·  Target A1 is within the Mushima North Project, held under large-scale exploration licence 27068-HQ-LEL and is approximately 350km2.

·  The licence was granted on 24 November 2020 for an initial 4 year period and was recently renewed for an additional 3 year period on 24 November 2024.

·  The licence is held by Copernicus Minerals Ltd, a Zambian company held 90% by Tertiary Minerals (Zambia) Ltd (a 96% controlled subsidiary of Tertiary Minerals Plc) and10% by Mwashia Resources Ltd, the local Zambian partner.

·  The licence is in good standing.

·  Geological mapping is primarily of a reconnaissance nature and undertaken by RCM in the 1970s.

·  Several phases of regional soil sampling has been undertaken that covers the licence area, including:

·  Regional soil sampling survey (Cu, Pb, Zn, Co, Ni, Fe, Ag, As, Au) undertaken by Zamanglo Prospecting Limited on a 100 by 1,000m grid, with some infill sampling on 500m (N-S lines) for a total of approximately 3,000 samples

·      Detailed sampling on a 50 by 400m grid (NW-SE orientation) over the Mukundushi target area and with analysis by Mobile Metal Ion (MMI) by ZamAnglo Prospecting Ltd, 1990s, and

·      Regional 500 by 500m off-set grid (E-W lines) with samples analysed by portable X-Ray Fluorescence and undertaken by FQM in 2019.

·  Geophysical Surveys included: Airborne magnetic-radiometric survey by African Minerals Ltd, 1990s; Airborne SPECTREM electromagnetic, magnetic and radiometric survey by ZamAnglo Prospecting Ltd, 1990s; Airborne Falcon gravity gradient & magnetic surveys, BHP Billiton, late 2000s, and Airbourne VTEM- magnetic survey (FQM, 2010s).

·  Drilling is limited to two isolated boreholes drilling the 1970s by RCM. Drill hole RKN800 (End of hole: 155m) and MF306 (End of hole: 464m)

· The licence is underlain by early Palaeozoic metasediments (sandstones, shales, carbonate rocks) most likely of the Nguba or Kundelungu Groups (Katanga Supergroup). These rocks were subject to regional metamorphism and deformation during the Lufilian Orogeny and intruded by the Musondweji granite, part of the wider Pan-African-aged, syn- to post-tectonic Hook Granite intrusive complex. Wide-spread ferruginous alteration (magnetite-heamatite) is present in the conglomerates and ironstones that outcrop around the granite margin. At Target A1, the predominant lithology is a massive, haematitic and carbonaceous silty-sandy volcanoclastic.

·  Where visible mineralisation is observed at Target A1, copper mineralisation is in the form of the secondary copper minerals malachite and chrysocolla, and cuprite. Native copper, chalcocite and chalcopyrite are also observed. Silver mineralisation is so far only observed as native silver and zinc mineralisation is observed as sphalerite.

·  There are several styles of mineralization observed in the region, including sedimentary-hosted copper-silver, polymetallic massive sulphide, and Iron-Oxide-Copper-Gold mineralisation. For example, the Project lies 20km to the east of the Kalengwa copper mine (historic, non-compliant resource of approximately 4Mt @ 5.2% Cu and 40-80 g/t Ag), one of the highest-grade copper deposits ever to be mined in Zambia.

·    Drillhole data for the project in the WGS84, UTM Zone 35S Co-ordinate system is as follows:

·    Specific Drillhole intercepts are not reported as part of this Exploration Target disclosure and so aspects pertaining to the reporting of data aggregation methods for the reporting of exploration results are not considered to be relevant here.

·    Top cutting of higher outlying grades was applied as part of the exploration target calculation process to avoid unrepresentative bias associated with outliers. Top cuts were defined through statistical analysis and the following values were applied to all values above these figures in the process of calculating the exploration target:

o  Ag: 116ppm

o  Cu: 0.8%

o  Zn: 1%

·    The mineralisation reported as an exploration target contains potentially economic values for Ag, Cu and Zn, with Ag being the most likely economic element and as such the target has been reported as an Ag equivalent (AgEq) value in order to incorporate the Cu and Zn values. Given the early-stage nature of the project no metallurgical testwork is available to act as an appropriate modifying factor to use in the calculation and so the calculation is based on metal values only agreed between Tertiary Minerals and Bara Consulting considered reasonable assumptions based on recent commodity price performance. The metal value assumptions used are:

o  Ag: US$75/oz

o  Cu: US$ 5.8/lb

o  Zn: US$ 1.45/lb

·      These values were utilised with the following assumptions:

o  Unit Conversions:

§ 1% Cu or Zn = ~22.046 lb per tonne

§ 1 oz Ag = 31.1035 g

o  Copper (Cu) Conversion:

§ Value per 1% Cu = 5.8 USD/lb × 22.046 lb ≈ US$127.67

§ Equivalent to 127.67 ÷ 2.64 ≈ 48.3 g/t AgEq

o  Zinc (Zn) Conversion:

§ Value per 1% Zn = 1.45 USD/lb × 22.046 lb ≈ US$31.99

§ Equivalent to 31.99 ÷ 2.64 ≈ 12.1 g/t AgEq

o  Silver (Ag) Conversion:

§ Value per 1 g Ag = 75 USD/oz ÷ 31.1035 ≈ US$2.41

·      The resulting AgEq calculation used therefore is as follows:

AgEq ppm = Ag ppm + (48.38 x Cu%) + (12.1 x Zn %)

·    The mineralisation is interpreted as a tabular flat lying body 500 x 300m long and wide and up to 75m thick.

·    As such the intercept lengths (1m samples) are comfortably of significant resolution to accurately interpret the mineralisation.

·    Drillhole interval lengths are not reported as part of this disclosure and as such there is no need to clarify between downhole intervals and true width.

·    Plans and cross-sections are included in the body of the News Release and include:

Figure 2. Drill cross section 8506925N (location of Figure 1) showing the extent of the Exploration Target and AgEq intersections. See notes to Table 1 for further information.

Figure 3. Drill cross section 8502725N (location of Figure 1) showing the extent of the Exploration Target and AgEq intersections. See notes to Table 1 for further information.

Figure 4. Long section (location of Figure 1) showing the extent of the Exploration Target and AgEq intersections. See notes to Table 1 for further information.

·    Exploration results are not being reported as part of this disclosure.

·    Target A1 is defined by soil sampling as a large copper-in-soil anomaly (3.1km by 1.7km; >80ppm Cu) with copper values up to 302ppm (pXRF) associated with a 1.7km by 0.5km zinc (>85ppm Zn)- and coincidental 1.3km by 0.3km silver-in-soil anomaly (>1ppm Ag).

·    A small ground-based magnetic survey was conducted over Target A1, to identify potential structures and lineaments that may be associated with the mineralisation but the results were not found to provide any meaningful contribution to the generation of the exploration target.

·    No other material exploration data has been collected at the project.

·    Based on the increased understanding of the mineralised system at A1 as a result of defining the exploration target the following work programmes are considered as logical next steps for the development of the A1 target:

o  Infill drilling of the modelled mineralisation with RC drilling on a c. 100x50m grid to provide better definition of the mineralisation and provide a more robust dataset to allow for the reporting of a maiden Mineral Resource

o  Testing of the deep intersect of higher grade mineralisation (13m at 77 g/t Ag, 1.46% Cu and 0.23%Zn from 84m) in 25TMNRC-043 (See RNS dated 04/02/2026) to assess if it represents a vector for the primary source of what is interpreted to be the secondary mineralisation that forms the current target. This may be through targeted diamond or deeper RC drilling.

o  Testing along strike and depth extensions of the oxide zone to assess potential continuation of the mineralisation and possibility for increases tonnes.

o  Testing of a potential secondary adjacent 'lookalike' Cu in soil target to the immediate SW that has not been effectively tested to date due to poor penetration by AC drilling in 2024 in the area. This would be by RC drilling to ensure the target horizon is effectively tested.

·    Figure 5. Location map of Target A1 showing soil sample results for copper and zinc, the collar locations of drilling, and the location of the Exploration Target. See notes to Table 1 for further information.

·    Given the early stage of the project, Tertiary Minerals are utilising Microsoft Excel to manage their drillhole database, which while at risk of potential errors is managed by a dedicated database/GIS manager who ensures the efficacy of the dataset.

·    Bara Consulting cross referenced 38% of the assay data against original assay certificates and found no discrepancies.

·    Due to the fact that this disclosure is not in relation to a Mineral Resource Estimate and is instead an Exploration Target, a site visit was not deemed necessary for the Bara CP for the level of reporting of such an early-stage project.

·    Tertiary Minerals Managing Director Richard Belcher (BSc (Hons), MSc, PhD, CGeol FGS, EurGeol) visited site during Phase 2 drilling activities and reviewed the logging and sampling procedures and that they were in accordance with the Standard Operating Procedures in place and found no material issues. Dr Belcher is considered a competent person under the JORC (2012) code, but is by nature of his role, not independent of the company.

·    The current interpretation is relatively simplistic and represents a flat lying secondary enrichment zone of potentially supergene formation. Although drill sections are relatively broad (100-200m), reasonable geological continuity was observed both along strike as well as in cross section where drill spacing was tighter (50-100m).

·    As such, while the geological interpretation requires suitable caveats as a result of the currently available data, it is considered to be a fair reflection of the mineralisation present with a reasonable degree of confidence.

·    The interpretation has been defined based on AC and RC drillhole assay intervals. Given the homogeneity of lithological, alteration and oxidation data these parameters did not provide meaningful contributions to defining mineralisation.

·    There are no current alternative interpretations of the mineralisation.

·    The lack of geological variation in logging meant that geology provided little use in the interpretation.

·    The mineralisation is widest to the north and based on the current interpretation does not extend in this direction, this is also where grades are highest in deeper drilling and so it is interpreted that this may represent a 'feeder zone' of primary mineralisation located at depth in this area. This is supported by the gradual reduction in tenor in both width and grade to the south where the mineralisation is observed to 'pinch out' in long section. As such the current interpretation is that remobilisation of Ag, Cu and Zn has occurred by groundwater movement from the northern portion of the deposit to the south, with secondary mineralisation being concentrated closer to the primary source and reducing with distance. However, it should be caveated that current drill spacing is broad and this is considered a working hypothesis based on available data rather than a defined mineralised system.

·    Mineralisation is currently defined as present over 675m north to south and is up to 400m wide in the east west orientation but pinching down to 70 wide at its northerly and southerly extents. However, it should be noted that the current broad spacing of drilling mean the true extents of mineralisation require additional exploration to define.

·    Mineralisation is up to 90m in the vertical dimension towards its northern extent but averages 50m thickness before pinching down to m scale at its southern extent.

·    Several smaller meter scale tabular horizons of a similar orientation are interpreted to be present but do not contribute meaningful tonnages compared to the main domain.

·    It should be made clear that this disclosure is in relation to an Exploration Target only and in no way does this relate to mineralisation that could be considered appropriate to be considered as a Mineral Resource. However, in the interests of transparent disclosure and given similar approaches and techniques were utilised then additional disclosure is provided herein.

·    The Exploration Target was informed by utilising a simplistic grade interpolation of the domains defined from the available drill data to serve as a basis for a tonnage and grade range to be defined.

·    Given the limited sample data available, estimates were undertaken by Nearest Neighbour (NN) and Inverse Distance Squared (ID2) for Ag, Cu and Zn, using a basic search ellipse informed by average drillhole spacing in the XY dimension and sample width in the Z dimension (50 x 50 x 2m).

·    The estimation was undertaken by 3 passes, with the search ellipse being increase by a factor of 2 for the second pass and 4 for the third pass, as such the maximum possible interpolated grade distance is 200m.

·    Statistical analysis defined top cap grade limits for Ag (116ppm), Cu (0.8%) and Zn (1%) with values above these being assigned the capped grade. Estimates were undertaken for both capped and uncapped sample data for comparison.

·    Samples were flagged by domain and only samples within a domain were used for grade interpolation.

·    Interpolation was performed utilising Datamine Studio RM software.

·    No prior estimates exist or mine production records to compare to.

·    The mineralisation consists of Ag, Cu and Zn. Given the lack of any metallurgical testwork no weighting by recovery was undertaken, i.e. all by products are currently considered to be completely recoverable.

·    No deleterious elements have been identified, and estimation was only undertaken for Ag, Cu and Zn.

·    Block model cells were aligned with estimation parameters with a parent block size of 50 x 50 x 2m (X, Y, Z). The limited extent of the Z dimension was chosen based on the consistent sample interval of 1m in drill data, the grade variability observed in the Z dimension and to acknowledge the thin flat lying outlying lenses present. Interpolation was only made into parent cells, but sub cells were used to ensure appropriate volumetric representation of the domains. Sub cells were 4x smaller than parent cells (12.5 x 12.5 x 0.5m) and checks illustrated that 98% of the wireframe volumes were replicated in the block model.

·    No assumptions were made into SMU's.

·    Ag, Cu and Zn show a good correlation statistically, and were assumed to be controlled by the same secondary distribution controls on mineralisation.

·    The modelled mineralisation wireframes were used to constrain the estimation.

·    Capped and uncapped values were used to inform the selection of exploration target grade ranges, however capped values were chosen as a more appropriate and conservative basis for this.

·    The final interpolated block model was checked visually for each element against sample data and NN and ID2 estimates were also compared alongside capped and uncapped estimates for both methods to assess for any potential discrepancies.

·    Swath plots were generated at 50m intervals for the X, Y and Z dimensions for cut sample and model grades for Ag, Cu and Zn. The swath plots were at a fairly coarse resolution for sample data given the limited available data but showed a good correlation between sample and model grades, with Zn and Cu not illustrating any bias. Ag values had good correlation but a potential high bias in the model over sample grades.

·    All tonnages were estimated on a dry tonnage basis.

·    A cut off grade of 25ppm AgEq was utilised in determining the basis of a reasonable grade range appropriate for modelling the mineralisation based on statistical analysis of the raw sample data.

·    The A1 target is very early stage and so limited assumptions related to mining methods factored into the estimation process. However, it is hypothesized that as a large homogeneous body close to surface that likely extraction would be via Bulk open pit mining methods, which the interpolation approach would be considered appropriate for.

·    Given the early-stage nature of the project and lack of any metallurgical data, no metallurgical assumptions have been factored into the estimation process. However, it is considered plausible that given the elemental assemblage and oxide nature of the material that processing via heap leach may be feasible.

·    However, consideration on possible variation in metallurgical recoveries did form part of the factors used to determine the AgEq grade range applied to the exploration target.

·    Given the early-stage nature of the project no environmental considerations were factored into the exploration target. The area is not known to have any specific environmental considerations to be aware of and is sparsely populated with a historic mine (currently under redevelopment) approximately 20km to the west. Zambia is an established mining jurisdiction with a transparent process for environmental requirements for the development of mining projects.

·    Bulk density was assigned based on 195 laboratory pycnometry measurements undertaken at ALS laboratory, Johannesburg (South Africa) utilising the OA-GRA08c method.

·    Correlation matrix analysis was undertaken for density results against Ag, Cu and Zn grades alongside logged hardness, weathering, oxidation and alteration of the samples and no relationships were established.

·    Statistical analysis identified 4 outliers that were removed from the average density value of 2.86 g/cm3.

·    It is noted that while accurate at determination of density of a sample, the method is likely to have a high bias as a result of measuring particles rather than whole rock and cannot account for the natural porosity of a sample,

·    As such this dataset was used primarily to determine the potential density heterogeneity of the deposit and relationship to any geological or mineralisation variables, should they need to be accounted for. Given no relationships were identified, the data was seen to support the application of a flat density across the mineralisation.

·    Given the likely high bias of the pycnometry data and the average value being higher than would be expected for the nature of the oxidised host lithology at A1, a more conservative approach was taken in determining the final tonnage range of the exploration target and a value of 2.5 g/cm3 used to help inform the likely lower tonnage range based on publicly available data ranges of similar lithologies.

·    This disclosure is in relation to an Exploration Target only and as such no classification of material has been undertaken, In accordance with JORC (2012) guidelines an eExploration Target should be presented as a range of tonnes and a range of grade (or quality) and not be portrayed as an estimate of Mineral Resources or Ore Reserves.

·    Bara Consulting conduct an internal peer review process that did not identify any areas for improvement for the approach to the Exploration Target.

·    Review has also been undertaken by Tertiary Minerals Geological personnel.

·    No independent reviews have been undertaken.

·    This disclosure is in relation to an exploration target and as such should be considered in this context and that given it is based on an early stage and limited sample dataset the relative accuracy and confidence should be acknowledged as relatively low.

·    In alignment with JORC (2012) guidance the Exploration Target is presented as a range of tonnes and a range of grade and is not to be portrayed as an estimate of Mineral Resources or Ore Reserves.

·    Exploration Targets are conceptual in nature, and there has been insufficient exploration to define a Mineral Resource. It is uncertain if further exploration will result in the determination of a Mineral Resource.