Acquisition of Victory Bore Vanadium Project

_________________________________________________________________________

Highlights:

Surefire consolidates tenement holding at Unaly Hill by addition of the Victory Bore Vanadium field (EL57/1036)
Victory Bore deposit contains Mineral Resource 151Mt @ 0.44% V2O5
EL57/1036 provides Company with contiguous tenement holding over 25km strike of vandiferous magnetite titanium deposits
Increased Vanadium Mineral Resource base to 237 million tonnes
Purchase price of $500,000 cash, 62,500,000 SRN FP shares (voluntarily escrowed for 6 months)
Milestone payments:
- o within 60 days of SRN completing a pre-feasibility study stating that the Victory Bore Tenement, if developed as a mine, would have an internal rate of return of not less than 20%, payment of $AUD650,000 in cash or equivalent in SRN shares;
- o within 60 days of SRN announcing a decision to mine in the Victory Bore Tenement area, payment of $AUD650,000 in cash or equivalent in SRN shares.

Surefire Resources NL (SRN) is pleased to announce that it has signed a binding Agreement (Agreement) with High Grade Metals Limited (HGM), Mutual Holdings Pty Ltd (Mutual) and Acacia Mining Pty Ltd (Acacia) to purchase Exploration Licence 57/1036 at Victory Bore in the mid-west of Western Australia (Victory Bore Tenement).

Victory Bore Vanadium Deposit

The Victory Bore Project is located in the Mid-West of Western Australia, 560km north-east of Perth and abuts the northern boundary of Surefire's Unaly Hill project (Figure 1)

The Victory Bore deposit is contained within the Atley Igneous Complex, a layered sequence of gabbros with magnetite rich layers enriched with vanadium and titanium.

Previous exploration activity conducted within the Victory Bore Tenement boundary has established a Mineral Resource in accordance with JORC Code 2012. The details provided by independent geological consultants CSA Global is shown in Table 1 and Appendix 1.

Table 1: Inferred Mineral Resource, Victory Bore
Tonnes	Fe	V2O5	TiO2	P	SiO2	Al2O3	LOI
(Mt)	(%)	(%)	(%)	(%)	(%)	(%)	(%)
151	25.0	0.44	6.73	0.013	28.6	14.8	0.56
Note: The Mineral Resource was established within constraining wireframe solids basedon a nominal lower cut-off grade of 20% Fe. The Resource is quoted from blocks above aspecified Fe % cut-off grade of 20% Fe

The above Mineral Resource was announced by HGM (formerly Quest Minerals Limited) to the ASX on 29 June 2017 (ASX:QNL).

Figure 1: Location of Victory Bore and Unaly Hill Projects

Surefire's Vanadium Resources

The acquisition of the Victory Bore Tenement will significantly increase SRN's vanadium resource base and exploration potential. The Victory Bore Tenement, in conjunction with SRN's Unaly Hill vanadium project, which currently contains an Inferred Mineral Resource of 86.2 Mt @ 0.42% V2O5 (at 0.30% V2O5 cut-off), will provide SRN with a combined Inferred Mineral Resource of 237 Mt grading~0.42% - 0.44% V2O5, making it a significant vanadium resource holder in Australia.

The acquisition of the Victory Bore Tenement means SRN has a contiguous tenement holding over approximately 25 km of strike of the Atley Complex, the majority of which contains magnetic targets as yet untested. Therefore, the potential exists for not only an increased resource tonnage but for zones of higher-grade mineralisation. SRN is currently well advanced in its exploration drill planning for Unaly Hill and the same targeting rationale and available geophysics will enable similar methodology to be applied to the untested Victory Bore anomalous areas.

Geology and Geological Interpretation

The Victory Bore Fe – V deposit is contained within the metamorphosed Atley Igneous Complex, containing layered gabbros with magnetite-rich layers. The layered gabbro at the project strikes 020o and dips 80o to the west. The gabbro contains several magmatically separated layers of titaniferousmagnetite, with the contacts of the magnetite layers with the host gabbro commonly appearing to be gradational. The magnetite layers attain true widths of up to 25 m.

The fresh gabbro contains variable amounts of disseminated sulphides, including pyrite, chalcopyrite and pyrrhotite. The sulphide content increases with increasing amounts of magnetite. Vanadium also occurs with the magnetite-sulphide mineralisation.

The geological interpretation is based on 21 RC holes and 2 diamond core holes which defined the strike extent and width of the mineralisation. Results from an aeromagnetic survey indicate magnetic trends, probably representing magnetite layers. The interpretation used a nominal cut-off grade of 20% Fe and a maximum internal waste intercept of 3 m. Nine mineralised lenses were interpreted, ranging from 2 m to 45 m in horizontal thickness, with the six main lenses (in terms of volume) totalling to about 75 m thick. The lenses were interpreted to 275 m below surface, down to approximately 200 m RL. The strike length of the interpreted zone of mineralisation is 4,400 m.

A 'base of complete oxidation' (BOCO) surface was also modelled based upon geological drill logs, and the sulphur assays.

Drilling Techniques

The deposit was drilled using RC and diamond core drilling methods. RC drilling used a face sampling hammer bit. The rig was truck mounted, with an auxiliary booster compressor mounted on another truck. Diamond drilling used a truck mounted rig with HQ diameter core tube. The core was not orientated.

Sampling and Sub-Sampling Techniques

RC chips were sampled at 1 m intervals from a rig mounted cyclone, with samples split and collected in a large 20 kg green plastic bag, and into a smaller calico bag. The geologist took a sample from the larger bag for geological analysis and logging. Diamond core was transported to the project's sample yard, where it was geologically logged, photographed (wet and dry) and core cut in half by a diamond saw, with half core retained and half for sample analyses. Core was cut to geological intervals, with minimum 0.3 m and maximum 1.5 m lengths, otherwise sampled to 1 m lengths when outside zone of mineralisation.

Sample Analysis Method

Samples were securely delivered to ALS Chemex Laboratories in Perth, where they were crushed to 3 mm fraction, then pulverized to 105 µm (p95). A portion of the pulp fraction was pressed into a pellet and analysed using the fused disc x-ray fluorescence (XRF) technique. The laboratory collected splits of the sub samples at the crushing and pulverizing stages, with the splits stored for future reference. The pulp splits were sourced for laboratory duplicate XRF analyses.

Estimation Methodology

Grades for Fe, P, SiO2, Al2O3, LOI, V2O5 and TiO2 were interpolated using ordinary kriging (OK) techniques from the majority 1 m length RC drill samples. Statistical analyses for all these grade variables were carried out, including variography. Only samples contained within the mineralisation lenses were used for grade interpolation and no top cuts were used. Estimated block grades were validated by means of swath plots, comparison of block model and sample mean grades, and visual review of the block model against drill hole assay grades.

Classification of Mineral Resource

The Mineral Resource is classified as Inferred. The geological evidence is considered sufficient to imply but not verify geological and grade continuity. The geological logs from the 21 RC and 2 diamond holes provide sufficient geological information to support the classification level. Models from earlier aeromagnetic surveys support the geological interpretation and hence the classification. Bulk density samples were not taken, and Quality Control protocols for the drill samples and sample analyses were not implemented by the Company at the time of drilling. A review of the Quality Control results from the analytical laboratory's internal procedures indicate precision and accuracy of the sample assays and sub-sampling within the laboratory, and these results support the current classification level.

Cut-off Grade

The geological interpretation supporting the Mineral Resource estimate used a lower cut of 20% Fe to define the mineralisation envelopes, and was determined from analysis of Fe log probability plots. The Mineral Resource is reported from blocks in the Mineral Resource model where blocks are >20% Fe. Approximately 90% of the total tonnage within the Mineral Resource model has been reported.

Mining and Metallurgy

It is assumed any future mining will use conventional open cut mining methods. An open pit mining study undertaken in 2012 suggested that an open cut mine producing only vanadium would not be economic using the economic assumptions made at the time of the study. No mining studies have been carried out focusing on the economic viability of the deposit producing iron from magnetite mineralisation.

Very preliminary metallurgical assessment is considered encouraging in terms of the processing potential of the vanadium, suggesting the mineralisation is amenable to processing via beneficiation by magnetic separation and sodium salt roast and water leach. The use of technology similar to TNG's TIVAN ® hydrometallurgical process at Victory Bore could have a material and favourable impact on project economics from the additional income streams. Davis Tube Recovery (DTR) testwork was undertaken in 2012 from 8 samples of pulverised magnetite material, which were combined into 2 composite samples for the DTR testwork. Results show a 61.3% recovery with concentrate grades of 59.89% Fe, 1.32% V2O5, 10.83% TiO2, 1.04% SiO2 and 2.67% Al2O3. The combined value for SiO2 and Al2O3 of 3.7% is well within the generally regarded upper limit of 5% for salt roasting of magnetic concentrate.

Sale Agreement Terms

The material terms are as follows-

The consideration payable to HGM by SRN under the Agreement comprises:

1. $AUD500,000 cash payments ($50,000 as a deposit and $450,000 at settlement);
1. 62.5 million shares in SRN issued at settlement, which shares are to be voluntarily escrowed for 6 months;
1. Upon SRN completing the following future milestones:
- a. within 60 days of SRN completing a pre-feasibility study stating that the Victory Bore Tenement, if developed as a mine, would have an internal rate of return of not less than 20% - payment of $AUD650,000 in cash or equivalent in SRN shares;
- b. within 60 days of SRN announcing a decision to mine in the Victory Bore Tenement area - payment of $AUD650,000 in cash or equivalent in SRN shares.

The Agreement is subject to the following relevant conditions (to be satisfied or waived within 90 days):

1. the members of SRN in general meeting approving of the issue and allotment to HGM (or its nominee) of the shares forming part of the consideration;
1. SRN raising AUD1 million of equity capital to fund the purchase of the Victory Bore Tenement and exploration in relation thereto;
1. SRN undertaking due diligence investigations within a period of 14 days from the date of the Agreement and being satisfied with the results of the due diligence;
1. ASX not imposing escrow on any of the shares in SRN to be issued to HGM (or its nominee) pursuant to the Agreement, excluding the voluntary escrow;
1. as at the settlement date, the Victory Bore Tenement being in good standing, full force and effect and free of encumbrances and not liable to cancellation or forfeiture; and
1. the parties satisfying all legislative and regulatory requirements applicable to the transactions contemplated in the Agreement.

Mutual currently has a registered caveat over the Victory Bore Tenement relating to a royalty agreement. As a condition of the tenement acquisition Agreement and in consideration for Mutual's consent to that Agreement, SRN is to pay Mutual various royalties at various stages of ore identification on iron ore, vanadium, titanium, phosphate, U3O8, gold, other precious metals or any other base metal as follows:

royalty ranging from $0.20 to $0.50 per tonne in respect of gold or any other precious metal;
royalty ranging from $0.04 to $0.06 per tonne of ore in respect of iron ore, vanadium, titanium or phosphate;
royalty ranging from $0.05 to $0.10 per tonne of ore in respect of U3O8 or any base metal;
royalty of $1.00 per tonne of iron ore derived from the Victory Bore Tenement; and
royalty of 1% of gross revenue received by SRN from the sale of gold, any other precious metal or base metal from the Victory Bore Tenement.

SRN intends to call a shareholder meeting in relation to the transaction following the completion of due diligence.

For further information, contact:

Vladimir Nikolaenko CHAIRMAN

Competent Persons Statement

The information that relates to Mineral Resources is based on and fairly represents information compiled by Mr David Williams, a Competent Person, who is a Member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Mr Williams is employed by CSA Global Pty Ltd, an independent consulting company. Mr Williams has sufficient experience which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration, and to the activity he is undertaking, to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the "Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves".

Mr Williams consents to the inclusion of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears.

Disclaimer - Forward-Looking Statements

Forward-looking statements are statements that are not historical facts. Words such as "expect(s)", "feel(s)", "believe(s)", "will", "may", "anticipate(s)" and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. These statements include, but are not limited to statements regarding future production, resources or reserves and exploration results. All of such statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties, many of which are difficult to predict and generally beyond the control of the Company, that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in, or implied, or projected by, the forward-looking information and statements. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to (i) those relating to the interpretation of drill results, the geology, grade and continuity of mineral deposits and conclusions or economic evaluations, (ii) risks relating to possible variations in reserves, grade, planned mining dilution and ore loss, or recovery rates and changes in project parameters as plans continue to be refined, (iii) the potential for delays in exploration or development activities or the completion of feasibility studies, (iv) risks related to commodity price and foreign exchange rate fluctuations, (v) risks related to failure to obtain adequate financing on a timely basis and or acceptable terms or delays in obtaining governmental approvals or in the completion of development or construction activities, and (vi) other risks and uncertainties related to the Company's prospects, properties and business strategy. Our audience is cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements that speak only as of the date hereof, and we do not undertake any obligation to revise and disseminate forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date hereof, or to reflect the occurrence of or non-occurrence of any events.

Attached:

Appendix 1 – JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1

APPENDIX 1 JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data

(Criteria in this section apply to all succeeding sections.)

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Samplingtechniques	Nature and quality of sampling (eg cutchannels, random chips, or specificspecialised industry standard measurementtools appropriate to the minerals underinvestigation, such as down hole gammasondes, or handheld XRF instruments, etc).These examples should not be taken aslimiting the broad meaning of sampling.Include reference to measures taken toensure sample representivity and theappropriate calibration of any measurementtools or systems used.Aspects of the determination ofmineralisation that are Material to the PublicReport.In cases where 'industry standard' work hasbeen done this would be relatively simple(eg 'reverse circulation drilling was used toobtain 1 m samples from which 3 kg waspulverised to produce a 30 g charge for fireassay'). In other cases more explanationmay be required, such as where there is	Drilling at Victory Bore was by way of reverse circulation (RC) and diamond core methods.Sampling of RC holes was guided by Quest Minerals' procedures as valid at the time ofpreparation of the Mineral Resource estimate in 2011.Drill holes targeted gabbroic host rock, with targets initially determined by geophysics(aeromagneticanomalies). Drill samples penetrated mineralisation and care was taken toensure maximum sample recovery as the drilling and ground conditions would allow.RC chips were sampled at 1 m intervals from a rig mounted cyclone, with samples split andcollected in a large 20 kg green plastic bag, and into a smaller calico bag. The geologist took asample from the larger bag from geological analysis and logging.Diamond core were geotechnically logged (rock quality designation, core recovery) attheproject's sample yard, photographed (wet and dry),and the core cut in half by a diamond saw,with half core retained and half for sample analyses. Core was cut to geological intervals, withminimum 0.3 m and maximum 1.5 m lengths. Otherwise sampled to 1 m lengths when outsidezone of mineralisation.RC and diamond core samples were ticketed with a unique sample number, then dispatched toALSGlobal(Perth) laboratory for sample analyses.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	coarse gold that has inherent samplingproblems. Unusual commodities ormineralisation types (eg submarine nodules)may warrant disclosure of detailedinformation.
Drillingtechniques	Drill type (eg core, reverse circulation, openhole hammer, rotary air blast, auger,Bangka, sonic, etc) and details (eg corediameter, triple or standard tube, depth ofdiamond tails, face-sampling bit or othertype, whether core is oriented and if so, bywhat method, etc).	RC drilling used a facesampling hammer bit. The rig was truck mounted, with an auxiliarybooster compressor mounted on another truck. Diamond drilling used a truck mounted rig withHQ diameter core tube. The core was not orientated.
Drill samplerecovery	Method of recording and assessing coreand chip sample recoveries and resultsassessed.Measures taken to maximise samplerecovery and ensure representative natureof the samples.Whether a relationship exists betweensample recovery and grade and whethersample bias may have occurred due topreferential loss/gain of fine/coarse material.	The project geologist recorded the sample recovery for each RC sample whilst logging thesamples, however no assessment of data has been made to date. Core recoveries werecalculated during geotechnical logging and core markup prior to geological logging of the core.Care was taken during RC drilling when aquifers were encountered, to attempt to minimizewater egress. This did not prove to be successful, even with a booster compressor, and somewet samples were recovered.Sample recovery records were not provided to the Competent Person and a relationshipbetween recovery and sample grades could not be determined.
Logging	Whether core and chip samples have beengeologically and geotechnicallylogged to alevel of detail to support appropriate MineralResource estimation, mining studies andmetallurgical studies.Whether logging is qualitative or quantitativein nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc)photography.The total length and percentage of therelevant intersections logged.	RC and diamond core samples were geologically logged to a level of detail sufficient to supportgeological modelling and the eventual Mineral Resource classification. Mineralisation domainsand a weathering profile were modelled based upon the geological logs. The CompetentPerson considers the quality of the geological models sufficient to support targeting drill holesdesigned to provide samples for metallurgical testwork.Geological logging is mostly qualitative innature (lithological logs). Diamond drill core wasphotographed in both wet or dry state.All RC chips were logged on a meterage basis. Diamond core were logged on a geologicalbasis.
Subsamplingtechniquesand sample	If core, whether cut orsawn and whetherquarter, half or all core taken.If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled,rotary split, etc and whether sampled wet or	Diamond core was cut with a diamond saw, with half core submitted for sample analyses.RC chips were split by cyclone at the drill rig. Wet samples were occasionally recovered fromthe drill hole, and attempts were made to maximize sample recovery, although records for thiswere not made available to the Competent Person.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
preparation	dry.For all sample types, the nature, quality andappropriateness of the sample preparationtechnique.Quality control procedures adopted for allsub-sampling stages to maximiserepresentivity of samples.Measures taken to ensure that the samplingis representative of the in situ materialcollected, including for instance results forfield duplicate/second-half sampling.Whether sample sizes are appropriate to thegrain size of the material being sampled.	Samples were securely delivered to the analytical laboratory where they were crushed to 3mmfraction, then pulverized to 105µm (p95). The sample preparation is considered appropriate forthe mineralisation investigated.The laboratorycollectedsplits of the sub samples at the crushing and pulverizing stages, withthe splits stored. The pulp splits were sourced for laboratoryduplicate XRF analyses.Early stage Davis Tube Recovery testwork has been completed but is of insufficient quantity toallow the concentrate grades to be interpolated into the Mineral Resource model.Quality control procedures were not adopted for the RC and diamond drill programmes, withrespect to use of certified reference materials (CRM) and/orfield duplicates. The analyticallaboratory (ALS Chemex) used their own internal quality control procedures, monitoring CRMs,blanks and lab duplicates. Results were reviewed by the Competent Person and the assayswere generally noted to be within expected limits, with some exceptions. The CompetentPerson is satisfied that the quality control assay results support the Inferred classification levelfor the Mineral Resource estimate.Sample sizes are considered appropriate for the grain size of the material being sampled.
Quality ofassay dataandlaboratorytests	The nature, quality and appropriateness ofthe assaying and laboratory proceduresused and whether the technique isconsidered partial or total.For geophysical tools, spectrometers,handheld XRF instruments, etc, theparameters used in determining the analysisincluding instrument make and model,reading times, calibrations factors appliedand their derivation, etc.Nature of quality control proceduresadopted (eg standards, blanks, duplicates,external laboratory checks) and whetheracceptable levels of accuracy (ie lack ofbias) and precision have been established.	The analytical laboratory prepared the samples by crushing to 3mm fraction, then pulverized to105µm (p95). A portion of the pulp fraction was pressed into a pellet and analysed by XRF.The laboratoriesare accredited to industry standards, and the sample preparationstages areindustry standard. The sample preparation is considered appropriate for the mineralisationinvestigated. The analytical technique is considered total.The analytical laboratory implemented their internal quality control procedures monitoringCRMs, blanks and laboratoryduplicates. Results were reviewed by the Competent Person andthe assays were generally noted to be within expected limits, with some exceptions.Acceptable levels of accuracy and precision have been established for the results.
Verificationof samplingandassaying	The verification of significant intersectionsby either independent or alternativecompany personnel.The use of twinned holes.Documentation of primary data, data entryprocedures, data verification, data storage	Significant intersections of mineralisation were verified by a Quest Director, and by the contractconsultant geologist supervising the drill programme.One pair of twin holes was drilled and evaluated, VC0902 (diamond) and VC0703 (RC), withcollars separated by 8 m. The drill traces exhibit similar assays and geological logs, after takinginto account downhole offset due to the steeply dipping nature of the host lithology.Primary drill holes data is stored in MS Excel spreadsheets. Data was validated by a company

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	(physical and electronic) protocols.Discuss any adjustment to assay data.	geologist and stored securely on the company's servers in their head office.The analyses for V were multiplied by 1.7852 to derive V2O5, used in the Mineral Resourceestimate. No other adjustments were made to the data upon receipt from the assay laboratory.
Location ofdata points	Accuracy and quality of surveys used tolocate drill holes (collar and down-holesurveys), trenches, mine workings and otherlocations used in Mineral Resourceestimation.Specification of the grid system used.Quality and adequacy of topographiccontrol.	Drill hole collars were surveyed using a handheld GPS. Eastings and northing coordinates areconsidered accurate. An elevation was assigned to each collar, with each set at 475 mRL. Thelocal topography is very flat which supports the assigned RL. Down hole surveys were taken at30 m down hole intervals for most holes.All coordinates are in Geocentric Datum of Australia (GDA94, Zone 50).
Data spacinganddistribution	Data spacing for reporting of ExplorationResults.Whether the data spacing and distribution issufficient to establish the degree ofgeological and grade continuity appropriatefor the Mineral Resource and Ore Reserveestimation procedure(s) and classificationsapplied.Whether sample compositing has beenapplied.	Holes were drilled orthogonal to interpreted strike of mineralisation, with drill lines spacedapproximately 400 m. Along the drill lines, holes are spaced at approximately80 m intervals.The Competent Person believes the data spacing and distribution is sufficient to implygeological and grade continuity, and to classify the Mineral Resource as Inferred.Sample compositing to 4 m was used where the drill samples were deemed to be in wasterock. The drill samples deemed to be within potential mineralisation were not composited.
Orientationof data 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 to haveintroduced a sampling bias, this should beassessed and reported if material.	The drill holes were drilled orthogonal to the interpreted strike of the host lithology, which inturn was interpreted from geophysical surveys, mainly aeromagnetic. It was not possible to drillorthogonal to the interpreted dip of the mineralisation due to the steep dip of the host lithology,and a minor bias is sampling was anticipated and not considered to be of a material nature tothe sampling. Most holes were drilled towards east-southeast and any sampling bias wasmanaged.
Samplesecurity	The measures taken to ensure samplesecurity.	Drill samples were transported by company personnel from the drill rig to the company's securedrill and sample compound in Sandstone. The samples were then transported by courier toALS Chemex Laboratories in Perth.
Audits orreviews	The results of any audits or reviews ofsampling techniques and data.	No audits or reviews of sampling techniques, data management or resultant data has occurredto date, beyond the reviews undertaken by the Resource Geologist whoprepared the MineralResource estimate, and the Competent Person.

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results

(Criteria listed in the preceding section also apply to this section.)

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Mineraltenement andland tenurestatus	Type, reference name/number, location andownership including agreements or materialissues with third parties such as jointventures, partnerships, overriding royalties,native title interests, historical sites,wilderness or national park andenvironmental settings.The security of the tenure held at the timeof reporting along with any knownimpediments to obtaining a licence tooperate in the area.	The Project is located within tenement E57/1036, held by wholly owned Quest subsidiaryAcacia Mining Pty Ltd. Acacia was awarded the Exploration Licence on 1st July 2016. Thelicence covers an area of 39 km2 on 13 blocks, near the town of Sandstone, 560 km north eastof Perth.The licence expires on 30th June 2021. Rental payments of $1,587 have been paid in full.There are no known impediments to obtaining a licence to operate in the area.
Explorationdone by otherparties	Acknowledgment and appraisal ofexploration by other parties.	The tenement is prospective for gold mineralisation, with historical mining documented. For Feand V, there have been several phases of exploration since 1981. The potential of the area tohost an iron deposit was first indicated from aeromagnetic surveys, to be later confirmed bydetailed ground magnetics and diamond drilling.Aeromagnetic surveys were flown soon after Quest's acquisition of the Project, on 100 m linespacingswith a major anomaly associated with the regional scale Youanmi Fault, extending ina southwest-northeastdirection for more than 22 km, including11 km through the western halfof the Victory Bore licence. Magnetic trends within this anomaly probably represent magnetitelayers in the basal part of the Atley layered gabbro.Modelling of the aeromagnetic data by Southern Geoscience Consultants (SGC)shows thenorthern 4 kmof the magnetic anomaly is relatively undisturbed by faultingwiththe magneticsignature beingrelatively constant over the entire 4 km.The southern 6 km of the magneticmetagabbro unit is interpreted to be more structurally complicated than the northern section.The southern area appears to be thicker than the northern section,possibly because ofstructural repetition.The magnetic response in this area is less continuous along strike whichsuggests less continuous magnetite units are present. The lack of continuity is most likely dueto magnetite destruction associated with deep weathering or alteration associated withfaulting. This area is still highly prospective for magnetite mineralisation but continuity in thisarea is not assured and requires additional drilling to assess the tenor and continuity.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary

Geology	Deposit type, geological setting and style ofmineralisation.	The Victory Bore Fe –V deposit is contained within the metamorphosed Atley IgneousComplex, containinglayered gabbros and anorthosite, with magnetite and pyroxenitic layers.The Atley Igneous Complex is located within the Murchison Domain of the Yilgarn Craton, andhas been dated at 2780 Ma.The layered gabbro at the project strikes 020o and dips 80oto the west. The gabbro is greenishgrey, coarse grained and comprises pyroxene, olivine?, plagioclase feldspar and hornblende.The gabbro contains several magmaticallyseparated layers of titaniferous-magnetite, with thecontacts of the magnetite layers withthe host gabbro commonly appearing to be gradational.The magnetite layers attain true widths of up to 25 m.The fresh gabbro also contains variableamounts of disseminated sulphides, which includepyrite, chalcopyrite and pyrrhotite. The sample analyses demonstrate an average grade of0.3% S for all samples (Northing > 6870500 mN), to a maximum of 3.8%, and mean grade of0.4% within the zones of mineralisation. The sulphide content increases with increasingamounts of magnetite. Vanadium also occurs with the magnetite-sulphide mineralization.Basaltic mega-xenoliths have been intersected in drill holes within the gabbro in holesVRC002, VRC006 and VRC013. Along strike, the distribution of the xenoliths appears to becyclical, appearing every 800m. Immediately below the xenoliths, the drill holes intersectedthe most strongly mineralized magnetite zones. It is interpreted that the mega-xenolithsprovided an extra source of Fe to the gabbro magma, resulting in more magnetitemineralization.
Drill holeInformation	A summary of all information material to theunderstanding of the exploration resultsincluding a tabulation of the followinginformation for all Material drill holes:easting and northing of the drill holecollarelevation or RL (Reduced Level –elevation above sea level in metres) ofthe drill hole collardip and azimuth of the holedown hole length and interception depthhole length.If the exclusion of this information isjustified on the basis that the information isnot Material and this exclusion does not	The following holes were used to interpret the deposit. Not all holes penetrated themineralisation. Down hole dips and hole azimuth are planned values. Depth to mineralisationindicates the down hole depths of the geologically interpreted lodes.BHIDEastingNorthingRLDipAzimuthDepth to mineralisationTotal length6011046VRC00169569068739504751206011038VRC00269577568739504751806011059VRC00369550568735504751866011017VRC00469562568735504751806011024VRC00569536568731504751506011069VRC00669545568731504751746011034VRC00769519068727504751006011027VRC00869506068723504751006011091VRC0096951506872350475100

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	detract from the understanding of thereport, the Competent Person shouldclearly explain why this is the case.	6011030VRC0106949126871950475	100
		6011044VRC0116949956871954475	180
		6011023VRC0126947506871550475	150
		6011060VRC0136948506871550475	174
		6011026VRC0146946176871150475	138
		6011018VRC0156947156871150475	100
		6011020VRC0166952306872350475	100
		6011012VRC0176958056873950475	100
		60290148VC07016953306872751475	150
		602900VC07026952686872751475	144
		6029036VC07036954086872741475	150
		6029035VC07046954856872750475	150
		60290153.14VC09016951706872750475	291.2
		6029064VC09026954156872745475	209.7
Dataaggregationmethods	In reporting Exploration Results, weightingaveraging techniques, maximum and/orminimum grade truncations (eg cutting ofhigh grades) and cut-off grades are usuallyMaterial and 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 clearlystated.	Cutting of assay results were not considered necessary. Mineralisation intercepts are notreported here, and have been captured within the Mineral resource estimate.No aggregation of sample intercepts was carried out.Metal equivalent values are not reported.
Relationshipbetweenmineralisationwidths andintercept	These relationships are particularlyimportant in the reporting of ExplorationResults.If the geometry of the mineralisation withrespect to the drill hole angle is known, its	The layered gabbro at the project strikes 020o and dips 80oa planned dip of 60o, however the dipof the drill holesdue to the control exerted by the lithologies upon the declination of drilling. The interpretedmineralised lenses (Fe>20%) exhibit a consistent true width along strike, although this is apreliminary assessment and is reflected in the classification of the Mineral Resource.	to the west. All holes were drilled atgenerally increased with depth of drilling

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
lengths	nature should be reported.If it is not known and only the down holelengths are reported, there should be aclear statement to this effect (eg 'down holelength, true width not known').
Diagrams	Appropriate maps and sections (withscales) and tabulations of intercepts shouldbe included for any significant discoverybeing reported These should include, butnot be limited to a plan view of drill holecollar locations and appropriate sectionalviews.	Diagrams presenting the geology and drilling of the deposit are presented in this report.
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.	All drill hole information was used to interpret themineralisationdomains for the MineralResource estimate. The low-grade intercepts were assigned equal importance as themineralised intercepts when the interpretation of the mineralisation domains was carried out.
Othersubstantiveexplorationdata	Other exploration data, if meaningful andmaterial, should be reported including (butnot limited to): geological observations;geophysical survey results; geochemicalsurvey results; bulk samples –size andmethod of treatment; metallurgical testresults; bulk density, groundwater,geotechnical and rock characteristics;potential deleterious or contaminatingsubstances.	Results from aeromagnetic surveys were used as a basis for the planning of drill holes and thegeological model. A major anomaly associated with the regional scale Youanmi Fault wasdiscerned from the geophysical imagery, extending in a southwest-northeastdirection for morethan 22 km, including 11 km through the western half of the Victory Bore licence. Magnetictrends within this anomaly probably represent magnetite layers in the basal part of the Atleylayered gabbro.Holes drilled on sections which did not encounter the basaltic mega-xenoliths, encounteredaquifers at include depths of approximately 55 m. The aquifers are tentatively interpreted to bepressure shadows between the mega-xenoliths.
Furtherwork	The nature and scale of planned furtherwork (eg tests for lateral extensions ordepth extensions or large-scale step-outdrilling).Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas ofpossible extensions, including the maingeological interpretations and future drillingareas, provided this information is not	Quest is likely to be seeking a JV partner to conduct further work on the Vanadium andtitanium bearing magnetite at Victory Bore. The companyanticipatesthis process willcommence immediatelywith a view to securing partner sometime later in 2017. Part of thiswork might be to review the possibility of selectively mining near surface material wheremagnetite scree is evident at surface. This could potentially reduce the waste toore strip ratioin any future mining studies.

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary

commercially sensitive.

Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources

(Criteria listed in section 1, and where relevant in section 2, also apply to this section.)

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Databaseintegrity	Measures taken to ensure that data has notbeen corrupted by, for example, transcriptionor keying errors, between its initial collectionand its use for Mineral Resource estimationpurposes.Data validation procedures used.	Drill logs were entered bythe project geologist into Excel spreadsheets, and were validatedafter data entry.Drill data was loaded into Datamine and checks made for duplicate collars, overlappingsample intervals, and missing down hole surveys. Errors were corrected prior to proceedingwith the estimation of the Mineral Resource.
Site visits	Comment on any site visits undertaken by theCompetent Person and the outcome of thosevisits.If no site visits have been undertaken indicatewhy this is the case.	A representative of the Competent Person visited the project on 25th May 2017. The followingitems were assessed as part of the site visit:Verification of project.Verified selected drill collars with GPS, and compared to actual surveyedcoordinates.Inspection of drill samples.Review infrastructure and project setting.Inspection ofoutcrop.Geological and other project discussions with Quest Minerals staff.The Competent Person is satisfied that the site observations support the currentclassification of the Mineral Resource and that there are no known significant impedimentsto future development of the project.
Geologicalinterpretation	Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertaintyof ) the geological interpretation of the mineraldeposit.Nature of the data used and of anyassumptions made.The effect, if any, of alternative interpretationson Mineral Resource estimation.The use of geology in guiding and controlling	There is an implied level of confidence in the geological interpretation.The geological interpretation is based on 21 RC holes and 2 diamond core holes whichdefined the strike extent and width of the mineralisation. No geological outcrop exists whichwould have provided a high level of confidence to the geological interpretation.Aeromagnetic surveys of the tenure indicate magnetic trends probably representingmagnetite layers.No other geological interpretations have been considered to this point in time.The interpretation used a nominal cut-off grade of 20% Fe and a maximum internal waste

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	Mineral Resource estimation.The factors affecting continuity both of gradeand geology.	intercept of 3 m.A 'base of complete oxidation' (BOCO) surface was interpreted based upon geological drilllogs and sulphurassays.
Dimensions	The extent and variability of the MineralResource expressed as length (along strike orotherwise), plan width, and depth belowsurface to the upper and lower limits of theMineral Resource.	Mineralised lenses range from 2 m to 45 m in horizontal thickness, with the six main lensestotalling about 75 m thick. The lenses were interpreted to 275m below surface, down toapproximately 200mRL. Strike length of the interpreted zone of mineralisation is 4,400 m.
Estimationandmodellingtechniques	The nature and appropriateness of theestimation technique(s) applied and keyassumptions, including treatment of extremegrade values, domaining, interpolationparameters and maximum distance ofextrapolation from data points. If a computerassisted estimation method was choseninclude a description of computer softwareand parameters used.The availability of check estimates, previousestimates and/or mine production records andwhether the Mineral Resource estimate takesappropriate account of such data.The assumptions made regarding recovery ofby-products.Estimation of deleterious elements or othernon-grade variables of economic significance(eg sulphur for acid mine drainagecharacterisation).In the case of block model interpolation, theblock size in relation to the average samplespacing and the search employed.Any assumptions behind modelling ofselective mining units.Any assumptions about correlation betweenvariables.Description of how the geologicalinterpretation was used to control the	The geological models were prepared by CSA Global using Datamine Studio (v3) software.Snowden Supervisor software was used for geostatistical evaluation of assay data.The Fe domain is based upon a nominal cut-off grade of 20% Fe, which was derived followingreview ofa log probability plot of all drill samples within the Mineral Resource area. Thegeological interpretation was digitised and wireframed, with strike extrapolation limited toapproximately half the typical drill hole spacing. Nine zones of mineralisation were modelled.Drill hole samples were flagged by mineralisedzone using the constructed wireframes.Variograms were generated and grades were interpolated using ordinary kriging (OK) fromthe majority 1m length RC drill samples. Each lens was interpolated using samples from thatlens only. Search radii were 400m along strike, 170m vertically and 70m across strike. Amaximum of 24 samples and a minimum of 8 samples were used to interpolategrades.Octant searching was not employed. Grades for Fe, P, SiO2, Al2O3, LOI, V2O5 and TiO2were interpolated.Interpolationwas validated by comparing mean grades and visually comparing model gradesand sample grades on sections for each assay.Density was assumed at 3.2 g/cm3based on the density of banded iron formation of similarFe grade at other locations.A block model with parent cells 50 mE x 50 mN x 10 mRL was constructed, with subcells 5 mx 5 m x 5 m used to control filling of the wireframes along the edges. Grades wereinterpolated into the parent cells.This is the maiden Mineral Resource estimate. It was originally published to the market in2011 and reported under the JORC Code (2004). No changes have been made to theMineral Resource estimate with this report, apart from reporting compliant with JORC (2012).No mining activity has occurred at the project, and no check estimates were carried out todate.Vanadium (V2O5, %) and titanium dioxide (TiO2, %) were interpolated into the block model.Early stage mining studies have shown that the deposit cannot be economically mined as avanadium focused project, but vanadium shows a strong correlation with Fe (%) and thus

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	resource estimates.Discussion of basis for using or not usinggrade cutting or capping.The process of validation, the checkingprocess used, the comparison of model datato drill hole data, and use of reconciliationdata if available.	there is the opportunity to recover vanadium from the magnetite processing stream, if theproject is deemed to be economic for extraction of magnetite mineralisation, and appropriatevanadium extraction modules are included in the processing plant design. No metallurgicaltestwork has been carried out to date on titanium.SiO2, P, Al2O3, S and LOI are deleterious elements and variables interpolated into the blockmodel. These grade variables were estimatedinto the mineralisation domains. A statisticalanalysis of S(%) within the mineralisation domain demonstrates a mean grade of 0.4%, witha mean grade for the block estimates of 0.44%. A mean grade of 0.2% is observed in the drillintercepts located outside the mineralisation domains, however sulphur was not estimatedinto waste blocks.Selective mining units were not used.Fe is extremely well correlated with other interpolated elements, with a correlation coefficientof 99% for many correlations.Gradeswere interpolated into individual lenses.Top cuts were not applied in this Mineral Resource. Some of the grade distributions exhibit ahigh-gradetail, but there are no grade outliers and the Competent Person is satisfied theapplication of top cuts would make negligible difference to the Mineral Resource.
Moisture	Whether the tonnages are estimated on a drybasis or with natural moisture, and themethod of determination of the moisturecontent.	Tonnages are estimated on a dry basis.
Cut-offparameters	The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) orquality parameters applied.	The Mineral Resource is constrained within an envelope representing> 20% Fematerial. TheMineral Resource was reported above a cutoff grade of 20% Fe, and from the fresh rockvolume. 90% of the volume of the mineralisation envelopes within the fresh rock zonewasreported.
Miningfactors orassumptions	Assumptions made regarding possible miningmethods, minimum mining dimensions andinternal (or, if applicable, external) miningdilution. It is always necessary as part of theprocess of determining reasonable prospectsfor eventual economic extraction to considerpotential mining methods, but theassumptions made regarding mining methodsand parameters when estimating MineralResources may not always be rigorous.Where this is the case, this should be	It is assumed that conventional open pit mining will be used due to the shallow nature of themineralisation.A Scoping Study was undertaken in 2012 focusing on the vanadium mineralisation at VictoryBore. This study focused upon the processing of the vanadium mineralisation, suggesting themineralisation is amenable to processing via beneficiation by magnetic separation andsodium salt roast and water leach.An open pit optimisation study followed this in 2012 and suggested that an open cut mineproducing only vanadium would not be economic using the economic drivers used at the timeof the study.No mining studies have been carried out focusing on the economic viability of the depositproducing iron from magnetite mineralisation.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	reported with an explanation of the basis ofthe mining assumptions made.
Metallurgicalfactors orassumptions	The basis for assumptions or predictionsregarding metallurgical amenability. It isalways necessary as part of the process ofdetermining reasonable prospects foreventual economic extraction to considerpotential metallurgical methods, but theassumptions regarding metallurgicaltreatment processes and parameters madewhen reporting Mineral Resources may notalways be rigorous. Where this is the case,this should be reported with an explanation ofthe basis of the metallurgical assumptionsmade.	Preliminary metallurgical testwork carried out in 2012 is encouraging in terms of theprocessing potential of the vanadium. The testwork suggests the mineralisation is amenableto processing via beneficiation by magnetic separation and sodium salt roast and water leach.Magnetic separation testwork achieved 93.7% recovery of the vanadium suggesting goodrecovery should be possible at a larger scale. The average leach recovery of the vanadiumwas 89.2%.Davis Tube Recovery (DTR) testwork was undertaken in 2012 from 8 samples of pulverisedmagnetite material, which were combined into 2 composite samples for the DTR testwork.Results show a 61.3% recovery with concentrate grades of 59.89% Fe, 1.32% V2O5, 10.83%TiO2, 1.04% SiO2and 2.67% Al2O3. The combined value for SiO2and Al2O3of 3.7% is wellwithin the generally regarded upper limit of 5% for salt roasting of magnetic concentrate.
Environmental factors orassumptions	Assumptions made regarding possible wasteand process residue disposal options. It isalways necessary as part of the process ofdetermining reasonable prospects foreventual economic extraction to consider thepotential environmental impacts of the miningand processing operation. While at this stagethe determination of potential environmentalimpacts, particularly for a greenfields project,may not always be well advanced, the statusof early consideration of these potentialenvironmental impacts should be reported.Where these aspects have not beenconsidered this should be reported with anexplanation of the environmental assumptionsmade.	The Competent Person is not aware of any environmental studies which may have beenconducted over the tenure related to the Fe –V deposit. The location is flat lying with no hillyterrain or major watercourses in the vicinity.A Heritage survey is currently being planned.
Bulk density	Whether assumed or determined. If assumed,the basis for the assumptions. If determined,the method used, whether wet or dry, thefrequency of the measurements, the nature,size and representativeness of the samples.The bulk density for bulk material must have	The density is assumed. No density measurements have been taken to date from drillsamples. A density of 3.2 t/m3 was applied to the Mineral Resource model based which isconsidered by the Competent Person to be appropriate for the host rock lithology.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	been measured bymethods that adequatelyaccount for void spaces (vugs, porosity, etc),moisture and differences between rock andalteration zones within the deposit.Discuss assumptions for bulk densityestimates used in the evaluation process ofthe different materials.
Classification	The basis for the classification of the MineralResources into varying confidencecategories.Whether appropriate account has been takenof all relevant factors (ie relative confidence intonnage/grade estimations, reliability of inputdata, confidence in continuity of geology andmetal values, quality, quantity and distributionof the data).Whether the result appropriately reflects theCompetent Person's view of the deposit.	The Mineral Resource is classified as Inferred, as per the guidelines of the JORC Code(2012). The Inferred classification level was applied because the Competent Personconsiders the geological evidence is sufficient to imply but not verify geological and gradecontinuity.The geological logs from samples from the 21 RC and 2 diamond holes provide sufficientgeological information to support the classification level. Models from earlier aeromagneticsurveys support the geological interpretation and hence the classification. Bulk densitysamples were not taken, and qualityassurance / quality control analyses were not providedto the Competent Person for assessment.Appropriate consideration was given to all relevant factors –sample assays, geological logsand the geological interpretation, and the overall reliability of the input data.The Inferred classification appropriately reflects the Competent Person's view of the deposit.
Audits orreviews	The results of any audits or reviews of MineralResource estimates.	No independent audits or reviews of the Mineral Resource have been carried out.
Discussionof relativeaccuracy/confidence	Where appropriate a statement of the relativeaccuracy and confidence level in the MineralResource estimate using an approach orprocedure deemed appropriate by theCompetent Person. For example, theapplication of statistical or geostatisticalprocedures to quantify the relative accuracyof the resource within stated confidencelimits, or, if such an approach is not deemedappropriate, a qualitative discussion of thefactors that could affect the relative accuracyand confidence of the estimate.The statement should specify whether itrelates to global or local estimates, and, iflocal, state the relevant tonnages, which	The mineralisation domains were modelled by a geologist using geological logs from drillsamples. Grades were interpolated using ordinary kriging, an industry standard gradeestimation technique.The approach taken was deemed appropriate to the Competent Person to allow the MineralResource to be classified as Inferred, which reflects a low level of confidence in thegeological models and resource model, compared to higher classification levels (Indicated orMeasured) which would rely on substantially more data (drilling, geological mapping, densityanalyses, quality controlreviews) and which would garner a higher confidence rating for theMineral Resource.The Mineral Resource is a local estimate, whereby the drill hole data was geologicallydomained, resulting in fewer drill hole samples to interpolate the block model than thecomplete drill hole dataset, which would comprise a global estimate.No mining production data is available for reconciliation purposes.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	should be relevant to technical and economicevaluation. Documentationshould includeassumptions made and the procedures used.These statements of relative accuracy andconfidence of the estimate should becompared with production data, whereavailable.

AI assistant

SUREFIRE RESOURCES NL Capital/Financing Update 2018

65857_rns_2018-08-22_f4f6ed90-1cb7-4dfb-b976-a742aa9aa109.pdf