SABRE RESOURCES LIMITED — Capital/Financing Update 2018

Jun 11, 2018

ASX ANNOUNCEMENT

12 June 2018 ASX Code: SBR

RESOURCE ESTIMATE UPDATE FOR THE SHERLOCK BAY NICKEL-COPPER-COBALT DEPOSIT

HIGHLIGHTS

• The Sherlock Bay nickel-copper-cobalt deposit resource estimate has been updated and restated in compliance with the JORC Code (2012)
• The deposit contains total Measured, Indicated and Inferred Resources (Table 1) of:

24.6 Mt grading 0.4% nickel, 0.09% copper and 0.02% cobalt

Review and update of existing feasibility study work into the development of the deposit is continuing

The Directors of Sabre Resources Limited (ASX: SBR) are delighted to announce that the Company has completed a resource estimate update for the Sherlock Bay nickel-copper-cobalt deposit located on its Sherlock Bay Project in the Pilbara region of Western Australia (Figure 1). The resource estimate is now stated in compliance with the JORC Code (2012).

The updated total Mineral Resource (see Table 1) is 24.6 million tonnes grading 0.4% nickel, 0.09% copper and 0.02% cobalt. The deposit contains approximately 99,200 tonnes of nickel, 21,700 tonnes of copper and 5,400 tonnes of cobalt metal.

SHERLOCK BAY PROJECT

The Sherlock Bay Project is located in the Pilbara region of Western Australia, approximately 75 km to the east of the town of Karratha and 120 km southwest of Port Hedland (Figure 1). The Project comprises a mining lease and two exploration licenses that collectively cover a total of 189 km2 . The project is located in a region with excellent mining-related infrastructure and can readily be accessed via sealed highway and upgraded pastoral station tracks.

MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE

An updated Mineral Resource estimate has been completed for the Sherlock Bay nickel-cobalt-copper deposit in the Pilbara Region of Western Australia.

The deposit is hosted within the Archaean West Pilbara Granite-Greenstone Belt. It comprises two main lenticular lodes (termed Discovery and Symond's Well) hosted within a sub-vertical to steep north dipping chert horizon with a combined strike length of 1,600 m. Mineralised widths are variable but in the higher grade portions of the main zones can be up to 30 m and are continuous down dip in excess of 500 m in places.

The Sherlock Bay deposit was initially discovered and defined by Texas Gulf in the 1970's. Additional drilling was carried out by Sherlock Bay Nickel Corporation ("SBNC") between 2003 and 2007. The resource is now defined by a total of 201 drill holes for 31,092 m.

Figure 1: Location map of the Sherlock Bay Project in Western Australia

The Mineral Resources have been classified as Measured, Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource in accordance with the JORC Code, 2012 Edition and are shown in Table 1.

	Table 1: Sherlock Bay Ni Cu Co Deposit May 2018 Resource Estimate (0.15% Ni Cut-off)

			Discovery Lode
	Tonnes Mt	Ni%	Cu%	Co%	Ni t	Cu t	Co t
Measured	3.90	0.33	0.10	0.025	12,900	4,100	1,000
Indicated	6.3	0.39	0.11	0.025	24,200	6,700	1,600
Inferred	2.3	0.43	0.11	0.026	9,900	2,500	600
Total	12.5	0.38	0.11	0.025	47,100	13,200	3,100
				Symond's High Grade Lode
	Tonnes Mt	Ni%	Cu%	Co%	Ni t	Cu t	Co t
Indicated	2.80	0.56	0.08	0.022	15,600	2,300	600
Inferred	1.2	0.58	0.07	0.019	7,000	800	200
Total	2.1	0.63	0.08	0.024	13,200	1,600	500
Indicated	6.1	0.59	0.08	0.022	35,700	4,700	1,300
				Symond's Low Grade Lode
	Tonnes Mt	Ni%	Cu%	Co%	Ni t	Cu t	Co t
Measured	2.50	0.26	0.08	0.019	6,500	2,000	500
Indicated	1.7	0.26	0.05	0.013	4,400	800	200
Inferred	1.9	0.29	0.04	0.012	5,400	800	200
Total	6.1	0.27	0.06	0.016	16,400	3,700	900
			Total Deposit
	Tonnes Mt	Ni%	Cu%	Co%	Ni t	Cu t	Co t
Measured	12.48	0.38	0.11	0.025	47,100	13,200	3,100
Indicated	6.1	0.59	0.08	0.022	35,700	4,700	1,300
Inferred	6.1	0.27	0.06	0.016	16,400	3,700	900
Total	24.6	0.40	0.09	0.022	99,200	21,700	5,400

(Note that rounding discrepancies may occur in summary tables)

RESOURCE SUMMARY

Geology

The Sherlock Bay Ni-Cu-Co deposit is located on the Sholl Shear Zone, a major regional strike-slip fault that traverses the north-western margin of the Caines Well Granitoid Complex in the west Pilbara Craton. Much of the deposit is covered by a veneer of sheetwash sediments (average of 12 m thickness) and consists of remobilised base metal sulphides spatially associated with mafic to felsic volcanic rocks, metasedimentary rocks, and mafic-ultramafic intrusions.

The mineralised horizon is a steeply-dipping banded quartz-magnetite-amphibole schist (also referred to as a siliceous banded iron formation or amphibole-bearing chert). There is broad correlation of Ni, Cu and Co grade to sulphide content with the main species being pyrrhotite, pyrite and chalcopyrite.

Drilling

The Sherlock Bay deposit was initially discovered and defined by Texas Gulf in the 1970's. Additional drilling was carried out by Sherlock Bay Nickel Corporation ("SBNC") between 2003 and 2007. The resource is now defined by a total of 201 drill holes for 31,092 m of which 174 holes were drilled by SBNC. The typical drill hole spacing varies from 20m by 60m spaced (RC percussion drilling) in the upper part of the deposit to 120 m by 120 m spaced diamond holes at depth. The majority of holes were drilled at 60o to grid south (Figure 2).

Drill collar locations were surveyed in local grid by licenced surveyors using total station equipment. The collars were later transformed adjusted to a regional topographic DTM. All diamond holes and most RC percussion drill holes have been down-hole surveyed using a single-shot Eastman camera.

Sampling and Sub-Sampling Techniques

In the RC percussion drilling, prospective intervals were sampled at 1m intervals with the remainder of the holes unsampled. The 1m samples were collected through a riffle splitter and were 2-5 kg in weight.

In SNBC diamond holes, only visually mineralised intervals were sampled to geological boundaries or 1m intervals with quarter core samples collected for analysis. Texas Gulf core holes were sampled at 1.52 m (5 feet) intervals.

Sample Analysis Method

SNBC drilling samples were analysed at Aminya Laboratories using a four-acid leach and AAS analysis. AAS analysis for Ni, Cu and Co was used routinely for all phases of drilling at the project. Limited assay quality control data was available for the resource but overall, the assay data was considered to be satisfactory.

Estimation Methodology

The estimate was completed using Ordinary Kriging (OK) interpolation inside a wireframe largely defined by geology and elevated Ni grades. In addition, internal high grade domain wireframes based on a 0.4% Ni outline were created within the Symonds Lode and used as hard boundaries in the interpolation process.

Interpolation parameters were based on the geometry of each zone and geostatistical parameters were determined by variography. No high-grade cuts were applied to the estimate due to the uniformly low coefficient of variation ("CV") of the Ni, Cu and Co data.

The block dimensions used in the model were based on deposit geometry and drill hole spacing. Parent block sizes used were 5m NS by 30 m EW by 10 m Z with sub-celling to 2.5 m by 15 m by 2.5 m.

Sample data was composited into 2 m intervals then block model grades estimated using ordinary kriging (OK) grade interpolation. A first pass search range of 100 m was used and oriented to match the dip and strike of the mineralisation. A minimum of 10 samples and a maximum of 24 samples were used to estimate each block. The majority of the resource (73%) was estimated in the first pass with expanded search radii of 200 m used for the blocks not estimated in the first pass.

Bulk determinations were derived using a combination of pycnometer analysis on pulverised chips, and the immersion method on drill core using volumetric flask measurements. A total of 465 data points from 21 drill holes were available for analysis. This demonstrated a bulk density for fresh mineralisation of 3.05 t/m3 above 500 m depth. The very small amount of transitional mineralisation used an assumed density of 2.70 t/m3 .

Mineral Resource Classification

The Mineral Resources was classified in accordance with the Australasian Code for the Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (JORC, 2012).

The portion of the deposit defined by 20 m spaced drill holes on 60 m spaced cross sections displays excellent continuity of geology and grade and has been classified as Measured Mineral Resource. This extends to a vertical depth of 150 m (4,850 mRL) at Discovery and 200 m (4,800 mRL) at Symond's Well.

The Indicated Mineral Resource is largely defined by 120 m spaced drilling and extends to a depth of 450 m (4,550 mRL) at Discovery and 350 m (4,650 mRL) at Symond's. The Inferred portion of the resource has been extended to 600m depth (4,400 mRL) and is projected to a maximum of 120 m past the limit of effective drilling.

Cut-off Grades

The shallow, sub-cropping nature of both lodes suggests good potential for open pit mining and lowcost underground mining if sufficient resources can be delineated to consider a mining operation. The likely processing route identified by previous studies is low cost, bacterial heap leach of crushed ore. As such, the Mineral Resource has been reported at a 0.15% Ni lower cut-off grade to reflect assumed low operating costs and good metallurgical characteristics determined in previous studies.

Metallurgy

Metallurgical test work has been conducted by previous operators and confirmed that good recoveries can be achieved via bacterial leaching.

Modifying Factors

No modifying factors were applied to the reported Mineral Resource estimate. Parameters reflecting mining dilution, ore loss and metallurgical recoveries will be considered during any future mining evaluation of the project.

FEASIBILTY STUDIES

The Company is continuing to review and update the feasibility studies that were previously completed on the development of the Sherlock Bay deposit. The extensive information already available on the mining, metallurgy, processing and infrastructure requirements for the project will allow the Company to rapidly advance the evaluation of the project.

ENDS

For more information, please contact:

Lachlan Reynolds	Graham Baldisseri	Phone: (08) 9481 7833
Exploration Manager	Company Secretary

Or consult our website: www.sabresources.com

Competent Person Declaration

The Information in this report that relates to Mineral Resources is based on information compiled by Mr Paul Payne, a Competent Person who is a Fellow of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Mr Payne is a full-time employee of Payne Geological Services Pty Ltd. Mr Payne has 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 Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves". Mr Payne 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

This document may include forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements concerning Sabre Resources Ltd's planned exploration program and other statements that are not historical facts. When used in this document, the words such as "could," "plan," "estimate," "expect," "intend," "may", "potential," "should," and similar expressions are forward-looking statements. Although Sabre believes that its expectations reflected in these forward-looking statements are reasonable, such statements involve risks and uncertainties and no assurance can be given that actual results will be consistent with these forward-looking statements.

JORC Table 1 - Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data
-------------------------------------------------------	--	--	--	--

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
Sampling	Nature and quality of sampling (eg cut channels,	RC drilling was conducted using a 5 ¼" face sampling
techniques	random chips, or specific specialised industry	bit on a nominal 20m by 60 m spacing.RC samples were collected in large plastic bags from
	standard measurement tools appropriate to the	riffle splitter and a 2-5 kg representative sample taken
	minerals under investigation, such as down holegamma sondes, or handheld XRF instruments, etc).	for analysis.
	These examples should not be taken as limiting the	Diamond drilling was sampled to geological contactsthen at 1 m or 1.52 m intervals with quarter core
	broad meaning of sampling.	samples taken for analysis.
	Include reference to measures taken to ensure	Collar surveys werecarried using total stationelectronic equipment.
	samplerepresentivityandtheappropriatecalibration of any measurement tools or systems	Down hole surveys for each hole were completed
	used.	using single shot cameras.Sampling was limited to the visually mineralised zones
	Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that	with additional sampling of several metres either side
	are Material to the Public Report. In cases where	of the mineralisation.
	'industry standard' work has been done this would
	be relatively simple (eg 'reverse circulation drillingwas used to obtain 1 m samples from which 3 kg
	was pulverised to produce a 30 g charge for fire
	assay'). In other cases more explanation may be
	required, such as where there is coarse gold that has
	inherent sampling problems. Unusual commoditiesor mineralisation types (eg submarine nodules) may
	warrant disclosure of detailed information.
Drilling	Drill type (eg core, reverse circulation, open-hole	•The majority of RC drilling was completed in 2004 and
techniques	hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc)	2005 using face sampling equipment.Core drilling included historic holes completed in the
	and details (eg core diameter, triple or standard	1970's as well as a substantial number of holes
	tube, depth of diamond tails, face-sampling bit orother type, whether core is oriented and if so, by	completed in 2005.
	what method, etc).
Drill sample	Method of recording and assessing core and chip	Drill core recovery was measured and was generally
recovery	sample recoveries and results assessed.	excellent.
	Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and	No record of RC sample quality was located, howeverdrilling conditions were good and samples generally
	ensure representative nature of the samples.	from fresh rock and no problems were anticipated.
	Whether a relationship exists between sample	No obvious relationships between sample recovery
	recovery and grade and whether sample bias mayhave occurred due to preferential loss/gain of	and grade.
	fine/coarse material.
Logging	Whethercoreandchipsampleshavebeen	All holes were logged in the field at the time of drilling.
	geologically and geotechnically logged to a level ofdetail to support appropriate Mineral Resource	No core photographs were located.
	estimation,miningstudiesandmetallurgical
	studies.
	Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in
	nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc) photography.
	The total length and percentage of the relevantintersections logged.
Sub-sampling	If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter,	1 m RC samples were split by the riffle splitter on the
techniques	half or all core taken.	drill rig and sampled dry.
and sample	If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary	The sampling was conducted using industry standardtechniques and were considered appropriate.
preparation	split, etc and whether sampled wet or dry.	No formal quality control measures were in place for
	For all sample types, the nature, quality andappropriatenessofthesamplepreparation	the programs.
	technique.
	Quality control procedures adopted for all sub-

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
	sampling stages to maximise representivity of
	samples.
	Measures taken to ensure that the sampling is
	representative of the in situ material collected,
	includingforinstanceresultsforfield
	duplicate/second-half sampling.
	Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grain
	size of the material being sampled.
Quality of	The nature, quality and appropriateness of the	Historic drill samples were assayed using four acid
assay data	assaying and laboratory procedures used and	digest and AAS analysis at accredited laboratories.
and laboratory	whether the technique is considered partial or total.	Samples from the 2004 and 2005 programs were
tests	For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF	assayed using four acid digest and AAS analysis at theAminya and ALS laboratories.
	instruments,etc,theparametersusedin	QAQC data was limited to assay repeats and
	determining the analysis including instrument make	interlaboratory checks which showed acceptable
	and model, reading times, calibrations factors	results.
	applied and their derivation, etc.
	Nature of quality control procedures adopted (eg
	standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory
	checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy
	(ie lack of bias) and precision have been established.
Verification of	The verification of significant intersections by either	Field data was loaded into excel spreadsheets at site.
sampling and	independent or alternative company personnel.	Original laboratory assay records have been located
assaying	The use of twinned holes.	and loaded into an electronic database.Hard copies of logs, survey and sampling data are
	Documentationofprimarydata,dataentry	stored in the SBR office.
	procedures, data verification, data storage (physical	No adjustment to assay data.
	and electronic) protocols.
	Discuss any adjustment to assay data.
Location of	Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drill	SBCN drill hole collars were accurately surveyed using
data points	holes (collar and down-hole surveys), trenches, mine	electronic total station equipment.A local grid system was used with data converted to
	workings and other locations used in Mineral	WGS84.
	Resource estimation.	Topography is very flat with control from drill hole
	Specification of the grid system used.	collars and field traverses.
	Quality and adequacy of topographic control.
Data spacingand	Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results.	Drilling was on a nominal 20 m by 60 m spacing in theupper 200 m of the deposit.
distribution	Whether the data spacing and distribution is	Deeper mineralisation was tested at approximately
	sufficient to establish the degree of geological andgrade continuity appropriate for the Mineral	120 m spacing.
	Resource and Ore Reserve estimation procedure(s)	Drill data is at sufficient spacing to define Measured,
	and classifications applied.	Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource.Samples were composited to 2m intervals for
	Whether sample compositing has been applied.	estimation.
Orientation of	Whether the orientation of sampling achieves	Shallow holes were drilled at -60ointo a vertical
data in	unbiased sampling of possible structures and the	trending zone and orientated perpendicular to the
relation to	extent to which this is known, considering the	known strike of the deposit.
geological	deposit type.	Deeper diamond holes flattened to be approximately
structure	If the relationship between the drilling orientation	orthogonal to the dip of mineralisation.
	and the orientation of key mineralised structures is	No orientation based sampling bias has been identifiedin the data.
	considered to have introduced a sampling bias, this
	should be assessed and reported if material.
Sample	The measures taken to ensure sample security.	Samples were organised by company staff then
security		transported by courier to the laboratory.
Audits or	The results of any audits or reviews of sampling	Procedures were reviewed by independent consultantsduring the exploration programs in 2005.
reviews	techniques and data.

			JORC Table 1 - Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results
--	--	--	-----------------------------------------------------------	--

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Mineraltenement andlandtenurestatus	Type,referencename/number,locationandownership including agreements or material issueswiththirdpartiessuchasjointventures,partnerships,overridingroyalties,nativetitleinterests, historical sites, wilderness or national parkand environmental settings.The security of the tenure held at the time ofreporting along with any known impediments toobtaining a license to operate in the area.	The deposit is located on granted mining leaseM47/567 with an expiry date of 22/9/2025.SBR has a 70% beneficial interest in the project.
Explorationdone by otherparties	Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration byother parties.	Discovery and initial exploration was completed byTexas Gulf in the 1970's.Majority of exploration was completed by SBNC in2004 and 2005.
GeologyDrillhole	Deposit type, geological setting and style ofmineralisation.A summary of all information material to the under	The project is hosted within the Archaean West PilbaraGranite-Greenstone Belt. It comprises two mainlenticular lodes (termed Discovery and Symond's Well)hosted within a sub-vertical to steep north dippingchert horizon.Mineralisation is associated with strong foliationand/orbandingofasilica-chlorite-carbonateamphibole-magnetite chert. There is broad correlationof Ni, Cu and Co grade to sulphide content with themain species being pyrrhotite, pyrite and chalcopyrite.Results are reported in local grid coordinates.
information	standing of the exploration results including atabulation of the following information for allMaterial drill holes:easting and northing of the drill hole collarelevation or RL (Reduced Level – elevation abovesea level in metres) of the drill hole collardip and azimuth of the holedown hole length and interception depthhole lengthIf the exclusion of this information is justified on thebasis that the information is not Material and thisexclusion does not detract from the understanding ofthe report, the Competent Person should clearlyexplain why this is the case.	No material data has been excluded from the release.Drill hole intersections used in the resource have beenpreviously reported.
Dataaggregationmethods	In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averagingtechniques,maximumand/orminimumgradetruncations (e.g. cutting of high grades) and cut-offgrades are usually Material and should be stated.Whereaggregateinterceptsincorporateshortlengths of high grade results and longer lengths oflow grade results, the procedure used for suchaggregation should be stated and some typicalexamples of such aggregations should be shown indetail.The assumptions used for any reporting of metalequivalent values should be clearly stated.	Length weighted average grades have been reported.No high-grade cuts have been applied.Metal equivalent values are not being reported.
RelationshipbetweenmineralisationwidthsandinterceptlengthsDiagrams	These relationships are particularly important in thereporting of Exploration Results.If the geometry of the mineralisation with respect tothe drill hole angle is known, its nature should bereported.If it is not known and only the down hole lengths arereported, there should be a clear statement to thiseffect (e.g.'down hole length, true width not known').Appropriate maps and sections (with scales) and	The majority of holes have been drilled at angles tointersectthemineralisationapproximatelyperpendicular to the orientation of the mineralisedtrend.Some steeper holes will have intersection lengthgreater than the true thickness.A relevant plan showing the drilling is included within
	tabulations of intercepts should be included for any

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	significant discovery being reported. These shouldinclude, but not be limited to a plan view of drill holecollar locations and appropriate sectional views.	this release.
BalancedReporting	Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drillholes (collar and down-hole surveys), trenches, mineworkings and other locations used in MineralResource estimation.Where comprehensive reporting of all ExplorationResults is not practicable, representative reporting ofboth low and high grades and/or widths should bepracticedtoavoidmisleadingreportingofExploration Results.	All relevant results available have been previouslyreported.
Othersubstantiveexplorationdata	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 andmethod of treatment; metallurgical test results; bulkdensity,groundwater,geotechnicalandrockcharacteristics;potentialdeleteriousorcontaminating substances.	Geological mapping, geophysical surveys and rock chipsampling has been conducted over the project area.
Further work	The nature and scale of planned further work (e.g.tests for lateral extensions or depth extensions orlarge- scale step-out drilling).Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possibleextensions,includingthemaingeologicalinterpretations and future drilling areas, providedthis information is not commercially sensitive.	Preliminary economic analysis of the project isplanned.

JORC Table 1 - Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Databaseintegrity	Measures taken to ensure that data has not beencorrupted by, for example, transcription or keyingerrors, between its initial collection and its use forMineral Resource estimation purposes.Data validation procedures used.	SBR located original assay records which has now beencaptured electronically to prevent transcription errors.Validation included visual review of results.
Site visits	Comment on any site visits undertaken by theCompetent Person and the outcome of those visits.If no site visits have been undertaken indicate whythis is the case.	A site visit by Paul Payne was undertaken in May 2018to confirm geological interpretations and drill core,locate drill hole collars and review general site layout.
Geologicalinterpretation	Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertainty of) thegeological interpretation of the mineral deposit.Nature of the data used and of any assumptionsmade.The effect, if any, of alternative interpretations onMineral Resource estimation.The use of geology in guiding and controllingMineral Resource estimation.The factors affecting continuity both of grade andgeology.	Thegeologyisstraightforwardwithvisuallyrecognisable mineralisation which has been used tocontrol the Mineral Resource boundaries.Information between different drilling programs isconsistent and the interpretations are considered tohave a high degree of confidence.Thereisnorealpossibilityofalternativeinterpretations.
Dimensions	The extent and variability of the Mineral Resourceexpressed as length (along strike or otherwise), planwidth, and depth below surface to the upper andlower limits of the Mineral Resource.	The Sherlock Bay deposit has a drilled strike extent of1.7 km EW and a maximum vertical depth of 600 m.The true thickness of the mineralisation ranges from10 m to 30 m.
Estimation andmodellingtechniques	The nature and appropriateness of the estimationtechnique(s) applied and key assumptions, includingtreatment of extreme grade values, domaining,interpolation parameters and maximum distance ofextrapolation from data points. If a computerassisted estimation method was chosen include adescription of computer software and parameters	Ordinary kriging grade interpolationwas used toestimate block grades within the resource.Surpac software was used for the estimation.Samples were composited to 2m intervals. Due to theextremely low CV of the data no high grade cuts wereapplied to the estimate.The parent block dimensions were 30 m EW by 5 m NS

Criteria	JORC Code explanationused.Theavailabilityofcheckestimates,previousestimates and/or mine production records andwhether the Mineral Resource estimate takesappropriate account of such data.The assumptions made regarding recovery of byproducts.Estimation of deleterious elements or other nongrade variables of economic significance (eg sulphurfor acid mine drainage characterisation).In the case of block model interpolation, the blocksize in relation to the average sample spacing andthe search employed.Any assumptions behind modelling of selectivemining units.Anyassumptionsaboutcorrelationbetweenvariables.Description of how the geological interpretationwas used to control the resource estimates.Discussion of basis for using or not using gradecutting or capping.The process of validation, the checking process used,the comparison of model data to drill hole data, anduse of reconciliation data if available.	Commentaryby 5 m vertical with sub-cells of 15 m by 2.5 m by 2.5m. Cell size was based on 50% of the average drill holespacing in the well drilled part of the deposit.The previous resource estimate for Sherlock Bay wasreported in 2005.No assumptions have been made regarding recovery ofby-products.An orientated ellipsoid search was used to select dataand was based on drill hole spacing and the geometryof the mineralisation.A search of 100 m was used with a minimum of 10samples and a maximum of 24 samples which resultedin 73% of blocks being estimated. The remaining blockswere estimated with search radii of 200 m and 300 m.Selective mining units were not modelled in theMineral Resource model. The block size used in themodel was based on drill sample spacing and depositgeometry.Mineralisationwasconstrainedbywireframesprepared using a 0.2% Ni grade envelope. In addition,high grade domains were wireframed within theSymonds lode using a 0.4% Ni cut-off grade.For validation, quantitative spatial comparison of blockgrades to assay grades was carried out using swathplots.Global comparisons of drill hole and block modelgrades were also carried out.
Moisture	Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basisor with natural moisture, and the method ofdetermination of the moisture content.	Tonnages and grades were estimated on a dry in situbasis. No moisture values were reviewed.
Cut-offparameters	The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or qualityparameters applied.	The shallow, sub-cropping nature of both lodessuggests good potential for open pit mining and lowcost underground mining if sufficient resources can bedelineated to consider a mining operation. As such, theMineral Resource has been reported at a 0.15% Nilower cut-off grade to reflect assumed exploitation bylow cost miningmethods and good metallurgicalcharacteristics determined in previous studies.
Mining factorsorassumptions	Assumptionsmaderegardingpossibleminingmethods, minimum mining dimensions and internal(or, if applicable, external) mining dilution. It isalways necessary as part of the process ofdetermining reasonable prospects for eventualeconomic extraction to consider potential miningmethods, but the assumptions made regardingmining methods and parameters when estimatingMineral Resources may not always be rigorous.Where this is the case, this should be reported withanexplanationofthebasisoftheminingassumptions made.	Based on comparison with other similar deposits, theMineral Resource is considered to have sufficientgrade and metallurgical characteristics for economictreatment if an operation is established at the site.No mining parameters or modifying factors have beenapplied to the Mineral Resource.
Metallurgicalfactorsorassumptions	The basis for assumptions or predictions regardingmetallurgical amenability. It is always necessary aspart of the process of determining reasonableprospects for eventual economic extraction toconsider potential metallurgical methods, but theassumptionsregardingmetallurgicaltreatmentprocesses and parameters made when reportingMineral Resources may not always be rigorous.Where this is the case, this should be reported withan explanation of the basis of the metallurgicalassumptions made.	Metallurgical test work has been conducted bypreviousoperatorsandconfirmedthatgoodrecoveries can be achieved via bacterial leaching.Additional metallurgical test work is underway.
Environmentalfactorsorassumptions	Assumptions made regarding possible waste andprocess residue disposal options. It is alwaysnecessary as part of the process of determining	The area is not known to be environmentally sensitiveand there is no reason to think that proposals fordevelopment including the dumping of waste would

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	reasonableprospectsforeventualeconomicextraction to consider the potential environmentalimpacts of the mining and processing operation.While at this stage the determination of potentialenvironmental impacts, particularly for a greenfieldsproject, may not always be well advanced, thestatus of early consideration of these potentialenvironmental impacts should be reported. Wherethese aspects have not been considered this shouldbereportedwithanexplanationoftheenvironmental assumptions made.	not be approved if planning and permitting guidelinesare followed.
Bulk density	Whether assumed or determined. If assumed, thebasis for the assumptions. If determined, themethod used, whether wet or dry, the frequency ofthemeasurements,thenature,sizeandrepresentativeness of the samples.The bulk density for bulk material must have beenmeasured by methods that adequately account forvoid spaces (vugs, porosity, etc), moisture anddifferences between rock and alteration zoneswithin the deposit.Discuss assumptions for bulk density estimates usedin the evaluation process of the different materials.	Bulkdensitydeterminations(pycnometerorarchimedes) were carried out on 465 samples. Bulkdensity values applied to the estimates were 2.7 t/m3for transitional lithologies, 3.05 t/m3for unoxidisedmineralisation above 500m depth and 2.94 t/m3below500 m depth.
Classification	The basis for the classification of the MineralResources into varying confidence categories.Whether appropriate account has been taken of allrelevantfactors(ierelativeconfidenceintonnage/grade estimations, reliability of input data,confidence in continuity of geology and metalvalues, quality, quantity and distribution of thedata).Whether the result appropriately reflects theCompetent Person's view of the deposit.	The Mineral Resource was classified in accordancewith the Australasian Code for the Reporting ofExploration Results, Mineral Resources and OreReserves (JORC, 2012).The upper 200 m of the deposit defined by 20 m by 60m and displaying excellent continuity of mineralisationhas been reported as Measured Mineral Resource.The portion of the deposit defined by 80 m to 120 mspaced holes and tested over the full strike extent hasbeen reported as Indicated Mineral Resource.The Inferred portion of the resource has beenextended to 600 m depth (4,400 mRL) and is projectedto a maximum of 120 m past the limit of effectivedrilling.The results reflect the view of the Competent Person.
AuditsorreviewsDiscussionofrelativeaccuracy/confidence	The results of any audits or reviews of MineralResource estimates.Where appropriate a statement of the relativeaccuracy and confidence level in the MineralResource estimate using an approach or proceduredeemed appropriate by the Competent Person. Forexample,theapplicationofstatisticalorgeostatistical procedures to quantify the relativeaccuracy of the resource within stated confidencelimits, or, if such an approach is not deemedappropriate, a qualitative discussion of the factorsthatcouldaffecttherelativeaccuracyandconfidence of the estimate.The statement should specify whether it relates toglobal or local estimates, and, if local, state therelevant tonnages, which should be relevant totechnical and economic evaluation. Documentationshouldincludeassumptionsmadeandtheprocedures used.Thesestatementsofrelativeaccuracyandconfidence of the estimate should be compared withproduction data, where available.	The Mineral Resource estimate has been checked byan internal audit procedure.The estimate utilised good estimation practices, highquality drilling, sampling and assay data. The extentand dimensions of the mineralisation are sufficientlydefined by the detailed drilling. The deposit isconsidered to have been estimated with a high level ofaccuracy.The Mineral Resource statement relates to globalestimates of tonnes and grade.There is no historic production data to compare withthe Mineral Resource.