RAMELIUS RESOURCES LIMITED — Capital/Financing Update 2015

Jan 18, 2015

19 January 2014

ISSUED CAPITAL

Ordinary Shares: 468M

DIRECTORS

Chairman: Robert Kennedy Non-Executive Directors: Kevin Lines Michael Bohm CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER: Mark Zeptner

www.rameliusresources.com.au info@rameliusresources.com.au

RAMELIUS RESOURCES LIMITED

Registered Office

Suite 4, 148 Greenhill Road Parkside, Adelaide South Australia 5063 Tel +61 8 8271 1999 Fax +61 8 8271 1988

Operations Office

Level 1, 130 Royal Street East Perth WA 6004 Tel 08 9202 1127 Fax 08 9202 1138

19 January 2015

For Immediate Release

Maiden Ore Reserve boosts Kathleen Valley Gold Project

Ramelius Resources Limited (ASX:RMS) is pleased to announce a maiden Ore Reserve, updated Mineral Resource and infill RC drilling results for its Kathleen Valley gold project, located 50km north of Leinster in Western Australia;

• Total Ore Reserves, using a A$1,400/oz gold price, are estimated at 418,000 t @ 4.1 g/t for 56,000 contained ounces
• Total Mineral Resources have risen significantly to an estimated 1,814,000 t @ 2.8 g/t for 163,000 contained ounces, an increase of 24% on the previous Kathleen Valley resource estimate (Sept 2014: 1.44Mt @ 2.8g/t for 130,000oz)
• Highlight RC infill drilling results include:
  • 10m @ 6.1 g/t from 8m (MRC281)
  • 9m @ 4.4 g/t from 0m (MRC283)
  • 7m @ 5.1 g/t from 9m (MRC288)
  • 7m @ 3.2 g/t from 35m (MRC290)
  • 10m @ 15.7 g/t from 32m (YRC629)
  • 6m @ 6.9 g/t from 34m (YRC634)
  • 5m @ 8.5 g/t from 36m (YRC635)
  • 12m @ 8.1 g/t from 57m (YRC637)

Twenty-eight RC holes were drilled at the Kathleen Valley project in November 2014, targeting core areas and aimed at improving resource confidence. Drilling confirmed previous resources and upgraded some resource areas. The resource block model was recently updated and open pit mine design work also completed.

A Mining Proposal has been submitted to the DMP. Subject to regulatory and Board approvals, the Company anticipates being in a position to commence an open pit mining operation in the June 2015 quarter.

Chief Executive Officer, Mr Mark Zeptner today said:

"This is further good news for Ramelius following the recently announced improved performance at our Mt Magnet operations and the high grade gold intersections at our Blackmans project. At above 4g/t Reserve grade, Kathleen Valley potentially represents a relatively high grade open pit operation, more than capable of being trucked to the Checker gold mill at Mt Magnet. Capital costs for the project are expected to be minimal and importantly, the shallow nature of the Mossbecker deposit will facilitate early gold production and cash flow. The full Feasibility Study is due to be completed soon and AISC are expected to be below A$1,000 per ounce".

Kathleen Valley Gold Project

Ramelius acquired the project on 1st September 2014 from Xstrata Nickel Australasia Operations Pty Limited (XNAO), a subsidiary of Glencore plc. Three deposits – Mossbecker, Yellow Aster and Nil Desperandum are located on mining lease M36/375 (refer Figure 1).

Figure 1: Kathleen Valley Project Location

Drilling Results

In November 2014, Ramelius completed infill RC drilling to test core resource areas and upgrade resource confidence. 15 holes were drilled at the Mossbecker deposit for 562m, 11 holes at the Yellow Aster deposit for 505m and another 2 holes at the Nil Desperandum deposit for 129m.

Results were very encouraging with drilling generally confirming previous results or improving the resource in several core areas. Drill hole locations are shown in Figure 2 below, with representative sections shown in Figures 3 and 4. Results for the entire drilling program are listed in Table 1.

Figure 2: Drillhole location plans - local grid (Ramelius' 2014 holes labelled)

Figure 3: Mossbecker cross-section 8,775N (New drillholes labelled)

Figure 4: Yellow Aster cross-section 10,400N (New drillholes labelled)

Table 1: Drill Hole Summary Table

Hole Id	Easting	Northing	RL	Az/Dip	F/Depth(m)	From (m)	To (m)	Interval(m)	g/t Au
MRC279	9,958.5	8,837.9	506.9	vertical	15	0	2	2	1.76
MRC280	9,942.2	8,837.9	507.7	vertical	15	6	10	4	2.31
MRC281	9,961.4	8,779.1	504.1	vertical	25	8	18	10	6.08
MRC282	9,946.8	8,774.0	504.2	vertical	25	0	5	5	17.9
					and	9	17	8	2.71
MRC283	9,982.8	8,761.7	502.8	vertical	12	0	9	9	4.35
MRC284	9,956.6	8,748.6	502.9	vertical	30	10	22	12	2.46
MRC285	9,940.5	8,749.1	503.1	vertical	30	-	-	-	NSI
MRC286	9,988.7	8,750.5	502.2	vertical	15	5	7	2	1.24
MRC287	9,987.4	8,702.3	500.4	vertical	24	14	17	3	6.80
MRC288	9,953.4	8,700.6	500.8	vertical	35	9	16	7	5.11
					and	22	28	6	2.08
MRC289	9,938.5	8,653.5	499.8	vertical	50	24	28	4	1.97
MRC290	9,923.2	8,626.8	499.2	090/-65	60	35	42	7	3.23
					and	48	51	3	1.88
MRC291	9,919.3	8,614.3	499.2	104/-59	76	38	43	5	1.81
MRC292	10,008.2	8,576.7	499.7	092/-67	49	-	-	-	NSI
MRC293	9,913.1	8,497.9	498.9	092/-60	100	64	76	12	1.96
					and	90	93	3	2.93
YRC627	9,991.6	10,102.5	504.7	091/-69	59	32	42	10	15.7
YRC628	9,997.0	10,121.6	504.9	091/-69	70	58	63	5	0.73
YRC629	10,174.2	10,176.7	510.2	vertical	23	12	15	3	16.8
YRC630	10,164.6	10,177.8	510.3	vertical	23	12	15	3	0.88
YRC631	10,168.7	10,226.1	508.6	vertical	20	14	17	3	1.23
YRC632	10,216.6	10,277.4	507.0	090/-70	20	4	10	6	1.20
YRC633	10,205.6	10,303.2	506.2	090/-69	25	10	14	4	0.57
YRC634	10,223.2	10,403.5	504.9	089/-69	55	34	40	6	6.92
YRC635	10,207.8	10,402.2	505.0	091/-70	50	36	41	5	8.47
YRC636	10,215.6	10,418.5	504.6	093/-68	60	38	42	4	3.27
YRC637	10,209.7	10,456.2	504.3	090/-68	90	57	69	12	8.06
YRC638	10,270.5	10,601.8	505.7	090/-69	67	27	35	8	1.94
YRC639	10,277.5	10,626.2	506.0	087/-71	72	14	30	16	1.86

Mineral Resource

An updated Mineral Resource was recently generated for the Kathleen Valley project. Total Resource ounces have increased significantly by 24% to those previously reported in September 2014.

Deposit	Indicated		Inferred			Total
	t	g/t	oz	t	g/t	oz	t	g/t	oz
Mossbecker	463,000	4.0	59,000	186,000	2.3	14,000	650,000	3.5	73,000
Yellow Aster	156,000	4.8	24,000	759,000	1.8	45,000	916,000	2.3	69,000
Nil Desperandum	49,000	3.0	5,000	200,000	2.6	17,000	249,000	2.7	21,000
Total	668,000	4.1	88,000	1,146,000	2.0	75,000	1,814,000	2.8	163,000

Table 2: Mineral Resources

Note: Figures rounded to the 10,000 tonnes, 0.1 g/t and 1,000 ounces. Rounding errors may occur

Mineral Resource Commentary

Resources are generated from 475 RC and diamond holes drilled by previous companies between 1984 and 2014. A significant proportion of drilling occurred in 1992-94. New drilling has been undertaken by Xstrata 2012 and Ramelius 2014. All resources are located on ML36/375. Drillhole density is typically 8m x 25m. Mineralisation occurs as shallow dipping lodes displaying silica-biotite alteration and disseminated sulphides, within a granitic conglomerate and proximal to a shallow dipping fault contact with underlying mafic units. Historic mining has taken place at the Yellow Aster and Nil Desperandum deposits and the ore zones were depleted for these areas.

Split RC sub-samples and half core were assayed by Aqua Regia, Bulk Leachable gold and Fire Assay methods. Gold was estimated within 3D lode shapes interpreted using a 0.5 g/t nominal cut-off and Ordinary Kriging methods. Metallurgical test work shows high recoveries, suitable for normal CIP/CIL processing and open pit mining methods are assumed. Detailed information is given in JORC Table 1 in Appendix A below.

Ore Reserve

A pre-feasibility study for the Kathleen Valley project was completed in January 2015 and a maiden Ore Reserve generated. The Reserve is based on two open pits at Mossbecker and Yellow Aster.

Pit	Category	Ore Reserve
		t	g/t	oz
Mossbecker	Probable	321,000	4.1	42,000
Yellow Aster	Probable	97,000	4.4	14,000
Total		418,000	4.1	56,000

Table 3: Ore Reserves

Note: Figures rounded to the 10,000 tonnes, 0.1 g/t and 1,000 ounces. Rounding errors may occur.

Ore Reserve Commentary

A regularised, diluted version of the Mineral Resource model was created for mining optimisation, design and reporting. Mine design considerations include external geotechnical recommendations, groundwater investigations, metallurgical test work, environmental studies and mine scheduling. Additional dilution was added reflecting the flat lying nature of the deposits. Mining costs are based on recent actual mining rates at the Company's Mt Magnet, Coogee and Western Queen South. Milling costs are based on current Mt Magnet costs and haulage costs are tendered contractor rates. A Mining Proposal for the project was submitted in December 2014. Ore Reserves only utilise Indicated Resources and are reported above 1.7g/t. Detailed information is given in JORC Table 1 in Attachment A below.

Figure 5: Oblique view to North - Mossbecker pit design and Resource model

The Information in this report that relates to Exploration Results and Mineral Resources is based on information compiled by Rob Hutchison, a Competent Person who is a Member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Rob Hutchison is a full-time employee of Ramelius Resources Limited. Rob Hutchison has sufficient experience that is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity they have undertaken to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the "Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves". Rob Hutchison consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears.

The Information in this report that relates to Ore Reserves is based on information compiled by Mark Zeptner, a Competent Person who is a Member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Mark Zeptner is a fulltime employee of Ramelius Resources Limited. Mark Zeptner has sufficient experience that is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity they have undertaken to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the "Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves". Mark Zeptner consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears.

For further information contact: Mark Zeptner Chief Executive Officer Ph: (08) 9202 1127

Table 1 Report for Kathleen Valley Gold Project

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Samplingtechniques	•Nature and quality of sampling (eg cutchannels, random chips, or specificspecialised industry standardmeasurement tools appropriate to theminerals under investigation, such asdown hole gamma sondes, orhandheld XRF instruments, etc).These examples should not be takenas limiting the broad meaning ofsampling.•Include reference to measures takento ensure sample representivity andthe appropriate calibration of anymeasurement tools or systems used.•Aspects of the determination ofmineralisation that are Material to thePublic Report.•In cases where 'industry standard'work has been done this would berelatively simple (eg 'reversecirculation drilling was used to obtain1 m samples from which 3 kg waspulverised to produce a 30 g chargefor fire assay'). In other cases moreexplanation may be required, such aswhere there is coarse gold that hasinherent sampling problems. Unusualcommodities or mineralisation types(e.g. submarine nodules) may warrantdisclosure of detailed information.	•The Kathleen Valley deposits consisting ofMossbecker, Yellow Aster and NilsDesperandum were drilled by Newmont in themid 1980's, Sir Samuel Mines in the late 1980's,Jubilee Mines mid-1990's and by Xstrata(XNAO) in 2012. Ramelius undertook further RCdrilling in Nov 2014 to improve the confidence inthe continuity of the high grade goldmineralisation•Predominately as RC drill samples collected as1m samples, with 2 & 4m composites also usedand sub-sampled using a riffle or cone splitter toproduce ≈3kg sub-samples. Diamond core washalved with a diamond saw to producerepresentative sub-samples on 1m orgeologically selected intervals•Drillhole locations were designed to cover thespatial extents of the interpreted mineralisation.•A large proportion of the drilling occurredbetween 1992-1994.•Drill samples were pulverized and assayed by25g Aqua Regia, 1.5kg BLARG or 50g FireAssay, with an AAS finish. A proportion ofcoarse, 'nuggetty' gold exists.
Drillingtechniques	•Drill type (eg core, reverse circulation,open-hole hammer, rotary air blast,auger, Bangka, sonic, etc) and details(eg core diameter, triple or standardtube, depth of diamond tails, facesampling bit or other type, whethercore is oriented and if so, by whatmethod, etc).	•RC drilling was completed using standard +5"drill hammers. Diamond drillholes include HQand NQ core sizes. Core was not orientated.•For Mossbecker 89% of the drilling is by RC(295 holes) and 11% is by Diamond (31 holes).For Yellow Aster & Nils Desperandum 96% ofthe drilling is by RC (559 holes) and 4% was byDiamond (21 holes)
Drill samplerecovery	•Method of recording and assessingcore and chip sample recoveries andresults assessed.•Measures taken to maximise samplerecovery and ensure representativenature of the samples.•Whether a relationship exists between	•Core recovery recorded for 16 diamonddrillholes is almost uniformly 100% andinspection of 2012 drill core shows the deposit ishosted by competent units which are amenableto effective RC drilling•2014 Ramelius RC drilling had no issues withchip sample recovery or wet samples. A small

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Logging	sample recovery and grade andwhether sample bias may haveoccurred due to preferential loss/gainof fine/coarse material.•Whether core and chip samples havebeen geologically and geotechnicallylogged to a level of detail to supportappropriate Mineral Resourceestimation, mining studies and	number of low recovery samples occurred atknow void positions at Yellow Aster.•No indication of sample bias is evident or hasbeen established•RC and diamond drill samples were geologicallylogged for lithology. All recent drilling and somehistoric logging has more detail with logging ofoxidation, sulphides, quartz veining, alteration,etc. Some holes are geotechnically logged and
	metallurgical studies.•Whether logging is qualitative orquantitative in nature. Core (orcostean, channel, etc) photography.•The total length and percentage of therelevant intersections logged.	have had metallurgical testwork.•Drillhole logging of RC chips is qualitative onvisual recordings of rock forming minerals andestimates of mineral abundance.•The entire length of drillholes are geologicallylogged
Subsamplingtechniquesand samplepreparation	•If core, whether cut or sawn andwhether quarter, half or all core taken.•If non-core, whether riffled, tubesampled, rotary split, etc and whethersampled wet or dry.•For all sample types, the nature,quality and appropriateness of thesample preparation technique.•Quality control procedures adopted forall sub-sampling stages to maximiserepresentivity of samples.•Measures taken to ensure that thesampling is representative of the insitu material collected, including forinstance results for fieldduplicate/second-half sampling.•Whether sample sizes are appropriateto the grain size of the material beingsampled.	•For older historic drilling samples were collectedin plastic bags at the mouth of the cyclone. Theywere then riffle split to generate a 2kg subsample. Occasional wet samples were sampledusing a half tube spear method.•For Xstrata drilling, sawn half diamond coresamples collected or dry RC samples were rifflesplit on rig to 3kg sub-samples.•For Ramelius drilling RC samples were collectedvia a rig mounted cyclone and integrated conesplitter as 3kg sub-samples.•Samples were entirely pulverized prior to subsampling in the laboratory to ensurehomogenous samples with 85% passing 75um.200gm is extracted for the 50gm charge onstandard fire assays.•For the 2012 Xstrata and 2014 Ramelius drillingprograms a programme of quality controlreference standards, field duplicates, blanksamples was implemented to monitor theaccuracy and precision of laboratory data.•The sample size is considered appropriate forthe type, style, thickness and consistency ofmineralization.
Quality ofassay dataandlaboratorytests	•The nature, quality andappropriateness of the assaying andlaboratory procedures used andwhether the technique is consideredpartial or total.•For geophysical tools, spectrometers,handheld XRF instruments, etc, theparameters used in determining theanalysis including instrument makeand model, reading times, calibrationsfactors applied and their derivation,etc.•Nature of quality control procedures	•The use of Aqua Regia (AR) method for manyhistorical assays, may not fully evaluate totalgold in samples but would still be indicative ofthe majority of gold present. Many historicanomalous AR assays where re-assayed by1.5kg Bulk Leachable Aqua Regia Gold(BLARG) method. Recent assay has used 40 or50g Fire Assay techniques.•No field analyses of gold grades. Quantitativeanalysis of the gold content is undertaken in acontrolled laboratory environment.•QAQC measures were carried out by Xstrataand Ramelius including certified reference

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	adopted (e.g. standards, blanks,duplicates, external laboratory checks)and whether acceptable levels ofaccuracy (ie lack of bias) andprecision have been established.	standards, field duplicates, blank samples andumpire laboratory check samples•QAQC for historic drilling mainly exists ascomparison assays using varied methods andinterlab checks. These show no significant bias.
Verificationof samplingandassaying	•The verification of significantintersections by either independent oralternative company personnel.•The use of twinned holes.•Documentation of primary data, dataentry procedures, data verification,data storage (physical and electronic)protocols.•Discuss any adjustment to assay data.	•Ramelius personnel have inspected the RC drillsites in the field and available core holes toverify the correlation of mineralized zonesbetween assay results and lithology, alterationand mineralization.•Drillholes are frequently overlapping orconfirmed by later close spaced drilling. 2012and 2014 drillholes re-test numerous earlierholes, compare well and verify previoussampling and assay results.•Significant hardcopy documentation of historicdrilling, including logs and assays data entry isavailable and checks verify the dataset.•No adjustments or calibrations are made to anyof the assay data recorded in the database.
Location ofdata points	•Accuracy and quality of surveys usedto locate drill holes (collar and downhole surveys), trenches, mineworkings and other locations used inMineral Resource estimation.•Specification of the grid system used.•Quality and adequacy of topographiccontrol.	•Recent drillhole collars were picked up usingDGPS survey control. Historic drilling was setout and measured to a pegged grid to ≈1maccuracy. Only limited downhole survey isavailable. Many holes are short and/or verticaland unsurveyed.•Holes are recorded in MGA94 – Zone 51 and aLocal transformed grid (15° rotation). Localcoordinates are used for resource modelling.•Topographic control is established from DTMsgenerated from mine surveyors' total station finalpickups of the surrounding landforms.
Data spacinganddistribution	•Data spacing for reporting ofExploration Results.•Whether the data spacing anddistribution is sufficient to establish thedegree of geological and gradecontinuity appropriate for the MineralResource and Ore Reserve estimationprocedure(s) and classificationsapplied.•Whether sample compositing hasbeen applied.	•Drillhole spacing ranges is typically 25m sectionlines with 5 – 12m on section spacing.•Drill spacing is sufficient to establish MineralResources and classifications applied.•Sample compositing occurs in a proportion ofhistoric drilling, including mineralised zones. Orewidth interpretation is biased to later drillingusing 1m sample intervals or diamond coregeologically selected intervals in preference to 2or 4m composite samples.
Orientationof data inrelation togeologicalstructure	•Whether the orientation of samplingachieves unbiased sampling ofpossible structures and the extent towhich this is known, considering thedeposit type.•If the relationship between the drillingorientation and the orientation of keymineralised structures is considered to	•The drilling is orthogonal to the interpreted strikeof the target horizon. Holes are frequentlyvertical or 60-70° dipping, intersecting horizontalto shallow dipping mineralisation•Structural logging of available diamond coresupports the drilling direction•No drilling orientation and/or sampling bias hasbeen recognized in the data

Criteria	JORC Code explanation		Commentary
	have introduced a sampling bias, thisshould be assessed and reported ifmaterial.
Samplesecurity	•security.	•The measures taken to ensure sample	Historical drilling, measures unknown. Newdrilling samples dispatched by dedicated courierand sample receipt checks completed
Audits orreviews	•sampling techniques and data.	•The results of any audits or reviews of	Ramelius and others have reviewed samplingtechniques and data. While detailed informationon historic drilling methods and QAQC is weakerthan current standards, earlier reports showsampling methods and data compilation was atbest practice levels for the period.

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Mineraltenement andland tenurestatus	•Type, reference name/number,location and ownership includingagreements or material issues withthird parties such as joint ventures,partnerships, overriding royalties,native title interests, historical sites,wilderness or national park andenvironmental settings.•The security of the tenure held at thetime of reporting along with any knownimpediments to obtaining a licence tooperate in the area.	•The results reported in this report are on grantedMining Lease ML36/375 wholly owned RameliusResources Limited. The mining lease is locatedon a pastoral lease.•At this time all the tenements are in goodstanding. There are no known impediments toobtaining licences to operate in the area.
Explorationdone by otherparties	•Acknowledgment and appraisal ofexploration by other parties.	•The Yellow Aster & Nil Desperandum depositshad historic underground mining in the early1900's to depths of around 40m. Totalproduction is recorded as 63,500t at 18.6g/t.•Exploration by other parties has been reviewedand is used as a guide to Ramelius' explorationactivities. Previous parties have completedshallow RAB, Aircore, RC and Diamond drilling,geophysical data collection and interpretation.
Geology	•Deposit type, geological setting andstyle of mineralisation.	•The mineralisation at the Kathleen Valleydeposits is typical of orogenic structurallycontrolled Archaean gold lode systems. Themineralisation is controlled by a flat lying N/Strending fault at the base of the Jones CreekConglomerate and overlying ultramafic rocks.The Mossbecker deposit, for example, extendsover 350m strike. Gold mineralisation occurs in1 or 2 main sub-horizontal lodes 2-10m thickand 30-50m wide and plunging around 15°to thesouthwest. Mineralisation is associated withsilica-biotite alteration and disseminated

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		arsenopyrite and pyrite.
Drill holeInformation	•A summary of all information materialto the understanding of theexploration results including atabulation of the following informationfor all Material drill holes:oeasting and northing of the drillhole collaroelevation or RL (Reduced Level –elevation above sea level inmetres) of the drill hole collarodip and azimuth of the holeodown hole length and interceptiondepthohole length.•If the exclusion of this information isjustified on the basis that theinformation is not Material and thisexclusion does not detract from theunderstanding of the report, theCompetent Person should clearlyexplain why this is the case.	•New exploration drilling has been undertaken byRMS.•New drilling data is summarised in Table 1above
Dataaggregationmethods	•In reporting Exploration Results,weighting averaging techniques,maximum and/or minimum gradetruncations (eg cutting of high grades)and cut-off grades are usually Materialand should be stated.•Where aggregate interceptsincorporate short lengths of highgrade results and longer lengths oflow grade results, the procedure usedfor such aggregation should be statedand some typical examples of suchaggregations should be shown indetail.•The assumptions used for anyreporting of metal equivalent valuesshould be clearly stated.	•New drill results are reported above a 0.5 ppmlower cutoff. No topcut is applied. Samples areall 1m so no weighting is applied.•Intercepts may include sub-0.5 ppm grades forcontinuity and reflect resource interpretation oreshapes•All values are Au (ppm)
Relationshipbetweenmineralisationwidths andinterceptlengths	•These relationships are particularlyimportant in the reporting ofExploration Results.•If the geometry of the mineralisationwith respect to the drill hole angle isknown, its nature should be reported.•If it is not known and only the downhole lengths are reported, thereshould be a clear statement to thiseffect (eg 'down hole length, truewidth not known').	•Intercepts are generally close to true width (90-100%) given the sub-horizontal geometry of theore zones.
Diagrams	•Appropriate maps and sections (withscales) and tabulations of intercepts	•Drillhole collars are shown in Figure 3 above•Representative sections are shown in Figures 4

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	should be included for any significantdiscovery being reported Theseshould include, but not be limited to aplan view of drill hole collar locationsand appropriate sectional views.	and 5 above
Balancedreporting	•Where comprehensive reporting of allExploration Results is not practicable,representative reporting of both lowand high grades and/or widths shouldbe practiced to avoid misleadingreporting of Exploration Results.	•Results reported reflect infill drilling of coreareas of the Kathleen Valley deposits andexpected economic intervals interpreted in theMineral Resource interpretation
Othersubstantiveexplorationdata	•Other exploration data, if meaningfuland material, should be reportedincluding (but not limited to):geological observations; geophysicalsurvey results; geochemical surveyresults; bulk samples – size andmethod of treatment; metallurgical testresults; bulk density, groundwater,geotechnical and rock characteristics;potential deleterious or contaminatingsubstances.	•Drilling data is accompanied by a number ofinvestigations on groundwater, metallurgy,waste rock geochemistry, etc.•Other relevant historical data is listed in sections1 & 3
Further work	•The nature and scale of plannedfurther work (eg tests for lateralextensions or depth extensions orlarge-scale step-out drilling).•Diagrams clearly highlighting theareas of possible extensions,including the main geologicalinterpretations and future drillingareas, provided this information is notcommercially sensitive.	•Further work is likely to comprise of explorationdrilling to test depth extensions or along strikepositions.

Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Databaseintegrity	•Measures taken to ensure that datahas not been corrupted by, forexample, transcription or keyingerrors, between its initial collectionand its use for Mineral Resourceestimation purposes.•Data validation procedures used.	•Data has been sourced from an Access DrillholeDatabase provided by XNAO•Previous reports detail validation checks formissing assays and geology intervals,overlapping intervals, duplicate assays, EOHdepth, hole collar elevations and assay valuedetection limits, negative and zero values
Site visits	•Comment on any site visitsundertaken by the Competent Personand the outcome of those visits.•If no site visits have been undertakenindicate why this is the case.	•The Competent Person has made multiple sitevisits including for the recent 2014 RC drillingcampaign•Visits have verified understanding of deposit
Geological	•Confidence in (or conversely, the	•Confidence in the geological interpretation is high

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
interpretation	uncertainty of) the geologicalinterpretation of the mineral deposit.•Nature of the data used and of anyassumptions made.•The effect, if any, of alternativeinterpretations on Mineral Resourceestimation.•The use of geology in guiding andcontrolling Mineral Resourceestimation.•The factors affecting continuity both ofgrade and geology.	•Data used include drilling assay and geologicallogging, surface outcrop and minor historicsurface and underground workings, diamondcore logging and structure•No alternate interpretation envisaged.•Geology confirms primary grade interpretation•Grade continuity affected by relatively nuggetygold mineralisation
Dimensions	•The extent and variability of theMineral Resource expressed as length(along strike or otherwise), plan width,and depth below surface to the upperand lower limits of the MineralResource.	•The Mossbecker deposit extends over 350mstrike. Gold mineralisation occurs in subhorizontal lodes 2-10m thick and 30-50m wideand plunges around 15° to the southwest.Mineralisation occurs from surface. The YellowAster and Nil Desperandum deposits are typically2-6m thick, 40-60m wide and plunge at 30° to thenorthwest. The core zones have been minedhistorically to depths of around 40m.
Estimationand modellingtechniques	•The nature and appropriateness of theestimation technique(s) applied andkey assumptions, including treatmentof extreme grade values, domaining,interpolation parameters andmaximum distance of extrapolationfrom data points. If a computerassisted estimation method waschosen include a description ofcomputer software and parametersused.•The availability of check estimates,previous estimates and/or mineproduction records and whether theMineral Resource estimate takesappropriate account of such data.•The assumptions made regardingrecovery of by-products.•Estimation of deleterious elements orother non-grade variables of economicsignificance (eg sulphur for acid minedrainage characterisation).•In the case of block modelinterpolation, the block size in relationto the average sample spacing andthe search employed.•Any assumptions behind modelling ofselective mining units.•Any assumptions about correlationbetween variables.•Description of how the geological	•Deposits were estimated using geologicalsoftware using Inverse Distance and OrdinaryKriging methods within hard boundedmineralised domains. The estimation method isappropriate for the deposit type.•The deposits have been previously modelled andestimated and comparisons with several earliermodels have been made. Only gold is estimated•No deleterious elements present•Block size was determined by kriging efficiencytest. Parent cell of 10mN x 5mE x 5mRL withsub-cells to minimum ¼ ratio. Parent cellestimation only.•Model to be regularised to selective mining unitblock size of 10mN x 5mE x 2.5mRL.•Each domain was geostatiscally analysed andassigned appropriate search directions, top-cutsand kriging parameters•Geological interpretation matches grade domaininterpretation with sub-horizontal lodes used tomodel deposit•Samples were composited within ore domains to1m lengths•Top cuts were applied to domains after review ofgrade population characteristics a ≈99% topcutof 50g/t was applied to Mossbecker and 40g/t toYellow Aster•Validation included visual comparison againstdrillhole grades and swath grade plots

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	interpretation was used to control theresource estimates.•Discussion of basis for using or notusing grade cutting or capping.•The process of validation, thechecking process used, thecomparison of model data to drill holedata, and use of reconciliation data ifavailable.
Moisture	•Whether the tonnages are estimatedon a dry basis or with naturalmoisture, and the method ofdetermination of the moisture content.	•Tonnages are estimated on a dry basis
Cut-offparameters	•The basis of the adopted cut-offgrade(s) or quality parametersapplied.	•A 0.5 g/t grade cut-off has been used for oreinterpretation and resource reporting•This cutoff encapsulates the mineralisationeffectively and typically discriminates economicmaterial from waste
Mining factorsorassumptions	•Assumptions made regarding possiblemining methods, minimum miningdimensions and internal (or, ifapplicable, external) mining dilution. Itis always necessary as part of theprocess of determining reasonableprospects for eventual economicextraction to consider potential miningmethods, but the assumptions maderegarding mining methods andparameters when estimating MineralResources may not always berigorous. Where this is the case, thisshould be reported with anexplanation of the basis of the miningassumptions made.	•Resources are reported on the assumption ofmining by conventional open pit grade controland mining methods. 95% of the resource is lessthan 100m deep. Previous scoping studies showa significant proportion of resources can beeconomic in an open pit scenario. Studies haveincluded block regularisation to simulatesignificant mining dilution that would be incurredmining sub-horizontal lodes
Metallurgicalfactors orassumptions	•The basis for assumptions orpredictions regarding metallurgicalamenability. It is always necessary aspart of the process of determiningreasonable prospects for eventualeconomic extraction to considerpotential metallurgical methods, butthe assumptions regardingmetallurgical treatment processes andparameters made when reportingMineral Resources may not always berigorous. Where this is the case, thisshould be reported with anexplanation of the basis of themetallurgical assumptions made.	•Metallurgical testwork commissioned by XNAOon composited drill core samples showsMossbecker ore to be free milling with a highgravity gold recovery and total recovery of 95%
Environmental factors or	•Assumptions made regarding possiblewaste and process residue disposaloptions. It is always necessary as part	•Previous studies were completed by XNAOcovering soil and wasterock characteristics, floraand fauna, surface and groundwater hydrology

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
assumptions	of the process of determiningreasonable prospects for eventualeconomic extraction to consider thepotential environmental impacts of themining and processing operation.While at this stage the determinationof potential environmental impacts,particularly for a greenfields project,may not always be well advanced, thestatus of early consideration of thesepotential environmental impactsshould be reported. Where theseaspects have not been considered thisshould be reported with anexplanation of the environmentalassumptions made.	•No specific issues beyond normal open pit minelicensing are envisaged•Areas within the mining lease are available forplacement of a Waste Land Form. Previoustestwork has been completed showing the bulk ofwaste rocks lack sulphides and are Non AcidForming. Ore processing will take place atexisting mill facilities offsite•Water inflows can be pumped to an existing openpit
Bulk density	•Whether assumed or determined. Ifassumed, the basis for theassumptions. If determined, themethod used, whether wet or dry, thefrequency of the measurements, thenature, size and representativeness ofthe samples.•The bulk density for bulk material musthave been measured by methods thatadequately account for void spaces(vugs, porosity, etc), moisture anddifferences between rock andalteration zones within the deposit.•Discuss assumptions for bulk densityestimates used in the evaluationprocess of the different materials.	•Density measurements were carried out byJubilee on HQ diamond core using the waterimmersion method•Densities of 2.3 for oxide, 2.6 for transitional and2.7 for fresh were applied
Classification	•The basis for the classification of theMineral Resources into varyingconfidence categories.•Whether appropriate account hasbeen taken of all relevant factors (ierelative confidence in tonnage/gradeestimations, reliability of input data,confidence in continuity of geologyand metal values, quality, quantity anddistribution of the data).•Whether the result appropriatelyreflects the Competent Person's viewof the deposit.	•While a significant proportion of the drilling ishistoric the deposits are relatively well drilled,confidence in geological interpretation and gradeis good, new drilling confirms earlier results andreview of older reports shows drilling met orexceeded industry standards for the period. AtMossbecker the bulk of resource has beenclassed as indicated given the higher proportionof recent drilling, high drill density and geologicaland grade continuity confidence.At Yellow Aster and Nil Desperandum the bulk ofthe resource is classed as inferred given thelower proportion of recent drilling, presence ofold workings and weaker continuity in someareas.•The resource classification accounts for allrelevant factors•The classification reflects the CompetentPerson's view
Audits or	•The results of any audits or reviews of	•The resource was audited by an External

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
reviews	Mineral Resource estimates.	Consultant. No fatal flaws were identified
Discussion ofrelativeaccuracy/confidence	•Where appropriate a statement of therelative accuracy and confidence levelin the Mineral Resource estimateusing an approach or proceduredeemed appropriate by the CompetentPerson. For example, the applicationof statistical or geostatisticalprocedures to quantify the relativeaccuracy of the resource within statedconfidence limits, or, if such anapproach is not deemed appropriate,a qualitative discussion of the factorsthat could affect the relative accuracyand confidence of the estimate.•The statement should specify whetherit relates to global or local estimates,and, if local, state the relevanttonnages, which should be relevant totechnical and economic evaluation.Documentation should includeassumptions made and theprocedures used.•These statements of relative accuracyand confidence of the estimate shouldbe compared with production data,where available.	•Confidence in the relative accuracy of theestimates is reflected by the classificationsassigned•The estimates are global estimates•No modern production data is available forcomparison

Section 4 Estimation and Reporting of Ore Reserves

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
MineralResourceestimate forconversion toOre Reserves	•Description of the Mineral Resourceestimate used as a basis for theconversion to an Ore Reserve.•Clear statement as to whether theMineral Resources are reportedadditional to, or inclusive of, the OreReserves.	•Mineral Resource models described abovewere regularised to form a diluted Ore Reservemodel using selective mining units forevaluation and reporting•Mineral Resources are reported inclusive ofOre Reserves
Site visits	•Comment on any site visitsundertaken by the Competent Personand the outcome of those visits.•If no site visits have been undertakenindicate why this is the case.	•The Competent Person has made two sitevisits•Visit verified understanding of deposit andavailable information
Study Status	•The type and level of studyundertaken to enable MineralResources to be converted to OreReserves•The Code requires that a study to atleast Pre-Feasibility Study level has	•A pre-feasibility study has been carried outappropriate to the deposit type, mining methodand scale. The study was carried out internallyand externally using consultants whereappropriate.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Cut-offparameters	been undertaken to convert MineralResources to Ore Reserves. Suchstudies will have been carried outand will have determined a mine planthat is technically achievable andeconomically viable, and thatmaterial Modifying Factors havebeen considered. The effect, if any,of alternative interpretations onMineral Resource estimation.•The basis of the cut-off grade(s) orquality parameters applied.	•Cutoff is calculated as part of the mineoptimisation evaluation and is 1.7 g/t
Mining factors orassumptions	•The method and assumptions usedas reported in the Pre-Feasibility orFeasibility Study to convert theMineral Resource to an Ore Reserve(i.e. either by application ofappropriate factors by optimisation orby preliminary or detailed design).•The choice, nature andappropriateness of the selectedmining method(s) and other miningparameters including associateddesign issues such as pre-strip,access, etc.•The assumptions made regardinggeotechnical parameters (eg pitslopes, stope sizes, etc), gradecontrol and pre-production drilling.•The major assumptions made andMineral Resource model used for pitand stope optimisation (ifappropriate).•The mining dilution factors used.•The mining recovery factors used.•Any minimum mining widths used.•The manner in which Inferred MineralResources are utilised in miningstudies and the sensitivity of theoutcome to their inclusion.•The infrastructure requirements ofthe selected mining methods.	•The Mineral Resource model was regularisedto SMU blocks of 5m E x 10m N x 2.5m RL togenerate a diluted Mineral Reserve model foroptimisation and evaluation•Mining method is conventional open-pit withdrill and blast, excavate, load and haul. SMUblock reflects expected grade control densityand mining equipment size•A external geotechnical report wascommissioned based on previous geotechnicallogging and information and givesrecommended pit design details•Additional mining dilution of 2.5 to 7.5% wasapplied•Mining recovery of 98% was applied•Minimum width reflected by SMU block (5m)•Inferred Resources were tested, but are notused or included in optimisation or finaldesigns•Infrastructure required is small and of atemporary nature, i.e. workshop, offices, fueltank, generator, magazine and water transferdams
Metallurgicalfactors orassumptions	•The metallurgical process proposedand the appropriateness of thatprocess to the style of mineralisation•Whether the metallurgical process iswell-tested technology or novel innature.•The nature, amount andrepresentativeness of metallurgicaltest work undertaken, the nature of	•Processing by conventional CIL/CIP goldmilling, such as Mt Magnet Checkers Mill•Well-tested existing technology•Several metallurgy testwork programs havebeen completed showing the ore is free millinghas high gravity recovery (≈50%) and highoverall recovery (95%).•Metallurgy testwork programs have includedgravity concentration, cyanide leach, grind

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	the metallurgical domaining appliedand the corresponding metallurgicalrecovery factors applied.•Any assumptions or allowancesmade for deleterious elements.•The existence of any bulk sample orpilot scale test work and the degreeto which such samples areconsidered representative of theorebody as a whole.•For minerals that are defined by aspecification, has the ore reserveestimation been based on theappropriate mineralogy to meet thespecifications?	establishment, reagent consumption, flotation,mineralogy and SAG Mill Comminution.•No deleterious elements are present•No bulk sample testwork has been carried out,however historic tailings (1900-1905) exist andhave low grades (0.2-0.4g/t) indicatingeffective Au recovery
Environmental	•The status of studies of potentialenvironmental impacts of the miningand processing operation. Details ofwaste rock characterisation and theconsideration of potential sites,status of design options consideredand, where applicable, the status ofapprovals for process residuestorage and waste dumps should bereported.	•Environmental studies are well advanced andinclude submission of a Mining Proposal andClosure plan to the DMP
Infrastructure	•The existence of appropriateinfrastructure: availability of land forplant development, power, water,transportation (particularly for bulkcommodities), labour,accommodation; or the ease withwhich the infrastructure can beprovided, or accessed.	•Infrastructure at site is minimal and consists ofaccess roads and a previously establisheddewatering pipeline from the Cosmos Nickelmine to the Main Road pit. Accommodationand flights will use established facilities inLeinster•The project has low infrastructurerequirements of a temporary nature
Costs	•The derivation of, or assumptionsmade, regarding projected capitalcosts in the study.•The methodology used to estimateoperating costs.•Allowances made for the content ofdeleterious elements.•The derivation of assumptions madeof metal or commodity price(s), forthe principal minerals and coproducts.•The source of exchange rates usedin the study.•Derivation of transportation charges.•The basis for forecasting or source oftreatment and refining charges,penalties for failure to meetspecification, etc.•The allowances made for royalties	•Capital costs based on recent capital costsincurred for Coogee and Western QueenSouth projects and Vivien feasibility studyestimates.•Operating costs based on current Mt Magnetmilling costs, quoted ore haulage rates andrecent mining and administration costsincurred at current Mt Magnet and recentCoogee and WQS open pits•No deleterious elements present•Using 2014 average gold price•Cost models use Australian dollars•Ore haulage rates based on quoted contractorrates•Treatment costs based on known currentmilling costs. No penalties or specifications•State royalty of 2.5% used

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	payable, both Government andprivate.
RevenueFactors	•The derivation of, or assumptionsmade regarding revenue factorsincluding head grade, metal orcommodity price(s) exchange rates,transportation and treatmentcharges, penalties, net smelterreturns, etc.•The derivation of assumptions madeof metal or commodity price(s), forthe principal metals, minerals and coproducts.	•Gold price of A$1,400/oz used
MarketAssessment	•The demand, supply and stocksituation for the particular commodity,consumption trends and factors likelyto affect supply and demand into thefuture.•A customer and competitor analysisalong with the identification of likelymarket windows for the product.•Price and volume forecasts and thebasis for these forecasts.•For industrial minerals the customerspecification, testing and acceptancerequirements prior to a supplycontract.	•Doré is sold direct to the Perth Mint at spotprice•Market window unlikely to change•Price is likely to go up, down or remain same•Not industrial mineral
Economic	•The inputs to the economic analysisto produce the net present value(NPV) in the study, the source andconfidence of these economic inputsincluding estimated inflation, discountrate, etc.•NPV ranges and sensitivity tovariations in the significantassumptions and inputs.	•No NPV applied•Project is relatively short life at ≈1.5 years
Social	•The status of agreements with keystakeholders and matters leading tosocial licence to operate.	•Stakeholders have been consulted•Negotiation with Traditional Owner Claimantgroup is in progress. Ramelius would like toreach an agreement that will satisfy bothparties but will pursue a Section 18 Notice ifrequired
Other	•To the extent relevant, the impact ofthe following on the project and/or onthe estimation and classification ofthe Ore Reserves:•Any identified material naturallyoccurring risks.•The status of material legalagreements and marketingarrangements.	•Project commencement remains subject toheritage and regulatory approvals

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	•The status of governmentalagreements and approvals critical tothe viability of the project, such asmineral tenement status, andgovernment and statutory approvals.There must be reasonable groundsto expect that all necessaryGovernment approvals will bereceived within the timeframesanticipated in the Pre-Feasibility orFeasibility study. Highlight anddiscuss the materiality of anyunresolved matter that is dependenton a third party on which extraction ofthe reserve is contingent.
Classification	•The basis for the classification of theOre Reserves into varyingconfidence categories.•Whether the result appropriatelyreflects the Competent Person's viewof the deposit.•The proportion of Probable OreReserves that have been derivedfrom Measured Mineral Resources (ifany)	•Reserves are classified according to Resourceclassification•They reflect the Competent Person's view•No Measured Resources exist. All Reserve isin the Probable category and based onIndicated Resource
Audits orreviews	•The results of any audits or reviewsof Ore Reserve estimates.	•No audits carried out
Discussion ofrelativeaccuracy /confidence	•Where appropriate a statement of therelative accuracy and confidencelevel in the Ore Reserve estimateusing an approach or proceduredeemed appropriate by theCompetent Person. For example, theapplication of statistical orgeostatistical procedures to quantifythe relative accuracy of the reservewithin stated confidence limits, or, ifsuch an approach is not deemedappropriate, a qualitative discussionof the factors which could affect therelative accuracy and confidence ofthe estimate.•The statement should specifywhether it relates to global or localestimates, and, if local, state therelevant tonnages, which should berelevant to technical and economicevaluation. Documentation shouldinclude assumptions made and theprocedures used.•Accuracy and confidence discussions	•Confidence is in line with gold industrystandards and the companies aim to provideeffective prediction for current and futuremining projects. No statistical quantification ofconfidence limits has been applied•Estimates are global•The Reserve is most sensitive to; a) resourcegrade accuracy, b) gold price•Reserve confidence is reflected by theProbable category applied, which in turnreflects the confidence of the MineralResource•No modern production data is available forcomparison

CriteriaJORC Code explanation	Commentary
may have a material impact on OreReserve viability, or for which therethe current study stage.•It is recognised that this may not bepossible or appropriate in allcircumstances. These statements ofrelative accuracy and confidence ofthe estimate should be comparedwith production data, whereavailable.	should extend to specific discussionsof any applied Modifying Factors thatare remaining areas of uncertainty at