POLARX LIMITED - Capital/Financing Update 2017

24 May 2017

==> picture [595 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

PROPOSED MERGER AND $10M INSTITUTIONAL FINANCING

HIGHLIGHTS

Acquisition of Vista Minerals Pty Ltd
100% ownership of the Stellar Copper Gold Project
Adjoins Coventry's Caribou Dome claims in Alaska
Adds 7,187ha of tenure prospective for copper‐gold porphyry and skarn
Adds 1.5Mt historical resource grading 4.5g/t Gold and 2.9% Copper, from surface*
Delivers instant scale increase, with significant upside
Expanded technical/commercial management support
Advanced $10M Institutional Financing
Merged entity to be named ‐ POLARIS MINERALS LIMITED

Coventry Resources Limited (Coventry) is pleased to announce plans to significantly expand its highly prospective footprint in Alaska by acquiring 100% of the issued capital of Vista Minerals Pty Ltd (Vista), which holds a 100% interest in the Stellar Copper Gold Project (Stellar Project) . The consideration for the acquisition will comprise the issue of up to 459,913,365 (pre consolidation) new Coventry shares.

This proposed acquisition of Vista ( Acquisition ) will provide Coventry with an additional high‐grade gold and copper asset with clear upside potential, along with an industry recognised management team and strong institutional shareholder interest in the merged entity due to the critical mass that this expanded portfolio delivers.

Coventry’s Caribou Dome and Vista’s Stellar Projects form a contiguous package of claims with ~35km strike length. Together, they deliver an exciting high‐grade copper and copper‐gold portfolio and provide a unique chance to build a meaningful resource house at an opportune time in the market. Subject to shareholder approval, the combined entity will be named Polaris Minerals Limited (Polaris) .

Notes to Historic Mineral Resource Estimate for the Stellar Project* :

1. Readers are cautioned that that this estimate is a "historical estimate" under ASX Listing Rule 5.12 and is not reported in accordance with the JORC Code.

2. A Competent Person has not yet undertaken sufficient work to classify the historic estimate as mineral resources or ore reserves in accordance with the JORC Code.

3. It is uncertain that, following evaluation and/or further exploration work, it will be possible to report this historic estimate as mineral resources or ore reserves in accordance with the JORC Code.

4. ASX Listing Rule 5.12 specifies the additional information that must be provided in a market announcement that contains historic estimates. This information is contained in Annexure 3 together with further details on the historic mineral resource estimate.

ASX Code CYY For further information please contact: Mark T Bojanjac – Executive Chairman Shares on Issue 459.9M [email protected] Options 25.9M Ian Cunningham – CFO/Company Secretary [email protected]

==> picture [181 x 43] intentionally omitted <==

FUNDED MERGER PROPOSAL

The rationale and terms for the proposed merger between Coventry and Vista to form Polaris, are summarised below:

1. Corporate Similarities

Coventry and Vista share the following attributes:

Key projects located in Alaska on adjoining tenure
Coventry – earning 80% of Caribou Dome and Vista has 100% of Stellar
High‐grade deposits with significant resource expansion potential
Plan to expand resources and proceed to production
Headquartered in Perth, Australia
Projects requiring dedicated funding through to feasibility

==> picture [412 x 208] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [412 x 207] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 1: Combined Project Area

CYY – May 2017

Page 2

==> picture [181 x 43] intentionally omitted <==

2. Complementary Projects

Whilst the Stellar and Caribou Dome projects have distinctly different geology, they are currently of similar resource scale and are entirely complementary to each other. For this reason, combining the two will immediately yield a significant advantage in achieving sufficient scale for early production as quickly as possible. There are also significant commercial benefits arising from diversification of commodity, geology and exploration success.

A movie showing the proposed merged tenure can be seen via the following link or on the Coventry website at http://www.coventryres.com/video

In addition, the merger assembles a regionally focussed dedicated management team with a proven record in delivering projects into commercial production. Annexure 2 provides a summary of the team.

Combined Resources

	Mt	Copper(Cu)	Gold(Au)	JORC
Caribou Dome	2.8	3.1%	‐	YES
Stellar – Zackly Deposit*	1.5	2.9%	4.5g/t	NO
Contained Metal		129,500t	217,000oz

Notes:

Refer Annexure 4 for further details on the Caribou Dome mineral resource estimate
Notes to the Stellar Project historic mineral resource estimate are detailed on page 1 and Annexure 3 to this announcement.

Vista ‐ Stellar Project

==> picture [419 x 255] intentionally omitted <==

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

Historical mineral resource estimate of 1.5Mt at 4.5g/t gold and
2.9% copper for 217,000oz gold and 43,500t of contained copper
(which has not been reported in accordance with JORC)
----- End of picture text -----*

Figure 2: Stellar Project ‐ Zackly Deposit

CYY – May 2017

Page 3

==> picture [181 x 43] intentionally omitted <==

Vista ‐ Stellar Project

==> picture [413 x 118] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [413 x 117] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3: Oblique perspective of Zackly, showing drilled mineralisation in the Main Skarn and untested IP anomalies to the east and west

100% owned
High grade
Porphyry and associated skarn copper/gold mineralisation
Drilled over only 800m strike
Open at depth
Mineralised from surface
Significant upside along an identified 5km trend coincident with the anomalism from IP surveys
Large undrilled soil anomalies at Jupiter and Gemini prospects
Large porphyry/skarn potential at Mars
Tintina‐style gold potential at Moonwalk

A more detailed summary of the Stellar Project is attached as

Annexure 1 to this announcement.

CYY – May 2017

Page 4

==> picture [181 x 43] intentionally omitted <==

Coventry ‐ Caribou Dome Project

==> picture [497 x 88] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [497 x 89] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 4: Caribou‐Dome Project ‐ Central Area

Current JORC mineral resource estimate of 2.8Mt at 3.1% copper (at 0.5% lower‐cut) for 86,000t of contained copper

80% being earned
High Grade
Sediment‐hosted copper mineralisation
Drilled over only 1.2km strike
Open at depth
Mineralised from surface
Evident soil anomalism and IP upside identified along an 18km trend
Large untested soil anomalies immediately along strike from Caribou Dome
Large untested soil anomaly 11km away at Senator
Existing underground development
Early stage pre‐feasibility work conducted

CYY – May 2017

Page 5

==> picture [181 x 43] intentionally omitted <==

3. Merged Funding

The proposed combined entity is in advanced discussions to raise A$10M, which is sufficient to fund the first 2 years of resource drilling and the commencement of feasibility studies on both projects. The focussed aim of this drilling program is to delineate a mineable resource well in excess of the current and historic resources and to initiate a feasibility study on the combined projects.

Institutional investor interest in supporting a consolidated entity has been extremely positive given the high‐grade nature of its copper and gold assets, the increased scale, the compelling exploration upside and the experienced management team proposed.

4. Proposed Capital Structure

The forthcoming Notice will set out proposed resolutions for the Acquisition, financing, consolidation and name change.

The projected capital structure below is based on the issued capital of Coventry after the proposed 1:5 share consolidation ( Consolidation ) and an equivalent issue of shares for the Acquisition.

It also assumes A$10M cash is raised. Discussions with London‐based institutional investors are well advanced:

	Shares (M)	Percentage (%)	Cash ($M)
Existing Coventry (post‐Consolidation)	92	32.4
Acquisition of Vista Minerals	92	32.4
A$10M New Investors	100	35.2	10
TOTALS	284	100	10

5. Management

The proposed management team combines personnel from both companies and assembles strong corporate experience, management and the required in‐house technical skill at project level:

Exec. Chairman Mr. Mark Bojanjac Managing Director/CEO Dr. Frazer Tabeart Exec. Director Dr. Jason Berton Co Secretary/CFO Mr. Ian Cunningham

Vista has a strong relationship with one of its major shareholders, the Mitchell River Group (MRG), a Perth based diversified consulting and resource development company. MRG will be engaged on a contract basis to provide technical support to the merged group as may be required. www.mitchellrivergroup.com

CYY – May 2017

Page 6

==> picture [181 x 43] intentionally omitted <==

Refer Annexure 2 for short biographies on Dr Frazer Tabeart and Dr Jason Berton. The relevant appointments will be made concurrent with and subject to completion of the proposed transaction.

MRG is to provide additional technical expertise from its suite of high‐level resource consultants as required.

In addition, Vista's largest shareholder, Millrock Resources Inc., (TSX.V:MRO) through its Alaska‐based subsidiary exploration company is to provide experienced personnel and on‐ground logistics under our management to accelerate the planned field programs.

6. Creating the new ‐ Polaris Minerals Limited

We will effectively re‐launch the consolidated entity to the market as an expanded company to be re‐ named Polaris Minerals Limited (new ASX code "PLR"), subject to shareholder approval.

Following the proposed $10M raising and concurrent Consolidation, the funded entity will have a tight capital structure with under 300M shares on issue and sufficient funding to advance both Projects for at least the next 2 years.

==> picture [214 x 72] intentionally omitted <==

7. Notice of Meeting of Shareholders

Coventry shareholders will have the opportunity to vote for the proposed acquisition, capital raising, share consolidation and name change.

The approximate timetable during 2017 to completion is:

ASX Market Announcement	24 May
NOM despatched to shareholders	1 June
Shareholder meeting date	30 June
Re‐commencing on‐site activity	July

CYY – May 2017

Page 7

==> picture [181 x 43] intentionally omitted <==

RECOMMENDATION

Full details of the above will be set out in the imminent Notice to be despatched to shareholders.

As Chairman, I commend this unique opportunity and recommend shareholders to vote FOR all of the proposed resolutions by proxy or in person at the upcoming meeting.

Regards,

==> picture [99 x 67] intentionally omitted <==

Mark T. Bojanjac Executive Chairman

Qualified and Competent Persons

The information in this announcement that relates to Mineral Resource estimation for the Caribou Dome Project is based on information compiled by Mr Peter Ball who is a Member of The Australasian Mining and Metallurgy. Mr Ball has sufficient experience which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and the activity he is undertaking to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results (JORC Code). Mr Ball consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on the information in the form and context in which it appears.

The information in this announcement that relates to mineralisation interpretation and database quality used in the Mineral Resource Estimation and exploration and metallurgical testwork results for the Caribou Dome Project, is based on information compiled by Mr Ben Vallerine, who is a consultant to the Company and holds an indirect shareholding in the Company. Mr Vallerine is a Member of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists. Mr Vallerine has sufficient experience which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and the activity he is undertaking to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results (JORC Code).

The information in this announcement that relates to (i) exploration results and (ii) the reporting of historical mineral resource estimates for the Stellar Project under ASX Listing Rule 5.12, is an accurate representation of the available data and studies for the Zackly copper‐gold deposit and is based on information reviewed by Mr Paul Dunbar. Mr Paul Dunbar is an employee of Dunbar Resource Management, a consultant to Coventry Resources Limited. Mr Dunbar is a member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and a Member of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists. Mr Dunbar has sufficient experience that is relevant to the style of mineralisation under consideration as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the “Australasian Code for the Reporting on Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves” (JORC Code). Mr Dunbar consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears.

Forward Looking Statements

Any forward‐looking information contained in this news release is made as of the date of this news release. Except as required under applicable securities legislation, Coventry does not intend, and does not assume any obligation, to update this forward‐looking information.

Any forward‐looking information contained in this news release is based on numerous assumptions and is subject to all of the risks and uncertainties inherent in the Company’s business, including risks inherent in resource exploration and development. As a result, actual results may vary materially from those described in the forward‐looking information. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward‐looking information due to the inherent uncertainty thereof.

CYY – May 2017

Page 8

==> picture [181 x 43] intentionally omitted <==

ANNEXURE 1 –

VISTA MINERALS STELLAR COPPER‐GOLD PROJECT, ALASKA

Summary

The information in this description of the Stellar Project is largely taken from an NI43‐101 Report authored by Dr. Karsten Eden (a certified Professional Geologist licensed in the State of Alaska) for Millrock Resources Inc. in January 2013, supplemented by Dr. Frazer Tabeart, a geologist with extensive experience of magmatic‐hydrothermal mineralisation, and who is a director of Vista Minerals and a Member of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists.

The Stellar Project occurs on the southern flank of the Central Alaska Range and is contiguous with the north‐eastern end of Coventry Resources’ Caribou Dome Project. The Stellar Project occurs in a complex geological setting where multiple periods of intrusive activity have led to the development of widespread magmatic‐hydrothermal mineralisation containing varying amounts of copper and gold.

The Stellar Project contains five main prospects: the Zackly Cu‐Au skarn; the Jupiter, Mars and Gemini porphyry Cu‐Au‐Mo targets, and the Au‐only Moonwalk Prospect. Zackly is the only prospect to have been tested by drilling, undertaken between 1981 and 1994. This drilling identified a mineralised skarn with average grades of 2.9% Cu and 4.51g/t Au along a strike‐length of ~800m. Potential exists to significantly increase the strike length of the mineralisation through further drilling which could lead to the classification of a JORC resource.

Project Description

The Stellar Project comprises 111 contiguous State Mining Claims in the Talkeetna District of Alaska (Figure 1). The claims cover a total area of 17,760 acres (7,187 hectares) and are registered to Millrock Alaska LLC a wholly owned subsidiary of Millrock Resources Inc. (“Millrock”).

Vista Minerals Pty Ltd (“Vista”) and Millrock have entered into a binding Sale and Purchase Agreement under which Vista has acquired 100% ownership of the Stellar Claims in return for issuing Millrock with 20% of the expanded capital of Vista and agreeing to the following conditions:

Vista will pay USD $1M cash to Millrock if a JORC Indicated Resource of 1Moz contained Au or more is delineated
Vista will pay USD $2M cash to Millrock if a JORC Indicated resource of 1Mt or more of contained copper (or copper equivalent) metal is delineated.
45 claim blocks covering the Zackly, Moonwalk, Mars and Gemini prospects, are subject to a royalty payable to Altius Minerals:
a) 2% gross value royalty on all uranium produced
b) 2% net smelter return royalty on gold, silver, platinum, palladium and rhodium
c) 1% net smelter return royalty on all other metals

CYY – May 2017

Page 9

==> picture [181 x 43] intentionally omitted <==

All Stellar claim blocks are subject to a royalty payable to Millrock:
a) 1% gross value royalty on all uranium produced
b) 1% net smelter royalty on all other metals
Advanced royalty payments to Millrock must commence on the second anniversary of executing the Sale and Purchase Agreement, and every anniversary thereafter up to the fifth anniversary of production commencing. The initial payment will be USD $20,000 in April 2019 escalating by $5,000 per year. Payments are deductable from future royalty payments.

==> picture [343 x 172] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 1 Current Stellar Project claim blocks showing original 2012 claim outlines (depicted on Figures 2 and 3)

Access, Climate, Topography, Infrastructure

The Stellar Project is located about 300 km north‐northeast of Anchorage and is accessed via the Denali Highway which runs 15 km to the south of the project (Figure 2). The Denali Highway is open and maintained by the State of Alaska between May and October. The terrain is mountainous and elevations range between 960m (3150ft) up to 2,165m (7,100ft) in the northern part of the project. An access road to the Stellar Project leaves the Denali Highway approximately 1.5 km west of the Maclaren Lodge and runs a further 12km to the Stellar/Zackly camp area. This track is accessible to 4WD vehicles, but will require upgrading for drill rig access.

CYY – May 2017

Page 10

==> picture [181 x 43] intentionally omitted <==

Summer temperatures typically range from 100 C to 190 C and winter temperatures range from ‐240 C to ‐40 C, with extremes of ‐400 C to +350 C. Average annual precipitation is 530mm, which includes 3,000mm (3m) of snow.

==> picture [315 x 122] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [315 x 123] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 2 Location of Vista Minerals' Stellar Project

Geological Setting

The Stellar Project straddles two distinct Terranes; the Maclaren Terrane and the Wrangellia Terrane, which are separated by the Broxson Gulch Thrust Fault (Figure 3). The Maclaren Terrane consists of a pre‐Late Jurassic metamorphic belt intruded by a Late Cretaceous to Tertiary deformed granitic batholith. The Wrangellia Terrane contains two sub‐terranes (Slana River and Tangle) which are composed of 1) late Palaeozoic andesitic to dacitic flows and tuffs, limestone, chert and argillite; 2) Triassic basalt flows and pillow basalt intruded by gabbro and dolerite dykes (the Nikolai Greenstone); and 3) Late Triassic limestone. Dioritic plutons intrude the Tangle subterrane.

==> picture [275 x 175] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3 Regional geological setting of the Stellar Project

CYY – May 2017

Page 11

==> picture [181 x 43] intentionally omitted <==

Exploration History

Prior to 2010 (when Millrock acquired the project), the bulk of exploration activities were restricted to the Zackly Cu‐Au skarn system towards the southern end of the Stellar Project (refer to table below for a list of the exploration activities undertaken at Zackly).

The results from these work programs have been compiled by Millrock and made available to Vista for review and incorporation into its exploration database.

Period	Company/Owner	Main Exploration Activities
1980-1986	Resources Association of Alaska (RAA) in JV with UNC Teton Exploration Drilling (Teton)	• Soil geochemistry • Trenching across skarns • Ground magnetic surveys • VLF-EM and ground EM surveys • Airborne magnetic survey • 40 cored drill holes • RAA acquires 100% interest in 1986
1987-1992	Nerco Mining Company in JV with Alaska Boulder (1987) Phelps Dodge (1990) and then Hemlo Gold (1992)	• Nerco buys RAA in 1987 • 43 holes rotary drilling and 6 cored drill holes in 1987 (Nerco/Alaska Boulder JV) • Ground EM and Ground Magnetic surveys in 1990 • 3 cored drill holes in 1990 (Phelps Dodge) • Airborne magnetic survey and ground EM, VLF in 1992 (Nerco/Hemlo Gold JV)
1993-1995	Pacific Northwest Resources in JV with Hemlo Gold	• Pacific Northwest Resources buys Nerco stake and continues Hemlo Gold JV • IP survey in 1994 • 7 reverse circulation percussion holes drilled in 1994 (only 2 into bedrock) • JV formed with Okanogan Gold Mining Co in 1995
1996-2001	Okanogan Gold Mining Company	• Okanogan Gold Mining Company acquires claims in 1996 • Limited field assessments to keep claims in good standing, no drilling

CYY – May 2017

Page 12

==> picture [181 x 43] intentionally omitted <==

Recent Exploration and Mineralisation

In 2010 and 2012 Millrock undertook a program of stream sediment sampling, rock‐chip sampling and soil sampling across the entire project. A total of 187 rock samples, 340 soil samples and 56 stream sediment samples were collected and analysed for base and precious metals. The results of the soil sampling have delineated a series of high priority exploration targets in addition to the known skarn mineralisation at Zackly (see Figure 4 below).

The Zackly Prospect is the most significant mineralisation identified to date on the Stellar Project. Five drilling campaigns were undertaken by various companies between 1981 and 1994, with 99 holes for a total of 9,595m of core and 3,419m reverse circulation percussion samples completed. These campaigns delineated a steeply south dipping copper‐gold skarn system associated with limestone, andesitic to basaltic volcanic rocks and dioritic intrusions (see Figure 5 and 6). Mineralised zones vary from 0.5m true thickness to over 10m, averaging 3.0m.

==> picture [412 x 413] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 4 Multi‐element soil geochemical anomaly outlines m at Zackly, Jupiter, Mars, Gemini and Moonwalk, plotted on a gridded image of copper anomalism in soils over the Stellar Project

CYY – May 2017

Page 13

==> picture [181 x 43] intentionally omitted <==

Limited metallurgical test work in 1987 and 1992 on oxidised Zackly mineralisation from surface trenches focused on gold recoveries and indicated that a combination of flotation cells (Cu‐Au) and a gravity circuit (Au) should be further evaluated.

Significant drill intercepts from Zackly include (all drilling intercepts greater than 0.1% Cu are given in Appendix 1):

19.51m @ 4.4% Cu, 14.26g/t Au, 88.93g/t Ag from 164.59m (Z‐04‐81, Core)
7.92m @ 2.07% Cu, 2.55g/t Au, 17.78g/t Ag from 171.30m (Z‐02‐81, Core)
14.63m @ 1.50% Cu, 1.76g/t Au, 11.08g/t Ag from 98.15m (Z‐07‐81, Core)
12.19m @ 0.74% Cu, 16.09g/t Au, 6.72g/t Ag from 21.34m (Z‐05‐81, Core)
8.23m @ 1.55% Cu, 3.30g/t Au, 10.53g/t Ag from 77.72m (Z‐01‐81, Core)
0.46m @ 4.95% Cu, 23.76g/t Au, 50.20g/t Ag from 168.10m (Z‐08‐81, Core)
10.67m @ 1.69% Cu, 4.38g/t Au, 13.81g/t Ag from 6.10m (Z‐50, RC)
9.14m @ 2.30% Cu, 3.15g/t Au, 19.92g/t Ag from 3.05m (Z‐48, RC)
17.62m @ 1.31% Cu, 2.98g/t Au, 13.83g/t Ag from 18.04m (Z‐86, Core)
9.14m @ 1.12% Cu, 6.70g/t Au, 15.09g/t Ag from 0m (Z‐78, RC)
28.96m @ 1.09% Cu, 1.19g/t Au, 11.20g/t Ag from 76.2m (Z‐55, RC)
10.67m @ 1.27% Cu, 2.61g/t Au, 19.92g/t Ag from 105.16m (Z‐49, RC)

==> picture [333 x 166] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [333 x 167] intentionally omitted <==

CYY – May 2017

Page 14

==> picture [181 x 43] intentionally omitted <==

The skarn mineralisation at Zackly extends for over 2000m along strike, but the core zone, the Main Skarn is approximately 800m long and focussed on the western/central area of drilling. Three historical (non‐JORC compatible) resource estimates were prepared for the Main Skarn in 1982, 1987 and 1993. The most recent of these, prepared by Hemlo Gold in 1993 estimated that the Main Skarn contained 1.54 million tonnes @ 2.90% Cu and 4.51g/t Au* (not reported in accordance with JORC).

Two lines of IP surveying were undertaken to the west of the Main Skarn by Vista in late 2016. Strong chargeability anomalies were identified in both IP lines, supporting the potential for up to 1500m additional mineralised strike‐length to the west of the Main Skarn. Furthermore, historical IP to the east of the Main Skarn supports a potential faulted offset of the mineralisation with at least 650m of untested strike‐length of strong chargeability anomalism (see Figure 6). Infill IP and drilling is required at Zackly to validate existing drill intercepts and seek extensions to the mineralisation, ultimately leading to a JORC compatible resource estimate if the drilling is successful.

==> picture [463 x 88] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 6 Oblique perspective view of Zackly showing the known mineralisation in the Main Skarn, and untested IP anomalies to the east and to the west.

The Mars Prospect , 6km west of Zackly, was first visited and sampled by Millrock in 2010. The main Cu‐Au geochemical anomaly is coincident with a strong circular magnetic anomaly, the centre of which is composed of diorite with chalcopyrite veins. Significant geochemical results include a 1200m soil traverse averaging 462 ppm in Cu, a 950m soil traverse averaging 763 ppm Cu and a 900m soil traverse averaging 891 ppm Cu. A sample of altered diorite collected from the centre of the magnetic anomaly returned 0.51% Cu, 0.21g/t Au and high grade rock samples of 7.4% Cu and 1.79g/t Au were collected from float and a gossanous gully, respectively. No further work has been undertaken at Mars.

CYY – May 2017

Page 15

==> picture [181 x 43] intentionally omitted <==

The Jupiter Prospect occurs immediately north of Zackly and comprises a 2000m long continuous Cu‐ Au anomaly with average values in the soil samples of 914ppm Cu and 0.08g/t Au. Vista completed three lines of reconnaissance IP surveying over Jupiter in late 2016 which identified several poorly constrained chargeability anomalies. Additional IP surveying and drilling is required at this prospect.

The Gemini Prospect occurs approximately 5km to the north of Zackly and comprises a large co‐ incident Cu and Au in soils anomaly some 2.0km x 2.0km in dimension, with peak values of 1,130ppm Cu and 0.25g/t Au. There has been no detailed mapping, no geophysics and no drilling at the Gemini Prospect.

Finally , the Moonwalk Prospect occurs in the northern extremity of the claim block in a different geological terrane to the mineralisation at Zackly, Mars and Gemini. At Moonwalk, a granodiorite has been mapped intruding into a series of black shales and silty sediments. The granodiorite appears to be a 100m thick sill with a strike length of 700m, and locally contains quartz‐sulphide veins which have assayed up to 30.45 g/t Au in one grab sample. Soil samples within the granodiorite averaged 1.15g/t Au across 19 samples collected over a 700m x 500m area, with a high of 3.54 g/t Au. No geophysical surveys or drilling have been undertaken to date.

Sampling, assay, chain of custody and verification of data

The author of the NI43‐101 report has stated that he is satisfied with the adequacy of sample preparation, security and analytical procedures undertaken by Millrock since 2010 for stream sediment, soil and rock‐chip sampling, and that the data obtained from these programs is reliable.

The author of the NI43‐101 report also reviewed and evaluated a comprehensive exploration data package for the Stellar Project which was acquired by Millrock in 2012 (now available to Vista). Most this information relates to exploration programs undertaken between 1980 and 1996, predominantly related to the Zackly prospect. The author could not verify any QA/QC procedures for these exploration programs, but stated his belief that adequate QA/QC procedures were carried out by the previous explorers prior to Millrock. Due to the historical nature of the data, he was unable to comment on the validity of the sampling and analysis performed in the period 1980‐1996.

The author of the NI43‐101 report was not able to review the sampling methodology, preparation, analysis and security of drill core samples and RC cuttings for the drilling programs undertaken at Zackly because he was not present during these programs. However, he could view selected mineralised intercepts from 32 cored holes in a secure facility at Fairbanks, Alaska. He reported that this drill core is in a poor state with poor core recovery and a lack of structural and rock‐contact relationships evident, and stated some concerns relating to selective sampling, core loss and narrow diameter core, and hence concerns about the accuracy of the reported copper and gold grades and the historic resources reported by prior operations from this drilling. Further drilling, including twinning of some existing holes is therefore required to verify grades and continuity at Zackly and to verify the historic resources reported by prior workers.

Mineral Resource Estimates

No mineral resource estimates that comply with the JORC (2012 Edition) or NI43‐101 standards have been prepared for the Stellar Project.

CYY – May 2017

Page 16

==> picture [181 x 43] intentionally omitted <==

APPENDIX 1: LIST OF DRILLING RESULTS >0.1% Cu FOR THE ZACKLY SKARN DEPOSIT FROM THE 1981, 1982 AND 1987 DRILLING PROGRAMS

HoleID Type Company Year From (m) To (m) Length (m)1 Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) Cu (%) UTM Easting UTM Northing RL (m) Dip UTM Azi mEOH	HoleID Type Company Year From (m) To (m) Length (m)1 Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) Cu (%) UTM Easting UTM Northing RL (m) Dip UTM Azi mEOH	HoleID Type Company Year From (m) To (m) Length (m)1 Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) Cu (%) UTM Easting UTM Northing RL (m) Dip UTM Azi mEOH	HoleID Type Company Year From (m) To (m) Length (m)1 Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) Cu (%) UTM Easting UTM Northing RL (m) Dip UTM Azi mEOH	HoleID Type Company Year From (m) To (m) Length (m)1 Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) Cu (%) UTM Easting UTM Northing RL (m) Dip UTM Azi mEOH	HoleID Type Company Year From (m) To (m) Length (m)1 Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) Cu (%) UTM Easting UTM Northing RL (m) Dip UTM Azi mEOH	HoleID Type Company Year From (m) To (m) Length (m)1 Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) Cu (%) UTM Easting UTM Northing RL (m) Dip UTM Azi mEOH	HoleID Type Company Year From (m) To (m) Length (m)1 Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) Cu (%) UTM Easting UTM Northing RL (m) Dip UTM Azi mEOH	HoleID Type Company Year From (m) To (m) Length (m)1 Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) Cu (%) UTM Easting UTM Northing RL (m) Dip UTM Azi mEOH	HoleID Type Company Year From (m) To (m) Length (m)1 Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) Cu (%) UTM Easting UTM Northing RL (m) Dip UTM Azi mEOH	HoleID Type Company Year From (m) To (m) Length (m)1 Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) Cu (%) UTM Easting UTM Northing RL (m) Dip UTM Azi mEOH	HoleID Type Company Year From (m) To (m) Length (m)1 Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) Cu (%) UTM Easting UTM Northing RL (m) Dip UTM Azi mEOH	HoleID Type Company Year From (m) To (m) Length (m)1 Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) Cu (%) UTM Easting UTM Northing RL (m) Dip UTM Azi mEOH	HoleID Type Company Year From (m) To (m) Length (m)1 Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) Cu (%) UTM Easting UTM Northing RL (m) Dip UTM Azi mEOH	HoleID Type Company Year From (m) To (m) Length (m)1 Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) Cu (%) UTM Easting UTM Northing RL (m) Dip UTM Azi mEOH	HoleID Type Company Year From (m) To (m) Length (m)1 Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) Cu (%) UTM Easting UTM Northing RL (m) Dip UTM Azi mEOH
Z‐01‐81	Core	UNC Teton	1981	67.06	69.49	2.44	0.04	0.78	0.43	514678.00	7010163.00	1450.5	‐45	0	137.46
Z‐01‐81	Core	UNC Teton	1981	77.72	85.95	8.23	3.30	10.53	1.55	514678.00	7010163.00	1450.5	‐45	0	13
Z‐02‐81	Core	UNC Teton	1981	169.47	179.83	10.36	2.08	14.33	1.63	514670.25	7010314.59	1388.4	‐45	180	242.01
includes	Core	UNC Teton	1981	171.30	179.22	7.92	2.55	17.78	2.07	514670.25	7010314.59	1388.4	‐45	180	242.01
Z‐02‐81	Core	UNC Teton	1981	188.98	200.86	11.89	1.06	8.07	1.25	514670.25	7010314.59	1388.4	‐45	180	242.01
includes	Core	UNC Teton	1981	190.80	200.86	10.06	1.23	9.25	1.45	514670.25	7010314.59	1388.4	‐45	180	242.01
includes	Core	UNC Teton	1981	190.80	192.63	1.83	2.32	15.22	2.30	514670.25	7010314.59	1388.4	‐45	180	242.01
Z‐03‐81	Core	UNC Teton	1981	47.55	51.21	3.66	1.31	13.83	1.30	514570.00	7010187.00	1384.5	‐50	0	93.57
Z‐04‐81	Core	UNC Teton	1981	145.08	164.59	19.51	14.26	88.93	4.40	514797.00	7010277.00	1376.9	‐50	180	183.18
Z‐05‐81	Core	UNC Teton	1981	21.34	33.53	12.19	16.09	6.72	0.74	515826.43	7010012.76	1428.3	‐45	180	42.98
Z‐07‐81	Core	UNC Teton	1981	98.15	112.78	14.63	1.76	11.08	1.50	514325.00	7010196.00	1246.5	‐50	0	131.06
Z‐08‐81	Core	UNC Teton	1981	168.10	168.55	0.46	23.76	50.20	4.95	514449.00	7010115.00	1311.2	‐45	0	195.07
Z‐09‐81	Core	UNC Teton	1981	158.95	159.56	0.61	0.60	9.20	0.98	514917.00	7010276.00	1360.2	‐45	180	225.86
Z‐09‐81	Core	UNC Teton	1981	163.22	167.03	3.81	0.34	11.60	1.10	514917.00	7010276.00	1360.2	‐45	180	225.86
Z‐09‐81	Core	UNC Teton	1981	168.86	171.91	3.05	4.04	4.74	0.68	514917.00	7010276.00	1360.2	‐45	180	225.86
Z‐11‐81	Core	UNC Teton	1981	24.38	30.48	6.10	1.24	3.73	0.30	515475.00	7010037.00	1426.9	‐45	180	159.41
Z‐11‐81	Core	UNC Teton	1981	96.01	97.54	1.52	0.47	3.80	0.28	515475.00	7010037.00	1426.9	‐45	180	159.41
Z‐12‐81	Core	UNC Teton	1981	53.04	55.47	2.44	0.84	7.40	1.10	514202.00	7010224.00	1201.5	‐45	0	143.87
Z‐12‐81	Core	UNC Teton	1981	71.32	74.98	3.66	3.44	12.14	1.76	514202.00	7010224.00	1201.5	‐45	0	143.87
Z‐14‐81	Core	UNC Teton	1981	19.81	49.38	29.57	2.38	3.54	0.53	515840.00	7010028.00	1428.3	‐50	180	182.88
Z‐14‐81	Core	UNC Teton	1981	70.10	79.25	9.14	0.65	2.44	0.17	515840.00	7010028.00	1428.3	‐50	180	182.88
Z‐16‐81	Core	UNC Teton	1981	70.10	71.63	1.52	0.40	4.60	0.47	515994.00	7010022.00	1425.6	‐45	180	183.18
Z‐22‐82	Core	UNC Teton	1982	61.87	67.36	5.49	2.30	1.94	0.21	515799.00	7009938.00	1411.5	‐52	75	118.26

CYY – May 2017

Page 17

==> picture [181 x 43] intentionally omitted <==

HoleID Type Company Year From (m) To (m) Length (m)1 Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) Cu (%) UTM Easting UTM Northing RL (m) Dip UTM Azi mEOH	HoleID Type Company Year From (m) To (m) Length (m)1 Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) Cu (%) UTM Easting UTM Northing RL (m) Dip UTM Azi mEOH	HoleID Type Company Year From (m) To (m) Length (m)1 Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) Cu (%) UTM Easting UTM Northing RL (m) Dip UTM Azi mEOH	HoleID Type Company Year From (m) To (m) Length (m)1 Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) Cu (%) UTM Easting UTM Northing RL (m) Dip UTM Azi mEOH	HoleID Type Company Year From (m) To (m) Length (m)1 Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) Cu (%) UTM Easting UTM Northing RL (m) Dip UTM Azi mEOH	HoleID Type Company Year From (m) To (m) Length (m)1 Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) Cu (%) UTM Easting UTM Northing RL (m) Dip UTM Azi mEOH	HoleID Type Company Year From (m) To (m) Length (m)1 Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) Cu (%) UTM Easting UTM Northing RL (m) Dip UTM Azi mEOH	HoleID Type Company Year From (m) To (m) Length (m)1 Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) Cu (%) UTM Easting UTM Northing RL (m) Dip UTM Azi mEOH	HoleID Type Company Year From (m) To (m) Length (m)1 Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) Cu (%) UTM Easting UTM Northing RL (m) Dip UTM Azi mEOH	HoleID Type Company Year From (m) To (m) Length (m)1 Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) Cu (%) UTM Easting UTM Northing RL (m) Dip UTM Azi mEOH	HoleID Type Company Year From (m) To (m) Length (m)1 Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) Cu (%) UTM Easting UTM Northing RL (m) Dip UTM Azi mEOH	HoleID Type Company Year From (m) To (m) Length (m)1 Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) Cu (%) UTM Easting UTM Northing RL (m) Dip UTM Azi mEOH	HoleID Type Company Year From (m) To (m) Length (m)1 Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) Cu (%) UTM Easting UTM Northing RL (m) Dip UTM Azi mEOH	HoleID Type Company Year From (m) To (m) Length (m)1 Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) Cu (%) UTM Easting UTM Northing RL (m) Dip UTM Azi mEOH	HoleID Type Company Year From (m) To (m) Length (m)1 Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) Cu (%) UTM Easting UTM Northing RL (m) Dip UTM Azi mEOH	HoleID Type Company Year From (m) To (m) Length (m)1 Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) Cu (%) UTM Easting UTM Northing RL (m) Dip UTM Azi mEOH
Z‐23‐82	Core	UNC Teton	1982	172.88	176.78	3.90	0.86	8.84	0.86	514329.00	7010120.00	1245.8	‐59	2	354.79
Z‐23‐82	Core	UNC Teton	1982	271.67	284.99	13.32	2.16	4.31	0.41	514329.00	7010120.00	1245.8	‐59	2	354.79
includes	Core	UNC Teton	1982	271.67	275.84	4.18	5.02	11.30	1.05	514329.00	7010120.00	1245.8	‐59	2	354.79
Z‐24‐82	Core	UNC Teton	1982	316.38	320.04	3.66	0.94	34.18	1.13	514811.00	7009979.00	1433.8	‐53	2	423.06
Z‐24‐82	Core	UNC Teton	1982	324.92	331.93	7.01	0.99	6.36	0.50	514811.00	7009979.00	1433.8	‐53	2	423.06
Z‐26‐82	Core	UNC Teton	1982	230.12	231.34	1.22	1.14	7.07	0.52	514681.00	7010049.00	1406.4	‐56.5	358	309.13
Z‐27‐82	Core	UNC Teton	1982	138.68	140.21	1.52	0.45	9.85	0.62	515799.00	7009938.00	1411.5	‐61.5	113.5	270.97
Z‐27‐82	Core	UNC Teton	1982	155.87	159.56	3.69	0.36	8.40	0.41	515799.00	7009938.00	1411.5	‐61.5	113.5	270.97
Z‐27‐82	Core	UNC Teton	1982	185.62	193.85	8.23	0.28	5.26	0.31	515799.00	7009938.00	1411.5	‐61.5	113.5	270.97
Z‐28‐82	Core	UNC Teton	1982	452.32	456.90	4.57	0.17	1.70	0.34	514791.00	7010369.00	1346.9	‐51.2	178	546.20
Z‐29‐82	Core	UNC Teton	1982	359.82	373.99	14.17	0.74	11.33	1.26	514682.00	7010048.00	1406.4	‐70.5	7	433.43
Z‐30‐82	Core	UNC Teton	1982	63.40	67.36	3.96	0.73	9.72	0.69	515289.00	7010199.00	1402.1	‐45	188	137.16
Z‐30‐82	Core	UNC Teton	1982	111.25	111.56	0.30	2.80	0.31	0.27	515289.00	7010199.00	1402.1	‐45	188	137.16
Z‐31‐82	Core	UNC Teton	1982	185.01	198.55	13.53	2.45	8.10	0.90	514572.00	7010062.00	1384.0	‐49.5	3.5	225.25
Z‐32‐82	Core	UNC Teton	1982	156.06	174.35	18.29	0.02	1.42	0.37	516156.00	7010065.00	1430.4	‐48	4	279.50
Z‐32‐82	Core	UNC Teton	1982	195.68	204.83	9.14	0.00	1.28	0.49	516156.00	7010065.00	1430.4	‐48	4	279.50
Z‐32‐82	Core	UNC Teton	1982	213.97	220.07	6.10	0.18	4.47	0.63	516156.00	7010065.00	1430.4	‐48	4	279.50
Z‐33‐82	Core	UNC Teton	1982	NSI2						514906.00	7009881.00	1456.0	‐61.5	5	587.96
Z‐35‐82	Core	UNC Teton	1982	274.32	275.84	1.52	0.27	1.80	0.53	516335.00	7009790.00	1399.3	‐56.5	207	275.84
Z‐36‐82	Core	UNC Teton	1982	NSI2						514568.00	7009937.00	1312.2	‐61.5	0	561.75
Z‐37‐82	Core	UNC Teton	1982	NSI2						514204.00	7010149.00	1199.1	‐50	2	232.56
Z‐38‐82	Core	UNC Teton	1982	319.74	323.70	3.96	0.48	3.79	0.37	514448.00	7010454.00	1284.4	‐50	180	491.95
Z‐38‐82	Core	UNC Teton	1982	330.04	331.32	1.28	11.02	9.80	0.62	514448.00	7010454.00	1284.4	‐50	180	491.95
Z‐38‐82	Core	UNC Teton	1982	356.62	359.66	3.05	2.64	9.33	0.94	514448.00	7010454.00	1284.4	‐50	180	491.95
Z‐39‐82	Core	UNC Teton	1982	NSI2						515044.00	7010138.00	1414.9	‐74	7	120.40

CYY – May 2017

Page 18

==> picture [181 x 43] intentionally omitted <==

HoleID Type Company Year From (m) To (m) Length (m)1 Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) Cu (%) UTM Easting UTM Northing RL (m) Dip UTM Azi mEOH	HoleID Type Company Year From (m) To (m) Length (m)1 Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) Cu (%) UTM Easting UTM Northing RL (m) Dip UTM Azi mEOH	HoleID Type Company Year From (m) To (m) Length (m)1 Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) Cu (%) UTM Easting UTM Northing RL (m) Dip UTM Azi mEOH	HoleID Type Company Year From (m) To (m) Length (m)1 Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) Cu (%) UTM Easting UTM Northing RL (m) Dip UTM Azi mEOH	HoleID Type Company Year From (m) To (m) Length (m)1 Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) Cu (%) UTM Easting UTM Northing RL (m) Dip UTM Azi mEOH	HoleID Type Company Year From (m) To (m) Length (m)1 Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) Cu (%) UTM Easting UTM Northing RL (m) Dip UTM Azi mEOH	HoleID Type Company Year From (m) To (m) Length (m)1 Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) Cu (%) UTM Easting UTM Northing RL (m) Dip UTM Azi mEOH	HoleID Type Company Year From (m) To (m) Length (m)1 Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) Cu (%) UTM Easting UTM Northing RL (m) Dip UTM Azi mEOH	HoleID Type Company Year From (m) To (m) Length (m)1 Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) Cu (%) UTM Easting UTM Northing RL (m) Dip UTM Azi mEOH	HoleID Type Company Year From (m) To (m) Length (m)1 Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) Cu (%) UTM Easting UTM Northing RL (m) Dip UTM Azi mEOH	HoleID Type Company Year From (m) To (m) Length (m)1 Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) Cu (%) UTM Easting UTM Northing RL (m) Dip UTM Azi mEOH	HoleID Type Company Year From (m) To (m) Length (m)1 Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) Cu (%) UTM Easting UTM Northing RL (m) Dip UTM Azi mEOH	HoleID Type Company Year From (m) To (m) Length (m)1 Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) Cu (%) UTM Easting UTM Northing RL (m) Dip UTM Azi mEOH	HoleID Type Company Year From (m) To (m) Length (m)1 Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) Cu (%) UTM Easting UTM Northing RL (m) Dip UTM Azi mEOH	HoleID Type Company Year From (m) To (m) Length (m)1 Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) Cu (%) UTM Easting UTM Northing RL (m) Dip UTM Azi mEOH	HoleID Type Company Year From (m) To (m) Length (m)1 Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) Cu (%) UTM Easting UTM Northing RL (m) Dip UTM Azi mEOH
Z‐40	RC	RAA	1987	30.48	39.62	9.14	1.49	13.34	0.45	514568.84	7010195.35	1383.8	‐50	0	57.91
Z‐40	RC	RAA	1987	45.72	47.24	1.52	2.19	13.37	0.95	514568.84	7010195.35	1383.8	‐50	0	57.91
Z‐41	RC	RAA	1987	48.77	54.86	6.10	0.59	6.11	0.59	514552.00	7010206.00	1381.7	‐66	0	76.20
Z‐42	RC	RAA	1987	51.82	56.39	4.57	0.18	4.87	0.54	514567.61	7010180.72	1381.4	‐73	0	92.96
Z‐43	RC	RAA	1987	83.82	102.11	18.29	0.22	1.67	0.60	514684.00	7010268.00	1394.8	‐45	182	108.20
Z‐44	RC	RAA	1987	60.96	70.10	9.14	1.09	4.65	0.50	514447.00	7010219.00	1306.7	‐59	0	88.39
Z‐47	RC	RAA	1987	39.62	56.39	16.76	0.81	4.85	0.54	514331.00	7010237.00	1234.4	‐55	0	83.82
Z‐48	RC	RAA	1987	3.05	12.19	9.14	3.15	19.92	2.30	514329.00	7010257.00	1234.4	‐55	0	30.48
Z‐49	RC	RAA	1987	67.06	96.01	28.96	1.07	5.41	0.40	514205.00	7010217.00	1196.3	‐55	0	140.21
Z‐49	RC	RAA	1987	105.16	115.82	10.67	2.61	19.92	1.27	514205.00	7010217.00	1196.3	‐55	0	140.21
Z‐50	RC	RAA	1987	6.10	16.76	10.67	4.38	13.81	1.69	514208.00	7010269.00	1194.8	‐55	0	64.01
Z‐51	RC	RAA	1987	25.91	33.53	7.62	0.96	5.79	0.60	514208.00	7010253.00	1194.8	‐55	0	42.67
Z‐52	RC	RAA	1987	0.00	3.05	3.05	0.39	1.80	0.31	514070.00	7010333.00	1172.3	‐65	0	59.44
Z‐52	RC	RAA	1987	15.24	24.38	9.14	1.08	10.76	0.69	514070.00	7010333.00	1172.3	‐65	0	59.44
Z‐54	RC	RAA	1987	15.24	21.34	6.10	0.10	0.48	0.47	514328.00	7010267.00	1234.4	‐50	0	48.77
Z‐55	RC	RAA	1987	76.20	105.16	28.96	1.19	11.20	1.09	514333.00	7010215.00	1234.4	‐55	0	115.82
Z‐56	RC	RAA	1987	3.05	6.10	3.05	0.00	35.00	0.14	515409.00	7010085.00	1424.8	‐60	210	21.34
Z‐56	RC	RAA	1987	12.19	21.34	9.14	0.20	4.30	0.73	515409.00	7010085.00	1424.8	‐60	210	21.34
Z‐57	RC	RAA	1987	18.29	45.72	27.43	0.22	4.36	0.31	515422.00	7010122.00	1423.9	‐60	210	48.77
Z‐59	RC	RAA	1987	13.72	25.91	12.19	0.15	2.52	0.30	514688.00	7010241.00	1411.2	‐55	225	96.01
Z‐59	RC	RAA	1987	32.00	45.72	13.72	0.68	3.13	0.29	514688.00	7010241.00	1411.2	‐55	225	96.01
Z‐59	RC	RAA	1987	53.34	88.39	35.05	0.50	3.41	0.43	514688.00	7010241.00	1411.2	‐55	225	96.01
includes	RC	RAA	1987	56.39	62.48	6.10	2.57	3.48	1.44	514688.00	7010241.00	1411.2	‐55	225	96.01

CYY – May 2017

Page 19

==> picture [181 x 43] intentionally omitted <==

HoleID	Type	Company	Year	From (m)	To (m)	Length (m)1	Au (g/t)	Ag (g/t)	Cu (%)	UTM Easting	UTM Northing	RL (m)	Dip	UTM Azi	mEOH
Z‐63	RC	RAA	1987	45.72	54.86	9.14	0.24	5.77	0.72	514507.00	7010193.00	1335.0	‐55	0	64.01
Z‐65	RC	RAA	1987	45.72	56.39	10.67	1.46	6.05	0.65	514266.00	7010248.00	1213.1	‐55	0	73.15
Z‐66	RC	RAA	1987	9.14	15.24	6.10	3.34	14.27	0.93	514267.00	7010268.00	1213.1	‐55	0	48.77
Z‐67	RC	RAA	1987	21.34	30.48	9.14	0.10	2.61	0.23	514469.78	7010211.56	1325.6	‐55	4	36.58
Z‐68	RC	RAA	1987	21.34	28.96	7.62	0.49	11.12	0.92	514536.53	7010195.98	1363.4	‐50	0	47.24
Z‐69	RC	RAA	1987	13.72	18.29	4.57	0.46	3.04	0.21	514799.00	7010515.00	1397.2	‐45	180	30.48
Z‐70	RC	RAA	1987	32.00	35.05	3.05	0.78	3.73	0.23	514785.86	7010200.72	1397.2	‐65	180	48.77
Z‐71	RC	RAA	1987	33.53	39.62	6.10	0.50	5.38	0.41	514801.00	7010213.00	1397.5	‐55	180	39.62
Z‐74	RC	RAA	1987	103.63	121.92	18.29	0.34	2.04	0.31	515338.00	7010097.00	1421.9	‐55	30	121.92
Z‐75	RC	RAA	1987	24.38	32.00	7.62	0.55	5.58	0.29	515416.99	7010012.92	1429.0	‐50	30	45.72
Z‐76	RC	RAA	1987	30.48	36.58	6.10	0.61	4.45	0.30	515430.00	7010025.00	1428.6	‐65	30	64.01
Z‐76	RC	RAA	1987	45.72	48.77	3.05	1.39	3.95	0.17	515430.00	7010025.00	1428.6	‐65	30	64.01
Z‐77	RC	RAA	1987	3.05	4.57	1.52	3.09	2.06	0.19	515501.00	7009934.00	1430.5	‐50	30	67.06
Z‐78	RC	RAA	1987	0.00	9.14	9.14	6.70	15.09	1.12	515577.60	7009974.12	1420.9	‐50	30	42.67
Z‐79	RC	RAA	1987	6.10	9.14	3.05	0.48	4.80	0.24	515890.33	7009978.52	1417.3	‐50	180	109.73
Z‐85	Core	RAA	1987	38.10	42.67	4.57	0.11	8.71	0.31	515393.00	7010038.00	1427.5	‐50	30	90.53
Z‐85	Core	RAA	1987	47.24	51.82	4.57	0.38	11.29	0.48	515393.00	7010038.00	1427.5	‐50	30	90.53
Z‐85	Core	RAA	1987	57.91	65.53	7.62	0.14	2.84	0.21	515393.00	7010038.00	1427.5	‐50	30	90.53
Z‐86	Core	RAA	1987	12.80	13.87	1.07	3.16	6.24	0.43	515303.96	7010103.51	1419.8	‐45	30	42.37
Z‐86	Core	RAA	1987	18.04	35.66	17.62	2.98	13.83	1.31	515303.96	7010103.51	1419.8	‐45	30	42.37

Notes:

1 ‐ These are downhole widths, not true thickness intercepts. True widths will be lower.

2 ‐ NSI: No significant intersection

CYY – May 2017

Page 20

==> picture [181 x 43] intentionally omitted <==

ANNEXURE 2 –

PROPOSED BOARD AND KEY MANAGEMENT

It is proposed that both Frazer Tabeart and Jason Berton join the Coventry board in an executive capacity immediately following the merger and raising proposed in the forthcoming NOM. The board and key management of Polaris would then comprise:

MARK BOJANJAC B.Com, ICAA ‐ EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN

A Chartered Accountant initially, with over 25 years’ direct experience in developing resource companies. A founding director of Gilt‐Edged Mining Limited which discovered one of Australia’s highest grade gold mines and managing director of a public company which successfully developed and financed a 2.4m oz gold resource in Mongolia. Previous CEO of Adamus Resources Limited and oversaw its advancement from an early stage exploration project through definitive feasibility studies and managed the debt and equity financing to build its successful $100M Ghanaian gold mine. Current Non‐Exec Director of Geopacific Resources Limited, which is developing a copper mine in Cambodia and a gold mine in PNG.

FRAZER TABEART Ph.D, B.Sc (Hons), ARSM, MAIG ‐ MANAGING DIRECTOR

Geologist with 30‐years international experience in exploration and project development, with strong technical background in porphyry copper‐ gold systems in SE Asia, SW Pacific, the American Cordillera and central and northern Asia. After spending 16 years with WMC Resources and managing exploration portfolios in the Philippines, Mongolia and Africa, he left to join the Mitchell River Group. Has served on ASX‐listed Company Boards at Executive level over last 10 years. Director and Principal at Mitchell River Group (see below), and current Managing Director at African Energy Resources Limited and Non‐ Exec Director at Segue Resources Limited.

JASON BERTON Ph.D, B.Sc (Hons), MAusIMM ‐ EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Geologist with over 16 years’ mining and exploration experience including working for Homestake, Barrick and BHP Billiton and SRK Consulting. Jason has also previously spent two years in private equity investment and four years as Managing Director of ASX‐ listed Estrella Resources. Jason holds two Degrees, a Bachelor of Economics and a Bachelor of Science (Hons) plus a PhD in Structural Geology, all from Macquarie University.

IAN CUNNINGHAM B.Com, LLB, ICAA, FGIA ‐ CFO and COMPANY SECRETARY

A Chartered Accountant and Chartered Secretary with a Bachelor of Commerce degree and Bachelor of Laws degree from the University of Western Australia. He also holds a Graduate Diploma in Applied Corporate Governance from the Governance Institute of Australia and a Graduate Diploma of Applied Finance and Investment from the Securities Institute of Australia. Mr. Cunningham has some 15 years’ experience in the resources industry in executive and senior management roles, including with Adamus Resources Ltd, during which time Adamus developed the Nzema Gold Mine (Ghana) before merging with Endeavour Mining Corporation.

CYY – May 2017

Page 21

==> picture [181 x 43] intentionally omitted <==

MICHAEL FOWLER B.Sc, M.Sc, MAusIMM ‐ NON‐EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Mr Fowler is a geologist with 25 years’ experience in the resources industry. He graduated from Curtin University in 1988 with a Bachelor of Applied Science degree majoring in geology and in 1999 received a Master of Science majoring in Ore Deposit Geology from the University of Western Australia. On graduating he explored for gold and base metals for Dominion Mining in the Murchison, Gascoyne and Eastern Goldfields regions of Western Australia. In 1996, Mr Fowler joined Croesus Mining NL and oversaw all exploration until he was appointed as Managing Director. Has overseen the discovery and development of several significant gold deposits, and is currently a Director of Genesis Minerals Limited

ROBERT BOAZ B.A. (Hons), M.A. Economics ‐ NON‐EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Mr Boaz graduated with honours from McMaster University of Hamilton, Ontario with a Bachelor of Arts in Economics and has a Masters Degree in Economics from York University in Toronto. He is a highly respected financial and economic strategist in Canadian bond and equity markets with experience related to equity research, portfolio management, institutional sales and investment banking. Mr Boaz has over 20 years’ experience in the finance industry, most recently as Managing Director, Investment Banking with Raymond James Ltd and Vice‐President, Head of Research and in‐ house portfolio strategist for Dundee Securities Corporation. He is currently President and CEO of Aura Silver Resources Inc.

MITCHELL RIVER GROUP ‐ TECHNICAL SERVICES

MRG is a privately owned project generation and resource management and development group providing technical, commercial and management services to multiple ASX‐listed companies. Current clients include ASX‐listed African Energy Resources, Anova Metals, Exterra Resources and EVE Investments. MRG has been engaged by Vista to provide commercial and technical management of its Alaskan projects, including data management, resource modelling and estimation, management of feasibility studies and management of US permitting.

CYY – May 2017

Page 22

==> picture [181 x 43] intentionally omitted <==

ANNEXURE 3

ACCOMPANYING NOTES TO HISTORIC MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE

The disclosure of the historic mineral resource estimate for the Stellar Project is covered by clauses 20‐ 28 of the JORC Code – Reporting of Mineral Resources. Further, ASX listing rule 5.12 sets out the parameters whereby historic mineral resource estimates can be reported on the ASX.

The disclosure below also makes reference to previous historical mineral resource estimates for the Stellar Project that have been prepared for previous project owners. Details of those estimates, together with the 1993 estimate which is referred to in the body of the announcement above, are outlined in the table below:

Year of report	Short Tons	Metric tonnes	Gold Grade g/t	Copper Grade %	Silver Grade g/t	Project Owner
1982	1,244,000	1,128,345	6.03	2.69	31.9	Resources Association Alaska in JV with UNC Teton Exploration Drilling
1987	1,407,000	1,276,200	4.51	2.19	28.4	Nerco Mining Company
1993	1,700,000	1,541,950	4.51	2.90	NA	Hemlo Gold (subsequently Noranda Expl. Co) in JV with Nerco Mining Co

 ASX Listing Rule 5.12.1 ‐ Provide the source and date of the historical estimate.

Peterson, R.J., Handverger, P., Adams, H., Rosenkrans, D., Nauman, J.L.V., Russ, M., Bond, J., Marquez‐Bond, R., Ballard, G., and Anderson, N., 1982 , Geology of the Zackly Gold‐Copper Skarn Prospect Alaska Range, Alaska, Final Report 1982 281p prepared for UNC Teton Exploration Drilling Inc.

1987 Final Report Exploration Results from Zackly Gold‐Copper Skarn Prospect Alaska Range, Alaska Vol 1 141p

Bidwell, G. and Robertson, K.A., 1994 , 1994 Exploration Program, Zackly Property, Valdez Creek Mining District, Alaska, Noranda Exploration Company Limited unpublished company report 82p

Glanville, R., 1996 , A Valuation of the Zackly Copper‐Gold Skarn Deposit in Alaska, Ross Glanville and Associates, Unpublished company report 35p containing a summary of the estimates

Eden, K., 2013 , Stellar Property, Valdez Creek Mining District, South‐Central Alaska Ni43‐101 Technical Report prepared for Millrock Resources Inc 100p containing a summary of the estimates

CYY – May 2017

Page 23

==> picture [181 x 43] intentionally omitted <==

ASX Listing Rule 5.12.2 ‐ If the historical estimates use categories of mineralisation other than those defined in Appendix 5A (JORC Code) provide an explanation of the differences. The estimate is historical in nature and was calculated prior to the introduction of the JORC Code and have therefore has not been classified into a mineral resource category. The historical estimate was calculated as part of internal company operations in accordance with accepted geological estimation methodologies at the time. In accordance with current standards they would be considered inferred mineral resources.
ASX Listing Rule 5.12.3 ‐ Provide the relevance and materiality of the historical mineral resource estimates to the entity.
The Company believes that the Stellar Project resource estimate is material because it demonstrates potentially high grade copper and gold mineralisation in drill intersections. The drilling results provide an immediate focus for the Company to undertake additional drilling, including twinning of historical holes which may ultimately result in a JORC Code compliant mineral resource that would form the basis of a prefeasibility study.
ASX Listing Rule 5.12.4 ‐ Detail the reliability of the historical estimates, including by reference to any of the criteria in Table 1 of Appendix 5A (JORC Code) which are relevant to understanding the reliability of the historical estimates.
The 1982 resource estimate utilised a modified polygon method in which the radius of influence for drill holes was half way to adjoining mineralisation, or 200 feet (~60m) around an intercept. Mineralised intervals were determined using different grade cut‐offs corresponding to the characteristics of each zone. Grade was calculated using Union Assay fire assays for 1981 drill intercepts and a combination of Bondar‐Clegg assays and geochemical analyses for 1982 drill holes and trenches. The true thickness of mineralised intervals was determined by correcting for drill hole inclination to the mineralised zone and the dip of the mineralisation as determined form cross sections. The resource envelope was calculated to be ~750m long by 180‐250m down‐dip by 1.7‐4.1m thick.

In 1987, the resource estimate was re‐evaluated both diamond core drilling and rotary drilling data. Estimation was by the polygon method on longitudinal sections utilising all the drilling to that date. The area of influence used for calculations was an arc with a 200‐foot radius and a cut‐off grade of 0.05 oz/t Au. The rotary holes had 5‐foot sample intervals and the diamond core had 2‐foot sample intervals in the mineralised zones. The resource envelope was substantially similar to the previous estimate.

Little information is available on the 1993 resource estimate, but the slight increase in tonnages are due to increased strike length of known mineralisation from the exploration programs undertaken between 1987 and 1992.

Review of the historical resource estimates in 2012 highlighted some concerns:

a. recovery rates in the drilling were generally low and there were some mineralised zones with substantial core loss.
b. the drilling is generally only shallow, with few holes extending below 100m.
c. metallic screen testing in 1986 demonstrated that gold assays used in the 1982 estimate had probably been under reported due to the presence of coarse gold.

CYY – May 2017

Page 24

==> picture [181 x 43] intentionally omitted <==

As a result of these concerns it will be necessary to drill twinned holes into the historic resource estimate to verify grade and allow a revised estimate to JORC Code standard.

ASX Listing Rule 5.12.5 ‐ To the extent known provide a summary of the work programs on which the historical estimates are based and a summary of the key assumptions, mining and processing parameters, and methods used to prepare the historical estimates.
Soil sampling (200ft x 100ft grid), trenching, ground magnetic surveying (209,000 line‐ feet), three lines (3,400ft) of electromagnetic surveying and a VLF survey were conducted in 1981, highlighting the mineralised trend at Zackly.
Core drilling by UNC Teton Exploration Drilling comprising 21 cored holes located on 400ft centres for a total of 2964m in 1981.
Further core drilling in 1982 with 19 holes for 5855m, with 925 core samples sent for assay.
17 trenches across skarn mineralisation dug by backhoe ranging from 2ft to 14ft in depth and 20ft to 568ft in length, with 194 rock samples collected for analysis in 1982.
VLF‐EM surveying over 60,500 line‐feet in 1982.
Further trenching and bulk sampling in 1986.
Shallow rotary percussion drilling comprising 43 holes for 2959m plus 6 diamond core hole for 390m were drilled in 1987, with 1597 drill samples sent for assay.
11 surface trenches were cut for a total length of 1240ft in 1987 and 148 samples sent for assay.
3 diamond drill holes for 386m were drilled in 1990.
A total of 106 line‐miles of electromagnetic, magnetic and VLF‐EM surveying was completed in 1992.
7 reverse circulation percussion holes for 460m were drilled in 1994.

 ASX Listing Rule 5.12.6 ‐ Are there any more recent estimates or data relevant to the reported mineralisation available to the entity.

The Company is not aware of any more recent estimates or more recent data specific to the mineralisation that forms the basis for reported historical resource estimate for the Stellar Project.

CYY – May 2017

Page 25

==> picture [181 x 43] intentionally omitted <==

ASX Listing Rule 5.12.7 ‐ Detail the evaluation and/or exploration work that needs to be completed to verify the foreign estimates as mineral resources or ore reserves in accordance with Appendix 5A (JORC Code).
The Company believes that the area of the historical estimate needs to be re‐drilled with diamond core drilling to collect sufficient material to provide confidence on grade and tonnage estimation in accordance with Appendix 5A (JORC Code). The location of drill hole collars and drill hole orientation will be guided by the historical drilling database and by reference to induced polarisation surveys to be undertaken on traverses perpendicular to the mineralised zone prior to drilling.
ASX Listing Rule 5.12.8 ‐ Explain the proposed timing of any evaluation and/or exploration work the entity intends to undertake and how the entity intends to undertake that work. The Company intends to commence the IP surveying and subsequent diamond core drilling at Zackly, subject to completion of the Transaction.

CYY – May 2017

Page 26

==> picture [181 x 43] intentionally omitted <==

ANNEXURE 4

CARIBOU DOME PROJECT MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE

Caribou Dome Mineral Resource Estimate (March 2017)

Caribou Dome Mineral Resource Estimate (March 2017)	Caribou Dome Mineral Resource Estimate (March 2017)	Caribou Dome Mineral Resource Estimate (March 2017)	Caribou Dome Mineral Resource Estimate (March 2017)	Caribou Dome Mineral Resource Estimate (March 2017)	Caribou Dome Mineral Resource Estimate (March 2017)	Caribou Dome Mineral Resource Estimate (March 2017)	Caribou Dome Mineral Resource Estimate (March 2017)
	Open Cut RL>=1300		Underground RL<1300			Total
Category	Tonnes	Grade Cu (%)	Tonnes	Grade Cu (%)	Tonnes	Grade Cu (%)	Contained Cu (t)
Measured	495,000	3.6	74,000	3.7	569,000	3.6	21,000
Indicated	480,000	2.2	113,000	2.3	593,000	2.2	13,000
Inferred	655,000	3.1	979,000	3.3	1,634,000	3.2	52,000
Total	1,630,000	3.0	1,166,000	3.2	2,796,000	3.1	86,000

Notes:

Numbers are presented at a 0.5% Cu cut‐off grade and are rounded
Refer to the ASX announcement of 6 April 2017 for full details on the Mineral Resource Estimate, including the applicable technical information and reporting criteria

CYY – May 2017

Page 27

==> picture [181 x 43] intentionally omitted <==

ANNEXURE 5

JORC CODE 2012 EDITION – TABLE 1 REPORT FOR THE STELLAR PROJECT

Section 1: Sampling Techniques and Data

(Criteria in this section applies to all succeeding sections)

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 downhole gamma sondes, or handheld XRF instruments, etc.). These examples should not be taken as limiting the broad meaning of sampling.  Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample representivity and the appropriate calibration of any measurement tools or systems used.  Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are Material to the Public Report.  In cases where ‘industry standard’ work has been done, this would be relatively simple (eg, ‘reverse circulation drilling was used to obtain 1m samples from which 3kg was pulverised to produce a 30g 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	 Prior to 2010 (when Millrock acquired the project) exploration activities were confined to the Zackly Cu-Au skarn system.  Multiple soil, trenching, geophysical and drilling programs have been completed at the Zackly Project between 1980 and 1994. All programs employed different methodologies from program to program. Previous work programs appear to have been undertaken in accordance with industry standard practices at the time they were implemented.  Since 2010, Millrock have undertaken stream sediment (56 samples), rock chip (187 samples) and soil (340 samples) sampling over the entire Stellar Project area.  Drilling has been completed at the Zackly prospect between 1981 and 1994 over 5 different campaigns using rotary and core drilling methods.  Resources Association of Alaska (RAA) in JV with UNC Teton Exploration Drilling (Teton) undertook the following campaigns:  1981: 21 diamond holes for 2,964m  1982: 19 diamond holes for 5,855m Core from the 1981 and 1982 campaigns was selectively sampled at varying intervals.  In 1987 Nerco Mining Company (NMCO) in JV with Alaska Boulder drilled 43 rotary holes for 2,959m (sampled at 5ft intervals) and 6 diamond holes for 390m (sampled at 2ft intervals).  In 1990 NMCO in JV with Phelps Dodge drilled 3 diamond holes for 386m.  In 1994 NMCO in JV with Hemlo Gold drilled 7 rotary holes for 460m. Holes were sampled at 5ft intervals.  Limited information exists regarding sample preparation and analysis techniques for the Zackly drilling programs.
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 is oriented and if so, by what method, etc.).	 Approximately 9,595m of diamond drilling and 3,419m of rotary drilling has been completed at the Zackly project to date (99 holes).  Diamond drilling for the 1981 and 1982 drilling campaigns used Longyear 28 and Longyear 38 drill rigs, as well as a Longyear 38 fly rig. Core diameters used were NX (54mm), BX (41.3mm) and HQ (63.5mm).  For the 1987 program, rotary holes were drilled with 4 inch (101.6mm) and 4.5 inch (114.3mm) diameter rods; and the drill core diameter varied from HQ to NC (56.1mm).  The 1990 diamond holes were drilled by Boyles Brother Drilling Company using a Heli-65 diamond drill. All holes were collared using HX rods, with hole completion using NX rods.

CYY – May 2017

Page 28

==> picture [181 x 43] intentionally omitted <==

The 1994 rotary holes were all drilled with 4.5 inch diameter rods.
The author of the NI43-101 report was not able to comment on the orientation of the core, nor could he comment on the relationship between sample length and true thickness of mineralization since these holes are historic and he was not present at the time of drilling.

		 The 1994 rotary holes were all drilled with 4.5 inch diameter rods.  The author of the NI43-101 report was not able to comment on the orientation of the core, nor could he comment on the relationship between sample length and true thickness of mineralization since these holes are historic and he was not present at the time of drilling.
Drill Sample Recovery	 Method of recording and assessing core and chip sample recoveries and results assessed.  Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and ensure representative nature of the samples.  Whether a relationship exists between sample recovery and grade and whether sample bias may have occurred due to preferential loss/gain of fine/coarse material	 Drill hole logs for diamond drill holes generally include statistics on core recoveries. In some cases core recovery has been poor, including, at times, within the mineralized intervals.  The author of the NI43-101 report viewed selected mineralised intercepts from 32 cored holes in a secure facility at Fairbanks, Alaska. He reported that this drill core is in a poor state with poor core recovery and a lack of structural and rock-contact relationships evident, and stated some concerns relating to selective sampling, core loss and narrow diameter core, and hence concerns about the accuracy of the reported copper and gold grades in this drilling.  It is noted that UNC Teton 1982 report that a major emphasis was placed on core recovery for the 1982 drilling program after poor recovery noted in some of the 1981 drillholes. As such, an overall result of 86.6% recovery for the 1982 drilling is reported.  At this time it is not possible to ascertain whether sample recovery may influence grade. New drilling including twinning within previously identified mineralized zones would be required to determine this.
Logging	 Whether core and chip samples have been geologically and geotechnically logged to a level of detail to support appropriate Mineral Resource estimation, mining studies and metallurgical studies.  Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc.) photography.  The total length and percentage of the relevant intersections logged	 Geological logs were recorded for the entire length of all diamond drill holes.  It is anticipated that additional drilling in the known mineralised areas will be necessary in order to confirm the geological model and collect appropriate geotechnical data prior to defining any Mineral Resource.
Sub-Sampling techniques and sample preparation	 If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, half or all core taken.  If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc. and whether sampled wet or dry.  For all sample types, the nature, quality and appropriateness of the sample preparation technique.  Quality control procedures adopted for all sub-sampling stages to maximise representivity of samples.  Measures taken to ensure that the sampling is representative of the in situ material collected, including for instance results for field duplicate/second-half sampling.  Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grain size of the material being sampled.	 Details of laboratory sample preparation techniques have not been documented by previous workers.  Details of previous quality control measures have not been documented by previous workers.  There is no documentation available to determine the nature of any quality control measures adopted for sampling and analysis of the reported drillholes, however the author of the NI43-101 report believes that adequate QA/QC procedures were being carried out by previous operators during their exploration programs.  Routine resampling and/or duplicate sample analysis was not undertaken for the Millrock surface sampling program between 2010 and 2012.  Soil samples were collected by Millrock and are believed to be representative of the soils at each sample site. The average soil sample weighed 0.5kg.

CYY – May 2017

Page 29

==> picture [181 x 43] intentionally omitted <==

Rock chip samples were taken as representative grab samples at each outcrop, at specific areas identified as high grade and as random talus chip sampling. The usual interval for chip sampling is 1.54m, unless there is a change in lithology.
Stream sediment samples were collected in low velocity depositional environments, and tools were cleaned between samples to minimize contamination. Minimum sample weight was 2kg.
Core diameter sizes for the 1981 and 1982 drilling campaigns were considered too small by the author of the NI43-101 report to adequately sample a coarse gold system.

		 Rock chip samples were taken as representative grab samples at each outcrop, at specific areas identified as high grade and as random talus chip sampling. The usual interval for chip sampling is 1.54m, unless there is a change in lithology.  Stream sediment samples were collected in low velocity depositional environments, and tools were cleaned between samples to minimize contamination. Minimum sample weight was 2kg.  Core diameter sizes for the 1981 and 1982 drilling campaigns were considered too small by the author of the NI43-101 report to adequately sample a coarse gold system.
Quality of assay data and laboratory tests	 The nature, quality and appropriateness of the assaying and laboratory procedures used and whether the technique is considered partial or total.  For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF instruments, etc., the parameters used in determining the analysis including instrument make and model, reading times, calibrations factors applied and their derivation, etc.  Nature of quality control procedures adopted (e.g. standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (i.e. lack of bias) and precision have been established	 Details of previous assaying of samples of historical drilling samples is limited at this time to what is detailed in historic reports.  There is no documentation available to determine the nature of any quality control measures adopted for sampling and analysis of the reported drill holes, however the author of the NI43-101 report believes that adequate QA/QC procedures were being carried out by previous operators during their exploration programs.  There is no available information describing the analysis methods for the UNC Teton 1981 drilling samples at Union Assay laboratory.  The UNC Teton 1982 drilling samples were analysed by Bondar-Clegg, Inc. of Denver Colorado. Base metals were by aqua regia digest and analysed by atomic absorption with over- range (ore-grade) samples re-assayed by HCl digest and analysed by atomic absorption. Gold was by total (fusion or HF) atomic absorption with over range total (fusion of HF) fire assay.  The NMCO 1987 drilling samples were analysed by Bondar-Clegg and Co., Ltd for gold and base metals by atomic absorption for low-grade zones with logged mineralized samples were assayed for gold by fire assay or screen fire assay.  Surface samples taken by Millrock were analysed by ALS Chemex laboratories in Fairbanks, Alaska, an ISO 9001:2000 accredited laboratory.
Verification of sampling and assaying	 The verification of significant intersections by either independent or alternative company personnel.  The use of twinned holes.  Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data verification, data storage (physical and electronic) protocols.  Discuss any adjustment to assay data	 Drill hole data was compiled from historical paper records, digitally captured, and compiled into an Access database by Millrock.  Twin holes were not utilized to verify results directly, however multiple companies have undertaken drilling programs at the Project previously. Such programs have included infill drilling programs, whereby new holes have been drilled between previous holes that had successfully intersected mineralisation. Hence the presence and extents of mineralisation (to some extent) has been confirmed.  There were no adjustments to assay data.
Location of data points	 Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drillholes (collar and down- hole surveys), trenches, mine workings and other locations used in Mineral Resource estimation.  Specification of the grid system used.	 Drill hole collars are pegged to a local grid. The supplied database has additional sets coordinates for Alaskan State Plane NAD 83 as well as WGS84 UTM Zone 6. The local coordinates have been checked against hard copy logs. Checks of the UTM Zone 6 set of coordinates have been made by 3D visualization of the holes and overlaying them onto existing plans.

CYY – May 2017

Page 30

==> picture [181 x 43] intentionally omitted <==

	 Quality and adequacy of topographic control.	 Drill hole azimuth and inclination was generally recorded at the collar only (with the exception of the 1982 core program). Records are incomplete for down-hole surveys.  Locational accuracy at collar and down the drill hole is considered adequate for this stage of exploration.
Data Spacing and distribution	 Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results.  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.  Whether sample compositing has been applied.	 Drillhole spacing is variable, with sections varying from 20m to 150m apart.  Surface sample spacing is varied across the Stellar claims.  While considerable data have been acquired on the Project previously, additional work, including additional drilling, will be required before a Mineral Resource can be declared.  No sample compositing has been documented.
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.	 Previous sampling programs appear to have been appropriate, however further evaluation would be required to determine if any sample biases exist.  The orientation of drill holes relative to key geological structures does not appear to have introduced a sampling bias.
Sample Security	 The measures taken to ensure sample security	 Sample security measures have not been documented for any of the historical drilling.  In 2010 all samples collected by Millrock were stored in a secure storage facility at the Maclaren River Lodge and transported to ALS Chemex laboratories in Fairbanks, Alaska by Millrock personnel.  In 2012 all samples collected by Millrock were stored in a secure storage facility at Millrock’s office in Anchorage, Alska and transported to ALS Chemex laboratories in Anchorage by ALS personnel.
Audits or reviews	 The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data	 The Company is unaware of any sampling audits adopted previously.

CYY – May 2017

Page 31

==> picture [181 x 43] intentionally omitted <==

Section 2: Reporting of Exploration Results (Criteria listed in section 1 also apply to this section)

Criteria	JORC CodeExplanation	Commentary
Mineral tenement and land tenure status	 Type, reference name/number, location and ownership including agreements or material issues with third parties such as joint ventures, partnerships, overriding royalties, native title interests, historical sites, wilderness or national park and environmental settings.  The security of the tenure held at the time of reporting along with any known impediments to obtaining a licence to operate in the area	 The Stellar Project comprises [111] contiguous State Mining Claims in the Talkeetna District of Alaska. The claims cover a total area of [17,760 acres (7,187 hectares)] and are registered to Millrock Alaska LLC a wholly owned subsidiary of Millrock Resources Inc.  Vista Minerals Pty Ltd (“Vista”) and Millrock have entered into a binding Sale and Purchase Agreement under which Vista has acquired 100% ownership of the Stellar Claims in return for issuing Millrock with 20% of the expanded capital of Vista and agreeing to a list of conditions which are described in the accompanying announcement.  While the Claims are in good standing, additional permits/licences may be required to undertake specific (generally ground-disturbing) activities such as drilling and underground development.
Exploration done by otherparties	 Acknowledgment and appraisal of explorationby otherparties.	 A brief history of previous exploration is included in the body ofthis announcement.
Geology	 Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation	 A brief description of the deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation is included in the body of this announcement.
Drillhole Information	 A summary of all information material to the understanding of the exploration results including a tabulation of the following information for all Material drillholes:  easting and northing of the drillhole collar  elevation or RL (Reduced Level elevation above sea level in metres) of the drillhole collar  dip and azimuth of the hole  downhole length and interception depth  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.	 Reported results are summarised in relevant tables within the attached announcement.  The drill holes reported in this announcement have the following parameters applied: `o` Grid co-ordinates are reported here in WGS 84 UTM Zone 6. `o` Collar elevation is defined as height above sea level in metres. `o` Dip is the inclination of the hole from the horizontal. Azimuth is reported as the direction toward which the hole is drilled relative to True North. `o` Down hole length of the hole is the distance from the surface to the end of the hole, as measured along the drill trace `o` Intersection depth is the distance down the hole as measured along the drill trace. `o` Intersection width is the downhole distance of an intersection as measured along the drill trace.
Data aggregation methods	 In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging techniques, maximum and/or minimum grade truncations (e.g. 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 indetail.	 Sample intervals were geologically defined and as such downhole sample lengths are variable. The average sample is 5 feet in length, with the maximum rarely exceeding 10 feet.  Drill intersections have been calculated using a weighted (by length) average technique.  No grade top cut off has been applied.  No aggregated intercepts are reported.  No metal equivalent reporting is used or applied.

CYY – May 2017

Page 32

==> picture [181 x 43] intentionally omitted <==

	 The assumptions used for any reporting of metal equivalent values should be clearly stated
Relationship between mineralisation widths and intercept lengths	 These relationships are particularly important in the reporting of Exploration Results.  If the geometry of the mineralisation with respect to the drillhole angle is known, its nature should be reported.  If it is not known and only the downhole lengths are reported, there should be a clear statement to this effect (eg, ‘down hole length, true width notknown’).	 Thickness of mineralisation reported is down-hole thickness. There is insufficient interpretation of the mineralisation to confidently report “true widths”. It is however noted that the mineralized lenses appear to be relatively steeply dipping. As such it is probable that “true widths” won’t be as large as down-hole widths.
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 drillhole collar locations and appropriate sectional views	 Summary plans and sections are included in this announcement.
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	 Representative results are included in this announcement.
Other substantive exploration data	 Other exploration data, if meaningful and material, should be reported including (but not limited to) geological observations; geophysical survey results; geochemical survey results; bulk samples – size and method of treatment; metallurgical test results; bulk density, groundwater, geotechnical and rock characteristics; potential deleterious or contaminating substances.	 An Induced Polarisation (IP) survey comprising 4 lines of covering 10.3 km was completed in the East-Middle skarn area in 1994. These data support a potential faulted offset of the mineralization with at least 650m of untested strike length of strong chargeability anomalism.  Two lines of IP surveying was undertaken to the west of the Main Skarn in late 2016 by Vista.  Two preliminary metallurgical reports focusing on gold recoveries from near-surface, mainly oxidized skarn material were completed in 1987 and 1992. These tests comprised gravity, floatation and cyanidation methods for gold recoveries, and were conducted on 4 bulk samples.
Further Work	 The nature and scale of planned further work (eg, tests for lateral extensions or depth extensions or large-scale step-out drilling).  Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions, including the main geological interpretations and future drilling areas, provided this information is not commercially sensitive.	 A suitable work program will be developed following more comprehensive review, compilation and interpretation of previously acquired data.  Diagrams highlighting potential drilling target areas are included in this announcement.

CYY – May 2017

Page 33

AI assistant

POLARX LIMITED — Capital/Financing Update 2017

65639_rns_2017-05-23_cc3fbccd-3533-46ed-a450-226dced43134.pdf

PROPOSED MERGER AND $10M INSTITUTIONAL FINANCING

HIGHLIGHTS

FUNDED MERGER PROPOSAL

1. Corporate Similarities

2. Complementary Projects

Combined Resources

Vista ‐ Stellar Project

Coventry ‐ Caribou Dome Project

3. Merged Funding

4. Proposed Capital Structure

5. Management

6. Creating the new ‐ Polaris Minerals Limited

7. Notice of Meeting of Shareholders

RECOMMENDATION

Mark T. Bojanjac Executive Chairman

Qualified and Competent Persons

Forward Looking Statements

ANNEXURE 1 –

VISTA MINERALS STELLAR COPPER‐GOLD PROJECT, ALASKA

Summary

Project Description

Access, Climate, Topography, Infrastructure

Geological Setting

Exploration History

Recent Exploration and Mineralisation

Mineral Resource Estimates

APPENDIX 1: LIST OF DRILLING RESULTS >0.1% Cu FOR THE ZACKLY SKARN DEPOSIT FROM THE 1981, 1982 AND 1987 DRILLING PROGRAMS

ANNEXURE 2 –

PROPOSED BOARD AND KEY MANAGEMENT

MARK BOJANJAC B.Com, ICAA ‐ EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN

FRAZER TABEART Ph.D, B.Sc (Hons), ARSM, MAIG ‐ MANAGING DIRECTOR

JASON BERTON Ph.D, B.Sc (Hons), MAusIMM ‐ EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

IAN CUNNINGHAM B.Com, LLB, ICAA, FGIA ‐ CFO and COMPANY SECRETARY

MICHAEL FOWLER B.Sc, M.Sc, MAusIMM ‐ NON‐EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

ROBERT BOAZ B.A. (Hons), M.A. Economics ‐ NON‐EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

MITCHELL RIVER GROUP ‐ TECHNICAL SERVICES

ANNEXURE 3

ACCOMPANYING NOTES TO HISTORIC MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE

 ASX Listing Rule 5.12.1 ‐ Provide the source and date of the historical estimate.

 ASX Listing Rule 5.12.6 ‐ Are there any more recent estimates or data relevant to the reported mineralisation available to the entity.

ANNEXURE 4

CARIBOU DOME PROJECT MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE

ANNEXURE 5

JORC CODE 2012 EDITION – TABLE 1 REPORT FOR THE STELLAR PROJECT

Section 1: Sampling Techniques and Data

Section 2: Reporting of Exploration Results (Criteria listed in section 1 also apply to this section)

More from POLARX LIMITED

POLARX LIMITED Capital/Financing Update 2017