Quarterly Activities Report - December 2013

·     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.

·  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.

·  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 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.

·  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.

·  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.

·  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.

· 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.

· Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties.

· Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation.

· 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.

· In reporting Exploration Results, weighting 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.

·     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').

· 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.

· 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.

· 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.

· 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 areas, provided this information is not commercially sensitive.

· 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.

· 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.

· 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 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 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 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

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

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

· 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.

· 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.

· 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.

· 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.

· 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.

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

· 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.