Criteria JORC Code explanation AMS 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.

• Samples were generated using a mixture of channel and drill core samples. 
• Channel samples were made using channels perpendicular to mineralisation using an electric angle grinder and hammer and chisel, typically perpendicular to the vein and around 5-10 cm in thickness and around 5 cm in depth. 
• Drill core samples were ½ BQ core. 

Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample representivity and the appropriate calibration of any measurement tools or systems used.

• Sampling was supervised by a LEMR geologist throughout.  
• Samples are considered representative of the mineralisation and are sufficient for early exploration geochemical surveys. 
• Mineralisation varies in geometry, but LEMR tried to mitigate by sampling as perpendicular as possible where feasible. 
• True thickness is reported where possible and is generally understood to be within 80% of the reported thickness.   
• A Thermo Scientific Niton XL3thandheld tool is used to help guide geologists but not used for the reporting of assays. 

Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are Material to the Public Report. 

• Samples are initially sorted and verified against the Sample Submission Form. 
• Samples are oven dried at 85°C. 
• All samples are crushed to 70% passing 2 mm using jaw and cone crusher in a two-stage process. 
• This material is split and pulverised to 85% passing <75 μm. 
• The pulverised sample is mixed and divided, with approximately 800 g retained as a pulp reject and 250 g retained for laboratory analysis. 
• Sieve analysis is applied for one of every 30 samples, of which 90% of the sample should pass 75 μm. Otherwise, all equipment is checked. The whole batch is re-grinded and sieve analysis is applied again. 
• Sieve analysis is applied for one of every 30 samples taken from the jaw crusher. All of the sample should pass through 4 mm while 80% should pass through 2 mm. If this is not achieved, all equipment is checked and the whole batch is passed through the crusher again and sieve analysis is applied again. 
• Cleaning of crusher and pulveriser is done with an airbrush after preparation of each sample and with quartz after each batch. 
• Analysis is completed as below: 
• Samples are generally analysed for 33 elements in Ireland. 
• Analysis in Romania are only analysed for Ag, Cu, Ni, Pb, and Zn, using code AA46.  
• Gold is determined in Romania by fire assay with atomic adsorption finish on a 30 g charge (Au-AA25). 
• Base metals are determined using an acid digest with an ICP finish on a 0.5 g charge (ME-ICP61a). 

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. 

• Diamond drill core samples are typically ½ BQ core between 0.5 and 1.5 m in length. 
• AMS have made reference to the suitability of using half BQ core for analysis with further studies required on the appropriateness of this sample size. 
• Channel samples are typically 1 m in length. 
• Samples weigh between 0.6 and 13 kg. 
• No coarse gold has been observed at this time. 

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). 

• Diamond drilling was completed on the project. 
• A Diamec 232 used TT-56/46 or BQ core (3 companies). 
• No wireline drilling was carried out, and core was retrieved by removing whole drill string. 
• Core is not oriented. 
• Holes do not have downhole survey at this time. 

Drill sample recovery 
  

 

 

Method of recording and assessing core and chip sample recoveries and results assessed. 

• Core was measured using a tape measure to assess recovery. 
• Depth confirmed and compared to and from drillers’ measurements. 

Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and ensure representative nature of the samples. 

• Recovery was generally reasonable and is around 90% for the 21 holes. 
• Drillers were not on-site to discuss sample recovery procedures, but discussions with LEMR suggest the use of added thickeners and polymers to improve recovery. 
• Holes are inclined to be as representative of target thicknesses as possible. 

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. 

• No grade vs recovery analysis has been completed yet. 
• Recovery data/measurements are not in usable format in the database. 

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. 

• Channels and core were geologically logged in its entirety, covering lithology, mineralisation, grain size, and colour amongst others.  
• Core was geotechnically logging including RQD. 
• Geological and geotechnical logging is sufficient to support any estimation studies.  

Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc) photography. 

• Geological logging is qualitative. 
• Photography was completed on all the drillholes and channels.  

The total length and percentage of the relevant intersections logged. 

• All intersections were geologically logged and photographed. 

Sub-sampling techniques and sample preparation 
  

 

 

 

 

 

If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, half or all core taken. 

• The whole hole is sampled, varying in length between 0.5 and 1.5 m. 
• Core is cut in half by core saw. Half for analysis and half for reference. 
• AMS have made reference to the suitability of using half BQ core for analysis with further studies required on the appropriateness of this sample size. 

If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc and whether sampled wet or dry. 

• Chanell samples are typically 1 m in length.  
• The whole channel sample is sent for analysis, typically between 0.6 and 13 kg. 
• No riffle splitting or sub-sampling is carried out. 
• Samples are slightly moist.  

For all sample types, the nature, quality and appropriateness of the sample preparation technique. 

• Sample collection procedures, sample size, preparation and analysis are considered appropriate for the mineralogy, deposit type and the stage of the exploration. 
• Samples are of sufficient quality for the exploration stage nature of the project. 
• AMS have made reference to the suitability of using half BQ core for analysis with further studies required on the appropriateness of this sample size. 

Quality control procedures adopted for all sub-sampling stages to maximise representivity of samples. 

• Channel and core samples were visually checked by the LEMR geologist to ensure split samples were representative of the hole or face.  

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. 

• Field duplicate samples were generated using reference samples from the primary sample and submitted to the laboratory to monitor for repeatability. 
• 111 duplicate samples were submitted from channel and core samples. 

Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grain size of the material being sampled. 

• No statistical work has been completed in this area yet. 
• AMS recommend a detailed review of whether sample sizes are appropriate to grain size.  

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. 

• Samples were analysed at ALS Loughrea, Ireland and Romania (Rosia Montana). 
• ALS are accredited with ISO 9001 and ISO 17025 certification. 
• Multi-element analysis, was generally completed on earlier drillholes and in most channels, reducing to is for Au, Ag, Cu, Ni, Pb, and Zn once a better understanding was achieved (at ALS Rosia Montana).  
• Overlimit samples were automatically re-analysed using ore grade methods of determination. 
• Sample analytical techniques are considered in line with industry standards for this style of mineralisation. 
• Given the expected grades, lithology and deposit type, the laboratory procedures are considered appropriate for this level of work. 

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. 

• No geophysical tools or spectrometers instruments were used in the exploration work. 
• The nuclear team completed geophysical measurements – Spiral Axial to test for radiation. 
• A handheld Thermo Scientific Niton XL3t is used to help guide geologists. 
• No handheld XRF data is used for reporting of assays. 

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. 

  

• LEMR inserted 57 CRMs, 59 blanks and 111 field duplicates into the channel and drillhole sample stream.  
• QC totals 227 samples, representing 20% quality control data. 
• Umpire duplicates are planned. 
• QC inserted at a rate of approximately 1:10. 
• The quality and nature of assay data and laboratory tests are acceptable for the exploration work for this deposit. 
• Shewhart Plots of the QC samples were completed, and no significant issues were observed.  
• Scattergrams were completed on duplicate samples, and no significant issues were observed on the medium grade samples – work is required to understand the best grade ranges for duplicates the deposit. 
• Nelson rules of monitoring were applied to CRM review. 
• The nature and quantity of QC data for the sampling, procedures employed, level of accuracy and precision are considered acceptable for the number of primary samples and level of exploration. 
• Additional QC samples will be inserted in future programmes. 

Verification of sampling and assaying 
  

 

 

 

The verification of significant intersections by either independent or alternative company personnel. 

• The results were independently verified and reviewed by Mr Lewis Harvey, MSc, MAIG, Competent Person and Principal Geologist for Addison Mining Services. 
• The report and results have been peer reviewed by Mr J.N. Hogg, MSc. MAIG, Competent Person, Principal Geologist and Managing Director for Addison Mining Services. 
• Mr Harvey and Mr Hogg have sufficient experience relevant to the style of mineralisation, the type of deposit under consideration and the activity undertaken to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the JORC Code 2012 edition of the Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves. 
• Mr Harvey and Mr Hogg have reviewed and verified the technical information that forms the basis of and has been used in the preparation of this report, including all sampling and analytical data, and analytical techniques where applicable.  
• Mr. Harvey consents to the inclusion in this announcement of the matters based on the information, in the form and context in which it appears. 

The use of twinned holes. 

• No twin holes have been completed at this time.
• LEMR have completed four drillholes located near historical holes, which currently lacks geological and grade information, and LEM attempted to intercept the mineralisation using the historical holes as a guide, as such, they are not considered twin holes in the verification sense at this time.

Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data verification, data storage (physical and electronic) protocols. 

• Laboratory analytical data were delivered in .csv / Excel and copied and pasted into individual Excel sheets. 
• Data is also copied and pasted into Micromine 3D geological modelling software. 
• LEMR samples were verified by cross reference against original laboratory assay certificates by AMS and the CP. 
• No copy and paste errors were found, but AMS strongly recommend the use of automatic imports to avoid any translation issues. 

Discuss any adjustments to assay data. 

• No adjustments to the analytical data were necessary apart from conversion from ppm to %. 
• Raw analytical data remained unchanged. 

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. 

• Drillhole collars have not been surveyed yet.  
• Total station or similar will be used at the end of the programme to locate holes. 
• Holes are estimated based on location within underground development, (+/- 1 m), using previous surveys of the drives in software. 
• Accuracy is sufficient for data collection and target modelling but requires survey prior to input into resource modelling and estimation. 
• There are no downhole surveys for any holes due to contractor issues. LEMR plan to complete downhole surveys on open holes prior to estimation.  

Specification of the grid system used. 

• Data was captured and located using a Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM).  
• The geographic coordinate reference system is WGS84 UTM Zone 34N (EPSG: 32634). 
• Elevations are reported in metres above sea level. 

Quality and adequacy of topographic control. 

• A topographic DTM was provided as part of the dataroom. 
• The DTM was created by LEMR in Micromine using isolines from a topographic map. The accuracy is unknown. 
• The providence of the topographic maps is Google Earth. 

Data spacing and distribution 
  

 

 

Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results. 

• Sample spacing is not systematic at this time.
• Data spacing is sufficient for the stage of exploration. 

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. 

• No resources are being reported herein. 
• The data spacing and distribution are not sufficient to establish the degree of geological and grade continuity appropriate for Mineral Resource Estimation at this time. 
• The results are sufficient for the stage of exploration.  

Whether sample compositing has been applied. 

• Raw samples have not been composited and submitted on a sample-by-sample basis. 

Orientation of data in relation to geological structure 
  

 

Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased sampling of possible structures and the extent to which this is known, considering the deposit type. 

• Holes and channels are inclined to be as representative of target thicknesses as possible. 
• True thicknesses are reported where necessary. 

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. 

• Insufficient work has been done to define any potential relationship bias between drilling orientation and the orientation of mineralised structures. 
• Work is required to understand the geometry in relation to drilling. 

Sample security 
   The measures taken to ensure sample security. 

• Samples are delivered from site to ALS (Rosia Montana) by a LEMR geologist or employee in secured polyweave bags. 
• LEMR has tracking documents and paperwork to ensure a secure chain of custody. 
• The samples arrived in good condition at ALS. 

Audits or reviews 
   The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data. 

• Desk study review and audit by Principal Consultants Mr James Hogg and Mr Lewis Harvey (AMS) determined sampling methods are suitable for early-stage geochemical survey.   
• Mr Lewis Harvey conducted a site visit in late September 2025.