strike
		lengths, narrow widths and vertical continuity, and
		occurs as shoot-like structures dipping steeply to the
		west.
Drill hole	 A summary of all information material to the	 No drill hole results are reported in this
Information	understanding of the exploration results	announcement.
	including a tabulation of the following
	information for all Material drill holes:
	o easting and northing of the drill hole
	collar
	o elevation or RL (Reduced Level – elevation
	above sea level in metres) of the drill hole
	collar
	o dip and azimuth of the hole
	o down hole length and interception depth
	o hole length.
	 If the exclusion of this information is justified
	on the basis that the information is not
	Material and this exclusion does not detract
	from the understanding of the report, the
	Competent Person should clearly explain why
	this is the case.
	 In reporting Exploration Results, weighting	 No drill hole results are reported in this

Peel Mining Limited ACN 119 343 734 Unit 1, 34 Kings Park Rd, West Perth, WA 6005. Ph: (08) 9382 3955. Fax (08) 9388 1025. E:rtyson@peelmining.com.au www.peelmining.com.au

==> picture [155 x 62] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation Commentary
Data aggregation methods	averaging techniques, maximum and/or minimum grade truncations (eg cutting of high grades) and cut-off grades are usually Material and should be stated.  Where aggregate intercepts incorporate short lengths of high grade results and longer lengths of low grade results, the procedure used for such aggregation should be stated and some typical examples of such aggregations should be shown in detail. announcement.
	 The assumptions used for any reporting of metal equivalent values should be clearly stated.  Mineral Resource estimates include copper equivalent grades incorporating on copper, silver and gold values.  The copper equivalent grades are based on copper, silver and gold prices of $7000/t, $20.00/oz and $1300/oz with overall recoveries of 95%, 90% and 66% respectively.  These estimates are based on Peel’s interpretation of potential commodity prices and their interpretation of first pass metallurgical test work performed on Mallee Bull diamond core and give the following formula: Cu equivalent (%) = Cu (%) + 0.009 x Ag (g/t) + 0.415 x Au (g/t)  It is the company’s opinion that all elements included in the metal equivalent calculation have a reasonable potential to be recovered and sold.  Additional test work is required to demonstrate potential metallurgical recoveries for cobalt, lead and zinc.
Relationship between mineralisatio n widths and intercept lengths	 These relationships are particularly important in the reporting of Exploration Results.  If the geometry of the mineralisation with respect to the drill hole angle is known, its nature should be reported.  If it is not known and only the down hole lengths are reported, there should be a clear statement to this effect (eg ‘down hole length, true width not known’).  Mallee Bull mineralisation dips at an average of around 75oto the west.The majority of resource holes are inclined moderately to steeply to the east.  A single diamond hole, with two wedges was drilled with a steep westerly inclination. Data from this hole was excluded from resource estimates for the main hangingwall and footwall mineralised domains, and was used only for estimation of the small central zone.  For the combined resource dataset true thicknesses of mineralisation intersections approximate 60% of down-hole intersection lengths.
Diagrams	 Appropriate maps and sections (with scales) and tabulations of intercepts should be included for any significant discovery being reported These should include, but not be limited to a plan view of drill hole collar locations and appropriate sectional views.  See diagrams attached.
Balanced reporting	 Where comprehensive reporting of all Exploration Results is not practicable, representative reporting of both low and high grades and/or widths should be practiced to avoid misleading reporting of Exploration Results.  No drill hole results are reported in this announcement.

Peel Mining Limited ACN 119 343 734 Unit 1, 34 Kings Park Rd, West Perth, WA 6005. Ph: (08) 9382 3955. Fax (08) 9388 1025. E:rtyson@peelmining.com.au www.peelmining.com.au

==> picture [155 x 62] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Other	 Other exploration data, if meaningful and	 Preliminary metallurgical testwork shows overall
substantive	material, should be reported including (but	recoveries of copper, silver and gold as 95%, 90% and
exploration	not limited to): geological observations;	66% respectively. Testwork is ongoing.
data	geophysical survey results; geochemical	 A variety of geophysical surveys have been
	survey results; bulk samples – size and	completed at Mallee Bull with results reported
	method of treatment; metallurgical test	previously.
	results; bulk density, groundwater,
	geotechnical and rock characteristics;
	potential deleterious or contaminating
	substances.
Further work	 The nature and scale of planned further work	 Additional work will include scoping studies and
	(eg tests for lateral extensions or depth	further geophysical and geochemical investigation.
	extensions or large-scale step-out drilling).	Further drilling is anticipated in due course.
	 Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of
	possible extensions, including the main
	geological interpretations and future drilling
	areas, provided this information is not
	commercially sensitive.

Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Database	 Measures taken to ensure that data has not	 Sample intervals and geological logs were recorded
integrity	been corrupted by, for example, transcription	by field geologists on hard copy sampling sheets
	or keying errors, between its initial collection	which were then entered into spreadsheets for
	and its use for Mineral Resource estimation	merging into the central database. Laboratory assay
	purposes.	files were merged directly into a central database.
	 Data validation procedures used.	 Peel geologists routinely validate data when loading
		into the database.
		 MPR Geological Consultants independently reviewed
		sample quality information, and database validity for
		the Mallee Bull resource drilling. These reviews
		included comparison of assay, collar survey and
		down-hole survey entries in the database with
		original sampling records and checking for
		consistency within and between database tables.
		These reviews showed no significantly discrepancies.
		 MPR consider that the sample preparation, security
		and analytical procedures adopted for the Mallee
		Bull resource drilling provide an adequate basis for
		the current Mineral Resource estimates.
Site visits	 Comment on any site visits undertaken by the	 Jonathon Abbott visited Mallee Bull from the 3rdto
	Competent Person and the outcome of those	the 6thof February 2014. Mr Abbott inspected drill
	visits.	core, and drilling and sampling activities and had
	 If no site visits have been undertaken indicate	detailed discussions with Peel field geologists gaining
	why this is the case.	an improved understanding of the geological setting
		and mineralisation controls, and the resource
		samplingactivities.
Geological	 Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertainty	 The geological setting of the Mallee Bull deposit
interpretatio	of ) the geological interpretation of the	mineralisation has been confidently established from
n	mineral deposit.	drill hole logging, including development of a three
	 Nature of the data used and of any	dimensional model of the major rock units.
	assumptions made.	 The mineralised domains used for resource
		estimation capture zones of continuous

Peel Mining Limited ACN 119 343 734

Unit 1, 34 Kings Park Rd, West Perth, WA 6005. Ph: (08) 9382 3955. Fax (08) 9388 1025. E:rtyson@peelmining.com.au www.peelmining.com.au

==> picture [155 x 62] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	 The effect, if any, of alternative	mineralisation with drill sample copper grades of
	interpretations on Mineral Resource	greater than 0.8%, with some lower grade intercepts
	estimation.	included for continuity.
	 The use of geology in guiding and controlling	 The resource domains comprise two main zones
	Mineral Resource estimation.	designated as the hangingwall and footwall domain
	 The factors affecting continuity both of grade	respectively, and a smaller subsidiary zone
	and geology.	designated as the central zone which represents
		around 2% of estimated resources.
		 Domain interpretation included reference to
		lithological domain wire-frames and the domains are
		consistent with geological understanding.
		 Due to the confidence in understanding
		mineralisation controls and the robustness of the
		geological model investigation of alternative
		interpretations are considered unnecessary.
Dimensions	 The extent and variability of the Mineral	 The hangingwall mineralised domain strikes north-
	Resource expressed as length (along strike or	south over approximately 240 m and extends over a
	otherwise), plan width, and depth below	vertical distance of approximately 375 m, from 125
	surface to the upper and lower limits of the	to 500 m below surface. True widths range from
	Mineral Resource.	around 1 to rarely 21 m and average 4.3 m.
		 The footwall mineralised domain strikes north-north
		east (020) over approximately 270 m with a vertical
		extent of approximately 690 m from around 125 m to
		815 m depth. The domain ranges from around 1 to
		rarely 30 m thick and averages around 6.4 m thick.
		 The footwall domain was subdivided into an upper,
		lower copper grade zone, and a deeper zone of
		higher average copper grades below 390 m depth.
		 The central mineralised domain strikes north-south
		over approximately 100 m with a vertical extent of
		approximately 130 m between approximately 310
		and 310 m depth. True widths range from around 1
		to 6 m and average approximately2.9 m.
Estimation	 The nature and appropriateness of the	 The block model constructed for the current study
and	estimation technique(s) applied and key	includes copper, silver, gold, cobalt, lead, zinc and
modelling	assumptions, including treatment of extreme	sulphur grades. Sulphur grades were estimated for
techniques	grade values, domaining, interpolation	density assignment and are not included in Mineral
	parameters and maximum distance of	Resource estimates.
	extrapolation from data points. If a computer	 Grades were estimated by Ordinary Kriging of 1 m
	assisted estimation method was chosen	down-hole composited assay grades within the
	include a description of computer software	mineralised domains.
	and parameters used.	 Estimation of each attribute included upper cuts
		which generally approximate the 95thpercentile of
		each dataset.
		 Upper cuts applied to the hangingwall, footwall
		upper, footwall lower and central domain
		respectively were as follows:
		 Copper: 4.0%, 5.0%, 10%, 4.5%
		 Silver: 75 g/t, 100 g/t, 170 g/t, 80 g/t
		 Gold: 2.5 g/t, 1.0 g/t 1.0 g/t, 0.60 g/t
		 Cobalt 900 g/t, 250 g/t, 250 g/t, 70 g/t
		 Lead: 1.5%, 1.5%, 1.5%, 0.9%
		 Zinc: 1.0%,1.0%,0.5%,1.5%

Peel Mining Limited ACN 119 343 734

Unit 1, 34 Kings Park Rd, West Perth, WA 6005. Ph: (08) 9382 3955. Fax (08) 9388 1025. E:rtyson@peelmining.com.au www.peelmining.com.au

==> picture [155 x 62] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation Commentary
	 Sulphur: 45%, 20%,10%, uncut  The model estimates are generally extrapolated to a maximum of around 40 m from drill intercepts.  Micromine software was used for data compilation, domain wire-framing, and coding of composite values, and GS3M was used for resource estimation.  The estimation technique is appropriate for the mineralisation style.
	 The availability of check estimates, previous estimates and/or mine production records and whether the Mineral Resource estimate takes appropriate account of such data.  There has been no production to date at Mallee Bull.  Comparative check modeling included construction of un-cut estimates. A model was also constructed with composite sulphur grades factored to compensate for the apparent understatement of by aqua regia assaying. This model did not give significantly different resource estimates, and the model with un-factored grades was adopted for the Mineral Resource estimates.
	 The assumptions made regarding recovery of by-products.  Estimation of deleterious elements or other non-grade variables of economic significance (eg sulphur for acid mine drainage characterisation).  Estimated resources make no assumptions about recovery of by-products.  The block model includes sulphur grades for assignment of density.
	 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  Grades were Kriged into 2 m by 10 m by 10 m (east, north, vertical) blocks with sub-blocking to minimum dimensions of 0.4 m by 2.0 m by 2.0 m at domain boundaries.  Drill hole intercept spacing varies from around 20 by 20 m and locally tighter in central areas of the mineralisation to greater than 80 by 80 m in peripheral areas and at depth.  Estimation included a four pass octant based search strategy, with ellipsoids aligned with mineralised domain orientations.  Search ellipsoid radii (across strike, along strike, down dip) and minimum data requirements for these searches range from 10 by 50 by 50m (8 data) for search 1 to 20 by 200 by 200 m (4 data) for search 4.  Estimates from search pass 4 contribute around 1% of estimated resources.
	 Any assumptions about correlation between variables.  Grade modeling did not include any specific assumptions about correlation between variables.  Densities were assigned to the resource model from Kriged sulphur values using a density-sulphur formula derived from density measurements of diamond core.
	 Description of how the geological interpretation was used to control the resource estimates.  The mineralised domains used for the current estimates capture zones of continuous mineralisation with drill sample copper grades of greater than 0.8%. Domain interpretation included reference to lithological domain wire-frames, and the domains are consistent withgeological understanding.

Peel Mining Limited ACN 119 343 734

Unit 1, 34 Kings Park Rd, West Perth, WA 6005. Ph: (08) 9382 3955. Fax (08) 9388 1025. E:rtyson@peelmining.com.au www.peelmining.com.au

==> picture [155 x 62] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation Commentary
	 Discussion of basis for using or not using grade cutting or capping.  Estimation of each attribute included upper cuts selected on a domain by domain basis which generally approximate the 95thpercentile of each dataset. These upper cuts reduce the impact of a small number of outlier compositegrades.
	 The process of validation, the checking process used, the comparison of model data to drill hole data, and use of reconciliation data if available.  Model validation included visual comparison of model estimates and composite grades, and trend (swath) plots, along with comparison with results from comparative models.
Moisture	 Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or with natural moisture, and the method of determination of the moisture content.  Tonnages are estimated on a dry tonnage basis
Cut-off parameters	 The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters applied.  Economic evaluation of the Mallee Bull deposit is at an early stage, and metallurgical and mining parameters have not yet been confidently established. The cut-off grades applied to the estimates reflect Peel’s interpretation of potential commodity prices,costs and recoveries.
Mining factors or assumptions	 Assumptions made regarding possible mining methods, minimum mining dimensions and internal (or, if applicable, external) mining dilution. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider potential mining methods, but the assumptions made regarding mining methods and parameters when estimating Mineral Resources may not always be rigorous. Where this is the case, this should be reported with an explanation of the basis of the mining assumptions made.  Economic evaluation of the Mallee Bull deposit is at an early stage, and mining parameters have not yet been confidently established. The estimates assume underground mining of the comparatively narrow mineralisation.
Metallurgical factors or assumptions	 The basis for assumptions or predictions regarding metallurgical amenability. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider potential metallurgical methods, but the assumptions regarding metallurgical treatment processes and parameters made when reporting Mineral Resources may not always be rigorous. Where this is the case, this should be reported with an explanation of the basis of the metallurgical assumptions made.  First pass test work undertaken by Peel during 2013 and 2104 suggests that the mineralisation is amenable to recovery by floatation with copper, silver and gold recoveries of around 95%, 90% and 66% respectively.  Additional test work is required to establish potential recoveries for cobalt, lead and zinc.
Environment al factors or assumptions	 Assumptions made regarding possible waste and process residue disposal options. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider the potential environmental impacts of the mining and processing operation. While at this stage the determination of potential  Economic evaluation of the Mallee Bull deposit is at an early stage, and environmental considerations for potential mining have not yet been evaluated in detail. Information available to Peel indicates that there are unlikely to be any specific environmental issues that would preclude potential eventual economic extraction.

Peel Mining Limited ACN 119 343 734 Unit 1, 34 Kings Park Rd, West Perth, WA 6005. Ph: (08) 9382 3955. Fax (08) 9388 1025. E:rtyson@peelmining.com.au www.peelmining.com.au

==> picture [155 x 62] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation Commentary
	environmental impacts, particularly for a greenfields project, may not always be well advanced, the status of early consideration of these potential environmental impacts should be reported. Where these aspects have not been considered this should be reported with an explanation of the environmental assumptions made.
Bulk density	 Whether assumed or determined. If assumed, the basis for the assumptions. If determined, the method used, whether wet or dry, the frequency of the measurements, the nature, size and representativeness of the samples.  The bulk density for bulk material must have been measured by methods that adequately account for void spaces (vugs, porosity, etc), moisture and differences between rock and alteration zones within the deposit.  Discuss assumptions for bulk density estimates used in the evaluation process of the different materials.  Peel routinely performed immersion density measurements on air dried samples of drill core with results available for 2,308 samples.  The reliability of Peels density measurements was confirmed by 97 repeat measurements performed by ALS on oven dried samples.  Density measurements show an association between increasing density and sulphur grade reflecting increasing concentration of sulphide minerals.  Densities were assigned to the current block model from Kriged sulphur values using the following formula derived from the available density measurements: Density (t/m3) = 2.80 + 0.04 x S(%)  Average estimated densities range from approximately 2.9 t/m3for the footwall and central domains to approximately 3.7 t/m3for the more sulphide rich hangingwall domain.  The available information suggests that the density measurements are representative of the mineralisation.
Classification	 The basis for the classification of the Mineral Resources into varying confidence categories.  Estimated resources are extrapolated to generally around 40 m from drill intercepts and classified as Indicated and Inferred on the basis of estimation search pass and polygons defining areas of relatively consistent drill hole spacing.  For the hangingwall and upper footwall domains, estimates for mineralisation with consistently 40 by 40 m or closer spaced sampling are classified as Indicated and estimates for more broadly sampled mineralisation are classified as Inferred.  The lower footwall, and central mineralised domains are comparatively broadly drilled and all estimates for these domains are classified as Inferred.
	 Whether appropriate account has been taken of all relevant factors (ie relative confidence in tonnage/grade estimations, reliability of input data, confidence in continuity of geology and metal values, quality, quantity and distribution of the data).  The resource classification accounts for all relevant factors.
	 Whether the result appropriately reflects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit.  The resource classifications reflect the Competent Person’s views of the deposit.
Audits or reviews	 The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral Resource estimates.  The resource estimates have been reviewed by Peel geologists, and are considered to appropriately reflect the mineralisation and drillingdata.

Peel Mining Limited ACN 119 343 734 Unit 1, 34 Kings Park Rd, West Perth, WA 6005. Ph: (08) 9382 3955. Fax (08) 9388 1025. E:rtyson@peelmining.com.au www.peelmining.com.au

==> picture [155 x 62] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Discussion of	 Where appropriate a statement of the	 Confidence in the relative accuracy of the estimates
relative	relative accuracy and confidence level in the	is reflected by the classification of estimates as
accuracy/	Mineral Resource estimate using an approach	Indicated and Inferred.
confidence	or procedure deemed appropriate by the
	Competent Person. For example, the
	application of statistical or geostatistical
	procedures to quantify the relative accuracy
	of the resource within stated confidence
	limits, or, if such an approach is not deemed
	appropriate, a qualitative discussion of the
	factors that could affect the relative accuracy
	and confidence of the estimate.
	 The statement should specify whether it
	relates to global or local estimates, and, if
	local, state the relevant tonnages, which
	should be relevant to technical and economic
	evaluation. Documentation should include
	assumptions made and the procedures used.
	 These statements of relative accuracy and
	confidence of the estimate should be
	compared with production data, where
	available.

Peel Mining Limited ACN 119 343 734 Unit 1, 34 Kings Park Rd, West Perth, WA 6005. Ph: (08) 9382 3955. Fax (08) 9388 1025. E:rtyson@peelmining.com.au www.peelmining.com.au