Xtract Resources PLC

Jan16 v1

Directors: D v Heerden, NJ Odendaal, U Engelmann, CP Mostert

Company Registration No.: 2004/029587/07

Xtract Resources PLC

An Independent Technical Report on

the Mineral Resources of the Fair

Bride Gold Deposit on the 3990C

Mining Concession, Manica Province,

Mozambique

Minxcon Reference: M2015_065a

Effective Date: 04 March 2016

Version: Final v2

Issue Date: 15 April 2016

Prepared by Minxcon (Pty) Ltd

Suite 5 Coldstream Office Park,

Little Falls, Roodepoort, South Africa

Tel: +2711 958 2899


An Independent Technical Report on the Mineral Resources of the Fair Bride Gold Deposit on the 3990C Mining Concession,

Manica Province, Mozambique i

U ENGELMANN

BSc (Zoo & Bot), BSc (Geol.), BSc Hons. (Geol.)

Pr.Sci.Nat., MGSSA

DIRECTOR, MINXCON

COMPETENT PERSON DECLARATION

I, Uwe Engelmann, in the capacity of Competent Person of this SAMREC Technical Report, do hereby

certify that:-

1. To the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the Report contains all scientific and

technical information required to be disclosed to make the Report not misleading.

2. The facts presented in the Report are correct to the best of my knowledge.

3. The analyses and conclusions are limited only by the reported forecasts and conditions.

4. I have no present or prospective interest in the subject property or asset.

5. My compensation, employment or contractual relationship with the Commissioning Entity is

not contingent on any aspect of the Report.

6. I have no bias with respect to the assets that are the subject of the Report, or to the

parties involved with the assignment.

Yours faithfully,



Manica Province, Mozambique ii

AUTHOR(S)

L Hope (Senior Resource Geologist)

NHD (Econ. Geol.), Pr.Sci.Nat.

U Engelmann (Director)

BSc (Zoo. & Bot.), BSc Hons (Geol.), Pr.Sci.Nat., MGSSA

REVIEWED

PG Obermeyer (Mineral Resource Manager)

BSc Hons (Geol.), Pr.Sci.Nat.

U Engelmann (Director)

BSc (Zoo. & Bot.), BSc Hons (Geol.), Pr.Sci.Nat., MGSSA



Manica Province, Mozambique iii

DISCLAIMER AND RISKS

This Report was prepared by Minxcon (Pty) Ltd (“Minxcon”). In the preparation of the Report,

Minxcon utilised information relating to operational methods and expectations provided to them by

various sources. Where possible, Minxcon has verified this information from independent sources

after making due enquiry of all material issues that are required in order to comply with the

requirements of the SAMREC Code. Minxcon and its directors accept no liability for any losses

arising from reliance upon the information presented in this Report. The authors of this report are

not qualified to provide extensive commentary on legal issues associated with rights to the mineral

properties and relied on the information provided to them by the issuer. No warranty or guarantee,

be it express or implied, is made by the authors with respect to the completeness or accuracy of

the legal aspects of this document.

OPERATIONAL RISKS

The business of mining and mineral exploration, development and production by their nature

contain significant operational risks. The business depends upon, amongst other things, successful

prospecting programmes and competent management. Profitability and asset values can be

affected by unforeseen changes in operating circumstances and technical issues.

POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC RISK

Factors such as political and industrial disruption, currency fluctuation and interest rates could

have an impact on future operations, and potential revenue streams can also be affected by these

factors. The majority of these factors are, and will be, beyond the control of any operating entity.

FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENT

Certain statements contained in this document other than statements of historical fact, contain

forward-looking statements regarding the operations, economic performance or financial condition,

including, without limitation, those concerning the economic outlook for the mining industry,

expectations regarding commodity prices, exchange rates, production, cash costs and other

operating results, growth prospects and the outlook of operations, including the completion and

commencement of commercial operations of specific production projects, its liquidity and capital

resources and expenditure, and the outcome and consequences of any pending litigation or

enforcement proceedings.

Although Minxcon believes that the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements are

reasonable, no assurance can be given that such expectations will prove to be correct. Accordingly,

results may differ materially from those set out in the forward-looking statements as a result of,

among other factors, changes in economic and market conditions, changes in the regulatory

environment and other State actions, success of business and operating initiatives, fluctuations in

commodity prices and exchange rates, and business and potential risk management.


An Independent Technical Report on the Mineral Resources of the Fair Bride Gold Deposit on the 3990C Mining Concession, Manica

Province, Mozambique iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Minxcon (Pty) Ltd (“Minxcon”) was commissioned by Xtract Resources PLC (“Xtract”, “the Company” or

“the Client”) to complete an Independent Technical Report (or the “Report”) on the Mineral Resources

of the Fair Bride Prospect, (“Fair Bride”) on the 3990C Mining Concession of the Manica Gold Project,

(“Manica” or “Project”), situated in the Odzi-Mutare-Manica Greenstone Belt of Mozambique and

Zimbabwe. This document is intended as a Mineral Resource estimation update of the Fair Bride

Prospect within the greater Manica Project. The Report has an effective date of 4 March 2016.

The Mineral Resources are considered by the Competent Person to be fully compliant with the South

African Code for the Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves (2008

Edition, as amended 2009) (“the SAMREC Code”) and the South African Code for the Reporting of Mineral

Asset Valuation (2008) (“the SAMVAL Code”) and Section 12 of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange listing

requirements. The Competent Person of the Report deems this summary a true reflection of the content

of the full Technical Report.

The Fair Bride Prospect, located on the 3990C Mining Concession of the Manica Gold Project, was visited

by the Competent Person, Mr Uwe Engelmann, from the 15th of March 2016 to the 17 th of March 2016.

The total area of the Mining Concession 3990C is approximately 42 km2 and the area of focus in the Fair

Bride prospect covers an area of approximately 1.53 km2. The Mining Concession 3990C is located

approximately 4 km north of the city of Manica and 52 km southwest of the city of Honde in the Manica

Province of Mozambique.

Manica is a historical gold mining area with prehistoric mining and exploration activities. Known

historical exploration activities on the Fair Bride prospect have taken place since 1964. The Brigada de

Formento Mineiro (“BFM”) first explored the area in 1964 where they conducted geological mapping of

the project area. They were followed by Lonrho in 1987, and then by Explorator Limitada who were

sponsored by Pangea.

From 2001 to 2011, Pan African Resources (“PAF”) conducted extensive exploration activities followed

by Auroch Minerals who subsequently drilling additional drillholes from 2013 to 2015, prior to the

acquisition of the property by Xtract.

The Project Area is located within the 2.6-2.7 Ga Odzi-Mutare-Manica (“OMM”) Greenstone Belt which

occurs on the eastern side of the Zimbabwe Craton, which formed the northern portion of the larger

Kalahari Craton. The OMM Greenstone Belt is predominately composed of a strong east-west trend and

locally folded ultramafic/mafic volcanics and serpentinites alongside metasediments. Tonalite

trondjhemite granodiorite (TTG) granite gneisses of the Vumba Granite Gneisses form a boundary to the

OMM Greenstone Belt to the north and south. The Messica Granite Gneisses truncate the eastern margin

of OMM Greenstone Belt and are the predominant unit making up the Kalahari Craton in the area. Slight

changes in the regional trend are thought to suggest a sinistral sense of shear along the northern craton

margin (Grieve, 2015). Beyond and including the western fraction of the Messica Granite Gneiss, the

dominant trend in the Mozambique Metamorphic Belt becomes dominantly north-south (Manhica et. al.,

2001). The contact where the Kalahari Craton terminates against the Mozambique Metamorphic Belt in

the east is a result of the Grenville Orogeny that formed the first supercontinent, Rodinia (1,000-1,200

Ma). Gneisses, migmatites, granitoids with mafic, quartzite, marble and calc-silicate intercalations are



Province, Mozambique v

the main constituent of the Mozambique Metamorphic Belt which is interpreted to have formed from a

turbidite sequence. North-south orientated mafic dykes occur in both the Kalahari Craton and

Mozambique Metamorphic Belt and are increasingly metamorphosed towards the craton boundary

(Grieve, 2015).

The eastern extension of the OMM Greenstone Belt is known as the Manica Greenstone Belt. There is a

change in the general strike of the greenstone belt which is likely to be representative of shearing,

evidence for which is found along the greenstone margins constrained by the Vumba Granite Gneisses

(Manhica et. al., 2001). This regional shear is considered to be related to the crustal scale east-

northeast to northeast trending Mutare-Masvingo-Sandawana (“MMS”) Shear Zone (Stepcich and Naidoo,

2012).

The Macequece Formation (in which the Fair Bride orebody occurs) and Vengo Formations are the most

important lithologies within the Manica area of the greenstone belt. Ultramafic/mafic metavolcanics

with intercalations of banded iron formation (“BIFs”), serpentinite and metachert are the main

constituent of the lowermost Macequece Formation. These rocks have been significantly altered by the

regional retrograde metamorphism becoming rich in talc, chlorite amphibole and tremolite. The Vengo

Formation which is interpreted to be a younger, shallow water sedimentary unit comprised of

metamorphosed shales, dolomitic limestones, siliceous volcanics, and quartzites, lies unconformably

over the Macequece Formation. The grade of metamorphism in the Odzi-Mutare-Manica Greenstone Belt

ranges from lower amphibolite facies to lower greenschist facies in the east around Manica and has

significantly altered these rocks.

There are three east-west trending synforms that have been identified, plunging 20°to 25° to the east

within the major OMM Greenstone Belt synform. Tight isoclinal antiforms, in some places, have been

truncated by thrust faults separated the synforms. Deformation is principally associated with the

Mutare-Masvingo-Sandawana (“MMS”) strike slip shear zone that extends 500 km from Eastern

Mozambique to Southern Zimbabwe (Grieve, 2015). Large (> 10 km) regional east-northeast structures

that vary in trend locally have been formed as a result of shearing.

Two adjacent regional shears which hosted the gold mineralisation within the Fair Bride project area are

located on the margins of one of the OMM Greenstone Belt synforms. The Fair Bride project is located on

the southern flanks of the syncline and strikes east-west.

The Project Area is situated on the southern part of the Mining Concession 3990C alongside a 7 km

extension of the BIF horizon.

Exploration activities conducted on Fair Bride suggested that gold occurrence or mineralisation is closely

associated with arsenopyrite and has been primarily intersected within the sedimentary units, BIF,

greywackes and phyllites. Gold mineralisation is usually controlled by quartz sulphide veins which occurs

as lenses along the shear zone.

Mineralisation is oxidised to a depth of about 50 m to 60 m below the surface. Minerals such as

magnetite, hematite, limonite, hornblende, carbonate, sericite, albite and auriferous pyrite,

arsenopyrite and pyrrhotite as well as native gold are the main constituent of the host rocks. The host

rocks lithologies contain orebodies which vary in thickness from 2 m to 30 m, are sub-vertical and with

strike lengths of several hundred metres.

A geological model of the Fair Bride orebody was constructed using the geological interpretation,

supplied by Xtract in the form of geological sections. These sections were used to create a wireframe for



Province, Mozambique vi

the orebody or mineralised portion. The sections represent a geological interpretation based on the

lithology and mineralisation which was correlated with physical characteristics in the core. The main

mineralisation occurs predominantly in the metasediments (BIF) and rhyolites. This lithological /

geological model was also tested against a grade shell halo which provided a good correlation. The

wireframe surfaces were also divided into an oxide, transition and sulphide zone based on the

weathering limits.

Historical exploration included surface mapping, soil geochemical surveys, trenching, magnetic and

induced polarity (“IP”) surveys. These all contributed to the target generation for the exploration

drilling. This drilling included diamond drilling and reverse circulation (“RC”) drilling.

A total of 113 RC drillholes totalling 9,265.97 m were completed on the Fair Bride prospect. RC drillholes

were drilled using a 120 mm bit using a face sampling hammer.

116 diamond drillholes, totalling 22,396.82 m, were completed on the Fair Bride prospect. All diamond

drillholes drilled prior to 2013 were drilled using HQ sized bits (63.50 mm) within the weathered zone

while the NQ sized bits (47.60 mm) were used to drill in more competent material (fresh rock). Those

drillholes drilled in 2012 and 2013 were drilled using PQ (85 mm) sized bits before casing off to HQ sized

bits.

During the various drilling campaigns, quality assurance and quality control (“QA/QC”) measures were

implemented, resulting in a reliable database. The database utilised for the Mineral Resource estimation

was deemed to be reliable and represent the geology of the Project which was confirmed during the site

inspection in March 2016.

94 diamond drillholes and 43 RC holes were utilised in the Mineral Resource estimation. Ordinary kriging

was used for the estimation methodology. Only samples falling within the ore boundary wireframe were

used for the estimation, and a capping regime was used where sample values exceeding 20 g/t over a 1

m composite were capped at 20 g/t (99th percentile). Soft boundaries were included to estimate the

oxide zone where data points were included from the transitional zone to inform the oxide zone. A

variogram range of 198 m in the long range and 149 m in the short range was used. The variogram was

also constrained in the Y range to 11 m to prevent overestimation across the width of the mineralised

zone. The final block estimate utilises a 5 m X 5 m X 5 m block size with sub cell splitting.

The Mineral Resource was classified into Measured, Indicated and Inferred categories as defined in the

SAMREC Code based on the kriging efficiency, number of samples and search radii.

The resultant Mineral Resource estimation, for the open pit and underground, for Fair Bride is shown in

the two tables below.

Open Pit Mineral Resource at 0.5 g/t Cut-off and Final Depth of 280 m Below Surface

Mineral Resource Category Tonnes Au Au Au

Mt g/t Kg Koz

Measured 9.750 1.86 18,130 582.9

Indicated 3.310 1.62 5,368 172.6

Total M&I 13.060 1.80 23,498 755.5

Inferred 0.894 1.17 1,049 33.7

Total Measured Indicated and Inferred 13.954 1.76 24,547 789.2



Province, Mozambique vii

Underground Mineral Resource at 1.5g/t Cut-off and Depth from 280 m Below Surface


Mt g/t Kg Koz

Measured 0.005 4.40 24 0.8

Indicated 0.307 2.61 801 25.8

Total M&I 0.312 2.64 825 26.5

Inferred 5.350 2.59 13,874 446.1

Total Measured Indicated and Inferred 5.662 2.60 14,699 472.6

Notes:

1. Orebody volume estimated from digital wireframe. 2. 2016 Mineral Resource estimation were carried out by Mr L. Hope of Minxcon (NHD (Econ Geol.), Pr.Sci.Nat.) under

supervision of and verified by Mr U Engelmann, as Competent Person of this Report. 3. The Inferred Mineral Resources have a large degree of uncertainty as to their existence and whether they can be

mined economically or legally. 4. Only Mineral Resources lying within the legal boundaries are reported. 5. Mineral Resources are inclusive of Mineral Reserves. 6. Mineral Resources are declared at cut-offs shown in the table above. 7. No Geological losses are accounted for. 8. All figures are in metric tonnes. 9. 1 kg = 32.15076 oz.

The grade tonnage curves and incremental cut-offs for the Total Mineral Resource Estimate for Fair

Bride is shown in the figure and table below.

Grade Tonnage Curve for the 2016 Total Mineral Resource

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

20.00

-

10,000,000

20,000,000

30,000,000

40,000,000

50,000,000

60,000,000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Ton

nes

Au Cut-off

TONNES

AU


An Independent Technical Report on the Mineral Resources of the Fair Bride Gold Deposit on the 3990C Mining Concession, Manica Province, Mozambique viii

Total Mineral Resource at Incremental Cut-offs

Au Cut Off

Mineral Resource Category

Measured Indicated Inferred Total Measured, Indicated and Inferred

Tonnes Au Au Au Tonnes Au Au Au Tonnes Au Au Au Tonnes Au Au Au

Mt g/t Kg KOz Mt g/t Kg KOz Mt g/t Kg KOz Mt g/t Kg KOz

0 18.28 1.09 19,885 639 9.47 0.80 7,583 244 22.77 1.00 22,852 735 50.52 1.00 50,320 1,618

0.5 9.76 1.86 18,163 584 4.24 1.59 6,757 217 12.93 1.65 21,313 685 26.93 1.72 46,233 1,486

1 6.14 2.53 15,542 500 2.57 2.16 5,543 178 8.56 2.10 18,007 579 17.27 2.26 39,093 1,257

1.5 4.05 3.20 12,970 417 1.63 2.69 4,380 141 5.56 2.58 14,324 461 11.24 2.82 31,674 1,018

2 2.79 3.87 10,798 347 1.05 3.22 3,385 109 3.55 3.06 10,842 349 7.39 3.39 25,026 805

2.5 2.00 4.51 9,042 291 0.67 3.79 2,530 81 2.27 3.51 7,989 257 4.94 3.96 19,561 629

3 1.49 5.13 7,632 245 0.44 4.32 1,920 62 1.43 3.98 5,689 183 3.36 4.54 15,241 490

3.5 1.12 5.75 6,443 207 0.30 4.83 1,457 47 0.85 4.53 3,828 123 2.27 5.17 11,728 377

4 0.88 6.31 5,536 178 0.22 5.27 1,143 37 0.52 5.03 2,590 83 1.61 5.76 9,269 298

4.5 0.69 6.86 4,760 153 0.15 5.73 861 28 0.31 5.57 1,719 55 1.15 6.37 7,340 236

5 0.56 7.38 4,110 132 0.10 6.16 645 21 0.19 6.09 1,162 37 0.85 6.94 5,917 190

5.5 0.44 7.93 3,511 113 0.07 6.65 455 15 0.12 6.53 810 26 0.64 7.52 4,776 154

6 0.36 8.46 3,014 97 0.04 7.13 319 10 0.08 6.93 572 18 0.48 8.08 3,905 126

6.5 0.28 9.02 2,566 82 0.03 7.48 243 8 0.05 7.35 377 12 0.37 8.65 3,186 102

7 0.23 9.53 2,217 71 0.02 7.98 155 5 0.03 7.79 240 8 0.28 9.24 2,611 84

7.5 0.19 9.99 1,937 62 0.01 8.38 105 3 0.02 8.35 132 4 0.22 9.79 2,174 70

8 0.17 10.37 1,722 55 0.01 8.93 60 2 0.01 9.14 60 2 0.18 10.27 ,841 59

8.5 0.14 10.83 1,480 48 0.00 9.35 40 1 0.00 9.49 46 1 0.15 10.74 1,566 50

9 0.11 11.26 1,275 41 0.00 9.73 25 1 0.00 10.17 25 1 0.12 11.20 1,326 43

9.5 0.09 11.65 1,101 35 0.00 10.18 16 1 0.00 12.25 8 0 0.10 11.63 1,125 36

10 0.08 12.05 941 30 0.00 10.48 8 0 0.00 12.25 8 0 0.08 12.04 957 31



Province, Mozambique ix

Conclusions

The database is a reliable database for Mineral Resource Estimation;

After discussions with the project geologist, no fault was interpreted between the eastern and

western portions of the main (higher grade) Fair Bride orebody – this area potentially requires

further investigation;

Downhole surveys were not conducted on all the holes and this might influence the local

accuracy of the mineralised zone, as the two long holes ANDD039 and ANDD037 show significant

deviation;

The mineralised strike of the ore body is approximately 1,040 m;

Open pit resource has been declared to a depth of 280 m (which is the average depth of the two

modelled pits) – resource cut-off of 0.5 g/t;

The open pit is predominantly Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource;

The depth extension (underground resource) is predominantly in the Inferred Mineral Resource

category and is to a depth of approximately 530 m;

Currently the densities utilised are based on the oxide, transition and sulphide zones. There is

no split in the densities on lithology type – especially the BIFs and rhyolites which comprise the

majority of the orebody;

The 2016 Mineral Resource has a grade similar to that of the 2010 Mineral Resource estimation

but is lower than the 2014 Mineral Resource estimation. This is due to the fact that the 2014

estimation utilised local uniform conditioning (“LUC”) and the 2010 and 2016 estimation utilised

ordinary kriging;

It is Minxcon’s opinion that the ordinary kriging will deliver a more realistic mining grade for

mine design purposes; and

The 2016 Mineral Resource estimation honours the geology / lithology of the Fair Bride orebody.

Recommendations

The underground Mineral Resource, which is predominantly in the inferred category, requires

infill drilling to improve the confidence levels;

The additional drilling for the depth extension should be surveyed down the hole as the previous

long holes show significant deviations;

Additional drilling is required at the western portion of the strike to investigate if the depth

extension is also low grade;

The difference in the densities of the lithologies should be investigated to assess the impact;

and

It is the authors’ opinion that the ordinary kriged model should be utilised for mine design as it

gives a more realistic mining grade model.



Province, Mozambique x

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Issuer Receiving the Report .................................................................................. 1

1.2 Terms of Reference and Purpose of the Report .......................................................... 1

1.3 Competent Persons’ Personal Inspection of the Property .............................................. 2

2 Property Description and Location ................................................................................. 5

2.1 Area of the Property ........................................................................................... 5

2.2 Location of the Property ...................................................................................... 5

3 Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography .................................. 7

3.1 Accessibility ..................................................................................................... 7

3.2 Climate ........................................................................................................... 7

4 History ................................................................................................................... 8

4.1 Prior Ownership and Ownership Changes .................................................................. 8

4.2 Historical Exploration and Development ................................................................... 8

4.3 Historical Mineral Resource Estimates ...................................................................... 10

4.4 Historical Mineral Reserve Estimates ....................................................................... 10

4.5 Historical Production .......................................................................................... 10

5 Geological Setting and Mineralisation ........................................................................... 11

5.1 Regional Geology ............................................................................................... 11

5.2 Local and Property Geology .................................................................................. 12

5.3 Mineralisation ................................................................................................... 14

6 Deposit Types ........................................................................................................ 16

6.1 Mineral Deposits Being Investigated ........................................................................ 16

6.2 Geological Model ............................................................................................... 16

7 Exploration ........................................................................................................... 19

7.1 Survey Procedures and Parameters ......................................................................... 19

7.2 Sampling Methods and Sample Quality ..................................................................... 19

7.2.1 Gold in Soil Geochemical Survey ................................................................... 19

7.2.2 Arsenic in Soil Geochemical Survey ................................................................ 19

7.2.3 Trenching ............................................................................................... 19

7.3 Sample Data ..................................................................................................... 20

7.3.1 Gold in Soil Geochemical Survey ................................................................... 20

7.3.2 Arsenic in Soil Geochemical Survey ................................................................ 20



Province, Mozambique xi

7.3.3 Trenching ............................................................................................... 20

7.4 Results and Interpretation of Exploration Information .................................................. 20

8 Drilling ................................................................................................................. 25

8.1 Type and Extent of Drilling ................................................................................... 25

8.2 Factors Influencing the Accuracy of Results ............................................................... 25

8.3 Exploration Properties – DrillHole Details .................................................................. 25

9 Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security .................................................................... 31

9.1 Sample Handling Prior to Dispatch .......................................................................... 31

9.2 Sample Preparation and Analysis Procedures ............................................................. 31

9.3 Quality Assurance and Quality Control ..................................................................... 33

9.4 Adequacy of Sample Preparation ............................................................................ 34

9.5 Audits, Reviews and Material Risks ......................................................................... 34

10 Data Verification .................................................................................................... 35

10.1 Data Verification Procedures................................................................................. 35

10.2 Limitations on/Failure to Conduct Data Verification .................................................... 35

10.3 Adequacy of Data .............................................................................................. 35

11 Mineral Resource Estimates........................................................................................ 36

11.1 Data ............................................................................................................... 36

11.1.1 Data Density, Distribution and Reliability ........................................................ 36

11.1.2 Estimation Techniques ............................................................................... 37

11.1.3 Basic Statistics ......................................................................................... 37

11.1.4 Data Capping ........................................................................................... 38

11.1.5 Drillhole Assay Compositing ......................................................................... 39

11.1.6 Variogram Analysis .................................................................................... 40

11.1.7 Data Selection for Estimation ....................................................................... 41

11.1.8 Density .................................................................................................. 43

11.1.9 Block Estimation and Block Size .................................................................... 43

11.1.10 Checking and Validation ........................................................................... 46

11.1.11 Classification Criteria .............................................................................. 47

11.2 Disclosure Requirements for Mineral Resources .......................................................... 49

11.3 Individual Grade of Metals .................................................................................... 49

11.4 Mineral Resource Tabulations ................................................................................ 49

11.5 Factors Affecting Mineral Resource Estimates ............................................................ 54

11.6 Mineral Resource Reconciliation 2014-2016 ............................................................... 54

12 Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 56



Province, Mozambique xii

13 Recommendations ................................................................................................... 57

14 References ............................................................................................................ 58

15 Competent Person Qualifications ................................................................................. 59

15.1 Key Technical Staff ............................................................................................ 59

15.2 Competent Person Certificate ............................................................................... 59

16 Appendices ........................................................................................................... 61

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Historical Pit at Fair Bride Prospect (Looking West) ......................................................2

Figure 2: Photo of the Mineralised Metasediments “BIF” in the Main Pit (Looking West) ......................3

Figure 3: Photo of a Well Mineralised Intersection within the BIF in Drillhole ANDD093 .......................4

Figure 4: Location of Project Area .......................................................................................5

Figure 5: Location of Fair Bride Project .................................................................................6

Figure 6: Regional Geology .............................................................................................. 11

Figure 7: Lithology within the Odzi-Mutare-Manica Greenstone Belt ............................................ 13

Figure 8: Simplified Lithostratigraphy of the Zimbabwe Craton .................................................. 14

Figure 9: Project Geology ................................................................................................ 15

Figure 10: Xtract Section 486955 in 1:500 Scale used for the Geological Model Wireframe Supplied by

Xtract (Looking East) ..................................................................................................... 17

Figure 11: Xtract Section 486855 with Datamine Geological Model Wireframe (Looking East) ............. 17

Figure 12: Final Geological Model Wireframe used for Mineral Resource Estimation (Looking Southwest) 18

Figure 13: Ground Magnetic Survey Total Magnetic Intensity Showing Grade Intersections in Drillholes . 21

Figure 14: Gradient Array Induced Polarity Chargeability Showing Grade Intersections in Drillholes...... 21

Figure 15: VTEM dBdt Anomaly Showing Grade Intersections in Drillholes ...................................... 22

Figure 16: Calculated Vertical Derivative of Total Magnetic Intensity Showing Grade Intersections in

Drillholes .................................................................................................................... 23

Figure 17: Gold in Soil Showing Grade Intersections in Drillholes ................................................ 24

Figure 18: Arsenic in Soil Showing Grade Intersections in Drillholes ............................................. 24

Figure 19: Drillhole Distribution across the Fair Bride Orebody .................................................. 36

Figure 20: Length Histogram of Uncomposited Data falling within the Mineralised Zone .................... 37

Figure 21: Log Histogram of Au g/t, 1 m Composited Data falling within the Mineralised Zone ............ 38

Figure 22: Grade Capping was Selected at 20 g/t to Remove the Top End Tail of the Distribution ........ 39

Figure 23: Grade Capping at 20 g/t falls into the Top 99% of the Distribution ................................. 39

Figure 24: Drillhole Sampling Length Histogram; 1m Composites were Selected .............................. 40

Figure 25: Search Volume and Variogram Ranges shown in Plan View, North South View and East West

View.......................................................................................................................... 41

Figure 26: Variogram Model and Parameters used in the Estimation ............................................ 41

Figure 27: Only Samples falling with in the Ore Wireframe are used in the Estimation ...................... 42

Figure 28: Soft Boundary used for the Estimation of the Oxide Zone ............................................ 43

Figure 29: Total Resource Model (in g/t) of Fair Bride showing the Higher Grade Area (Looking

Southwest) .................................................................................................................. 44

Figure 30: Section 486955 of the Resource Model showing Grade Distribution (g/t) .......................... 45



Province, Mozambique xiii

Figure 31: Horizontal Section 500 of the Resource Model showing Grade Distribution; Western High Grade

Area is Clearly Visible .................................................................................................... 45

Figure 32: Swath Plot West to East across the Fair Bride Orebody Estimate ................................... 46

Figure 33: Swath Plot from Surface to Depth for the Fair Bride Orebody Estimate, Swath is 50 m in Width

................................................................................................................................ 47

Figure 34: Measured and Indicated Wireframes based on the Classification Criteria ......................... 48

Figure 35: Measured, Indicated and Inferred Classification of the Resource Model ........................... 48

Figure 36: NPV Scheduler Pit Optimisation for the Fair Bride Orebody ......................................... 50

Figure 37: Grade Tonnage Curve for the 2016 Total Mineral Resource .......................................... 52

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Prior Ownership and Ownership Changes ....................................................................8

Table 2: Historical Exploration Activities on Fair Bride ..............................................................9

Table 3: Fair Bride Mineral Resource as per GeoLogix, February 2006 with No Cut-off Declared) ......... 10

Table 4: Fair Bride Mineral Resource as per GeoLogix, February 2008 at a Grade Cut-off of 1.25 g/t .... 10

Table 5: Fair Bride Mineral Resource as per ExplorMine, November 2010 at a Grade Cut-off of 1.0 g/t .. 10

Table 6: Fair Bride Mineral Resource as per Auroch, August 2014 at a Grade Cut-off of 1.0 g/t ........... 10

Table 7: Trenching Summary ............................................................................................ 19

Table 8: RC Drillholes Summary ........................................................................................ 25

Table 9: Diamond Drillholes Summary ................................................................................. 28

Table 10: Summary of Samples Sent to the Laboratories .......................................................... 33

Table 11: QC Category Ratios ........................................................................................... 33

Table 12: Standard Type Ratios ......................................................................................... 33

Table 13: Drillholes for the Fair Bride Deposit ....................................................................... 36

Table 14: Structure variogram parameters ........................................................................... 40

Table 15: Classification Criteria ........................................................................................ 47

Table 16: Total Mineral Resource for Fair Bride at 0.5 g/t Cut-off as at 4 March 2016 ...................... 49

Table 17: Open Cut Mineral Resource at 0.5 g/t Cut-off and Final Depth of 280 m below Surface ........ 49

Table 18: Underground Mineral Resource at 1.5g/t Cut-off and Depth from 280 m below Surface ........ 50

Table 19: Total Oxide Transitional and Sulphide Resource Stated at 0.5 g/t Cut-off ........................ 51

Table 20: Total Transitional Resource Stated at 0.5 g/t Cut-off ................................................. 51

Table 21: Total Sulphide Resource Stated at 0.5 g/t Cut-off ..................................................... 51

Table 22: Total Mineral Resource at Incremental Cut-offs ........................................................ 53

Table 23: Reconciliation of the 2014 and 2016 Mineral Resource Estimate .................................... 55

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Units of Measurement, Acronyms & Abbreviations and Glossary of Terms ...................... 61

Appendix 2: Grade Tonnage Curve Table for the Graph in the Resource Declaration ........................ 63

Appendix 3: SAMREC Code Compliance Checklist .................................................................... 67



Manica Province, Mozambique 1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 ISSUER RECEIVING THE REPORT

SAMREC T1.1 (ii, iii), T1.2 (i)

Xtract Resources PLC (“Xtract”, “the Company” or “the Client”) contracted Minxcon (Pty) Ltd

(“Minxcon”) to complete an Independent Technical Report (or the “Report”) on the Mineral

Resources of the Fair Bride Prospect, (“Fair Bride”) on the 3990C Mining Concession of the Manica

Gold Project (“Manica” or “Project”), Mozambique.

1.2 TERMS OF REFERENCE AND PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

SAMREC T1.1 (ii, iii), T1.2 (i), T1.3 (ii)

Minxcon was commissioned by Xtract to complete this Report on the Fair Bride Mineral Resources,

which is situated in the Odzi-Mutare-Manica (“OMM”) Greenstone Belt of Mozambique and

Zimbabwe, and is in advanced exploration phase. This document is intended as a Mineral Resource

estimation update of the Fair Bride Prospect within the greater Manica Project. The Report has an

effective date of 4 March 2016.

The updated Mineral Resources are considered by the Competent Person to be compliant with the

South African Code for the Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves

(2008 Edition, as amended 2009) (“the SAMREC Code”). This Report is not intended as a full

Competent Persons Report (“CPR”) as defined in the SAMREC Code and serves to present the

Mineral Resources of the Fair Bride Project. As such, a number of items in the SAMREC Compliance

Checklist, which is included as Appendix 3, are rendered not applicable as they are beyond the

scope of this Report.

All relevant information used in this Report generated by Minxcon was provided by Xtract. The

information includes:-

Technical Report – Fair Bride Mineral Resource Estimate 2014 Update, CSA Global (UK)

(CSA), 2014;

Soil sampling data;

Geophysical survey data;

Surface trench data;

Drillhole data file including geological logs, assay, specific gravity, collar survey, downhole

survey and chemical analyses data.

Other sources of information include:-

D. Grieve (2015). The Nature and Origin of Gold Mineralisation in the Fair Bride Deposit,

Odzi-Mutare-Manica Greenstone Belt, Mozambique;

ExplorMine Consultants (2010). Independent Competent Persons Report for the Manica

Assets, Pan African Resources PLC;

ExplorMine Consultants (2008). A Competent Persons Report on the Manica Assets of Pan

African Resources; and

ExplorMine Consultants (2006A). Competent Persons Report on the Manica Assets in

Mozambique of Pan African Resources PLC.




1.3 COMPETENT PERSONS’ PERSONAL INSPECTION OF THE PROPERTY

The Fair Bride Prospect, located on the 3990C Mining Concession of the Manica Gold Project, was

visited by the Mr Uwe Engelmann, the Competent Person of this Report, from the 15th of March

2016 to the 17th of March 2016. During this site visit the following was inspected:-

Infrastructure;

Location of the historical mining pits;

Surface geology in the pits; and

Drillhole core with associated logs.

The figure below shows one of the historical pits related to the Fair Bride prospect. These pits have

been delineated by a LIDAR survey and have been depleted from the Mineral Resource.

Figure 1: Historical Pit at Fair Bride Prospect (Looking West)

Historical Pit at Fair Bride Prospect (Looking West) March 2016




Figure 2 below shows the mineralised metasediments, banded iron formation (“BIF”), that comprise

the majority of the Fair Bride orebody. This is also illustrated in the Fair Bride sections (Figure 10)

in section 6 of the document.

Figure 2: Photo of the Mineralised Metasediments “BIF” in the Main Pit (Looking West)

Mineralised BIF in the Fair Bride Main Pit (Looking West) March 2016

Figure 3 below portrays a photo of a well mineralised intersection within the BIF in drillhole

ANDD093. This particular intersection had a high gold grade and was associated with the

arsenopyrite in a highly altered, deformed and silicified lithology. In general the more abundant

the quartz veining stock work is the higher the sulphide mineralisation and gold grades are. This

will help during the visual identification of the orebody during the mining operations. A second

lithology often associated with higher gold grades is the type 2, characterised by highly altered

chlorite schist or rhyolite which also exhibits high degrees of deformation, alteration with sulphides

(predominantly arsenopyrite) and quartz/carbonate veining.




Figure 3: Photo of a Well Mineralised Intersection within the BIF in Drillhole ANDD093

Photo of a Well Mineralised Intersection within the BIF in Drillhole ANDD093

March 2016




2 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION

2.1 AREA OF THE PROPERTY

SAMREC T1.2 (i), T1.5 (i)

The total area of the Mining Concession 3990C, in which Fair Bride prospect lies, is approximately

42 km2 and the area of focus in the Fair Bride prospect covers approximately 1.53 km2.

2.2 LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY

SAMREC T1.5 (I, ii), T1.4 (i), T1.6 (I, ii)

Mining Concession 3990C is located approximately 4 km north of the city of Manica and 52 km south

west of the city of Honde in the Manica province of Mozambique (Figure 4 and Figure 5).

Fair Bride Project is centred on the following coordinates on WGS84 Universal Transverse Mercator

(“UTM”) Zone 36S coordinates system:-

Latitude: 486794.88 m; and

Longitude: 7910592.03 m.

Figure 4: Location of Project Area

Location of the Project Area March 2016




Figure 5: Location of Fair Bride Project

Location of Fair Bride Project March 2016




3 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE

AND PHYSIOGRAPHY

3.1 ACCESSIBILITY

SAMREC T1.2 (i)

The Fair Bride prospect is accessible by dirt road from Manica city. Manica can be reached by tar

road from Johannesburg via Beitbridge, Mutare (approximately 1,239 km) or from Harare in

Zimbabwe via Mutare (approximately 409 km). Air services link major regional centres of

Johannesburg, Maputo, Harare and Chimoio (located 70 km from the Project Area).

3.2 CLIMATE

SAMREC T1.6 (i)

In general, the tropical climate of Mozambique is characterised by warm to hot and wet summer

and mild, dry winter seasons. An annual rainfall of 1,000 mm to 1,500 mm occurs during the rainy

season in summer (November to March). In summer, the maximum average temperature is around

23°C and in winter the temperature is approximately 7°C.

Minxcon is of the opinion that the climate will not affect exploration or future mining activities.

Rainfall may hinder access and transport at the site, as roads are currently gravel-clay.




4 HISTORY

SAMREC T1.2 (i), T1.3 (i)

4.1 PRIOR OWNERSHIP AND OWNERSHIP CHANGES

Table 1 below illustrates various companies that previously owned the Mining Concession 3990C.

Table 1: Prior Ownership and Ownership Changes

Company Year

Unknown 1900 - 1950

Brigada de Formento Mineiro (BFM) 1964

Lonrho 1986

1989

Pan African Resources PLC 2001 - 2013

Auroch Minerals NL 2013 - 2015

Xtract Resources PLC 2015 - Current

4.2 HISTORICAL EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Manica is an historical gold mining area. Prehistoric mining and exploration activities started during

the time of the Monomotapa Empire, after which it was continued by the Portuguese and other

Europeans from the 1800s to about the 1970s.

Documented historical exploration activities on the Fair Bride prospect took place since 1964. The

Brigada de Formento Mineiro (“BFM”) first explored the area in 1964 where they conducted

geological mapping of the Project Area. They were followed by Lonrho in 1987, and then by

Explorator Limitada who were sponsored by Pangea.

From 2001 to 2011, Pan African Resources (“PAF”) conducted extensive exploration activities which

included: detailed geological mapping of the project area, a magnetic field intensity (“TMI”) survey

and a gradient array induced polarisation (“IP”) survey, drilling of 79 RC drillholes and 100 diamond

drillholes. Auroch Minerals subsequently drilled 9 reverse circulation (“RC”) drillholes and 11

diamond drillholes from 2013 to 2015, prior to the acquisition of the property by Xtract. Table 2

below summarises historical exploration activities which were completed on the Fair Bride area.


An Independent Technical Report on the Mineral Resources of the Fair Bride Gold Deposit on the 3990C Mining Concession, Manica Province, Mozambique 9

Table 2: Historical Exploration Activities on Fair Bride

Company Year

Mining

Mapping Geochemistry Geophysics

Sampling RC Drilling Diamond Drilling

Oz Au Type m No. of

Drillholes m

No. of Drillholes

m

Unknown 1900 - 1950

6,400

BFM 1964 Mapping

Lonrho 1986 Pitting

1989 Pitting

PAF

2001 Mapping Au

2002 10

Trenches 2,817 33 2,010

2003 As IP and TMI 6 474

2004 7 699 8 1,312

2005 IP 12 1,149

2006 Detailed Mapping

7 1,004

2007 3 164 60 10,699

2008

2009 18 2,118 25 6,835

2010

2011

Auroch Minerals

2013 - 2015

VTEM and

Airborne TMI 9 578 11 1,704

Total 88 7,192 111 21,554 Source: Grieve, 2015




4.3 HISTORICAL MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES

In February 2006 and February 2008, an independent Mineral Resource specialist and director of

GeoLogix Mineral Resource Consultants (Pty) Ltd, Mr. Deon van der Heever, completed a Mineral

Resource estimation on the Project Area. Table 3 and Table 4 below summarise the Mineral

Resource estimation results completed by Mr van der Heever in 2006 and 2008, respectively. In

2010, ExplorMine Consultants was commissioned by PAF to complete an Independent Competent

Person Report and a Mineral Resource statement was declared as indicated in Table 5. In 2014,

Auroch Minerals (“Auroch”) geologist in collaboration with CSA Global declared Mineral Resource

statement as indicated in Table 6. The grade variation between the two estimations is due to the

estimation methodology. The 2010 Mineral Resource Estimation utilised ordinary kriging whereas

the Auroch estimate utilised local uniform conditioning (“LUC”) for the final estimation

methodology.

Table 3: Fair Bride Mineral Resource as per GeoLogix, February 2006 with No Cut-off Declared)

Mineral Resource Category Tonnes Au

t g/t oz

Indicated 4,332,326 3.13 435,601

Inferred 4,137,584 3.14 417,146

Table 4: Fair Bride Mineral Resource as per GeoLogix, February 2008 at a Grade Cut-off of 1.25 g/t

Mineral Resource Category Tonnes Au

‘000 t g/t kg oz

Measured 2,377 5.61 13,338 428,835

Indicated 2,011 5.19 10,445 335,820

Inferred 3,470 5.65 19,606 630,352

Table 5: Fair Bride Mineral Resource as per ExplorMine, November 2010 at a Grade Cut-off of 1.0 g/t

Mineral Resource Category Cut-off Grade Tonnes Au

g/t ‘000 t g/t kg koz

Measured 1.0 8,342 2.39 19,938 641

Indicated 1.0 6,540 2.38 15,570 500

Inferred 1.0 15,170 2.28 34,590 1,110

Table 6: Fair Bride Mineral Resource as per Auroch, August 2014 at a Grade Cut-off of 1.0 g/t

Mineral Resource Category Cut-off Grade Tonnes Au

g/t ‘000 t g/t oz

Measured 1.0 2,893 3.14 291,600

Indicated 1.0 2,665 3.07 263,300

Sub Total Measured & Indicated 1.0 5,557 3.11 554,900

Inferred 1.0 3,988 2.87 368,300

Total 1.0 9,546 3.01 923,200

4.4 HISTORICAL MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES

No historical Mineral Reserve estimates have been declared for the Fair Bride prospect.

4.5 HISTORICAL PRODUCTION

An estimated 6,400 oz of gold have been produced from the Andrade Shear in the south of the

permit within the Fair Bride Project Area.




5 GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALISATION

SAMREC T1.2 (i)

5.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY

SAMREC T4.1 (i)

The Project Area is located within the 2.6-2.7 Ga OMM Greenstone Belt which occurs on the eastern

side of the Zimbabwe Craton, and formed the northern portion of the larger Kalahari Craton. The

Vumba Granite Gneiss, the OMM Greenstone Belt, the Messica Granite Gneiss, the Frontier

Formation, the Tchinhadzandze Granodiorite Gneiss and mafic intrusives are the main lithological

groups of the Kalahari Craton.

The OMM Greenstone Belt is predominately composed of a strong east-west trend and locally folded

ultramafic/mafic volcanics and serpentinites alongside metasediments. Tonalite trondjhemite

granodiorite (TTG) granite gneisses of the Vumba Granite Gneisses forms a boundary to the OMM

Greenstone Belt to the north and south. The Messica Granite Gneisses truncate the eastern margin

of OMM Greenstone Belt and are the predominant unit making up the Kalahari Craton in the area.

The Messica Granite Gneisses become increasingly foliated towards this boundary (Manhica et. al.,

2001) and are characterized by leucocratic granite composed of biotite, muscovite and garnet

(Manhica et. al., 2001). Figure 6 below shows the regional geology.

Figure 6: Regional Geology

Source: Grieve, 2015

Regional Geology March 2016




The Frontier Formation occurs as outliers within the Messica Granite Gneiss, found as tight north-

south orientated synclines composed of quartzites and mica schists, a characteristically different

trend to the dominant east-west trend of the OMM Greenstone Belt (Grieve, 2015). The OMM

Greenstone Belt is underlain by one outlier of the Frontier Formation and this suggest that the

outlier is tectonically emplaced under the overlying sequence. The east-west to east-northeast to

west-southwest strike with a north-south dipping plane, is the dominant trend encountered within

the OMM Greenstone Belt and Vumba Granite Gneisses. The trend becomes progressively east-

northeast to west-southwest further eastwards until truncation against the Messica Granite

Gneisses occurs. This is thought to suggest a sinistral sense of shear along the northern craton

margin (Grieve, 2015). The undeformed or foliated Messica Granite Gneisses suggests the fabric

developed in the OMM Greenstone Belt and that the Vumba Granite Gneisses preceded

emplacement of the Messica Granite Gneiss. Beyond and including the western fraction of the

Messica Granite Gneiss, the dominant trend in the Mozambique Metamorphic Belt and Frontier

Formation becomes dominantly north-south (Manhica et. al., 2001). The contact where the Kalahari

Craton terminates against the Mozambique Metamorphic Belt in the east is a result of the Grenville

Orogeny that formed the first supercontinent, Rodinia (1,000-1,200 Ma). The Mozambique

Metamorphic Belt is considered to have formed during the collision of the continents leading to an

accretion of sediments onto the eastern margin of the Kalahari Craton (Grieve, 2015).

Gneisses, migmatites, granitoids with mafic, quartzite, marble and calc-silicate intercalations are

the main constituent of the Mozambique Metamorphic Belt which is interpreted to have formed

from a turbidite sequence. North-south orientated mafic dykes occur in both the Kalahari Craton

and Mozambique Metamorphic Belt and are increasingly metamorphosed towards the craton

boundary (Grieve, 2015).

5.2 LOCAL AND PROPERTY GEOLOGY

The OMM Greenstone Belt extends 25 km eastwards into Mozambique and lies within the intact

Zimbabwe craton. The eastern extension of the OMM Greenstone Belt is known as the Manica

Greenstone Belt. The OMM Greenstone Belt extends approximately 115 km westwards, where the

dominant trend is east-northeast, arcing into an east-west trend through the Manica area before

swinging back east-northeast to west-southwest were it terminates against the Messica Granite

Gneisses (Koll, 2014; Lord et. al., 2012; Manhica et. al., 2001). The change in strike of the

greenstone belt is likely to be representative of shearing, evidence for which is found along the

greenstone margins constrained by the Vumba Granite Gneisses (Manhica et. al., 2001). This

regional shear is considered to be related to the crustal scale east-northeast to northeast trending

Mutare-Masvingo-Sandawana (“MMS”) Shear Zone (Stepcich and Naidoo, 2012).

The Macequece Formation (in which the Fair Bride orebody occurs) and Vengo Formations are the

most important lithologies within the Manica area of the greenstone belt. The Macequece and

Vengo Formations are known to correlate to the Upper Bulawayan and Shamvaian Supergroups in

the Central Zimbabwe Craton. Ultramafic/mafic metavolcanics with intercalations of BIF,

serpentinite and metachert are the main constituent of the lowermost Macequece Formation.

These rocks have been significantly altered by the regional retrograde metamorphism becoming

rich in talc, chlorite amphibole and tremolite. The Vengo Formation which is interpreted to be a

younger, shallow water sedimentary unit comprised of metamorphosed shales, dolomitic

limestones, siliceous volcanics, and quartzites, lies unconformably over the Macequece Formation.

The grade of metamorphism in the OMM Greenstone Belt ranges from lower amphibolite facies to

lower greenschist facies in the east around Manica and has significantly altered these rocks. Figure

7 below shows different lithologies within the OMM Greenstone Belt.




Figure 7: Lithology within the Odzi-Mutare-Manica Greenstone Belt

Lithology within the Odzi-Mutare-Manica Greenstone Belt March 2016

The OMM Greenstone Belt is a complex Archaean terrane that is largely classified as synformal. The

synform consists of mafic to ultramafic volcanics (Macequece Formation) on the margins of the

fold, with coarse clastic sediments (Vengo Formation) in the core of the fold (Grieve, 2015). There

are three other east-west trending synforms that have been identified, plunging 20°to 25° to the

east within the major synform. Tight isoclinal antiforms, in some places, have been truncated by

thrust faults separated the synforms. Deformation is principally associated with the MMS strike slip

shear zone that extends 500 km from Eastern Mozambique to Southern Zimbabwe (Grieve, 2015).

Large (>10 km) regional east-northeast structures that vary in trend locally have been formed as a

result of shearing.

Late post-kinematic north-northeast to north-south brittle-ductile faults that have displaced

laterally trending units have cut and offset the east-west folded trend of the OMM Greenstone Belt.

These faults are believed to have played an important role in the formation of the late diabase (ca.

1820 Ma) and dolerite dykes (ca. 800-570 Ma) which cut across both the OMM Greenstone Belt and

the surrounding units (Grieve, 2015).

Figure 8 below shows simplified lithostratigraphy of the central Zimbabwe craton.




Figure 8: Simplified Lithostratigraphy of the Zimbabwe Craton Central Zimbabwe N and E Zimbabwe, Mozambique

Great Dyke (2,575 Ma)

Gra

nite

-Gre

en

sto

ne

Te

rra

in

2.6 Ga Chilimani Suite 2.64 Ga Shamvaian

Group

Mavonde Complex

Ma

nic

a

Gro

up M'Beza/Veng

o Formation

2.65 Ga

Wedza Suite 2.70 Ga Upper Bulawayan

Supergroup Macequece Formation

2.7 Ga Chingezi Suite 2.9 - 2.8

Ga

Belingwean-Lower Bulawayan

Supergroup

3.0 Ga Migmatic Gneiss Terrain

3.5 Ga > 2.95 Ga

Pfungwe Suite Mudzi Suite

Basement Complex (> 3.5 Ga) Source: Adapted from Grieve, 2015.

5.3 MINERALISATION

SAMREC T1.4 (i)

Two adjacent regional shears which hosted the gold mineralisation within the Fair Bride Project

Area are located on the margins of one of the OMM Greenstone Belt synforms. The Fair Bride

Project is located on the southern flanks of the syncline and strikes east-west.

The Project Area is situated on the southern part of the 3990C Mining Concession alongside a 7 km

extension of the BIF horizon on which the Rezende Mine is situated in Zimbabwe. The BIF horizon

with a strike length of approximately 7 km extends from the old mine at Dot’s Luck Project to the

centre of Fair Bride. Gravels and alluvium covers most of the ground.

Historical and current exploration activities conducted on Fair Bride Project which includes surface

geological mapping, geochemical and geophysical survey, RC and diamond drilling suggested that

gold occurrence or mineralisation is closely associated with arsenopyrite and has been primarily

intersected within the sedimentary units, BIF, greywackes and phyllites. Gold mineralisation is

usually controlled by quartz sulphide veins which occurs as lenses along the shear zone. These

lenses have been observed to be associated with structural jogs or inflections within the shear zone

(ExplorMine, 2008). Figure 9 shows the project geology.




Figure 9: Project Geology

Source: Grieve, 2015

Project Geology March 2016

Mineralisation is oxidised to a depth of about 50 m to 60 m below the surface. Minerals such as

magnetite, hematite, limonite, hornblende, carbonate, sericite, albite and auriferous pyrite,

arsenopyrite and pyrrhotite as well as native gold are the main constituent of the host rocks. The

host rocks lithologies contain orebodies which vary in thickness from 2 m to 30 m, are sub-vertical

and with strike lengths of several hundred metres.




6 DEPOSIT TYPES

6.1 MINERAL DEPOSITS BEING INVESTIGATED

SAMREC T1.2 (i)

The Fair Bride deposit is an Archean Greenstone Belt Orogenic Gold deposit. The deposit occurs in

the eastern part of the 2.6-2.7 Ga OMM Greenstone Belt and is hosted within the sedimentary units

that have been metamorphosed to upper greenschist to lower amphibolite facies to form a

metamorphosed sequence of low-MgO ultramafic to mafic rocks. The orebody occurs along a shear

zone which strikes east-west and is steeply dipping at approximately 75°. Mineralisation occurs in a

retrograde multiply-deformed vein stock work within a surrounding alteration halo. The gold

mineralisation is believed to be associated with syn- to post-kinematic arsenopyrite (up to 5%)

within a silica + chlorite + albite + biotite + Illite ± carbonate ± pyrite + alteration halo.

6.2 GEOLOGICAL MODEL

SAMREC T2.1 (i), T4.1 (I, ii, iii), T4.2 (iv, v)

Data obtained from geological surface mapping, trenching, RC drilling and diamond drilling were

used to generate the 3D geological model of the Fair Bride prospect area.

A geological model of the Fair Bride orebody was constructed using the geological interpretation,

supplied by Xtract in the form of geological sections (Figure 10). These sections were a result of

sections created in Surpac (by the project geologist) which were then remodelled in Datamine

Studio™ (by Minxcon and the Xtract geologists). The sections represent a geological interpretation

based on the lithology, which was correlated by the onsite geologist using core drilling data.

The main mineralisation occurs within the rhyolite (brown crosses) and metasediments (purple

dashed lines, Figure 10). These units were used for the geological model (Figure 11). This

lithological/geological model was also tested against a grade shell halo by Minxcon (using Leapfrog

Geo™ software) and a good correlation was found. The resultant geological wireframe model was

reviewed by the resident Xtract geologist. Upon review, the geological wireframe model (Figure 12)

was utilised as a physical constraint or orebody limit during Mineral Resource estimation. The

wireframe surfaces for the base of oxide and top of the sulphide zones were created from the point

data from the log files, where weathering was recorded and were utilised in defining these

geological weathering limits in resultant Mineral Resource block model.




Figure 10: Xtract Section 486955 in 1:500 Scale used for the Geological Model Wireframe Supplied by Xtract (Looking East)

Xtract Section 486955 in 1:500 Scale used for the Geological Model Wireframe Supplied by Xtract (looking East)

March 2016

Figure 11: Xtract Section 486855 with Datamine Geological Model Wireframe (Looking East)

Xtract Section 486955 with Datamine Geological Model Wireframe (Looking East)

March 2016




Figure 12: Final Geological Model Wireframe used for Mineral Resource Estimation (Looking Southwest)

Final Geological Model Wireframe used for Mineral Resource Estimation (Looking Southwest)

March 2016




7 EXPLORATION

SAMREC T2.3 (i)

7.1 SURVEY PROCEDURES AND PARAMETERS

SAMREC T2.2 (i)

Drillhole collar positions were surveyed by a qualified surveyor. Downhole surveys were carried out

on 14 diamond drillholes. All drillholes drilled post 2011 were surveyed by a qualified surveyor using

a DGPS to centimetre accuracy. Collar positions of drillholes were randomly checked in the field by

a geologist using a global positioning system (“GPS”), and historical drillholes were re-surveyed by a

qualified surveyor to warrant centimetre accuracy in 2007. Prior to 2007 no downhole surveys were

completed, and post 2007 downhole survey was carried out by the Geosearch South Africa (Pty) Ltd

on drillholes ANDD037 and ANDD039 using Reflex gyro downhole tool and all those drilled since June

2013 were surveyed by WeatherfordWireline Services, Tete, using a downhole gyro.

7.2 SAMPLING METHODS AND SAMPLE QUALITY

7.2.1 Gold in Soil Geochemical Survey

In 2001, bulk leach extractable gold in soil geochemical survey was completed on the southern

portion of Mining Concession 3990C by Explorator Limitada. This survey covered an area of 9.9 km

by 1.5 km. The survey was completed using a 50 m X 100 m soil sampling grid.

7.2.2 Arsenic in Soil Geochemical Survey

In 2003 to 2004, an initial orientation arsenic (As)-in-soil geochemical survey was conducted in the

vicinity of the Fair Bride workings to ascertain the validity of the method. Soil samples were

collected from a depth of 40 cm on a 10 m X 50 m grid along a limited strike length and along lines

of 350 m.

7.2.3 Trenching

A total of twelve trenches totalling 3,357.50 m were dug to a 5 m depth and samples were

collected as continuous 1 m channel samples from between 4 m and 5 m depths (Table 7). The

table below summarises the trenching that was completed on the Fair Bride prospect area.

Table 7: Trenching Summary

Trench ID XCOLLAR YCOLLAR ZCOLLAR Bearing Dip EOH

WGS84 UTM Zone 36S WGS84 UTM Zone 36S m ° ° m

TR1 486300.00 7910680.00 720.00 360 -3 241.00

TR10 487188.00 7910572.00 716.00 360 -3 310.00

TR11 487300.00 7910570.00 709.00 360 -3 302.50

TR12 487400.00 7910570.00 714.00 360 -3 309.00

TR2 486392.00 7910680.00 720.00 360 -3 150.00

TR3 486490.00 7910680.00 721.00 360 -4 225.00

TR4 486590.00 7910680.00 722.00 360 -4 300.00

TR5 486690.00 7910680.00 724.00 360 -4 300.00

TR6 486790.00 7910615.00 733.00 360 -5 300.00

TR7 486890.00 7910615.00 734.00 360 -6 310.00

TR8 486990.00 7910615.00 728.00 360 -5 300.00

TR9 487090.00 7910615.00 719.00 360 -4 310.00




7.3 SAMPLE DATA

7.3.1 Gold in Soil Geochemical Survey

The 500 g samples were analysed by a bottle-roll in cyanide solution with an atomic absorption

spectrometer (“AAS”) finish with a 3 ppb detection limit. The laboratory that analysed the samples

is unknown to Minxcon.

7.3.2 Arsenic in Soil Geochemical Survey

Samples collected were prepared and sent for analyses to Antech Laboratories in Kwekwe,

Zimbabwe (SANAS accredited laboratory No. T0194). The sample analysis was carried out by total

mixed acid digestion of 5 g and finished using an AAS finish. The method was shown to be valid and

the survey area was extended for 1.2 km east of Fair Bride. A 20 m X 100 m grid was used along 840

m lines.

7.3.3 Trenching

The strategy used for compositing and assaying trench samples was adopted from RC sampling,

however the gold grade assays for trench samples were generally lower than the RC chip samples

and diamond drill core samples. It was concluded that the lower gold grade assay might have been

due to shallow dispersion processes in the supergene. It was decided to exclude the trench assay

data due to mixing of samples and poor performance to the certified reference material (“CRM”)

and other reference material.

7.4 RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION OF EXPLORATION INFORMATION

SAMREC T2.2 (ii), T1.5 (ii)

Ground Geophysics

Spectral Geophysics completed a geophysical survey at the Fair Bride Prospect Area in 2003. The

geophysical surveys completed include a ground magnetic total magnetic field intensity (“TMI”)

survey (Figure 13) and a gradient array IP survey (Figure 14). A dipole-dipole IP survey was

completed in 2005.




Figure 13: Ground Magnetic Survey Total Magnetic Intensity Showing Grade Intersections in Drillholes

Source: CSA Global (UK) (CSA), Technical Report, 2014

Ground Magnetic Survey Total Magnetic Intensity Showing Grade Intersections in Drillholes

March 2016

Figure 14: Gradient Array Induced Polarity Chargeability Showing Grade Intersections in Drillholes


Gradient Array Induced Polarity Chargeability Showing Grade Intersections in Drillholes

March 2016




In 2013, Airborne Geotech (Prikhodko, 2013) completed a VTEM survey (Figure 15) and a

magnetometer survey (TMI) (Figure 16) on their Mining Concession 3990C and the results were

interpreted by Spectral Geophysics (Blignault, 2013).

Figure 15: VTEM dBdt Anomaly Showing Grade Intersections in Drillholes


VTEM dBdt Anomaly Showing Grade Intersections in Drillholes March 2016




Figure 16: Calculated Vertical Derivative of Total Magnetic Intensity Showing Grade Intersections in Drillholes


Calculated Vertical Derivative of Total Magnetic Intensity Showing Grade Intersections in Drillholes

March 2016

Soil Geochemical Surveys

Figure 17 and Figure 18 below show gold and arsenic in soil geochemical surveys carried out in 2001

and 2003 – 2004 respectively. Note that the data collected from the area underlain by the alluvium

is not to be taken into account as it does not reflect the Archean substrate with the target

lithologies. Both element surveys are to some extent efficacious in representing the southern (and

upslope) limit of the deposit.




Figure 17: Gold in Soil Showing Grade Intersections in Drillholes


Gold in Soil Showing Grade Intersections in Drillholes March 2016

Figure 18: Arsenic in Soil Showing Grade Intersections in Drillholes


Arsenic in Soil Showing Grade Intersections in Drillholes March 2016




8 DRILLING

SAMREC T2.3 (i)

8.1 TYPE AND EXTENT OF DRILLING

A total of 113 RC drillholes totalling 9,265.97 m were completed on the Fair Bride prospect. RC

drillholes were drilled using a 120 mm bit using a face sampling hammer.

A total of 116 diamond drillholes totalling some 22,396.82 m was completed on the Fair Bride

prospect. All diamond drillholes drilled prior to 2013 were drilled using HQ sized bits (63.50 mm)

within the weathered zone while the NQ sized bits (47.60 mm) were used to drill in more

competent material (fresh rock). Those drillholes drilled in 2012 and 2013 were drilled using PQ (85

mm) sized bits before casing off to HQ sized bits.

8.2 FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ACCURACY OF RESULTS

SAMREC T3.2 (iii)

The Fair Bride orebody shear zone strikes east-west and is dipping approximately 75°. All drillholes

were inclined with a -50° to -60°dip and oriented in a north-south direction so as to minimise any

bias between drilling orientation and mineralisation structure. All the intersections are reported as

apparent (downhole) widths.

Sample recoveries for both RC chip samples and diamond drill samples were recorded. RC chip

sample recoveries were measured by weighing each 1 m sample and recording the sample mass

recovered. Scatter plots of assay gold grade vs recorded sample per metre and histograms of the

recorded sample per metre mass did not indicate any systematic bias of these data sets.

Standard logging techniques were used for recording diamond drill core recoveries where the

recovered core was measured and compared to the depth block inserted by the drilling contractor

during drilling. Diamond drill core recoveries were reasonably good with a mean of 88 % and a

median of 99 %.

8.3 EXPLORATION PROPERTIES – DRILLHOLE DETAILS

Table 8 and Table 9 below summarise RC and diamond drilling that was undertaken on the Project

Area. Drillholes ANDGT1 to ANDGT6 are geotechnical holes and MDD001 to MDD007 are

metallurgical holes.

Table 8: RC Drillholes Summary

BHID XCOLLAR YCOLLAR ZCOLLAR Bearing Dip EOH Start Completion

UTM Cape Zone 36S

UTM Cape Zone 36S

m ° ° m Date Date

AND01 486905.36 7910681.67 721.93 360 -55 50.00 19-Feb-02 19-Feb-02

AND02 486911.90 7910704.98 720.07 360 -55 50.00 19-Feb-02 19-Feb-02

AND03 486905.70 7910728.80 719.41 360 -55 50.00 20-Feb-02 20-Feb-02

AND04 486903.93 7910757.59 717.33 360 -55 50.00 20-Feb-02 20-Feb-02

AND05 486901.29 7910782.05 715.80 360 -55 60.00 21-Feb-02 21-Feb-02

AND06 486902.20 7910814.77 713.51 360 -55 60.00 21-Feb-02 21-Feb-02

AND07 486856.27 7910677.70 725.51 360 -55 60.00 22-Feb-02 22-Feb-02

AND08 486855.46 7910708.97 723.68 360 -55 60.00 22-Feb-02 22-Feb-02

AND09 486854.59 7910740.28 722.08 360 -55 60.00 23-Feb-02 23-Feb-02

AND10 486852.76 7910770.35 717.94 360 -55 60.00 23-Feb-02 23-Feb-02

AND100 486350.00 7911260.00 691.00 180 -55 100.00 09-Feb-08 10-Feb-08

AND101 486230.00 7910860.00 710.00 180 -55 130.00 14-Feb-08 15-Feb-08





UTM Cape Zone 36S

UTM Cape Zone 36S

m ° ° m Date Date

AND102 486200.00 7910860.00 710.00 180 -55 130.00 12-Feb-08 13-Feb-08

AND103 486180.00 7910860.00 710.00 180 -55 130.00 10-Feb-08 12-Feb-08

AND104 486140.00 7910860.00 710.00 180 -55 130.00 13-Feb-08 13-Feb-08

AND105 486110.00 7910860.00 710.00 180 -55 130.00 12-Feb-08 13-Feb-08

AND11 486852.70 7910801.53 715.68 360 -55 60.00 24-Feb-02 24-Feb-02

AND12 486854.22 7910832.14 713.98 360 -55 60.00 24-Feb-02 24-Feb-02

AND13 486805.70 7910677.22 727.44 360 -55 60.00 25-Feb-02 25-Feb-02

AND14 486805.05 7910706.25 725.48 360 -55 60.00 25-Feb-02 25-Feb-02

AND15 486804.33 7910734.55 723.57 360 -55 60.00 25-Feb-02 25-Feb-02

AND16 486807.73 7910767.12 719.88 360 -55 60.00 25-Feb-02 25-Feb-02

AND17 486804.62 7910794.75 717.81 360 -55 60.00 26-Feb-02 26-Feb-02

AND18 486804.34 7910826.97 716.33 360 -55 60.00 26-Feb-02 26-Feb-02

AND19 487102.74 7910655.83 714.98 360 -55 60.00 26-Feb-02 26-Feb-02

AND20 487104.37 7910685.03 713.18 360 -55 60.00 27-Feb-02 27-Feb-02

AND21 487107.37 7910709.18 711.63 360 -55 60.00 27-Feb-02 27-Feb-02

AND22 487108.45 7910743.92 709.58 360 -55 60.00 27-Feb-02 27-Feb-02

AND23 487111.55 7910773.79 707.82 360 -55 60.00 28-Feb-02 28-Feb-02

AND24 487103.72 7910803.49 705.82 360 -55 60.00 28-Feb-02 28-Feb-02

AND25 487103.44 7910831.90 703.87 360 -55 60.00 28-Feb-02 28-Feb-02

AND26 487105.36 7910851.71 701.87 360 -55 60.00 01-Mar-02 01-Mar-02

AND27 487104.04 7910887.13 702.82 360 -55 60.00 02-Mar-02 02-Mar-02

AND28 487103.64 7910916.09 700.87 360 -55 60.00 03-Mar-02 03-Mar-02

AND29 486604.56 7910780.67 714.21 360 -55 60.00 03-Mar-02 03-Mar-02

AND30 486106.35 7910427.98 731.97 360 -55 60.00 03-Mar-02 03-Mar-02

AND31 486104.41 7910462.14 729.81 360 -55 60.00 04-Mar-02 04-Mar-02

AND32 485997.94 7910416.45 723.67 360 -55 60.00 05-Mar-02 05-Mar-02

AND33 485997.45 7910451.16 723.73 360 -55 60.00 05-Mar-02 05-Mar-02

AND34 486002.57 7910487.47 722.90 360 -55 60.00 05-Mar-02 05-Mar-02

AND35 486106.97 7910491.05 728.01 360 -55 60.00 06-Mar-02 06-Mar-02

AND36 486805.93 7910692.09 726.40 360 -55 100.00 06-Mar-02 06-Mar-02

AND37 486855.85 7910693.45 724.30 360 -55 90.00 07-Mar-02 07-Mar-02

AND38 487205.32 7910746.99 706.71 180 -55 80.00 31-Oct-03 31-Oct-03

AND39 487052.55 7910787.95 708.17 180 -55 81.00 31-Oct-03 31-Oct-03

AND40 486954.91 7910780.95 712.87 180 -55 81.00 01-Nov-03 01-Nov-03

AND41 486753.82 7910793.15 718.08 180 -55 75.00 02-Nov-03 02-Nov-03

AND42 486505.16 7910827.58 709.32 180 -55 70.00 03-Nov-03 03-Nov-03

AND43 486202.01 7911174.99 704.51 180 -55 87.00 03-Nov-03 03-Nov-03

AND44 484501.81 7910821.95 731.84 180 -55 78.00 04-Nov-03 04-Nov-03

AND45 484116.02 7910905.00 708.51 180 -55 75.00 06-Nov-03 06-Nov-03

AND46 483846.05 7910917.00 711.34 180 -55 72.00 07-Nov-03 07-Nov-03

AND47 483703.37 7910932.60 716.29 180 -55 60.00 07-Nov-03 07-Nov-03

AND48 483523.69 7910965.41 705.66 180 -55 66.00 08-Nov-03 08-Nov-03

AND49 485201.80 7910434.82 749.50 180 -55 90.00 09-Nov-03 10-Nov-03

AND50 484505.15 7910774.56 739.41 360 -55 96.00 05-Mar-04 08-Mar-04

AND51 484504.10 7910778.65 739.28 180 -55 96.00 08-Mar-04 09-Mar-04

AND52 485222.99 7910706.86 723.61 180 -55 100.00 10-Mar-04 10-Mar-04

AND53 485723.96 7910809.98 704.95 180 -55 100.00 22-Mar-04 22-Mar-04

AND54 486408.67 7911148.46 696.10 180 -55 100.00 17-Mar-04 17-Mar-04

AND55 486402.14 7910783.28 714.03 180 -55 99.00 30-Mar-04 30-Mar-04

AND56 487215.09 7910640.22 711.34 180 -55 100.00 16-Mar-04 16-Mar-04

AND57 487401.71 7910667.05 705.38 180 -55 100.00 18-Mar-04 18-Mar-04

AND58 487490.96 7910636.84 704.65 360 -55 100.00 19-Mar-04 19-Mar-04

AND59 487486.38 7910602.09 710.83 360 -55 100.00 20-Mar-04 20-Mar-04

AND60 487401.05 7910668.72 705.32 360 -55 100.00 20-Mar-04 20-Mar-04

AND61 483921.16 7910855.87 719.51 360 -55 100.00 23-Mar-04 23-Mar-04





UTM Cape Zone 36S

UTM Cape Zone 36S

m ° ° m Date Date

AND62 483837.98 7910862.04 719.56 360 -55 100.00 24-Mar-04 24-Mar-04

AND63 483515.19 7910896.75 720.47 360 -55 67.00 25-Mar-04 25-Mar-04

AND64 486604.64 7910917.51 708.45 180 -55 100.00 09-Jan-05 09-Jan-05

AND64A 486600.03 7910919.88 708.57 180 -55 39.00

AND65 486506.27 7910908.86 705.98 180 -55 100.00 10-Jan-05 10-Jan-05

AND66 486455.03 7910921.13 705.51 180 -55 106.00 11-Jan-05 11-Jan-05

AND67 486804.02 7910867.00 713.15 180 -55 106.00 12-Jan-05 12-Jan-05

AND68 486850.41 7910870.00 710.68 180 -55 100.00 12-Jan-05 12-Jan-05

AND69 486902.77 7910870.64 708.54 180 -55 100.00 17-Jan-05 17-Jan-05

AND70 486952.70 7910878.79 706.52 180 -55 106.00 14-Jan-05 14-Jan-05

AND71 487000.45 7910874.08 705.97 180 -55 106.00 15-Jan-05 15-Jan-05

AND72 487050.57 7910853.58 705.47 180 -55 100.00 18-Jan-05 18-Jan-05

AND73 488054.01 7910551.88 703.62 180 -55 100.00 29-Jan-05 29-Jan-05

AND74 488095.16 7910551.00 704.05 180 -55 100.00 28-Jan-05 28-Jan-05

AND75 488194.52 7910431.60 711.89 180 -55 100.00 30-Jan-05 30-Jan-05

AND76 486406.87 7910737.21 717.04 360 -55 60.00 26-Jan-05 26-Jan-05

AND77 486509.30 7910851.83 708.59 180 -55 65.00 19-Jan-05 19-Jan-05

AND78 486707.25 7910908.75 710.86 180 -55 100.00 26-Jan-05 26-Jan-05

AND79 487502.82 7910354.59 742.95 180 -55 78.00 31-Jan-05 31-Jan-05

AND80 486604.50 7910839.76 712.20 180 -55 60.00 19-Oct-07 19-Oct-07

AND81 486552.70 7910839.11 709.01 180 -55 60.00 19-Oct-07 19-Oct-07

AND82 486466.91 7910828.89 710.85 180 -55 44.00 20-Oct-07 20-Oct-07

AND83 486375.00 7910865.00 710.00 180 -55 130.00

AND84 486425.00 7910865.00 710.00 180 -55 115.00

AND85 486485.00 7910865.00 708.00 180 -55 120.47 24-Jan-08 05-Mar-08

AND86 486525.00 7910865.00 710.00 180 -55 104.00

AND87 486575.00 7910865.00 710.00 180 -55 124.00

AND89 486325.00 7910915.00 710.00 180 -55 100.00

AND90 486250.00 7910915.00 710.00 180 -55 100.00

AND91 486325.00 7910975.00 707.00 180 -55 135.00

AND92 486000.00 7911145.00 703.00 180 -55 100.00 06-Feb-08 07-Feb-08

AND93 486000.00 7911225.00 702.00 180 -55 120.00 01-Feb-08 05-Feb-08

AND94 486000.00 7911330.00 698.00 180 -55 120.00 05-Feb-08 07-Feb-08

AND95 486050.00 7911050.00 607.00 180 -55 100.00 07-Feb-08 08-Feb-08

AND96 486100.00 7911220.00 702.00 180 -55 120.00 31-Jan-08 01-Feb-08

AND97 486100.00 7911290.00 702.00 180 -55 97.00 07-Feb-08 09-Feb-08

AND99 486350.00 7911147.00 699.00 180 -55 100.00 10-Feb-08 11-Feb-08

ANDMT1 486400.00 7910819.00 712.00 180 -55 51.50

ANDMT2 486400.00 7910847.00 711.00 190 -50 63.50

ANDMT3 486486.00 7910862.00 707.00 190 -50 60.50

ANDMT4 486486.00 7910892.00 706.00 190 -50 81.50

ANDMT5 486600.00 7910827.00 712.00 190 -50 51.50

ANDMT6 486600.00 7910851.00 710.00 190 -50 51.50

ANDMT7 486890.00 7910766.00 718.00 190 -50 75.50

ANDMT8 486890.00 7910783.00 716.00 190 -50 86.50

ANDMT9 486486.00 7910842.00 713.00 190 -50 55.50




Table 9: Diamond Drillholes Summary


UTM Cape Zone 36 S

UTM Cape Zone 36S

m ° ° m Date Date

ANDD001 486605.57 7910864.28 710.44 180 -55 203.95 05-Feb-04 07-Feb-04

ANDD002 486845.02 7910675.92 726.42 360 -55 194.70 21-Jan-04 28-Jan-04

ANDD003 487049.47 7910702.34 714.11 360 -55 158.25 28-Jan-04 31-Jan-04

ANDD004 487212.50 7910645.39 711.26 360 -55 174.65 01-Feb-04 03-Feb-04

ANDD005 486396.94 7910829.91 712.70 180 -55 74.55 08-Feb-04 09-Feb-04

ANDD006 486299.94 7910752.80 714.94 360 -55 125.40 09-Feb-04 11-Feb-04

ANDD007 486959.00 7910687.66 719.48 360 -55 149.70 11-Feb-04 22-Feb-04

ANDD008 486701.93 7910855.94 714.07 180 -55 230.90 23-Feb-04 26-Feb-04

ANDD009 486856.34 7910668.42 726.18 360 -55 184.81 25-Jan-07 01-Feb-07

ANDD010 486805.66 7910697.51 726.12 360 -55 160.16 11-Feb-07 17-Feb-07

ANDD011 486855.72 7910701.30 723.93 360 -55 160.16 02-Feb-07 06-Feb-07

ANDD012 486803.82 7910861.21 713.51 180 -55 117.91 07-Feb-07 10-Feb-07

ANDD013 486753.45 7910700.03 725.31 360 -55 161.50 25-Feb-07 01-Mar-07

ANDD014 486990.43 7910689.76 716.90 360 -55 149.40 18-Feb-07 20-Feb-07

ANDD015 487021.89 7910696.44 715.30 360 -55 127.32 21-Feb-07 25-Feb-07

ANDD016 486925.98 7910691.84 719.79 360 -55 174.90 09-Mar-07 15-Mar-07

ANDD017 486906.12 7910686.41 721.64 360 -55 189.77 02-Mar-07 09-Mar-07

ANDD018 486631.19 7910861.53 711.38 180 -55 144.80 09-Apr-07 18-Apr-07

ANDD019 486804.20 7910822.09 716.59 180 -55 91.32 15-May-07 17-May-07

ANDD020 486552.90 7910864.14 708.07 180 -55 150.22 26-Mar-07 30-Mar-07

ANDD021 487213.26 7910785.31 704.49 180 -55 115.65 15-Mar-07 17-Mar-07

ANDD022 487302.21 7910743.74 702.08 180 -45 135.30 18-Mar-07 21-Mar-07

ANDD023 486926.34 7910724.05 717.39 360 -55 89.15 09-May-07 13-May-07

ANDD024 486774.74 7911226.20 686.38 180 -55 160.55 02-Apr-07 08-Apr-07

ANDD025 486952.53 7910873.92 706.78 180 -55 262.50 20-Apr-07 30-Apr-07

ANDD026 486737.40 7910879.71 711.54 180 -55 191.25 21-Mar-07 26-Mar-07

ANDD027 486604.50 7910912.76 708.40 180 -55 190.13 26-Mar-07 04-Apr-07

ANDD028 486905.35 7910723.12 719.78 360 -55 103.28 01-May-07 08-May-07

ANDD029 486805.79 7910633.69 731.18 360 -55 250.72 27-May-07 18-Jun-07

ANDD030 486850.60 7910726.51 723.67 360 -55 52.92 22-May-07 26-May-07

ANDD031 486900.05 7910888.28 707.30 180 -55 280.43 14-Nov-07 20-Nov-07

ANDD031A 486903.43 7910612.92 732.65 360 -55 224.15

ANDD032 486900.05 7910719.28 720.30 360 -45 66.95 20-May-07 21-May-07

ANDD033 486877.02 7910646.60 728.66 360 -55 240.77 21-Jul-07 10-Aug-07

ANDD034 486926.00 7910931.30 703.21 180 -55 44.89 22-Sep-07 25-Sep-07

ANDD035 486976.52 7910586.48 735.14 360 -55 367.20 04-Aug-07 18-Sep-07

ANDD036 486450.00 7911045.00 701.00 180 -55 322.96 18-May-08 29-May-08

ANDD037 486875.00 7910573.79 740.64 180 -55 434.97 29-Jul-07 22-Aug-07

ANDD038 486952.60 7910924.16 703.07 180 -55 312.17 17-Sep-07 23-Sep-07

ANDD039 486804.63 7910550.00 739.35 180 -55 552.25 31-Jul-07 19-Sep-07

ANDD040 486764.85 7910947.68 708.87 180 -55 302.94 02-Nov-07 26-Nov-07

ANDD041 486850.14 7910910.15 707.70 180 -55 350.00 16-Nov-07 24-Nov-07

ANDD041A 486855.83 7910606.62 735.40 360 -55 300.00 26-Jul-07 13-Aug-07

ANDD042 486827.89 7910698.61 725.32 360 -55 78.70 12-Jul-07 18-Jul-07

ANDD043 486824.19 7910717.16 724.42 360 -55 93.25 07-Jul-07 11-Jul-07

ANDD044 486924.58 7910765.02 715.79 140 -55 79.45 15-Jul-07 18-Jul-07

ANDD045 486950.93 7910763.68 713.78 135 -55 99.83 11-Jul-07 14-Jul-07

ANDD046 487031.36 7910763.28 710.38 140 -55 96.64 18-Jul-07 21-Jul-07

ANDD047 486763.80 7910831.96 714.98 180 -55 160.02 17-Oct-07 22-Oct-07

ANDD048 486780.16 7910880.39 712.27 180 -55 200.65 01-Oct-07 09-Oct-07

ANDD049 486782.53 7910830.91 715.50 180 -55 161.18 28-Sep-07 06-Oct-07

ANDD050 486783.77 7910797.37 717.62 180 -55 68.47 25-Sep-07 28-Sep-07

ANDD051 486779.37 7910900.92 711.53 360 -55 181.00 07-Oct-07 11-Oct-07

ANDD052 486702.02 7910919.96 710.17 180 -55 210.69 09-Oct-07 13-Oct-07





UTM Cape Zone 36 S

UTM Cape Zone 36S

m ° ° m Date Date

ANDD053 486683.54 7910852.78 713.83 180 -55 141.88 12-Oct-07 16-Oct-07

ANDD054 486682.65 7910917.67 710.20 180 -55 201.00 13-Oct-07 18-Oct-07

ANDD055 486507.83 7910848.17 708.60 180 -55 90.93 19-Oct-07 20-Oct-07

ANDD056 486506.97 7910886.37 706.65 180 -55 130.88 21-Oct-07 24-Oct-07

ANDD057 486453.77 7910895.67 707.13 180 -55 156.67 24-Oct-07 27-Oct-07

ANDD058 486449.39 7910859.34 709.18 180 -55 132.75 23-Oct-07 26-Oct-07

ANDD059 486403.64 7910909.89 708.18 180 -55 132.83 28-Oct-07 02-Nov-07

ANDD060 486405.44 7910855.38 710.90 180 -55 111.39 30-Oct-07 01-Nov-07

ANDD061 487150.55 7910763.45 707.65 180 -55 100.26 08-Nov-07 10-Nov-07

ANDD062 487149.62 7910824.08 704.84 180 -55 201.89 05-Nov-07 11-Nov-07

ANDD063 487250.45 7910775.45 702.25 180 -55 102.90 12-Nov-07 16-Nov-07

ANDD064 487242.62 7910823.55 702.52 180 -55 169.13 11-Nov-07 13-Nov-07

ANDD065 486599.92 7910940.00 707.50 180 -55 220.30 24-Jan-08 13-Feb-08

ANDD066 486400.80 7910969.77 704.46 180 -55 232.13 11-Jan-08 17-Jan-08

ANDD067 486507.09 7910930.00 706.10 180 -55 203.00 18-Jan-08 23-Jan-08

ANDD068 486549.69 7910925.00 707.32 180 -55 214.20 25-Jan-08 04-Feb-08

ANDD069 486455.00 7910940.09 704.50 180 -55 230.80 22-Feb-08 27-Feb-08

ANDD070 486500.00 7911040.00 701.00 180 -55 302.32 30-May-08 06-Jun-08

ANDD071 486630.20 7910899.93 710.22 180 -55 186.95 04-Dec-07 08-Dec-07

ANDD072 486629.79 7910945.25 708.13 180 -55 202.32 08-Dec-07 12-Dec-07

ANDD073 486659.75 7910899.93 711.08 180 -55 184.17 03-Dec-07 07-Dec-07

ANDD074 486652.76 7910975.00 707.79 180 -55 271.10 05-Feb-08 12-Feb-08

ANDD075 486960.72 7910956.97 707.09 180 -55 244.45 29-Nov-07 03-Dec-07

ANDD076 486550.00 7911035.00 703.00 180 -55 309.95 07-Jun-08 15-Jun-08

ANDD077 486800.09 7910949.86 708.00 180 -55 283.43 27-Nov-07 03-Dec-07

ANDD078 487100.00 7910815.00 705.00 180 -55 213.42 21-Feb-08 26-Feb-08

ANDD079 487050.00 7910860.00 702.00 180 -55 226.93 13-Feb-08 21-Feb-08

ANDD080 486600.00 7911050.00 702.00 180 -55 343.18 20-Jun-08 30-Jun-08

ANDD082 486900.00 7910950.00 705.00 180 -55 340.00 13-Feb-08 20-Feb-08

ANDD083 486854.00 7910967.00 704.00 180 -55 319.15 07-Mar-08 12-Mar-08

ANDD084 486111.00 7910917.00 710.00 180 -55 366.40 27-Feb-08 12-Mar-08

ANDD085 486439.00 7910421.00 782.00 180 -55 241.12 20-Mar-08 26-Mar-08

ANDD085A 486432.00 7910470.00 771.00 180 -50 66.00 14-Mar-08 18-Mar-08

ANDD086 486669.00 7910457.00 784.00 360 -50 102.78 14-Mar-08 19-Mar-08

ANDD087 486840.00 7911020.00 700.00 180 -55 349.28 27-Mar-08 02-Apr-08

ANDD088 486950.00 7911015.00 695.00 180 -55 461.15 03-Apr-08 17-Apr-08

ANDD089 486500.00 7910980.00 704.00 180 -55 253.14 18-Apr-08 22-Apr-08

ANDD090 486550.00 7910980.00 706.00 180 -55 268.04 23-Apr-08 26-Apr-08

ANDD091 486600.00 7910996.00 705.00 180 -55 270.48 27-Apr-08 05-May-08

ANDD092 486450.00 7910985.00 703.00 180 -55 267.84 05-May-08 11-May-08

ANDD093 486400.00 7911032.00 704.00 180 -55 302.05 11-May-08 17-May-08

ANDD097 486485.00 7910925.00 706.00 180 -55 172.20 02-Jul-08 05-Jul-08

ANDD101 487300.00 7910820.00 699.00 180 -55 272.00 06-Jul-08 10-Jul-08

ANDD102 487600.00 7910700.00 680.00 180 -55 190.30 11-Jul-08 16-Jul-08

ANDD103 487350.00 7910670.00 705.64 180 -55 146.19

ANDD104 487349.38 7910770.39 696.14 180 -55 125.01

ANDD105 487552.75 7910681.21 698.59 180 -55 185.21

ANDD106 487448.99 7910771.48 695.67 180 -55 187.99

ANDD107 487550.85 7910778.79 693.64 180 -55 185.25

ANDGT1 486455.00 7910842.00 709.00 180 -55 103.28

ANDGT2 486455.00 7910759.00 714.00 360 -50 152.30

ANDGT3 486630.00 7910873.00 710.00 180 -55 147.00

ANDGT4 486630.00 7910790.00 714.00 360 -50 140.17

ANDGT5 486959.00 7910810.00 710.00 180 -55 161.34

ANDGT6 486959.00 7910700.00 717.00 360 -55 170.42





UTM Cape Zone 36 S

UTM Cape Zone 36S

m ° ° m Date Date

MDD001 486875.00 7910693.00 723.00 360 -55 145.15

MDD002 486940.00 7910690.00 719.00 360 -55 156.85

MDD003 486759.00 7910880.00 711.50 180 -55 154.29

MDD004 486660.00 7910855.00 723.50 180 -55 128.56

MDD005 486352.00 7910858.00 712.00 180 -55 141.69

MDD006 487100.00 7910698.00 719.80 360 -45 150.53

MDD007 487300.00 7910777.00 701.00 180 -45 127.12




9 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY

9.1 SAMPLE HANDLING PRIOR TO DISPATCH

SAMREC T3.2 (I, v)

A qualified geologist logged both RC and diamond drillholes at the time of drilling. In 2014, Auroch

Minerals’ geologist re-logged previous diamond drillholes to standardise historical codes and

verification of weathering or oxidation boundaries.

Sampling of diamond drill core was conducted at 1 m intervals, but was constrained by the

geological contacts. The diamond drill core was not orientated during drilling, however the centre

line was drawn using the foliation plane for reference. Drill core was sawn and then split into two

halves, of which one was then marked, sampled and dispatched to a variety of accredited

laboratories by a qualified geologist. The remaining split half core was stored in a standard core

tray onsite in a covered core shed.

RC samples were collected at 1 m intervals. The samples were weighed and a rifle splitter was used

to split samples down to 6 kg. 200 g sub-samples were then scooped from each 6 kg sample and

used to make up a 3 m composite sample. The remaining 5.8 kg of the 6 kg sample was stored in a

secure core yard at Cacarue. The 3 m composites samples were assayed. Samples were sent to

variety of accredited laboratories.

9.2 SAMPLE PREPARATION AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES

SAMREC T3.3, T3.4

This section was adopted from the 2010 Independent Competent Persons Report for the Manica

Assets, of Pan African Resources PLC which was compiled by ExplorMine Consultants. No current

sampling was available to assess the preparation or analysis procedures at the time of the

generation of this Report.

Prior to 2006, the site geologist personally transported each batch of samples from Manica to

Mutare in Zimbabwe for analysis by Antech Laboratories. Any sample packets opened for inspection

by customs officials were re-sealed by the site geologist. After inspection by customs, all sample

packets were sealed in polyweave sacks and delivered to Swift Transport (in Mutare) for shipment

to Antech Laboratories in Kwekwe, Zimbabwe.

The Antech Laboratory did not report any damaged consignments. It was considered by ExplorMine

Consultants that the chain of custody was adequate.

Antech Laboratory in Kwekwe, Zimbabwe, which was SANAS accredited (testing laboratory No.

T0194) at the time of the Manica exploration-drilling programmes carried out all sample analyses

prior 2006. Each sample was dried, crushed and pulverised. A quartz wash was used to clean

equipment between individual samples. A 50 g aliquot was taken for analysis. Gold analysis was

conducted by means of fusion of the 50 g aliquot, followed by AAS determination to a detection

limit of 0.01 ppm.

A rigorous quality assurance and quality control (“QA/QC”) system was put in place whereby every

tenth sample submitted to the laboratory consisted of a standard, blank or a duplicate control

sample.

All pulps were retained at the Antech laboratory, however Minxcon is not aware of how long the

pulps were retained at the laboratory. Duplicate sample pulps were also submitted to Genalysis




Laboratories (Accredited by the National Association of Testing Authorities, Australia, of Perth,

Australia for comparative purposes).

From 2006 to 2008 samples were submitted to SGS Lakefield’s Johannesburg-based analytical

laboratory or on some occasions to SGS Lakefield’s Barberton laboratory for analysis. The SGS

Lakefield laboratories are SANAS accredited (testing laboratory No. T0169). Analysis was by fire

assay with fusion of a 50 g aliquot followed by AAS to a limit of 0.01 ppm. This was a total assay.

In terms of the sample preparation for geological samples, at SGS’s laboratories, the following

sample preparation procedure was followed:-

Samples were removed from the shipping container or plastic bags. Samples were dried

overnight at 110°C as required.

The entire sample was passed through a jaw crusher. The jaw crusher product was

randomly monitored by means of sieving. Crusher product specification was ~80% -2 mm. A

silica rock sample was crushed between each sample and the resultant product discarded in

order to prevent cross-contamination of samples. The jaw crusher was cleaned by means of

compressed air between samples. In addition, a silica blank was processed with each batch

of samples and was taken through the entire process including analysis. This sample is

identified as “Waste Rock” and was used to monitor possible sample preparation

contamination.

A riffle splitter was utilised to riffle out 150-250 g of RC samples. The reject sample

material was stored and labelled in plastic bags and placed into storage.

A sub-sample was then pulverised for ~6 minutes in a Labotec LM2 mill. The barrels were

cleaned with crushed silica rock between samples. The mill product was randomly checked

using a 75 µm screen. The minimum target for the mill product was 90% -75 µm.

The sample was then labelled for analysis and submitted to the analytical laboratory.

The SGS analytical procedure is summarised as follows:-

The sample was matted if required, and was then weighed.

The appropriate amount of the appropriate flux was added and then mixed with the

sample. If required, the reducing power was determined, and then the appropriate

amounts of flour, nitre and silver were added.

The sample was then fused, poured and then cooled. The button was then deslagged. It was

then pounded into a cube and then cupelled until the Doré bead formed.

For Atomic Absorption or ICP-OES analysis the bead was dissolved in aqua regia (3:1

hydrochloric acid to nitric acid). This was then diluted if deemed necessary.

For gravimetric determinations, the bead was parted in a 50% nitric acid solution to remove

the silver.

Data reduction by: Computer, on line, data was fed to the laboratory information

management system with a secure audit trail.

Quality control: Two weighed duplicates, standard reference material and blank for every

furnace batch of 21 samples was automatically assigned by the LIMS system for the full Fire

Assay batch.

Precision: 5% relative precision for samples with Au values greater than 1 g/t was required.

The precision was expected to increase, as the detection level was approached. The

inhomogeneity of some samples might have increased this value.

The laboratories were not audited.




9.3 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL

SAMREC T3.1 (i), T3.2 (ii), T3.3 (iv)

Blanks, field duplicates and CRMs were allocated to the sampling sequence. From 2006 to 2010, a

duplicate assay was submitted every 10th sample for diamond drilling, or at every 30 m for the RC

drilling, however from the information Minxcon has, it is not clear if there was consistency in the

placement of other control materials. 10% of the total samples consisted of a combination of

duplicates, blanks and CRMs.

The QA/QC summary report, the content of which is reflected in this section of the Report, was

prepared on 07th July 2014 by Mr David Muir of CSA (UK). The QA/QC summary report includes

samples collected from 1st January 1998 to 2nd July 2014. The QA/QC summary report was reviewed

by CSA Global (UK) when they compiled a Technical Report on Fair Bride Mineral Resource Estimate

in 2014. Table 10, Table 11 and Table 12 below shows summaries of samples collected and QA/QC

reference materials that were taken during the project and sent the laboratories, however Minxcon

did not review the QA/QC, but did review the CSA QA/QC report and concur with their findings.

Table 10: Summary of Samples Sent to the Laboratories

Laboratory Antech_Kwekwe SetPoint_JHB SGS_Lakefield SGS_Barberton Total

No. of Batches 29 14 81 92 216

No. of DH Samples 2,331 1,226 3,820 7,874 15,251

No. of QC Samples 0 1 311 165 477

No. of Standard Samples 86 274 861 458 1,679

Total 2,446 1,515 5,073 8,589 17,623 Note: Minxcon did not review the QA/QC.

Table 11: QC Category Ratios

QC Category DH Sample Count QC Sample Count Ratio of QC Samples to DH Samples

Field Duplicate 15,251 374 1:41

Lab Pulp Checks 15,251 103 1:148

Table 12: Standard Type Ratios Standard

Type DH Sample

Count Standard Type

Count Standard Sample

Count Ratio of QC Standard to

DH Samples

Client 15,251 10 268 1:59

Lab 15,251 13 395 1:40

NR 15,251 24 1,025 1:15

The results of the QA/QC review done by Mr Muir is summarised as follows:-

Laboratory Blanks:-

o No issues for Setpoint and SGS;

o No blank results available for Antech;

Laboratory CRMs:-

o Antech – Acceptable accuracy and precision;

o Setpoint – Acceptable accuracy and precision;

o SGS Barberton – No expected values available;

o SGS Lakefield – Some precision and accuracy issues. CRM SN26 under reporting with

multiple failures;

Client Blanks - Some failures but overall acceptable results. Failures could be mislabelled or

misidentified CRMs;




Client CRMs - Poor precision and accuracy exhibited in most CRMs with multiple failures.

Numerous significant failures which could possibly be attributed to mislabelling of blanks

and CRMs; and

Field Duplicates - Poor correlation but no significant bias. Slight bias to the original samples

at lower grades.

Lab Pulp Checks - No significant bias.

9.4 ADEQUACY OF SAMPLE PREPARATION

SAMREC T3.1 (ii)

Statistical analysis of the results shows no systematic variation between the original and field

duplicate and standards and blanks performed within standard tolerances. If any of the standards or

blanks assayed outside standard tolerances the entire batch was re-submitted for re-assay.

Field duplicates were within the acceptable standard tolerance, which means that the sample

preparation was acceptable. However, no historical information is available on the QA/QC of sub-

sampling preparation and or sample representivity.

No bias with respect to core recoveries was noted. However, in cases where there was excessive

core loss and no representative sample was possible, that particular sample was marked as an

absent value in the modelling process so that there would be no negative bias. In addition to this

the areas that were not sampled as a result of low or no mineralisation were given a value 0.01 g/t

(half the detection limit) so that the neighbouring samples with grade were not smeared into low

grade areas causing a positive bias.

9.5 AUDITS, REVIEWS AND MATERIAL RISKS

SAMREC T3.1 (ii), T3.2 (vi), T3.3 (v)

Minxcon is not aware of any audits that were carried out on the sampling processes and procedures

during the drilling and exploration campaigns. The QA/QC data was however reviewed during the

previous CPRs and found to be acceptable. Minxcon also did not detect any anomalies in this

respect during its validation process of the data. Therefore, Minxcon has not identified any material

risk in the sampling preparation and analysis of the Project.




10 DATA VERIFICATION

SAMREC T3.2 (iv)

10.1 DATA VERIFICATION PROCEDURES

As part of the 2014 Mineral Resource Estimation, Mr Malcolm Titley, Principal Consultant, CSA

Global (UK) Ltd, visited the property following the 2013 drilling campaign on two of the other

deposits which were drilled in the same campaign within the mining concession. After Mr Titley

reviewed the drilling and sampling methodology, he concluded that the drilling and sampling data

was satisfactory for the purposes of Mineral Resource estimation.

Data verification processes completed by Minxcon includes checking of overlapping intervals,

missing and repeat data on geological logs, assay, collar survey, downhole survey.

Mr Uwe Engelmann, Competent Person for this Report, also inspected the Fair Bride Project in

March 2016. During this site visit he verified that the drill core does correlate with the drillhole logs

and sections which form the basis of the geological model as well as the estimation model.

Therefore, the database used for the estimation was deemed appropriate and reliable for the

purpose of the estimation.

10.2 LIMITATIONS ON/FAILURE TO CONDUCT DATA VERIFICATION

No limitation on/failure to conduct data verification process.

10.3 ADEQUACY OF DATA

All the data verified and viewed by Minxcon were considered to be satisfactory for the purposes of

Mineral Resource estimation and adequate for the purposes of Mineral Resource Classification in

accordance with the guidance provided by the SAMREC Code.




11 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES

11.1 DATA

SAMREC T4.1 (ii, iii, iv), T4.2 (i, ii, vi)

11.1.1 Data Density, Distribution and Reliability

The database supplied by Xtract included historic diamond drilling, RC holes and trench sampling.

The drillhole spacing was found to be approximately at a 25 m spacing across the ore body. The

number of holes and the number of holes utilised in the Mineral Resource estimation is listed in

Table 13. From this set of ds only 94 diamond ds were used with 43 RC holes in the estimation. The

trench sampling was excluded from the evaluation as there was concern with respect to the QA/QC

of these samples due to possible mixing of samples and poor standard performance, perceived poor

reliability. The exclusion of the 123 trench samples from the total of 6,887 samples are viewed as

being minimal and are considered to not have an adverse effect on the estimation. In Table 13 it

shows that from a total of 229 drillholes only 137 were used for the evaluation, as these were the

only holes falling within the mineralised envelope. In Figure 19 the distribution of drillholes around

the Fair Bride orebody can be seen.

Table 13: Drillholes for the Fair Bride Deposit

Drillhole Type Total Total Estimation

Diamond 116 94

RC 113 43

Trench 12 0

Figure 19: Drillhole Distribution across the Fair Bride Orebody

Drillhole Distribution across the Fair Bride Orebody March 2016

QA/QC was performed by CSA (Muir, 2014) and the results and report are tabled in the Technical

Report by Auroch Minerals 2014, the findings of which are discussed in the section 9.3. The results

were reviewed by Minxcon in 2015 and the recommendations with regards the estimation were




observed and implemented. These included the exclusion of the trench sampling from the

estimation due to possible mixing of samples and poor standard performance.

11.1.2 Estimation Techniques

Estimation of the block model utilised Ordinary Kriging to estimate the Mineral Resource. Only

samples falling within the ore boundary wireframe were used for the estimation, and a capping

regime was used where sample values exceeding 20 g/t over a 1 m composite were capped at 20

g/t. Soft boundaries were included to estimate the oxide zone where data points were included

from the transitional zone to inform the oxide zone. A variogram range of 198 m in the long range

and 149 m in the short range was used. The variogram was constrained in the Y range to 11 m to

prevent overestimation across the width of the mineralised zone. The final block estimate utilises a

5 m X 5 m X 5 m block size with sub cell splitting.

11.1.3 Basic Statistics

The data used for the statistics and later estimation only includes samples from within the ore

boundary wireframe. Where sample intervals were included but not sampled, these sample

intervals were assigned a trace value (0.01 g/t). Where samples were captured as core loss these

samples were marked as absent. The basic statistics indicated a mean value of 0.39 g/t and a

histogram distribution to be log-normal for the Au values (Figure 21). The statistics for the length

of the samples indicated that the mean value for these was 1.15 m with a geometric mean of 0.96

m (Figure 20).

Figure 20: Length Histogram of Uncomposited Data falling within the Mineralised Zone

Length Histogram of Uncomposited Data falling within the Mineralised Zone

March 2016




Figure 21: Log Histogram of Au g/t, 1 m Composited Data falling within the Mineralised Zone

Log Histogram of Au g/t, 1 m Composited Data falling within the Mineralised Zone

March 2016

11.1.4 Data Capping

Capping statistics was conducted on the data falling within the mineralised ore zone and a range of

0.001 to 47.53 g/t was observed. From the cumulative coefficient of variation plot a discontinuity

was seen to exist at 20 g/t (Figure 22). This was viewed as being the upper limit of the data set and

falls into the 99th percentile and accounts for only eight samples points of the total (Figure 23).




Figure 22: Grade Capping was Selected at 20 g/t to Remove the Top End Tail of the Distribution

Figure 23: Grade Capping at 20 g/t falls into the Top 99% of the Distribution

11.1.5 Drillhole Assay Compositing

An analysis of the sample lengths for the drilling falling within the mineralised zone that had been

sampled was conducted, and a mean value of 1.18 m with a geometric mean of 0.99 m was

observed (Figure 24). The compositing interval utilised for the estimation was thus selected to be




at a 1 m interval. In Figure 24 below the 3 m samples represent the 3 m composited samples used

from the RC drilling.

Figure 24: Drillhole Sampling Length Histogram; 1m Composites were Selected

11.1.6 Variogram Analysis

Variography was conducted on the 1 m samples and a 3 structure variogram was produced. This

variogram presented a range of 198 m, 146 m and 11 m in the x,y and z axis directions respectively.

The variogram also showed an anisotropic behaviour. The direction, ranges and parameters of the

variogram are presented in Table 14. In Figure 25 the Search Ellipse for the estimate is represented

as a wireframe, this shows the long Axis of 198 m and Short Axis of 146 m with a Z thickness of 11 m

in the orientation of the estimation parameters. The experimental variogram and the modelled

variogram are shown in Figure 26 along with the variogram parameters.

Table 14: Structure variogram parameters

Parameter Range 1 Range 2 Range 3 VANGLE1 VANGLE2 VANGLE3 Nugget Sill Nugget:Sill % Total Variance

Vgram AU 11 m 146 m 198 m 32 63 55 0.465 4.189 11% 4.654




Figure 25: Search Volume and Variogram Ranges shown in Plan View, North South View and East West View

Search Volume and Variogram Ranges shown in Plan View, North South View and East West View

March 2016

Figure 26: Variogram Model and Parameters used in the Estimation

11.1.7 Data Selection for Estimation

The samples used for the estimation were restricted to only samples falling with in the Fair Bride

orebody wireframe (Figure 27).




Figure 27: Only Samples falling with in the Ore Wireframe are used in the Estimation

Only Samples falling with in the Ore Wireframe are used in the Estimation

March 2016

Three weathering domains were logged in the drilling and wireframes were created to separate

these domains. The weathering domains were defined as Oxide, Transitional and Sulphide, where

the sulphide zone showed no weathering and the oxide zone had a high level of weathering, with

the transitional exhibiting gradational weathering between the two extremes.

The oxidised zone estimation was restricted to samples within the oxidised zone and samples falling

midway into the transitional zone due to the gradational nature of the contact, resulting in a soft

boundary estimate. The transitional zone was defined in the drilling and has a global average

thickness of approximately 23 m resulting in a soft boundary limit of 11.5 m for the oxide zone.

The sulphide and transition zones were estimated as a unit due the soft boundary between the

zones. In Figure 28 the boundaries are defined by the drillhole logs for the oxide, transitional and

sulphide are depicted as blue, green and brown. The soft boundary for data selection is defined as

the blue line midway between the oxide and the sulphide zones. All samples for the transitional

and sulphide zones were used for the estimation for the transitional zone and the sulphide zones

respectively.




Figure 28: Soft Boundary used for the Estimation of the Oxide Zone

Soft Boundary used for the Estimation of the Oxide Zone March 2016

11.1.8 Density

SAMREC T2.4

Extensive density analysis was conducted but CSA and results may be viewed in the appendix of the

Auroch report. Most of the density determinations were conducted using the

Archimedes/displacement principle on lengths of dry core (whole or half) between 15 cm and 30 cm

in length. Where the core was weathered or porous samples were sealed with wax to ensure that

the measurements reflect dry densities. It is the author’s opinion that the densities assigned to the

zones would be applicable to this study and were therefore used as such. The density assignment

for the different zones were as follows:-

Oxide Zone: 2.57 kg/m3,

Transitional Zone: 2.68 kg/m3; and

Sulphide Zone: 2.79 kg/m3.

These values were then assigned to the block model to determine the bulk dry tonnages for the

block model.

11.1.9 Block Estimation and Block Size

SAMREC T4.2 (iii)

The orebody wireframe was filled with cells of dimensions: 5 m X 5 m X 5 m with sub cell splitting.

The cell size was selected due to the smallest mining unit (“SMU”) size and the kriging efficiency. A

cell size of 15 m X 5 m X 15 m produced a better kriging efficiency yet the degrees on efficiency did

not significantly change with the change in the block size, therefore for later reserving purposes

the 5 m X 5 m X 5 m cell size was selected.




A number of estimations were conducted including: ordinary kriging, inverse distance and nearest

neighbour. Ordinary kriging was selected as the preferred estimation method as a robust variogram

could be generated and the kriging efficiency was observed as being satisfactory to ensure a robust

estimation. Estimation was done on the parent cells and these values were assigned to the relevant

sub cells.

In Figure 29 the total resource model (in g/t) is shown with the high grade area to the west of the

orebody. A section (Figure 30) through the resource model shows how the estimation is honouring

the narrow zones of mineralization. In the horizontal section of elevation 500 m (Figure 31) the

western high grade are is clearly seen as compared to the eastern limb of the orebody.

Figure 29: Total Resource Model (in g/t) of Fair Bride showing the Higher Grade Area (Looking Southwest)

Total Resource Model of Fair Bride showing the Higher Grade Area (Looking Southwest)

March 2016




Figure 30: Section 486955 of the Resource Model showing Grade Distribution (g/t)

Section 486955 of the Resource Model showing Grade Distribution March 2016

Figure 31: Horizontal Section 500 of the Resource Model showing Grade Distribution; Western High Grade Area is Clearly Visible

Horizontal Section 500 of the Resource Model showing Grade Distribution; Western High Grade Area is Clearly Visible

March 2016




11.1.10 Checking and Validation

SAMREC T4.2 (iv, v)

Swath plots across the orebody from east to west (Figure 32) as well as sections (Figure 33) at

different elevations through the orebody were generated in order to compare the estimated values

to the original assay values. These indicated a good correlation with regards the estimation and the

raw assay values. Visual cross section of the drilling and resource block model was done to ensure

the estimation honoured the drillhole sampling.

This was viewed as presenting acceptable variation making the estimation acceptable for the type

of deposit and the sample spacing encountered in the deposit. It is apparent however that the

estimate consistently slightly under-evaluates orebody due to the smoothing effect of the kriging

estimate.

Figure 32: Swath Plot West to East across the Fair Bride Orebody Estimate




Figure 33: Swath Plot from Surface to Depth for the Fair Bride Orebody Estimate, Swath is 50 m in Width

11.1.11 Classification Criteria

SAMREC T7 (i, iii)

Classification for the estimation was based on the following criteria (Table 15):-

Kriging efficiency;

Number of samples; and

Search range of the variogram.

Table 15: Classification Criteria

Item Mineral Resource Category

Measured Indicated Inferred

Kriging Efficiency >0.5 >0.3 <0.3

Minimum No Samples 20 10 10

Search Radii 1 1 2

Where the criteria were met the model was flagged and coded. The coding was then used to inform

a classification halo wireframe that was created to ensure that no erroneous blocks were classified

as Measured, although they may have satisfied the coding criteria in Table 15. These wireframes in

Figure 34 were then used as the final classification of the Fair Bride Mineral Resource estimation

block model. Any resource block that falls within the Measured wireframe was classified as

Measured and blocks falling outside of the Measured but within the Indicated wireframe is classified

as Indicated. Resource blocks falling outside of these classification wireframes are classed as

Inferred. The Inferred Resources was stopped at twice the search radii and any Mineral Resource

estimation beyond this was unclassified. The final classification model is shown in Figure 35. This

classification criteria extends the resource model to a depth of approximately the 200 m amsl

elevation, which is approximately 530 m below surface.




A minimum of at least two drillholes per estimation was incorporated in the estimation to prevent a

single drillhole having undue weight on the estimation.

Figure 34: Measured and Indicated Wireframes based on the Classification Criteria

Measured and Indicated Wireframes based on the Classification Criteria March 2016

Figure 35: Measured, Indicated and Inferred Classification of the Resource Model

Measured, Indicated and Inferred Classification of the Resource Model March 2016

The above classification criteria have taken into consideration the accuracy of the tonnage by

means of the lithological wireframes (volume) and the density for the various zones (oxide,




transition and sulphide). The quality of the data is deemed to be sufficient based on the QA/QC

procedures incorporated into the exploration programme and finally the confidence of the

estimation by considering the kriging efficiencies of the model. The continuity of the orebody is

based on the Inferred Mineral Resource being based on twice the semi variogram range, which is an

acceptable practice, and this type of orebody is known to have depth extension.

11.2 DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS FOR MINERAL RESOURCES

SAMREC T8 (i)

All Mineral Resources have been categorised and reported in compliance with the definitions

embodied in the SAMREC Code on the reporting of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves. Mineral

Resources have been reported separately in the Measured, Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource

categories. Inferred Mineral Resources have been reported separately and have not been

incorporated with the Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources.

The Mineral Resources are exclusive of Mineral Reserves.

11.3 INDIVIDUAL GRADE OF METALS

SAMREC T4.2 (vi)

The only metal considered in this Mineral Resource estimate for Fair Bride is gold. No other metals

or metal equivalents were estimated or calculated. However, the presence of arsenopyrite was

utilised for the delineation of the orebody lithological wireframes.

11.4 MINERAL RESOURCE TABULATIONS

SAMREC T4.1 (iv), T7 (v), T8 (ii)

The Mineral Resource for Fair Bride for 2016 is tabled below in Table 16 to Table 18. The Mineral

Resource is based on a total resource stated at a cut-off of 0.5 g/t. The Mineral Resources are

further sub-divided into a Surface Minable Mineral Resource and an Underground Mineable Mineral

Resource. Two cut-offs were used for this classification. The results provided below appropriately

reflect the Competent Person’s view of the Fair Bride orebody.

Table 16: Total Mineral Resource for Fair Bride at 0.5 g/t Cut-off as at 4 March 2016


Mt g/t Kg Koz

Measured 9.764 1.86 18,163 584.0

Indicated 4.239 1.59 6,757 217.2

Total M&I 14.003 1.78 24,920 801.2

Inferred 12.930 1.65 21,313 685.2

Total Measured, Indicated and Inferred 26.933 1.72 46,233 1,486.4

Table 17: Open Cut Mineral Resource at 0.5 g/t Cut-off and Final Depth of 280 m below Surface


Mt g/t Kg Koz

Measured 9.750 1.86 18,130 582.9

Indicated 3.310 1.62 5,368 172.6

Total M&I 13.060 1.80 23,498 755.5

Inferred 0.894 1.17 1,049 33.7

Total Measured, Indicated and Inferred 13.954 1.76 24,547 789.2




Table 18: Underground Mineral Resource at 1.5g/t Cut-off and Depth from 280 m below Surface


Mt g/t Kg Koz

Measured 0.005 4.40 24 0.8

Indicated 0.307 2.61 801 25.8

Total M&I 0.312 2.64 825 26.5

Inferred 5.350 2.59 13,874 446.1

Total Measured, Indicated and Inferred 5.662 2.60 14,699 472.6 Notes:

1. Orebody volume estimated from digital wireframe. 2. 2016 Mineral Resource estimation were carried out by Mr L. Hope of Minxcon (NHD (Econ Geol.), Pr.Sci.Nat.)

under supervision of and verified by Mr U Engelmann, as Competent Person of this Report. 3. The Inferred Mineral Resources have a large degree of uncertainty as to their existence and whether they can

be mined economically or legally. 4. Only Mineral Resources lying within the legal boundaries are reported. 5. Mineral Resources are inclusive of Mineral Reserves. 6. Mineral Resources are declared at cut-offs shown in the table above. 7. No Geological losses are accounted for. 8. All figures are in metric tonnes. 9. 1 kg = 32.15076 oz.

The surface resource is based on a NPV scheduler optimisation run of an open pit design. This

optimisation run resulted in two pits, one to a depth of 220 m and the second to a depth of 350 m

(Figure 36). Therefore, an average of 280 m was used to limit the surface resource for declaration

purposes.

Figure 36: NPV Scheduler Pit Optimisation for the Fair Bride Orebody

NPV Scheduler Pit Optimisation for the Fair Bride Orebody March 2016

In addition to the depth cut-off, the grade cut-off used was 0.5 g/t. This is based on a gold price of

USD1,466/oz, which is the 90th percentile of the historical real term commodity prices since 1980,

and a mining cost and processing cost of USD1.76/t and USD22.5/t respectively. The recoveries

used in the Mineral Resource cut-off were 95.6% for the oxides and 90% for the transition and

sulphide zones. The underground Mineral Resource is based on a 1.5 g/t cut-off which used the

same gold price and recoveries but is based on a mining cost of USD27.12/t and USD22.07/t

processing cost.




Additional Mineral Resource tabulations have been compiled to show the oxide, transitional and

sulphide split at a cut-off of 0.5 g/t (Table 19 to Table 21). A further breakdown of the total

resource classification at incremental cut-off is included in Table 22. Included is the grade tonnage

curve for the 2016 resource model (Figure 37).

The Mineral Resources have been depleted with the historical pits that have been delineated by a

LIDAR survey.

Table 19: Total Oxide Transitional and Sulphide Resource Stated at 0.5 g/t Cut-off


Mt g/t Kg Koz

Measured 0.350 1.92 673 21.6

Indicated 0.040 1.77 70 2.3

Total M&I 0.390 1.90 743 23.9

Inferred - - - -

Total Measured, Indicated and Inferred 0.390 1.90 743 23.9

Table 20: Total Transitional Resource Stated at 0.5 g/t Cut-off


Mt g/t Kg Koz

Measured 1.094 2.49 2,720 87.5

Indicated 0.233 1.63 379 12.2

Total M&I 1.327 2.34 3,099 99.6

Inferred - - - -

Total Measured, Indicated and Inferred 1.327 2.34 3,099 99.6

Table 21: Total Sulphide Resource Stated at 0.5 g/t Cut-off


Mt g/t Kg Koz

Measured 8.320 1.78 14,770 474.9

Indicated 3.966 1.59 6,307 202.8

Total M&I 12.286 1.72 21,077 677.7

Inferred 12.930 1.65 21,313 685.2

Total Measured, Indicated and Inferred 25.215 1.68 42,390 1,362.9 Notes:

1. Orebody volume estimated from digital wireframe. 2. 2016 Mineral Resource estimation were carried out by Mr L. Hope of Minxcon (NHD (Econ Geol.), Pr.Sci.Nat.)

under supervision of and verified by Mr U Engelmann, as Competent Person of this Report. 3. The Inferred Mineral Resources have a large degree of uncertainty as to their existence and whether they can

be mined economically or legally. 4. Only Mineral Resources lying within the legal boundaries are reported. 5. Mineral Resources are inclusive of Mineral Reserves. 6. Mineral Resources are declared at cut-offs shown in the table above. 7. No Geological losses are accounted for. 8. All figures are in metric tonnes. 9. 1 kg = 32.15076 oz.




Figure 37: Grade Tonnage Curve for the 2016 Total Mineral Resource

Note: The table for the graph is included in Appendix 2

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

20.00

-

10,000,000

20,000,000

30,000,000

40,000,000

50,000,000

60,000,000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Ton

nes

Au Cut-off

TONNES

AU



Table 22: Total Mineral Resource at Incremental Cut-offs

Au Cut Off

Mineral Resource Category

Measured Indicated Inferred Total Measured, Indicated and Inferred

Tonnes Au Au Au Tonnes Au Au Au Tonnes Au Au Au Tonnes Au Au Au

Mt g/t Kg KOz Mt g/t Kg KOz Mt g/t Kg KOz Mt g/t Kg KOz

0 18.28 1.09 19,885 639 9.47 0.80 7,583 244 22.77 1.00 22,852 735 50.52 1.00 50,320 1,618

0.5 9.76 1.86 18,163 584 4.24 1.59 6,757 217 12.93 1.65 21,313 685 26.93 1.72 46,233 1,486

1 6.14 2.53 15,542 500 2.57 2.16 5,543 178 8.56 2.10 18,007 579 17.27 2.26 39,093 1,257

1.5 4.05 3.20 12,970 417 1.63 2.69 4,380 141 5.56 2.58 14,324 461 11.24 2.82 31,674 1,018

2 2.79 3.87 10,798 347 1.05 3.22 3,385 109 3.55 3.06 10,842 349 7.39 3.39 25,026 805

2.5 2.00 4.51 9,042 291 0.67 3.79 2,530 81 2.27 3.51 7,989 257 4.94 3.96 19,561 629

3 1.49 5.13 7,632 245 0.44 4.32 1,920 62 1.43 3.98 5,689 183 3.36 4.54 15,241 490

3.5 1.12 5.75 6,443 207 0.30 4.83 1,457 47 0.85 4.53 3,828 123 2.27 5.17 11,728 377

4 0.88 6.31 5,536 178 0.22 5.27 1,143 37 0.52 5.03 2,590 83 1.61 5.76 9,269 298

4.5 0.69 6.86 4,760 153 0.15 5.73 861 28 0.31 5.57 1,719 55 1.15 6.37 7,340 236

5 0.56 7.38 4,110 132 0.10 6.16 645 21 0.19 6.09 1,162 37 0.85 6.94 5,917 190

5.5 0.44 7.93 3,511 113 0.07 6.65 455 15 0.12 6.53 810 26 0.64 7.52 4,776 154

6 0.36 8.46 3,014 97 0.04 7.13 319 10 0.08 6.93 572 18 0.48 8.08 3,905 126

6.5 0.28 9.02 2,566 82 0.03 7.48 243 8 0.05 7.35 377 12 0.37 8.65 3,186 102

7 0.23 9.53 2,217 71 0.02 7.98 155 5 0.03 7.79 240 8 0.28 9.24 2,611 84

7.5 0.19 9.99 1,937 62 0.01 8.38 105 3 0.02 8.35 132 4 0.22 9.79 2,174 70

8 0.17 10.37 1,722 55 0.01 8.93 60 2 0.01 9.14 60 2 0.18 10.27 ,841 59

8.5 0.14 10.83 1,480 48 0.00 9.35 40 1 0.00 9.49 46 1 0.15 10.74 1,566 50

9 0.11 11.26 1,275 41 0.00 9.73 25 1 0.00 10.17 25 1 0.12 11.20 1,326 43

9.5 0.09 11.65 1,101 35 0.00 10.18 16 1 0.00 12.25 8 0 0.10 11.63 1,125 36

10 0.08 12.05 941 30 0.00 10.48 8 0 0.00 12.25 8 0 0.08 12.04 957 31




11.5 FACTORS AFFECTING MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES

SAMREC T8 (iii)

Downhole surveys were not conducted on all the holes and this might influence the local accuracy

of the mineralised zone, as the two long holes ANDD039 and ANDD037 show significant deviation.

An extensive density analysis was conducted but CSA and results are in the appendix of the Auroch

report. It is the opinion of the authors of this Report that the densities assigned to the zones would

be applicable to this study and therefore used as such. The density assignments for the different

zones are thus Oxide Zone 2.57 kg/m3, Transitional Zone 2.68 kg/m3 and Sulphide Zone 2.79 kg/m3.

These values were then assigned to the block model to determine the bulk dry tonnages for the

block model.

The historical pits and underground development voids have been removed from the Mineral

Resource estimation. Underground mining is very limited and consists of minor adits and drives and

therefore no pillars due to historical mining have been demarcated or removed from the resource.

No geological fault loss factor has been applied to the Mineral Resource estimation at this stage.

11.6 MINERAL RESOURCE RECONCILIATION 2014-2016

SAMREC T8 (iv)

Table 23 shows the reconciliation between the Auroch Mineral Resource estimate for Fair Bride in

2014 and the 2016 Mineral Resource estimate. The reasons for the changes for the Mineral Resource

estimation included:-

The change in the estimation method from Local Uniform Conditioning to Ordinary Kriging;

Depth change of the resource declaration from 350 m to approximately 530 m below surface;

Change of resource wireframe to honour geological interpolation; and

Revised variogram and statistics.



Table 23: Reconciliation of the 2014 and 2016 Mineral Resource Estimate Mineral Resource 2014 Cut-

off Au

Mineral Resources 2011 Percentage Change Mineral Resources 2016

Project Mineral Resource

Category

Tonnage Grade Au Content Au Tonnage Grade Au Content Au Tonnage Grade Au Content Au

g/t Mt g/t Koz t g/t Oz t g/t Koz

Fair Bride Measured + Indicated 0.5 6.086 3.11 609 130.1% -42.8% 31.7% 14.003 1.78 801

Inferred 0.5 2.934 2.91 275 340.6% -43.4% 149.6% 12.930 1.65 685




12 CONCLUSIONS

Minxcon has the following conclusions regarding the Mineral Resources of the Fair Bride Project:-

The database is a reliable database for Mineral Resource Estimation;

After discussions with the project geologist no fault was interpreted between the eastern

and western portions of the main (higher grade) Fair Bride orebody – this area potentially

requires further investigation;

Downhole surveys were not conducted on all the holes and this might influence the local

accuracy of the mineralized zone, as the two long holes ANDD039 and ANDD037 show

significant deviation;

The mineralised strike of the ore body is approximately 1,040 m;

Open pit resource has been declared to a depth of 280 m (which is the average depth of the

two modelled pits) – resource cut-off of 0.5 g/t;

The open pit is predominantly Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource;

The depth extension (underground resource) is predominantly in the Inferred Mineral

Resource category and is to a depth of approximately 530 m;

Currently the densities utilised are based on the oxide, transition and sulphide zones. There

is no split in the densities on lithology type – especially the BIFs and rhyolites that make up

the majority of the orebody;

The 2016 Mineral Resource has a grade similar to that of the 2010 resource estimation but

is lower than the 2014 Mineral Resource estimation. This is due to the fact that the 2014

estimation utilised local uniform conditioning (“LUC”) and the 2010 and 2016 estimation

utilised ordinary kriging;

It is Minxcon’s opinion that the ordinary kriging will deliver a more realistic mining grade

for mine design purposes;

The 2016 Mineral Resource estimation honours the geology / lithology of the Fair Bride

orebody.




13 RECOMMENDATIONS

SAMREC T10 (i)

The following recommendations are made:-

The underground resource, which is predominantly in the Inferred Mineral Resource

category, requires infill drilling to improve the confidence levels;

The additional drilling for the depth extension should be surveyed down the hole as the

previous long holes show significant deviations;

Additional drilling is required at the western portion of the strike to investigate if the depth

extension is also low grade;

The difference in the densities of the lithologies should be investigated to assess the

impact;

It is the author’s opinion that the ordinary kriged model should be utilised for mine design

as it gives a more realistic mining grade model.




14 REFERENCES

SAMREC T1.3 (ii), T1.4 (i)

Manhiça, A. D. S. T., Grantham, G. H., Armstrong, R. A., Guise, P. G. and Kruger, F. J.

2001. Polyphase deformation and metamorphism at the Kalahari craton – Mozambique belt

boundary.

Koll, G., 2014a. Technical Report – Fair Bride Mineral Resource Estimate 2014 Update.

Auroch Minerals NL.

http://www.aurochminerals.com/wpcontent/uploads/2014/11/1385245.pdf.

Grieve, D., 2015. The Nature and Origin of Gold Mineralisation in the Fair Bride Deposit,

Odzi-Mutare-Manica Greenstone Belt, Mozambique.

ExplorMine Consultants, 2010. Independent Competent Persons Report for the Manica Assets

of Pan African Resources PLC.

ExplorMine Consultants, 2008. A Competent Persons Report on the Manica Assets of Pan

African Resources.

ExplorMine Consultants, 2006. A Competent Persons Report on the Manica Assets in

Mozambique of Pan African Resources PLC.

Lord, D., Kenworthy, S., Fairfield, P., and Wulfse, A. 2012. Independent Technical

Assessment Report Manica Gold Project. SRK Consulting. Project Number TMN002.

Stepcich, A. and Naidoo, T. 2012. Manica Gold Project Valuation. SRK Consulting. Project

Number TMN001.

http://www.aurochminerals.com/wpcontent/uploads/2014/11/1385245.pdf




15 COMPETENT PERSON QUALIFICATIONS

SAMREC T11 (i)

15.1 KEY TECHNICAL STAFF

Mr Laurence Hope (Senior Resource Geologist, Minxcon): NHD (Econ. Geol.), Pr.Sci.Nat. (Reg. No.

200010/11).

Laurence has been involved in the mining industry for over 24 years in both production and

consulting. As a geologist, he has held managerial level positions for over 12 years, leading

teams in numerous work environments. He has extensive experience of over 17 years in 3D

geological modeling and Mineral Resource estimation for a variety of deposit types. He is

proficient in many geological modeling software programs, including Vulcan, Surpac,

Datamine, Micromine and Leapfrog3D. He has worked as a production geologist on a variety

of mines and conducted exploration programmes in the field. As a consultant, a main

function of his career has been in mine database management and QA/QC.

Mr Paul Obermeyer (Mineral Resource Manager, Minxcon): BSc Hons (Geol.), Pr.Sci.Nat. (Reg. No.

400114/06).

Paul has 18 years’ experience in the mining industry, where he has gained extensive

experience in data processing and ore body modelling using Datamine™, and the fields of

sedimentology, stratigraphy, gold exploration and QA/QC. He has been involved in projects

with commodities such as of gold, platinum, coal and base metals. He was a Chief Geologist

on one of South Africa’s most complex mines for four years. He has worked in a production

environment for 13 years, as well as in exploration. Owing to his experience, Paul is also

well-equipped to conduct due diligence exercises on operations for different commodities

and to conduct audits.

15.2 COMPETENT PERSON CERTIFICATE

SAMREC T1 (ii, iii)




CERTIFICATE of COMPETENT PERSON – U Engelmann

I, Uwe Engelmann, do hereby certify that:-

1. I am a Director of Minxcon (Pty) Ltd

Suite 5, Coldstream Office Park,

2 Coldstream Street,

Little Falls, Roodepoort, South Africa

2. I graduated with a BSc Honours (Geology) degree from the University of the Witwatersrand in 1991.

3. I have more than 18 years’ experience in the mining and exploration industry. This includes eight years as

an Ore Resource Manager at the Randfontein Estates Projects on the West Rand. I have completed a

number of assessments and technical reports pertaining to various commodities, including gold, using

approaches described by the South African Code for the Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources

and Mineral Reserves (“SAMREC Code”).

4. I am affiliated with the following professional associations which meet all the attributes of a Professional

Association or a Self-Regulatory Professional Association, as applicable (as those terms are defined in the

SAMREC Code):-

Class Professional Society Year of

Registration

Member Geological Society of South Africa (MGSSA No. 966310) 2010

Professional Natural Scientist

South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions (Pr.Sci.Nat. Reg. No. 400058/08)

2008

5. I am responsible for the technical report titled “An Independent Technical Report on the Mineral Resources

of the Fair Bride Gold Deposit on the 3990C Mining Concession, Manica Province, Mozambique” prepared for

Xtract Resources PLC with an effective date of 4 March 2016 (“the Report”).

6. I have read the definition of “Competent Person” set out the SAMREC Code and certify that by reason of

my education, affiliation with professional associations and past relevant work experience, I fulfil the

requirements to be a Competent Person for the purposes of the Report.

7. I have read the SAMREC Code and the Report has been prepared in compliance with it.

8. As of the effective date, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the Report contains all

scientific and technical information required to be disclosed to make the Report not misleading.

9. The facts presented in the Report are, to the best of my knowledge, correct.

10. The analyses and conclusions presented in the Report are limited only by the reported forecasts and

conditions.

11. I have neither prior involvement, nor present or prospective interest in the subject property or asset and

have no bias with respect to the assets that are the subject of the Report, or to the parties involved with

the assignment.

12. I am independent of the issuer. My compensation, employment or contractual relationship with the

Commissioning Entity is not contingent on any aspect of the Report.

13. I undertook a personal inspection of the subject property on 15 to 17 March 2016.

Yours faithfully,

U ENGELMANN

BSc (Zoo. & Bot.), BSc Hons (Geol.)

Pr.Sci.Nat., MGSSA

DIRECTOR, MINXCON

Date of Sign-off: 15 April 2016




16 APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Units of Measurement, Acronyms & Abbreviations and Glossary of Terms

The following units of measurement are used in this Report:-

Unit Definition

% per cent

° degrees

°C degrees Celsius

cm.g/t centimetre grams per tonne

g/t grams per tonne

ha hectare

km kilometre

Koz kilo ounces

m meter

m3

cubic meters

mm millimetre

Moz million ounces

Mt million tonnes

t tonne

μm micrometre

The following acronyms and abbreviations are used in this Report:-

Item Description

AAS Atomic Absorption Spectrometer

amsl Above Mean Sea Level

BIF Banded Iron Formation

CPR Competent Persons’ Report

CRM Certified Reference Material

Ga Billion Years

IP Induced Polarisation

LUC Local Uniform Conditioning

MMS Mutare-Masvingo-Sandawana

OK Ordinary Kriging

OMM Odzi-Mutare-Manica

QA/QC Quality Assurance and Quality Control

RC Reverse Circulation

SAMREC Code South African Code for the Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves (2007 Edition)

SAMVAL Code South African Code for the Reporting of Mineral Asset Valuation (2008 Edition, as amended July 2009)

SK Simple Kriging

TMI Total Magnetic Field Intensity (Survey)

USD United States Dollar

UTM Universal Transverse Mercator




The following terms are used in this Report:-

SAMREC T10 (ii)

Term Definition

Alluvial The product of sedimentary processes in rivers, resulting in the deposition of alluvium (soil deposited by a river).

Arenite A sedimentary rock composed mainly of quartz minerals.

Argillite A sedimentary rock composed mainly of clay minerals.

Assay laboratory A facility in which the proportions of metal in ores or concentrates are determined using analytical techniques.

Auriferous A synonym for gold-bearing.

Conglomerate A sedimentary rock containing rounded fragments (clasts) derived from the erosion and abrasion of older rocks. Conglomerates are usually formed through the action of water in rivers and beaches. The interstitial spaces between the clasts are filled with finer grained sediment.

Cut-off grade Cut-off grade is any grade that, for any specific reason, is used to separate two courses of action, e.g. to mine or to leave, to mill or to dump.

Development Activities related to preparation for mining activities to take place and reach the required level of production.

Diamond drilling An exploration drilling method, where the rock is cut with a diamond drilling bit, usually to extract core samples.

Dilution Waste which is mixed with ore in the mining process.

Dip The angle that a structural surface, i.e. a bedding or fault plane, makes with the horizontal. It is measured perpendicular to the strike of the structure.

Exploration Prospecting, sampling, mapping, diamond drilling and other work involved in the search for mineralisation.

Facies The features that characterise rock as being emplaced, metamorphosed or deposited in a sedimentary fashion, under specific condition. In the case of sediment host deposits, this infers deposition within a particular depositional environment.

Faulting The process of fracturing that produces a displacement within, of across lithologies.

Grade The quantity of metal per unit mass of ore expressed as a percentage or, for gold, as grams per tonne of ore.

In situ In place, i.e. within unbroken rock.

Indicated Mineral Resource

An “Indicated Mineral Resource” is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity, grade or quality, densities, shape and physical characteristics, can be estimated with a level of confidence sufficient to allow the appropriate application of technical and economic parameters, to support mine planning and evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit. The estimate is based on detailed and reliable exploration and testing information gathered through appropriate techniques from locations such as outcrops, trenches, pits, workings and ds that are spaced closely enough for geological and grade continuity to be reasonably assumed (NI 43-101 definition).

Inferred Mineral Resource

An “Inferred Mineral Resource‟ is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity and grade or quality can be estimated on the basis of geological evidence and limited sampling and reasonably assumed, but not verified, geological and grade continuity. The estimate is based on limited information and sampling gathered through appropriate techniques from locations such as outcrops, trenches, pits, workings and ds.

Internal Rate of Return (IRR)

The internal rate of return on an investment or project is the "annualised effective compounded return rate" or "rate of return" that makes the net present value of all cash flows (both positive and negative) from a particular investment equal to zero. It can also be defined as the discount rate at which the present value of all future cash flow is equal to the initial investment or in other words the rate at which an investment breaks even.

Kriging An estimation method that minimises the estimation error between data points in determining mineral resources. Kriging is the best linear unbiased estimator of a mineral resource.

Level The workings or tunnels of an underground mine which are on the same horizontal plane.

Lithology The general compositional characteristics of rocks.

Measured mineral resource

“Measured Mineral Resource‟ is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity, grade or quality, densities, shape, and physical characteristics are so well established that they can be estimated with confidence sufficient to allow the appropriate application of technical and economic parameters, to support production planning and evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit. The estimate is based on detailed and reliable exploration, sampling and testing information gathered through appropriate techniques from locations such as outcrops, trenches, pits, workings and ds that are spaced closely enough to confirm both geological and grade continuity.

Mineable That portion of a mineral resource for which extraction is technically and economically feasible.

Mineral Reserve A Mineral Reserve is the economically mineable part of a Measured or Indicated Mineral Resource demonstrated by at least a Preliminary Feasibility Study. Adequate information on mining, processing, metallurgical, economic and other relevant factors that demonstrate, at the time of reporting, that economic extraction can be justified. A Mineral Reserve includes diluting materials and allowances for losses that may occur when the material is mined. (NI43-101




Term Definition

definition). Mineral reserves are reported as general indicators of the life of mineral deposits. Changes in reserves generally reflect:

i. development of additional reserves; ii. depletion of existing reserves through production; iii. actual mining experience; and iv. price forecasts.

Grades of mineral reserve actually processed from time to time may be different from stated reserve grades because of geologic variation in different areas mined, mining dilution, losses in processing and other factors. Neither reserves nor projections of future operations should be interpreted as assurances of the economic life of mineral deposits or of the profitability of future operations.

Mineral Resource A Mineral Resource is a concentration or occurrence of diamonds, natural solid inorganic material, or natural solid fossilised organic material including base and precious metals, coal, and industrial minerals in or on the Earth’s crust in such form and quantity and of such a grade or quality that it has reasonable prospects for economic extraction. The location, quantity, grade, geological characteristics and continuity of a Mineral Resource are known, estimated or interpreted from specific geological evidence and knowledge.

Mineralisation The presence of a target mineral in a mass of host rock.

Mineralised area Any mass of host rock in which minerals of potential commercial value occur.

Ore A mixture of valuable and worthless minerals from which at least one of the minerals can be mined and processed at an economic profit.

Mineral Deposit A continuous well defined mass of material of sufficient ore content to make extraction economically feasible.

Outcrop The exposure of rock on surface.

Reef A narrow gold-bearing lithology, normally a conglomerate in the Witwatersrand Basin that may contain economic concentrates of gold and uranium.

Sampling Taking small pieces of rock at intervals along exposed mineralisation for assay (to determine the mineral content).

Sedimentary Formed by the deposition of solid fragmental material that originates from weathering of rocks and is transported from a source to a site of deposition.

Semi-variogram A graph that describes the expected difference in value between pairs of samples as a function of sample spacing.

Stratigraphic A term describing the chronological sequence in which bedded rocks occur that can usually be correlated between different localities.

Strike length Horizontal distance along the direction that a structural surface takes as it intersects the horizontal.

Sulphide A mineral characterised by the linkages of sulphur with a metal or semi-metal, such as pyrite (iron sulphide). Also a zone in which sulphide minerals occur.

Syncline A basin shaped fold.

Syndepositional A process that took place at the same time as sedimentary deposition.

Tonnage Quantities where the tonne is an appropriate unit of measure. Typically used to measure reserves of gold-bearing material in situ or quantities of ore and waste material mined, transported or milled.

Total cost per ounce

A measure of the average cost of producing an ounce of gold, calculated by dividing the total operating costs in a period by the total gold production over the same period.

Transgress Systematic inundation of an erosional surface by sedimentary deposition.

Unconformity A surface within a package of sedimentary rocks which may be parallel to or at an angle with overlying or underlying rocks, and which represents a period of erosion or non-deposition, or both.

Waste rock Rock with an insufficient gold content to justify processing.

Appendix 2: Grade Tonnage Curve Table for the Graph in the Resource Declaration

Au Cut-off Tonnes Au Tonnes x Au Tonnes % Tonnes x Au %

0.00 50,520,920 1.00 50,320,092 100% 100%

0.10 40,907,624 1.22 49,917,268 81% 99%

0.20 35,678,964 1.38 49,144,404 71% 98%

0.30 32,040,074 1.51 48,246,276 63% 96%

0.40 29,259,330 1.62 47,275,804 58% 94%

0.50 26,932,598 1.72 46,232,988 53% 92%

0.60 24,896,238 1.81 45,112,876 49% 90%

0.70 22,794,638 1.92 43,749,220 45% 87%

0.80 20,723,082 2.04 42,197,316 41% 84%

0.90 18,972,146 2.15 40,708,260 38% 81%





1.00 17,267,350 2.26 39,093,156 34% 78%

1.10 15,813,972 2.38 37,565,900 31% 75%

1.20 14,492,532 2.49 36,051,580 29% 72%

1.30 13,334,780 2.60 34,604,176 26% 69%

1.40 12,241,586 2.71 33,129,920 24% 66%

1.50 11,235,436 2.82 31,674,268 22% 63%

1.60 10,332,372 2.93 30,277,060 20% 60%

1.70 9,451,518 3.05 28,823,436 19% 57%

1.80 8,661,318 3.17 27,442,390 17% 55%

1.90 7,985,114 3.28 26,190,546 16% 52%

2.00 7,387,841 3.39 25,025,576 15% 50%

2.10 6,812,323 3.50 23,846,416 13% 47%

2.20 6,270,337 3.62 22,679,274 12% 45%

2.30 5,845,932 3.72 21,724,638 12% 43%

2.40 5,397,529 3.83 20,671,514 11% 41%

2.50 4,944,099 3.96 19,560,718 10% 39%

2.60 4,555,829 4.08 18,570,842 9% 37%

2.70 4,194,748 4.20 17,614,458 8% 35%

2.80 3,896,584 4.31 16,794,698 8% 33%

2.90 3,610,811 4.43 15,979,942 7% 32%

3.00 3,360,311 4.54 15,240,870 7% 30%

3.10 3,122,124 4.65 14,514,508 6% 29%

3.20 2,791,671 4.83 13,475,630 6% 27%

3.30 2,587,963 4.95 12,814,509 5% 25%

3.40 2,408,800 5.07 12,215,005 5% 24%

3.50 2,267,571 5.17 11,727,617 4% 23%

3.60 2,114,055 5.29 11,182,592 4% 22%

3.70 1,991,268 5.39 10,734,889 4% 21%

3.80 1,859,199 5.51 10,241,129 4% 20%

3.90 1,731,933 5.63 9,751,215 3% 19%

4.00 1,609,795 5.76 9,268,846 3% 18%

4.10 1,483,163 5.90 8,756,110 3% 17%

4.20 1,382,954 6.03 8,340,028 3% 17%

4.30 1,303,719 6.14 8,003,467 3% 16%

4.40 1,225,593 6.25 7,663,640 2% 15%

4.50 1,152,987 6.37 7,339,961 2% 15%

4.60 1,089,116 6.47 7,049,286 2% 14%

4.70 1,025,546 6.59 6,753,714 2% 13%

4.80 963,445 6.70 6,458,783 2% 13%

4.90 897,752 6.84 6,140,336 2% 12%

5.00 852,651 6.94 5,917,242 2% 12%

5.10 814,989 7.03 5,726,911 2% 11%

5.20 763,102 7.15 5,459,861 2% 11%

5.30 727,995 7.25 5,275,589 1% 10%

5.40 675,075 7.40 4,992,822 1% 10%

5.50 635,197 7.52 4,775,604 1% 9%

5.60 603,589 7.62 4,600,304 1% 9%

5.70 568,601 7.74 4,402,194 1% 9%

5.80 535,368 7.87 4,211,122 1% 8%

5.90 511,912 7.96 4,073,874 1% 8%

6.00 483,552 8.08 3,904,954 1% 8%

6.10 456,171 8.20 3,739,248 1% 7%

6.20 428,555 8.33 3,569,470 1% 7%

6.30 409,580 8.43 3,450,787 1% 7%

6.40 389,138 8.53 3,321,116 1% 7%

6.50 368,176 8.65 3,186,061 1% 6%





6.60 350,941 8.76 3,073,273 1% 6%

6.70 326,201 8.92 2,908,600 1% 6%

6.80 310,456 9.03 2,802,236 1% 6%

6.90 294,703 9.14 2,694,485 1% 5%

7.00 282,724 9.24 2,611,224 1% 5%

7.10 265,597 9.38 2,490,616 1% 5%

7.20 254,274 9.48 2,409,670 1% 5%

7.30 240,215 9.61 2,307,756 0% 5%

7.40 231,394 9.69 2,242,881 0% 4%

7.50 222,165 9.79 2,174,037 0% 4%

7.60 213,804 9.87 2,110,896 0% 4%

7.70 206,035 9.96 2,051,530 0% 4%

7.80 197,973 10.05 1,988,984 0% 4%

7.90 183,854 10.22 1,878,148 0% 4%

8.00 179,203 10.27 1,841,139 0% 4%

8.10 173,597 10.35 1,796,012 0% 4%

8.20 164,081 10.47 1,718,458 0% 3%

8.30 156,757 10.58 1,658,050 0% 3%

8.40 152,568 10.64 1,623,056 0% 3%

8.50 145,765 10.74 1,565,564 0% 3%

8.60 140,751 10.82 1,522,719 0% 3%

8.70 133,445 10.94 1,459,567 0% 3%

8.80 129,020 11.01 1,420,876 0% 3%

8.90 124,737 11.09 1,382,963 0% 3%

9.00 118,351 11.20 1,325,702 0% 3%

9.10 114,043 11.28 1,286,684 0% 3%

9.20 110,894 11.34 1,257,878 0% 2%

9.30 106,315 11.43 1,215,513 0% 2%

9.40 101,825 11.52 1,173,519 0% 2%

9.50 96,724 11.63 1,125,311 0% 2%

9.60 93,213 11.71 1,091,782 0% 2%

9.70 90,313 11.78 1,063,794 0% 2%

9.80 87,561 11.84 1,036,963 0% 2%

9.90 84,708 11.91 1,008,846 0% 2%

10.00 79,511 12.04 957,189 0% 2%

10.10 76,665 12.11 928,540 0% 2%

10.20 73,778 12.19 899,262 0% 2%

10.30 70,648 12.27 867,184 0% 2%

10.40 67,729 12.36 836,990 0% 2%

10.50 64,841 12.44 806,854 0% 2%

10.60 62,856 12.50 785,950 0% 2%

10.70 61,378 12.55 770,171 0% 2%

10.80 59,048 12.62 745,127 0% 1%

10.90 56,792 12.69 720,667 0% 1%

11.00 53,978 12.78 689,881 0% 1%

11.10 51,833 12.85 666,183 0% 1%

11.20 50,166 12.91 647,588 0% 1%

11.30 48,105 12.98 624,407 0% 1%

11.40 46,042 13.05 601,001 0% 1%

11.50 44,600 13.11 584,500 0% 1%

11.60 42,864 13.17 564,445 0% 1%

11.70 41,727 13.21 551,210 0% 1%

11.80 39,108 13.31 520,422 0% 1%

11.90 36,991 13.39 495,347 0% 1%

12.00 35,451 13.45 476,937 0% 1%

12.10 33,757 13.52 456,524 0% 1%





12.20 29,881 13.70 409,458 0% 1%

12.30 29,437 13.72 404,015 0% 1%

12.40 27,787 13.81 383,629 0% 1%

12.50 25,751 13.91 358,260 0% 1%

12.60 24,095 14.01 337,490 0% 1%

12.70 22,297 14.12 314,738 0% 1%

12.80 20,056 14.27 286,156 0% 1%

12.90 18,857 14.36 270,749 0% 1%

13.00 18,005 14.43 259,743 0% 1%

13.10 17,202 14.49 249,269 0% 0%

13.20 16,023 14.59 233,728 0% 0%

13.30 14,725 14.71 216,536 0% 0%

13.40 14,040 14.77 207,374 0% 0%

13.50 14,040 14.77 207,374 0% 0%

13.60 12,784 14.89 190,329 0% 0%

13.70 12,135 14.95 181,475 0% 0%

13.80 11,360 15.04 170,807 0% 0%

13.90 10,441 15.14 158,095 0% 0%

14.00 9,503 15.26 145,014 0% 0%

14.10 8,890 15.34 136,419 0% 0%

14.20 8,242 15.44 127,251 0% 0%

14.30 7,511 15.56 116,833 0% 0%

14.40 6,381 15.77 100,623 0% 0%

14.50 6,082 15.83 96,294 0% 0%

14.60 5,928 15.87 94,062 0% 0%

14.70 5,774 15.90 91,805 0% 0%

14.80 5,468 15.97 87,301 0% 0%

14.90 5,162 16.03 82,759 0% 0%

15.00 5,162 16.03 82,759 0% 0%

15.10 4,549 16.16 73,519 0% 0%

15.20 4,128 16.27 67,147 0% 0%

15.30 3,542 16.44 58,221 0% 0%

15.40 2,790 16.72 46,653 0% 0%

15.50 2,790 16.72 46,653 0% 0%

15.60 2,790 16.72 46,653 0% 0%

15.70 2,680 16.77 44,925 0% 0%

15.80 2,680 16.77 44,925 0% 0%

15.90 2,337 16.89 39,485 0% 0%

16.00 2,337 16.89 39,485 0% 0%

16.10 2,337 16.89 39,485 0% 0%

16.20 2,337 16.89 39,485 0% 0%

16.30 2,337 16.89 39,485 0% 0%

16.40 2,337 16.89 39,485 0% 0%

16.50 2,337 16.89 39,485 0% 0%

16.60 2,337 16.89 39,485 0% 0%

16.70 1,333 17.09 22,781 0% 0%

16.80 1,027 17.20 17,665 0% 0%

16.90 1,027 17.20 17,665 0% 0%

17.00 684 17.32 11,853 0% 0%

17.10 684 17.32 11,853 0% 0%

17.20 684 17.32 11,853 0% 0%

17.30 342 17.35 5,933 0% 0%



Appendix 3: SAMREC Code Compliance Checklist

SAMREC Section

SAMREC Contents Pertains

To Report Section

E = Exploration Results R = Mineral Resources R* = Mineral Reserves

Purpose of Report

T1.1 (i) Title page, Table of Contents, including figures and tables. E, R, R* Cover pg

T1.1 (ii)

State for whom the report was prepared, whether it was intended as a full or partial evaluation or other purpose, what work was conducted.

E, R, R* 1.1, 1.2

Effective date of report. E, R, R* 1.2

What work remains to be done. E, R, R* N/A

T1.1 (iii) The Competent Person's statement as to whether the document is SAMREC compliant. If a reporting code, other than SAMREC has been used, include an explanation of the differences.

E, R, R* 1.2

Project Outline

T1.2 (i)

Brief description of scope of project (i.e. preliminary sampling, advanced exploration, conceptual, pre-feasibility, or feasibility phase, LOM plan for an on-going mining operation or closure).

E, R, R* 1.2

Describe the geological setting, deposit type, commodity. E, R, R* 5, 6.1

Describe the area of project. E, R, R* 2.1, 3.1

Describe the background of project. E, R, R* 4

Describe the business arrangement. E, R, R* 1.1

Brief description of key technical factors that have been considered. R N/A

Brief description of mining, processing and other key technical factors. R* N/A

History

T1.3 (i)

Historical background to the project and/or adjacent areas concerned, including known results of previous exploration and/or mining activities (type, amount, quantity and development work).

E, R, R* 4.2

Prior ownership and changes thereto. E, R, R* 4.1

Discuss known/existing historical Mineral Resource estimates and performance statistics to actual production for past and current operations, including the reliability of these and how they relate to the SAMREC Code.

R, R* 4.3

Discuss known/existing historical Mineral Reserve estimates and performance statistics to actual production for past and current operations, including the reliability of these and how they relate to the SAMREC Code.

R* N/A

T1.3 (ii) Reference all information used from other sources. E, R, R* 1.2, 14



SAMREC Section


To Report Section

Previous successes or failures should be referred to transparently with reasons why the project should now be considered potentially economic.

R, R* N/A

Key Plan, Maps and Diagrams

T1.4 (i)

Include and reference a location or index map and more detailed maps showing all important features described in the text, including all relevant cadastral and other infrastructure features.

E, R, R* 2.2

If adjacent or nearby properties have an important bearing to the report, then their location and common mineralised structures should be included on the maps.

E, R, R* 5.3

Reference all information used from other sources E, R, R* In document, 1.2, 14

All maps, plans and sections noted in this checklist, should be legible, and include a legend, coordinates, system of coordinates, scale bar and north arrow.

E, R, R* In document

T1.4 (ii) Diagrams or illustrations should be legible, annotated and summarised. E, R, R* In document

Project Location and Description

T1.5 (i) Description of location (country, province, and closest town/city, coordinate systems and ranges, etc.). E, R, R* 2.1, 2.2

T1.5 (ii)

Location map of prospecting/mining rights. E, R, R* 2.2

Location map of any historical and current workings. E, R, R* N/A

Location map of any exploration. E, R, R* 7.4

Location map of all principal geological features. E, R, R* N/A

Topography and Climate

T1.6 (i)

All relevant issues relating to the mineral project, such as the topography and climate, noting any conditions that may affect possible mining activities.

E, R, R* 3.2

Topo-cadastral map in sufficient detail to support the assessment of eventual economics. Known associated climatic risks. R 2.2, 3.2

Detailed topo-cadastral map. Where applicable aerial surveys should be checked with ground controls and surveys, particularly in areas of rugged terrain, dense vegetation and/or high altitude.

R* N/A

T1.6 (ii) A general topo-cadastral map should be available to support the above statement. E, R, R* 2.2

Legal Aspects and Tenure

T1.7 The legal tenure should be verified to the satisfaction of the Competent Person. E, R, R* N/A

T1.7 (i) The nature of the issuer’s rights (e.g. prospecting and/or mining). E, R, R* N/A

The right to use the surface of the properties to which these rights relate. E, R, R* N/A



SAMREC Section


To Report Section

T1.7 (ii) The principal terms and conditions of all existing agreements, and details of those still to be obtained, (such as, but not limited to, concessions, partnerships, joint ventures, access rights, leases, historical and cultural sites, wilderness or national park and environmental settings, royalties, consents, permission, permits or authorisations).

E, R, R* N/A

T1.7 (iii) The security of the tenure held at the time of reporting or which is reasonably expected to be granted in the future along with any known impediments to obtaining the right to operate in the area.

E, R, R* N/A

T1.7 (iv) A statement of any legal proceedings that may have an influence on the rights to prospect or to mine for minerals, or an appropriate negative statement.

E, R, R* N/A

Data Management and Database

T2.1 (i)

Identify and comment on the primary data elements (observation and measurements) used for the project and describe the management of this data or database. This should describe the following relevant processes; acquisition (capture or transfer), validation, integration, control, storage, retrieval and backup processes. Final verification of data, including QA/QC processes should also be part of the database. It is assumed that data is stored digitally but hand printed tables with well-organised data and information may also constitute a database.

E, R, R* 6.2

Identify and comment on interpreted data elements, derived from primary data (modelled or analysed), used for the project and describe the management of this data or database.

R 6.2

Identify and comment on interpreted and planned data elements, derived from modelled data, used for the project plans and describe the management of this data or database.

R* N/A

Spatial Data

T2.2 (i) Describe the survey methods, techniques and expected accuracies of spatial data. E, R, R* 7.1

T2.2 (ii) Representative models and/or maps and cross sections or other 2D or 3D illustrations of results should exist, showing location of samples, accurate drillhole collar positions, down hole surveys, exploration pits, underground workings, relevant geological data, etc.

E, R, R* 7.4

Geological Data

T2.3 (i)

Describe the data acquisition or exploration techniques, the nature, level of detail, and confidence in the geological data used (i.e. stratigraphy, lithology, structure, alteration, mineralisation, hydrology, geophysical, geochemical, petrography, mineralogy, geochronology, etc.

E, R, R* 7, 8

Discuss geological data that could materially influence the estimated quantity & quality of the Mineral Resource. R 7, 8

Discuss geological data that could materially influence the estimated quantity & quality of the Mineral Reserve. R* N/A

T2.3 (ii) Acknowledge and appraise data from other parties and reference all data / information used from other sources E, R, R* In document

Specific Gravity and Bulk Tonnage Data

T2.4 (i) If target tonnage ranges are reported then the preliminary estimates or basis of assumptions made for bulk density/ specific gravity(s) must be stated.

E, R, R* 11.1.8



SAMREC Section


To Report Section

Describe the method of bulk density /specific gravity determination with reference to the frequency of measurements, the size, nature and representativeness of the samples.

R 11.1.8

Include bulk densities for materials mined additional to the Mineral Resource to the same order of accuracy (such as waste, stripping and/or dilution material).

R* N/A

T2.4 (ii)

Specific gravity samples must be representative of the material for which grade range is reported. E, R, R* 11.1.8

The bulk density for bulk material must have been measured by methods that adequately account for void spaces (vugs, porosity etc.) moisture and differences between rock and alteration zones within the deposit.

R 11.1.8

T2.4 (iii) Discuss assumptions for bulk density estimates used in the evaluation process of the different material. R 11.1.8

General Data

T2.5 (i) All relevant general data should be discussed with reference to the nature, level of detail and confidence. E, R, R* In document

Sampling Governance

T3.1 (i) Discuss the governance of the sampling campaign and process, to ensure sample and data quality and representivity, such as sample recovery, high grading, selective losses or contamination, core/hole diameter, internal and external QA/QC, and any other factors that may have resulted in or identified sample bias.

E, R, R* 9.3

T3.1 (ii) State whether sample recoveries have been properly recorded and results assessed. In particular whether a relationship exists between sample recovery and grade, and sample bias (e.g. preferential loss/gain of fine/coarse material).

E, R, R* 9.3, 9.5

Sampling Method, Collection, Validation, Capture and Storage

T3.2 (i)

Appropriately describe each data set (e.g. geology, grade, density, quality, diamond breakage, geo-metallurgical characteristics etc.), sample type, sample size selection and collection methods.

E, R, R* 9.1

Data sets should include all relevant metadata, such as unique sample number, sample mass, collection date, spatial location etc.

E, R, R* 9

Where mineral processing and/or metallurgical testing analyses have been carried out (bulk-sampling/trial mining), include the results of the testing, details of the testing methods and procedures, and discuss whether the samples are representative.

R, R* N/A

T3.2 (ii)

Demonstrate that adequate field sampling process verification techniques (QA/QC) have been applied, e.g. the level of duplicates, blanks, reference material standards, process audits, analysis, etc.

E, R, R* 9.3

If indirect methods were used (e.g. geophysical methods), these should be described, with attention given to the level of confidence.

E, R, R* N/A

T3.2 (iii) If the geometry of the mineralisation with respect to the drillhole 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.

E, R, R* 8.2

T3.2 (iv) Describe the data validation procedures used to ensure the data integrity, e.g. transcription, input or other errors, between its initial collection and its future use for modelling (e.g. geology, grade, density, etc.).

E, R, R* 10

T3.2 (v) Describe retention policy and storage of physical samples (e.g. core, sample reject, etc.). E, R, R* 9.1



SAMREC Section


To Report Section

T3.2 (vi) Describe the audit process and frequency (including dates of these audits). E, R, R* 9.5

T3.2 (vi) Disclose any material risks identified. E, R, R* 9.5

Sample Preparation

T3.3 (i)

Describe the laboratory/facility/location and accreditation. E, R, R* 9.2

Summarise the process and method used for sample preparation, sub-sampling and size reduction, and likelihood of inadequate or non-representative samples (i.e. improper size reduction, contamination, screen sizes, granulometry, mass balance, etc.).

E, R, R* 9.2

T3.3 (ii) For all sample types the nature, quality, verification and appropriateness of the sample preparation technique should be discussed.

E, R, R* 9.2

T3.3 (iii) If a drill core sample, state whether it was split or sawn and whether quarter, half or full core was submitted for analysis. If a non-core sample, state whether the sample was riffled, tube sampled, rotary split etc. and whether it was sampled wet or dry.

E, R, R* 9.2

T3.3 (iv) Describe the quality control and quality assurance procedures adopted for all processes, including sub-sampling stages to maximise representivity of samples. This should include whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grain size of the material being sampled.

E, R, R* 9.2, 9.3

T3.3 (v) Describe the audit process and frequency (including dates) and disclose any material risks identified. E, R, R* 9.5

Sample Analysis

T3.4 (i)

Identify the laboratory(s) and analytical method. E, R, R* 9.2

Discuss the nature, quality and appropriateness of the assaying and laboratory processes and procedures used and whether the technique is considered partial or total.

E, R, R* 9.2

T3.4 (ii) State the accreditation status and Registration Number of the laboratory. Laboratories should be appropriately accredited, however, if not, then this should be disclosed.

E, R, R* 9.2

T3.4 (iii) Discuss the nature of quality control procedures adopted and quality assurance thereof (e.g. reference material, standards, blanks, duplicates, external/referee laboratory checks) and state whether acceptable levels of accuracy (i.e. lack of bias) and precision have been established.

E, R, R* 9.2

T3.4 (iv) Describe the audit process and frequency (including dates of the audits) and disclose any material risks identified. E, R, R* 9.2

Geological Model and Interpretation

T4.1 (i)

Briefly describe the regional geology. E, R, R* 5.1

Describe the geological model, construction technique and assumptions. Discuss the sufficiency of data density to assure continuity of mineralisation and geology and provide an adequate basis for the estimation and classification procedures applied.

R, R* 6.2

T4.1 (ii) Describe the geological model, level of investigation (e.g. conceptual, pre-feasibility etc.) and inferences made from this model.

E, R, R* 6.2



SAMREC Section


To Report Section

Description of the thoroughness (precision and accuracy) with which lithological, structural, mineralogical, alteration or other geological, geotechnical and geo-metallurgical characteristics were recorded.

R, R* 11.1

T4.1 (iii)

Discuss data density, distribution and reliability and whether the quality and quantity of information are sufficient to support statements made or inferred, concerning the exploration target or deposit.

E, R, R* 11.1

Discuss whether consideration was given to alternative interpretations or models and their possible effect (or potential risk) if any, on the Mineral Resource estimate.

R, R* 6.2

T4.1 (iv)

Reliable geological models and/or maps and cross sections that support interpretations should exist. E, R, R* 11.1

Discuss geological discounts (e.g. magnitude, per reef, domain, etc.), applied in the model, whether applied to mineralised and/or un-mineralised material (e.g. potholes, faults, dykes, etc.).

R, R* 11.4

Estimation and Modelling Techniques

T4.2 (i) If an exploration target or deposit is reported, then the estimation techniques used to determine the grade and tonnage ranges should be described in detail.

E 11.1

Describe the determination of, and estimation techniques applied to define volume, density, grade, size distribution, value, geotechnical, geo-hydrological, geo-metallurgical or other appropriate models (e.g. section, polygon, inverse distance, geostatistical or other method) should be stated and justified, together with key assumptions and implications thereof, including any adjustments made to data (i.e. compositing, grade cutting / capping), sample spacing, estimation unit size (block size), selective mining units, reconciliation, domaining and maximum distance of extrapolation from data points.

R, R* 11.1

T4.2 (ii) Describe assumptions and justification of correlations made between variables. R, R* 11.1

T4.2 (iii) Discuss the block or grid cell size in relation to the average sample spacing and any assumptions behind modelling of selective mining units (also non-linear estimation techniques if used).

R, R* 11.1.9

T4.2 (iv+v)

Any relevant specialised computer program (software) used should be named (with the version number) together with a reference to where all the original files are stored for this specific model. The processes of checking and validation, the comparison of model information to sample data and use of reconciliation data should be stated, and whether the Mineral Resource estimate takes account of such information.

R, R* 6.2, 11.1.10

T4.2 (vi) Describe the assumptions made regarding the estimation of any by-products or deleterious elements. R, R* 11.3

Governmental

T5.1 (i) A statement should be provided to the effect that such governmental requirements as may be required have been approved.

E, R, R* N/A

Environmental

T5.2 (i)

Describe any obvious environmental factors that could have a significant impact on the prospects of any possible exploration target or deposit.

E N/A

The necessary permits have been obtained, or there is reasonable basis to believe that all permits required for the project can be obtained.

R, R* N/A



SAMREC Section


To Report Section

T5.2 (ii) Describe any environmental factors that could have a material impact on the likelihood of eventual economic extraction. Discuss possible means of mitigation.

R, R* N/A

T5.2 (i) A statement should be provided to the effect that all necessary permits have been approved. R* N/A

T5.2 (ii) Describe future yearly environmental liabilities/compliance methods and costs, including reclamation and closure and their planned funding.

R* N/A

T5.2 (iii) Refer to Environmental Impact Study. R* N/A

Social

T5.3 (i) A statement should be provided to the effect that a social management program as may be required has been approved. R* N/A

Mining

T5.4 (i)

Describe any obvious mining factors that could have a significant impact on the prospects of any possible exploration target or deposit.

E N/A

State the level of the techno / economic study – whether conceptual, pre-feasibility, feasibility or ongoing life-of- mine or strategic business plans.

R, R* N/A

State the resource models that have been used in the study. R* N/A

T5.4 (ii)

Disclose all assumptions made regarding possible mining methods, minimum mining dimensions (or pit shell) and internal (or, if applicable, external) mining dilution.

R, R* N/A

State and justify all modifying factors and assumptions made regarding mining methods, minimum mining dimensions (or pit shell) and internal (or, if applicable, external) mining dilution used for the techno-economic study and signed-off, such as mining method, mine design criteria, infrastructure, capacities, production schedule, mining efficiencies, grade control, geotechnical and hydrological considerations, closure plans, and personnel requirements.

R* N/A

T5.4 (iii)

It may not always be possible to make assumptions regarding mining methods and parametres when estimating Mineral Resources. Where no mining assumptions have been made, this should be explained.

R N/A

Optimisation methods used in planning, list of constraints (practicality, plant, access, exposed reserves, stripped reserves, bottlenecks, draw control).

R* N/A

Treatment/Processing

T5.5 (i)

Describe any obvious processing factors that could have a significant impact on the prospects of any possible exploration target or deposit.

E N/A

Discuss the level of study, possible processing methods and any processing factors that could have a material impact on the likelihood of eventual economic extraction.

R N/A

Describe and justify the processing method(s) to be used, equipment, plant capacity, efficiencies, and personnel requirements.

R* N/A

T5.5 (ii) The basis for assumptions or predictions regarding metallurgical amenability and any preliminary mineralogical test work should already be carried out.

R N/A



SAMREC Section


To Report Section

Discuss the nature, amount and representativeness of metallurgical test work undertaken and the recovery factors used. A detailed flow sheet/diagram and a mass balance should exist, specifically for multi-product operations where the saleable materials are priced for different chemical and physical characteristics.

R* N/A

A detailed flow sheet/diagram and a mass balance should exist, specifically for multi-product operations where the saleable materials are priced for different chemical and physical characteristics.

R* N/A

T5.5 (iii)

It may not always be possible to make assumptions regarding metallurgical treatment processes and parametres when reporting Mineral Resources. Where no assumptions have been made, this should be explained.

R N/A

State any assumptions or allowances made for deleterious elements and the existence of any bulk sample or pilot scale test work and the degree to which such samples are representative of the ore body as a whole.

R* N/A

T5.5 (iv) The tonnages and grades reported as Mineral Reserves must be in respect of material delivered to the processing facility. R* N/A

Infrastructure

T5.6 (i)

Report in sufficient detail to demonstrate that the necessary facilities have been allowed for (which may include, but not be limited to, processing plant, tailings dam, leaching facilities, waste dumps, road, rail or port facilities, power supply, offices, housing, security, resource sterilisation testing etc.).

R* N/A

Detailed maps showing location of facilities should exist. Project milestones and completion dates should be stated. R* N/A

T5.6 (ii) State assessment of value, ownership, type, extent and condition of plant and equipment which is significant to the existing operation(s).

R* N/A

T5.6 (iii) Statement showing that all necessary logistics have been considered (electricity, reagents, fuels). R* N/A

Economic Criteria

T5.7 (i)

Not usually reported for Exploration Results. If mentioned, however, factors significant to project economics should be current and based on generally accepted industry practice and experience. Assumptions should be clearly defined.

E N/A

In reporting, a Mineral Resource should meet the minimum requirement of “reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction”.

R N/A

For Mineral Reserves, parameters should be detailed with engineering completed to a pre-feasibility study level as defined in the SAMREC Code.

R* N/A

T5.7 (ii)

State and define the reasonable and realistic assumptions/parameters (albeit preliminary, e.g. cut-off grade, cut-off screen size, product price or other criteria) used to assess eventual likelihood of economic extraction.

R N/A

State, describe and justify all economic criteria that have been used for the study such as capital and operating costs, exchange rates, revenue / price curves, royalties, cut-off grades, reserve pay limits.

R* N/A

T5.7 (iii)

These assumptions and factors should be reasonably developed and based on generally accepted industry practice and experience. If appropriate, state the level of study.

R N/A

Summary description of method used to estimate the commodity price profiles used for cut-off grade calculation, economic analysis and project valuation, including applicable taxes, inflation indices and exchange rates.

R* N/A



SAMREC Section


To Report Section

T5.7 (iv)

If applied, the basis of equivalent metal formulae should be reported. R N/A

Demonstrate that the product price assumptions are reasonable and supportable. Justify assumptions made concerning production cost and value of product. Consider transportation, treatment, penalties, exchange rates, marketing and other costs.

R* N/A

T5.7 (v) Resource sensitivity – detailed description of method used and results obtained. R N/A

Allowances should be made for royalties payable, both to Government and private. R* N/A

T5.7 (vi) Resource/Reserve sensitivity – detailed description of method used and results obtained. R* N/A

Marketing

T5.8 (i)

Describe the valuable and potentially valuable product(s) including suitability of products to market. E, R N/A

Describe product to be sold. Discuss whether there exists a ready market for the product, whether contracts for the sale of the product are in place or expected to be readily obtained.

R* N/A

Risk Analysis

T6 (i)

Generally not applied to Exploration Projects. E N/A

Report any risk assessment completed to support the reasonable prospect of eventual economic extraction and disclose any material risks identified.

R N/A

Report detailed assessment of project technical, economic, political and other key risk factors. Description of actions which will be taken to mitigate and/or manage the identified risk(s).

R* N/A

Resource and Reserve Classification Criteria

T7 (i)

For exploration targets and/or deposits, specific quantities and grades/qualities should be reported in ranges, the basis of which should be explained.

E N/A

Describe and justify criteria and method used as the basis for the classification of the Mineral Resources into varying confidence categories.

R 11.1.11

Describe and justify criteria and method used as the basis for the classification of the Mineral Reserves into varying confidence categories which should be based on the Mineral Resource Category and include consideration of the confidence in all the modifying factors.

R* N/A

T7 (ii)

Exceptions to the above should be discussed if they are material and detailed reports thereof should exist. R N/A

Discuss the proportion of Probable Mineral Reserves, which have been derived from Measured Mineral Resources (if any), including the reason(s) therefore.

R* N/A

T7 (iii)

Discuss whether appropriate account has been taken of all relevant factors. I.e. relative confidence in tonnage /grade computations, density, quality, value and distribution of primary data and information, confidence in continuity of the geological and mineralisation models.

R 11.1.11

Only Measured and Indicated Resources can be considered for inclusion in the Mineral Reserve. R* N/A



SAMREC Section


To Report Section

T7 (iv) State whether the result appropriately reflects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit. R 11.4

Mineral Resources classified as Inferred Resources lack the requisite degree of confidence to be converted to a Reserve. R* N/A

T7 (v) State whether the result appropriately reflects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit. R* N/A

Balanced Reporting

T8 (i)

Where comprehensive reporting of all exploration results is not practicable, representative reporting of low and high-grades and/or widths, should be practiced together with their spatial location to avoid misleading the reporting of Exploration Results.

E N/A

Mineral Resources should be stated as inclusive or exclusive of Mineral Reserves. R 11.2

Describe the Mineral Resource estimate used as a basis for the conversion to a Mineral Reserve. R* N/A

T8 (ii)

Announcements by Companies should comply with the SAMREC Code, where applicable, and insofar as they relate or refer to a Competent Person’s report they should:

E, R, R*

-

(a) Be approved in writing in advance of publication by the relevant Competent Person; and N/A

(b) The Competent Person(s) relationship to the issuer of the report, if any, should be clearly defined N/A

Report the Mineral Resource statements with sufficient detail indicating the source and type of mineralisation, such as open pit, underground, mineralisation type, facies or ore body, surface dumps, stockpiles and all other sources.

R 11.4

Caution should be exercised if Inferred Resources are considered in economic studies, and if included, full disclosure and the effect on the results of the economic studies should be stated.

R* N/A

T8 (iii)

If grades are reported then it should be stated clearly whether these are regional averages or if they are selected individual samples taken from the property under discussion.

E N/A

The Mineral Resource will include all remnants, stockpiles, tailings, and existing pillars where there may be reasonable and realistic prospects for eventual economic extraction. Inclusion or exclusion of existing pillars into the Mineral Resource will be determined site by site taking into consideration factors such as size, shape, grade, location and other historical and geotechnical considerations. A detailed listing of such exclusions and reasons therefore, signed by a relevant Competent Person(s) should exist.

R 11.5

A comparison between the two scenarios, the one with inclusion and the one without inclusion should be fully explained in the Public Report in such a way so as not to mislead the investors. Inferred Mineral Resources may not be reported as Mineral Reserves.

R* N/A

T8 (iv)

Reconciliation - Report the reliability, of the current geological and resource models, and key assumptions, including the reliability of resource classifications. This should include a comparison to the previous Resource quantity and qualities, if available. Where appropriate report and comment on any historic trends (e.g. global bias).

R 11.6

The Mineral Reserve Statement should be reported with sufficient detail indicating the source and type of mineralisation, such as open pit, underground, mineralisation type, facies or ore body, surface dumps, stockpiles and all other sources. R* N/A

T8 (v) State the proportion of the total Reserves that is likely to be mined within the current assured tenure timeframe. R* N/A



SAMREC Section


To Report Section

T8 (vi)

Report historic reliability and reconciliation of the performance parameters, assumptions and modifying factors. This should include a comparison to the previous Reserve quantity and qualities, if available. Where appropriate report and comment on any historic trends (e.g. global bias).

R* N/A

Audits and Reviews

T9 (i)

The overall conclusions of relevant audits or reviews, with specific reference to compliance to relevant Codes, where significant deficiencies and remedial actions should be disclosed.

E, R, R* N/A

Material results of any audits or reviews of Mineral Resource estimates. Specific reference regarding all material deficiencies and remedial actions should be disclosed.

R N/A

The material results of any audits or reviews of Mineral Reserve estimates. Specific reference regarding all material deficiencies and remedial actions should be disclosed.

R* N/A

T9 (ii) State type of review (e.g. independent, external) and name of the reviewer(s) together with their recognised professional. E, R, R* N/A

Other Considerations

T10 (i)

Description of any other material information that is likely to prevent or facilitate the economic potential of the project. E, R, R* N/A

Discuss possible opportunities that may affect the Mineral Resource. R 13

While any other material information or opportunities affecting the project should be discussed, no material impediments to the profitable exploration of the property should remain.

R* N/A

T10 (ii) A glossary of terms used in the report. E, R, R* 16

Qualification of Competent Person(s) and Other Key Technical Staff; Date and Signature Page

T11 (i) State the accountable Competent Persons full name, address, registration number and name of the professional body or ROPO recognized by SAMREC, of which he/she is a member, and relevant experience, together with other key technical staff who prepared and are responsible for the Public Report.

E, R, R* 15.1

T11 (ii) The Competent Person(s) relationship to the issuer of the report, if any, should be clearly defined. E, R, R* 15.2

T11 (iii) The Public Report should include a signature page for the Competent Person(s) to attest to its release. E, R, R* 15.2

Such page should include the date of sign-off and the effective date of the report. E, R, R* 15.2

Documents

Xtract Resources PLC