Maiden JORC Compliant Mineral Resource Estimate

·      Sampling was carried out using a mix of diamond and RC drillholes drilled under contract by Boart Longyear.  In total 2 x diamond and 24 x RC holes were drilled.

·      Holes were sampled and assayed at 5 foot intervals.

·      Sample preparation was carried out at American Assay Labs, Reno, USA with the majority of sample analysis being carried out at PANalytical, UK. Both laboratories hold ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation.

·      The vast majority of samples were analysed using Pressed Pellet X-Ray Fluorescence (PPXRF) spectrometry with a subset being subject to check analysis using Fused Bead X-Ray Fluorescence (FBXRF).

·      The 2 x diamond drillholes were drilled using a Boart Longyear LF70 track mounted rig, drilling at HQ diameter.

·      The first two RC holes were drilled using a Foremost Explorer 1500 rig with a 5 ¾" hammer bit (146mm).

·      The remaining RC drilling (22 holes) was carried out by Boart Longyear using a Foremost MPD 1500 tracked rig with a 5 ½ " centre return hammer

·      Drill core sample recovery was logged and recorded by field technicians and subsequently entered in to the drillhole database.

·      Core recovery as generally good and improved with depth.

·      Core and RC chips were logged into an Excel spreadsheet logging system recording lithology, structure and alteration.

·      Every metre of drilling at the MB project has been logged to the same criteria.

·      Core and RC chips were photographed as standard during the logging procedure.

·      Core is stored at American Assay Labs in Reno.

·      Core samples were sawn using a diamond core saw or split using a v-splitter with half core being sent for sample preparation.

·      RC samples were drilled wet and collected from a rig mounted rotary splitter.

·      Core and RC samples were crushed to 90% passing 10 mesh (2mm) before being passed through a Jones riffle splitter to provide a 250g subsample pulverized to 95% passing 150 mesh (105 micron) from which 20g was selected for assay.

·      96 field duplicate samples were taken at a rate of 1:20 from a random point within a set of 20 during the standard field sampling procedure.  Broad agreement was seen in the analysis of the field duplicate analysis results.

·      Samples were crushed and pulverized to produce a 250g subsample passing 105µm from which 20g was selected for assay.

·      For the majority of samples CaF₂ grade was determined using Pressed Pellet X-Ray Fluorescence (PPXRF).

·      Assay data quality was determined through submission of standards, blanks and duplicates.

·      For the first phase of drilling (2 x diamond and 2 x RC holes) QAQC protocol consisted of 3 blanks, 13 laboratory duplicates and 16 standards per 100 samples.

·      For the second phase of drilling (22 RC holes) QAQC protocol consisted of 2 x pulp duplicates, 2 x blanks, 6 x standards with 2 each of F=8.99% (AMIS250), F=3.00% (diluted AMIS250) and F=15.80% (diluted SARM15).

·      In addition field duplicates and preparation duplicates were also analysed as part of the QAQC procedures.

·      In addition 5% of samples were analysed using Fused Bead XRF.

·      Field duplicates performed well demonstrating consistent distribution of mineralisation across samples.

·      Preparation duplicates performed well demonstrating appropriateness of preparation procedure.

·      Pulp duplicates performed well demonstrating precision of the assaying method.

·      Analysis of between method duplicates indicated a bias towards PPXRF analysis returning higher grades when compared to FBXRF pointing to a potential inaccuracy in the assaying method.

·      Blank samples performed well indicating little contamination.

·      The between laboratory duplicates performed satisfactorily demonstrating no bias between laboratories.

·      The AMIS 250 standard performed well using PPXRF.

·      Diluted standards performed well using FBXRF but over reported using PPXRF this is likely due to particle size effects or mineralogical effects as a result of the dilution.

·      23 of 26 holes were surveyed downhole using a multi-shot Reflex MEMS Gyro tool at intervals of 50 feet.

·      Two holes were not surveyed downhole as they were plugged before the arrival of the survey technician.  One hole was not surveyed downhole after rods had to be blasted free after sticking during drilling.

·      Downhole surveys were checked mathematically and visually for excessive deviation.   No problems were identified.

·      Drillhole collars were surveyed in co-ordinate system NAD83 Zone 11 using a Differential Global Positioning System DGPS. One hole was not surveyed with DGPS due to heavy snow cover.  This hole was one of the twinned pairs and the collar co-ordinates for the twinned DC hole were used for its location during Mineral Resource Estimation.

·      Topographic data was downloaded from the USGS National Map Website and forms part of the NED dataset (National Elevation Database).  Data was provided in raster format and converted to XYZ ASCII by taking the midpoint of the cells.  Accuracy of data is stated at 1/3 arc second.

·      Drilling of 16 holes in the south area of the MB project has been completed on a grid at 80-120m spacing with 3 roughly N-S profiles with 4-6 holes on each with one set of twin holes.

·      Drilling of six holes in the central area of the MB project has been completed on a spacing of 300-320m with one set of twin holes.

·      Drilling was roughly vertical with little downhole variation in inclination and samples were taken at 5ft intervals.

·      The majority of the drilling (that covering the southern part of the project) has been completed on a grid at approximately 80m centres.

·      Drilling was carried out roughly vertically from surface.

·      There is no expected bias due to the orientation of the drilling with respect to the orientation of the mineralisation.

·      Samples were transported directly from site to the preparation laboratory by the supervising geologist.

·      Samples are logged in to a laboratory information management system.

·      Whilst in storage samples were kept in a secure area.

·      Chain of custody between laboratories is managed by Tertiary.

·      Internal audits are conducted by all of the analytical laboratories used.

·      The project database is held in Excel spreadsheets.

·      Data held includes; collar location, downhole surveys, assay information, duplicate sample, standards and blank sample results and geological logging.

·      Geological logging was initially completed on paper but a standard logging template was subsequently set up and used in excel format.

·      Validation of the database was carried out during import of the data in to CAE Mining Studio 3 for production of the Mineral Resource Estimate, no major issues were found.

·      The Competent Person visited site between 11^th and 12^th March 2014.  The site visit included a general walkover of the project area, a field inspection of regional geology, inspecting drillhole markers and a visit to the sample preparation laboratory to view drill core and RC samples.

·      The confidence in the geological formation is considered reasonable.

·      The geological setting is thought to be a skarn type deposit with fluorine mineralisation developed in a series of Ordovician marine sediments, primarily limestone of the Pogonip Group with some developed in the Copenhagen formation in the overlying Eureka Quartzite, a calcareous unit possibly formed as the result of the formation of dissolution cavities.

·      Garnet alteration has been logged in holes in the west of the central zone of drilling usually associated with higher temperature alteration and possibly indicating proximity to the source of the fluorspar mineralisation assumed to be a Cretaceous age granite.

·      Geological logging has been carried out from drill core and RC samples.

·      Geological logging was used to define sub-domains within the overall model.

·      The Mineral Resource defined by the 2013 Tertiary drilling is split in to two areas.  The southern area is approximately 430m east-west and 600m north to south.  The central area is approximately 750m east-west and 550m north-south.

·      Mineralisation is currently defined to approximately 130-150m below current surface levels

·      Mineralisation is open in all directions from the limit of the Mineral Resource model.

·      Inverse power distance was used for estimation of CaF₂% using CAE Mining Studio 3 software.

·      Domains: 2 domains were created, a southern zone and a central zone defined by separate areas of drilling.

·      Grade capping:  No grade capping was applied as no outlier values were found after assessment of the assay database.

·      Composites:  5 foot composites were created using lithological wireframes as a control.

·      Variography:  No robust directional variograms were calculated for either zone.  A relatively robust omni-directional variogram was calculated for the southern zone.

·      Estimation: Estimation was carried out using inverse distance (squared) as the primary method.  Ordinary Kriging and Nearest Neighbour estimates were carried out for validation purposes.

·      Maximum extrapolation distance: Up to 120m from nearest 2013 drillhole based on knowledge of geological continuity from historical drilling.

·      A block size of 40m (X) x 40m (Y) x 10m (Z) was used in this model.  This compares to an average drillhole spacing of 80m x 80m in the southern part of the deposit and an assumed bench height of 10m.  Estimation was carried out in to parent cells only.

·      No previous mining has taken place at site and so no reconciliation study was possible.

·      No assumptions were made regarding the recovery of by-products.

·      The block model was verified by comparing drillhole assays with modelled values visually and statistically by zone.  Grade profile plots were also constructed to compare modelled grades and input composite grades.

·      Tonnage is estimated on a dry basis using a bulk in-situ density.  No moisture content has been measured.

·      The Mineral Resource is restricted to all material falling within an NPV Scheduler pit shell, as described below, and above 8% CaF₂.

·      The project is deemed to be appropriate to being mined by standard open pit operations.

·      Reported Mineral Resources were limited by an optimised open pit shell created using appropriate technical and economic parameters.  These economic parameters are not reported here due to their sensitive commercial nature.

·      No metallurgical test work is available from the recent drilling by Tertiary.  Samples have been selected for this analysis but results are not yet available.  During the creation of an optimized open pit shell for limiting the reporting of Mineral Resources a processing recovery figure of 80% was used based on publicly available reports from Fluorspar operations worldwide.

·      No environmental studies have been conducted to determine impact of mining operations.

·      It is assumed that the area of the MB project will provide sufficient space for waste and process residue.

·      Tertiary submitted 27 samples from the 2 core drillholes for density measurement based on the standard Archimedes' principle.

·      Samples were a mixture of Eureka Quartzite and Pogonip Formation.

·      Density was assigned to the block model using average values for each major lithology.  Density for overburden was assumed.

·      Classification was based on sample density and confidence in the geological and grade continuity.

·      A portion of the southern area was classified as indicated.  The deposit was classified as Indicated where the sample spacing was approximately 80m x 80m and at least 3 complete north-south exploration profiles had been completed.

·      All of the central area was classified as Inferred.

·      The Mineral Resource estimate reflects the Competent Person's views of the MB Deposit.

·      WAI is not aware of any audits or reviews of this or any previous Mineral Resource estimates.

·      The relative accuracy and confidence in the Mineral Resource estimate is reflected in the reporting of the Mineral Resource as set out in the JORC Code (2012)

·      It is not deemed appropriate at this stage to conduct a geostatistical study to quantify the relative accuracy of the resource.

·      The statement relates to global estimates of tonnes and grade.

·      No production data is available for the MB project as it has not previously been mined and hence no comparison of production data is possible.