Announcement PDF Litchfield Minerals Limited · www.litchfieldminerals.com.au Page 1 of 18 ASX ANNOUNCEMENT 30 September 2026 Surface Copper Strengthens Exploration Targets Copper-bearing minerals at surface sharpen the focus on large Sybil EM conductors and the Illogwa Creek structural corridor Litchfield Minerals Limited (ASX: LMS) (“Litchfield” or “the Company”) reports an important step forward in its Harts Range Project, with September field reconnaissance identifying copper-bearing minerals at Sybil and sulphide-bearing mafic rocks near a priority electromagnetic (EM) target at Illogwa Creek. The observations strengthen the case for follow-up ground EM to test for copper-bearing sulphide systems below surface. The targets were identified through the Company’s review of historical airborne EM surveys and exploration records. At Sybil, visually identified chalcopyrite and nearby copper carbonate staining provide a clear focus around the large modelled P4 conductor. At Illogwa, the combination of sulphide-bearing mafic rocks, an untested conductor and an interpreted deep structural corridor provide a compelling target for the Company’s broader orthomagmatic copper- nickel exploration model. H I G H L I G H T S ▪ Copper-bearing minerals observed in the Sybil P4 target area, with visually identified chalcopyrite and nearby malachite staining. ▪ P4 is modelled at approximately 400m long and 200m wide, providing a sizeable, modelled conductor for ground EM follow-up. ▪ Sulphide-bearing mafic rocks near Illogwa anomaly 26, together with an interpreted deep structural corridor, define a priority copper-nickel exploration target. ▪ Ground EM is being organised across priority targets. Nineteen rock chip samples, together with a standard and a blank, have been sent to the laboratory, with assays expected in approximately three to four weeks. Visual mineral identifications are preliminary. They do not establish copper grade, mineralised continuity or economic significance, and are subject to laboratory confirmation. Cautionary statement: Visual estimates of mineral abundance should never be considered a proxy or substitute for laboratory analyses where concentrations or grades are the factor of principal economic interest. Visual estimates also potentially provide no information regarding impurities or deleterious physical properties relevant to valuations. The mineral descriptions in this announcement are visual field observations only. Samples have been submitted to the laboratory, and assay results are expected in approximately three to four weeks. Litchfield Minerals Limited · www.litchfieldminerals.com.au Page 2 of 18 Managing Director Matt Pustahya said: “Finding copper-bearing minerals at surface in these large, modelled EM conductors is an exciting step forward for Litchfield. At Sybil, we have visually identified chalcopyrite in the P4 target area and malachite nearby. Together, these observationsgive usa stronger geological basisto pursue the copper potential below surface and sharpen our next phase of exploration. Illogwa Creek is one of the areas we are most excited to advance. Our interpretation developed through BHP Xplor points to a deep structural corridor that may have provided a pathway for mantle-derived magmas. What makes this target compelling is the combination of that setting, sulphide-bearing mafic rocks and a priority EM conductor. That is a strong reason to test our wider copper-nickel model. We are eager to get ground EM across Illogwa and the priority Sybil targets. Our focus is to resolve the conductors, integrate the pending assays and turn these opportunities into well-defined drill targets. There is more work to do to establish what is driving the EM responses, and we now have a clear set of priorities to pursue.” Surface copper strengthens the case for testing large Sybil conductors Sybil lies within EL34245, approximately 33.6 kilometres southeast of Oonagalabi. Following the licence grant and the Company’s initial desktop review, fieldwork examined the geology around historical VTEM conductor areas and rock chip locations (Figures 1, 2 and 5). Mitre Geophysics conducted a preliminary assessment of the historical VTEM data, identifying seven modelled conductor plates, several of substantial scale. Their approximate dimensions, expressed as along-strike length by down-dip extent, are: • P5: 1,200m × 1,200m • P2: 800m × 300m • P1: 600m × 300m • P4: 400m × 200m • F1: 300m × 100m • P3: 100m × 50m • P6: 25m × 25m These preliminary modelled dimensions highlight the scale of the targets, with further exploration required to determine their geological source. The strongest field observations were recorded in the P4 area, where garnet-bearing amphibolite contains fine disseminated sulphides visually identified as chalcopyrite and pyrite (Figure 1). Sample SYB-04 was collected from quartz- and garnet-rich rock, with sulphides observed within and around garnet porphyroblasts (Table 1b). The preliminary P4 conductor plate is modelled at approximately 400m long and 200m wide, dipping at 20 degrees, providing a sizeable geophysical target for follow-up ground EM. These are interpreted conductor dimensions; the presence and dimensions of any mineralised body remain to be established. Litchfield Minerals Limited · www.litchfieldminerals.com.au Page 3 of 18 Northwest of P4, the field team identified malachite staining along a faulted contact between felsic gneiss and altered amphibolite. The host outcrop was traced for approximately 50m, with the copper- bearing zone locally 0.5–1m wide at surface. Continuous copper mineralisation over the mapped extent and true width have not been established. Samples SYB-07 and SYB-08 were collected from the altered unit and an adjacent vein, respectively (Table 1b and Figure 5; Appendix A). Surface copper-bearing minerals and the large modelled P4 conductor make this area a priority for ground EM. The survey will refine conductor geometryand helpassess whetherthe surface observations relate to conductive sources at depth. The source, grade and extent of any subsurface mineralisation remain unconfirmed. Figure 1. Sybil field photograph showing green copper carbonate staining. Disseminated sulphides were recorded during field inspection; their identity and abundance cannot be determined from this photograph. Mineral identifications are provisional and no grade is implied. Cautionary statement: Visual estimates of mineral abundance should never be considered a proxy or substitute for laboratory analyses where concentrations or grades are the factor of principal economic interest. Visual estimates also potentially provide no information regarding impurities or deleterious physical properties relevant to valuations. The mineral descriptions in this announcement are visual field observations only. Samples have been submitted to the laboratory, and assay results are expected in approximately three to four weeks. Litchfield Minerals Limited · www.litchfieldminerals.com.au Page 4 of 18 Figure 2. Sybil rock chip locations from the September 2026 sample register plotted over the preliminary modelled EM conductor plates on a regional gravity background, shown as a zoomed-out view of the Sybil conductor plate area (left) and a zoomed-in view of the P4 priority area (right). Coloured polygons are the conductor plates modelled by Mitre Geophysics from historical VTEM data; small grey squares are the historical Mithril Resources VTEM anomaly positions. Mineral identifications are visual field observations and hence are provisional and subject to laboratory confirmation; no assay results are reported. Illogwa Creek brings together a priority conductor and a deep structural target Reconnaissance near historical AEM anomaly 26 at Illogwa Creek identified sulphide-bearing mafic rocks within altered felsic gneiss along the Illogwa Creek Shear Zone (Figure 3). Pyrite, chalcopyrite and possible pyrrhotite were observed. The team traced a mafic intrusion for approximately 200m length, and noted foliated and less-deformed rocks with local iron oxidation, silica alteration and moderate to strong magnetism. Rock chip samples ILG-05 to ILG-08 cover the principal sulphide-bearing exposures (Table 1b; Appendix A). This mapped extent describes the geological zone and does not establish continuous mineralisation. Research and interpretation undertaken by Litchfield (in conjunction with the BHP Xplor program) suggest the Illogwa Creek Shear Zone may extend into the deep crust and potentially connect with mantle-derived magmatic pathways. Such a structure could have helped channel mafic magma into the crust,making thecorridoran attractive setting to investigate for orthomagmatic copper-nickel systems. The depth extent and mantle connection remain interpretations to be tested. Litchfield Minerals Limited · www.litchfieldminerals.com.au Page 5 of 18 Figure 3. Regional magnetotelluric section along seismic line 09GA-GA1 (after Vox Geophysics, 2026), showing the interpreted down-dip continuation of the Illogwa Creek Shear Zone towards C1, a conductive zone in the lowermost crust. The shear zone label and C1 callout are Litchfield annotations. Magnetotelluric models are non-unique, resolve crustal-scale features only, and do not demonstrate the presence, grade or economic significance of mineralisation. Orthomagmaticcopper-nickel systems form whenmantle-derivedmagma becomes sulphide-saturated, and a separate sulphide liquid collects copper, nickel and other metals. Accumulation of these sulphides can form mineralised deposits. Trace sulphides alone are common in mafic rocks; at Illogwa, the exploration opportunity comes from their occurrence near an untested EM conductor within the interpreted deep structural corridor (Figure 4). Together, these features provide a compelling basis for ground EM and further testing of the model. A magmatic origin for the observed sulphides has not yet been established. Potassic and epidote alteration was reported at localities extending up to approximately 1km from the surface expression of the conductor, with localised silica, sericite, chlorite and possible actinolite alteration around the mafic rocks. The alteration also leaves open a hydrothermal contribution or later overprinting. Follow-up ground EM and assessment of the samples will help test how the surface sulphides, host rocks and alteration relate to the EM response. Litchfield Minerals Limited · www.litchfieldminerals.com.au Page 6 of 18 Figure 4. Illogwa field exposures examined during reconnaissance around the priority EM target, where mafic rocks and alteration were mapped and sampled. These photographs illustrate outcrop context; mineral identifications rely on field inspection and remain provisional pending laboratory confirmation. Left: sample ILG-06; right: sample ILG-02. Visual mineral observations Table 1b (Appendix A) reports the visual mineral observations from the September 2026 surface rock chip sampling at Sybil and Illogwa, in line with ASX Guidance Note 8 (with sample locations shown in Figure 5). Observations are from outcrop and rock chips only; no drilling has been undertaken. Abundances are visual field estimates of the proportion of each mineral in the sampled rock. Laboratory assay results for the 19 rock chip samples sent for analysis are expected in approximately three to four weeks and will be reported when received. Full sample descriptions and coordinates are listed in the sample and observation register (Table 1a, Appendix A), and JORC Code (2012) Table 1 information is provided in Appendix B. Next steps Litchfield is organising follow-up ground EM surveys over Illogwa anomaly 26 and the priority Sybil targets. Nineteen rock chip samples, comprising 12 from Sybil and seven from Illogwa, have been sent to the laboratory together with a standard and a blank, with results expected in approximately three to four weeks. The Company will integrate assay results, surface mapping and refined conductor models to select potential drill targets. At Illogwa, a key objective is to test whether the surface sulphides relate to a larger conductive source below surface. Future drilling will depend on target definition, terrain and access planning, and heritage, environmental and regulatory requirements. Litchfield Minerals Limited · www.litchfieldminerals.com.au Page 7 of 18 AUTHORISATION This announcement has been authorised for release by the Board of Litchfield Minerals Limited. Matthew Pustahya Managing Director Matthew@litchfieldminerals.com.au ABOUT LITCHFIELD MINERALS Litchfield Minerals Limited (ASX: LMS) is a nimble, capital-efficient copper explorer in the Northern Territory, applying the disciplines used by major mining companies to discover and de-risk large-scale mineral systems. Our exploration strategy combines a Mineral Systems approach with structured decision gates, modern technology and rigorous capital allocation. Every exploration decision is guided by evidence, ensuring capital is deployed where it has the greatest potential to create value. By operating with the technical discipline, governance and decision- making processes expected by major mining companies, Litchfield is building high-quality exploration opportunities while positioning itself as a credible partner for future discovery. Follow us on: www.litchfieldminerals.com.au https://twitter.com/Litchfield_LMS https://www.linkedin.com/company/litchfield-minerals-limited/ COMPETENT PERSON STATEMENT The information in this announcement that relates to Exploration Results is based on, and fairly represents, information and supporting documentation compiled by Dr. Matthew McGloin (MGeol, PhD), a Competent Person who is a Member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (AusIMM) and a full-time employee of Litchfield Minerals Limited. Dr. McGloin has sufficient experience that is relevant to the style of mineralisation and types of deposits under consideration, and to the activity being undertaken, to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (the JORC Code). Dr McGloin consents to the inclusion in this announcement of the matters based on this information in the form and context in which it appears. With regard to the Company’s ASX Announcements referenced in the above Announcement, the Company is not aware of any new information or data that materially affects the information included in the Announcements. FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS This announcement may contain forward-looking statements that are subject to risks, uncertainties and other factors. Forward-looking statements include those that are predictive in nature, depend on or refer to future events or conditions, or include words such as may, will, expect, intend, plan, estimate, anticipate, believe, continue, target or similar expressions. Such statements are based on assumptions and judgements held by the company as at the date of this announcement and are not guarantees of future performance. Actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied. Litchfield Minerals Limited does not undertake to update any forward-looking Litchfield Minerals Limited · www.litchfieldminerals.com.au Page 8 of 18 statement, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law or the ASX Listing Rules. Reference: Litchfield Minerals Limited, New Harts Range Licence Unlocks Priority Sybil Copper Target, 21 August 2026. New observations: September 2026 field reconnaissance and sample register. Historical data: Northern Territory Geological Survey open-file reports CR2010- 0516 (Mithril Resources, 2010 Eastern Lizzie Creek VTEM survey), CR2011-0836 (Mithril Resources, 2011 Western Lizzie Creek VTEM survey), CR2012-0979 (Figure 5, VTEM anomaly numbering) and CR2011-0091 (Western Desert Resources, Appendix 2, Limbla RepTEM interpretation of the 2010 REPTEM survey, Illogwa). Geological context: USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5070–I, Occurrence Model for Magmatic Sulfide-Rich Nickel–Copper– Platinum-Group Element) Deposits Related to Mafic and Ultramafic Dike–Sill Complexes (2013), https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5070/i/. This reference describes the general deposit model and does not substantiate the site-specific Illogwa interpretation. Litchfield Minerals Limited · www.litchfieldminerals.com.au Page 9 of 18 Appendix A Sample and observation register and the September 2026 sample locations Coordinates are GDA94 / MGA Zone 53 (refer to Figure 5). “Lab” reproduces the register’s “Sent to lab” field. Descriptions summarise field observations, not assay results. Mineral identifications are provisional. Table 1a. Rock chip sample locations and field descriptions. ID Easting Northing Lab Field description SYB-01 510458 7418971 Yes Mica from historical trench mullock heap. SYB-02 510328 7418968 Yes Mafic rock, felsic gneiss and pegmatite; patchy strong epidote alteration. SYB-03 510487 7418859 Yes Fine-grained garnet–silica rock near pegmatite and mafic dyke. SYB-04 508364 7416798 Yes Quartz–garnet-rich mafic rock; visible disseminated chalcopyrite– pyrite. SYB-05 508336 7416761 Yes Garnet-bearing amphibolite; manganese staining. SYB-06 508397 7416777 No Layered garnet-bearing amphibolite; trace pyrite. SYB-07 508108 7416867 Yes Altered schist, minor malachite; locally 0.5–1m wide. SYB-08 508049 7416856 Yes Oxidised chalcedony breccia vein, approximately 0.3m wide. SYB-09 507716 7416467 Yes Oxidised garnet–quartz amphibolite; trace pyrite. SYB-10 507807 7416187 Yes Quartz-rich amphibolite, minor garnet; calcrete horizon. SYB-11 508563 7417157 Yes Garnet-altered quartzite; trace pyrite and possible chalcopyrite. SYB-12 506963 7416986 No Quartz–feldspar-rich amphibolite. SYB-13 506963 7416940 Yes Garnet-bearing quartzite near amphibolite contact. SYB-14 506570 7417040 Yes Garnet-bearing, iron-stained amphibolite. ILG-01 520700 7412923 No Quartz stockwork veining in Salthole Gneiss. ILG-02 521361 7413443 Yes Epidote-altered metagabbro and gneiss near quartz veins. ILG-03 521503 7413579 Yes Sheared quartz vein; epidote and tourmaline reported. ILG-04 521539 7413564 Yes Porphyritic gabbro with preserved cumulate texture. ILG-05 521610 7413772 Yes Siliceous, locally gossanous mafic; pyrite–chalcopyrite, possible pyrrhotite. ILG-06 521645 7413767 Yes Foliated mafic unit; trace pyrite and possible chalcopyrite. ILG-07 521720 7413754 Yes Iron-stained mafic; trace pyrite and possible chalcopyrite. ILG-08 521584 7413729 Yes Quartz-rich mafic to intermediate rock; veinlets, pyrite and possible chalcopyrite. Litchfield Minerals Limited · www.litchfieldminerals.com.au Page 10 of 18 Total: 22 recorded locations; 19 rock chip samples sent to the laboratory (12 Sybil, seven Illogwa), submitted with one standard (ILG-02Q) and one blank (SYB-03Q) for a total of 21 samples. Surface sampling is selective and does not establish representative grades or continuity. Table 1b. Rock chip samples with visual mineral observations, September 2026 rock chip sampling (GDA94 / MGA Zone 53). Samples with no visible sulphide or copper minerals are listed in Table 1a (Appendix A). Sample Easting Northing Nature of occurrence Minerals observed Estimated abundance (vol %) Sent to lab SYB-04 508364 7416798 Fine disseminated grains within and around garnet porphyroblasts in quartz- and garnet-rich mafic rock Chalcopyrite, pyrite Cpy <3%; py <2% Yes SYB-06 508397 7416777 Minor disseminated sulphide in layered garnet-bearing amphibolite Pyrite (trace) Py <1% No SYB-07 508108 7416867 Staining along a faulted contact in altered schist; zone locally 0.5–1m wide at surface Malachite (minor) Mal 3% Yes SYB-09 507716 7416467 Oxidised garnet-quartz amphibolite with trace pyrite Pyrite (trace) Py <1% Yes SYB-11 508563 7417157 Garnet-altered quartzite; disseminated in fractures Pyrite (trace); possible chalcopyrite Py <1%; cpy <0.1% Yes ILG-05 521610 7413772 Siliceous, locally gossanous mafic rock with lightly disseminated sulphides Pyrite, chalcopyrite; possible pyrrhotite Py <3%; cpy <2%; po <1% Yes ILG-06 521645 7413767 Foliated mafic unit with lightly disseminated sulphides Pyrite (trace); possible chalcopyrite Py <3%; cpy <1% Yes ILG-07 521720 7413754 Iron-stained mafic rock with lightly disseminated sulphides Pyrite (trace); possible chalcopyrite Py <3%; cpy <1% Yes ILG-08 521584 7413729 Quartz-rich mafic to intermediate rock with veinlets Pyrite; possible chalcopyrite Py <5%; cpy <1% Yes Abbreviations: cpy, chalcopyrite; py, pyrite; po, pyrrhotite; mal, malachite. “Trace” and “minor” reproduce the field register. Mineral identifications are visual and provisional; “possible” denotes identifications not confirmed in the field. Cautionary statement: Visual estimates of mineral abundance should never be considered a proxy or substitute for laboratory analyses where concentrations or grades are the factor of principal economic interest. Visual estimates also potentially provide no information regarding impurities or deleterious physical properties relevant to valuations. The mineral descriptions in this announcement are visual field observations only. Samples have been submitted to the laboratory, and assay results are expected in approximately three to four weeks. Litchfield Minerals Limited · www.litchfieldminerals.com.au Page 11 of 18 September 2026 sample locations Figure 5. Sample and observation locations plotted from the September 2026 register in GDA94 / MGA Zone 53 (metres). Number labels use the SYB prefix in the Sybil panel and ILG in the Illogwa panel. In these detail panels, filled markers indicate samples recorded as sent to the laboratory; open markers indicate locations not sent. The map shows recorded point locations only, with no inferred mineralisation between points. Tenement boundaries are reproduced from the Company GIS basemap; EM plate outlines are not shown. Hand held GPS locations taken. Litchfield Minerals Limited · www.litchfieldminerals.com.au Page 12 of 18 APPENDIX B JORC CODE TABLE 1 JORC Code, 2012 Edition Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data (Criteria in this section apply to all succeeding sections.) 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. September 2026 reconnaissance involved geological traverses, inspection of historical EM target areas and rock sampling. The register records 22 locations and 19 rock chip samples sent to a laboratory, submitted with one standard (ILG-02Q) and one blank (SYB-03Q) (21 samples in total). SYB-01 is from a historical mica- trench mullock heap; other records describe rock exposures. Rock chip samples were collected as grab samples from outcrop and subcrop, using a geological hammer to take fresh rock across the exposed lithology or mineralised zone. No subsampling or preparation was undertaken in the field; each sample was bagged, numbered and submitted to the laboratory as whole rock. All sample preparation will be completed by the laboratory in accordance with its standard procedures. The sample size is considered appropriate for the reconnaissance nature of the sampling. No field duplicates were collected, as the sampling is selective and not intended to be representative of grade. No assay results are reported in this announcement. 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). No drilling results are reported in this announcement. Litchfield Minerals Limited · www.litchfieldminerals.com.au Page 13 of 18 Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary 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. Not applicable. No drill samples are reported. 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. Qualitative lithology, alteration, visible minerals and selected structural observations are recorded in field notes and the location register. Mineral identifications are visual and provisional; quantitative mineralogical confirmation is not reported. Subsampling 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. The sample register identifies 19 rock chip samples sent to the laboratory, submitted with one standard (ILG-02Q) and one blank (SYB-03Q) for a total of 21 samples. Rock chip samples were collected as grab samples from outcrop and subcrop, using a geological hammer to take fresh rock across the exposed lithology or mineralised zone. No subsampling or preparation was undertaken in the field; each sample was bagged, numbered and submitted to the laboratory as whole rock. All sample preparation will be completed by the laboratory in accordance with its standard procedures. The sample size is considered appropriate for the reconnaissance nature of the sampling. No field duplicates were collected, as the sampling is selective and not intended to be representative of grade. No assay results are reported in this announcement. Litchfield Minerals Limited · www.litchfieldminerals.com.au Page 14 of 18 Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary 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. Samples have been submitted to Bureau Veritas for analysis. The analytical programme comprises multi- element analysis by Bureau Veritas methods MA100, MA101 and MA102, and gold by fire assay (method FA001). Detection limits will be reported with the results. Litchfield inserted one standard (ILG-02Q) and one blank (SYB-03Q) into the submission, in addition to Bureau Veritas’ internal laboratory quality control. No laboratory assays or quantitative portable XRF readings are reported in this announcement. Visual sulphide observations are not estimates of metal grade. Historical airborne EM data (Mithril Resources VTEM surveys, 2010 and 2011; Western Desert Resources REPTEM survey, 2010) were acquired and processed by previous explorers, with system parameters as reported in open-file reports CR2010- 0516, CR2011-0836 and CR2011-0091. Litchfield has not independently verified the acquisition or processing of these data. Historical EM responses provide targeting context only; no new ground EM survey result is reported. Verification of sampling and assaying • The verification of significant intersections by either independent or alternative company personnel. • The use of twinned holes. • Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data verification, data storage (physical and electronic) protocols. • Discuss any adjustment to assay data. No independent analytical verification of the visual mineral identifications is reported. Historical sample locations recorded as 60847 and 60849 were revisited without reproducing the reported mineralisation. Their source records, positioning and sample context require reconciliation. No assay adjustments have been made because no new assay data are reported. Location of data points • Accuracy and quality of