TASMAN RESOURCES LTD — Capital/Financing Update 2014

Mar 16, 2014

ACN 009 253 187

==> picture [151 x 58] intentionally omitted <==

AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES EXCHANGE ANNOUNCEMENT

17[th] March 2014

VULCAN PROJECT: NEW PRIORITY TARGETS

• Following Rio Tinto Exploration’s withdrawal from the Farm-In Agreement, Tasman is aiming to advance exploration at Vulcan through either a new joint venture with an appropriate partner or in Tasman’s own right.

• The Rio Tinto Farm-In provided a significant injection of funds into Tasman ($10 million), and this has enabled significant technical advancement of the Vulcan Project, and identification of a number of new, high priority targets for follow up. Several specific, high priority drilling locations have already been flagged for testing within these targets.

• Although drilling so far has not intersected thick medium to high grade mineralisation comparable to Olympic Dam, 30km to the south, only 17 holes have been drilled within the 12 km[2] Vulcan target zone. Significant parts of the Vulcan target remain completely unexplored and have the potential to host such mineralisation.

• On a more regional basis, a very large area (approximately 90km[2] ) immediately to the west of Vulcan is also believed to be an attractive, but more “grass roots” exploration target. Specific, priority drilling locations have been identified at the Zeus prospect, and also at Marathon East prospect, which is located south east of Vulcan.

iron oxide-copper-gold-uranium

Introduction

The Vulcan IOCGU Project is located approximately 30km north of Olympic Dam, and exploration drilling under the Tasman-Rio Tinto Exploration (RTX) Farm-In, commenced in late 2012. RTX announced their withdrawal from the Farm In (ASX Announcement 17[th] March, 2014) following the completion of a 12,000m drilling program by Tasman under the “Initial Exploration Program” of the Farm-In.

Vulcan is a very large IOCGU system, where drilling to date has intersected a number of very thick intervals of alteration and low grade mineralisation over a large target area (about 12km[2] ). Figure 1

Level 15, 197 St George’s Terrace, Perth, Western Australia 6000 Telephone: (08) 9282 5889 Facsimile: (08) 9282 5866 Website: www.tasmanresources.com.au

ASX Announcement 17[th] March 2014

==> picture [53 x 21] intentionally omitted <==

shows the outline of the target area as defined by gravity data and the location of the 17 drill holes completed to date. New priority exploration targets recently identified are shown as ellipses, and discussed below. Within these target areas several specific high priority drilling locations have already been flagged for testing.

==> picture [463 x 345] intentionally omitted <==

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

Footprint of
Carrapateena deposit
at same scale
----- End of picture text -----

Figure 1. Residual gravity image of the Vulcan IOCGU Project, showing the location of the recently defined exploration targets – the larger, high priority targets are shown as green ellipses and secondary targets in yellow. The surface projection of existing holes (numbered) are shown as linear traces, with the basement intersection in each shown in aqua (drill hole SHD 1 was drilled in 1981 by WMC). Also shown at the same scale (as a superimposed white ellipse) is the area occupied by the Carrapateena deposit based on 2011 Inferred Resource (located approximately 120km to the south southeast). (Datum GDA 94; MGA Zone 53).

Exploration Results to Date and New Targets Highlighted

Although drilling has so far not intersected thick and medium to high grade mineralisation, Tasman believes there are clearly a number of very positive outcomes from the drilling completed to date that confirm that Vulcan is indeed the site of a very large hydrothermal system, comparable in gross size to Olympic Dam. It is quite possible that based on the size of Vulcan, the overall inadequacy of drill testing to date and the variable styles of the large IOCGU systems in the region that a substantial deposit could be found with further exploration and investigation.

Drilling has confirmed the magnitude of the Vulcan IOCGU system:

• All holes drilled to date, have intersected varying and often very substantial down hole thicknesses of IOCGU style alteration, with or without significant thicknesses of mineralisation. These include the very wide down hole intersections of mineralisation in

2

ASX Announcement 17[th] March 2014

==> picture [53 x 21] intentionally omitted <==

holes VUD 7, 11, 12, 15 and 17. (refer ASX Announcements 2 March 2011, 11 and 27 February 2013, and 15 August 2013, available on the company website).

• VUD 9 to 13 & VUD 16 have confirmed that where tested, the large southern gravity target (at least 3km[2] in area), is part of the Vulcan system. (refer also, ASX Announcements 28 September 2012 and 19 October 2012, and quarterly report March 2013, available on the company website).

• VUD 17 has confirmed that the north eastern limb of the southern gravity target is represented by a thick (at least 100m down hole), hematite-rich mineralised body which probably extends over a strike length of at least 2km, and probably much more based on the gravity signature. Within this limb, the style of mineralisation and host breccias and the alteration assemblage as intersected in VUD 17 (refer ASX Quarterly Report 31 January 2014, and in VUD 7; refer ASX Announcement 2 March 2011, “Vulcan Drilling Reveals Similar Mineralisation to Olympic Dam” available on the company website ) are similar to a very large portion of the Olympic Dam deposit, particularly the eastern and south eastern part.

The downside of confirming the large size of Vulcan is that the 17 holes drilled to date are considered inadequate in effectively testing a target of this size. Some holes are clustered in relatively small zones (eg. VUD 1, 2, 3 and 4), and elsewhere testing is absent to inadequate (eg. main southern target), so drill testing to date has been by no means uniform or effective.

Drilling has confirmed the potential for economic grades and widths of mineralisation at Vulcan:

Drill hole VUD 3, in the north, contains several higher grade intersections including 7.8m down hole at 1.21% Cu, (and 0.35g/t Au) within a much thicker interval of 56.65m at 0.59% Cu. This intersection also includes a number of other thin higher grade zones such as 0.75m at 4.44% Cu, 1.34g/t Au, 0.58kg/t U3O8 and 0.65m at 7.82% Cu, 2.41g/t Au and 0.03kg/t U3O8 (refer ASX Announcement 6 July 2010, “Vulcan Drilling Update” available on the company website ). See drill core photos in Figures 3 and 4 below.

==> picture [406 x 86] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3: VUD 3, massive pyrite/chalcopyrite (NQ drill core)

==> picture [406 x 73] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 4: VUD 3, detail of chalcopyrite/pyrite within IOCGU breccia (NQ drill core)

Drill hole VUD 15, also in the north, has highlighted the potential for economic grade mineralisation, (see priority area highlighted in Figure 1- Northern Target). VUD 15 (see Figure 5) intersected 145m down hole at 0.49% Cu and 0.26g/t Au, including 21m at 1.69% Cu and 1.05g/t Au (refer ASX Announcement 15 August 2013, “Encouraging Results from Latest Drill Hole at Vulcan” available on the company website) indicating that significant quantities of metal at reasonable grade have been introduced into Vulcan, particularly at the north.

3

ASX Announcement 17[th] March 2014

==> picture [53 x 21] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [218 x 173] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [241 x 174] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 5: Examples of mineralized drill core from VUD 15. Left: Hematite breccias with vein and disseminated-style chalcopyrite/pyrite mineralization (yellow). Right: Vein-style chalcopyrite/pyrite mineralization within a probable mafic dyke.

The north eastern “limb” of Vulcan requires further evaluation:

As noted above, the north eastern “limb” as intersected in VUD 7 and 17 exhibits some very similar geological characteristics to a significant portion of the Olympic Dam deposit, but so far, at a lower grade. It seems unlikely that these two drill holes within such a large target have effectively tested it, and that there will be no higher grade, large bodies of mineralisation somewhere in this area. It seems likely that these targets will be in more oxidised positions, where there has been development of higher metal tenor, identified by their weaker magnetic response compared to the surrounding areas. See priority area highlighted in Figure 1 – North Eastern Target.

==> picture [192 x 143] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [240 x 143] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 6: Left: VUD 7 drill core showing disseminated pyrite/chalcopyrite within a hematite matrixrich breccia. Right: VUD 17, similar style of breccia and mineralization to VUD 7 at left (NQ drill core).

The main southern anomaly is inadequately tested:

The main southern gravity anomaly is clearly inadequately tested due largely to Aboriginal Heritage access restrictions. This is unfortunate, as the main gravity and magnetic anomalies are clearly due to a very large and iron-rich mineralised IOCGU system, within which there is ample opportunity for large deposits to be located. Drill testing of the main southern anomaly is limited to six holes, essentially all collared from along one east-west track, with most holes angled generally towards the south. The anomaly is not tested at all within its central or southern

4

ASX Announcement 17[th] March 2014

==> picture [53 x 21] intentionally omitted <==

portions, or north of the track, a combined area which accounts for probably over 50% of the southern anomaly. See priority area highlighted in Figure 1- Main Southern Target.

The potential for Carrapateena-style occurrences (or variants) with economic tonnages and grades within the Vulcan system is also a real possibility:

It is believed that there is also excellent potential for Vulcan to host (several) Carrapateena-style IOCGU deposits (or variants) within the main Vulcan target zone. Vulcan is a very large system, but Carrapateena itself has a relatively small footprint and is very steeply dipping. The highergrade bornite component of Carrapateena is also very steep and has an even smaller footprint. Hence, simplistically, there is ample “room” for Vulcan to host a number of Carrapateena-style deposits, and no reasons to believe at this stage that this is not a real possibility (see Figure 1). The challenge, however, is to target the precise drill sites within the very large Vulcan system.

Testing the regional potential is required:

A large area to the immediate west of Vulcan is believed to be an attractive, if more “grass roots” style exploration target. This area, which includes the Zeus IOCGU target (refer Figure 7) is about 90km[2] in area and is highlighted by a number of moderate-strength gravity and magnetic anomalies which appear to occupy the area linking the Vulcan IOCGU system to another large (but low grade and magnetite dominated) IOCGU system at Titan and the adjacent undrilled Zeus prospect.

Available drilling data suggests that basement in most of this area is probably shallower than at Vulcan; for example the depth to basement is generally about 600m at Titan. Specific high priority drilling targets have already been identified at Zeus.

==> picture [449 x 312] intentionally omitted <==

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

Marathon South Target
----- End of picture text -----

Figure 7: Lake Torrens Project, Bouguer Gravity Image with Residual Gravity Insert showing Titan and Zeus Prospects.

5

ASX Announcement 17[th] March 2014

==> picture [53 x 21] intentionally omitted <==

The Way Forward

Tasman is currently considering the best way to advance exploration at its Vulcan Project and the surrounding more grass roots prospects within its tenements at Lake Torrens. It may be undertaken by way of a joint venture with a third party, if a suitable joint venture partner is found. Alternatively, Tasman may elect to proceed on its own for the time being and drill further holes into the high priority, untested targets that have already been identified. A decision on which alternative will be adopted is likely to be made over the next few months after all options have been carefully explored.

==> picture [143 x 35] intentionally omitted <==

Greg Solomon Executive Chairman

Disclaimer

The interpretations and conclusions reached in this announcement are based on current geological theory and the best evidence available to the authors at the time of writing. It is the nature of all scientific conclusions that they are founded on an assessment of probabilities and, however high these probabilities might be, they make no claim for complete certainty. Any economic decisions that might be taken on the basis of interpretations or conclusions contained in this report will therefore carry an element of risk.

It should not be assumed that the reported Exploration Results will result, with further exploration, in the definition of a Mineral Resource.

Competent Persons Statement

The information in this announcement that relates to Exploration Results is based on and fairly represents information compiled by Robert N. Smith and Michael J. Glasson, Competent Persons who are members of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists.

Mr Smith and Mr Glasson are full-time employees of the company. Mr Smith is an option holder in the company and Mr Glasson is a share and option holder.

Mr Smith and Mr Glasson have sufficient experience that is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity being undertaken to qualify as Competent Persons as defined in the 2012 Edition of the ‘Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves’. Mr Smith and Mr Glasson consent to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on their information in the form and context in which it appears.

6

ASX Announcement 17[th] March 2014

==> picture [53 x 21] intentionally omitted <==

JORC TABLE 1 (Vulcan Project, EL 4322)

Section 1 Sampling techniques and data

JORC TABLE 1 (Vulcan Project, EL 4322)	JORC TABLE 1 (Vulcan Project, EL 4322)	JORC TABLE 1 (Vulcan Project, EL 4322)
Section 1 Sampling techniques and data
	(criteria in this group apply to all succeeding groups)
Criteria	**JORC Code explanation **	Commentary
Sampling techniques.	 Nature and quality of sampling (EG cut channels, random chips or specific specialised industry standard measurement tools appropriate to the minerals under investigation, such as down hole gamma sondes, or handheld XRF instruments, etc). These examples should not be taken as limiting the broad meaning of sampling.  Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample representivity and the appropriate calibration of any measurement tools or systems used.  Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are Material to the Public Report. In cases where “industry standard” work has been done this would be relatively simple (eg “reverse circulation drilling was used to obtain 1m samples from which 3 kg was pulverised to produce a 30g charge for fire assay”). In other cases more explanation may be required, such as where there is coarse gold that has inherent sampling problems. Unusual commodities or mineralisation types (eg submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed information.	 All samples have been obtained from NQ2 diamond drill core. See further details below.  In general, core recovery at Vulcan is 100% or close to it, and normally drilling will fill a six metre core barrel with each run. Rare instances where core loss is apparent are documented. Each piece of drill core is washed and carefully placed in plastic core trays for geological logging.  Mineralisation at Vulcan is essentially disseminated in nature, and half core, NQ2 split samples, collected over one metre intervals is believed to be appropriate. The composite samples prepared from small core chips are clearly less representative, and as mentioned, any significant mineralisation returned for such samples is confirmed by half core splitting and re-assaying over one metre intervals.
Drilling techniques.	 Drill type (eg. core, reverse circulation, open-hole hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka etc.) and details (eg. core diameter, triple or standard tube, depth of diamond tails, face-sampling bit or other type, whether core is oriented and if so, by what method, etc.).	 All drilling at Vulcan is conducted by first pre-collaring holes with reverse circulation drilling to approximately 150m, and completing the hole with a combination of HQ and NQ2 diamond drilling. All basement core is NQ2 size. Standard, 6m core barrels are generally used, and core is oriented using aReflex ACTtool.

7

==> picture [53 x 21] intentionally omitted <==

ASX Announcement 17[th] March 2014

Drill sample recovery.	 Whether core and chip sample recoveries have been properly recorded and results assessed.  Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and ensure representative nature of the samples.  Whether a relationship exists between sample recovery and grade and whether sample bias may have occurred due to preferential loss/gain of fine/coarse material.	 Most diamond drilling at Vulcan results in 100% core recovery or close to it. In rare cases where there has been some core loss, this is measured and recorded by the geologist logging the core. There has been no need to use, for example, triple tubes to enhance core recovery.  As sample recovery is or close to 100% no special measures have been required.  As sample recovery is 100% or close to it no investigation of a potential relationship between grade and sample recovery has been conducted.
Logging.	 Whether core and chip samples have been logged to a level of detail to support appropriate Mineral Resource estimation, mining studies and metallurgical studies.  Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in nature. Core (or costean, channel etc.) photography.  The total length and percentage of the relevant intersections logged.	 Logging is conducted in detail at the drill site by the site geologist, who routinely records lithology and rock textures, alteration, mineralisation, structures or any other relevant features. A semi-quantitative estimate of the strength of uranium mineralisation is made with a hand held scintillometer, and this is recorded in the drill logs. Core is logged both descriptively and with digital codes. All basement drill core is logged in detail; the overlying sedimentary cover sequence is logged in less detail. Each tray of basement core is photographed, and separate photos of specific geological details are also collected. It is considered to be logged at a level of detail to support appropriate Mineral Resource estimation and mining studies.  Logging is qualitative in nature.  The entire interval of basement drill core in each hole is logged.

8

ASX Announcement 17[th] March 2014

==> picture [53 x 21] intentionally omitted <==

Sub-sampling techniques and sample preparation.	 If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, half or all core taken.  If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split etc. and whether sampled wet or dry.  For all sample types, the nature, quality and appropriateness of the sample preparation technique.  Quality control procedures adopted for all sub-sampling stages to maximise representivity of samples.  Measures taken to ensure that the sampling is representative of the in situ material collected.  Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grainsize of the material being sampled.	 Sawn, half core is taken for analysis.  No non-core samples are taken.  Where significant mineralisation is believed to be present, core is halved or split with a diamond saw; if mineralisation is not homogeneously distributed in sections of the core, the geologist logging the core will have marked up those sections to ensure representivity between each half of the core when it is split. One metre long samples of half core are then removed for analysis. If little, or no significant mineralisation is present, small pieces of core are cut out at 25cm intervals and composited over several metres (often 5m intervals) for assay. If assay reveals significant mineralisation in these composite samples, then re-assay on one metre intervals following splitting is conducted. Mineralisation at Vulcan is essentially disseminated in nature, and half core, NQ2 split samples, collected over one metre intervals is believed to be appropriate. The composite samples prepared from small core chips are clearly less representative, and as mentioned, any significant mineralisation returned for such samples is confirmed by half core splitting and re-assaying over one metre intervals. Field duplicate/second-half sampling is not considered appropriate.
Quality of assay data and laboratory tests.	 The nature, quality and appropriateness of the assaying and laboratory procedures used and whether the technique is considered partial or total.  For geophysical tools, spectrometer, handheld XRF instruments, etc, the parameters used in determining the analysis including instrument make and model, reading times, calibrations factors applied and their derivation etc.  Nature of quality control procedures adopted (eg. standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (ie. lack of bias) and precision have been established.	 Samples were crushed and pulverised, and analysed as follows: Au by fire assay using the Genalysis scheme FA25/MS with a 1 ppb detection limit. Cu was analysed by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrography by Genalysis 4A/OE scheme (1ppm detection limit), and Ag and U3O8 by the Genalysis 4A/MS scheme (0.05ppm and 0.01ppm respectively). Density was determined by gas pycnometer. These procedures are considered appropriate for the elements and style of mineralisation. Analysis is considered total.  As noted above, a handheld scintillometer is used to assess semi- quantitatively the strength of any uranium mineralisation, but these data are not included in any database.  The laboratory uses a number of internal quality control procedures in place (eg. standards, blanks, duplicates etc.) and Tasman includes a quality control standard of its own with each batch of samples. These quality control data are assessed continuously, and believed to be adequate in achieving accuracy and precision.

9

==> picture [53 x 21] intentionally omitted <==

ASX Announcement 17[th] March 2014

Verification of sampling and assaying.	 The verification of significant intersections by either independent or alternative company personnel.  The use of twinned holes.  Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data verification, data storage (physical and electronic) protocols.  Discuss any adjustment to assay data.	 Significant intersections are determined by company personnel, and checked internally.  No twinned holes have been drilled at this stage nor are they practical considering the depth to basement.  Individual sample numbers are generated and matched with down hole depths at a custom core processing facility in Adelaide. Sample numbers are then used to match assays when received from the laboratory. Verification of data is managed and checked by company personnel with extensive experience. All data is stored electronically, with industry standard systems and backups.  Data is not subject to any adjustments.
Location of data points.	 Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drill holes (collar and down-hole surveys), trenches, mine workings and other locations used in Mineral Resource estimation.  Specification of the grid system used.  Quality and adequacy of topographic control.	 Collar locations were determined by hand held GPS and are accurate to approximately +/- 5m (northing and easting); GPS derived RLs are not sufficiently accurate for use, and a combination of values obtained during gravity surveying and from Google Earth are used. Down hole surveying of drill holes is conducted using a single shot down hole camera with digital readout.  The grid system used is Geodetic Datum of Australia 1994; MGA Zone 53.  Topographic control is not a significant issue due to the generally flat topography. Measurements of RL from Google Earth are considered in conjunction with more accurate data obtained during gravity surveys over theVulcanarea.
Data spacing and distribution.	 Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results.  Whether the data spacing and distribution is sufficient to establish the degree of geological and grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve estimation procedure(s) and classifications applied.  Whether sample compositing has been applied.	 Drill holes are not spaced on a regular grid due to topographical features on the surface, Aboriginal heritage issues and the early stage nature of the prospect.  No continuity or correlation between drill holes is implied at this stage.  Some sample compositing is used in zones of non-significant mineralisation (see sections above)
Orientation of data in relation to geological structure.	 Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased sampling of possible structures and the extent to which this is known, considering the deposit type.  If the relationship between the drilling orientation and the orientation of key mineralised structures is considered to have introduced a sampling bias, this should be assessed and reported if material.	 At this stage the relationship between the orientation of geological structures and the drill holes is not known.  This is discussed and addressed in the body of the announcement or report. It is likely that the thicknesses of any intersections reported as down hole thicknesses, are not the true widths of the intersections.

10

==> picture [53 x 21] intentionally omitted <==

ASX Announcement 17[th] March 2014

Sample security	 The measures taken to ensure sample security.	 All core is contained in core trays, which are packed onto pallets at the drill site by company personnel. The core trays are covered, then tightly secured with steel strapping prior to transport initially to a local freight yard and then trans-shipped to the Adelaide custom core processing facility. No tamperinghas occurred to date.
Audits or reviews.	 The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data.	 No review or audits of sampling techniques or data have been conducted.

11

ASX Announcement 17[th] March 2014

==> picture [53 x 21] intentionally omitted <==

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results (Vulcan Project, EL 4322)

(criteria listed in the preceding group apply also to this group)

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results(Vulcan Project, EL 4322) (criteria listed in the preceding group apply also to this group)	Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results(Vulcan Project, EL 4322) (criteria listed in the preceding group apply also to this group)	Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results(Vulcan Project, EL 4322) (criteria listed in the preceding group apply also to this group)
Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Mineral tenement and land tenure status.	 Type, reference name/number, location and ownership including agreements or material issues with third parties such as joint ventures, partnerships, overriding royalties, native title interests, historical sites, wilderness or national park and environmental settings.  The security of the tenure held at the time of reporting along with any known impediments to obtaining a licence to operate in the area.	 Exploration Licence No 4322, is located approximately 13km north of Olympic Dam, South Australia and owned 100% by Tasman Resources Ltd. There are no partnerships or royalties involved. The EL is partially covered by the Kokatha Uwankara native title claim (SC2009/01), and agreements between the claimants and Tasman designed to protect Aboriginal heritage sites. There are no historical or wilderness sites or national parks or known environmental settings that affect the Vulcan prospect.  Tasman has secure tenure over the EL at the time of reporting and there are no known impediments to obtaining a licence to operate in the area.
Exploration done by other parties.	 Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties.	 The first drill hole in the area was drilled in 1981 by WMC Resources, but was drilled off Tasman’s current Vulcan target, and no mineralisation was intersected. Tasman’s former joint venture partner WCP Resources Ltd conducted some ground gravity surveying, data processing and modelling, but conducted no further work. No other exploration has been conducted by other parties, apart from regional geophysical surveys by Government Departments. Tasman discovered Vulcan prospect in November 2009, with the drilling of VUD001.
Geology.	 Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation.	 Vulcan is emerging as a major iron- oxide, copper gold uranium type system (IOCGU), with many geological similarities to Olympic Dam, about 30km south. Vulcan occurs within basement rocks beneath approximately 800m of younger, flat- lying sedimentary cover rocks. Vulcan has been dated at 1,586 +/- 8 million years old, the same at Olympic Dam (Proterozoic age). Only a very limited number of drill holes have been completed within a very large target area, and there are still many questions to be resolved, such as host rocks, regional structural settingetc.

12

==> picture [53 x 21] intentionally omitted <==

ASX Announcement 17[th] March 2014

Drill hole informati _on. _	 A summary of all information material to the understanding of the exploration results including a tabulation of the following information for all Material drill holes:  Easting and northing of the drill hole collar  Elevation or RL (Reduced Level- elevation above sea level in metres) of the drill hole collar  Dip and azimuth of the hole  Down hole length and interception depth  Hole length	 Refer to details in the body of the report or announcement.
Data aggregation methods.	 In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging techniques, maximum and/or minimum grade truncations (eg. cutting of high grades) and cut-off grades are usually material and should be stated.  Where aggregate intercepts incorporate short lengths of high grade results and longer lengths of low grade results, the procedure used for such aggregation should be stated and some typical examples of such aggregations should be shown in detail.  The assumptions used for any reporting of metal equivalent values should be clearly stated.	 Average assays for the intervals stated above were calculated by weighting by sample length and sample density. There has been no cutting of high grades, unless specifically noted. For individual assays below the lower limit of detection, a grade of half the detection limit has been applied, although this is rare.  Generally assays are relatively consistent within averaged intervals. If particularly high grade samples diluted by lower grade samples were returned, then this would be highlighted specifically.  No metal equivalent values have been calculated.
Relationship between mineralisation widths and intercept lengths.	 These relationships are particularly important in the reporting of Exploration Results.  If the geometry of the mineralisation with respect to the drill hole angle is known, its nature should be reported.  If it is not known and only the down-hole lengths are reported, there should be a clear statement to this effect (eg. ‘downhole length, true width not known’).	 At the current stage of evaluation of Vulcan, the orientation of mineralisation is not known with any certainty, and hence all statements regarding drill hole intersections are clarified with the comment that intersections are “down hole”.
Diagrams.	 Where possible, maps and sections (with scales) and tabulations of intercepts should be included for any material discovery being reported if such diagrams significantly clarify the report.	 Diagrams showing a plan view of drill hole collar locations and any appropriate sectional view are included.

13

==> picture [53 x 21] intentionally omitted <==

ASX Announcement 17[th] March 2014

Balanced reporting.	 Where comprehensive reporting of all Exploration Results is not practicable, representative reporting of both low and high grades and/or widths should be practiced to avoid misleading reporting of Exploration Results.	 It is impracticable to report all assay results due to the multi-element nature of the mineralisation and the substantial thicknesses involved (these can be hundreds of metres). Accordingly, intervals for reporting have been selected having regard for the main elements of potential economic significance in IOCGU systems (copper, gold, uranium), at levels and widths considered to exhibit a high degree of anomalism, potential to provide vectors to economic mineralisation or represent potentially economicmaterial.
Other substantive exploration data.	 Other exploration data, if meaningful and material, should be reported including (but not limited to): geological observations; geophysical survey results; geochemical survey results; bulk samples - size and method of treatment; metallurgical test results; bulk density, groundwater, geotechnical and rock characteristics; potential deleterious or contaminating substances.	 Any other substantive exploration data such as pertinent geological observations, petrographic data, geochronological data, geophysical results are included where appropriate.
Further work.	 The nature and scale of planned further work (eg. tests for lateral extensions or depth extensions or large-scale step-out drilling).  Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions, including the main geological interpretations and future drilling areas, provided this information is not commercially sensitive	 The nature and timing of planned further work is included in the report.

14