RAMELIUS RESOURCES LIMITED — Capital/Financing Update 2017

May 23, 2017

24 May 2017

For Immediate Release

LIFE OF MINE UPDATE

Ramelius Resources Limited (ASX:RMS) is pleased to announce that a new Life of Mine (LoM) plan has been generated for the combined Mt Magnet & Vivien operations in Western Australia (refer Figure 1). This has been achieved on the back of several Ore Reserve upgrades in recent months and now also includes a new open pit Mineral Resource at Morning Star, which is part of the Mt Magnet operation (refer Figure 2).

LIFE OF MINE PLAN¹

Key aspects of the plan (refer Figure 3) include;

• Total recovered ounces of 545koz, representing ~4 years production starting in FY2018 before any underground extensions are required
• Preliminary AISC of A$1,175/oz for FY2018 and avg. of A$1,170 AISC over the LoM
• Recovered grade of 2.20g/t for FY2018 and an avg. of 2.25 g/t over the LoM
• Overall metallurgical recovery of 92.1% (Mt Magnet 91-92% & Vivien 95%)
• Ore Reserves of 334,020 ounces (61%)
• Indicated Resources (outside of Ore Reserves) of 157,139 ounces (29%)
• Inferred Resources of only 54,450 ounces (10%)
• Potential further extensions to Vivien, Water Tank Hill, Morning Star or Galaxy underground resources are currently not included

MT MAGNET

• Upgraded open pit Mineral Resource at Morning Star of 9,188,000 tonnes @ 1.7g/t for 506,000 ounces, with initial optimisation and design work indicating a viable open pit which is included in the LoM
• Recently announced Ore Reserves for Stellar, Stellar West, Brown Hill, Vegas & Shannon open pits of 1,682,000 tonnes @ 1.7g/t for 94,000 ounces, also included
• RC and Diamond Drilling is currently ongoing at the Zeus and Morning Star Deeps projects, although no Resources have yet been generated for these deposits

VIVIEN UNDERGROUND MINE

• Recently announced Ore Reserve for Vivien of 525,000 tonnes @ 7.3 g/t for 123,000 ounces (as at 31 December 2016) is included in the LoM
• Underground diamond drilling commenced on 1 May 2017 and the first drill results are expected late in the June 2017 Quarter

With deeper exploration drilling currently underway at Morning Star and Vivien, and access available for exploration at both Water Tank Hill and the Galaxy Complex later in the year, foundations are in place for a further mine plan upgrade in 6-9 months' time.

For further information contact:

Mark Zeptner Duncan Gordon Managing Director Executive Director Ramelius Resources Limited Adelaide Equity Partners Ph: +61 8 9202 1127 Ph: +61 8 8232 8800

24 May 2017

ISSUED CAPITAL

Ordinary Shares: 525M

DIRECTORS

NON-EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN: Robert Kennedy NON-EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS: Kevin Lines Michael Bohm MANAGING DIRECTOR: 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 +61 8 9202 1127

ABOUT RAMELIUS

Figure 1: Ramelius' Operations & Development Project Locations

Ramelius owns 100% of the Mt Magnet gold mine and associated processing plant located in the Murchison region of Western Australia. The Company is mining underground at the high-grade Vivien gold mine near Leinster, in addition to open pit mining at Mt Magnet and Blackmans, 30km north of Mt Magnet.

Figure 2: Mt Magnet gold camp key project locations

PRODUCTION TARGETS (LoM)¹

Figure 3: Life of Mine Production Profile

The Group Production profile for the Company shows a slight increase in production from FY2017 of 126-130koz at an AISC of A$1,175/oz to 130koz at a similar AISC for FY2018. The total recovered production over the LoM is 545koz ounces with production expected to average 135koz per year whilst on the growth curve towards the targeted 150koz production level. The AISC is also expected to be A$1,170/oz over the duration of the LoM.

The mill recovered grade is expected to be 2.20g/t for FY2018 and will average 2.25g/t over the duration of the LoM whilst the metallurgical recovery is expected to average 92.1% (Mt Magnet 91-92% and Vivien 95%).

Capital development costs that are up-front, as opposed to sustaining capex which is included in the AISC above, are shown below in Table 1 for the same LoM. Total exploration is planned to reduce back to A$10M per year from FY2018, and any capital costs associated with underground extensions such at Vivien, Morning Star or Galaxy are excluded.

Project	FY2017	FY2018	FY2019	FY2020	FY2021
Titan open pit	A$8.2M
Water Tank Hill underground	A$11.8M
Blackmans open pit	A$0.8M
Milky Way open pit		A$18.5M
Morning Star open pit				A$15M
Satellite open pits		A$5.7M	A$13M		A$5M
Mt Magnet tails dam		A$3M		AS3M
Exploration	A$15.3M	AS10M	A$10M	AS10M	AS10M
Total	A$36.1M	A$37.2M	A$23M	AS28M	AS15M

Table 1: Life of Mine Capital Requirements

¹ Production Target Note

The Group LoM numbers are a production target. The target is based on current Probable Ore Reserves (61% ozs), Indicated Mineral Resources (29% ozs) and Inferred Mineral Resources (10% ozs). In respect to inferred resources 'there is a low level of confidence associated with inferred mineral resources and there is no certainty that further exploration work will result in the determination of indicated mineral resources or that the production target itself will be realised'. The LoM uses the current mine planning and budgeting methodology for the operating Mt Magnet and Vivien gold mines and was completed in May 2017. Gold price used is A$1,600/oz or current forward sold gold prices where they exist. Costs are based on current operating and contract rates. The Ore Reserves and Mineral Resources used were prepared by the competent persons listed in the statement below.

Details of Ore Reserves and Mineral Resources used for the LoM can be found in the releases: 'Resources and Reserves Statement 2016, 30 Sep 2016', 'Exploration & Resource Development Drilling Update, 19 Dec 2016', 'December 2016 Quarterly Activities Report, 31 Jan 2017', 'New Ore Reserves at Vivien and Mt Magnet & Exploration Update, 4 April 2017'.

RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

Morning Star Mineral Resource & Pit Optimisation (Mt Magnet)

Using a recently updated Mineral Resource model, new first pass open pit optimisations were generated in May 2017.

Table 2: Mineral Resource (>0.7g/t)

Category	tonnes	grade	ounces
Indicated	4,866,000	1.9	301,000
Inferred	4,322,000	1.5	205,000
Total	9,188,000	1.7	506,000

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

Mineral Resource Commentary

Morning Star is a previously mined large open pit and deep underground located 3.2km NW of Mt Magnet townsite and 1.8km SE of the Checkers processing plant. Previous production recorded includes 6.2Mt @ 3.4g/t for 675,000oz from the open pit and 3.6Mt @ 5.4g/t for 629,000oz from the underground (UG). The Star UG mine was closed in 2005, at a depth of 980m. The deposit consists of several subsidiary ore bodies including Star, Latecomer, Evening Star, Broken Bond and Eddie Carson. Varying mineralisation styles occur with main examples being; Latecomer – porphyry hosted, wide, quartz-carbonate-molybdenite vein stockwork, Evening Star – BIF hosted with pyrite-pyrrhotite-quartz veins and Star – pipe-like stockwork of steeply plunging shoots with quartz-carbonate-pyrite-molybdenite vein arrays hosted in strongly altered and sheared mafic volcanics.

Significant new drilling has been conducted since 2008 and is combined with the large historic drilling dataset (refer to Figure 4). Ramelius has completed 286 RC and 82 Aircore holes for 50,688m. RC sub-samples were assayed by Fire Assay at Perth commercial laboratories. Appropriate QAQC samples accompanied primary sample batches. Old data includes surface drilling of 4,286 RC and 408 Diamond holes, UG drilling of 1,209 Diamond and 6,475 sludge holes and Face samples from 14,901 faces.

Data spacing within the top 250m generally ranges from 12.5m x 25m to 25m x 50m. All new RC drilling used a 5.5" face sampling bit and 1m sample collection via a cone splitter. Interpretation was carried out 12.5m spaced sections utilising appropriate geological and weathering interpretations. Mineralised domains were generated using geological constraints and a 0.5-0.7 g/t cut-off.

Figure 4: Morning Star long section view to west – existing pit, model >0.7g/t & above 200mRL (250m), drill data (RMS blue)

Domained samples were composited to 1m intervals, top-cut and grades estimated using constrained ID² and interpreted anisotropic searches. Parent block size is 12.5m x 12.5m x 10m with subcelling (to minimum 25%) inside domains. Samples falling inside mined UG development and stope voids were removed before estimation. Resource classification was applied based on drill hole density and interpreted mineralisation continuity. Resources were depleted for previous mining and reported above a 0.7 g/t lower cut-off. Resources have been generated in-house for evaluation by open-pit mining methods and have a maximum depth of 250m. Density values are based on established Mt Magnet values. Detailed information is given in Appendix A attached below.

Morning Star Pit Optimisation

Open pit optimisation shells have been generated using the updated Resource model. The optimisations and preliminary open pit design are based on current and forecast contractor mining rates and incorporate appropriate dilution and recovery factors. Milling and other ore costs are based on historical and budgeted Mt Magnet costs. Initial pit results are included in the LoM production target. Further geotechnical work is required prior to generation of an Ore Reserve.

Figure 5: Morning Star looking East – model & initial pit design

FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS

This report contains forward looking statements. The forward-looking statements are based on current expectations, estimates, assumptions, forecasts and projections and the industry in which it operates as well as other factors that management believes to be relevant and reasonable in the circumstances at the date such statements are made, but which may prove to be incorrect. The forward-looking statements relate to future matters and are subject to various inherent risks and uncertainties. Many known and unknown factors could cause actual events or results to differ materially from the estimated or anticipated events or results expressed or implied by any forward-looking statements. Such factors include, among others, changes in market conditions, future prices of gold and exchange rate movements, the actual results of production, development and/or exploration activities, variations in grade or recovery rates, plant and/or equipment failure and the possibility of cost overruns. Neither Ramelius, its related bodies corporate nor any of their directors, officers, employees, agents or contractors makes any representation or warranty (either express or implied) as to the accuracy, correctness, completeness, adequacy, reliability or likelihood of fulfilment of any forward-looking statement, or any events or results expressed or implied in any forward-looking statement, except to the extent required by law.

COMPETENT PERSONS

The information in this report that relates to Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves is based on information compiled by Rob Hutchison (Mineral Resources) and Duncan Coutts (Ore Reserves), who are Competent Persons and Members of The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Rob Hutchison and Duncan Coutts are full-time employees of the company. Rob Hutchison and Duncan Coutts have sufficient experience that is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity being undertaken to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the "Australasian Code for Reporting of Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves". Rob Hutchison and Duncan Coutts consent to the inclusion in this report of the matters based on their information in the form and context in which it appears.

Appendix A – JORC Table 1 Report – Morning Star Deposit

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Samplingtechniques	Nature and quality of sampling (e.g. cutchannels, random chips, or specificspecialised industry standardmeasurement tools appropriate to theminerals under investigation, such asdown hole gamma sondes, or handheldXRF instruments, etc.). These examplesshould not be taken as limiting the broadmeaning of sampling.Include reference to measures taken toensure sample representivity and theappropriate calibration of anymeasurement tools or systems used.Aspects of the determination ofmineralisation that are Material to thePublic Report.In cases where 'industry standard' workhas been done this would be relativelysimple (e.g. 'reverse circulation drillingwas used to obtain 1 m samples fromwhich 3 kg was pulverised to produce a30g charge for fire assay'). In other casesmore explanation may be required, suchas where there is coarse gold that hasinherent sampling problems. Unusualcommodities or mineralisation types (e.g.submarine nodules) may warrantdisclosure of detailed information.	New sampling is by RC drilling with samples collectedas 1m samples and sub‐sampled using a riffle orcone splitter to produce ≈3kg sub‐samples. Drillholelocations were designed to cover the spatial extentsof the interpreted mineralisation.Selected geological contacts and/or up to 1mintervals sampled from all diamond drillingDrill hole locations were designed to allow for spatialspread across the interpreted mineralised zone.Standard fire assaying was employed using a 50gmcharge with an AAS finish.The majority of drilling is historic in nature. At MtMagnet numerous reports exist referencing similarmethods of sampling, however detailed informationis incomplete or lacking for the majority of olderdata or exists in hardcopy formats which have notbeen systematically investigated. Early RC drillsampling (pre 1990's) may have used cross‐over subswhich could affect sample recovery andcontamination to a greater degree than modern facesampling hammers. Early RC drilling may have beencollected in bagged 1m samples and manually rifflesplit. Underground dataset includes large numbersof sludge holes and face samples. New drillingconfirms location and tenor of previous drilling.
Drillingtechniques	Drill type (e.g. core, reverse circulation,open‐hole hammer, rotary air blast,auger, Bangka, sonic, etc.) and details(e.g. core diameter, triple or standardtube, depth of diamond tails, face‐sampling bit or other type, whether coreis oriented and if so, by what method,etc.).	Recent (+2008) 286 RC holes and 82 Aircore holescompleted using best practice 5 ¾" face sampling RCdrilling hammers, 3" Aircore bits.Large historical dataset including surface RC (4,286holes), DD, RAB, AC and UG DD, Sludge and Facesamples.Minor historical RAB & Aircore drilling wascompleted within the upper laterite zone to improvecontinuity
Drill samplerecovery	Method of recording and assessing coreand chip sample recoveries and resultsassessed.Measures taken to maximise samplerecovery and ensure representativenature of the samples.Whether a relationship exists betweensample recovery and grade and whethersample bias may have occurred due topreferential loss/gain of fine/coarsematerial.	Sample recovery at all deposits is generally excellentin weathered and fresh rocks. Poor sample recoveryis noted in logsRecent drilling has utilised RC rigs of sufficient sizeand air capacity to maximise recovery and providedry chip samples.No indication of sample bias is evident or has beenestablished
Logging	Whether core and chip samples havebeen geologically and geotechnicallylogged to a level of detail to supportappropriate Mineral Resource estimation,	All drill samples are geologically logged on site byRMS geologists. Details on the host lithologies,deformation, dominant minerals including sulphidespecies and alteration minerals plus veining are

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	mining studies and metallurgical studies.Whether logging is qualitative orquantitative in nature. Core (or costean,channel, etc.) photography.The total length and percentage of therelevant intersections logged.	recorded relationally (separately).Drillhole logging of chips or core is qualitative onvisual recordings of rock forming minerals andestimates of mineral abundance.The entire length of drillholes are geologically loggedOlder drilling generally has a minimum of lithologylogged for +90% of holes, with varying degrees ofother information.
Sub‐samplingtechniquesand samplepreparation	If core, whether cut or sawn and whetherquarter, 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, qualityand appropriateness of the samplepreparation technique.Quality control procedures adopted for allsub‐sampling stages to maximiserepresentivity of samples.Measures taken to ensure that thesampling is representative of the in situmaterial collected, including for instanceresults for field duplicate/second‐halfsampling.Whether sample sizes are appropriate tothe grain size of the material beingsampled.	Duplicate samples are collected every 25th samplefrom the drill chips or core samples.Dry RC 1m samples are split on the rig to 3kg asdrilled and dispatched to the laboratory. Any wetsamples are recorded in the database as such andallowed to dry before splitting and dispatching to thelaboratoryAll samples are pulverized prior to splitting in thelaboratory to ensure homogenous samples with 85%passing 75um. 200gm is extracted by spatula that isused for the 50gm charge on standard fire assays.All samples submitted to the laboratory are sortedand reconciled against the submission documents.In addition to duplicates a high grade or low gradestandard is included every 25th sample, a controlledblank is inserted every 100th sample.The sample size is considered appropriate for thetype, style, thickness and consistency ofmineralization.
Quality ofassay data andlaboratorytests	The nature, quality and appropriatenessof the assaying and laboratoryprocedures used and whether thetechnique is considered partial or total.For geophysical tools, spectrometers,handheld XRF instruments, etc., theparameters used in determining theanalysis including instrument make andmodel, reading times, calibrations factorsapplied and their derivation, etc.Nature of quality control proceduresadopted (e.g. standards, blanks,duplicates, external laboratory checks)and whether acceptable levels ofaccuracy (i.e. lack of bias) and precisionhave been established.	The fire assay method is designed to measure thetotal gold in the sample. A standard 50g charge isfired followed by acid digestion and measurementby AAS.No field analyses of gold grades are completed.Quantitative analysis of the gold content and traceelements is undertaken in a controlled laboratoryenvironment.Industry best practice is employed with the inclusionof duplicates and standards as discussed above, andused by Ramelius as well as the laboratory. AllRamelius standards and blanks are interrogated toensure they lie within acceptable tolerances.Additionally, sample size, grind size and fieldduplicates are examined to ensure no bias to goldgrades exists.
Verification ofsampling andassaying	The verification of significantintersections by either independent oralternative company personnel.The use of twinned holes.Documentation of primary data, dataentry procedures, data verification, datastorage (physical and electronic)protocols.Discuss any adjustment to assay data.	Alternative Ramelius personnel have inspected thechips in the field to verify the correlation ofmineralised zones between assay results andlithology, alteration and mineralization.Some new holes test older drillhole intercepts.Field duplicate samples are taken at regular intervalsand compared.All holes are digitally logged in the field and allprimary data is forwarded to Ramelius' DatabaseAdministrator (DBA) in Perth where it is importedinto Datashed. Assay data is electronically mergedwhen received from the laboratory. The responsibleproject geologist reviews the data in the database to

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		ensure that it is correct and has merged properlyand that all the drill data collected in the field hasbeen captured and entered in to the databasecorrectly.No adjustments or calibrations are made to anyassay data
Location ofdata points	Accuracy and quality of surveys used tolocate drill holes (collar and down‐holesurveys), trenches, mine workings andother locations used in Mineral Resourceestimation.Specification of the grid system used.Quality and adequacy of topographiccontrol.	Hole collars are picked up using accurate DGPSsurvey control. All down hole surveys are collectedusing downhole electronic single shot or gyrosurveying techniques provided by the drillingcontractors.All holes are picked up in MGA94 – Zone 50 gridcoordinates.Topographic control is established from DTM surveycontrol bases
Data spacinganddistribution	Data spacing for reporting of ExplorationResults.Whether the data spacing anddistribution is sufficient to establish thedegree of geological and grade continuityappropriate for the Mineral Resource andOre Reserve estimation procedure(s) andclassifications applied.Whether sample compositing has beenapplied.	Resource definition drillholes were generallyplanned on a nominal 25m x 25m spacing. Holespacing is contingent on the scale of the anomalismbeing targeted. The mined pit creates limitations ondrill locations and spacing.This resource spacing is considered adequate todefine the geological and grade continuity ofmineralization.No sampling compositing has been applied withinkey mineralised intervals.
Orientation ofdata inrelation togeologicalstructure	Whether the orientation of samplingachieves unbiased sampling of possiblestructures and the extent to which this isknown, considering the deposit type.If the relationship between the drillingorientation and the orientation of keymineralised structures is considered tohave introduced a sampling bias, thisshould be assessed and reported ifmaterial.	The drilling is drilled generally orthogonal to theinterpreted strike of the target horizon. Nosignificant bias has been recognised
Samplesecurity	The measures taken to ensure samplesecurity.	All bagged drill samples are delivered directly fromthe field to the assay laboratory in Perth, whereuponthe laboratory checks the physically receivedsamples against Ramelius' samplesubmission/dispatch notes.
Audits orreviews	The results of any audits or reviews ofsampling techniques and data.	No external audits have been completed to date.

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Mineraltenement andland tenurestatus	Type, reference name/number, locationand ownership including agreements ormaterial issues with third parties such asjoint ventures, partnerships, overridingroyalties, native title interests, historicalsites, wilderness or national park andenvironmental settings.	The results reported in this report are on grantedMining Leases throughout Mount Magnet, all owned100% by Ramelius Resources Limited.All the tenements are in good standing. There areno known impediments to obtaining a licence tooperate in the area.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	The security of the tenure held at the timeof reporting along with any knownimpediments to obtaining a licence tooperate in the area.
Explorationdone by otherparties	Acknowledgment and appraisal ofexploration by other parties.	Previous work consists of significant historic drilling,geology mapping and mining by previous ownersincluding Metana, WMC, Hill 50 Gold NL andHarmony Gold.
Geology	Deposit type, geological setting and styleof mineralisation.	Morning Star is an orogenic structurally controlledArchean gold depositThe deposit consists of a number of subsidiary orebodies including Star, Latecomer, Evening Star,Broken Bond and Eddie Carson. Varyingmineralisation styles occur with main examplesbeing; Latecomer – porphyry hosted, wide, quartz‐carbonate‐molybdenite vein stockwork, Evening Star– BIF/Chert hosted with pyrite‐pyrrhotite‐quartzveins and Star – pipe‐like stockwork of steeplyplunging shoots with quartz‐carbonate‐pyrite‐molybdenite vein arrays hosted in strongly alteredand sheared mafic volcanics.
Drill holeInformation	A summary of all information material tothe understanding of the explorationresults including a tabulation of thefollowing information for all Material drillholes:oeasting and northing of the drill holecollaroelevation or RL (Reduced Level –elevation above sea level in metres) ofthe drill hole collarodip and azimuth of the holeodown hole length and interceptiondepthohole length.If the exclusion of this information isjustified on the basis that the informationis not Material and this exclusion does notdetract from the understanding of thereport, the Competent Person shouldclearly explain why this is the case.	No drillhole information is reported in this releaseRecent ASX releases include Morning Star drillholeinformation
Dataaggregationmethods	In reporting Exploration Results,weighting averaging techniques,maximum and/or minimum gradetruncations (e.g. cutting of high grades)and cut‐off grades are usually Materialand should be stated.Where aggregate intercepts incorporateshort lengths of high grade results andlonger lengths of low grade results, theprocedure used for such aggregationshould be stated and some typicalexamples of such aggregations should beshown in detail.The assumptions used for any reporting ofmetal equivalent values should be clearly	No drillhole information is reported in this releaseNo metal equivalent reporting is used or applied

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	stated.
Relationshipbetweenmineralisationwidths andinterceptlengths	These relationships are particularlyimportant in the reporting of ExplorationResults.If the geometry of the mineralisation withrespect to the drill hole angle is known, itsnature should be reported.If it is not known and only the down holelengths are reported, there should be aclear statement to this effect (e.g. 'downhole length, true width not known').	No drillhole information is reported in this releaseThe intersection length is measured down the lengthof the hole and is not usually the true widthTrue widths are noted within the intercept tables
Diagrams	Appropriate maps and sections (withscales) and tabulations of interceptsshould be included for any significantdiscovery being reported These shouldinclude, but not be limited to a plan viewof drill hole collar locations andappropriate sectional views.	A representative example section is included in thetext
Balancedreporting	Where comprehensive reporting of allExploration Results is not practicable,representative reporting of both low andhigh grades and/or widths should bepracticed to avoid misleading reporting ofExploration Results.	No drillhole information is reported in this report
Othersubstantiveexplorationdata	Other exploration data, if meaningful andmaterial, should be reported including(but not limited to): geologicalobservations; geophysical survey results;geochemical survey results; bulk samples– size and method of treatment;metallurgical test results; bulk density,groundwater, geotechnical and rockcharacteristics; potential deleterious orcontaminating substances.	No other exploration data that has been collected isconsidered meaningful and material to this report
Further work	The nature and scale of planned furtherwork (e.g. tests for lateral extensions ordepth extensions or large‐scale step‐outdrilling).Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas ofpossible extensions, including the maingeological interpretations and futuredrilling areas, provided this information isnot commercially sensitive.	Future exploration includes deep diamond drillingtargeting the Star UG resource plus geotechnicaldiamond core drilling to better define the depthextent and confirm design parameters

Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Databaseintegrity	Measures taken to ensure that data hasnot been corrupted by, for example,transcription or keying errors, betweenits initial collection and its use forMineral Resource estimation purposes.Data validation procedures used.	Data has been sourced from the RMS drillholedatabase using the Datashed systemValidation checks were conducted for overlappingintervals, duplicate assays, EOH depth and negativeor zero assay values
Site visits	Comment on any site visits undertaken	The Competent Person has visited the site and

	by the Competent Person and theoutcome of those visits.If no site visits have been undertakenindicate why this is the case.	confirmed observations available in drill cuttingsand surface features.
Geologicalinterpretation	Confidence in (or conversely, theuncertainty 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 Resource estimation.The factors affecting continuity both ofgrade and geology.	Confidence in the geological interpretation is high.The geometry and nature of mineralisation issimilar to neighbouring Mt Magnet depositsData used includes drilling assay and geologicallogging, pit and underground mapping and previousmodels and interpretationsNo alternate geological interpretation envisaged
Dimensions	The extent and variability of the MineralResource expressed as length (alongstrike or otherwise), plan width, anddepth below surface to the upper andlower limits of the Mineral Resource.	The existing pit is 750m long by 480m wide and130m deep.The Star zone comprises of 5‐8 semi continuouslode zones between 5‐20m wide and 20‐80m long.They plunge steeply to the SW with depthcontinuity of at least 1200m below surface.
Estimation andmodellingtechniques	The nature and appropriateness of theestimation technique(s) applied and keyassumptions, including treatment ofextreme grade values, domaining,interpolation parameters and maximumdistance of extrapolation from datapoints. If a computer assisted estimationmethod was chosen include a descriptionof computer 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 (e.g. sulphur for acid minedrainage characterisation).In the case of block model interpolation,the block size in relation to the averagesample spacing and the searchemployed.Any assumptions behind modelling ofselective mining units.Any assumptions about correlationbetween variables.Description of how the geologicalinterpretation was used to control theresource estimates.Discussion of basis for using or not usinggrade cutting or capping.The process of validation, the checking	Deposits were estimated using geological softwareusing ID² methods inside constrained mineralisationdomains. An unconstrained estimate outside thedomains was also run and is used for inferredresources in areas of higher drill density. Theestimation method is appropriate for the deposittype.Previous models existed for the depositOnly gold is estimatedNo deleterious elements presentParent cell of 12.5mN x 12.5mE x 10mRL used.Subcells (x 25%) used at topographic andmineralisation boundaries boundary. Parent cellestimation only.Parent cell is considered equal or larger thanselective mining unitDomains were statistically analysed and assignedappropriate search directions, top‐cuts andestimation parametersConstrained grade for higher confidence zones,unconstrained for lower.Samples were composited within ore domains to1m lengthsTop cuts were applied to domains after review ofgrade population characteristics.Validation included statistical comparisons, swathplots and visual comparison against drillhole grades

	process used, the comparison of modeldata to drill hole data, and use ofreconciliation data if available.
Moisture	Whether te tonnages are estimated on adry basis or with natural moisture, andthe method of determinaƟon of themoisture content.	Tonnages are estimated on a dry basis
Cut‐offparameters	The basis of the adopted cut‐off grade(s)or quality parameters applied.	A 0.7 g/t grade cut‐off has been used for resourcereporting
Mining factorsor assumptions	Assumptions made regarding possiblemining methods, minimum miningdimensions and internal (or, if applicable,external) mining dilution. It is alwaysnecessary as part of the process ofdetermining reasonable prospects foreventual economic extraction to considerpotential mining methods, but theassumptions made regarding miningmethods and parameters whenestimating Mineral Resources may notalways be rigorous. Where this is thecase, this should be reported with anexplanation of the basis of the miningassumptions made.	Resources are reported on the assumption ofmining by conventional open pit grade control andmining methods. Parent block size is regarded as aSMU equivalent or larger.
Metallurgicalfactors orassumptions	The basis for assumptions or predictionsregarding metallurgical amenability. It isalways necessary as part of the processof determining reasonable prospects foreventual economic extraction to considerpotential metallurgical methods, but theassumptions regarding metallurgicaltreatment processes and parametersmade when reporting Mineral Resourcesmay not always be rigorous. Where thisis the case, this should be reported withan explanation of the basis of themetallurgical assumptions made.	A 92% recovery factor is used and is based ontestwork and well established Mt Magnet recoverydata.
Environmentalfactors orassumptions	Assumptions made regarding possiblewaste and process residue disposaloptions. It is always necessary as part ofthe process of determining reasonableprospects for eventual economicextraction to consider the potentialenvironmental impacts of the mining andprocessing operation. While at this stagethe determination of potentialenvironmental impacts, particularly for agreenfields project, may not always bewell advanced, the status of earlyconsideration of these potentialenvironmental impacts should bereported. Where these aspects have notbeen considered this should be reportedwith an explanation of the environmentalassumptions made.	No significant issues with waste rock or tailingsOre treatment and tailings generation would occurat the current Mt Magnet Checkers mill site.
Bulk density	Whether assumed or determined. Ifassumed, the basis for the assumptions.	Density values are adopted from established MtMagnet values

	If determined, the method used, whetherwet or dry, the frequency of themeasurements, the nature, size andrepresentativeness of the samples.The bulk density for bulk material musthave been measured by methods thatadequately account for void spaces(vugs, porosity, etc.), moisture anddifferences between rock and alterationzones within the deposit.Discuss assumptions for bulk densityestimates used in the evaluation processof the different materials.	Density measurements were completed on thegeotechnical diamond core holes using the weightin air/weight in water method.They have been assigned by geological andweathering
Classification	The basis for the classification of theMineral Resources into varyingconfidence categories.Whether appropriate account has beentaken of all relevant factors (i.e. relativeconfidence in tonnage/gradeestimations, reliability of input data,confidence in continuity of geology andmetal values, quality, quantity anddistribution of the data).Whether the result appropriately reflectsthe Competent Person's view of thedeposit.	The resources have been classified as Indicated orInferred category's based on geological and/orgrade continuity and drill hole spacing.The resource classification accounts for all relevantfactorsThe classification reflects the Competent Person'sview
Audits orreviews	The results of any audits or reviews ofMineral Resource estimates.	An external review of the Resource was done byOptiro Pty Ltd in May 2017.
Discussion ofrelativeaccuracy/confidence	Where appropriate a statement of therelative accuracy and confidence level inthe Mineral Resource estimate using anapproach or procedure deemedappropriate by the Competent Person.For example, the application of statisticalor geostatistical procedures to quantifythe relative accuracy of the resourcewithin stated confidence limits, or, if suchan approach is not deemed appropriate,a qualitative discussion of the factorsthat could affect the relative accuracyand confidence of the estimate.The statement should specify whether itrelates to global or local estimates, and,if local, state the relevant tonnages,which should be relevant to technical andeconomic evaluation. Documentationshould include assumptions made andthe procedures used.These statements of relative accuracyand confidence of the estimate should becompared with production data, whereavailable.	Confidence in the relative accuracy of the estimatesis reflected by the classifications assignedThe estimate is a global estimateHistoric production data and from comparablenearly pits is available for comparison