ASX RELEASE

22 JANUARY 2014

ZIRCON RICH HEAVY MINERAL SAND MINERALISATION CONFIRMED

EXCELLENT POTENTIAL FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERIES

IN CAPE YORK PENINSULA, FAR NORTH QUEENSLAND

Recently received analysis for all 36 auger holes drilled (average depth 3.7m) on T16 prospect discovered in late 2013 recorded significant heavy mineral (HM) mineralisation.

Average of 1.7% HM (total HM) based on 134 samples (total 152 one metre (m) samples collected)

HM assemblage analysis on over 80% of the total samples recovered (composited on a per hole basis with intervals >0.7%HM) confirmed a weighted average of 1.43% HM (after screening) ranging from 0.47% to 3.01% HM over an average composited interval thickness of 3.5 m.(see Table 1 and 3).

The Zircon-rich HM assemblage averaged 32.6% Zircon, 5.9% Rutile and 10.7% other Titanium minerals (Ilmenite, Anatase, Leucoxene) as a proportion of the total valuable HM (VHM) content from 35 drill hole composites.

HM analysis realised weighted average composite grade of 0.45% Zircon (ranging from 0.18 to 0.87% Zircon).

Valuable Heavy Mineral (VHM) (Zircon, Rutile, other Titanium (Ti) Minerals) comprise 49% of the total HM, remaining HM comprise mostly of iron oxide and aluminosilicate sands (see Table 1).

Of the 36 holes drilled, 24 holes ended with samples recording over 1% HM which suggests deeper mineralisation yet to be tested.

T16 HM mineralisation is within fine quartz sand with generally low slimes (average content <10% -38µm clay size fraction). With removal of the slimes and oversize (>1mm also <10% average content) the average HM% is approximately 1.4% (termed “Feed” HM grade)

Only a small portion of the total T16 prospect area has to date been drilled.

T16 is only one of many targets along the Company’s 300 km of sandy coastal belt of western Cape York, suggesting significant potential for additional HM mineralisation discoveries.

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS ON FIRST DRILLING AT METALLICA’S NEW T16 DISCOVERY AT

WESTERN CAPE YORK, FAR NORTH QUEENSLAND

Metallica Minerals Ltd (Metallica) is pleased to announce it has recently received both the heavy mineral (HM) and

HM assemblage analysis from first drilling of Target 16 (T16) within the Company’s zircon-rich heavy mineral sand

(HMS) mineralisation discovery in late 2013, on the western side of northern Cape York Peninsula, Queensland.

The discovery was made during Metallica’s maiden regional reconnaissance drilling program on EPM 15371 late last

year on one of its 15 tenements (Figure 1) held 100% by Metallica through its wholly-owned subsidiary company,

Oresome Australia Pty Ltd (Oresome). Refer to ASX Release dated 26 November 2013.

The near coastal site is approximately 160 kilometres (km) north of Metallica’s Urquhart Point zircon-rutile HMS

project located near Weipa (Figure 1). First pass auger drilling on T16 was aimed at defining the surface

mineralisation identified previously by Metallica from a helicopter reconnaissance surface sample which recorded

(from laboratory analysis) 2.9% HM, comprising 54% zircon and 35% titanium minerals.

This initial T16 drill program consisted of 36 shallow auger holes drilled to an average depth of approximately 3.7

metres (m) and a maximum depth of six metres covering an approximate 1.8 km long by 0.8 km wide area along the

south-eastern edge of a large regional Exploration Target (*) area called T16 (Figure 2 and photo below). A cross

section through the central drill traverse on T16 is shown in Figure 3 and a longitudinal cross section is shown in

Figure 4. T16 is a low relief vegetated area with a length of approximately 14 km in a north-south orientation and

approximately 800m wide, situated approximately three kilometres inland from the shoreline (Refer photograph

below).

The drilling and sampling supervision and the estimation of the HMS content of each sample was conducted by

experienced mineral exploration geologist, Mr Brett Duck. The HM mineralisation encountered to date is at or close to

surface with an average thickness of approximately 3.5 m (maximum depth drilled was 6m) and an average estimated

in-situ HM content of approximately 1.7% HM (based on arithmetic mean of 134 samples).

The T16 drill program was constrained to 36 holes out of an originally planned 200 drill hole schedule, when heavy

rain set in hampering operations in a remote location that only had limited and rudimentary access. It was therefore

prudently decided to cut short the program. As a result, six widely spaced reconnaissance drill holes (C 37 – C 42)

were drilled on the access track outside the T16 target area on leaving the project site. In all but one of these holes

(C 37), low grade to trace HM mineralisation was recorded (see Table 2).

A total of 152 samples were submitted to the R.J Robbins laboratory in Brisbane for HM grade analysis (Table 2). A

subset of these samples (124) representing 35 holes were selected for HM assemblage analysis based on location

and down-hole grade continuity. The samples were composited for each hole to obtain a breakdown of VHM (zircon

and titanium minerals- rutile, Ilmenite, anatase, leucoxene) and other heavy minerals consisting mostly of iron oxide

and aluminosilicate mineral sands, see Table 3. Figure 5 shows an interpretation of the zircon grade derived from a

grain count of the HM during the assemblage analysis for each composited hole. Table 1 is a summary of the results

obtained from the mineral analysis.

Table 1:- Summary of the T16 HM Assemblage Analysis of Composited Samples of 35 drill holes

No. of

Samples

HM

(%)

Feed

Composite Sample Proportional HM Mineralogy

Zircon grade in HMS

(%) Feed Zircon

(%)

Rutile

(%)

Ilmenite

(%)

Leucoxene

(%)

Anatase

(%)

Al

Silicates

(%)

Other HM (mostly

iron sands) (%)

124 1.43 32.6 5.9 4.3 4.2 2.2 15.4 35.4 0.45

The full results of the HM and mineral assemblage analysis are shown in Table 3. (The pie graph below graphically

shows the HM proportions).

Managing Director, Mr Andrew Gillies:

“The T16 recently received mineral sand analyses results, for both the HM content and the zircon rich heavy

mineral assemblage, are a very positive outcome from our initial drill work on this large target area.”

“The results provide high confidence on the potential for further discoveries across Metallica‟s nearly 300km

length of predominantly sandy, near coastal tenements on western Cape York, particularly given the general lack

of systematic heavy mineral sands exploration to date in the region. As far as Metallica is aware there has been

no other exploration done in the T16 target area by any other explorer.

“While the extent of mineralisation is yet to be defined, there is little doubt there is scope to considerably

increase the extent of T16‟s mineralisation.”

”From this first pass exploration drill program recording zircon rich HM grades with in-situ zircon grades >0.25%

and HM >1.2% are comparable to grades of existing Australian HMS operations and other projects being

proposed for development.”

“T16 is our first regional exploration target to be drill tested within Metallica‟s regional tenement portfolio and we

have at least 10 other priority regional targets in our Cape York holdings.

“Given our high grade zircon-rutile HMS deposit at Urquhart Point, 160 km south of T16 and the new T16 results,

it is fair to say the region is highly prospective for mineral sands, particularly zircon but also rutile and other

titanium minerals.”

*Exploration Target statement: It needs to be emphasised that the exploration results being reported on above are based on

preliminary drill hole analyses of the extent of the heavy mineral sand mineralisation recorded from the initial 36 shallow

exploration holes and therefore the estimation of the heavy mineral (HM) content or grade and extent or tonnage of the

mineralisation within the target area is still conceptual in nature and therefore is insufficient information for the estimation of a

Heavy Mineral Sand (HMS) Resource. Hence it is uncertain if further exploration will be sufficient to convert this Exploration

Target‟s mineralisation to a Resource or if the mineralisation identified from the initial drilling will significantly extend further within

the Exploration Target area (i.e. T16 Target). See attached Table 1 (JORC Code, 2012 Edition Section 1 Sampling Techniques

and Data and Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results.

Photo: Augur drilling on the T16 target area (November 2013)

Queensland Government Draft Cape York Regional Plan

On 20 November 2013 the Queensland Government released for consultation the latest draft of the Cape York

Regional Plan (CYRP). Under the draft plan, which is open for consultation until March 2014, the T16 target is

included in areas under which mining activities may be significantly restricted. Metallica is still yet to fully understand

the influence and effect on any possible future mineral project development plans of the draft CYRP. Further

assessment will be undertaken and we will update the market in due course on how this draft CYRP may have any

effect on the T16 target area (and the majority of other exploration tenements held by Oresome Australia Pty Ltd).

However, in light of this highly significant discovery and subsequent confirmation of zircon rich HMS, Metallica is

liaising with the Queensland Government and is planning to lodge a formal submission on the CYRP during the

consultation period.

The Company hopes to resume exploration drilling activities on T16 in April 2014, after the end of the pending wet

season and subject to the outcomes of the draft CYRP.

For more information please contact:- Andrew Gillies, Managing Director Metallica Minerals Ltd Phone: +61 07 3249 3000 Email: admin@metallicaminerals.com.au

Competent Persons Statement

The Technical information contained in this report has been compiled and/or supervised by Mr Andrew Gillies B.Sci (Geology) M.AusIMM (Managing Director of Metallica Minerals Ltd) who is a Competent Person who is a Member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (M.AusIMM). Mr Gillies has relevant experience in the mineralisation, exploration results and targets being reported on to qualify as Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves. Mr Gillies consents to the inclusion of this information in the form and context in which it appears in this release. The information in this report that relates to Exploration Results and observed mineralisation is based on information compiled by Brett Duck (a geologist of 42 years experience), and a Competent Person who is a Fellow of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and a contract consultant to Metallica Minerals Ltd. Mr Duck has sufficient experience which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity being undertaken to qualify as Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves. Mr Duck consents to the inclusion of this information in the form and context in which it appears in this release/report. See attached Table 1 (JORC Code, 2012 Edition Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data and Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results.

Photo: Aerial view over the middle of the T16 target area looking south toward the relatively small 1.8 km by 0.8 km

area drilled along the southeast edge of the T16 target.

Drilled Area

Figure 1: Metallica’s Cape York HMS project Tenements & Location T16 prospect

Table 2: - T16 Drill Hole Coded % HM Results for all 152 Samples

T16 Assay Results (%HM) by RJR

Sample Number % HM Sample Number % HM Sample Number % HM Sample Number % HM

C1/1 0.2 C13/1 1.0 C23/1 0.9 C32/1 0.8

C1/2 0.2 C13/2 1.9 C23/2 1.7 C32/2 1.1

C1/3 1.1 C13/3 2.8 C23/3 1.2 C32/3 1.1

C2/1 0.3 C14/1 0.9 C23/4 1.7 C32/4 0.9

C2/2 1.0 C14/2 0.9 C24/1 0.8 C33/1 1.0

C2/3 2.3 C14/3 5.6 C24/2 0.7 C33/2 1.0

C2/4 0.5 C15/1 1.5 C24/3 0.8 C33/3 0.8

C3/1 1.5 C15/2 1.0 C25/1 1.1 C34/1 1.4

C3/2 0.9 C15/3 7.5 C25/2 1.4 C34/2 0.9

C3/3 1.9 C15/4 1.0 C25/3 2.1 C34/3 1.8

C3/4 0.2 C16/1 0.6 C25/4 1.4 C34/4 3.0

C4/1 0.9 C16/2 1.0 C26/1 2.6 C34/5 6.4

C4/2 0.5 C16/3 1.7 C26/2 1.0 C35/1 2.1

C4/3 0.9 C16/4 0.8 C26/3 2.6 C35/2 2.2

C5/1 0.8 C17/1 1.2 C26/4 3.0 C35/3 1.0

C5/2 1.0 C17/2 1.8 C26/5 2.1 C35/4 0.9

C5/3 0.9 C17/3 3.6 C27/1 1.7 C36/1 1.5

C6/1 0.7 C17/4 1.1 C27/2 0.7 C36/2 1.3

C6/2 0.6 C18/1 1.4 C27/3 1.7 C36/3 1.7

C6/3 0.8 C18/2 1.0 C27/4 1.9 C36/4 1.0

C7/1 0.4 C18/3 3.7 C27/5 0.9 C36/5 3.7

C7/2 0.8 C18/4 2.7 C27/6 0.9 C37/1 0.6

C7/3 3.9 C19/1 1.0 C28/1 1.1 C37/2 1.1

C8/1 0.5 C19/2 1.2 C28/2 1.8 C37/3 1.3

C8/2 1.5 C19/3 5.8 C28/3 2.2 C38/1 0.8

C8/3 7.0 C19/4 0.8 C28/4 1.8 C38/2 0.6

C9/1 1.0 C19/5 0.7 C29/1 2.2 C38/3 0.5

C9/2 1.7 C20/1 2.8 C29/2 1.3 C39/1 0.4

C9/3 1.1 C20/2 0.9 C29/3 2.2 C39/2 0.5

C10/1 1.4 C20/3 9.1 C29/4 1.0 C39/3 0.4

C10/2 2.1 C20/4 4.7 C30/1 2.1 C40/1 0.2

C10/3 3.5 C21/1 1.7 C30/2 1.3 C40/2 0.2

C11/1 0.8 C21/2 1.2 C30/3 5.4 C40/3 0.2

C11/2 0.8 C21/3 6.9 C30/4 3.0 C41/1 0.4

C11/3 1.4 C22/1 1.0 C31/1 1.2 C41/2 0.2

C11/4 1.2 C22/2 0.3 C31/2 1.2 C41/3 0.2

C12/1 1.2 C22/3 2.3 C31/3 1.0 C42/1 0.2

C12/2 0.7 C42/2 0.2

C12/3 1.6 C42/3 0.2

Key:

<0.7 % HM

Notes:

0.7 - 0.99% HM

Sample Number = Hole No/Sample in sequence (e.g. 2 = 1m to 2m depth)

1.0 - 1.49% HM

Raw HM% therefore before screening for slimes (-38 micron) and oversize (>1mm)

1.5 - 2.99% HM

>3%HM

Table 3: - T16 Drill Hole Composite samples - HM and Mineral Assemblage Analysis Results

Hole From (m)

To (m)

No. Samples

Composite sample HM

(%) feed

Composite Sample Proportional HM Mineralogy Zircon grade in HMS (%)

feed

Zircon (%)

Rutile (%)

Ilmenite (%)

Leucoxene (%)

Anatase (%)

Al Silicates (%)

Other HM (mostly iron oxides) (%)

C 01 0 3 3 0.47 61.0 10.0 1.5 3.0 1.5 10.5 12.5 0.29

C 02 1 3 2 1.39 48.0 10.5 1.0 3.5 2.0 7.5 27.5 0.67

C 03 0 3 3 1.26 42.0 3.0 9.0 3.0 3.5 12.0 27.5 0.53

C 04 0 3 0.67 Not selected for Mineral Assemblage Analysis

C 05 0 3 3 0.81 31.5 7.0 2.5 1.5 3.5 11.5 42.5 0.25

C 06 0 3 0.56 Not selected for Mineral Assemblage Analysis

C 07 1 3 2 1.57 14.5 3.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 9.0 69.0 0.23

C 08 1 3 2 2.81 6.5 2.0 0.0 1.5 2.0 8.5 79.5 0.18

C 09 0 3 3 1.07 26.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 1.5 8.0 54.5 0.28

C 10 0 3 3 1.64 16.0 4.5 2.0 3.0 2.5 14.5 57.5 0.26

C 11 0 4 4 0.86 38.5 1.0 8.0 4.5 2.0 9.5 36.5 0.33

C 12 0 3 3 1.07 38.0 8.5 8.5 7.5 3.0 6.5 28.0 0.41

C 13 0 3 3 1.36 25.0 5.0 2.0 5.0 1.5 12.5 49.0 0.34

C 14 0 3 3 1.48 20.5 6.0 2.0 4.0 2.5 11.0 54.0 0.30

C 15 0 4 4 1.59 28.5 7.0 4.5 4.0 1.0 14.5 40.5 0.45

C 16 1 4 3 0.80 26.5 5.0 8.0 4.5 1.0 18.5 36.5 0.21

C 17 0 4 4 1.74 40.0 6.5 3.5 5.0 2.0 9.0 34.0 0.70

C 18 0 4 4 1.71 42.5 7.5 2.0 4.5 2.0 15.0 26.5 0.73

C 19 0 5 5 1.88 31.0 5.5 2.5 3.0 1.5 20.0 36.5 0.58

C 20 0 4 4 3.01 29.0 7.5 3.0 3.0 0.5 11.5 45.5 0.87

C 21 0 3 3 2.54 28.5 3.0 1.5 3.5 1.0 12.0 50.5 0.72

C 22 0 3 3 0.92 21.0 7.5 3.0 1.0 2.5 26.0 39.0 0.19

C 23 0 4 4 1.25 25.5 3.5 1.0 4.0 2.0 20.0 44.0 0.32

C 24 0 3 3 0.73 24.5 4.5 3.0 4.0 2.5 16.0 45.5 0.18

C 25 0 4 4 1.31 35.0 6.5 4.0 5.5 0.5 18.0 30.5 0.46

C 26 0 5 5 1.95 29.5 7.0 5.0 6.5 4.5 16.0 31.5 0.57

C 27 0 6 6 1.05 30.5 4.0 6.5 5.5 2.5 16.5 34.5 0.32

C 28 0 4 4 1.37 48.0 8.5 12.5 3.5 2.5 14.5 10.5 0.66

C 29 0 4 4 1.79 33.0 7.5 7.0 5.5 1.5 22.0 23.5 0.59

C 30 0 4 4 2.05 32.0 4.0 3.0 5.5 4.5 19.5 31.5 0.66

C 31 0 3 3 1.05 39.5 6.0 5.0 4.5 3.0 14.0 28.0 0.41

C 32 0 4 4 0.83 35.0 8.5 7.5 5.0 3.0 26.5 14.5 0.29

C 33 0 3 3 0.87 49.0 8.5 6.0 7.0 4.0 12.5 13.0 0.43

C 34 0 5 5 1.89 31.0 5.5 3.5 7.0 2.5 26.0 24.5 0.59

C 35 0 4 4 1.13 37.5 4.0 5.5 4.5 2.5 13.5 32.5 0.42

C 36 0 5 5 1.32 35.5 6.0 3.5 3.0 1.0 14.5 36.5 0.47

C 37 1 3 2 0.96 20.0 3.5 4.5 1.0 1.5 22.0 47.5 0.19

Total/Average 124 1.43 32.6 5.9 4.3 4.2 2.2 15.4 35.4 0.45

C 38 0 3 0.52

Holes drilled on Access Track on retreat from rain interrupted programme. Low grade therefore not analysed for mineral assemblage.

C 39 0 3 0.35

C 40 0 3 0.19

C 41 0 3 0.24

C 42 0 3 0.16

Weighted averages apply.

Figure 2: Drillhole Locations Interpreted HM% Mineralisation

Figure 3: Cross Section (W-E) Interpreted HM% Mineralisation

Figure 4: Cross Section (S-N) Interpreted HM% Mineralisation

Figure 5: Interpreted %Zircon Mineralisation following Mineral Assemblage Analysis

JORC CODE , 2012 EDI TI ON – TABLE 1 REPORT TEMPL A TE

Sec t io n 1 S a m p l i n g T e c h n i q u e s a n d D a t a

(Criteria in this section apply to all succeeding sections.)

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary

Sampling

techniques

Nature and quality of sampling (e.g. 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 (e.g. „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 (e.g. submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed information.

Auger drill samples were taken at every 1 metre (m) interval and extracted by spinning the augers to the depth required and then pulling the rods out to catch the sample on the auger flights.

To maintain representivity, upper level materials caught on the outside of the auger sample were brushed off by hand. A bucket was placed under the auger and the selected interval scraped into the bucket for bagging. Sampling of dry and loose material near surface, especially in the first metre, was done by rotating the auger until the sample appeared at surface and then the material was removed into a bag. Sampling at depth was as described above.

All materials recovered from the auger (approximately 80% of the material recovered from the hole for each metre) were collected into a labeled calico bag which was placed in a white polywoven sack for dispatch to the laboratory.

A small representative sub-sample (approx. 100grams) was selected and hand-panned in a white panning dish to produce a tail of concentrated heavy mineral sand (if any contained within sample).The presence or not of heavy minerals was identified for approximate composition and total percentage estimation.

Drilling

techniques

Drill type (e.g. core, reverse circulation, open-hole hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc) and details (e.g. 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).

Drill type was by auger (approximately 90mm diameter), drilled in and pulled out. No samples were taken below the water table.

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

Weights of material varied depending on moisture content (dry to moist or wet). Weights were not measured and accurate recoveries are not determined due to the reconnaissance nature of the intended program.

Every attempt was made to maximize recovery for each drilled meter by taking each sample off the auger when pulled from the hole.

It is considered that bias did not occur due to preferential loss of material. Certain highly concentrated layers may not have been adequately

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary

fine/coarse material. sampled although from the 152 samples logged and panned, there were no concentrated layers observed.

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.

The sampled one metre intervals were logged in detail and where considered relevant internal boundaries were noted. The level of detail required for this assessment was considered more than adequate for this reconnaissance exploration drilling program.

Logging included visual estimates of heavy mineral (HM) concentration including estimation of total HM content as well as an estimation of zircon and other HM components.

A total of 152 samples representing each metre of drilling were logged and panned.

Sub-

sampling

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 maximize 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 samples represented soil samples taken off spiral augers.

The samples were taken off the augers at the natural moisture content.

The samples were extracted off the auger adopting a method that is appropriate for mineral sands for every metre drilled. The sample extraction was carried out by a geologist and Competent Person.

Measures to avoid sample contamination and make sure sample representivity occurs were top priority.

No field duplication of samples was conducted due to reconnaissance nature of this program.

The sample sizes from the field are appropriate being in excess of 2 kg each. Grain size of the HM was consistently of the order of 100 micron.

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 (e.g. standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (i.e. lack of bias) and precision have been established.

The samples were dispatched to and received by Robbins Metallurgical Pty Ltd. laboratory in Brisbane in the appropriate way for mineral sands. The samples were prepared for assay through the standard method of sorting, drying, and splitting down to 500 gram (g) sizes and residue retained. The samples were de-slimed, screened to discard the oversize (>1mm) and weighed and finally split to 100 g fractions for HM determination.

No geophysical tools have been used in analysis because it was not considered necessary for the intended outcome of this sampling program. HM determination was carried out on the -1.0 mm to +38 micron material using Bromoform at 2.85sg and the float discarded. The HM was weighed

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary

and data recorded.

A standard methodology was applied for mineralogy determination. Samples were selected using standard criteria from each drill hole and were composited. XRF Analyses by Bureau Veritas Minerals (Perth) and Mineral Grain Count analyses by Geochempet Services (Brisbane) was performed

In the laboratory, every 20th sample was completed in duplicate as a

Quality Control measure and data reported to Metallica.

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.

This has been a reconnaissance exploration program to determine the presence or not of mineralisation and the data received was not intended for resource estimation purposes.

No twinned holes were used due to the early stage of this investigation into accessing the presence of mineralisation.

Documentation of the primary data will be included in a report detailing the reconnaissance program with data developed and tabulated in spreadsheets and document files held by the Competent Person and the host company.

There is no planned adjustment to assay data.

Location of

data points

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.

Specification of the grid system used.

Quality and adequacy of topographic control.

The drill collars were located by hand held GPS considered to have an accuracy of ± 4 m.

The system used was GDA94 Zone 54L.

The base topographic control is the local 1:50,000 topographic map (Doughboy Creek) which is adequate to identify overall and specific locations.

Data

spacing

and

distribution

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.

The drill holes were spaced at nominal 100m spacing.

The aim of the program was to determine the presence or not of what appears to be significant heavy mineral sand mineralization (zircon and titanium rich minerals) for later delineation and possible resource drilling. The spacing was adequate for this purpose.

Samples representing 1 m intervals for each drill hole were selected and composited using reasonable cut-off criteria by the Competent Person.

Orientation Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased sampling of Considering the deposit type the sampling has shown the presence of

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary

of data in

relation to

geological

structure

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.

broad zones of continuity of mineralisation in an unbiased manner.

It is considered that the only type of concentrated structure that could affect the results is narrow buried channels that may have high grades suggesting that the program as designed, would give conservative results, should such an occurrence be encountered.

Sample

security

The measures taken to ensure sample security. The samples were bagged into white polywoven sacks and kept at the house of one of the contractors, then palleted and shrink wrapped for shipment. It is considered that due to the style (HM with zircon and rutile) and the value of the mineralisation potential, interference was extremely remote.

Audits or

reviews

The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data. A detailed review of the sample protocols has not been carried out as this is a reconnaissance exploration program not leading to resource estimation.

Sec t io n 2 R e p o r t i n g o f E x p l o r a t i o n R e s u l t s

(Criteria listed in the preceding section also apply to this section.)

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary

Mineral

tenement and

land tenure

status

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 licence to operate in the area.

EPM15371 is held by Oresome Australia Pty Ltd, some 3 km east of the mouth of the Cotterell River on the western side of Cape York. There are no joint venture agreements, no historical sites and there is an agreement with the local Indigenous Groups represented by the Apudthuma Land Trust. The area is covered by the Draft Cape York Regional Plan (DCYRP).

The Cape York Regional Plan has not been finalised and it is anticipated that should the exploration advance that there may be increased restrictions due to the location.

Exploration done

by other parties

Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties. As far as Metallica is aware, there has been no other exploration done in this target area by any other company , therefore this is considered a significant Greenfield exploration HMS discovery and potentially of a new mineral field.

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary

Geology Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation. The target is for HM dominated by zircon and titanium minerals (rutile and

ilmenite) mineral sands

Drill hole

Information

A summary of all information material to the understanding of the exploration results including a tabulation of the following information for all Material drill holes:

o easting and northing of the drill hole collar

o elevation or RL (Reduced Level – elevation above sea level in metres) of the drill hole collar

o dip and azimuth of the hole

o down hole length and interception depth

o 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.

There were 36 vertical holes, auger drilled to a maximum depth of 6 metres (averaging 3.7 m) and drilled on the south east edge of the T16 target. A further six, 3 m deep, holes were drilled as wild cat holes on the exit from the site along the access track.

Although regarded as inaccurate, the average RL of all collars from the hand held GPS was 8 m above sea level and this fits when comparing the 1:50,000 Doughboy Creek topographic map.

It is considered not pertinent to include all of the collar RLs and depths for the 42 holes for what is a preliminary reconnaissance mineral exploration program, however the area covered by the 36 holes in the target is bounded by Eastings 625,200E and 625,900E and Northings 8,742,400N and 8,744,000N.

The six wildcat holes extended to 8,752,528N.

Data

aggregation

methods

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.

Samples were collected in the field representing each metre in the drill hole. A basic HM% for each metre was derived through standard HM laboratory analyses. From these results a subset of these samples were selected based on a cut-off grade criteria of a composite of all the samples from each hole of 0.8%HM or if one sample from a hole was over 1.0% HM, then the entire hole was composited and sent for mineralogy analysis. All averages reported in the results during this analysis were weighted averages.

All samples were taken over 1 m lengths. For the purposes of the mineralogical analysis, the samples from each hole were aggregated (composited) to generate one sample per drill hole and one collective set of mineral assemblage results for each drill hole.

No metal equivalent values are used.

Relationship

between

mineralisation

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,

Mineral relationships will be reported as they are identified.

The mineralisation is regarded as horizontal due to the nature of the style of deposit and as the holes are vertical all intercepts are regarded as having True Width.

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary

widths and

intercept lengths

there should be a clear statement to this effect (e.g. „down hole length, true width not known‟).

The down hole depths are True Widths.

Diagrams 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.

Map is attached to the release showing all collars on the topography.

Balanced

reporting

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.

Representative reporting of both low and high grade results are reported (See Table 2 in the Release report).

Other

substantive

exploration data

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 site was located because of a known strand line, dunal sand and a coastal belt of sand formations which have potential to contain heavy minerals such as zircon, rutile and ilmenite. The regional exploration project area covers an area between Weipa and Bamaga near the tip of Cape York Peninsular (a distance of approximately 300 km). There is a known zircon-rutile HMS deposit near Weipa (Urquhart Point). Exploration targets within this regional belt of sand were further identified through analysis of airborne radiometric data flown by the State Government and interpreted by Salva Resources Pty Ltd and the Competent Person.

Further work 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.

It is planned that further drilling will be carried out when access is available in 2014 following the rainy season and subject to outcome of draft CYRP.

Follow-up drilling will include areas already drilled as well as areas extending southwards for 4.7 km, the sub-parallel dune system to the west extending over 7.5 km and a dune system to the south and east of 5 km length.