500% increase in Resource at Molaoi

Rockfire Resources PLC

04 September 2024

 

The information contained within this announcement is deemed by the Company to constitute inside information pursuant to Article 7 of EU Regulation 596/2014 as it forms part of UK domestic law by virtue of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 as amended.

4 September 2024

Rockfire Resources plc

("Rockfire" or the "Company")

500% increase in Resource at Molaoi

Molaoi now in top 20 undeveloped global zinc deposits

Rockfire Resources plc (Rockfire, LON: ROCK), the base metal, precious metal and critical mineral exploration company, is pleased to announce a JORC Mineral Resource upgrade of 500% at the Molaoi zinc/silver/lead deposit in Greece.

The updated JORC Resource is 500% larger than the Maiden Resource announced in May 2022 (refer to Rockfire RNS 23 May 2022). This new Resource has surpassed all expectations and places Molaoi within the top 20 undeveloped zinc resources globally in terms of tonnage, grade and zinc equivalent metal content.

Molaoi is in the Peloponnese Region of Greece and is held 100% by Hellenic Minerals SA (Hellenic), which in turn is a 100% subsidiary of Rockfire. The Resource is reported in accordance with the Joint Ore Reserve Committee ("JORC") Australasian Code (2012) for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves.

Highlights

·    The Inferred JORC Resource estimation for Molaoi is:

15.0 million tonnes @ 7.26 % Zn, 1.75 % Pb and 39.5 g/t Ag

(9.96 % zinc equivalent)

·    Molaoi contains 1,090,000 tonnes of zinc, 260,000 tonnes of lead, and 19.1 million ounces of silver.

·    This Resource equates to 1,500,000 tonnes of zinc equivalent metal content, with zinc currently trading at US$2,881 per tonne.

·    Molaoi also contains one of the world's geologically rare critical metals, germanium. A preliminary germanium quantity, which does not comply with the requirements of the JORC Code has been calculated at:

4.8 million tonnes @ 21.9 g/t Ge (105,700 kilograms germanium)

·    Germanium is currently selling for US$3,681 per kilogram and represents a potentially valuable by-product of any future zinc production from Molaoi.

·    A low-grade cut-off of 4 % for Zn has been used in the Resource estimate.

·    The overall average width of all lodes throughout the resource is 4.1 m, with widths varying from 0.2 m to more than 20 m.

·    Only 2.1 km of a potential strike extent of 7 km has been included in the Resource and mineralisation remains open at depth and along strike to the north and south.

·    In the 2022 Maiden Resource estimate, 4 parallel mineralised lodes had been identified. A revised geological and mineralisation model has now identified 23 sub-parallel, north/south-striking, east-dipping lodes, with 18 of these lodes modelled. More lodes are yet to be tested both east and west.

·    Owing to scheduling cut-offs, recent Rockfire drill holes HMO-005, HMO-006 and HMO-007 are not included in this resource estimate and are expected to increase the resource further.

o  HMO-005 intersected 1.7 m @ 11.5% ZnEq.

o  HMO-006 intersected 1.5 m @ 3.2 % ZnEq.

o  HMO-007 intersected 2.0 m @ 14.3 % ZnEq.

·    Metallurgical flotation test work completed in 1984 resulted in 96 % zinc recovery, 92 % lead recovery and 91 % silver recovery into a bulk concentrate. These recovery factors prove that the mineralisation at Molaoi is highly recoverable.

·    The following figures show a typical E/W cross-section and a typical N/S long section.  Individual zinc lodes are shaded different colours.

Molaoi Cross Section 4077500N (looking north)

(each colour represents an individual zinc lode, with 18 lodes modelled so far)

Molaoi Long Section 665400E (looking west)

(each colour represents an individual zinc lode, with 18 lodes modelled so far)

David Price, Chief Executive Officer of Rockfire, commented:

"Expanding the Molaoi resource to become such a globally significant deposit with more than 1 million tonnes of zinc, is testimony to the tenacity, hard work and sound geological understanding of, and application by our technical team."

"Our maiden JORC resource in 2022 was established on a geological model of a single main zinc lode. At that time, three other lodes were identified but not included in the Maiden resource due to a lack of modern drilling evidence for the verification of these additional lodes."

"Following the last three drilling phases completed by Rockfire, far more geological, structural and geochemical information has become available and a total of 23 lodes have so far been identified. This identification has been aided significantly by the acquisition and deployment of our new portable X-Ray Florescence ("pXRF") analyzer."

"Management has always considered Molaoi to be an outstanding base metal project, however, this updated Resource has far exceeded our expectations. There remains material upside potential for further expansion of the Resource at Molaoi, with 5.5 km of known zinc occurrences outside the upgraded Resource limits. Drilling results along this 5.5 km from drilling during the 1980's include:

·    7.0 m @  10.2 % Zn (Stavros Prospect)

·    3.0 m @    6.7 % Zn (Gkagkania Prospect)

·    3.0 m @    8.4 % Zn (Fournos Prospect)

·    0.5 m @ 27.3 % Zn (Agio Eustratios Prospect)

"In addition to extending the zinc north and south, significant upside also exists at depth, and by drilling out the 23 identified lodes both east and west to their full extent."

"Our goal now will be to move as many zinc tonnes into the "Indicated" category of the JORC Code, for input to a Scoping Study of mining and processing options. Several important drill holes will be required to close drilling gaps on a number of drill lines."

"Molaoi is tracking well towards becoming a world-class zinc deposit. More work is required to get the project to that status, however our team knows how to deliver such results. We are looking forward to bringing regular updates to the market on what is quickly becoming a significant deposit on a global scale."

For further information on the Company, please visit www.rockfireresources.com or contact the following: 

Rockfire Resources plc:	[e-mail]
David Price, Chief Executive Officer
Allenby Capital Limited (Nominated Adviser & Broker):	Tel: [phone]
John Depasquale / George Payne (Corporate Finance)
Guy McDougall / Matt Butlin (Sales and Corporate Broking)

Competent Person Statements:

Separate Competent Person (CP) Statements are given for the estimation and reporting of Molaoi's 2024 Mineral Resources (by Consultant Mr Robin Rankin for GeoRes) and for Molaoi's input exploration data (by Mr David Price for Rockfire).

Robin Rankin visited the Molaoi Project site in early 2024 and comprehensively acquainted himself with the area, its geology, and Hellenics's exploration.  David Price has extensive local knowledge gained through multiple visits and Project management.

Statement:  The information in this Report, that relates to Exploration Targets, Exploration results and Mineral Resources at Molaoi in Greece (the Project), was based on base metal exploration information and data that was compiled and supplied by Rockfire Resources plc (Rockfire) (see Exploration data Competent Person Statement below) which was reviewed and used for Resource estimation and reporting by Mr Robin Rankin, a Competent Person who is a Member (#110551) of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (AusIMM) and accredited since 2000 as a Chartered Professional by the AusIMM in the Geology discipline.  Robin Rankin is the author of this Report.  Robin Rankin provided this information to his Client, Rockfire as paid consulting work in his capacity as Principal Consulting Geologist and operator of independent geological consultancy GeoRes.  He and GeoRes are professionally and financially independent in the general sense and specifically of their Client and of the Client's Project.  This consulting was provided on a paid basis, governed by a scope of work and a fee and expenses schedule, and the results and conclusions reported were not contingent on payments (other than their validity being negated by non-payment).  Robin Rankin has sufficient experience that is relevant to the style of mineralization and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity being undertaken to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the 'Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves' (the JORC Code).  Robin Rankin consents to the inclusion in his Client's report(s) of the matters based on this information in the form and context in which it appears.  Robin Rankin's Competent Person Statement is given on the basis that his Client takes responsibility to a Competent Persons level for the collection and integrity of all source input data supplied by the Client. Mr Robin Rankin has sufficient experience relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity which has been undertaken to qualify as a "Qualified Person" in accordance with the AIM Rules Guidance Note for Mining and Oil & Gas Companies.

Statement:  The input exploration information in this report that relates to Exploration results, Exploration data, Sampling Techniques or Geochemical Assay Methodology is based on information compiled by Mr David Price, Competent Person, who is a Fellow of the AusIMM (#107108).  Mr Price is Chief Executive Officer (CEO), shareholder and full-time employee of Rockfire Resources PLC (Rockfire).  Mr Price has sufficient experience in mineral exploration and in the activity being undertaken to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 edition of the Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves.  Mr Price consents to the inclusion in this Report of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears.

Mineral Resource summary details and parameters

The results of the 2024 updated Molaoi Mineral Resource estimate are detailed in the Statement of Mineral Resources in Table 1. The Statement of Mineral Resources is reported in accordance with the requirements of the 2012 JORC code and is therefore suitable for public reporting.

The Mineral Resource is reported above a cut-off grade of 4 % Zn.

ZnEq¹           Zinc equivalent based on commodity prices (averaged for 3 months to 25th July 2024) and metallurgical recoveries determined for Molaoi mineralisation by IGME in the 1980s.  Commodity prices:  Zinc 1.34 US$/lb (2,954 US$/t), Lead 1.01 US$/lb (2,227 US$/t), Silver 30 US$/oz.  Commodity price source:  Daily Metal Prices (www.dailymetalprice.com).  Recoveries:  Based on historical Molaoi metallurgical test-work in 1984. Zinc 95.8%, Lead 91.8%, Silver 91.0%.

Summary details of the Resource estimation follow:

·    The Molaoi deposit is interpreted as VMS style containing zinc mineralisation in distinct layers.  Those layers are within and sub-parallel to a pile of layered volcanic rocks.

·    Rockfire operates the Molaoi Project within "Exploration and Mining Lease L1" in the Laconia Municipality, Greece.  The Lease is ~7.0 km long and ~1.5 km wide and has an area of 9.4 km².   The Lease was granted in 2022 for 30 years.  Data uses the UTM WGS84 coordinate system for the northern hemisphere.

·    This 2024 Resource was calculated from both historical and recent drill core data.  The previous 2022 Resource used data from 175 core holes (for ~29,800 m) drilled by the Greek Government from 1979 to 1988.   To that was added 19 core holes (for ~4,015 m) drilled by Hellenic in 2023 and 2024. 

·    The historical drill hole assays were validated by Rockfire through the re-analysis of precise sampling intervals of the original drill core and through a campaign of 5 twin holes drilled in 2023.

·    A high-resolution LIDAR topography survery was undertaken in mid-2024.  This provides clear topographic control data and helped verify drill hole collars.

·    Drill holes exist on E/W cross-sections spaced ~100 m apart N/S, their spacing on-section being ~50-100 m E/W.  Most holes were drilled dipping steeply westwards to intersect mineralisation as close as possible to normal.

·    Samples for assay are collected continuously over mineralised zones based on close geological logging (now augmented by pXRF analysis).  Sample lengths are short (in the range 0.1m - 1.5 m) reflecting narrow layer widths.  Historical samples were analysed by ITMI in Italy.  Recent samples were analysed by ALS in Ireland.

·    Mineralised intercepts were interpreted (using a rough lower zinc grade cut-off of 0.2%) into a system of 23 sub-parallel, N/S striking, ~50°E-dipping layers which pinch and swell along strike and down dip.  Individual layer thicknesses vary between 0.2 and ~6.2 m, with sporadic local maximums to >20 m.

·    The layer system covers ~2.2 km N/S (northings 4,076,350 to 4,078,550 m), ~0.9 km E/W (eastings 664,950 to 665,800 m) and ~500 m vertically (-300 to 200 m RL). 

·    Individual layer structure floors were modelled with interpolated bounding gridded DTM surfaces using a growth algorithm.  DTM mesh size was 10 m * 10 m.  Surfaces were truncated conservatively 80 m outside peripheral drill holes.  Layer thicknesses were conservatively modelled with interpolated DTM surfaces using an ID² algorithm to preclude extrapolation of thickness outside data values.

·    An un-folding block model was built within the layers to trend grade estimation in the plane of the layers and along the undulations.  Block sizes were fixed at 10 m * 40 m in X and Y and variable at ~0.5 m in Z.

·    Individual metal grade block models were estimated, domained individually by layer, using an ID² algorith.  Sample lengths were composited to 0.5 m.  Data maximum scan distance was 250 m.  A vertical distance weighting of 1.5 was used in Z (across layers) to emphasise continuity along the layers.  No data limits were applied and low grades had been effectively precluded through the intercept interpretation process.

·    For Resource reporting the grade models were loaded into and orthogonal-shaped block model with primary block sizes of 10 m * 40 m * 10 m.  Blocks were sub-blocked along layer surfaces by factors of 5 * 2 * 5 to potentially give minimum block sizes of 2 m * 20 m * 2 m.

·    A zinc equivalent grade was computed by block from the individual zinc, lead and silver block values using metal price factors (derived from 3-month averages to late July 2024) and the historical metallurgical recoveries (details given below the Table above).

·    Base metal Resources were estimated using a default density of 2.7 t/m³ and for material above a 4% zinc cut-off.

·    The quantity of germanium (associated with zinc mineral sphalerite, and assumed to be a by-product) was estimated from material above the 4% zinc cut-off and additionally were above a 10 g/t germanium cut-off

Glossary

Item	Definition
''Ag''	silver
''Ge''	germanium
''g/t''	grams per tonne
''JORC''	Joint Ore Resource Committee
''Pb''	lead
"Ppm"	parts per million
''Zn''	zinc
"ZnEq''	zinc equivalent

Notes to Editors

Rockfire Resources plc (LON: ROCK) is a mineral exploration and development company with a portfolio of 100%-owned mineral projects including a high-grade zinc deposit in Greece and gold and copper projects in Queensland Australia.

§ The Molaoi deposit in Greece has a JORC resource of 1,090,000 tonnes of zinc, 260,000 tonnes of lead and 19.1 million ounces of silver.

§ The Plateau deposit in Queensland has a JORC resource of 130,000 ounces of gold and 800,000 ounces of silver.

§ The Copperhead deposit in Queensland has a JORC resource of 80,000 tonnes of copper, 9,400 tonnes of molybdenum and 1.1 million ounces of silver.

Appendix 1 - JORC Code (2012 Edition) - Table 1

Sources of information in Table Sections:

JORC Table 1 Sections 1 (sampling techniques and data) and 2 (exploration results):

·      Sections 1 and 2 given here apply to the input data behind this Resource estimation (described in this Report).

·      Hellenic Minerals SA (Hellenic) is a 100% subsidiary of Rockfire Resources plc (Rockfire) and the names are inter-changeable throughout this Table 1.

·      Historic data was largely sourced from the Greek government's Institute of Geology and Mineral Exploration (IGME).  Since 2019 that state office has been known as the Hellenic Survey of Geology and Mineral Exploration (HSGME) and the terms IGME and HSGME are inter-changeable throughout this Table 1.

·      Original information was contained in Rockfire's 2022 MRE compiled by Rockfire's Resource geologist Mr Edward Fry.

·      That 2022 information is reproduced here and augmented with details of Hellenic's 2023 and 2024 drilling.

·      New augmented details were supplied by the Exploration CP Mr David Price (for Rockfire); Hellenic's Exploration Geologist Mr Konstantinos Christodoulou; exploration drilling specialist Mr Mick Oates (consultant to Rockfire); and by CP for this Report, Mr Robin Rankin (Resource Consultant to Rockfire).

·      The Consultant is unaware of any other exploration, pertinent to this Resource estimate, which may have been done subsequent to the commencement of the Resource estimation work. 

·      The latter statement is made in the knowledge that Hellenic's three newest drill holes (#5, #6 and #7) were completed after the Consultant's site visit, the last being finished during this estimation work.  Geological information from those holes was incorporated in the estimate.  However assays from those holes were not available for the estimate and would not have varied the estimate to any significant degree.

JORC Table 1Section 3 (estimation and reporting of Mineral Resources):

·      Section 3 given here applies specifically to this Resource estimation (described in this Report).

·      The information was compiled by the CP for this Report, Mr Robin Rankin (Resource Consultant to Rockfire).

JORC Code, 2012 Edition - Table 1

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data

Sampling techniques	·    Nature and quality of sampling (eg 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 (eg '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 (eg submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed information.	·    HISTORICAL: o  The historical sampling was exclusively sourced from diamond drilled holes. The drill core sampling is assumed to be of an adequate quality. o  The historical drill core was half-core sampled.  The historical diamond drill core was cut in half, with half core sent off to analysis and the remaining half stored in appropriately marked core trays at a secure Greek government facility. o  The mineralized zone is characterized by massive to semi-massive sulphides (sphalerite, galena, pyrite). This zone is surrounded by a disseminated sulphide zone. Both of these zones are easily visible and discernible from unmineralized host rock within the historical drill core, making the determination of mineralized material fairly straight forward. o  The historical diamond drill core sampling was based on geological intervals, with a minimum sample length of 0.1 m and a max of 2.0 m. ·    HELLENIC 2023/4: o  All recent data was sourced from diamond core holes. o  All sampling was conducted by qualified and experienced, full-time employees of Hellenic Minerals SA o  All other details are the same as for the historical drill holes.
Drilling techniques	·    Drill type (eg core, reverse circulation, open-hole hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc) and details (eg 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).	·    The historical drilling was composed entirely of unoriented diamond drilled core of PQ NQ and BQ size. ·    Recent drilling for Hellenic comprised orientated drill core.  Poor ground conditions mean that many orientations were not possible. ·    Recent drilling for Hellenic has all been by commercial drillers.
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 fine/coarse material.	·    HISTORICAL: o  The historical diamond drill core recovery was recorded in a digital database. o  The method of core preparation, core measurement, or sample maximization techniques do not appear to have been recorded in the records supplied to Rockfire. o  Correlation between sample recovery and sample grade was not included in the records provided to Rockfire. ·    HELLENIC 2023/4: ·    Core recovery assessment: o  All new drilling has been fully geologically logged and the drilling process and drill core handling monitored and recorded by Rockfire personnel on site. o  Assessment of core recovery was by correlation of driller's notes and driller's depth markings on the core with core measurements by Hellenic's geologist. ·     Maximisation of core recovery: o  Maximisation of core recovery was by near constant monitoring of drilling and core delivery by the geologist and on-going discussions of drilling conditions between drillers and geologist.  o  In 2024 drilling specialist Mr Mick Oates spent time on-site observing the drilling and suggesting measures to further improve core recovery and drilling processes in general. o  Measures introduced by Mr Oates include; improved casing at the collar, the use of drilling muds and foams and faster drilling to minimise time spent in broken ground. ·      Sample recovery / grade relationship: o  In competent rock, recovery was often close to 100%.  In mineralised zones, recovery drops off.  Measurements of recovery have been recorded by Hellenic for each drill run.  Generally, recovery was deemed to be acceptable, with loss often less than 20% in the ore zones
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.	·    HISTORICAL: o  Historical geological logs for a portion of the drill holes have been found and translated from Greek. They are of sufficient detail to support a mineral resource estimation. o  The core logging is considered qualitative in nature. o  Only a portion of the logs have been provided to Rockfire from the Greek Government. These logs represent ~30 % of the relevant drill holes, being 2,760.9 m of the 9,447.2 m drill meters. The geological logs demonstrate good relationship between the sulphide rich zones and the historical drill assays. ·    HELLENIC 2023/4: ·    Logging: o  All core was moved from the drill site to the Project field office for logging and processing (a distance of approximately 1.5km). o  Core was logged geologically and geotechnically. o  Logging was in sufficient detail to support Resource estimation. ·    Qualitative/quantitative:  Qualitative. ·    Length:  100% of core was geologically logged.
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 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.	·    HISTORICAL: o  The core was cut and ½ core was sent for analysis. The core in places has been further sampled with the remaining material stored in well-labelled plastic bags within the core trays.  o  Little information exists regarding the  methodology of the historical sampling beyond what can be inferred from the remaining core which has been located by Hellenic. o  It appears that no information has been recorded regarding the quality control procedures. o  It appears that no information has been recorded regarding the quality assurance procedures o  The sample sizes are appropriate given the massive/semi-massive/disseminated sulphide nature of the mineralization. ·    HELLENIC 2023/4: ·    Sample method: o  The core was cut in ½ core and ½ core was sent for analysis. o  Sample lengths were short and variable (<1 m, in the range 0.1-1.5 m) and broken on geological breaks.  o  Sampling for lab analysis was continuous over mineralised zones, chosen visually.  Waste zones were not sampled for assaying. o  In mid-2024 a hand-held pXRF analyser was introduced and used to scan the entirety of holes.  This introduced further accuracy to selecting mineralised sections for lab assay.  Previously sampled holes were scanned to find mineralisation that had been missed visually and those sections were then send for lab assay. ·    Appropriateness of sampling:  o  Sampling short lengths continuously over sections representing mineralised layers was considered highly appropriate to the fineness required to sample a thin layer VMS. o  Introduction of scanning by pXRF added further accuracy to sampling based on geological logging by detecting all possibly mineralised material. ·    Quality control measures: o  Duplicates were inserted every 10 samples with standards and blanks inserted every 20 samples (SRK notes). ·    Representivity of sampling, including duplicates, standards and blanks: o  Sampling was continuous over full mineralised sections and immediately adjacent waste. ·    Sample size /grain size relationship:  o  With sulphide mineralisation grain size being small (at ~2 mm) the relatively much larger sample sizes (~0.2-1.0 m long, 0.5-3.0 kg in weight) were appropriate.
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 (eg standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (ie lack of bias) and precision have been established.	·    HISTORICAL: o  Unknown procedures. o  The historical assaying was completed by an Italian government laboratory (ITMI) based in Rome. o  No comment can be made regarding the appropriateness of the assaying method beyond what can be inferred from the resampling of 50 sections of core, which found a good correlation between the historical and re-sampled zinc assays.  The re-sampling demonstrated a variance of ~10%.  As such the historical data is considered as being appropriate for use in this Mineral Resource Estimate. o  No records exist regarding the assay method used or the quality assurance/quality control procedures enacted. ·    HELLENIC 2023/4: ·    Assay details: o  Sample preparation and precious mineral analysis was conducted by ALS Laboratories in Gura Rosiei Romania. o  Analysis for base metals and a suite of 48 elements was conducted by ALS Laboratories in Galway, Ireland. o  Analytical techniques included ME-MS61 (48 elements), ME-OG62h (lead and zinc) and ME_MS85 (germanium) ·    pXRF details:  o  Olympus Vanta M-Series. Cal check, blank (clear quartz?), standard (OREAS620) before every use. ·    QA/QC procedures and results: o  AMISO304, CDN-W-4, CPB-2, EMOG17, MRGeo08, OREAS317, OREAS101b, OREAS45fand REE-1 for all Standards, Blanks and Duplicates o  Results of original and duplicate sample correlation are deemed to be within acceptable error limits. o  Results of submitted Standards and Blanks are deemed to be within acceptable error limits.
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.	·    HISTORICAL: o  The historic drill results have been verified by Rockfire personnel. The historical drill core was located at a government facility in Athens and select intervals were resampled and sent to ALS for verification analysis. o  The original hard copy databases were scanned and presented to Rockfire resources. These databases were then digitized and validated by Rockfire personnel and SRK Consulting. All drill data is stored in a Micromine based system. Manual backups are completed to both separate hard-drive and cloud-based services. o  No adjustment to assay data has been undertaken. ·    HELLENIC 2023/4: ·    Verification of significant intervals: o  50 samples were collected from historical core and reanalysed. The hole ID and sample interval were clearly marked on the original plastic bags in which the sample is stored. Analytical reproduction was deemed very good, with an error <10% in all samples. ·    Twinned holes: o  Four twin holes were drilled by Hellenic (MO-GTK008 - MO-GTK-011). Results for holes MO-GTK008, 009 and 010 indicate very good correlation in elevation, grade and width between the original and twin holes. MO-GTK011 showed similar width, slightly lower grade, but a variation in downhole position of the mineralisation of approximately 25 m. This may be as a result of an error in the elevation recorded for the original drill hole. ·    Documentation procedures: o  All drill data is stored electronically in a Micromine based system. Backups are completed to cloud-based storage and individual computers on a daily basis. A separate hard-drive back-up is completed each month. ·    Adjustments to assays: o  No adjustment to assay data has been undertaken.
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.	·    HISTORICAL: o  The original data supplied to Hellenic has been translated from local Greek grid system into UTM WGS84. The drill data has been matched with different sources of data from various historical records and reports to provide the best average location fit. This fit corresponds well with the surveyed underground development completed by the Greek Government and was further verified by Hellenic drilling 4 twinned holes. o  Topographic control appeared to have been based on government survey data. This was considered highly adequate for MRE purposes. ·    HELLENIC 2023/4: ·    Survey accuracy: o  Historic drill hole collar locations which could be found (~20%) were checked by Hellenic by hand-held GPS and found to match the historic mapping closely (±10 m).  The Consultant confirmed ~20 hole collars during his due diligence on site. o  New drill hole collars locations determined by hand-held GPS - accurate to ±5 m and considered adequate. o  In July 2024 Rockfire commissioned a high-resolution aerial LIDAR topography survey.  The survey was flown by drone with data provided over the southern half of the Lease area (the area of current exploration). o  All drill hole collar GPS elevations checked against the new LIDAR topography survey and found to be ±2 m and considered adequate. ·    Coordinate system: o  Project uses a universal coordinate system rather than the Greek system. o  Project mapping all based on projection UTM Zone 34N with WGS84 datum. ·    Topography: o  New LIDAR topography survey considered highly accurate (to <1 m in XY). o  This survey provided a DTM surface and an orthophoto - both very adequate for exploration.
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.	·    Data spacing: o  Drill hole orientation either vertical or steeply W-dipping (across strike of E-dipping mineralisation) is considered appropriate. o  Drill hole XY spacing: § Holes spaced ~50-100 m E/W across strike. § Holes on E/W cross-sections spaced ~100 m apart N/S. ·    Data spacing wrt geology: o  Drill hole spacing was sufficiently close to interpret geological and grade continuity of the interpreted mineralised layer system and for the MRE procedures used. o  The Inferred JORC classification reflects that adequate drill hole spacing in that closer spacing would generally be expected to raise the classification. ·    Sample compositing: o  Drill hole samples were composited to exactly 0.5 m (plus >50% residuals) for block grade estimation. o  Drill hole samples were composited across the full width of interpreted layer intersections for the estimation of composite layer grade surfaces used to illustrate layer grade trends.
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. ·    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.	·    Data orientation wrt geological structure: o  All mineralisation was interpreted in sub-parallel steeply E-dipping layers. o  Drill orientations were designed to minimise sampling bias by, as far as possible, intersecting  layers at a high angle normal to strike. o  Therefore most drill holes were oriented steeply W-dipping. o  Drilling was also spaced reasonably evenly along-strike, thus minimising drilling only around high-grade areas. o  Sampling in all drill holes was concentrated on or biased towards visibly mineralised zones.  This sampling therefore introduced a bias against waste zones. o  Down-hole sampling of mineralised zones aimed to be representative by being continuous over their full width and composed of multiple short samples (<1 m). ·    Orientation introducing bias: o  Drilling orientation and sampling was considered as being unbiased.
Sample security	·    The measures taken to ensure sample security.	·    Sample security: o  No information exists regarding the how historical samples were secured. o  Hellenic personnel log and process drill core at a secure field camp/office set up at a local farmhouse within the Lease area. o  Core trays are subsequently moved to a more permanent secure storage pad (fenced and locked) at the portal of the old underground mine within the Lease area.
Audits or reviews	·    The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data.	·    No information exists as to whether the historical data was ever reviewed or audited. ·    Audits/reviews: ·    In 2023 SRK Consulting (UK) performed a review (effectively an audit) of Rockfire's Molaoi Project.  That comprised: o  A visit to the Project site and other data sources (HSGME's offices in Athens) and undertake inspections and verifications of exploration and all data to a level that SRK could act as a CP (as defined by JORC) for preparation of an MRE. o  Performed a high level review of Rockfire's 2022 MRE, including reviewing the geological setting, reviewing Rockfire's data and completed work and making recommendations for necessary work, and reviewing Rockfire's Resource models and estimation procedures. ·    SRK's review results were: o  Site visit in early-January 2023:  SRK walked over the Molaoi site; took various GPS readings to confirm a small selection of drill hole collars; viewed local geology and several mineralised gossan outcrops and confirmed their E-dipping structure; observed active drilling pads; and observed Rockfire's core treatment procedures.  SRK's overall impression was positive and their observations confirmed geology, deposit type (VMS), exploration methods and exploration data. o  HSGME visit in late-January 2023:  SRK visited the office of HSGME in Athens and observed stored drill core and familiarised themselves with Rockfire's re-sampling program which had confirmed historical assays.  SRK's opinion was that Rockfire's re-sampling verification program was reasonable.  SRK completed an independent comparison of Rockfire's results which confirmed them. o  MRE review:  SRK found that: § Rockfire's overall MRE procedures were appropriate. § That modelling and estimation issues or details which they would have done slightly differently would not have made material differences to the quantum of the Resources. § SRK agreed with Rockfire's 4% zinc cut-off although they suggested using NSR. § SRK agreed with Rockfire's classification as Inferred. § SRK found that there were opportunities to model more mineralisation from existing data (significant un-modelled intersections existed) and that additional mineralised zones would be found with additional exploration. o  Check Resource estimate:  § In order to check Rockfire's actual Resource figures SRK independently modelled the mineralisation and estimated comparison Resources. § SRK's results were close to Rockfire's and confirmed them. o  Recommendations:  SRK made a number of recommendations: § Drilling and sampling accuracy:  That could be improved though better surface and down-hole surveying; through tighter core measurement practices; through tighter QA/QC monitoring of batch assay results; and through an alternative density method (down-hole geophysics) to overcome difficulties posed by broken core. § Data verification:  Confirm more historic drill hole collar locations; perform a drill hole twinning program (successfully undertaken by Rockfire in 2023); and locate more geological logs of historical data. § Surveying:  Acquire a high-resolution DTM of the area (successfully implemented by the LIDAR survey in mid-2024). § Geological modelling & estimation:  Try to improve confidence in mineralisation continuity (by finding more historical data); develop a stratigraphic model of the deposit; model the base of oxidation; further investigate faulting impact on mineralisation; and undertake an optimisation study to identify minimum RPEEE criteria.

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results

(Criteria listed in the preceding Section 1 also apply to this Section.)

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.	·    Tenement: o  The Molaoi Project is covered by a single tenement "Exploration and Mining lease M1 (Molaoi Apidia)" in the Laconia Municipality in Greece. o  Lease M1 is owned by Hellenic Minerals S.A, a 100% subsidiary of Rockfire Resources PLC. o  Hellenic does not own any freehold land within the Lease area. o  Hellenic has a lease with the Greek Government over the "METVA" area, which is used for core storage. METVA is also the location of the portal to the old decline and the crushing facility (since removed) used during trial mining. o  The Consultant is unaware of any other commercial interests in the Lease. o  The Consultant is aware that hills  to the west of the mining lease and wholly outside the lease boundaries are designated wilderness areas controlled by the central Greek government.  This area is designated Natura 2000 (ORI ANATOLIKIS LAKONIAS - GR2540007) protected under the Birds Directive. o  The Environmental Permit submitted by Hellenic has an exclusion zone around the limits of the Natura reserve.  This impacts ground-disturbing exploration in the northern part of the tenement.  Hellenic intends to apply to reduce the exclusion zone to match the legal minimum measurements for such exclusion zones.  Once this application is made, and if successful, the exclusion zone will not have any encroachment on the mining lease. ·    Security of mineral and land tenure: o  Lease M1 was granted for 30 years from March 2022. o  The Lease permits Hellenic to explore for and exploit minerals. o  Hellenic is required to negotiate access and operational rights with freehold landowners, and to compensate them for disturbance. o  There are no known other impediments to operating in the area or within the Lease.
Exploration done by other parties	·    Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties.	·    Historical exploration by other parties: ·    The Molaoi Project was discovered and initially explored by the Greek government geological department (IGME) in the 1980s, and subsequently continued with IGME in joint venture with a local company METVA. ·    IGME completed the generative exploration work: o  Stream sediment sampling o  Geological mapping o  Soil sampling o  Core drilling of ~175 drill holes for 29,800 m. o  Resource estimations (not compliant with any modern reporting codes). o  Trial underground mining (decline and 700m drive development on 2 levels). o  Underground channel sampling o  Underground bulk sampling. o  Metallurgical test-work. ·    METVA completed high-level technical studies and feasibility studies. ·    Appraisal of past exploration: o  IGME's exploration very effectively identified the presence of a layered VMS base metal deposit at Molaoi. o  Their drilling exploration (particularly) clearly defined a mineralised zone ~1.4 km long N/S containing several layers. o  IGME estimated ~2 Mt @ 11% zinc in their principal layer (WB) - not very different from modern estimations of a layer presumed to be the same.
Geology	·    Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation.	·    Deposit type: o  The Molaoi deposit was initially considered as being a zinc dominant 'Kuroko style" Volcanogenic Massive sulphide (VMS) system. o  Debate as to the validity of the VMS model is ongoing. o  There is a significant body of evidence which suggests that these zinc VMS deposits are actually structurally controlled hydrothermal (epigenetic) systems (possibly intrusion related). ·    Geological setting: o  The geological and structural studies indicate a complex setting of east-dipping andesite lavas and tuffs along with clay-carbonate sediments and numerous fault breccias. o  The package may have undergone at least three folding events (contentious).  At least one folding event is noted as being isoclinal. o  Given the structural complexity and the relatively good level of continuation (+1,400 m long) of the zinc mineralized zones it could be unlikely that the mineralization is primary in nature, as suggested by the VMS model.  As such, the hydrothermally derived model (possibly intrusion related) could be adopted.  In any event the mineralisation is clearly generally thinly layered regionally but locally may reach 15-20 m thick. ·    Mineralisation style: o  Base metal mineralisation is contained within thin (typically <6 m) sub-parallel east-dipping layers. o  The thin mineralized zone layers are typically hosted in fault breccias and are represented by massive/semi-massive sulphides surrounded by zones of disseminated sulphides. o  The sulphides consist of sphalerite, galena, and pyrite. The primary elements of interest are Zn, Pb, Ag, +/-Ge.  Low levels of cadmium have been recorded within the deposit, it is unclear as to whether or not Cd is a credit or a detriment to the mineralization at this stage.
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.	·    Drill hole information: o  All known historical and recent drill hole information (collar survey, hole orientation and length, and down-hole mineralised intercept depths and composite assays) are given in Appendices to the Report. o  IGME's historical drilling from the 1980s comprised ~175 core drill holes for 29,800 m. o  Missing IGME data:  There was a limited number of historical IGME/METVA drill holes (from late in their exploration) for which only collar positions are known (effectively from mapped locations).  No drill hole logs or assays for these particular holes were made available by IGME, and the IGME database did not contain details on these holes, other than collar positions.  The Consultant presumes these holes were drilled by METVA and the data was lost when METVA ceased to operate in the 1990s. o  Hellenic's recent drilling from 2023 comprises 12 core drill holes for 1,866 m. o  Hellenic's recent drilling from 2024 comprises 7 core drill holes for 2,149 m. o  The adjacent plan diagram illustrates the great majority of historical IGME hole collar locations (blue crosses) in the southern part of the Lease area (the remaining few are to the NW out of the diagram). o  The diagram also illustrates all recent Hellenic hole collar locations (red dots). o  Most collars line up on E/W cross-sections (blue lines) spaced 100 m apart.
Data aggregation methods	·    In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging techniques, maximum and/or minimum grade truncations (eg 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.	·    Reporting of data weighting, averaging and cutting: o  NA - exploration intercept results are not being reported independently. o  However, as part of the MRE interpreted layers, mineralisation is fully tabulated in Appendices to the Report. ·    Aggregation of intercepts: o  NA - exploration intercept results are not being reported in this MRE Report. o  However, as part of the MRE interpreted layer mineralisation, grades are tabulated as length-weighted composites across layer intercepts in Appendices to the Report. ·    Metal equivalent assumptions: o  NA here.  Full details of zinc equivalent assumptions and calculation are given in Table 1, Section 3 below (estimation and reporting of Resources).
Relationship between mineralisation widths and intercept lengths	·    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 (eg 'down hole length, true width not known').	·    Mineralisation width / intercept width relationship: o  All reported interpreted layer intercepts comprised down-hole from and to depths fully encompassing the mineralisation. o  Thus, the mineralisation width equalled the intercept width at whatever angle the hole was to the mineralisation. ·    Hole geometry wrt mineralisation geometry: o  Mineralisation geometry was universally interpreted as being in thin, roughly sub-parallel, steeply E-dipping (50° ±10°) N/S-striking layers separated by thicker waste (barren) layers. o  Mineralised layers in the zone close to a drill hole were assumed to have their bounding surfaces roughly parallel (i.e. not folded). o  Since the N/S strike was appreciated, the vast majority of drill hole plan (XY) orientations were ~E/W (±30°), normal to the strike of the mineralised layers. o  Apart from various (mostly old) vertical drill holes, the vast majority of holes were drilled to cross mineralisation layers as close to normal to their E dip as practicable and so were angled steeply west (down 60-70° to west). o  Thus, drilling aimed to have down-hole intercept widths close to mineralised layer 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.	·    Relevant diagrams have been included within the main body of the Report or in Appendices to the Report.
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.	·    N/A - exploration results are not being reported in this MRE 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.	·    Other data: o  Other exploration data collected from the Project, and used to guide the interpretation and inform this MRE generally, included: § Density determinations by Rockfire - reported elsewhere (see below). § Bulk sample - from IGME's trial underground mining. § Metallurgical test-work by IGME on the bulk sampling. § Metallurgical test-work by Hellenic on original core drilled by IGME. o  NA here.  Relevant details are given in Table 1, Section 3 below (estimation and reporting of Resources) and in the body of the Report.
Further work	·    The nature and scale of planned further work (eg 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.	·    Further work: o  The Consultant understands that Rockfire's prime exploration intention will be to follow up drilling to extend and in-fill the Resource area in general. o  SRK's 2023 Project review made recommendations on further work (detailed under Audits in Section 1 above).  Rockfire has implemented many of those already and are in the process of implementing the remainder.

Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources

(Criteria listed in Section 1, and where relevant in Section 2, also apply to this Section.)

Database integrity	·    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.	·    Data integrity: o  No information exists regarding the nature, quality, or appropriateness of the historical data validation by IGME (Rockfire 2022). o  Rockfire checked historical raw drill hole collar and sample assay data in 2022.  Where possible they checked and made minor corrections to collar coordinates, hole depths, hole orientation, assay data overlaps and assay duplicates. o  The use of an Italian government laboratory (ITMI) based in Rome for the historical results was validated by the Rockfire's re-sampling program which utilized Australian Laboratory Services (ALS). o  New topography data was cross-checked against historical geological and topography mapping and found to match closely. o  Drill hole data was supplied in computerised MS Excel spreadsheet form. § Historical collar location data was spot-checked against plotted plans matched closely. § Hole collars (where visible) were checked against new aerial photography matched closely. § A good number of historical and all new hole collar locations were confirmed during the site visit. § No reporting of historical assays was available to allow checking.  However Rockfire's re-sampling of core retained at HSGME correlated well and provided confidence about the accuracy of past assaying. ·    Data validation: o  The Consultant databased all data into Minex geological software. o  Topography data:  New topography data was contoured and compared again historical topography contours and found to match closely. o  Drill hole data:  Gross software error data checking occurred with all drill holes during its databasing.  This caught a very minor number of collar, survey, sample depth and assay value inconsistencies.  All data issues were satisfactorily resolved and corrected by reference to logs and through common sense.  Drill holes were plotted in plan and cross-section and compared with plots in old reports.
Site visits	·    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.	·    Site visits: o  The Consultant (CP for the Resource estimation and this Report) visited the site in late April 2024 in the company of Rockfire's CEO and various Hellenic (Rockfire's Greek subsidiary) personnel. o  The visit formed a specific and comprehensive due diligence on the Project - all of which confirmed the Project's setting, geology, mineralisation and exploration. o  The visit confirmed all geographical and (limited) geological features and presumptions of the Project area necessary for the Resource estimation. o  Geographically the Consultant gained impressions of the Project general location, its access from the sealed road running the length of the Project area and mineral lease and the valley topography bounded by hills.  The Consultant traversed much of the southern part of the tenement on foot. o  An impression was gained of the steeply east-dipping basement volcanics and overlying limestones. o  A number of gossanous mineralisation outcrops were visited. o  The Consultant confirmed the precise location of a broad selection of historical drill hole collar locations and almost all recent drill hole collar locations.
Geological interpretation	·    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.	·      Geology and mineralisation 'style' interpretation: o  The historical geological interpretation was that of a VMS type base metal deposit. o  Zinc mineralisation occurs in a sequence of thin sub-parallel layers dipping steeply eastward and hosted within volcanic rocks. ·      Confidence in the geological interpretation: o  The Consultant became highly confident in the VMS mineralised layer interpretation after the site inspection and data familiarization ·    Data nature, assumptions & geological controls: o  Interpretation was based on historical descriptions and interpretations; field outcrop inspections; and interpretation of assay data. o  The basic assumptions and geological controls were: § High grade primary base metal mineralisation on flat sea floors typical of other VMS deposits - interspersed by barren sediments in the geological column. § Occurrence of narrow sharp (distinct contacts) high-grade drill hole intercepts correlated between holes into layers. ·    Alternative interpretations: o  The data overwhelmingly supports the current layered geology and mineralisation style interpretation and the Consultant cannot envisage an alternative one. o  If the current interpretation was not implemented a simple semi-layered 3D grade modelling method would produce a similar Resource but much less sharp grade boundary focused. ·    Use of geology and grade continuity: o  The geological layered VMS model appreciated early in the Project history directed most drill hole orientation to be steeply west across strike and across dip of the perceived attitude of east-dipping layers. o  Geological grade continuity was tightly controlled by obvious correlation of mineralised intercepts in the drill holes. o  Grade estimation was controlled within the plane of the mineralisation layering by the use of an un-folding block model - which forced continuity in the plane of the layers. o  Grades in each layer were segregated with a unique data population domain number.  o  Block grade estimation also employed a strong vertical direction distance weighting factor (2) to minimise vertical continuity and emphasise continuity within the layer.
Dimensions	·    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.	·      Deposit dimensions: o  Coordinates of the area encompassing the Lease: § Long polygon oriented NW/SE. § Lease ~7 km long NW/SE § Lease ~1.5 km wide SW/NE § Lease area ~9.4 km2. o  Resource model area: § Area in the SE of the tenement formed the area of all recent exploration: o  Layer model area (of all combined layers): § N/S strike ~2.2 km § E/W width ~900 m § Depth ~500 m
Estimation and modelling techniques	·    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.	·    ESTIMATION TECHNIQUES ·    Estimation combined several techniques: o  Mineralised layer structures - gridded DTM surfaces. o  Grades - "un-folding" block modelling for grade interpolation and regular block modelling for reporting. ·    Mineralised layer structure surface modelling: o  Software:  Modelling and estimation was done in Minex Genesis software. o  Deposit type:  Interpreted as a strongly "layered" VMS deposit. o  Estimation methods:  § Geological structural layer modelling employed computerised gridded DTM surface interpolation. § Interpolated layers were built into an "un-folding" block model to guide block grade interpolation. o  Appropriateness of estimation methods:  § Combination of surface interpolation followed by "un-folding" grade estimation along the layers considered best suited to deposit type. § The surface DTM method's appropriateness stems from its 3D computational capability and rigor when applied to thin "layer" deposits where manual interpretation between relatively widely spaced drill hole data points cannot match interpolation in 3D.  § Gridded surfaces allow simple mathematical operations within and between surfaces, including preventing over-laps.  § Bounding layer surfaces were interpolated from down-hole drill hole layer intercepts for each layer to give hanging wall (structure roof, SR) and foot wall (structure floor, SF) boundary surfaces. § "Un-folding" block model trending grade estimation as continuity in the plane of the layers considered to most closely achieve the strong observed grade trends within and along the layers. o  Roof/floor/thickness:  Here the layer surfaces computation order was: § Overall 23 individual layers were interpreted in drill holes, of which 18 had enough data to model.  Layer list adjacent: § Floor surfaces were interpolated from the layer lower intercept depths. § Thicknesses were interpolated from the down-hole lengths of the layer intercepts. § Roof surfaces were computed by addition of the thickness surfaces to the floor surfaces. o  Algorithm:  § Floor surface modelling used a trending growth algorithm to interpolate smooth natural surfaces (as opposed to straight line methods) as a regular fine mesh.  Through extrapolation this method honours local inflections away from the reference plane mean orientation.  Mesh point interpolations grow out from data points until all mesh points are estimated. § A long default scan distance of 1,000 m was used to produce a smooth regional surface for the method. o  Algorithm:  § Thickness surface modelling used an inverse distance squared algorithm to keep interpolated values within data limits  (preventing extrapolation).  § A long scan distance of 500 m was used to avoid holes in surfaces caused where distances were great between drill holes.  § At the edges surfaces were only expanded 80 m beyond peripheral drill holes. o  Coordinates and grid mesh size:  § Surfaces were interpolated within a coordinate area encompassing all drill holes with interpreted layer intercepts. § The adjacent figure shows a number of layers in plan view, illustrating their slightly differing locations. § The DTM mesh point dimensions of all surface gridded DTMs were 10*10 m.  This was considered fine enough to produce smooth surfaces honouring layer intercepts well but not be greatly finer than the ~50*100-200 m drill hole spacing. o  Orientation:  § All layer surfaces were effectively sub-parallel and dipping ~45-50° to the east.  § The adjacent figure looks horizontally northwards at a selection of layer floors. § Modelling could have used an inclined reference plane dipping parallel to the layers. § However to avoid rotational complications all layers were modelled with respect to an (assumed) horizontal reference plane at 0 RL. o  Boundary:  § No limiting boundary polygons were used. § Surfaces were interpolated to 80 m outside peripheral drill hole intercepts by layer. § This distance was less than the typical drill hole spacing (~50-100*100-200 m) o  Stratigraphic model build:  After independent interpolation of each layer's roof and floor the suite of surfaces was 'built' into a valid model using processes to correct potential cross-overs between and within lodes.  This process resulted in near zero loss. o  Surface naming: § File:  Molaoi_20240508.GRD § Bounding surfaces:  Layer name + suffix SR and SF. § Thickness surfaces:  Layer name + suffix ST. ·      Data population domains:  o  Samples and blocks (see below) in layers were uniquely identified and segregated by domain number for assay analysis and block grade estimation. o  Domains were set in the drill hole database and in the block models. o  Domain numbers given above with the layer names (see layer Table above). ·      Drill hole sample analysis: o  Base metals (zinc, lead and silver) were the focus of the Project - and mineralised drill hole intercepts were interpreted as layers based on grade. o  Brief analysis was performed for the principal base metal zinc in the layers with most intercepts. o  Brief interpretations showed the mineralised intercepts to be sharply anomalous against waste between layers. ·      Grade continuity control 'un-folding' block model:  o  An 'un-folding' 3D block model (MOL1_D/Z.GR3) was built within the geological layer surface models to provide domain control within layers and to control grade trending continuity within and along the layers (the 'Z' direction in a Minex 'Z-grid' block model).  Dimensions tabulated adjacent: o  Rotation:  As the layers were essentially in an ~45°E dipping plane the Z-grid required no rotating to have its Z axis normal to that plane (see below). o  Extent:  The un-folding block model was given a smaller and tighter plan extent than the default used for interpolating the layers.  The extent covered all 18 layers being modelled. o  Block size:  XY block size set at 10 * 40 m to be roughly 25% of the minimum drill hole spacing of ~50 * 1-200 m (some holes 100 * 200 m). o  Block Z size and number:  § Block numbers set according to layer average vertical thicknesses.  § Aim to approximate Z block size 0.5 m. § Each mineralised layer given unique domain number. § Parameters tabulated adjacent: ·      Grade block estimation: o  3D block grades were estimated into individual grade block models for each element.  The block grade models had the same coordinate parameters as the un-folding model (see above). o  Estimation parameters tabulated: o  Continuity:  Data search directions within the layers were controlled by the un-folding block model, and layer data was segregated by domain number.  A vertical (Z) distance weighting of 1.5 was used to enhance continuity in the plane (XY) of the layering. o  Compositing:  Down-hole drill hole sample compositing done to 0.5 m + residuals +50%. o  Algorithm:  Inverse distance squared (ID2) done in a single pass.  Interpolation of grades in two passes (to overcome issues of very localised highly anomalous grades) was considered but not undertaken because of the limited numbers of high grade samples in particular.  In a 2 pass estimation an initial 1st pass uses all samples whilst a 2nd pass uses only high grade samples with severely restricted scan distances to over-write blocks close to the high grades. o  Scan distance:  § A scan of 250 m was used to ensure grades were estimated in all blocks. § Distance was ~25% longer than generally longest N/S distances between drill holes. § In practice the boundary limit around the layer surfaces (and hence block model) limited actual scans to <80 m. o  Data limits:  § No lower cut or clip limits were applied or required as the layer intercept interpretation process had effectively applied a lower 0.2 % zinc cut-off already. § No upper cut of clip was applied because of 1) the limited number of anomalous high grades, 2) their short intervals, and 3) the positive desire to allow the few high grades to register higher grades in some blocks. o  Estimation stats tabulated: ·      Grade reporting block model: o  A normal "orthogonal-shaped" block model (MOL1.G3*, simply called a block model or a block database) was built from the un-folding block model.  Parameters tabulated adjacent: o  Block sizes/numbers to cover the same coordinates as the un-folding block model. o  Primary block sizes were based on the un-folding block model for X and Y.  Z assigned a fixed 10 m vertically to be the same as X for the ~45° east dipping layers.  So primary blocks 10 * 40 * 10 m. o  Primary blocks sub-blocked 5 * 2 * 5 to increase resolution across strike along layer surfaces.  So minimum sub-block potentially 2 * 20 * 2 m. o  Block grades were loaded from the individual grade block models (see above). o  Other variables, such as grade totals and JORC classification variables, were computed using SQL macros. ·      Grade block manipulation: o  Zinc equivalent (ZnEq) calculated with an SQL from zinc, lead and silver o  Elements factorised on 3 month average metals prices to 25th July 2024 and historical Molaoi metallurgical recoveries.  Computations tabulated: ·      Check estimates: o  Resource estimate could be partially checked (for 1 layer and minor parts of 3 others) against historic estimates (non-JORC) made by IGME in the 1980s during the original exploration; and against Rockfire's 2022 (JORC estimate); and against SRK's 2023 (non-JORC) reconciliation of Rockfire's estimate. o  Those estimates of historic layer West Zone B could approximately be checked against this layer L3 as they covered similar areas and the new recent drilling by Hellenic did not increase the area but represented internal in-fill drilling simply supplying more grades.  The comparison also appears valid as densities were similar and Rockfire's ZnEq calculation was similar to here as parameters had not changed dramatically.  Comparisons are tabulated adjacent: o  Rockfire's comparison to IGME's estimate had 15% more tonnes at 15% less zinc grade, resulting in virtually the same contained zinc - a close comparison. o  Similary SRK's comparison to Rockfire had 14% more tonnes at a similarly lower zinc grade, resulting in contained zinc being 6% less - also a close comparison. o  GeoRes's comparison to Rockfire and SRK had 13% more tonnes then Rockfire (and the same as SRK) at slightly lower zinc grades than both, resulting in 14% less contained zinc then Rockfire and 9% less than SRK. o  GeoRes considers that its L3 estimate reconciles well with Rockfire's and very well with SRK's. o  All other 17 layers interpreted here were not estimated in the pas and cannot be checked. ·      By-product recovery: o  Elements other than base metals and germanium were effectively not considered in this Resource estimate, hence most potential by-products were not considered. o  However germanium has recently been assayed for and is a common by-product of some zinc deposits. o  GeoRes provides a quantity estimate for germanium, and considers that the significant tonnage and reasonable grade would position germanium as by-product if it proves amenable to extraction from residues of zinc beneficiation. ·      Deleterious elements: o  No deleterious elements have been considered or are known of ·      Block size - sample size relationship: o  Situation: o  Block sizes:  Major block sizes were moderate at 10 * 40 * 10 m - and not considered too small for the typical data spacing.  Sub-blocking (5*2*5) reduces those sizes along the edges of layers in a proportionate way. o  Sample spacing:  o  Down-hole sampling was typically of the order of 1 m. o  Drill N/S section spacing was typically 100 m, sporadically 200 m. o  Hole E/W spacing on section was ~50 to 100 m. o  Data search distances:  Maximum ~250 m. o  Distance relationships: o  Plan block sizes were considered well-proportioned to drill hole spacing (20-25% in X and Y). o  Vertical block sizes were considered very well-proportioned to down-hole sampling intervals (100% bigger in Z). ·      Model - SMU relationship: o  No specific focus on selective mining units (SMU) occurred. o  However The primary 10*40*10 m block size, with potential sub-blocking to 2*20*2 m, would be similar in size to an underground mining SMU - given that the Consultant considers that mining by underground would be probable. o  IGME's underground mining was done in drives of those dimensions. ·      Correlation between variables: o  No work on variable correlation was done. o  However it was clear that the base metals were typically closely corelated, a feature used extensively through the mineralised layer intercept interpretation. ·      Geological interpretation control of estimate: o  Previously described in detail - mineralised intercept interpretation layer by layer in each drill hole sub-parallel to volcanic layering. o  In summary - the block grade estimates were fundamentally controlled by the geological interpretation of strong layered sub-parallel mineralization.  Mineralised layers were specifically modelled to match layer shapes and grades estimated in them were confined by domain control and by the use of 'un-folding' modelling to emphasise layer continuity along them. ·      Grade cutting/capping use: o  No grade cutting of clipping was used. o  Justification for this was o  Layer interpretations had effectively already clipped out low grades (below 300 ppm TREO). o  Highly anomalous grades were relatively uncommon and where they existed the Consultant considered that they should be incorporated to realistically allow the known high grade shutes to be represented.  The fact that REEs consist of 15 individual elements, each individually estimated here before being combined into totals meant that high values in any one of the elements had limited impact overall. o  The Consultant considers that individual anomalously high grades could potentially be clipped in future estimation, after consideration hole-by-hole, if they were found to be completely isolated. ·      Estimate validation: o  Block geology validation: § Volume report:  Initial check to compare volumes reported within geological layer model surfaces with volumes reported from the blocks built from them.  Expect almost exact match.  Checks all considered acceptable. § Plots:  Visual cross-sectional plot comparison of block boundaries with geological model surface intersections.  Particular focus on validity of the blocks in each layer (possibly corrupt if the raw surfaces overlapped).  Also check of block domain assignments.  Comparisons considered good. o  Block grade estimate validation: § Estimate stats:  Initial basic check to compare overall (not on a lode/domain basis) stats given during the block estimation - input drill sample stats with output estimated grade stats.  Expect reasonable but not exact match.  Particular focus on closeness of the maximums and the raw averages.  Results considered acceptable. § Plots:  Methodical visual cross-sectional plot comparison of colour-coded block grades with annotated drill hole samples.  Comparisons considered acceptable. ·    Estimate reconciliation: o  Estimate reconciliation:  Described above under "Check estimates" for the L3 layer.  Not possible for other layers as they were not previously interpreted. o  The Consultant's overall view here was that the past 2022 Resource estimate by Rockfire was completely valid in itself (and as confirmed by SRK's 2023 review) but only represented a very small proportion of this Resource.
Moisture	·    Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or with natural moisture, and the method of determination of the moisture content.	·    Moisture:  o  Tonnage was calculated using dry density.
Cut-off parameters	·    The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters applied.	·    Resource grade cut-off: ·    A lower cut-off of 4% zinc was used in reporting Resources. ·    Basis: o  Zinc was the predominant base metal in the deposit. o  A 4% zinc cut-off was seen as reasonable and conservative when compared to a wide range of similar VMS deposits. o  The value was also seen to be appropriate to envisaged underground mining. o  The 400 ppm cut-off also corresponded to the bottom end of direct tonnage correlation in the grade/tonnage curve. o  A 4% cut-off lies approximately mid-way down the left-hand linear portion of the grade/tonnage curve and well away from smaller tonnages associated with the high grade tail produced by higher cut-offs. o  The Consultant agrees with SRK's 2023 comment that an alternative cut-off method could be based on a Net Smelter Return (NSR) value where each metal's value contributes.  However the Consultant did not go into that deeper level of refinement considering that the deposit is open in all directions and that further exploration could be expected to alter parameters to the good.
Mining factors or assumptions	·    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.	·      Mining factors & assumptions: o  The Consultant assumed future extraction by underground "narrow vein" type mining. o  Underground mining was undertaken successfully at Molaoi (within the current Lease) by IGME in the 1980s.  That mining involved a 700 m decline and then drives on two levels. o  Narrow vein type mining would be highly applicable to the deposit's layers, in scale and geological form.  It would also minimize dilution by being highly selective. o  Envisaged mineral processing would be concentration by flotation on site. Underground bulk sampling and metallurgical test-work in the 1980s produced high recoveries >90%. o  Exports of concentrates would presumably be highly feasible through trucking on local sealed roads to local ports.
Metallurgical factors or assumptions	·    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.	·    Metallurgical assumptions: o  Past metallurgical test work on bulk samples from IGME's 1980's underground mining showed Molaoi's (fresh) sulphide ore to be amenable to simple flotation separation, with high recoveries reported (95.8 % for Zn, 91.8 % for Pb, and 91 % for Ag). o  Test-work on oxidized material proved inconclusive. o  Results of that test work was used in various historical process flow studies. o  The possibility of germanium extraction as a by-product was apparently not studied in the past - but would be suggested by the good quantities indicated in this estimate.
Environmen-tal factors or assumptions	·    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.	·    Environmental factors/assumptions: o  The Consultant is generally unaware of any potentially negative impacts of the Project environmentally. o  Envisaged underground mining would minimize environmental impacts in comparison the opencut mining. o  Underground mining could potentially reduce waste by back-filling stopes. o  Flotation concentration on site would pose minimal environmental risk. o  Further concentration and smelting is not envisaged on-site and would occur where the flotation concentrated would be shipped to (potentially Northern Greece).
Bulk density	·    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.	·    Bulk density: o  A considerable number of density measurements were undertaken by Rockfire. o  Measurements were used to produce a regression formula (SG = [2.5481 + (0.0284 * Zn%)]) for density based on zinc content. o  Density determination using water displacement method:   Density was determined from the weight and volume of samples of 10-15 cm long pieces of core.  Volume was determined by wrapping the core in plastic and measuring its displacement of water.  Rockfire found this to be reliable with sample weights >700 g. o  The Consultant used a default density of 2.7 t/m3 for the Resource estimate.  This value was seen to be very close (within 2%) when applied to the average zinc grades in the Resource. ·    Density accounting for rock variability: o  Rockfire's dry density determinations were consistently made but could not fully account for rock variability due to the varied nature of mineralised intervals, and particularly by the broken and poor quality of parts of the mineralisation. ·    Assumptions behind density estimates: o  Density determination relied heavily on sample recovery being 100%.
JORC Classification	·    The basis for the classification of the Mineral Resources into varying confidence categories. ·    Whether appropriate account has been taken of all relevant factors (ie relative confidence in tonnage/grade estimations, reliability of input data, confidence in continuity of geology and metal values, quality, quantity and distribution of the data). ·    Whether the result appropriately reflects the Competent Person's view of the deposit.	·    JORC classification:  See Section 20.2 in the Report. o  Previous classification:  2022 Resources were classified as Inferred (according to JORC (2012 Edition) by the CP Mr Ed Fry for Rockfire. o  Current classification:  The Consultant considered here that 100% of these base metal Resources should all be classified as Inferred, according to JORC (2012 Edition). o  The "quantities" of germanium estimated alongside the base metals are not reported according to JORC and are un-classified. o  Basis for Inferred classification: § The Consultant's opinion was that all data and its modelling strongly implies geological and grade continuity along thinnish layers at Molaoi.  § However the lack of assaying and geological logging for many parts of historical drill holes resulted in layers too frequently being implied from holes either side (over long distances (>200 m) in places) rather than being firmly interpreted.  Incomplete assaying and logging of historical drill holes meant that many layers geologically interpreted for this Resource could not be reliably interpreted in historical holes, requiring interpolation of their positions and assignment of zero thickness. § GeoRes accepts that "comprehensive" verification should not imply "complete" verification - but rather mean in a generalised sense that all combined old and new data meets a certain threshold of overall data compatibility.  The Consultant does not believe that threshold has been met. § The extent to which layer positions required interpolation would not "allow the application of Modifying Factors in sufficient detail to support mine planning". § Notwithstanding that this 2024 Resource includes data from new Hellenic drilling to add to the historical IGME drilling, GeoRes's classification position generally mirrors previous positions (particularly as detailed by SRK).  That is to say that the lack of "comprehensive" verification of historical data coupled with the inability to fully correlate it with new data prevents a higher classification. ·      Accounting for relevant factors: o  The CP considers that appropriate account has been taken of all relevant factors. o  The most relevant factor influencing the Inferred decision was the incomplete knowledge of historical drill hole logging. ·      CP's view of classification:  o  The CP has a very positive opinion of the deposit in scale and grade, and that it remains open in all directions. o  The CP considers data analysis results, drill hole spacing, and Resource estimation methods used fully support the classification given. o  The Consultant believes that a reasonable proportion of the current Inferred Resources would be very readily be upgraded to at least the Indicated class most cost-effectively by relatively minimal continued exploration drilling amongst the recent Hellenic 2023 and 2024 drill holes where they were closest and most evenly spaced to achieve an even spacing envisaged as <75 m. o  Furthermore a more considerable portion of the current Resource could be upgraded by a larger program in-fill drilling between existed drill holes to halve the current along-strike 100 m E/W cross-section spacing to 50 m.
Audits or reviews	·    The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral Resource estimates.	·    Audits: o  The Project and the previous Rockfire 2022 Resource estimate was reviewed by SRK in 2023. o  That "high level" review looked at Project data, exploration techniques and previous Resource estimates.  It included a site visit and computation of a check estimate. o  On Rockfire's MRE SRK comments were positive and noted that: § The approach to modelling was the best possible considering the data available. § Rockfire's 2% zinc cut-off for interpreting layer intercepts could have been lower so as to include more lower grade intervals. § Block size used was too small relative to data spacing, but considering the Inferred status this was not material. § The Inferred classification was appropriate. § The reporting 4% zinc cut-off should be replaced by an NSR value. § Metal price assumptions should be long-term forecasts rather than spot prices. § SRK's check estimate returned figure very close to Rockfire's, thus validating it and proving Rockfire's estimation approach to be reasonable. § SRK noted the potential for additional Resources in the model area as additional lenses in both the hanging wall and the footwall and along strike.  They noted "The mineralisation drilled and modelled to date is quite continuous and suggests that it is likely that extensions to existing modelled zones, as well as additional zones of mineralisation, will be located with additional exploration".  They added that "There are additional significant intersections on the project that have not been modelled to date and suggest even further potential". § The Consultant strongly agrees with comments in the last paragraph, and included those additional intersections and more in this 2024 Resource.
Discussion of relative accuracy/ confidence	·    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.	·    Accuracy & confidence in the estimate: o  Statement:  The Consultant is confident in the accuracy of the estimate.  o  Reasons include: § The careful geological mineralised intercept interpretation and layer surface modelling are considered the most appropriate to the style of mineralisation. § The clear continuity of grades between virtually all of the drill holes gives the CP confidence in the interpretation. § The historical underground mine proved the dipping layer mineralisation style and the practicality of extraction. § Historical metallurgical test-work proved good extractability of metal. § Parts of these interpretations and estimates may be considered as at least second generation studies. § Resource estimation for layer L3 closely reconciles with previous estimates. ·      Risks to the Resources: o  The Consultant considers potential risks to the estimation to be minimal. o  Potential risks identified, all considered moderate to very low, were: § Miss-interpretation of layers was possible due to some wide hole spacings and due to missing data from historical drill holes. § Down-hole survey data - missing for historical holes and apparently all straight for recent holes. § Sample accuracy - due to low quality/recovery of some sampling of broken mineralisation.  Risk of under-estimating grade. § Base of limestone has not yet been modelled.  Impact unknown. § Density used was default.  Very sligh possibility of under-estimating tonnage. § Lack of assay cutting.  Anomalously high grades were very few in number, were generally from very short sample intervals, were probably under-called anyway, and down-hole compositing almost completely removed their effect. ·      Global or local estimate:  This is a global estimate. ·      Comparisons with production data:  No production data yet exists for the Project.

CP Statements

Separate Competent Person (CP) Statements are given for the estimation of Molaoi's 2024 Mineral Resources and the reporting of them here (by Consultant Mr Robin Rankin for GeoRes) and for Molaoi's input exploration data (by Mr David Price for Rockfire).

Resource estimation & Mineral Resources:

Statement:  The information in this Report, that relates to Exploration Targets, Exploration results and Mineral Resources at Molaoi in Greece (the Project), was based on base metal exploration information and data that was compiled and supplied by Rockfire Resources plc (Rockfire) (see Exploration data Competent Person Statement below) which was reviewed and used for Resource estimation and reporting by Robin Rankin, a Competent Person who is a Member (#110551) of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (AusIMM) and accredited since 2000 as a Chartered Professional by the AusIMM in the Geology discipline.  Robin Rankin is the author of this Report.  Robin Rankin provided this information to his Client Rockfire as paid consulting work in his capacity as Principal Consulting Geologist and operator of independent geological consultancy GeoRes.  He and GeoRes are professionally and financially independent in the general sense and specifically of their Client and of the Client's Project.  This consulting was provided on a paid basis, governed by a scope of work and a fee and expenses schedule, and the results and conclusions reported were not contingent on payments (other than their validity being negated by non-payment).  Robin Rankin has sufficient experience that is relevant to the style of mineralization and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity being undertaken to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the 'Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves' (the JORC Code).  Robin Rankin consents to the inclusion in his Client's report(s) of the matters based on this information in the form and context in which it appears.  Robin Rankin's Competent Person Statement is given on the basis that his Client takes responsibility to a Competent Persons level for the collection and integrity of all source input data supplied by the Client.

Source data:  All source data (whether supplied by his Client or derived elsewhere) was originally taken at face value by the Consultant.  The Consultant performed validation of the data to the extent considered possible and to his satisfaction.  He believes that validation to at least be to the level required for JORC Resource estimation and reporting.  The Consultant could not validate 'historical data' to the same degree as recent data.

Validity: This Statement will be become invalid, and all consents withdrawn, if consulting fees are outstanding for an unreasonable period (taken here to be more than a month after the date on the introductory letter). This general consent may be subordinated by specific consent details agreed with the Client.

Input exploration data:

Statement:  The input exploration information in this report that relates to Exploration results, Exploration data, Sampling Techniques or Geochemical Assay Methodology is based on information compiled by Mr David Price, Competent Person, who is a Fellow of the AusIMM (#107108).  Mr Price is Chief Executive Officer (CEO), shareholder and full-time employee of Rockfire Resources PLC (Rockfire).  Mr Price has sufficient experience in mineral exploration and in the activity being undertaken to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 edition of the Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves.  Mr Price consents to the inclusion in this Report of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears.

Company information:  Some information in this report was extracted from reports lodged as ASX announcements and is available on Rockfire's website (www.rockfireresources.com) .  Rockfire confirms that it is not aware of any new information that materially affects the information included in original market announcements and that all material assumptions and technical parameters underpinning the estimates in the relevant market announcements continue to apply and have not materially changed. The Company confirms that the form and context in which the Competent Persons' findings are presented have not been materially modified from the original market announcements.

 

END