PEEL MINING LIMITED — Capital/Financing Update 2017

Jul 5, 2017

ASX ANNOUNCEMENT 6

th JULY 2017

MALLEE BULL RESOURCE GROWS 65% TO 175,000t CuEq1

• Total Mineral Resource estimate of 6.76 Mt at 1.8% copper, 31 g/t silver, 0.4 g/t gold, 0.6% lead and 0.6% zinc (2.6% copper equivalent) using 1.0% copper equivalent cutoff
• Mineral Resource contains approximately 119,000t copper, 6.6 Moz silver, 83,000 oz gold, 38,000t zinc and 38,000t lead (175,000t copper equivalent)
• T1 prefeasibility work continuing; infill, metallurgical and geotechnical drilling nearing completion (assays awaited); metallurgical testwork continuing

Peel Mining Limited (ASX: PEX) ("Peel", "the Company"), together with its 50% joint venture partner CBH Resources Limited, is pleased to report an updated JORC Mineral Resource estimate for the Mallee Bull copper-silver-gold-lead-zinc deposit. The updated mineral resource reflects the substantial exploration success that has occurred since the completion of Mallee Bull's maiden mineral resource estimate in May 2014.

The updated Mineral Resource estimate represents a 65% increase in total contained copper equivalent tonnes and comprises 6.76 million tonnes at 1.8% copper, 31 g/t silver, 0.4 g/t gold, 0.6% lead and 0.6% zinc (2.6% copper equivalent) containing approximately 119,000 tonnes of copper, 6.6 million ounces silver, 83,000 ounces gold, 38,000t lead and 38,000t zinc (175,000t copper equivalent) (using a 1% copper equivalent cutoff - see Table 1 below).

Peel Mining's Managing Director Rob Tyson stated: "The updated Mineral Resource estimate for Mallee Bull demonstrates the significant exploration success achieved over the last three years. This success is highlighted by the addition of lead and zinc mineralisation into the estimate, underpinned by the discovery of near-surface, high-grade zinc-lead-silver mineralisation at T1. T1 is now the focus of activity where prefeasibility work is investigating the potential for an early production opportunity."

			Grade				Contained Metal
CutoffCuEq	Domain	ResourceCategory	Kt	CuEq%	Cu%	Agg/t	Aug/t	Pb%	Zn%	CuEqkt	Cukt	AgMoz	Aukoz	Pbkt	Znkt
	HW	Indicated	270	3.08	0.10	51	0.22	2.30	4.00	8.3	0.3	0.44	1.9	6.2	11
	Pb/Zn	Inferred	150	2.0	0.3	23	0.5	1.3	2.2	3.0	0.5	0.1	2.4	2.0	3.3
	HW Cu	Indicated	760	1.98	1.13	23	0.54	0.71	0.56	15	8.6	0.56	13	5.4	4.3
		Inferred	1,300	2.1	0.8	30	0.9	1.1	1.0	28	10	1.3	38	14	13
		Indicated	310	1.75	1.09	28	0.20	0.42	0.48	5.4	3.4	0.28	2.0	1.3	1.5
1.00	FW Cu	Inferred	3,400	3.1	2.6	32	0.2	0.2	0.1	104	88	3.5	22	6.8	3.4
	Central	Inferred	180	2.2	1.6	36	0.2	0.3	0.3	4.0	2.9	0.21	1.2	0.5	0.5
	North	Inferred	390	1.8	1.3	23	0.2	0.3	0.4	7.2	5.1	0.3	2.5	1.2	1.6
		Indicated	1,340	2.15	0.91	30	0.40	0.96	1.23	29	12	1.3	17	13	17
	Total	Inferred	5,420	2.7	2.0	31	0.4	0.5	0.4	146	107	5.4	66	25	22
	Total		6,760	2.6	1.8	31	0.4	0.6	0.6	175	119	6.6	83	38	38

Table 1: Mallee Bull Mineral Resource estimate based on 1% copper equivalent (CuEq) cutoff grade. The figures in this table are rounded to reflect the precision of the estimates and include rounding errors.

1 – Refer to Table 1 for copper equivalent calculation and resource estimation methodology.

Mineral Resource estimates include copper equivalent grades incorporating copper, silver, gold, lead and zinc values. The copper equivalent grades are based on copper, silver, gold, lead and zinc prices of US$5,500/t, US$17.00/oz, $1,200/oz, US$2,100/t and US$2,500/t with overall recoveries of 95%, 85%, 40%, 90% and 85% respectively. These estimates are based on Peel's interpretation of potential commodity prices and the Company's interpretation of early stage metallurgical test work performed on Mallee Bull diamond core using the following formula: Cu equivalent (%) = Cu (%) + 0.009 x Ag (g/t) + 0.295 x Au (g/t) + 0.362 x Pb (%) + 0.407 x Zn (%). It is the company's opinion that all elements included in the metal equivalent calculation have a reasonable potential to be recovered and sold.

The Mineral Resource update has been prepared by MPR Geological Consultants Pty Ltd, is reported in accordance with the guidelines of the JORC Code (2012 edition) and includes the addition of more than 17,200m of drilling conducted since mid-2014. Approximately 20% of the Mallee Bull resource is in the Indicated Mineral Resource category.

The Mallee Bull Mineral Resource comprises five mineralised domains. The domains were generated by wire-framing of geological data and the use of a 0.8% copper equivalent lower cutoff. Resources were estimated by Ordinary Kriging of one metre down-hole composited assay grades from RC and diamond drilling within these domains. A breakdown of the Mineral Resources at various copper equivalent cutoffs is shown in Table 2. The figures in Tables 1 & 2 are rounded to reflect the precision of the estimates and include rounding errors.

A detailed summary of the information used in the resource estimation is found in the appended Table 1 - Mallee Bull (JORC Code, 2012 Edition).

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 cutoff, the resource still contains approximately 103,000 tonnes of copper, 5.3 Moz of silver, 55 koz of gold, 28kt Pb and 27kt Zn (see Table 2).

Infill, metallurgical and geotechnical drilling being undertaken as part of prefeasibility works on T1 is nearing completion, with assays awaited, while metallurgical testwork is continuing. Peel expects to complete the prefeasibility study by end September quarter, and provided the findings are positive, will proceed with a definitive feasibility study shortly thereafter.

For further information, please contact:

Rob Tyson – Peel Mining Managing Director (+61 420 234 020). Luke Forrestal – Media + Capital Partners (+61 411 479 144).

Cut						Grade						Contained Metal
offCuEq	Category	Kt	CuEq%	CuEqKt	Cu%	Pb%	Zn%	Aug/t	Agg/t	CuEqkt	Cukt	Pbkt	Znkt	Aukoz	AgMoz
	Indicated	1,630	1.90	31.0	0.80	0.86	1.11	0.36	27	31	13	14	18	19	1.4
0.00	Inferred	5,850	2.6	153	1.9	0.5	0.4	0.4	30	153	112	27	22	69	5.6
	Total	7,480	2.5	184	1.7	0.5	0.5	0.4	29	184	125	41	40	88	6.9
1.00	Indicated	1,340	2.15	28.8	0.91	0.96	1.23	0.40	30	29	12	13	17	17	1.3
	Inferred	5,420	2.7	146	2.0	0.5	0.4	0.4	31	146	107	25	22	66	5.4
	Total	6,760	2.6	175	1.8	0.6	0.6	0.4	31	175	119	38	38	83	6.6
	Indicated	1,020	2.45	25.0	1.02	1.12	1.43	0.45	34	25	10	11	15	15	1.1
1.40	Inferred	4,760	2.9	138	2.2	0.5	0.4	0.4	33	138	103	22	18	60	5.0
	Total	5,780	2.8	163	2.0	0.6	0.6	0.4	33	163	113	34	33	75	6.2
	Indicated	710	2.84	20.1	1.08	1.40	1.85	0.49	39	20	8	10	13	11	0.9
1.80	Inferred	3,760	3.3	124	2.5	0.5	0.4	0.4	36	124	95	18	14	44	4.4
	Total	4,470	3.2	144	2.3	0.6	0.6	0.4	37	144	103	28	27	55	5.3

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

Competent Persons Statements

The information in this report that relates to Exploration Results is based on information compiled by Rob Tyson who is a fulltime employee of the company. Mr Tyson is a member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Mr Tyson has sufficient experience of relevance to the styles of mineralisation and the types of deposits under consideration, and to the activities undertaken, to qualify as Competent Persons as defined in the 2012 Edition of the Joint Ore Reserves Committee (JORC) 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 information in the form and context in which it appears. Exploration results are based on standard industry practices, including sampling, assay methods, and appropriate quality assurance quality control (QAQC) measures.

The information in this report that relates to the Mallee Bull Mineral Resource estimates, and reported by the Company in compliance with JORC 2012 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.

Figure 1 – Mallee Bull Drill Plan with resource block model outline

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

Figure 2 – Mallee Bull Cross Section 6413395mN

Figure 3 – Mallee Bull Long Section (looking West)

Table 1 - Mallee Bull (JORC Code, 2012 Edition)

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Samplingtechniques	Nature and quality of sampling (eg cutchannels, random chips, or specific specialisedindustrystandardmeasurementtoolsappropriatetothemineralsunderinvestigation, such as down hole gammasondes, or handheld XRF instruments, etc).These examples should not be taken as limitingthe broad meaning of sampling.	Within the resource area the Mallee Bull drill holedatabase comprises 80 RAB holes, 58 RC holes and 70pre-collared diamond holes drilled by Peel since 2011for 49,892 m of drilling.Wedges were drilled from 7 of the diamond holeswith between 1 and 4 wedges drilled from eachparent hole.
	Include reference to measures taken to ensuresample representivity and the appropriatecalibration of any measurement tools orsystems used.	Measures taken to ensure the representivity of RCand diamond sampling include close supervision byfield geologists, use of appropriate sub-samplingmethods, routine cleaning of splitters and cyclones,and RC rigs with sufficient capacity to providegenerally dry, high recovery samples.Informationavailabletodemonstratesamplerepresentivity includes recovered RC sample weights,diamond core recoveries and RC field duplicates.
	Aspects of the determination of mineralisationthat are Material to the Public Report.In cases where 'industry standard' work hasbeen done this would be relatively simple (eg'reverse circulation drilling was used to obtain1 m samples from which 3 kg was pulverised toproduce a 30 g charge for fire assay'). In othercases more explanation may be required, suchas where there is coarse gold that has inherentsampling problems. Unusual commodities ormineralisation types (eg submarine nodules)may warrant disclosure of detailed information	Potentially mineralised RC and diamond sampleswere selected for assaying on the basis of geologicallogging and nearby drilling results.Down-hole sample lengths of assays within themineralised domains used for resource estimationrange from 0.4 to 4.0 m and average 1.0 m with 1.0 msamples representing 98% of the resource dataset.RC samples were generally sub-sampled with either athree-tier riffle splitter or cone splitter. A smallnumber of intervals were sub-sampled by scoop.Diamond core was generally halved for assaying witha diamond saw.Samples were submitted to ALS in Orange NSW foranalysis, with check assaying by SGS in Townsville.Samples submitted to ALS were oven dried and jawcrushed (for diamond core), then riffle split ifrequired to produce a maximum 3 Kg sample whichwas pulverised to nominally 85% passing 75 microns.All gold assaying was by 30 gram fire assayFor assaying to mid-2012 copper, silver, cobalt, lead,zinc and sulphur assaying was by four acid digest withdetermination by ICP-AES.From mid-2012 copper, silver, cobalt, lead, zinc andsulphur assaying was by aqua regia digest withdetermination by ICP-AES. These samples representaround 67% of the resource dataset.
Drillingtechniques	Drill type (eg core, reverse circulation, openhole hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka,sonic, etc) and details (eg core diameter, tripleor standard tube, depth of diamond tails, facesampling bit or other type, whether core isoriented and if so, by what method, etc).	Resources were estimated from 1m down-holecomposited assay grades from RC and diamonddrilling with diamond drilling providing 73% ofresource composites.All RC drilling used face-sampling bits of generally 5 ½inch diameter.Diamond drilling included NQ, HQ and PQ sized core,

Peel Mining Limited ACN 119 343 734

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		which contribute 40.5%, 59.1% and 0.4% of thediamond resource dataset respectively.Approximately 66% of the diamond core was orientedby conventional spear or electronic methods.
Drill samplerecovery	Method of recording and assessing core andchip sample recoveries and results assessed.Measures taken to maximise sample recoveryand ensure representative nature of thesamples.Whether a relationship exists between samplerecovery and grade and whether sample biasmayhaveoccurredduetopreferentialloss/gain of fine/coarse material.	Measures taken to maximise recovery for RC drillingincluded use of face sampling bits and drilling rigs ofsufficient capacity to provide generally dry, highrecovery samples.Recovered sample weights show an average recoveryof around 77% for mineralised domain RC samples.Recovered core lengths were recorded for virtually allcore runs. These data show an average recovery of100% for mineralised domain drilling.The available information is indicative of generallygood sample recoveries with no notable relationshipbetweensamplerecoveryandgradeandnoindication that preferential sample loss may havegenerated biased samples.
Logging	Whether core and chip samples have beengeologically and geotechnically logged to alevel of detail to support appropriate MineralResourceestimation,miningstudiesandmetallurgical studies.Whether logging is qualitative or quantitativein nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc)photography.The total length and percentage of the relevantintersections logged.	Mallee Bull drill holes were routinely geologicallylogged by industry standard methods with coresamples routinely photographed. Diamond core wasgenerally geotechnically logged, including RQD.Geological logs are available for all resource area RCand diamond holes.The logging is qualitative in nature and of sufficientdetail to support the current resource estimates.
Sub-samplingtechniquesand samplepreparation	If core, whether cut or sawn and whetherquarter, half or all core taken.If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled,rotary split, etc and whether sampled wet ordry.For all sample types, the nature, quality andappropriateness of the sample preparationtechnique.Quality control procedures adopted for all subsampling stages to maximise representivity ofsamples.Measures taken to ensure that the sampling isrepresentative of the in situ material collected,includingforinstanceresultsforfieldduplicate/second-half sampling.Whether sample sizes are appropriate to thegrain size of the material being sampled.	RC samples were collected over generally 1m downhole intervals and sub-sampled with a cone or threetier riffle splitter.Diamond core was generally halved for assaying witha diamond saw.Measures taken to ensure the representivity of RCand diamond sub-sampling include close supervisionby field geologists, use of appropriate sub-samplingmethods, routine cleaning of splitters and cyclones,and rigs with sufficient capacity to provide generallydry, high recovery RC samples.Informationavailabletodemonstratetherepresentivity of sub-sampling includes RC fieldduplicates.The available information demonstrates that the subsamplingmethodsandsub-samplesizesareappropriate for the grain size of the material beingsampled, and provide sufficiently representative subsamples for resource estimation.
Quality ofassay dataandlaboratorytests	For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheldXRF instruments, etc, the parameters used indetermining the analysis including instrumentmake and model, reading times, calibrationsfactors applied and their derivation, etc.Nature of quality control procedures adopted(eg standards, blanks, duplicates, external	No geophysical measurements including hand-heldXRF measurementswere used in the resourceestimates.Assay quality control procedures adopted by Peelinclude reference standards, blanks and interlaboratorycheckassays.Theseresultshaveestablished acceptablelevels ofprecisionand

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	laboratory checks) and whether acceptablelevels of accuracy (ie lack of bias) and precisionhave been established.	accuracy for the assaying of the metals included in theMineral Resource estimates.Four acid digest check assaying by ALS and SGSindicates that ALS aqua regia assaying undervaluesiron grades. Although not included in MineralResource estimates, the block model constructed forthe current estimates includes iron grades tofacilitatedensityassignment.Investigations,including comparative modeling with alternativedensityestimationmethodsindicatethattheapparent bias in iron assays does not significantlyaffect the assigned densities or the current resourceestimates.
Verificationof samplingand assaying	The verification of significant intersections byeither independent or alternative companypersonnel.	Nodrillholeresultsarereportedinthisannouncement.
	The use of twinned holes.	No twinned holes have been drilled at Mallee Bull
	Documentation of primary data, data entryprocedures, data verification, data storage(physical and electronic) protocols.	Sample intervals and geological logs were recordedby field geologists on hard copy sampling sheetswhich were then entered into spreadsheets formerging into the central database. Laboratory assayfiles were merged directly into a central sql database.Peel geologists routinely validate data when loadinginto the database.
	Discuss any adjustment to assay data.	Assay values were not adjusted for resourceestimation.
Location ofdata points	Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locatedrill holes (collar and down-hole surveys),trenches, mine workings and other locationsused in Mineral Resource estimation.	All RC and diamond holes included in the currentestimates have accurate differential GPS collarsurveys. All resource holes were down hole surveyedby gyro tools at an average of 13 m intervalsThe locations of drill hole traces have been definedwith sufficient accuracy for the current estimates.
	Specification of the grid system used.	All surveying was undertaken in Map Grid of Australia1994 (MGA94) Zone 55 coordinates.
	Quality and adequacy of topographic control.	A topographic triangulation was generated from drillhole collar surveys. The mineralisation does notoutcropandaccuracyofthetopographictriangulation does not influence resource estimates.Topographic control is adequate for the currentestimates.
Data spacinganddistribution	Data spacing for reporting of ExplorationResults.	No drill results are included in this announcement.Drill hole spacing varies from around locally 20 by 20m in central portions to 80 by 80 m and locallybroader in peripheral areas and at depth.
	Whether the data spacing and distribution issufficient to establish the degree of geologicaland grade continuity appropriate for theMineral Resource and Ore Reserve estimationprocedure(s) and classifications applied.	The data spacing has established geological and gradecontinuitysufficientlyforthecurrentMineralResource Estimates.
	Whether sample compositing has been applied	Drill hole samples were composited to 1 m down-holeintervals for resource modeling.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Orientationof data inrelation togeologicalstructure	Whether the orientation of sampling achievesunbiased sampling of possible structures andthe extent to which this is known, consideringthe deposit type.Iftherelationshipbetweenthedrillingorientationandtheorientationofkeymineralised structures is considered to haveintroduced a sampling bias, this should beassessed and reported if material.	Most Mallee Bull mineralisation generally dips at anaverage of around 70oto the west, with shallowportions averaging around 40o. Most resource RC anddiamond holes are inclined moderately to steeply tothe east.One diamond hole with two wedges (MBDD017,MBDD017W1, MBDD017W2) drilled primarily formetallurgical sampling is inclined steeply west, subparallel tothe mineralisation. These data wereexcluded from the hangingwall and footwall domainestimation datasets, and used only for estimation ofthe small central zone.For the combined resource dataset true thicknessesof mineralised intersections approximate 60% ofdown-hole intersection lengths.For the resource dataset the drilling orientationsachieve un-biased sampling of the mineralisation.
Samplesecurity	The measures taken to ensure sample security.	Fieldsamplingwasundertakenbyfieldstaffsupervised by Peel geologists. Subsequent samplepreparation and analyses were undertaken bycommercial assay laboratories.Sub-samples selected for assaying were collected inheavy-duty polywoven plastic bags which wereimmediately sealed. These bags were delivered to theassay laboratory by independent couriers, Peelemployees or contractors.Resultsoffieldduplicates,andthegeneralconsistency of results between sampling phasesprovide confidence in the general reliability of theresource data.
Audits orreviews	The results of any audits or reviews of samplingtechniques and data.	MPR Geological Consultants independently reviewedsample quality information, and database validity forthe Mallee Bull resource drilling. These reviewsincluded comparison of assay, collar survey anddown-hole survey entries in the database withoriginal records and checking for consistency withinand between database tables. These reviews showedno significant discrepancies.MPR consider that the sample preparation, securityand analytical procedures adopted for the Mallee Bullresource drilling provide an adequate basis for thecurrent Mineral Resource estimates.

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Mineraltenementand landtenure status	Type, reference name/number, location andownership including agreements or materialissues with third parties such as joint ventures,partnerships, overriding royalties, native titleinterests,historicalsites,wildernessornational park and environmental settings.The security of the tenure held at the time ofreporting along with any known impediments	The Mallee Bull prospect is wholly located withinExplorationLicenceEL7461"Gilgunnia".Thetenement is subject to a 50:50 Joint Venture with CBHResources Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of Toho ZincCo Ltd. Peel Mining Limited has a 50% interest in thetenement.The tenement is in good standing and no knownimpediments exist.

Peel Mining Limited ACN 119 343 734

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

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	to obtaining a licence to operate in the area.
Explorationdone byother parties	Acknowledgment and appraisal of explorationby other parties.	Drilling by previous project explorers did not intersectMallee Bull mineralisation and resource estimatesinclude only Peel RC and diamond drilling.Exploratory work completed in the area by formertenement holders Triako Resources between 2003and 2009 included diamond drilling, IP surveys,geological mapping and reconnaissance geochemicalsampling around the historic Four Mile Goldfield area.Prior to Triako Resources, Pasminco Explorationexplored the Cobar Basin area for Cobar or Elura typedeposits.
Geology	Deposit type, geological setting and style ofmineralisation.	The project area lies within the Cobar-Mt Hope SiluroDevoniansedimentaryandvolcanicunits.Thenorthern Cobar region consists of predominantlysedimentary units with tuffaceous member, whilst thesouthern Mt Hope region consists of predominantlyfelsic volcanic rocks; the Mallee Bull prospect seemsto be located in an area of overlap between these tworegions. Mineralisation at Mallee Bull features theCobar-style attributes of short strike lengths, narrowwidths and vertical continuity, and occurs as shootlike structures dipping steeply to the west.
Drill holeInformation	A summary of all information material to theunderstanding of the exploration resultsincludingatabulationofthefollowinginformation for all Material drill holes:oeasting and northing of the drill hole collaroelevation or RL (Reduced Level – elevationabove sea level in metres) of the drill holecollarodip and azimuth of the holeodown hole length and interception depthohole length.If the exclusion of this information is justifiedon the basis that the information is notMaterial and this exclusion does not detractfrom the understanding of the report, theCompetent Person should clearly explain whythis is the case.	Nodrillholeresultsarereportedinthisannouncement.
Dataaggregationmethods	In reporting Exploration Results, weightingaveragingtechniques,maximumand/orminimum grade truncations (eg cutting of highgrades)andcut-offgradesareusuallyMaterial and should be stated.Where aggregate intercepts incorporate shortlengths of high grade results and longerlengths of low grade results, the procedureused for such aggregation should be statedandsometypicalexamplesofsuchaggregations should be shown in detail.	Nodrillholeresultsarereportedinthisannouncement.
	The assumptions used for any reporting ofmetal equivalent values should be clearlystated.	MineralResourceestimatesincludecopperequivalent grades incorporating on copper, lead, zinc,gold and silver grades and the following price and

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Relationship	These relationships are particularly important	recovery assumptions: Copper, $5,500/t and 95%,lead $2,100 and 90%, zinc $2,500/t and 85%, gold$1,200/oz and 40%, and silver $17/oz and 85%.These estimates are based on Peel's interpretation ofpotential commodity prices and interpretation ofearly stage metallurgical test work performed onMallee Bull diamond core and give the followingformula: Cu equivalent (%) = Cu (%) + 0.362 x Pb(%) +0.407 x Zn (%) + 0.295 x Au (g/t)+ 0.009 x Ag (g/t).It is the company's opinion that all elements includedin the metal equivalent calculation have a reasonablepotential to be recovered and sold.Most Mallee Bull mineralisation generally dips at an
betweenmineralisatio	in the reporting of Exploration Results.If the geometry of the mineralisation with	average of around 70oto the west, with shallowportions averaging around 40o.Most resource holes
n widths and	respect to the drill hole angle is known, its	are inclined moderately to steeply to the east.
interceptlengths	nature should be reported.If it is not known and only the down holelengths are reported, there should be a clearstatement to this effect (eg 'down hole length,true width not known').	Data from one diamond hole, with two wedges drilledwith a steep westerly inclination were excluded fromthe hangingwall and footwall domain estimationdatasets, and were used only for estimation of thesmall central zone.For the combined resource dataset true thicknesses ofmineralisation intersections approximate 60% ofdown-hole intersection lengths.
Diagrams	Appropriate maps and sections (with scales)and tabulations of intercepts should beincluded for any significant discovery beingreported These should include, but not belimited to a plan view of drill hole collarlocations and appropriate sectional views.	See diagrams included in this announcement.
Balancedreporting	WherecomprehensivereportingofallExplorationResultsisnotpracticable,representative reporting of both low and highgrades and/or widths should be practiced toavoid misleading reporting of ExplorationResults.	Nodrillholeresultsarereportedinthisannouncement.
Othersubstantiveexplorationdata	Other exploration data, if meaningful andmaterial, should be reported including (but notlimitedto):geologicalobservations;geophysicalsurveyresults;geochemicalsurvey results; bulk samples – size and methodof treatment; metallurgical test results; bulkdensity, groundwater, geotechnical and rockcharacteristics;potentialdeleteriousorcontaminating substances.	Metallurgical testwork has yielded recoveries ofcopper, silver, gold, lead and zinc of 95%, 85% and40%, 90% and 85% respectively. Testwork is ongoing.A variety of geophysical surveys have been completedat Mallee Bull with results reported previously.
Further work	The nature and scale of planned further work(eg tests for lateral extensions or depthextensions or large-scale step-out drilling).Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas ofpossibleextensions,includingthemaingeological interpretations and future drillingareas,providedthisinformationisnotcommercially sensitive.	Additionalworkwillincludeeconomicstudiesincludinggeotechnicalandmetallurgicalinvestigation. Further drilling is anticipated in duecourse.

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

Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Databaseintegrity	Measures taken to ensure that data has notbeen corrupted by, for example, transcriptionor keying errors, between its initial collectionand its use for Mineral Resource estimationpurposes.Data validation procedures used.	Sample intervals and geological logs were recorded byfield geologists on hard copy sampling sheets whichwere then entered into spreadsheets for merging intothe central database. Laboratory assay files weremerged directly into a central database.Peel geologists routinely validate data when loadinginto the database.MPR Geological Consultants independently reviewedsample quality information, and database validity forthe Mallee Bull resource drilling. These reviewsincluded comparison of assay, collar survey and downhole survey entries in the database with originalsampling records and checking for consistency withinand between database tables. These reviews showedno significantly discrepancies.MPR consider that the sample preparation, securityand analytical procedures adopted for the Mallee Bullresource drilling provide an adequate basis for thecurrent Mineral Resource estimates.
Site visits	Comment on any site visits undertaken by theCompetent Person and the outcome of thosevisits.If no site visits have been undertaken indicatewhy this is the case.	Jonathon Abbott visited Mallee Bull from the 3rd to theth of February 2014. Mr Abbott inspected drill core,6and drilling and sampling activities and had detaileddiscussions with Peel field geologists gaining animproved understanding of the geological setting andmineralisation controls, and the resource samplingactivities.
Geologicalinterpretation	Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertaintyof) the geological interpretation of the mineraldeposit.Natureofthedatausedandofanyassumptions made.The effect, if any, of alternative interpretationson Mineral Resource estimation.The use of geology in guiding and controllingMineral Resource estimation.The factors affecting continuity both of gradeand geology.	The geological setting of the Mallee Bull depositmineralisation has been confidently established fromdrill hole logging, including development of a threedimensional model of the major rock units.Mineralised domains used for resource estimationcapture zones of continuous mineralisation with drillsample copper equivalent grades of greater than0.8%, with some lower grade intercepts included forcontinuity.The resource domains comprise two main zonesdesignated as the hangingwall and footwall domainrespectively, and smaller subsidiary zones designatedas the central zone and northern zones whichrepresent around 3% and 6% of estimated resourcesrespectively.The hangingwall and footwall domains are dividedinto zones of generally shallower comparatively highlead-zinc grades, and deeper copper dominantmineralisation. For the Footwall domain the lead-zincdominant mineralisation is generally too low gradeand too poorly defined for inclusion in MineralResources, and the current estimates include only thedeeper copper dominant mineralisation for thisdomain.Domaininterpretationincludedreferenceto

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		lithological domain wire-frames and the domains areconsistent with geological understanding.Peel interpreted a surface representing the base ofweathering from drill hole logging. Interpreted depthto fresh rock ranges from around 50 to 110 m andaverages around 75 m.The interpreted mineralised domains extend abovetheinterpretedbaseofweathering.Reportedresources include only fresh mineralisation.Duetotheconfidenceinunderstandingmineralisation controls and the robustness of thegeologicalmodelinvestigationofalternativeinterpretations are considered unnecessary.
Dimensions	The extent and variability of the MineralResource expressed as length (along strike orotherwise), plan width, and depth belowsurface to the upper and lower limits of theMineral Resource.	The combined hangingwall domain strikes northsouth over approximately 280 m and extends over avertical distance of approximately 510 m, from 15 to525 m below surface. True widths range from around1 to rarely 23 m and average 6.6 m.The copper dominant portion of the footwall domainstrikes north-north east (020) over approximately 290m with a vertical extent of approximately 685 m fromaround 140 m to 825 m depth. The domain rangesfrom around 1 to rarely 23 m thick and averagesaround 7.6 m thick. For data analysis and assignmentof upper cut it was subdivided into an upper, lowercopper grade zone, and a deeper zone of higheraverage copper grades below 390 m depth.The central mineralised domain strikes north-southover approximately 175 m with a vertical extent ofapproximately 165 m between approximately 280 and445 m depth. True widths range from around 1 to 8 mand average approximately 2.9 m.
Estimationandmodellingtechniques	Thenatureandappropriatenessoftheestimationtechnique(s)appliedandkeyassumptions, including treatment of extremegradevalues,domaining,interpolationparametersandmaximumdistanceofextrapolation from data points. If a computerassistedestimationmethodwaschoseninclude a description of computer softwareand parameters used.	The block model includes copper, lead, zinc, gold,silver cobalt, sulphur and iron grades. Iron and sulphurare not included in Mineral Resource estimates.Grades were estimated by Ordinary Kriging of 1 mdown-hole composited assay grades within themineralised domains.Upper cuts applied to the fresh hangingwall Pb-Zn,hangingwall Cu, footwall upper, footwall lower andcentral domain respectively, were as follows:Cu (%): 0.50, 4.5, 5.0, 12, 5.0Pb (%): 15, 8.5, 2.0, 2.0, 1.3Zn (%): 28, 6.0, 1.8, 0.8, 2.0Au (g/t): 1.8, 2.5, 1.0, 1.5, 1.0Ag (g/t): 350, 75, 100, 200, 85Co (g/t): 60, 900, 250, 190, 70S (%): 15, 45, 25, 10, UncutThe selected upper cuts generally approximate the96th percentile of each dataset. Estimation of thesparsely drilled north domain included upper cutsfrom the hangingwall Cu domain, which is interpretedas comparable mineralisation style.Iron grades were estimated without upper cuts

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	The availability of check estimates, previous	reflecting the lower variability of these grades.Resource estimates are generally extrapolated to amaximum 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 themineralisation style.There has been no production to date at Mallee Bull.
	estimates and/or mine production records andwhether the Mineral Resource estimate takesappropriate account of such data.	Comparative check modeling included construction ofun-cut estimates and comparative modeling withalternativedensityestimationmethodswhichindicate that the apparent bias in iron assays does notsignificantly affect the assigned densities or thecurrent resource estimates.The current estimates are not directly compatible withprevious Mallee Bull resource estimates whichincluded mineralised domains based only on coppergrades. However, where the two models overlap, theyare broadly consistent, with differences reflecting therevised domains and additional drilling.
	The assumptions made regarding recovery ofby-products.Estimation of deleterious elements or othernon-grade variables of economic significance(egsulphurforacidminedrainagecharacterisation).	Estimated resources make no assumptions aboutrecovery of by-products.The block model includes iron grades for assignmentof density, and sulphur grades for potential use inevaluations and comparative density modeling.
	In the case of block model interpolation, theblock size in relation to the average samplespacing and the search employed.Any assumptions behind modelling of selectivemining units	Grades were Kriged into 2 m by 10 m by 10 m (east,north, vertical) blocks with sub-blocking to minimumdimensions of 0.4 m by 2.0 m by 2.0 m at domainboundaries.Drill hole intercept spacing varies from around 20 by20 m and locally tighter in central areas of themineralisation to greater than 80 by 80 m inperipheral areas and at depth.Estimation included a four pass octant based searchstrategy, with ellipsoids aligned with mineraliseddomain orientations.Search ellipsoid radii (across strike, along strike, downdip) and minimum data requirements for thesesearches range from 10 by 50 by 50m (8 data) forsearch 1 to 20 by 200 by 200 m (4 data) for search 4.Estimates from search pass 4 contribute around 2% ofestimated resources.
	Any assumptions about correlation betweenvariables.	Grademodelingdidnotincludeanyspecificassumptions about correlation between variables.Densities were assigned to the resource model fromKriged iron values using a density-iron formula derivedfrom density measurements of diamond core.
	Descriptionofhowthegeologicalinterpretationwasusedtocontroltheresource estimates.	The mineralised domains used for the currentestimates capture zones of continuous mineralisationwith drill sample copper equivalent grades of greater

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	Discussion of basis for using or not using gradecutting or capping.	than 0.8%. Domain interpretation included referenceto lithological domain wire-frames, and the domainsare consistent with geological understanding.Although the interpreted mineralised domains extendabove the interpreted base of weathering, reportedresources include only fresh mineralisation.Estimation of each attribute included upper cutsselected on a domain by domain basis which generallyapproximate the 96thpercentile of each dataset.These upper cuts reduce the impact of a small numberof outlier composite grades.
	The process of validation, the checking processused, the comparison of model data to drillhole data, and use of reconciliation data ifavailable.	Model validation included visual comparison of modelestimates and composite grades, and trend (swath)plots, along with comparison with results fromcomparative models.
Moisture	Whether the tonnages are estimated on a drybasis or with natural moisture, and themethod of determination of the moisturecontent.	Tonnages are estimated on a dry tonnage basis
Cut-offparameters	The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) orquality parameters applied.	Economic evaluation of the Mallee Bull deposit is at anearly stage, and metallurgical and mining parametershave not yet been confidently established. The cut-offgrades applied to the estimates reflect Peel'sinterpretation of potential commodity prices, costsand recoveries.
Miningfactors orassumptions	Assumptions made regarding possible miningmethods, minimum mining dimensions andinternal (or, if applicable, external) miningdilution. It is always necessary as part of theprocess of determining reasonable prospectsfor eventual economic extraction to considerpotentialminingmethods,buttheassumptions made regarding mining methodsand parameters when estimating MineralResources may not always be rigorous. Wherethis is the case, this should be reported with anexplanation of the basis of the miningassumptions made.	Economic evaluation of the Mallee Bull deposit is at anearly stage, and mining parameters have not yet beenconfidentlyestablished.Theestimatesassumeunderground mining of the comparatively narrowmineralisation.
Metallurgicalfactors orassumptions	The basis for assumptions or predictionsregarding metallurgical amenability. It isalways necessary as part of the process ofdeterminingreasonableprospectsforeventual economic extraction to considerpotential metallurgical methods, but theassumptionsregardingmetallurgicaltreatment processes and parameters madewhen reporting Mineral Resources may notalways be rigorous. Where this is the case, thisshould be reported with an explanation of thebasis of the metallurgical assumptions made.	Metallurgical test work undertaken by Peel during2013, 2014 and 2017 suggests that the mineralisationis amenable to recovery by floatation with copper,silver, gold, lead and zinc recoveries of around 95%,85%, 40%, 90% and 85% respectively. Testwork iscontinuing.
Environmental factors orassumptions	Assumptions made regarding possible wasteand process residue disposal options. It isalways necessary as part of the process ofdeterminingreasonableprospectsfor	Economic evaluation of the Mallee Bull deposit is at anearly stage, and environmental considerations forpotential mining have not yet been evaluated indetail. Information available to Peel indicates that

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	eventual economic extraction to consider thepotential environmental impacts of the miningand processing operation. While at this stagethe determination of potential environmentalimpacts, particularly for a greenfields project,may not always be well advanced, the statusof early consideration of these potentialenvironmental impacts should be reported.Where these aspects have not been consideredthis should be reported with an explanation ofthe environmental assumptions made.	there are unlikely to be any specific environmentalissuesthatwouldprecludepotentialeventualeconomic extraction.
Bulk density	Whether assumed or determined. If assumed,the basis for the assumptions. If determined,the method used, whether wet or dry, thefrequency of the measurements, the nature,size and representativeness of the samples.The bulk density for bulk material must havebeen measured by methods that adequatelyaccount for void spaces (vugs, porosity, etc),moisture and differences between rock andalteration zones within the deposit.Discuss assumptions for bulk density estimatesused in the evaluation process of the differentmaterials.	Peelroutinelyperformedimmersiondensitymeasurements on air dried samples of drill core withresults available for 2,781 samples.The reliability of Peels density measurements wasconfirmed by 97 repeat measurements performed byALS on oven dried samples.Density measurements are positively correlated withiron grade reflecting increasing concentration of ironbearing sulphide minerals.Densities were assigned to the current block modelfrom Kriged iron values using the following formuladerived from the density measurements:Fe < 10%: Density (t/m3) = 2.80Fe >10%: Density (t/m3) = 2.80 + 0.06 x (Fe%-10)Densities of the hangingwall lead-zinc domain are lesswell defined than for other resource domains.Available information suggests the formula used forthe current estimates may understate averagedensities for this domain by in the order of 10%. Thisdifference is not material at the current stage ofproject evaluation.Average densities for the resource estimates average3.1 t/m3and range from around 2.9 t/m3for thefootwall and central domains to approximately 3.4t/m3for the more sulphide rich hangingwall domain.The available information suggests that the densitymeasurementsaregenerallysufficientlyrepresentative of the mineralisation for the current
Classification	The basis for the classification of the MineralResources into varying confidence categories.	estimates.Estimated resources are extrapolated to generallyaround 40 m from drill intercepts and classified asIndicated and Inferred on the basis of estimationsearch pass and polygons defining areas of relativelyconsistent drill hole spacing.For the hangingwall and footwall domains, estimatesfor mineralisation with consistently 40 by 40 m orcloser spaced sampling are classified as Indicated andestimates for more broadly sampled mineralisationare classified as Inferred.The central and northern domains are comparativelybroadly drilled and all estimates for these domains areclassified as Inferred.
	Whether appropriate account has been taken	The resource classification accounts for all relevant

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	of all relevant factors (ie relative confidence intonnage/grade estimations, reliability of inputdata, confidence in continuity of geology andmetalvalues,quality,quantityanddistribution of the data).	factors.
	Whether the result appropriately reflects theCompetent Person's view of the deposit.	The resource classifications reflect the CompetentPerson's views of the deposit.
Audits orreviews	The results of any audits or reviews of MineralResource estimates.	The resource estimates have been reviewed by Peelgeologists, and are considered to appropriately reflectthe mineralisation and drilling data.
Discussion ofrelativeaccuracy/confidence	Where appropriate a statement of the relativeaccuracy and confidence level in the MineralResource estimate using an approach orproceduredeemedappropriatebytheCompetentPerson.Forexample,theapplication of statistical or geostatisticalprocedures to quantify the relative accuracy ofthe resource within stated confidence limits,or, if such an approach is not deemedappropriate, a qualitative discussion of thefactors that could affect the relative accuracyand confidence of the estimate.The statement should specify whether itrelates to global or local estimates, and, iflocal, state the relevant tonnages, whichshould be relevant to technical and economicevaluation. Documentation should includeassumptions made and the procedures used.These statements of relative accuracy andconfidenceoftheestimateshouldbecomparedwithproductiondata,whereavailable.	Confidence in the relative accuracy of the estimates isreflected by the classification of estimates asIndicated and Inferred.