Ann: Mineral Resource Estimate Update, page-75

A vote ofconfidence of the previous resource estimate accuracy??

What about the recommendations by H&SC Consultants made in July2022 re: concerns relating to the previous Resource Estimate? Ismanagement going to act on these or remain silent and hope nobodynotices? This was a perfect opportunity to announce an audit wasunderway/complete. Sadly one is left to assume one way or the other...

H&SC Consultants recommend that a full database audit is completed for boththe 2009/2010/2016 and 2021/2022 drilling campaigns, that validation of thecalibration of the downhole geophysics needs to be completed on a hole by holebasis and that a review of the sampling procedures is completed, whichshould include implementing improvements to the QAQC program.

Despite thedeficiencies implied above and unavailable data as listed below,H&SC have managed to come up with a revised Resource Estimate,which now includes all data and concluded that there is nomaterial difference to the previous Resource Estimate, whichused default and estimated values. IMHO that's phenomenal, although notimpossible.

From the H&SC report page 13 - data flagged as being unavailable for theHIO drilling as supplied to H&SC is as follows:

• Gyro data was unavailable for 16 full holes and 3 part holes (default values were inserted to the database by H&SC)
• 11 holes have unavailable lithology logging
• 17 holes have unavailable DTR grades (supplemented by estimated values from downhole magnetic susceptibility)
• 34 holes have unavailable DTR concentrate analyses (supplemented by estimated values from DTR grades)
• 18 holes have unavailable downhole geophysics

So to get back to my point, should we now be moreconfident on the accuracy of the 'previous' Resource Estimate?.....and is itreasonable, in the interests of transparency, for shareholders and potentialfuture shareholders, to see the revised report that demonstrates 'nomaterial change' in the estimate?

DYOR AIMO