HOT MADEN GOLD-COPPER PROJECT Artvin Province, · PDF fileArtvin Province, Turkey Mineral...

HOT MADEN GOLD-COPPER PROJECT Artvin Province, Turkey

Mineral Resource Estimate

Mariana Resources Ltd.

Job No: ADV-PE-60359

Date: 1 September 2015

| ADV-PE-60359 | HOT MADEN GOLD-COPPER PROJECT Artvin Province, Turkey | September 2015 | | Page i of xiii |

This report has been prepared for Dacian Gold Limited and must be read in its entirety and is subject to all assumptions, limitations and disclaimers contained in the body of the report. © RungePincockMinarco Limited 2015

Document Control Sheet

Client


Report Name Date

HOT MADEN GOLD-COPPER PROJECT Artvin Province, Turkey 1 September 2015

Job No. Revision No.

ADV-PE-60359 FINAL

File Name:

PE-60359 Hot Maden Mineral Resource Estimate Mariana Resources v01a

Authorisations

Name Position Signature Date

Prepared By: Shaun Searle Senior Consultant

Geologist

01/09/2015

Reviewed By: Stewart Coates Operations Manager -

Mongolia

01/09/2015

Approved By: Igor Bojanic Manager – Metals

Consulting

01/09/2015

Distribution

Organisation Recipient No. Of Hard Copies

No. Of Electronic Copies

Comment

Mariana Resources Ltd. Glen Parsons 1

Mariana Resources Ltd. Eric Roth 1

| ADV-PE-60359 | HOT MADEN GOLD-COPPER PROJECT Artvin Province, Turkey | September 2015 | | Page ii of xiii |


IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT

1. Our Client

This report has been produced by or on behalf of RungePincockMinarco Limited (“RPM”) solely for Mariana Resources Ltd. (the “Client” or “MARL”).

2. Client Use

The Client’s use and disclosure of this report is subject to the terms and conditions under which RPM prepared the report.

3. Notice to Third Parties

RPM prepared this report for the Client only. If you are not the Client:

RPM has prepared this report having regard to the particular needs and interests of the Client, and in accordance with the Client’s instructions. It did not draft this report having regard to any other person’s particular needs or interests. Your needs and interests may be distinctly different to the Client’s needs and interests, and the report may not be sufficient, fit or appropriate for your purposes.

RPM does not make and expressly disclaims from making any representation or warranty to you – express or implied – regarding this report or the conclusions or opinions set out in this report (including without limitation any representation or warranty regarding the standard of care used in preparing this report, or that any forward-looking statements, forecasts, opinions or projections contained in the report will be achieved, will prove to be correct or are based on reasonable assumptions).

RPM expressly disclaims any liability to you and any duty of care to you.

RPM does not authorise you to rely on this report. If you choose to use or rely on all or part of this report, then any loss or damage you may suffer in so doing is at your sole and exclusive risk.

4. Inputs, subsequent changes and no duty to update

RPM has created this report using data and information provided by or on behalf of the Client [and Client’s agents and contractors]. Unless specifically stated otherwise, RPM has not independently verified that data and information. RPM accepts no liability for the accuracy or completeness of that data and information, even if that data and information has been incorporated into or relied upon in creating this report (or parts of it).

The conclusions and opinions contained in this report apply as at the date of the report. Events (including changes to any of the data and information that RPM used in preparing the report) may have occurred since that date which may impact on those conclusions and opinions and make them unreliable. RPM is under no duty to update the report upon the occurrence of any such event, though it reserves the right to do so.

5. Mining Unknown Factors

The ability of any person to achieve forward-looking production and economic targets is dependent on numerous factors that are beyond RPM’s control and that RPM cannot anticipate. These factors include, but are not limited to, site-specific mining and geological conditions, management and personnel capabilities, availability of funding to properly operate and capitalize the operation, variations in cost elements and market conditions, developing and operating the mine in an efficient manner, unforeseen changes in legislation and new industry developments. Any of these factors may substantially alter the performance of any mining operation.

| ADV-PE-60359 | HOT MADEN GOLD-COPPER PROJECT Artvin Province, Turkey | September 2015 | | Page iii of xiii |


Executive Summary

Background

RungePincockMinarco Limited (“RPM”) was contracted by Mariana Resources Ltd. (“MARL”) to complete a Mineral Resource Estimate for the Hot Maden Gold-Copper Project, in July and August 2015. The Hot Maden Project is located approximately 130km northeast of Erzurum in north-eastern Turkey. The Mineral Resource has been estimated in compliance with the 2012 Edition of the ‘Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves’ prepared by the Joint Ore Reserves Committee of The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Australian Geoscientists and Minerals Council of Australia (“The JORC Code 2012”); and in compliance with the requirements of ‘Canadian National Instrument 43-101’ (“NI 43-101”) of the Canadian Securities Administrators.

The Hot Maden Project is located within the Eastern Pontides tectonic belt of northeastern Turkey, and is hosted within a Late Cretaceous age, island arc volcanic-sedimentary sequence. Gold-copper mineralisation is broadly associated within a sub-vertical, north-northeast trending fault zone (the “Hot Maden Fault Zone”), with mineralisation occurring in andesitic breccias and dacitic tuffaceous sediments as quartz-sulphide (pyrite-chalcopyrite) +/- hematite/jasperoid breccias and locally massive sulphides (pyrite-chalcopyrite). The highest grade Au-Cu mineralisation appears to lie along the eastern margin of the Au-Cu mineralised zone. Stratabound-style Zn-Pb (sphalerite-galena) anomalism flanks the Au-Cu zone to the east and locally to the west. Hydrothermal alteration adjacent to the Au-Cu zone is dominated by argillic and phyllic assemblages.

Mineral Resource Estimate Key Outcomes

Drilling at the deposit extends to a vertical depth of approximately 430m and the mineralisation was modelled from surface to a depth of approximately 440m below surface. The estimate is based on good quality diamond core (DD) drilling data. Drill hole spacing over the deposit is approximately 50m by 50m.

The block model was created and estimated in Surpac using Ordinary Kriging (OK) grade interpolation. The mineralisation was constrained by resource outlines based on mineralisation envelopes prepared using a nominal 0.5g/t Au Equivalent cut-off grade for lower grade material, 3g/t Au Equivalent for higher grade material and approximately 15g/t Au Equivalent for ultra-high grade material. All mineralisation intersections were defined with a minimum down hole length of 2m.

Top-cuts were applied to the data based on statistical analysis of individual lodes. A top cut of 25g/t Au was applied within the higher grade domain, and a top cut of 150g/t Au was applied to the ultra-high grade domain. Top cuts were determined by statistical analysis and applied to the 1m composite data, resulting in 12 samples being cut. No top cuts were necessary for other elements.

The block dimensions used in the model were 25m NS by 25m EW by 10m vertical with sub-cells of 3.125m by 3.125m by 1.25m. This was selected as the optimal block size as a result of kriging neighbourhood analysis (KNA). Bulk densities within the wireframes were calculated based on a linear regression equation between Fe grade and density measurements obtained from drill core. A bulk density of 2.85t/m

3 was assigned to waste material as a result of average core densities outside the wireframes.

A bulk density of 2.20t/m3 was assigned to overburden.

The Mineral Resource was classified as Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource based on data quality, sample spacing, and lode continuity. The Indicated Mineral Resource was defined within areas of close spaced diamond drilling of less than 50m by 50m, and where the continuity and predictability of the lode positions was good. The Inferred Mineral Resource was assigned to areas of the deposit where drill hole spacing was greater than 50m by 50m, where small isolated pods of mineralisation occur outside the main mineralised zones, and to geologically complex zones.

The Mineral Resource is reported at a cut-off of 2g/t Au Equivalent. Cut-off parameters were selected based on other known deposits with similar geological attributes in the region.

The Mineral Resource tonnages and grades were estimated on a dry in-situ basis.

The high grade nature of the mineralisation and the substantial thickness and size of the deposit suggest that the project has potential for eventual economic extraction using open pit and underground mining

| ADV-PE-60359 | HOT MADEN GOLD-COPPER PROJECT Artvin Province, Turkey | September 2015 | | Page iv of xiii |


techniques. It is recommended that a detailed economic analysis be conducted to assist in understanding the project potential.

The information in this report that relates to Mineral Resources is based on information compiled by Shaun Searle and reviewed by Stewart Coates, both of whom are Competent Persons as defined in the 2012 Edition of the ‘Australasian Code for the Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves’. In addition, Mr Coates is a Qualified Person as defined in the ‘Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum’ Standards of Disclosure. Mr Coates is the Competent Person for this Mineral Resource Estimate and has no economic, financial or pecuniary interest in MARL and is not aware of any potential for a conflict of interest in relation to this work for MARL.

The Hot Maden Mineral Resource, as at August 2015, is summarised in Table 1-1, and shown in detail in Appendix C.

Table 1-1 – Hot Maden August 2015 Mineral Resource Estimate (2g/t AuEqa Cut-off)

Indicated Mineral Resource

Domain Tonnes Au Cu AuEqa Au Cu AuEq

b

t g/t % g/t Ounces Tonnes Ounces

Main Zone LG 481,000 0.9 1.0 2.4 14,000 5,000 37,000

Main Zone HG 3,199,000 5.2 1.8 8.0 537,000 56,000 822,000

Main Zone UHG 1,031,000 29.2 4.0 35.4 967,000 41,000 1,174,000

Total 4,710,000 10.0 2.2 13.4 1,518,000 102,000 2,033,000

Inferred Mineral Resource


b


Main Zone LG 819,000 0.8 1.0 2.4 21,000 8,000 62,000

Main Zone HG 2,291,000 3.1 2.0 6.2 228,000 45,000 455,000

Main Zone UHG 326,000 36.2 3.3 41.4 379,000 11,000 434,000

Peripheral Lodes 218,000 1.8 0.4 2.4 13,000 1,000 17,000

Total 3,654,000 5.5 1.8 8.2 640,000 65,000 968,000

Total Mineral Resource


b


Main Zone LG 1,299,000 0.8 1.0 2.4 35,000 13,000 100,000

Main Zone HG 5,490,000 4.3 1.9 7.2 765,000 101,000 1,277,000

Main Zone UHG 1,357,000 30.9 3.8 36.9 1,346,000 52,000 1,608,000


Total 8,364,000 8.0 2.0 11.2 2,159,000 167,000 3,001,000

Note: 1. The Statement of Estimates of Mineral Resources has been compiled under the supervision of Mr.

Stewart Coates who is a full-time employee of RPM and a Member of the the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of the Province of British Columbia. Mr. Coates has sufficient experience that is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity that he has undertaken to qualify as a Qualified Person as defined in the CIM Standards of Disclosure and as a Competent Person as defined in the JORC Code (2012).

2. All Mineral Resources figures reported in the table above represent estimates based on drilling completed up to 25

th June, 2015. Mineral Resource estimates are not precise calculations, being

dependent on the interpretation of limited information on the location, shape and continuity of the occurrence and on the available sampling results. The totals contained in the above table have been rounded to reflect the relative uncertainty of the estimate. Rounding may cause some computational discrepancies.

3. *Au Equivalence (AuEq) calculated using a 100 day moving average of $US1,178/ounce for Au and $US2.70/pound for Cu as of July 29, 2015. No adjustment has been made for metallurgical recovery or net smelter return as these remain uncertain at this time. Based on grades and contained metal for Au and Cu, it is assumed that both commodities have reasonable potential to be economically extractable.

a. The formula used for Au equivalent grade is: AuEq g/t = Au + [(Cu% x 22.0462 x 2.7)/(1178/31.1035)] and assumes 100% metallurgical recovery.

| ADV-PE-60359 | HOT MADEN GOLD-COPPER PROJECT Artvin Province, Turkey | September 2015 | | Page v of xiii |


b. Au equivalent ounces are calculated by mulitplying Mineral Resource tonnage by Au equivalent grade and converting for ounces. The formula used for Au equivalent ounces is: AuEq Oz = [Tonnage x AuEq grade (g/t)]/31.1035.

4. Mineral Resource grades are estimated in accordance with the CIM Standards and reported in accordance with JORC 2012.

5. Mineral Resources reported on a dry in-situ basis. 6. LG = low grade, HG = high grade and UHG = ultra-high grade. 7. Reported at a 2g/t AuEq cut-off.

Risks

The Hot Maden Project exhibits a moderate to high degree of structural complexity. The block model is defined by drilling on a 50m by 50m drill spacing, therefore there is potential for tonnage and overall geometry variations between modelled and actual mineralisation.

Sampling and assaying methodology and procedures were satisfactory for the Lidya and MARL drilling. QAQC protocols were adequate and review of the data did not show any consistent bias or reasons to doubt the assay data. A slight bias of higher grades has been observed for the ALS Laboratory as a result of the cross laboratory check assaying. The base metal standard (GBMS911-1) has been used sparingly. As there is significant Cu endowment at Hot Maden, there is a low to moderate risk to the accuracy of the Cu and other base metal assays.

There is high grade mineralisation observed in HTD-004 and HTD-017 that has been extrapolated 50m to the north, up-dip of HTD-008. Areas of extrapolation are classified as Inferred Mineral Resource.

A total of 381 density measurements were obtained from core drilled at the Project. Of these, 89 measurements were derived from core within the wireframes. This number of mineralised density measurements is on the edge of being a statistically insignificant number of samples to determine a density regression equation.

Opportunities

Mineralisation discontinues below the 670mRL, between 4,542,200mN and 4,542,250mN as a result of (likely) post-mineralisation faulting. An opportunity exists to understand the sense and magnitude of fault displacement and there is potential to delineate additional mineralisation.

Mineralisation is open along strike to the south and down-dip. Extensional drilling of the main zones (Objects 1, 101 and 102) may delineate continuations of the known mineralisation, some of which may be high grade and ultra-high grade. Gold and copper anomalism is observed in holes HTD-001, 003 and 007 to the south of the main mineralised zones. Improved geological understanding may create potential to delineate additional mineralisation in this area.

There is an opportunity to increase the level of confidence in the Inferred Mineral Resource with closer spaced extensional and infill drilling of the main mineralised zones.

Recommendations

The reported Indicated Mineral Resource at the Hot Maden Project is estimated with sufficient confidence to allow the application of Modifying Factors in sufficient detail to support mine planning and evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit at those locations. Approximately 33% of the project has been classified as Inferred Mineral Resource and is estimated with insufficient confidence to allow the application of Modifying Factors in sufficient detail to support mine planning and evaluation of the economic viability of the remainder of the deposit. RPM recommends infill drilling to increase confidence in the existing Inferred Mineral Resource, focussing on the highest grade portions.

Further monitoring of the slight bias observed in high grade assays at the ALS Laboratory is recommended. RPM recommends more frequent use of the base metal standard (GBMS911-1) to closely monitor the base metal assays.

RPM recommends that Lidya and MARL continue recording density measurements, ensuring that the density measurement intervals correspond directly with geological logging and sampling intervals. It is recommended that density measurements are obtained from all 1m samples in order to compile a significant density dataset.

| ADV-PE-60359 | HOT MADEN GOLD-COPPER PROJECT Artvin Province, Turkey | September 2015 | | Page vi of xiii |


Further drilling is required up-dip of HTD-008 on section 4,542,300mN to confirm mineralisation continuity. Extensional drilling down-dip on sections 4,542,100mN, 4,542,150mN and 4,542,200mN; and along strike to the south of 4,542,100mN is recommended.

Further geological understanding of the apparent post-mineralisation faulting is required below the 670mRL, between 4,542,200mN and 4,542,250mN. RPM recommends some ‘step-out’ drilling to the east and west of current drilling on 4,542,200mN and 4,542,250mN to test for lateral displacement; and a hole down-dip of HTD-009 to test for strike displacement of the known mineralisation.

| ADV-PE-60359 | HOT MADEN GOLD-COPPER PROJECT Artvin Province, Turkey | September 2015 | | Page vii of xiii |


Mineral Resource Statement and Parameters

Class Tonnes (t) Au (g/t) Cu (%) AuEqa (g/t) Au Oz Cu T AuEq

b Oz

Measured

Indicated 4,710,000 10.0 2.2 13.4 1,518,000 102,000 2,033,000

Inferred 3,654,000 5.5 1.8 8.2 640,000 65,000 968,000

Total 8,364,000 8.0 2.0 11.2 2,159,000 167,000 3,001,000






3. *Au Equivalence (AuEq) calculated using a 100 day moving average of $US1,178/ounce for Au and $US2.70/pound for Cu as of July 29, 2015. No adjustment has been made for metallurgical recovery or net smelter return as these remain uncertain at this time. Based on grades and contained metal for Au and Cu, it is assumed that both commodities have reasonable potential to be economically extractable.

a. The formula used for Au equivalent grade is: AuEq g/t = Au + [(Cu% x 22.0462 x 2.7)/(1178/31.1035)] and assumes 100% metallurgical recovery.

b. Au equivalent ounces are calculated by mulitplying Mineral Resource tonnage by Au equivalent grade and converting for ounces. The formula used for Au equivalent ounces is: AuEq Oz = [Tonnage x AuEq grade (g/t)]/31.1035.



The Mineral Resource estimate for the Hot Maden Project was completed using the following parameters:

The Hot Maden Mineral Resource area extends over a north-south strike length of 280m (from 4,542,055mN – 4,542,335mN), has a maximum width of 105m (740,590mE – 740,695mE) and includes the 440m vertical interval from 885mRL to 445mRL.

The Hot Maden Project is located within Turkish Operating Licence 20050853 and Exploration Licences 201200321, 201201059 and 201201058. The licences are owned by AMG Mineral Madencilik AS, a subsidiary of Mariana Resources, and are subject to an earn-in agreement in which Lidya Madencilik has an option to earn in to a 70% interest in the concessions.


A site visit was conducted by Stewart Coates (RPM) to review the project and deposit geology, drilling, sampling and QAQC procedures. The data, drilling and geological records were found to be well maintained by Lidya and comprehensive field procedures had been developed. The site visit review concluded no significant issues were identified with regards to current geological understanding and data information.

| ADV-PE-60359 | HOT MADEN GOLD-COPPER PROJECT Artvin Province, Turkey | September 2015 | | Page viii of xiii |


Drill holes used in the Mineral Resource estimate included 15 diamond holes for a total of 1,509m within the wireframes. The database contained records for 20 drill holes (17 unique holes, three partial re-drills) for 5,205m of drilling.

All collar positions have been surveyed with a DGPS system using the UTM European Datum 1950 Zone 37 North system.

Phase II of the drilling program (HTD-008 to HTD-017A) were down hole surveyed at 40m intervals using a Devico survey tool. Holes drilled in Phase I (HTD-001 to HTD-007) were not down hole surveyed. RPM observes that there is little dip movement and minor amounts of azimuth movement in the surveyed holes.

Drill hole spacing is approximately 50m by 50m at the Project. Approximately 60% of current drilling is angled -60˚ to the west, with the remaining holes angled -60˚ to the east. Mineralisation is generally sub-vertical.

All diamond holes have been geologically logged, the data entered into a Microsoft Excel spread sheet and imported into an Access database. The core has been photographed and measured for core recovery.

Diamond core was predominantly HQ size with minor amounts of PQ size. Core was sampled as half core at 1m intervals or to geological contacts within mineralisation and to 2m outside of mineralisation in the earlier holes. Sampling did not cross geological boundaries and was always sampled from one side of the core for consistency.

Samples from Phase I drilling were sent to the SGS Laboratory in Ankara, Turkey. Samples from Phase II were sent to the ALS Laboratory in Izmir, western Turkey. When received, samples were sorted and then dried. The sample was then subject to a primary crush, then pulverised so that 85% passes a 75µm sieve.

After the sample had been prepared by the lab a 50g split of each sample was then subject to fire assay with AAS finish for Au. If the sample contained more than 500ppb Au, the sample was re-analysed using fire assay with a gravimetric finish. As and Sb were analysed using AAS, in addition to a 33 element four acid digestion with ICP-AES analysis. Samples in which ICP analyses returned greater than the maximum detection limit for the elements Ag (10 ppm), Cu (10,000 ppm), Fe (15%), Pb (10,000 ppm), and Zn (10,000 ppm) were reanalysed using the AAS analytical technique. Results were sent to the Lidya office then compiled into a spreadsheet.

Since the commencement of drilling Lidya has implemented a consistent QAQC system utilising standards, blanks, laboratory duplicate samples and laboratory cross-checking. The program included the submission of one standard every 20th sample, the submission of two blanks in every assay batch and field duplicates taken every 40th sample. All standards and blanks were obtained and certified by Geostats.

Monitoring of standards, blanks, laboratory duplicates and laboratory cross-checking was undertaken by Lidya and MARL geologists. Raw QAQC data was reviewed by RPM and results considered acceptable and suitable for use in Mineral Resource estimation.

The mineralisation was constrained by resource outlines based on mineralisation envelopes prepared using a nominal 0.5g/t Au Equivalent cut-off grade for lower grade material, 3g/t Au Equivalent for higher grade material and approximately 15g/t Au Equivalent for ultra-high grade material. All mineralisation intersections were defined with a minimum down hole width of 2m.

Samples within the wireframes were composited to even 1m intervals based on analysis of the sample lengths in the database. A top cut of 25g/t Au was applied within the higher grade domain, and a top cut of 150g/t Au was applied to the ultra-high grade domain. Top cuts were determined by statistical analysis and applied to the 1m composite data, resulting in 12 samples being cut. No top cuts were necessary for other elements.

A Surpac block model was used for the estimate with a block size of 25m NS by 25m EW by 10m vertical with sub-cells of 3.125m by 3.125m by 1.25m. This was selected as the optimal block size as a result of kriging neighbourhood analysis (KNA).

Variography was conducted on the lower grade domain (Surpac Object 1) and the higher grade domain (Surpac Object 101) using a normal scores transformation. Variography parameters were back-transformed and exported for use in ordinary kriging (OK) grade interpolation. Search neighbourhood parameters were derived from KNA. Grades were estimated into the block model using OK, with the wireframes being used as hard boundaries. Three passes were used to estimate the blocks in the block model.

| ADV-PE-60359 | HOT MADEN GOLD-COPPER PROJECT Artvin Province, Turkey | September 2015 | | Page ix of xiii |


Bulk densities within the wireframes were calculated based on a linear regression equation between Fe grade and density measurements obtained from drill core. A bulk density of 2.85t/m

3 was

assigned to waste material as a result of average core densities outside the wireframes. A bulk density of 2.20t/m

3 was assigned to overburden.


The high grade nature of the mineralisation and the substantial thickness and size of the deposit suggest that the project has potential for eventual economic extraction using open pit and underground mining techniques.

| ADV-PE-60359 | HOT MADEN GOLD-COPPER PROJECT Artvin Province, Turkey | September 2015 | | Page x of xiii |


Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................. III

MINERAL RESOURCE STATEMENT AND PARAMETERS .................................................................................... VII

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Purpose of This Report ...................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Relevant Assets ................................................................................................................................................. 1

1.3 Scope of Work ................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.4 Information Sources ........................................................................................................................................... 1

1.5 Approach ........................................................................................................................................................... 2

1.6 Previous Mineral Resource Estimates ............................................................................................................... 2

1.7 Limitations and Exclusions................................................................................................................................. 3

1.8 Study Team ....................................................................................................................................................... 5

2. COMPETENT PERSONS STATEMENT ........................................................................................................... 6

3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................................ 7

3.1 Location ............................................................................................................................................................. 7

3.2 Tenements and Land Tenure............................................................................................................................. 7

3.3 Grid System ....................................................................................................................................................... 7

3.4 Site Visit ............................................................................................................................................................. 7

4. GEOLOGY AND MINERALISATION ................................................................................................................ 9

4.1 Regional Geology (from Henricksen, 2015) ....................................................................................................... 9

4.2 Local Geology (from Callan, 2013) .................................................................................................................. 11

4.3 Structure (from Callan, 2013) ........................................................................................................................... 11

4.4 Mineralisation and Alteration (from Henrickson 2015 and Callan 2013) .......................................................... 15

4.5 Historical Production ........................................................................................................................................ 16

5. PREVIOUS MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES .......................................................................................... 18

6. HISTORIC DATA ............................................................................................................................................. 19

6.1 General ............................................................................................................................................................ 19

7. DRILLING DATA ............................................................................................................................................. 20

7.1 Summary ......................................................................................................................................................... 20

7.2 Drill Methods .................................................................................................................................................... 20

7.3 Drill Hole Collar Location ................................................................................................................................. 21

7.4 Down-Hole Surveys ......................................................................................................................................... 21

7.5 Geological Logging .......................................................................................................................................... 21

7.6 Sampling .......................................................................................................................................................... 21

7.7 Data Excluded ................................................................................................................................................. 21

8. ASSAY DATA ................................................................................................................................................. 22

8.1 Methodolgy ...................................................................................................................................................... 22

8.2 Quality Control ................................................................................................................................................. 22

9. BULK DENSITY DATA ................................................................................................................................... 25

| ADV-PE-60359 | HOT MADEN GOLD-COPPER PROJECT Artvin Province, Turkey | September 2015 | | Page xi of xiii |


10. METALLURGY ................................................................................................................................................ 26

11. DATABASE VERIFICATION ........................................................................................................................... 27

12. INTERPRETATION AND STATISTICS ........................................................................................................... 28

12.1 Geology and Interpretation .............................................................................................................................. 28

12.2 Preparation of Wireframes ............................................................................................................................... 28

12.3 Compositing and Statistics............................................................................................................................... 32

12.4 Correlation Analysis ......................................................................................................................................... 34

12.5 Top Cuts .......................................................................................................................................................... 36

12.6 Geostatistical Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 37

13. MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATION ............................................................................................................ 39

13.1 Block Model ..................................................................................................................................................... 39

13.2 Block Model Coding ......................................................................................................................................... 39

13.3 Kriging Neighbourhood Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 40

13.4 Grade Interpolation .......................................................................................................................................... 44

13.5 Density and Material Type ............................................................................................................................... 47

14. MODEL VALIDATION ..................................................................................................................................... 48

15. MINERAL RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION .................................................................................................... 51

15.1 Results ............................................................................................................................................................. 53

15.2 Reconciliation .................................................................................................................................................. 57

16. RISK AND OPPORTUNITIES ......................................................................................................................... 58

17. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................................. 59

18. PROSPECTS FOR ECONOMIC EXTRACTION ............................................................................................. 60

| ADV-PE-60359 | HOT MADEN GOLD-COPPER PROJECT Artvin Province, Turkey | September 2015 | | Page xii of xiii |


List of Tables

Table 1-1 – Hot Maden August 2015 Mineral Resource Estimate (2g/t AuEqa Cut-off) .............................. iv

Table 6-1 –Hot Maden Drilling Summary ................................................................................................... 19 Table 7-1 – Summary of Drilling at Hot Maden used in Mineral Resource ................................................ 20 Table 8-1 – Certified Standard Summary for 2014-2015 Drilling (Source, Lidya 2015b) .......................... 23 Table 9-1 – Bulk Density Summary ........................................................................................................... 25 Table 11-1 - Drill Hole Assay Verification .................................................................................................. 27 Table 12-1 – Summary Statistics for 1m Lode Composites – Object 1 (Lower grade).............................. 33 Table 12-2 – Summary Statistics for 1m Lode Composites – Object 101 (High grade) ............................ 33 Table 12-3 – Summary Statistics for 1m Lode Composites – Object 102 (Ultra-high grade) .................... 34 Table 12-4 – Correlation Matrix – Object 1 (Lower grade) ........................................................................ 34 Table 12-5 – Correlation Matrix – Object 101 (High grade) ....................................................................... 35 Table 12-6 – Correlation Matrix – Object 102 (Ultra-high grade) ............................................................... 35 Table 12-7 – Hot Maden Au Top Cuts by Domain ..................................................................................... 36 Table 12-8 – Kriging Parameters ............................................................................................................... 37 Table 13-1 – Block Model Parameters ....................................................................................................... 39 Table 13-2 – Block Model Coding - Type ................................................................................................... 40 Table 13-3 – Block Model Coding - Domain .............................................................................................. 40 Table 13-4 – Block Sizes Assessed ........................................................................................................... 41 Table 13-5 – Search Radii Assessed ......................................................................................................... 42 Table 13-6 – Maximum Number of Samples Assessed ............................................................................. 42 Table 13-7 – Block Discretisation Parameters Assessed .......................................................................... 43 Table 13-8 – OK Estimation Parameters ................................................................................................... 45 Table 13-9 – Bulk Densities Assigned in the Block Model ......................................................................... 47 Table 14-1 – Average Composite Input v Block Model Output .................................................................. 49 Table 15-1 – Hot Maden August 2015 Mineral Resource Estimate (2g/t AuEq

a Cut-off) .......................... 53

| ADV-PE-60359 | HOT MADEN GOLD-COPPER PROJECT Artvin Province, Turkey | September 2015 | | Page xiii of xiii |


List of Figures

Figure 1.1 General Relationship Between Exploration Results, Mineral Resources, and Ore Reserves (Source: Australasian Code for Reporting of Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves, The JORC Code 2012 Edition) ................................................................................................................................................ 3 Figure 3.1 Hot Maden Project Location ....................................................................................................... 8 Figure 3.2 Hot Maden Project Terrain Overview (View toward North-west) ................................................ 8 Figure 4.1 Northeastern Turkey Regional Geology (Source: Callan, 2013) .............................................. 10 Figure 4.2 Structural Map of the Project Area (Source: Callan, 2013) ...................................................... 14 Figure 4.3 High Grade Mineralisation from HTD-05 at 153m Depth (445g/t Au and 4.4% Cu) ................. 15 Figure 4.4 Composite Section Looking North Showing Mineralisation Styles (after Callan 2013) ............ 16 Figure 4.5 Cupriferous Slag Near Hole Collar HTD-004 ............................................................................ 17 Figure 7.1 Drill Location Map ..................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 8.1 Laboratory Duplicate Analysis for 2014-2015 Drilling (Source, Lidya 2015b) .......................... 23 Figure 8.2 Cross Laboratory Checks for 2014-2015 Drilling (Scatter Plot Left, QQ Plot Right) ................ 24 Figure 9.1 Density Apparatus..................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 12.1 Log Histogram and Log Probability Plot for All Assays at Hot Maden.................................... 28 Figure 12.2 Plan View of Wireframes and Drilling .................................................................................... 29 Figure 12.3 Long Section of Wireframes and Drilling ............................................................................... 30 Figure 12.4 Cross Section of Wireframes and Drilling (Au assays on left and Cu assays on right of drill holes) .......................................................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 12.5 Sample Lengths Inside Wireframes ........................................................................................ 32 Figure 12.6 Selected Scatter Plots for High Grade Domain (Object 101) ................................................. 35 Figure 12.7 Histogram and Log Probability Plot for High Grade Domain (Object 101) - Au ..................... 36 Figure 12.8 Au Variograms for the Lower Grade Domain (Object 1)......................................................... 38 Figure 13.1 Block Size Analysis Chart ....................................................................................................... 41 Figure 13.2 Search Radii Analysis Chart ................................................................................................... 42 Figure 13.3 Maximum Number of Samples Analysis Chart ....................................................................... 43 Figure 13.4 Block Discretisation Analysis Chart ........................................................................................ 44 Figure 13.5 Blocks and Drilling Coloured by Au grade (4,542,150mN) ..................................................... 46 Figure 13.6 Linear Regression for Density V Fe Grade for Mineralisation ................................................ 47 Figure 14.1 Validation by Northing – Main Zone HG Au ............................................................................ 48 Figure 14.2 Validation by Elevation – Main Zone HG Au .......................................................................... 49 Figure 15.1 Mineral Resource Classification Long Section for the Main Lodes ........................................ 52 Figure 15.2 Hot Maden Tonnage and Grade – 10m Bench Elevation (Au and AuEq) .............................. 55 Figure 15.3 Hot Maden Tonnage and Grade – 10m Bench Elevation (Cu) ............................................... 55 Figure 15.4 Hot Maden Grade - Tonnage Curve (Au) ............................................................................... 56 Figure 15.5 Hot Maden Grade - Tonnage Curve (Cu) ............................................................................... 56 Figure 15.6 Hot Maden Grade - Tonnage Curve (AuEq) ........................................................................... 57

List of Appendices

A. JORC Code (2012) Table 1, Sections 1 and 2 B. JORC Code (2012) Table 1, Section 3 C. August 2015 Mineral Resource Tables D. Model Validation E. QAQC F. Statistical Analysis G. Variograms H. Model Interpolation Parameters I. List of Drill Holes

| ADV-PE-60359 | HOT MADEN GOLD-COPPER PROJECT Artvin Province, Turkey | September 2015 | | Page 1 of 139


1. Introduction

1.1 Purpose of This Report

This report is an independent estimate (hereafter, referred to as the “Statement”) prepared for Mariana Resources Ltd., (MARL), of the Mineral Resources of the Hot Maden Gold-Copper Project located approximately 130km northeast of Erzurum in north-eastern Turkey. The Statement reports the Mineral Resources based on drilling completed up to 25

th June, 2015 and has been estimated in compliance with

the 2012 Edition of the ‘Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves’ prepared by the Joint Ore Reserves Committee of The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Australian Geoscientists and Minerals Council of Australia (“The JORC Code 2012”); and in compliance with the requirements of ‘Canadian National Instrument 43-101’ (“NI 43-101”) of the Canadian Securities Administrators.

The purpose of this report is to assist MARL to complete a Mineral Resource estimate for the deposit.

The scope of work primarily focused on the estimation of Mineral Resources at Hot Maden. The scope excluded review of Mining, Processing, Legal, Commercial, Permitting, Economic Modelling, Environmental and Valuation studies.

1.2 Relevant Assets

The Hot Maden Gold-Copper Project is located approximately 130km northeast of Erzurum in north-eastern Turkey (Figure 3.1).

1.3 Scope of Work

The scope of work (“SOW”) includes the following:

A two day site visit to the Project by RPM’s Competent Person (or representative of), scheduled for the week of the 22

nd of June;

Review all available data for the deposit, including input data, QAQC procedures and results, geology and interpretations; and bulk density results;

Create mineralisation and weathering wireframes for drilling completed to date;

Undertake statistical and geostatistical analyses of the data where required, and undertake the determination of suitable grade and bulk density domains and subsequent estimation parameters;

Conduct Mineral Resource estimation, validation, classification and reporting in accordance with requirements of the 2012 Edition of the Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (JORC Code, 2012 Edition);

Review the Mineral Resource for eventual economic extraction;

Prepare a Mineral Resource Statement in accordance with requirements of the JORC Code, 2012 Edition;

Prepare a Mineral Resource report in accordance of the requirements of the JORC Code, 2012 Edition; and

Provide Competent Person sign-off for the Mineral Resource Report.

1.4 Information Sources

The following reports, documents and studies were used as reference material in the preparation of the Statement.

Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves, (The “JORC Code 2012”), 2012.



Callan, N., J., 2013. Report on Geological Mapping and Prospect Evaluation, Hot Maden Property (Lic. #’s 201201058, 201201059, 20050853, 201200321), Artvin Distict, NE Turkey. Internal Aegean Metals Group technical report.

Canadian National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects, (“NI 43-101”), 2011.

Henricksen, T., A., 2015. Technical Report for the Hot Maden Project, Artvin Province, Turkey. Unpublished draft report prepared for Mariana Resources Ltd., April 2015.

Lidya Madencilik, 2015a. Lidya Madencilik Annual Report on Activities for Hot Maden Project Turkey, for the period up to end of January, February 2015.

Lidya Madencilik, 2015b. Hot Maden Phase 1-2 QAQCR Summary Report to 26th June 2015, June

2015.

The key files supplied to RPM included:

Drilling database – supplied in multiple spreadsheets:

Hot Maden All Assays.xls

Hot_BaseOx_20150621.xls

Hot_Collar_20150623.xls

Hot_Survey_20150710.xls

Hot_Lithology_20150621.xls

Hot_Specific_Gravity_20150616.xls

Topography:

hot_properties_contours.zip

hot_properties_dem.zip

1.5 Approach

The process adopted for MARL is described below:

1. Wireframes were created by RPM for existing drilling up to hole HTD-017A using Surpac software. The lodes were interpreted using down-hole geochemistry and geological logging.

2. The underlying raw data, such as drill hole logs, quality control reports and assay logs were reviewed by RPM and are considered to be suitable for use in estimating the Mineral Resource.

3. An Ordinary Kriging (OK) interpolation was used to estimate Au, Cu, Ag and Fe grades within the block model, using three estimation passes.

4. Preliminary classification of the lodes in the block model into the Indicated and Inferred confidence areas was based on data quality, geological confidence and drill hole spacing. Mineralisation volumes and tonnages were estimated and reported in this category after applying any cut-off criteria.

5. Checks were undertaken and results and supporting information documented in this report.

The JORC Code “framework for classifying tonnage and grade estimates to reflect different levels of geological confidence and different degrees of technical and economic evaluation” applied in the estimation of the Mineral Resource is shown in Figure 1.1.

1.6 Previous Mineral Resource Estimates

This is a maiden Mineral Resource Estimate for the Hot Maden Project.



Figure 1.1 General Relationship Between Exploration Results, Mineral Resources, and Ore Reserves (Source: Australasian Code for Reporting of Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves, The JORC Code 2012 Edition)

1.7 Limitations and Exclusions

The Statement was based on various reports, plans and tabulations provided by MARL either directly from the MARL offices, or from reports by other organisations whose work is the property of MARL. MARL has not advised RPM of any material change, or event likely to cause material change, to the operations or forecasts since the date of asset inspections.

The work undertaken for this Report is that required for a technical review of the information, coupled with such inspections as the Team considered appropriate to prepare this Report.

It specifically excludes all aspects of mining and processing, legal issues, commercial and financing matters, land titles and agreements, except such aspects as may directly influence technical, operational or cost issues and where applicable to the JORC Code guidelines.

1.7.1 Limited Liability

This Report has been prepared by RPM for the internal purposes of MARL and is not to be used or relied upon for any other purpose. RPM will not be liable for any loss or damage suffered by a third party relying on this report or any references or extracts therefrom contrary to the purpose (regardless of the cause of action, whether breach of contract, tort (including negligence or otherwise) unless and to the extent that RPM has consented to such reliance or use.

1.7.2 Responsibility and Context of this Report

The contents of this Report have been based upon and created using data and information provided by or on behalf of MARL. RPM accepts no liability for the accuracy or completeness of data and information provided to it by, or obtained by it from MARL or any third parties, even if that data and information has been incorporated into or relied upon in creating this Report. The Report has been produced by RPM in good faith using information that was available to RPM as at the date stated on the cover page and is to be read in conjunction with the circular which has been prepared and forms part of the referenced transaction.



This Report contains findings that may materially change in the event that any of the information supplied to RPM is inaccurate or is materially changed. RPM is under no obligation to update the information contained in the report.

Notwithstanding the above, in RPM’s opinion, the data and information provided by or on behalf of MARL was reasonable and nothing discovered during the preparation of this Report suggests that there was a significant error or misrepresentation of the data or information.

1.7.3 Indemnification

MARL has indemnified and held harmless RPM and its subcontractors, consultants, agents, officers, directors, and employees from and against any and all claims, liabilities, damages, losses, and expenses (including lawyers’ fees and other costs of litigation, arbitration or mediation) arising out of or in any way related to:

RPM's reliance on any information provided by MARL; or

RPM’s services or materials; or

any use of or reliance on these services or material,

save and except in cases of death or personnel injury, property damage, claims by third parties for breach of intellectual property rights, gross negligence, wilful misconduct, fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation or the tort of deceit, or any other matter which be so limited or excluded as a matter of applicable law (including as a Competent Person under the Listing Rules), and regardless of any breach of contract or strict liability by RPM.

1.7.4 Mining Unknown Factors

The findings and opinions presented herein are not warranted in any manner, expressed or implied. The ability of the operator, or any other related business unit, to achieve forward looking production and economic targets is dependent upon numerous factors that are beyond RPM’s control and which cannot be fully anticipated by RPM. These factors include site specific mining and geological conditions, the capabilities of management and employees, availability of funding to properly operate and capitalise the operation, variations in cost elements and market conditions, developing and operating the mine in an efficient manner, etc. Unforeseen changes in legislation and new industry developments could substantially alter the performance of any mining operation.

1.7.5 Capability and Independence

RPM provides advisory services to the mining and finance sectors. Within its core expertise it provides independent technical reviews, resource evaluation, mining engineering and mine valuation services to the resources and financial services industries.

RPM has independently assessed the Relevant Assets of the Project by reviewing pertinent data. All opinions, findings and conclusions expressed in this Report are those of RPM and its specialist advisors.

Drafts of this Report were provided to MARL, but only for the purpose of confirming the accuracy of factual material and the reasonableness of assumptions relied upon in this Report.

RPM has been paid, and has agreed to be paid, professional fees based on a time and materials estimate for its preparation of this Report. Its remuneration is not dependent upon the findings of this Report or on the outcome of the transaction.

None of RPM or its directors, staff or specialists who contributed to this Report have any economic or beneficial interest (present or contingent), in:

the Project, securities of the companies associated with the Project or that of MARL; or

the right or options in the Relevant Assets; or

the outcome of any proposed transaction.



This report was compiled on behalf of RPM by the signatories to this report. The specialists who contributed to the findings within this report have each consented to the matters based on their information in the form and context in which it appears.

1.8 Study Team

The Study Team comprised professionals from RPM’s Australian and Mongolian offices.



2. Competent Persons Statement

The information in this report that relates to Mineral Resources is based on information compiled by Shaun Searle, who is a Member of the Australasian Institute of Geoscientists; and reviewed by Stewart Coates who is a Member of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of the Province of British Columbia and is a registered Professional Geoscientist. Both Mr Searle and Mr Coates are full time employees of RPM. Mr Coates is the Competent Person for this Mineral Resource estimate and has sufficient experience which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity which he has undertaken to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the ‘Australasian Code for the Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves’. In addition, Mr Coates is a Qualified Person as defined in the ‘Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum’ Standards of Disclosure.

Mr Coates has no economic, financial or pecuniary interest in MARL and is not aware of any potential for a conflict of interest in relation to this work for the Client.

………………………………….

Stewart Coates. P.Geo

The estimate of Mineral Resources presented in this Statement have been carried out in accordance with the 2012 Edition of the ‘Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves’ prepared by the Joint Ore Reserves Committee of The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Australian Geoscientists and Minerals Council of Australia (“The JORC Code 2012”); and in accordance with the requirements of ‘Canadian National Instrument 43-101’ (“NI 43-101”) of the Canadian Securities Administrators.



3. Project Description

3.1 Location

The Hot Maden Gold-Copper Project is located approximately 130km northeast of Erzurum in north-eastern Turkey (Figure 3.1).

3.2 Tenements and Land Tenure


3.3 Grid System

All collar positions have been surveyed with a DGPS system using the UTM European Datum 1950 Zone 37 North system.

3.4 Site Visit

A site visit to the Hot Maden Project for the purpose of geological due diligence was undertaken between the 23

rd to the 26

th June 2015. The visit was carried out by Mr Stewart Coates (RPM) and included the

following key items;

Meeting and discussions with key exploration personnel for project overview (refer Figure 3.2);

Field inspection of prospect area including surface exposures, field verification of drill hole locations; and

Review of selected drill core from the prospect area. Verification of logging and sampling procedures and clarification of geological and mineralogical features of the deposits.

The data, drilling and geological records were found to be well maintained by MARL and comprehensive field procedures had been developed. The site visit review concluded no significant issues were identified with regards to current geological understanding and data information.



Figure 3.1 Hot Maden Project Location

Figure 3.2 Hot Maden Project Terrain Overview (View toward North-west)



4. Geology and Mineralisation

Information presented in this section is sourced from various supplied internal technical reports.

4.1 Regional Geology (from Henricksen, 2015)

Turkey is located in the Alpine Orogenic Belt between the Eurasian Plate in the North, and Arabian and African Plates in the South. Four main east-west trending tectonic belts cross the country; from north to south these are the Pontides, Anatolides, Taurides and Border Folds, all of which are the result of ongoing continental collision, subduction and sedimentation during the Mesozoic era. The Hot Maden Project is situated within the Eastern Pontides tectonic belt, which coincides with 500km long, and 50 to 75km wide mountain chain extending along the south-eastern Black Sea coastline. Geologically, the Eastern Pontides formed as part of an island-arc system, generated by the subduction of the floor of the Tethyan Ocean associated with the Alpine Orogeny, during the Jurassic and Neogene periods.

The Project lies on the eastern margin of an extensive domain of Cretaceous age arc-related volcanic stratigraphy reportedly of similar age to the volcanic domain extensively exposed further north in the Artvin district and northwest towards the Black Sea coast; which hosts several volcanogenic massive sulphide type (Cayeli, Cerattepe) deposits. Several small inliers of Tertiary (early to middle Eocene) age volcanic units are mapped in the more eastern volcanic domain in the Ardanuc and Ardala sectors and the true extent of these Tertiary inliers may well be under-represented in the rather poor quality regional mapping. A feature of interest is the sharp linear north to north-northeast striking west boundary of the domain which may reflect an important orogen-oblique (and possibly deep-rooted basement) structure.

A regional geological map of north-eastern Turkey is shown below in Figure 4.1.

ADV-PE-60359


Hot Maden Gold-Copper Deposit Figure 4.1 Northeastern Turkey Regional

Geology (Source: Callan, 2013)



4.2 Local Geology (from Callan, 2013)

Mineralisation is hosted within a broadly north-south striking volcanic-sedimentary sequence of mafic to locally dacitic composition, suspected to be of early to middle Cretaceous age. Lithologies mapped in the eastern part of the project area principally include (i) massive feldspar porphyritic and locally amygdaloidal units (likely comprising sub-volcanic intrusions or thick flows) of inferred andesitic composition, (ii) occasional columnar jointed sills of more mafic composition, and (iii) locally quite voluminous coarse monomictic andesite porphyry clast breccias. Forming a prominent swath in the central part of the sector is a series of well-stratified locally fine fragmental quartz-bearing volcanic sediments (epiclastics) and variably reworked tuffs, some components of which are weakly calcareous. Litho-types include volcanic siltstones, sandstones and fine to coarse-grained immature crystal-rich pebble-cobble clast-bearing volcanic tuff-wackes. Thin blue-grey limestone horizons are locally present. This bedded sequence persists into the north-eastern part of the project area, giving way up-dip to an assemblage of well-stratified purple-grey and greenish hued andesitic volcanic units forming the western edge of a more extensive, possibly younger domain to the east of the sector, and which could be of a more sub-aerial nature. The south-eastern part of the project area is underlain by a series of thick-bedded to massive feldspar porphyritic units and coarse breccias of andesitic composition.

Their precise age relationship with the more conspicuously bedded sub-aerial andesitic domain exposed to the northeast of the sector is unclear: they could be related or alternatively comprise a distinct litho-stratigraphic unit.

Forming a prominent feature in the southern part of the mapped area is a locally coarse quartz-phyric to commonly more aphanitic, in-part spherulitic and strongly flow-banded felsic dome of dacitic to rhyodacitic composition with locally very well developed auto-breccia facies. Where unaltered, the felsic dome presents a greenish chloritic nature. Precise age relations with adjacent volcanic stratigraphy are poorly constrained, though the dome likely intrudes the bedded dacitic volcaniclastics and more massive andesitic litho-types to the west. Contacts with the massive to thick bedded andesite to the southeast could also be in-part intrusive, suggesting that if this andesitic domain is younger than the well-bedded volcanic sedimentary sequence to the west, then the dome may be younger still.

Cutting the felsic flow-dome are a series of north to northwest striking fine-grained to coarsely feldspar and hornblende porphyritic andesite dykes, and more interestingly, sparse feldspar-quartz porphyry dykes. Both are overprinted by mineralisation, with the feldspar-quartz porphyry dykes providing some evidence for a related underlying porphyritic intrusion. However, more obvious discordant coarse-grained or porphyritic intrusive phases, either as dykes or stocks, are notably uncommon in the area.

Locally preserved in areas of strong pyritization are small, crudely horizontally bedded remnants of ferricrete, locally “perched” at elevations well above present valley bottoms, attesting perhaps to rapid Neogene uplift and erosion in the region

4.3 Structure (from Callan, 2013)

The Project presents complex structural architecture. Stratigraphic dips in the mapped area are recognised with well-bedded north-northeast striking volcaniclastic units in the axial part of the prospect showing typically steep east dips, as well as locally more sub-vertical and even locally steep east dips. Extensively exposed volcanic-sedimentary units exposed to the west of the project area, almost certainly representing part of the same regional stratigraphic package, show similar sub-vertical dips, and thus a very broad steeply-dipping domain is indicated. Locally occurring on the outcrop scale are district-scale litho-structural more sub-horizontally bedded “lithons” bounded sharply by the steeply dipping stratigraphy, these perhaps representing hinge zones of folds, the limbs of which have been sheared out. The more massive volcanic porphyry and breccia units in the western area are part of the same volcanic-sedimentary package, and could be similarly steeply dipping, though local vertically oriented columnar joining in mafic sill-like bodies might hint at preservation of shallower dips in these more massive units, with high-strain now partitioned into well-bedded, fine volcaniclastic components, and manifested as very steeply inclined bedding, folding, bedding-parallel shear, and perhaps local transposition.



More andesitic stratigraphy, mapped in the very north-eastern edge of the project area, shows steep east dips which, further east beyond the mapping area, become shallow east-dipping, with local west dip reversals, reflecting development of large-scale folding.

Massive to very thick bedded andesites in the south-eastern part of the project area show conspicuously highly discordant east-west strikes and moderate north dips, with a major north northeast striking fault (the “Hot East Fault”); separating this domain from the dacitic bedded volcaniclastic units immediately to the west. The north limit of the massive andesites may be bounded by an east-west striking, north dipping (bedding-parallel?) reverse fault, the hanging-wall of which comprises north dipping, dacitic volcanic units occupying the limb of a large-scale northeast plunging syn-formal fold.

A vast array of faults, including both low-angle and steeply dipping structures, are present in the mapped area, many of which to a greater or lesser degree control distribution of mineralisation and broader hydrothermal alteration.

Perhaps the most important structural feature, closely associated with the main mineralised occurrences and broader altered corridor, trending north northeast through, and coring the property, is a complex north to north-northeast trending zone of faulting (the “Hot Maden Fault Zone”, hereafter ‘HMFZ’), including an en-echelon series of prominent north to north-northeast striking, steep west dipping to vertical faults; developed on the western margin of the stratified dacitic volcaniclastic sequence, proximal to their contact with more massive, porphyritic, vesicular and brecciated andesites to the west. The most prominent faults, comprising foliated, gouge-rich zones several metres wide, generally occupy the sharp contact between the very well bedded and laminated units forming the bulk of the stratified dacitic sequence and a thin sequence of more crudely bedded, locally conglomeratic units forming the western margin of the sequence. Localisation of the faulting appears to have been strongly influenced by competency contrasts between the bedded dacitic volcaniclastics and the more massive andesitic units immediately to the west, the latter almost certainly acting as a rigid buttress, focusing fault-related deformation in the adjacent “soft” bedded volcaniclastic domain, with structures propagating particularly where lithologically-related contrasts were most pronounced.

Also noted locally in the structural zone, and likely interacting with the prominent steep elements, are more moderate to steeply east dipping north-northeast striking bedding parallel faults which commonly localise stratabound mineralisation and alteration.

While best exposed in the central part of the prospect on the two road sections there, the HMFZ almost certainly persists into the southern part of the project area, essentially following the controlling lithological contact.

Also significant is the north-northeast striking very steep east dipping to vertical fault (“Hot East Fault Zone”), separating the north dipping massive andesitic domain in the southeast from the main steep east dipping volcanic-sedimentary package occupying the bulk of the central and western parts of the area.

This fault feature is very clearly displayed in the sharp northwest trending ridge occupying the central part of the project area, and the north segment of this structure clearly controls another conspicuous swath of alteration paralleling the main altered valley to the west. Displacement on the fault is not well-constrained though shear fabrics in its north extension suggest an east side up component. The felsic flow-dome dominated geology in the south part of the mapped area lies at the intersection of the south extension of this north-northeast striking, sub-vertical structure with inferred more southwest to west southwest striking structures, suggesting that these faults or their early manifestations may have been important in controlling dome emplacement.

Other faults include a set of more southwest to west-southwest and more west striking steep structures in the central and southern part of the project area as well as more north-northwest striking moderate to steep east dipping faults. The latter, together with more southwest striking faults, in-part bound the flow-dome exposed in the south. Also inferred are more localised northwest striking structures which cross-cut and locally offset the more north-northeast trending stratigraphy. Commonly observed at the outcrop scale are both east and west dipping low-angle, likely contractional type structures, which in proximity to the main mineralised corridor, often host alteration. A post-mineral set of east dipping low-angle faults shows very clear, though generally minor reverse displacement.



Quite significant syn-or post-mineral deformation is indicated by several features including (i) the locally foliated, schistose nature of altered zones, (ii) boudinage of mineralisation, (iii) slip planes in altered material, (iv) gouge overprinting of sulphides in mineralised fault zones and (v) locally very clear but generally minor offsets of vein-type mineralisation.

A structural map of the project area is shown below in Figure 4.2.

ADV-PE-60359


Hot Maden Gold-Copper Deposit Figure 4.2 Structural Map of the Project Area

(Source: Callan, 2013)



4.4 Mineralisation and Alteration (from Henrickson 2015 and Callan 2013)

Gold-copper mineralisation is broadly associated within a sub-vertical, north-northeast trending fault zone (the “Hot Maden Fault Zone”), with mineralisation occurring in andesitic breccias and dacitic tuffaceous sediments as quartz-sulphide (pyrite-chalcopyrite) +/- hematite/jasperoid breccias and locally massive sulphides (pyrite-chalcopyrite). The highest grade Au-Cu mineralisation appears to lie along the eastern margin of the Au-Cu mineralised zone (Figure 4.3). Stratabound-style Zn-Pb (sphalerite-galena) anomalism flanks the Au-Cu zone to the east and locally to the west. Hydrothermal alteration adjacent to the Au-Cu zone is dominated by argillic and phyllic assemblages.

Figure 4.3 High Grade Mineralisation from HTD-05 at 153m Depth (445g/t Au and 4.4% Cu)

The Hot Maden Fault Zone at surface is a broadly north-northeast striking corridor of gossanous and locally argillic/phyllic hydrothermal alteration that strikes through the property for seven plus kilometres with a width of up to 300 meters and reflects locally intense pyrite/chalcopyrite, with a significant component of supergene clay alteration.

In the south zone, quartz-sulphide vein type mineralisation and breccias containing sulphides, locally reaching massive to semi-massive proportions and often quite coarse-grained, include pyrite, sphalerite, chalcopyrite and galena with associated gangue of coarse crystalline to comby quartz, minor calcite, ?Fe carbonate, chlorite, barite and minor pink rhodochrosite. Early deposition of fine-grained pyrite is evident, perhaps followed by coarse sphalerite, locally with quartz, coarse pyrite and galena. Post-dating some massive sphalerite deposition are at least two generations of comby quartz-pyrite-chalcopyrite veins which both follow and locally crosscut the early stage vein structures. This paragenetic stage may correspond with Cu mineralized veins in the central part of the property. Quartz-pyrite-chalcopyrite veining here also locally overprints the margin of the adjacent clay-sericite-pyrite altered felsic flow dome.

In the central zone, quartz-sulphide vein mineralisation styles are very similar to the south zone, though differ by virtue of the presence of sphalerite and galena in veins proximal to the main fault (Figure 4.4).



Figure 4.4 Composite Section Looking North Showing Mineralisation Styles (after Callan 2013)

The Central/North zone comprises the current focus for drilling and hosts the discovery drillhole HTD-04. Drillholes have intersected stratabound Au-Cu, both in silicified and brecciated andesites and massive “bedded” sulfides, “overlain” by zinc mineralization in volcaniclastic rocks. Extremely high grades of gold, along with accompanying copper and zinc characterise the mineralisation in this area. Jasper is frequently present in association with breccias and ultra-high grade zones, although the correlation is not rigorous.

4.5 Historical Production

Historical copper mining has occurred at the Hot Maden Project. Two periods of mining are likely to have occurred; (i) copper mining during the Ottoman Empire and (ii) copper mining when Hot Maden was contained within Russian territory between the 1880’s to 1910’s. No historical production figures are available.

Evidence of cupriferous slag is scattered around the drill pad for the discovery hole – HTD-004 and shown below in Figure 4.5.



Figure 4.5 Cupriferous Slag Near Hole Collar HTD-004



5. Previous Mineral Resource Estimates

This is a maiden Mineral Resource Estimate for the Hot Maden Project.



6. Historic Data

6.1 General

All drilling for the Hot Maden Project was completed by Lidya and MARL since 2014. All drilling was diamond core (DD) and summarised in Table 6-1 below.

Table 6-1 –Hot Maden Drilling Summary

Company Period Drilling Method Number of

Holes Metres

Lidya/MARL 2014-2015 DD 20 5,205

Total

20 5,205



7. Drilling Data

7.1 Summary

The supplied drilling data spreadsheets were compiled by RPM into an Access database ‘hot_maden20150721.mdb’ and contained drilling data up to hole HTD-017A.

7.2 Drill Methods

All drilling was diamond (DD) with HQ and PQ core sizes. Drill locations are shown below in Figure 7.1.

Figure 7.1 Drill Location Map

A summary of the drilling data within the Hot Maden Mineral Resource area is shown in Table 7-1.

Table 7-1 – Summary of Drilling at Hot Maden used in Mineral Resource

Hole Type

In Project In Mineral Resource

Drill holes Drill holes Intersection

Number Metres Number Metres Metres

DD 20 5,205 15 4,353 1,509

Total 20 5,205 15 4,353 1,509

The database was loaded into Surpac software.



7.3 Drill Hole Collar Location

All collar positions have been surveyed with a DGPS system using the UTM European Datum 1950 Zone 37 North system. Drill hole spacing is approximately 50m by 50m at the Project.

7.4 Down-Hole Surveys


Approximately 60% of current drilling is angled -60˚ to the west, with the remaining holes angled -60˚ to the east. Mineralisation is generally sub-vertical.

7.5 Geological Logging

Diamond drilling has been logged for a combination of geological and structural attributes by Lidya employees. The core has been photographed and measured for core recovery. All diamond logging data is entered into a Microsoft Excel spread sheet then imported into an Access database.

7.6 Sampling

7.6.1 Methodology

Diamond core was predominantly HQ size with minor amounts of PQ size. Core was sampled as half core at 1m intervals or to geological contacts within mineralisation and to 2m outside of mineralisation in the earlier holes. Sampling did not cross geological boundaries and was always sampled from one side of the core for consistency.

7.6.2 Sample Preparation

Samples from Phase I drilling were sent to the SGS Laboratory in Ankara, Turkey. Samples from Phase II were sent to the ALS Laboratory in Izmir, western Turkey. When received, samples were sorted and then dried. The sample was then subject to a primary crush, then pulverised so that 85% passes a 75µm sieve.

7.7 Data Excluded

No available data was excluded from the estimate.



8. Assay Data

8.1 Methodolgy

After the sample had been prepared by the lab a 50g split of each sample was then subject to fire assay with AAS finish for Au. If the sample contained more than 500ppb Au, the sample was re-analysed using fire assay with a gravimetric finish. As and Sb were analysed using AAS, in addition to a 33 element four acid digestion with ICP-AES analysis. Samples in which ICP analyses returned greater than the maximum detection limit for the elements Ag (10 ppm), Cu (10,000 ppm), Fe (15%), Pb (10,000 ppm), and Zn (10,000 ppm) were reanalysed using the AAS analytical technique. Results were sent to the Lidya office then compiled into a spreadsheet.

Since the commencement of drilling Lidya has implemented a consistent QAQC system utilising standards, blanks and duplicate samples. The program included the submission of one standard every 20th sample, the submission of two blanks in every assay batch and field duplicates taken every 40th sample. All standards and blanks were obtained and certified by Geostats. Duplicates were split to quarter core with a core saw.

8.2 Quality Control

Raw data for standards and duplicates were not provided to RPM. RPM reviewed Lidya’s “Phase 1-2 QAQCR Summary Report” dated the 10

th August 2015 and this is summarised below.

8.2.1 Protocol and Summary

For the 2014-2015 drilling, standards were inserted at a rate of approximately 1:20, blanks were inserted at a rate of two blanks for every assay batch and field duplicates were taken at a rate of approximately 1:40.

Monitoring of standards, blanks and laboratory duplicates was undertaken by Lidya and MARL geologists. All blank values returned values <0.1g/t Au. A small number of standards marginally fell outside the certified control limits, with the remaining standards in the batch passing. The majority of duplicate samples returned values within 10% of the original assay. A slight bias of higher grades has been observed for the ALS Laboratory, and further monitoring is recommended by RPM.

Overall, QAQC results were satisfactory and confirmed that the data was suitable for use in the Mineral Resource estimation.

8.2.2 Standards and Blanks

Commercial standards were used during the 2014-2015 drill programs and were obtained and certified by Geostats. The 2014-2015 drilling used eight certified standards (seven Au standards and GBMS911-1, a base metal standard) and was inserted at a rate of approximately 1:20.

Two certified blanks were used, AuBlank62 and AuBlank66 (both 2ppb Au). Blanks were inserted at a rate of two blanks in every assay batch.

A total of 197 field standards and 55 blanks were inserted since 2014. Results for the standards and blanks were compiled by Lidya. A summary table of standards is shown in Table 8-1. Standard control charts for 2014-2015 drilling are displayed in Appendix E.



Table 8-1 – Certified Standard Summary for 2014-2015 Drilling (Source, Lidya 2015b)

Au Standard(s) No. of

Samples

Calculated Values

Std Code Method Exp

Method Exp

Value Exp SD

Mean Au SD CV Mean Bias

G313-10 FAOG_AAS FA50_AAS 46.27 1.99 15 46.71 1.80 0.04 0.94%

G905-7 FAOG_AAS AR_AAS 3.89 0.30 7 3.80 0.14 0.04 -2.28%

G907-4 FA30_AAS FA50_AAS 3.84 0.15 34 3.73 0.09 0.02 -2.93%

G907-4 FAOG_AAS FA50_AAS 3.84 0.15 34 3.91 0.09 0.02 1.78%

G910-7 FAOG_AAS AR_AAS 0.50 0.04 48 0.48 0.02 0.04 -3.04%

G910-8 FA30_AAS FA50_AAS 0.63 0.04 29 0.61 0.01 0.02 -3.61%

G914-10 FAOG_AAS FA50_AAS 10.26 0.38 21 10.07 0.40 0.04 -1.81%

GBMS911-1 FAOG_AAS FA50_AAS 1.04 0.11 9 1.06 0.05 0.05 1.60%

RPM recommends more frequent use of the base metal standard (GBMS911-1) to closely monitor the base metal assays.

8.2.3 Laboratory Duplicates

Check sampling was performed to determine whether the laboratory sampling preparation procedure was producing assay subsamples that were representative of the original sample. Laboratory duplicates were taken at a rate of approximately 1:40. A total of 130 laboratory pulp checks and 101 laboratory pulp splits were analysed during the 2014-2015 drilling.

Field and laboratory duplicate results are shown in Figure 8.1. Results indicate reasonable repeatability of the original sample.

Figure 8.1 Laboratory Duplicate Analysis for 2014-2015 Drilling (Source, Lidya 2015b)

No duplicates were taken from the diamond core. RPM has no concerns over omitting field duplicates for diamond core, as duplicates provide assurance of sampling quality. As core is cut in half, it is assumed that there is little margin for error in the sampling process.



The results indicate that the duplicate check samples show a moderate amount of scatter, but have negligible bias relative to the original assays. This indicates that the laboratory sample preparation procedures are of a high standard with good assay repeatability.

8.2.4 Cross Laboratory Checks

Cross laboratory check assaying was performed to determine whether assay values were consistent between laboratories. A total of 116 samples were assayed at both the SGS Laboratory in Ankara, Turkey and the ALS Laboratory in Izmir, western Turkey. The results are shown below in Figure 8.2.

Figure 8.2 Cross Laboratory Checks for 2014-2015 Drilling (Scatter Plot Left, QQ Plot Right)

The results indicate that the ALS laboratory reports a slight bias of higher grades >75g/t Au. RPM recommends further monitoring of this; however no action is warranted at this stage.

8.2.5 QAQC Conclusion

Lidya and MARL have carried out a program of QAQC for drilling since 2014 at the Hot Maden Project. Industry certified standards were inserted at regular intervals and results have accurately reflected the original assays and expected values. Certified blanks have all reported below 0.1g/t Au. A slight bias of higher grades has been observed for the ALS Laboratory, and further monitoring is recommended by RPM. Recognised laboratories have been used for analysis of samples.

RPM recommends more frequent use of the base metal standard (GBMS911-1) to closely monitor the base metal assays.

Overall, the QAQC data does not indicate any bias and supports the assay data used in the Mineral Resource estimate.



9. Bulk Density Data

Lidya and MARL collected 381 bulk density measurements from drill core during the 2014-15 drilling programs, using the water immersion technique. All samples were in fresh rock.

The density measuring apparatus is shown below in Figure 9.1.

Figure 9.1 Density Apparatus

RPM extracted the density measurements from the database and subdivided the measurements into mineralised (inside wireframes) and non-mineralised (outside wireframes). Results are tabulated in Table 9-1.

Table 9-1 – Bulk Density Summary

Type Number of Bulk Density (t/m

3)

Samples Mean Minimum Maximum

Mineralised 89 3.04 2.52 4.10

Non-mineralised 292 2.85 2.06 3.50


Absence of density measurements from weathered zones is not significant as the Mineral Resource is predominantly in fresh rock.



10. Metallurgy

Preliminary metallurgical testing has been conducted on the Hot Maden mineralisation. It is likely that processing would entail gravity separation of Au followed by flotation to produce a concentrate with expected recoveries greater than 90% for Au and Cu based on the preliminary results.

Further metallurgical studies are planned.



11. Database Verification

RPM completed systematic data validation steps after receiving the database. Checks completed by RPM included:

Down hole survey depths did not exceed the hole depth as reported in the collar table.

Hole dips were within the range of 0° and -90°.

Assay values did not extend beyond the hole depth quoted in the collar table.

Assay and survey information was checked for duplicate records.

No issues were detected.

In addition, MARL supplied digital copies of original assay certificates for all drilling. RPM cross checked assay results for the certificates against the supplied assay data. Two errors were found and communicated to MARL. The errors were rectified prior to Mineral Resource Estimation.

A list of holes checked is shown below in Table 11-1.

Table 11-1 - Drill Hole Assay Verification

HTD-001 HTD-005 HTD-009 HTD-014

HTD-002 HTD-006 HTD-010A HTD-015A

HTD-003 HTD-007 HTD-011 HTD-016

HTD-004 HTD-007A HTD-012A HTD-017

HTD-004A HTD-008 HTD-013 HTD-017A



12. Interpretation and Statistics

12.1 Geology and Interpretation

Mineralisation interpretations were prepared by RPM using a nominal 0.5g/t Au Equivalent cut-off grade for lower grade material, 3g/t Au Equivalent for higher grade material and approximately 15g/t Au Equivalent for ultra-high grade material. All mineralisation intersections were defined with a minimum down hole width of 2m. Statistical analysis of the assay values indicated a natural cut-off at approximately 0.5g/t Au Equivalent, and a high grade cut-off around 15g/t Au Equivalent (refer Figure 12.1).

Au Equivalence (AuEq) was calculated using a 100 day moving average of $US1,178/ounce for Au and $US2.70/pound for Cu as of July 29, 2015. No adjustment was made for metallurgical recovery or net smelter return as these remain uncertain at this time. Based on grades and contained metal for Au and Cu, it is assumed that both commodities have reasonable potential to be economically extractable.

The formula used for Au equivalent grade is: AuEq g/t = Au + [(Cu% x 22.0462 x 2.7) / (1,178 / 31.1035)] and assumes 100% metallurgical recovery.

Figure 12.1 Log Histogram and Log Probability Plot for All Assays at Hot Maden

12.2 Preparation of Wireframes

12.2.1 Resource Wireframes

The interpreted sectional outlines were manually triangulated to form wireframes. The end section strings were copied to a position midway to the next section or to 50m and adjusted to match the dip, strike and plunge of the zone. The wireframed objects were validated using Surpac software and set as solids.

A total of seven wireframes were created and used to select the sample data to be used for grade estimation, and to constrain the block model for estimation purposes. The mineralisation wireframes were treated as hard boundaries for all estimation purposes, that is, only assays from within each wireframe were used to estimate blocks within that wireframe.

A plan view of wireframes and drilling is shown in Figure 12.2, a long section of the wireframes and drilling is shown in Figure 12.3 and a typical section of the wireframes is shown in Figure 12.4.

Hot Maden Wireframes

Figure 12.2 Plan View of Wireframes and

Drilling Mariana Resources Ltd.

Hot Maden Gold-Copper Deposit

ADV-PE-60359

ADV-PE-60359

Figure 12.3 Long Section of Wireframes and

Drilling Hot Maden Gold-Copper Deposit Mariana Resources Ltd.

Ultra-high grade

(Obj. 102)

High grade

(Obj. 101)

Lower grade

(Obj. 1)

Obj. 4

Obj. 2

Topography

Overburden

ADV-PE-60359

Figure 12.4 Cross Section of Wireframes and Drilling (Au assays on left and Cu assays on right of drill holes)





12.2.2 Geology Wireframes

A surface was for the overburden was prepared by RPM using the geological logging (‘hm_overburden_20150729.dtm’). The surface was extended beyond the block model extents.

12.2.3 Weathering Wireframes

Weathering surfaces were not created as there was little weathering observed below the overburden at the Hot Maden.

12.2.4 Topographic Surface

A topographic surface was generated from 1m contour data supplied to RPM by MARL (‘hm_topo_20150729.dtm’).

12.3 Compositing and Statistics

The wireframes of the mineralised zones were used to define the Mineral Resource intersections. These were coded into the ‘res_zone’ table within the database.

Samples from within the Mineral Resource wireframes were used to conduct a sample length analysis within the mineralised lodes. The majority of samples were 1m in length (Figure 12.5).

Surpac software was then used to extract ‘fixed length’ 1m down-hole composites within the intervals coded as Mineral Resource intersections.

The composites were checked for spatial correlation with the objects, the location of the rejected composites and zero composite values. Individual composite files were created for each of the individual domains in the wireframe models. The composite data was imported into Supervisor software for analysis. There were seven lodes in total and the main zones are summarised below in Table 12-1 to Table 12-3.

Figure 12.5 Sample Lengths Inside Wireframes

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8 1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8 2

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8 3

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8 4

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8 5

Mo

re

Nu

mb

er

Sample Length (m)

Sample Lengths Inside Wireframes



Table 12-1 – Summary Statistics for 1m Lode Composites – Object 1 (Lower grade)

Statistic Au g/t Ag g/t Cu % Fe % Pb % Zn %

Samples 708 708 708 708 708 708

Minimum 0.02 0.50 0.00 2.22 0.00 0.00

Maximum 7.64 24.00 4.61 36.70 3.76 9.42

Mean 0.51 2.39 0.53 9.28 0.01 0.22

Standard deviation 0.58 2.45 0.59 3.96 0.14 0.96

CV 1.15 1.03 1.11 0.43 11.36 4.42

Variance 0.34 6.00 0.34 15.69 0.02 0.93

Percentiles

10% 0.11 0.50 0.04 4.84 0.00 0.00

20% 0.16 0.55 0.10 6.30 0.00 0.01

30% 0.21 0.80 0.16 7.29 0.00 0.01

40% 0.28 1.20 0.23 8.07 0.00 0.01

50% 0.34 1.70 0.34 8.70 0.00 0.01

60% 0.43 2.06 0.45 9.56 0.00 0.02

70% 0.53 2.80 0.63 10.39 0.01 0.03

80% 0.73 3.50 0.88 11.52 0.01 0.05

90% 1.03 5.30 1.22 13.70 0.01 0.14

95% 1.42 7.00 1.63 15.85 0.01 0.85

97.50% 1.99 9.00 2.04 19.30 0.03 2.70

99% 2.61 10.50 2.90 23.75 0.09 5.49

Table 12-2 – Summary Statistics for 1m Lode Composites – Object 101 (High grade)


Samples 486 486 486 486 486 486

Minimum 0.16 0.50 0.01 1.76 0.00 0.00

Maximum 37.40 28.10 11.07 39.90 0.14 2.56

Mean 4.90 5.11 1.79 13.42 0.01 0.15


CV 1.11 0.81 0.79 0.55 1.64 2.25

Variance 29.71 17.12 1.98 55.18 0.00 0.11

Percentiles

10% 0.64 1.00 0.45 6.39 0.00 0.00

20% 1.08 1.80 0.83 7.84 0.00 0.01

30% 1.62 2.60 1.04 8.96 0.00 0.01

40% 2.18 3.40 1.24 10.30 0.00 0.01

50% 3.11 4.25 1.44 11.60 0.01 0.02

60% 4.04 5.00 1.70 12.83 0.01 0.03

70% 5.67 6.00 2.00 14.20 0.01 0.05

80% 7.71 7.90 2.53 17.50 0.01 0.14

90% 11.00 10.00 3.58 25.60 0.01 0.53

95% 14.55 12.11 4.40 31.90 0.02 0.82

97.50% 21.00 15.00 6.02 33.60 0.04 1.19

99% 29.90 23.90 6.77 34.80 0.08 1.68



Table 12-3 – Summary Statistics for 1m Lode Composites – Object 102 (Ultra-high grade)


Samples 166 166 166 166 166 166

Minimum 1.12 0.50 0.31 5.69 0.00 0.00

Maximum 517.06 34.60 12.60 45.90 0.06 0.24

Mean 34.46 11.61 3.81 24.82 0.01 0.04


CV 1.83 0.82 0.62 0.45 0.96 1.20

Variance 3961.62 89.74 5.56 124.12 0.00 0.00

Percentiles

10% 7.54 1.85 0.99 9.08 0.00 0.01

20% 8.99 3.20 1.55 11.50 0.00 0.01

30% 10.26 4.00 2.11 14.75 0.00 0.01

40% 13.54 5.10 2.69 21.10 0.01 0.02

50% 16.75 7.10 3.62 30.00 0.01 0.02

60% 20.40 11.70 4.32 32.10 0.01 0.03

70% 27.20 17.90 5.08 33.90 0.02 0.04

80% 40.32 22.10 5.76 35.20 0.02 0.07

90% 81.16 26.10 6.88 36.66 0.03 0.12

95% 96.40 27.40 7.78 37.84 0.04 0.15

97.50% 142.06 29.89 9.56 38.50 0.05 0.18

99% 444.69 33.00 10.05 39.40 0.06 0.23

12.4 Correlation Analysis

The correlation of metal within the Hot Maden Project is typical of an epithermal style system, with a reasonable correlation between Au and Ag; and Au and Cu. Strong correlations are observed for Cu and Ag, Cu and Fe, Ag and Fe; and Pb and Zn. The remaining elements are un-correlated.

Correlation matrices for Objects 1, 101 and 102 are shown in Table 12-4 to Table 12-6 and selected scatter plots for Object 101 are shown in Figure 12.6.

Table 12-4 – Correlation Matrix – Object 1 (Lower grade)

Au g/t Ag g/t Cu % Fe % Pb % Zn %

Au g/t 1.00

Ag g/t 0.26 1.00

Cu % 0.19 0.20 1.00

Fe % 0.09 0.19 0.24 1.00

Pb % -0.02 0.16 -0.02 -0.07 1.00

Zn % -0.05 0.16 -0.03 -0.15 0.41 1.00



Table 12-5 – Correlation Matrix – Object 101 (High grade)


Au g/t 1.00

Ag g/t 0.38 1.00

Cu % 0.30 0.48 1.00

Fe % 0.20 0.40 0.49 1.00

Pb % -0.01 0.10 -0.02 -0.03 1.00

Zn % 0.01 0.12 -0.05 -0.12 0.40 1.00

Table 12-6 – Correlation Matrix – Object 102 (Ultra-high grade)


Au g/t 1.00

Ag g/t 0.17 1.00

Cu % 0.25 0.69 1.00

Fe % 0.16 0.62 0.66 1.00

Pb % -0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 1.00

Zn % -0.03 0.05 -0.06 -0.12 0.40 1.00

As observed from the tables, correlations between Cu and Ag, Cu and Fe; and Ag and Fe generally rise with increasing grade. This is attributed to the increase in sulphide content that causes an increase in metal grades. Pb and Zn correlations remain relatively consistent for each domain.

Figure 12.6 Selected Scatter Plots for High Grade Domain (Object 101)



12.5 Top Cuts

Analysis of the statistics indicates that the composite data is positively skewed with a high coefficient of variation. The application of top cuts is considered necessary prior to using the data for linear grade interpolation.

To assist in the selection of appropriate top cuts, the composite data was imported into Supervisor software, where population histograms, log probability plots and the coefficient of variation statistics were generated for all lodes. The histogram and log probability plots for the high grade domain (Object 101) are shown below in Figure 12.7. The remaining statistical plots are displayed in Appendix F.

Figure 12.7 Histogram and Log Probability Plot for High Grade Domain (Object 101) - Au

Top cuts were determined for each domain by noting distinct breaks in the shape of each distribution on the log probability plots and population histograms, and determining the spatial location of the high grades within the various domains.

Following a review of the plots, a top cut of 25g/t Au was applied within the higher grade domain, and a top cut of 150g/t Au was applied to the ultra-high grade domain resulting in a total of 12 samples being cut. Top cuts for the remaining elements were not required; no Au top cut was applied to the remaining lodes.

A summary of top cuts applied is shown below in Table 12-7.

Table 12-7 – Hot Maden Au Top Cuts by Domain

Object 101 102

Number Samples 486 166

Mean 4.90 34.46

CV 1.11 1.83

Top Cut 25 150

Number Cut 8 4

Cut Mean 4.81 29.00

Cut CV 1.05 1.09



12.6 Geostatistical Analysis

12.6.1 Variography

Mineralisation continuity was examined via variography. Variography examines the spatial relationship between composites, and seeks to identify the directions of mineralisation continuity and to quantify the ranges of grade continuity. Variography was also used to determine the random variability or ‘nugget effect’ of the deposit. The results provide the basis for determining appropriate kriging parameters for resource estimation.

RPM has calculated experimental variograms of Au, Cu and Fe for two lodes (Surpac wireframe Objects 1 and 101). All variography was completed using Supervisor software.

The 1m composite sample data was transformed into a normal distribution using a normal scores transformation to help identify the main directions of mineralisation continuity from skewed data. A two structured nested spherical model was found to model the experimental variogram reasonably well. The down-hole variogram provides the best estimate of the true nugget value which was 0.08 (Au), 0.18 (Cu) and 0.05 (Fe) for Object 1; and 0.13 (Au), 0.20 (Cu) and 0.05 (Fe) for Object 101.

The orientation of the plane of mineralisation was aligned with the interpreted wireframe for the main objects. The experimental variograms were calculated with the first aligned along the main mineralisation continuity while the second was aligned in the plane of mineralisation at 90° to the first orientation. The third was orientated perpendicular to the mineralisation plane, across the width of the mineralisation.

RPM modelled the down-hole and three orthogonal variograms of Au, Cu and Fe for the main domains. The variograms displayed reasonable structure. The directional variograms for Object 1 are shown in Figure 12.8. Full details of the directional continuity analysis can be found in Appendix G.

12.6.2 Kriging Parameters

The Au, Ag, Cu and Fe grades were interpolated into a Surpac block model using ordinary kriging (OK) using the nugget, sill values and ranges determined from the variogram models discussed in Section 12.6.1. The ranges obtained from the variogram models were used as a guide in the search ellipse parameters used in the Mineral Resource estimate. The normal score variogram models variance were back-transformed to traditional space after modelling to adjust for the variance. Search ellipse parameters varied for all other lodes and were orientated to align with the strike and plunge of their respective wireframe.

Kriging parameters for Ag were obtained from the Au parameters due to the correlations observed between Au and Ag for the majority of domains.

The back-transformed kriging parameters for the main domains are summarised in Table 12-8.

Table 12-8 – Kriging Parameters

Obj Element Major

Direction Co

Structure 1 Structure 2

C1 A1 Maj/Semi Maj/Minor C2 A2 Maj/Semi Maj/Minor

1

Au -25->187 0.08 0.69 38 1.1 1.9 0.23 80 1.0 1.6

Cu -29->184 0.18 0.49 60 1.0 4.0 0.33 70 1.0 2.3

Fe -35->187 0.05 0.37 70 1.0 4.7 0.58 120 1.0 3.0

101

Au -65->185 0.13 0.41 10 1.0 2.0 0.46 70 1.0 1.7

Cu -65->190 0.20 0.38 31 1.0 3.1 0.38 90 1.0 2.2

Fe -65->190 0.05 0.37 10 1.0 1.0 0.29 75 1.0 2.1

Figure 12.8 Au Variograms for the Lower

Grade Domain (Object 1)

ADV-PE-60359





13. Mineral Resource Estimation

13.1 Block Model

A Surpac block model was created to encompass the full extent of the deposit. Block model parameters are listed in Table 13-1. The block dimensions used the model was 25m NS by 25m EW by 10m vertical with sub-cells of 3.125m by 3.125m by 1.25m.

The parent block size was selected on the basis of kriging neighbourhood analysis (discussed in Section 13.3), while dimensions in other directions were selected to provide sufficient resolution to the block model in the across-strike and down-dip direction.

Table 13-1 – Block Model Parameters

Model Name hotmaden_ok_20150804.mdl

Y X Z

Block Model Origin 4,541,600 740,200 200

Block Extents 4,542,500 740,850 1,080

Block Size (Sub-blocks) 25 (3.125) 25 (3.125) 10 (1.25)

Rotation None

Attributes:

au_cut Block Au grade with high grade cut - Reportable

au_uncut Block Au grade with no high grade cut

aueq Au Equivalence = au_cut + [(cu x 22.0462 x 2.7)/(1178/31.1035)]

ag Block Ag grade

cu Block Cu grade

fe Block Fe grade

min_dis Distance to nearest au_cut sample

ave_dis Average distance to au_cut samples

num_sam Number of au_cut samples used for block grade interpolation

kvar Kriging variance for au_cut

bvar Block variance for au_cut

ke Kriging efficiency for au_cut

bd Bulk density

pod Wireframe object number

type air, ob, fr

domain air, ob, main_lg, main_hg, main_uhg, peripheral

pass Estimation pass number

class mes, ind, inf, minpot

class_code 1=mes, 2=ind, 3=inf, 4=minpot

mined y or n

13.2 Block Model Coding

The block model was coded with weathering type in the “type” attribute and domain codes in the “domain” attribute. Table 13-2 below shows block model coding for the weathering type in the order they were coded, and Table 13-3 shows block model coding for the mineralisation domains.



Table 13-2 – Block Model Coding - Type

Type Order Assignment Methodology

fr 1 Fresh (“fr”) - blocks below overburden (hm_overburden_20150729.dtm) and topography

(hm_topo_20150729.dtm)

ob 2 Overburden (“ob”) – blocks above overburden (hm_overburden_20150729.dtm) and below

topography (hm_topo_20150729.dtm)

air 3 Air (“air”) - blocks above the topography surface (hm_topo_20150729.dtm)

Table 13-3 – Block Model Coding - Domain

Domain Pod Assignment Methodology

main_lg 1 Main Low Grade Lode (“main_lg”) – blocks within mineralised wireframes

(hm_res_20150729.dtm, Obj 1, not within Obj 101 or 102)

main_hg 101 Main High Grade Lode (“main_hg”) – blocks within mineralised wireframes

(hm_res_20150729.dtm, Obj 101, not within Obj 102)

main_uhg 102 Main Ultra-High Grade Lode (“main_uhg”) – blocks within mineralised wireframes

(hm_res_20150729.dtm, Obj 102)

peripheral 2 to 5 Peripheral (“peripheral”) – blocks within mineralised wireframes (hm_res_20150729.dtm, Obj 2

to 5)

ob - Overburden (“ob”) – blocks above overburden (hm_overburden_20150729.dtm) and below

topography (hm_topo_20150729.dtm)

air - Air (“air”) - blocks above the topography surface (hm_topo_20150729.dtm)

13.3 Kriging Neighbourhood Analysis

Kriging neighbourhood analysis (KNA) is conducted to minimise the conditional bias that occurs during grade estimation as a function of estimating block grades from point data. Conditional bias typically presents as overestimation of low grade blocks and underestimation of high grade blocks due to use of non-optimal estimation parameters and can be minimised by optimising parameters such as:

block size

size of sample search neighbourhood

number of informing samples

block discretisation

The degree of conditional bias present in a model can be quantified by computing the theoretical regression slope and kriging efficiency of estimation at multiple test locations within the region of estimation. These locations are selected to represent portions of the deposit with excellent, moderate and poor drill (sample) coverage.

13.3.1 Block Size

To test the optimal block size for existing drilling at Hot Maden, single blocks within the high grade lode (Object 101) were assessed at the excellent, good and poor sample coverage locations. A range of block sizes were assessed for regression slope and kriging efficiency and summarised in Table 13-4 and Figure 13.1 below.



Table 13-4 – Block Sizes Assessed

Iteration 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

y 5 5 12.5 12.5 25 25 25 50 50 100 100 200

x 5 5 12.5 12.5 25 25 25 50 50 100 100 200

z 5 10 5 10 5 10 20 10 20 10 20 20

Figure 13.1 Block Size Analysis Chart

Results from the chart above indicate that slope of regression and kriging efficiency ‘sill’ out around model runs six and seven. These iterations represent block sizes of 25m by 25m in the Y and X planes and seem appropriate for the Hot Maden drill spacing of approximately 50m by 50m. RPM chose iteration six as the optimal block size for the Hot Maden block model as there is a higher likelihood of using a 10m bench height in the case of any future open pit mining occurring at the Project.

13.3.2 Search Distance

To test the optimal search distance, single blocks within the high grade lode (Object 101) were assessed at the excellent, good and poor sample coverage locations. A range of search radii were assessed for regression slope and kriging efficiency and summarised in Table 13-5 and Figure 13.2 below.

-7.0

-6.0

-5.0

-4.0

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

ke

Slo

pe

Model Run

slope_exc slope_good slope_poor ke_exc ke_good ke_poor



Table 13-5 – Search Radii Assessed

Iteration 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Search Distance (m) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

Figure 13.2 Search Radii Analysis Chart

The results above were used as a guide in determining optimal search distance radii for each interpolation pass. The first interpolation pass adopted a search radius of 50m. Further details are discussed in Section 13.4.2.

13.3.3 Number of Informing Samples

To test the optimal number of ‘maximum samples’ to be used in the kriging estimations, single blocks within the high grade lode (Object 101) were assessed at the excellent, good and poor sample coverage locations. A range of maximum samples were assessed for regression slope and kriging efficiency and summarised in Table 13-6 and Figure 13.3 below.

Table 13-6 – Maximum Number of Samples Assessed

Iteration 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Max Sample 100 80 70 60 50 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5

-2.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130

ke

Slo

pe

Search Distance




Figure 13.3 Maximum Number of Samples Analysis Chart

Based on the results above, a maximum number of 30 samples was adopted for the estimate.

13.3.4 Block Discretisation

To test the optimal block discretisation, single blocks within the high grade lode (Object 101) were assessed at the excellent, good and poor sample coverage locations. A range of discretisation parameters were assessed for regression slope and kriging efficiency and summarised in Table 13-7 and Figure 13.4 below.

Table 13-7 – Block Discretisation Parameters Assessed

Iteration 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

x 5 5 4 5 3 3 2

y 5 3 4 5 3 3 2

z 3 3 4 2 3 2 2

-1.4

-1.2

-1.0

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

ke

Slo

pe

Max Samples




Figure 13.4 Block Discretisation Analysis Chart

The results above indicate that block discretisation has little effect on the conditional bias of the estimate at the Hot Maden Project. RPM adopted a block discretisation of 5 (X) by 5 (Y) by 2 (Z) for the estimate.

13.4 Grade Interpolation

13.4.1 General

The ordinary kriging (OK) algorithm was used for the grade interpolation and the wireframes were used as a hard boundary for the grade estimation of each object. OK was selected as it results in a degree of smoothing which is appropriate for the disseminated nature of the mineralisation.

Objects 4 and 5 were assigned average grades of the single intersecting drill hole within each domain.

13.4.2 Search Parameters

An orientated search ellipse with an ‘ellipsoid’ search was used to select data for interpolation. Each ellipse was oriented based on kriging parameters and were consistent with the interpreted geology. Variogram parameters of the main lodes were applied to the associated adjacent lodes. Differences between the kriging parameters and the search ellipse may occur in order to honour both the continuity analysis and the mineralisation geometry. Search neighbourhood parameters were derived from the KNA analysis discussed in Section 13.3.

Three interpolation passes were used for the interpolation. The kriging parameters are listed in Table 13-8. Kriging parameters are shown in more detail in Appendix H.

-0.70

-0.60

-0.50

-0.40

-0.30

-0.20

-0.10

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

ke

Slo

pe

Run Number




Table 13-8 – OK Estimation Parameters

Parameter Pass 1 Pass 2 Pass 3

Search Type Ellipsoid Ellipsoid Ellipsoid

Bearing 184° to 190°

Dip -84° to 90°

Plunge -25° to -65°

Major-Semi Major Ratio 1.0

Major-Minor Ratio 2.0 to 3.0

Search Radius 50 50 150

Minimum Samples 10 6 2

Maximum Samples 30 30 30

Max. Sam. per Hole 8 8 8

Block Discretisation 5 X by 5 Y by 2 Z

Percentage Blocks Filled 71% 4% 25%

A cross section showing Au block grades on 4,542,150mN is shown below in Figure 13.5.

Ultra-high grade domain

High grade

domain

Low grade

domain

Topography

Overburden

ADV-PE-60359


Hot Maden Gold-Copper Deposit Figure 13.5 Blocks and Drilling Coloured by

Au grade (4,542,150mN)



13.5 Density and Material Type

Bulk density determinations have been recorded by Lidya and MARL as discussed in Section 9. The vast majority of the Hot Maden Project is fresh rock, with minor overburden at the surface.

The bulk density value assigned to fresh waste material was derived from Table 9-1 and the bulk density value assigned to overburden was derived from known bulk densities of similar geological terrains in the absence of core measurements. These values are considered by RPM to be reasonable.

A linear regression was calculated between density and Fe grade for the 89 density measurements within the wireframes. The results are shown below in Figure 13.6.

Figure 13.6 Linear Regression for Density V Fe Grade for Mineralisation

The regression equation from Figure 13.6 above was applied to all mineralisation (pod>0) in the block model. The assigned bulk densities within the block model are tabulated in Table 13-9.

Table 13-9 – Bulk Densities Assigned in the Block Model

Type Mineralised or Waste Bulk Density (t/m3)

Overburden Waste (type = ob) 2.20

Fresh Mineralised (pod > 0) equation: (fe grade x 0.0275) + 2.7658

Waste (pod = 0) 2.85


y = 0.0275x + 2.7658R² = 0.386

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

De

nsi

ty t

/m3

Fe Grade (%)

Correlation of Fe and Density



14. Model Validation

A three-step process was used to validate the estimate at the Hot Maden estimate. Firstly a qualitative assessment was completed by slicing sections through the block model in positions coincident with drilling. Overall the assessment indicated that the trend of the modelled grade was consistent with the drill hole grades.

A quantitative assessment of the estimate was completed by comparing the average grades of the sample file input against the block model output for all the lodes. The comparative results are tabulated in Table 14-1.

To check that the interpolation of the block model correctly honoured the drilling data, validation was carried out by comparing the interpolated blocks to the sample composite data. Validation results for the main high grade lode (Object 101) Au estimate are summarised in Figure 14.1 and Figure 14.2, and validation results for remaining estimates are summarised in Appendix D.

Figure 14.1 Validation by Northing – Main Zone HG Au

0.0

1.5

3.0

4.5

6.0

7.5

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

4,5

42

,050

4,5

42

,100

4,5

42

,150

4,5

42

,200

4,5

42

,250

4,5

42

,300

4,5

42

,350

Gra

de

Au

Cu

t (g

/t)

Vo

lum

e &

Co

mp

s (

*3,6

60)

Northing (Y)

Comparison of BM Grades and Composite Grades by Northing - Main Zone HG Au Cut (g/t)

Resource Comps*3,660 BM Au Cut (g/t) Comps Au Cut (g/t)

| ADV-PE-60359 | PE-60359 Hot Maden Mineral Resource Estimate Mariana Resources V01a 20150901_Final | September 2015 | | Page 49 of 139 |

<Disclaimer Footer>

Table 14-1 – Average Composite Input v Block Model Output

Pod Wireframe

Volume

Block Model Composites

Resource Au_Uncut Au_Cut Ag Cu Fe Number of Au_Uncut Au_Cut Ag Cu Fe

Volume g/t g/t g/t % % Comps g/t g/t g/t % %

1 2,359,987 2,351,135 0.53 0.53 2.28 0.62 9.32 708 0.51 0.51 2.39 0.53 9.28

2 82,560 82,849 0.68 0.68 3.29 0.29 7.93 38 0.81 0.81 2.78 0.25 7.80

3 189,682 188,879 1.34 1.11 3.47 0.50 7.22 62 1.47 1.24 2.50 0.32 7.56

4 51,134 51,196 0.11 0.11 2.65 1.04 9.60 14 0.11 0.11 2.65 1.04 9.60

5 18,715 18,945 2.27 2.27 0.50 0.41 7.67 12 2.27 2.27 0.50 0.41 7.67

101 1,789,076 1,778,979 4.38 4.33 5.00 1.83 13.53 486 4.90 4.81 5.11 1.79 13.42

102 415,809 413,660 36.14 31.44 10.28 3.78 21.71 166 34.46 28.99 11.61 3.81 24.82

Total 4,906,963 4,886,254 4.99 4.44 4.00 1.32 11.76 1,486 5.80 5.15 4.31 1.29 12.25

Figure 14.2 Validation by Elevation – Main Zone HG Au

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

90

0

88

0

86

0

84

0

82

0

80

0

78

0

76

0

74

0

72

0

70

0

68

0

66

0

64

0

62

0

60

0

58

0

56

0

54

0

52

0

50

0

48

0

Gra

de

Au

Cu

t (g

/t)

Vo

lum

e &

Co

mp

s (

*3,6

60)

Elevation (RL)

Comparison of BM Grades and Composite Grades by Elevation - Main Zone HG Au Cut (g/t)




The validation plots show good correlation between the composite grades and the block model grades for the comparison by northing and elevation. The trends shown by the raw data are honoured by the block model.

The comparisons show the effect of the interpolation, which results in smoothing of the block grades, compared to the composite grades.



15. Mineral Resource Classification

The Hot Maden deposit shows good continuity of the main mineralised lodes which allowed the drill hole intersections to be modelled into coherent, geologically robust wireframes. Consistency is evident in the thickness of the structure, and the distribution of grade appears to be reasonable along strike and down dip.


The resource block model has an attribute “class” for all blocks within the resource wireframes coded as either “ind” for Indicated or “inf” for Inferred. The Mineral Resource classification is shown in Table 15-1.

The extrapolation of the lodes along strike has been limited to a distance equal to the previous section drill spacing or to 50m. Extrapolation of lodes down-dip has been limited to a distance equal to the previous down-dip drill spacing or to 50m. Areas of extrapolation have been classified as Inferred Mineral Resource.

The JORC Code (2012) describes a number of criteria which must be addressed in the documentation of Mineral Resource estimates prior to public release of the information. The criteria provide a means of assessing whether or not parts of or the entire data inventory used in the estimate are adequate for that purpose. The Mineral Resources stated in this document are based on the criteria set out in Table 1 of that Code. These criteria are listed in Appendices A and B.

Indicated

Inferred

ADV-PE-60359


Hot Maden Gold-Copper Deposit Figure 15.1 Mineral Resource Classification

Long Section for the Main Lodes



15.1 Results

A summary of the Hot Maden 2015 estimate is shown in Table 15-1 and further details are included in Appendix C.

Table 15-1 – Hot Maden August 2015 Mineral Resource Estimate (2g/t AuEqa Cut-off)



b


Main Zone LG 481,000 0.9 1.0 2.4 14,000 5,000 37,000

Main Zone HG 3,199,000 5.2 1.8 8.0 537,000 56,000 822,000

Main Zone UHG 1,031,000 29.2 4.0 35.4 967,000 41,000 1,174,000

Total 4,710,000 10.0 2.2 13.4 1,518,000 102,000 2,033,000



b


Main Zone LG 819,000 0.8 1.0 2.4 21,000 8,000 62,000

Main Zone HG 2,291,000 3.1 2.0 6.2 228,000 45,000 455,000

Main Zone UHG 326,000 36.2 3.3 41.4 379,000 11,000 434,000


Total 3,654,000 5.5 1.8 8.2 640,000 65,000 968,000



b


Main Zone LG 1,299,000 0.8 1.0 2.4 35,000 13,000 100,000

Main Zone HG 5,490,000 4.3 1.9 7.2 765,000 101,000 1,277,000

Main Zone UHG 1,357,000 30.9 3.8 36.9 1,346,000 52,000 1,608,000


Total 8,364,000 8.0 2.0 11.2 2,159,000 167,000 3,001,000






3. *Au Equivalence (AuEq) calculated using a 100 day moving average of $US1,178/ounce for Au and $US2.70/pound for Cu as of July 29, 2015. No adjustment has been made for metallurgical recovery or net smelter return as these remain uncertain at this time. Based on grades and contained metal for Au and Cu, it is assumed that both commodities have reasonable potential to be economically extractable. a. The formula used for Au equivalent grade is: AuEq g/t = Au + [(Cu% x 22.0462 x 2.7)/(1178/31.1035)]

and assumes 100% metallurgical recovery. b. Au equivalent ounces are calculated by mulitplying Mineral Resource tonnage by Au equivalent grade

and converting for ounces. The formula used for Au equivalent ounces is: AuEq Oz = [Tonnage x AuEq grade (g/t)]/31.1035.


5. Mineral Resources reported on a dry in-situ basis. 6. LG = low grade, HG = high grade and UHG = ultra-high grade.



7. Reported at a 2g/t AuEq cut-off.

To show the tonnage and grade distribution throughout the entire deposit, a bench breakdown has been prepared using a 20m bench height which is shown graphically in Figure 15.2 and Figure 15.3.

| ADV-PE-60359 | PE-60359 Hot Maden Mineral Resource Estimate Mariana Resources V01a 20150901_Final | September 2015 | | Page 55 of 139 |

<Disclaimer Footer>

Figure 15.2 Hot Maden Tonnage and Grade – 10m Bench Elevation (Au and AuEq)

Figure 15.3 Hot Maden Tonnage and Grade – 10m Bench Elevation (Cu)

0.0

4.0

8.0

12.0

16.0

20.0

0

60,000

120,000

180,000

240,000

300,000

89

0

88

0

87

0

86

0

85

0

84

0

83

0

82

0

81

0

80

0

79

0

78

0

77

0

76

0

75

0

74

0

73

0

72

0

71

0

70

0

69

0

68

0

67

0

66

0

65

0

64

0

63

0

62

0

61

0

60

0

59

0

58

0

57

0

56

0

55

0

54

0

53

0

52

0

51

0

50

0

49

0

48

0

47

0

46

0

45

0

Gra

de

(g

/t)

To

nn

es (

t)

Bench Top RL (m)

Hot Maden - Total Mineral Resource 2g/t AuEq Cut-off (Au & AuEq)

Main Zone Low Grade Peripheral Lodes Main Zone Ultra High Grade Main Zone High Grade AuEq g/t Au Cut g/t

0.0

0.6

1.2

1.8

2.4

3.0

0

60,000

120,000

180,000

240,000

300,000

89

0

88

0

87

0

86

0

85

0

84

0

83

0

82

0

81

0

80

0

79

0

78

0

77

0

76

0

75

0

74

0

73

0

72

0

71

0

70

0

69

0

68

0

67

0

66

0

65

0

64

0

63

0

62

0

61

0

60

0

59

0

58

0

57

0

56

0

55

0

54

0

53

0

52

0

51

0

50

0

49

0

48

0

47

0

46

0

45

0

Gra

de C

u (

%)

To

nn

es (

t)

Bench Top RL (m)

Hot Maden - Total Mineral Resource 2g/t AuEq Cut-off (Cu)

Main Zone Low Grade Peripheral Lodes Main Zone Ultra High Grade Main Zone High Grade Cu %



The grade tonnage curves for the Mineral Resource are shown in Figure 15.4 to Figure 15.6.

Figure 15.4 Hot Maden Grade - Tonnage Curve (Au)

Figure 15.5 Hot Maden Grade - Tonnage Curve (Cu)

0.0

12.0

24.0

36.0

48.0

60.0

0

3,000,000

6,000,000

9,000,000

12,000,000

15,000,000

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

Gra

de

Au

g/t

To

nn

es

Cut-off Grade Au g/t

Hot Maden Deposit Grade Tonnage Curve - Au

Tonnes Au g/t

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

0

3,000,000

6,000,000

9,000,000

12,000,000

15,000,000

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

Gra

de

Cu

%

To

nn

es

Cut-off Grade AuEq g/t

Hot Maden Deposit Grade Tonnage Curve - Cu

Tonnes Cu %



Figure 15.6 Hot Maden Grade - Tonnage Curve (AuEq)

15.2 Reconciliation

Reconciliation was not conducted as there are no records available for historical production as discussed in Section 4.5.

0.0

13.0

26.0

39.0

52.0

65.0

0

3,000,000

6,000,000

9,000,000

12,000,000

15,000,0000.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

Gra

de A

uE

q g

/t

To

nn

es


Hot Maden Deposit Grade Tonnage Curve - AuEq

Tonnes AuEq g/t



16. Risk and Opportunities

The Hot Maden Project exhibits a moderate to high degree of structural complexity. The block model is defined by drilling on a 50m by 50m drill spacing, therefore there is potential for tonnage and overall geometry variations between modelled and actual mineralisation.

Sampling and assaying methodology and procedures were satisfactory for the Lidya and MARL drilling. QAQC protocols were adequate and review of the data did not show any consistent bias or reasons to doubt the assay data. A slight bias of higher grades has been observed for the ALS Laboratory as a result of the cross laboratory check assaying. The base metal standard (GBMS911-1) has been used sparingly. As there is significant Cu endowment at Hot Maden, there is a low to moderate risk to the accuracy of the Cu and other base metal assays.

There is high grade mineralisation observed in HTD-004 and HTD-017 that has been extrapolated 50m to the north, up-dip of HTD-008.

Geostatistical analysis generated models of spatial grade continuity that reflected the geological understanding of the deposit. The modelled nugget effect is relatively low and the majority of the variance occurs in the scale of the block dimensions resulting in a moderate degree of smoothing which is evident in the block model.

A total of 381 density measurements were obtained from core drilled at the Project. Of these, 89 measurements were derived from core within the wireframes. This number of mineralised density measurements is on the edge of being a statistically insignificant number of samples to determine a density regression equation.

Mineralisation discontinues below the 670mRL, between 4,542,200mN and 4,542,250mN as a result of (likely) post-mineralisation faulting. An opportunity exists to understand the sense and magnitude of fault displacement and there is potential to delineate additional mineralisation.

Mineralisation is open along strike to the south and down-dip. Extensional drilling of the main zones (Objects 1, 101 and 102) may delineate continuations of the known mineralisation, some of which may be high grade and ultra-high grade. Gold and copper anomalism is observed in holes HTD-001, 003 and 007 to the south of the main mineralised zones. Improved geological understanding may create potential to delineate additional mineralisation in this area.

There is an opportunity to increase the level of confidence in the Inferred Mineral Resource with closer spaced extensional and infill drilling of the main mineralised zones.



17. Conclusion and Recommendations

The Hot Maden Mineral Resource represents a well-defined zone of high grade gold and copper mineralisation. Gold-copper mineralisation is broadly associated within a sub-vertical, north-northeast trending fault zone (the “Hot Maden Fault Zone”), with mineralisation occurring as quartz-sulphide (pyrite-chalcopyrite) +/- hematite/jasperoid breccias and locally massive sulphides (pyrite-chalcopyrite). The highest grade Au-Cu mineralisation appears to lie along the eastern margin of the Au-Cu mineralised zone. The mineralised domains show variation in thickness and geometry, however the drill density has allowed the delineation of coherent bodies of mineralisation.


The extrapolation of the lodes along strike has been limited to a distance of 50m and down-dip to 50m.

The Mineral Resource model is undiluted, so appropriate dilution needs to be incorporated in any mine planning evaluation of the deposit.

The Mineral Resource has been reported on a dry in-situ basis.

The reported Indicated Mineral Resource at the Hot Maden Project is estimated with sufficient confidence to allow the application of Modifying Factors in sufficient detail to support mine planning and evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit at those locations. Approximately 33% of the project has been classified as Inferred Mineral Resource and is estimated with insufficient confidence to allow the application of Modifying Factors in sufficient detail to support mine planning and evaluation of the economic viability of the remainder of the deposit. RPM recommends infill drilling to increase confidence in the existing Inferred Mineral Resource, focussing on the highest grade portions.

Further monitoring of the slight bias observed in high grade assays at the ALS Laboratory is recommended. RPM recommends more frequent use of the base metal standard (GBMS911-1) to closely monitor the base metal assays.


Further drilling is required up-dip of HTD-008 on section 4,542,300mN to confirm mineralisation continuity. Extensional drilling down-dip on sections 4,542,100mN, 4,542,150mN and 4,542,200mN; and along strike to the south of 4,542,100mN is recommended.

Further geological understanding of the apparent post-mineralisation faulting is required below the 670mRL, between 4,542,200mN and 4,542,250mN. RPM recommends some ‘step-out’ drilling to the east and west of current drilling on 4,542,200mN and 4,542,250mN to test for lateral displacement; and a hole down-dip of HTD-009 to test for strike displacement of the known mineralisation.



18. Prospects for Economic Extraction

The high grade nature of the mineralisation and the substantial thickness and size of the deposit suggest that the project has potential for eventual economic extraction using open pit and underground mining techniques. It is recommended that a preliminary economic analysis be conducted to assist in understanding the project potential.

For these reasons the Competent Person is of the opinion that the Hot Maden Project is of sufficient grade and tonnage to have reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction using open pit and underground mining techniques.

A. JORC Code (2012) Table 1, Sections 1 and 2

Exploration results at Hot Maden were reported by MARL and released to the AIM between 2014 and 2015. Mr Eric Roth, Chief Operating Officer of MARL compiled the information in Section 1 and Section 2 of JORC Table 1 in this Mineral Resource report and is the Competent Person for those sections. RPM has included these sections in their entirety to ensure that all relevant sections of Table 1 are included in this report.

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary

Sampling techniques

Nature and quality of sampling (eg cut channels, random chips, or specific specialised industry standard measurement tools appropriate to the minerals under investigation, such as down hole gamma sondes, or handheld XRF instruments, etc). These examples should not be taken as limiting the broad meaning of sampling.

Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample representivity and the appropriate calibration of any measurement tools or systems used.

Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are Material to the Public Report. In cases where ‘industry standard’ work has been done this would be relatively simple (eg ‘reverse circulation drilling was used to obtain 1 m samples from which 3 kg was pulverised to produce a 30 g charge for fire assay’). In other cases more explanation may be required, such as where there is coarse gold that has inherent sampling problems. Unusual commodities or mineralisation types (eg submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed information.

Lidya and MARL utilised diamond drilling.

Approximately 60% of drilling is angled -60˚ to the west, with the remaining holes angled -60˚ to the east to optimally intersect the targeted mineralised zones.

Diamond core was sampled as half core at 1m intervals or to geological contacts within mineralisation and to 2m outside of mineralisation in the earlier holes.

To ensure representative sampling, half core samples were always taken from the same side of the core and the full length of each hole sampled.

Core samples were submitted to a contract laboratory for crushing and pulverising to produce a 50g charge for fire assay for Au, in addition to a 33 element four acid digestion with ICP-AES analysis.

Drilling techniques

Drill type (eg core, reverse circulation, open-hole hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc) and details (eg core diameter, triple or standard tube, depth of diamond tails, face-sampling bit or other type, whether core is oriented and if so, by what method, etc).

Diamond drilling was carried out with HQ sized equipment with standard tube, with minor amounts of PQ size.

Drill sample recovery

Method of recording and assessing core and chip sample recoveries and results assessed.

Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and ensure representative nature of the samples.

Whether a relationship exists between sample recovery and grade and whether sample bias may have occurred due to preferential loss/gain of fine/coarse material.

Core recoveries were measured and recorded in the database and recovery was generally between 90 to 100% in fresh rock.

No relationship exists between sample recovery and grade.

Logging Whether core and chip samples have been geologically and geotechnically logged to a level of detail to support appropriate Mineral Resource estimation, mining studies and metallurgical studies.

Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc) photography.

The total length and percentage of the relevant intersections logged.

All diamond drill holes were logged for recovery, geology and structure.

All diamond core was photographed.

All drill holes were logged in full.


Sub-sampling techniques and sample preparation

If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, half or all core taken.

If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc and whether sampled wet or dry.

For all sample types, the nature, quality and appropriateness of the sample preparation technique.

Quality control procedures adopted for all sub-sampling stages to maximise representivity of samples.

Measures taken to ensure that the sampling is representative of the in situ material collected, including for instance results for field duplicate/second-half sampling.

Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grain size of the material being sampled.

Core was cut in half using a core saw at either 1m intervals or to geological contacts within mineralisation and to 2m outside of mineralisation in the earlier holes.

To ensure representivity, all core samples were collected from the same side of the core.

Sample preparation was conducted by a contract laboratory. After drying, the sample is subject to a primary crush, then pulverised to that 85% passing 75μm.

Sample sizes are considered appropriate to correctly represent the gold and copper mineralisation based on: the style of mineralisation, the thickness and consistency of the intersections, the sampling methodology and assay value ranges for Au and Cu.

Quality of assay data and laboratory tests

The nature, quality and appropriateness of the assaying and laboratory procedures used and whether the technique is considered partial or total.

For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF instruments, etc, the parameters used in determining the analysis including instrument make and model, reading times, calibrations factors applied and their derivation, etc.

Nature of quality control procedures adopted (eg standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (ie lack of bias) and precision have been established.

After the sample had been prepared by the laboratory a 50g split of each sample was then subject to fire assay with AAS finish for Au. If the sample contained more than 500ppb Au, the sample was re-analysed using fire assay with a gravimetric finish. As and Sb were analysed using AAS, in addition to a 33 element four acid digestion with ICP-AES analysis. Samples in which ICP analyses returned greater than the maximum detection limit for the elements Ag (10 ppm), Cu (10,000 ppm), Fe (15%), Pb (10,000 ppm), and Zn (10,000 ppm) were reanalysed using the AAS analytical technique.

Samples from Phase I (HTD-001 to HTD-007) drilling were sent to the SGS Laboratory in Ankara, Turkey. Samples from Phase II (HTD-008 to HTD-017A) were sent to the ALS Laboratory in Izmir, western Turkey.

Sieve analysis was carried out by the laboratory to ensure the grind size of 85% passing 75μm was being attained.

QAQC procedures involved the use of certified reference materials (1 in 20) and blanks (2 inserted in each assay batch).

Results were assessed as each laboratory batch was received and were acceptable in all cases.

Laboratory QAQC includes the use of internal standards using certified reference material, blanks, splits and replicates.

Certified reference materials demonstrate that sample assay values are accurate.

Umpire laboratory test-work was completed in 2015 over mineralised intersections with good correlation of results.

Verification of sampling and assaying

The verification of significant intersections by either independent or alternative company personnel.

The use of twinned holes.

Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data verification, data storage (physical and electronic) protocols.

Significant intersections were visually field verified by company geologists and by Stewart Coates of RPM during the 2015 site visit.

The upper (mineralised) part of HTD-017 was redrilled with similar results as recoveries in the first attempt were below


Discuss any adjustment to assay data. requirements. No other twin holes were drilled, however infill drilling by Lidya and MARL has confirmed mineralisation thickness and tenor.

Primary data was collected into either an Excel spread sheet and then imported into an Access database.

Assay values that were below detection limit were adjusted to equal half of the detection limit value.

Location of data points

Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drill holes (collar and down-hole surveys), trenches, mine workings and other locations used in Mineral Resource estimation.

Specification of the grid system used.

Quality and adequacy of topographic control.

All drill hole collars were surveyed in UTM European Datum 1950 Zone 37 North grid system using differential GPS.


Topographic surface prepared from detailed 1m contour data.

Data spacing and distribution

Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results.

Whether the data spacing and distribution is sufficient to establish the degree of geological and grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve estimation procedure(s) and classifications applied.

Whether sample compositing has been applied.

Nominal hole spacing of drilling is approximately 50m by 50m.

The mineralised domains have sufficient continuity in both geology and grade to be considered appropriate for the Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve estimation procedures and classification applied under NI 43-101 and the 2012 JORC Code.

Samples have been composited to 1m lengths using fixed length techniques for use in Mineral Resource estimation.

Orientation of data in relation to geological structure

Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased sampling of possible structures and the extent to which this is known, considering the deposit type.

If the relationship between the drilling orientation and the orientation of key mineralised structures is considered to have introduced a sampling bias, this should be assessed and reported if material.


No orientation based sampling bias has been identified in the data.

Sample security

The measures taken to ensure sample security.

Chain of custody is managed by Lidya and MARL. Samples were stored on site until collected for transport to SGS Laboratory in Ankara (Phase I drill program) or ALS Laboratory in Izmir (Phase II drill program). Lidya and MARL personnel have no contact with the samples once they are picked up for transport. Tracking sheets have been set up to track the progress of samples.

Audits or reviews

The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data.

Stewart Coates of RPM reviewed drilling and sampling procedures during the 2015 site visit and found that all procedures and practices conform to industry standards.

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results


Mineral tenement and land tenure status

Type, reference name/number, location and ownership including agreements or material issues with third parties such as joint ventures, partnerships, overriding royalties, native title interests, historical sites, wilderness or national park and environmental settings.

The security of the tenure held at the time of reporting along with any known impediments to obtaining a license to operate in the area.


The tenements are in good standing with no known impediment to future grant of a mining permit.

Exploration done by other parties

Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties.

Historical mining at Hot Maden occurred in Ottoman times before any official records were kept. Russian mining occurred in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s prior to the area coming back within Turkish borders in 1921. Various geological surveys and reports completed prior to the 1990’s.

Anglo Tur (subsidiary of Anglo American) drilled six holes in 1992. Data is not available.

Geology Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation.


Drill hole information

A summary of all information material to the under-standing of the exploration results including a tabulation of the following information for all Material drill holes:

easting and northing of the drill hole collar

elevation or RL (Reduced Level – elevation above sea level in metres) of the drill hole collar

dip and azimuth of the hole

down hole length and interception depth

hole length

If the exclusion of this information is justified on the basis that the information is not Material and this exclusion does not detract from the understanding of the report, the Competent Person should clearly explain why this is the case.

Exploration results are not being reported. A table of all drill hole collars with all the listed information is shown in the Appendices.

All information has been included in the appendices. No drill hole information has been excluded.

Data In reporting Exploration Results, weighting Exploration results are not being reported.


aggregation methods

averaging techniques, maximum and/or minimum grade truncations (e.g. cutting of high grades) and cut-off grades are usually Material and should be stated.

Where aggregate intercepts incorporate short lengths of high grade results and longer lengths of low grade results, the procedure used for such aggregation should be stated and some typical examples of such aggregations should be shown in detail.

The assumptions used for any reporting of metal equivalent values should be clearly stated.

Not applicable as a Mineral Resource is being reported.

Metal Au Equivalence (AuEq) calculated using a 100 day moving average of $US1,178/ounce for Au and $US2.70/pound for Cu as of July 29, 2015. No adjustment has been made for metallurgical recovery or net smelter return as these remain uncertain at this time. Based on grades and contained metal for Au and Cu, it is assumed that both commodities have reasonable potential to be economically extractable. The formula used for Au equivalent grade is: AuEq g/t = Au + [(Cu% x 22.0462 x 2.7)/(1178/31.1035)] and assumes 100% metallurgical recovery. Au equivalent ounces are calculated by mulitplying Mineral Resource tonnage by Au equivalent grade and converting for ounces. The formula used for Au equivalent ounces is: AuEq Oz = [Tonnage x AuEq grade (g/t)]/31.1035.

Relationship between mineralisation widths and intercept lengths

These relationships are particularly important in the reporting of Exploration Results.

If the geometry of the mineralisation with respect to the drill hole angle is known, its nature should be reported.

If it is not known and only the down hole lengths are reported, there should be a clear statement to this effect (e.g. ‘down hole length, true width not known’).


Diagrams Appropriate maps and sections (with scales) and tabulations of intercepts should be included for any significant discovery being reported. These should include, but not be limited to a plan view of drill hole collar locations and appropriate sectional views.

Relevant diagrams have been included within the Mineral Resource report main body of text.

Balanced Reporting

Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drill holes (collar and down-hole surveys), trenches, mine workings and other locations used in Mineral Resource estimation.

Where comprehensive reporting of all Exploration Results is not practicable, representative reporting of both low and high grades and/or widths should be practiced to avoid misleading reporting of Exploration Results.

All collar positions have been surveyed with a DGPS system using the UTM European Datum 1950 Zone 37 North system. Half of the drilling was down hole surveyed at 40m intervals using a Devico survey tool. Holes drilled in the first portion of the drilling program were not down hole surveyed. RPM observes that there is little dip movement and minor amounts of azimuth movement in the surveyed holes.

Exploration results are not being reported.

Other substantive exploration data

Other exploration data, if meaningful and material, should be reported including (but not limited to): geological observations; geophysical survey results; geochemical survey results; bulk samples - size and method of treatment; metallurgical test results; bulk density, groundwater, geotechnical and rock characteristics; potential deleterious or contaminating substances.

All interpretations for Hot Maden mineralisation are consistent with observations made and information gained during drilling at the project.

Further work The nature and scale of planned further work (e.g. tests for lateral extensions or depth extensions or large- scale step-out drilling).

Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions, including the main geological interpretations and future drilling

Infill and extensional drilling is planned at selected areas of the Hot Maden Mineral Resource.

Refer to diagrams in the body of text within the Mineral Resource report.


areas, provided this information is not commercially sensitive.

B. JORC Code (2012) Table 1, Section 3

Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources


Database integrity

Measures taken to ensure that data has not been corrupted by, for example, transcription or keying errors, between its initial collection and its use for Mineral Resource estimation purposes.

Data validation procedures used.

The database has been systematically validated by company geologists. Original drilling records were compared to the equivalent records in the data base (where original records were available). Any discrepancies were noted and rectified.

All drilling data has been verified as part of a continuous validation procedure. Once a drill hole is imported into the data base a report of the collar, down-hole survey, geology, and assay data is produced. This is then checked by a company geologist and any corrections are completed.

Site visits Comment on any site visits undertaken by the Competent Person and the outcome of those visits.

If no site visits have been undertaken indicate why this is the case.

A site visit was conducted by Stewart Coates of RPM during June 2015. Stewart inspected the deposit area, drill core, outcrop and the core logging and sampling facility. During this time, notes and photos were taken. Discussions were held with site personnel regarding drilling and sampling procedures. No major issues were encountered.

A site visit was conducted, therefore not applicable.

Geological interpretation

Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertainty of) the geological interpretation of the mineral deposit.

Nature of the data used and of any assumptions made.

The effect, if any, of alternative interpretations on Mineral Resource estimation.

The use of geology in guiding and controlling Mineral Resource estimation.

The factors affecting continuity both of grade and geology.

The confidence in the geological interpretation is considered to be good and is based on high quality diamond core drilling.

Geochemistry and geological logging has been used to assist identification of lithology and mineralisation.

The deposit consists of sub-vertical to steeply dipping, high-sulphidation alteration zones within a fault zone. Infill drilling has supported and refined the model and the current interpretation is considered robust.

Outcrops of mineralisation and host rocks within the Project confirm the geometry of the mineralisation.

Infill drilling has confirmed geological and grade continuity.

Dimensions The extent and variability of the Mineral Resource expressed as length (along strike or otherwise), plan width, and depth below surface to the upper and lower limits of the Mineral Resource.

The Hot Maden Mineral Resource area extends over a north-south strike length of 280m (from 4,542,055mN – 4,542,335mN), has a maximum width of 105m (740,590mE – 740,695mE) and includes the 440m vertical interval from 885mRL to 445mRL.

Estimation and modelling techniques

The nature and appropriateness of the estimation technique(s) applied and key assumptions, including treatment of extreme grade values, domaining, interpolation parameters and maximum distance of extrapolation from data points. If a computer assisted estimation method was chosen include a description of computer software and parameters used.

The availability of check estimates, previous estimates and/or mine production records and whether the Mineral Resource estimate

Using parameters derived from modelled variograms, Ordinary Kriging (OK) was used to estimate average block grades in three passes using Surpac software. Linear grade estimation was deemed suitable for the Hot Maden Mineral Resource due to the geological control on mineralisation. Maximum extrapolation of wireframes from drilling was 50m down-dip and 50m along strike. This was equal to one drill hole spacing. Maximum extrapolation between drill sections was


takes appropriate account of such data.

The assumptions made regarding recovery of by-products.

Estimation of deleterious elements or other non-grade variables of economic significance (eg sulphur for acid mine drainage characterisation).

In the case of block model interpolation, the block size in relation to the average sample spacing and the search employed.

Any assumptions behind modelling of selective mining units.

Any assumptions about correlation between variables.

Description of how the geological interpretation was used to control the resource estimates.

Discussion of basis for using or not using grade cutting or capping.

The process of validation, the checking process used, the comparison of model data to drill hole data, and use of reconciliation data if available.

half drill hole spacing. Down-dip and along strike extrapolations were classified as Inferred Mineral Resource.

This is a maiden Mineral Resource, therefore reconciliation is not possible.

There is little As observed in geochemical analysis of drilling, therefore not expected to occur in tailings. The deposit is high-sulphidation, so S is expected to occur as a result of processing waste.

Au (g/t), Cu (%), Ag (g/t) and Fe (%) were interpolated into the block model.

The parent block dimensions used were 25m NS by 25m EW by 10m vertical with sub-cells of 3.125m by 3.125m by 1.25m. The parent block size dimension was selected on the results obtained from Kriging Neighbourhood Analysis that suggested this was the optimal block size for the Hot Maden dataset.

An orientated ‘ellipsoid’ search was used to select data and adjusted to account for the variations in lode orientations, however all other parameters were taken from the variography derived from Objects 1 and 101. Three passes were used for each domain. First pass had a range of 50m, with a minimum of 10 samples. For the second pass, the range was kept at 50m, with a minimum of 6 samples. For the final pass, the range was extended to 150m, with a minimum of 2 samples. A maximum of 30 samples was used for all 3 passes.

No assumptions were made on selective mining units.

Strong positive correlations were observed in the composite data for Cu-Ag, Fe-Ag, Cu-Fe and Pb-Zn. Moderate positive correlations were observed in the composite data for Au-Ag, Au-Cu and Au-Fe.

The mineralisation was constrained by resource outlines based on mineralisation envelopes prepared using a nominal 0.5g/t Au Equivalent cut-off grade for lower grade material, 3g/t Au Equivalent for higher grade material and approximately 15g/t Au Equivalent for ultra-high grade material. All mineralisation intersections were defined with a minimum down hole width of 2m. The wireframes were applied as hard boundaries in the estimate.

Top cuts were applied to the data based on statistical analysis of individual lodes. A top cut of 25g/t Au was applied within the higher grade domain, and a top cut of 150g/t Au was applied to the ultra-high grade domain. Top cuts were determined by statistical analysis and applied to the 1m composite data, resulting in 12 samples being cut. No top cuts were necessary for other elements.

Validation of the model included detailed comparison of composite grades and block grades by northing and elevation. Validation plots showed good correlation


between the composite grades and the block model grades.

Moisture Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or with natural moisture, and the method of determination of the moisture content.

Tonnages and grades were estimated on a dry in situ basis.

Cut-off parameters

The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters applied.

The Mineral Resource has been reported at a 2g/t Au Equivalence cut-off based on assumptions about economic cut-off grades for underground mining. Reported mining grades at this cut-off are successfully mined using underground methods at other similar deposits in the region. Further mining studies are planned and an economic cut-off grade will be quantified at that time.

Mining factors or assumptions

Assumptions made regarding possible mining methods, minimum mining dimensions and internal (or, if applicable, external) mining dilution. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider potential mining methods, but the assumptions made regarding mining methods and parameters when estimating Mineral Resources may not always be rigorous. Where this is the case, this should be reported with an explanation of the basis of the mining assumptions made.

RPM has assumed that the deposit could be mined using mostly underground techniques. Mineralisation grade and thickness are deemed appropriate for underground mining.

Metallurgical factors or assumptions

The basis for assumptions or predictions regarding metallurgical amenability. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider potential metallurgical methods, but the assumptions regarding metallurgical treatment processes and parameters made when reporting Mineral Resources may not always be rigorous. Where this is the case, this should be reported with an explanation of the basis of the metallurgical assumptions made.

Preliminary metallurgical testing has been conducted on the Hot Maden mineralisation. It is likely that processing would entail gravity separation of Au followed by flotation to produce a concentrate with expected recoveries greater than 90% for Au and Cu based on these results.

Further metallurgical studies are planned.

Environmental factors or assumptions

Assumptions made regarding possible waste and process residue disposal options. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider the potential environmental impacts of the mining and processing operation. While at this stage the determination of potential environmental impacts, particularly for a greenfields project, may not always be well advanced, the status of early consideration of these potential environmental impacts should be reported. Where these aspects have not been considered this should be reported with an explanation of the environmental assumptions made.

No assumptions have been made regarding environmental factors. Lidya and MARL will work to mitigate environmental impacts as a result of any future mining or mineral processing.

Bulk density Whether assumed or determined. If assumed, the basis for the assumptions. If determined, the method used, whether wet or dry, the frequency of the measurements, the nature, size and representativeness of the samples.

A total of 381 density measurements were collected during the 2014-15 drilling program using the water immersion technique. All samples were in fresh rock. RPM extracted the density records and determined whether the measurements


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.

Discuss assumptions for bulk density estimates used in the evaluation process of the different materials.

were in waste or mineralisation.

Bulk densities within the wireframes were calculated based on a linear regression equation between Fe grade and specific gravity measurements. A bulk density of 2.85t/m

3 was assigned to waste material

as a result of average core densities outside the wireframes. A bulk density of 2.20t/m

3 was assigned to overburden.

Bulk density is measured. Moisture is accounted for in the measuring process and measurements were separated for lithology and mineralisation.

It is assumed there are minimal void spaces in the rocks at Hot Maden. The Hot Maden Mineral Resource contains minor amounts of overburden above fresh bedrock. The value for this zone was derived from known bulk densities of similar geological terrains.

Classification The basis for the classification of the Mineral Resources into varying confidence categories.

Whether appropriate account has been taken of all relevant factors (ie relative confidence in tonnage/grade estimations, reliability of input data, confidence in continuity of geology and metal values, quality, quantity and distribution of the data).

Whether the result appropriately reflects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit.

The Mineral Resource is estimated here in accordance with the requirements of ‘Canadian National Instrument 43-101’ (NI 43-101) of the Canadian Securities Administrators; and in accordance with the 2012 Edition of the ‘Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves’ prepared by the Joint Ore Reserves Committee of The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Australian Geoscientists and Minerals Council of Australia (The JORC Code 2012).


The input data is comprehensive in its coverage of the mineralisation and does not favour or misrepresent in-situ mineralisation. The definition of mineralised zones is based on high level geological understanding producing a robust model of mineralised domains. This model has been confirmed by infill drilling which supported the interpretation. Validation of the block model shows good correlation of the input data to the estimated grades.

The Mineral Resource estimate appropriately reflects the view of the Competent Person.

Audits or reviews

The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral Resource estimates.

Internal audits have been completed by RPM which verified the technical inputs, methodology, parameters and results of


the estimate.

Discussion of relative accuracy/ confidence

Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and confidence level in the Mineral Resource estimate using an approach or procedure deemed appropriate by the Competent Person. For example, the application of statistical or geostatistical procedures to quantify the relative accuracy of the resource within stated confidence limits, or, if such an approach is not deemed appropriate, a qualitative discussion of the factors that could affect the relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate.

The statement should specify whether it relates to global or local estimates, and, if local, state the relevant tonnages, which should be relevant to technical and economic evaluation. Documentation should include assumptions made and the procedures used.

These statements of relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate should be compared with production data, where available.

The lode geometry and continuity has been adequately interpreted to reflect the applied level of Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource. The data quality is good and the drill holes have detailed logs produced by qualified geologists. A recognised laboratory has been used for all analyses.

The Mineral Resource statement relates to global estimates of tonnes and grade.

This is a maiden Mineral Resource; therefore reconciliation could not be conducted.

C. August 2015 Mineral Resource Tables

Hot Maden August 2015 Mineral Resource Estimate (2g/t AuEqa Cut-off)



b


Main Zone LG 481,000 0.9 1.0 2.4 14,000 5,000 37,000

Main Zone HG 3,199,000 5.2 1.8 8.0 537,000 56,000 822,000

Main Zone UHG 1,031,000 29.2 4.0 35.4 967,000 41,000 1,174,000

Total 4,710,000 10.0 2.2 13.4 1,518,000 102,000 2,033,000



b


Main Zone LG 819,000 0.8 1.0 2.4 21,000 8,000 62,000

Main Zone HG 2,291,000 3.1 2.0 6.2 228,000 45,000 455,000

Main Zone UHG 326,000 36.2 3.3 41.4 379,000 11,000 434,000


Total 3,654,000 5.5 1.8 8.2 640,000 65,000 968,000



b


Main Zone LG 1,299,000 0.8 1.0 2.4 35,000 13,000 100,000

Main Zone HG 5,490,000 4.3 1.9 7.2 765,000 101,000 1,277,000

Main Zone UHG 1,357,000 30.9 3.8 36.9 1,346,000 52,000 1,608,000


Total 8,364,000 8.0 2.0 11.2 2,159,000 167,000 3,001,000






3. *Au Equivalence (AuEq) calculated using a 100 day moving average of $US1,178/ounce for Au and $US2.70/pound for Cu as of July 29, 2015. No adjustment has been made for metallurgical recovery or net smelter return as these remain uncertain at this time. Based on grades and contained metal for Au and Cu, it is assumed that both commodities have reasonable potential to be economically extractable. a. The formula used for Au equivalent grade is: AuEq g/t = Au + [(Cu% x 22.0462 x 2.7)/(1178/31.1035)]

and assumes 100% metallurgical recovery. b. Au equivalent ounces are calculated by mulitplying Mineral Resource tonnage by Au equivalent grade

and converting for ounces. The formula used for Au equivalent ounces is: AuEq Oz = [Tonnage x AuEq grade (g/t)]/31.1035.



IndicatedBench

Top Tonnes Au Cu AuEq Tonnes Au Cu AuEq Tonnes Au Cu AuEq Tonnes Au Cu AuEq Tonnes Au Cu AuEq Au Cu AuEq

RL t Cut g/t % g/t t Cut g/t % g/t t Cut g/t % g/t t Cut g/t % g/t t Cut g/t % g/t Ounces Tonnes Ounces

880 799 3.94 1.46 6.24 180 10.76 5.31 19.10 979 5.19 2.17 8.60 163 21 271

870 45,466 3.23 1.54 5.64 44,675 14.39 5.62 23.22 90,141 8.76 3.56 14.36 25,380 3,211 41,606

860 65,839 3.28 1.60 5.80 66,707 15.21 5.58 23.99 132,546 9.29 3.60 14.95 39,572 4,778 63,716

850 69,587 3.56 1.93 6.60 72,583 13.57 5.38 22.03 142,170 8.67 3.69 14.47 39,645 5,248 66,162

840 66,196 4.15 1.91 7.15 80,227 13.27 5.33 21.65 146,423 9.15 3.79 15.10 43,057 5,544 71,073

830 71,438 4.07 1.77 6.85 77,914 17.49 5.09 25.49 149,352 11.07 3.50 16.57 53,146 5,232 79,582

820 73,911 4.01 1.77 6.79 71,583 17.42 4.62 24.68 145,494 10.60 3.17 15.59 49,606 4,616 72,933

810 78,439 4.22 1.80 7.05 63,280 22.17 4.15 28.70 141,719 12.24 2.85 16.72 55,754 4,040 76,169

800 85,658 4.14 1.59 6.65 50,860 24.31 3.78 30.26 136,518 11.66 2.41 15.45 51,166 3,291 67,793

790 2,694 1.23 0.64 2.23 88,183 4.72 1.77 7.50 43,266 24.50 3.43 29.90 134,143 11.03 2.28 14.61 47,567 3,060 63,030

780 17,654 0.90 0.78 2.13 99,379 5.17 1.90 8.15 33,570 24.03 3.09 28.89 150,603 8.87 2.03 12.07 42,949 3,062 58,424

770 11,346 0.80 0.79 2.04 110,187 5.38 1.93 8.42 25,663 26.73 3.00 31.44 147,196 8.75 2.03 11.94 41,404 2,991 56,516

760 3,444 1.34 0.46 2.06 113,362 5.73 2.11 9.04 21,649 25.85 3.25 30.96 138,455 8.77 2.25 12.30 39,025 3,111 54,744

750 106,800 6.21 2.29 9.80 19,321 35.81 2.93 40.42 126,121 10.74 2.39 14.49 43,553 3,010 58,764

740 18,573 0.59 1.36 2.74 108,562 6.56 2.35 10.25 16,940 41.04 3.02 45.78 144,075 9.84 2.30 13.46 45,594 3,318 62,358

730 117,783 6.81 2.29 10.40 16,193 44.72 3.17 49.70 133,976 11.39 2.39 15.15 49,070 3,205 65,265

720 13,420 0.56 1.17 2.40 128,728 6.76 2.10 10.06 16,197 51.26 3.38 56.57 158,345 10.79 2.15 14.17 54,916 3,410 72,148

710 133,234 6.81 1.84 9.70 15,721 56.57 3.54 62.12 148,955 12.06 2.02 15.23 57,759 3,007 72,953

700 139,936 6.64 1.79 9.44 16,177 64.17 2.93 68.78 156,113 12.60 1.90 15.59 63,238 2,972 78,257

690 146,303 6.15 1.63 8.70 16,755 59.24 2.42 63.04 163,058 11.60 1.71 14.29 60,826 2,786 74,902

680 1,840 2.53 0.39 3.14 151,922 5.40 1.63 7.95 19,109 55.95 2.50 59.89 172,871 10.95 1.71 13.64 60,879 2,956 75,813

670 608 2.58 0.29 3.03 153,648 5.42 1.63 7.97 22,981 52.74 2.35 56.43 177,237 11.54 1.72 14.24 65,769 3,042 81,142

660 13,026 0.48 1.01 2.07 134,324 5.20 1.47 7.51 27,247 51.67 2.32 55.32 174,597 12.10 1.57 14.57 67,913 2,743 81,772

650 10,919 0.88 0.80 2.14 124,761 5.49 1.40 7.69 29,933 48.51 2.31 52.14 165,613 12.96 1.53 15.36 69,004 2,530 81,787

640 41,413 0.95 0.81 2.22 122,805 5.41 1.44 7.67 26,498 48.28 2.42 52.08 190,716 10.40 1.44 12.66 63,757 2,745 77,628

630 62,999 1.00 0.91 2.43 125,689 5.29 1.43 7.53 25,529 44.11 2.72 48.38 214,217 8.65 1.43 10.90 59,593 3,063 75,069

620 64,776 1.09 1.01 2.68 128,329 4.98 1.40 7.18 25,602 42.34 2.95 46.97 218,707 8.20 1.47 10.51 57,671 3,210 73,889

610 82,668 0.88 1.06 2.54 132,201 4.58 1.52 6.97 27,540 40.01 2.96 44.66 242,409 7.34 1.53 9.74 57,234 3,703 75,945

600 84,699 0.84 0.91 2.27 136,609 3.88 1.53 6.29 28,284 42.07 3.32 47.29 249,592 7.18 1.52 9.57 57,590 3,800 76,792

590 50,434 1.03 0.99 2.59 139,257 3.33 1.91 6.32 28,397 42.72 3.52 48.26 218,088 7.92 1.91 10.92 55,560 4,156 76,563

Total 480,513 0.92 0.96 2.43 3,199,335 5.23 1.76 7.99 1,030,581 29.17 3.98 35.43 4,710,429 10.03 2.16 13.42 1,518,359 101,861 2,033,064

Main Zone Low Grade Main Zone High Grade Main Zone Ultra High Grade Peripheral Lodes Total

Hot Maden Deposit

August 2015 Mineral Resource Estimate (2g/t AuEq Cut-off)

InferredBench



890 1,252 4.11 1.40 6.31 1,252 4.11 1.40 6.31 165 18 254

880 77,413 3.93 1.73 6.65 77,413 3.93 1.73 6.65 9,781 1,340 16,551

870 122,325 3.38 1.70 6.06 870 1.30 0.91 2.73 123,195 3.36 1.70 6.03 13,327 2,091 23,892

860 113,372 3.18 1.78 5.98 753 0.64 1.02 2.24 114,125 3.16 1.78 5.95 11,606 2,026 21,844

850 102,177 3.71 1.94 6.76 11,201 0.86 0.74 2.01 113,378 3.42 1.82 6.29 12,484 2,066 22,923

840 90,655 3.33 1.88 6.29 766 1.94 0.27 2.37 91,421 3.32 1.87 6.26 9,761 1,709 18,395

830 79,920 3.25 2.02 6.43 46,273 1.66 0.36 2.22 126,193 2.67 1.41 4.89 10,821 1,781 19,820

820 67,264 2.97 2.13 6.31 26,849 1.68 0.41 2.32 94,113 2.60 1.64 5.17 7,868 1,540 15,648

810 414 0.43 1.07 2.10 55,095 2.78 1.89 5.75 13,484 1.81 0.19 2.10 68,993 2.58 1.55 5.01 5,720 1,069 11,121

800 7,758 0.41 1.14 2.19 43,540 2.80 2.11 6.12 23,597 1.75 0.25 2.15 74,895 2.22 1.42 4.46 5,356 1,066 10,742

790 30,997 2.80 2.10 6.11 28,121 1.73 0.30 2.20 59,118 2.29 1.24 4.25 4,355 736 8,073

780 25,057 2.62 2.13 5.97 9,277 1.64 0.28 2.08 34,334 2.36 1.63 4.92 2,603 560 5,431

770 22,061 2.52 1.90 5.50 22,061 2.52 1.90 5.50 1,788 419 3,903

760 17,036 2.43 1.78 5.23 17,036 2.43 1.78 5.23 1,330 304 2,865

750 13,530 3.31 1.89 6.27 13,530 3.31 1.89 6.27 1,440 255 2,729

740 13,360 3.04 1.90 6.02 13,360 3.04 1.90 6.02 1,305 253 2,584

730 14,720 2.68 1.80 5.50 14,720 2.68 1.80 5.50 1,266 265 2,603

720 3,565 1.32 0.53 2.15 16,056 2.86 1.71 5.54 19,621 2.58 1.49 4.93 1,628 293 3,107

710 16,024 3.20 1.76 5.98 16,024 3.20 1.76 5.98 1,651 283 3,079

700 17,654 4.51 1.61 7.04 17,654 4.51 1.61 7.04 2,559 285 3,998

690 19,975 3.42 1.67 6.05 19,975 3.42 1.67 6.05 2,195 334 3,882

680 22,298 3.48 1.68 6.12 680 45.80 1.92 48.82 22,978 4.73 1.69 7.38 3,495 388 5,453

670 22,603 3.81 1.65 6.41 3,058 44.30 1.92 47.31 2,326 2.27 0.41 2.91 27,987 8.11 1.58 10.58 7,297 441 9,524

660 1,191 1.37 0.45 2.07 17,611 5.15 1.44 7.41 5,072 35.89 1.71 38.58 4,651 2.27 0.41 2.91 28,525 9.99 1.28 12.00 9,159 365 11,004

650 3,031 2.41 0.15 2.65 11,557 6.13 0.89 7.53 5,410 35.84 1.71 38.53 4,651 2.27 0.41 2.91 24,649 11.47 0.89 12.86 9,086 219 10,194

640 6,272 6.18 0.88 7.56 3,043 35.78 1.73 38.49 4,651 2.27 0.41 2.91 13,966 11.33 0.91 12.75 5,085 127 5,725

630 25,096 0.84 1.00 2.41 4,622 6.09 0.90 7.50 2,705 31.55 1.77 34.33 9,302 2.27 0.41 2.91 41,725 3.73 0.91 5.16 5,001 380 6,919

620 25,746 1.16 0.95 2.65 2,645 4.61 1.12 6.38 3,398 36.31 2.50 40.25 8,721 2.27 0.41 2.91 40,510 4.58 0.97 6.11 5,959 395 7,953

610 33,745 0.92 1.03 2.53 2,644 4.95 1.83 7.82 5,437 39.82 2.53 43.80 4,651 2.27 0.41 2.91 46,477 5.84 1.19 7.70 8,720 552 11,507

600 34,815 0.82 0.94 2.30 2,664 3.47 1.49 5.82 5,451 41.89 2.95 46.53 4,651 2.27 0.41 2.91 47,581 5.82 1.15 7.62 8,899 546 11,661

590 28,632 1.22 0.94 2.69 2,677 2.66 2.02 5.85 5,452 42.04 3.00 46.75 5,233 2.27 0.41 2.91 41,994 6.74 1.21 8.64 9,103 507 11,666

580 85,645 0.82 0.98 2.36 143,167 2.71 2.02 5.88 33,057 42.01 3.50 47.51 5,233 2.27 0.41 2.91 267,102 6.96 1.84 9.84 59,752 4,902 84,524

570 62,171 0.85 1.00 2.42 142,086 2.38 2.23 5.89 33,448 39.05 3.31 44.24 2,326 2.27 0.41 2.91 240,031 7.09 2.04 10.31 54,730 4,908 79,531

560 68,265 0.75 1.00 2.32 139,783 2.38 2.20 5.84 31,356 40.67 3.57 46.29 239,404 6.93 2.04 10.13 53,339 4,878 77,988

550 63,317 0.82 1.18 2.67 134,222 2.60 2.43 6.43 29,640 33.71 3.42 39.08 227,179 6.16 2.21 9.64 45,023 5,024 70,411

540 77,934 0.57 0.99 2.13 131,724 2.56 2.16 5.96 31,599 33.17 3.34 38.42 241,257 5.92 1.94 8.97 45,955 4,678 69,591

530 64,579 0.92 0.96 2.43 128,162 2.72 2.01 5.88 32,440 32.08 3.29 37.25 225,181 6.43 1.89 9.41 46,584 4,264 68,128

520 55,586 0.72 1.01 2.31 122,882 3.24 2.02 6.41 31,525 31.86 3.29 37.02 209,993 6.87 1.94 9.92 46,359 4,077 66,962

510 48,620 0.59 1.04 2.22 118,492 3.78 1.86 6.70 31,980 32.12 3.39 37.46 199,092 7.55 1.91 10.55 48,359 3,793 67,526

500 34,936 0.53 0.99 2.08 82,092 3.50 1.79 6.31 14,712 36.52 3.78 42.45 131,740 6.40 1.80 9.23 27,104 2,369 39,073

490 2,103 0.51 1.00 2.08 68,030 3.26 1.81 6.11 11,867 38.61 3.95 44.82 82,000 8.31 2.10 11.61 21,896 1,723 30,604

480 40,002 0.67 0.95 2.17 25,237 3.20 1.88 6.17 4,716 38.61 3.95 44.82 69,955 4.14 1.49 6.49 9,320 1,044 14,594

470 34,878 0.81 0.99 2.37 34,878 0.81 0.99 2.37 909 346 2,659

460 16,540 0.65 1.07 2.33 16,540 0.65 1.07 2.33 348 177 1,240

450 359 0.59 0.91 2.01 359 0.59 0.91 2.01 7 3 23

Total 818,928 0.79 1.00 2.36 2,290,953 3.09 1.97 6.18 326,046 36.20 3.30 41.38 217,587 1.80 0.37 2.38 3,653,514 5.45 1.77 8.24 640,499 64,794 967,903

Main Zone High Grade Main Zone Ultra High Grade Peripheral Lodes TotalMain Zone Low Grade

Bench



890 1,252 4.11 1.40 6.31 1,252 4.11 1.40 6.31 165 18 254

880 78,212 3.93 1.73 6.65 180 10.76 5.31 19.10 78,392 3.95 1.74 6.67 9,945 1,361 16,822

870 167,791 3.34 1.66 5.94 44,675 14.39 5.62 23.22 870 1.30 0.91 2.73 213,336 5.64 2.49 9.55 38,707 5,302 65,498

860 179,211 3.22 1.71 5.91 66,707 15.21 5.58 23.99 753 0.64 1.02 2.24 246,671 6.45 2.76 10.79 51,178 6,804 85,560

850 171,764 3.65 1.94 6.69 72,583 13.57 5.38 22.03 11,201 0.86 0.74 2.01 255,548 6.34 2.86 10.84 52,129 7,314 89,085

840 156,851 3.68 1.89 6.66 80,227 13.27 5.33 21.65 766 1.94 0.27 2.37 237,844 6.91 3.05 11.70 52,818 7,253 89,468

830 151,358 3.64 1.90 6.63 77,914 17.49 5.09 25.49 46,273 1.66 0.36 2.22 275,545 7.22 2.55 11.22 63,967 7,013 99,402

820 141,175 3.51 1.94 6.56 71,583 17.42 4.62 24.68 26,849 1.68 0.41 2.32 239,607 7.46 2.57 11.50 57,473 6,156 88,581

810 414 0.43 1.07 2.10 133,534 3.63 1.84 6.51 63,280 22.17 4.15 28.70 13,484 1.81 0.19 2.10 210,712 9.07 2.42 12.88 61,474 5,109 87,290

800 7,758 0.41 1.14 2.19 129,198 3.69 1.77 6.47 50,860 24.31 3.78 30.26 23,597 1.75 0.25 2.15 211,413 8.32 2.06 11.55 56,522 4,356 78,535

790 2,694 1.23 0.64 2.23 119,180 4.22 1.85 7.13 43,266 24.50 3.43 29.90 28,121 1.73 0.30 2.20 193,261 8.36 1.96 11.44 51,922 3,796 71,103

780 17,654 0.90 0.78 2.13 124,436 4.65 1.94 7.71 33,570 24.03 3.09 28.89 9,277 1.64 0.28 2.08 184,937 7.66 1.96 10.74 45,551 3,622 63,855

770 11,346 0.80 0.79 2.04 132,248 4.90 1.93 7.93 25,663 26.73 3.00 31.44 169,257 7.94 2.01 11.10 43,192 3,409 60,418

760 3,444 1.34 0.46 2.06 130,398 5.30 2.07 8.55 21,649 25.85 3.25 30.96 155,491 8.07 2.20 11.52 40,355 3,415 57,609

750 120,330 5.88 2.24 9.41 19,321 35.81 2.93 40.42 139,651 10.02 2.34 13.70 44,993 3,265 61,493

740 18,573 0.59 1.36 2.74 121,922 6.17 2.30 9.79 16,940 41.04 3.02 45.78 157,435 9.27 2.27 12.83 46,898 3,571 64,943

730 132,503 6.35 2.23 9.86 16,193 44.72 3.17 49.70 148,696 10.53 2.33 14.20 50,336 3,470 67,868

720 16,985 0.72 1.03 2.35 144,784 6.33 2.06 9.56 16,197 51.26 3.38 56.57 177,966 9.88 2.08 13.15 56,543 3,703 75,255

710 149,258 6.42 1.83 9.30 15,721 56.57 3.54 62.12 164,979 11.20 1.99 14.33 59,410 3,290 76,032

700 157,590 6.40 1.77 9.17 16,177 64.17 2.93 68.78 173,767 11.78 1.87 14.72 65,797 3,257 82,255

690 166,278 5.82 1.63 8.39 16,755 59.24 2.42 63.04 183,033 10.71 1.70 13.39 63,021 3,120 78,785

680 1,840 2.53 0.39 3.14 174,220 5.15 1.63 7.72 19,789 55.60 2.48 59.51 195,849 10.22 1.71 12.91 64,373 3,343 81,266

670 608 2.58 0.29 3.03 176,251 5.21 1.63 7.77 26,039 51.75 2.30 55.36 2,326 2.27 0.41 2.91 205,224 11.07 1.70 13.74 73,066 3,483 90,666

660 14,217 0.55 0.97 2.07 151,935 5.19 1.47 7.50 32,319 49.19 2.23 52.69 4,651 2.27 0.41 2.91 203,122 11.80 1.53 14.21 77,073 3,108 92,776

650 13,950 1.21 0.66 2.25 136,318 5.54 1.36 7.68 35,343 46.57 2.22 50.06 4,651 2.27 0.41 2.91 190,262 12.77 1.44 15.04 78,090 2,749 91,981

640 41,413 0.95 0.81 2.22 129,077 5.45 1.41 7.67 29,541 46.99 2.35 50.68 4,651 2.27 0.41 2.91 204,682 10.46 1.40 12.67 68,843 2,872 83,353

630 88,095 0.95 0.94 2.43 130,311 5.31 1.41 7.53 28,234 42.91 2.63 47.04 9,302 2.27 0.41 2.91 255,942 7.85 1.34 9.96 64,594 3,442 81,988

620 90,522 1.11 0.99 2.67 130,974 4.97 1.40 7.17 29,000 41.63 2.90 46.19 8,721 2.27 0.41 2.91 259,217 7.64 1.39 9.82 63,630 3,604 81,842

610 116,413 0.89 1.05 2.54 134,845 4.59 1.53 6.99 32,977 39.98 2.89 44.52 4,651 2.27 0.41 2.91 288,886 7.10 1.47 9.42 65,954 4,254 87,452

600 119,514 0.83 0.92 2.28 139,273 3.87 1.53 6.28 33,735 42.04 3.26 47.17 4,651 2.27 0.41 2.91 297,173 6.96 1.46 9.26 66,490 4,347 88,453

590 79,066 1.10 0.97 2.63 141,934 3.31 1.91 6.31 33,849 42.61 3.44 48.02 5,233 2.27 0.41 2.91 260,082 7.73 1.79 10.55 64,663 4,664 88,229

580 85,645 0.82 0.98 2.36 143,167 2.71 2.02 5.88 33,057 42.01 3.50 47.51 5,233 2.27 0.41 2.91 267,102 6.96 1.84 9.84 59,752 4,902 84,524

570 62,171 0.85 1.00 2.42 142,086 2.38 2.23 5.89 33,448 39.05 3.31 44.24 2,326 2.27 0.41 2.91 240,031 7.09 2.04 10.31 54,730 4,908 79,531

560 68,265 0.75 1.00 2.32 139,783 2.38 2.20 5.84 31,356 40.67 3.57 46.29 239,404 6.93 2.04 10.13 53,339 4,878 77,988

550 63,317 0.82 1.18 2.67 134,222 2.60 2.43 6.43 29,640 33.71 3.42 39.08 227,179 6.16 2.21 9.64 45,023 5,024 70,411

540 77,934 0.57 0.99 2.13 131,724 2.56 2.16 5.96 31,599 33.17 3.34 38.42 241,257 5.92 1.94 8.97 45,955 4,678 69,591

530 64,579 0.92 0.96 2.43 128,162 2.72 2.01 5.88 32,440 32.08 3.29 37.25 225,181 6.43 1.89 9.41 46,584 4,264 68,128

520 55,586 0.72 1.01 2.31 122,882 3.24 2.02 6.41 31,525 31.86 3.29 37.02 209,993 6.87 1.94 9.92 46,359 4,077 66,962

510 48,620 0.59 1.04 2.22 118,492 3.78 1.86 6.70 31,980 32.12 3.39 37.46 199,092 7.55 1.91 10.55 48,359 3,793 67,526

500 34,936 0.53 0.99 2.08 82,092 3.50 1.79 6.31 14,712 36.52 3.78 42.45 131,740 6.40 1.80 9.23 27,104 2,369 39,073

490 2,103 0.51 1.00 2.08 68,030 3.26 1.81 6.11 11,867 38.61 3.95 44.82 82,000 8.31 2.10 11.61 21,896 1,723 30,604

480 40,002 0.67 0.95 2.17 25,237 3.20 1.88 6.17 4,716 38.61 3.95 44.82 69,955 4.14 1.49 6.49 9,320 1,044 14,594

470 34,878 0.81 0.99 2.37 34,878 0.81 0.99 2.37 909 346 2,659

460 16,540 0.65 1.07 2.33 16,540 0.65 1.07 2.33 348 177 1,240

450 359 0.59 0.91 2.01 359 0.59 0.91 2.01 7 3 23

Total 1,299,441 0.84 0.98 2.38 5,490,288 4.33 1.85 7.23 1,356,627 30.86 3.82 36.86 217,587 1.80 0.37 2.38 8,363,943 8.03 1.99 11.16 2,158,857 166,654 3,000,967

Total Mineral Resource - 2g/t AuEq Cut-off Main Zone Low Grade Main Zone High Grade Main Zone Ultra High Grade Peripheral Lodes Total

Bench Tonnes Au Cu AuEq Tonnes Au Cu AuEq Tonnes Au Cu AuEq Tonnes Au Cu AuEq Tonnes Au Cu AuEq

Top RL t Cut g/t % g/t t Cut g/t % g/t t Cut g/t % g/t t Cut g/t % g/t t Cut g/t % g/t

890 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,252 4.11 1.40 6.31 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,252 4.11 1.40 6.31

880 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 78,212 3.93 1.73 6.65 180 10.76 5.31 19.10 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 78,392 3.95 1.74 6.67

870 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 167,791 3.34 1.66 5.94 44,675 14.39 5.62 23.22 870 1.30 0.91 2.73 213,336 5.64 2.49 9.55

860 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 179,211 3.22 1.71 5.91 66,707 15.21 5.58 23.99 753 0.64 1.02 2.24 246,671 6.45 2.76 10.79

850 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 171,764 3.65 1.94 6.69 72,583 13.57 5.38 22.03 11,201 0.86 0.74 2.01 255,548 6.34 2.86 10.84

840 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 156,851 3.68 1.89 6.66 80,227 13.27 5.33 21.65 766 1.94 0.27 2.37 237,844 6.91 3.05 11.70

830 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 151,358 3.64 1.90 6.63 77,914 17.49 5.09 25.49 46,273 1.66 0.36 2.22 275,545 7.22 2.55 11.22

820 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 141,175 3.51 1.94 6.56 71,583 17.42 4.62 24.68 26,849 1.68 0.41 2.32 239,607 7.46 2.57 11.50

810 414 0.43 1.07 2.10 133,534 3.63 1.84 6.51 63,280 22.17 4.15 28.70 13,484 1.81 0.19 2.10 210,712 9.07 2.42 12.88

800 7,758 0.41 1.14 2.19 129,198 3.69 1.77 6.47 50,860 24.31 3.78 30.26 23,597 1.75 0.25 2.15 211,413 8.32 2.06 11.55

790 2,694 1.23 0.64 2.23 119,180 4.22 1.85 7.13 43,266 24.50 3.43 29.90 28,121 1.73 0.30 2.20 193,261 8.36 1.96 11.44

780 17,654 0.90 0.78 2.13 124,436 4.65 1.94 7.71 33,570 24.03 3.09 28.89 9,277 1.64 0.28 2.08 184,937 7.66 1.96 10.74

770 11,346 0.80 0.79 2.04 132,248 4.90 1.93 7.93 25,663 26.73 3.00 31.44 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 169,257 7.94 2.01 11.10

760 3,444 1.34 0.46 2.06 130,398 5.30 2.07 8.55 21,649 25.85 3.25 30.96 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 155,491 8.07 2.20 11.52

750 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 120,330 5.88 2.24 9.41 19,321 35.81 2.93 40.42 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 139,651 10.02 2.34 13.70

740 18,573 0.59 1.36 2.74 121,922 6.17 2.30 9.79 16,940 41.04 3.02 45.78 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 157,435 9.27 2.27 12.83

730 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 132,503 6.35 2.23 9.86 16,193 44.72 3.17 49.70 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 148,696 10.53 2.33 14.20

720 16,985 0.72 1.03 2.35 144,784 6.33 2.06 9.56 16,197 51.26 3.38 56.57 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 177,966 9.88 2.08 13.15

710 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 149,258 6.42 1.83 9.30 15,721 56.57 3.54 62.12 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 164,979 11.20 1.99 14.33

700 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 157,590 6.40 1.77 9.17 16,177 64.17 2.93 68.78 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 173,767 11.78 1.87 14.72

690 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 166,278 5.82 1.63 8.39 16,755 59.24 2.42 63.04 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 183,033 10.71 1.70 13.39

680 1,840 2.53 0.39 3.14 174,220 5.15 1.63 7.72 19,789 55.60 2.48 59.51 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 195,849 10.22 1.71 12.91

670 608 2.58 0.29 3.03 176,251 5.21 1.63 7.77 26,039 51.75 2.30 55.36 2,326 2.27 0.41 2.91 205,224 11.07 1.70 13.74

660 14,217 0.55 0.97 2.07 151,935 5.19 1.47 7.50 32,319 49.19 2.23 52.69 4,651 2.27 0.41 2.91 203,122 11.80 1.53 14.21

650 13,950 1.21 0.66 2.25 136,318 5.54 1.36 7.68 35,343 46.57 2.22 50.06 4,651 2.27 0.41 2.91 190,262 12.77 1.44 15.04

640 41,413 0.95 0.81 2.22 129,077 5.45 1.41 7.67 29,541 46.99 2.35 50.68 4,651 2.27 0.41 2.91 204,682 10.46 1.40 12.67

630 88,095 0.95 0.94 2.43 130,311 5.31 1.41 7.53 28,234 42.91 2.63 47.04 9,302 2.27 0.41 2.91 255,942 7.85 1.34 9.96

620 90,522 1.11 0.99 2.67 130,974 4.97 1.40 7.17 29,000 41.63 2.90 46.19 8,721 2.27 0.41 2.91 259,217 7.64 1.39 9.82

610 116,413 0.89 1.05 2.54 134,845 4.59 1.53 6.99 32,977 39.98 2.89 44.52 4,651 2.27 0.41 2.91 288,886 7.10 1.47 9.42

600 119,514 0.83 0.92 2.28 139,273 3.87 1.53 6.28 33,735 42.04 3.26 47.17 4,651 2.27 0.41 2.91 297,173 6.96 1.46 9.26

590 79,066 1.10 0.97 2.63 141,934 3.31 1.91 6.31 33,849 42.61 3.44 48.02 5,233 2.27 0.41 2.91 260,082 7.73 1.79 10.55

580 85,645 0.82 0.98 2.36 143,167 2.71 2.02 5.88 33,057 42.01 3.50 47.51 5,233 2.27 0.41 2.91 267,102 6.96 1.84 9.84

570 62,171 0.85 1.00 2.42 142,086 2.38 2.23 5.89 33,448 39.05 3.31 44.24 2,326 2.27 0.41 2.91 240,031 7.09 2.04 10.31

560 68,265 0.75 1.00 2.32 139,783 2.38 2.20 5.84 31,356 40.67 3.57 46.29 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 239,404 6.93 2.04 10.13

550 63,317 0.82 1.18 2.67 134,222 2.60 2.43 6.43 29,640 33.71 3.42 39.08 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 227,179 6.16 2.21 9.64

540 77,934 0.57 0.99 2.13 131,724 2.56 2.16 5.96 31,599 33.17 3.34 38.42 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 241,257 5.92 1.94 8.97

530 64,579 0.92 0.96 2.43 128,162 2.72 2.01 5.88 32,440 32.08 3.29 37.25 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 225,181 6.43 1.89 9.41

520 55,586 0.72 1.01 2.31 122,882 3.24 2.02 6.41 31,525 31.86 3.29 37.02 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 209,993 6.87 1.94 9.92

510 48,620 0.59 1.04 2.22 118,492 3.78 1.86 6.70 31,980 32.12 3.39 37.46 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 199,092 7.55 1.91 10.55

500 34,936 0.53 0.99 2.08 82,092 3.50 1.79 6.31 14,712 36.52 3.78 42.45 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 131,740 6.40 1.80 9.23

490 2,103 0.51 1.00 2.08 68,030 3.26 1.81 6.11 11,867 38.61 3.95 44.82 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 82,000 8.31 2.10 11.61

480 40,002 0.67 0.95 2.17 25,237 3.20 1.88 6.17 4,716 38.61 3.95 44.82 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 69,955 4.14 1.49 6.49

470 34,878 0.81 0.99 2.37 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 34,878 0.81 0.99 2.37

460 16,540 0.65 1.07 2.33 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 16,540 0.65 1.07 2.33

450 359 0.59 0.91 2.01 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 359 0.59 0.91 2.01

Total 1,299,441 0.84 0.98 2.38 5,490,288 4.33 1.85 7.23 1,356,627 30.86 3.82 36.86 217,587 1.80 0.37 2.38 8,363,943 8.03 1.99 11.16

Hot Maden Deposit


Main Zone High Grade Main Zone Ultra High Grade Peripheral Lodes Total DepositMain Zone Low Grade

0.0

4.0

8.0

12.0

16.0

20.0

0

60,000

120,000

180,000

240,000

300,000

89

0

88

0

87

0

86

0

85

0

84

0

83

0

82

0

81

0

80

0

79

0

78

0

77

0

76

0

75

0

74

0

73

0

72

0

71

0

70

0

69

0

68

0

67

0

66

0

65

0

64

0

63

0

62

0

61

0

60

0

59

0

58

0

57

0

56

0

55

0

54

0

53

0

52

0

51

0

50

0

49

0

48

0

47

0

46

0

45

0

Gra

de (

g/t

)

To

nn

es (

t)

Bench Top RL (m)

Hot Maden - Total Mineral Resource 2g/t AuEq Cut-off (Au & AuEq)

Main Zone Low Grade Peripheral Lodes Main Zone Ultra High Grade Main Zone High Grade AuEq g/t Au Cut g/t

0.0

0.6

1.2

1.8

2.4

3.0

0

60,000

120,000

180,000

240,000

300,000

89

0

88

0

87

0

86

0

85

0

84

0

83

0

82

0

81

0

80

0

79

0

78

0

77

0

76

0

75

0

74

0

73

0

72

0

71

0

70

0

69

0

68

0

67

0

66

0

65

0

64

0

63

0

62

0

61

0

60

0

59

0

58

0

57

0

56

0

55

0

54

0

53

0

52

0

51

0

50

0

49

0

48

0

47

0

46

0

45

0

Gra

de

Cu

(%

)

To

nn

es (

t)

Bench Top RL (m)

Hot Maden - Total Mineral Resource 2g/t AuEq Cut-off (Cu)

Main Zone Low Grade Peripheral Lodes Main Zone Ultra High Grade Main Zone High Grade Cu %

Bench Top Tonnes Au Cu AuEq Au Cu AuEq

RL t g/t % g/t Ounces Tonnes Ounces Tonnes Au Oz Cu T AuEq Oz

890 1,252 4.11 1.40 6.31 165 18 254 125 17 2 25

880 78,392 3.95 1.74 6.67 9,945 1,361 16,822 7,839 994 136 1,682

870 213,336 5.64 2.49 9.55 38,707 5,302 65,498 21,334 3,871 530 6,550

860 246,671 6.45 2.76 10.79 51,178 6,804 85,560 24,667 5,118 680 8,556

850 255,548 6.34 2.86 10.84 52,129 7,314 89,085 25,555 5,213 731 8,908

840 237,844 6.91 3.05 11.70 52,818 7,253 89,468 23,784 5,282 725 8,947

830 275,545 7.22 2.55 11.22 63,967 7,013 99,402 27,555 6,397 701 9,940

820 239,607 7.46 2.57 11.50 57,473 6,156 88,581 23,961 5,747 616 8,858

810 210,712 9.07 2.42 12.88 61,474 5,109 87,290 21,071 6,147 511 8,729

800 211,413 8.32 2.06 11.55 56,522 4,356 78,535 21,141 5,652 436 7,853

790 193,261 8.36 1.96 11.44 51,922 3,796 71,103 19,326 5,192 380 7,110

780 184,937 7.66 1.96 10.74 45,551 3,622 63,855 18,494 4,555 362 6,386

770 169,257 7.94 2.01 11.10 43,192 3,409 60,418 16,926 4,319 341 6,042

760 155,491 8.07 2.20 11.52 40,355 3,415 57,609 15,549 4,035 341 5,761

750 139,651 10.02 2.34 13.70 44,993 3,265 61,493 13,965 4,499 327 6,149

740 157,435 9.27 2.27 12.83 46,898 3,571 64,943 15,744 4,690 357 6,494

730 148,696 10.53 2.33 14.20 50,336 3,470 67,868 14,870 5,034 347 6,787

720 177,966 9.88 2.08 13.15 56,543 3,703 75,255 17,797 5,654 370 7,525

710 164,979 11.20 1.99 14.33 59,410 3,290 76,032 16,498 5,941 329 7,603

700 173,767 11.78 1.87 14.72 65,797 3,257 82,255 17,377 6,580 326 8,225

690 183,033 10.71 1.70 13.39 63,021 3,120 78,785 18,303 6,302 312 7,878

680 195,849 10.22 1.71 12.91 64,373 3,343 81,266 19,585 6,437 334 8,127

670 205,224 11.07 1.70 13.74 73,066 3,483 90,666 20,522 7,307 348 9,067

660 203,122 11.80 1.53 14.21 77,073 3,108 92,776 20,312 7,707 311 9,278

650 190,262 12.77 1.44 15.04 78,090 2,749 91,981 19,026 7,809 275 9,198

640 204,682 10.46 1.40 12.67 68,843 2,872 83,353 20,468 6,884 287 8,335

630 255,942 7.85 1.34 9.96 64,594 3,442 81,988 25,594 6,459 344 8,199

620 259,217 7.64 1.39 9.82 63,630 3,604 81,842 25,922 6,363 360 8,184

610 288,886 7.10 1.47 9.42 65,954 4,254 87,452 28,889 6,595 425 8,745

600 297,173 6.96 1.46 9.26 66,490 4,347 88,453 29,717 6,649 435 8,845

590 260,082 7.73 1.79 10.55 64,663 4,664 88,229 26,008 6,466 466 8,823

580 267,102 6.96 1.84 9.84 59,752 4,902 84,524 26,710 5,975 490 8,452

570 240,031 7.09 2.04 10.31 54,730 4,908 79,531 24,003 5,473 491 7,953

560 239,404 6.93 2.04 10.13 53,339 4,878 77,988 23,940 5,334 488 7,799

550 227,179 6.16 2.21 9.64 45,023 5,024 70,411 22,718 4,502 502 7,041

540 241,257 5.92 1.94 8.97 45,955 4,678 69,591 24,126 4,595 468 6,959

530 225,181 6.43 1.89 9.41 46,584 4,264 68,128 22,518 4,658 426 6,813

520 209,993 6.87 1.94 9.92 46,359 4,077 66,962 20,999 4,636 408 6,696

510 199,092 7.55 1.91 10.55 48,359 3,793 67,526 19,909 4,836 379 6,753

500 131,740 6.40 1.80 9.23 27,104 2,369 39,073 13,174 2,710 237 3,907

490 82,000 8.31 2.10 11.61 21,896 1,723 30,604 8,200 2,190 172 3,060

480 69,955 4.14 1.49 6.49 9,320 1,044 14,594 6,996 932 104 1,459

470 34,878 0.81 0.99 2.37 909 346 2,659 3,488 91 35 266

460 16,540 0.65 1.07 2.33 348 177 1,240 1,654 35 18 124

450 359 0.59 0.91 2.01 7 3 23 36 1 0 2

Total 8,363,943 8.03 1.99 11.16 2,158,857 166,654 3,000,967


Per Vertical Metre

Hot Maden Deposit

0.0

4.0

8.0

12.0

16.0

20.0

0

60,000

120,000

180,000

240,000

300,000

890

880

870

860

850

840

830

820

810

800

790

780

770

760

750

740

730

720

710

700

690

680

670

660

650

640

630

620

610

600

590

580

570

560

550

540

530

520

510

500

490

480

470

460

450

Gra

de

(g

/t)

To

nn

es (

t)

Bench Top RL (m)

Hot Maden Mineral Resource - Tonnes and Grade Per 10m Bench (Au & AuEq)

Tonnes Per 10m Bench AuEq g/t Au g/t

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

0

6,000

12,000

18,000

24,000

30,000

890

880

870

860

850

840

830

820

810

800

790

780

770

760

750

740

730

720

710

700

690

680

670

660

650

640

630

620

610

600

590

580

570

560

550

540

530

520

510

500

490

480

470

460

450

Ou

nc

e/V

m

To

nn

es/V

m

Bench Top RL (m)

Hot Maden Mineral Resource - Tonnes and Ounces Per Vertical Metre (Au & AuEq)

TVM OVM AuEq OVM Au

0.0

0.6

1.2

1.8

2.4

3.0

0

60,000

120,000

180,000

240,000

300,000

890

880

870

860

850

840

830

820

810

800

790

780

770

760

750

740

730

720

710

700

690

680

670

660

650

640

630

620

610

600

590

580

570

560

550

540

530

520

510

500

490

480

470

460

450

Gra

de C

u (

%)

To

nn

es (

t)

Bench Top RL (m)

Hot Maden Mineral Resource - Tonnes and Grade Per 10m Bench (Cu)

Tonnes Per 10m Bench Cu %

0

150

300

450

600

750

0

6,000

12,000

18,000

24,000

30,000

890

880

870

860

850

840

830

820

810

800

790

780

770

760

750

740

730

720

710

700

690

680

670

660

650

640

630

620

610

600

590

580

570

560

550

540

530

520

510

500

490

480

470

460

450

To

nn

es/V

m

To

nn

es/V

m

Bench Top RL (m)

Hot Maden Mineral Resource - Tonnes Per Vertical Metre (Cu)

TVM Cu T

Grade Cut-off

Range Tonnes Au Cu Ag Fe AuEq BD Grade Tonnes Au Cu Ag Fe AuEq BD Au Cu AuEq

AuEq t g/t % g/t % g/t t/m3 AuEq t g/t % g/t % g/t t/m3 Ounces Tonnes Ounces

0.4 -> 0.5 10,364 0.26 0.14 2.00 7.77 0.48 2.98 0.4 14,695,484 4.77 1.37 4.13 12.08 6.93 3.10 2,255,606 201,196 3,272,258

0.5 -> 0.6 138,041 0.25 0.20 2.38 6.62 0.56 2.95 0.5 14,685,120 4.78 1.37 4.13 12.08 6.93 3.10 2,255,520 201,182 3,272,099

0.6 -> 0.7 143,982 0.27 0.25 2.59 6.27 0.66 2.94 0.6 14,547,079 4.82 1.38 4.15 12.14 6.99 3.10 2,254,401 200,910 3,269,606

0.7 -> 0.8 264,955 0.24 0.32 1.98 8.27 0.75 2.99 0.7 14,403,097 4.87 1.39 4.17 12.19 7.05 3.10 2,253,150 200,554 3,266,558

0.8 -> 0.9 285,224 0.31 0.35 1.72 9.05 0.85 3.01 0.8 14,138,142 4.95 1.41 4.21 12.27 7.17 3.10 2,251,107 199,696 3,260,175

0.9 -> 1.0 608,478 0.39 0.36 2.20 9.28 0.95 3.02 0.9 13,852,918 5.05 1.43 4.26 12.33 7.30 3.11 2,248,275 198,705 3,252,338

1.0 -> 1.1 635,832 0.41 0.40 2.15 9.45 1.05 3.03 1.0 13,244,440 5.26 1.48 4.35 12.47 7.59 3.11 2,240,596 196,537 3,233,705

1.1 -> 1.2 525,883 0.44 0.45 2.20 9.81 1.15 3.04 1.1 12,608,608 5.51 1.54 4.46 12.63 7.92 3.11 2,232,164 193,972 3,212,311

1.2 -> 1.3 475,966 0.47 0.49 2.26 10.18 1.24 3.05 1.2 12,082,725 5.73 1.59 4.56 12.75 8.22 3.12 2,224,678 191,595 3,192,812

1.3 -> 1.4 388,417 0.55 0.51 2.45 9.95 1.35 3.04 1.3 11,606,759 5.94 1.63 4.66 12.85 8.51 3.12 2,217,441 189,266 3,173,806

1.4 -> 1.5 409,133 0.60 0.54 2.47 10.15 1.45 3.05 1.4 11,218,342 6.13 1.67 4.73 12.95 8.75 3.12 2,210,546 187,295 3,156,952

1.5 -> 1.6 470,738 0.62 0.59 2.74 11.27 1.55 3.08 1.5 10,809,209 6.34 1.71 4.82 13.06 9.03 3.12 2,202,602 185,095 3,137,894

1.6 -> 1.7 489,759 0.54 0.70 2.54 9.77 1.65 3.03 1.6 10,338,471 6.60 1.76 4.91 13.14 9.37 3.13 2,193,196 182,312 3,114,427

1.7 -> 1.8 598,602 0.45 0.83 2.65 9.44 1.75 3.03 1.7 9,848,712 6.90 1.82 5.03 13.31 9.75 3.13 2,184,639 178,877 3,088,512

1.8 -> 1.9 497,030 0.60 0.80 2.45 10.01 1.85 3.04 1.8 9,250,110 7.32 1.88 5.19 13.56 10.27 3.14 2,176,072 173,916 3,054,875

1.9 -> 2.0 389,137 0.61 0.85 2.47 8.73 1.94 3.01 1.9 8,753,080 7.70 1.94 5.34 13.76 10.75 3.14 2,166,524 169,950 3,025,289

2.0 -> 2.5 1,046,221 0.87 0.85 2.56 7.82 2.20 2.98 2.0 8,363,943 8.03 1.99 5.47 14.00 11.16 3.15 2,158,855 166,654 3,000,965

2.5 -> 3.0 400,648 1.16 0.98 2.02 7.45 2.70 2.97 2.5 7,317,722 9.05 2.16 5.89 14.88 12.44 3.17 2,129,597 157,776 2,926,846

3.0 -> 3.5 65,788 1.33 1.17 2.66 8.96 3.17 3.01 3.0 6,917,074 9.51 2.22 6.12 15.31 13.00 3.19 2,114,693 153,848 2,892,092

3.5 -> 4.0 210,380 1.75 1.23 4.01 9.95 3.69 3.04 3.5 6,851,286 9.59 2.23 6.15 15.37 13.10 3.19 2,111,886 153,079 2,885,398

4.0 -> 4.5 384,124 2.02 1.43 3.46 11.66 4.28 3.09 4.0 6,640,906 9.84 2.27 6.22 15.54 13.40 3.19 2,100,045 150,483 2,860,440

4.5 -> 5.0 314,007 2.39 1.51 3.34 15.60 4.75 3.19 4.5 6,256,782 10.32 2.32 6.39 15.78 13.96 3.20 2,075,043 144,977 2,807,618

5.0 -> 6.0 943,106 2.91 1.73 3.90 12.57 5.63 3.11 5.0 5,942,775 10.73 2.36 6.55 15.79 14.44 3.20 2,050,957 140,244 2,759,617

6.0 -> 7.0 1,274,061 3.48 1.88 4.75 14.80 6.43 3.17 6.0 4,999,669 12.21 2.48 7.04 16.40 16.11 3.22 1,962,776 123,915 2,588,924

7.0 -> 8.0 594,675 4.68 1.73 5.19 14.46 7.41 3.16 7.0 3,725,608 15.20 2.68 7.83 16.94 19.42 3.23 1,820,431 99,979 2,325,630

8.0 -> 9.0 596,862 5.31 1.99 5.26 12.68 8.43 3.11 8.0 3,130,933 17.20 2.86 8.33 17.41 21.70 3.24 1,730,904 89,669 2,184,005

9.0 -> 10.0 397,750 6.70 1.78 5.54 12.10 9.50 3.10 9.0 2,534,071 19.99 3.07 9.05 18.53 24.82 3.28 1,629,006 77,804 2,022,151

10.0 -> 11.0 228,681 7.17 2.07 6.94 13.10 10.43 3.13 10.0 2,136,321 22.47 3.31 9.71 19.73 27.67 3.31 1,543,322 70,730 1,900,721

11.0 -> 12.0 170,542 7.14 2.72 10.16 16.83 11.42 3.23 11.0 1,907,640 24.30 3.46 10.04 20.52 29.74 3.33 1,490,573 65,993 1,824,039

12.0 -> 13.0 334,876 8.77 2.36 8.66 16.23 12.48 3.21 12.0 1,737,098 25.99 3.53 10.03 20.88 31.54 3.34 1,451,415 61,355 1,761,444

13.0 -> 14.0 40,072 7.31 3.71 5.33 14.02 13.14 3.15 13.0 1,402,222 30.10 3.81 10.35 21.99 36.09 3.37 1,357,045 53,437 1,627,062

14.0 -> 15.0 5,524 8.73 3.45 6.32 10.61 14.15 3.06 14.0 1,362,150 30.77 3.81 10.50 22.23 36.77 3.38 1,347,625 51,951 1,610,136

15.0 -> 20.0 112,892 10.79 5.27 21.84 33.15 19.07 3.68 15.0 1,356,626 30.86 3.82 10.52 22.28 36.86 3.38 1,346,075 51,761 1,607,624

20.0 -> 25.0 197,355 13.26 5.97 22.65 33.08 22.64 3.68 20.0 1,243,734 32.68 3.68 9.49 21.29 38.47 3.35 1,306,929 45,809 1,538,402

25.0 -> 30.0 246,622 22.44 3.58 11.62 30.80 28.07 3.61 25.0 1,046,379 36.35 3.25 7.01 19.06 41.46 3.29 1,222,816 34,023 1,394,734

30.0 -> 35.0 150,132 26.55 3.64 9.31 26.39 32.27 3.49 30.0 799,757 40.64 3.15 5.59 15.44 45.59 3.19 1,044,894 25,189 1,172,174

35.0 -> 40.0 222,487 33.43 2.87 3.97 12.69 37.93 3.11 35.0 649,625 43.89 3.04 4.72 12.92 48.66 3.12 916,757 19,718 1,016,392

40.0 -> 45.0 93,803 38.37 3.31 5.12 12.90 43.57 3.12 40.0 427,138 49.35 3.12 5.12 13.04 54.25 3.12 677,654 13,337 745,048

45.0 -> 50.0 81,212 42.29 2.99 5.00 13.54 46.98 3.14 45.0 333,335 52.44 3.07 5.12 13.07 57.26 3.12 561,949 10,230 613,643

50.0 -> 9999.0 252,123 55.70 3.10 5.16 12.92 60.57 3.12 50.0 252,123 55.70 3.10 5.16 12.92 60.57 3.12 451,538 7,805 490,975

Total 14,695,484 4.77 1.37 4.13 12.08 6.93 3.10

Hot Maden Deposit

August 2015 Mineral Resource Estimate - AuEq Cut-offsIncremental Resource Cumulative Resource

0.0

12.0

24.0

36.0

48.0

60.0

0

3,000,000

6,000,000

9,000,000

12,000,000

15,000,000

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

Gra

de A

u g

/t

To

nn

es

Cut-off Grade Au g/t

Hot Maden Deposit Grade Tonnage Curve - Au

Tonnes Au g/t

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

0

3,000,000

6,000,000

9,000,000

12,000,000

15,000,000

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

Gra

de C

u %

To

nn

es


Hot Maden Deposit Grade Tonnage Curve - Cu

Tonnes Cu %

0.0

13.0

26.0

39.0

52.0

65.0

0

3,000,000

6,000,000

9,000,000

12,000,000

15,000,000

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

Gra

de

Au

Eq

g/t

To

nn

es


Hot Maden Deposit Grade Tonnage Curve - AuEq

Tonnes AuEq g/t

D. Model Validation

Average Composite Input v Block Model Output

Pod Wireframe

Volume

Block Model Composites

Resource Au_Uncut Au_Cut Ag Cu Fe Number of Au_Uncut Au_Cut Ag Cu Fe

Volume g/t g/t g/t % % Comps g/t g/t g/t % %

1 2,359,987 2,351,135 0.53 0.53 2.28 0.62 9.32 708 0.51 0.51 2.39 0.53 9.28

2 82,560 82,849 0.68 0.68 3.29 0.29 7.93 38 0.81 0.81 2.78 0.25 7.80

3 189,682 188,879 1.34 1.11 3.47 0.50 7.22 62 1.47 1.24 2.50 0.32 7.56

4 51,134 51,196 0.11 0.11 2.65 1.04 9.60 14 0.11 0.11 2.65 1.04 9.60

5 18,715 18,945 2.27 2.27 0.50 0.41 7.67 12 2.27 2.27 0.50 0.41 7.67

101 1,789,076 1,778,979 4.38 4.33 5.00 1.83 13.53 486 4.90 4.81 5.11 1.79 13.42

102 415,809 413,660 36.14 31.44 10.28 3.78 21.71 166 34.46 28.99 11.61 3.81 24.82

Total 4,906,963 4,886,254 4.99 4.44 4.00 1.32 11.76 1,486 5.80 5.15 4.31 1.29 12.25

Model Validation – Main LG Zone (Northing)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

4,5

42

,050

4,5

42

,100

4,5

42

,150

4,5

42

,200

4,5

42

,250

4,5

42

,300

4,5

42

,350

Gra

de

Au

Un

cu

t (g

/t)

Vo

lum

e &

Co

mp

s (

*3,3

21)

Northing (Y)

Comparison of BM Grades and Composite Grades by Northing - Main Zone LG Au Uncut (g/t)

Resource Comps*3,321 BM Au Uncut (g/t) Comps Au Uncut (g/t)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

4,5

42

,050

4,5

42

,100

4,5

42

,150

4,5

42

,200

4,5

42

,250

4,5

42

,300

4,5

42

,350

Gra

de

Au

Cu

t (g

/t)

Vo

lum

e &

Co

mp

s (

*3,3

21)

Northing (Y)

Comparison of BM Grades and Composite Grades by Northing - Main Zone LG Au Cut (g/t)


0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

4,5

42

,050

4,5

42

,100

4,5

42

,150

4,5

42

,200

4,5

42

,250

4,5

42

,300

4,5

42

,350

Gra

de

Ag

(g

/t)

Vo

lum

e &

Co

mp

s (

*3,3

21)

Northing (Y)

Comparison of BM Grades and Composite Grades by Northing - Main Zone LG Ag (g/t)

Resource Comps*3,321 BM Ag (g/t) Comps Ag (g/t)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

4,5

42

,050

4,5

42

,100

4,5

42

,150

4,5

42

,200

4,5

42

,250

4,5

42

,300

4,5

42

,350

Gra

de

Cu

(%

)

Vo

lum

e &

Co

mp

s (

*3,3

21)

Northing (Y)

Comparison of BM Grades and Composite Grades by Northing - Main Zone LG Cu (%)

Resource Comps*3,321 BM Cu (%) Comps Cu (%)

0.0

3.0

6.0

9.0

12.0

15.0

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

4,5

42

,050

4,5

42

,100

4,5

42

,150

4,5

42

,200

4,5

42

,250

4,5

42

,300

4,5

42

,350

Gra

de

Fe

(%

)

Vo

lum

e &

Co

mp

s (

*3,3

21

Northing (Y)

Comparison of BM Grades and Composite Grades by Northing - Main Zone LG Fe (%)

Resource Comps*3,321 BM Fe (%) Comps Fe (%)

Model Validation – Main LG Zone (Elevation)

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

88

0

86

0

84

0

82

0

80

0

78

0

76

0

74

0

72

0

70

0

68

0

66

0

64

0

62

0

60

0

58

0

56

0

54

0

52

0

50

0

48

0

46

0

Gra

de

Au

Un

cu

t (g

/t)

Vo

lum

e &

Co

mp

s (

*3,3

21)

Elevation (RL)

Comparison of BM Grades and Composite Grades by Elevation - Main Zone LG Au Uncut (g/t)


0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

88

0

86

0

84

0

82

0

80

0

78

0

76

0

74

0

72

0

70

0

68

0

66

0

64

0

62

0

60

0

58

0

56

0

54

0

52

0

50

0

48

0

46

0

Gra

de

Au

Cu

t (g

/t)

Vo

lum

e &

Co

mp

s (

*3,3

21)

Elevation (RL)

Comparison of BM Grades and Composite Grades by Elevation - Main Zone LG Au Cut (g/t)


0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

88

0

86

0

84

0

82

0

80

0

78

0

76

0

74

0

72

0

70

0

68

0

66

0

64

0

62

0

60

0

58

0

56

0

54

0

52

0

50

0

48

0

46

0

Gra

de

Ag

(g

/t)

Vo

lum

e &

Co

mp

s (

*3,3

21)

Elevation (RL)

Comparison of BM Grades and Composite Grades by Elevation - Main Zone LG Ag (g/t)


0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

88

0

86

0

84

0

82

0

80

0

78

0

76

0

74

0

72

0

70

0

68

0

66

0

64

0

62

0

60

0

58

0

56

0

54

0

52

0

50

0

48

0

46

0

Gra

de

Cu

(%

)

Vo

lum

e &

Co

mp

s (

*3,3

21)

Elevation (RL)

Comparison of BM Grades and Composite Grades by Elevation - Main Zone LG Cu (%)


0.0

3.0

6.0

9.0

12.0

15.0

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

88

0

86

0

84

0

82

0

80

0

78

0

76

0

74

0

72

0

70

0

68

0

66

0

64

0

62

0

60

0

58

0

56

0

54

0

52

0

50

0

48

0

46

0

Gra

de

Fe

(%

)

Vo

lum

e &

Co

mp

s (

*3,3

21)

Elevation (RL)

Comparison of BM Grades and Composite Grades by Elevation - Main Zone LG Fe (%)


Model Validation – Main HG Zone (Northing)

0.0

1.5

3.0

4.5

6.0

7.5

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

4,5

42

,050

4,5

42

,100

4,5

42

,150

4,5

42

,200

4,5

42

,250

4,5

42

,300

4,5

42

,350

Gra

de

Au

Un

cu

t (g

/t)

Vo

lum

e &

Co

mp

s (

*3,6

60)

Northing (Y)

Comparison of BM Grades and Composite Grades by Northing - Main Zone HG Au Uncut (g/t)


0.0

1.5

3.0

4.5

6.0

7.5

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

4,5

42

,050

4,5

42

,100

4,5

42

,150

4,5

42

,200

4,5

42

,250

4,5

42

,300

4,5

42

,350

Gra

de

Au

Cu

t (g

/t)

Vo

lum

e &

Co

mp

s (

*3,6

60)

Northing (Y)

Comparison of BM Grades and Composite Grades by Northing - Main Zone HG Au Cut (g/t)


0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

4,5

42

,050

4,5

42

,100

4,5

42

,150

4,5

42

,200

4,5

42

,250

4,5

42

,300

4,5

42

,350

Gra

de

Ag

(g

/t)

Vo

lum

e &

Co

mp

s (

*3,6

60)

Northing (Y)

Comparison of BM Grades and Composite Grades by Northing - Main Zone HG Ag (g/t)


0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

4,5

42

,050

4,5

42

,100

4,5

42

,150

4,5

42

,200

4,5

42

,250

4,5

42

,300

4,5

42

,350

Gra

de

Cu

(%

)

Vo

lum

e &

Co

mp

s (

*3,6

60)

Northing (Y)

Comparison of BM Grades and Composite Grades by Northing - Main Zone HG Cu (%)


0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

4,5

42

,050

4,5

42

,100

4,5

42

,150

4,5

42

,200

4,5

42

,250

4,5

42

,300

4,5

42

,350

Gra

de

Fe

(%

)

Vo

lum

e &

Co

mp

s (

*3,6

60)

Northing (Y)

Comparison of BM Grades and Composite Grades by Northing - Main Zone HG Fe (%)


Model Validation – Main HG Zone (Elevation)

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

90

0

88

0

86

0

84

0

82

0

80

0

78

0

76

0

74

0

72

0

70

0

68

0

66

0

64

0

62

0

60

0

58

0

56

0

54

0

52

0

50

0

48

0

Gra

de

Au

Un

cu

t (g

/t)

Vo

lum

e &

Co

mp

s (

*3,6

60)

Elevation (RL)

Comparison of BM Grades and Composite Grades by Elevation - Main Zone HG Au Uncut (g/t)


0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

90

0

88

0

86

0

84

0

82

0

80

0

78

0

76

0

74

0

72

0

70

0

68

0

66

0

64

0

62

0

60

0

58

0

56

0

54

0

52

0

50

0

48

0

Gra

de

Au

Cu

t (g

/t)

Vo

lum

e &

Co

mp

s (

*3,6

60)

Elevation (RL)

Comparison of BM Grades and Composite Grades by Elevation - Main Zone HG Au Cut (g/t)


0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

90

0

88

0

86

0

84

0

82

0

80

0

78

0

76

0

74

0

72

0

70

0

68

0

66

0

64

0

62

0

60

0

58

0

56

0

54

0

52

0

50

0

48

0

Gra

de

Ag

(g

/t)

Vo

lum

e &

Co

mp

s (

*3,6

60)

Elevation (RL)

Comparison of BM Grades and Composite Grades by Elevation - Main Zone HG Ag (g/t)


0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

90

0

88

0

86

0

84

0

82

0

80

0

78

0

76

0

74

0

72

0

70

0

68

0

66

0

64

0

62

0

60

0

58

0

56

0

54

0

52

0

50

0

48

0

Gra

de

Cu

(%

)

Vo

lum

e &

Co

mp

s (

*3,6

60)

Elevation (RL)

Comparison of BM Grades and Composite Grades by Elevation - Main Zone HG Cu (%)


0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

90

0

88

0

86

0

84

0

82

0

80

0

78

0

76

0

74

0

72

0

70

0

68

0

66

0

64

0

62

0

60

0

58

0

56

0

54

0

52

0

50

0

48

0

Gra

de

Fe

(%

)

Vo

lum

e &

Co

mp

s (

*3,6

60)

Elevation (RL)

Comparison of BM Grades and Composite Grades by Elevation - Main Zone HG Fe (%)


Model Validation – Main UHG Zone (Northing)

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

4,5

42

,050

4,5

42

,100

4,5

42

,150

4,5

42

,200

4,5

42

,250

Gra

de

Au

Un

cu

t (g

/t)

Vo

lum

e &

Co

mp

s (

*2,4

92)

Northing (Y)

Comparison of BM Grades and Composite Grades by Northing - Main Zone UHG Au Uncut (g/t)


0.0

15.0

30.0

45.0

60.0

75.0

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

4,5

42

,050

4,5

42

,100

4,5

42

,150

4,5

42

,200

4,5

42

,250

Gra

de

Au

Cu

t (g

/t)

Vo

lum

e &

Co

mp

s (

*2,4

92)

Northing (Y)

Comparison of BM Grades and Composite Grades by Northing - Main Zone UHG Au Cut (g/t)


0.0

4.0

8.0

12.0

16.0

20.0

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

4,5

42

,050

4,5

42

,100

4,5

42

,150

4,5

42

,200

4,5

42

,250

Gra

de

Ag

(g

/t)

Vo

lum

e &

Co

mp

s (

*2,4

92)

Northing (Y)

Comparison of BM Grades and Composite Grades by Northing - Main Zone UHG Ag (g/t)


0.0

1.5

3.0

4.5

6.0

7.5

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

4,5

42

,050

4,5

42

,100

4,5

42

,150

4,5

42

,200

4,5

42

,250

Gra

de

Cu

(%

)

Vo

lum

e &

Co

mp

s (

*2,4

92)

Northing (Y)

Comparison of BM Grades and Composite Grades by Northing - Main Zone UHG Cu (%)


0.0

7.0

14.0

21.0

28.0

35.0

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

4,5

42

,050

4,5

42

,100

4,5

42

,150

4,5

42

,200

4,5

42

,250

Gra

de

Fe

(%

)

Vo

lum

e &

Co

mp

s (

*2,4

92)

Northing (Y)

Comparison of BM Grades and Composite Grades by Northing - Main Zone UHG Fe (%)


Model Validation – Main UHG Zone (Elevation)

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

88

0

86

0

84

0

82

0

80

0

78

0

76

0

74

0

72

0

70

0

68

0

66

0

64

0

62

0

60

0

58

0

56

0

54

0

52

0

50

0

48

0

Gra

de

Au

Un

cu

t (g

/t)

Vo

lum

e &

Co

mp

s (

*2,4

92)

Elevation (RL)

Comparison of BM Grades and Composite Grades by Elevation - Main Zone UHG Au Uncut (g/t)


0.0

15.0

30.0

45.0

60.0

75.0

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

88

0

86

0

84

0

82

0

80

0

78

0

76

0

74

0

72

0

70

0

68

0

66

0

64

0

62

0

60

0

58

0

56

0

54

0

52

0

50

0

48

0

Gra

de

Au

Cu

t (g

/t)

Vo

lum

e &

Co

mp

s (

*2,4

92)

Elevation (RL)

Comparison of BM Grades and Composite Grades by Elevation - Main Zone UHG Au Cut (g/t)


0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

88

0

86

0

84

0

82

0

80

0

78

0

76

0

74

0

72

0

70

0

68

0

66

0

64

0

62

0

60

0

58

0

56

0

54

0

52

0

50

0

48

0

Gra

de

Ag

(g

/t)

Vo

lum

e &

Co

mp

s (

*2,4

92)

Elevation (RL)

Comparison of BM Grades and Composite Grades by Elevation - Main Zone UHG Ag (g/t)


0.0

1.5

3.0

4.5

6.0

7.5

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

88

0

86

0

84

0

82

0

80

0

78

0

76

0

74

0

72

0

70

0

68

0

66

0

64

0

62

0

60

0

58

0

56

0

54

0

52

0

50

0

48

0

Gra

de

Cu

(%

)

Vo

lum

e &

Co

mp

s (

*2,4

92)

Elevation (RL)

Comparison of BM Grades and Composite Grades by Elevation - Main Zone UHG Cu (%)


0.0

7.0

14.0

21.0

28.0

35.0

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

88

0

86

0

84

0

82

0

80

0

78

0

76

0

74

0

72

0

70

0

68

0

66

0

64

0

62

0

60

0

58

0

56

0

54

0

52

0

50

0

48

0

Gra

de

Fe

(%

)

Vo

lum

e &

Co

mp

s (

*2,4

92)

Elevation (RL)

Comparison of BM Grades and Composite Grades by Elevation - Main Zone UHG Fe (%)


E. QAQC

Certified Standard Summary for 2014-2015 Drilling (Source, Lidya 2015b)

Au Standard(s) No. of

Samples

Calculated Values

Std Code Method Exp

Method Exp

Value Exp SD

Mean Au SD CV Mean Bias

G313-10 FAOG_AAS FA50_AAS 46.27 1.99 15 46.71 1.80 0.04 0.94%

G905-7 FAOG_AAS AR_AAS 3.89 0.30 7 3.80 0.14 0.04 -2.28%

G907-4 FA30_AAS FA50_AAS 3.84 0.15 34 3.73 0.09 0.02 -2.93%

G907-4 FAOG_AAS FA50_AAS 3.84 0.15 34 3.91 0.09 0.02 1.78%

G910-7 FAOG_AAS AR_AAS 0.50 0.04 48 0.48 0.02 0.04 -3.04%

G910-8 FA30_AAS FA50_AAS 0.63 0.04 29 0.61 0.01 0.02 -3.61%

G914-10 FAOG_AAS FA50_AAS 10.26 0.38 21 10.07 0.40 0.04 -1.81%

GBMS911-1 FAOG_AAS FA50_AAS 1.04 0.11 9 1.06 0.05 0.05 1.60%

Control Charts – Standards (Source, Lidya 2015b)

Control Charts – Blanks (Source, Lidya 2015b)

Laboratory Duplicate Analysis for 2014-2015 Drilling (Source, Lidya 2015b)

Cross Laboratory Checks for 2014-2015 Drilling (Scatter Plot Left, QQ Plot Right)

F. Statistical Analysis

Summary Statistics for 1m Lode Composites – Object 1 (Lower grade)


Samples 708 708 708 708 708 708

Minimum 0.02 0.50 0.00 2.22 0.00 0.00

Maximum 7.64 24.00 4.61 36.70 3.76 9.42

Mean 0.51 2.39 0.53 9.28 0.01 0.22


CV 1.15 1.03 1.11 0.43 11.36 4.42

Variance 0.34 6.00 0.34 15.69 0.02 0.93

Percentiles

10% 0.11 0.50 0.04 4.84 0.00 0.00

20% 0.16 0.55 0.10 6.30 0.00 0.01

30% 0.21 0.80 0.16 7.29 0.00 0.01

40% 0.28 1.20 0.23 8.07 0.00 0.01

50% 0.34 1.70 0.34 8.70 0.00 0.01

60% 0.43 2.06 0.45 9.56 0.00 0.02

70% 0.53 2.80 0.63 10.39 0.01 0.03

80% 0.73 3.50 0.88 11.52 0.01 0.05

90% 1.03 5.30 1.22 13.70 0.01 0.14

95% 1.42 7.00 1.63 15.85 0.01 0.85

97.50% 1.99 9.00 2.04 19.30 0.03 2.70

99% 2.61 10.50 2.90 23.75 0.09 5.49

Summary Statistics for 1m Lode Composites – Object 101 (High grade)


Samples 486 486 486 486 486 486

Minimum 0.16 0.50 0.01 1.76 0.00 0.00

Maximum 37.40 28.10 11.07 39.90 0.14 2.56

Mean 4.90 5.11 1.79 13.42 0.01 0.15


CV 1.11 0.81 0.79 0.55 1.64 2.25

Variance 29.71 17.12 1.98 55.18 0.00 0.11

Percentiles

10% 0.64 1.00 0.45 6.39 0.00 0.00

20% 1.08 1.80 0.83 7.84 0.00 0.01

30% 1.62 2.60 1.04 8.96 0.00 0.01

40% 2.18 3.40 1.24 10.30 0.00 0.01

50% 3.11 4.25 1.44 11.60 0.01 0.02

60% 4.04 5.00 1.70 12.83 0.01 0.03

70% 5.67 6.00 2.00 14.20 0.01 0.05

80% 7.71 7.90 2.53 17.50 0.01 0.14

90% 11.00 10.00 3.58 25.60 0.01 0.53

95% 14.55 12.11 4.40 31.90 0.02 0.82

97.50% 21.00 15.00 6.02 33.60 0.04 1.19

99% 29.90 23.90 6.77 34.80 0.08 1.68

Summary Statistics for 1m Lode Composites – Object 102 (Ultra-high grade)


Samples 166 166 166 166 166 166

Minimum 1.12 0.50 0.31 5.69 0.00 0.00

Maximum 517.06 34.60 12.60 45.90 0.06 0.24

Mean 34.46 11.61 3.81 24.82 0.01 0.04


CV 1.83 0.82 0.62 0.45 0.96 1.20

Variance 3961.62 89.74 5.56 124.12 0.00 0.00

Percentiles

10% 7.54 1.85 0.99 9.08 0.00 0.01

20% 8.99 3.20 1.55 11.50 0.00 0.01

30% 10.26 4.00 2.11 14.75 0.00 0.01

40% 13.54 5.10 2.69 21.10 0.01 0.02

50% 16.75 7.10 3.62 30.00 0.01 0.02

60% 20.40 11.70 4.32 32.10 0.01 0.03

70% 27.20 17.90 5.08 33.90 0.02 0.04

80% 40.32 22.10 5.76 35.20 0.02 0.07

90% 81.16 26.10 6.88 36.66 0.03 0.12

95% 96.40 27.40 7.78 37.84 0.04 0.15

97.50% 142.06 29.89 9.56 38.50 0.05 0.18

99% 444.69 33.00 10.05 39.40 0.06 0.23

Summary Statistics for 1m Lode Composites – Object 2


Samples 38 38 38 38 38 38

Minimum 0.12 0.50 0.01 3.00 0.00 0.00

Maximum 4.86 18.20 1.07 13.20 0.16 1.93

Mean 0.81 2.78 0.25 7.80 0.01 0.21


CV 1.30 1.26 1.02 0.26 2.12 2.35

Variance 1.11 12.25 0.07 4.00 0.00 0.24

Percentiles

10% 0.22 0.50 0.03 5.42 0.00 0.01

20% 0.30 0.60 0.04 6.46 0.00 0.01

30% 0.38 0.80 0.09 6.70 0.00 0.01

40% 0.41 1.10 0.14 7.06 0.00 0.01

50% 0.52 1.74 0.20 7.80 0.00 0.02

60% 0.57 2.20 0.21 8.36 0.01 0.03

70% 0.67 2.50 0.31 8.53 0.01 0.05

80% 0.72 3.90 0.37 9.18 0.01 0.11

90% 2.06 8.00 0.73 10.90 0.05 1.08

95% 4.86 10.20 0.83 12.15 0.11 1.77

97.50% 4.86 18.20 1.07 13.20 0.16 1.93

99% 4.86 18.20 1.07 13.20 0.16 1.93



Samples 62 62 62 62 62 62

Minimum 0.10 0.50 0.02 5.11 0.00 0.01

Maximum 24.20 10.50 2.03 16.90 2.20 4.88

Mean 1.47 2.50 0.32 7.56 0.08 1.06


CV 2.22 0.81 1.29 0.28 3.66 1.00

Variance 10.56 4.05 0.17 4.52 0.09 1.12

Percentiles

10% 0.24 0.90 0.04 5.60 0.00 0.11

20% 0.29 1.10 0.07 5.93 0.00 0.22

30% 0.40 1.40 0.08 6.22 0.00 0.28

40% 0.48 1.50 0.12 6.61 0.00 0.53

50% 0.60 1.80 0.16 7.01 0.00 0.73

60% 0.83 2.30 0.23 7.42 0.01 1.07

70% 0.94 2.90 0.35 8.31 0.01 1.34

80% 1.51 3.30 0.51 9.20 0.06 1.78

90% 2.42 4.50 0.68 10.05 0.17 2.39

95% 5.50 6.90 1.21 10.85 0.37 3.02

97.50% 6.83 9.90 1.73 12.45 0.90 4.15

99% 24.20 10.50 2.03 16.90 2.20 4.88



Samples 14 14 14 14 14 14

Minimum 0.06 1.30 0.12 5.42 0.01 0.01

Maximum 0.20 5.90 5.53 13.78 0.06 1.76

Mean 0.11 2.65 1.04 9.60 0.02 0.39


CV 0.43 0.58 1.35 0.28 0.89 1.56

Variance 0.00 2.37 1.94 7.03 0.00 0.38

Percentiles

10% 0.06 1.50 0.31 6.18 0.01 0.02

20% 0.07 1.55 0.35 7.18 0.01 0.02

30% 0.07 1.60 0.41 8.19 0.01 0.03

40% 0.09 1.70 0.42 8.26 0.01 0.04

50% 0.11 2.00 0.50 9.80 0.01 0.04

60% 0.12 2.20 0.57 9.89 0.01 0.04

70% 0.12 2.28 0.93 10.92 0.02 0.24

80% 0.14 4.56 1.52 12.60 0.02 1.29

90% 0.20 4.75 1.96 13.52 0.03 1.39

95% 0.20 5.90 5.53 13.78 0.06 1.76

97.50% 0.20 5.90 5.53 13.78 0.06 1.76

99% 0.20 5.90 5.53 13.78 0.06 1.76



Samples 12 12 12 12 12 12

Minimum 0.02 0.50 0.02 5.40 0.00 0.00

Maximum 9.91 0.50 3.07 14.00 0.01 0.01

Mean 2.27 0.50 0.41 7.67 0.00 0.01


CV 1.53 0.00 2.10 0.29 1.19 0.25

Variance 12.08 0.00 0.73 4.98 0.00 0.00

Percentiles

10% 0.04 0.50 0.03 6.17 0.00 0.00

20% 0.04 0.50 0.04 6.34 0.00 0.01

30% 0.05 0.50 0.05 6.51 0.00 0.01

40% 0.06 0.50 0.06 6.66 0.00 0.01

50% 0.17 0.50 0.13 6.98 0.00 0.01

60% 1.19 0.50 0.23 7.52 0.00 0.01

70% 2.91 0.50 0.28 8.34 0.00 0.01

80% 4.85 0.50 0.41 8.56 0.00 0.01

90% 7.94 0.50 0.46 8.62 0.00 0.01

95% 9.91 0.50 3.07 14.00 0.01 0.01

97.50% 9.91 0.50 3.07 14.00 0.01 0.01

99% 9.91 0.50 3.07 14.00 0.01 0.01

Statistical Plots – Log Histograms and Log Probability Plots (Object 1)

Correlation Matrix – Object 1


Au g/t 1.00

Ag g/t 0.26 1.00

Cu % 0.19 0.20 1.00

Fe % 0.09 0.19 0.24 1.00

Pb % -0.02 0.16 -0.02 -0.07 1.00

Zn % -0.05 0.16 -0.03 -0.15 0.41 1.00



Au g/t 1.00

Ag g/t 0.38 1.00

Cu % 0.30 0.48 1.00

Fe % 0.20 0.40 0.49 1.00

Pb % -0.01 0.10 -0.02 -0.03 1.00

Zn % 0.01 0.12 -0.05 -0.12 0.40 1.00



Au g/t 1.00

Ag g/t 0.17 1.00

Cu % 0.25 0.69 1.00

Fe % 0.16 0.62 0.66 1.00

Pb % -0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 1.00

Zn % -0.03 0.05 -0.06 -0.12 0.40 1.00



Au g/t 1.00

Ag g/t 0.17 1.00

Cu % 0.25 0.69 1.00

Fe % 0.17 0.61 0.66 1.00

Pb % -0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 1.00

Zn % -0.03 0.05 -0.06 -0.12 0.40 1.00



Au g/t 1.00

Ag g/t 0.17 1.00

Cu % 0.25 0.69 1.00

Fe % 0.17 0.62 0.66 1.00

Pb % -0.01 0.09 0.00 -0.02 1.00

Zn % -0.04 0.04 -0.08 -0.13 0.43 1.00



Au g/t 1.00

Ag g/t 0.17 1.00

Cu % 0.25 0.69 1.00

Fe % 0.17 0.62 0.66 1.00

Pb % -0.01 0.09 0.00 -0.02 1.00

Zn % -0.04 0.04 -0.08 -0.13 0.43 1.00



Au g/t 1.00

Ag g/t 0.17 1.00

Cu % 0.25 0.69 1.00

Fe % 0.17 0.62 0.66 1.00

Pb % -0.01 0.09 0.01 -0.02 1.00

Zn % -0.04 0.05 -0.08 -0.13 0.43 1.00

Scatter Plots – Object 1

G. Variograms

Variograms – Object 1 (Au)

Variograms – Object 1 (Cu)

Variograms – Object 1 (Fe)

Variograms – Object 101 (Au)

Variograms – Object 101 (Cu)

Variograms – Object 101 (Fe)

H. Model Interpolation Parameters

object element field min_sam max_sam maj_dis strike plunge dip semi minor c0 c1 a1 semi1 minor1 c2 a2 semi2 minor2 pass

1 au_uncut 1 10 30 50 187 -25 -84 1 2 0.08 0.69 38 1.1 1.9 0.23 80 1 1.6 1

2 au_uncut 1 10 30 50 187 -25 -84 1 2 0.08 0.69 38 1.1 1.9 0.23 80 1 1.6 1

3 au_uncut 1 10 30 50 187 -25 -84 1 2 0.08 0.69 38 1.1 1.9 0.23 80 1 1.6 1

101 au_uncut 1 10 30 50 185 -65 90 1 2 0.13 0.41 10 1 2 0.46 70 1 1.75 1

102 au_uncut 1 10 30 50 185 -65 90 1 2 0.13 0.41 10 1 2 0.46 70 1 1.75 1

1 au_cut 12 10 30 50 187 -25 -84 1 2 0.08 0.69 38 1.1 1.9 0.23 80 1 1.6 1

2 au_cut 12 10 30 50 187 -25 -84 1 2 0.08 0.69 38 1.1 1.9 0.23 80 1 1.6 1

3 au_cut 12 10 30 50 187 -25 -84 1 2 0.08 0.69 38 1.1 1.9 0.23 80 1 1.6 1

101 au_cut 12 10 30 50 185 -65 90 1 2 0.13 0.41 10 1 2 0.46 70 1 1.75 1

102 au_cut 12 10 30 50 185 -65 90 1 2 0.13 0.41 10 1 2 0.46 70 1 1.75 1

1 ag 2 10 30 50 187 -25 -84 1 2 0.08 0.69 38 1.1 1.9 0.23 80 1 1.6 1

2 ag 2 10 30 50 187 -25 -84 1 2 0.08 0.69 38 1.1 1.9 0.23 80 1 1.6 1

3 ag 2 10 30 50 187 -25 -84 1 2 0.08 0.69 38 1.1 1.9 0.23 80 1 1.6 1

101 ag 2 10 30 50 185 -65 90 1 2 0.13 0.41 10 1 2 0.46 70 1 1.75 1

102 ag 2 10 30 50 185 -65 90 1 2 0.13 0.41 10 1 2 0.46 70 1 1.75 1

1 cu 3 10 30 50 184 -29 78 1 2.5 0.18 0.49 60 1 4 0.33 70 1 2.3 1

2 cu 3 10 30 50 184 -29 78 1 2.5 0.18 0.49 60 1 4 0.33 70 1 2.3 1

3 cu 3 10 30 50 184 -29 78 1 2.5 0.18 0.49 60 1 4 0.33 70 1 2.3 1

101 cu 3 10 30 50 190 -65 90 1 2.3 0.2 0.38 31 1 3.1 0.38 90 1 2.25 1

102 cu 3 10 30 50 190 -65 90 1 2.3 0.2 0.38 31 1 3.1 0.38 90 1 2.25 1

1 fe 4 10 30 50 187 -35 84 1 3 0.05 0.37 70 1 4.7 0.58 120 1 3 1

2 fe 4 10 30 50 187 -35 84 1 3 0.05 0.37 70 1 4.7 0.58 120 1 3 1

3 fe 4 10 30 50 187 -35 84 1 3 0.05 0.37 70 1 4.7 0.58 120 1 3 1

101 fe 4 10 30 50 190 -65 90 1 2 0.05 0.37 10 1 1 0.29 75 1 2.1 1

102 fe 4 10 30 50 190 -65 90 1 2 0.05 0.37 10 1 1 0.29 75 1 2.1 1


1 au_uncut 1 6 30 50 187 -25 -84 1 2 0.08 0.69 38 1.1 1.9 0.23 80 1 1.6 2

2 au_uncut 1 6 30 50 187 -25 -84 1 2 0.08 0.69 38 1.1 1.9 0.23 80 1 1.6 2

3 au_uncut 1 6 30 50 187 -25 -84 1 2 0.08 0.69 38 1.1 1.9 0.23 80 1 1.6 2

101 au_uncut 1 6 30 50 185 -65 90 1 2 0.13 0.41 10 1 2 0.46 70 1 1.75 2

102 au_uncut 1 6 30 50 185 -65 90 1 2 0.13 0.41 10 1 2 0.46 70 1 1.75 2

1 au_cut 12 6 30 50 187 -25 -84 1 2 0.08 0.69 38 1.1 1.9 0.23 80 1 1.6 2

2 au_cut 12 6 30 50 187 -25 -84 1 2 0.08 0.69 38 1.1 1.9 0.23 80 1 1.6 2

3 au_cut 12 6 30 50 187 -25 -84 1 2 0.08 0.69 38 1.1 1.9 0.23 80 1 1.6 2

101 au_cut 12 6 30 50 185 -65 90 1 2 0.13 0.41 10 1 2 0.46 70 1 1.75 2

102 au_cut 12 6 30 50 185 -65 90 1 2 0.13 0.41 10 1 2 0.46 70 1 1.75 2

1 ag 2 6 30 50 187 -25 -84 1 2 0.08 0.69 38 1.1 1.9 0.23 80 1 1.6 2

2 ag 2 6 30 50 187 -25 -84 1 2 0.08 0.69 38 1.1 1.9 0.23 80 1 1.6 2

3 ag 2 6 30 50 187 -25 -84 1 2 0.08 0.69 38 1.1 1.9 0.23 80 1 1.6 2

101 ag 2 6 30 50 185 -65 90 1 2 0.13 0.41 10 1 2 0.46 70 1 1.75 2

102 ag 2 6 30 50 185 -65 90 1 2 0.13 0.41 10 1 2 0.46 70 1 1.75 2

1 cu 3 6 30 50 184 -29 78 1 2.5 0.18 0.49 60 1 4 0.33 70 1 2.3 2

2 cu 3 6 30 50 184 -29 78 1 2.5 0.18 0.49 60 1 4 0.33 70 1 2.3 2

3 cu 3 6 30 50 184 -29 78 1 2.5 0.18 0.49 60 1 4 0.33 70 1 2.3 2

101 cu 3 6 30 50 190 -65 90 1 2.3 0.2 0.38 31 1 3.1 0.38 90 1 2.25 2

102 cu 3 6 30 50 190 -65 90 1 2.3 0.2 0.38 31 1 3.1 0.38 90 1 2.25 2

1 fe 4 6 30 50 187 -35 84 1 3 0.05 0.37 70 1 4.7 0.58 120 1 3 2

2 fe 4 6 30 50 187 -35 84 1 3 0.05 0.37 70 1 4.7 0.58 120 1 3 2

3 fe 4 6 30 50 187 -35 84 1 3 0.05 0.37 70 1 4.7 0.58 120 1 3 2

101 fe 4 6 30 50 190 -65 90 1 2 0.05 0.37 10 1 1 0.29 75 1 2.1 2

102 fe 4 6 30 50 190 -65 90 1 2 0.05 0.37 10 1 1 0.29 75 1 2.1 2


1 au_uncut 1 2 30 150 187 -25 -84 1 2 0.08 0.69 38 1.1 1.9 0.23 80 1 1.6 3

2 au_uncut 1 2 30 150 187 -25 -84 1 2 0.08 0.69 38 1.1 1.9 0.23 80 1 1.6 3

3 au_uncut 1 2 30 150 187 -25 -84 1 2 0.08 0.69 38 1.1 1.9 0.23 80 1 1.6 3

101 au_uncut 1 2 30 150 185 -65 90 1 2 0.13 0.41 10 1 2 0.46 70 1 1.75 3

102 au_uncut 1 2 30 150 185 -65 90 1 2 0.13 0.41 10 1 2 0.46 70 1 1.75 3

1 au_cut 12 2 30 150 187 -25 -84 1 2 0.08 0.69 38 1.1 1.9 0.23 80 1 1.6 3

2 au_cut 12 2 30 150 187 -25 -84 1 2 0.08 0.69 38 1.1 1.9 0.23 80 1 1.6 3

3 au_cut 12 2 30 150 187 -25 -84 1 2 0.08 0.69 38 1.1 1.9 0.23 80 1 1.6 3

101 au_cut 12 2 30 150 185 -65 90 1 2 0.13 0.41 10 1 2 0.46 70 1 1.75 3

102 au_cut 12 2 30 150 185 -65 90 1 2 0.13 0.41 10 1 2 0.46 70 1 1.75 3

1 ag 2 2 30 150 187 -25 -84 1 2 0.08 0.69 38 1.1 1.9 0.23 80 1 1.6 3

2 ag 2 2 30 150 187 -25 -84 1 2 0.08 0.69 38 1.1 1.9 0.23 80 1 1.6 3

3 ag 2 2 30 150 187 -25 -84 1 2 0.08 0.69 38 1.1 1.9 0.23 80 1 1.6 3

101 ag 2 2 30 150 185 -65 90 1 2 0.13 0.41 10 1 2 0.46 70 1 1.75 3

102 ag 2 2 30 150 185 -65 90 1 2 0.13 0.41 10 1 2 0.46 70 1 1.75 3

1 cu 3 2 30 150 184 -29 78 1 2.5 0.18 0.49 60 1 4 0.33 70 1 2.3 3

2 cu 3 2 30 150 184 -29 78 1 2.5 0.18 0.49 60 1 4 0.33 70 1 2.3 3

3 cu 3 2 30 150 184 -29 78 1 2.5 0.18 0.49 60 1 4 0.33 70 1 2.3 3

101 cu 3 2 30 150 190 -65 90 1 2.3 0.2 0.38 31 1 3.1 0.38 90 1 2.25 3

102 cu 3 2 30 150 190 -65 90 1 2.3 0.2 0.38 31 1 3.1 0.38 90 1 2.25 3

1 fe 4 2 30 150 187 -35 84 1 3 0.05 0.37 70 1 4.7 0.58 120 1 3 3

2 fe 4 2 30 150 187 -35 84 1 3 0.05 0.37 70 1 4.7 0.58 120 1 3 3

3 fe 4 2 30 150 187 -35 84 1 3 0.05 0.37 70 1 4.7 0.58 120 1 3 3

101 fe 4 2 30 150 190 -65 90 1 2 0.05 0.37 10 1 1 0.29 75 1 2.1 3

102 fe 4 2 30 150 190 -65 90 1 2 0.05 0.37 10 1 1 0.29 75 1 2.1 3

I. List of Drill Holes

Hole ID East North RL RL Draped Depth Azi Dip

HTD-001 740,503 4,541,741 881.88 876.47 223 245 -60

HTD-002 740,603 4,542,143 857.07 850.80 286 222 -60

HTD-003 740,515 4,541,793 890.17 885.91 150 270 -60

HTD-004 740,610 4,542,260 872.72 866.93 185 90 -60

HTD-004A 740,611 4,542,260 872.72 866.87 33 90 -60

HTD-005 740,730 4,542,160 863.17 858.00 291 270 -60

HTD-006 740,653 4,542,369 893.88 888.89 215 105 -60

HTD-007 740,550 4,541,765 894.73 886.43 240 245 -60

HTD-007A 740,550 4,541,766 894.63 886.58 24 245 -60

HTD-008 740,582 4,542,298 878.81 872.62 273.8 90 -60

HTD-009 740,563 4,542,255 873.02 867.41 361 90 -60

HTD-010A 740,579 4,542,201 862.08 856.79 284 90 -60

HTD-011 740,776 4,542,099 866.72 861.25 450 270 -60

HTD-012A 740,775 4,542,099 866.72 861.16 360 270 -50

HTD-013 740,796 4,542,160 873.68 867.89 369 270 -60

HTD-014 740,693 4,542,144 868.22 863.07 250.3 270 -54

HTD-015A 740,495 4,542,205 855.15 848.91 375 90 -54

HTD-016 740,853 4,542,142 872.24 872.98 498.5 270 -59

HTD-017 740,722 4,542,246 873.53 873.21 261 270 -50

HTD-017A 740,724 4,542,245 873.82 873.42 75 270 -50

END

OF

REPORT

HOT MADEN GOLD-COPPER PROJECT Artvin Province, · PDF fileArtvin Province, Turkey Mineral...

Documents

Transcript of HOT MADEN GOLD-COPPER PROJECT Artvin Province, · PDF fileArtvin Province, Turkey Mineral...